Daily Archives: February 27, 2014

Anne Gobi Running For State Senate

This entry was posted in SteveG's Posts on by

Anne Gobi is running to replace retiring State Senator Stephen Brewer.

You can follow (and like) her on Facebook.

I have met Anne Gobi at a number of political affairs in Sturbridge and Wales lately.  She is very energetic. She speaks very candidly about what she has done (voted for) and why.  I have agreed with most, if not all, of the positions she has taken.  Even if there were some position that she had taken with which I did not agree (I don’t have any in mind), I think I would get from her a very reasoned explanation of why she decided to do what she did.

As an example, I had disagreed with the position that Senator Brewer took on Governor Deval Patrick’s transportation bill.  Anne explained to me what were the problems with the bill as presented, and why she voted (as a State Representative) a lower amount of money than the Governor had asked.  She felt that some of the money would be wasted because it covered mostly road construction without considering repairing some aged sewers and pipes that are beneath the road.  If those items had to be fixed later, we would have to tear up the roads that had just been rebuilt to fix them.  A more balanced bill that fixed both roads and some infrastructure underneath them would have been wiser.

She also felt that the bill was not well balanced between the needs of the eastern part of the state and the central and western parts.

There were other reasons she didn’t support the bill, but the two I stated are the ones that resonated with me the most and that I wanted to mention here.  Overall, I thought she made some excellent points, and none of what she said was less than reasonable.

Are Democrats who Propose Cuts to Social Security “Stupid” or Just Doing Risk-Analysis? 1

This entry was posted in Greenberg's Law of Counterproductive Behavior SteveG's Posts and tagged social security on by

Naked Capitalism has the story Gaius Publius: Are Democrats who Propose Cuts to Social Security “Stupid” or Just Doing Risk-Analysis? It’s not a pretty story.

I’ll give you the finish to whet your appetite for reading the article.

Naturally there’s a risk with this strategy. Consider the 2012 presidential election. That 4% popular vote differential was not much of a margin, and if Romney hadn’t become “Mr. 47%” in most people’s eyes, it’s conceivable he could have pulled closer. But there’s just no way the Rubins and the hedgies and all their minions are going to allow an anti-billionaire “Warren populist” into the general election. They have to stick with a free-market type.

So the very best they can hope for is a newbie who can lie, pretend to be something he’s not, a man or woman without a track record. (Remind you of someone? Obama in 2008, Kid “Hope and Change” and “Yes We Can”?) That brings out the Hopeful and swells the numbers. Otherwise they just have to go with what’s available and roll the dice. By 2012 no one was Hoping, certainly not in great numbers, not after four years of Grand Bargains and promises betrayed (do click; it’s a stunning list). Many were just voting not-Romney, those who voted at all.

So yes, there’s some risk to this neoliberal calculation and strategy. In 2012 they took the risk and it paid off, in a 4% popular vote victory. Could the strategy still lose occasionally? Yes, but again, given the demographics and with appropriate pushback in the states, it’s increasingly less likely.

And even if it does produce a loss, consider the alternative from the Rubin side of things. What do you do? (1) Put a real FDR in the White House and let him challenge the whole billionaire system, or (2) risk having to count your money in electoral exile for a just few years, then try again?

I don’t see the Rubins of the world ever making the first choice. And I do think they’ve really thought this through. To return to where we started, very few of these men and women are stupid.

Side thought — Keep the above in mind when scoping out the 2016 race. We have a neoliberal front-runner with a track record and an unwillingness to speak on most issues. Where’s the turnout going to come from?



I should add that it is always dangerous to attribute motives to people when you have not asked them for an explanation of their motives.  However, if you want to figure out if their behavior is counterproductive or not, you do have to try to figure out what they intend to produce.