Robert David Sullivan 2

Wisconsin academic wants his state to emulate Massachusetts

The outgoing chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at Madison has written a blunt piece about the direction of his state for the current issue of Madison Magazine. John D. Wiley's thesis:

Our politics has become a poisonous swill, and the most influential voice for the business community has been taken hostage by partisan ideologues.

Wiley looks approvingly toward Massachusetts, aruing that supposedly high-tax states have better economic conditions than low-tax (and low-income) states:

So which economies should we aspire to: the dynamic, high-income, high-tech, twenty-first-century economies of Minnesota, Delaware and Massachusetts, or the economies of South Carolina, Tennessee and Alabama? Would raising Wisconsin's existing tax rates move us toward the former? Clearly not. State economies involve lots more parameters than the rate of taxation, and Wisconsin's current tax system is so unbalanced that simply raising rates would drive us in the wrong direction. But it is equally clear that higher taxation, by itself, hasn't hampered the economies of states that are outperforming Wisconsin, and lower taxation hasn't made the economies of Tennessee and Alabama any better in ways that benefit the citizens of those states.

Not surprisingly, Wiley also stresses the importance of investment in public higher education -- a bit ironinc given the fact that "dynamic" Massachusetts is not a big spender in this area and relies more heavily on private higher education than just about any state:

As chancellor, I had lots of occasions to meet with prominent, influential Wisconsin citizens and business leaders, and public support for public education was always at or near the top of my agenda for discussion. With almost no exceptions, everyone agreed that we can't grow our future economy without significant new investments in education--or at least a restoration of some of the last fifteen years worth of cuts. Those in the high-tech community are especially worried about the state's direction.

What do roadside police details and glaucoma have in common?

The Lowell Sun reports on another "Why is Massachusetts the only state that...?" issue. Unlike the rest of America, we don't allow optometrists to treat glaucoma, instead saying that our neighborhood eye doctors must refer cases to more highly educated ophthamologists. Corrective legislation is virtually dead in the current session, but it's bound to reappear in 2009. Here's the con and pro:

"Patients overwhelmingly believe that their serious eye diseases should and must be treated by a medical doctor," [Dorchester opthalmologist Lisa] McHam wrote [in a letter to legislators]. "But the proposed bill would allow optometrists, who have no medical training, to treat medically complex and potentially blinding eye diseases." ...

"It all centers on having the patients have one visit, instead of two," said Dr. Steven Sikalis, a Lowell optometrist who has been practicing in the area for more than two decades. "If I diagnose a patient with glaucoma now, I have to refer him to an ophthalmologist so they can do the same test I just did and then write a prescription for drops. If I was 10 miles north in New Hampshire, I could write that prescription in a heartbeat."

Photo by ansik.

Freedom to move couches protected (so far) in Massachusetts

The summer issue of the Cato Institute's Regulation magazine has a great article on licensing requirements for interior designers. Turns out that Massachusetts is not among the more regulatory states on this front. "Business-friendly" states including Florida, Nevada, and Texas have laws regulating who can practice the art of "interior design," but the profession is still wide open in the Bay State -- assuming that pending legislation, sponsored in the House by Dorchester's Martin Walsh, doesn't go through.

The Regulation story, by Dick M. Carpenter II and John K. Ross, has a great quote from a George Will column concerning the Nevada law: "In Las Vegas, where almost nothing is illegal, it is illegal -- unless you are licensed, or employed by someone licensed -- to move, in the role of an interior designer, any piece of furniture, such as an armoire, that is more than 69 inches tall." But the American Society of Interior Designers, in a letter to the Washington Post, responded that theirs is a serious business: "If furniture is placed in such a manner that it impedes egress during an emergency, or exit pathways are not appropriately marked or laid out, people will die."

Massachusetts is mentioned in the Regulation story as one state where some designers have organized against regulation,and against the ASID. The Boston Business Journal reported on the issue last year (when there was still a possibility of a bill passing in 2007) and noted licensing requirements could be a way for the state "to generate revenue."

Thanks to Marginal Revolution for the tip.

Young Bay Staters like their employers but aren't so keen on government

MassINC's groundbreaking report Great Expectations: A Survey of Young Adults in Massachusetts reveals that the under-40 set in the Bay State are optimistic about their economic futures (80 percent think their incomes will rise during the next five years) and happy with their jobs (87 percent are satisfied with their employers) but aren't so sanguine about state and local government (62 percent are "not too confident" or "not at all confident" about its effectiveness). The survey also reveals that 22 percent of adults between 25 and 40 expect to move out of Massachusetts during the next five years -- not good news for the state's economy.

Get the full report here, or check out the coverage in the Boston Globe ("Most young Bay Staters say future's bright") and the MetroWest Daily News ("Study: 25- to 39-year-olds optimistic, but not about government"). You can also hear an interview with MassINC Research Director Dana Ansel on WBUR.

Gloucester and the class divisions in quaint old Massachusetts

Seth Gitell has a primer on the Beverly/Gloucester rivalry (highlighted by Beverly parade floats mocking the teen pregnancy crisis in Gloucester), and other class tensions between towns in Massachusetts:

I can think of several other places in the region where a few miles means a major difference in income. Start where I grew up, Hull. Hull is bordered by Hingham, a former target of derision of the Globe’s Metro Editor, Brian McGrory. Nearby is Cohasset, an even wealthier town. Class was an essential part of the sports rivalry between Hull and Cohasset. Self-described “rich kids” from Cohasset even vandalized a portion of Hull’s sea wall adjacent to the high school after a football victory. There’s also the Winchester-Woburn divide.

I grew up in Malden, where there was a heated rivalry with next-door Medford -- which was only slightly more affluent but still mocked by my classmates as some kind of haven for the nouveau riche. At the time, Beverly and Gloucester were indistinguishable in my mind; both were part of ritzy, horsey Cape Ann. But every once in a while, we're reminded that just about any two neighboring communities in Massachusetts are, in fact, militantly distinguishable from each other.

It's pissah to talk like a Red Sox fan

Dorchester native Patrick Radden Keefe writes on Slate.com about what most actors get wrong in doing a Boston accent. His nomination for the most authentic-sounding actor: Ben Affleck in Good Will Hunting. Even though "the guy's Nawt from Dawt"!

And trying to imitate famous politicians from Boston comes with its own pitfalls, as James Horrigan explains in the new issue of CommonWealth.