September 2002 Print Edition Editorial:

Democracy in Action? or A Breakdown In the Democratic Process?

Stage Has Been Set for A Mass Meltdown

Lou Langone

"The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals. It is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good."

- John Adams

Is the rule-of-law dead in the Bay State? When our representatives obstruct the people's right to self-government and when they choose to ignore the constitutional requirements of government administration, one has to wonder. Do our elected officials represent the citizens of the Commonwealth? Or do they represent the lobbyists, union leaders and legions of state employees at the expense of the taxpayer?

Are they loyal to the concept of God and country or to the secular gods of political correctness and the pagan-left? This year, the legislature and state power-base showed their true colors by repeatedly ignoring and/or repealing the vote of the people and by manipulating the budget process in a way that resulted in a predetermined outcome. If it is true that we, as a people, get the government we deserve, then we have been remiss. The problems with our state government are long standing and we have no one to blame but ourselves.

We watched as Senate President Tom Birmingham avoided taking a stand on the Protection of Marriage Amendment on June 19th by postponing the session without debate. He was surprised when the gallery in the House Chamber erupted in protest. Senator Cheryl Jacques (D-Newton) told Bay Windows, "Tom Birmingham is a hero for the gay community." The Senator added, "I'm fighting.to see that [the Marriage Amendment] never comes up for a vote. I'm happy to throw my body in front of the train to block this question." Should one consider this a statement of support for the "rights" of 3% of the population? Or is it a blatant show of contempt for the remaining 97%? Does she represent the people of her district or the "gay" lobby? It is not unusual in the Massachusetts legislature (or at the federal level for that matter) for many of our elected representatives to work, not for the citizens in their districts, but for interest groups that reflect their ideology.

A second opportunity for the Senate President to do the right thing came up again in July. After gaveling the Constitutional Convention adjourned (without debate) on July 17th, Tom Birmingham was quoted as saying, "What we saw today was democracy in action." This was more than a tacit admission that the outcome of the session had been predetermined, that the fix was in. In effect, Mr. Birmingham was publicly admitting that the Constitutional Convention was a mere formality.

The Democrat Party along with the union bosses and the lobbyists continue to rule. Our political leaders flaunt their power, and by their actions, insult the average citizen of this state. Why do they do it? They do it because they can get away with it. Historically there has been no repercussion from the electorate. Our political "leaders" apparently don't need the voters when they have the cooperation of the special interests and when they have unfettered control of the purse strings of state government.

You'll find few politicians who will openly admit it but it is readily apparent to the casual observer. Even the public interest groups with names like Taxpayers Foundation, Tax Equity Alliance, etc. are front groups for interests that run counter to the welfare of the average citizen. After all, their aim is not to reduce the tax burden on the citizenry or to pare down government spending. They are primarily interested in getting the government to send the money in their direction.

We should evaluate our government's performance by their actions, not by their words. What we see in Massachusetts is the validation of the maxim, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Power is control and right now the Senate President and the House Speaker control most, if not all, of the legislative agenda. The Democrat Party controls most of the bureaucracy with special interest groups and municipal employee unions firmly ensconced in the fabric of fiscal and social agencies. As a result, representative government has become an illusion in Massachusetts. The voice of the people can't be heard over the din of the rabble of lobbyists, social activists, union bosses and hacks.

Public issues are not debated. They're packaged, spun and promoted. Those "voices" that have access cozy up to the power brokers. Their desires and interests are made known directly to the legislative bosses. Their demands are delivered in person and the deals are negotiated in secret. The outcomes are legislated in the halls of the State House rather than in the Senate or House chambers. When our representatives are in session, we get a perfunctory going-through-the-motions. Any item that has not been sanctioned by the lobbyists, or the union bosses, will get lost in committee. On the rare occasion when an issue important to the general public survives the committee process, they let it die on the vine. No need for a vote. Why bother going on record if you don't have to?

Since there is no enforcement of laws and procedures when it comes to our legislative leaders, these issues can be decided by the legislators in favor of their constituent voting blocks. Role call votes are relegated to procedural issues, such as adjournment.

Is it any wonder that we have so many initiative petitions in Massachusetts? If the politicians aren't getting it done then the citizens that believe strongly in an issue have a mechanism by which they can force change - or at least a public debate. Prop 2 1/2 was the last time that the citizens took the power in their own hands and mandated that the state government change. It wouldn't have happened if we had given them a choice.

Today, the situation is worse. The "common" man of the Commonwealth has no voice to be heard on Beacon Hill. The politicians pay lip service to the average citizen, pander to press and listen to their lobbyists and union bosses. After all, these people represent moneyed interest, those groups and associations that feed off of state government contracts. They constantly seek to direct regulation and legislation in their own favor. Couple this with the manpower of the unions and they represent a formidable potential get-out-the-vote machine.

In addition, most of these special interests are aligned with (or at least in collaboration with) a compliant media. Not only do they control the agenda and rig the process but they can influence the media spin in ways that always give the calculating politician a way out.
This is all a politician needs when the majority of the citizens are non-voting.

But this is not "democracy." It is plutocracy, with a central government that seeks, above all else, its own continued well-being, rather than the well-being of the citizens. Our state government has become government of the people, by the government, and for the government.

Elected Officials Out of Touch With Citizens

"(T)hat the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often; because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be salinger. by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this.depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed."

- Thomas Paine

The protection of the constitution, state or federal, is a sacred trust; a trust to be exercised with dignity and honor. How far have we fallen that elected officials now publicly celebrate the denial of the citizens the opportunity to vote on significant issues? How far removed are they from the average citizen of the Commonwealth? They deny the voters while they mollify their special-interest voting blocks. In this way they avoid standing up to be counted.

The longevity of incumbents seems to bear this out. By their actions, they serve to maintain their lifestyle and thus preserve their voting blocks. They don't want the people to vote, they only want "their" people to vote for "them." If they can confuse the issue sufficiently, they know their allies will spend the soft money on television and radio ads to support whichever result will keep the taxpayer money flowing in their direction. It's a parasitic relationship that wreaks havoc on the common wealth of the average citizens.

A look at the recent legislative session reveals the system's dysfunction in glaringly obvious ways. In the last five years, the legislature has been unable to produce a budget on time. This means that any entity which depends on the state government for its financial well-being is unable to properly plan budgets and expenditures. For the cities and towns of Massachusetts, these delays put tremendous pressure on the local finances, school systems and other municipal services. Many are unable to get timely information from the state in order to conduct their annual town meetings. At the very least, we should demand that the legislature complete their work on time and fulfill the basic duties of their offices.

The dreadful condition of our court system is another prime example. Many independent studies have been done and all show that some of the problems with our court system are tied to the Legislature. The Legislature uses the court system as a retirement home for ex-solons and as a patronage haven for friends and family.

This year the legislative leaders focused early on gerrymandering the political districts with the aim of protecting incumbent supporters and weakening the opposition. What deals were made during that process?

At the same time, the revenue projections grew gloomier and gloomier. It was apparent that a budget crisis was looming. In the first act of this year's charade, the House floated budget proposals based on the dollar cuts that would be needed to balance the budget. These first drafts contained large budget cuts. And where were the cuts? Education, social services and Medicare. There was no attempt to look at genuine areas where spending could be cut in the budget or in the structure of state government. There was no credible attempt to cut the rate of spending. They merely targeted the "most vulnerable" and waited for the "advocates" to scream bloody murder - which they did on cue.

There were protest rallies at the state house. The television and radio news people presented a host of activists, social workers and state employees who warned of grave disasters if these cuts were made. By the time they took up the budget, the summer was well underway and the foundation had been laid for the legislators to do what they do best. The legislature believed they could tend to their machinations in the relative quiet of summer on Beacon Hill. They cut the film office (for cooperating with a federal corruption investigation). They repealed the income tax roll-back, they reneged on the voter approved charitable deduction, they increased the capital gains tax, and told the citizens they would not allow a debate or a vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment.

In the end, they did what they wanted to do from the start. They cut almost nothing out of the budget and increased spending by over $2 billion. There was no real debate of spending priorities. The debate was how high to raise the taxes and how far back should they make it retro-active.

They managed to preserve their pay, their priorities, and their campaigns.

Runaway Train

"The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government is to salinger.the existence of the body politic; to protect it; and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying, in safety and tranquility, their natural rights and blessings of life; and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have the right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, happiness and prosperity."

- John Adams

Is there anyone out there who believes that the actions of our elected bodies in Massachusetts reflect fiscal responsibility? Does anyone really believe that this system - as it now exists - reflects government of the people by the people? How about taxation without representation? There has been little representation of the general public in the current session.

Democracy is broken in Massachusetts. The cradle of the American Revolution has become home to spendthrift activists, lobbyists and a protected class of politicians. "The people" couldn't be any more shut out from the democratic process than they are today.

Everyone knew that the economy was in distress and that the state's revenue projections were down when the year began. Everyone was also aware of the added political complexity with this being an election year with a lame-duck Governor. However, the Senate President and the House Speaker controlled the agenda and the forum. They had no viable opposition in either chamber. They had little to fear from a politically impotent Governor Swift and even less to fear from toothless minority party and a disenfranchised electorate (many of whom have given up on voting). It was the perfect set up. The stage was set for what has become an annual charade of need versus greed.

So they scared the hell out of their constituent voting blocks and contrived a scenario that allowed them to talk about "fiscal responsibility" while raising taxes across the board. Even before the ink had dried on this fiscal albatross, various legislators came forward to admit that they did little to solve any problems with this year's actions. They would need to come back and raise taxes again next year. Still no mention of spending cuts.

Then Senate President Tom Birmingham added insult to injury when he deprived the citizens of Massachusetts an opportunity to vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment in June and July and with his "democracy in action" statement. But try as he may, Mr. Birmingham cannot turn back the hands of time. No matter how this election season plays out, he is done as Senate President. His legacy will be that he left a mess behind because he (and his peers) failed to take their sacred trust seriously. They did nothing to pare down the size of government and actually worked against such efforts. And they deprived the people of the right to vote on the quality of their lives.

Years of inaction by the legislature and others has left the state on the brink of a serious reckoning. Like the toothache that is ignored, we have polished the exterior while the roots have been rotting. And with this year's massive tax increase and the contempt shown for the initiative petition process, the level of voter frustration should be running high as we enter this election season. If our elected officials continue to listen to their special interest groups and not to the people, this breakdown will become a veritable meltdown of the democratic process in Massachusetts.

Finally, a special note to Senator Cheryl Jacques: That train you were waiting for is barreling down the tracks and headed your way. It is called Ballot Question Number #1: The Small Government Act to End the Income Tax. Human Nature being what it is, the people have once again turned to the initiative petition process because their elected representatives aren't listening to them. The parasitic lobbies are already in a lather over the prospects of having the state budget cut by $9 billion. Michael Widmer, President of the Massachusetts 'Taxpayers' Foundation is quoted as saying, "This is far and away the most radical tax proposal ever to reach the Massachusetts Ballot and would essentially require the dismantling of most of state government."

That is exactly the point! But these people still don't get it.