Presidential preferences shouldn't drive a wedge in the State's budget debate

By Joseph A. Curtatone

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

With the Massachusetts Presidential Primary less than a week away, every Democratic leader seems to be lining up to express a preference.  People ask me every day who I'm endorsing, and the answer is that I haven't endorsed anybody - yet.

This is a heavily Democratic - and supremely political - city in which almost everyone I know feels torn between three good candidates, which is actually a very good problem to have. I also think that, with very few exceptions, the people who vote for a Democrat on February 5 will rally around the eventual Democratic nominee - whoever she or he may be - and join in the effort to end eight years of G.O.P. mismanagement in Washington.  But the worst thing we can do right now is to let the race for the Democratic nomination drive a wedge between political leaders in Massachusetts who will need to be  working together every day to make sure that our economy grows, that our communities are safe, healthy and livable, and that our citizens enjoy a prosperous and secure future.

In his recent State of the State address, Governor Deval Patrick did not back off from his vision of appropriate investments in education, infrastructure and public safety, and he offered a number of ways to pay for that vision. As I've said in the past, I don't agree with every single one of the Governor's revenue proposals, but I stand with him on the principle that you don't give up on governmental action and investment at the very time that our economy and our people need them most.

Pushback has come from some legislators who say the Commonwealth would be wrong to ask anyone for more revenues of any kind for any purpose. Instead, apparently, they would have us cut back on spending at both the state and local levels - cuts that would come on top of the major cuts already made over the past few years in communities that, unlike Somerville, haven't been able to expand their commercial tax base.  (The latest example is the city of Salem, which has had to go to the legislature for emergency borrowing authority to avoid up to 60 layoffs in the school system.)

If you examine the “cut, cut, cut” approach in any detail, you know it just won't work; you can't cut your way to success.  With state aid still well below historical levels and with residential property values declining, this Mitt Romney approach to governing would mean that essential services, rising energy costs and soaring health care rates for teachers and other city workers could only be paid for through Proposition 2_ overrides, property tax rate increases and other forms of regressive taxation that unfairly affect working- and middle-class homeowners. 

That's no way to improve the quality of life in cities and towns across Massachusetts - or improve the skills of our workforce, or restore and enhance the crumbling roads, bridges and transit systems on which our future prosperity depends.  State and local leaders need to come to put together a balanced, compromise package that includes some new investment and some source of new revenues to pay for them.

I plan to work closely with Somerville's legislative delegation, my fellow mayors, and with Governor Patrick to help create and fight for such a package. 

I hope other Democratic leaders will join us. The last thing we can afford is an intra-party fight that further disrupts our ability to cooperate on a shared vision for keeping the Commonwealth strong and growing while we weather current economic turbulence.  Soon enough, we will have to be working together on a realistic, practical, and progressive state budget - and we will need all the goodwill and cooperation we can muster.

Comments

[The]

Joey Cakes as you sit before the mouse trap eating your doritoes remember that the mouse may be bigger than you think, like the comercial on the superbowl show!

[????]

Some of the comments made here by the mayor illustrate just what is wrong with government. The only way to keep costs under control is to cut spending. You can't just continue to increase your expenditures, then go back to the taxpayers for more and more money. Guess what - the well is dry! My heat rarely goes above 66 degress. Why? Heating costs are high and if I turn it up to 72 I have noone to whom I can turn to pay the added costs. Government needs to learn to work the same way. While most people struggle to pay their (approx. 50% of actual cost) health care premiums, cities and towns pay 90% of employees' health care costs and want the taxpayers to supplement it. I know that this benefit is 'in their contract', but it shouldn't be. It's not responsible to have such a huge expense which is uncontrollable in city employees' contracts. Government spending is completely out of whack to the economy and that is what is driving the wedge.....between politicians and taxpayers! All of the politicians tell people what they want to hear, i.e. 'I'll institute Universal Health Care'. All you need to do is look at today's reports of the Massachusetts version of Universal Health Care to know that this is NOT going to work. Wake up, Joe, and the rest of the politicians. It's not the state's job to pick up the slack when cities and towns spend beyond their means. I can't wait to see the societal devestation caused when - if ? - the state sets up 3 gambling casinos to pay THEIR bills. It's like a house of cards!

[JPM]

As noted above, we have situations where local government and state budgets are massively out of control. If you are spending too much, you cut out non-essential items and tighten your belt. However, government never does that. Since the Great Society programs of the 1960s government intervention and spending has increased enormously. We need to take a long hard look at cushy state and local government jobs with their enormous healthcare costs and retirement after a measely twenty years. Given life expectancy these days, that means you could retire at 40 and have the taxpayer finance the next 40 years of your retirement!! What planet are these people living on????

[Ron Newman]

But what are we willing to call 'non-essential'? Snow plowing? Keeping Foss Park and Trum Field in good condition? Rebuilding the East Somerville Community School? The Green Line extension? These things all cost money.

[Get a Life]

Mr. Newman, please get a life! It was stated very clearly above that there are thousands of dollars spent every day in our governments (local, state, and federal) on unnecessary, wasteful programs, and perks and benefits for government officials and employees. Noone said anything about cutting snow plowing (in fact, things like that are a scare tactic of the left: 'if you don't vote to raise taxes we'll have to eliminate special education programs or stop providing services to the elderly'.). Have you never heard of the multi-million dollar 'bridge to nowhere' in Alaska? Get real and do some research beyond blue mass group or the latest 'books' by Al Gore or Al Franken.

[Ron Newman]

I thought we were talking about Somerville, not Alaska. I don't know of any unneeded bridges being built around here.

[Pancakes]

Did I hear the Maya flip flopping on who he is thrusting his support too on the Presidential level? Not 4 days ago he was hedging towards Hilary Clinton. At least that is what he was stating to VB from Fox News at Kelly’s Diner. In less than 3 days and 8 minutes on Local TV, he’s’ changed his mind. He is just like the weather, constantly changing to fit the occasion.

A politician true to form.

You got a nickel I he will give you a cent.

[Open Your Eyes]

Open your eyes.....USA, Massachusetts, Somerville, same thing, just progressively smaller projects and dollars. And I believe the story was about the PRESIDENTIAL election. I don't think that will affect only Somerville. Let's discuss substance, not minor grammatical issues or semantics!

[observer]

Have you been paying attention, Mayor Joe? Edwards dropped out last week (unless of course the third candidate you are talking about is Mike Gravel, LOL).

[observer]

Have you been paying attention, Mayor Joe? Edwards dropped out last week (unless of course the third candidate you are talking about is Mike Gravel, LOL).

[Ron Newman]

Most likely the Mayor submitted this article before Edwards dropped out.

[it *is* funny]

My reading of the Mayor's article is that he hopes despite our various leaders backing different candidates it wont scupper the Municipal partnership (ie: money for cities and towns). DiMasi wont let most of Deval's ideas get out of committee and it will be the citizens who pay the price if a grudge is held. I'm not saying that all of the Governor's ideas are great, but they deserve to be debated.

[Yorktown Street]

The Mayor is not the only one who's gone back and forth this election season. I know I have. Usually, I take comfort in the fact that the Mass. primary doesn't mean anything anyway, and so I vote for the person who's closest to my position on the issues--whether or not she or he has a chance to win. This year is different. I plan to give my vote to Obama because he is bringing people into the political process who never saw a reason to take part before. But I honestly don't know whether he or Clinton is the better bet to win the White House, or who would do a better job once they got in there.

[Everything Old is New Again]

"DiMasi wont let most of Deval's ideas get out of committee"
"I'm not saying that all of the Governor's ideas are great, but they deserve to be debated."
It's funny, but in the past when there were proposals made by the governor, or even by the electorate (i.e., ballot initiatives) and the speaker wouldn't let them be debated or voted on, it was considered a great thing. Now people are upset. It really does matter which side of the fence you're on, I guess. In fact, I specifically remember when the legislature, BY LAW, was to take a vote on same-sex marriage and Deval Patrick advised them NOT to take a vote. My, my, how times change.......'together we can'!

[Imux]

Joe Cakes is just a jock gone bad. It happens frequently, when people with a big ego and not so much gray matter acquire a little power. They imagine themselves as the next big mafia boss, dealing in the background with the other big boys.