Robert David Sullivan 2

State governments as anachronisms

This isn't a post on how undemocratic the American federalist system is. (Thanks to the constitutional two-senators-per-state rule and the non-constitutional "rule" that it takes 60 of 100 senators to pass legislation, 41 senators representing 13 percent of the US population can kill legislation.) Instead, here is a link to James Surowiecki's New Yorker essay on the economic pitfalls of our 50-state model, and specifically the way it's an obstacle to getting out of the current recession.

Surowieki makes two major points. The first is that, because almost every state (including Massachusetts) has laws requiring a balanced budget, state governments are forced to cut services and raise taxes, which is precisely the opposite of what the federal government is trying to accomplish through stimulus spending:

The states’ fiscal policy, then, is procyclical: it’s amplifying the effects of the downturn, instead of mitigating them. Even as the federal government is pouring money into the economy, state governments are effectively taking it out. It’s a push-me, pull-you approach to fighting the recession.

Second, and this does bring the topic back to the Senate in a way, is that federal spending is pretty much always inefficient because it's distributed on a state-by-state basis:

Much of the tens of billions of dollars that will be spent on roads, for instance, will be funnelled through the states. As a result, a disproportionate amount of the money will be spent in rural areas (which exert disproportionate influence on state governments), leaving cities—which happen to have most of the people and most of the traffic—shortchanged. The top eighty-five metropolitan areas in the country are responsible for about three-quarters of the country’s G.D.P.

But I don't expect that any of this will change in the near future. Local governments find Washington too handy a political foil to give the federal government any more power.

The Joe Lieberman and Dianne Wilkerson party

US Senator Joe Lieberman and recently resigned Massachusetts state Senator Dianne Wilkerson seem to agree: Incumbency should trump the will of the voters in Democratic Party primaries.

Norm Sheiber flags this nugget from a New York Times story on Lieberman's attempt to keep a committee chairmanship in the Democratic Senate, despite having campaigned for Republican presidential nominee John McCain and having been elected as an independent after losing a Democratic primary in 2006:

Democrats voted 42 to 13 to let Mr. Lieberman stay at the helm of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs while removing him from the Environment and Public Works Committee, where he led a subcommittee...

Lawmakers who attended the session said that Mr. Lieberman openly discussed the political and personal hurt he had experienced when many of his colleagues campaigned against him after he lost a Democratic Senate primary in 2006 before winning re-election as an independent.

Lieberman's pique is similar to that expressed by now-disgraced state Senator Dianne Wilkerson, who lost the Democratic primary this September despite the support of such heavyweights as Governor Deval Patrick, Boston Mayor Tom Menino, and Senate President Therese Murray. Refusing to accept the loss, Wilkerson ran a write-in campaign in the general election (abandoned only after the revelation of bribery charges against her) and put her establishment supporters in a very awkward position. A low point in the post-primary campaign came when a few diehard Wilkerson supporters suggested that it was racist for Democratic officials to endorse the official nominee of the Democratic Party.

Liquor license to blame for legislative showdown

The Daily News Transcript reports that the lower chamber on Beacon Hill came to a standstill yesterday over a single liquor license in Westwood. At this point, the town needs unanimous legislative approval to grant a liquor license to the new Wegmans Supermarket this session, but state Rep. Angelo Scaccia is reportedly dead set against the idea. (So is a competing grocer without a liquor license.) As Lindsey Parietti reports, Westwood state Rep. Paul McMurty, a supporter of the license, isn't willing to drop the matter and move on:

McMurtry said he will continue to halt House proceedings until the issue is resolved.

"It's unfortunately the only way that I can emphasize the significance of this bill," he said. "I will be here for every informal session and I will do everything within my elected ability to see that democracy is heard."

State lawmakers are 80 percent busy

Via the Chicago Tribune: The National Conference of State Legislatures has divided the 50 states into "full-time" and "part-time" legislatures, depending on how much time lawmakers spend in formal session, in committee work and constituent service, and on the campaign trail. Massachusetts is in the second-busiest of the four categories, with its members logging 80 percent of the hours associated with a full-time job.

For the most part, larger states keep lawmakers on the job longer. The smallest state with a "full-time" legislature is Michigan, which isn't surprising given the wrenching economic changes that the state is going through. (The only other full-timers are California, New York, and Pennsylvania.) The smallest state where legislators work at least 80 percent of the hours for a "real" job is Wisconsin, well-known for government activism.

The largest state with a less-than-half-time legislature is Georgia, and the largest state where lawmakers work less than two-thirds the hours of a full-time job is Texas.

Are roll-call votes in state legislature a "waste of money"?

The Post and Courier of Charleston, South Carolina, reports that senators in that state's Legislature recorded "yes" or "no" votes on only 1 percent of the bills that become law this year. (For state representatives, the number was 8 percent.) Almost all action was instead taken by "unanimous consent." Critics say that the practice allows legislators to duck responsibility for legislation (and accountability for their votes). House Speaker Bobby Herrell tells reporter Yvonne Wegner that lawmakers are simply saving money by not compiling voting records:

House members vote on an electronic board, which costs taxpayers $55 for every vote because of the cost of paper, printing, staff time, maintenance, power and technology fees, according to Harrell's office.

"If some are suggesting that we should spend taxpayer dollars and increase government waste by taking a roll-call vote on every measure — whether warranted or not — I do not think that is a very wise decision," Harrell, R-Charleston, said.

Coincidentally or not, South Carolina has repeatedly been the only state that has kept Massachusetts from having the worst record in the United States (see third item) in terms of contested legislative elections.

Thanks to State Legislatures' GrassCatcher.

The devil in the details

While most eyes are on the Legislature as the clock ticks toward the midnight deadline of formal sessions for the year, reformers are also eagerly awaiting the release by the Patrick administration of new regulations governing police details at construction sites.  As part of a transportation bond package approved in April, the administration was given 90 days to draft new rules governing construction details, which critics say can often be handled by civilian flagmen, rather than police officers, at great savings to taxpayers.  The State House News Service reported on Monday that the administration had "blown past" the 90-day deadline. 

The News Service quoted Transportation Secretary Bernard Cohen as saying the administration is making sure "we have coordinated with all of the interest groups."  Administration officials have evidently been meeting regularly with police union leaders, police chiefs and others to try to reach agreement on changes to the system.  One might understand why the administration would do so.  But Cohen's matter-of-fact description of that process unintentionally highlights why the public gets so cynical about state government.  The administration has unilateral power to make certain changes in the detail system.  Average citizens don't want state leaders to "coordinate with all of the interest groups" on the police detail issue; they want state leaders to ignore the interest groups and set policy based on what's best for taxpayers. 

In his heart, does Deval know Joan's right?

It's always a little dangerous to start making claims as to what a politician really believes, as opposed to what they do or say.  That said, and living a little dangerously, isn't it possible that, his support for the measure notwithstanding, Gov. Deval Patrick actually agrees with Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennnochi that the two-day sales-tax holiday approved by the Legislature is one dumb idea?

Taking the governor to task, Vennochi writes this morning that by supporting the tax holiday, which will cost the state at least $15 million in revenue, while also warning of tough budget times ahead, Patrick is "sending taxpayers a mixed message that simply doesn't add up." She trots out a list of big-ticket costs facing the state -- a $130 million gap in funding for health care reform, state help for the debt-ridden Turnpike Authority, and his own $1 billion education reform wish-list -- that should surely have given the governor pause before going along with what Vennochi calls a "feel-good, short-sighted" gimmick.

The math may not add up, but the political calculations may have.  Patrick campaigned as a change agent who would level with voters and not be afraid to take on entrenched interests in the name of needed reforms.  But fearful of getting pigeonholed as a tax-and-spend liberal, alienating key interest groups, or appearing to be out of the touch with the average Joe, Patrick has at various times steered clear of positions that seem to be more in keeping with what he campaigned on.  Costly police details at construction sites?  He has gone back and forth on whether this is an issue worth tackling.  He has dismissed talk of a gas tax increase, which is probably necessary to deal with the enormous fiscal hole we're in to fund transportation infrastructure needs.  And now, with the Legislature signing off on the sales tax holiday, he is not interested in stirring up populist outrage by telling residents that the state really can't afford to give up the 5 percent tax on the flat screen TV they have been eyeing.  But the broad brushstrokes of his statements on taxation suggest Patrick might well share Vennochi's view of the tax holiday as an ill-conceived gimmick that ignores the broader fiscal reality. To anti-tax activists who say government should give people back "their" money, Patrick frequently reminds residents that it is also their broken bridges, their overcrowded schools, and their broken neighborhoods that tax dollars support. 

All politicians make calculations about whether taking a particular stand is worth the political cost that may come with it.  In some cases, it may not be worth drawing a line in sand over an issue if doing so might harm your effectiveness and ability to notch bigger victories.  It becomes a judgment call as to whether the balance between conviction and political expedience has tilted too far.  The summer sales tax holiday now seems baked into the state's fiscal-policy landscape.  It was approved in each of the last four years, and Patrick wasn't about to be the guy to stand up and say let's now stop this.  The kind of bandwagon effect he was facing is hard to resist.  Still, it's worth remembering that in April, with gas prices heading toward $4 a gallon, it was Patrick's friend Barack Obama who declared a summertime federal gas-tax holiday, which his rivals, John McCain and Hillary Clinton, were eagerly supporting, to be a lot of economic hooey, a cheap play to the electorate that would only increase demand on gas supplies and deplete needed federal funds for road maintenance, while putting perhaps $25 into the pocket of the average driver. 

It's not voter fraud when WE do it

The Phoenix's David Bernstein has a great post on "ghost voting," by which legislators in several states are able to participate in roll-call votes without being present in their chambers. You've got to see how they do it in Texas:

Blogging from the capitals (but not Boston)

Stateline.org has a handy list of state legislators who blog. None are from Massachusetts or, more curiously, California. For some reason, the activity seems most popular in the South, with Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina each boasting a roster of five or six. It's hard to imagine a Bay State legislator taking the time to update constituents on the daily activities of the Legislature (even if through their own, partisan eyes), but I think it would get more people interested in state politics. Here are two posts from Alabama state Sen. Cam Ward, over at Doc's Political Parlor and Home of Lawn Mower Repair.

From April 23:

The legislative session is now entering its 24th day and with only six more legislative days to go the light is at the end of the tunnel. Of course that could be the light of a very big train coming down the tracks as well. The House is expected to take up the Education Budget on Thursday and I suspect it will pass the House after some, although not much debate that afternoon. You always have less debate on a budget when money is short and there is very little to fight over.

April 15:

Every hot topic imaginable is on the plate this week. Rep. John Knight’s bill to reduce sales taxes while increasing income taxes is up today. The Jefferson County financial crisis looks likely to spill over into the House Rules Committee this morning. Both of these bills mean that there is a real chance for some sparks to fly today because the votes on these issues are very close in my opinion.

Tomorrow I have a bill in committee to reduce the requirement necessary for third parties or independents to gain ballot access while at the same time the House Judiciary Committee has a host of hot button topics. Legislation to extend the hate crimes law to homosexuals, mandatory registration for stun guns, and a bill to eliminate Alabama’s ban on sex toys all await the committee members for Judiciary. That committee alone will give the reporters enough print to keep them busy for the week.

Reporters cover the Legislature in Alabama? I wonder what that's like...

Conflict of interest: Where you stand depends on where your state legislature sits

The National Conference of State Legislatures features a good daily round-up of news from the state capitals, and today there are two good pieces about conflicts of interest among state lawmakers who have "day jobs." Jessica Fender writes about Colorado in the Denver Post:

Pretend you're bar-manager-turned- state Rep. Paul Weissmann, and the House is considering a bill to boost the price of restaurant licenses. Do you vote?

Just to make sure nobody thinks he's voting in his own interest, the real Weissmann says he abstains.

But attitudes seem more relaxed in Kentucky, according to the Herald-Leader's John Cheves:

Democratic Sen. David Boswell, who annually crusades for legalized casino gambling in Kentucky, is also citizen David Boswell, sales manager and registered Frankfort lobbyist for the Owensboro Executive Inn, which wants to open a casino on its premises. Boswell said he would have pushed for casinos regardless of who pays his salary. But he added that a casino would help the hotel, and what's good for his employer is also good for his Senate district.