Suffolk University/WHDH News7 Poll is out:

Head-to-head in our exclusive 7News/Suffolk University Poll it’s Scott Brown 48%, Elizabeth Warren 47%…with just 5% undecided.

In February, Brown was up 49 to 40; so he’s flat, and she’s growing.

Suffolk does not have the poll posted yet.

UPDATE [by David]: Suffolk now has details of the poll posted at this link.

Also, check out some great stuff in The Hill’s writeup:

“This has been like a fender-bender on the side of the road,” said Joe Malone, the former state treasurer and a major GOP player in Massachusetts. “They’re slowing down to look, but it’s not changing where they’re heading.” …

“You’re always surprised by something, but that overall ballot test number — it really did change,” said David Paleologos, the head of polling at Suffolk University. “What we can conclude is people do not believe it is a significant story.” …

“Unless he’s got something else that reinforces the seed he’s planted, that indicates a pattern, he’s going to have to move on,” said Malone. “Pretty soon the media will bail. If this is a yawner to the voters, let’s move on to something else.”

You go, Joe.

Nice catch at HuffPost, Scott Brown sent a letter last week to JPMorgan which he wanted to sound like he was expressing concern. The problem is that the letter didn’t really say anything.

Scott Brown’s, ahem, concerns:

In that letter, Brown calls for only one thing: a clawback on the compensation of “the responsible parties in your company.” The problem is that Dimon already said that was likely to happen.

How tough and independent — telling a bank to do what it already said it would do!

What’s more, the Dodd-Frank Act makes clawbacks mandatory in some cases. So what does Brown do? He tells Dimon that clawbacks are mandatory in some cases. What a maverick.

Just in case anyone at JPMorgan thought he was in any way serious, Brown made sure further down in the letter that *wink* *wink* *nod* *nod* that he’s still Wall Street’s favorite Senator:

Lest his pointless letter seem too threatening to his scores of friends on Wall Street, Brown slips in some language that they would understand: “While regulations are necessary, it is also very important that when unprecedented mistakes do occur, banks will use the internal policies that they have set up to promote employee accountability.”

Translation: When Wall Street screws up on an unprecedented scale and engages in risky behavior that undermines confidence in the market, they should treat it as an internal matter. No need for the government to get involved — just move along, folks.

This, incidentally, is the same message as the one being spread by extreme conservatives like Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. Of course, it was the lack of government involvement that allowed the financial crisis to happen in the first place.

I’m sure Scott Brown doesn’t want anyone to remember his role in Dodd-Frank was to water down regulations on risky trading which was at the center of the 2008 banking crisis. Taxpayer backed JPMorgan’s now 3 billion dollar loss to some is a test scenario to see if the rule should be strengthened.

Sounds like Scott Brown is singing a different tune, keep the money comin’:

image via Kos

I’ve earned it!

Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Read the whole thing.  Also noteworthy: the second- and third-lowest rates of spending growth in the last 30 years belong to President Clinton’s first and second terms, respectively.  Remarkable.

As promised, here’s a thumbnail of my epic post on the proposed new billboard regulations and how Massachusetts will soon go from having among the strongest billboard regulations in the country to among the worst.    Enjoy!

1.   We’re Losing the Current Electronic Billboard Ban.   After conducting a pilot program on the safety of electronic billboards with Clear Channel, the Office of Outdoor Advertising is proposing its first set of (seriously lacking) regulations for electronic billboards. However, per the federal agreement between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Federal Highway Administration adopted pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 93D, Section 7, electronic billboards are currently prohibited in Massachusetts “except those giving public service information such as time, date, temperature, weather or similar information”. Before the OOA can adopt these new regulations they have to get the legislature to rescind the federal agreement that sets forth the electronic billboard ban.  Given that federal highway funds are tied to the agreement, a rescission is unlikely, and the OOA should enforce the electronic billboard ban.

2.   ‘Non-Commercial’ Exemption Creates Loopholes Which Will Lead to Proliferation of Unregulated Billboards and a Set Aside of Current Billboard Regulations.  The OOA has proposed an exemption from regulation for billboards (including electronic billboards) featuring a non-commercial ‘free speech’ message.  The current Massachusetts laws and regulations are content-neutral and have not been challenged in the courts so such an exemption is not necessary on legal grounds.   This exemption would permit billboards to be erected without permits, without payment of fees and without regard to other applicable billboard restrictions (like spacing and sizing requirements, maintenance requirements, zoning requirements, local billboard bans, bans in public parks and across from schools, etc, etc).  Not indicated is how the OOA, which I don’t believe is currently staffed with constitutional scholars, will determine if a message is non-commercial, or how they’ll avoid censorship claims by putting themselves in the position unnecessarily of being the arbiter of who deserves First Amendment protection.  When Kentucky, Illinois and Texas proposed billboard legislation or regulations with similar giant loopholes, the FHWA threatened to pull millions in highway funding allocated for enforcing the Highway Beautification Act because the local billboard regulations were no longer meeting their obligations of enforcement or effectively controlling billboard proliferation. The loopholes created by this exemption in effect create a set-aside of billboard regulations altogether and put Massachusetts at risk of losing millions in federal highway funding.

3.  The Director of Office of Outdoor Advertising has New Discretion to Grant Permits and Protect Billboards which Don’t Conform to or Comply with Billboard Regulations (or Local Laws). Bllboards have always been subject to revocable, one-year permits, but new discretionary powers of the Director of the OOA permit him to ignore applicable regulations and local requirements, issue billboard permits and protect existing non-conforming billboards.  Again, the effect is a complete set-aside of billboard regulations and is a move toward vested rights for billboard operators.

4.  Cost to Operate Billboards in Massachusetts Continues to be Unreasonably Cheap. The OOA is charging nominal fees, in effect subsidizing and continuing an antiquated mode of advertising which hurts local businesses. We are bearing all the real costs, with blight, safety concerns and recent studies confirming the effect billboards have on nearby property value.   Proposing regulations like these on behalf of the billboard industry could be stomached a little more if there were any real revenue coming in, if so many loopholes weren’t created, or if the billboards could be taxed appropriately.

5.  Public Hearing.  The public hearing on the proposed regulations will occur on Tuesday, June 5, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., at the State Transportation Building at 10 Park Plaza in Boston, in Conference Rooms 5 and 6.  If you wish to comment on these regulations, please attend the meeting or voice your opposition before the meeting to the OOA at 617-973-8470 orOOAInformation@dot.state.ma.us.

“I think it’s important to recognize that this issue is not a, quote, distraction. This is part of the debate that we’re going to be having in this election campaign about how do we create an economy where everybody from top to bottom, folks on Wall Street and folks on Main Street, have a shot at success, and if they’re working hard and they’re acting responsibly, that they’re able to live out the American dream. Now, I think my view of private equity is that it is – it is set up to maximize profits and that’s a healthy part of the free market. That’s – that’s part of the role of a lot of business people. That’s not unique to private equity, and as I think my representatives have said repeatedly, and I will say today, I think there are folks who do good work in that area, and there are times where they identify the capacity for the economy to create new jobs or new industries. But understand that their priority is to maximize profits. And that’s not always going to be good for communities or businesses or workers.

“And the reason this is relevant to the campaign is because my opponent, Governor Romney, his main calling card for why he thinks he should be president is his business experience. He’s not going out there touting his experience in Massachusetts. He’s saying,’ I’m a business guy and I know how to fix it,’ and this is his business.

“And when you’re president, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot. Your job is to think about those workers who get laid off and how are we paying them for their retraining? Your job is to think about how those communities can start creating new clusters so that they can attract new businesses. Your job as president is to think about how we set up an equitable tax system so that everybody’s paying their fair share that allows us then to invest in science and technology and infrastructure, all of which are going to help us grow. And so, if your main argument for how to grow the economy is, ‘I knew how to make a lot of money for investors,’ then you’re missing what this job is about. It doesn’t – it doesn’t mean you weren’t good at private equity, but that’s not what my job is as president. My job is to take into account everybody, not just some. My job is to make sure that the country is growing not just now, but ten years from now and twenty years from now.

“And so, to repeat, this is not a distraction. This is what this campaign’s going to be about, is: what is a strategy for us to move this country forward, in a way where everybody can succeed? And that means I’ve got to think about those workers in that video just as much as I’m thinking about folks who have been much more successful.”

Had the filibuster not applied, the United States would have a market-based system to control carbon emissions, which would limit the damage from global warming, vitalize the clean technology sector, and challenge other large polluters like China and India to do the same. The new health care law would have a public option. Children of undocumented immigrants who served two years in the military or went to college could become US citizens. Women paid less than their male colleagues because of their gender would have broader legal recourse against their employers. Billionaires would not be able to manipulate the political system from behind a veil of anonymity.

via Taking on the F-word – Boston.com.

I suppose you can blame Harry Reid et al for the continuation of the filibuster; however, considering that a GOP takeover of the Senate is well within the realm of possiblity, the Affordable Care Act would be much easier to repeal, much less Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Think on it.

The House has approved a $643 billion defense-spending bill for 2013 that’s $3.7 billion more than the Obama Administration, and its Pentagon, is seeking. That’s just about the same amount the Congressional Budget Office estimates the House bill’s push for an East Coast missile shield will cost over the next five years.

It’s amazing that a country without money can consider building a missile shield against a threat that doesn’t exist.

True, we’ve already invested billions building such a West Coast system against the threat of a North Korean missile attack, so why shouldn’t we build a mirror system on the other side of the country to protect its denizens from attack by the Iranians?

The House proposal “postures our Armed Forces for potential future threats,” says Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the armed services committee. “Despite a tough fiscal environment, we have provided our Armed Forces with the tools they need to win the war today and deter against the wars of tomorrow.”

[Cross-posted from the ProgressMass blog.  Like ProgressMass on Facebook and follow on Twitter.]

What did we learn about Republican Scott Brown this week?  (Or, more accurately, what did we already know about Republican Scott Brown that he just re-confirmed for us?)

·    Republican Scott Brown just can’t quit JPMorgan Chase, and they love him right back!  But Brown really doesn’t want to talk about it.  After all the backroom deals Brown has secured for his Wall Street benefactors, it’s no wonder he’s one of Wall Street’s favorite Senators.

·    Republican Scott Brown’s campaign can’t seem to decide if his super-secret New York fundraising committee is a whole bunch of people he refuses to disclose or if it’s just one man he’s willing to identify.  He might want to get his story straight.

·    Republican Scott Brown doesn’t seem to care much about LGBT youth.

·    When Republican Scott Brown needs a positive headline, particularly on his harmful vote to double the student loan interest rate, he just Etch-A-Sketches his way to good news (especially when the story explains how Brown’s gimmick bill is a scheme that won’t work).  However, you can keep Brown from Etch-A-Sketching his vote to double the student loan interest rate!

·    Republican Scott Brown has failed to instill in Mitt Romney’s Presidential campaign sufficient confidence that Brown can turn out the vote well enough to keep Mitt from writing off Massachusetts already.

·    When Republican Scott Brown’s conservative allies in the right-wing misinformation media are desperate to help Brown continue to avoid talking about real issues, they just fabricate controversies until they’re called out on it.

·    Republican Scott Brown’s birther strategy is “a familiar plan.”

Also, lots of folks across the Commonwealth took to the pages of their local papers this past week to register their discontent with our Republican junior Senator.  (If you’re less-than-content with the “representation” with which Republican Scott Brown provides you, don’t forget that your local daily or weekly newspaper is still a very worthwhile medium through which to voice your concerns and complaints.)

·    Republican Scott Brown’s local daily, the Attleboro Sun Chronicle, featured a couple of complaints about his right-wing votes and his pretending to be an “average guy.”

·    The Cape Cod Times printed a letter critical of Brown siding with millionaires and billionaires over the Massachusetts middle class in Brown’s vote against the Buffett Rule.

·    The New Bedford Standard-Times ran a letter calling out Brown for prioritizing his corporate benefactors over the Massachusetts middle class.

·    Finally, ProgressMass submitted two letters.  One went to the Gloucester Times, highlighting Brown’s hypocrisy regarding our fishing industry.  The other went to the Taunton Daily Gazette, setting the record straight about Republican Scott Brown’s real record in overwhelming support of partisan obstruction and proverbial “rock throwing.”

The 2012 U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts clearly boils down to one side talking about real issues and the other side providing every distraction possible to keep from having to talking about real issues.  However, the more we keep the focus on real issues, the more Republican Scott Brown will have to defend his disappointing record.

This photo is courtesy of Brett Jelenek, who is creating onsite video and photo recordings of events in Chicago.  It was taken on May 18, 2012 according to Brett.  I call it “A Warm Chicago Welcome” or “You shall not pass.”

Not only were there premptive warrantless arrests, but folks were shuttled about in unmarked cars, held for as long as 48 hours, and according to Attorney Deutsch (see link to his embedded interview, here) all charges are fabricated and provocatuers planted phony “evidence.”  Pretty strong statements.  So if you are hearing that three “terrorists” were arrested, understand that this is more likely than not media hype to justify the actions of CPD (Chicago Police Department), FBI, and Homeland Security in Chicago.  One of the fellows arrested is an EMT student, all of them bunked at the home of a young guy who was brewing beer long before they came to Chicago.

I love the National Lawyer’s Guild Press Release.  You should all read it here..  Don’t expect to find it in the Boston Globe, after all.  Don’t expect these pictures of the huge military presence in Chicago to show up in the Globe, either.

You can spend your juice throwing sand at one another’s senate candidates and calling one another names.  Boring.  I don’t even read those posts any more.  I am far more concerned about seeing the NDAA in action in Chicago.  Frankly, I think you all should be concerned, too.

And, yes, folks I consider friends are on the ground in Chicago.  That includes livestreamers and photojournalists.  Paul Weiskel has a flickr set up, for those who want more images.  I love the Robin Hood hats, and the “Robin Hood Understood” sign.  Don’t you?

As for me, I am monitoring from home, working to build my spouse up as much as possible for the next round of chemo, which begins on 5/23 and goes to 5/25 – while maintaining the house and working on an appeal.  But it really would be a good thing if “the whole world” was watching what was happening in Chicago.  And the Twitterverse is ablaze with photos and updates.

I was laid off from my job as a software engineer in January, and I went back to work selling solar power systems for a local firm called Second Generation Energy, LLC. I prefer this line of work to writing systems for the 1%!

Last year, I wrote a post here at BMG about the economics of solar power – the situation has changed, and some innovative financing options have made it even more desirable to go solar here in Massachusetts. As usual, we are leading the way, showing the rest of the country how to spur investment in renewable energy technologies!

A couple of weeks ago, I took the company Prius for a drive through a neighborhood in Brimfield, MA, which had been devastated by killer tornados in June of last year. While no single unusual weather event can be traced directly to climate change, patterns of unusual weather certainly can be, and these torndos are part of a pattern of crazy weather we’ve had in the northeast these last few years. The winter of 2010-2011 saw so record setting snowfall, but this past winter saw almost no snowfall, except for a freak blizzard around Halloween! Floods, hurricanes, killer tornados – as Charley noted a few weeks ago, think of Jose Canseco’s biceps and his use of steroids, it’s highly unlikely that you would see the one without the other. We are, today, experiencing wild weather swings and climate change is the culprit.

The damage is still evident – play the short video below to see some of the after effects still in evidence today:

Brimfield Tornado Damage

Once upon a time, that area was heavily forested – now, not so much. One person was killed in Brimfield, and I spoke with a man who told me how he, his wife and their 4 year old daughter huddled in the basement while their house was ripped off the foundation over their heads.

I grew up in a big family in Connecticut during the sixties, in the days before that noted Commie Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. Ah, the good old days, when Republicans espoused good governance…

I was the sixth child of seven, and my mom would always take us to the Uniroyal factory in Naugatuck when we needed sneakers, she could get decent factory “seconds” for a low price there. The factory was situated on the Naugatuck River, and it belched enormous volumes of steaming chemical solutions out of huge pipes into the river, day and night. The river smelled horrible, and it ran a sickly yellow-green color from that point until it merged with the Housatonic River many miles to the south. It was lifeless, and unsafe for any use.

In this same time frame, the Cuyhoga River in Ohio actually caught fire. Why did corporations pollute the earth in this manner? Simple – there was no law against it. The need for the EPA was clearly evident – you could see it, you could smell it, you could actually taste it, and if you got too close, it would make your eyes water. This, I think, is one reason why it is so difficult to convince people that carbon pollution is a problem – since they can’t sense it in any real way, it’s easier for them to deny that it’s happening, or at least believe the lies of folks who want them to believe it’s not happening. So, what do we do?

Someone smarter than me once said “you can’t reason someone out of a position they weren’t reasoned into”. So if the climate change deniers won’t listen to environmental reason, then maybe economic reason will appeal to them. Here in Massachusetts, we have established a program called the Clean Energy Center to spur everyone to adopt renewable power solutions, and it’s working. From the CEC web site:

Massachusetts is leading the way in innovative and comprehensive energy reform that will make clean energy a centerpiece of the Commonwealth’s economic future. Created by the Green Jobs Act of 2008, the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) is dedicated to accelerating the success of clean energy technologies, companies and projects in the Commonwealth—while creating high-quality jobs and long-term economic growth for the people of Massachusetts. MassCEC is a partner, clearinghouse and connector for people in the clean energy sector, making direct investments in clean energy companies, building a strong clean energy workforce, and supporting responsibly sited renewable energy projects across the Commonwealth. MassCEC works with the entire clean energy community in Massachusetts to propel promising technologies from the drawing board to the global marketplace.

The CEC is funded by a small charge on everyone’s electric bill – it costs me under $1.00 per month on mine. They make millions of dollars available for rebates on residential solar power systems, and they are doing a fantastic job of spurring the solar power industry in this state. For residential installations, the current round of rebates provide up to $4,250, and properties impacted by natural disasters, like the houses in the video above, can get as much as $5,000 more.

In addition to the rebates from the CEC, there is a 30% federal tax credit and a 15% state tax credit (capped at $1,000). The remaining system costs are wiped out by direct savings on the household electric bill and through the sale of Solar Renewable Energy Certificates. For every megawatt-hour of power the system produces, the homeowner earns one SREC – a typical 5 kW system will produce 6 per year. By law, SRECS have a floor price of $300 each, and at the end of 2011, they sold for $540 each. Typical residential solar power systems pay for themselves in 4-5 years as a result of these incentives. SRECs accrue for the first ten years of system ownership, and the system will produce power for almost 40 years.

But it gets better – solar leasing is making these systems even more affordable. We have 20 year leases for as little as zero down – these leases put cash into our customer’s pockets in the first year of ownership. Alternatively, you can prepay the lease up front and turn an even greater profit over the life of the system, better than purchasing the system outright. Our leases let the customer keep the SRECs, something not offered by many of our competing firms. We have several firms willing to pre-purchase 10 years worth of SRECs at a decent price, making a lease even more affordable. Contact me for more information – my email address is in my profile.

The strong Massachusetts billboard regulation legacy will come to a swift end if proposed new regulations by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s Office of Outdoor Advertising (the “OOA”, not to be confused with the OAAA, the Outdoor Advertising Association of America, the billboard industry lobby) are enacted.

The Legacy

Efforts to regulate billboards in Massachusetts first became formidable in 1918.   Recognizing the strength of the billboard industry it sought to regulate, the Commonwealth adopted Article 50 to the Massachusetts Constitution for the purpose of regulating outdoor advertising.  “Advertising on public ways, in public places, and on private property within public view may be regulated and restricted by law”.

Applicable laws were enacted soon thereafter in 1920, setting forth standards for sizing, setbacks and the consideration of the public interest.  The mechanism by which the Commonwealth would regulate the billboards and signs would be the issuance of licenses for billboard operators and revocable permits for the billboards themselves. State regulations were eventually adopted.  Cities and towns may further regulate and restrict billboards and signs, so long as the regulations are not inconsistent with the Massachusetts laws and regulations.

Massachusetts was the first state to recognize that aesthetics alone was a significant government interest that justified the exercise of the police power to regulate (and ban) billboards for the general welfare in the landmark 1935 case, General Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Department of Public Works.

In the General Outdoor Advertising decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court also held that no vested rights are created with a billboard permit, as was the intention of Article 50 of the Massachusetts Constitution.  The Court noted that permits are “subject to expiration at a fixed time and to the necessity for renewal.  The original granting of the permit carried no implication of law that it would be renewed … Many licensees make investments in reliance upon the hope of renewal but without the right to renewal … the [licensee] cannot now assert a permanent right to maintain the sign contrary to the conditions on which [it] was permitted to be erected”.   The Court further noted there were no right to compensation to billboard owners upon the revocation of a billboard permit. “[T]he intention of the framers of Article 50 is … shown by the fact that a motion to amend its terms by inserting a proviso to the effect that no person should ‘be deprived of the use of his property without just compensation’ was rejected”.

Since 1918 and during the last (almost) century, the Supreme Judicial Court has upheld regulations and billboard bans, and the legislature has adopted additional laws to further the constitutional mandate and uphold the federal standards of the Highway Beautification Act.  Communities have enacted local billboard regulations and bans.  The Massachusetts Constitution has been further amended to add Article 49 (Amended), giving “[t]he people … the right to clean air and water, freedom from excessive and unnecessary noise, and the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic qualities of their environment; and the protection of the people in their right to the conservation, development and utilization of the agricultural, mineral, forest, water, air, and other natural resources is hereby declared to be a public purpose.”

Now, however, this legacy is at risk as the OOA’s proposals relating to electronic billboards, new billboard exemptions and the increased discretionary authority of the Director of the OOA will serve to set aside Massachusetts and local billboard laws and regulations if adopted.  With the implementation of these proposed regulations, the billboards laws and regulations in Massachusetts will go from among the strongest in the country to arguably the worst.

Entrenchment of Electronic Billboards

After conducting a statewide pilot program examining the safety of electronic billboards (with local compensatory payments being made by Clear Channel), the OOA is proposing its first set of state regulations of electronic billboards, set forth in new proposed Section 3.17.   Although Section 3.17(3) states that a permit for an electronic sign “is determined to not be prohibited by any agreement between the Department and the Secretary of Transportation of the United States”, the new regulations clearly do contradict the agreement between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Federal Highway Administration adopted pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, ch. 93D, Section 7.  Prohibited under the federal agreement are “signs which contain, include, or are illuminated by any flashing, intermittent, or moving light lights, except those giving public service information such as time, date, temperature, weather or similar information”, which means most electronic signs currently are prohibited.  The Massachusetts legislature first needs to rescind or amend this agreement with the FHWA (from whom the Commonwealth receives federal highway funds to enforce billboard laws in accordance with the Highway Beautification Act) before these conflicting regulations can be implemented successfully.  A better alternative would be to enforce the current ban.

With this first attempt to ‘regulate’ electronic billboards, the OOA comes up short.   While seeking to restrict beams, rays and glare as well as the speed of sign-switching, the OOA has opted not to enact illumination or brightness standards or requirements, restrictions on nighttime displays near residential areas or efficiency standards or power requirements for the very unefficient electronic billboards.

Billboard companies will also be allowed pursuant to Section 3.17(4) to ‘modify’ regular conforming billboards to electronic billboards “if a new permit for the Electronic Sign is obtained by [sic] the Department.”   But, concerning to cities and towns should be the first sentence in Section 3.17: “Permits for Electronic Signs require the prior approval of the municipality where the proposed sign will be located unless otherwise exempted from State law”.   The proposed new exemptions are highlighted in the next section.

Continued Proliferation of Unregulated Billboards

Also included in the proposed regulations, in Section 3.02(2)(b)(6), is an exemption from regulation for billboards featuring non-commercial ‘free speech’ messages, which will open up the Commonwealth to an unfettered influx of unregulated billboards.

This exemption will codify some current practices in Massachusetts.  Take the example of a local unlicensed billboard company, which erected two 4-story high billboards on the corners of Bowdoin and Cambridge Streets in the Beacon Hill neighborhood, not far from Boston City Hall.  The company first put billboards up for “Forgiveness is the Way” and did not seek a license or billboard permits.  Instead, it claimed it was exempt from billboard regulations because the billboards featured a non-commercial message which was protected by the First Amendment.  This was a dubious claim, as the current Massachusetts laws and regulations and the Boston Sign Code are content-neutral and neither discriminate against non-commercial messages or differentiate regulation based on the content of the message. (Outside of Massachusetts, regulations which specifically banned non-commercial messages or exempted certain billboards from regulation based on content have been struck down on First Amendment grounds).  The current state regulations have not been invalidated on First Amendment grounds, but nevertheless the OOA did not contest the First Amendment claim or opt to enforce the other applicable billboard regulations on sizing (billboards currently can’t be over 25 feet high) or spacing (billboards currently must be spaced at least 100 feet apart in urban or ‘thickly-settled’ areas).  The billboards, only a few feet from a permitted Clear Channel Outdoor billboard, now feature Blue Moon Beer ads and will continue on unregulated.

As no permits for non-commercial messages would be required under the proposed new regulations, a billboard company could follow the Beacon Hill model to erect new billboards.  Or, it could switch its billboards to feature non-commercial messages each year at permit renewal time or when a billboard becomes non-conforming in order to avoid applicable regulations or paying applicable fees.  Regulation perhaps could be avoided by including on a billboard consumer information like safety statistics for an advertisement for cars, or the required informational health warnings, a help-line phone number or a notice for a cancer benefit walk on an advertisement for cigarettes.  This proposed exemption does not state that billboards would be subject to other billboard laws or regulations, or local sign bylaws or bans.  So everyone should expect new standard and electronic billboards to be erected in areas and locations where billboards are currently prohibited with no regard for applicable zoning requirements, sizing, spacing or maintenance requirements, or the safety and blight concerns that inherently come with billboard proliferation.

The proposed new regulations do not indicate whether an exemption must be obtained from the OOA before a billboard company erects a sign or billboard with a non-commercial message (exemption fees are mentioned in Section 3.02(3)(d), but no proposed fee is included in the fee table nor is a procedure included for exemptions).

Also not covered is how the Director of the OOA will determine if a message is ‘non-commercial’ (the Director has all discretion to issue billboard permits).   Courts historically have avoided putting forth tests as there are often many different factors to consider in each case and such tests put government officials in a precarious position for censorship claims.   Erring on the side of non-commercial messages and non-enforcement of other regulations probably will be necessary to avoid litigation and censorship charges from the billboard industry against the barely-staffed and under-funded OOA.

Another proposal in the new regulations, in Section 3.02(3)(c), is the ability to include off-premise advertising on up to 25% of the space or the time (on an electronic billboard) of an on-premises sign or billboard with the approval of the Director of the OOA.  Not clear is whether the Director will consider this exemption on a case-by-case basis or that he would have the authority to permit this practice as an across-the-board exemption.  On-premise signs do not require billboard permits so this will allow billboard companies to put billboards in areas and locations in which they previously did not have access.  This will also create a new market for companies and buildings to sell advertising on their on-premise signs or erect new and bigger signs or electronic billboards to take advantage of this provision.

A wholesale set-aside of billboard regulations as is proposed puts Massachusetts at risk of losing federal highway funding.  When legislation was proposed in Kentucky to exempt non-commercial messages from regulation in 2010, the Federal Highway Administration warned Kentucky officials that federal highway funds were at risk of being lost as Kentucky must keep “effective control of outdoor advertisements”.  When the Texas Department of Transportation proposed an exemption from regulation for certain electronic signs in order to implement an emergency public safety network in 2011, the FHWA warned Texas that it was at risk of losing federal highway funding as the proposed regulations conflicted with federal zoning requirements and size, spacing and lighting restrictions.  When Illinois transportation officials proposed legislation that would permit billboards in off-limit areas on Illinois highways, the FHWA threatened to pull $140 million in highway funding as “[a] review of the proposed legislation raises issues that call into question Illinois’ willingness and ability to maintain effective outdoor advertising control”.

Another worry in the proposals is the granting of wide new discretionary powers in Section 3.05 and Section 3.02(3) to the OOA Director to disregard entirely Massachusetts and local billboard laws, regulations and procedural requirements.   Per Section 3.02(3)(b), the Director may “with written approval of the [MA DOT] Secretary and in consultation with the FHWA” – but not in consultation with local officials or subject to local bylaws – “issue a permit for a sign which does not strictly comply with the rules and regulations” of the OOA.  “In determining whether to issue an exemption, the following factors may be considered:  (1) Special circumstances pertaining to the sign in question. (2) Undue hardship or inequity resulting from the issuance or denial of a permit. (3) Detriment to the public resulting from the issuance or denial of a permit.  (4) The general purpose and intent of the law regulating outdoor advertising.”   Remember, we’re talking about regular outdoor advertising here, as non-commercial billboards will already have been exempted from permit requirements.  So I’m very interested in what will end up constituting undue hardship or inequity, or the detriment that would be caused to the public by the OOA’s refusal to grant a permit for a commercial billboard.

The proposed new regulations also increase the size of ads on ‘street furniture’ from a maximum square footage of 100 feet “total” to 275 feet “in advertising space”.  The Director of course at his discretion can “exempt a sign contained within street furniture from any spacing or zoning requirements contained herein”, per Section 3.07(6)(b).

Lastly, the regulations in Section 3.07(7) have long stated that billboard permits shall not be granted for a sign: (a) painted on or attached to a tree, rock, or other natural feature, (b) painted on a bridge or wall, (c) attached to a bridge, or (d) attached to a roof of a building used wholly or predominantly for residential purposes.   Now this regulation is proposed to start with the caveat, “Unless otherwise authorized by the Department”.

At this point, we really need to wonder if the provisions of Articles 49 and 50 of the Massachusetts Constitution are being violated.

Continued Protection of Non-Conforming Billboards

Notwithstanding various statement in the current and proposed regulations about there being no intention to create vested rights in billboard licenses and permits, and despite the fact that billboard licenses and permits have always been revocable and permits were specifically limited to one year terms, the proposed new regulations in effect continue the OOA’s march toward giving vested rights to billboard owners in Massachusetts.

An ongoing practice at the OOA has been to deem older, non-conforming billboards that do not comply with current regulations ‘protected’ as ‘non-conforming’ and/or ‘grandfathered’.   Many billboards in place since at least the 1940s enjoy this protected status which violates the Massachusetts laws and regulations.  The new regulations include an updated definition for “Non-Conforming and/or Grandfathered Sign” in Section 3.01.  The definition describes the protection from regulations provided by the OOA to such signs and references ‘eligibility’ for such protection.  But nowhere in the laws and regulations is there a right to protected status for a sign or billboard that does not strictly comply with applicable laws and regulations and is and always has been subject to a one-year revocable billboard permit.

Another protection for non-conforming signs comes with the new regulations for no-fee temporary permits in proposed Section 3.07(16).  In the past, the size of a temporary sign was limited to 32 square feet and the total term of the temporary permit was limited to 90 days and was specifically non-renewable.  With the new regulations there would be no size restrictions for temporary signs (although they must be ‘of light weight material and easily removable’), the temporary permit can have a term of up to one year (the term of a regular permit) and that term is now renewable.  Further, temporary permits can be issued specifically for signs which may not strictly comply with the rules and regulations of the OOA on terms and conditions the Director deems reasonable, this time without having to get the approval of the Secretary of the DOT or consulting with the FHWA, but again disregarding local requirements and consultations with local officials.  I’m not quite sure for what temporary billboard permits have been granted for in the past, but this new creative workaround constitutes another method to keep non-conforming billboards in place in violation of applicable laws and regulations.

Add in the proposed new provisions in Section 3.19 that provide an appeal and administrative process for the denial or revocation of a permit or license and the removal of certain notice requirements to municipalities, you can see why billboard companies think they have vested rights and entitlements in Massachusetts.

Cost to Operate Billboards in Massachusetts Continues to be Very Cheap

The OOA brought in $425,530 in revenue from license and permit fees in 2011. Clear Channel Outdoor, the largest billboard operator in Massachusetts (holder of 1895 of the 3414 billboard permits (55.5%) issued by the OOA for the year) and the exclusive billboard operator on MBTA properties, paid $1,500 for its license and $197,840 for its annual permits.

The proposed regulations include higher permit fees, but license fees remain at $1,000 or $1,500 per year, depending on the number of billboard permits the licensee holds.  New permit fees are $250 for a regular billboard and $1,000 for an electronic billboard.  Annual permit renewal fees range from $100 – $250, depending on size and regardless of type, regular or electronic.  “Tri-vision” billboard permit renewal fees are strangely higher than those for electronic billboards, which are specifically exempted from the tri-vision fee, at $500. Transfer fees for the revocable permits are only $100.  If funds from licenses and permits are meant to fund enforcement efforts and inspections, the fees could stand to be much higher.

The cost of doing business in Massachusetts for billboard companies continues to be very cheap.  Under the new proposed fee structure and assuming it pays $250 for each billboard permit it holds, Clear Channel Outdoor would still pay the Commonwealth less than $500,000 in fees annually (plus any new fees for new electronic billboards and less any fees not paid by taking advantage of the new regulatory exemptions).  The fees have no correlation to revenue as the monthly charge for renting a regular billboard can be thousands of dollars and the charge for renting an electronic billboard can be in the tens of thousands of dollars (that amount obviously multiplies as dozens of different messages can be placed on a dynamic electronic billboard at any one time).

By keeping the cost cheap, the OOA is subsidizing an antiquated mode of advertising in this modern digital age where advertisers have dozens of other avenues of advertising available to them.  Given the limited amount of information that a driver properly looking at the road in front of him or her can be expected to absorb, billboard advertising generally is not used for informational messages, and instead is mostly used by national advertisers promoting brand awareness.

A recent study confirms the negative effect of billboards on communities and real estate values.  Based on Philadelphia statistics, residential properties within 500 feet of a billboard were found to suffer an average decrease in sales price of $30,926.  For each additional billboard in a census tract, the property value decreased by another $947.  Local businesses also would be hurt by nearby billboards. With this harm to property value, the detrimental effect to the environment and the aesthetics of our cities, towns and historic and tourist areas, the well-documented blight in cities and along highways and ongoing safety concerns, it seems only the Commonwealth and its citizens are incurring and suffering from the costs of billboard advertising.

Highlighted here are just some of the gold nuggets in the proposed new regulations.   I urge you to take a read yourself and try not to laugh (or cry) too hard.   Really, the OOA should be focusing on its constitutional mandate and enforcing existing billboard laws and regulations instead of making ludicrous proposals like these on behalf of the billboard industry.

The public hearing on the proposed regulations will occur on Tuesday, June 5, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., at the State Transportation Building at 10 Park Plaza in Boston, in Conference Rooms 5 and 6.  If you are sufficiently riled up, please attend the meeting or voice your opposition before the meeting to the OOA at 617-973-8470 or OOAInformation@dot.state.ma.us. Let billboard advertisers know they are complicit in the deregulation of billboards and the ongoing billboard blight in Massachusetts.   Most importantly, work in your community to enact and enforce appropriate local billboard regulations or bans, as moot as they may become.  In the future our only available course of action to fight regulatory shenanigans like those proposed by the OOA may be a state-wide billboard ban like Vermont’s or Hawaii’s.   Such a billboard ban may be the only viable way to promote billboard regulations consistent with the protections we are lucky to have under the Massachusetts Constitution.

Daniel Kurtzman:

“President Obama and Mitt Romney both gave commencement speeches over the last few days. Obama was like, ‘You can be whatever you want to be,’ while Romney was like, ‘I can be whatever you want me to be.’” –Jimmy Fallon

“This week investors will be able to buy shares of Facebook stock for the first time ever. It’s great – now you can lose all your money in the same place you lost all your time.” -Jimmy Fallon

“Mitt Romney said marriage should be between one man and one woman, the way it has always been – with the exception of all of my relatives in Utah, my dad who was born in Mexico, my great-grandfather who left the damn country to get away from one-man, one-woman marriage. Other than that I’m a strict conservative on the subject.” –Bill Maher

“I don’t know what it’s like at your salon, but at mine, isn’t the guy cutting the hair the gay one?” –Bill Maher

“There is something indicative about his character because it seems like Mitt Romney was kind of a bully. This was not the only bullying thing he did. He also took poor kids’ lunch money – oh, I’m sorry, that’s his present-day economic policy.” –Bill Maher

“This has become quite a story; the Washington Post reported that Mitt Romney, while in high school, bullied a gay classmate. Did you hear about this story? In his defense, Romney said that he didn’t know the kid was gay; he just thought he was poor.” –Jay Leno

“Today Mitt Romney apologized for holding down Michele Bachmann’s husband and cutting his hair.” –Jay Leno

UnNews:

Elizabeth Warren destroys the universe

“Funny. She doesn’t look Jewish.”
~ Mitt Romney

Massachusetts, The Macrocosm — This past month Republican Senator of Massachusetts’ Scott Brown criticized election opponent Elizabeth Warren for claims of Native American heritage. While one might assume that this less a noteworthy story than an election year news filler bollocks, it is, in fact, the End of the World As We Know It™.

Borowitz:

A Letter from Mark Zuckerberg About Facebook’s IPO

Tomorrow is Facebook’s IPO, and I know what some of you are thinking. How will Facebook be any different from the dot-com bubble of the early 2000’s?

For one thing, those bad dot-com stocks were all speculation and hype, and weren’t based on real businesses. Facebook, on the other hand, is based on a solid foundation of angry birds and imaginary sheep.

Second, Facebook is the most successful social network in the world, enabling millions to share information of no interest with people they barely know. …

Finally, if you invest in Facebook, you’ll be far from alone. As a result of using Facebook for the past few years, over 900 million people in the world have suffered mild to moderate brain damage, impairing their ability to make reasoned judgments. These will be your fellow Facebook investors.

With your help, if all goes as planned tomorrow, Facebook’s IPO will net $100 billion. To put that number in context, it would take JP Morgan four or five trades to lose that much money.

One last thing: what will, I, Mark Zuckerberg, do with the $18 billion I’m expected to earn from Facebook’s IPO? Well, I’m considering buying Greece, but that would still leave me with $18 billion. LOL.

Friend me,

Mark

Hoping for Knockout Punch, CIA Sends JP Morgan Execs to Infiltrate Al-Qaeda: Terror Org Posts Huge Losses

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) – In a covert mission designed to destroy what remains of al-Qaeda, the CIA has been infiltrating the terror network with executives from JP Morgan Chase, the banking giant. …

Pressed about the covert mission, CIA Director David Petraeus confirmed today that it had been a resounding success, telling reporters, “If you’re serious about putting someone out of business, there’s no one better than these JP Morgan guys. One of them can do more damage than a thousand drone strikes.”

Two months from now, he plans to publish a book outlining strategies for economic growth.

Republicans talking about strategies for economic growth is like Mitt Romney talking about strategies for pet transportation, or Scott Brown talking about how to keep student loan rates low.

The GOP may offer a lot to voters who want employers to decide whether women can get reproductive health care, and whether interest rates on student loans should suddenly double to benefit banks, but after crashing the economy in 2008 and making tax cuts for billionaires their #1 subsequent legislative priority the party has no credibility at all on economic matters.

Hello friends,

I come to you with exciting news. After a lot of hard work from our dedicated board, we’ve released the full agenda for the Young Democrats of Massachusetts’ Annual Convention, being hosted at SEIU 1199, 150 Mt. Vernon St., Dorchester, MA on Saturday May 26th. It includes an all-star line up of young Democrats leading attendees through a series of engaging trainings including: Josh Dawson, Executive Director, Steve Grossman Committee; Alex Goldstein, Executive Director, Together PAC; Roger Lau, Political Director, Elizabeth Warren for US Senate; and many more. We’ve also got some great speakers lined up including Chairman John Walsh and US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren.

We’ve also gone ahead and posted a list of the current candidates for YDM’s board of directors. A strong list of candidates who I know will help lead this organization to future success.

For those that plan to attend, please purchase your tickets by May 21st to take advantage of a $5 early-bird registration discount - just $15 for this fantastic event, including complimentary breakfast and lunch!

If you cannot attend, I hope you’ll share this wonderful event with all the young Democrats in your life. There are an estimated 300,000 young Democrats in the state of Massachusetts. You’ll recall, young people played a pivotal role in the President’s election in 2008. This year, Republican’s are trying to buy youth votes. But we all know that it takes a really grassroots effort to mobilize young voters. The Young Democrats and the College Democrats represent the grassroots youth movement in Massachusetts. And we’ll make sure young people are out in full force this November, but we need your help to get the word out. Please, talk to the young people in your life about our two great organizations. No matter their experience level, we’ll help find a role for them and get them ready to volunteer for all of our wonderful democratic candidates this fall.

I hope to see many of your there and look forward to seeing everyone the following weekend at the Mass Dems Convention in Springfield for YDM’s 4th Annual Pre-convention Party, immediately following Congressman Neal’s party. More details soon…

Courthouse News reported today that Judge Forest in a 68 page decision blocked this Section as potentially being used to block dissent, and failing to pass constitutional muster.  See also coverage in Politico.    The NDAA was put under a temporary restraining order in part because it is so vague that no one can know for sure where they can go, what they can say, or what they can publish without being subject to indefinite detention.Photo courtesy of Shutterstock

[Like ProgressMass on Facebook and follow ProgressMass on Twitter.]

Republican Scott Brown voted a little over a week ago to double your student loan interest rate.  That is a fact and it is part of his record.  However, he’s trying to cover his political backside with a gimmick bill that fails to actually accomplish anything other than giving Brown a misleading talking point.

Don’t let Republican Scott Brown shake his political Etch-A-Sketch and pretend like he never voted to double your student loan interest rate. Further, make sure all your friends, family, and neighbors are aware of Brown’s real record. Please click on the below graphic and Share it with your Facebook Friends. Use your Facebook Wall to inform your friends about Brown’s harmful vote and lousy record.

If you’re on Twitter, you can also Re-Tweet ProgressMass’ tweet of the graphic here.

All Massachusetts voters deserve to know Republican Scott Brown’s real record.  You can help inform them.

There’s one idea, though, that TED’s organizers recently decided was too controversial to spread: the notion that widening income inequality is a bad thing for America, and that as a result, the rich should pay more in taxes.

(RELATED:The Speech That’s Too Hot for TED)

TED organizers invited a multimillionaire Seattle venture capitalist named Nick Hanauer – the first nonfamily investor in Amazon.com – to give a speech on March 1 at their TED University conference. Inequality was the topic – specifically, Hanauer’s contention that the middle class, and not wealthy innovators like himself, are America’s true “job creators.”

(RELATED:The Slides That Are Too Hot for TED)

“We’ve had it backward for the last 30 years,” he said. “Rich businesspeople like me don’t create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an ecosystemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That’s why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich.”

Basically, Scott Brown and Mitt Romney’s campaigns boil down in large part to trying to hide this data-driven truth:

In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are consumers, the middle class. And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class, is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich.

Fortunately, BMG is reality-based, and we can handle the truth, even if TED and, more generally, the GOP can’t.

The latest from Richard Tisei, the Republican running in the 6th congressional district, is an extreme example of why internal polls should hardly ever be taken seriously.  As you may have heard, the Tisei campaign leaked an “internal poll,” conducted by one John McLaughlin, which purported to show that Tisei was up 7 points over incumbent Democrat John Tierney.  An impressive result, surely, though not completely implausible – and they even got a story in Roll Call out of it.  But suspicions were raised when the poll also purported to show Scott Brown up an extremely unlikely 24 points over Elizabeth Warren.

And, well, would you look at that.  The poll is total crap.

[T]he GOP poll does have elevated Republican representation, GOP poll author John McLaughlin said in an email to The Salem News.

The actual makeup of registered voters in the district is 13 percent Republican, 30 percent Democrat and 57 percent independent. But their poll respondents were 22 percent Republican, 29 percent Democrat and 49 percent independent.

One of the amazing things about this is that the pollster more or less admitted that the poll was crap.

But really, this story should serve as a caution – as if yet another one were necessary – to the media: do not pay attention to or report on internal polls.  And yes, that goes for our side as well as the other guys.  This Tisei poll is so embarrassing that his campaign should try to get its money back, but even in general, internals are just not reliable enough to justify the pixels.

Former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling asked Rhode Island officials for more money for his video game company 38 Studios LLC in a private meeting Wednesday morning, held to discuss whether its reported financial troubles threaten the state’s $75 million investment in the company.

So Rhode Islanders suffer through a lousy economy, cut schools/libraries/fire/police, and this turkey wants another payout?

This is not the way to do things. (And yes, that includes Evergreen and Solyndra.)

When a business says, “Give us a tax break”, the state should say,

“No.

“But here’s what we will give you:

• “We will give you good workers, people who have been well-educated by prepared, accountable school systems.
• “We will provide you with good infrastructure, so that you can get to work on time and get your products to market effectively.
• “We will provide you — to the extent a state can — with good health care, clean air, clean water, and nice public amenities, so that people will want to move here, stay here, and dedicate their lives to your mutual success.
• “We will keep our rules and regulations clear, to make it easy to know where and how to set up, and keep the lawyers away.
• “And because of all of these things, we will provide you with a market for your goods — ie., a public that is capable of affording and enjoying your product.”

That’s setting up a business for success: not throwing good money after bad.

[Cross-posted from the ProgressMass blog.  Like ProgressMass on Facebook and follow on Twitter.]

Back in March, Goldman Sachs’ executive director, Greg Smith, left the firm, noting a toxic culture in which Goldman Sachs’ staff callously talked about “ripping their clients off” as the goal of their work.  With Goldman Sachs receiving additional scrutiny, it seemed an appropriate time to ask “Who’s Winning the Goldman Sachs Primary” in the 2012 Massachusetts Senate race.

The finding was that Republican Scott Brown was “winning” the Goldman Sachs primary in a landslide – referring to the amount of money taken in from Goldman Sachs’ PAC and personnel in political contributions – by a margin of $55,550 for Brown to $0 for Democrat Elizabeth Warren.  (Brown’s haul from Goldman Sachs has since grown to $73,900 as a federal candidate.)

Just as Goldman Sachs came under fresh scrutiny in March, in recent days, JPMorgan Chase has come under fresh scrutiny following news that it lost at least $2 Billion (a figure that could soon become $3 Billion or higher) on risky investments.  Immediately, urgent calls were made to restore key Wall Street and banking regulations that have been gutted over the last decade and a half.

Additionally, it seems like the appropriate time to ask, as it relates to the 2012 Massachusetts Senate race:

Who’s winning the JPMorgan Chase Primary?

The chart below looks at contributions received to date by the Republican incumbent, Scott Brown, and his most likely Democratic opponent, Elizabeth Warren, from JPMorgan Chase’s political action committee, executives, staff, and lobbyists.

Once again, it must be pointed out that, no, there is not a bar missing from this bar chart.  To date, Republican Scott Brown has received $54,155 from JPMorgan Chase’s PAC, executives, staff, and lobbyists, while Democrat Elizabeth Warren has received $0.

It is not at all surprising that JPMorgan Chase would flood Republican Scott Brown’s campaign coffers with contributions, as Goldman Sachs and numerous other Wall Street firms have.  Brown has worked diligently on Wall Street’s behalf to water down regulations on Wall Street investment houses, financial services firms, and big banks:

After private talks with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd and other top Democrats, Brown scored a series of exemptions from the “Volcker rule” — which would bar certain forms of proprietary trading — a provision pushed by big Massachusetts banks and financial firms, including State Street Corp. and Mass Mutual.

Meanwhile, as Brown was operating in closed-door meetings and securing those backroom deals to benefit Wall Street, those banks and investment firms (coincidentally, of course) contributed heavily to Brown:

Campaign contributions to Senator Scott Brown from the financial industry spiked sharply during a critical three-week period last summer as the fate of the Wall Street regulatory overhaul hung in the balance and Brown used the leverage of his swing vote to win key concessions sought by firms.

From mid-June until the Fourth of July, according to a Globe analysis of his campaign finance reports, the Massachusetts senator took in $140,000 from banks and investment firms and their executives, including companies based in the state, such as MassMutual and State Street Corp. That is 400 percent more than the $28,000 received on average by all Republican senators during the same three weeks.

As the money poured in, Brown and his Senate staff were working both publicly and behind the scenes to scuttle $19 billion in fees on the financial industry that would have paid for part of the regulatory overhaul, and to weaken a provision intended to curb certain types of investment activities by banks and insurance companies.

It’s a surprise to no one that Republican Scott Brown has been dubbed one of Wall Street’s favorite Senators.  Brown won the Goldman Sachs primary in a landslide, and he’s similarly winning the JPMorgan Chase primary in a landslide.  Further, Brown refuses to return any of the JPMorgan Chase contributions, severely undermining Brown’s claims of being an “independent” voice.

[Cross-posted from the ProgressMass blog.  Like ProgressMass on Facebook and follow on Twitter.]

Republican Scott Brown has been appropriately criticized for his harmful vote to double the student loan interest rate, making a college education even more expensive at a time when household budgets are already stretched beyond the breaking point.  There have been a lot of negative headlines recently for Brown.  He sure could use a positive headline, especially on the issue of the student loan interest rate.

Whatever could he do?  Well, when in need, just make one up!

If you go to the “In the News” section of his campaign website’s “Scott’s News” tab, you’ll see this:

Wow!  It looks like the Associated Press released an article with the title “US Sen. Brown Said His Bill Would Extend Lower Student Loan Rate Without Hiking Business Taxes.”  That sounds pretty good.  Republican Scott Brown must have a plan to lower the student loan interest rate without angering Grover Norquist by raising revenue.  That must be a heckuva plan.  Is it too good to be true?  Let’s dig a little deeper.  When you click that red “Read More” link, you’ll see this:

Again, we see the alleged headline, “US Sen. Brown Said His Bill Would Extend Lower Student Loan Rate Without Hiking Business Taxes.”  We also see the first couple paragraphs of this story about Brown’s amazing plan to protect low rates without having to compensate with any kind of revenue.  Magic!  But, like most magicians, Republican Scott Brown doesn’t want you looking behind the curtain.  I’m guessing that Brown would rather you not click on the red “here” link because, if you did, you’d see the actual story with the actual headline:

What did Scott Brown say the headline of this Associated Press story was?

US Sen. Brown Said His Bill Would Extend Lower Student Loan Rate Without Hiking Business Taxes

And what is the actual headline?

US Sen. Brown says bill would extend student loan rate; Panel says similar plan falls short

The first half of the headline sounds so promising; but, then, the second half points out that the Brown plan is a big ol’ bust.  So what does Brown do?  Shake that Etch-A-Sketch!  He just fabricates his own glowingly positive headline.  Hey, why not?  If fabricating the news is good enough for Fox News, it’s good enough for Republican Scott Brown.

It doesn’t help Republican Scott Brown’s credibility any that his story summary includes just two paragraphs (the second of which is his own quote), while omitting that enlightening third paragraph, which reads:

But a Congressional Budget Office review of a similar proposal found it would create net savings for the federal government of only several million dollars, far short of the $6 billion needed to avoid a doubling of interest rates on student loans to 6.8 percent on July 1.

In short, Republican Scott Brown’s plan is a sham.  It won’t work.  The numbers don’t come remotely close to adding up.  And the story Brown himself is pushing on his own website as evidence of his effective legislation actually lays out quite explicitly that the scheme doesn’t work.  But Brown sure needed a positive headline after that harmful vote to double the student loan interest rate.  Lucky for Brown, he always has that Etch-A-Sketch handy.

Donors from big banks are betting on Mitt Romney to defeat President Obama and repeal new restraints on risky, large-scale investments….

The top five donor groups in Romney’s campaign are individuals and political action committees associated with large financial institutions, led by Wall Street giants Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, according to information compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks campaign donations.

By contrast, Obama’s top five contributor groups include individuals and PACs affiliated with high technology giants Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp., and the global law firms DLA Piper and Sidley Austin, and do not include those associated with banks. In 2008, financial institutions backed him generously….

Records show that the securities and investment industry has given nearly $20 million to Restore Our Future, the independent super PAC associated with Romney, while it has contributed less than $200,000 to Priorities USA Action, the super PAC associated with Obama.

So that’s the presidential race.  And locally, Elizabeth Warren is amping up the Wall Street theme, releasing both radio and TV ads this week.  Here they are:

Relatedly, Scott Brown has been taking a bit of heat over his mysterious “New York City finance committee,” which threw him a big-dollar fundraiser recently. His campaign won’t reveal the names of these shadowy characters, and specifically, won’t say whether anyone from the winner of the Most Embarrassing Big Bank of the Month award, JPMorgan Chase, serves on it – although campaign finance records show that Brown has pulled in at least $50,000 from JP Morgan, and that’s just what’s been reported so far. Here’s some amusing commentary, from Mike Deehan’s MASSter list:

Democrats want Scott Brown to give back any money raised with the help of nasty old JP Morgan bankers. Chill out Democrats, it’s JP Morgan. Just give them a couple weeks and they’ll lose it all anyway.

Heh.

As part of the RI Economic Development Corporation’s effort to create jobs in the state, they offered 38 Studios a $75 million loan, if only they would pack up operations and bring them to Rhode Island. Schilling and co. moved to Providence, and pledged to employ 450 locals. It was a gamble for the state, which only had $125 million for the entire job creation program, and took criticism at the time.

It’s 2012, and 38 Studios is in trouble. They’ve only employed 288 Rhode Islanders so far, and the company recently had to pull out of next month’s E3 showcase because their upcoming game, paid for by the loan, isn’t close to being ready. An independent audit expressed “substantial doubt” about whether the company can remain solvent, and state officials have been meeting with 38 Studios in recent days.

The worst case scenario? 38 Studios goes under, and is unable to repay the loan. If that happens, taxpayers are on the hook for $112.6 million after interest is factored in.

Ugh.  But here is the worst part, which smells an awful lot like “SEC investigation” to me…

Last year Schilling told Reuters that he had invested “$30 million to $35 million” in 38 Studios. [Similarly, this Globe story reports that as of 7/8/11 he claimed to have invested $20 million. -ed.] A disclosure filing obtained by WPRI shows that Schilling advanced the company $4 million of his own money, and has already been paid back—with funds from the Rhode Island loan.

Yikes. UPDATE: Upon further review, I think it’s possible that the author I quoted above misread the WPRI report.  Here’s what WPRI actually said about Schilling paying himself back:

In July 2010, the same month the EDC approved the loan guarantee, 38 Studios established a revolving line of credit with Schilling so it could borrow up to $4 million from him, according to the disclosure filing obtained by WPRI.com. Part of the taxpayer-guaranteed loan money was used to pay Schilling back.

Still on the sleazy side, but not inconsistent with Schilling having made a larger initial investment outside of the revolving line of credit.

As parents, teachers, and community members, we are Massachusetts grassroots activists for education. We read bills, testify at hearings, write letters to the editor, pore over budgets, speak at town meetings, make phone calls, and hold fundraisers. Many of us have done so for years.

It was as part of this work and with great hope that we joined Stand for Children.  And—initially—Stand helped us do great work.  We cast a critical eye on education bills at the State House and testified as needed. We turned back ballot initiatives that would have gutted education funding. We closely watched local budgets to keep dollars close to classrooms. We put our voices, time, money, and reputations into building Stand for Children. Because we were united and we spoke from our experience, we were heard.

Along the way, we learned a great deal about the legislative process, education funding, and policy. We learned to research our positions, present them, and back them up.

But in 2009, while we struggled to give voice to the needs of our schools, Stand’s staff was turning away from our concerns, announcing that it expected its members to forgo community advocacy in favor of a new, special agenda. This agenda, emerging seemingly out of nowhere, touted more charter schools, more testing, and punishing teachers and schools for low student scores.

None of these initiatives arose from the needs of our communities.  Indeed, we understood well their dangers. Yet all of them became the positions of Stand for Children. Policy proposals no longer came from the local level. They were dictated from the top.

What accounted for this shift?  We were mystified at first. But we’ve since learned that Stand abandoned its own local members – us – to follow the lure of millions of dollars from Bain Capital, the Walton Foundation, Bill Gates, and others who had an agenda in conflict with our previous efforts.

The ballot initiative brought forward by Stand for Children is just the most recent example.

Stand was one group of many at the table when the new Massachusetts educator evaluation system was hammered out over several months last spring. Unions, principals, state officials, parents—all contributed. But when the new regulations were finally announced, one group walked away—Stand for Children.

Immediately, Stand filed for a ballot initiative and used some of their new corporate money to hire people to collect the signatures. It cost them $3 a signature, but they have plenty more. They are following the master plan revealed in Colorado by their national CEO, Jonah Edelman, a month before it was announced Massachusetts.

The proposed ballot measure attempts to blow up the collaborative work that created the new regulations last spring. It does nothing to improve teaching in our schools. What it does is put the careers of our teachers at the mercy of an untested rating system, violating the recommendations of the people who designed that system.

We fear the result would be to drive some of our best teachers away from the schools that need them most.

This ballot measure fits the ideology of its corporate sponsors, but it is not what we want for those who teach our children. Most of all, it is not what we want for our children.

Therefore we the undersigned, as former members and leaders of Stand for Children, urge Massachusetts voters to oppose this ballot measure.

This letter has been signed by 30 former members and staffers of Stand for Children. We are collecting signatures at the Citizens for Public Schools site.* If you wish to add yours, please do so in the comments.

*link has been updated!

Americans Elect, a self-proclaimed “centrist” group that aspired to use an online nomination process to choose a candidate who could rise above partisan politics, has failed to rise to the occasion and nominate a candidate.

The organization not only suffered from a severe lack of interest, but transparency, changing its tax status from 501c to 527, allowing it to keep secret the sources of its $20 million in funding. The organization’s bylaws also allowed for the board of directors to veto any nominee that didn’t meet its critera.

Giving BMGer and state representative Dan Winslow (R-Norfolk), the benefit of the doubt, AmberPaw reported on Americans Elect back in November.

Politico reports:

Americans Elect, the deep-pocketed nonprofit group that set out to nominate a centrist third-party presidential ticket, admitted early Tuesday that its ballyhooed online nominating process had failed.

The group had qualified for the general election ballot in 27 states, and had generated concern among Democrats and Republicans alike that it could wreak havoc on a close election between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

But just after a midnight deadline Monday, the group acknowledged that its complicated online nominating process had failed to generate sufficient interest to push any of the candidates who had declared an interest in its nomination over the threshold in its rules….

It had drawn criticism for not disclosing the donors who contributed upward of $20 million to win ballot access and set up the nominating process, and also for rules that some worried could allow insiders to steer its nomination to a candidate of their choosing. Obama political guru David Axelrod once called it an “uber-democracy meets back room bosses.”

The group failed to generate interest in possible campaigns from Sens. Joe Lieberman and Lamar Alexander, and its highest-profile candidate had been former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer, who declared his candidacy after dropping his bid for the GOP presidential nomination.

Krugman sees the failure of the quasi-party as a failure of professional centrists:

there exists in America a small class of professional centrists, whose stock in trade is denouncing the extremists in both parties and calling for a middle ground. And this class cannot, as a professional matter, admit that there already is a centrist party in America, the Democrats — that the extremism they decry is all coming from one side of the political fence. Because if they admitted that, they’d just be moderate Democrats, with no holier-than-thou pedestal to stand on.

Americans Elect was created to appeal to this class of professional centrists — which meant that it was doomed to go nowhere. Because outside that class, the large number of people who believe in all the good stuff the centrists claim to favor are, you know, going to vote for Obama. The large number of people who don’t believe in any of that are going to vote for Romney. All AE could ever have been was a distraction; and it turns out not to have managed even that.

Over the last month, we’ve seen thousands of people across the country rise up to call out big companies like General Electric, Wells Fargo and Bank of America for their “economic crimes against the 99%”  –  whether inside shareholder meetings or out in the streets. Now it’s our turn to take on corporate greed right here in Massachusetts.

In boardrooms from Wall Street to the West Coast, major corporations are hatching new schemes to line their pockets at the expense of low and middle-income families, destroying communities across the country in the process. Here in Massachusetts, State Street Bank is one of the worst offenders – exploiting loopholes to take $1.88 billion from taxpayers, eliminating thousands of jobs through outsourcing and offshoring, and investing tens of millions in private, for-profit prisons and detention centers.

That’s not all.  State Street has gotten into hot water in recent years over business practices that hurt investors and drained pensions. Investors lost $450 million when State Street lured them into a ‘CDO’ managed by Magnetar – a hedge fund investigated by the SEC for fueling the mortgage crisis (a practice for which they have since been fined). Additionally, more than a dozen states, US Attorneys, the SEC and other regulators that are suing, investigating or outright dumping State Street as a result of its pension pricing.

That’s why we’ve created an Economic ‘Crime’ Unit at MassUniting to educate people about corporate abusers like State Street. To learn more about State Street and how you can get involved visit StopEconomicCrime.org and check out our video below:

As it turns out, there’s no such thing as an official “economic crime against the 99%” in Massachusetts (or anywhere else, really.) But given the way many big banks and corporations exploit the 99%, there sure ought to be – and we are shining a spotlight on these companies to show that things need to change. So while we can’t say State Street did anything illegal, we can see the very real, very negative impact their actions have on Bay State families. We hope you’ll join the Economic Crime Unit in our effort to hold companies like State Street accountable for the harm they’ve done to our communities.

Today, the Senate is debating a big healthcare bill. It will fundamentally restructure the way we pay doctors and hospitals to reward better quality care and help reduce the overall cost of healthcare.

Rherst made an awesome post with just three of Health Care For All’s amendments. Read it!

But, there are about 265 amendments to this massive legislation. So, I imagine that a few folks might be having trouble remembering which amendments to support.

Health Care For All has two posts up here and here which can be guides for those tracking amendments to the Senate bill. But that’s a lot of text.

So, I’ve come up with just a few handy images that might help. If you’ve got suggestions, I’d love to hear them in the comments!

We support a strong public health and prevention trust. It’s a way to get funding for community based public health programs. Amendment 30 from Senator Chandler doesn’t let the Prevention Trust Fund expire after 5 years. 

Amendment 9 from Senator Chang-Diaz adds several important provisions to requirements for ACOs, including patient confidence measures, cultural competence, use of community health workers, and support for chronic disease self-management.

Amendment 134 by Senator Creem allows patients to choose their providers within a health plan. We want to make sure that patient choice of providers is not limited. 

We want to reward better quality of care. Amendment 45 from Senator Montigny encourages ACOs to reward providers who achieve good outcomes, like reducing potentially avoidable admissions, readmissions, or complications.

Got more ideas about how to spice up that amendment list? Let me know in the comments!

UPDATE: This idea submitted via email:

Surely not even EBIII is on board with Representative O’Flaherty’s proposal to transfer the Chelsea District Court from the District Court to the Boston Municipal Court. The Globe suggests Rep. O’Flaherty is seeking to make the move over the objection of the Trial Court’s Chief Justice for Administration and Management, Robert A. Mulligan, in order to help his friend and ally, clerk magistrate Kevin Murphy. Chief Justice Lynda M. Connolly, the head of the District Court, had disciplined Murphy after evidence went missing in Chelsea, and the move would take Murphy out of Judge Connolly’s power.

Representative O’Flaherty’s explanation of his plan is that it’s nonsense to claim that the “whole reason is to be protective of Kevin Murphy.” (Is that an admission that helping Murphy was part of the reason)? He claims that the main reason for the move is efficiency: Chelsea’s district court should be managed by the same administrators who administer the other equivalent courts in Suffolk County. Really? If efficiency were the goal, then surely the answer would be to rationalize the structure of the courts by folding the BMC into the District Court, so that we have a single statewide district court, as we have a single statewide superior court. What purpose is served by having one district court for the entire commonwealth, and a separate court in Boston? I hate to say it, but this is something Mitt Romney was right about. He proposed merging the courts when he was governor, but the legislature shot the proposal down.

On Sunday, Warren called on Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, to resign from the board of directors of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, after Dimon acknowledged that “we made a terrible, egregious mistake” in dismissing warning signs that preceded the $2 billion loss.

Brown’s campaign held a conference call with reporters … to discuss the controversy surrounding Warren’s claims of Native American heritage.

OK.  So Elizabeth Warren wants to talk about banks that are behaving recklessly and the fact that the head of one such bank also sits on the board of the bank’s regulator, namely, the New York Fed.  To me, the fact that the head of a big bank sits on the board of an entity that’s supposed to regulate it sounds like a conflict of interest, and sounds like the kind of thing that should be stopped if we want to avoid a replay of 2008.  It sounds, in other words, like something that could affect the people of Massachusetts in important ways.  Relatedly, Warren has just sent around an email saying:

I’m calling on Congress to put Wall Street reform back on the agenda and to begin by passing a new Glass-Steagall Act. This was the law that stopped investment banks from gambling away people’s life savings for decades — until Wall Street successfully lobbied to have it repealed in 1999….  A new Glass-Steagall would separate high-risk investment banks from more traditional banking. It would allow Wall Street to take risks, but not by dipping into the life savings and retirement accounts of regular people.  And by making banks smaller, a new Glass-Steagall could also help put an end to banks that are “too big to fail” — further avoiding costly taxpayer bailouts.

Scott Brown, in contrast, wants to talk about Warren’s Native American heritage.  That sounds like … well, it sounds like a waste of time.  I cannot imagine any way in which anything about Warren’s heritage could affect the people of this state, or any other.

See, Brown wants this race to be about personalities.  He wants people to think that Warren is a bad person, because she’s an elitist, because Hollywood people like her, because of something about her heritage.  Whereas he wants people to think he’s a good guy, a jock, a handsome dude with whom you’d like to have a beer.  And, because of that, he thinks he should get to be a Senator.

Warren, in contrast, wants the race to be about the stuff that actually affects people’s lives.  If the banks crash again, that matters.  A lot of people will lose their jobs because of it, just like they did last time.  So I’m glad Warren wants to avoid that, and that she has some ideas for how to do it.  I’d sure like to hear from Scott Brown what he actually wants to do with a six-year term.  Other than the teabagger’s creed that we must “repeal Obamacare” (for reasons that remain obscure), I haven’t heard a damn thing yet.

Tomorrow the State Senate is going to be debating a Healthcare reform bill that will change the way Massachusetts insurance companies pay for healthcare. This is a huge deal. We set the stage for the national healthcare reform and all eyes are on us to see how this plays out.

Right now as you have probably heard (and experienced for yourself), healthcare costs are rising at crazy rates. This bill would help shift the incentives and, hopefully, keep costs down.

They’re debating tomorrow so they need to hear from you. If you haven’t already, please call now! You can use this website to find the phone number of your senator: wheredoivotema.com

Here’s what you can say:

• Don’t Sunset Prevention – Support Amendment 30 by Senator Chandler so that the Prevention Trust Fund does not expire after 5 years. We support a strong public health and prevention trust to invest in community-based public health programs and we don’t want this funding drying up after five years.
• Reward Good Outcomes – Support Amendment 45 by Senator Montigny and reward providers who achieve good outcomes, like reducing potentially avoidable admissions, readmissions, or complications.
• Protect Everyone’s Health - Support Amendment 81 by Senator Rush to extend protections for vulnerable patients in all health plans, not just public health plans. Nobody should be denied care just because their care is expensive or complicated.

You can read the full list of amendments that Health Care For All supports on their blog  – and definitely ask your Senator to check out Health Care for All’s blog as well if you feel like it.

I don’t work for Health Care for All but am a volunteer and have been impressed with their work on this issue. When I talked to my Senator’s office they were happy to hear from me and glad to hear my targeted support.

During my time in Congress, I have held hundreds of office hours in every city and town in our district.  These one-on-one meetings give me a wonderful opportunity to listen to your concerns and to help you get the service you deserve from the federal government.

I’m pleased to be holding office hours again throughout the district.  I hope you’ll join me to share your thoughts on issues that are important to you and your family.

Upcoming Office Hours are listed below:

Friday, May 18th:
7:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.
For residents of Auburn
Town Hall
104 Central Street, Auburn

Saturday, May 19th:
9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
For residents of Boylston, West Boylston, and Clinton
The Manor Restaurant
42 West Boylston Street, West Boylston

11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
For residents of Shrewsbury
Black Diamond Coffee
307 Grafton Street, Shrewsbury

2:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.
For residents of Westborough, Northborough, and Southborough
Davidian Farms
500 Church Street, Northborough

I’ll be visiting more communities for office hours over the coming weeks and months—stay tuned!

Massachusetts is the best state in the union. – Slate Magazine.

 

So, what of the charge that good outcomes result from high incomes? Lewis says “you might turn the question on its head” and ask, instead, why is Massachusetts so rich? “Massachusetts and others at top of the index tend to make significant public and private investments in the ingredients of well-being,” explains Lewis. Ultimately, these investments pay off both socially and economically. …

[H]igh income is no guarantee of good social outcomes and strong investments in people clearly haven’t punished one of our wealthiest and most globally competitive state economies. In fact, if America wants to be a healthy, smart, rich, globalized, high-tech powerhouse, we arguably have no better model than Massachusetts.

You’ll notice that this article is chockful of empirical data, not just a bunch of assertions about how to create a good life. We’ve done it. If you care about a.) The economy, b.) education, c.) health, then we’re doing relatively well here. Not perfect, nothing to be complacent about. But certainly something to point to, to show that public policy taken seriously, and a can-do attitude from policymakers and private citizens, does indeed make a difference.

As a friend said, “Haters gonna hate.” Never mind them.

See her on CNN and CBS. Huffington Post has the story here. Warren:

After JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon’s Meet the Press interview today about the company’s recent $2 billion loss, consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren renewed her call for stronger financial regulations on Wall Street, and greater accountability, asking  Dimon to resign from the Board of Directors of the New York Federal Reserve Bank and demonstrate to the American people that Wall Street will take responsibility for its risky gambles.

And Scott Brown? Busy no doubt collecting money from Wall Street to advance their interests, and making fake videos of himself playing basketball.

As president, Mitt will work to expand and enhance access and opportunities for Americans to hunt, shoot, and protect their families, homes and property, and he will fight the battle on all fronts to protect and promote the Second Amendment.

mittromney.com could stand to clarify its writing in places.

Or maybe it is clear–and Colbert SuperPAC was right about Mitt Romney!

Source: The Atlantic

Thanks to my cousin Kathy for posting this on FB.

Would Mitt the presidential candidate ever use the word "Pride?"

Borowitz:

My School Days By Mitt Romney

NEW YORK – (The Borowitz Report) – Today, presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney released the following open letter to the American people:

Dear Friends:

This week, The Washington Post reported an incident from my high school days in which I bullied a gay classmate by pinning him to the ground and cutting his hair off. This story revealed a side of Mitt Romney that may have been surprising to many of you: the Mitt Romney with an irrepressible and hilarious sense of humor.

Some of you may say, “Hold on, Mitt – isn’t holding a kid down and cutting off his hair going a little far?” Well, the merry prankster in me tells me you can never go too far when it comes to giving the greatest gift of all: the gift of laughter. And I certainly remember many of us laughing long and hard about what I did to that Nancy-boy. Was it cruel? Perhaps, but it’s not like I tied him to the roof of a car or anything.

The Democrats have already tried to seize on this incident as evidence that I don’t like gays. That is a lie. I have nothing against gays. Except for the poor ones, of course. … The fact is, boys will be boys. Who among us hasn’t shoved a crippled kid down a flight of stairs? That’s something else I did in those mischievous days, but the mainstream media isn’t reporting it because they want to turn this into an anti-gay thing. The fact is, when I was in high school I played pranks on everyone – blind kids, deaf kids, dwarves and Jews. Although come to think of it, I don’t think our school accepted Jews.

Now that I’ve put my actions into better context, I hope you’ll see this incident with the gay kid for what it was: innocent good fun. And I hope when you vote in November, you won’t judge me as the teenager who bullied one gay boy, but rather as the adult who fired thousands of people.

Vote for me,

Mitt Romney

Onion: “Santorum Now Viciously Condemning Homosexuals, Minorities, Women For $100,000 Speaking Fee”

Daniel Kurtzman:

“President Obama came out with approval of same-sex marriage. He said that over the years, he has been going through an evolution on the issue. That makes opponents on the far right doubly angry. They don’t believe in gay marriage OR evolution.” –Jimmy Kimmel

“Michele Bachamnn has announced she is now also a citizen of Switzerland. What better way to protest a president you think is socialist than become a citizen of a country with a socialist philosophy and a mandated health care plan.” –Jay Leno

“Let’s just say you put on the exploding underpants and you detonate. When they bring in the 72 virgins, then what?” –David Letterman

“Mitt Romney responded today by restating his own views on marriage. He said marriage should only take place between two consenting rich people.” –Craig Ferguson

“Police in Fort Wayne, Indiana, arrested a man for allegedly driving three blocks with four young children strapped to the hood of his car. Good to see Mitt Romney spending some time with the family, huh?” –Jay Leno

“France has a new president who lives with a woman that he is not married to. Their relationship is described as French.” –Conan O’Brien

Nonetheless, people like David Brooks are wrong to say that this story doesn’t matter and is just “gotcha” journalism.  It matters for at least three reasons.

1. This was not just boys being boys.  This was a vicious physical assault that, according to the WaPo story, haunted both the victim and the other perpetrators for years afterward.  So David Brooks’s asinine comment (in the NPR story linked above) that “we’re all flawed and we’re all bound to have something like this in our past” is beyond ridiculous, and is emblematic of the kind of false equivalence that pundit types love to peddle these days.  Of course we are all flawed, and it’s fair to say that many of us said or did things in our youth that we’d like to take back – but no, not all of us have “something like this in our past.”  In fact, I would venture to say that precious few of us do.
2. One of Mitt Romney’s biggest problems is that people don’t really like him all that much.  And part of the reason is that he reminds them in many ways of that kid that they hated when they were growing up.  That kid thought he was better than everyone else … he was mean and always got away with it … he was just a jerk … and many of Romney’s gaffes (“I like to fire people,” “corporations are people, my friend,” “I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners,” “ten thousand dollar bet,” and, of course, Seamus) tend to make people associate Romney with that kid.  This story confirms that, in fact, Mitt Romney was that kid that they hated growing up.  That’s a big problem for him.
3. Romney’s claim that he doesn’t remember the incident (an incident that almost certainly happened precisely as the WaPo reported it, as it was confirmed independently by five ex-students who were there) simply beggars belief.  There are really only three possibilities regarding that statement: (1) he’s lying; (2) he has a bizarrely selective form of amnesia; or (3) he did that kind of thing more than once, and the incidents have run together in his mind.  None of those speak well of him.  And the statement about not remembering isn’t from 47 years ago.  It’s from right now, and it speaks to his character right now.

Stories like this matter when they either match or contradict an important narrative about someone.  This one does both – it matches the “unfeeling rich guy” narrative, and it contradicts the “compassionate guy” story that he and his surrogates have been desperately trying to sell.  It’s not make-or-break, but it’s another data point in the image that voters are quickly forming about Mitt Romney.  And it’s not a nice one.

Stay tuned for more …

Via HuffPost, in 2006, the Commission of Gay and Lesbian Youth was under the Governor’s control, Mitt Romney. Romney wanted to limit or even disband the Commission who’s work was to protect children from bullying, harassment and assault in schools. Nice guy.

The state legislature stepped in and wanted to remove control from Romney and make the commission independent after Romney’s threats. Romney vetoed making the group independent. But Romney’s acts were so egregious Democrats and Republicans came together and all joined in to override the veto, well except for one person.

Our now junior Senator, Scott Philip Brown:

Brown’s campaign did not return a request for comment about why he supported Romney’s veto.

Shocker.

At some point Scott Brown needs to explain and stand up for his votes, not run and hide like a coward.

With so much attention lately focused on Elizabeth Warren, it’s kind of amazing how bad of a week Scott Brown has had:

-          Scott Brown’s vote this week against student loans is pretty damning to his “Regular Guy” image and is likely to stay around to haunt him for a while.  Regular guys worry about how much more debt their kids have to take on as of July 1. Not Brown.

-          Brown was twice called out by the Boston Globe for raising such huge amounts of money from New York’s financial sector.  That will be an issue throughout the campaign.  These are not “regular guy” contributors, but Wall Street fat cats.

-          The Massachusetts Democratic state party video documents his relationship with this crowd. It is fittingly titled with the Stevie Wonder song it is set to, “Signed, Sealed, Delivered, I’m Yours.”

-          Scott Brown made a lot of hay out of making a half-court basketball shot, but it turned out it took him five tries and that the video led to an ethics complaint against his use of senate staff resources for his political campaign as reported in Politico.

-          People have also been watching more than his hoop shots. The revelation on the Huffington Post that he paid Laura Bush’s ghost writer more than $100,000 for writing the book he took in more than $1 million for.

-          President Obama’s new support for gay marriage spotlighted Brown’s refusal to support it and past opposition to it.  This brings back all the Brown baggage as reported in Time.  It reminds us “Brown called then state Senator Cheryl Jacques’ decision to have children with her female partner as “not normal” and referred to her parenting as “alleged family responsibilities.” People are again talking about how he refused to take part with the entire rest of the Massachusetts Delegation in the “It Gets Better” anti gay bullying campaign. Could not even be bi-partisan against bullying?

-          Brown began to cross a pretty clear line in his continued over the top attacks on Elizabeth Warren rand was accused by one media outlet of morphing into a birther. Of course, this is not the first time he’s been linked to the birther movement.  He tried it out on his now “good buddy” President Obama as caught in AlterNet.

-          Finally, another poll, this one done by Republican pollster, again shows the race a dead heat. – troubling news for such a well-known incumbent.

The fav/unfav numbers for Brown are 46/33, and for Warren 34/25.  Interestingly, Deval Patrick remains more popular than Scott Brown, as his fav/unfav is 53/37.  Brown’s name recognition remains better than Warren’s, as you would expect at this point in the race: 8% of respondents had never heard of him, while 17% had never heard of Warren; furthermore, 13% had heard of but offered no fav/unfav opinion for Brown, while 23% selected that option for Warren.

Another key datapoint from the crosstabs: Brown leads Warren by only 10 points among independent voters (46-36), with 13% undecided.  That is not going to be enough – to win, he needs to rack up 2010-like numbers where he wins indies by something like 30 points.

MassINC broke this poll down by religious affiliation; if you’re interested, those details are written up here.

They say, Oh, we were just funnin’ around.

Now comes Mitt Romney with this non-apology apology:

“Back in high school, I did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that…. I participated in a lot of high jinks and pranks during high school and some might have gone too far and for that, I apologize.”

What hijinks? According to the Washington Post:

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.

The incident was recalled similarly by five students….

“It happened very quickly, and to this day it troubles me,” said Buford, the school’s wrestling champion, who said he joined Romney in restraining Lauber. Buford subsequently apologized to Lauber, who was “terrified,” he said. “What a senseless, stupid, idiotic thing to do.”

“It was a hack job,” recalled Maxwell, a childhood friend of Romney who was in the dorm room when the incident occurred. “It was vicious.”

“He was just easy pickins,” said Friedemann, then the student prefect, or student authority leader of Stevens Hall, expressing remorse about his failure to stop it.

The incident transpired in a flash, and Friedemann said Romney then led his cheering schoolmates back to his bay-windowed room in Stevens Hall.

Holy Lord of the Flies! Just hijinks. Lauber died in 2004, but in the 1990s, decades later, said

“It was horrible… It’s something I have thought about a lot since then.”

And Romney?

“Governor Romney has no memory of participating in these incidents.”

That’s what bullies do.

[Cross-posted from the ProgressMass blog.  Like ProgressMass on Facebook and follow on Twitter.]

Note: This item is posted just as news is breaking that a complaint has been filed with the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics against Republican Scott Brown for the third of three items highlighted here.

There’s an expression in basketball that goes, “It’s only a foul if the referee blows the whistle.”  While Republican Scott Brown is desperately trying to distract voters from the issues – whether those distractions are underhanded half-court basketball shots (after, say, four misses), race baiting on an opponent’s Native American heritage, or any other straws he can grasp at – he also ought to be worried that, sooner or later, the referee will blow the whistle.  I am referring to the several instances in which Brown has appeared to push up against ethical standards for U.S. Senators.

I count at least three situations in just the last six weeks – two involving political use and abuse of taxpayer-funded resources and one involving the appropriateness of “super-expensive” gifts – that raise ethical questions about Republican Scott Brown’s behavior that he ought to answer, especially since he seems to routinely call on everyone else under the sun to answer questions.  It should be noted that, best I can tell, no more than one media outlet per item gave any significant coverage to each situation, leaving numerous questions for Brown to answer.

Ethical Gray Area #1: Republican Scott Brown Bypasses Regulated Franking Process for Constituent Mail, Just Has Taxpayers Buy His Stamps Instead

The first situation is an issue into which ProgressMass has delved previously.  In short, Congress has a process in place known as “franking,” which provides appropriate oversight and regulation of elected officials’ taxpayer-funded mail to ensure that politicians aren’t using public dollars to fund mailings with political campaign content.  Evidently, Republican Scott Brown assumes that the rules don’t apply to him because he has completely evaded the franking process and spent what is estimated to be tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars for stamps for his unregulated mail.

U.S. Sen. Scott Brown is doling out “attaboys” to honor roll students as he ramps up his election year outreach in a fierce fight to keep his Senate seat — a move mocked by Democrats and lauded as politically savvy by Republicans.

Brown said he has been congratulating constituents on their high grades, gold medals and other achievements since he was a selectman in Wrentham, but admitted he has expanded the number of letters and number of high schools recently.

“I think I signed more than 1,000 last week,” he told the Herald about the congratulatory letters. [...]

Brown doesn’t use a congressional privilege called franking that allows elected officials to send mail for free using just their signature. Instead, he uses taxpayer funds to buy stamps.

What do taxpayer watchdogs have to say about Brown ignoring the rules?

The practice allows Brown to skirt laws that prohibit using franking for campaign purposes, but still raised the hackles of taxpayer watchdog Craig Holman.

“It is using public resources for electioneering purposes,” said Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for a nonprofit consumer affairs group called Public Citizen.

Brown’s office did not provide a cost estimate, but at 1,000 a week the letters could cost more than $20,000 a year.

As ProgressMass has noted in its previous coverage of this issue, there are several questions Republican Scott Brown must answer to even begin to clear the air, including:

1) Exactly how many such “congratulatory” letters has Scott Brown’s U.S. Senate office sent to Massachusetts residents outside of the franking process during his time as a U.S. Senator?

2) Exactly how much in taxpayer funds has Scott Brown’s U.S. Senate office spent on postage to send these “congratulatory” letters?

3) Precisely why did Scott Brown’s U.S. Senate office make the decision to skirt the franking process when sending out these “congratulatory” letters?

4) Did every single one of the “congratulatory” letters sent by Scott Brown’s U.S. Senate office outside of the franking process nevertheless comport fully with the franking process’ stringent standards for keeping political messages out of taxpayer-funded communications?  If not, what franking standards were disregarded, and on how many such “congratulatory” letters were the franking standards disregarded?

5) Given Scott Brown’s own crusade against inappropriate spending of taxpayer funds at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), doesn’t he believe that he has an obligation to maintain the highest level of transparency in his own office’s spending of taxpayer funds?

Ethical Gray Area #2: Republican Scott Brown Takes Expensive Red Sox Tickets as Gift from Supporter, Possibly Violating Senate Gift Rules

This situation received as little coverage as an issue can without being entirely invisible: one brief passage in one single column:

Warren supporters complain that Brown spent part of Opening Day in super-expensive seats behind home plate. Brown supporters qualify: They belong to Giant Glass president Dennis Drinkwater, a long-time buddy of Brown.

The brevity of the mention belies the potential seriousness of the issue.  The U.S. Senate maintains extensive regulations regarding the receipt of gifts by members.  When reviewing these Senate ethics policies, keep in mind that “super-expensive” seats behind home plate for Opening Day would have a face value of over $50 and possibly over $100, with a street value of definitely over $100 and possibly over $250.

·    A Member, officer, or employee may accept a gift, other than cash or cash equivalent, having a value of less than $50, provided that the source of the gift is not a registered lobbyist, foreign agent, or private entity that retains or employs such individuals.  The cumulative value of gifts that may be accepted from any one source in a calendar year must be less than $100.  Generally, gifts having a value of less than $10 do not count toward the annual limit.  See Senate Rule 35.1(a).

·    A Member, officer, and employee may accept a gift that is given on the basis of personal friendship, unless there is reason to believe that the gift was provided because of the individual’s official position and not because of the personal friendship.  However, if gift exceeds $250 in value, Members, officers, and employees must seek written approval from the Committee.   See Senate Rule 35.1(c)(4)(B).

·    In determining whether a gift is provided on the basis of personal friendship, one should consider:  (1)  the history of the official’s relationship with the donor, including any previous exchange of gifts, (2)  whether, to the official’s actual knowledge the donor personally paid for the gift or sought a tax deduction or business reimbursement for the it, and (3) whether, to the official’s actual knowledge, the donor at the same time gave the same or similar gifts to other Members of staff.

In short, if Scott Brown’s “super-expensive” seat (or is it two seats, if wife Gail Huff’s ticket came from Dennis Drinkwater as well, in which case the combined street value is unquestionably over $250 for the pair) behind home plate for Opening Day is deemed to have a value in excess of $250, he must have received written approval from the Senate Ethics Committee in order to accept the gift.  (Any documents you’d care to produce at this time, Senator Brown?)

Also, if the ticket(s) has a value of over $50, which it (they?) no doubt did, Brown would have to:

·    prove that Dennis Drinkwater, from whom he received the ticket(s), personally paid for the tickets (as opposed having his company purchase the tickets) and never used the tickets as a tax deduction (perhaps as a business expense for wooing policymakers?); and,

·    document the history of gift-giving between Drinkwater and himself to evidence that gift-giving was a regular part of their friendship and that the tickets weren’t an inappropriate gift given to Brown because of his office rather than an existing friendship.

Is this why they always tell us to hold onto our ticket stubs?  At any rate, Republican Scott Brown has plenty of questions to answer in order to clear the air regarding his “super-expensive” gift.  We’re all ears, Senator Brown.

Ethical Gray Area #3: Republican Scott Brown Has Taxpayer-Funded Senate Staff Doing Campaign Work on Taxpayer Time

Finally, we all recall one of Republican Scott Brown’s recent diversionary tactics: his campaign released footage of him hitting a half-court basketball shot.  No reason to discuss student loan interest rates or tax fairness or health care reform if our Senator can sink a basketball shot!  However, the “amazing” shot was proven fraudulent for two reasons.  One, it did not occur “amazingly” on Brown’s first try, but rather on his fifth try.  Two, far more importantly, the campaign video was shot by a taxpayer-funded Senate staffer on taxpayer time:

Senator Scott Brown scored campaign gold when he sunk a half-court shot last week while visiting a Cape Cod community center.

His reelection committee didn’t delay, packaging the feel-good video, posting it to YouTube and alerting reporters with an e-mail.

Indirectly, the taxpayers made it all possible.

A spokesman for Brown’s campaign initially told the Globe that the video was shot by “a staffer.”  But Brown’s US Senate communications director, Marcie Kinzel, later acknowledged that she recorded it.

Kinzel also did so as she worked on federal time, staffing the senator at an event he was attending in his governmental capacity. And she was in Massachusetts after flying to and from Washington on a ticket paid for by the government.

Of course, the Brown campaign tries to make the case that the rules don’t apply to them:

Nonetheless, Kinzel contends it was all legal, since she shot the video on her personal iPhone and forwarded it to the campaign only later when she was on personal time. She also said such maneuvering had been checked by campaign lawyers.

“After reviewing the details, they said that it could,” Kinzel said.

Senate ethics rules allow “certain de minimis overlap” between government and political activity, such as allowing official and campaign schedulers to coordinate information.

But the campaign’s co-opting of the video illustrates the ethical and legal balancing act that public servants – and their staffs – must perform as they seek reelection.

It highlights how blurry the line between campaign and non-campaign activity can be. And it underscores the unique power of an incumbent to supplement privately financed campaign staff with workers who are on the government dime.

Well, if the Scott Brown campaign lawyers say that the taxpayer-funded Scott Brown Senate staff can do Scott Brown re-election campaign work on taxpayer time (and at taxpayer expense for the staffer’s plane ticket!), then it must all be 100% A-OK, right?!

Without question, before Republican Scott Brown can begin clearing the air about this, Brown and his Senate office should be expected to produce a log of every single minute spent on political campaign work or at political campaign events by his taxpayer-funded Senate staffers on taxpayer business tine.  Anything short of full transparency on this matter falls dramatically short of the expectations that Brown himself has set for “the People’s Seat.”

Republican Scott Brown has repeatedly cut ethical corners.  However, to determine whether Brown is simply gaming the system a “moderate” amount to exploit the advantages of incumbency or is full-on violating several iron-clad Senate ethics policies, he has quite a long list of concerns to address.  We’ve all come to see how much Brown enjoys asking questions.  I hope he likes answering them just as gleefully.

Clown image via Shutterstock (click image for source)

Honestly, it’s just getting embarrassing.  Yesterday, Scott Brown joined his fellow Republicans in filibustering a bill that would have prevented the interest rate on student loans from doubling.  The reason: because the bill adopted an entirely sensible means of paying for itself, namely, closing a tax loophole that allows wealthy taxpayers to pretend that they are corporations instead of people (paging Mitt Romney) and thereby pay themselves in dividends, which keeps them from having to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes.  It’s a tax dodge, and it shouldn’t be allowed.

Anyway, Scott Brown thought he’d offer up a counterproposal that would prove that he really is a good guy who wants to help students.  His plan: pay for keeping the rate low by cutting down on … wait for it … waste, fraud, and abuse.  That’s right:

Brown’s legislation directs the Office of Management and Budget to identify which agencies account for most improper payments and would expand programs to audit and recover improper payments.

“Senator Brown believes that working together, we can find the $6 billion of improper payments and return the money to the Treasury to pay for the cost of the student loan rate increase,” said Marcie Kinzel, Brown’s director of communications. “He is open to working with anyone of good will to cut this wasteful spending and make sure that Congress gets the student loan fix done in a fiscally responsible way.”

The problem, of course, is that it won’t work.  According to the Globe,

While the CBO has yet to analyze Brown’s proposal, its analysis of similar legislation shows that reducing payment mistakes would recover only “several million dollars.”

During a speech on the Senate floor on Tuesday, the chamber’s top Democrat, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, called Brown’s proposal “all for show.” …

In October, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, of which Brown is a member, requested a CBO analysis of the “Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2011,” authored by Senator Tom Carper, a Democrat from Delaware.

In its analysis, the CBO noted that “Not all improper payments involve fraud or result in a loss to the federal government.”

The CBO analysis said that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services already have audit and recovery pilot programs in place to correct claims and recover incorrect payments.

One demonstration program cost about $200 million to operate and returned about $695 million to the Medicare trust funds, the CBO said. A similar program was launched between 2008-2011, netting $140 million in saved funds.

Government officials say the vast majority of improper payments are dispersed unintentionally, or are legitimate payments but were categorized as improper because proper paperwork was lacking.

Brown’s bill, in other words, is a joke – and a bad one at that.  This whole thing is classic Scott Brown: first vote in lockstep with your party, then complain about how everyone is Washington except him is such a bad ol’ partisan, then float a half-baked alternative proposal that won’t work on how to solve a problem that the adults in the room are actually trying to address, and then (look for this in the next day or two) whine about how nobody pays attention to him because he’s trying to be all bipartisan.

It’s pathetic.  Massachusetts deserves much, much better.

President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.

In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an “evolution” that led him to this place, based on conversations with his own staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and conversations with his wife and own daughters.

“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told Roberts, in an interview to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday. Excerpts of the interview will air tonight on ABC’s “World News with Diane Sawyer.”

Kudos to the president – and, by the way, also to Vice President Joe Biden, whose comments the other day likely prompted this, at least as a matter of timing.  It probably would have been politically less risky for Obama to stay where he was – generally supportive of gay rights, but remaining at least nominally opposed to marriage.  And he probably could have maintained that stance through the election, because, really, where are gay marriage proponents going to go?  To Mitt Romney?  And this might even cost him a few votes with voters who don’t like gay marriage but who otherwise generally support him.

But, despite all that, Obama did the right thing.  Good.

Romney’s amateur 2007 analysis of Osama bin Laden and Islam:

[I] don’t want to buy into the Democratic pitch that this is all about one person — Osama bin Laden — because after we get him, there’s going to be another and another. This is about Shia and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and Al Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate. They ultimately want to bring down the United States of America.

And the reality, in the words of Prof. Cole:

Romney is saying that he wouldn’t move heaven and earth to get Bin Laden, but that he would spend billions and have a strategy to fight the Muslim movements he names, or perhaps the whole Muslim world (“Shia and Sunni”). But note that ‘Shia’, followers of the Shiite branch of Islam, reject the Sunni notion of a caliphate (a kind of early Muslim papacy, which no longer even exists), so he is simply incorrect in lumping Shiite Hizbullah with the Sunni groups. And, it also isn’t true that Hamas (a Sunni national liberation movement focused on Palestine) or the Muslim Brotherhood (focused on national politics in Egypt and Syria) are dedicated to a caliphate. Rather, their energies are devoted to national politics in each state, and they don’t have a common leadership across nation-states. Romney incorrectly sees Muslim fundamentalism as all one thing, as though in Christianity you lumped Mormons, Evangelicals, ultramontane Catholics, and Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army all together and accused them of working jointly for global political rule by the Pope.

Romney is a rich guy running a vanity campaign to try to one-up his father. Evidence like this underlines his inadequacies.