Gov. Deval Patrick should be congratulated for his decision last week to get back to the grassroots brand of politics that saw him through a tough gubernatorial race two years ago. Responding to a bit of criticism sent, via email, from one of his constituents in Springfield, Patrick came to the Valley on March 1 to defend himself and his highly unpopular proposal to hike the gasoline tax by 19 cents per gallon to rebuild the state's roads and bridges. With a pack of invited reporters in tow, the governor held court in the home of Teresita Alicea, a constituent who'd called the proposed gas tax hike "unconscionable."
Patrick has attempted to downplay the likely impact of the gas tax on motorists, comparing the average per capita increase to the cost of a large cup of coffee per week. He pushed that argument again last week, telling Alicea and a small gathering at her home, "Our grandparents sacrificed with less income to build this infrastructure… We're asking for the equivalent of a large cup of coffee a week to maintain it for the next generation. I don't think that's unreasonable."
Patrick also promised to continue his effort to take a number of his key policy proposals directly to the people.
"I'm interested in engaging directly with people, because I think that people are prepared for the complexity," Patrick told the reporters following him. "If I have to do more of this to get those messages out, I enjoy it. By the way, it also refines my own thinking."
In terms of political craft, the governor may be taking a step in the right direction, following two years in which he's seemed increasingly isolated and out of touch. But the move back to the grassroots campaign style with which he successfully wooed voters in 2007 may be hampered by the substance of what Patrick is trying to sell. In addition to the gas tax hike, Patrick is pushing new public housing rules that may undercut his attempt to polish his image.
Despite his lofty campaign promise to end homelessness in Massachusetts, Patrick has proposed new regulations that would deny housing to homeless families who, in the state's view, aren't behaving themselves.
The new regulations, which go into effect April 1, would compel people seeking subsidized housing to meet a new 30-hour per week work requirement and save 30 percent of their income—something many fully employed, well-paid families would be hard pressed to do—or risk being tossed out into the streets.
Those who succeed in finding work and building up some savings would be denied shelter just three months after their incomes rise above state limits, not given the six months currently allowed. The new rules would deny benefits to families whose members have outstanding arrest warrants.
While Patrick's commissioner of the Department of Transitional Assistance, Julia E. Kehoe, has defended the proposed changes as part of a broader effort to overhaul an "overburdened" system—"it is absolutely critical that all stake holders need to work together to make sure that families have the greatest chance of moving out of shelter and poverty," Kehoe told the Boston Globe last month—advocates for the homeless believe the plan is "punitive" and counterproductive.
The Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless has described Patrick's plan as an "unnecessary" attempt to address a $3.4 million budget deficit in the state's Family Shelter account. The advocacy group argues that the state is expected to receive nearly $40 million over the next two years from the Federal Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act, "specifically intended to help the state meet the costs of serving more low-income families in need." The governor's "punitive proposals wouldn't even resolve the deficit, since they would 'save' the state less than $520,000 this fiscal year," the advocates say.
As the successor to an office held for 16 years by Republicans, Patrick has run into constant criticism for pursuing policies that seem more responsive to the needs of corporations—attempting to license a few big, corporately-owned casinos; deregulating the auto insurance industry; trying to limit citizens' opportunity to appeal Department of Environmental Protection decisions in favor of developers—than the needs of ordinary citizens. While his proposed gas tax hike will be decried by conservatives who decry all tax increases, Patrick can also expect pushback from liberals, who see gas taxes as inherently regressive, landing harder on the poor than the rich.
His draconian rules for people without the means to provide for their own shelter, coming in the face of a staggering rise in homelessness, harks back to the welfare reforms of the 1990s, when Republicans made scapegoats of the poor and Democrats, feeling powerless, capitulated. Voters who celebrated Patrick's victory two years ago are now left to wonder what happened to the Democrat they elected.
