Left In Lowell

I really like to use Facebook. That may not shock you, denizens of the blogscape or “Boggers” as Armand Mercier calls us, but suffice to say FB is often scoffed. Scoffed as a frivolous fad, and it may be. For me, however, it acts as a news aggregator. My “friends” on FB are mostly fellow polinerds. So my “wall” is a constant stream of videos, editorials, jokes and rants. My best “friends” can ball all those things together. ;v)

This morning, I found this: New Jersey Must Return $271 Million Spent on Hudson Tunnel, U.S. Insists

..
On Friday, the Transportation Department flatly rejected the state’s arguments for refusing to repay $271 million that was spent on a project, canceled last year, to build a pair of rail tunnels under the Hudson River. The message to Gov. Chris Christie was blunt: Repay now or we will collect the debt the hard way. Plus interest.
-snip
When federal transportation officials demanded that New Jersey repay money already spent on the project, Mr. Christie hired Patton Boggs, a Washington law firm, to challenge that demand. The lawyers, who reportedly have billed the state and New Jersey Transit about $800,000, argued that the state stopped the project because of unforeseen costs that were beyond its control. …

So Gov.Christie has found a conservative principle upon which he can crawl atop and strike a curious pose. Curious, I maintain, because of the unemployed construction workers languishing on “the dole,” skyrocketing fees to DC law firms and reported $50,000/day interest charges on the unpaid debt that is claim by DOT. Damn, Gov. Christie! That adds up to a lot of teachers, cops and firefighters.

If just the $50,000/day was considered, you could envision a line of NJ low salary workers walking out on a plank. Each day, one worker would step off into oblivion. How long that line is, is up to Gov.Christie and his principles.

I say this because locally we are faced with decisions to create our city and school budgets. Please consider, as our elected folks strike curious poses, what the hell the consequences will be.

I get a ton of junk email. A lot of it is real spam, which elicited a real need to install a good spam filter - and thank goodness, it works pretty well.

Some junk email is, however, from lists I either signed up for or, more often, get put on for being a blogger. In other words, political junk. Which is different from being a political junkEE.

Most of the time I just delete ‘em. It’s usually pretty obvious that it’s a solicitation for donations, or the standard responses to whatever thing is happening in the news. There are only a few pols whose news or newsletters I enjoy getting - like my fave state Senator Jamie Eldridge or Rep. Jen Benson. They also send out updates that are more substantive, actually writing out a nice newsletter on policy, not just spitting out some talking points about X, Y or Z. I also get the releases from the Patrick administration, another set of policies I like to keep on top of.

Then there’s the unsolicited political spam, that might catch my eye, and not in the way the sender would like…like Grace Ross updates. Yes, she’s still sending them out. I got one today, in fact, with the amateurish subject line, “TestPreGovBudget.” (Presumably the email itself was meant to be a test but went out anyway, or else they failed to clear out a previous test email’s subject line after an actual test.)

The email meanders around attacking Gov. Patrick’s proposed budget, for not being progressive enough (though I gotta wonder where she thinks the Gov is going to get the money for her priorities). It has some seriously questionable grammar like (and this is meant to be a direct quote from Ross:

“We have to look at this budget through a practical, un-spun lens. Economic analyses tell us that 70% of our economy is the economic activity and spending of people – mostly the regular people who spend every dollar to get by.” …

Un-spun lenses eh? Hmm. Anyway, she has one valid point buried in there, questioning how we use tax breaks to entice companies (a question, by the way, that is merely parroting someone else who has been out front on this issue - Senator Eldridge, whose district Evergreen Solar is abandoning), but instead of offering solutions, like say, fixing the way we do these tax break deals, or how she’s going to magically come up with thousands of jobs, she gives a lot of platitudes about it. Useful, that.

But really, I could have cared less about the little press release itself, since it has a lot of the same boring verbiage as all the other political junk I get. Except I happened (no idea how I skimmed that far without hitting delete, but there you are) to read down to the text that is “About the Person” - standard fare for press releases where at the end in italics you talk about the author - and it read:

Grace Ross, often referred to as the only “real one”, the “only one who made sense” during her runs for governor, will be to comment on and analyze the Governor’s budget.

The only real one? Really? This arrogant self-reference is the start of your press release bio?? But it gets funnier.

In 2007, working with others, she publicly predicted the crash of the world economy because of the sub-prime lending crisis, and when the Evergreen Solar investment was first announced she called out its likely failure. Her incisive analysis continues to foreshadow policy mistakes and point the way to real solutions. As more details and analysis come out in the following days, she will be available for talk show appearances and interviews.

Anyone want to find her predictive crystal balling over Evergreen or the economy? Love to see it. She must be precognitive! But that last sentence…well. If you had any inkling of this not being all about Grace Ross, toss that idea right off the side of the boat. Anyone else feel like this has a hint of Palinesque self-aggrandizement?

I once respected Grace Ross highly, back in her first run for Gov, as a G-R party member. She had some good things to say and kept the debate honest from the left side of things. But she has continually become more shrill, and less coherent, as time has worn on. Far from appearing like a fabulous public servant who just wants to help, she comes across as an attention seeker who has become increasingly desperate. Heaven forbid that I give that attention to her, but I found this whole email just rife with smugness and condescension. If you want attack a policy, of course you have that right. I just question your wisdom in the manner you chose to do it.

Ms. Ross, I recommend you start taking a page out of Senator Eldridge’s book - read his writings on this subject, like this op-ed “Evergreen Solar: Learning from Our Mistakes,” for example. It is a not-shrill, even-handed critique of a subject near and dear to his heart. Of course, Eldridge was happy when the jobs came to Devons in his district, but now is very unhappy with their short stay there. He of all people has an electoral stake in fixing the problem. He offers solutions, like making sure future tax deals have clawbacks. He’s not shrill, he’s not overwrought. But he is intelligent, thoughtful, and interested in working with everyone and anyone he can to fix it.

The impression I get from your weird little press release is that you have nothing but attacks to offer, and are really most interested in getting your name into the papers or on TV. Or blogs, I guess, if that’s all you can get.

Well, here you go, then. And…maybe this little post will result in getting taken off at least one junk political email list…I can only hope.

If there’s anything I wish we could get through the thick skulls of American voters, it’s this information.

The “red” states up in arms about government spending receive the largest share of it. This is not a new finding, but research by economist Gary Richardson at the University of California-Irvine backs it up.
[…]
It isn’t surprising that the more Republican a state leans, the more likely it is to be furious about government spending. But what is surprising is that states with the highest anti-spending sentiment appear to be the largest beneficiaries of government spending. Not only do red states swallow the lion’s share of government spending, but Richardson found a linear relationship between the extent of GOP support in a state—and, by implication, the fervor of its anti-government sentiment—and the amount of federal largesse the state receives.
[…]
The 28 states where George W. Bush won more than 50 percent of the vote in 2004 received an average of $1.32 for every dollar contributed. The 19 states where Bush received less than 50 percent of the vote collected 93 cents on the dollar.

“Voting Republican paid large dividends,” Richardson wrote in a piece published in the Economist’s Voice. “For each 1 percent of the population voting in favor of the Republican presidential candidate, the state received an additional 1.7 cents in benefits for each dollar in taxes.”

Vedantam also gives us the polar opposite examples…Alaska, an über conservative state, gets back $1.64 for every $1 they send to the federal government, while Massachusetts receives 82 cents for every dollar it send to the feds.

My first comment is, if those conservative hypocrites hate government spending so much, than give us our money back. Massachusetts could do so much with an extra 20% boost in the federal dollars we receive. Maybe, single payer universal health care? Or super cheap or free higher public education? Then we’d really be positioned to kick global economic butt.

But Vedantam doesn’t end there. He goes back to before there was this red-state-blue-state spending disparity, to tell us something even more insidious.

During the 1970s and 1980s—throughout the Carter, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush administrations—there was no correlation between anti-spending sentiment and getting lots of federal money. The net return to states that voted for Republicans was relatively flat, meaning that “red” states didn’t get most of the pie.

But that changed around 1994—after the last Republican takeover of Congress. […]

Buried in the fine print of Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America,” Richardson found an income redistribution scheme. The proportion of government spending on groups that traditionally supported Democrats fell. The proportion of government income from groups that traditionally supported Democrats rose.

“Tax rates declined more for groups that tended to vote Republican. These groups include people with incomes in the upper tail of the distribution, such as small business owners, property owners, and investors accruing capital gains. … At the same time, expenditures fell more for programs directed toward people that tended to vote Democratic. These groups included welfare recipients, inner-city residents, and individuals in the lower tail of the income distribution.”

In other words, this appears to be a deliberate plan to under-fund the blue states. It’s like the starve-the-beast scenario, only starving blue beasts only. But the explanation for this disparity in which states get more or less funds than they put into the kitty has largely been explained as a progressive income redistribution - richer states subsidizing poorer states who can’t afford adequate funding levels for education, retirement, or social net programs.

The article goes on to dispute that idea, and you can read it yourself, but the point here is, it’s severely hypocritical for conservatives to disparage government spending, since their beloved red states, their base, are the ones who are costing us the most money - being subsidized heavily by those alleged “big liberal spenders.”

Again, if you don’t want our money, please - give it back. Or for heaven’s sake, at least admit the fact that you are a filthy, dirty hypocrite conservative.

Obama just lost us Social Security.

That’s what they could say ten years from now when the Republicans have dismantled the program like they have been trying to do for over 70 years. What the wingers couldn’t do for all that time, Obama has done for them. He has truly begun the undermining of this popular “third rail” of American politics. Republicans are salivating over the battle. Via FireDogLake, HuffPo’s Ryan Grim got Republican leaders on the record saying exactly what you’d expect them to say (bold mine):

Republicans acknowledged that the expiration of the tax holiday will be treated as a tax increase. “Once something like this goes into place, a year from now, when it expires, it’ll be portrayed as a tax increase,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). So in a body like Congress, precedents matter and this is setting a precedent. I think that certainly is going to create some problems down the road if it passes.”

Given that Congress, under Democratic control, can’t gather itself to let tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire, members of both parties are convinced that letting the payroll tax rate revert back to its current spot will be near impossible.

“Once you bring a rate down, if it goes back up, people will feel that. They’ll feel their paycheck being less and that argument” — that letting it expire amounts to a tax hike — “eventually is bound to be made,” said Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.).

“There’s always a tendency to continue those things… Once something comes in, it’s very difficult to change it,” said Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio.) He then volunteered, without prompting, that “It would be detrimental to the Social Security system, especially when it’s in bad shape.”

We all know this is going to be the way it goes down. There will be a one year extension next year, since the political season’ll be heating up, and then another, and another, maybe longer one. One way or the other, the FICA tax cut will be permanent. Then comes the SS and Medicare “crisis” that this will create. Republicans will say that since neither is solvent any longer, benefits will have to be cut, the age of SS will have to go up, less will have to be paid out. This is, of course, right as the Baby Boomers are retiring, making it even more dire.

There’s an easy answer to this of course. Make the FICA tax cut permanent, but raise the ceiling of wages that FICA affects to $200K, or $250K. But this will not happen, because it should have happened several times already, and Democrats are effing wusses and can’t get it done, even with big majorities in Congress and the White House.

So, kiss your retirement plans goodbye, my friends. Forget about having quality health care in your later years and certainly, don’t rely on Democrats to save your ass, either.

A self-identified strong political centrist friend on facebook recently expressed his disgust at Obama’s “compromise” on the tax cut extensions for the rich. I commented that if Obama has lost him, he really has lost the squishy middle. Polls show that the vast majority of Americans didn’t want a tax cut extension for the wealthy. And in the context of all the (somewhat misplaced) concern over deficits, this so-called compromise from Obama is even weirder - after all, neither the tax cuts, nor the unemployment benefit extension that we “got” from Republinans, are “paid for.” Which makes both the Republicans, who “ran” on the deficit, and Obama, with his Catfood (er, “Deficit”) Commission, incredibly hypocritical.

Of course, Obama didn’t lose, and the Republicans didn’t win, on the election being about deficits. It was about an economy that people felt hadn’t gotten enough attention by our leaders of either party. Many stayed home, and the result was that the fired up Republicans took control of the House. But you can’t convince a Republican about that by giving in to him.

But it gets worse. Obama called the Republicans “hostage takers” - and he’s right. They held a gun to Americans suffering with long term unemployment, and to tax cuts for the middle class, and demanded a ransom for the rich, despite the 60%+ of Americans who don’t want that. Obama wants us to believe that this was about preventing harm to the hostages.

He might be right, but only for the short term. What do you get when you negotiate with hostage takers? Emboldened hostage takers. They now know they can threaten harm to get what they want with little or no consequences. And the next threat of harm is right around the corner, and is very, very dire - Chris Bowers at dkos explains:

The problem is, this deal does not free the hostages, and escort them to a safe place. This is because, at a minimum, the deal does not raise the debt ceiling.

According to current projections, Congress will have to vote on raising the debt ceiling in late March, or else the whole country goes into default. At that time, Republicans could–and likely will–take the entire country hostage. After their successful hostage taking on the tax cuts, in exchange for raising the debt ceiling preventing default, they could demand spending cuts that will far exceed any of the stimulus in this deal, or exceed any collateral damage caused by not doing this deal.

Keep in mind that many Republican leaders threatened this very thing already. It’s not a matter of maybe, it’s a matter of when and how much.

This time it won’t be your $400-to-700-on-average tax cut extension on the line, or the $2M long term unemployed, but the “Full Faith and Credit of the United States” held hostage. That threat, if carried out (government shutdown, defaulting on loans, the works) could cause another severe dip back down to recession. So, what safety did we gain for the American public with this deal? After all, we just proved to Republicans that holding the American economy and people hostage gets them pretty much everything they want.

Republicans leaders don’t really believe their own hype that tax cuts for the wealthy (or preventing the lapse of such) really helps job growth. The Congressional Budget Office, and many other prestigious institutions, have said over and over again that this “trickle down” theory doesn’t really work - tax cuts for the rich are not stimulative. It is marginally more stimulative to cut taxes for the middle class and below, as they are out there spending their money on goods and services, and so will spend marginally more if given tax cuts. It is more stimulative still is to ensure that the unemployed are buoyed up by benefits, and the best stimulus is direct government spending. Those facts are not in dispute - unless you’re a Republican leader (or their adherents) trying to sell a despicable tax and spending cut policy that will continue to erode the middle class.

In fact, you can easily make the argument that a double dip recession will only benefit Republicans politically, as people will continue the blame the party that is mostly in power, even if in name only. You might even be able to make the argument that they could be cynically aiming to bring us back to recession in order to peddle their snake oil solutions in 2012, and possibly succeed. Certainly, with Democratic leaders reluctant to use their bully pulpit to fight for what will help the middle class and small businesses, there really isn’t any competing storyline out there to gainsay them.

The fact is, not holding a line now will have consequences going forward. Not just political consequences - those are pretty bad alone. But also policy consequences on the “hostages” that Obama thinks he just saved. Enjoy the compromise you have now, because it’s going to get even worse later.

To even mention (or hedge a question) on the concept of shutting down government and defaulting on our debt as a political tactic to get what you want is going three bridges too far. Yet, that is exactly what Republican House leadership is saying. They will hold hostage our fragile but progressing recovery, in the name of scoring political points. Incredible:

Cantor Refuses To Take Government Shutdown Or Default On U.S. Debt Off The Table

In an interview with Fox News Sunday this morning, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), the #2 Republican in the House, threatened to take the nation’s economy hostage if President Obama does not comply with House GOPers’ as yet undefined demands. When asked if he would take a government shutdown on forcing the United States to default on its debt off the table, Cantor responded that it would somehow be President Obama’s fault if House Republicans press this agenda:

QUESTION: Are you willing to say right now we’re not going to let the country go into default, and we won’t allow a government shutdown?

CANTOR: Chris, look at this now. The chief executive, the president, is as responsible as any in terms of running this government. The president has a responsibility, as much or more so than Congress, to make sure that we are continuing to function in a way that the people want.

The entire security of the world economy hinges on government-backed debt. The “Full Faith and Credit of the United States of America” is not just a term bandied about by elite economists. It is the backbone of our entire economy, and the economy, now, of an interconnected world. It was shocking back when Bush said that Social Security debt was “just IOUs” - they aren’t, they are the same debt bonds that China, or Europe, or businesses buy, backed by the Full Faith and Credit of the United States of America. That default would have caused severe crisis with our debtors - just as defaulting on our debt to other nations and businesses would destroy our economy now. Imagine calling up your mortgage company and telling them you intend not to pay anything back. Now, imagine the value of your entire existence plunging right after you do this. This is essentially what Cantor is threatening to do.

To even hint at default in the offering as a political tactic is to jeopardize our entire national interest. It is treasonous. This is who you elected, America. Let’s hope this doesn’t come to pass, or you can kiss the jobs recovery goodbye.

Addendum - remember, Reagan said he doesn’t negotiate with terrorists and hostage takers. So, what is this, then??

Addendum II - Also recall, Congress appropriates funds. By saying “the president has a responsibility, as much or more so than Congress, to make sure that we are continuing to function in a way that the people want” is to state that you abdicate getting the funds appropriated to cover the debt at your convenience - the President has no say on enacting the budget except to sign. This is obviously a threat for him to capitulate to what they demand, or else.

You know what to do today. Go exercise your democratic rights. (Update - find out where you vote and see a ballot preview here!)

Having been so busy lately (teaching, business, etc) I haven’t had much time to post about this election. But suffice to say, I am an enthusiastic NO on all three ballot questions. If any of these pass, we will see a regression in our state, and you will not like the results.

Regarding question one (return of the alcohol exemption) and question three (rollback of the sales tax to 3%), the last thing we need to do in the middle of a time of reduced revenues due to economic woes nationwide is to reduce revenues further by gutting taxes. Yes, math still works the way you were taught in school.

Look, no one loves paying taxes. Everyone would love to have that that $1.25 back on your $20 purchase. However, is that worth seeing more teachers laid off, fewer police, and longer lines at the RMV? We’ve cut the fat, folks, long ago. In fact, Patrick has done a lot to reform the state government - including state transportation department consolidation, which Republican governors have been talking about for years and never accomplished. We’ve started cutting the bone during this recession. Further reducing revenues is suicidal. Forget all the progress we’ve made on jobs, green initiatives, and our kids’ education if we have to cut more essential programs.

With regards to the alcohol tax rollback: don’t listen to the alcohol lobby that you are being “double taxed” on alcohol. What a lot of freaking whining! The excise tax is on volume and is so minuscule, it’s hardly even noticeable - if the excise tax were repealed, prices would hardly change at all. Most other states have a sales tax that applies to alcohol, alongside an excise tax. What the longstanding tax exemption on alcohol was, was a gift and a giveaway. Alcohol is not an essential purchase, so why the hell was it exempt? It should be subject to the same tax that is on all other nonessential goods.

On the sales tax reduction - really, you’re going to save about $3 on a $100 purchase. And remember, sales tax is not applied to most essentials in MA - clothing (unless you buy expensive Gucci) or groceries, for a start. A huge chunk of our discretionary spending budget comes from the sales tax. Is that worth seeing hundreds of teachers laid off? Or unsafe streets? The sales tax cut would be worth a loss of $20 million dollars to Lowell alone, if the cut were applied in full to local aid and Chapter 70 monies from the state. How many city services and school programs do you think $20 million would cut? And since it looks impossible, politically, for Congress to pass another stimulus bill next year, we will be losing the ARRA funding, which has been floating much of our state deficit from reduced tax receipts - our state would be further devastated by the loss of over half the sales tax.

On question 2, the elimination of comprehensive permitting to build affordable housing, also has a regressive result. Of course, many people are frustrated with this law and how it is applied in our communities. However, the repeal of it will have a devastating effect on families who need affordable housing. I don’t have to tell you we have some damned expensive housing costs here in MA. It’s a side effect of our leading-the-nation prosperity. The more people in the middle class and up can afford, the more expensive housing is. The more dense the jobs and opportunity, the more the demand for housing. For those who are in jobs that do not have the same level of opportunity, or for those who are underemployed, disabled, or retired with no savings, the availability of affordable housing is paramount to their survival.

Affecting how difficult is it to build affordable housing in Massachusetts means keeping some families out of the prosperity. That’s not what our state is all about. Maybe the law needs reform (and maybe it doesn’t), but eliminating it is no way to do it. It will only hurt some of our most vulnerable citizens. We’re better than that.

So, I will vote no to all three of the ballot questions. I wish we didn’t have to keep having the same damn debate over revenues and taxes - it’s exhausting to constantly have to defend what is undesirable by any human being. Where’s our ballot question enacting positive initiatives?? But as Governor Patrick has always said, we have to decide what we want government to do, and then decide how to pay for it. Ignoring the reality (and basic math) of the situation to vote for something that feels good now but will hurt us in the long run is just stupid.

So you’re going to vote on Tuesday. Good on you! After all, that’s what democracy is all about.

Usually, our ballots, even on gubernatorial years, have many line items that are unopposed or nearly so. But this year, we’re blessed (cursed?) with many open seats or challenges with contested situations. So much so, that it can be hard to keep track of. Many people will fail to fill in the ovals for several of these races just because they do not feel they know the candidates.

In the auditor’s race, the contest is heated and close. The two big candidates in the race are Democrat Suzanne Bump and Republican Mary Connaughton. Both got through primaries to gain the nomination. At first glance, Connaughton doesn’t seem so bad - she has a background in finances. Both Bump and Connaughton seem qualified and able to to the job. And, you might ask yourself, don’t the Dems hold enough statewide offices these days?

But under the surface, Mary Connaughton isn’t such a rosy candidate. Dan Payne over at WBUR’s blog has all the details. She is being funded by the same lobbyists and PACs she said she would not take money from, and she also has the donor support of anti-gay-marriage lobbyists to boot.

But the worst elements appear to be her actual history in auditing:

While she was a top financial manager in the state Lottery office, Auditor Joe DeNucci’s team uncovered a “donut fund,” which was used to hide hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of improper expenses, such as BSO tickets and expensive parties. All under the blind eye of Connaughton, who promises ceaselessly to bring “sunshine” to state government.

The audit report said that Lottery officials used “poor accounting practices that violated state law and cost the state more than $1.6 million in lost revenue,” the Globe reported. “Connaughton was in charge of the agency’s financial operations for most of the period of the audit… and was responsible for answering the auditors’ concerns. The audit report noted that the agency refused to cooperate and turn over requested documents.” So much for Miss Sunshine.

Payne also goes into a bit of her past that, I believe, shows that Connaughton has the standard Republican Disease of Not-Governing (or, RDNG):

Also at the Treasury, Connaughton was preoccupied with getting the cheapest prices from vendors, no matter what the cost. This led her to dump the only qualified, experienced company that had successfully recovered millions in unclaimed property funds, which go to the state. Over the objections of the head of the unclaimed property division, she picked four cheaper but inexperienced competitors. The difference to taxpayers: $16 million. Win some dimes, then lose tons of dollars.

Republicans seem to love stating that government doesn’t work, then proving it.

The question that I have to ask is, if Connaughton wins, who audits the auditor?

On the other hand, Suzanne Bump, with one small, er, bump in her campaign (the question of her residency and a tax break), has proven to be a smart campaigner, one who understands the job she’s running for and who has a track record of results. Payne says, “Before she decided to run for auditor, Bump ran the state’s Labor Department for Gov. Deval Patrick. And she managed it effectively without a hint of scandal that tainted Connaughton’s time at the Lottery.” Payne has a lot more to say on Bump, and on Connaughton, so go check out his post for full details.

When it comes to the job at hand, I want to know that the person in the job will do it properly. An auditor isn’t a game changer, but as a progressive, I want efficient and effective government. Connaughton’s history is an indication of hackery and short-sightedness. That sort of oversight will cost the Commonwealth millions. Bump has proven that she can make reforms and take on tough issues - exactly the sort of person needed for budget oversight.

I will happily be filling in the oval in the auditor’s race - the one right next to the name of Suzanne Bump.

[Payne piece found via BMG.]

Tonight was the last Gov debate, a rather freeform event on TV and radio. (Honestly, though I prefer Charlie Gibson to Keller, I didn’t love the format much). It was a debate Charlie [Baker] needed to break out with, and failing to do that, he didn’t do well enough to turn his flagging campaign around. To be honest, I thought his tired rewiring of trickle-down memes was a bit of a broken record, even if you believe that nonsense.

Of course, the Big Dig memo was brought up (I missed the beginning unfortunately), and both Patrick and Cahill had some things to say about it. I don’t think Baker came up smelling like roses. But it’s this part of the Boston.com reaction to the debate that I really like (bold and commentary mine):

Baker wrote the memo after he had already engineered a financing plan that borrowed against future federal highway money [swaptions!] to pay for some of the project’s peak construction expenses. At the same time, Baker was helping to push some of the project’s spiraling expenses onto the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, which would rely on future tolls to repay the loans.

Thank you. Someone else is finally putting these elements together coherently in the media. There is a big picture here that has been missing - that the subterfuge-full fiscal instruments of the Big Dig under the Weld/Cellucci/Baker executive branch(es) has repeatedly come back to haunt us since, all so that no one back then had to make the tough choices.

BMG has a full post on this, but I wanted to make a comment or two.

The memo found by an AP reporter is summed up thusly:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Charles Baker wrote a memo labeling Big Dig spending “simply amazing,” warning that it would force “draconian” cuts to other road and bridge projects - and recommending they be taken only after his boss was re-elected in 1998.

So the smartest man in government played politics with the Big Dig, despite his claim that everything was hunky dory under his tenure as state budget guru? Shocked, I’m shocked.

Now, it is commendable that he would take a realistic look at the costs, since that was his job - but to suggest hiding it until after reelection (while understandable from a political point of view) is to not serve the public interests.

And the little-known fact is - fact, folks, yes - that the final price tag for the Big Dig was known about a decade before the number went public. The state knew that number, and they kept it hidden in fear of the political consequences. (The biggest problem was that since the project went on over such a long period, costs rose quite a lot - and of course, scope creep was another big factor.)

So really, it’s shocking for Baker to “discover” about the costs of the ‘Dig late in his tenure as Secretary of Administration and Finance, it really makes me wonder about the Republican executive branch’s handling of the whole project (Weld, then Cellucci). Who the hell in the executive branch was monitoring the thing??

And then, instead of leveling with people when the federal government threatened to, then cut off funding for the project, that it would be a burden to the state infrastructure budget, Baker and the Republicans came up with a crazy funding scheme that kicked the can down the road and nearly soaked the budget under Patrick’s tenure (luckily, Patrick was there to steer the “swaptions” ship to a better port.) They also hid the debt, in a manner of speaking, by burdening the Pike and the MBTA, among other agencies, with substantive portions of that debt - all while forcing the MBTA into “forward funding,” which set the MBTA budget in stone (instead of reimbursement for net cost of service, beyond revenues). This in turn has made it necessary for the MBTA to substantially raise fares, and the Pike to raise tolls.

Spot a pattern here? Baker wants you to believe that he was the smartest man in government back in the day, and that he would be again if elected. But all I see is politically-motivated coverups, schemes to put off the pain of debt, and mismanagement and subterfuge. I have not yet met a Republican businessman politician who doesn’t claim to be the guy who will be smart about managing the state but yet whose record says the exact opposite.

Democrats are better for business, better for our economy, better managers of taxpayer money, and at the same time more dedicated to providing a fair playing field for people and businesses to reach their potential, whether that’s strong education funding (first in the nation!), good public universities, ending homelessness while at the same time spending less, or reforming the state pension system, transportation system, or streamlining the permitting process for businesses - hands down, on all fronts, we deserve government under Deval Patrick…not tricks, lies, subterfuge and undue pain and suffering for our citizens from Republican slash and burn politics.