Wednesday, April 29, 2009
'Running against the Legislature'
What's wrong with that? Patrick is merely discovering what his Corner Office predecessors already knew: The 50-years-old one-party Legislature is a pain in the ass to everyone. Patrick should view Therese Murray's he's-not-cooperating criticism as a badge of honor. ... That's not to say Patrick is handling this well. He's still more of a progressive than a reformer. He really wants that money. But at least he's theoretically making a stand for reform. If he buckles now on his reform/veto pledge, he's toast. He picked a battle. He needs to fight it to its logical end, i.e. a confrontation with the Legislature. ... Since when is a sales tax "less regressive" than a gas tax? Let me see. A sales tax hits more people. It applies to more items. It raises more tax dollars. That must be it: It raises more revenue. Ipso facto, it's more progressive.
Update -- Here's the switcheroo Dem lawmakers are trying to pull: Transportation reforms were promised in exchange for specific transportation-related taxes (i.e., the gas tax). But it's morphed into watered-down transportation reforms in exchange for an even bigger all-purpose tax hike. Patrick has every right to demand more non-transportation reforms if lawmakers up the tax ante. But there's part of me who thinks Patrick doesn't grasp the obfuscation game being played.
P.S. -- This is definitely a battle between the hack and progressive sides of the Hack-Progressive Alliance. History shows us they usually find a way to kiss and make up.
Update II -- From Bert:
What's wrong with that? Patrick is merely discovering what his Corner Office predecessors already knew: The 50-years-old one-party Legislature is a pain in the ass to everyone. Patrick should view Therese Murray's he's-not-cooperating criticism as a badge of honor. ... That's not to say Patrick is handling this well. He's still more of a progressive than a reformer. He really wants that money. But at least he's theoretically making a stand for reform. If he buckles now on his reform/veto pledge, he's toast. He picked a battle. He needs to fight it to its logical end, i.e. a confrontation with the Legislature. ... Since when is a sales tax "less regressive" than a gas tax? Let me see. A sales tax hits more people. It applies to more items. It raises more tax dollars. That must be it: It raises more revenue. Ipso facto, it's more progressive.
Update -- Here's the switcheroo Dem lawmakers are trying to pull: Transportation reforms were promised in exchange for specific transportation-related taxes (i.e., the gas tax). But it's morphed into watered-down transportation reforms in exchange for an even bigger all-purpose tax hike. Patrick has every right to demand more non-transportation reforms if lawmakers up the tax ante. But there's part of me who thinks Patrick doesn't grasp the obfuscation game being played.
P.S. -- This is definitely a battle between the hack and progressive sides of the Hack-Progressive Alliance. History shows us they usually find a way to kiss and make up.
Update II -- From Bert:
Is it possible for Patrick to form an alliance with Therese Murray and members of the Senate in his showdown with the House? Granted there are logistical issues that prevent him from winning full victory this way, but it would publicly isolate DeLeo and his crew a bit more. And though slight, isn’t there always the perception that the Senate is more mature and collegial than the House? Again, maybe more on the federal level than the state, but I think there could be some carryover.Murray sure doesn't sound like she's singing the same song as the governor. She's now humming "Legislative Preogatives," an all-time hit on Beacon Hill.
Now that Patrick is basically singing the same song as Murray (Reform/change before revenue) could this alliance be forming behind the scenes already? Identify and discuss past instances where this strategy has been used, paying particular attention to the effectiveness of the effort, whether broad or very narrow.
