Deval L. Patrick

Excerpts from Deval Patrick’s interview with the Boston Globe editorial board.

PATRICK: We have gone right to the ground and a grassroots campaign — old-fashioned philosophically, but powered, in some way, by a very newfangled use of the Internet. We have 6,000 active volunteers in this campaign right now. We will — and it grows every day. We will have a captain in every precinct in the Commonwealth by the time we need them, frankly, no matter how that precinct has voted in the past. We have more contributors to the campaign than to any other statewide candidacy in anybody’s memory — approaching 17,000 now. Many of them give less than one hundred bucks. There’s one guy in Quincy — I think I may have mentioned the other day in Framingham — who gives, who sends five bucks a month. That’s what he can do. It’s his way of investing. And money isn’t everything, but it’s a part of it. And the number of contributors, and the fact that, in 18 months’ time we’ve raised $4 million, I think, is another indication of the strength of the organization we’ve been building.

Due respect to all of you, in some ways, I think, the press, generally, has not captured who has come out to be supportive. You know, we have our fair share of liberal activists who never miss a cycle. But we have a whole bunch of so-called "lunch bucket Democrats," or Democrats who have lapsed, a bunch of independents, and more than a few Republicans, in some cases, who have changed their registration to participate, or who have joined this group that’s growing, called Republicans for Patrick. And I feel very good about that, because I think what people want is — and what I’ve been talking about is — how important it is for us to get past this politics that says we have to agree on everything before we can work together on anything. And I’ve tried to put out some clear ideas — not because I think I have all the answers, by any means. I usually forewarn people in groups that I don’t, and I will you. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. But I do think that politics as usual is not getting us where we need to go.

***

MASSACHUSETTS’ POPULATION

PATRICK: I go to events, and there are young people in the room — we’ve had a couple of events that are for young professionals. And it’s fantastic. All this talent, all this energy in the room. And then, and I usually acknowledge them. I say how many of you have a five-year plan to get the heck out of here? And most of the hands go up.

Q: You did that in Framingham?

PATRICK: Yeah. And I think that’s a matter of urgency. I think that our economy, being stuck in neutral and sliding backwards is a matter of urgency. I think that the pressure on the property tax, which comes from this fiscal shell game I think we’ve been playing with, where we roll back the income tax, and we pay for it with property tax, and with higher fees, is not a sustainable model. Certainly, annual overrides, for operating reasons. And it’s not sustainable. And yet, I feel like we as a state are in a place, like some great companies we all know, like Polaroid or DEC or Wang, or great states, which I will not name, that we’re at risk of thinking that we could fuel our future on the fumes of the past. We have been a very great place. And we have very considerable potential. But we won’t be great in the future unless we make some choices. And I think those choices needn’t be the false choices we’ve been offered in the past. And I hope we can talk more about that in a minute, since I think I’m running out of my three minutes. But I do want to tell you, listen, we built — and I am proud of the organization we have built, and how much excitement we have generated. You know, we go to Framingham, we get that response. We get it in Duxbury, in Manchester, in Heath. Let me tell you about my visit to Heath. Do you know where Heath is, by the way?

Farmers, middle of the day, 200 people. Places where — you know, I think it’s expected I do well in Newton and Arlington. But there’s an appetite for candor and leadership that goes beyond the usual places. And I sure would love to have your help. I think it could put us over the top.

***

DIVIDED GOVERNMENT

Q: One of the other things that there’s an appetite for out there, presumably, because we’ve had Republican governors for the last 16 years is split, divided government. Somehow, the voters seem to have decided — they haven’t decided this in Washington, but up here they’ve decided — that they would like to have, you know, a Republican check on the Democratic Legislature — where they, you know, have some sort of balance in the State House. What’s the Democratic response to that? Or what’s your response to that?

PATRICK: Yeah, I’m not sure I know what the Democratic response is. I mean, I — my own view is that I think that argument the Republicans have made is compelling. You know, that we need a Republican counterweight, if you will, to an otherwise runaway Democratic Legislature.

I’ve made a couple of observations. One is, we have Democrats in Massachusetts who would be Republicans anywhere else. And we don’t have the ideological or, frankly, even the party — ideological coherence or party discipline. But I think what people really want is a balance between outsiders and insiders. The Legislature is a very — this is what I was talking — trying to get at earlier. The Legislature is, or is perceived as, a very inward-looking, entrenched political establishment. And I think what voters have wanted, and, frankly, what I bring, is an outsider’s perspective.

We will agree on some things. We will disagree on other things. We will compromise on some things. We will fight on some things. Sometimes privately fight. Sometimes publicly fight. But I think there is a — there’s a range of perspective that I bring to the corner office that is different from what the voters perceive to be common among the Legislature. And so, I think that outsider — I haven’t — I didn’t, you know, pick that theory, if you will, of electioneering. But I do hear it a lot from people. And frankly, I get this a lot from Republicans, who say, you know, I’m very interested in someone who doesn’t — who hasn’t grown up on Beacon Hill, who doesn’t have all those interconnected relationships.

Q: Mmm. So you see that as a plus.

PATRICK: I do.

Q: Well, Weld was an outsider. Romney was an outsider.

PATRICK: Yeah.

Q: They weren’t — Weld had some success with this, but you know he was defeated. But overall, they weren’t very successful governors.

PATRICK: Yeah.

Q: Jimmy Carter was an outsider when he first ran for president.

PATRICK: Yeah. Well, I think, actually, Weld was the model I’m talking about, for the first two years, until he lost interest in his job. When he was — at the very beginning, when he was willing to engage — and I’m not saying he got everything done. I’m — you know, I have very big ambitions for the state. But I understand that some of the things I want to accomplish won’t be done by the end of my second term. But I do think we have to start moving in that direction. And I’ve been building some of those relationships with legislators right now. I mean, there’s a lot about — there’s a lot about the way we campaign now that is about preparing to govern on the first day. You know, that the conversations I have, the way I’m trying to leave doors open to legislators who have said they have to support a different candidate.

And I don’t want them to feel that I’m going to — I’m keeping score, and I’m going to — punish them if they don’t support me. That’s the same sort of thing with unions. You know, I have had any number of conversations with organized labor, some of whom support me, some of whom don’t. Some of whom support me and disagree on this or that. But I haven’t gone into this saying, you know, I want to — I’m going to pick a fight with a union to make a political point for electioneering purposes. Because I — there are relationships I’m going to need, in order to govern. So I don’t think — I do think that the case is there to be made about being an outsider. But, of course, I’ll be — I won’t be an outsider among them from the day I take the oath.

***

Q: What would you do in your first two years? And how much would it cost?

PATRICK: Well, some of it isn’t going to cost very much at all. There are smaller things we have to do. And some of which we’ve started to do, that respond to concerns I hear from business people who are here, and those who look at Massachusetts. One is, it’s hard to get into business and stay in business. The permitting and the approval processes are long and zigzagging, and uncertain. The — and I think simplifying permitting at the state level is something we’ve started to do. I believe that one-stop shopping, and a six-month deadline for state permitting, is realistic. But there are only two strategies. There are only two, practically, that will work. We can either cut regulation, or we can staff up to keep up with the pace of business. And I frankly think both of those strategies have to be on the table. If there’s a regulation that is stale, doesn’t serve a useful interest, we’ve got to be willing to take it off the table, even if that means upsetting a powerful interest. But if there’s a regulation that does serve a common environmental or community, or human interest, we’ve got to give the agencies the staffing they need to keep up with the pace of business. We’re in this nether space right now, which isn’t working.

***

And I do think that the partnership that I talk about — rebuilding, with state and local government — not paid for by, but encouraged — let me put it that way — by restoring local aid and Chapter 70 funding. Part of it, when I talk about that quid pro quo — having state and local government join me in better planning — that is about how we simplify permitting, and use some strategies that have worked elsewhere, like pre-permitting, for example.

***

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Q: You mentioned going through and evaluating regulations that might exist, about whether it is unnecessary, perhaps, or slows down business development. Do you have any specific regulations in mind, when you say that? Is there something that you do want to do?

PATRICK: Well, I do have some in mind. But I don’t want to make any news.

***

We have a serious affordable housing problem across the state. It’s acute in the eastern part of the state, but it’s an issue across the state. And we have tried to address that with a whole series of 40-you-name-it, starting with A, now up to T, I guess. And they are patches and Band-Aids, in some ways, rather than a more comprehensive approach to affordable housing. And I think there is a more comprehensive approach that can actually get us off the dime. I will say that I think that the smart growth idea, out of the current administration — the transit-oriented growth — that’s a terrific idea. This idea that you cluster housing close to transportation in town centers and so on, is a great, great concept. They haven’t executed very well on that concept, mind you, with a couple of shining exceptions, but ....

Q: Let me try one more. Because it does seem to me, by saying that we’re going to get rid of some regulations, but we’re going to staff up for others, it seems to me like you’re — if you’re not specific, if you’re not wanting to make news, you’re appealing to both sides. And the conservatives will say, ‘‘Oh, man, he’s going to throw everything off the books.’’ And the liberals will say, ‘‘Oh, he’s going to regulate the hell out of them. And he’s going to give us plenty of people to do it.’’

PATRICK: Yup.

Q: So, which is which? I mean, I think you need to give us some examples. What about the ten-taxpayer suit, for instance?

PATRICK: Well, I’ll give you some different examples. I think that the Legislature, in fairness, since I’ve started talking about this — I’m not saying because I’ve started talking about it, but since I’ve started talking about it — has taken some steps in this direction. We need a different appeals process for housing issues. You know, we have talked about the Land Court getting additional resources to speed up zoning appeals and that sort of thing. That makes sense to me. The ten-taxpayer suit — I definitely think we ought to be looking at. I have some — I mean, you know, there are arguments on both sides of that. I’m not dodging the question. I’m just saying, I haven’t thought through every dimension. But I’m not — I also don’t think, Bob, in fairness to your question, but also, to my candidacy, that we get very far if the best we offer is a campaign where we debate this or that mechanism for appealing this or that regulation. There is a whole regulatory framework which, in some ways, is layers upon layers of patches, and doesn’t get at root causes. I think the whole system, of 40 — from 40B on, is an example of that. It doesn’t mean it’s bad. But it doesn’t create affordable housing.

Q: Well, 40B is actually — the only thing that does create affordable housing is when they shove it right down the cities’ and towns’ throats, with 40B. All that other nice incentive stuff doesn’t seem to be getting us anyplace. This stuff — when you literally override so many, and you come in, and they’re screaming and yelling. You do it anyway. That’s where you get some housing.

***

PATRICK: Is it — that all presumes, Larry, that you’ve got to shove it down their throats. And that presumes that you have to live with the zoning arrangements that there are. I mean, there is a project down in Westwood, for example, that is a mixed-use project. It’s near the train station, the 128 train station. It’s not up yet. But that’s in concept. The issue there has not been with Westwood. They zoomed through Westwood. The issue has been with the state. So, in not every case is it about the state trying to make the right thing happen in Westwood. In some cases, it’s the state not doing — keeping up their end of the bargain. And that’s a transit-oriented growth project. It’s mixed use. And the are multi-income housing. There is a total breakdown, right now, in the relationship between state government and cities and towns. Total breakdown. In many cases, they don’t even talk.

You know, out in Marlboro, the mayor tells me, you know, Marlborough has had this whole economic — has become its own economic hub, in recent years. And the mayor told me that she’s got the land, she’s got the political will, she’s got the votes to continue to bring companies out there. They don’t have the wastewater treatment capacity on the west side of town for one new business. One new business. Six hundred thousand dollars it takes, to extend that wastewater treatment capacity, and they can’t find it, with a whole list of other things ahead of it on the override list. And they have no problem-solving the relationship with the state. That’s not a very big problem. So, you know, I don’t — I realize, Bob — I take the point. You want me to tell you which of these regulatory structures I’m going to take on, and in which order. But in much of what I’m discovering, there is a problem-solving relationship that ought to exist between state and local government, and frequently doesn’t. And if it did, there is more that we could get done.

Q: Is that what you mean when you said earlier that you want to have a debate on possible solutions to affordable housing. What is it, essentially? If it’s not going to be incentive through the 40 sections, what is the big solution? We have, in, you know, Massachusetts, this incredible tradition of home rule —

PATRICK: Yeah.

Q: — and zoning. Do you want to change the zoning laws at the state level? Is that what we’re talking about?

PATRICK: Well, I think the home rule — it’s a bit of myth to home rule. There’s — you’re right about the tradition. But when I talk about returning local aid to cities and towns, and beefing up Chapter 70 funding, and leave aside the question of the Chapter 70 formula for a moment, there’s a quid pro quo I’m looking for. And that is, that the towns join me in better planning. Because we don’t plan very well — not regionally, and therefore as a state. You can’t do things like transit-oriented growth, if all you talk about is putting housing close to train tracks where no train comes.

You have to plan for that train. You have to plan beyond that town. I’m saying the obvious, but you’ve got to plan beyond that town, in order to make the transportation part of transit-oriented growth, for example, meaningful. There are regional transporta-, — excuse me — planning councils. There’s one out in the Framingham area, where they have thought about where housing belongs, where, and what kinds of economic development ought to go in different places, and what transportation implications or other infrastructure implications there are out there. But they need a partner in the state, and they have no partner in the state. So it ain’t going to happen. It isn’t going to happen. And that’s what I’m talking about. There is a much more, I think, comprehensive look we can take, and ought to take, and an opportunity, frankly, that the governor has, and that I am interested in exploiting, to plan more sensibly and more comprehensively by region. And then connecting those regions. And I don’t know whether that is going to require that we blow up local zoning, that we blow up Chapter 40. I don’t think, frankly, that’s going to be necessary. What we need is a much more robust problem solving relationship than we have, in my view.

TRANSPORTATION

Q: What is the problem with our commuter rail? I mean, is it that difficult?

***

PATRICK: Well, there’s not a ‘‘the’’ problem. There are a couple of problems that I see. One is, we’ve been disinvesting for some while. We have used the T’s — the forward funding idea for the T makes sense on paper, it doesn’t actually work. The debt burden is too high for the T to manage on its own, and also make modernization and maintenance investments. It’s a mess, if you ride the T. And so I do think that we have to respond to, and we’re going to — is it later this week that we’re going to —

Q: The question with me, I mean, the T has got to one percentage point itself, right, one percentage of its sales [the sales tax]. And that’s just the operating subsidy from the state. Would you increase that, to provide more money for its operation?

PATRICK: It depends on what we do with the debt. If we relieve the T of some of the debt burden, then it has more room. The estimates are — and I’ve had some early briefings from the Transportation Finance Commission — the estimates are that it’s got a half billion dollars a year for maintenance and modernization. And that’s without extensions. If we, depending on what we do with the debt, than it may not be necessary to increase that operating subsidy. And I’m still trying to work out with some bonding folks I’ve been talking with, whether there is a way for the debt to be shifted to a different pocket. But I would —

Q: This is the same kind of proposal that — .

PATRICK: Exactly.

Q: What did you want — what would you put at the state sometimes?

PATRICK: Well, let the state take a big piece of it.

Q: Of course, if you take — the state takes — a bigger piece of that, under the bond cap, it has to reduce its support for some other worthy functions.

PATRICK: That’s right. Well, the bond cap is self-imposed by the governor. And one of the recommendations from the Transportation Finance Commission, indeed, from Michael Widmer and the Mass. Taxpayers, is that we can afford, and probably ought to afford, raising that bond cap. Because we have so many unmet needs. And by the way, you know, this is in the, this is in the connect-the-dots department. And one thing I think we do badly is understand how the judgments we make over here have consequences over there. We will not stimulate this economy, if we don’t invest in our infrastructure. It will not happen.

Companies invest — not in a state, first of all. They invest in a community, in my experience. They don’t say,‘‘m coming to Massachusetts’’They say, ‘‘I’m coming to Framingham,’’ or Heath. Not so much Heath. And they want to be in places where it is easy to get into, and to stay in business, number one, and where the quality of life and the ability to conduct business — customers have access, and so on — is sensible. Our value proposition today is not just compared to places in Connecticut, and Rhode Island, and New Hampshire. It’s compared to places like Lahore, and Shanghai, and Buenos Aires. And in those places, the roads are actually intact. I’ve done business in all those places. And they, you know, labor goes sometimes not just because it’s cheaper, but because it’s better prepared. It’s education. Or you can do things like, you know, take a ride and have a cell phone call, and not have to reconnect every few hundred feet.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/ INFRASTRUCTURE

PATRICK: And you laugh, but the idea — well, yeah. But the idea — right — the idea of investing in the infrastructure, in the places where we compete today for business, is considered wise. But we have been starving our infrastructure. We are going to have to face that. So, when I talk about economic development, it isn’t meant to be separate from the importance of investing in our infrastructure. I should put it the other way around. When I talk about investing in the infrastructure, it is not meant to be separate from how we stimulate the economy. And again, I’m not just talking about companies that are looking to come into Massachusetts from some other place. I’m talking about companies who want to be here, small businesses who want to get started.

Q: Several times now, you’re alluding to what sound like state partnerships with towns or cities, whether it’s smart housing, or it’s corporate development. I’m just checking to find out if, in fact, that’s what you have in mind. And it sort of raises the possibility that a win for Framingham, at the end of the day, could also be seen as a win for Massachusetts. And is that the kind of thing you’re pursuing?

PATRICK: It’s got to be. Yes, is the answer. And it has to be seen as a win for Massachusetts. And by the way, there are going to be different kinds of businesses that make sense in different places. In other words, it may be, rather than have, you know, Devens as the only go-to place, or as a place that — maybe Devens makes sense for the — you know how we often describe ourselves as an R&D economy? More often than not, we’re an R economy, not a D economy, because the commercialization goes elsewhere. Maybe Devens makes sense for the R. Maybe Springfield makes sense for the D.

There’s a company called Evergreen. I’m very — do you know about Evergreen? This is a — it’s a solar — they make solar panels — it’s one of the leading solar technology companies in the world, evidently. I have not visited it, but I have heard a lot about it. And it’s out in Westborough.

Q: And do you have solar power up on that house up there in — wherever it is?

PATRICK: In Richmond. It’s got a lot of passive solar right now. Thank you.

(laughter)

PATRICK: We should talk about that. But not for much. But I think we have a big opportunity in Massachusetts, of being a — becoming a global center, around the alternative and renewable technologies and products and services. I would support the wind farm in Nantucket Sound, but I think more than the wind farms, I want the companies that, you know, that build the turbines and assemble the hybrid cars, or are in the solar business, like Evergreen. Now, here’s Evergreen. I’m hearing about this from all these quarters, all over the Commonwealth. Global center of the industry on solar panels for residential and commercial installations. They have a great, big, new manufacturing facility they’re about to build. And they’re building it in East Germany. And nobody even asked them to consider the brown fields out in Pittsfield, or down in Fall River. There is no — I mean, the biggest surprise for me, in this whole experience, has been the level of disconnect between the business community and this so-called business-oriented incumbent governor. There are conversations that we could have, and incentives we could build, if we were engaged in those conversations, to encourage businesses at least to look hard at expansion opportunities here in Massachusetts, before they look elsewhere.

***

"SELLING" MASSACHUSETTS

PATRICK: And I — you know, I’ve been a part of these kinds of discussions and decisions before, so I know a rationale can be built, if it were all about the lower paid jobs finding other places, then every manufacturing in Massachusetts and a whole lot of middle management ought to move to, you know, Peru. And I realize some of that is happening. But there are — you know, what’s so attractive about the alternative and renewable energy field is that the margins — it’s a high-margin business. High-margin businesses make sense, in a place like Massachusetts. And our margins are not the same across the state. If all we do is focus on what can or cannot survive in Kendall Square, we’re missing something. You know, Romney was right, as a candidate, in my view, when he talked about the governor’s opportunity to be chief salesman for the state. I’ve seen that model, in my business career. I don’t think you can sell what you’re using as the butt of your joke. But I do think it can be done. And any salesperson wants to have more than one product in his or her bag. And in our case, we have different economic environments around the Commonwealth, and we ought to exploit those different — I should use a softer term — but we ought to make the most of those different economic environments, to encourage businesses that are here to think about expanding here. And by the way, all the paper analysis that businesses do about where they want to be, and so on. There’s nothing like the fact that the CEO lives here, and would like to be able to drive an hour to his or her place. I mean, I’m not being smug. In my experience, that’s a real factor. So, we ought to start, it seems to me, with the businesses that are here, and then branch out.

Q: So I understand your critique of the current administration’s conduct of business development or business recruitment — is your thought just that there is an inattention to the issue? Or a lack of salesmanship? Or is there something else that you think is responsible for the lack of success, or what I imagine you would see as a lack of success?

PATRICK: Well, I think it’s been a mixed success. I mean, I want to give credit where credit is due. Bristol Myers Squibb coming to Devens is a great thing. In the context of smart growth, Weymouth Naval Air Station as a concept is a smart growth project, and that’s a great accomplishment, presuming it happens. But the concept is right. I think it has been a lack of attention. I don’t think that governor — the governor is not stupid. He’s not a bad man. But I don’t — I think he’s the latest in a series of governors who want to have the job but not do the job. And so, I do think that a big part of the issue is the lack of attention.

It’s not to say, by any means, that the governor’s only job is to curry favor with the business community. But we have a need for a stronger and more robust business community, because we need the jobs. And we need the jobs so that families and communities can keep getting stronger. And that’s not a — that’s just something he hasn’t been paying attention to. I talked to a mayor up in Essex, on the North Shore, and he told me about a Canadian company that was interested in putting a small manufacturing facility in New England. And they were looking at his town and a town in Rhode Island. And not a big plant, but it was important for this town. And he said he couldn’t get the governor to place a phone call to the CEO up there. Now, when I was at Coca Cola, we had officials calling all the time about encouraging us to expand or relocate or put up a facility. It’s all about the welcome. And then, about the willingness to join in a problem solving relationship in making that happen.

Everybody talks about how important it is for us to speed up our regulatory process. Everybody inside Massachusetts and outside Massachusetts. This governor talked about it. We only just now got some regulation in that direction. And we still don’t have a one-stop shop in state government. So, those are some of my critiques for why it is I think this governor has been disappointing, in the business community. And then, beyond that, I think, I do think — and I’ll come back to the point about energy. I think we have to be about the next thing. You know, we have a concentration of brainpower and venture capital here, that lends itself to certain kinds of industrial development. Biotech and life sciences today, for example. I think tomorrow it’s going to be alternative and renewable energy, for a whole variety of reasons we can talk about. And I think it makes perfect sense, in Massachusetts, if we create conditions that encourage that industry to flourish.

ENERGY

Q: When I talk to my builder friend about houses and green houses, and all this, the basic belief is that there’s no such thing as — a house bigger than 2,500 square can’t really be considered green... Don’t you see a certain hypocrisy between your great support of renewable energy, and this Taj Deval going up, making you the biggest employer in the Town of Richmond right now?

PATRICK: Is that true?

Q: Oh, yeah.

PATRICK: God, I hope not. It’s supposed to be done.

***

PATRICK: With a four-and-a-half-foot overhang, it was purposeful. It was sited with that in mind. It is well beyond the E rating. I mean, it has — we took as many steps as we could to make that house efficient for our own cost concerns, let alone the impact on the environment.

Ten thousand square feet it’s not, but you’re right. It’s still a big house.

STATE-LOCAL RELATIONS

Q: This gets back to your state-local community relations a bit. There’s this quiet movement building, particularly on a couple of city councils, to try to peel off one penny on the meals tax for the cities and towns.

Yeah. I think it’s a good idea. I think that what cities and towns need is more than one revenue source, to manage through the peaks and valleys of the others. And I, just to repeat a point I was making earlier, I think that the over-reliance on the property tax, and these annual two-and-a-half — corrosive two-and-a-half — debates is just not a sustainable model. Because, you know, what you get is, occasionally somebody will come and say, well, my kids are out of the schools, I don’t care anymore. But mostly, people are saying that they can’t afford it. You know, a fixed income, or they’re out of work, or seniors. I just don’t think that the property tax is an efficient way to pay for a lot of the services people say they want. And that’s the other part of the equation. I’m afield of your question, Larry, but I’ll stop in a minute. Most people say they want the services. All right. The people don’t say, in an emergency, you know, tell the EMT to take his time. Or I’ll put out my own fire, or build my own road. People want the services. And I think a lot of our leadership doesn’t connect up what we pay with what we get. And by the way, we haven’t talked about health care. We have got to get at health care costs. And as we do, that’s another way, it seems to me, again, over the long term, to begin to relieve pressure, I think.

Q: The state does a better job at controlling those decisions than —

PATRICK: You bet your life. You bet your life. And the whole idea of aggregating some of these plans, frankly — I don’t advocate moving back to county government. But there are lots of things we do, in lots and lots of cities and towns, that maybe we ought to do more regionally. Some of the — you know, does every city or town need a fire chief, for example?

Q: Well, would you sort of make legislation that would make cities and towns — or allow any city and town, basically — to require unions to join the state medical plan, rather than all these individual plans?

PATRICK: I’m very interested in that. I’m very interested in that. I haven’t heard the other side of the argument. So I’m not going to take a position on that until I do. But, I mean, for example, you know, we have lots of these pension boards. You know, I don’t know that they all have to be aggregated into one. But we need fewer than we have. And there are costs associated with that in many different local pension groups. So that there are some of these sorts of efficiencies which I think we need to be looking at

***

HUMAN SERVICES/HOMELESSNESS

Q: I just wanted to ask about human services, which you find between a rock and a hard place on the one hand, it’s a huge budget question and on the other hand, they’re all of a sudden they’re being, you know, at a homeless shelter.

PATRICK: Yeah.

Q: (inaudible) how do you put a plan into place?

PATRICK: Sort that? Yeah. Couple points I would make there. First of all, I’m very interested in how we assess actual costs. Because the things we cut, we end up paying for, I think, in many cases, in the long run. You know, we do things like we cut detox programs, and reentry programs, or voucher programs and so on, and then we act surprised that the homeless population goes up. In other words, we pay for it on the other end. We have something like 80 percent of the folks in our prisons have drug and alcohol-related problems. We’ve just about decimated detox programs in prisons. Or reentry programs, so that we have a recidivism rate where people — you know, Scott Harshbarger likes to put it — they come out more dangerous than they went in. There’s a reason for that. And we pay for it. So, I’m very interested.

And just as a matter of approach, I want to be about long-term solutions, and not just what serves the short-term political need. I think the other thing is that our delivery of some of those human services, I think, could probably be more efficient. I meet people who tell me — both clients, and then social workers, who tell me — that they are serving an individual client who may have needs, or may have entitlements, in two or three different agencies — DMR, DMH — but they can’t get the agencies to talk to each other. They have to be the.... All right, when I was in the Justice Department, I remember that, you know, we were just about through the nominating process — confirmation process — and I sat down with the President, and I said, "Mr. President, now let’s talk about substance. What do you want your civil rights agenda to be?" And his response was, "vigorous and forceful." And I said, "Well, OK. But what do you want me to concentrate on?" He said, "Well, you decide that. But whatever you decide, just do it vigorously."

And I thought, OK. I have some — I’ve been in the field. I’m interested in — I had some things I was interested in. But what I did was go to the line attorneys, and the advocates, to get a sense from them where we could get the biggest bang for the buck. Where was the biggest unmet need. And we took that intelligence, and built our enforcement strategy up from them — from that information. And that is how, I believe, with the same resources as previous AAGs [assistant attorneys general], we broke every enforcement record in the division’s history. The point is, I think there’s a lot that we can do and get, in terms of efficiencies, if we get back to the point where the service is delivered, and take counsel from that, and from those folks, about how we organize the delivery of those services. Most of the career people — people close to — and their clients, have a much clearer sense of where the waste is, and duplication, than the, you know, folks in the governor’s suite.

BUDGET

Q: You said right up top you had costed out some of your proposals.

PATRICK: Well, I mean, in the transportation area, for example, I see, you know, in excess of a billion and a half. That includes — half of that is for training — .

Q: That would be capital?

PATRICK: That’s capital. Some of the — in the education area, for example, I think we looked at all-day kindergarten as being about $70 million dollars. Seventy million.

Q: Statewide?

PATRICK: Statewide. Seventy million overall.

Q: OK.

PATRICK: Early Ed is the big one. That’s about $800 - $900 million. Longer school — sorry.

Q: You can’t do that.

PATRICK: Sorry?

Q: You can’t do that under the existing revenue system.

Q: Well, wait a minute. Hold on, hold on.

PATRICK: (laughter) Longer school day — and I sometimes interchange terms and I shouldn’t. Longer school day versus after school. May not be very much money, because there’s a lot more opportunity, if we think about after school, in coordinating than necessarily doing it through existing public education programs. There are a couple of initiatives — one in Boston — that’s beginning to look at how to do that. But these are some of the bigger cost items.

***

In Higher Ed, an interest I have there is in a bond bill similar to what was done in California to raise money for stem cell research. And I’m interested in a bond bill. Not $5 billion. I’m sure that it needs to be that — I am sure it doesn’t need to be that big. But for stem cell research, with the difference being, I would take those proceeds and invest them in public Higher Ed, as a way to stimulate their centers of excellence, their facilities, and, frankly, their faculty that follow them. I don’t think it has to exclusively be in public Higher Ed. But it has to — but I would target, mainly, public Higher Ed for that reason. And — go ahead.

Q: But this would be bonded? Not out of the operating budget?

PATRICK: Correct. I’m looking for endowment opportunities.

Q: OK. You’re for the health bill that passed.

PATRICK: Yes.

Q: What’s — anybody got a figure on that — how much it’s going to cost?

PATRICK: Nobody has a figure on that. Nobody.

Q: What are we talking about, in general?

Q: It’s going to grow a lot. It was grandfathered. You get more and more as the years go on.

PATRICK: Right. Right. The same is true with education. You grandfather it.

BUDGET

Q: How much do you lose with the penny on the meals tax?

PATRICK: You mean, from state revenue?

Q: From state revenue.

PATRICK: Well, a penny is about — what is it, about $30 million?

Q: About $100 million.

PATRICK: About $100 million?

Q: Yeah, it’s about $100 million. That’s what you would lose on that penny.

Q: OK. You know where I’m headed.

PATRICK: Well, hold on. You need to be clear. I am not talking about doing everything on the first day.

Q: Got it.

LOCAL AID

PATRICK: We have got to grow the economy, in order to be able to afford what I think we need to do. And that’s why I think some of the first things we have to do are investing in our infrastructure. And that’s why I think it’s so important to restore local aid. That’s where I think we have to start.

Q: Do you have a figure? You didn’t a figure on local aid, though. That’s your — I guess that’s your first budget would be increases in local aid?

PATRICK: Correct. Correct.

Q: Do you have a figure on how much that would be?

PATRICK: Well, I think that’s probably much of the current surplus. Now, I think the current surplus estimate, when, you know, when the lieutenant governor talks about it, is $1 billion. I don’t think that’s — I don’t think that’s honest, for a variety of reasons. But I think it’s a couple hundred million dollars.

BRAIN TRUST

Q: Could you tell me a little bit about your brain trust? This is a question we’ll ask a lot of candidates.

PATRICK: Mmm.

Q: — just to get a sense of who — who is advising you on policy issues — health care, education, whichever — who you want to —

PATRICK: Names?

Q: — talk about. Names.

PATRICK: I think I’m going to have a brain freeze right now.

Q: Well, also I’m going to have you look ahead. I mean, you don’t have to just talk about your brain trust. That’s — that’s the question. But you can look ahead to your administration, and who you might be appointing.

PATRICK: Well, I can tell you that we have wonderful groups of people who are helping on every one of —

(laughter)

PATRICK: — no, no, no. That — truly, I’m having a brain freeze on the names. I can get you a bunch of them. You would recognize some of them. I can think, in the housing area, for example, they range from Amy Anthony, who did this back in the Dukakis days, to David Abramowitz and — do you know David? No? And lots of others. David Begelfer has been helpful in both housing and economic development, as have some of the folks from Spaulding and Slye. I’m just terrible with names.

***

Now, I will tell you, I’m not — I’m talking to a number of people who are not just Democrats. I want the best ideas and the best people, whatever party.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

Q: I want to go back to ... this tradition that we have now, in the state, of electing Republican governors. And you had your explanation as to why that is, I think, or sort of. Other possible explanations, including the perceived need for fiscal responsibility. Maybe it’s a chapter on special interest. But, I mean, there’s a couple different contributors, probably, to this. So, now leaping forward to the general election, and you are now facing a Republican candidate. Maybe your approach here is that some of the principals that you’re citing, and the grassroots movement, and other strengths of your campaign, will make answering any challenges unnecessary, because you have a better, different approach that will be a winning argument with the electorate. But if you do have to answer the question of fiscal responsibility which is likely to be a very strong point from whoever you’re facing what is the answer to that?

PATRICK: Well, I — look. I don’t think fiscal responsibility is not spending to sustain the infrastructure. I mean, what have we got? We’ve got a proposal to roll back the income tax, which will put more pressure on property taxes, will get us these annual override debates for operating reasons. Nobody thinks that’s a sustainable model. We’ve got roads and bridges falling apart. Fiscal responsibility is supposed to explain how, under 16 years of Republican leadership, we saw multi-billion dollar cost overruns, and no — and no curiosity, frankly, from our elected executives, about where that money went. You know, I just don’t think that the — in some ways, it makes me feel like the folks who were ask — from the other side — who would ask about, or challenge me on fiscal responsibility, are pretty presumptuous to do so. We are falling apart, in Massachusetts. And we’re going to have to make some wise and targeted infrastructure investments, if we’re going to rebuild our economy.

So, it is about — and most people, I think, understand this. You know, if you let porch go for too long, it’s going to cost you more, in the end, to repair it. You might have to pull the whole darn thing down and rebuild it, rather than just replace a step here or there. Fiscal responsibility is about spending wisely what we have, and building toward the future. And if anybody has the impression that the ideas I have are all going to be implemented on day one, then they’re missing the point. I’m trying to talk about what I believe our best long-term interests and goals ought to be, and how we build for them over time. I will say, in the short run, that given all the unmet needs we have, and the pressure that’s on the property tax today, I think it is a mistake to roll the income tax back to 5 percent. I just think that — I cannot make that math work.

Q: You know, the reason we asked you about costing out all of the programs — what you’re currently doing here and it’s on the rebound, but you can bet that the Republicans are costing out all of your proposals. And they will, you know, the day after you win the primary, if you do, they will have an ad on TV that says ‘‘Deval Patrick is going to cost us,’’ because this is what they did with the last two Democratic governors —you know, candidates for governor. It’s going to cost us X-to-X billion dollars. You know, X-to-X BILLION dollars. You know?

***

PATRICK: We have an ad we are — that at least has been in my head, which is, what four more years of Kerry Healey will cost us. And there are costs associated with that. One estimate is, that I got from the MMA, is that the average value to the average family, of the income tax rollback from 5.9 to 5.3, was about a couple hundred bucks. The average increase in property taxes and fees in the same period — 60 percent.

PATRICK: It was just — this is what we do. I think that needs to be pointed out. Because that’s a connection that I think, frankly — you might be surprised — a lot of people in communities understand. The fact that we have the violence we have is because of some decisions we aren’t making — some coordination and collaboration we aren’t doing. And that costs us, too. It’s cost us, in this administration and through this leadership, the loss of population, the loss of jobs. You can point to numbers and specific examples. So there’s a — there is a choice here. And one choice, I think, is whether we stay on the path we’re on, and continue with the politics as usual we’ve had from the Republican administration, and Democrats in the legislature, or whether we try to do something which I believe is a rejection of politics as usual, that is about our long-term interests, and about some sacrifices we may have to make in the short run

Q: Do you have any, any, in terms of infrastructure and along those lines, of a Big Dig? As you watch this, as you see all the testing. Presumably, that could end up being some of your responsibility —

PATRICK: A lot of heartburn about that. Lot of heartburn about that. Mostly because, I think, there’s been such a, you know, aggressive refusal to take the role of government and its oversight responsibility seriously in this project. Now, I like the Big Dig. Don’t get me wrong. Conceptually, I think it was a better idea at $5 billion than $15 billion. I think that when you look at the cost overruns, that we have known about for years, and the sudden buzz of activity, in the wake of last month’s tragedy, and how, in some ways, that just distracts us, or is intended to distract us, from the lack of activity for a long period of time. It’s a small wonder to me, that people say give me my money back. I understand that. I mean, there’s a lot of trust that has to be rebuilt between government and the people.

***

BUDGET CUTS

PATRICK: $730 million is what we think we can get [in cuts]... some of it is doing things that we ought to be doing now that we’re not doing, like pursuing Medicaid fraud. The estimates are that we forego something on the order of — or we have foregone something on the order of — a billion and a half, over three years. I’ve just taken a portion of that. We don’t enforce wage-and-hour laws. That costs us several hundred million dollars a year, in foregone revenues. The number of earmarks is another problem.

I don’t think we can eliminate them 100 percent. . But the fact that there is no partnership between the executive branch and legislative branch, I think, explains why there are so many of those earmarks. They’ve grown by a factor of four in the last ten years. And there is some duplication. If you look at what’s targeted where, there is administrative overlap, and so on. And we’ve taken a portion of that, to get to some of these estimates, as well. So, there are some things, I think. And then, this point I was making earlier about how we organize to deliver the services. There are untold millions, I know are there. And so do the rank and file in the Civil Service.

Q: Do you understand what enforcing the wage and hour laws means?

Q: It means illegal immigrants better watch out.

Q: No. What did you mean by that?

PATRICK: Well, it’s prevailing wage laws and some — you know, you’re right. You’re right. I mean we have laws that say what’s right and what’s wrong. What’s lawful and what’s not.

Q: How would you govern in the event of a recession?

PATRICK: Well —

Q: Negative revenue?

PATRICK: Right. Very carefully. I think it is, you know, I am not looking to spend down the rainy day fund, because that’s what it’s there for. And that’s a good idea. So I do think we have to continue to think about how we would refresh the rainy day fund. I think we have to slow down some of our — naturally — some of infrastructure investments. I don’t think we stop. But we have to slow them down. Sometimes, in a recession, interest rates pull back, because of less concern about inflationary pressures. And that’s an opportunity to refinance. And as we refinance, then the debt service goes down, and that makes for better cash flow. That’s something to worry about. I think it’s very important, though, and beyond the policy choices, it’s very important to encourage people not to panic — not to flee Massachusetts. That — to help people understand we are in this together. We will get through this together, and that it is still important for us to keep our eye on our long-term interests, in terms of — including our long-term economic interests.

And, to repeat a point I made earlier, to continue to cultivate this industry around renewables. Which, by the way, I believe is not recession-proof, but it’s recession tolerant ....

ENERGY

Q: If I can just follow that quickly. You’ve been out in front of that. You mentioned it in the convention speech in Worcester.

PATRICK: Mmm-hmm.

Q: And I think, first of all, as a candidate, to really talk about renewable, alternative energy as a major industry indicator. Chris Gabrieli has joined you in that, I think, with a fairly fleshed out proposal more than any of the others. What are the differences between your proposal and Chris’s?

PATRICK: Well, Chris is — I’m glad Chris has come along. It’s a good thing. It’s leadership on my part, and I’m glad to have him following. He’s a good guy, by the way. He has a lot of good ideas. Each of the candidates — candidates do. I think his view about the wind farm is right. It’s a complicated project, but I think he’s right about it. I think that when he talks about wanting to have — when I talk about wanting to have not just the wind farms, but the companies that manufacture the turbines and, which, by the way, was an opening we had with GE. Do you know about this? Very interesting thing. GE, some while ago, was interested in the Quincy shipyard as a place to manufacture the turbines for the wind farm, because you could float them right out on the barge, and when all the sturm un drang started around that project, they bailed, and started to manufacture someplace else. Another missed opportunity.

I’m sorry to digress, but this is the sort of thing that we ought to be worried about — that we ought to have a sense of urgency about. I don’t know whether he’s thought about technologies like coal gasification or biomass. Coal gasification is a very promising technology, where you can derive a clean fuel from a dirty source, and all you need is to be close to a rail line. Springfield has a rail line. We ought to think about something like that in Springfield. Biomass is becoming more — I think he talks about biodiesel. But biomass has other distillations, for use in other kinds of power sources. For example, to — biomass is distilled from yard waste, or from you know, the cleanup of the forest floor — that sort of thing. I don’t know that he gets into that sort of detail. I don’t know if he talks about fuel cells, for that matter, as a research — our being a research center around fuel cells. And fuel cells are fairly far along.

BUDGET

Q: Can we get back to the budgeting issue for a second? The $750 million in cuts that you outlined. Most of the things —

PATRICK: I think it was about 730.

Q: — 730 — most of those things that seemed to fall into the categories of waste, fraud, abuse, duplication, those sorts of things. Are there any, kind of, continuing state initiatives that are outside of that category that you would favor trimming down in order to make room for some of the other things that you would consider to be more important?

PATRICK: Well, but not in that — not in that plan, at least as I sit here. I have to look at it again. But there are bound to be. And I have not scrubbed the budget with that care, to be perfectly candid. But there are bound to be. I just — you know, the point I was making earlier, about how it is we deliver the human services we deliver today. I’m just, I’m so certain that there is overlap, and duplication that we ought to correct. Now, that may be in the waste, fraud, and abuse category in your mind. But in my view, that’s about making government efficient. I have not — I mean, we have so many of these, which is really where I’ve been focusing. And they have so many consequences, in terms of the quality of our — of life and our economic future, that it seems to me that’s where the focus ought to lie. And that’s where my focus has been.

Q: Can I also be perfectly candid for a minute? You are guaranteed to get this question ... in press conferences, with lots of reporters watching, in debates with the Republican opponent, if you get that far. Can you name a single program in Massachusetts state government that you would eliminate? Can you make the tough choices that need to be made, in order to fund the important needs that we all agree, or you say, that need to be met? Guaranteed question. And to not have an answer, to not be able to say this program, and identify it by name, suggests an unwillingness or — either lack of knowledge or unwillingness to make that tough choice. So, you know, I mean, you don’t have to do it here. But I’m saying that I think you need to —

PATRICK: I, I get the coaching. But I’ll tell you what I don’t like about the question. I’m not quarreling with the point. It’s that you end up picking some program to pick on. It’s silly, in my view. It’s — this is not about — we know, all of us, that there are things the government does that it does foolishly. We know it. You know, even if you can’t name an individual program, you know that. You know that there is duplication in the way our services are delivered. We know that. And people on the ground know that. I can pick a given program, and then the follow-up question will be, well that only saves you $15 million. Is that a tough choice? It’s like people who invite me to say, you know, well, pick a fight with the unions, if you really want to show your independence. I mean, I’ve been butting heads with unions in conference rooms for the last year and a half. Still gotten some endorsements, and some not. But want me to take it out into the public to demonstrate what? I take your point. But I’m — this is why I’m bridling a little bit.

***

LEADERSHIP

Q: So, I understand. You want to completely change the conversation. Which, will also segue into my next question, which is — and you talked a little bit about this in Framingham, too — the extent to which people have turned off politics and feel that it just doesn’t relate to them at all. And can you make the case to those people, why they should even vote? Why get involved? What better — what better can it be? And why — try to, try to answer, you know, a mooshy question, but try to address the alienation people feel. Not just to validate it by saying I know you’re alienated. Because there’s lots of — bad people do very well. But how to solve — how to cure their alienation?.

PATRICK: Mmm. Well, you know, one thing that I feel very strongly, and I think others do, is that we get the leadership we deserve. And I may have made this point out in Framingham. You know, I used to turn to Diane, my wife, after disappointing election outcomes and I would say, you know, who votes for these people? How do we get this? But I don’t do that anymore. And I haven’t for some while. But I really do think we get the leadership we deserve. And I do think that’s because a whole lot of good people have given up and checked out. And it is about them feeling as if the only conversation they have with candidates or elected officials running for office is in 30-second ads or short sound bites in the last few weeks of the campaign.

It’s why I think a grass roots campaign has been so important — why it’s caught fire. Frankly, why it’s turned from a campaign to a cause. It’s a movement. And we’ve been inviting people back in because we’ve asked them not to take a chance on me as a candidate, but to take a chance on their own aspirations. You know, we can’t — if we can’t — if the best we can do, in public education — when we talk about smaller class size and longer school day, and a pre-K through public Higher Ed strategy for public education — is say we can’t afford it today, because you can’t figure out what other programs to cut, or you can’t name what other programs to cut, today, it’s a formula for stagnation.

You know, when, in our own lifetimes, there were people calling for the end of Jim Crow, at a time when nobody thought that was possible. But they still energized us to want to believe we could make a contribution to that endgame, bit by bit, in our way, over time. And so, I keep asking people — you know I’m — I know we have to get it — and for your purposes, surely, into questions about which order for which programs. Which policies. But we have to have, in my view, a vision of government — particularly Democrats, if I may say — a vision of government that goes beyond policies and programs. All we’ve got now as Democrats, it seems to me, is a perfected conversation about how to win. Who votes, at what time of day, under what weather conditions. What to say in Roxbury that’s different from what we say in Hingham, so nobody gets aroused. You know, how to — you know what I’m talking about. But we don’t offer a competing vision of government anymore. And I think that vision of government ought to be about how government can help us help ourselves. Not do everything for us. But the notion — and I’m a capitalist — I’ve — there — it’s important that we have a strong private economy. But the notion that the private economy can solve our issues all on its own is ridiculous, and has been disproven by time and evidence.

MERIT PAY, DIFFERENTIAL PAY

Q: You’ve benefited over the years. You know, bonuses and merit pay in the, you know, corporate world. And the governor is trying to implement something similar in the public schools, particularly in areas where the market doesn’t, you know, make it. It’s basically full merit pay, move to differential pay — things of this nature. [The teachers] union balks. They think it’s, you know, some intolerable — I’m not quite sure why — but what do you think?

PATRICK: I think merit pay is a good idea. You know, when I first heard about it, I warmed to it instantly, because it — I’m familiar with it from my own experience in private life. I have modified my approach to merit pay because of points that have been made by teachers, including my wife, about the importance of collaboration in a successful school. In other words, what works in a given classroom, or doesn’t, is shared among the teachers in a strong school.

And you absolutely do not want to defeat that. And so, what I’ve tried to do is devise a merit pay which rewards collaboration and rewards the team, and not individuals. Because this very point about the defeating of collaboration I have also seen, in private life. It’s a little less worrisome, in some of the contexts where I’ve seen it in private life. It’s very worrisome in an educational context. I will tell you, even the team-based or school-based merit pay proposal that I’ve put out has not won me friends in every union — teachers’ union.

Q: What about differential pay for math and science teachers, and another specialty that is sadly lacking in Massachusetts, which is, of course English-as-a-second language teachers.

PATRICK. I think I’m open to differential pay. I mean, the problem is this — the best education, especially K through 12, is about the whole child. It’s not about any one subject or any one high stakes test for that matter.

There are studies that show, and several — most recently in October and November of last year — that show how the kids who have exposure to music and arts training do better in math and science. So, do we — if we’re making that connection, we’re scoring that component of public education, do we give differential pay to the arts and music teachers because we want to drive to math and science? I mean, we’ve got to — to me, we have to look at the whole package. And the idea of — I mean we have on the books — we haven’t funded it yet — a program for so-called master teachers, for the teacher who is a real standout teacher. It’s something like that. I know a little bit from Chicago, because this amazing sixth grade teacher I had ultimately became a master teacher, and, as far as I can tell as an amateur and non-education expert, she certainly deserved it. Some of these sorts of things, I think, are ways to differentiate the quality of the instruction and the engagement that happens in the classroom. I’m just not sure it should be limited to math and science.

Q: Well, for some reason, this question, you’re not getting enough candidates for it. And it seems that they’re not getting enough candidates in math and science and English as a second language at all levels of school.

PATRICK: That’s true. Although, again, in my experience in business, it’s not always the case that the reason you’re not getting those candidates is because you’re not paying enough money. Now, there are some — there is some evidence that the — in Massachusetts — that the math and science shortcoming is because people are choosing other kinds of careers where they make more money than as a teacher. You’re right.

***

GOVERNING

Q: I think I understand the reasons for not wanting to be so detailed on every issue that you get nibbled back at you. But ... will there be more specifics later? Does it make sense to have a program that has some meat on it, so that when the votes come in on November, if you’re elected, you have a mandate? ... If you don’t have a mandate, it makes it harder to govern.

PATRICK: — I take your point. But we’ve been — we’re the only campaign that’s been putting out specific policy programs for a year now. And it’s all up on the Web. We’ve been doing that systematically. I spent all last summer working on substance, because I knew there had to be a whole lot more to this. And frankly, the people were hungry for a whole lot more than substance. I mean, I talk about the importance of investing in public transportation. The issue there is the order in which we pick different projects. I mean, most people know what those projects are — what they need to be. And that’s what we’re trying to work through. But you and I also know that I’m not running to be chief policy wonk. I’m running to be governor. And that means setting a course, articulating a vision of where we need to be, and then attracting the people possible to help me put that plan together.