I’ll get to Obama in a minute, but first I need to talk about Massachusetts politics. I know, I know, its boring and you don’t care. I understand. Whenever I read political articles about other people’s states my eyes glaze over and I stop paying attention, too. But I really think I can make this story about the Bay State budget-crisis-to-be really relate to Obama so if you keep reading I can make it worth your while. All I’m asking is a few minutes of your time…hear me out.
Governor Deval Patrick (D) announced this week that he is submitting his new budget to the State House. This is normally not a big deal, however (D)eval has also decided to add an extra $800 million dollars in potential legalized gambling revenues to his estimates. Now, for the record, Massachusetts does not currently allow legalized gambling, in fact, our Senate hasn’t even voted on legalized gambling - there is no legalized gambling in Massachusetts…yet Deval Patrick (D) has already spent all the revenue from something that doesn’t actually exist. In other words, our governor (D) has decided that, in his own fantasy world, our state has casinos, or we’d better have casinos because otherwise we’ll be bankrupt by next June.
So let’s break it down even simpler - our governor (who is a Democrat), has completely blown his budget in his first year in office. Unless he gets his mandate to legalize gambling, we’re in a great deal of trouble. We have literally been spent into submission; by 2010 Massachusetts will be the new gambling mecca for the East Coast – we have no choice, we have to be.
God knows what we’ll legalize the next time he needs to cover his bills.
So why should the rest of the country care? Because just a few short years ago Massachusetts was in the similar position to America. Here’s some recent state history: For the past 10+ years we’ve had a Democratic supermajority in the legislature, and a Republican governor. Our various Republican governors spent most of their time fighting off the Democrat’s efforts to spend tons of money - sometimes they succeeded, and sometimes they didn’t. This adversarial system lead to many stable, uneventful years that generally left the state in better shape than it was in the early 1990s.
But then our latest Republican governor decided to leave office to run for President. This left a considerable void in Republican figureheads (sound familiar?) that was compounded because a majority of the populace was disaffected with Republicans in general (sound familiar?). Then, out of nowhere, a young, energetic, African American politician took center stage after a series of rousing speeches (sound familiar?) and ran under the ambiguous-yet-likable campaign slogan of “Together We Can” (“Yes We Can,” anyone?).
In other words, what happened with Gov. Deval Patrick in Massachusetts last year is happening right now with Barak Obama on the national stage. I bet you can figure out what happened next: The young Democratic candidate won in a landslide, took control of all three branches of government, and spent like there was no tomorrow.
I’m calling the Presidential race right now, hell, I’m calling the Presidential race and the next two years of US fiscal policy right now. Hub of the Universe, indeed.
1 Thomas // Jan 11, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Has Patcik actually included this in the budget? As the article you link to states:
“Governor Deval Patrick is considering including projected casino licensing revenues in his budget proposal for the next fiscal year…”
That’s not quite as definitive and apocalyptic as you make it out to be. I may be wrong and out of date on my news, but if it has not been included yet, it is rather unfair to say that he has already done it.
I am also skeptical of your comparison of Obama and Patrick, as a major part of your argument stems age and race, which is rather unfair. As far as I know, politicians don’t get to choose their birthday or age when they decided to enter politics. Also, the rest of your comparison refers to their “rousing speeches,” which is the hallmark of any popular official (i.e. Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Colin Powell.. heck, even Zell Miller), and “ambiguous-yet-likable campaign slogans[s],” which come with any campaign - “bridge to the 21st Century” (Clinton, ‘96; “compassionate conservatism” (Bush, ‘00); “I like Ike” (Eisenhower, ‘52).
In full disclosure, Obama is not my first choice for President (Edwards is my guy), but I don’t buy this argument.
2 psv // Jan 11, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Sky = blue; Water = blue; Water = Sky?
The crux of your argument is based on superficial similarities. The fact is, and always will be, that without the adversarial system, there will be rampant spending. See years 2000 through 2006, U.S. government.
3 Brendan // Jan 11, 2008 at 12:18 PM
The point of my intro on deval Patrick is this: “Our governor (who is a Democrat), has completely blown his budget in his first year in office.”
He’s hunting for $800 million in extra funding in his first year and trying to force the state to take on gambling. If you lived here you’d understand - every day there’s a new program, a new spending intitiative. Recently the Herald estimated it would take 10 straight years of economic growth for the state to cover these programs, we aren’t even going to get one straight year of growth the way things are going.
Both of these politicians were virtual unknowns before the hit the national stage. Obama almost lost his last election, had it not been for the incumbent’s divorce scandal, and he’s made his name as a great speaker. The same goes for Patrick.
They both have the exact same campaign slogans and messages - ambigous statements like “Together We Can,” “Hope,” and “Yes We Can.”
Yes they’re also both young and African American - I think its the beginning of a sea change in American politics.
And rousing speeches aren’t always the best option - Howard Dean comes to mind as someone who’s rousing speeches got the best of him. John Edwards is young and energetic and gives good speeches and he’s polling 3rd place (again).
Maybe American politics is changing, and maybe this change started in Massachusetts. I suppose if I made that the main focus of my article it would have been clearer, but i’m upset about the direction Mass is heading in and felt like that needed to be mentioned as well.