Ted Kennedy: Come Clean on Cape Wind

Anyone else glad to see the Globe focus some attention on Ted Kennedy's hypocrisy over wind energy?

Kennedy strongly defends his actions, saying there was nothing inconsistent or selfish about his motivations. He said he supports the concept of wind power, but he believes this proposal poses a serious threat to the state's fishing and tourism industries.

Really, Teddy?

It could also interfere with Coast Guard navigation and Federal Aviation Administration communications, Kennedy said.

That's why you want the Governor to have veto power over this project, because the Governor has so much to do with Federal agencies and the Coast Guard. I wonder why the Federal Government pushed this process forward if it posed such a threat?

The fact is that the Cape Wind project seems to offer almost 100% positives and no negatives. Don't believe the hype: it won't affect the tourism industries. People won't be able to see the project from most of the Cape and the Islands. Furthermore, from the parts where they will it will look no bigger than the thumb of a person's finger on the horizon.

The town I live in, Swampscott, used to be a leading tourist town as well (until all our hotels burned down). The towering skyscrapers of Boston, merely 12.5 miles away, didn't seem to stop people from coming to Swampscott back then.

Come Clean, Senator

''People ought to be worked up with how Cape Wind was able to get special provisions written in here," Kennedy said.

That sounds familiar: sort of like Senator Kennedy giving Cape Wind special, back door, treatments to kill the deal (that voters widely support) with an Alaskan Senator?

Senator Kennedy, stop being such a politician. Honesty is the best policy. You don't like Cape Wind because you're an elitist and it's near your coast. You clearly jumped on the bandwagon before you learned that this wasn't going to seriously transform the view from the horizon. Have you even considered that yet?

All your so-called reasons for rejecting this policy are total bull, the real reason is because this is in your backyard and there are a lot of very wealthy people from your area who don't want this project to move forward. At least have the human decency to level with the people and admit that if this project were off the coast of Gloucester, it probably would have seemed like a great idea to you.

Let's Spend More on Schools

Today's big Globe story was on the State Legislature promising to spend hundreds of millions more on schools next year.

Under pressure from angry parents, educators, and town officials, the Legislature is poised to add millions more in funding for schools, the largest jump since the economy went into a tailspin in 2002.

The Senate is preparing an increase of slightly more than $200 million, or about a 6 percent jump, for public schools in next year's budget, which starts July 1, according to Senate Ways and Means chairwoman Therese Murray.

While I applaud this effort, I need to make two key points:

1. Don't forget public colleges. My tuition has skyrocketed. Next year, to live at UMASS Dartmouth is going to cost over $700 more. Many people will pay that and be forced to live with extra people than this year (forced doubles and triples because more students were admitted than there was room for housing). I'm not even touching on increased tuition and fees. Massachusetts is one of the two or three *worst* funders of public higher education and if anyone would like to know just how that effects this state - I'd be more than happy to explain in detail. It's shameful.
2. You can't just spend money to spend money. Our congressmen and senators may be quick to do what's politically expedient - give their constituents a blank check - but the fact is that there are certain costs that are killing public schools that the state has a duty - and in fact promised, at one point, to pay. Special education costs are killing towns and cities. The state should fund at least 50% of each town's special ed costs. Furthermore, after school sports and activities should be free for every single person in this state. Too many schools charge an arm and a leg so students can play a sport or join a club. What kind of message does that send?

Statistically, schools in Massachusetts are among the best - if not the best - in the country. Imagine how great they would be if we truly invested in them - at every level, from pre-school to doctorates? Perhaps, Massachusetts could even compete internationally?! Imagine that? Furthermore, if people are worried about declining populations, there's nothing that will attract young workers to a state more than quality education for their children.

Iraq is a LOCAL Issue

Remember, folks. The war isn't just 1,000s of miles away. People from New Bedford are dying.

Reilly Promises Rail Extension

Yesterday's New Bedford Standard Daily Times.

Attorney General and candidate for governor Tom Reilly promised yesterday that, if elected, he will bring commuter rail to New Bedford in his first term. "Commuter rail is coming to Fall River and New Bedford, and during my administration it will be done," he said.

In his comments, Mr. Reilly made it clear he believes commuter rail will provide an economic boost to the SouthCoast, a boost he said the state government is obligated to provide.

It's a bold promise. At the Deval Patrick speech at UMASS Dartmouth, Patrick said he thought the process would begin within a year if he was elected, but refused to make a promise on something that big. Still, he seemed confident.

So it looks like we have at least two candidates so far who are confident they'll have a commuter rail in New Bedford within the next four years. Anyone know where Kerry Healey, Christy Mihos and Chris Gabrieli stand on this?

Testing 1-2-3

Oh, my, oh, my, oh, my!! Is leftybloggers down or something? This is a test to see if it's working. What will Massachusetts do if it isn't? How will I do my part in covering the Governor's race and keeping an eye on Deval Patrick to make sure he wins? How could I cover Tom Reilly without it!

Now, before I continue my doomsday thoughts... I guess I should test this thing.

Update: Yup! It works. It must have been down for a bit. I feel like a member of Monty Python's Flying Circus, running around like a chicken with its head cut off after bravely trying to take on a killer bunny.

It's funny to think about how the web has changed our lives. What would I be doing with myself right now otherwise? (Maybe going to make myself some lunch, for starters, but instead I need to devour the Boston Globe to see if there's anything I need to comment on!)

Make sure to read my previous blog on last year's Student Trustee election and my big regret. It illustrates a huge lesson I'll take with me forever - and one I hope others will as well. I don't want this useless blog-update to ruin the thunder of one that's actually meaningful. BTW - I cross listed it at Kos, so make sure to recommend it.

UMASS Dartmouth Student Trustee Race: A Regret

Last year, I ran an unsuccessful campaign to become the Student Trustee. The race was extremely difficult - I was one of four candidates. It was UMASS Dartmouth's year to be one of the schools that had complete voting power (as opposed to merely a voice without a vote) on the UMASS Board of Trustees. Two of the candidates were fairly well funded - I spent almost a hundred dollars of my own money just on copies made at Staples (and, remember, I'm a poor college student) and I was completely drowned out.

One of the candidates I thought had spent thousands. He probably spent hundreds more than I did, but it turned out his uncle owned a company that made the thousands of bumper stickers, pins and T-Shirts that made his name well known on campus (and he only had to pay the cost of the materials). He had professional banners that hung down the Student Center and academic buildings on campus. Oh, did I mention he had large swath of volunteers or the fact that he was the Student Senate President?

Another candidate had a huge field of volunteers, was a Student Senate member and former managing editor of the college newspaper (the Torch). Did I mention he has lived on campus since 1999? He advertised that a little too much, if you ask me, even if he was currently in a grad program.

This candidate also had a prominent newspaper article with a huge picture that sparked a huge debate between myself and the Torch. I had written a very short letter to the editor (perhaps a third of the size of the other candidate's propaganda piece) to announce my candidacy and lay out my positions - a letter that was never included, despite the fact that I was left with the intentions that it would be. It started off a very public exchange on a college website called Facebook between myself and the candidate who was the former managing editor of the Torch. He didn't think there was anything wrong with only including one article of one candidate who used to run the paper in an issue that was going to be laying around UMASS Dartmouth for the entire week of the election, while the other candidates had no voice in the paper whatsoever.

Ultimately, that whole fiasco was pointless. I did not finish well because my campaign didn't have the muscle of those two other candidates and I certainly didn't have the money to compete with the first candidate I described. I would have lost either way because I was completely blindsided by the lengths to which the other candidates would have gone to in order to win an election for a college position - an important one nonetheless, but still taking place only at UMASS Dartmouth. I would have started my campaign earlier and fought harder if I had known, but this blog I'm writing is all salt in an old wound. As it stood, once the first two candidates got wind of what was going to be my hat-trick - going door to door to hundreds of dorms - my opponents quickly moved their forces to do exactly the same.

I don't regret running. First, the entire Torch fiasco ruined the chances of the second candidate I described - who was facing an uphill battle anyway - by revealing a lot of views I'll describe as unique and unappealing. More importantly, it taught me a lot of things about running a small, local campaign. You need to start early and you need - more than anything - friends who support you. I could have won, despite the money problems and despite any of the election drama that took place. I had a great message that worked with people who heard it, I just didn't have the 20-30 people to deliver it and I certainly didn't give myself the sort of time I needed to run a successful campaign (I entered the race late - I didn't want to rush into something that was going to be a huge time commitment and previous Student Senate elections weren't anything like mine, so I was caught unprepared).

Here's what I do regret: I just logged on to Vote UMASS today and only one candidate is running for Student Trustee, with no posters in sight, and that candidate isn't named Ryan. I had a chance to make an impact, even if it wasn't a year I could have voted on the Board of Trustees (and just had a voice), but I failed to take it. Today, I failed at being a progressive - I failed at being a person who cares passionately about the issues - and that makes me feel really bad about myself. One year later, my Student Trustee campaign has taught me the most important lesson of all: put your time and effort (and money, if you have it) where your mouth is.

If we see the world and are unhappy with what's taking place, we need to be the ones who take it back. We can't leave it to anyone else, the world is too important.

Today's Boston Globe Review: Charter Schools and Osama Who?

As I said, I won't be writing any more Globe Watches, I guess "Review" will have to do for now.

Today's Headline

Today's Globe headline story was on Osama bin Laden's newest message. Why? It's time to bury Osama bin Laden in the back pages. That's all I have to say about that.

The Editorial Pages

The Globe's lead editorial today was on charter schools and the conflicts in funding them. The Globe seems to be very supportive of charter schools (this conclusion coming from many Globe editorials I've read on the subject) - and there are some great charter schools we should all support. However, there are two things that bother me about charters.

Firstly, I used to be on an advisory council for the Massachusetts Board of Education several years ago. During that time, charter schools were a hot issue. Several of them had to go before the Board of Education to warrant staying open. Several students of one of the schools came before the council I sat on and appealed to us to support their cause. However, the numbers and facts just didn't support that decision.

The Board of Education ultimately decided that the Lynn, Ma Charter School should be closed; it was a complete failure. It would be one thing if this charter school were unique, but it wasn't. I don't know what the statistics on charter schools are now, but back then I didn't find them encouraging. There are always many great examples, but there were more (at least then) that were no better than public schools - and often worse.

Secondly, and more importantly, I'm very much against charter schools that are for-profit. A lot of charter schools bring corporations money - which sickens me. Public education isn't about making profit for corporations, especially when many of those corporations were heavily supported by the Welds and Cellucies of the world. I'm no expert on Romney's positions on charter schools, but let's hope he didn't keep the same friends (and let those friends sit on the Board of Education).

I appreciate a little competition and think all parents should have some choice in where to send their children, including (and especially) public schools. I think charter schools can be a very viable option, but I felt the Globe editorial brushed aside many of the aforementioned issues. I understand that there have been many editorials from the Globe on charter schools, but the Globe should have emphasized the fact that not all charter schools are created equally.

Of course, the Boston Globe suggests Horace Mann charter schools as a good compromise. However, it wasn't for any of the reasons I suggested. It was a good compromise with unions, but what about students? I was disappointed to see the Globe focus so many words on compromising with unions and so few (or none) on what's best for students.

I'm no expert on charter schools and am years removed from when I could say I was confident in my knowledge, so take this whole portion of today's review with a grain of salt. If anyone has some good information on this topic, my ears and mind are open.

In other news...

Cathy Young has a personal take on immigration. You'll have to accept my apologies, I didn't bother reading it.

Globe Watch Review

I've wanted to blog about some of the stories in the Globe today all day long, so I finally put aside a few minutes to address them.

First, there was a fantastic op-ed on Cape Wind. Basically, the article suggested it was shameful for Cape Wind to be dealt with by back door D.C. insider politics.

THE RECENT back-room, closed-door attempt by a congressional conference committee to kill the wind farm planned for Nantucket Sound is shameful. If the action stands on the floor of Congress, its consequences will be severe.

Regardless of whether you support Cape Wind's proposal, as we do, or oppose it, it is hard to see the action as anything other than a subversion of the public interest in fair, honest, open decision-making.

Could anything be more simple and true? I love the term Lynne coined - the Good Ol' Boys. Do we really want GOBs in DC deciding policy for something so important and so local? Why should an Alaskan Senator play such an important role in Nantucket Sound?

Finally, the authors hit a point I've been nailing for months now:

The Cape Wind project has received considerable attention in foreign capitals and news media. Policy makers and citizens across the globe are watching closely and with hope. The message Cape Wind sends is that at least in one tiny corner of our country there is a turnaround in America's view of its shared responsibility for the planet's health and future. The conference committee vote sends the opposite message. This alone is reason enough to reverse the action.

Next article was a companion piece that was against Cape Wind. While it offered some reasonable points, I thought they pale in comparison to the message Cape Wind sends as well as the actual benefits (2/3rds of the power of Cape Cod, all without air pollution).

I just want to address one point from the article:

This issue won't be settled by a congressman from Alaska, but rather the governor of Massachusetts.

Why the Governor? Why not the State Legislature? Why not a referendum? Call me cynical, but if there were a Democratic Governor and a State Legislature filled with Republicans able to defeat a veto (if the situations were reversed), I somehow suspect the wonderful Senator from Alaska wouldn't have given a veto to a federal bill to the governor and instead given the option to the entire state government, with a Congress able to defeat a potential veto. There can be no doubt: this was a political ploy, nothing more and nothing less.

Finally, the Globe's headline story today was the new paid family leave bill. Here's the summary of what the bill entails:

Senate leaders this week will propose legislation to offer all workers in Massachusetts up to 12 weeks' paid time off to care for newborn and adopted children or sick family members, financed by an employee payroll premium of at least $1.50 a week.

The bill, which would pay employees their full salary, up to $750 a week, would create the most generous paid leave policy in the nation.

How refreshing to see Massachusetts continue on its road toward progress. The bill isn't perfect, but hopefully through a bi-partisan effort (or at least with a congressional olive branch to members of the House) we can get something like this bill through. With all these wonderful bills passing left and right, I somehow suspect the population decline is going to become a problem of the past (if anyone can truly call it a problem now... Lest I be mistaken in that the world is becoming a bit cramped): what better way to lure workers and employers to Massachusetts than a skilled workforce with guaranteed benefits?

PS: Since I've vowed not to use the name "Watch" in a title of any of my blogs, I need some new suggestions on just what to call these posts on the Globe. Any ideas are appreciated.

A Deval Patrick Watch?

I think I just wrote my last "Globe Watch" column. After reading this website, I doubt I'll ever be able to use the word "watch" in a headline again. Seriously, I've heard of Massresistance Watch and my Globe Watch columns, but do we really need a Deval Patrick Watch? Is Deval Patrick so bad that we need to keep a close eye on him?

Massresistance Watch exists to protect the rights of people and "watch" hate groups. Agree with their positions or not, they exist to protect the very rights of people. I like to keep an occasional eye on the Boston Globe to make sure they accurately portray the news and resist the temptation to use media-driven labels without facts (i.e. how newspapers frequently refer to Senator McCain as moderate without any evidence or support). If people didn't "watch" newspapers, Judy Miller would still be writing about how great the war in Iraq is on the front-page of the NY Times, using leaked half-truths from Scooter Libby to bolster her neo-con agenda. If people didn't "watch" hate groups, Matthew Shepard would have died in vain.

However, do we need to "watch" Deval Patrick? D. R. Tucker, a blogger who recently posted a comment on this website, thinks so. According to him, Deval Patrick is a doomsday candidate who needs to be watched, just like a corrupt media and hate groups that support killing gay people.

Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick has run a campaign marked by unrestrained scorn for those who disagree with the liberal/progressive vision, and unrestrained glorification by members of the Bay State press corps. [Emphasis mine]

Apparently, Deval Patrick must have been lying when he told Joe Schlief, a Young Republican and conservative who frequently comments on this website and is a fellow student at UMASS Dartmouth, that 'I want your vote.' Apparently, answering Joe's question honestly and with great respect at a recent speech given at UMASS Dartmouth equates to "unrestrained scorn." Apparently, when Deval Patrick talks about erasing partisan squabbles and having a clean campaign, where we ignore 'right and left' and focus on 'right and wrong,' he really means to scorn everyone who doesn't agree with his every position. Apparently, my every assumption about Deval Patrick has been wrong!

The Deval Patrick Watch blog also includes articles on how Deval is probably just running for Senator in his Gubernatorial bid and is too liberal to win this current election, but is also clearly going to win. So which is it? Is he going to win or not? Today, he's definitely going to win; Chris Gabrieli and Tom Reilly should just give up (this according to him, I think both could still win and did okay during the debate).

DR Tucker, consider this a reply to your emails. I hate to call out a website because of its premise. In fact, I've never done it before. There have been many websites I've disagreed with and many more people I've disagreed with. But the idea that Deval Patrick needs a "Deval Patrick Watch" website is absurd.

I get it - you don't like Deval Patrick. Well, who do you like? Instead of having negative blog after negative blog, why don't you use your wisdom and divine us all the best candidate to vote for and tell us why. My guess is you'll say Kerry Healey.

Massachusetts is too important to pay attention to websites like the Deval Patrick Watch. In fact, I shouldn't be posting this blog at all. I'm giving the issue too much attention. However, I can't consciously ignore these sorts of campaign tactics.

I've written several negative blogs about Tom Reilly, but he isn't inherently evil. There's no wicked intentions behind the man that would make me think it necessary to create a "Tom Reilly Watch" blog. Heck, I wouldn't even write one for Mitt Romney - and I think he'd eat his wife if it would help him win. Massachusetts needs real solutions for its real problems. Deval Patrick Watch does nothing to help solve those problems and only serves to further the partisan divide and frequently express the "unrestrained scorn" it claims to be guarding against.

It would be one thing if there was a shred of honesty on the "Deval Patrick Watch" blog, but the entire premise of the website is off. Where is the scorn? Where is it? Please, just give me a few quotes of this scorn. Show me where he compares Mitt Romney to Hitler or advocates 2nd class treatment for anyone in this country? If Deval Patrick has been one thing during this entire campaign, it's been respectful. He's even had praise for Mitt Romney at every venue I've seen him speak.

I suggest to anyone who wants to blog that they be honest with their readers instead of trying to twist the truth. If you're going to make blanket statements about candidates that will do them real harm, feel free to back it up. Otherwise, the only one who is doing the scorning and being disrespectful is you.

My Take on the Debate

This isn't going to be some long blog - we didn't learn much in today's debate. Here's what we did learn:

This debate changed nothing: at 8:30 am on Sunday, who else but me watched it? I found Jon Keller's questions "gimmicky" and far from hard-hitting. Let's get some real questions, Keller, okay? I believe there's a debate on Thursday, so let's hope that one's better (and at a time people will watch it).

We didn't learn much from the candidates during this debate. None of them really hurt their chances, I also doubt any of them did enough to jump to the head of the pack. We learned that Chris Gabrieli likes to make wife-beater jokes; Tom Reilly thinks he's special because - for the first time ever - he released his tax returns; for good or bad, Deval Patrick actually answered questions as opposed to avoiding them (tobacco addicts should hope the state doesn't need to raise revenue).

Do these things sound "gimmicky?" Well, Deval Patrick certainly did call some of Keller's questions just that. All things being equal, I think more people in Massachusetts probably watch Jessica Simpson advertising pimple cream on late-night infomercials than what should be a really important - first - debate that should help decide the future of this state. Governor is the most important position in the state: it's a position that has more impact than either the President (here in Massachusetts) or any single Senator or Congressmen. The entire debate seemed like a gimmick: it belonged on Prime Time, not bedtime.

Deval's New Plan

Read it.

Patrick Includes Over $735 Million in Savings, Pledges To Lead Fiscally Responsible, Efficient Government

BOSTON-Wednesday, April 19, 2006- Deval Patrick today released a plan for the more efficient, streamlined government he will lead as governor, identifying specific savings of over $735 million. His strategies include limiting legislative earmarks, enforcing wage and hour laws, improving detection of Medicaid fraud and increasing budgetary transparency.

$735 million will go a long way towards truly funding the new Health Care Bill, making sure any state help is the kind of meaningful help that tens of thousands in this state will need.

The plan is detailed, so check it out. Feel free to poke any holes in it via comments, if there are any. I don't have time to properly go through it point by point, but as far as I'm concerned this plan is a great one... I'm all for streamlining and saving money where possible (to spend it where necessary).

New Evidence on Iran

I posted this on Daily Kos and while it doesn't really fit in with what I normally post here (I don't even mention Boston, Mitt Romney, Thomas Reilly or Deval Patrick! How can I write anything without talking about Deval Patrick!), it was just too good not to include for all my regular readers. Without further ado, here's the article:

The White House Administration has been giving Iran some serious heat as of late. However, I notice that the administration is lacking one key component in its essential drive to continue to its New World Order and fantastic neo-con agenda. Where is the formerly respected lackey who can go to the UN and try to convince the world of the necessity of an unnecessary invasion? Since Colin Powell rudely abandoned President Bush, I've been worried. How will President Bush be able to trump up the current rock-solid evidence against invasion and convince the American public and the West of the necessity to have a Persian Gulf do-over? After realizing Iraq didn't have any nuclear ambitions, by darn, we need to rid some evil, tyrannical government of their nukes. It just so happens our invasion was off by one state, close enough, right? Well, fear not America. We may no longer have Colin Powell, but I found some conclusive evidence for the upcoming Iranian invasion below!

In this picture, we find a building that's circular in shape. That means it's probably a nuclear facility. I circled it three times (and in red!), conclusive proof that it needs to be bombed. Also, I put some Xs on the picture because they could be important spots too; it's better to be safe than sorry.

Now, to the north of the building I think there are some highly advanced AT-ATs, which must be destroyed. They're the high-tech weaponry used in Empire Strikes Back. That must be against the Geneva Convention, Koran or a George Lucas copyright infringement. Or something. Anyway you look at it, it's an act of war. America's very existence is threatened by such computer-age wizardry.

Here, I've discovered the existence of a secret order of Iranian magick-women. Our intelligence agencies say they wear all black and are so magical that they could even be carrying super-secret wands below their "garment-doily thingies." Also, at night they become invisible.

In this picture, we have Ambassador Bolton. He's holding up something that looks pretty important and I found this googling Iran, so it's probably related. I think this piece of evidence is particularly damning because.

Here we have an example of female Iranian secret soldiers busy creating disguises for nukes to ship them to America. It is believed by most American intelligence officers that Iran plans to design clothes for obese women in America and hide the nukes in those large garments. Port security is in the United States is very bad, so this strategy will probably work.

Here we have an example of what intelligence experts say is an Iranian scientist and "white-skinned traitor" busy, probably in the midst of the uranium-enriching process. The evidence is extremely solid and precise; it's unknown whether this strategy will work. Intelligence officers think they could have a nuke cooked within the next decade from this new and potentially highly advanced process.

Here we have what intelligence experts believe are mobile chemical weapon units. Secret intellegence gathered through the "life-saving NSA wipetapping program" revealed that Iran decided nuclear weapons weren't actually damaging enough. The mobile units are believed to be able to travel at super-fast speeds and have special multi-colored armor that is good for absorbing significant damage. According to the New York Times, a former top administration official said they are even equipped with lasers.

I believe that the evidence presented here is indisputable, just like the pre-war evidence for the invasion of Iraq. Intelligence agencies from all around the world believe that Iran is quickly developing nuclear weapons and obviously they're obviously right since they always have been in the past. Also, as proved in Iraq, sending weapons inspectors is useless; they'll never be able to find the evidence. Clearly, Iran will be able to hide it well in advance, just like Iraq.

America's only hope is to launch an offensive nuclear attack featuring our newly developed bunker busting bombs. It is believed by our scientists that the nuclear fallout will be minimal and probably only a few thousand Iranians will die from cancer for the next couple decades - and they don't really matter anyway. The attack itself will have minimal casualties, so no one in the media will even notice. Plus, the media likes big explosions on TV. Iran could have nuclear weapons at some point in the next decade, so we must stop them with all of our military might now.

Romney's Nightmare Before Christmas

Aaron at Massdemocracy thinks Mitt Romney just got his Christmas present. Lynne at Left in Lowell certainly was worried about it. Heck, I was terrified of this prospect for a few days too. Did Massachusetts Democrats just hand Mitt Romney the White House?

Here's what Aaron had to say:

I don't know what Dimasi and Traviligni stand to gain from a Mitt Romney presidency, but they handed him an early Christmas present with that photo-op yesterday.

Lynne added:

Flawed as the new health care reform bill is, as much as it doesn'tÂ’t address cost reduction or other major issues, Governor Romney should not get to put this feather in his cap.... Democrats, don't attend the signing ceremony.

The truth is, Aaron, Dimasi and Trav would stand to gain nothing. That's precisely why they should have taken the photo-op opportunity with Governor Mitt Romney. Just read this:

The editorial page of the [Wall Street] Journal said the plan ''is a recipe for higher taxes and more government intervention down the road."

We think the individual mandate itself is an unprecedented level of interference with individual choice and decision-making. ~Michael Tanner, Director of Health and Welfare Studies at the Cato Institute.

Still don't agree with me? Picture this: It's the Republican Primary. George Allen, Bill Frist and John McCain are duking it out with Mitt Romney in Iowa, South Carolina and potentially a few dozen other states. McCain won New Hampshire with almost 50% of the vote in 2000; he's going to win it again.

The other candidates will go in heavy in Iowa. Mitt Romney boasts his health care bill. What does everyone else do? Sit back and whine as they bow out to Romney and McCain? I don't think so.

Cue to the commercial. Mitt Romney is standing next to a half dozen other Democrats in Boston, Massachusetts - Liberal Mecca of Starbucks drinking, (gay) elitists everywhere. He's signing a bill that will cost hundreds of million of dollars, written by Democrats. He's smiling, talking with those liberal democrats and acting just like one of them.

Bill Frist's voice narrates, "I've spent my entire life in the health care industry. I am a medical doctor. I know exactly what is going wrong in this country and I know how to fix it. Mitt Romney thinks he knew how to fix it too, he doesn't think Americans deserve the choice to decide their health care. Under his proposal, tens of thousands of people from Massachusetts are forced to pay a new tax and aren't given the choice to decide what's right for their own bodies. My name is Bill Frist and I'll never force a bigger government on you to decide how you should take care of yourself." End commercial.

Romney can very well use this bill to help win the Presidency, but it will hurt him just as much as it'll help him, if not more so, during the primary. A nice photo-op with real Massachusetts Liberals will only hurt him more. Republican primary voters don't want bipartisan efforts, they want to win. They don't care that he worked with democrats to get this bill, that will only make it worse. Seeing pictures of him with liberal elitists in gay ol' Massachusetts won't help Mitt Romney win the primary. I don't even think Romney foresaw the backlash this has generated.

I'm going to end this by quoting part of my comment on Aaron's blog, it's highly relevant and really sums up my point well:

Mitt Romney just forced individuals in Massachusetts to buy into health insurance whether they like it or not. Some people will be paying thousands of dollars because of that... while I support the legislation, will Republican primary voters still support it, knowing that? Despite all Romney's effort to become Mr. Conservative, he's going to getlabeledd a Massachusetts Liberal anyway - thanks to this bill.

Republican primary challengers will be too smart not to use this ammunition.

Globe Watch: It Isn't Bi-Partisan

I just read the Globe's page one article on the bipartisan effort on health care. Here's what it says:

Governor Mitt Romney signed most of a sweeping new healthcare bill into law yesterday at a festive Faneuil Hall ceremony hailed as a hallmark of bipartisan achievement

This is going to be a short note:

Can we call it bipartisan when Governor Romney vetoes everything he doesn't like? Essentially, this bill is now an entirely Republican bill - until the legislature fixes it. It's much like President Bush's medicare prescription drug bill: it amounts to a huge payout to healthcare companies, while not even remotely encouraging businesses to increase healthcare coverage. There's no stick... is there even a business carrot? What incentive do businesses have to offer health insurance that didn't already exist?

No. Sorry, Boston Globe. It was a bipartisan effort, but Mitt Romney just lost the right to call it that. I understand why he did it and don't blame him, but he can't have his cake and eat it too. Either he has to tell conservatives that, in an extremely blue state, he had to compromise or he abandons his efforts to create bipartisan legislation. That's what he did, he ditched bipartisan efforts on the side of the road when he realized he was about to be labeled a Massachusetts Liberal.

The fact that it will probably still happen is poetic justice. Conservatives don't like government mandates, even if it's on lowly people and not fabulous corporations. Get used to it, Mitt. You're a Massachusetts Liberal now.

In criticizing the way the Globe describes the bill, I would like to say they got some things right. The bill presents a lot of questions and the Globe touches on them.

A legislative staff analysis estimates that the groundbreaking healthcare plan would start losing money in two to three years, which could put pressure on lawmakers to spend more tax money, increase the fee on businesses or scale back the coverage of the sweeping bill. The analysis projects that the plan will be about $160 million short of its estimated cost of $1.56 billion in the fiscal year that starts July 1, 2008.

Massachusetts has taken the first step to Universal Health Care, but we have only scratched the surface. The bill offers almost as many questions as it does answers. How are we going to pay for it? What is public assistance? Are we leaving too many middle class people at risk because of thrusting all the high costs on them without any of the necessary assistance?

These are questions that will be answered over the next few years. Our next Governor will be a huge part in deciding that. Let's pick a good one.

Consider this a Letter to the Editor (on my previous blog)

I got a comment that I feel was very important over my last blog entry. It was so important that I'm going to consider it a Letter to the Editor and give it it's own blog entry. Maverickdem wrote it. I don't know who he is, but he's a Tom Reilly supporter (it seems).

I would like to make note that while I support Deval Patrick, I am not paid by his campaign and my role in it is new, small and I recently blogged about it in a disclaimer column. Another disclaimer can also be found just to the right of my blog entries in the "about me" discription.

My slogan for the site has always been "an analysis of the current political situation and an advocate for a better future," and I'm sticking to it. I will never shy away from the truth or cover up for something I feel is wrong. I've written a negative column on Deval Patrick before and I'm sure I've had positive words for Tom Reilly as well. I'm sure Reilly has many admirable qualities, I just don't think he's the right man for the job. My slogan says I'm an advocate for a better future and, in Massachusetts, I believe a better future will be had with Deval Patrick.

Without further ado, here's Maverickdem's comment:

Ryan, wouldn't it be more fair to your readers to begin your blog with a disclaimer? For example, you could say,"WARNING: I am an unabashed Deval Patrick supporter. Please be advised that all content is intended to further that agenda. Moreover, I have never written a positive column about Tom Reilly or a critical column about Deval Patrick. I drink the Deval Patrick Kool-Aid exclusively. Thank you."

As you no doubt know, Eileen McNamara's editorial was written in response to yesterday's Boston Globe news article by Brian Mooney, "Reilly role in abuse crisis debated," 4/11/06. Mooney's objective account included a number of opinions from academics and law enforcement officials, but the most relevant opinion came from the sole abuse victim cited in the story:

Ann Hagan Webb of Wellesley, an abuse victim, said yesterday that Reilly's effort ''was unprecedented, but we were very disappointed at the time that he could not indict anyone in the hierarchy."

But Webb, the New England coordinator of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said she accepted his explanation. And, why, you may ask, was Reilly prohibited from prosecuting? Very simple - while the conduct of conduct of Church officials was morally repugnant, it was not criminal. A prosecutor can only bring a case if a law has been broken. Over two centuries, Massachusetts lawmakers had never anticipated or prepared for this type of tragic development. We all wish that they never should have had to. . .

In light of your thoroughly unbalanced presentation of this issue and Tom Reilly in particular, I would respectfully direct your readers to Brian Mooney's attempt at an objective account. It is not a puff piece, but it is far better than your Deval Patrick Kool-Aid drinker's account.

Reilly Getting Fried Again

Jeez, if it's not one thing, it's the other. Reilly has proven himself to be an inept candidate for governor. And the polls are starting to bear out that political reality. I commented in one of Lynne's blogs yesterday that "I honestly envision Reilly fading behind Patrick and Gabrieli." It becomes more true everyday.

Imagine, this guy was once, by far, the favorite? Just a few months ago, he seemed unbeatable. Even I was a little down and thinking that Deval Patrick would just be another Robert Reich... good idea, but lacked a certain something to the broader electorate. Of course, I had trouble finding out what it was that he lacked - I didn't see it - and kept with him, but there were some downer moments we all feel at some point during a campaign. I'm glad I stayed true to what I thought was right.

Why is Reilly making these kinds of campaign mistakes? It just makes him look inexperienced, nubish and unfit to take on Kerry Healey. Kerry Healy!! Just read what Eileen McNamara of the Globe had to say:

Thomas F. Reilly flatters himself.

The attorney general of Massachusetts did not run Cardinal Bernard F. Law out of Boston any more than The Boston Globe did.

The Vatican yanked the discredited archbishop out of Brighton because it made a calculation that the checkbooks of Boston Catholics would stay shut as long as Law remained at the helm of the fourth largest diocese in the United States.

In fact - and this is a sad thing - the Boston Globe had a far greater impact in driving Cardinal Law out of Boston than Reilly, whose role was minimal to none as McNamara points out,

It is tempting, especially for politicians seeking higher office, to rewrite history, but events as recent as this one do not lend themselves so easily to recasting. Reilly came late to this stage, and his role had little impact on the drama that began with Judge Constance Sweeney's decision to open church files to public scrutiny and ended with Law comfortably ensconced in a basilica in Rome. [Emphasis mine.]

The truth is the Boston Globe actually did have a big role to play. It was the media that drove the story and the Globe led that drive. The editorial staff came down hard, as well, offering many poignant editorials that helped convince Bay State residents that something was awry in the Catholic Church. Ultimately, public sentiment is what influenced the church coffers and the scandal may have gone on for additional years without the Globe.

Where was Reilly? Reilly who? Is this the guy we're talking about?

Reilly could take credit for fearlessly challenging the Catholic Church if he had opened an investigation in 1993 when Roderick MacLeish Jr., a lawyer representing victims of clergy abuse, announced publicly that he had forwarded allegations against 20 priests to the Boston Archdiocese. Reilly, then Middlesex district attorney, did not.

And people support him?

I don't mean to come down so hard on him. I keep hearing about how he's such a great guy. He's nice. He's soft-spoken. He's modest. He lives an a small apartment that he rents. His kids shared bedrooms. He never even paid for his vacation house or anything!

Seriously, folks. These are politicians. Every politician has a great story, be it Deval sleeping on the floor every third night or Gabrieli helping thousands of kids get after school programs. I'll let you all in on a little secret: Deval Patrick's personal story has nothing to do with why I support him. I'm too pragmatic to allow personal stories get in the way. After all, we're electing politicians, not demagogues. Patrick's right on the issues and has the charisma to convince people in this state that his issues are the right issues. That's why I support him.

Reilly may be a nice guy, but is he the right man to lead the state? That's a personal opinion, but I find him an odd mix of too careful and too dangerous. He's John Kerry timid and a Howard Dean scream all at the same time. He claims he drove out Cardinal Law, but he got in very late in the game. He was too careful. While campaigning, this modest, timid and supposedly shy candidate (don't make me laugh) has rushed campaign decisions and destroyed his invincible lead in the polls because of it. He's too dangerous. What has he really done that's supposed to mesmerize me as a voter? It certainly wasn't driving Cardinal Law out of town; he didn't do that.

Some democrats have this idea that they need to find electable candidates. Somehow, people think they can judge electability before an actual election. That's why we picked John Kerry; after all, he was real electable. So, is Reilly an "electable" candidate? Can he defeat Kerry Healy? I'd like to say yes. She's not a strong candidate. But, she's not stupid. Mistakes like the ones Reilly has made can - and possibly already have - killed his campaign. A well-funded Kerry Healey campaign would have a field day between Reilly picking a Lt. Governor who didn't pay her taxes and - in delusions of grandeur - saying he solved the sexual abuse scandal. It wouldn't be pretty.

Democrats in Massachusetts need to pick the candidate that feels right, not who they suspect would have the best chance to win. After all, it's not like any of these candidates are ex-cons. Let's pick the candidate who's right on the issues and has the capability to provide inspired leadership that can bring those issues to fruition, whether Robert Travaglini likes it or not. Oh, and not making mistakes left and right helps too.

Deval's Speech at UMASS Dartmouth: My Analysis

As promised, I'm going to tackle some of the big issues Deval touched on while he was at UMASS Dartmouth yesterday. I should start off by saying that I went to Deval Patrick's Faneuil Hall rally several weeks ago. I'm sure many of my readers were also at that huge event. There were thousands and thousands of people there and the energy was just kinetic. It was quite shocking to me that, in the middle of winter, thousands of people would travel to Boston to come and hear him give a stump speech. Literally over a thousand people were turned away from the doors - I was one of the last few people to get in. It really showed the broad-based and charismatic support that Deval has had throughout the campaign. Through word of mouth and a true grassroots campaign, Deval Patrick has tipped the scale and tied up the race. Does it get any better than that?

Of course, the key aspect to Deval's campaign has been his grassroots effort. He's been running for over a year and it has been small events like the UMASS Dartmouth lecture that has rippled to create a campaign that could very well win. Deval could easily say "enough is enough" and stop touring the state. He could decide that he's had one too many breakfast with hundreds of people and answered one too many questions from college students who probably won't vote anyway. He could begin running a traditional campaign, now that he has the money, support and big-time endorsements. And maybe, at this point, that would actually help his campaign.

Yet, he keeps plugging away, stopping by lowly UMASS Dartmouth to say hello and answer questions for an hour yesterday in the South Eastern-most part of the state. This wasn't a big-time event, there were maybe a hundred folks there. But, just like a hundred events before, he knows that probably 80-90% of the people at those events of about a hundred people will probably vote for him. He knows that they'll go on to tell their friends, family and co-workers about the event - and half of those people will vote for him. This is people-powered politics in action, folks. It's the ultimate goal that all progressives have: an election controlled by voters, not special interests or party insiders.

What's more important is that not only does he go to these events, but he actually seems to like them. Imagine that, a potential Governor in Massachusetts who actually likes people from Massachusetts? That's more than either Paul Celluci or Mitt Romney could say. In the smaller venue of the Library Browsing Area of UMASS Dartmouth, Deval Patrick took time to shake everyone's hand and take a picture with anyone who wanted one (including me). He took questions for an exceedingly long time... and they weren't all easy questions. He answered them honestly and was exceptionally candid. Another politician would have been either vague or just said whatever the crowd wanted to hear. He had fun, answered honestly and made no promises he couldn't keep.

What's more important is that not only does Deval Patrick seem like a good guy, but he's also sharp. During the speech, he gave some fundamental advice every Democrat should take with them, be they from Alabama or Rhode Island, "discontent with the Republicans is not enough, nor should it be." Did you get that, John Kerry? People-powered politics and the progressive movement will never succeed unless we convince the Democratic Party that it must stand up, in unity, and offer better ideas.

We have to offer more than better ideas, we need to be able to sell them. Deval began to discuss Cape Wind, which surprisingly drew the biggest response from the crowd, and he packaged it differently than any other elected official I've yet to see. Cape Wind is a unique opportunity, it represents the next great leap in Massachusetts's "innovation economy." Where others just see an environmental issue, Deval Patrick sees 'the next great Massachusetts industry.' It's not just about Mother Earth, it's the economy, stupid. Deval Patrick understands that. He understands that to win and do well when in office, he needs broad-based support from everyone. Thus the careful packaging of ideas that is not only going to help him win, but represents the logical conclusion: energy independence is good for our economy over the longterm and, in Massachusetts, even now.

Cape Wind represents an opportunity to harness the globe and create a renewable, clean energy that can create significant amounts of electricity - enough to power 2/3rds of an entire region. It can do all that without harming the environment or even killing birds. We'll create jobs and power most of Cape Cod through a means in which we can sleep well at night.

In the same discussion about Cape Wind, Deval Patrick also hit upon another common theme. He said that one of the biggest differences between Republicans and Democrats is that, "we understand there's more than one bottom line." The money we save today from energy that destroys this planet - the only one we have - is one day going to cost us tenfold. Heck, if Katrina showed us anything, it's that it's already costing us. How many of these major hurricanes would be tropical storms if the oceans were a degree or two colder? New Orleans could still be here today, instead of the city in ruins.

The multitude of bottom lines extends far beyond the environment. Health Care is probably the single biggest issue of today. Deval Patrick issued a warning: the next governor is the one who is going to implement the new health care bill. Remember all those pesky questions I brought up? Well, the next Governor is going to deal with them. The next Governor is going to help decide just what kind of assistance we mean when we say we're going to provide assistance. The next Governor will truly govern over something far more important than access to health care; the next Governor will help decide whether or not health care in Massachusetts should be affordable. It'll start with the families who are set to receive public assistance to pay for health insurance - but it won't end there. The new health bill barely scratches the surface of affordability.

And Deval Patrick has some real good ideas there. From eliminating administrative costs, to pooling resources together to get bargain rates, Deval has ideas. He has ideas that will tie together seemingly unrelated things. For example, in keeping our health industry cutting edge, Deval Patrick wants to create bonds for research universities to expand on their stem cell research. As the bonds are being paid back, the interest on those bonds will go to public colleges in Massachusetts. Every little bit helps, especially when Massachusetts ranks 47th in public higher education funding.

Being the progressive candidate, I'm sure many in the state would be quick to think him naive or his ideas a pipe-dream. However, he's anything but naive. Ultimately, Deval Patrick is a man grounded in reality. He never stared away from saying things that will undoubtedly challenge voters. For example, he thinks "we get the leadership we deserve." Ultimately, less than half of the country typically votes. The voter-turnout in Massachusetts this upcoming election will probably be around 40-45%, if that. People have a very cynical view of government - and why not? Politicians are viewed as being typically corrupt, don't care about the people and bow down to special interests. What chance does the little guy have?

Well, "the more good people that check out," the more cynical government becomes. Checking out only serves the corrupt and rubber stamp politicians. Deval Patrick is a breath of fresh air. His campaign has been about inviting in those who have, in the past, checked out. American democracy, powered by the people, may lay dormant - but it hasn't died. Deval Patrick is a chance to rekindle the progressive dream, where people matter instead of money, and nothing he said at UMASS Dartmouth left me with any reason to change my mind.

Reilly Who?

MassChange picked up on a new poll showing Deval Patrick is leading the pack.

SurveyUSA asked 426 likely Democratic voters, "If the Democratic Primary for Governor of Massachusetts were today, and you were standing in the voting booth right now, who would you vote for?"

36% said Patrick.
33% said Reilly.
19% said Gabrieli.
11% are undecided.

Granted, the poll is within the margin of error, but Deval Patrick is looking really good at this point. As someone who has worked extensively with election polls in the past, I find SurveyUSA to be just about as good as any other polling company. I studied the 2004 Florida Senate race extensively as a case study and routinely used SurveyUSA polls, as well as Zogby and others. Generally, the only ones you really have to worry about are partisan organizations like Rasmussan and even then they're generally within 3-4% of the truth. All other polls will typically be within the margin of error.

There are a few things we can quickly learn from this poll:

1. There's only 11% of the electorate who describe themselves as "undecided." That doesn't mean that the other 89% of the population won't change their mind, but it does mean that it will be at least a little harder to get them to do so.

2. This race is very, very close. The debates will be very meaningful.

3. While Gabrielli surely has stolen votes from Deval Patrick, he's taken far more away from Reilly. I've said this once and I'll say it again, Reilly's support is hollow. Gabrielli ran, in part, because of that - and I think Gabrielli is running with support of some key insider Democrats who were not pleased with Reilly's really bad week.

He was supposed to run for Governor; he was one of the few democrats in this state to be elected in a state-wide position and Attorney General is a legit stepping ground to Governor. However, just because it was his time, doesn't mean he should be the next democratic nomination.

Enough commentary. Here's SurveyUSA's full breakdown.

It's interesting to note that people with a college education or post-grad education support Patrick in higher numbers, as do people from Greater Boston and urban areas. I'm actually surprised that Reilly doesn't poll higher among Bostonians. While some would probably tell Deval to stick to the Greater Boston area, I think it's important that he branch out to Western Mass too, where he's down around 7%. Wait, didn't I say enough commentary?

In any event, keep up the good fight fellow Deval Patrick supporters. As promised, I'll post my full breakdown of yesterday's speech at UMASS Dartmouth later today, so everyone should check back in a few hours .

Pictures from the Deval Event at UMASS Dartmouth

Here are some pictures from the event:

Deval Patrick speaking to the crowd.

The College Democrats posing with Deval.

Deval and I while my friend Sam is taking the picture (thanks Sam!)

Some things I learned from this speech:

1. I really need a better digital camera. I took two pictures with Deval and neither of them came out well. I took about 18 pictures at the event... and the first two were the best. Yikes.

2. The Faneuil Hall rally was fun; there was a real kinetic energy, thousands of people and a rousing speech that didn't disappoint. However, nothing compares to an intimate setting where anyone has a chance to ask a question and anyone can sit up right close to him while he speaks (I was two or three rows away). He really knew how to speak to a smaller audience. He was funny when he should have been funny, specific when he needed to be and had a way of reaching everyone who was there (and, while it was a small venue, there was still probably about a hundred people there).

3. He's candid. Especially during Q&A, if someone asked him a question in which he wasn't an expert, he didn't pretend to be. He offered goals, not promises. If there was a question he wasn't an expert on, he openly admitted it instead of trying to hackishly answer the question anyway.

4. The Boston Globe is a weapon of mass destruction when it comes to his campaign. Sadly, it seems like an establishment paper that wants the same old politicians in the same old offices. Take any story they write about Deval Patrick with a grain of salt. I feel naive, but there was a time and age when I thought the Boston Globe was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Sometimes I have too much pride in all things Boston.

5. I'm extremely confident that Deval Patrick will whip some serious butt in the debates and as he continues to travel around the state, speaking to the people on a personal basis, being a true grassroots candidate. My bet is that a significant amount of people who vote for him during the primaries will have had at least one opportunity to shake his hand if they really wanted to - and a significant portion will probably have gotten that handshake... like me.

I took detailed notes during the entire time and I'm going to really analyze them (and my handwriting) and discuss what he talked about during the speech. It was very different than his stump speech at the Faneuil Hall rally and he talked in detail (and got a huge positive reaction) for his stances on things like Cape Wind, the shameful state of public higher education in Massachusetts and what he means by being "no ordinary leader."

I was continually surprised at the detail of his knowledge and his command on issues that weren't even major issues throughout the state, such as extending the T transit system to New Bedford. Do other politicians familiarize themselves with all things Massachusetts like Deval Patrick seemingly has? I promise that I'll give my complete take on the speech in the morning/afternoon, including direct quotes and more pictures (if they aren't too fuzzy).

Continue to pay attention to the governor's race. There is no more important political office for a state than Governor, that's the one politician who effects our lives the most, more than a Congressman, Senator, Attorney General or even President. Let's make sure that Massachusetts elects a Mr. Governor we can all be proud of.

Deval Coming Today

So I wrote last week about Deval Patrick coming today. Well, it's T-3 hours and fifteen minutes. When I get back from his speech, I'll be sure to give my take. Check back!

Mitt Romney Shouldn't Decide Cape Wind

Today, the Globe reported that a new Senate deal would give Governor Mitt Romney the power to block the Cape Wind project.

Governor Mitt Romney, an opponent of the wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound, would gain the authority to kill the controversial project under a tentative agreement reached yesterday in the US Senate.

After days of closed-door talks, members of Congress agreed on a measure that would grant the governor or his successor the right to block the wind farm proposed by Cape Wind Associates, Senate aides said. The break came yesterday when US Senator Gordon H. Smith, an Oregon Republican, switched sides and backed the measure giving the governor the authority to block the project, environmental advocates and Senate aides said.

May I be the first to say that this is ridiculous? A man who is the Governor of this Commonwealth in name only should not be given the additional power to destroy progress on his way out the door. He should not be given a politically expedient power by his friends in Washington when he will be going stumping around the country for the remainder of his term instead of dealing with pesky Bay State issues.

The Cape Wind project is too important to be decided like this. Obviously, you all know I'm fairly supportive of the project, but I also know that a man abandoning the state for greener pastures shouldn't be given the power to make such a paramount political decision. More importantly, should any one person be given the power to block such an integral project? Why should a governor be given the power to decide such a question at all? It seems to me to be an issue of the people and thus should be decided in the State Legislature.

Now, before I get cries of "but what about gay marriage," this is an issue that effects no one's freedom. It isn't a matter of personal liberty. It's a business deal that will occupy a body of water on the Massachusetts coast. It is indeed a matter of the state legislature, not for one person to decide and certainly not an unpopular governor on his way out the door.
Allow me to give the so-called Governor a little message: Mitt Romney, do us all a favor and continue to ignore Massachusetts. The enmity is mutual. And don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

The New Health Bill: A Band-Aid, Not a Cure

I recently wrote a diary on Daily Kos on Mitt Romney and the new health bill. Like a lot of you, I fear that if Democrats aren't proactive on the issue, Romney will be able to steal it in a 'look at what I've done' moment. Since it was always about politics for him - neither about the tens of thousands without insurance in Massachusetts nor the hundreds and hundreds of thousands struggling to afford it - we can't let him take this issue and thrust it on his soap box, at least without Democrats in this state getting their proper credit. However, when I wrote about the issue, something strange happened: so-called progressives began attacking me on my diary for even supporting the proposal (despite the fact that even then I called it a band-aid approach).

It seems to me that there were some things I didn't know about this bill. Apparently, the new healthcare proposal leaves several large gaps in its safety net. From a commenter on my dailykos diary:

you don't have every-one insured...the self employed and most especially farmers are specifically excluded from the safety net programs, except that they will now have to pay fines to support them. THAT is the basis of my hostility.

Now, I'll admit, I'm not an expert on the new health care bill. I only know that more coverage is better than less. I also knew that over the next few years, with a more progressive governor, we could reduce the individual cost of the health care packages (which run at more than $300 a month per individual) and increase the amount of assistance families could get to afford it.

However, with the news that farmers can't get these state options even if they wanted to pay for it and would have to opt for more expensive, private programs instead, it became extremely obvious that Massachusetts can't wait a few years to change the bill. We need to fix it within the next year to include everyone. Why would there be exceptions? It's not as if farmers and the self-employed need health insurance any less than the rest of us. It's a small part of the population, let's not leave them behind, especially if Mitt Romney is going to gloat across America that Massachusetts has universal coverage when it clearly doesn't.

Update:

The Globe has a great article today about this topic.

The state will pay the entire premium for individuals and families who earn less than 100 percent of the poverty level and will subsidize premiums for those who earn between 100 and 300 percent of the federal poverty level; 300 percent is about $30,000 for a single person and $50,000 for a family of three.

But the amount of those subsidies has not been determined, and the higher the premiums of health plans, the more the state will have to chip in to keep plans affordable.

It seems a little scary to commit to subsidizing premiums without actually committing to subsidize them. How much are we actually going to contribute and will it be meaningful. However, this quote is just as scary:

Uninsured residents with incomes over 300 percent of the poverty level, about 200,000 people, will be on their own to pay the full cost.

A family of three making $50,000 isn't an especially wealthy family. If they're paying approximately $600 or more for health insurance, that's going to take a big dent out of their income, even if it's pretax. Massachusetts is an expensive place to live. Greater Boston is statistically more expensive than anywhere else in America. It seems reasonable to subsidize a fair amount up to 400% of the poverty level, or $64,000 for a family of three. While that family won't be poor, they certainly could use the additional money, especially when the premiums are going to be more expensive than initially reported (over $325 compared to $200 per person).

Update: A further look at the political ramifications of Romney's stake in this reform. Although, it's not all good. Conservative attack dogs are going after Good 'ol Mitt.

Perhaps worst of all, the plan relies on threats of "fees" -- that's Mr. Romney's euphemism for giving up existing tax breaks -- in the amount of $295 for employers and $150 for individuals who fail to comply. Companies hapless enough to employ insurance-less "free riders" who run up big hospital bills must pay anywhere between 10 percent and 100 percent of bills over $50,000. These fees -- sure to make people and employers take the law seriously -- will distort the state's economy and do little or nothing to harness market forces. ~Washington Times

LOL! I have to tell ya, I actually feel bad for Mitt Romney. I'm not even being sarcastic. He's sacrificed children (who can no longer be adopted via Catholic Charities), his own respect (by going back on just about every moderate social stance he had when he ran for Governor) and for what? To be called a Massachusetts liberal.

What caused such ire? A measly $295 penalty for businesses that don't provide health insurance, "sure to make... employers take the law seriously." Laughible! You don't get that sort of absurdity from the Democratic party, some party leaders may be inept, but that Washington Times editorial is just absurd.

Deval Patrick Coming to UMASS Dartmouth

In case anyone would like to meet Deval Patrick in an informal setting, he's coming to UMASS Dartmouth to speak. The event is open to anyone who wants to come, so this is a great place for people in Southeastern Massachusetts, around New Bedford and Fall River, to hear him talk. He will be speaking in the Library Browsing area on Monday, April 10th between 4 and 5 pm. Directions to UMASS Dartmouth can be found at the school website or from Mapquest. When you get to the campus, take a right and park in lot 14 (or 13 if necessary). The library is the oddly shaped building next to the amphitheater.

Stop the Violence

The violence in Boston must come to an end. Unfortunately, I can't tell you all the answers. Maybe the police force needs more police officers? However, Boston already has a higher concentration of police officers than most major cities. Maybe the community isn't organized enough? I keep hearing things are different now than they were four or five years ago when murders in Boston were so rare they made headline news. Now, there are dozens and dozens of people being murdered in Boston.

I don't know how to fix it, but I know exactly what it's like to experience losing a loved one. I had a wonderful cousin, once upon a time, who had a best friend. Her best friend was going through a tough and abusive relationship and wanted it to end. My cousin stuck up for her and was shot in the head for it. It's a crazy world we live in. I've never been the same person since then; that experience truly changed me as a person. I didn't become cruel and want revenge. Instead, I truly realized the value of a human life.

People are valuable, every single one of them. I sometimes think that society cares less about the poor and minorities though. I don't think it's a conscious effort, I just think that's the way it is. People tend to only value what's either familiar or close to them. Consequently, I don't think most people in the Greater Boston area realize just what this means to the Hub. Boston is a great city, a city to be proud of - it must remain a safe city.

I'm getting sick of reading about the latest shootings in Boston. It makes me think of my cousin.

Leftybloggers Podcast for Massachusetts

Just the other day, I posted on the Bay State Progressive Blogger Yahoo Group that my fellow Bay State progressive bloggers should put our heads together and continue to reach out to as many people as possible. Only a small segment of the population actively reads blogs. Furthermore, as technology increases, more and more people are branching out to other forms of media. Continuing on this line of thought, I came to one conclusion: we need to create a podcast.

I was very pleased with the positive response my idea brought. Clearly, I wasn't the only one who thought about podcasting. Susan of Beyond 495 was thinking about starting one for her own site. Lynne of Left in Lowell was also high on the idea. With people who are clearly interested in podcasting, I figured I should continue to beat the drum and see just how high I've piqued interest.

Creating a podcast that represents the entire community would be both challenging and paramount. It's paramount because if suddenly 10 of us decide to create a podcast, we'll drown each other out. Unlike our Bay State blogs, which can easily be glossed over by readers using Leftyblog headlines and google, a podcast is something both more time consuming for listeners and difficult to tell just what each session is about. Creating a unified podcast will make it a much more successful venture and would likely even spawn increased readership for all of our blogs.

However, creating a unified podcast presents challenges: people live all over the state. Where would we podcast? Who would be the podcasters? Each website and all of our bloggers will have different ideas on just what to include on a typical podcast. Do we want to exclusively give commentary, essentially an audible blog, or should the podcast include debates and interviews? There will be challenges and it will be difficult, but I don't suspect any major problems. Certainly, the benefits of creating a unified podcast would outweigh any of these challenges, which would likely work themselves out over the long run anyway.

Lastly, creating a podcast is just one idea. The netroots is quickly growing. As more mediums become available, we can create a larger movement. Ultimately, we all have the same goal: to further the progressive agenda. We want progressive policies enacted, progressive politicians elected and progressive laws written. As the netroots have grown, so has the power of progressives. It is essential that we not allow our ideas or methods of delivering them to stagnate. Our entire movement was created in response to the old guard in Boston and Washington, let's not lose that edge. If anyone has any other ideas, speak up.

Thanks,
Ryan