BMG's Charley Blandy ponders whether Charley Baker, CEO of Harvard Pilgram, is planning a run for Governor. Of course, rumors of Baker's desired ascendancy to the top of Massachusetts's Republicanville have existed for quite some time - at least since I was a Junior in High School, when DOE administration officials told me all about it. When I was serving on the State Student Advisory Council to the Board of Education, Charley Baker sat on the very board I advised. Baker's also from my home town of Swampscott, serving a brief and very dull stint as a town selectman (the administration failed to mention any of the town's fiscal woes to its populace in good time, forcing an unexpected school closing: some of that blame must lie on the expert CEO/Selectman).
History has taught me not to worry about Charley Baker's plans (luckily, I don't have Harvard Pilgram). Up until this point, he's been too afraid to challenge the likes of Kerry Healey, Mitt Romney and Jane Swift in his own party - never mind a strong and popular Democratic incumbent. If Baker and his new found mud slinging thinks he's found the courage to take on a popular progressive, I look forward to defeating the CEO of the HMO. As quoted in Blandy's blog, Baker may not know why Deval Patrick won the election - but I can promise Baker the reasons will remain the same when he meets defeat come 2010, if he ever manages the cajones to run.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
Friday Musings: Hillary, Casinos and More
I'm off to New Bedford to sample the local cuisine and meet up with friends, but first some quick thoughts for the weekend.
- How the media latched onto Hillary's impertinent response to Obama - and thought it was a plus for Hillary - is beyond me. Did anyone honestly believe that what Obama meant, when he said he'd meet with foreign dictators and regimes within a year's time, was that he wouldn't send advance envoys? Good for Obama, in New Hampshire no less, to criticize Hill, calling her Bush-Lite. She is Bush-Lite and deserves his rebuke; continuing Bush's regime of playing politics with diplomacy, as if it were some play toy, is not the basis of international peace.
- The media, in the above example, continues to show its ineptitude. Pro-Hillary pundits latched on to those few seconds, which during the debate seemed unremarkable, and haven't helped her cause at all (despite their insistence that it did). This will only continue to backfire for her. Imagine my shock, however, when Hardball's usually insane host (Chris Mathews) actually pushed hard on Clinton's spokesman - who was debating the matter with Obama's guy. The Clinton hack actually insinuated that Obama was already planning those meetings, without a shred of evidence, making it all too easy I suppose. My only question: did she hire Shrum's people or what?
- Read my blog on tomorrow's vote in Middleboro: we can't let anyone fudge the numbers and get away with it. It goes to show why we have a system of government where projects are vetted with hearings before they're voted on. Thank god someone was vetting this, because Middleboro was about to get fleeced.
- Then read the BMG diary for a local's take and good comments. The big shocker: another lie became the basis of the casino's support. There's a rumor going around that the casino is inevitable, so people must vote yes. Except, in fact, the reverse is true: no matter how the town votes on Saturday, Beacon Hill controls the casino's fate. The State Legislature and Gov Patrick would still have to okay the deal. Furthermore, pushing the casino against Middleboro's will, as the rumor suggests, certainly wouldn't be persuasive to the powers that be.
- I didn't blog about it earlier, but kudos to NStar for buying up renewable energy to sell to its costumers. For a small premium of $7-15 dollars, people can turn on all the AC they want - without any of the guilt. Today's 90 degree weather has been a killer, but still my AC remains off. I refuse to contribute to Salem's dirty coal-burning plant any more than required; getting my electricity from the beautiful turbines in New York and soon-to-be Maine would be a refreshing relief in today's summer doldrums.
Oh, What a Surprise: Casinos & Lies, Lies, Lies
The most offensive thing about this new casino deal is the fact that it's getting pushed so fast people aren't going to know what hit them. As I talked about on Tuesday, the 45 page document that the town of Middleborough will vote on tomorrow was only posted on Monday, giving town voters less than a week to vet and analyze it. If this were a project at Beacon Hill, professional legislators - who's job it is to vet major projects like this - would have had months to analyze all the aspects of this deal. Yet, ordinary voters, in a town meeting organized so fast that even Secretary of State Bill Galvin is nervous, are expected to be able to properly analyze this in such a short time?
Well, it appears as if - even in the course of a week - some of the lies, deceit and trickery are spilling forth. According to the Boston Globe, to get the town to pass the project, the Womponoags 'sweetened the deal,' promising the town 11 million dollars a year - up from the 7 it had previously promised. Citizens in the town thought they were going to get fleeced and demanded more, but the casino only pretended to budge. Here's what the town's Finance Committee found:
The casino has projected hotel billing and occupancy rates that just don't line up with reality. They don't even stack up against the numbers Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods charge, despite the fact that with another casino in close proximity to them they'll all probably suffer some in terms of occupancy and billing rates. Any fool knows that with more casinos, the hotels they have become cheaper. Heck, someone could go to a Las Vegas 4 star hotel for less than a hundred bucks a night.
Here's what it all boils down to: we just don't know. Maybe this project really would create so much revenue for the state of Massachusetts that it would be worth all the costs associated with a casino. Given the data we have from around the country, I highly doubt it, but I'll admit: we don't know. We haven't had any serious time to vet this project. It's been pushed so fast that all the efforts on it going forward have been in planning its passage - not planning whether or not it ought to be built. That's a serious mistake.
There's a reason why Democracy is slow. Sometimes, it may frustrate people: no one wants to wait around for committees to investigate, then have their hearings, then vote to move it forward, then have a conference committee, then investigate it as a conference committee and, then, finally have both houses vote on the merits. However, there's a reason why we go through all those steps: to protect the people of Massachusetts. Instead of following the normal process, the Womponoags have sprung this project on a town that, like most across Massachusetts, needs money bad. Of course, they're interested in the millions a year a casino would promise.
It's an attempt to get the town to pass the project so they can pressure the state legislature to allow it, because they'd be vilified if they didn't. I can see the Globe headline now: "State Denies Middleborough Millions a Year." It wouldn't play nicely, even if they were looking out for everyone's best interest. Because of the way things have been going, we may not have discovered the casino fudged its numbers: heck, people only had a week to read the 45 pages of fine print.
The experts of town finance in Middleborough, their Finance Committee, have overwhelmingly voted against the project: that's step one in a brief vetting process. Let's hope the rest of the town says "hey, hold on," and votes this project down. We just don't know enough about it. We haven't investigated all the ins and outs yet. There's no reason why we can't go back and pass it later, after its been seriously vetted. However, to pass it now, without all the facts, would be a serious misjudgement.
Well, it appears as if - even in the course of a week - some of the lies, deceit and trickery are spilling forth. According to the Boston Globe, to get the town to pass the project, the Womponoags 'sweetened the deal,' promising the town 11 million dollars a year - up from the 7 it had previously promised. Citizens in the town thought they were going to get fleeced and demanded more, but the casino only pretended to budge. Here's what the town's Finance Committee found:
About 10,000 of the 15,000 registered voters in Middleborough are expected to attend tomorrow's Town Meeting and to vote on the deal. As town officials finished preparations for what is expected to be the largest Town Meeting in state history, Middleborough's Finance Committee released a report recommending a no vote and promised to speak against the deal at the meeting.
One issue in the committee's 5-to-2 vote against the agreement is skepticism about the hotel tax revenue. "That $4 million could turn into $1 million," said the committee chairman, Richard Pavadore.
The casino has projected hotel billing and occupancy rates that just don't line up with reality. They don't even stack up against the numbers Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods charge, despite the fact that with another casino in close proximity to them they'll all probably suffer some in terms of occupancy and billing rates. Any fool knows that with more casinos, the hotels they have become cheaper. Heck, someone could go to a Las Vegas 4 star hotel for less than a hundred bucks a night.
Clyde W. Barrow, a gambling researcher at UMass-Dartmouth, said the casino market is too competitive to allow one casino to charge significantly higher room rates. Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are about 70 miles from Middleborough.... Using the existing market as a guide, Barrow said, he calculated that the hotel would provide Middleborough about $2.3 million a year in tax revenue, rather than $4 million.
Here's what it all boils down to: we just don't know. Maybe this project really would create so much revenue for the state of Massachusetts that it would be worth all the costs associated with a casino. Given the data we have from around the country, I highly doubt it, but I'll admit: we don't know. We haven't had any serious time to vet this project. It's been pushed so fast that all the efforts on it going forward have been in planning its passage - not planning whether or not it ought to be built. That's a serious mistake.
There's a reason why Democracy is slow. Sometimes, it may frustrate people: no one wants to wait around for committees to investigate, then have their hearings, then vote to move it forward, then have a conference committee, then investigate it as a conference committee and, then, finally have both houses vote on the merits. However, there's a reason why we go through all those steps: to protect the people of Massachusetts. Instead of following the normal process, the Womponoags have sprung this project on a town that, like most across Massachusetts, needs money bad. Of course, they're interested in the millions a year a casino would promise.
It's an attempt to get the town to pass the project so they can pressure the state legislature to allow it, because they'd be vilified if they didn't. I can see the Globe headline now: "State Denies Middleborough Millions a Year." It wouldn't play nicely, even if they were looking out for everyone's best interest. Because of the way things have been going, we may not have discovered the casino fudged its numbers: heck, people only had a week to read the 45 pages of fine print.
The experts of town finance in Middleborough, their Finance Committee, have overwhelmingly voted against the project: that's step one in a brief vetting process. Let's hope the rest of the town says "hey, hold on," and votes this project down. We just don't know enough about it. We haven't investigated all the ins and outs yet. There's no reason why we can't go back and pass it later, after its been seriously vetted. However, to pass it now, without all the facts, would be a serious misjudgement.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Deval Patrick's Second Big Test
Governor Patrick was victorious in his first big test, protecting the Goodridge decision. However, come Saturday, Governor Patrick's job is either going to become a lot easier or harder depending on what happens in the moderately-sized Middleborough. Over ten thousand registered voters, residents of the town, are expected to show up to Massachusetts's largest town meeting ever. They're going to vote on whether or not to accept a deal that would place a casino in their town.
How they vote, however, only makes a symbolic difference. The truth is that no matter what happens on Saturday, it's up to the State Legislature and Governor Patrick to decide whether or not we'll allow a casino in Massachusetts. They're the ones who give the permission. They're the ones who can allow slot machines. Everything is up to them. With Governor Patrick's veto power and ability to frame the debate via bully pulpit, he faces his second big test sooner than he may have liked. Will Massachusetts really become a little bit more like Las Vegas, or will we reject mega-casinos and everything that comes with them?
Governor Patrick has always been somewhat mum on casinos. As no one would doubt, he's exceedingly intelligent. I'm sure he knows all of the relevant facts: casinos may bring some extra tax dollars, but they have a lot of costs associated with them too. The Wompanoags have already admitted that they'll seek state aid for their massive infrastructural needs. There's extra crime, drunk driving and gambling associated with casinos. We already have a great state lottery system, one that would no doubt be effected by allowing casinos. Finally, because of the way casino laws are designed, if we allow one casino, we're allowing a whole lot more (Martha's Vineyard, for starters).
When casinos come to town, local businesses face a crushing burden: pre-casinos Atlanta had a bustling nightlife and lots of entertainment and restaurants. Now, they just have casinos: where there was once over 200 local restaurants, clubs and other similar small businesses, there are now less than 60. Because casinos are massive and all inclusive, complete with restaurants, clubs, bars and hotels, it's the same in Connecticut and elsewhere. How can small businesses compete when casinos have everything? The answer is they don't.
Deval Patrick almost certainly knows all of these things, yet it's still a difficult decision for him. Why? Even if Deval Patrick knows all the pertinent information, most people don't know the facts. When discussing casinos, I've noticed there tend to be three different varieties of people. First, there are those who love casinos and want them nearby: they don't care about revenue, taxes or anything else; these people just want to partay. Then, we have the kind of people who may or may not like to gamble, but see this as a good revenue source. Lastly, there are people like me: people who oppose casinos, either for social or economic reasons. Deval Patrick has to take everyone's thoughts into consideration and include them in his analysis, one he says will come by Labor Day.
I wish he'd come right out and wage this war, though. I know it's not the battle he asked to fight: he has other, bigger priorities right now. However, casinos in Massachusetts will radically change the state. We won't be the same anymore - and this isn't exactly the kind of change that's good. While sometimes it's worth forsaking a proper cost-benefit analysis to bow down to the will of the people, I'd rather a fully engaged and knowledgeable population first. To pass this current test, Governor Patrick ought to use his bully pulpit to show the pitfalls and traps casinos will present in Massachusetts. Then, when the state legislature hopefully strikes the casino proposals down, we can keep moving merrily along in our quest to make this state even better with efforts that are more than skin deep.
How they vote, however, only makes a symbolic difference. The truth is that no matter what happens on Saturday, it's up to the State Legislature and Governor Patrick to decide whether or not we'll allow a casino in Massachusetts. They're the ones who give the permission. They're the ones who can allow slot machines. Everything is up to them. With Governor Patrick's veto power and ability to frame the debate via bully pulpit, he faces his second big test sooner than he may have liked. Will Massachusetts really become a little bit more like Las Vegas, or will we reject mega-casinos and everything that comes with them?
Governor Patrick has always been somewhat mum on casinos. As no one would doubt, he's exceedingly intelligent. I'm sure he knows all of the relevant facts: casinos may bring some extra tax dollars, but they have a lot of costs associated with them too. The Wompanoags have already admitted that they'll seek state aid for their massive infrastructural needs. There's extra crime, drunk driving and gambling associated with casinos. We already have a great state lottery system, one that would no doubt be effected by allowing casinos. Finally, because of the way casino laws are designed, if we allow one casino, we're allowing a whole lot more (Martha's Vineyard, for starters).
When casinos come to town, local businesses face a crushing burden: pre-casinos Atlanta had a bustling nightlife and lots of entertainment and restaurants. Now, they just have casinos: where there was once over 200 local restaurants, clubs and other similar small businesses, there are now less than 60. Because casinos are massive and all inclusive, complete with restaurants, clubs, bars and hotels, it's the same in Connecticut and elsewhere. How can small businesses compete when casinos have everything? The answer is they don't.
Deval Patrick almost certainly knows all of these things, yet it's still a difficult decision for him. Why? Even if Deval Patrick knows all the pertinent information, most people don't know the facts. When discussing casinos, I've noticed there tend to be three different varieties of people. First, there are those who love casinos and want them nearby: they don't care about revenue, taxes or anything else; these people just want to partay. Then, we have the kind of people who may or may not like to gamble, but see this as a good revenue source. Lastly, there are people like me: people who oppose casinos, either for social or economic reasons. Deval Patrick has to take everyone's thoughts into consideration and include them in his analysis, one he says will come by Labor Day.
I wish he'd come right out and wage this war, though. I know it's not the battle he asked to fight: he has other, bigger priorities right now. However, casinos in Massachusetts will radically change the state. We won't be the same anymore - and this isn't exactly the kind of change that's good. While sometimes it's worth forsaking a proper cost-benefit analysis to bow down to the will of the people, I'd rather a fully engaged and knowledgeable population first. To pass this current test, Governor Patrick ought to use his bully pulpit to show the pitfalls and traps casinos will present in Massachusetts. Then, when the state legislature hopefully strikes the casino proposals down, we can keep moving merrily along in our quest to make this state even better with efforts that are more than skin deep.
MassMarrier Has Something to Say
Listen up, folks, we have some important work to do on the equality front - so goes Mike's message.
Step one: repeal 1913.
Step three: change the initiative process. Mike and I have slightly different views on how we'd go about changing the process, but suffice it to say we both agree that civil liberties shouldn't be able to be changed, morphed or gutted with only 25% of the state legislature's approval.
Only step three should be difficult, yet here we are more than a month later and 1913 is not only still on the books, it's moving no where fast. That has got to change.
What are Mike's three courses of action?Enough basking in the June victory. We have three legislative mountains to climb. We have a governor, lieutenant governor, house speaker and senate president who have records of supporting equal rights. They had to fight their reactive battle. Now it's time to pay some progressive dues.Our mountains come in three sizes and difficulty factors. Let's see some action on:
Step one: repeal 1913.
Step two: clean up the laws. We have a number of statutes still on the books from before the Goodridge decision that aren't in step with our new way of life and liberty in this state. We ought to fix them.They are an affront to our proclaimed love of liberty and equality here. They also insult all logic by pretending that every married same-sex couple here will remain Massachusetts residents forever. This climb should be quick and easy. This should be a one-day debate and a single vote in each house. There's no excuse not to knock this out now.
Step three: change the initiative process. Mike and I have slightly different views on how we'd go about changing the process, but suffice it to say we both agree that civil liberties shouldn't be able to be changed, morphed or gutted with only 25% of the state legislature's approval.
Only step three should be difficult, yet here we are more than a month later and 1913 is not only still on the books, it's moving no where fast. That has got to change.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
1913: Your Time Has Come
Leading up to the big vote on civil marriage rights in Massachusetts, people left and right were telling me to focus on defeating the nasty VoteonMarriage amendment. I acquiesced, against my better judgement, and stopped beating the 1913 war drums.
Then, after we won, a lot of people were tired, exhausted - or pumped and wanting to celebrate the hard-fought victory. Again, the war drums remained silent.
Well, as Mike and I discussed on LeftAhead today, it's now time to drum the thundering percussion instruments and lead the march against one of this state's last vehicles of glbt-discrimination: the 1913 law that forbids out-of-staters from marrying here if - and only if - they're homosexual. It's as odd and peculiar as laws against spitting, or laws that say you need to bring your gun to church on Sunday. It's well past time to rid this Commonwealth of 1913 - and with a Governor, Lt. Governor, Senate President and Speaker of the House all against 1913's existence, I truly don't understand - months later - why this law is still on the books.
Enough.
Then, after we won, a lot of people were tired, exhausted - or pumped and wanting to celebrate the hard-fought victory. Again, the war drums remained silent.
Well, as Mike and I discussed on LeftAhead today, it's now time to drum the thundering percussion instruments and lead the march against one of this state's last vehicles of glbt-discrimination: the 1913 law that forbids out-of-staters from marrying here if - and only if - they're homosexual. It's as odd and peculiar as laws against spitting, or laws that say you need to bring your gun to church on Sunday. It's well past time to rid this Commonwealth of 1913 - and with a Governor, Lt. Governor, Senate President and Speaker of the House all against 1913's existence, I truly don't understand - months later - why this law is still on the books.
Enough.
Casino Stink: Town Residents Get 1 Week to Review Plan
Good luck to Middleborough's 15,000 registered voters, because they get 8 days to review a 45 page document. And, honestly, who knows if the town would have posted the agreement ever unless the Secretary of State, Bill Galvin, intervened.
You know things are really bad when even Galvin raises his voice and asks serious questions. How the town thinks it can plan a 15,000 person town meeting in under a month is a serious concern - the town should have had months to plan such a large and important meeting, giving that time to both allow residents to vet the plan and town administrators the time to plan a safe, reputable massive town meeting. The last time we may have seen direct democracy on this scale is ancient Athens... and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had a few concerns about that style of governance, especially given 8 days to 15,000 people to decide 45 pages worth of concerns.
The forces that be are pushing this proposal beyond all measure, waving their fingers arrogantly at both democracy and basic fairness in the quest to get $11 million more in additional funding. Who knew greed came so cheap? Never mind the fact that the casino seeks untold millions in state money for infrastructural costs, added police and fire presence and who knows what else, the people of Massachusetts are about to get fleeced.
The leadership at Beacon Hill must act boldly, even if Middleborough's leadership plans on pushing proposals through without giving residents enough time to truly weigh their decisions. We elect representatives across the state to protect the people: they have a solemn duty to do what Middleborough's leadership hasn't - truly vetting the decision and making sure they're looking out for what's good and right in Massachusetts.
There is nothing that should compel Beacon Hill to automatically pass slots gambling for this particular casino or any, should it get through Middleborough's voters come this Saturday: no casino will ever be built in this great Commonwealth unless and until our state government concedes on legalizing slot machines. The casino proponents should have come to the state directly, instead of some random town. They've tried to force our hands and we ought to say no. The residents of a small town may need a little luck to avoid being fleeced by the powers that be, but it's much harder to do so against the entirety of the people of Massachusetts: we've waged bigger battles and fought harder wars than to be defeated by some casino.
While the agreement with the tribe was reached Friday, town officials did not release it to the public until yesterday afternoon [Monday], by posting it on the town website after Galvin intervened. Galvin's office has administrative authority over the state public records law, which covers the agreement.
You know things are really bad when even Galvin raises his voice and asks serious questions. How the town thinks it can plan a 15,000 person town meeting in under a month is a serious concern - the town should have had months to plan such a large and important meeting, giving that time to both allow residents to vet the plan and town administrators the time to plan a safe, reputable massive town meeting. The last time we may have seen direct democracy on this scale is ancient Athens... and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had a few concerns about that style of governance, especially given 8 days to 15,000 people to decide 45 pages worth of concerns.
The forces that be are pushing this proposal beyond all measure, waving their fingers arrogantly at both democracy and basic fairness in the quest to get $11 million more in additional funding. Who knew greed came so cheap? Never mind the fact that the casino seeks untold millions in state money for infrastructural costs, added police and fire presence and who knows what else, the people of Massachusetts are about to get fleeced.
The leadership at Beacon Hill must act boldly, even if Middleborough's leadership plans on pushing proposals through without giving residents enough time to truly weigh their decisions. We elect representatives across the state to protect the people: they have a solemn duty to do what Middleborough's leadership hasn't - truly vetting the decision and making sure they're looking out for what's good and right in Massachusetts.
There is nothing that should compel Beacon Hill to automatically pass slots gambling for this particular casino or any, should it get through Middleborough's voters come this Saturday: no casino will ever be built in this great Commonwealth unless and until our state government concedes on legalizing slot machines. The casino proponents should have come to the state directly, instead of some random town. They've tried to force our hands and we ought to say no. The residents of a small town may need a little luck to avoid being fleeced by the powers that be, but it's much harder to do so against the entirety of the people of Massachusetts: we've waged bigger battles and fought harder wars than to be defeated by some casino.
Friday, July 20, 2007
File this Under the Common Sense Section
Senators Kerry and Clinton have filed a bill that would require the Pentagon to prepare for the contingency of leaving Iraq. Bush doesn't like plan Bs, Cs or Ds, but I think they can be real assets. Of course, there's more to this story than meets the eye - the administration went on the attack against Clinton for even asking about such a contingency plan. You see, she's helping the terrorists...
The depths to which this administration will stoop...
This is only tangently related, but one of the things I keep hearing more and more is Vietnam being brought up by Republicans in defense of staying in Iraq. Edelman made that kind of asinine comment against Senator Clinton. You see, they say, we need to stay in Iraq so Iraq doesn't become like Vietnam...
Huh? Am I the only person who doesn't get that kind of comment at all? Because staying in countries in the middle of a Civil War is a fantastic idea? Oh, Republicans and their nation building - not to mention fuzzy memories.
This legislative effort is a direct result of Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman's unacceptable response to a Congressional inquiry on a matter of national security to Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, asking for the Pentagon to brief the appropriate oversight committees in Congress on what current contingency plans exist for the future withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq. Alternatively, if no such plans exist, the Congressional inquiry asked for an explanation for the decision not to engage in such planning.
The depths to which this administration will stoop...
This is only tangently related, but one of the things I keep hearing more and more is Vietnam being brought up by Republicans in defense of staying in Iraq. Edelman made that kind of asinine comment against Senator Clinton. You see, they say, we need to stay in Iraq so Iraq doesn't become like Vietnam...
Huh? Am I the only person who doesn't get that kind of comment at all? Because staying in countries in the middle of a Civil War is a fantastic idea? Oh, Republicans and their nation building - not to mention fuzzy memories.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
DiMasi's Corporate Welfare
How politicians can be so brazen, I don't know, but DiMasi calling Deval Patrick one to support corporate welfare is like a little kid with 15 cavities complaining his parents just never let him have candy after they refused him for the first time. In fact, DiMasi has become downright fat off his corporate friends - wielding his formidable power in a quest to keep Verizon's contribution to Massachusetts's tax base as close to 1% of their entire profits as possible. But it doesn't stop there...
Here's what we know: the project will, indeed, bring several hundred jobs. Most of the state's contributions were slated to be low-interest loans, not true giveaways. Certainly, there will be more taxable income after the project than before it. The project also promises to unite two parts of Boston, which could add to the community in ways immeasurable in dollars.
Here's what we don't know: if the project is worth a 56 million dollar contribution from the state and city of Boston, be it either loans or grants. If the project will be built to the same standards otherwise. If there are other, worthier projects out there.
Back to angry blogger mode: Corporate welfare is, sadly, sometimes a necessary evil. It should be used rarely and sparingly, but the project in and of itself seems interesting. If Speaker DiMasi wanted to hold hearings to judge whether or not this project is worth it, I'd support that. However, he's calling Patrick a supporter of corporate welfare when there's no one in the House more supportive of Corporations and business interests than Speaker DiMasi.
The Speaker, sadly enough, seems more interested in businesses making unreasonable profits than the citizens of Massachusetts, who pay among the highest property taxes in the country and are still struggling to keep their schools afloat. Schools across the state are being shut down in large part because of DiMasi's protection of Verizon and others, so for him to complain about corporate welfare is at the very least insane and asinine. Let's hope he realizes that, skips the demagoguery and looks at his own corporate welfare with the same interest as he has Governor Patrick.
Ah, hypocrisy. Really, Speaker DiMasi, this is just too easy. But, in the interest of being fair, I'll throw my Citizen's Journalist Cap on and weigh the situation."This investment in the public infrastructure is in line with a number of economic development projects approved by the Legislature in the past," said spokesman Kyle Sullivan. "This is about creating jobs and investing in our communities."
Last year, for instance, the Legislature approved $55 million in
infrastructure improvements around Fenway Park that will benefit the Red Sox and
other businesses and $16 million in ramps for a new YMCA project on the Rose Kennedy Greenway.DiMasi also has been vehement in his opposition to Patrick's proposal to close so-called corporate tax loopholes, which the administration had characterized as $500 million in public giveaways.
Here's what we know: the project will, indeed, bring several hundred jobs. Most of the state's contributions were slated to be low-interest loans, not true giveaways. Certainly, there will be more taxable income after the project than before it. The project also promises to unite two parts of Boston, which could add to the community in ways immeasurable in dollars.
Here's what we don't know: if the project is worth a 56 million dollar contribution from the state and city of Boston, be it either loans or grants. If the project will be built to the same standards otherwise. If there are other, worthier projects out there.
Back to angry blogger mode: Corporate welfare is, sadly, sometimes a necessary evil. It should be used rarely and sparingly, but the project in and of itself seems interesting. If Speaker DiMasi wanted to hold hearings to judge whether or not this project is worth it, I'd support that. However, he's calling Patrick a supporter of corporate welfare when there's no one in the House more supportive of Corporations and business interests than Speaker DiMasi.
The Speaker, sadly enough, seems more interested in businesses making unreasonable profits than the citizens of Massachusetts, who pay among the highest property taxes in the country and are still struggling to keep their schools afloat. Schools across the state are being shut down in large part because of DiMasi's protection of Verizon and others, so for him to complain about corporate welfare is at the very least insane and asinine. Let's hope he realizes that, skips the demagoguery and looks at his own corporate welfare with the same interest as he has Governor Patrick.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Questions for Niki Tsongas
An anonymous commenter leveled the criticism that my podcast, LeftAhead, wasn't all that tough on Jamie Eldridge. I question if Anon actually listened in: we asked for far more detail on health care policy, for example, than the entire forum on health care. So, to show that my questions wouldn't be any different for Niki, Barry, Eileen or anyone else in this race, here's some questions I have for Niki Tsongas. I'll email them to her campaign as well, hoping for a response.
1. How does your experience, be it in life or on the job, make you a better candidate for Congress than your competitors?
2. Health Care seems to be one of the big issues in this campaign. You're a big proponent of market forces. How will market forces keep costs down when we've already been working under a free market system all these years?
3. Why is a free market system superior to a single payer system, or one akin to Germany's Health Care system where there's competition between the government and private companies?
4. Lynne Lupien over at LeftinLowell posted an interesting blog on your positions on a lack of detail on the Connector Plan. You said it isn't perfect: what's wrong with it and what would you do to fix it?
5. People elected to Congress can't be all to all people, but they can become powerful voices on particular issues if they stick to a few. Marty Meehan, the Congressman you'd be replacing, was a national voice on both campaign finance reform and on removing Don't Ask Don't Tell. If you had two or three big issues you'd try to become a national voice on, what would they be?
Over the next week or so, I'll also send questions to the other campaigns too.
1. How does your experience, be it in life or on the job, make you a better candidate for Congress than your competitors?
2. Health Care seems to be one of the big issues in this campaign. You're a big proponent of market forces. How will market forces keep costs down when we've already been working under a free market system all these years?
3. Why is a free market system superior to a single payer system, or one akin to Germany's Health Care system where there's competition between the government and private companies?
4. Lynne Lupien over at LeftinLowell posted an interesting blog on your positions on a lack of detail on the Connector Plan. You said it isn't perfect: what's wrong with it and what would you do to fix it?
5. People elected to Congress can't be all to all people, but they can become powerful voices on particular issues if they stick to a few. Marty Meehan, the Congressman you'd be replacing, was a national voice on both campaign finance reform and on removing Don't Ask Don't Tell. If you had two or three big issues you'd try to become a national voice on, what would they be?
Over the next week or so, I'll also send questions to the other campaigns too.
Kerry Hopes to Investigate War Profiteering
From a Kerry office press release:
I shutter to think about the profiteering we don't know about yet, because the things we have learned doesn't leave a whole lot of room for hope.Sen. John Kerry announced today that he is co-sponsoring a wide-ranging plan to finally investigate the scope and range of wasteful spending surrounding the war in Iraq. The bill, which he is co-sponsoring with Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and several other colleagues, would create an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate U.S. war contracting in Iraq....
The amendment would create a bipartisan commission to study and investigate contracting in support of the combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) in 2005, reported that nearly $9 billion spent on Iraq’s reconstruction was unaccounted for, as the result of inefficiencies and bad management. To date, SIGIR has investigated $32 billion in Iraq reconstruction and relief, resulting in arrests, imprisonments, $3.6 million in restitution orders, and $9.5 million in recovered and seized assets. More than 40 individuals and private companies have been suspended, debarred, or proposed for debarment. More than 30 SIGIR investigations await prosecution at the Department of Justice.
The Internet Gap
Every once in a while, the Boston Globe comes out with a relevant, well researched and important article on the front page. Today, the stopped clock was right: residents in 32 Massachusetts towns have no access to reliable, high-speed internet. Lacking high-speed internet amounts to more than added stress and being left behind, too.
The good news is that people are doing something about it, but way more needs to be done.
The report said communities with broadband access experienced an additional 1 to 1.4 percent in their job growth rate between 1998 and 2002. Those communities also saw an added 0.5 to 1.2 percent growth rate in the number of businesses. Housing rents, measured as a proxy for property values, were more than 6 percent higher in 2000 in communities where broadband was available by 1999.
The good news is that people are doing something about it, but way more needs to be done.
Berkshire Connect Inc. and Pioneer Valley Connect are two projects that already bring businesses and institutions together so they can pool resources to buy expensive high-speed lines in places where major providers have no broadband networks. This fall, they will create WiFi hot spots in the towns of Florida, New Salem, and Worthington, with funding from the quasi-public John Adams Innovation Institute. The idea is to use radio transmitters to spread the signal from high-speed lines to create square-mile wireless broadband networks for homes, businesses, and municipal buildings, without the massive investment needed to wire every home.WiFi seems to be the answer: open, town-wide WiFi would both be cheaper and more efficient than laying down all the wires and paying private rates, but the Verizons of the world are resisting it and it takes a will to bring these kinds of services anywhere. A lot of people, who've never had high-speed internet, don't know what they're missing - but no one should have to wait 5 minutes to load a page and have no access at all to half the internet. The internet is the future and everyone should be invited.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Globe's MA-05 Article a Disgrace (!!!)
The article is almost entirely about one candidate and, when reporting financing figures on other candidates, they didn't even bother to call Jamie Eldridge - who, by the way, has raised more funds than at least three other candidates (Donoghue's 325,000 loan to herself doesn't count). Of course, the Globe article, an AP piece, was a Niki Tsongas love fest... and, of course, it was about the horse race instead of actual issues. I'm looking forward to one article in the Globe on the candidates' health care policies, Iraq war differences or environmental positions. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.
By the way, my blog last night was - to put it mildly - prescient.
PS: I actually like Niki Tsongas, but it's really hard feeling that way when the media has shown a clear and enduring bias during this race. I don't mind pieces that focus on either particular candidates or horse-race issues, but they must be accompanied by even more substantive stories that give a fair look at the myriad candidates. It's not exactly hard to print something on any of their positions: any reporter could whip that up in a day. That's why today's Globe article is such a disgrace - if this is what they're going to print on MA-05, they may as well not print anything at all. After all, they have more serious news to print, like prudes in Vermont.
By the way, my blog last night was - to put it mildly - prescient.
PS: I actually like Niki Tsongas, but it's really hard feeling that way when the media has shown a clear and enduring bias during this race. I don't mind pieces that focus on either particular candidates or horse-race issues, but they must be accompanied by even more substantive stories that give a fair look at the myriad candidates. It's not exactly hard to print something on any of their positions: any reporter could whip that up in a day. That's why today's Globe article is such a disgrace - if this is what they're going to print on MA-05, they may as well not print anything at all. After all, they have more serious news to print, like prudes in Vermont.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
What's Wrong With the Fifth:
One of the interesting/appalling things about the Fifth Congressional Race - no matter what horse you back - is the fact that it's getting very little attention and coverage. So far, many of the people who actually know that there's even going to be a special election see Niki Tsongas as either impossible to defeat or doubt she's going to screw up on the job. These people know that she's not going to support the war or mess with social security, so what does anything else matter in the grand scheme of things anyway? Consequently, the average voter's quest for knowledge hasn't even gone as far as the distance to the nearest Dunkin Donuts. People don't know if they want a ice coffee with sugar or the Iced Caramel Swirl Latte. There's a big difference here, folks.
We're talking about a seat of particular national importance: not only will whoever wins the general election vote on issues that impact the entire nation, but Democratic Party members have a chance to elect from myriad choices representing a diversity of ideas and expertise. It's not like we're going to see a spirited race here after the primary. Want a social conservative? Vote Meceli. Want someone with tons of local experience? There's Donoghue. Want Fallon Health Care for All? Pick Tsongas. Want a true progressive? Turn the lever for Eldridge. However, for too many, ignorance is bliss.
Part of the reason few are in tune is because of the way things have changed. I recently watched an episode of Greater Boston on WGBH that featured Natalie Jacobson. She's on her way out as a local TV anchor and had some words that tangently related to the race. One of the things she complained about is how the media has changed and become obsessed with the celebrity - all age groups. It's easy, cheesy "news" where you get to see how the stars live (and screw up). Part soap opera, part vicariously living through others, people's eyes are transfixed on the quickly-moving images on the screen, just like our long-lost ancestors paid instant attention to the rustling of trees: it was to avoid lions, tigers and bears. Now, with media's new-found expertise into how minds work, it's to tune into Paris Hilton, K-Fed and Hillary's love life. Oh my. Genetically speaking (as Al Gore points out in his new book), we're fused to pay attention to quick-paced, meaningless stories - not important news that has more than one or two angles. So the Greater Boston media is skipping the race.
Obviously, this trend is bad for the country - and the Fifth Congressional District in particular. So, how do we combat this nonsense? The written media is mainly unhelpful. Some of the local papers have done a decent job, but generally the best coverage has come from the Bay State blogosphere - which maybe 1% of 5th Congressional District voters read to begin with. Bloggers and readers alike have questioned how to get relevant themes from blogs into the public sphere. Without the time and resources to create any new, sweeping tool to help in that quest, the best thing we can do is talk about the race. We must keep bringing it up to our friends, neighbors and (most importantly) people we know in the Fifth until they realize that this race is, in fact, even more interesting than Lindsay Lohan's rehab rest and potential sapphic tendencies.
So, people who care, keep on trucking. Write a Letter to the Editor. Go door to door. Talk to your co-workers. Complain to your local news desk. I don't have any better advice. Do what you can do to be, as many great people have said before me, the change we want. Issues like single-payer health care are of paramount importance to the nation. It's time people know about the candidates who either support or don't support what will impact our lives every day for the better. It's the only way this Democratic system works, especially in the Fifth Congressional District.
We're talking about a seat of particular national importance: not only will whoever wins the general election vote on issues that impact the entire nation, but Democratic Party members have a chance to elect from myriad choices representing a diversity of ideas and expertise. It's not like we're going to see a spirited race here after the primary. Want a social conservative? Vote Meceli. Want someone with tons of local experience? There's Donoghue. Want Fallon Health Care for All? Pick Tsongas. Want a true progressive? Turn the lever for Eldridge. However, for too many, ignorance is bliss.
Part of the reason few are in tune is because of the way things have changed. I recently watched an episode of Greater Boston on WGBH that featured Natalie Jacobson. She's on her way out as a local TV anchor and had some words that tangently related to the race. One of the things she complained about is how the media has changed and become obsessed with the celebrity - all age groups. It's easy, cheesy "news" where you get to see how the stars live (and screw up). Part soap opera, part vicariously living through others, people's eyes are transfixed on the quickly-moving images on the screen, just like our long-lost ancestors paid instant attention to the rustling of trees: it was to avoid lions, tigers and bears. Now, with media's new-found expertise into how minds work, it's to tune into Paris Hilton, K-Fed and Hillary's love life. Oh my. Genetically speaking (as Al Gore points out in his new book), we're fused to pay attention to quick-paced, meaningless stories - not important news that has more than one or two angles. So the Greater Boston media is skipping the race.
Obviously, this trend is bad for the country - and the Fifth Congressional District in particular. So, how do we combat this nonsense? The written media is mainly unhelpful. Some of the local papers have done a decent job, but generally the best coverage has come from the Bay State blogosphere - which maybe 1% of 5th Congressional District voters read to begin with. Bloggers and readers alike have questioned how to get relevant themes from blogs into the public sphere. Without the time and resources to create any new, sweeping tool to help in that quest, the best thing we can do is talk about the race. We must keep bringing it up to our friends, neighbors and (most importantly) people we know in the Fifth until they realize that this race is, in fact, even more interesting than Lindsay Lohan's rehab rest and potential sapphic tendencies.
So, people who care, keep on trucking. Write a Letter to the Editor. Go door to door. Talk to your co-workers. Complain to your local news desk. I don't have any better advice. Do what you can do to be, as many great people have said before me, the change we want. Issues like single-payer health care are of paramount importance to the nation. It's time people know about the candidates who either support or don't support what will impact our lives every day for the better. It's the only way this Democratic system works, especially in the Fifth Congressional District.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
If/Then Statements
Anyone remember if/then statements from when you were a little tyke? Well, someone probably taught them to you at some point, like when you were first learning basic algebra. One of the neat things about if/then statements is that they have an official name - conditionals. It's a simple concept, which basically means that if something happens, then there's a subsequent cause or effect.
For example, if I woke up late today, then I didn't get a blog out nice and early for all your morning readers. Or, if the plant is dead, then no one watered it. Better yet, if Ryan lives in the North Shore, then he lives North of Boston. (Don't worry, no if p, then q... and I'll skip the conserve for later.)
Unfortunately, sometimes conditionals aren't really conditionals. For example, if President Bush is in contempt of congress, then he'd be impeached. Since we know that he'll almost certainly not be impeached, it's sadly not a conditional statement. Here's one, though: if we had Republicans in Congress who observed the same morals they preached, then they'd vote to impeach President Bush for being in contempt of Congress. Therefore, we know we don't have Republicans in Congress who observe the morals they preach, because they aren't going to vote to remove a law-breaking liar from office. (Oops, I promised not to get into the converse statements.) The only conditional we know as true regarding impeachment is this: If a Democrat got a blow job in the Oval Office, then he'd be impeached - because that's what Republicans really care about.
For example, if I woke up late today, then I didn't get a blog out nice and early for all your morning readers. Or, if the plant is dead, then no one watered it. Better yet, if Ryan lives in the North Shore, then he lives North of Boston. (Don't worry, no if p, then q... and I'll skip the conserve for later.)
Unfortunately, sometimes conditionals aren't really conditionals. For example, if President Bush is in contempt of congress, then he'd be impeached. Since we know that he'll almost certainly not be impeached, it's sadly not a conditional statement. Here's one, though: if we had Republicans in Congress who observed the same morals they preached, then they'd vote to impeach President Bush for being in contempt of Congress. Therefore, we know we don't have Republicans in Congress who observe the morals they preach, because they aren't going to vote to remove a law-breaking liar from office. (Oops, I promised not to get into the converse statements.) The only conditional we know as true regarding impeachment is this: If a Democrat got a blow job in the Oval Office, then he'd be impeached - because that's what Republicans really care about.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Why Are Cities and Towns Struggling?
Much talk has been going on about the record rate voters are killing property tax overrides this year. David wrote about it at length today - and it's sparked some interesting comments. For some crazy reason, there are people who are blaming the voters. While I'd wish voters would see that most school budgets are trimmed to the bare bones already and vote yes, I understand exactly why so many people are voting no this year. The result is hundreds of layoffs throughout the state - and at least an half dozen school closings, with even more to follow next year. So, what's the big deal? Why are our cities and towns struggling so much? If we put it in perspective, maybe people will do something about it. While there are many reasons, there's one that's been more devastating than any: health insurance rates. It's the straw that's breaking Massachusetts's back.
If you pay attention, you'd know cities and towns struggle with dozens of expensive issues every year. The state isn't paying its fair share toward Special Education costs: when certain students require their own, private teacher it means less money and teachers for everyone else. Here's another problem: the state's formula. Suffice it to say, the Mystery Formula produces often arbitrary results. No one, outside of Beacon Hill halls, seems to know how it works - but the results are obvious. There are richer towns that receive more money per capita than poorer towns. My hometown, laying off more than 15 teachers and shutting down one of its elementary schools just to keep up, would probably be okay if it received the same aid, per capita, as Wellesley - who's median family income is tens of thousands more than where I live.
Still, though, doesn't everyone get the sense that all of these problems would be minor gripes we could work through - if it weren't for the fact that, on top of it all, cities and towns have to pay for their employees' health insurance costs? They have to pay those costs, which are rising upwards of 15% every year, despite the fact that they can't raise funds by more than 2.5%? Something's gotta give - and it isn't students who require special education funds, since that's an unfunded mandate towns have to provide.
There are lots of other problems too, but mostly the little kind that people can reasonably address. Heck, look at Dedham. They're so afraid of additional students entering their community because of affordable housing in the planning, they're considering giving a section of their town away to Boston. Maybe that's not the best solution, but it certainly shows that people can come up with creative ways to tackle local costs efficiently and effectively. Can't fund a teacher and an Althetic Director? Hire my Dad, a teacher and an AD at Lynnfield, who'll do both at about the same rate you'd find someone to do one or the other.
However, health insurance costs aren't a little problem that can be solved with a creative solution - at least at the local level. Certainly, cities and towns are trying. If all town employees got their insurance through the state, instead of the town, the rates would save municipalities thousands: subsequently, people are making efforts to do that. However, even if it were enough to save the Stonehams, Swampscotts and Dartmouths of the state this year, they'd be facing the same problems a year or two down the line. Cities and towns have to deal with rates rising 10-15% every year - which goes far beyond any creative solution. It goes far beyond trimming a few luxuries. Those kinds of expenses lead to a decline in the quality of education for everyone.
Everything comes down to the bottom line - the fact that, with the way we do health care in this country, we're at the mercy of private companies who are trying to maximize profits. They certainly don't care about public education costs - just look at how they treat their clients. It's all a profit to them. Consequently, we have the most expensive health care system in the world, yet dozens of other countries do a better job at actually giving care. Something seems amiss, yet nothing is being done about it. Maybe, if people can link their rising property taxes, health care expenses and declining quality of education their children receive, they'll actually stop trying to treat the symptoms of the problem and try to root out its cause.
If you pay attention, you'd know cities and towns struggle with dozens of expensive issues every year. The state isn't paying its fair share toward Special Education costs: when certain students require their own, private teacher it means less money and teachers for everyone else. Here's another problem: the state's formula. Suffice it to say, the Mystery Formula produces often arbitrary results. No one, outside of Beacon Hill halls, seems to know how it works - but the results are obvious. There are richer towns that receive more money per capita than poorer towns. My hometown, laying off more than 15 teachers and shutting down one of its elementary schools just to keep up, would probably be okay if it received the same aid, per capita, as Wellesley - who's median family income is tens of thousands more than where I live.
Still, though, doesn't everyone get the sense that all of these problems would be minor gripes we could work through - if it weren't for the fact that, on top of it all, cities and towns have to pay for their employees' health insurance costs? They have to pay those costs, which are rising upwards of 15% every year, despite the fact that they can't raise funds by more than 2.5%? Something's gotta give - and it isn't students who require special education funds, since that's an unfunded mandate towns have to provide.
There are lots of other problems too, but mostly the little kind that people can reasonably address. Heck, look at Dedham. They're so afraid of additional students entering their community because of affordable housing in the planning, they're considering giving a section of their town away to Boston. Maybe that's not the best solution, but it certainly shows that people can come up with creative ways to tackle local costs efficiently and effectively. Can't fund a teacher and an Althetic Director? Hire my Dad, a teacher and an AD at Lynnfield, who'll do both at about the same rate you'd find someone to do one or the other.
However, health insurance costs aren't a little problem that can be solved with a creative solution - at least at the local level. Certainly, cities and towns are trying. If all town employees got their insurance through the state, instead of the town, the rates would save municipalities thousands: subsequently, people are making efforts to do that. However, even if it were enough to save the Stonehams, Swampscotts and Dartmouths of the state this year, they'd be facing the same problems a year or two down the line. Cities and towns have to deal with rates rising 10-15% every year - which goes far beyond any creative solution. It goes far beyond trimming a few luxuries. Those kinds of expenses lead to a decline in the quality of education for everyone.
Everything comes down to the bottom line - the fact that, with the way we do health care in this country, we're at the mercy of private companies who are trying to maximize profits. They certainly don't care about public education costs - just look at how they treat their clients. It's all a profit to them. Consequently, we have the most expensive health care system in the world, yet dozens of other countries do a better job at actually giving care. Something seems amiss, yet nothing is being done about it. Maybe, if people can link their rising property taxes, health care expenses and declining quality of education their children receive, they'll actually stop trying to treat the symptoms of the problem and try to root out its cause.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Hypocrisy Alert
Oh, oh... another he said, she said article from the Boston Globe. This time, some angry Reps are Patrick hunting to prevent - I can't believe it - Government subsidies. Because they've never voted to subsidize a private project before, right? Well, House Democrats aren't thrilled and are certainly complainingly.
Some members of the House are opposed because they feel the money is either being used inappropriately or they don't feel as though we should subsidize profit margins. I could get behind that. However, each and every House member has - at some point - voted to subsidize the profit margins of private companies. Whether they're voting to give research grants to Harvard or unfair tax breaks to Verizon, they do it year in and year out.
Government subsidies have been a part of the United States way of dealing with things since, well, longer than any of us have been alive. Sometimes, as with the Farm Bill, those subsidies are bad: huge, very profitable corporations don't need to be paid money to grow more corn than we could possibly use. Some subsidies are good: I rather like the idea of never having to worry about getting MS, diabetes or any number of the dozens of things stem cells could potentially cure.
The question is if this development - one that would link together the Back Bay and South End, whilst reportedly creating hundreds of jobs - is worth subsidizing. Will it be worth a $10 million dollar investment by the state over the long haul? Will it be completed if we ddn't give subsidies? The Globe doesn't answer any of those questions. They're much more interested in the drama of it all.
Right at the top of Andrea Estes's article, she quoted Representative Martha Walz.
There's no doubt that we give too many subsidies and tax breaks to huge, profitable corporations. However, we'll never learn whether or not the project is worthy from the Boston Globe - they were too preoccupied with the he said, she said battle going on to weigh just how advantageous this project would be for the community. Fact checking is just so difficult nowadays - and really, who wants to know about the facts anyway there's a he said/she said to report.
Governor Deval Patrick's decision to steer $10 million in economic development funds to the private Columbus Center complex has angered House Democrats who have repeatedly refused to support the controversial and increasingly expensive development with taxpayer money.
-Snip-
Patrick administration officials and Wilkerson defended public investment in a project that developers say will create thousands of jobs and rejoin two of the city's most vibrant neighborhoods, the Back Bay and South End.
Some members of the House are opposed because they feel the money is either being used inappropriately or they don't feel as though we should subsidize profit margins. I could get behind that. However, each and every House member has - at some point - voted to subsidize the profit margins of private companies. Whether they're voting to give research grants to Harvard or unfair tax breaks to Verizon, they do it year in and year out.
Government subsidies have been a part of the United States way of dealing with things since, well, longer than any of us have been alive. Sometimes, as with the Farm Bill, those subsidies are bad: huge, very profitable corporations don't need to be paid money to grow more corn than we could possibly use. Some subsidies are good: I rather like the idea of never having to worry about getting MS, diabetes or any number of the dozens of things stem cells could potentially cure.
The question is if this development - one that would link together the Back Bay and South End, whilst reportedly creating hundreds of jobs - is worth subsidizing. Will it be worth a $10 million dollar investment by the state over the long haul? Will it be completed if we ddn't give subsidies? The Globe doesn't answer any of those questions. They're much more interested in the drama of it all.
Right at the top of Andrea Estes's article, she quoted Representative Martha Walz.
"The developer is asking the taxpayers to subsidize his profit margin," said Representative Martha M. Walz, a Democrat who represents the Back Bay. "That is offensive to me and not an appropriate use of our tax dollars. We don't pay taxes to make developers richer."We don't subsidize profit margins? The bottom line is that, for better or worse, that's categorically false. Just picture how false that is when you imagine what this state had to go through to keep the Patriots here. Does Walz support all the tax breaks we dole out to entice private, for-profit businesses to come to Massachusetts? Is she against Governor Patrick's Municipal Partnership Act, the one that would end some of those major tax breaks - which are essentially the same as subsidies. Is she voting for giving out grants on stem cell research?
There's no doubt that we give too many subsidies and tax breaks to huge, profitable corporations. However, we'll never learn whether or not the project is worthy from the Boston Globe - they were too preoccupied with the he said, she said battle going on to weigh just how advantageous this project would be for the community. Fact checking is just so difficult nowadays - and really, who wants to know about the facts anyway there's a he said/she said to report.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Flowery Reports From Iraq
Rarely do I ever watch the telly. Rarer still do I watch the 6 o'clock world news. However, in spending some time with my mother this after, I managed to catch be forced into watching Charles Gibson do today's recitation. Another Republican, he says, has turned coat on Bush. But don't worry, as George Stephanopasdfolis reported, he's not going to do anything as extreme as risk cutting the funding. Meanwhile, after that two minute report, I was barraged with a full segment on how shiny and happy the kids are in Iraq with their new boy scout camp. That's right, a four day boy scout camp in the Green Zone gets about as much play on ABC as the actual length of the camp. Things are looking up. Boy, that surge is really working. Some boys get to go to camp and everything!
The last time I had the 6 o'clock national news on, I was watching Katie Couric. She was telling everyone how great the surge was going too. Her propaganda piece (let's be honest, that's what these are) was about how tough and courageous our troops were, hunting in dangerous areas of Iraq for al Qaeda. Sure, Couric reported, we were giving them a few day's notice in our plot to route them out, but we didn't actually think they'd leave or anything. No mention, meanwhile, of the fact that there would be almost no al Qaeda in Iraq if we didn't invade the country in the first place.
President Bush, Dick Cheney and their pals like to complain about how the media never plays any of the positive stuff going on in Iraq. Well, the past two times I've watched the news, the positive was the bulk of their coverage. Meanwhile, we're quickly moving towards 4,000 dead Americans and god knows how many dead Iraqis - the number is so high, no one can seem to get a firm count. Despite the plethora of propaganda coming from the world's 53rd most free media, Americans are still turning against the Bush administration. Sometimes the people are ahead of the politicians in knowing what's right for the country; it's amazing that can still happen despite just how hard the major networks seem to be trying to keep us in our quagmire with this shoddy coverage.
The last time I had the 6 o'clock national news on, I was watching Katie Couric. She was telling everyone how great the surge was going too. Her propaganda piece (let's be honest, that's what these are) was about how tough and courageous our troops were, hunting in dangerous areas of Iraq for al Qaeda. Sure, Couric reported, we were giving them a few day's notice in our plot to route them out, but we didn't actually think they'd leave or anything. No mention, meanwhile, of the fact that there would be almost no al Qaeda in Iraq if we didn't invade the country in the first place.
President Bush, Dick Cheney and their pals like to complain about how the media never plays any of the positive stuff going on in Iraq. Well, the past two times I've watched the news, the positive was the bulk of their coverage. Meanwhile, we're quickly moving towards 4,000 dead Americans and god knows how many dead Iraqis - the number is so high, no one can seem to get a firm count. Despite the plethora of propaganda coming from the world's 53rd most free media, Americans are still turning against the Bush administration. Sometimes the people are ahead of the politicians in knowing what's right for the country; it's amazing that can still happen despite just how hard the major networks seem to be trying to keep us in our quagmire with this shoddy coverage.
Congrats to Our Supreme Court!!
Asshole parents in Lynn rejoice!
Oh, it's not beneficial to make sure our children learn a little bit about diversity at a young age at all. Nope, we want them to grow up as uneducated bigots, right? After all, every (bigoted) parent wants their kids to be just like them.
Heaven forbid a little diversity. We can't have none of that. Separate, I guess, is equal after all.
Chester Darling , the lawyer who previously brought a suit by Lynn parents all the way to the Supreme Court, hopes that a successful challenge will prompt other Massachusetts school districts to end their desegregation programs....
Darling said yesterday. "What benefit of integration in kindergarten do you get if you force a white kid to sit next to a black kid? There isn't any."
Oh, it's not beneficial to make sure our children learn a little bit about diversity at a young age at all. Nope, we want them to grow up as uneducated bigots, right? After all, every (bigoted) parent wants their kids to be just like them.
Lynn's current plan affects its 18 public elementary schools, which draw from small pockets of the district, more than its three high schools, said Capano.
"It's a balanced system right now," Capano said. "Our neighborhoods are sometimes very cultural- and very race-oriented. So, if you keep a very low-economic neighborhood going to the same school, then you get an unbalanced school -- and that's what we fear."
Heaven forbid a little diversity. We can't have none of that. Separate, I guess, is equal after all.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Legislative Failure on Budget
The Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center released its preliminary report yesterday and it doesn't look good - for the Massachusetts State Legislative Branch.
But, sadly, there are going to be a lot of them. And that's going to cost this state untold millions, all the while health insurance rates will continue to climb. Cities and towns are slowly going bankrupt, closing schools, libraries and laying off teachers just to get out of the red this year. Next year will be even worse, even for some of the towns that have already closed schools.
Now, we have a Speaker of the House, Sal DiMasi, and a Senate President, Therese Murray, who are willing to use more band-aids to slow a gaping wound. It isn't even going to solve this coming year's problems, never mind the future's. No, we need to address the real costs: rising health care, no diversity of raising revenue, and secret formulas no one can understand. Governor Patrick has started to address those issues, but he's being thwarted every day by the fine folks from Beacon Hill. It's time those fine folks listen to the advice of the MBPC and cut the unfair and illogical corporate tax loopholes.
The MBPC gets it - you don't spend money you don't have, at least in a year where we can afford to solve the budget. Governor Patrick laid out a completely balanced budget, without using one-time money, in a tough year. Next year promises to be even more difficult, as the housing market gets worse, while mortgage rates continue to climb and people continue to lose their homes from taking bad mortgages they couldn't afford. Those variable rates are going to have variable consequences: let's hope there aren't too many unlucky families in Massachusetts.The budget released by the Conference Committee today appears to spend more, counting appropriations and transfers, than the amounts recommended by the House, the Senate, and Governor Patrick. While much of this spending is to finance vitally needed public services - additional police officers to protect public safety, investments in K-12 and higher education that restore funding which had been cut to pay for the state tax cuts of the 1990s, and funding for new immunizations for children - the budget fails to identify ongoing revenue sources to support this spending.
Following the budgets proposed by the House and the Senate, the Conference Committee draws heavily on reserves and one-time solutions to balance the budget - $609 million in one-time solutions in total. In addition, the budget appears to rely on significantly more Federal and other non-tax revenue than were identified in previous versions of the budget.
While the governor had proposed several reforms to the state corporate tax laws to reduce tax avoidance, these reforms were not adopted in the House or Senate version of the budget and therefore were not available to the Conference Committee.
But, sadly, there are going to be a lot of them. And that's going to cost this state untold millions, all the while health insurance rates will continue to climb. Cities and towns are slowly going bankrupt, closing schools, libraries and laying off teachers just to get out of the red this year. Next year will be even worse, even for some of the towns that have already closed schools.
Now, we have a Speaker of the House, Sal DiMasi, and a Senate President, Therese Murray, who are willing to use more band-aids to slow a gaping wound. It isn't even going to solve this coming year's problems, never mind the future's. No, we need to address the real costs: rising health care, no diversity of raising revenue, and secret formulas no one can understand. Governor Patrick has started to address those issues, but he's being thwarted every day by the fine folks from Beacon Hill. It's time those fine folks listen to the advice of the MBPC and cut the unfair and illogical corporate tax loopholes.
Tonight's Podcast: Issues Too Big to Ignore
Scooter Libby's freedom comes at the cost of America, especially since he can't be compelled to testify under oath against the administration. Bush may have said that his penalty was too stiff, but it was precisely in the middle of the highs and lows of his possible sentencing. For someone who committed perjury, making a mockery of the system, as well as putting the administration's needs above America in the Plamegate situation, this was absurd. We're going to talk about it.
We're also going to talk about the Presidential race. Edward's wife likes full equality, Obama, Hil and John are a little skittish. Tsk, Tsk.
Expect to hear something about casinos in Massachusetts. There's been a lot of news I've been itching to opin on since a tribe over at Martha's Vineyard said they'd dip their hands in the cookie jar. Then, of course, we'll have our Blogs of the Week.
Join Mike, Lynne and I live at 7:30pm tonight - over at LeftAhead - or catch the podcast at any time. By the bye, we have Byron Rushing scheduled to join us soon.
We're also going to talk about the Presidential race. Edward's wife likes full equality, Obama, Hil and John are a little skittish. Tsk, Tsk.
Expect to hear something about casinos in Massachusetts. There's been a lot of news I've been itching to opin on since a tribe over at Martha's Vineyard said they'd dip their hands in the cookie jar. Then, of course, we'll have our Blogs of the Week.
Join Mike, Lynne and I live at 7:30pm tonight - over at LeftAhead - or catch the podcast at any time. By the bye, we have Byron Rushing scheduled to join us soon.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Fun With Facebook
Firedoglake has recently taken to Facebook to make use of its networking tools and, subsequently, I've been friending people left and right. I've always liked to meet readers, commentators and fellow bloggers, so if anyone has a Facebook profile, feel free to friend me. Just send me a note to let me know who you are.
Thanks,
Ryan
Thanks,
Ryan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments