Although I often cringe at the commonplace notion that politics and policy are mutually exclusive, there is a good reason for this common misconception. In Massachusetts politics today we have a Democratic governor and a legislature overwhelmingly dominated by Democrats at a time when the Republican Party and its fiscal policy agenda is in shambles and crippled nationally. The Massachusetts Republican Party couldn't get Mother Theresa elected Miss Congeniality. And yet, the Beacon Hill line on the state's fiscal policy is NO NEW TAXES! Why are our Democratic legislators acting like the anti-tax crackpots in last week's Fox News Tea Party protests? What our Democratic legislators are saying is that we have to "reform" a bloated state bureaucracy before we even look at increasing revenue. This would be objectively stupid and a profile in political cowardice in a competitive state. In Massachusetts in 2009, it's a colossal embarrassment.
Conservative anti-tax populism works on talk radio, but no one is going to lose a Massachusetts legislative election on this issue, right?
Sadly, this bout of fiscal irresponsibility and political cowardice looks to me like more evidence of why our Democratic incumbents do not face serious Republican challengers - Why buy a Republican who might have annoying and unsavory social issue positions when you can extort conservative fiscal policy from socially-sane Democratic legislators?
In a less severe fiscal situation, this subtle quid pro quo would not be so destructive, but our present revenue problems simply cannot be adequately addressed by legislators who won't raise taxes or cut the programs that bring money home to the district.
If there really is "bloat," then why are there so many cuts into services everyone considers appropriate and necessary? The reason is that "bloat" in a public budget is not the same as "bloat" in a private budget. The 2008 election included a lot of talk about "earmarks" and "pork" as waste, which everyone agrees should be limited. But in a democratic society budget decisions are by definition political decisions. Political decisions rarely if ever turn on static cost/benefit analyses. Indeed, in politics, costs and benefits are rarely measured in simple dollars and cents.
This ignorance (willful?) is frequently flaunted with rhetoric about families having to tighten their belts and government having to do the same. It's an analogy that makes no actual sense, unless you are trying to de-legitimize the democratic process by which public policy, including public budgets, are made. If the family looses revenue, it should not simply cut spending; it should also seek to increase revenue, right? If you lose your job, do you pull the kid out of college and make him get a job? Only if you are an idiot! This is precisely the time when education and other activities with long term benefits should be protected and preserved.
Its easy to make fun of Massachusetts Republicans at election time, but considering that Bay State Republicans are much more likely then their Southern brethren to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I think they actually get to have their cake and eat it too in the Massachusetts legislature. Our Democrats are clearly afraid of the Rush Limbaugh crowd from below, and corporate interests from above. Why else would all rational tax proposals be dead on arrival? Why else would closing corporate tax loopholes be so difficult in a liberal Democratic state?
Here's the thing, Massachusetts legislators, you are vastly overestimating the electoral threat and under-estimating your own capacity to win competitive elections. Your pay masters are on the wrong side of history right now. If you don't smarten up, you'll get caught out there with them.