As Neal Emphasizes, Unmet Infrastructure Needs Come with Huge Costs to All

Wednesday, June 30, 2021

A new report by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) cited yesterday by Springfield's Richie Neal, one of the most powerful figures in Washington, provides yet more compelling reasons why our state needs huge spending on infrastructure, stat. Here are four:

  • Twenty-five percent of the roads in Massachusetts are in poor condition.  
  • We the driving public incur costs averaging $620 per year due to the wear and tear those roads inflict.
  • To ensure the provision of safe, clean drinking water, Massachusetts should spend $12.2 billion over the next 20 years on water systems maintenance and improvements. 
  • If all of the maintenance on all of the parks in Massachusetts that has been put off for years were performed at once, it would cost $244 million.  

In a virtual address to the Massachusetts High Technology Council, Neal, who has represented our state's First Congressional District for 32 years and is now chairman of the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, said, "The gradual decline in our federal infrastructure investment over the years has resulted in an alarming number of crumbling roads and bridges, inadequate access to broadband, and an under-supply of affordable housing and community-based investments."

The ASCE infrastructure "report card," released last week, shows that deteriorating roads, bridges and highways "affect every aspect of our daily lives," Neal emphasized.

I recommend looking at the full document at: infrastructurereportcard.org

If the U.S. continues to "underinvest" in infrastructure, the ASCE warns, the nation in total will lose $10 trillion in gross domestic product, more than three million jobs, and $2.4 trillion in exports between now and 2039.

The ASCE says:  "When we fail to invest in our infrastructure, we pay the price.  Poor roads and airports mean travel times increase.  An aging electric grid and inadequate water distribution make utilities unreliable.  Problems like these translate into higher costs for businesses to manufacture and distribute goods and provide services.  These higher costs, in turn, get passed along to workers and families.  By 2039, America's overdue infrastructure bill will cost the average American household $3,300 a year, or $63 dollars a week."  

[Note: Bold faced type in this post was added.]

Blogster's Miscellany: Three's the Crowd in Dem Primary, Pandemic Cautions Wear Thin, etc.

Saturday, June 26, 2021

ALL FOOT-DRAGGING INSIDERS, PLEASE STEP FORWARD.  In the video accompanying the announcement of her candidacy for governor earlier this week, Boston state senator Sonia Chang-Diaz cited her legislative accomplishments in helping to fund public education and reform the criminal justice system.  She asserted, "Those wins didn't come easy.  Beacon Hill insiders dragged their feet every step of the way, saying 'Think smaller.'  Instead, we fought unapologetically for the things working families actually need.  They said our ideas were impossible, we made them into law.  The trouble is: that kind of urgency in our state government is still the exception rather than the rule.  Too many leaders are more interested in keeping power than in doing something with it."  Chang-Diaz is the Senate chairperson of the Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy and the Joint Committee on Racial Equity, Civil Rights and Inclusion.  She is the Senate vice chairperson of the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security, and a member of the Senate committees on Redistricting and on Reimagining Massachusetts Post-Pandemic Resiliency.  Also, she's a member of the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, and the Special Joint Committee on Redistricting.  Chang-Diaz has been in the thick of "Beacon Hill insiders" since joining the Senate in January, 2009.  Maybe that's why she avoided naming any of them in her announcement?  She missed a good opportunity to liven up her announcement by doing so.

BUT WHAT'S MAURA GOING TO DO?  Senator Chang-Diaz is the third Democrat so far to enter the race for the Democratic nomination for governor in 2022.  The others were Ben Downing, a former long-time state senator from Pittsfield who now resides in East Boston, and Danielle Allen, who once won a MacArthur Foundation "genius grant" and now teaches political science and ethics at Harvard University.  The expectation is widespread that two-term Attorney General Maura Healey will also run.  Until Healey makes a decision one way or another, Downing, Allen & Chang-Diaz will have to work extra hard to draw attention to their candidacies.  Though officially off-stage for now, Healey is the proverbial 900-pound gorilla in the Dem governor primary.

THE HOUSE OF ULTIMATE CAUTION.  Governor Charlie Baker had one of his typically salient observations this past Wednesday when he was asked during a press conference about re-opening the Massachusetts State House to the public.  It is one of the last major public buildings -- one could argue the only major building -- where the public is still barred due to the pandemic.  As reported by the State House News Service, Baker said, "I think the biggest challenge we have with reopening the State House is it's very hard to have rules in this building around how many people congregate, how they gather, whether they're vaccinated, whether they're not.  It's really like a public space; it's like being outside in Boston Common, except it's not outside.  We talked to the Legislature about this and I'm hoping at some point we'll be able to put some policies together that will satisfy the concern about indoor versus outdoor and at the same time keep people safe."  I'm not a policy guy, but if anybody asked for my two cents on this, I'd say open the building fully to the public on July 1 but require everyone to wear a mask everywhere inside it, and continue to hold hearings on pending bills remotely because even the best State House hearing rooms are too small and social distancing is impossible within them.

WHEN HASHING OUT THE ISSUES, REMOTE DON'T CUT IT.   Interviewed this past Thursday on WGBH public radio, Charlie Baker was borderline poetic on the importance of spending time in person with legislative leaders, which he hasn't been able to do for a long time because of the pandemic.  As reported by the State House News Service, Baker said, "...I know this sounds kind of corny, but the fact that I haven't actually seen Karen Spilka (Senate President) or Ron Mariano (House Speaker) in person, except maybe at one event for a couple of minutes, and that we don't actually sit down and eat stale cookies and drink bad coffee once a week, I think it's a problem.  Human beings see each other as people when they spend time with each other in person."

STRONG WORDS FROM EX-REPUBLICAN.  Stuart Stevens, a Middlebury College (VT) grad, author of highly regarded travel books, and a Republican veteran national political strategist, was former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's top campaign guru when he ran for President in 2012.  That's enough of a local political hook for me to highlight this quote by Stevens, excerpted from an April 21, 2021, article in The New York Times by Thomas Edsall, ("Why Trump Is Still Their Guy"):  "We are in uncharted waters.  For the first time since 1860, a major American political party doesn't believe America is a democracy.  No Republican will win a contested primary in 2022 or 2024 who will assert that Biden is a legal president.  The effect of this is profound and difficult to predict.  But millions of Americans believe the American experience is ending."  Stevens was a lifelong Republican until last year, when he changed his registration to Independent.


Scholars See Real Threat to Democracy. Who's Ready to Believe Them?

Wednesday, June 16, 2021

If I were to ask Jim Lyons, the former Andover state rep and ardent Trump supporter who chairs of the Massachusetts Republican Party, what he thinks of the "Statement of Concern" issued earlier this month by a large group of "scholars of democracy," including 21 professors from Massachusetts, I'm pretty sure he'd dismiss their concerns as so much partisan twaddle.

In their statement, titled "The Threats to American Democracy and the Need for National Voting and Election Administration Standards," the scholars say they're watching with "deep concern as Republican-led state legislatures across the country have in recent months proposed or implemented what we consider radical changes to core electoral procedures in response to unproven and intentionally destructive allegations of a stolen election."

These are the same changes that Lyons and millions of other Republican regard as much-needed improvements ensuring the security and integrity of our elections.

And where the scholars see states like Florida and Georgia enacting laws that betray "our precious democratic heritage,"  Lyons et al. see far-left Democrats stirring people up with wild exaggerations and leading them astray with falsehoods and phony, inflated rhetoric. 

Me, I'm looking at the scholars as I would a group of highly credentialed and experienced physicians.  If my primary care doctor were to recommend that I consult one or more of them on a medical issue of some import, I might wish to ignore that advice and hope my problem went away on its own; nevertheless, I would make the necessary appointments and follow any directives the specialists might give me.  It's better to be safe than sorry, alive than dead 

These scholars could be right.

And if the U.S. Congress fails to do as they are now urging it to do -- enact federal legislation to establish uniform, nationwide standards for voting access and election procedures -- America could cease to exist as we have known it for 200-plus years and become instead an authoritarian nation masquerading as a democracy, as is now the case in Turkey, Hungary and other countries.

When the stakes are this high, every citizen should at the least read with an open mind and heart what these academics are saying in their unprecedented "Statement of Concern."

The complete text of their statement follows.  After that, I list the names of the Massachusetts signatories, and after that, I cite the views of a particular U.S. Senator on this subject.

We, the undersigned, are scholars of democracy who have watched the recent deterioration of U.S. elections and liberal democracy with growing alarm.  Specifically, we have watched with deep concern as Republican-led state legislatures across the country have in recent months proposed or implemented what we consider radical changes to core electoral procedures in response to unproven and intentionally destructive allegations of a stolen election.  Collectively, these initiatives are transforming several states into political systems that no longer meet the minimum conditions for free and fair elections.  Hence, our entire democracy is now at risk.

When democracy breaks down, it typically takes many years, often decades, to reverse the downward spiral.  In the process, violence and corruption typically flourish, and talent and wealth flee to more stable countries, undermining national prosperity.  It is not just our venerated institutions and norms that are at risk -- it is our future national standing, strength, and ability to compete globally.

Statutory changes in large key electoral battleground states are dangerously politicizing the process of electoral administration, with Republican-controlled legislatures giving themselves the power to override electoral outcomes on unproven allegations should Democrats win more votes.  They are seeking to restrict access to the ballot, the most basic principle underlying the right of all adult American citizens to participate in our democracy.  They are also putting in place criminal sentences and fines meant to intimidate and scare away poll workers and nonpartisan administrators.  State legislatures have advanced initiatives that curtail voting methods now preferred by Democratic-leaning constituencies, such as early voting and mail voting.  Republican lawmakers have openly talked about ensuring the "purity" and "equality" of the vote, echoing arguments widely used across the Jim Crow South as reasons for restricting the Black vote.

State legislators supporting these changes have cited the urgency of "electoral integrity" and the need to ensure that elections are secure and free of fraud.  But by multiple expert judgments, the 2020 election was extremely secure and free of fraud.  The reason that Republican voters have concerns is because many Republican officials, led by former President Trump, have manufactured false claims of fraud, claims that have been repeatedly rejected by courts of law, and which Trump's own lawyers have acknowledged were mere speculation when they testified about them before judges.

In future elections, these laws politicizing the administration and certification of elections could enable some state legislatures or partisan election officials to do what they failed to do in 2020: reverse the outcome of a free and fair election.  Further, these laws could entrench extended minority rule, violating the basic and longstanding democratic principle that parties that get the most votes should win elections.

Democracy rests on certain elemental institutional and normative conditions.  Elections must be neutrally and fairly administered.  They must be free of manipulation.  Every citizen who is qualified must have an equal right to vote, unhindered by obstruction.  And when they lose elections, political parties and their candidates and supporters must be willing to accept defeat and acknowledge the legitimacy of the outcome.  The refusal of prominent Republicans to accept the outcome of the 2020 election, and the anti-democratic laws adopted (or approaching adoption) in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Montana and Texas -- and under consideration in other Republican-controlled states -- violate these principles.  More profoundly, these actions call into question whether the United States will remain a democracy.  As scholars of democracy, we condemn these actions in the strongest possible terms as a betrayal of our precious democratic heritage.

The most effective remedy for these anti-democratic laws at the state level is federal action to protect equal access of all citizens to the ballot and to guarantee free and fair elections.  Just as it ultimately took federal voting rights law to put an end to state-led voter suppression laws throughout the South, so federal law must once again ensure that American citizens' voting rights do not depend on which party or faction happens to be dominant in their state legislature, and that votes are cast and counted equally, regardless of the state or jurisdiction in which a citizen happens to live.  This is widely recognized as a fundamental principle of electoral integrity in democracies around the world.

A new voting rights law (such as that proposed in the John Lewis Voting Rights Act) is essential but alone is not enough.  True electoral integrity demands a comprehensive set of national standards that ensure the sanctity and independence of election administration, guarantee that all voters can freely exercise their right to vote, prevent partisan gerrymandering from giving dominant parties in the states an unfair advantage in the process of drawing congressional districts, and regulate ethics and money in politics.

It is always far better for major democracy reforms to be bipartisan, to give change the broadest possible legitimacy.  However, in the current hyper-polarized political context such broad bipartisan support is sadly lacking.  Elected Republican leaders have had numerous opportunities to repudiate Trump and his "Stop the Steal" crusade, which led to the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6.  Each time, they have sidestepped the truth and enabled the lie to spread.

We urge members of Congress to do whatever is necessary -- including suspending the filibuster -- in order to pass national voting and election administration standards that both guarantee the vote to all Americans equally, and prevent state legislatures from manipulating the rules in order to manufacture the result they want.  Our democracy is fundamentally at stake.  History will judge what we do at this moment.

MASSACHUSETTS SIGNATORIES 

Daniel Carpenter, Professor of Government, Harvard University

Daniel W. Drezner, Professor of International Politics, Tufts University

Archon Fung, Professor of Citizenship and Self-Government, Harvard University

Jill S. Greenlee, Associate Professor of Politics, Brandeis University

Jennifer Hochschild, Professor of Government, Harvard University

Alexander Keyssar, Professor of History and Social Policy, Harvard University

Daniel Kryder, Associate Professor of Politics, Brandeis University

Peter Levine, Professor, Tisch College, Tufts University

Steve Levitsky, Professor of Government, Harvard University

Jane Mansbridge, Professor Emerita of Political Leadership and Democratic Values, Harvard University

Pippa Norris, Professor of Political Science, Harvard University

Robert D. Putnam, Professor of Public Policy, Harvard University

Miles S. Rapoport, Senior Practice Fellow in American Democracy, Harvard University

Nancy L. Rosenblum, Professor Emerita of Ethics in Politics and Government, Harvard University

Virginia Sapiro, Professor of Political Science, Boston University

Kay L. Schlozman, Associate Professor of Political Science, Boston College

Alan D. Solomont, Dean, Tisch College, Tufts University

Alexander George Theodoridis, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Alejandro Trelles, Assistant Professor of Politics, Brandeis University

Lawrence H. Tribe, Professor Emeritus of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School

Daniel Ziblatt, Professor of Government, Harvard University

"AN INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS MOMENT"

Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine, was interviewed by The New York Times as part of its reporting for an article published June 14 under this headline: "In Congress, Republicans Shrug at Warnings of Democracy in Peril."

King, a former professor of American politics at Bowdoin College, was quoted as describing our democracy as a "240-year experiment that runs against the tide of human history."  That tide, he noted, usually leads from, and back to, authoritarianism.

"This is an incredibly dangerous moment," King said, "and I don't think it's being sufficiently realized as such."