Pre-Primary Thoughts

• I finally got a chance to read Governor Patrick's endorsement of Barack Obama in Saturday's Boston Globe. I know that Patrick and Obama have similar messages (and share consultants), but I feel like Deval just did a search and replace on one of his 2006 stump speeches to come up with that Op/Ed. Anyone who followed his 2006 campaign should recognize some of his stock phrases -- "wise guys and wise gals", "not buying what either party is selling." I guess if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
• Will Mitt Romney finally be off of my TV screen after tomorrow? The New Hampshire polls have him down, and the national polls have him even lower. If he doesn't get the bandwagon boost from a win there, can he carry enough states on Super-Duper Tuesday to get the nomination? Seems like a tall order.
• Bill Galvin is right. The primary process is even crazier than last time. I'd like to see regional primaries as well, but what are the chances that New Hampshire and Iowa would give up their positions? The parties had a hard enough time this year getting the states to wait until after Feburary, and we'll likely see that their threats to refuse to seat delegates to the convention will be empty.

Rolling the Dice

Yesterday, I returned from out-of-state to find that the Governor has submitted a plan to allow three casinos in Massachusetts. I'm not particularly bothered by gambling, though I will admit that if opening a casino in the Boston area ends up closing down the Keno parlors in my neighborhood, I will not shed a tear. Anything that causes fewer discarded scratch-off tickets to end up in my driveway can't be all bad. Indeed, I think in the short term these casinos would be a boon -- there's the up-front licensing fees, the construction jobs, and once they're built, the casino jobs themselves. I'm less convinced of the ongoing revenue that the casinos would provide the state, these large companies all seem to have a way of cheating the state out of taxes, but on balance the plan the Governor has put forward is a sensible way to bring casino gambling to the state.

The bigger question is whether we even want to bring gaming to Massachusetts. A majority of residents polled usually support it (58% percent most recently). That said, I imagine that the results would be different if residents were asked whether they wanted a casino in their own town. I do think, however, that those who say that casinos would "change the character" of Massachusetts for the worse are engaging in a bit of hyperbole. A couple of resort casinos aren't going to turn Massachusetts into Nevada. Inevitably, the places that host the casinos will change, but the impact of any resorts on the state as a whole will be small. The bigger question is whether you can control the genie once it's out of the bottle.

Of course, it would be silly to ignore the social ills that seem to come hand-in-hand with casino gambling. The advantage of the resort-style casinos that the Governor is proposing is that many of the tourists coming to these resorts will take the cost of these ills and costs back home with them. That would not generally be the case if the state just, for example, let Suffolk Downs put up slot machines. The big disadvantage of a resort-style casino, however, is that the economic benefits are not generally felt in the surrounding area. A casino's interest is to keep you on their property, close to the gambling floor, and never more than a few feet away from a slot machine. If you leave the grounds to go to a neighborhood restaurant, they've lost that potential revenue. So, while a resort casino may bring more tourists to an area, the number of visitors to local businesses is likely to decrease. This is what makes me very skeptical of any plan to revitalize New Bedford with a casino.

It seems to me that if someone fritters all of their money away on gambling, it's no different than if they had maxed out all their credit cards on designer clothes, electronics, or Faberge eggs. Is sitting in front of a slot machine all day really any different than sitting in a Keno parlor (now legal) or the track (also legal) or day trading on the stock market? So, yes, while I'm sympathetic to the idea that compulsive gambling will increase if we have casinos, it seems to me that anyone with a bus pass or an Internet connection can already do all the gambling they want. Frankly, I'm more concerned about the side industries that flourish along with casinos -- loan sharking, prostitution, money laundering, and other crimes -- not to mention the inevitable corruption that accompanies large sums of money changing hands. I think the Governor is being a little naive when he says that we're going to tackle those problems better than anyone else ever has.

What bothers me is the pattern the Governor seems to be following on these big decisions. For both his casino proposal and the budget, Gov. Patrick went into seclusion for weeks and then emerged with a fully-formed policy. Sure, he sought council from legislative leaders, from advisors and commissions, etc, but I never thought that they were the "We" in "Together we can". It's worrisome to me that the Governor had more inauguration parties than public meetings on expanded gaming. In the time after his election, Patrick often talked about how he wanted to convert his grassroots organization into a vehicle for grassroots governing. One way to do that would have been to include the grassroots in his decision-making process.

Governor Holding Cards Close to his Chest

Governor Patrick, you don't need to show your cards yet, but we're going to have to see your hand before you get any payoff. People already think that the process is rigged in favor of casino gambling -- and in some cases, they're probably right -- that you need to be sure that everything you do is completely transparent. You can hold on to the casino study until you make your final decision, but if you don't release it people are always going to wonder what was so awful in there that the public wasn't allowed to read.

[Update]: Now that I've had some time to think about it, there is one scenario where it makes sense to keep the casino report private. If the report recommends allowing casinos and also lists concessions that the state must seek from Indian tribes and casino developers, it does make sense to keep those under wraps until such time as the Governor gives his Yay or Nay. There's no sense in giving casino proponents extra time to prepare for the eventual negotiations. Still, this report should be released when Governor Patrick makes his decision on whether to allow gaming in Massachusetts -- even if his eventual position is at odds with the study's recommendations.

Keller on 2006 Gubernatorial Spending

Last week, Jon Keller had a blog post where he confessed his love for Michael Dukakis. He took issue, however, with the Duke's comment at South Shore Democrats party for former Massachusetts Democratic party chairman Phil Johnston. Keller calls Dukakis "flat wrong" when he said that then-candidate Deval Patrick was outspent by, overall, some huge number. Here's the quote that gives Keller so much trouble:

Turning to John Walsh, the new state Democratic Party chair who managed Deval Patrick's run for governor last year, Dukakis says: "Yeah, you raised some bucks in the end John, but I don't know what he was outspent by, overall. It was huge, and he won by 21 percentage points. And it had everything to do with that grassroots precinct-based organization... We have the most dramatic example of the effectiveness of this right here in the Commonwealth because of what happened last fall."

(Keller also commits an Internet faux pas by not identifying where he found the Dukakis video -- I assume he found it through BMG, and not by trolling around YouTube looking for former Massachusetts Governors)

Keller then goes into the numbers from the Office of Campaign and Political Finance and shows that Patrick spent $8.9 million and Kerry Healey spent $13.2 million, but when you take independent expenditures into account, the difference between the two was not "huge" and therefore you can't say for sure that grassroots organizing makes more of a difference than spending.

Here's the problem, while Keller adds the amount that the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the Service Employees International unit 1199 (a total of $3.418 million) to Deval Patrick's spending total, he neglects to add the amount the Republican Governor's Association spent on Kerry Healey's campaign (nearly $1 million). You could make the argument that you can ignore the RGA expenditures because they didn't make a difference, but if you do that you may as well ignore all of Healey's spending -- after all, she lost. Keller also omits the $8.5 million that Christy Mihos spent trying to become Governor. If the premise that "Patrick was outspent" is what Keller is disagreeing with -- remember, Dukakis never mentioned who he was outspent by -- then it seems like leaving out the massive amount Mihos spent in his own quest to become governor would mean you're getting an incomplete picture, particularly when Dukakis uses the word "overall".

I also think it's important to note that Patrick was significantly outspent on the airwaves. While Patrick may have achieved near parity in total spending, at least in Keller's eyes, the premise of Dukakis' speech was that grassroots organizing wins out over TV ads. Healey's camp spent $9.6 million on media buys, while Patrick spent a paltry $4.3 million in comparison. Even after adding in the third-party issue ads, Patrick still was outspent by nearly $3 million dollars in the media. That's not nothin', and when people talk about campaign spending, this is generally what they're talking about, not payroll or field events. Dukakis' point was that Patrick focused on field instead of media. Field isn't necessarily cheap, and Patrick's spending there made a huge difference overcoming his lack of TV presence.

In addition, I think that it's important to note that Patrick had two elections to win, while Healey (and Mihos) only had one. Patrick was massively outspent in the primary by Chris Gabrieli. If you count only the money spent before the primary, Gabrieli outspent Patrick two to one. It's not clear which election Dukakis is talking about when he says Patrick "won by twenty-one percentage points". While Patrick won the general by 20 points, he also won the primary by a similar margin -- 22 points. Everything Dukakis says is equally applicable to the primary as it is to the general election, and it would be laughable to say that Patrick was not outspent in the primary. When you take into account how much Patrick was outspent overall, it's clear that the primary should be part of the picture.

Debate Watching Party Tonight

As mentioned elsewhere, Governor Deval Patrick will be doing the candidate introductions at tonight's Democratic Presidential Debate at Howard University on PBS. According to the forum's website, this is the first time that a panel exclusively comprised of journalists of color will be represented in primetime. It's only natural that they'd have the only sitting African-American governor do the introductions. The debate will also be broadcast on pbs.org for those who prefer streaming video or can't get to a TV.

In addition, the Massachusetts Democratic Party and Mass. Democratic Future/Young Democrats of Massachusetts are sponsoring a debate watching party tonight starting at 8:00PM at Porters Bar & Grill, 173 Portland Street in Boston. State Party Chair John Walsh is scheduled to say a few words before the debate kicks off at 9. I'm planning on heading over there assuming that I can step away from baby duties long enough. Hope to see you there!

Herald Sounding Bitter

In a otherwise positive editorial on the new Charlestown wind technology center in today's Boston Herald, the editors could not resist inserting a little dig at Governor Deval Patrick:

"Hosting a national wind technology testing center will boost the clean energy technology sector already taking root in Massachusetts," Patrick said. (He might want to keep in mind this kind of energy innovation -- centered on job-creation and attracting manufacturers -- before venturing off on the predictable path of government limits on energy profits, a plan he unveiled yesterday in The Boston Globe.)

Frankly, it seems that the Herald is just upset they got scooped by the Globe more than by any ideological differences. In fact, the companies whose profits would be "limited", to use the Herald's words -- namely NStar and National Grid -- are reportedly on board with the Patrick plan at this early stage. Sure, the Devil's always in the details, but if the governor can come up with some way to change the incentive that utility companies have to get us to use as much power as possible, we'd have a real shot at not only saving consumers some money, but also reducing the costs for those who supply our power. It's a win-win situation. Unfortunately, the Herald's parenthetical aside shows that they're more interested in dinging the Governor for choosing the wrong paper to make the announcement in than in actual solutions.

Update: The Herald's parenthetical aside looks even more foolish in light of Jay Fitzgerald's article today in their paper that argues the opposite point -- that the Patrick plan would cause too much profit for energy companies.

Patrick-Murray Inaugural Committee Awards 215 Grants

The Patrick-Murray Inaugural Committee announced that it has awarded grants to charitable organizations across Massachusetts using the leftover money raised for the inauguration of Governor Deval Patrick and Lt. Governor Tim Murray. Over 1500 organizations submitted applications, but only 215 grants of $2500 each were given out.

Though I was a member of the 400 person grant committee, as it turns out I was unable to use my considerable clout to bring more grant money home to Watertown. Only one Watertown organization, the Catalogue for Philanthropy made the cut and received one of the grants. Here is the list of other recipients.

Governor Raises Money; Globe Raises Fuss

The front page of today's Boston Globe has an overblown story about a Deval Patrick fundraiser, written by usual suspect Frank Phillips. Phillips admits that such fundraisers are "not uncommon during previous administrations" but they are front page news when they are held for Governor Patrick for some reason anyway. After all, Patrick promised as a candidate that he would never raise any money, and he never held any fundraisers while running for governor. Oh wait, he didn't do that? Well, then, it's front page news because the Globe is still pissed that Patrick chided them months ago for not "getting it".

Here's what I don't understand. Nary a day goes by without some quote in the Globe or the Herald from Michael Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation complaining about how the Governor's tax loophole plans are bad for business, and now all of a sudden the Globe is upset that Patrick has a "growing relationship" with state's business leaders. Well, which is it? Is he too cozy or too anti-business? Personally, I don't think he's either, but he certainly can't be both.

For more, read Mass. Liberal's take.

Update: Note that while a Frank Phillips article on the Governor's fundraising belongs on the front page with an enormous headline, a Phillips piece on House Speaker Sal DiMasi's fundrasing doesn't make the paper, but lands in the Globe's new "All Politics is Local" blog that no one's heard of. Why is one so important and the other not?

Plan for Education Reform Now

The West Roxbury & Roslindale Transcript pens this editorial on Governor Deval Patrick's education proposals so I don't have to. Here's a bit of it:

There are some strong voices in Massachusetts — Barbara Anderson, legislative leaders of both parties and the talk show crowd — whose political vision begins and ends with keeping taxes down. They begrudge even the status quo if it requires new revenue. They have no ideas and they want to hear no ideas that don't involve tax cuts.

Deval Patrick didn't run for governor to do nothing but engage in a constant struggle to maintain current programs. He campaigned on a pledge to launch a new wave of education reform, and Friday he began to define that vision. He called for a longer school day for every student, a universal preschool program, new curriculum requirements in math and English and new teacher training programs. He vowed to make community colleges an engine for economic development as well as educational attainment.

There seems to be this idea that if we can't pay for a project in full right now, we shouldn't even discuss it. I don't get that. There's no reason we can't phase in some of these educational programs, see how much they really cost and look for efficiencies as we implement them. Sure, they won't be free, but saying that we can't afford them because we're currently in mediocre economic times implies that the economy will never improve. Certainly opponents don't believe that. We should be planning for how we want to improve education now, because it's too important to wait around until we have a big pile of money we don't know what to do with. Observers of the Statehouse know that just doesn't happen, and if it did, the legislature would just spend it on so many gazeboes and gaslights. Let's have an aggressive goal for education reform so that we have some sort of direction when funds free up.

Patrick Announces New Appointments

Today Governor Deval Patrick announced several high-level appointments to his leadership team. Here are some of the highlights:

• Angelo McLain of ValueOptions New Jersey replaces Harry Spence as the Commissioner of the Department of Social Services.
• Elin Howe formerly of the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, and currently at the Columbus Organization replaces Gerald Morrissey as the Commissioner of the Department of Mental Retardation
• Richard Sullivan, the Mayor of Westfield, replaces Stephen Burrington as the Commissioner of the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
• Laura M. Marlin from the Attorney General's office replaces acting Commissioner Ernest Kelley at the Division of Occupational Safety.

The Governor also made seven other appointments, both to fill positions he created in his cabinet re-organization and to replace holdovers from the past 16 years of Republican administrations. Despite the breathless claims of GOP operatives and anonymous sources, none of the appointments came from the legislature.

Update: Here's the rundown from the Boston Herald and the Boston Globe.

DiMasi Demands his Due

MetroWest Daily News opinion editor Rick Holmes quotes Governor Deval Patrick speaking about his recent dinner with House Speaker Sal DiMasi in his column yesterday:

"I told the speaker I would be calling on some of his members to talk about the Municipal Partnership Act," Patrick told the editors Wednesday. "He said 'you should be talking to me instead."'

This is pretty much the statehouse in a nutshell -- the majority of state legislators are largely irrelevant to the way laws are made. I'm not sure what bothers me more about this, the fact that DiMasi is brazenly saying that he controls the votes of House members, so don't bother talking to them, or the fact that it's true. DiMasi is clearly upset with the way the Governor is trying to circumvent him on this issue by appealing to the public, to individual legislators, to municipal leaders, and so on.

The larger point of the column, though, was to advocate for the passage for the Municipal Partnership Act, and particularly the ability for cities and towns to levy their own meals taxes. Holmes notes that since DiMasi represents the restaurant-rich North End, he's unlikely to allow that to pass. Even so, that's not a battle DiMasi should be having with the Governor. He should, Holmes argues, allow other municipalities to control their own revenue streams and fight out the particulars of Boston's restaurant tax with Mayor Tom Menino. I agree. Why should the Speaker stop Framingham, for example, from enacting a meals tax simply to ensure that his North End constituents never have to be subject to one?

Biotech Worth State Investment

There's a talking point going around in opposition to Governor Deval Patrick's $1 billion plan to invest in biotechnology that is embodied by this Boston Herald editorial. The argument is that while it's all well and good the Patrick wants to lure biotech jobs here, it's not the state's job to invest directly in companies because there are venture capital firms for that. Meanwhile, the Herald adds that no venture capital firm is going to repair Storrow Drive, so the state shouldn't spend money on encouraging biotech while there are other priorities.

Never mind that that editorial occurred in the same newspaper that reported the Governor's push to end neglect of the Storrow Drive tunnel on that same day. It seems to me that this argument ignores the long history of government grants to scientific research, and the fact that the state has investments in all sorts of companies -- unless you think the state pension board socks all of its money under mattresses. It also overestimates the amount of money that venture capitalists are willing to gamble on an emerging field, as detailed by today's Globe. But, even apart from that, it also does not take into account the fact that decisions made by California, New Jersey and Connecticut already rendered any discussion of whether the state should encourage stem cell research entirely academic. The fact is, other states are funding this research and if we don't get in on the action, Massachusetts is the state that stands to lose the most. After all, one out of seven jobs in biotech worldwide is here in the Commonwealth. Any expansion of this research outside of the state hurts us more than anyone else. As the biotech convention showed, there are many many other localities just waiting to lure away our companies. California is not threatening to take Storrow Drive away.

Of course, the other thing that these critics never seem to mention is the part of the proposal which would create, in effect, a lending-library for stem cell lines at UMass Medical School. This is an amazing opportunity for UMass and for the Worcester area and it does not seem at all likely that it would be something the private sector could be able to duplicate given the way it brought together researchers who don't generally work together.

It seems to me that with this plan, the Governor is killing three birds with one stone. He's investing in UMass, and growing the economy by luring jobs here, which in turn will raise state revenues. It of course is not risk-free, there's always the possibility that the biotech industry will cool off, but the risk of inaction -- of other states and countries stealing our current crop of biotech firms away -- is much more serious.

"Fed Up"

Friday's Boston Herald blasted the $333,000,000 price tag that the Turnpike Authority just added to the bill for the Big Dig. The total cost of the project is slowly but surely creeping up on the $15 billion mark. From the article:

The cost correction comes as [Governor Deval] Patrick tries to exert more control over the project and the Turnpike Authority, whose shaky management has provoked federal probes into the project’s finances and construction quality.

"We're fed up with this," an administration source told the Herald last night. "We want transparency and we want an accurate reflection of the costs. We have little or no confidence that the Turnpike Authority can manage itself, let alone the Big Dig."

"Fed up" does not even begin to describe how I imagine most Massachusetts residents feel about the Big Dig. The exasperation with the project is a big part of the reason why Bay State voters have turned to people outside of the political establishment in the last two gubernatorial elections. What I'd like to know is where the Governor is in implementing these recommendations he had after the 2006 death of Milena Del Valle in the I-90 Connector tunnel. Where's the independent auditor? Where's the "stem-to-stern" review? Where is the effort to hold contractors accountable? What ever happened to Senator Marian Walsh's call for a Big Dig Review Board?

I'm encouraged that some local pols are calling to eliminate the Turnpike Authority, but that still doesn't address the question of where all that money went, whether the project is safe, and how the government can restore enough public confidence to undertake a large public works project ever again.

Leaving Out the 'Only'

The word "only" occurs just a single time in Virginia Buckingham's latest column about Governor Deval Patrick's rejection of federal abstinence-only funds (previously mentioned here) and that single occurrence is in the context of describing how the program "only" has five sessions, not that it "only" teaches abstinence to the exclusion of all other methods of contraception. Why would Buckingham neglect to mention that fact in her column? Probably because she wants readers to think that the Governor doesn't believe kids should be abstinent period. This is a common trick of the right-wing, pretending that opposition to abstinence-only education is the same as opposition to abstinence in general.

I can't say this enough: nobody is against the teaching of abstinence. What people are against is keeping information about contraceptives from children so that if the time comes, they end up engaging in riskier behavior than they would otherwise. Keeping information from students only makes them stupider, and if the state has to supplement the abstinence-only curriculum with comprehensive sex-ed anyway (which includes abstinence), it doesn't seem worth the hassle.

Another quick note on that column -- Buckingham notes that the recent study that showed that abstinence-only education is ineffective did not actually examine the program that was being offered in Massachusetts. This is true, but what the study also said was that if any abstinence-only education is going to be effective, it would have to be continual, over the course of the student's school career. The Healthy Futures program, as Buckingham notes, is "only" five weeks long. It seems unlikely that it would make any difference, and as such it seems like it's just a way to funnel federal money to a favored program.

De-Romnefication of Massachusetts Continues

Today's Globe has the story that Governor Deval Patrick has declined to apply for federal abstinence-only funds, in a departure from the policy former Governor Mitt Romney set just last year. While in the past this money was used for PSAs and supplemental educational material, under Romney, the grant money was funneled almost exclusively to expanding abstinence-only education programs in schools. Governor Patrick's decision to turn down the funds comes as several other states are making the same choice in the face of increasing restrictions on how the money can be spent from the Feds.

Let's be clear. It's not the abstinence part of the program that is objectionable. It's the only. I am very much in favor of a comprehensive program that focuses on abstinence, but also gives teens enough information so that they know what behaviors are more risky than others. The legislature under Romney thought so as well, and required that abstinence-only education be taught in parallel with a separate regular sex education program. Federal restrictions on the grant money prevent the two from being combined, which seems to me to be the best way to teach sex-ed.

What I found curious, however, was the fact that the legislature put the funding for abstinence-only education back in the budget, after Governor Patrick removed it. The Globe details the real reason the legislature has left this in:

Last year and this year, Raymond B. Ruddy -- president of the Gerard Health Foundation, which has given millions to antiabortion and abstinence groups -- hired lobbyist John Bartley to persuade lawmakers to include the funding in the budget for the program. Ruddy paid Bartley nearly $50,000 last year for his work on this single issue.

While Bartley, a former legislator himself, surely has other clients, he did drop almost $10,000 at the feet of candidates and committees in 2006, according to the OCPF. That makes me wonder how many legislators really think that it's effective for students to be given two separate sex-ed classes -- one abstinence only and one comprehensive -- and how many are worried about upsetting the gravy train.

Mass. Liberal has more, as does Ryan.

Update 4/25: Today's Globe makes the following additional point in an editorial today:

It isn't just money that the abstinence-only programs waste. They also waste the students' time, at a point when students, parents, and teachers all complain about the difficulty of finding enough time in the crowded school day for elective academic subjects while also preparing students for the MCAS tests. Sex education should be part of the public school curriculum, but it should be comprehensive and it should not be supplemented or replaced by a singular, ineffective approach to sexuality.

Earmarkapalooza

Nearly 1500 amendments amounting to over $500 million in spending have been submitted to the House budget, and you can sift through them all starting here. As is the case with all earmarks, they are certainly all wasteful except for the ones that directly affect you. In my case, that would be money allocated for the bike path that would pass nearby the .08 Acre homestead. Everything else is just so many gazebos. Of course, I'm exaggerating, but it's important to remember during this debate that "waste" is almost always in the eye of the beholder.

Governor Deval Patrick tried to eliminate many of these earmarks in his spending plan, but they are back like zombies in the House version of the budget. Patrick's secretary of administration and finance, Leslie Kirwan, has said that each earmark will be considered individually and the Governor has pointed out that he still has line-item veto power. I had originally thought that Patrick might be able to sustain some of those vetoes, given that he has many more allies in the legislature than the previous governor. I'm not so sure now, given that some of his strongest supporters on the campaign trail, the Globe article quotes extensively from Rep. Mike Festa (D-Melrose), are not willing to give up their earmarks. If he can't count on some of his earliest backers, he's going to have a lot of trouble finding enough votes to sustain a veto. Perhaps his best course of action would be to work closely with House leadership to limit the number of earmarks that make it into the House version of the budget.

On a related note, the Boston Globe had an interesting article a few days ago detailing how federal agencies were at a loss to figure out how to spend their budgets without Congressional earmarks for guidance. It's been so long since they've had any discretion that it appears that the agencies just let their internal processes for awarding contracts and grants has atrophied.

More Like This, Please

Thanks in large part to the efforts of Governor Deval Patrick, Evergreen Solar will expand in Massachusetts, building a new manufacturing plant in Westborough and doubling their Massachusetts workforce. Richard Feldt, president and CEO of the company had nothing but praise for the Governor in the press release announcing the expansion:

"Governor Patrick's vision for broad scale solar adoption through an innovative solar incentive program as well as the creative financial incentive programs the state had to offer influenced our decision to expand in Massachusetts . Finally, the Governor's efforts to encourage utilities to use their substantial infrastructure to improve solar market delivery should help us close the gap between solar and conventional energy costs."

This is the difference an engaged governor can make. The Globe article on the story quotes Evergreen Founder Mark Farber as saying that no one in the Romney administration showed "receptiveness" toward the company. If Governor Patrick can keep luring and keeping businesses here -- and loudly claim credit for it -- his early missteps will be just a footnote along the state's road to economic recovery.

By the way, I hate to open old wounds, but I recall that former gubernatorial candidate and venture capitalist Chris Gabrieli pooh-poohed the idea of a Massachusetts expansion for Evergreen Solar during one of last year's debates. I'm sure he's happy to have been proven wrong.

Augustus on Patrick

Sunday's Worcester Telegram and Gazette featured an interview with Senator Ed Augustus (D-Worcester) by columnist Robert Nemeth. The whole piece is very interesting and focuses largely on the increased attention that Worcester and Centeral Massachusetts in general is able to get from Beacon Hill, particularly now that Worcester's former mayor Tim Murray is the Lieutenant Governor and Augustus now chairs the powerful Committee on Third Reading and Senator Stephen Brewer (D-Barre) is now assistant vice chairman on Ways and Means. What interested me, though, was Augustus' astute diagnosis of Governor Deval Patrick's early problems. From the column (emphasis added):

[Augustus] suggested Mr. Patrick needs to articulate his long-range agenda better in order to gather legislative support. "Lookit, we want to help, but he needs to tell us what he wants to do, where he wants to go, in a year or two. We have bits and pieces, but not the whole picture. He needs to tell us what his idea of success is, and how to achieve it. The budget in itself is not an achievement. It is merely a vehicle to help achieve things."

He went on: "Ronald Reagan's entire eight years in office could be summed up in two themes: Shrink government, and be tough on the Russians. With Bill Clinton, it was building a bridge to the 21st century and making America more competitive. We don't see a cohesive, well-focused approach from Deval Patrick yet."

I think that is a very fair assessment, particularly the part I bolded. Patrick left a bit of a vacuum while he was working on the budget, and the press was content to fill it with helicopters and Cadillacs and office furniture. Hopefully now that he has a new team in place, he'll be better able to articulate his vision and put it into policy proposals.

Globe's Pictures From First 100

The Globe's Boston.com has a slideshow of Governor Deval Patrick's first 100 days up on their website. It's some photos that have made the paper before, but there are some there I haven't seen, from events that I didn't even know about. I think my favorite is this one of two reporters trying to eavesdrop through a door labeled "Private Meeting -- No Press beyond this point". I won't go so far as to say that it's emblematic of the governor's relationship to the press thus far, but I did get a kick out of it anyway.

I did notice, however, that Governor Patrick is not wearing his seatbelt in one of the pictures. Given recent events that have shown that governors are not immune to the laws of physics, I hope that this is not something that Patrick makes a habit of.