In an era of scorched-earth political discourse, where dull-witted oversimplifications of complex issues and self-indulgent spasms of ginned-up outrage too often substitute for serious debate, last week’s State House News Service/MASSterList forum with House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka (moderated by yours truly) was a welcome relief. Disagreements notwithstanding, the legislative leaders explained their positions at length before an audience that asked respectful questions and listened politely.
But it didn’t take long for pitiful political reality to intrude. As he exited the hall, Mariano was accosted by a camera-wielding troll from a local right-wing group who demanded to know if the speaker would “stand in the way” of a proposed ballot question cutting the state income tax rate by 20 percent if the voters approve it this fall.
“It remains to be seen what the vote looks like,” replied Mariano, who was then heckled over the legislative audit controversy as he made his way to his car.
Instant clickbait for the profiteers of the right and their gullible customers, who’ve long ago internalized the easy stereotype of political leaders (at least, the ones they don’t have a cult-like infatuation with) as arrogant tyrants who contemptuously dismiss the “will of the voters.”
But if they bother to watch the in-depth discussion of ballot questions that took place during the forum they might accidentally learn something.
As Mariano pointed out in response to criticism from the left over the legislature’s response to ICE excesses, it’s “not always easy” to get 81 votes for “a policy that protects the immigrants.” (Note to mouth-breathers who get their “news” from Instagram: 81 votes is a simple majority of the House.)
That’s as it should be. The sometimes-glacial pace of the legislature can be frustrating. When legislators allow no-brainer bills to languish for no good reason, they deserve to be called on it. But unless you think snap judgments and the stampeding herd are a path to sound public policy, you should want new laws to be the end result of an ultra-deliberative process.
Do special-interest lobbyists and money exercise undue influence on that process? Sometimes. But that concern rings a bit hollow when it comes from well-heeled special-interest boosters of government by ballot question. “Part of the problem with doing law by ballot initiatives is they’re all sponsored by special interest groups,” said Spilka. “The ballot initiative is written and tailored to help that special interest group, sometimes not looking at other aspects of what’s going on.”
That may one day be said of the 2022 millionaires tax, supported by Spilka, once its full impact on the state economy is documented. But proponents of the income tax cut seem perfectly content to trigger the likely consequences forecast by Spilka: “We would have to cut every single aspect of our life here in Massachusetts…cuts on education, on transportation, on help to our disabled, all of our vulnerable populations, that would cause a lot of pain.”
Funny thing about government spending – for the most part, it is a response to public demand, a.k.a. “the will of the people.” Want better public safety, public transit that works, nice new schools, expanded kindergarten, services for the elderly, health care? Massachusetts residents do. They squawk like hell when they don’t get it, then squawk some more when they discover it all costs money.
This is the fundamental tension stretching political nerves thin in a high-tax, service-demanding state like ours. And when those conflicts aren’t resolved to the satisfaction of the underinformed, they increasingly turn to ballot questions to scratch their itch.
Demonizing well-meaning, experienced public officials like Mariano and Spilka as they do their best to deal with intractable problems and self-contradicting voters is like using an extendable back scratcher to quiet that itch.
Ask your dermatologist. It just makes the problem worse.