Massachusetts is in for an uphill trek over the next four years. The next Corner Office occupant will immediately face huge budgetary problems, even as the current national recession pushes demand for state social services through the roof and after several national tragedies over the past two years have increased the necessity of stronger state police and security preparation. With such issues in mind, Shannon O’Brien is the candidate with the most experience in state government and the most preferable social priorities to make tough choices and lead the state through tough times.
With only two days left, the gubernatorial race has come down to each candidate’s record, his or her plans for righting the state’s budgetary crisis and his or her ideas for dealing with state legislators, whose greedy reputations have only worsened with poor performance over the past several years.
O’Brien has the best record among the five candidates in cleaning up problems in public administration, as shown during her four years leading the state’s Treasury Department. As she has touted frequently during the campaign, O’Brien helped root out corruption in the Big Dig and helped make the State Lottery one of the best-performing in the country. Though her opponents have painted her extensive experience on Beacon Hill as a negative, it will give her an advantage in dealing with the state’s two legislative bodies and helping them avoid embarrassing snafus like last year’s budget gridlock.
Her stances on the issues seem to show that she will work to protect needed services while making tough budgetary choices. Her ambiguous answers to questions about whether or not she will raise taxes have been frustrating, but they show that she will be more likely to come to grips with the state’s budgetary realities. She has said repeatedly that her top priorities are protecting health care services and public education, two vital sectors that protect all Massachusetts residents, both present and future. Her personal values are much more progressive than those of Republican Mitt Romney, her closest rival. She has expressed support for civil unions and has said she is against the death penalty. And she has elucidated a much more preventative approach to crime than Romney, advocating for ballistic fingerprinting and increased police protection throughout the state.
Though Republican Mitt Romney has a stellar record as a businessman who puts a high premium on efficiency and results, he has not shown that he will place equal priority on both protecting social services for the state’s most needy and streamlining the social services bureaucracy. Much of his campaign has been focused on his plans for trimming government which, while attractive-sounding, will only cost those who can least afford to feel the brunt of cuts. Running a state government should not be like running a business. Governments are created to deal with citizens’ problems and provide economic and personal security for all members of society. Their first goal is not squeezing profits. Romney’s business-minded plans seem at times to forget government’s main mission.
Like those of his recent Republican predecessors, Romney’s pledge that he will not raise taxes does not seem credible. Massachusetts budget problems are such that tax raises will likely be necessary. Fighting the legislature’s proposed solutions will not be the most productive way to deal with the state’s problems and lead the state to better times.
And though he has played up his status as a ‘Beacon Hill outsider,’ extensive experience in the private sector does not necessarily translate into public sector success. By most accounts, his experiences both with Bain Capital and the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee were overwhelming successes. But Romney has little experience dealing with Massachusetts’ peculiar political dynamics and has not proven that he can deal effectively with an overwhelmingly opposition Statehouse.
Green Party candidate Jill Stein seems to be the strongest principled candidate with the most progressive values, but her relatively timid debate performances and lack of experience in Massachusetts state politics show no proof that she would be able to take on House Speaker Tom Finneran and deal effectively in the state’s political climate. Her ‘fair taxes’ and health care plans are the most equitable toward the state’s poor of the five candidates’ plans and she has made it clear throughout the campaign that she is beholden to none of the big special interests that donate heavily to the Democratic and Republican parties, making her populist appeals the most credible of any candidate.
With some experience in either of the state’s legislatures, Stein would be a very strong gubernatorial candidate, dedicated to helping causes which rightly need support. But without a proven track record in government, Stein is nothing more than her ideals. She is not the pragmatic choice for Massachusetts governor and has not proven she would be productive as the state’s highest government official.
Both Libertarian Carla Howell and Independent Barbara Johnson were not legitimate choices for governor. Howell’s campaign’s only issue seemed to be her irresponsible and impossible initiative to end the state’s personal income tax and Johnson’s debate performances were simply embarrassing, much like her entire campaign. While it is encouraging that two people representing fringe views can appear on the ballot and in debates, neither Howell nor Johnson were serious gubernatorial candidates.
Massachusetts’ next governor will face some of the stiffest challenges of any in the recent past. With values leaning toward the needs of the state’s poor and a good track record in state government, Shannon O’Brien is the best choice for Massachusetts governor.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
