The Congress of the United States has taken most of the media attention in the last few weeks, but in Massachusetts the new Legislature was sworn in yesterday, with both Speaker Robert Deleo and Senate President Therese Murray re-elected to their respective posts. Congratulations to all the members, especially the new members. They will have their hands full.
In the opening speeches given by the Leaders the issues of transportation, infrastructure, and gun safety and control were placed front and center. Both leaders will not announce Committee assignments for another month or so, but the Speaker gave notice of his intent to re-appoint Rep. William Strauss to the chairmanship of Transportation. Rep. Strauss, in separate comments, acknowledged the need for new revenues to fund our transportation infrastructure:From the State House News Service:
Raising revenue for the state’s underfunded transportation system has to be part of the discussion, Straus said. “My own feeling is if we are going to make the kind of investments in keeping our transportation up to date that everyone across the spectrum needs, I don’t know where within the current revenue stream in state government you can find the money,” Straus said. “It has got to be part of the discussion. I don’t know what the outcome will be. But the Legislature and the public need to have a revenue discussion.”
The Governor is due to present the Legislature with some ideas on that subject within the next week or so. Whether the Governor comes in with a hard and fast recommendation, or presents the Legislature with a menu (a la carte)is still up in the air, but we will soon know the answer to that question. Rep. Strauss understands that the financing shortfalls in transportation run very high.
Straus said the needs could be larger than what the public can stomach. “The administration has identified an annual unmet deficit in transportation funding of over $1 billion a year. I don’t know that the public or the membership would be willing to look at revenue numbers that high on an annual basis, but that’s the kind of figures – in the hundreds of millions of dollars – that needs to be raised in order to meet the state of repair for the transportation system,” Straus said. “The other thing about raising the revenue is that to the extent the revenue, the source of it is tied to the transportation system, so that in a sense the people who use the roads, use the rails, who use the airports are the ones who are asked to pay for it, that may also be important to the members and the public.” Asked what he would look for in a transportation financing bill, Straus reiterated the broad points House Speaker Robert DeLeo made from the rostrum on Wednesday. A “fair” distribution of transportation resources throughout the state, the importance of maintaining a safe transportation system, and the necessity of transportation for a strong economy will all be weighing on Straus, he told the News Service.
The Rep. is of course correct. The full dimensions of the problem are contained in the report of the so called State Transportation Finance Commission issued several years back. But what the Legislature can stomach, and what vehicle is recommended for raising revenue, will be key political components moving forward. I personally think that the Speaker’s call for “regional equity” in how new transportation revenues are distributed is a key substantive and political piece of the equation. New revenues that substantially benefit only Boston will be difficult to swallow for many members.
I have attached below the remarks of the Senate President and the Speaker. And whatever we do please make no reference to any “Massachusetts transportation cliff”. Thank you!
http://www.statehousenews.com/video/13-01-02murray_speech/player-viral.swf
http://www.statehousenews.com/video/13-01-02deleo_speech/player-viral.swf
As the temper tantrums and recriminations fly back and forth in Washington on the fiscal cliff I have to say that I am, despite my low expectations, still amazed at what is nothing short of group dysfunction in American government. Just how low have we managed to sink? Let us count the ways.
This morning the Senate will come back into session after a Sunday where the Republicans managed to further shoot themselves in the (foot) (feet) (lower extremities), and have found themselves in an untenable spot politically. As negotiations appeared to be moving along Republicans came forward with a demand that Social Security cost of living increases should be modified (chained CPI) in a way that would reduce benefits. At the same time they were fighting against higher tax rates for the top 2% of earners, putting themselves in the great position of fighting to reduce Social Security for seniors to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. At some point in the day John McCain and other GOP Senators came to this realization when they apparently gave the matter some thought. McCain tweeted that “Chained CPI” was off the table for the GOP. His comments, as reported in the Huffington Post:
“CPI has to be off the table because it’s not a winning argument to say benefits for seniors versus tax breaks for rich people,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). “We need to take CPI off the table — that’s not part of the negotiations — because we can’t win an argument that has Social Security for seniors versus taxes for the rich.”
McCain and the GOP have come very slowly to the realization that they are now in a trap that they cannot escape from, a trap that they insisted (forcefully) on entering, and that walking away (again) from a larger deal with the President means that they in essence get very little that they want from the much smaller deal. (Such as Chained CPI). David Brooks, on Meet the Press, laid most of the blame on Republicans, saying:
Now I think most of the blame still has to go to the Republicans. They’ve had a brain freeze since the election. They have no strategy. They don’t know what they want. And they haven’t decided what they want.
Brooks offered some criticism of the President as well, but his criticism of the Republicans, in my opinion, is the important one. I believe he is right on the Republicans not knowing what they want, and I am just not sure how you negotiate with folks who don’t know what they want.
The dysfunction, and just plain stupidity, comes from the fact that all tax rates go up in two days. On that basis alone Republicans ought to be negotiating a deal that gets them all that they can from the weak position they now find themselves in. Despite the political hole they are in Republicans just keep digging.
If the talks do not produce an agreement today Majority Leader Harry Reid will introduce a bill on the Senate floor that is reflective of the President’s last offer, and the Senate GOP will be in a pickle. If they allow a straight majority vote (no filibuster) the bill will pass and go to the House, which will present the Speaker with a political problem. He has indicated that he would allow a vote, but I would anticipate that Republicans will amend it, and pass it right back to the Senate. That will likely bring the process to a close. Or the Senate GOP can reach a deal, and put the Speaker right back into that problem area. Can a GOP Senate sanctioned deal pass the House? That may end up as the question of the day!
For the odds-makers out there my last “line” was “off the cliff” as a 3 to 1 betting favorite. Today I make “off the cliff” a 2 to 1 betting favorite. At least the cliff part will be over as of midnight tonight, when we can immediately start writing about the debt ceiling. Happy New Year to all of you.
And so the powers that be have anointed Congressman Ed Markey as the next U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, issuing a well choreographed series of endorsements to his new candidacy to replace John Kerry. Why, even the future Secretary of State got into the act, issuing a statement that sounded like an endorsement. (Probably written by the wordmasters over at Foggy Bottom for the ever so diplomatic Secretary of State in waiting.)
With the short time frames involved the Washington power structure has made it incredibly difficult for any other potential candidate to gain traction. The other candidates who have been prominently mentioned are Congressman Michael Capuano, Congressman Stephen Lynch, and State Senator Benjamin Downing. Others, like former Congressman Marty Meehan, Vicki Kennedy, Edward Kennedy Jr., Congresswoman Niki Tsongas, and a host of others, took themselves out of contention, leaving a more limited choice for Democrats. Under those conditions, and fearing a Scott Brown comeback, Washington insiders determined that they would unite behind Markey in an attempt to stop a primary bloodletting that might hurt the Democratic nominee.
Why Markey instead of one of the others? Markey is sitting on $3 million plus in his campaign account, giving him a big leg up on both Lynch and Capuano in that area. Markey is the dean of the House delegation, but is probably not the most popular guy in that group. (Just ask Barney Frank about that). In the end it simply becomes an equation for the Democratic power brokers in Washington based on one consideration: how can we best win? Their answer is with Ed Markey.
Just a couple of observations on the “process”. It is not clear to me that Ed Markey is the right answer to the question on who has the best shot to hold the seat for Democrats. But far smarter people, with access to data, have determined that he is, so let us concede the point. Nonetheless what has happened here is an injustice to Capuano, Lynch, Downing, and whoever else was thinking about running. I do not come at this question as a “process” diehard, as some of my good Democratic friends do. I like to win, and I like to see things move, and on that basis I understand what happened. But Capuano, Lynch, and Downing deserved better than what they got. And I am fascinated by the utter lack of consistency of some of those in the liberal blogosphere, who have been devoted to “process” and “democracy”, who now turn a blind eye to what is nothing short of putting the fix in. It will just be a bit more difficult to raise objections in the future when it happens with a different set of candidates.
Finally it is worth noting that one pretty big footprint lies on the back of Governor Deval Patrick, who went from a key player in the selection process to an after thought. Since the Markey move the Governor has been marginalized, with the Washington folks just blowing right by him. The Governor is used to doing the big footing, but in this case the role has been reversed.
As you wonder what happened to John Boehner in his caucus just watch this video. Rep. Tim Huelskamp went on Morning Joe this morning and essentially said that there is no compromise to be had. How do you deal with folks like this? And for those hoping to see some new common sense gun regulations please take note of the exchange on that issue. Very little chance of getting anything through the House of Representatives with guys like Tim Huelskamp serving in that body. And very little chance of reaching a deal without the Speaker relying on Democratic votes to get one through the House. This is exactly what is wrong with government today.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
As predicted here at the blog Speaker Boehner could not corral the votes in the Republican caucus to pass his own so called “Plan B”.I posted on this blog and through my twitter feed the prediction that the Speaker would not secure the votes from Republicans on this bill, and I was (for once) right. My confusion, even in light of my prediction, is how the Speaker’s whip operation came up with a bad vote count??? When Majority Leader Cantor announced yesterday afternoon that the votes were there for the Speaker’s plan I was not totally convinced, but I thought it unlikely that such an announcement would be made without a hard vote count. I can say with certainty that these guys ain’t LBJ, but to blow a count of this importance is either gross incompetence or an attempt to make the Speaker look bad. If I were the Speaker and the Whip put me out there like that he would have to be fired. Unfortunately for Boehner he is in a position to fire no one, and in fact has so lost control of the caucus that his own relevance is in question.
Leaders must lead, and for those saying (like John Boehner) that this deal should not be cut with just two people in the room that is just so much hooey. That is the only way a deal can get done that will help to solve some of the very real problems that will occur on December 31 without a deal. The deal was close, and Boehner blinked.
The Speaker has some very hard choices ahead. He was moving towards a deal, and was in essence derailed by his own caucus. Will he be willing to bring a deal forward that does not have a “majority of the majority”? Does he dare bring forward a compromise that must win with Democratic support? If he does will it cost him his Speaker’s gavel? The situation is a mess, but it could be extricated by some folks exercising real leadership. That is why I continue to handicap this as “go over the cliff” a strong favorite.
The Fiscal Cliff is not the only thing facing Congress as the year winds down. The Production Tax Credit for wind power is set to expire on December 31, and although there is bipartisan support for its extension it appears that it will be allowed to expire. There is a concerted effort, especially by the oil industry, to derail this tax credit. From the New York Times:
Opponents argue that the industry has had long enough to wean itself from the subsidy and, with wind representing a small percentage of total electricity generation, the taxpayers’ investment has yielded an insufficient return.
“Big Wind has had extension after extension after extension,” said Benjamin Cole, a spokesman for the American Energy Alliance, a group partly financed by oil interests that has been lobbying against the credit in Washington. “The government shouldn’t be continuing to prop up industries that never seem to be able to get off their training wheels.”
Obviously proponents of wind power disagree with that assessment. I have attached a video from the Wind Trade Association that talks about the jobs that will be lost if the PTC is allowed to lapse. From that same New York Times article:
Industry executives and analysts say that the looming end of the production tax credit, which subsidizes wind power by 2.2 cents a kilowatt-hour, has made project developers skittish about investing or going forward. That reluctance has rippled through the supply chain.
On Tuesday, Siemens, the German-based turbine-maker, announced it would lay off 945 workers in Kansas, Iowa and Florida, including part-timers. Last week Katana Summit, a tower manufacturer, said it would shut down operations in Nebraska and Washington if it could not find a buyer. Vestas, the world’s largest turbine manufacturer, with operations in Colorado and Texas, recently laid off 1,400 workers globally on top of 2,300 layoffs announced earlier this year. Clipper Windpower, with manufacturing in Iowa, is reducing its staff by a third, to 376 from 550. DMI Industries, another tower producer, is planning to lay off 167 workers in Tulsa by November.
Wind industry jobs range in pay from about $30,000 a year for assemblers to almost $100,000 a year for engineers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The industry’s contraction follows several years of sustained growth — with a few hiccups during the downturn — that has helped wind power edge closer to the cost of electricity from conventional fuels. The number of turbine manufacturers grew to nine in 2010 from just one in 2005, according to the United States International Trade Commission, while the number of component makers increased tenfold in roughly the same period to almost 400, according to the Congressional Research Service.
I have always been a wind proponent, and remain one today. As usual in Congress business is done in such a haphazard way that getting to a managed policy that sets time-frames, parameters, and measurable impacts of tax policy just seems beyond our current membership. I come down on the side of giving a nascent industry some help for all of the obvious reasons. (Alternative energy, clean energy, less reliance on foreign sources) But a discussion needs to be had about time frames for continuation, with modeling done so that we understand wind viability within different energy pricing scenarios. The natural gas supply explosion has thrown some of the prior modeling right out the window. Congress needs to do its job, understand the ramifications of its own policies, and act in the best, long term interests of the country. As the fiscal cliff negotiations are showing that may be a bridge too far.
Here is the apparent idea that is now driving the GOP idea machine on how to deal with gun violence. What we used to laugh at is now the public policy position of the Republican Party.
The Massachusetts Municipal Association yesterday called for an increase in Chapter 90 funding for localities to bridge the gap between what is spent today, and what needs to be spent to bring local roads and bridges to a “state of good repair”. The so called “state of good repair” is the standard used to quantify how much would need to be spent to keep our locally maintained roads and bridges in workable condition. It is a phrase that we have seen used by the State Transportation Finance Commission with regards to the MBTA and Massachusetts roads and bridges.
How much responsibility do localities have for Massachusetts roads? Actually localities have the primary responsibility. From the MMA report.
Cities and towns are responsible for repairing and maintaining 30,000 miles of roadways, almost 90% of the total in Massachusetts. In 1973, recognizing the vital role that communities have in ensuring an effective and safe statewide roadway system, the state created the Chapter 90 program, with the intent to share a portion of gas tax revenues with communities to ensure adequate resources for local road construction needs. But almost 40 years later, funding for the Chapter 90 program is far short of the actual need, as construction costs have escalated sharply, in great part due to significant increases in the cost of fossil fuels, which drives up the price of construction materials such as asphalt and steel.
Chapter 90 is the program that delivers state assistance to localities for this work. From the report:
Chapter 90, the state’s bond-funded program to reimburse cities and towns for the cost of maintaining local roads provides just $200 million a year, or only 36% of the actual need, resulting in a massive local funding gap of $362 million a year. While some communities are able to close a small portion of their road construction funding gap with local property tax dollars, this does not come close to meeting the actual need, which explains why local roads are crumbling across the state. The MMA and local officials throughout Massachusetts have called
for a $100 million increase in annual Chapter 90 funding, with a 5-year commitment of $300 million a year for Chapter 90, or a total $1.5 billion over 5 years, to help close the gap and get local roadways in Massachusetts much closer to the good repair standard.
The MMA is correct on the state of good repair issue, and the need to increase infrastructure aid to localities. The timing of this release, from a political perspective, is designed to ensure that if new revenues are are the table to solve the State’s transportation issues localities are included in the mix. There is a real need for transportation dollars, and localities want to make sure that (new)revenues are distributed fairly. A fair presentation, and one that will increase pressure on the Legislature to look at new revenues in the next budget cycle. The MMA Report is here.
Bill Manzi.com 