Senator-elect Marco Rubio spoke for a lot of Americans and especially for a lot of Tea Partiers when he said, in his victory speech on Tuesday night: "We make a grave mistake if we believe that tonight, these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican Party. What they are is a second chance. A second chance for Republicans to be what they said they were going to be."
You have probably heard a sentiment like this expressed before. In particular, the Tea Party in all its decentralized diversity, is pretty consistent in asserting that they are not merely a wing of the Republican Party. By this assertion, the Tea Party is insisting that they stand for a set of conservative values and that not all Republicans faithfully subscribe to or faithfully implement those values.
This much is fairly obvious. Many of our recent Republican leaders have caved, on one issue or another, to the ever-growing ideology of statism. But I think we need to be very cautious here.
It is too easy to say that Bush spent too much money or that John McCain or Lindsay Graham fell prey to the whims of the business community in their advocacy of amnesty for illegal aliens. Our departure from conservative values goes deeper than a handful of (highly positioned) renegades who have allowed power to cloud their vision of conservative principle. The deeper issue concerns how any of us can maintain fiscal restraint in a society that encourages profligacy, or how we can champion American exceptionalism in a world that preaches cultural equivalence, or even how we are able to maintain personal integrity when dirty-dealing appears too often to be rewarded. In each case, our culture and our media counsel surrender of our higher values. The ambient noise can be totally disheartening.
But the fact is this: conservatism is hard. The rewards of maintaining a standard of excellence, and all that comes with it in the political sphere - protection of the rule of law, freedom from arbitrary government force, freedom from confiscation of our property for redistribution to others who have failed to earn their own - these rewards are long term, indeed generational.
I think we can all agree that, while many voters are wholly informed about most important issues in an election, many voters are uninformed, underinformed, or misinformed about key issues. This is not to say that any particular chunk of voters are "dumb" or anything like that - it's very hard for every person to stay on top of every issue amid their busy lives - but rather to simply say that not that not every voter goes into the voting booth with comprehensive and entirely accurate information.
What do you think polls would look like if all voters had the following pieces of accurate information instead of, apparently, inaccurate perceptions on key issues?
A Bloomberg National Poll finds that by a two-to-one margin, likely voters in the midterm elections think taxes have gone up, the economy has shrunk, and the billions lent to banks as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program won't be recovered.
The facts: The Obama administration cut taxes for middle-class Americans, has overseen an economy that has grown for the past four quarters and expects to make a profit on the hundreds of billions of dollars spent to rescue Wall Street banks.
Said pollster Ann Selzer: "The public view of the economy is at odds with the facts, and the blame has to go to the Democrats. It does not matter much if you make change, if you do not communicate change."
There are a number things the public "knows" as we head into the election that are just false. If people elect leaders based on false information, the things those leaders do in office will not be what the public expects or needs.
Here are eight of the biggest myths that are out there:
3) President Obama bailed out the banks. Reality: While many people conflate the "stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be "non-reviewable by any court or any agency.") The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.
5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts. Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.
7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is "going broke," people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc. Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit (compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to.
8) Government spending takes money out of the economy. Reality: Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on We, the People. Many people do not know that it is government that builds the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things that are the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that all government spending is on "welfare" and "foreign aid" when that is only a small part of the government's budget.
Of course, the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats can blame themselves for not sufficiently touting their own accomplishments. That said, what if every single voter across the country was equipped with fully accurate information about these economic and other key issues? Do you think polling would look the way it does now or look better for either political party?
Did you read my incumbent State Representative Jim Dwyer's answer to the Reading Advocate's Question of the Week? If you did, please do not be fooled by his answer. When unopposed and unaccountable, the incumbent supported each and everything he said that he wants to cut. Now that the incumbent state representative is running for reelection against a candidate who wants to change Beacon Hill's culture and mentality of pay more, spend more and get less, he is hoping to catch you unaware of his votes. His actions speak much louder than his words.
I want to work towards changing the culture and priorities of Beacon Hill. The "pay more, spend more, get less" mentality needs to change and the only way we can change that mentality is to send new people to the State House. Not only have I pledged to fight against new taxes, I posted my signed pledge on the homepage of my website for all to see. I want to lower the taxes in the state, but we can only get lower taxes when we fix the state's spending. Right now services and local aid are being cut, yet Massachusetts keeps increasing the state spending and it just raised our taxes. Even with higher taxes and increased spending, Beacon Hill is still talking about more tax increases next year. This needs to change and the 30th Middlesex District can contribute to the change by electing a fresh face with a fresh voice.
I am taking this time to increase awareness of how Mr. Dwyer's record is vastly different than his new rhetoric. I hope you find this informative. Again, I signed a pledge not to raise taxes. I am also pledging to the voters that I will fight to lower your taxes as well.
The Sales Tax Increase from 5% to 6.25% In his answer, Mr. Dwyer stated that he wants to lower the sales tax back to 5%. However, Mr. Dwyer has fought for the initial tax hike as well as to keep the tax hike in place. Here are all the ways that Mr. Dwyer voted against the will of the people by hiking the sales tax and rejecting the repeal of the increase:
On 4/14/2009, Mr. Dwyer against a budget amendment that would prohibit tax increases in the budget.
On 4/27/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted for the budget amendment that increased the tax from 5% to 6.25%.
On 6/19/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted for the final budget that raised the sales tax.
On 11/18/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to prohibit the House from voting on a bill that would reduce the sales tax back to 5%.
On April 27, 2010, Mr. Dwyer again voted to prohibit a vote to roll back the sales tax to 5%.
Also on April 27, 2010, Mr. Dwyer also voted on an amendment that prevented any consideration on changes to the sales tax.
Mr. Dwyer's actions speak louder than words. If Mr. Dwyer really wanted the sales tax to stay at 5% then he never should have voted for the tax increase nor should he be fighting the repeal of the increase. Either Mr. Dwyer wants the sales tax to stay at 6.25% or he is just blindly following the Beacon Hill Leadership. After all, while pushing for ethics reform Mr. Dwyer voted for Sal DiMasi for Speaker of the House. After the indictment of Sal DiMasi, Mr. Dwyer went on to vote with the current speaker 95% of the time.
The New Alcohol Tax In Addition To Alcohol Excise Tax Last year, Mr. Dwyer, supported the new alcohol tax, which subjects alcohol to double taxation.
On November 18, 2009, Mr. Dwyer voted for a bill that rejected the repeal of the new alcohol tax.
In his January 2010 Legislative Update, Mr. Dwyer discuss the damage that the new alcohol tax caused to businesses, but never took responsibility for his support of this tax.
In January 2010, Mr. Dwyer tried to appeal to voters by saying that he supported the double tax on alcohol because it was in a "consolidated amendment" that was attached to the local aid amendment. Not only is this not true, but Mr. Dwyer voted to keep the practice of consolidated amendments alive in the budget process. There was not one consolidated amendment in the House budget that contained the alcohol tax. The State Senate added the alcohol tax, which was included in the final budget, which Mr. Dwyer supported.
Currently, Mr. Dwyer is acting as if he never voted to impose or keep the alcohol tax. His most recent statements try to catch you unaware because he now says that this double taxation on alcohol is unfair. Mr. Dwyer never takes responsibility for his support of the tax. I ask - why was the double taxation of alcohol not unfair and damaging last year when he supported the tax?
The only explanations for Mr. Dwyer's vote are: he supported adding a double tax to alcohol, he did not what he was voting on, or he was just voting the way he was told to by the Speaker of the House.
Lowering the Size of the State Government's Workforce Mr. Dwyer is not serious about reducing the size of the state government's workforce.
On 11/18/2009, he voted to prohibit the House from voting on a bill that would reduce all state workers' salaries by 1% or cut the state workforce by an amount equal to 1% of salaries.
On 5/1/2009, he voted against imposing a hiring freeze on all but the most important vacancies in state government.
On 6/19/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted for a budget that funding The Patrick administration's hiring spree of more than 1,300 state jobs - including a librarian for cons, a painter for hospitals and a "game biologist."
If Mr. Dwyer was serious about cutting the state government's workforce, he would have actually voted for it. Again, the only explanations are: Mr. Dwyer does not really support reducing the state government workforce, he did not read what he was voting on, or he was just voting the way he was told to by the Speaker of the House.
Consolidate Bureaucracies Not only has Mr. Dwyer not been serious about consolidating bureaucracies, but he voted to expand them.
On 4/8/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to allow the newly created Transportation & Infrastructure Authority to explore or collect tolls on any roadway that is currently not tolled without the express authorization of the legislature (this would ensure that no new tolls on currently non-tolled roads be constructed in the Commonwealth).
On 4/28/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to eliminate the Governor's Washington, D.C. office, saving the taxpayers $403K
On 5/1/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to add over $3 million to the bottom line of the budget, almost all of which are earmarks to the Office of Travel & Tourism
On 10/20/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to support over $70 million in additional spending, of which $18.7 million was for the legislature's operations & $100K for the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission which is infamous for being a dumping ground of Democratic patronage.
Instituting Cost Saving Reforms Mr. Dwyer continuously votes to increase state spending and reject cost saving reforms.
On 4/14/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to prohibit any earmarks - otherwise known as pork - in the budget.
On 4/14/2009, Mr. Dwyer rejected a budget amendment that would require a proportional decrease in spending in one area of the budget if there is increased spending in another area.
On 4/28/2009, Mr. Dwyer rejected the elimination of the Governor's Washington, D.C. office, which would have saved the taxpayers $403,000.
On 4/28/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to add $1.5 million in additional spending to the House budget at a time that the Commonwealth cannot afford the increased financial burden.
On 4/29/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to add more than $104 million to the House budget even in light of evidence that the tax revenues were going to be significantly below earlier projections in FY10.
On 4/30/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted against increasing the threshold for the Pacheco Law from $200K to $5million, which would save the state $20million by allowing more privatization in the delivery of state services.
On 4/30/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted against allowing consumers to participate in prescription drug rebates;
On 4/30/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted against saving the Commonwealth nearly $125 million by requiring state employees to pay 30% of their health care premiums;
On 5/1/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to add over $3 million to the bottom line of the budget, almost all of which are earmarks to the Office of Travel & Tourism.
On 6/3/2009, Mr. Dwyer rejected eliminating the Suffolk County only holidays of Bunker Hill & Evacuation Days. Mr. Dwyer's vote against eliminating these holidays allowed the House's vote to end in a tie, thereby prohibiting this cost saving reform.
On 6/19/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted for:
o An increase in fees at the Registry of Motor Vehicles;
o An increase in the bed fee for private payers at nursing homes; and
o A budget that lacked the requirement to prove citizenship or legal alien status in order to receive state benefits.
On 7/28/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to override the Governor's veto, thereby requiring all correctional facilities, sheriffs' departments, and the two soldiers' homes to purchase prescription drugs through the state office for pharmacy services rather than contracting with other providers to save money. He voted against a competitive system when it is particularly impetrative for the state to consider all options to save the taxpayer money.
On 10/20/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to support over $70 million in additional state spending, of which $18.7 million was for the legislature's operations & $100,000 was for the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, which is infamous for being a dumping ground of Democratic patronage.
On 11/18/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to override the Governor's Veto allowing the legislature to retain $19 million of unspent cash that funds its own operations rather than re-appropriate that money.
On 4/27/10, Mr. Dwyer voted to prohibit a vote on switching MassHealth members from fee-for-service and PCC plans to managed care plans, which would save the Commonwealth millions and not compromise care for the patients.
It is unbelievable that after all these votes for additional spending and rejection of cost saving reforms, Mr. Dwyer is trying to pass himself off as somebody looking out for ways to save. He rejected measure after measure that would save the Commonwealth millions. He voted for spending increase after spending increase, costing the taxpayer millions. He even voted to prohibit earmarks in the budget.
Mr. Dwyer is either not serious about instituting cost saving reforms, or he did not read any of the bills he voted on, or he was just voting the way he was told to by the Speaker of the House.
Local Aid Mr. Dwyer has not protected local aid, but instead he continuously votes to cut local aid.
On 1/14/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted against limiting cuts to local aid to only those payments that have not yet been made & not retroactively cut funding.
Also on 1/14/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to grant the Governor expanded 9C powers to reduce local aid to cities & towns.
On 4/28/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted against providing supplemental local aid to cities and towns to make up for the lottery shortfall if the revenue became available.
On 4/29/10, Mr. Dwyer voted to prevent a debate and vote on allowing surplus revenue to be earmarked for cities & towns.
On 4/30/10, Mr. Dwyer voted House budget that rejected amendments to restore local aid and cut local aid by approximately 4%.
Local aid is the lifeblood of local budgets. The more it gets cut the more pressure local communities are under to either cut local services or raise local taxes. I believe that local aid is vital to protect. Mr. Dwyer's continuous votes to cut local aid do not match his statements that we need to protect it.
If Mr. Dwyer were serious about protecting local aid, he would not be continuously voting to cut it. Either Mr. Dwyer is not serious about protecting local aid, or he did not read any of the bills he voted on, or he was just voting the way he was told to by the Speaker of the House.
It is really a shame that the government is not listening to the people. Over two weeks ago, the people of Reading voted in a special election on the issue of the imposed local meals tax. Although the majority of votes were to repeal the meals tax, the sounds of voters fell on deaf ears since the vote had less than a 20 percent overall voter turnout.
The pro-tax increasing crowd of government is spinning the results. Rather than notice that the low turnout was because the town scheduled the election on a random Wednesday at the end of June and barely publicized it, the tax loving crowd is saying that the voters did not vote in the election means because they want the tax and did not want the 20% voter participation threshold met.
Those that read incumbent State Representative, James J. Dwyer's most recent Legislative Update might be perplexed by his most recent position on Massachusetts's new alcohol tax.
Yes, Mr. Dwyer voted to impose the alcohol tax last year.
During last year's budget debate, the Massachusetts Legislature, voted to impose the new 6.25% sales tax in addition to the alcohol excise tax, which subjects alcohol to double taxation. Mr. Dwyer voted to impose the alcohol tax first as an amendment to the budget and then when he voted for the budget.
In Mr. Dwyer's January Legislative Update, he said that he voted for the alcohol tax because it was in a "consolidated amendment" and attached to the local aid amendment. Consolidated amendments bundle together approximately 25-30 different topics, resulting in one "consolidated amendment." However, Mr. Dwyer voted to allow this "consolidated amendment" practice to continue rather than debate and vote on each amendment individually. Furthermore, upon reading the House Journal, I saw no local aid consolidated amendments that included the alcohol tax. The amendment dealing with the alcohol tax was withdrawn before a vote. The House did not vote on the issue of the alcohol tax until it was part of the final budget, which Mr. Dwyer supported.
On November 18, 2009, Mr. Dwyer voted for a so-called fiscal stability bill. This bill rejected the repeal of the new alcohol tax and the roll back of the state sales tax from 6.25% to 5% while adding an additional $30 million in off-budget spending.
In January, Mr. Dwyer discussed the damage the alcohol tax imposed on small business owners, but took no responsibility for his vote to impose the tax.
Currently, Mr. Dwyer is acting as if he never voted to impose or keep the alcohol tax. His most recent statements in his Legislative Update catch you unaware when he now says that this double taxation on alcohol is unfair. Mr. Dwyer never takes responsibility for his vote in favor of the tax despite the unfairness of the double taxation of the alcohol. Nor does he mention that funding for alcoholism services could be found elsewhere without imposing this new tax.
Mr. Dwyer is trying to rewrite his record. Unfortunately for Mr. Dwyer, he cannot rewrite the wrong votes he cast nor can he undo the damage his votes caused to businesses. Apparently, in Mr. Dwyer's eyes, double taxation of alcohol was not unfair last year nor were there damaging effects to businesses the first time he voted for the tax.
The only thing that changed in this past year to make Mr. Dwyer act as if he can rewrite his record is the fact that it is an election year and incumbents, especially those that voted to increase your taxes are in danger.
As Mr. Dwyer's opponent, I pledge to fight for real reform on Beacon Hill and to fight against new tax increases. I stand for representing the people and not myself or the House Leadership.
The following is an internal memorandum from the Baker Campaign outlining how they see the results of the latest Suffolk poll.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Baker/Tisei Campaign
FROM: Russ Schriefer, Stevens & Schriefer Group
DATE: May 26, 2010
RE: Strategy Memo & Suffolk Poll Results
Today's Suffolk poll confirms what we saw in the Rasmussen poll a week or so ago: Patrick remains vulnerable (and unpopular), while Charlie's support has been steadily growing as he remains an "unknown" quantity to the majority of voters, and finally, greater public exposure to Tim Cahill's many controversies as Treasurer, such as pay-to-play, spending tax-payer dollars on renovations, and opposing the income tax rollback, have damaged his candidacy.
While Patrick's vote share has increased since the last Suffolk poll, these numbers have to be troubling for his campaign. Forty-six percent of the voters have an unfavorable image of him, 55% say it's time to give someone else a chance to do the job, and 49% disapprove of the job he's doing as governor. You combine that with the anti-incumbent environment and the general voter dissatisfaction that exists (36% right direction / 52% wrong track) you start to understand the trouble he faces. Patrick's numbers are about where Democratic New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine's were at this point last year; he had a 53% disapproval rating and a 51% unfavorable rating. When you consider there are only five months between now and the election and factor in both the political and macro-economic environment - it's safe to assume it will be difficult for Patrick to dramatically improve these numbers between now and the election.
Conservatives have always been wary of the so called Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation (MTF). Unlike the Citizens for Limited Taxation and other taxpayer organizations the MTF is a front for big business and big government. If you needed another piece of data to help you understand this is the case, tonight gives it to you. Governor Deval Patrick, the leader of the big government machine in Massachusetts, is giving the Keynote address to the MTF tonight.
The Massachusetts Republican Party took the liberty of asking the Governor some questions ahead of his appearance.
Why Does Patrick Favor High Union Pay Rates Over Taxpayer Savings?
Patrick Waved Through High Union Pay Rates: "Gov. Deval Patrick missed out on additional savings when he waved through high union pay rates for his supposedly cost-cutting civilian flagger program, according to economists and a lawmaker - a 'lost opportunity' that could come back to haunt him during his re-election campaign…Patrick administration officials last year indicated they would suggest unions renegotiate the flagger rates, because the ones currently on the books are from the 1930s, but that negotiation never happened, said Andy Bagley, research director for the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. "That was a lost opportunity," said Michael Widmer, executive director of the business-based foundation. "The Legislature left that open for (the Patrick administration) to pursue that line, but they've taken the rate that's on the books." (Boston Herald, 7/28/09)
This morning Doug Rubin tweeted, at about 8:30 a.m., this story from the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. In the story Governor Patrick makes the claim that Massachusetts is one of the top ten states in moving stimulus dollars to create jobs. Via twitter I asked Rubin to provide proof, as the article only cites the Governor.
The money is sometimes combined with state funding, he said, adding that Massachusetts is one of the top 10 states for moving the stimulus money to create jobs.
When looking at the actual stimulus data from Recovery.gov and using state population data from the Census Bureau via Wikipedia the claim by the Governor doesn't stand up. Per Recovery.gov Massachusetts has been awarded $5.18B in stimulus dollars and the recipients have reported receiving $1.37B and 11,691.84 (how you can create a fractional job is beyond me) jobs. This gives our rankings as follows:
Massachusetts ranks 14th in $ Awarded per Capita at $785.80,
Massachusetts ranks 27th in $ Received per Capita at $207.56,
Massachusetts ranks 38th in Jobs created per 1000 residents at 1.77,
Massachusetts ranks 32nd in $ received per job at $117,051.35, and finally
Massachusetts ranks 35th in % of awarded dollars received by recipients at 26.41#.
There is no category in which Massachusetts ranks in the top ten states. Massachusetts consistently ranks in the bottom half of all the categories except $ awarded per capita. So Mr. Rubin, could you let us know exactly where the Governor came up with that top ten number?
Deval Patrick campaigned in 2006 as a "Different kind of politician". One that would be more ethical than the rest. Now in 2010 he is using government resources to campaign. What else would you call this?
I'd call it a blatant use of government resources to campaign for Governor. This would not be allowed at the federal level and should not be allowed here in Massachusetts.
Tim Cahill, pseudo-con candidate for governor, just can't get his facts straight. Yesterday when confronted with the fact that the lottery offices got a $1.3M renovation, Cahill said that the landlord paid for it. Let's look back to what the Treasurer and Receiver General told the Boston Globe in December of 2008.
The improvements to the building were not directly paid for by the lottery, Cahill added. He said the lottery's landlord agreed to pay for the renovations and in return raised the rent by $41,243 a month for five years.
Well that is surely fiscally responsible. Let's do the math. Renovations cost $1.3M, $41,243 in raised rent x 60 months = $2.47M. That is an effective interest rate of 28.973%. Great deal Treasurer Tim!
A couple of weeks back I ran into my incumbent at an event at the Tanner Tavern in Woburn. While I was collecting signatures for my campaign, I told voters that we need to change Beacon Hill by changing our representatives. My incumbent's response - changing me won't be much change for Beacon Hill. I guess he doesn't remember the tie vote to keep funding Bunker Hill & Evacuation Day where he voted to keep funding holidays for a few rather than using that money for other more necessary functions of government. Yes, changing one representative can make a big difference. Especially when that one incumbent representative has a taxpayer unfriendly record.
My incumbent tries to pass himself off as a conservative, but study of his record and with whom he aligns himself show otherwise. One of his very first actions in the State House was voting for DiMasi for Speaker while the indictments were looming. He was an initial cosponsor to strip away a parent's right to of notification and consent for their minor child having an abortion.
One of his next big acts - voting to increase the sales tax, the alcohol tax, the nursing homes tax, the meals tax, the hotels tax etc. He voted to increase funding for the Attorney General's Office and decrease funding for the Soldiers' Homes. He says he is against public funding for abortions, but voted for a budget that funds abortions. He says he voted for the sales tax increase because local aid was earmarked for protection, yet local aid has continuously been cut since the imposition of the sales tax increase.
Then there was the vote to keep Bunker Hill & Evacuation Day. He also voted to override the Governor's veto & appropriate the Legislature an additional $18 million to fund its own operations while the state cut local aid reimbursements. Next up, he was supporting Martha Coakley at an event in Woburn just days before the Senate Election even though Coakley said that "we need to get taxes up." Rather than stand up for the taxpayers and fight for reforms, in March, he joined in a letter to the Woburn government telling them to brace themselves for a 3 ½ to 5% cut in local aid.
He is aligning himself with the Beacon Hill Machine. A review of his guest list on Facebook for his reelection kickoff shows House Ways & Means Chairman Charley Murphy as attending. In the last few days Murphy released the House Ways & Means Budget, praising the difficult decisions that were made, which included 4% local aid cuts. Even though the cities and towns are already struggling to balance their budgets without local tax increases, Murphy feels that the local aid cuts are "not outrageous." Earlier this year, Mr. Murphy also told cities and towns that local aid would get cut and that they were given a tool to raise revenue (the local options meals & hotels tax) so cities & towns need to use it.
Now Mr. Murphy is attacking Proposition 2 ½. Taxpayer protector Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation wrote in a posting on Red Mass Group
"This proposed W&M change in Prop 2½ would allow all communities to increase the presently allowed levy by the amount in the community's Overlay (abatement) account, i.e, the money supposedly set aside to pay taxpayers who appeal their property tax assessment to local assessors, though if not used for abatements it can be spent on anything at all. There would be no requirement to ask local voters' approval of this property tax increase" redmassgroup.com
My incumbent is part of the problem on Beacon Hill. Although his time in the legislature has been brief, there is no difference between him and his predecessors. He is protecting the establishment, not the taxpayers.
Not only have I pledged not to raise taxes when elected, I pledge to fight for the taxpayers. I will fight for the much-needed reforms on Beacon Hill. Please get involved in my campaign for state representative at www.karafratto.com because our legislature needs to stop seeing taxpayers as an unlimited ATM machine.
State Treasurer and Receiver General Tim Cahill told the Boston Herald's Dave Wedge that a volunteer sent out the illegal fundraising solicitation.
Cahill spokeswoman Amy Birmingham called the e-mail blast "an oversight" and said a follow-up e-mail is being sent to lawmakers acknowledging the mistake. She said a campaign volunteer inadvertently sent the solicitation to a list of lawmakers the campaign used last week when sending out a letter of opposition to the national health care reform plan.
In a related development, State Republican Party Executive Director Nick Connors has filed a complaint with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance. Red Mass Group has obtained a copy of the complaint which can be read below the fold.
The campaign finance woes for the Tim Cahill campaign get worse for the guberantorial hopeful. Today his campaign sent a solicitation email to members of the General Court to their State House emails. Red Mass Group has obtained the following email from a Republican Member of the General Court. This practice is illegal under Massachusetts Campaign Finance law.
From: Tim Cahill [mailto:Tim2010@TimForGovernor.com]
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 11:45 AM
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Subject: Help me end March on the right note
Dear XXXXXXXX.,
I have spent the last two weeks warning any American who would listen about the danger ObamaCare poses to our country.
Friday, I had an op ed in the Wall Street Journal as part of a healthcare symposium in which I was joined by Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana, Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana and former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas. This symposium explains our opposition to the health care plan and how to fix it.
As I said Friday, while I believe everyone should have access to affordable health care, our experience in Massachusetts tells us that the new federal entitlement will burden future taxpayers and place a crushing burden on small businesses.
(Given Tim Murray saying that Deval doesn't use Harvard Pilgrim at the Patrick campaign. Here's the backup from OCPF. In addition he continues to use HPHC straight through today. Maybe Murray should get his facts straight. - promoted by Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno)
I have a quick question for the Governor. If Charlie Baker is so bad on healthcare and his former employer is an evil health care insurer. Why, of all the choices available to you, did you chose Harvard Pilgrim as the health care provider for your political committee employees?
11/25/2009 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
PO Box 010000 Boston, MA 02207 Patrick, Deval L. Health Insurance $348.08
1/28/2010 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
PO Box 970050 Boston, MA 02297 Patrick, Deval L. Health Insurance $348.08
8/31/2009 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
PO Box 970050 Boston, MA 02297 Patrick, Deval L. Campaign Override Health Insurance Payment $348.08
7/23/2009 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
PO Box 970050 Boston, MA 02297 Patrick, Deval L. Health Insurance $348.08
4/27/2009 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
PO Box 970050 Boston, MA 02297 Patrick, Deval L. Health Insurance $348.08
6/29/2009 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
PO Box 970050 Boston, MA 02297 Patrick, Deval L. Health Insurance $348.08
11/4/2009 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
PO Box 970050 Boston, MA 02297 Patrick, Deval L. Health Insurance $348.08
6/2/2009 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
PO Box 970050 Boston, MA 02297 Patrick, Deval L. Health Insurance Premium Payment $348.08
3/27/2009 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
PO Box 970050 Boston, MA 02297 Patrick, Deval L. Health Insurance $348.08
9/25/2009 HARVARD PILGRIM HEALTH CARE
PO BOX 970050 Boston, MA 02297 Patrick, Deval L. HEALTH INSURANCE $348.08
12/24/2009 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
PO Box 970050 Boston, MA 02297 Patrick, Deval L. Health Insurance $348.08
Faced with a Rasmussen Reports poll that shows his re-election chances fading, Deval Patrick went on the attack yesterday. Accusing Charlie Baker and Tim Cahill of being AWOL on solutions for Health Care. The problem for Patrick is that he is lying. Charlie Baker for years has been an advocate for transparent pricing of health care services.
The Eagle Tribune last month praised Baker's push for transparency in health care costs. Where consumers would be told the actual full ocst of procedures they are having, and allow them to shop for the best deal.
Ironically enough, the report calls for "more transparency" about price and quality. This, in a report that features a glaring lack of transparency. Of course, the AG has legal cover: It's the Legislature's fault.
Also ironically, former Harvard Pilgrim Health Care CEO and current Republican gubernatorial candidate Charles Baker has been calling for transparency for the past five years, for the same reasons.
But yeah, it would be very helpful to know that the success rate for knee replacements is better at the community hospital five miles away than at the much more expensive metro teaching hospital 40 miles away.
But the truth doesn't fit either Deval Patrick nor Barack Obama's agenda. Obama went on a full frontal attack on the health insurance industry yesterday. It's not a stretch to think Patrick's attacks were coordinated with the administration.
DANVERS, MA - Today, Senate-elect Scott Brown lends his name to Bill Hudak's race to replace John Tierney in Congress. Hudak, the Republican candidate, is a small businessman and attorney that has made news for challenging Tierney to a number of townhall events to talk about health care, taxes and out of control government spending.
"Bill was with us from the beginning and is the representative the people of the sixth district need. Bill is not beholden to special interests and will help me bring the voice of the people Washington," said Brown.
When "nobody gave Scott Brown a chance of winning" Bill Hudak let Scott Brown basically run his north shore campaign out of the Hudak congressional office. With the campaign short on money, Scott Brown really needed this. Classy move by Scott Brown remembering his friends. Also, good news for Bill Hudak. Scott Brown cleaned up in the 6th congressional district.
Christy Mihos (R) 26%
Deval Patrick (D) 32%
Tim Cahill (I) 28%
Not sure 14%
Charlie Baker (R) 28%
Deval Patrick (D) 33%
Tim Cahill (I) 25%
Not sure 14%
Just 34% of voters in the state now approve of Patrick's performance as governor, down nine points from October, while 64% disapprove. But unchanged is the finding that those who strongly disapprove outnumber those who strongly approve by more than three-to-one - 37% to 11%.
Newton Alderman Scott Lennon is "seriously considering" a run for his boss's position as State Auditor.
Democratic New Bedford Sen. Mark Montigny has also eyed the post. Sen. Marc Pacheco told the News Service Thursday he would consider running if DeNucci did not.
All around the commonwealth Democrats are getting bored in their current positions an looking to move up all. The good news for us is that this may create open seats. Pacheco represents the FIRST PLYMOUTH AND BRISTOL district and Montigny represents the SECOND BRISTOL AND PLYMOUTH district. In wild speculation I will guess that only one of them would run for regional reasons. Glodis has a monster operation in Central Mass and will be tough to beat. Anyway, I took a moment to analyze the districts. The numbers below are the vote totals for Obama and McCain in 2008 according to the Boston Globe:
FIRST PLYMOUTH AND BRISTOL Bridgewater 5,873 to 5,849
Carver 2,933 to 2,899
Marion 1,797 to 1,262
Middleborough 5,150 to 5,853
Wareham 6,190 to 4,392
Taunton 13,135 to 8,634
Berkley 1,574 to 1,548
Dighton 1,732 to 1,719
Raynham 3,336 to 3,522
TOTAL 41,720 to 35,678
TOTAL 53.9% to 46.1%
The Percentages here are only among the Obama and McCain votes and do not include the 3rd party candidates. Pacheco's district is very winnable. The numbers are much better than the state average and mirror the national average. 2008 was close a Dem landslide and 2010 shapes up to be a better year. With the right candidate we could have a real chance here.
I have just be forwarded an email from a reader that was sent by Lew Evangelidis. There have been rumors going around Worcester County that Lew was going to run for Sheriff. This email seems to confirm this.
Dear XXXXXXXX,
As a friend and supporter I wanted to directly reach out to you regarding some recent developments in Worcester County politics. There is widespread speculation that Sheriff Guy Glodis will be announcing his candidacy for State Auditor, creating an open seat for Worcester County Sheriff. There has not been an open seat for Worcester County Sheriff in over 50 years. The current political landscape and dynamics of Massachusetts, coupled with my Criminal Justice background with experience as an Assistant District Attorney and Assistant State Attorney would make me a very formidable candidate for this position.
It has been and conti nues to be a tremendous honor to serve the 1st District of Worcester County in the House of Representatives. Of all the jobs that I have had in life, I have never enjoyed one anymore than being your State Representative. I never intended to be a career politician on Beacon Hill and have always believed in term limits to bring new people with new ideas into politics. When I was first elected to the House I thought it would be appropriate to serve ten years, but an opportunity like this would be difficult not to seriously consider as I feel this may be an exciting opportunity for me to take on a new challenge. The Sheriff of Worcester County represents the entire county with approximately 600,000 constituents and is a remarkable opportunity to contribute to community service and public safety.
As I would not be where I am today without your support over the past eight years, I wanted you to hear directly from me on these new developments. Thank you again for all your continued support and I will certainly keep you updated on this exciting opportunity.
I look forward to continue working with you as your Representative or in a future campaign for higher office and I hope that you and your family have a great weekend.,
