Tuesday Roundup: Harrington's new idea

This week, sister publications Lowell Sun and Sentinel and Enterprise are profiling candidates for the First Middlesex House seat being vacated by Robert Hargraves (R-Groton). Two Republicans are vying for the nomination, and one of them, Sheila Harrington (R-Groton) is advancing a proposal that I've not seen before:

GROTON -- For many workers, landing a competitive job in Massachusetts means they may not be able to work in the same field, should they ever resign or get laid off.

That's because, says Sheila Harrington, many employers ask workers to sign a contract that prohibits them from seeking a similar job elsewhere or starting a business in which the skills and knowledge they acquired on the job might come in handy. The Bay State court is known for enforcing the contractual agreement -- so much so that skilled professionals are afraid to use their talents outside the corporate shadows, Harrington says.

Harrington believes limiting the scope the non-compete clause and the range of workers to whom such contracts may be applied is crucial to creating more jobs in Massachusetts.

"If you want to stimulate more jobs in Massachusetts, you have to be more creative" than simply rolling back the sales tax, Harrington says.

I'm skeptical that there are that many people still out of work because of non-compete clauses. Even so, it's refreshing to see a candidate talk about something different than taxes, casinos, and immigration for a change.

While I don't think reporter Hiroko Sato meant the profiles of Harrington and Connie Sullivan (R-Ayer) to be contrasting pieces, it looks like Harrington is taking a veiled shot at Sullivan when the profiles are read one after the other:

AYER -- Discouraging Massachusetts consumers from crossing the state border is one of Cornelius "Connie" Sullivan's economic stimulus strategies.

Lowering the sales tax would help create many more jobs in the state, and that's evident from how stores were hiring people for the tax-free weekend, Sullivan says....

He supports rolling back the sales tax to 5 percent -- or as low as 3 percent if voters are willing to. That would require the state to scale back on spending, but the state government has "plenty of fat" to trim anyway, he says...

Presumably, the Sun and Sentinel will be looking at the Democratic candidates on the days to come.

On to other things...

Second Franklin House District
The four candidates for the Democratic nomination will face off in a forum at 6:00 pm at the Greenfield Community Television studios. GCT is pretty good about posting their events online, and we will post a link on CMassPolitics.com once it becomes available.

Lee Chauvette (D-Athol) was interviewed by Athol author James Joseph Brown.

Second Congressional District
Jay Fleitman (R-Northampton) tells the Telegram that the federal stimulus was "a disaster," the Gulf oil spill was "handled horribly," and that Afghanistan is "an abject mess."
 
Fifth Congressional District
Sam Meas (R-Haverhill) gave a wide-ranging interview to the Haverhill Gazette. He said the number one reason he is running is:

First, there is a huge lack of choice in Massachusetts. There is one dominant party, and many are running unopposed. It is the antithesis to democracy. We've spent $1 trillion on two wars trying to give them the freedom of choice, but we do not have it here. To me, that's important. If Republicans were the dominant party, I'd say the same thing.

Third Congressional District
The Boston Globe reports that James McGovern (D-Worcester) co-authored a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi asking her to protect food stamp funding in a proposed child nutrition bill.

Monday roundup: Pension talk still driving sheriff's race

If a small snapshot is any indication, the political talk around Worcester  is still centered on the Worcester County Sheriff's race, where discussion of Governor's Councilor Tom Foley (D-Worcester) and his disability pension continues as we begin a new week. The topic was discussed this morning on WCRN-AM's The Midday Report with Hank Stolz. While there is no podcast of the show available, most of the callers sounded like they were more apt to blame Foley for running for office while collecting disability than to blame the odd pension system that would allow him to collect while being sheriff (should he be elected).

For better or worse (depends, I suppose, or which candidate you support), today marks the fifth day of discussion of Foley's disability pension. Dianne Williamson broke the ice in the Telegram with a column on Thursday, followed by notes from Shaun Sutner on Telegram.com on Friday and in the print edition on Sunday.

Coincidentally, Foley's supporters have come out in force over the weekend. Whether in response to the stories or because of the calendar (yesterday was 30 days before primary election day), Foley lawn signs have been sprouting like clover in this area. This morning I drove through Clinton on my way to 495 and counted 24 Foley signs in the 2.6 miles between the Lancaster town line to the west and the Berlin town line to the east.

Speaking of the Telegram, if you are trying to access the stories lined above and find yourself banging your head against the (fire)wall, it's because the T&G has begun charging non-subscribers for online access to most locally-produced articles. I have an on-line account and will continue to include links to the Telegram in my stories, but how much access you, the reader, will have is anyone's guess.

On to a very short roundup...

Third Congressional District
The Telegram keeps up its profiles of Congressional candidates, this time checking in on Brian Herr (R-Hopkinton). Herr briefly outlined some of his positions:

Like his opponents in the primary, Mr. Herr wants to cut government spending. He supports unemployment benefits in this “scary time,” but doesn't support borrowing money to extend benefits. He believes the government should provide services for vulnerable populations such as people with disabilities, as long as cuts are made elsewhere.


Schools, he contends, are best run at the local level, so he wonders why the country needs a U.S. Department of Education with a budget in the tens of billions of dollars.

He slammed a bill Congress passed last week to restore public jobs as more unnecessary spending.

He believes spending cuts need to come before new tax cuts.

Herr also claims to have more than 4,000 Facebook friends.

Fifth Congressional District
Sam Meas (R-Haverhill) has added former Haverhill Mayor Mike Sullivan as an advisor. He is also apparently "Bad to the Bone."

Worcester, Hampden, Hampshire, and Franklin Senate District
Fifth Worcester House District
Sen. Stephen Brewer (D-Barre) and Rep. Anne Gobi (D-Spencer) spearheaded a bill to allow the Worcester County 4-H Club to lease land from the state for the next 25 years.

Cross posted at CMassPolitics.com.
Homepage: cmasspolitics.com (or cmasspolitics.blogspot.com)
RSS feed: feeds.feedburner.com/Cmasspolitics
Email: cmasspolitics@gmail.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/CMassPolitics

Weekend roundup: I've been everywhere, man

It's awfully difficult for a challenger to dominate the media cycle against an well-financed, high-ranking incumbent, but Tom Wesley (R-Hopedale) managed to do just that Friday in his Second Congressional District race against Rep. Richard Neal (D-Springfield). We'll start with the Telegram, where Wesley was the feature of Friday's candidate profile:

Mr. Wesley explained that these are tough economic times and that people have to be careful with their finances. He quickly added, however, that this election is about more than raising money.

“I see it as my patriotic duty,” he said when asked why he was running. “I'm fighting for unborn generations.” termed a lynchpin election, which means in his opinion the American way of life is at stake and people are angry with what has been happening on Capitol Hill.

In addition, Wesley was all over the radio, appearing on Springfield's WAQY-FM and WHYN-AM. He has also continued videotaping while driving.
 
For his part, Neal has received praise from the unlikeliest of sources. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, has endorsed Neal's bill to provide for automatic enrollment in IRAs for employees of small businesses:

The Automatic IRA is a conservative, market-oriented solution to help address our retirement savings crisis. It would increase the proportion of Americans who can save for retirement at work from 50 percent to 90 percent, make it simple for small business owners to offer IRAs to their employees, and create low-cost accounts that an employee can understand and use without having to be a financial expert.

Neal's proposal has also been endorsed by the more liberal Brookings Institution.

Elsewhere...

Third Congressional District
Rep. James McGovern (D-Worcester) continues to keep the pressure on Congress and the Obama administration over the cut in food stamp aid that was part of the $26 billion jobs bill:

"President Obama pledged to end childhood hunger by 2015," McGovern pointed out. "It's hard to see how you do that while you're cutting food stamps.''

Fifth Congressional District
In the Sentinel, columnist Peter Lucas calls Tom Weaver (R-Westford) "the most qualified candidate you never heard of."

Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was in Harvard to tout federal funding for a 220-kilowatt solar power facility at Carlson Orchards.

First Middlesex District
Tony Saboliauskas (D-Pepperell) is part of a group trying to get permission to erect a "Support our Troops" sign on town land in Pepperell.

Second Franklin House District
Earlier this week, David Roulston (D-Greenfield) became the latest candidate to criticize the proposed biomass plant in Greenfield.

Middlesex and Worcester Senate District
The communications director for Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) is taking time off during the fall recess to work for the campaign of Ninth District Congressman Stephen Lynch (D-South Boston).

Worcester County Sheriff
Lew Evangelidis (R-Holden) recently visited the Hampden County Sheriff to get some tips on programs for inmates.

Cross posted at CMassPolitics.com.
Homepage: cmasspolitics.com (or cmasspolitics.blogspot.com)
RSS feed: feeds.feedburner.com/Cmasspolitics
Email: cmasspolitics@gmail.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/CMassPolitics

Tuesday Roundup: McGuane out of Second Franklin race, Chauvette opposes "biomass plant"

Lots of news coming out of the Second Franklin District today. The most important (and most inevitable) of which is the news that Martin McGuane (D-Greenfield) who pled to a DUI charge last week has pulled out of the race. Michael Henry of Montague Matters read between the lines of the former candidate's announcement:

In a simple press statement, e-mailed Thursday at 7:31 p.m., the 53-year-old candidate was quoted as saying, ‘Due to health issues and personal reasons, I am withdrawing from the race, effective immediately.’

...He might have done a good job if his “health issues” (read: alcoholism) and his personal reasons (read: piss-poor liar) didn’t force him to withdraw.

McGuane is the second candidate to withdraw from the contest this month. Genieveve Fraser (U-Orange) announced on July 7 that she was pulling out because she had "developed photosensitivity and must avoid direct sunlight." In her announcement, Fraser endorsed Roxanne Wedegartner (D-Greenfield).

In policy news, Lee Chauvette (D-Athol) is opposing the construction of what he calls a "biomass plant" in Greenfield. In a strongly worded statement, he wrote:

“People aren’t just worried about the quality of the air, or the 'eyesore'--such as the stack height of such a project; they’re concerned about their health and the health of their kids and community. These concerns have been voiced to me frequently, and not from just Greenfield residents, but residents from Gill, Erving and even Montague and beyond. It’s not enough to say the issue of Biomass in Greenfield is a 'Greenfield' issue, especially when as a candidate to represent the entire District I have an incumbent responsibility to protect the interests of all citizens.”*

In other election news...

Third Congressional District
Rep. James McGovern (D-Worcester) has been making the media rounds in response to the leaking of classified documents related to the war in Afghanistan. He told Chris Matthews on MSNBC:

"...The documents that were released paint a very grim picture and our men and women who are fighting the battle are doing an incredible job,” said Mr. McGovern. “It’s clear they have no reliable partners. They can’t trust the government of Afghanistan because Karzai is corrupt. They can’t trust the Afghan police or the Afghan military because they’re corrupt. Now we have news that the Pakistani intelligence are working to undercut the American men and women we’re putting in harm’s way. This is an outrage.”

Second Congressional District
Rep. Richard Neal (D-Springfield) continues to come under fire from European governments and the reinsurance industry for his proposal to do away with tax deductions for reinsurers based overseas.

Challenger Tom Wesley (R-Hopedale) has posted a new web ad criticizing Neal for...just about everything.

* -- Update 9:40 pm: In the original version of this post, I noted that "The developers of the plant, Co-op Power, defended their proposed plant (they call it biodiesel, not biomass) in a post at Blue Mass. Group." I received an email from the Chauvette campaign explaining that his opposition is to "a 'biomass' plant being proposed in Greenfield by Madera Power under the name of Pioneer Power." I regret the error.

Weekend Roundup: Lazy days of summer

As one would expect after a lazy summer weekend, there were no big stories to break over the last couple of days. But there were a couple of things of note, here they are...

Sixth Worcester House District
Rep. Geraldo Alicea (D-Charlton) reports that progress is being made in the quest to bring a Registry of Motor Vehicles office back to Southbridge.

Challenger Peter Durant (R-Spencer) has called on Alicea to file Durant's bill to prohibit the state from breaking a lease similar to the former RMV lease in Sturbridge. The press release is a proof-readers nightmare. One hopes the bill is better written than the release.

11th Worcester House District
Kevin Byrne (D-Shrewsbury) announced recently that he plans to run for the Democratic nomination to replace Rep. Karyn Polito (R-Shrewsbury). Denis Leary (D-Shrewsbury) had been the only Democratic candidate to qualify for the ballot, but he recently pulled out due to health issues.

12th Worcester House District
Rep. Harold Naughton received the endorsement of The Gun Action Owners League of Massachusetts.

Challenger James Gettens (R-Sterling) was endorsed by Citizens for Limited Taxation.

37th Middlesex House District
Rep. Jennifer Benson (D-Lunenburg) voted in favor of the sales-tax holiday. Her anti-tax opponent, Kurt Hayes (R-Boxborough), criticized her even though she voted the way he would have.

18th Worcester House District
Selectman Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton) has been under fire for literature claiming he won an award that he did not win. He is challenging Rep. Jennifer Callahan (D-Sutton).

13th Worcester District
City Councillor Joffrey Smith (D-Worcester) is balking at Worcester's newly proposed valet parking ordinance.

Second Franklin House District
Lee Chauvette (D-Athol) has been endorsed by the Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts.

First Congressional District
Bill Gunn (R-Belchertown) brings his campaign to Leominster for a candidate forum Tuesday night at 7:00.

Grad student makes Long-shot bid for state rep

With Hank Stolz jumping out of the race for First Worcester District Representative, it looked like the fight may come down to a heads-up battle between Holden selectmen Ken O'Brien and Kim Ferguson. Not so fast, as the Landmark reports another candidate has thrown his hat in the ring:

HOLDEN — An MBA graduate student from Holden has thrown his hat in the ring to run for the 1st Worcester District state representative seat being vacated by Lewis Evangelidis (R-Holden).

Citing the need for solutions that don’t run along party lines, 23-year-old Jonathan Long of Winter Hill Road, Holden, said these are uncommon times that require uncommon solutions. 

Uncommon times that require uncommon solutions? Oh, Brother. I imagine the young man is young enough to think that's original. Good for him for running, but he's got to be a little less cliched than that. The article is essentially a rundown of Long's resume, but does include this quote:

"Our state as a whole hasn't been hit as hard as the rest of the country, but it's still bad. We have to help and extend benefits to the people who have lost their jobs but we can't increase the tax burden for people either."

If the guy can extend benefits without raising revenues, he certainly will have found an uncommon solution. Politicians have been promising that without success for thousands of years. Perhaps Long can be the guy to find a way.

Updated March 15: the Telegram has more, including a note that Long is leaving the Democratic party to make his run.

RMV fee controversy is everyone's fault

Whenever a politician on Beacon Hill says that they didn't know about a fee hike like the Registry of Motor Vehicles' five-dollar charge to do business in person, the siren on my BS detector wails like a fleet of engines headed to a five-alarm blaze. The fact is, the state legislature is so powerful that a selectman in Montague needs to have a home-rule petition passed in order to sneeze at town meeting. So there is nothing more disingenuous than this:

Outraged state senators on both sides of the aisle today will push to overturn a “brutal” Registry of Motor Vehicles fee slapped on drivers who conduct some business in person instead of online after a Herald report revealed the cost hike.

“It doesn’t seem quite fair,” said Senate President Therese Murray (D-Plymouth). “I assume the members might (vote to eliminate the $5 fee). We didn’t even know it had happened until we read it (in the Herald)...”

“I think the element of surprise is what angered people, and rightly so. I’m angry as well,” [Rep. Joseph Wagner (D-Chicopee)] said. “Given the way this has been packaged, I would take a serious look at supporting a rollback.”

Baloney.

Oh, I have no doubt that Senator Murray, Representative Wagner, and others in the legislature didn't know it was coming. But there is a big difference between not knowing something is happening and not being told that it is going to happen. The legislature was told that this increase was coming. It's their own fault if they didn't pay attention.

State law is clear that the Secretary of Administration and Finance must inform the legislature at least 60 days before raising fees and hold a public hearing at least 30 days before raising fees. In the case of this particular fee, it appears that the notice was given more than one year in advance.

According to the Senate Journal of December 15, 2008, "A communication from the Executive Office for Administration and Finance (pursuant to Section 3B of Chapter 7 of the General Laws) giving notice of its intention to amend 801 CMR 4.02: Fees for Licenses, Permits, and Services to be Charged to State Agencies (received Thursday, December 11, 2008),— was placed on file."

On January 6, 2009, the House Journal reports that a communication "From the Executive Office for Administration and Finance (under the provisions of Section 3B Chapter 7 of the General Laws) submitting proposed amendments to 801 CMR 4.02 and 801 CMR 4.08" was "placed on file."

On February 17, 2009, the RMV announced a public hearing would be held March 16 to consider the proposed fee changes. The announcement included a link to the fee changes themselves. The $5.00 "Branch Transaction Administrative Fee" is clearly marked as a change.

The current list of fees posted at the Executive Office for Administration and Finance was amended on January 22, 2010 to include the new fee (see page 42).

The Senate was told, the House was told, a public hearing was held, no one raised a stink, so the revenue projections for the FY2010 budget were made including revenue from this fee. The House and Senate pass the budget, Governor Patrick signs it, and everyone is happy until the fee kicks in, consumers get outraged, and legislators pretend that if they had actually been informed of this despicable fee they would have stopped it.

Again, baloney.

But while legislators have no reason to be outraged, consumers do. The RMV absolutely misled consumers about this change, despite their protestations to the contrary. Back to the Herald:

The RMV has done little to raise awareness of the fee. It was mentioned on an obscure RMV blog posting on Saturday. An internal memo obtained by the Herald says there will not be a promotion of the fee.

“Customer advertising . . . will not include the administrative fee separately, but rather the stated renewal or duplicate fee will be listed as $5 greater,” wrote RMV officials in the memo.

Looking through the RMV's archives, it is clear that they had no intention of letting people know of the increase. There are a number of official releases that specifically promote online usage. While those would seem to be the perfect place to remind customers that using online services would save money because fees will rise in 2010, none mention the increase. In fact, the official fee schedule "revised February 2010" does not even list the fee, even though it was to go into effect March 1.

Obviously, they were trying to hide it. They had an entire year to tell everyone that they had better go online or they were going to be charged a fee. It should have been in every press release about web services, posted on the web site, noted in every mailing, and advertised prominently in each branch. Why didn't they?

Well, I think we all know the reason. The RMV has to balance out the savings they get from having people use the web with the fees they would generate by charging everyone who comes into the branches. Apparently there is more to gain by collecting the fees than there is by saving money through on-line transactions.

Well, today the governor responded by rescinding the fees. It was probably the best thing he could do given the situation. This isn't a bad fee. We should be encouraging our state agencies to be more efficient, and one of the ways to do that is to move people to online transactions.

We should also encourage our legislators to read the communications from the executive secretaries so they know what government is doing. That's why the communications are required. And we should encourage the RMV to be honest with consumers, and worry more about customer service than raising money.

Mass. Republicans looking to repeal 1933 anti-discrimination laws?

I was checking in at leading Republican blog Red Mass Group earlier today and there are times when I just can't figure out if they intentionally don't get it, or if they just can't bother with the details.

In a very popular post over there about the evils of H. 1728 (derisively known as the "Bathroom Bill"), one of their editors argues against a law that has been on the books in Massachusetts for 77 years.

The editor thinks that H. 1728 is being written so broadly that it infringes on freedom of speech. For instance, this gem:

Section 24 specifically bans the the type of content that can be "published, issued, circulated, distributed or displayed, in any way, any advertisement, circular, folder, book, pamphlet, written or painted or printed notice or sign, of any kind or description" by private citizens in direct conflict of our first amendment rights.  To be clear:  I am not talking about government publications.  These are regulations on us as private citizens not employed by the government.  They want to ban what we can write in books. 

He either doesn't realize or is not willing to acknowledge that the law he quotes was passed by the legislature in 1933. That's right. Massachusetts' leading Republican web site opposes anti-discrimiation statues that have been on the books since the 1930s.

Here is the original text of the ACT TO PREVENT ADVERTISEMENTS TENDING TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PERSONS OF ANY RELIGIOUS SECT, CREED, CLASS, DENOMINATION OR NATIONALITY BY PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION, RESORT OR AMUSEMENT, passed into law on April 6, 1933:

Section 92 A. No owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement shall, directly or indirectly, by himself or another, publish, issue, circulate, distribute or display, or cause to be published, issued, circulated, distributed or displayed, in any way, any advertisement, circular, folder, book, pamphlet, written, or painted or printed notice or sign, of any kind or description, intended to discriminate against or actually discriminating against persons of any religious sect, creed, class, race, color, denomination or nationality, in the full enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges offered to the general public by such places of public accommodation, resort or amusement, provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to prohibit the mailing to any person of a private communication in writing, in response to his specific written inquiry.

Emphasis added to show that the language Red Mass Group finds so offensive has not changed since the original 1933 act.

As you can see, the law is on the books not to "ban what we can write in books," but to keep business owners from putting up signs that say "Whites Only", or from including "No Irish need apply" in a newspaper advertisement. It's an anti-discrimination statute, period.

Over the years, the section has been amended to include sex, sexual orientation, and disability among other reasons that one cannot suffer discrimination.

That is what H. 1728 does: it adds bisexual and transgender to the definitions of those protected from discrimination. It doesn't take away anyone's right to free speech, right to use the bathroom, or anything else.

So, a question for local Republicans. Do you guys really support a repeal of the anti-discrimation act of 1933, or do you just not read the bills you oppose?

Evangelidis is out, Ken O'Brien to run

According to Red Mass Group, Representative Lew Evangelidis announced to his supporters yesterday that he is definitively running for Sheriff. The announcement opens up the seat in the First Worcester District, which Evangelidis has held for eight years. Holden Selectman Ken O'Brien announced last night at the Sterling Democratic Town Committee meeting that he intends to run for the seat, with a formal announcement early in February.*

First, the email from Evangelidis:

I wanted all of you to know that I will be a candidate for Worcester County Sheriff this coming November.  As a former assistant district attorney, assistant state prosecutor and having worked in the private sector for many years I hope you would see me as an ideal candidate for Worcester County Sheriff.  With your help I think that we can break down the old Worcester County political machine and have an independent and professional Sheriff's Department.

In making his pitch last night to our committee, O'Brien said that he is a socially progressive, fiscally conservative Democrat. He said he will make bringing federal stimulus dollars and other state aid to the district a priority. He also said that he will fight to make sure that any future budget cuts do not affect local aid.

He said that his experience as a Holden Selectman and his relationships with local, state, and congressional Democrats make him an ideal candidate for the seat. The district includes the western half of Sterling, along with Holden, Princeton, Rutland, Oakham, Hubbardston, and Westminster.

Although the district leans strongly Republican (For instance, in 2006 Kerry Healey and Christy Mihos combined for 50% of the vote in the district, compared with 42% statewide; in 2008, McCain won 49% of the district, compared to just 36% statewide), O'Brien believes that he can make up the difference through a strong organization and get out the vote effort. He certainly has ties to a successful organization: his brother Joe was easily elected mayor of Worcester last fall.

It's possible that O'Brien might have to get through a primary. Last month, Worcester Magazine reported that Worcester radio and TV personality Hank Stolz is exploring a candidacy as a Democrat. There will definitely be at least one Republican running for the seat. Rumors in the district are that fellow Holden Select Board member Kimberly Ferguson is exploring a run, among others.

*-- Even though Ken O'Brien has not officially announced, since his comments last night were at a public meeting held in a public building, I am comfortable writing about them.

State house Republicans bad for business

Last week, three Democratic state senators offered up a resolution that would have called for a boycott of Hyatt Hotels for firing nearly 100 custodial workers in Massachusetts and replacing them with low-wage replacements. In opposing the resolution, Minority Leader Richard Tisei digressed into the usual anti-Democrat anti-business tripe. In part:

With unemployment at 9.1 percent, and so many companies struggling to just keep their heads above water, we should be doing everything we can to help them weather the downturn in the economy, and not trying to stigmatize them and drive them out of business....

I was discouraged to read over the weekend that EMC – one of the state’s largest employers – is moving 400 jobs to North Carolina because of the high electrical rates here in Massachusetts. These are the kinds of problems we should be addressing and trying to fix.

Instead of attacking businesses, the Legislature should be meeting in session every day to discuss how we can improve the state’s business climate, encourage companies to locate and expand here, and get Massachusetts residents back to work.

The criticism that the Democratic legislature is not doing “everything we can to help [businesses] weather the downturn in the economy” and that it should be doing more to “encourage companies to locate and expand here” was particularly rich considering what was going on in the other chamber at nearly the same time.

A number of mayors from smaller urban centers like Fitchburg were petitioning the Legislature to pass a package of tax credits that would encourage “companies to locate and expand” in these decaying communities. The proposal would increase tax credits to refurbish former mill buildings and provide direct tax credits to companies who hire new workers.

This proposal to encourage businesses to locate in Massachusetts communities by cutting taxes was opposed by...house Republicans, including Rep. Lew Evangelidis:

Not everyone on the Revenue Committee was persuaded. Rep. Lewis Evangelidis, R-Holden, said he worried about the potential cannibalizing effect the tax credits could have on other communities.

"They might entice companies to move from one community to another," Evangelidis said. "Also, we're in a budget crisis, and tax incentives cut into revenues."

But Representative, “these are the kinds of problems we should be addressing and trying to fix.” “With unemployment at 9.1 percent, and so many companies struggling to just keep their heads above water, we should be doing everything we can to help them weather the downturn in the economy.” Why wouldn’t we want to provide tax credits to help match struggling companies wit struggling communities?

A ha! I think I’ve found the answer:

Their pitch came as lawmakers consider a bill of state Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral, D-New Bedford, described as an economic recovery act for older cities that serve as regional economic hubs.

It’s because the bill was proposed by a Democrat. Period. A tea-party attending tax fighter like Evangelidis is opposed to a tax cut because it might "cut into revenues?" How disingenuous. Look, I'm as partisan as anyone, but if you're going to try to make a name as a tax-cutter, then support tax cuts. Unfortunately, the State House Republicans seem to care more about opposing Democrats then advancing a policy agenda.

H.1728 is not about the bathrooms, it's about everything else

Today, the state House of Representatives heard testimony on H.1728, titled "An Act relative to gender based discrimination and hate crimes." Opponents have called it "the Bathroom Bill," because among the myriad of changes, the bill would prohibit places of public accommodation from barring transgendered individuals from using the bathroom assigned to the gender they associate themselves with.

That's right, opponents of the bill want to keep transgendered people from taking leak in a public bathroom without the fear of intimidation. Or at least, that is the point on which they have chosen to take their stand. An opinion in today's Telegram and Gazette penned by the executive director of he Coalition for Marriage and Family puts it this way:

Who has more rights in our society? Normal 10-year-old girls who want privacy in their elementary school’s girls’ room? Or a gender-confused boy who insists on using that same restroom?

A hearing is scheduled for today before the Judiciary Committee on H.1728, the Transgender Bill, otherwise known as the Bathroom Bill. This legislation would protect the rights of people with Gender Identity Disorder (cross-dressers, those changing their gender surgically, or simply those who “feel” differently-gendered) to use the bathrooms, locker rooms, and shelters reserved for the opposite sex.

No one should have more rights than another, which is the point of the legislation in the first place. It isn't an either-or situation. Currently the "normal" 10-year-old girl has more rights, because as she grows up the law says that she cannot be discriminated against because of her "religious sect, creed, class, race, color, denomination, sex, sexual orientation, which shall not include persons whose sexual orientation involves minor children as the sex object, nationality, or because of deafness or blindness, or any physical or mental disability." If she is any or all of those things she is protected, unless she is transgendered.

This "normal 10-year-old" can be placed in a charter school, rent an apartment, get a job, use a full-service gas station, order lunch, go to a museum, and relieve herself in the bathroom with no threat of discrimination based on her identity.

The "gender-confused" boy could technically be refused all of those things under the law as long as the school, landlord, employer, gas-station owner, restaurateur, curator, or bathroom monitor decided that the reason he should be barred is because of his transgendered identity.

If one reads the bill, they would realize that the bill is 15 pages long, and is a comprehensive update of a number of statutes to include "gender identity or expression" to the list of reasons a person cannot be discriminated against. It's not about bathrooms: there is one mention of a "rest room" on page 12 of the bill. Here is the full context of that mention:

A place of public accommodation, resort or amusement within the meaning hereof shall be defined as and shall be deemed to include any place, whether licensed or unlicensed, which is open to and accepts or solicits the patronage of the general public and, without limiting the generality of this definition, whether or not it be (1) an inn, tavern, hotel, shelter, roadhouse, motel, trailer camp or resort for transient or permanent guests or patrons seeking housing or lodging, food, drink, entertainment, health, recreation or rest; (2) a carrier, conveyance or elevator for the transportation of persons, whether operated on land, water or in the air, and the stations, terminals and facilities appurtenant thereto; (3) a gas station, garage, retail store or establishment, including those dispensing personal services; (4) a restaurant, bar or eating place, where food, beverages, confections or their derivatives are sold for consumption on or off the premises; (5) a rest room, barber shop, beauty parlor, bathhouse, seashore facilities or swimming pool, except such rest room, bathhouse or seashore facility as may be segregated on the basis of sex; (6) a boardwalk or other public highway; (7) an auditorium, theatre, music hall, meeting place or hall, including the common halls of buildings; (8) a place of public amusement, recreation, sport, exercise or entertainment; (9) a public library, museum or planetarium; or (10) a hospital, dispensary or clinic operating for profit;

This text is currently in section 92A of chapter 272 of the general laws of Massachusetts. This is essentially an anti-Jim Crow law: it outlines a host of places and services where discrimination based on class is illegal. In the other 14 pages of the bill, laws are changed to prohibit discrimination against transgendered individuals in schools, lending, housing, and other areas.

As you can see, the law is not about bathrooms. And to be clear, the opposition is not concerned with bathrooms; they don't want to extend protections to transgendered individuals in any arena. Opponents want to get people all riled up about little girls stuck in bathrooms with predators who cross-dress (not because they are transgendered, but because they are pedophiles exploiting the law). They figure that if people are scared enough about that, they'll oppose the bill without focusing on the other 99.9% of it.

Of course what they don't tell you--because they don't want you to know--is that their mythical gender-confused pedophile is already covered by the law. Here is the definition:

persons of any religious sect, creed, class, race, color, denomination, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, which shall not include persons whose sexual orientation involves minor children as the sex object, nationality, or because of deafness or blindness, or any physical or mental disability...

Got that? Anyone who goes into a public bathroom to look at little children may be removed or barred today whether they are attracted to boys or girls, regardless of their gender or orientation. Passing this bill will not change that one bit. It will not make it easier to prey on "normal 10-year-old girls."

What do the opponents really want? They do not want to expand the definition of the protected class. They are the same people who do not believe we should include sexual orientation in the description. Some may not believe we should include gender. Others may not believe we should protect based on race or creed.

While I disagree, this is at least a legitimate point of argument. There is a school of thought that suggests that there should be no protected classes, that folks should be able to choose who they serve and who they do not, and that the government has no stake in those decisions. I strongly disagree with a policy that broad, but at least it is a legitimate point of discussion.

But this stuff about bathrooms is ludicrous. Opponents of the bill should be upfront with their opposition, and get the minds out of the toilet.

Tags: Massachusetts Transgender Rights State House

Sterling's Gettens to oppose Naughton in 2010. Why, and why now?

At the highest levels of our political culture it’s not unusual for a campaign cycle to begin long before election day. For instance, the first credible candidates for the 2008 presidential election announced in late-2006 and the first primary debates were held early in 2007...almost two years before President Obama was ultimately elected.

For better or for worse, the trend toward extended campaigns has trickled all the way down to the State Legislature’s 12th Worcester District, where Sterling resident James Gettens has announced his intention to run against Rep. Hank Naughton in 2010.

I know Gettens from the fight between Clinton and Sterling (or more accurately, a three-way battle between Clinton, the Sterling selectmen, and the people of Sterling) over the potential sale of water from the Wekepeke Reservoirs. As I have written a number of times I agreed with Gettens’s position that the commercial sale of the water would be illegal. I even posted a number of his opinions and letters on this blog.

More recently, both Gettens and I spoke at town meeting in favor of Sterling taking the first step toward a five-person Board of Selectmen. On the other hand, we have also been on opposite sides of some town issues: at the May town meeting I spoke strongly in favor of spending $52,000 to help develop the Sterling Greenery Park, a proposal that Gettens vigorously opposed.

Having said that, I am a strong supporter of Rep. Naughton and I contributed both time and money to his most recent house campaign. I believe he serves with the district’s best interests in mind, and expect to strongly support him again in 2010.

The announcement of Gettens’s candidacy begs a couple of questions, some which have been answered but many of which haven’t.

1. Why is Gettens running for the house? From the article in the Times and Courier:

Topics Gettens said he hopes to address if elected include limiting salaries to high-ranking state officials, bringing the income tax rate back to 5 percent and working to tighten the expenses of the state’s mandatory health care policy….

Gettens criticized Democrats in state office, stating, “the spending practices of the Democrats in control of the House and Senate are out of control, and I hope to help change this. I intend to speak out for the individual taxpayers in the district. The people who own businesses and the entrepreneurs — the people who have been exploited by entrenched government organizations.”

“It took 200 years of state history for the budget to go from zero dollars to $12.8 billion, a mark which was reached in 1988-89. The Democrats have been in control since 1988-89, and the Democrats, through wasteful government spending, have more than doubled this $12.8 billion budget in this time,” said Gettens.

A couple of things I find interesting here…first, Gettens proclaims his support for rolling back the income tax to 5%, not for repealing it altogether, which was the goal of the recent ballot question. The difference between 5% and 5.3% is largely symbolic. For a worker making $52,000 a year, a reduction of 0.3% would put $3.00 per week back in her paycheck. And Naughton will argue—as he did in a forum we held before the last election—that the current law already has triggers that would reduce the tax rate based on the state’s revenues.

(As an aside…if the legislature had set a scale that would slide up to 5.95% when revenues are down, and down to 5% when revenues are up—instead of just a downward scale—I wonder if sales taxes, alcohol taxes, meals taxes, etc. would have been necessary.)

Secondly, he wants to “tighten the expenses” of the health care plan. Not repeal it, or cut services, or even change the way the plan works, just tighten expenses. I wonder how such a progressive position on universal health care plays with the more conservative Republicans out there.

And the argument that the budget has doubled since 1988 is a straw man. Converting 1988 dollars into 2009 dollars, $12.8 billion in 1988 would be worth $23.14 billion today. According to population estimates, Massachusetts has grown by 7.6% since the 1990 census. Using 2009 dollars, if we increase the budget by 7.6% to keep up with the growth, we end up with a total of $24.9 billion. So of course the budget has doubled, it would take $24.9 billion just to provide the exact same services per capita as we did in 1988.

2. What are Gettens’ positions on social issues? Right now it appears that the election will be fought on economic grounds, but who knows what will happen between now and 2010. Earlier this week, Attorney General Martha Coakley filed suit to have portions of the Defense of Marriage Act stricken as it pertains to same-sex marriages in Massachusetts. Will this still be an issue in 2010? Gay marriage opponents have indicated that they may again try to petition for a constitutional amendment to repeal that part of the law. Would Gettens vote to support or oppose that effort? Both Gettens and Naughton serve in the Army Reserves. What are their positions on “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell?” Does the Republican support or oppose casino gambling and/or slot parlors in soon-to-be-former dog tracks?

3. Why announce the candidacy so early in the cycle? Was it meant to be a stake out a position to keep other Republicans out of the race? Is it an attempt to get an early jump on raising money (although a check on the Office of Campaign and Political Finance website suggests that Gettens has not yet formed a campaign committee to receive contributions)?

4. Why was the rollout so limited? The only article about Gettens’ candidacy to date is the one on the Times and Courier. There hasn’t been any announcement of it in the other newspapers that serve the region (The Landmark, the Clinton Item, the Telegram and Gazette, the Banner, or the Villager). There has been no posting or discussion on Red Mass Group or the Worcester County Republican Club’s blog. It seems that if a candidate is going to make an announcement he would try to reach as many voters, supporters, and potential donors as possible.

5. What will Lew Evangelidis do? On the one hand, Evangelidis is a Republican and the party is always desperate for fellow Republicans to run for office. On the other hand, I perceive that Lew and Hank are fairly close and work pretty well together on issues that affect the neighboring districts. Will Evangelidis support Gettens enthusiastically and campaign with him? Will he support him in name but not do any heavy lifting? Or will Lew sit it out entirely, effectively telegraphing his support for Naughton by staying on the sidelines?

6. How will Sterling’s town leadership respond? On the surface, having a Sterling resident run for state rep should be a good thing. But Gettens has sparred with the Board of Selectmen on a number of occasions, many times in public forums or at town meeting. Historically, two of the three members of the board have been financial contributors to Republicans running for state office.

Both Dick Sheppard and Paul Suschyk gave money to Republican David Schnaider, the last Sterlingite to run for a seat in the legislature (Nice touch, by the way, for Sushchyk to give $100.00 to David Schnaider before his 2004 senate race against Democrat Bob Antonioni and then give $150.00 to Antonioni a year later). And both have given to Evangelidis and state level Republicans to the tune of over $2,100 combined the last six years. Will they also support Gettens? Or have the disputes between Gettens and the board become too personal for these longtime Selectmen to support him?

(Newly elected selectman Russ Philpot is not listed in the OCPF database as having contributed to any candidates).

7. And finally, will the Republican candidate for Governor have any coattails, or will he follow the Romney-esque path of running for himself, completely disregarding the infrastructure of the sate party as a whole?

A lot of things to ponder. For better or for worse, we have a long 16 months of pondering to go.

Tags: Massachusetts Clinton Sterling Election 2010 State House Harold Naughton James Gettens

GOP at it again, blame Patrick for Romney's "wheels for welfare" program

I begrudgingly have to give state Republicans credit...they have been doing a great job manufacturing outrage over programs that began under a governor they supported. A couple of months ago, they tried to blame Deval Patrick for Mitt Romney's attempt to collect sales tax on New Hampshire businesses. Now they are going after the governor for another program started during the Romney administration:

Gov. Deval Patrick’s free wheels for welfare recipients program is revving up despite the stalled economy, as the keys to donated cars loaded with state-funded insurance, repairs and even AAA membership are handed out to get them to work....

The program, which started in 2006, distributes cars donated by non-profit charities such as Good News Garage, a Lutheran charity, which also does the repair work on the car and bills the state.

Kehoe defended the program, saying the state breaks even by cutting welfare payments to the family - about $6,000 a year.

“If you look at the overall picture, this helps make sure people aren’t staying on cash assistance. It’s a relatively short payment for a long-term benefit,” Kehoe said.

First, the Boston Herald also incorrectly (or misleadingly) calls it Patrick's program, although a follow-up today does mention that the program began under Romney (the Herald also claims the program began in 2006, but reports from the Department of Transitional Assistance show that it began in 2003). Beyond that, this seems like the perfect Republican program. It hits the following big time Republican positions:

1. The Good News Garage is a Lutheran charity, which means that this is a faith-based program, long a favorite cause of social-conservative Republicans who want more government money to go to churches.

2. It reduces direct cash aid to welfare recipients.

3. It helps move people off welfare and into work.

It was such a good Republican program that none of the Republicans in the State House were interested in killing it during the time that the Romney government funded and administered the program. I wonder what changed.

(And before someone replies that opinions have changed because of the economic crisis, remember that when the Romney administration program started in 2003, the state was also facing a billion-dollar deficit).

So, because of their blind opposition to the current governor, State House Republicans are going to try to kill a plan that moves people off welfare and into jobs, lowers welfare payments, and helps keep a faith-based program afloat.

That's not leadership, that's obstructionism. It's also all Massachusetts Republicans have to offer.

Update: Here is a memo dated May 22, 2006, with Mitt Romney's name on the masthead, outlining the program.

Tags: Massachusetts Republican State House Deval Patrick

House budget part 3: When vote trading may be the right thing

Third in a series of thoughts on this week’s budget battle.

When the Massachusetts House ignored my advice and passed a sales-tax increase Monday night--bumping the rate from 5% to 6.25%--Speaker Robert DeLeo was forced to scramble to put together 107 votes in an effort to build a majority large enough to override Governor Patrick’s threatened veto. Rep. Dennis Rosa of Leominster told the Telegram & Gazette the House leadership was working hard to get votes changed:

Freshman Rep. Dennis A. Rosa, D-Leominster, said he was asked to back the speaker’s tax plan repeatedly throughout the day, but held his ground to vote against it.

“My arm got twisted two or three times yesterday, but politely twisted,” he said. “It was fine with me. They made me a sales pitch and I made my case that I had to represent my district and stand up for my people,” Mr. Rosa said.

“Leadership wasn’t happy with it but I think they understand my decision.”

In my two earlier posts I was critical of Worcester Rep. Vincent Pedone for changing his vote for what appear to be less-than courageous reasons. But would it be different if a representative changed his vote in return for a project or funding that was vital to his community?

For instance, take the situation that may have faced Rep. Harold Naughton of Clinton. (And I want to make it clear here that this is a completely hypothetical situation. Not only do I not know if Naughton changed his vote from No to Yes, I don’t have any idea why he would have made a change if he did. I’m presenting this just for the sake of argument.) When the budget was first released a couple of weeks ago, Clinton was looking at taking a significant hit in local aid. Not only was the town facing the 32% cut in local aid that all cities and town are facing, but Clinton also faced the loss of an additional $500,000 in aid, as explained by the Times and Courier:

Half that cut comes via the elimination of an annual state payment of $500,000 to operate the wastewater treatment plant on High Street, Town Administrator Michael Ward said Tuesday. State Rep. Harold Naughton Jr., D-Clinton, vowed to fight the cut.

“I feel that’s not just a statutory obligation, but a moral obligation of the commonwealth,” Naughton said. “This will be my priority. Every resource that I have [will be brought] to the fight.”

The payment enables the town to pay its $500,000 annual bill to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, which operates the sewer plant and the Wachusett Reservoir. Naughton said the payment is intended as compensation for the state taking Clinton land to build the reservoir in the 1890s and 1900s....

The article goes on to suggest that Naughton had not yet committed to raising the sales tax:

“I think we’ll see some proposals for taxes,” Naughton said. “I think you’ll see debate on a raise in the sales tax, I think you’ll see us return to debate on the statewide meals and hotel tax...I still need to listen to some debate and be convinced one way or the other.”

So in our scenario, we know that there is something that Naughton is willing to “use every resource” to fight for, and that he had not publicly committed to voting for a sales tax. Fast forward to Monday. In the Democratic caucus, Naughton does not commit to being one of the 81 yes votes Speaker DeLeo needs to pass the bill. Suddenly, the Governor’s letter hits everyone’s e-mail box and DeLeo starts to scramble to pick up an additional 26 votes to ensure a veto-proof majority.

If DeLeo heads down to Naughton’s office or pulls him aside on the floor of the house and asks “what will it take to get you to join us on the sales tax?” the answer is… “Put the $500,000 for the MWRA treatment plant back into the budget and I’ll vote with you.”

Again, I’ve made the DeLeo-Naughton scenario up in my head, so it may not have happened that way. But if it did, would that be reason enough to change a vote? Is raising the sales tax worth the additional $500,000 in local aid for Clinton?

I don’t know. I expect that this is one of the toughest parts of being a state rep or senator: how do you balance what you think is best for the state against what you think is best for your district? I hoped that Naughton would vote against the sales tax, but perhaps he had reasons other than tax philosophy to do so.

Or maybe he didn’t. Either way, it will be interesting to see if Clinton ends up with the $500,000 after all, and how much more Naughton will have to fight to get it.

Tags: Massachusetts Clinton Harold Naughton Leominster Dennis Rosa State House Budget Deval Patrick

House Budget part 2: The Governor wins by losing

Second in a series of thoughts on this week’s budget battle.

When the Massachusetts House ignored my advice and passed a sales-tax increase Monday night--bumping the rate from 5% to 6.25%--they did so over Governor Patrick’s threat of a veto. While Governor Patrick lost the vote—-the house approved the proposal by a bare veto-proof margin—-he is likely to have won the public relations battle. In the end, that might be more important than the vote on the tax increase itself.

Despite his threat, the governor is not going to veto this plan. If he were truly committed to vetoing the sales tax hike, he would have waited until after it passed to make that known. The Telegram & Gazette makes that clear:

There were just over 81 votes in support after a caucus Monday morning.

It was only after the governor said he may veto the tax hike if the House failed to adopt numerous controversial reforms that House leaders interrupted their session and spent the next 10 hours converting enough Democrats to line up with the House speaker in a show of strength against the governor’s threat.

When it was clear Mr. DeLeo had more than the 107 votes for the tax hike, House leaders proceeded with the vote. But there were many holdouts. In the end 14 Central Massachusetts House members voted for the sales tax and 11 voted against it. There were just over 81 votes in support after a caucus Monday morning.

The governor had to know that the House was nowhere close to having the votes to override his veto early in the day. Had he kept his mouth shut, he could have vetoed (or issued his threat) after the measure had passed.

He also had to know that he would come out of this fight smelling like a rose. Patrick can claim that he tried to stand up for the people of the Commonwealth in opposing a broad-based tax increase and that the only reason the increase went through was because Legislature dislikes him so personally that it was unwilling to put personal politics aside in an effort to stick it to him.

An example of a rep who may have at least partly changed his vote due to frustration with the governor’s politics is Worcester’s Vincent Pedone, who we have quoted before:

Rep. Vincent A. Pedone, D-Worcester, who along with Rep. John J. Binienda, D-Worcester, panned the sales tax idea last week, came around to join the speaker’s tax hike proposal Monday night. He said the governor’s “surprise letter” on Monday created “a much different dynamic” on the vote….

He said House members also took the governor’s action as a move against them for political gain. He argued the House has acted on four of five reform packages, even though the governor claims they do not go far enough.

“Sending the letter is not leadership,” Mr. Pedone said, also criticizing a video of the governor on his Web page urging supporters to contact legislators and demand more reforms. “It’s pure pandering to the public,” Mr. Pedone said.

So Rep. Pedone and potentially 25 other members changed there vote from no to yes because the governor publicly threatened to ratify their no vote and veto the bill? It appears that some members may be so petty that they would change their vote because a governor they do not like publicly supported their position. That’s just backwards.

(And sending the letter to the members of the legislature—-and the media-—as well as circulating a video message urging citizens to call their reps to lobby for the governor’s position is both leadership and pandering. There are a lot of us who wish the governor had been doing more of this sort of leading...he seems too often to be content to roll out policy ideas and hope that people instinctively embrace them, instead of advocating and campaigning for them.)

Of course, as I said above the sales tax hike will likely become law one way or the other. When the house and senate versions of the bill go to conference, you’re likely to see a final bill that includes the senate’s stronger reform measures merged with the house sales tax plan. And the governor will sit behind the big desk as he signs the measure, and take credit for holding the legislature’s feet to the fire on the issue of reform.

Or the governor may go all the way and strike the sales tax hike from the final bill, fully knowing that his veto will be overridden, and burnishing his improbable reputation as someone who is trying to put the breaks on the Legislature’s taxes.

Next: When vote trading might be a good thing

Tags: Massachusetts Worcester Vincent Pedone State House Budget Deval Patrick

House Budget part 1: Saving you from sugar tax by taxing everything else

First in a series of thoughts on this week’s budget battle in the state house.

Well, the Massachusetts House ignored my advice and passed a sales-tax increase Monday night, bumping the rate from 5% to 6.25%. In my previous post, I suggested the idea that being “afraid that voting for a string of tax changes would look bad on [a reps] record” was “a ridiculous thought if I’ve ever heard one.” Rep. Vincent Pedone of Worcester appears to be one of those members, as evidenced by his comments in the Telegram & Gazette:

Mr. Pedone said he switched [his vote] partly because of the argument that raising one tax was better than the numerous smaller tax hikes the governor has proposed. “It was a realization that we could not get core services delivered to the people of the commonwealth without this tax increase,” Mr. Pedone said….

“I don’t want to tax candy, and alcohol, and soda, and increase tolls, and continue down the line of the ‘taxes du jour’ proposed by the governor,” Mr. Pedone said.

So instead of taxing “candy, and alcohol, and soda,” Mr. Pedone thinks we’re better off by raising the sales tax on everything else. That’s just...wow. I cannot follow that logic at all, unless Pedone does not want to be on the record as “Yea on sin taxes, yea on gas taxes, yea on meals taxes.” Instead he can say “Well, I only voted to raise taxes once.”

It will be interesting to see if this pretzel-twist logic wins the day, or if voters see through it.

Next: The Governor Wins by Losing

Tags: Massachusetts Worcester Vincent Pedone State House Budget

House should reject broad sales tax increase

After all of the discussion all spring about whether or not Massachusetts should raise the gas tax or the meals tax or the hotel tax or a “sin tax,” the legislature unveiled a proposal today to raise the sales tax by 1.25 points to 6.25%. From the AP, via the Telegram & Gazette:

The move would raise the sales tax to 6.25 percent from 5 percent and generate an extra $900 million a year in revenues at a time when the state is struggling with plunging revenues, rising unemployment and a deteriorating transportation infrastructure.

The plan — a copy of which was given to The Associated Press — rejects any other tax increases, including proposals to raise the state income tax rate or apply the sales tax to a range of services that currently are exempt from it.

It also rejects Gov. Deval Patrick's proposals to add 18 cents to the state's current 23.5 cents per gallon gas tax, expand the sales tax to include alcohol, candy and soda, and allow local communities to increase taxes on restaurant meals and hotel rooms.

There was talk last week that such a proposal was in the works, but the details were just leaked last night. Call me a cynic, but I wonder if the sales tax increase was House Speaker Robert DeLeo’s plan all along. For weeks, the state has been debating a handful of proposals put forward by Governor Patrick, none of which included an across-the-board sales tax hike. The governor has been getting hammered. So DeLeo sits back and lets the guv take all of the heat, then unveils his proposal the day before it is going to be voted on, ensuring that it does not face the same level of public debate and scrutiny that Patrick’s plans have been subjected.

I realize that this is the most pie-in-the sky, naïve thing I’ll ever write on this blog, but the legislature should ensure that all amendments are filed 48 or 72 hours before they are to be debated so that the public has the ability to comment. A whole lotta good it’s going to do anyone who might oppose this or any other plan when your state rep isn’t going to be around to get your comment because he or she is in session debating the bill or amendment the same day it is being filed.

While I wouldn’t have proposed exactly the same set of measures that Governor Patrick has, I believe that a revenue plan similar to the governor’s is a better plan than the across-the-board Sales tax hike. My plan would look like this:

1. Allow cities and towns the local option of raising the meals tax by up to three points, with all of the revenues to be returned to the city or town in which the tax was levied.
   
   
2. In lieu of a gas tax, expand the current sales tax to include gasoline. At a current price of $2.00 gallon, the sales tax on gas would be 7.9 cents (taxed on $1.58, which is the price of gas minus existing taxes). All of the revenues from the sales tax on gas would be earmarked for transportation.
   
   
3. Expand the current sales tax to include all alcohol sales, as well as food and beverages that are packaged for immediate consumption. This is different than the sugar tax in the sense that a two-liter bottle of soda or a box of cookies that you bring home from the grocery would not be taxed, but the 20-oz soda and package of Ho-Hos you pick up at the convenience store would be taxed. This is the same system they use in Rhode Island and it makes all of the sense in the world: if you are buying groceries you don’t get taxed, if you’re buying something to eat immediately you do get taxed, just as you would if you bought food for immediate consumption at a restaurant. I wrote about this a couple of months ago. This part of the plan also differs from the governor in the sense that this revenue would not be earmarked for health care, but would instead go to the general fund.

My plan would increase revenues in the areas the governor has diagnosed, would help pay for transportation debt, and would increase funding to those local communities who wish to participate in the local option meals tax. But it would not raise the tax rate, so sales taxes on big-ticket items such as televisions, automobiles, building supplies, etc. would not increase. It would also give cover to those representatives who are afraid that voting for a string of tax changes would look bad on their record (a ridiculous thought if I’ve ever heard one, but apparently it is real).

Of course, by the time this post is published the legislature may have already passed the 6.25% plan, since there isn’t any real opportunity for the public to weigh in. The good news is that Governor Patrick is apparently going to veto any sales tax hike.

Tags: Massachusetts Deval Patrick Sales Tax Meal Tax State House

Time to buy the man a calculator

Just catching up on this...Last week, the Sentinel and Enterprise ran a story on the trouble facing the city of Leominster if the cuts proposed in the Legislature’s budget make it into law. My jaw just about hit the floor when I saw this quote from newly elected state Rep. Dennis Rosa:

One area Mazzarella said he is watching is the cut in Lottery aid to cities and towns.

Mazzarella said the cuts should be equitable across the state based on the loss in revenue to the state Lottery.

State Rep. Dennis Rosa, D-Leominster, also said he's watching the Lottery money.

"I'm trying to figure out how much of a percentage we got cut compared with other communities," he said.

Huh? This is the budget put out by the legislative body of which you are a member and you don’t know how Leominster’s budget cuts compare to other communities?

Well, I do. Because I looked up the proposed 2010 budget, the final 2009 budget, and took out a scratch pad and a calculator and did the math. It literally took me all of 15 minutes to figure out that all of the communities that I care about received the same percentage cut to their budget.

First, here are the figures from FY2009 budget, the proposed FY2010, and the cuts. All numbers taken from the links on the Legislature’s web site, which must have been difficult for the rep or his staff to locate:

                FY09 (Actual)   FY10 (Prop)     Deficit        Change
Leominster      $7,111,354      $4,821,700      $2,289,654      -32%
Sterling        $  856,049      $  579,472      $  276,577      -32%
Clinton         $2,754,261      $1,938,212      $  816,049      -32%
Lancaster       $1,030,300      $  697,426      $  332,874      -32%

There you are. All of the communities in the No Drumlins region received 32% funding cuts. Rep. Rosa, you can thank me later for doing the tough work.

Tags: Massachusetts Leominster Dennis Rosa State House Budget

Mass. Republicans duped by New Hampshire

Oh, those mindless contrarians that make up the Mass. GOP. They are so eager to oppose any and everything that Deval Patrick and Democrats even sniff at that they don't realize when they are being used. Case in point, their touting of a "Border Coalition" made up of New Hampshire and Massachusetts legislators who are opposed to new tolls on I-93. From the official Senate Republican Web site:

Sen. Robert L. Hedlund and Sen. Scott P. Brown were among the Massachusetts and New Hampshire legislators who gathered today on the State House steps to voice their opposition to additional tolls on Interstate 93....

“We initiated this coalition to stop a border war among the states,” said New Hampshire Rep. Frank V. Sapareto, who represents District 5 in Rockingham. Rep. Sapareto was joined by Rep. Al Baldasaro, Rep. Frank R. Emiro, Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, and Rep. Margaret Crisler. All are Republicans.

The legislators argued that tolls on Interstate 93 could also lead to toll plazas on Interstate 95, Route 3, and Route 1 in order to prevent drivers from circumventing the toll plazas.

Well that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it. Or at least it makes sense if you are in New Hampshire. Of course New Hampshire doesn't want new tolls on I-93, I-95, or route 3...because New Hampshire already has tolls on all three of those roads. Take a look at this handy map I have produced showing tolls on those three highways. I've marked the tolls with the word "TOLL" in large, Republican red letters so that our minority legislators might more easily notice:

See, unless you are heading to Hampton Beach, the Pheasant Lane Mall, the Rockingham Mall, or the Mall of New Hampshire (you know, because you're from Massachusetts you must shop in New Hampshire to save pennies in sales tax), the state of New Hampshire is already charging you tolls on the only three highways that go north out of Massachusetts.

New Hampshire doesn't want Massachusetts to put up new tolls, it wants to continue it's monopoly on border toll revenue. And New Hampshire is more than happy to let our Republican legislators carry its water.

If that wasn't mindless enough, you'll notice that our Republican senators are worried that someone might put a toll booth on route 1. Clearly, whoever wrote this release has never driven route 1 near the border, or they would have realized that it looks like this:


Yup, our Republican legislators are trying to scare you into believing that Massachusetts (or New Hampshire) is going to try to put a toll on a two-lane suburban road. Not only are they willing to do New Hampshire's bidding, but they think we're too stupid to notice.

Tags: Massachusetts New Hampshire Republican State House

Beacon Hill Republicans offer no solutions

All I keep hearing from Republican critics of plans to raise revenues to address the state's $4 billion deficit is that we should cut costs first, reform the system, the economy is too weak to withstand new taxes, people will go to New Hampshire to shop, and so on.

The one thing I have yet to read or hear is a plan...or even a portion of a plan...to actually do this. Where are the specific plans to cut costs and reform the system so that we don't need to raise taxes and fees?

There aren't any. The Republicans on Beacon Hill have no plan. Instead of proposing specific fixes, they have chosen to demagogue the issue.

Let's take an example from yesterday. Here is a release from Republican State Rep. Karyn Polito:

Well, we all knew it was probably coming. Now it's here.

Yesterday, several leading members of the House and Senate were quoted as saying they are considering increases in the state sales tax and the state income tax as ways to generate revenue to bridge budget shortfalls....

I think new taxes need to be off the table unless and until we make a serious effort to tame irresponsible state spending. I fully acknowledge the important role that our government plays in the lives of everyday people in this state, and I admit there is a price we all have to pay to fund those programs. But, I refuse to ask my constituents to pay more money to support a system that is fundamentally broken.

What do you think?

I will tell you what I think (and thanks for asking). I think it's high time that Rep. Polito and other opponents of plans to raise revenues get specific. What "irresponsible state spending" needs taming? How exactly and specifically will you fix "a system that is fundamentally broken?"

Now, I cut out the three middle paragraphs of her statement, but I encourage you to read it in its entirety. Please, if you come across a specific cut--even one dollar--in her discussion of the issue please let me know, because I missed it.

It's not enough to be for or against something, there need to be specifics. Whether or not you agree with proposals to raise gas taxes, meal taxes, sales taxes or any other kind of tax (and I have supported some of them), at least the proponents of those measures have been specific in how much revenue they will generate. Citizens are given the information they need to make a decision on whether or not to support a measure.

"Tam[ing] irresponsible state spending" sounds like a great idea, but it is meaningless if there are no specifics regarding what state spending is irresponsible and how much we will save by taming it. As an example, reforming the state pension system sounds like something that needs to be done, but for all of the stories of pension abuse and double-dipping, I haven't heard a discussion of how much money a comprehensive reform plan would save.

The rhetoric can only take us so far. Republicans on Beacon Hill can either snipe from the sidelines or unveil specific, detailed proposals for reform. So far, they have had lots to say, but nothing to offer.

Update: As if on cue, my State Senator Jennifer Flanagan--who I strongly supported during her campaign and still strongly support--circulated this op-ed to local newspapers today suggesting that we need to reform our transportation system before raising gas taxes. Her column does not mention specific numbers, which is a problem because I just don't see how one gains support without presenting evidence. But at least it does refer to a specific bill, Senate President Therese Murray's proposal to save $6.5 billion over 20 years by restructuring the state's transportation system. I'm curious enough to go searching for the details, but how many voters are? Again, if our representatives want to gain support for their proposals, they need to be specific.

OK. So that's a start...$325 million each year. Now we've only got $3.7 billion to go.

Tags: Massachusetts Republican State House Karyn Polito