Category Archives: Politics

Please Consider the Unintended Consequence

Arlington’s proposed ’08 budget includes the creation of a new position in the personnel department who will do nothing but handle health insurance requests (I think the town will save money with this hire – more on this in my next FinCom post.) Why? Because of Medicare Part D and the complexity it creates. Too many calls, too many questions, too many office visits. It’s $40,000 in salary, call it another $75,000 in benefits. Did the writers and approvers of Medicare Part D intend for Arlington to have to hire a new employee? Of course not.

The Netherlands fell in love with palm oil because they believed it was a renewable energy source. But years after implementing government subsidies to run everything from trucks to power plants on palm oil, they’ve come to realize that the farmers of palm oil were driving the generation of even more greenhouse gasses. Did the writers and approvers of the palm oil subsidies intend to contribute to the deforestation of Malaysia and the draining and burning of peat bogs? Of course not.

When I’m discussing my political views with people, I sometimes stumble when trying to explain why I’m skeptical of government’s ability to implement change. The person I’m talking to says something like “A is bad, so the government should do B and that will result in C.” It’s an argument that seems reasonable, but assumes so much. It’s persuasive and hard to poke a hole in. But I still distrust it.

Now, go back in time, and you can hear these two statements:

“The cost of prescription drugs is too high, so the government should implement a prescription drug plan and that will result in lower costs to seniors.”

“Global warming is a threat to our country, so the government should subsidize renewable energy sources like palm oil and that will reduce the threat of global warming.”

Do you see the point I’m making? Government involvement is seductive, but it can be so destructive. The consequences are not always the intended ones.

Just Because He Repeats It, Doesn’t Mean It’s True

It was announced today that Boston has extracted $2 million from Turner Broadcasting.  From the Globe:

Turner Broadcasting and Interference Inc. also issued a statement accepting responsibility and acknowledging that authorities responded appropriately to the publicity campaign gone awry.

Coakley and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino said the settlement and statement show that police did not overreact.

“So I just have to say the folks who second-guessed us because we did go out there and do our work, shame on them, because it’s important that we did it,” Menino said.

The mayor and the attorney general need a logic lesson.  The only thing this shows is that you can get a company to say anything in a press release if it gets them out of a jam.

I understand the reaction of the first responders.  The incident points out some fallibilities within their operating procedures, but I can sympathize with why they are set up the way they are.

But Mayor Menino, Governor Patrick, Attorney General Coakley: please get a grip. You can bluster and blame, but it doesn’t change the fact that you overreacted.  Really, we’d think better of you if you admitted it.  We’ve all made mistakes.  But the way you’re clinging to this is just sad.

Shame on me, for second guessing?  Shame on you, Mayor Menino, for being unwilling to acknowledge that you made a mistake.

Patrick, Legislative Raises, and the Tools of Power

I was distressed by today’s Globe article about Governor Patrick offering legislative leadership pay raises in exchange for power over existing quasi-governmental agencies. It’s a bad idea. I question whether or not he understands the effects of what he’s doing, and not necessarily for the obvious reasons.

According to the article, Patrick is offering raises for certain legislative leadership positions in exchange for advancing his agenda with the legislature. The first reaction is one of distaste: “He’s bribing them to do what he wants!” I suspect that most people read it that way.

The second reaction is not as widely held, but still common. If you support Patrick, you probably said to yourself: “Well, if that’s what it takes, it’s worth it. ” When you said those things, you used one or more of the following reasons:

  1. It’s only $80,000 in raises.
  2. It’s unfortunate that Patrick takes a publicity hit, but it’s better to do that early in your term than during election season.
  3. If that’s what the legislature wants, if that’s the price of progress, it’s totally worth it. Let Patrick lead!

I’m thinking about something different. In 2003, Finneran tried to do something very similar. He tried to pass raises for his leadership. It was vetoed by Romney, and the veto was not overriden. Opponents to the measure included Common Cause and the Globe.

The problem with these raises is the narrow group of people that are rewarded. These raises are a tool of power. Oppose the speaker or senate president? Lose your leadership position, and lose your big raise. Do what you’re told? Maybe you, too, can get the raise. These are the same tools that Finneran used to maintain his power.

Does Patrick understand that he’s further entrenching the leaders of the General Court? I don’t care if you trust in DiMasi and Traviglini, because neither is there forever. In a different state, leaders change because of party and policy. In the Massachussets legislature, there is only one party. Leaders don’t get chosen because their policy choices are rejected. Leaders change because they are indicted, have a health issue, or run for governor.

I’m not thrilled with Patrick trying to buy legislative support. Legislators may be underpaid, but let that argument stand on it’s own merits.

If Patrick is trying to buy legislative support, I want him to buy all legislators. Don’t provide one more tool to an already-powerful set of legislative leaders. We have enough one-party problems already.

A caveat: I carefully note that the Globe didn’t run any actual quotes. Five different times the Globe attributes statements to “sources” or “one source.” If it turns out that this is all a distortion, I’ll take it all back. And I’ll feel better about the state’s leadership.

Party and Power in Massachusetts

Massachusetts is a one-party state. The effects of that are hard to catalog and harder to prove. But this week’s Globe story about the cascading effect of Kerry’s decision to stay in the Senate adds an interesting item to the list.

Read the quotes from the story.

Philip W. Johnston , chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party: “If John had left the Senate, it certainly would have set off a game of musical chairs. Now that he’s not running, I think most people will stay where they are and wait.”

Scott Harshbarger , a former Massachusetts attorney general: “. . . you are losing the opportunity to have new people, new faces become involved at all levels of state and federal offices — as well as what it does to enliven and energize the party and the activists.”

When you have more than one party in action, seats are won and lost on a more frequent basis. Seats change hands because of conflict, ideas, and coattails. The power of incumbency is strong, but some seats change in the general election.

When you have only one party, seats are only lost in the primary. Because a primary is an election among “friends,” the stakes are high. Anyone who runs a primary challenge and loses is forever branded. In a state with only one party the loser is ostracized, never to return. People don’t mount primary challenges because, perversely, the stakes are higher than mounting a challenge in a general election.

One more quote: “‘Upward mobility is a lot more difficult in a state where one party is so dominant,’ Johnston said.” Taking it further: not only do we lose the opportunity to see new faces, but the old faces are mostly just standing in line. There is no disruption, no “rolling boil” that brings good, new faces to the top. There’s just the current office holders, grimly clinging to what they have and waiting for someone above them to move along.

Looking at the current landscape, only one of Massachusetts’s 10 representatives has retired in the last 10 years, and the senators are at 22 and 44 years in office. Are these really the best people for their offices? Or did they just get there first? With no real second party in the general election, and the huge risk/reward ratio in the primary, the status quo continues. Looking at the future, there isn’t really a prospect for change until 2012. That’s the year that Massachusetts will lose a congressional seat to population shifts and Kennedy’s eighth term ends.

Six more years of Kerry isn’t just six more years of Kerry. It’s six more years of everybody else, too.

Wilkerson Rides Again

The Globe has another story about the woman who’s never seen a deadline that she can’t miss. Senator Dianne Wilkerson’s legislative agenda is on hold because she failed to file her proposed bills with the clerk on time. If I was one of her constituents, I’d be ticked – but that would be old news. Reviewing a few high points:

  • November 2006: The Office of Campaign Finance (OCPF) referred her 2003 and 2004 campaign finance filings to the state attorney general for prosecution. This happened on November 1, before election day, but was only reported on November 15th, after she had been re-elected.
  • June 2006: She fails to appear in court to respond to a suit filed by her condo association for failing to pay her bills. The court rules against her – but the case is kept in the judge’s office for three months, not released until September, after she survives a write-in campaign (see May 2006).
  • May 2006: She misses the deadline to file her signature petition to get herself on the ballot for re-election. She decides to run a write-in campaign to retain her seat.
  • 2005: The Office of Campaign Finance (OCPF) referred her 2000 and 2001 campaign finance filings to the state attorney general for prosecution.
  • 2001: Fails to disclose $20,000 in income from consulting.
  • 1998: As part of a deal with the OCPF regarding questionable expenditures, agrees to pay an $11,500 fine.
  • 1998: serves 6 months of house arrest as part of a guilty plea to tax charges for the years 1991-94.

I can only imagine that her constituents see something in her that I’m unable to perceive. It is easy for me to understand making a mistake and learning from it. But if I had been investigated by the OCPF, I would bend over backwards to make sure there wasn’t a whiff of a controversy going forward. I can’t imagine putting myself in a position where I got investigated for 5 different years. To me, that demonstrates that she is simply unable to meet the basic requirements of her job – like filing bills on time.

At least she’s not a felon, I guess.

US Senate Bill 1: Registering Bloggers

There’s a bill moving through the Senate updating the requirements and restrictions for lobbyists. The update includes a section that affects certain bloggers. I have contacted my senators asking them to join the oppostion to the blogger section, and I encourage you to do the same.

The change is aimed at bloggers that receive money in order to encourage “grassroots” movements. Slashdot is talking about it, so is DownsizeDC, the Center for Competitive Politics, and a number of others. When you read the discussion about this bill, the debate seems to go like this:

Jane: They’re requiring bloggers to register as lobbyists! That’s crazy talk!
Joe: Don’t worry, it’s only bloggers that receive money. Most bloggers are unaffected.

I think this dialogue misses the point. To me, a lobbyist is someone who reaches out to politicians and office holders and tries to change what they think. If someone asks voters to contact their representatives, that’s not lobbying. When (if) the voter makes the call, that’s not lobbying either – that’s a voter expressing an opinion. This isn’t activity that should be regulated.

You can see the actual language of the bill here; click on Section 220. Check out the section about “registrants” in particular.

By the way: I wasn’t paid to make this post.

Thursday’s Arlington Town Summit

On Thursday the Board of Selectmen, the School Committee, and the Finance Committee met in a “summit” meeting. The meeting talked about the current 5-year plan, the challenges and progress thereof, forecasts of post-plan budgeting (2011 and farther), and general big-ticket town expenses. My notes here are a complement to the meeting’s powerpoint presentation from the town website.

I think it was a good meeting. There weren’t any big revelations or breakthroughs. The value of the meeting was how it set the groundwork for future work.

A quick primer for those of you who haven’t tracked Arlington issues this decade: When the recession hit in 2001, the state’s revenue dropped. It stopped increasing state aid to towns, and actually cut the aid. This lead to a budget crisis. Arlington attempted to raise local property taxes (a Proposition 2.5 override) and failed. Some services were cut. Another override was proposed, linked to a 5-year plan (proposed by Charlie Lyon and known as the Lyons Plan). The 5-year plan was to limit health care expenses to 7% growth and salaries and expenses to 4% growth, and some revenue assumptions including growing state aid. Budget surpluses in the beginning of the period will be saved and spent to support budget deficits later in the period. The promise was made that if this override were approved, then there would be no other override requests in the 5-year period. The 5-year plan ends in 2011, and the subsequent budget projections are for large, growing deficits.

The early part of the meeting talked about the mixed blessing of the current plan. The stability was praised, but the limitations were not. As an example, Superintendant Levenson showed how with the 5-year plan that cost increases left the schools with a $700,000 gap, which was a problem. But, the 5-year plan enables him to plan exactly what he needs to do this year and anticipate what he needs to do to make ends meet next year.

The meeting moved on to talk about current debt and looming big-ticket obligations. The current debt levels were reviewed. A laundry list of possible upcoming capital items was displayed. Town Manager Brian Sullivan showed how growth of expenses were outgrowing revenue by about $1.8 million/year, and how that comes to a head when the 5-year plan and it.

Newly-sworn-in Representative Brownsberger spoke. He described his message as “good news/bad news.” The bad news was that predictions for state revenue growth were “anemic.” The good news he described was that health care costs are a dilemma for all towns and the state; “the state has to do something.” I couldn’t see how this qualified as good news. [At Selectman Greeley’s request, Browsberger also talked about legislation he had filed about Alewife. They were related to blocking the Uplands development and creating an Alewife management organization.]

Alan Tosti closed the main speakers. He noted that the summit was issues stacking on other issues. He encouraged people to not be daunted and to focus on a smaller, more solvable problem. The overall situation was not going to be resolved by a single person or single decision; the situation would be resolved by everyone solving the part that they were able to.

We then went around the table and anyone who hadn’t spoken was encouraged to add something. Points that stuck with me:

  • It’s unfortunate that the meeting wasn’t on cable so that more citizens can see the process.
  • We should have a hiring freeze now and use the time to plan for 2011, and not keep digging a hole.
  • We should look at “less regressive” taxes than user fees and property taxes. (I believe that it would be more accurate to call for “more progressive” taxes, but I’m picking nits.)
  • We should take another look at the Community Preservation Act. (I’m willing to look at anything, but. . . The CPA is gonna be a very tough sell.)
  • Several people talked about getting the state to commit to predictable aid levels or ratios.
  • Whether or not an override was a “given” in 2011.
  • Several speakers talked about the importance of costs savings through regionalization. (I’m a big supporter of this idea. We should work with area towns and pool resources on common needs.)
  • I spoke briefly: One of the benefits of the 5-year plan is that it gives us time to study. The decisions we make are informed ones, not rushed or driven by propaganda.

As we move through the 2008 budget cycle, I’m glad we’ve got this information to help us make decisions that help us in 2011.

Another take on the meeting by Bob Sprague at http://www.yourarlington.com/joomla/.

How Did I Miss This?

I guess I missed it because it was buried on page B6 of the Washington Post, and not covered at all by most publications.

The largest employer in the world announced on Dec. 15 that it lost about $450 billion in fiscal 2006. Its auditor found that its financial statements were unreliable and that its controls were inadequate for the 10th straight year. On top of that, the entity’s total liabilities and unfunded commitments rose to about $50 trillion, up from $20 trillion in just six years.

Finally Finneran

Tom Finneran lost his job yesterday. He lost his job because of things that he did, things that he said, and his pride. I wish it had happened sooner, and the punishment more meaningful.

Finneran was a very powerful man in 2001. With a Republican governor in a state controlled by Democrats, he had no rival. His style of ruling did not tolerate dissent. He wasn’t someone who agreed to disagree. He wasn’t someone who respected opinions that differed with his. In his house you had to vote with him, on every issue, or there were severe repercussions. Committee memberships, fundraising, earmarking, and office space were all tools of his power. He was smart and skilled and was able to bend the state house to his will. He kept on winning his battles, year after year. He didn’t think he could lose.

In 2001, several voters’ rights groups fought the redistricting plan approved by Finneran’s house. They claimed the redistricting hurt minority groups. I don’t think that the minority groups were Finneran’s target. Minorities were just collateral damage as Finneran re-wrote districts to eliminate his foes and reward friends. Look at the original plan in October of 2001 – there were clear winners and losers, and the losers were reps who opposed Finneran.

Finneran thought that the lawsuit couldn’t harm him. His redistricting might be overturned, but that would be the worst of it. That is where Finneran finally made a mistake that could hurt him. He failed to realize that he was in an arena where he didn’t write the rules. In the state house, he could always make it so that his way was the right way. The federal courthouse was in his state, but it wasn’t in his jurisdiction.

He took the stand in 2003. He lied. He lied repeatedly. He brazenly said that he didn’t approve the redistricting plan. He said that he didn’t give input for it. He said that he had never seen the plan. He claimed not to even remember the name of the district that he represented. He took an oath to tell the truth, and he lied.

It finally caught up with him, and he pleads guilty. Now he’s a felon. He paid a $25,000 fine. He lost his job.

But his severance package is four times as large as his fine, and he already has a new job at WRKO. I guess it’s a punishment, but not much of one.

As the week’s events unfolded, I found myself wondering if he’d changed. Did he learn from any of this? Is he humbled? Did he learn the error of his ways? I looked to his statement on the courthouse steps:

At a very young age, my mother, who is now 86, taught me to admit my mistakes clearly and without hesitation, and I have passed that lesson on to my own two daughters. Today I acknowledge, clearly and without any hesitation, my errors in judgment concerning my conduct in court on that day.

Actions in 2001, perjury in 2003, admission of guilt in 2007. That qualifies as “without any hesitation”? Those aren’t the words of someone who has learned his lesson. Those are the words of someone who still thinks that he can make something false become true, just by saying it is so.