THEN-CANDIDATE Mitt Romney didn’t immediately recognize it, but in passing the tax hike, Finneran had given him an issue he could campaign on. Romney’s campaign for governor against Democrat Shannon O’Brien languished in mediocrity well into October until he hit on the themes that connected with Massachusetts voters: taxes and the "Gang of Three" — Finneran, O’Brien, and then-incoming Senate president Robert Travaglini — that would rule the State House if he was defeated.

Although the perception on Beacon Hill was that voters understood the need for the tax increase, the November 5 election showed just the opposite. Mitt "There’s No Budget Crisis; I’ll Never Raise Your Taxes" Romney defeated Shannon "There Is a Budget Crisis; I’m Probably Going to Have to Raise Your Taxes" O’Brien by the surprisingly large margin of five points. And 45 percent of Bay State voters stormed the polls to support an outlandish ballot measure that would have abolished the income tax. Both events seemed to shake Finneran, who, by all accounts, didn’t see either one coming. (Finneran, through his spokesman Charles Rasmussen, declined to be interviewed for this article.)

Since then, the Speaker has been indecisive, where in the past he would have known exactly what to do. For instance, his initial response to the election results was to bend to the public will. Addressing the Massachusetts Association of Retailers in November, he proclaimed: "For a variety of reasons, both important to me, the economy suggests that taxes should be taken off the table, and classic economic theory dictates that they be taken off the table. The worst thing to do in the midst of a serious recession would be to take money out of the pockets of individual taxpayers." And then, during the January 29 televised address, he said that Romney’s "mission of balancing the budget without raising taxes ... must be given a full and fair chance." But he’s already wavered from that stance. In January, Finneran’s chief fiscal lieutenant, State Representative John Rogers of Norwood, said that taxes might have to be increased to deal with the looming fiscal year 2004 budget deficit, which is projected to be as large as $3 billion. When he was asked about Rogers’s comments on a WBZ-radio news report, Finneran said, according to the Boston Herald: "I think I understand what [Rogers’s] comments are about ... The governor said during the course of the campaign that we can balance the budget without a reduction in any core service and without new taxes.... It’s a good standard — if it could be done."

He took a similarly indecisive approach to Romney’s request for "9C authority" budget-cutting powers. (These powers are dubbed "9C authority" after Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 29 Section 9C, which grants the governor temporary authority to reduce public expenditures, including local aid and education spending, during a fiscal emergency. Such cuts are ordinarily reserved for the legislature.) Shortly after Romney made his request for 9C authority to the legislature, Finneran played coy, telling the Boston Globe, "The members would like a little bit more specificity as to what the governor and his team have in mind." Many interpreted his remarks to mean he would block the governor’s request.

Within a day, however, Finneran seemed to reverse course, and delivered 9C authority to the governor. And then the unthinkable happened. Finneran, the cat who’s toyed with past Republican governors like mice, was outfoxed by Romney. Or at least it looks that way. Romney took his brand-new 9C budget-cutting powers and ... failed to balance the budget. After some in the administration floated the possibility that Romney might have to make cuts as deep as 20 percent to local-aid budgets, he restricted them to a 9.35 percent across-the-board cut. It was just enough to get the Commonwealth’s mayors squawking, but not so deep as to cause statewide layoffs of police and firefighters. (In a nice bit of serendipity, the local-aid cuts whacked out those urban areas that supported O’Brien in the governor’s race and barely affected the suburban-independent strongholds that gave him his victory. [See "Unkindest Cuts," News and Features, February 7.])

Finneran’s response? Whine about it. Key Finneran allies — presumably with the Speaker’s approval — were quoted in the Herald February 1 faulting Romney for failing to cut local aid enough. "The legislature reasonably anticipated that the governor would actually cut more than he did," said Rogers. And House majority whip Lida Harkins, when asked to comment on whether the House would take back 9C budget-cutting authority from the governor, said: "Before we take the next step, we want him to more fully use the extraordinary power we gave him."

"If all these legislators are going to be thrilled to have Romney’s name on these cuts, why did Finneran set it up that it wasn’t going to be easy [for the House to grant Romney the power]?" asks one long-time Finneran-watcher, referring to the Speaker’s handling of the local-aid cuts.

One interpretation of all this is that Finneran gave Romney 9C authority believing that the governor would be stupid enough to take full advantage of it and balance the budget. Of course, Romney wasn’t, and he didn’t. Last week, the legislature was forced to deal with the remaining gap of $143 million, which it did by tapping reserve funds, something Finneran has been loath to do in anticipation of fiscal year 2004’s looming deficit.

Many political observers chalk up Finneran’s less-than-prime-time performance in recent weeks to the fact that for perhaps the first time in his tenure as Speaker, he faces a foe who is just as smart as he is — and probably smarter. There’s no question that Romney has been using the full array of executive tools at his disposal to battle the legislature (see "Work in Progress," New and Features, January 30) — something Bay Staters haven’t seen from the corner office in years.

But there’s more to it. While Romney has had a much better January and February than the Speaker has, he’s also hit some stormy waters of his own. Last week, Romney’s hot-tempered communications director, Eric Fehrnstrom, engaged in an embarrassing tussle with North Adams mayor John Barrett at the Newton studios of New England Cable News in an incident that had "hack-o-rama" written all over it. Fehrnstrom was forced to issue a formal apology, and Romney issued a statement saying he expected all staff "to treat elected officials with the proper respect."

Romney was also unsettled when Salem mayor Stanley Usovicz, along with a slew of protesters, crashed a press conference held by the governor last Thursday in the North Shore coastal city to announce that the state would reject a request by the Salem Harbor power plant (one of the "Filthy Five") for a delay in meeting clean-air standards. (In a bizarre snub, Romney failed to invite Usovicz to the event; such an invitation is not only customary, but is also political common sense.)

Romney also had to reverse his previous cancellation of Swift nominees to state boards, an executive flourish the incoming governor made — one of his first official actions — to demonstrate his commitment to eliminating patronage. It turns out, however, that Romney did not have the authority to rescind the nominations. And rather than be honest about what he was doing — fixing a legal mistake — the Romney administration claimed the governor was taking a "second look" at the nominees. (In fact, Romney had received faulty information from a former member of the Swift administration on the nature of his authority.)

Finally, the governor backtracked on a series of cuts to programs for the mentally ill. For example, Romney had indicated he would slash $11 million from a program providing psychiatric day treatments to the mentally ill (keeping them out of more expensive overnight hospitalizations), and then last Saturday he rescinded the cuts. The administration justified the move on the ground that the program constituted a "core" service, one of a class of government programs Romney vowed not to cut.

What all this means is that Finneran’s recent woes cannot be blamed entirely on Romney. There’s something else at work.