A HIGH-STAKES game of public-policy poker is underway on Beacon Hill, and now the state Senate is sending this message: If Governor Patrick vetoes the sales tax increase that helps fund the new budget, he may well own the consequences.
Patrick, of course, has previously threatened to cast just such a veto unless the Legislature delivers him strong pension, transportation, and ethics bills. Although lawmakers have glowered at his threat, so far they have basically delivered on two of his requests.
The recently signed pension reform law cracks down on the most egregious abuses. The transportation bill just passed also looks like a solid effort. In eliminating “23 and out’’ retirements for future MBTA employees only, the Legislature didn’t go far enough. But despite that and several other shortcomings, the legislation has won praise as an important step forward.
Ethics reform, however, remains a possible sticking point. From the very start, Senate President Therese Murray has been annoyed by the governor’s call for stronger ethics laws, viewing his initial timing as a public relations move at the expense of a Senate rocked by the Dianne Wilkerson bribery scandal.
The Senate has also been leery about Patrick’s push to make public officials subject to possible criminal prosecution if they accept gifts worth more than $50. With the ethics legislation still in conference committee, it’s unclear when that bill will pass or whether it will include the strong gift ban Patrick wants.
If the legislation doesn’t pass in the next few days or if it doesn’t include such a ban, Patrick will face a tough decision: whether to make good on his threat to veto the sales tax hike.
As legislators see it, that threat is all about politics. They think the governor is acting tough at their expense by threatening to veto essential new revenues. Meanwhile, should he reject the tax increase only to have the Legislature override his veto, as many expect it would, he’d get the benefit of the added revenue without owning the tax hike itself.
Thus some senators are agitating for that body to respond by not overriding a veto if he casts one.
“There are a bunch of us who are suggesting to the Senate president that we should not take up an override,’’ says Senator Steven Baddour, Democrat of Methuen. (As a border legislator from a more conservative district, Baddour voted against the sales tax increase the first time around.)
Without such an override, a large hole would open in the budget - one that would require more cuts, and which would set in motion sizable toll increases.
“Let him face toll payers and taxpayers and say, ‘OK, as a result of my political decision to veto the sales tax increase, tolls are increasing, fares on the MBTA are going to go up, and I have to cut a billion dollars out of the budget,’’ says Baddour.
Now, Baddour can be a political adventurer. Still, though they say they don’t expect things to come to such an impasse, other sources close to Murray also say the no-override option is under consideration. One offers this careful formulation: “A political veto is likely to diminish the Senate’s appetite for an override on the sales tax.’’
Murray herself declined to comment, but after conferring with her, spokesman David Falcone had this to say: “We got a veto-proof margin the first time, but it was a tough vote. If the governor sends it back, there is no guarantee.’’
Going that route would require an appetite for confrontation Murray hasn’t heretofore displayed. And since Speaker Robert DeLeo’s Winthrop constituents would suffer from the toll increase that would result absent the sales tax hike, he’d be unlikely to join such an effort.
Given all that, it’s legitimate to wonder this: Is the Senate’s supposed willingness to raise the stakes on (what they see as) gubernatorial posturing merely a bluff? Or, if you will, a counter-bluff?
Perhaps - but then, as any competent poker player will tell you, bluffing is a fundamental part of the game.
Scot Lehigh can be reached at lehigh@globe.com. 
