Category Archives: Politics

Patrick v. General Court, Round 1

This past week has been incredibly busy with work, but I had a few minutes to read the paper and couldn’t help but read the story about Traviglini’s comments on Patrick. My first reaction was an angry one. I want Patrick to succeed. I’m still skeptical that he can succeed, but I want him to. Key quotes from the story:

Travaglini said: “I told the governor-elect, if you’re willing to share and you care and you prepare and are ready to deliver, then everything will work out. If not, I have senators across the state who share my vision and my approach and if forced to choose, I’m comfortable with whom they’ll choose.”

and

Legislators have also been concerned that Patrick may move to cut earmarks, money that is directed by legislators to local projects. “They are not pork,” DiMasi said earlier this week. “They are legislators’ priorities.”

My second reaction was delight (I’m not proud of that reaction, but it is there). I have long thought that the state legislature was part of the problem in Massachussets. It’s nice to see the arrogance so clearly displayed. If Patrick is the foil that makes the legislature’s (and legislators’) failings visible, I think that’s great. Maybe that is the way that Patrick mangages to change the culture on Beacon Hill.

Neither the second nor first reaction went away. One didn’t overwhelm the other. I’m still of two minds about the whole thing. And, as I mulled reaction one and two, reaction number three popped up: Is this being totally blown out of proportion? Is this just the Globe making a conflict out of nothing because it makes a good story? What about story quote:

The audience members who described Travaglini’s remarks said they appeared to be designed to dispel the idea that because Democrats will control the House, the Senate, and the governor’s office next year, the state will return to lavish spending.

It’s not juicy controversy, so it’s not the lead. But if you frame the other quotes in this context, Travaglini’s comments are almost innocuous. He might be saying, “don’t worry, if Patrick tries to go off the budgetary rails, we won’t let him.” While that isn’t Travaglini’s usual role, it’s a role that someone has to play these days. In that context, this is a giant non-story.

Regardless, Traviglini recognized that the story was making him look like an ass. He had a press conference with Patrick and apologized to Patrick, saying that he misspoke. Patrick accepted the apology.

The press conference doesn’t change my thoughts about the first story. Travaglini’s somewhat ambiguous apology successfully numbs the sting of the original controversy. Whether he was right or wrong, he was taking a beating, and the sort-of apology mitigated it. Patrick could theoretically have played hardball, but it seems silly to alienate the Senate president on such a thin issue. It’s a no-brainer for him to stay on the high road, do a small favor for Travaglini, and work with Travaglini as far as he can. You can’t learn anything from their actions because the press conference was pretty much a foregone conclusion, given the original story.

Where’s my conclusion from all this? I don’t have one. We’ll just have to see how the next two years turn out.

You Can Feel the Love

Kofi Annan on UN Ambassador John Bolton in the NYT:

Mr. Annan paid his final visit to Washington as secretary general last Tuesday when President Bush gave a dinner in his honor at the White House. One of the guests was John R. Bolton, the American ambassador who had frequently criticized the secretary general and who had announced the day before that he was resigning.

Asked the next morning at the United Nations whether he and Mr. Annan had made peace at the farewell event, Mr. Bolton said, “Nobody sang ‘Kumbaya.’ ” The reference was to a song celebrating fellowship.

Told of Mr. Bolton’s comment, Mr. Annan said, “But does he know how to sing it?”

Ouch.

Havern’s Campaign Receipts

I wrote about this topic in September about the pre-primary filing. Since then, there was an October pre-election filing. It is equally interesting as September’s. My source is the state’s Office of Campaign and Political Finance. To see the data yourself, you can:

  1. Check out the database.
  2. Click “Candidates.”
  3. Enter “Havern” for the last name.
  4. Click the “ Pre-election Report”
  5. In particular, I’m talking about Schedule A

Havern’s receipts were $11,000. Again, a big chunk (more than $4000) was from PACs, lobbyists, unions, and lawyers.

What is more interesting in this particular filing is the industry of the donors. The legislature was working on the health care bill – and more than a dozen donors appeared from hospitals, insurance companies, and other healthcare industry representatives. I don’t believe that this is a coincidence. The industry is donating more in the same period that major healthcare changes are being implemented.

Another curiousity in this filing. Why are there two different donations from the National Association of Government Employees (the union known as NAGE) that add up to $700? Neither lists a committee number. The legal limit for such donations is $500. (The curiousity in the last filing, the $100 contribution from the “Alcohol Beverage Control Commission,” was not amended). I’m going to write a letter and ask for clarification on both.

Americans In Jail

The US DoJ issued a report and press release last week. The headline: “One in every 32 adults was in a prison, jail, on probation, or on parole at the end of 2005.” I struggle wrapping my head around that statistic. Then you look at black men between the ages of 25 and 29, and one in 13 are in jail or prison – not even counting parole. Can you imagine if out out of every 13 of your friends went to jail?

What are we doing wrong as a society that such a high fraction of our population is monitored and/or locked up?

I believe our first mistake is the war on drugs. The report shows that approximately 20% of state prisoners and 55% of federal prisoners are for drug offenses. I’d be very interested to see those broken down into violent and non-violent crimes. If we de-criminalize non-violent drug behavior, we will have a lot fewer people in the justice system.

It’s not just the raw numbers of people in jail, either; it’s also the growth. In the last 8 years, the number of federal drug offenders increased by 65%. (At that rate of growth, 50% of the country will be in federal prison for drug offenses by 2040!)

Reports like this one show that our drug policy doesn’t make sense. It is time for us to revisit our drug laws.

Pension Problem

One Wednesday, the Globe wrote a top-of-front-page story about Romney’s appointment of his communications director Eric Fehrnstrom to the Brookline housing authority. The story detailed how this appointment would entitle Fehrnstrom to a state pension: “While the Brookline position is part-time and pays only $5,000, the pension Fehrnstrom receives will be calculated based on his top three earning years in government.” Fehrnstrom earns $160,000 in his current position.

Break it down: by working part-time for $5000 a year for two years, Fehrnstrom vests a pension that is based on his $160,000 salary, not his appointment.

There was a burst of outrage in the news and on the web, and from certain members of the left, a distressing display of glee.

What is totally absent in this discussion is whether Fehrnstrom is a good choice for the position. Review the 800 words in the article – not a single one of them refers to his qualifications. They only talk about the benefits that he would reap. Shouldn’t qualification be the first test? Why is the reward so important and the qualification so irrelevant?

This dust-up points out the real problem. The Massachusetts pension system needs to be reformed. The rules should be changed so that career paths like moderator-to-legislator, aide-to-committee, and clerk-to-teacher career transitions are rewarded fairly. The system shouldn’t be so open to abuse. The system should’t turn a $5000 appointment into a $500,000 political football.

This is one of the areas where we’ll see just how effective Deval Patrick is. The unions love this system and will be loathe to change it. Many in the legistlature benefit from the current system, and certainly know people who benefit from it. Can Patrick bring about reform? Or will be be absorbed by the system?

Hillary Breaks the Piggy Bank

There is an interesting story in today’s New York Times about Clinton’s Senate campaign spending.

She spent $30 million on a re-election campaign. That number is meaningless without comparison, so here it is: “The only other Senate candidate to come close to her spending level was Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, who spent about $24 million unsuccessfully defending his seat.”

She spent 25% more than the #2 spender in an election against a nobody who never came within 30 points? It might make sense if she’s building her 2008 machine, but I’m not convinced. Everything political is cheaper the day after election day. If you’re building a 2008 machine, you do ads and mailings in 2007, not in 2006 – 2006 is too expensive.

I can’t figure out what she spent it on.

Election Day +1

A few unconnected thoughts from the day:

  • The most surprising results for me were the congressional races in New Hampshire.  Two scandal-free, relatively popular incumbents were kicked out.  Iraq? Uncontrolled federal spending? Civil liberty issues? Some fraction of each of these, I’m sure.  There were a number of “first time in a century” events in New Hampshire yesterday.  It’s a different state than the one I grew up in.
  • The Democrats in Massachussets tightened their grip on the General Court.  35-5 in the Senate (88%), 137-19 (88%) in the House.  It seems like this is a real governance problem.  The legislature is effectively being chosen in primaries a tiny fraction of the electorate.  I’ll be writing about this one more in the future. (I know that the House count isn’t quite right.  If you have a link to final results, please let me know – I’ve been searching all over)
  • I think that Webb’s lead in Virginia is safe. The recount will not change the outcome. First, look at last year’s recount for Attorney General – it barely budged.  Second, just do the math.  The lead is about 7000 votes, depending on which website you use.  Webb, Parker, and write-ins have perhaps 1.2 million votes combined.  That means that Allen has to find an error in his favor on one out of every 171 votes cast, while finding no errors that work against him.  I would be shocked if the error rate was that high, and it always broke in his direction.  Allen has to hope that someone finds a ballot box or a broken calculator.  We won’t know for weeks, but I’m betting on a Democratic-controlled Senate in January.
  • Why is it that the results in Virginia were available hours after the polls closed, but races like Washington’s Eighth are still only half counted?  I’m sure there’s a reason here, but I don’t know it.
  • Eleven races are still too close to call. We won’t know the margin of this mid-term defeat for quite a while.
  • I’m encouraged to note how many third-party candidates received more votes than the margin of victory (there are more, but those are a representative few).  I hope that it leads the main-stream press to give them more coverage in future elections.  I’m not holding my breath.