Lots of ideas

none of which are a complete solution.

1. The state should take the $1.6B in debt back, or at least agree to make those payments. It’s not all of the MBTA’s debt, but it is the portion from the Big Dig.

2. 2.5% fare increase each and every year, rounded to the nearest nickle. Prop two and a half, MBTA style. [Tom Birmingham, Mr. Index, would approve -- ed.]

3. Gas tax increase. Five cents. Three goes to local transit (MBTA or whatever regional is nearest to the city/town/county/whatev). One cent to local non-motorized transit — bike lanes and paths, multi use paths, better sidewalks with ADA access, etc. One cent to cities and towns for roads.

4. Move The Ride off of the MBTA books. The Ride isn’t mass transit — it’s paratransit. It’s important, and it’s a good service, and it should be kept, but it’s a specialized scheduled taxi service, which has very little to do with mass transit. Why should MBTA riders cross-subsidize it instead of all citizens of the Commonwealth? And on that note, it should be more carefully scrutinized, to ensure that those who need it have it but those who don’t [because their start, end, and intermediate stations are all ADA accessible, for example] should get regular service.

5. More revenue from convenience shops within MBTA property.

6. I don’t know what the current retirement package is, but make it reasonable for new hires. Don’t renege on current contracts, but make the retirement package for new hires appropriate, not like the 23 and out days of yore.

7. Get some capital improvement projects from state and feds to implement traffic signal prioritization (TSP). The idea is that a bus or street car shouldn’t get a red light so that 3 cars carrying 5 passengers between ‘em can turn left. How does this help with money? Two ways. By allowing buses and street cars which are behind schedule the opportunity to catch the green, they speed up and stay on schedule. That means less pay for overtime (lowering costs) and it means increased ridership because the T is more reliable (more revenue).

8. Let cities and towns bid on servicing MBTA stations — cleaning, trash removal, snow removal, that sort of thing. I think Dan Winslow suggested this, and it’s a great idea. Won’t save much, but could shave a little from the costs. Of course, oversight is just as important here as it is with a private contractor.

9. MBTA police. Use ‘em or lose ‘em. By use ‘em, I mean start driving around and writing tickets. Stopped halfway through an intersection on the Green Line? Ticket. Standing in a bus stop, even just to let your spouse out of the car? Ticket. Didn’t pay your fare? Ticket. Smoking on a platform? Ticket. Litter on MBTA property or on the train? Ticket. You bring in revenue, cut costs [like cleaning], and improve the quality of service for riders. That, or roll ‘em into the State Police and get them off the MBTA books.

10. Parking lots. Charge market rates, different for each lot. Charge enough so that there’s about a 5% vacancy rate, and feel free to charge different rates for different days, different times, etc. Maximize revenue and use of the lot.

11. Develop your land. For example, those parking lots — could they be office buildings? Perhaps a paved surface lot could become two floors of garage parking and an office building, so that there’s still parking for MBTA users and non-fare revenue coming in to help stabilize the T books.

12. Ask cities and towns for more. Not more money, per se. Tell ‘em which bus routes are marginal, and then tell the cities and towns what they could do to improve them. Move stops to the other side of the intersection, install a bench, whatever. Cities and towns have lots of influence over the small details on those bus routes, and those small details, when considered carefully, can shave minutes off of the length of the run or allow riders to wait more comfortably. Ask the cities and towns to take some ownership for making the experience better for their residents and guests.

13. Film Tax Credit, as per RyePower. A great idea.

14. The MBTA is the single largest electricity consumer in the Commonwealth. The MWRA has used federal grants to fund lots of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Heck, the MWRA has solar photovoltaic, wind, hydro, and biogas renewable generation facilities. The MBTA needs to get the state and feds to fund renewable energy and energy efficiency projects for the T — help cut into that massively large electric bill.

There’s 14 items. None are perfect, none are easy, and no one of ‘em will solve the long term problems.

Blunt has voted pro-life in the House and has a conservative record on most other social issues. He has voted to ban partial-birth abortions and to restrict or criminalize transporting minors across state lines for the purpose of getting an abortion. He opposes federal funding for elective abortions in accordance with the Hyde Amendment. He also voted in favor of the unsuccessful Federal Marriage Amendment which sought to place a national ban on same-sex marriage, and has voted against gay adoption. He received 94 percent lifetime and 96 percent 2004 ratings from the American Conservative Union, a 14 percent rating from the American Civil Liberties Union, and a 92 percent rating from the conservative Christian Coalition.

Robert Rizzuto reports for The Republican: “Sen. Scott Brown grilled over contraception stance during campaign stop in Dracut.” MassLive has the story:

Here’s a photo of Scott Brown shaking hands at one of his rare, private meet-n-greets…in a room marked “NO GIRLS ALLOWED”:

On any other day, this might have seemed like a humorous coincidence. But the photo takes on a whole new meaning now that Brown has introduced legislation that many are calling a blatant attack on women’s health. Not so funny, after all.

Maybe I’ve lost my sense of humor, but I don’t find anything funny about the Republican Party’s efforts to deny women access to basic medical care, let alone their attempts to silence our voices when we speak out. This isn’t just my personal opinion — constituents and media outlets across the country criticized the GOP for barring women from testifying at a recent Congressional hearing on the very anti-women’s health proposals Brown and Company are pushing.  They might as well have plastered Brown’s “no girls allowed” sign on the door of the hearing room.

Fortunately, women back home refused to keep quiet, and dozens gathered with allies outside Brown’s Dracut, MA event to express their outrage at his attack on women’s health care.

Senator Brown says his legislation only lets the boss deny women coverage for birth control if his religious/moral views get in the way (as if that isn’t outrageous enough.) But in truth, Brown’s bill would allow employers to deny access to any service they object to — even mammograms, cancer screenings, and diabetes treatments.

No matter which way he spins it, Scott Brown’s legislation tells constituents across the commonwealth that our bosses should be the ones making health care decisions — not us or our doctors. Don’t wait for the punchline on that one; it doesn’t exist.

Franco Garcia was last seen Tuesday night at Mary Ann’s in Cleveland Circle. He made a phone call around 1:15 a.m., possibly on his way back to the BC campus, but he hasn’t been heard from since – and his car is still parked at the school.

If you’ve seen him since then, or know anything at all about what’s happened to him, contact Newton Police detectives at 617-796-2104.

 

Today, Occupy Boston held a rally and march against fare hikes and service cuts.  T riders came to Copley Square from all over the state – even as far as Worcester using the Commuter Rail.  The T Rider from Worcester stated that he depends on the commuter rail to keep his job – as do many of his friends who live in Worcester but work in Boston.  He also uses the Commuter Rail to attend sports events and concerts – all of which would evaporate and be lost to the Boston economy if the commuter rail is ended at 10 PM on weekdays, and totally eliminated on weekends.

Another speaker reminded everyone that the Big Dig debt was dumped on the MBTA and is the sole reason for the current deficit.  She suggested that Big Dig debt be bailed out or forgiven – or else given back to Beacon Hill where it came from!  She said that the whole maneuver that burdened the MBTA with the Big Dig’s debt was sleazy, sneaky and if not illegal bad policy, bad economics, and done in the shadows.  Like BMG’s Ryan she suggested that the bogus Film Tax Credit be ended immediately and those funds used to help the T.

Others informed those at the rally that the “real cost” of The Ride was $40.00 a ride, and because buses and the T give more independence, they save the Commonwealth and the Taxpayer from many uses of the Ride.  We were all warned by this speaker that the co-pay for “The Ride” was set to go up from $2.00 each way to $4.50 each way and that a friend would have to choose between eating and physical therapy as a result.

The wind was cold.  The “PA System” was the human MIC system – used to reinforce and support as it does so well.  Each person who spoke had a lot to share.

You, fellow BMGer have knowledge and experience too – how about sharing?  We all know that the Big Dig debt resulted from incompetence, cronyism, and cheating the taxpayer – putting that debt on the MBTA is like a wage cut to the whole working class.  And the so-called middle class stands on the back and shoulders of the working class.  Surely, there must be a better way to clean up the Big Dig and its messy debt?

Love to hear from you all!

Onion:

Handlers Constantly Reminding Gingrich To Stay On Uninspiring, Belittling Message

PHOENIX—As Newt Gingrich continues to cede ground to Rick Santorum, the former House speaker’s campaign team has responded by advising him to stay focused on the belligerent, mean-spirited message that has long been the hallmark of his presidential run, sources confirmed Monday. “Newt’s rhetoric can become abstract and idiosyncratic at times, and we have to gently remind him that he just needs to be himself, to be the Newt people are familiar with—the Newt devoid of any discernible scruple beyond his own insatiable instinct for self-promotion,” campaign director Michael Krull said Friday, explaining that whatever lies at Gingrich’s cold, depraved core is what will make or break him with voters. “Every time he veers off course and talks passionately about about outer space or how the United States has to stop spending beyond its means, I tell him, ‘Look, your greatest asset is being a remorseless asshole. Now get out there, fuck everyone over using every means at your disposal and let’s win this thing.’” Several handlers told reporters they live in fear of a gaffe in which Gingrich displays some vague semblance of humanity and completely loses his identity among voters.

Borowitz:

Santorum Makes Campaign Swing Through Seventeenth Century: Blasts Contraception, Electricity, Soap

THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY (The Borowitz Report) –  … The former Pennsylvania Senator served up red meat to his seventeenth-century supporters, telling them, “Since we all agree that contraception is a bad idea, it’s time to take a harder look at electricity and soap.”

Mr. Santorum, who said that in his first day in office he would repeal the Age of Enlightenment, stressed that he had home-schooled all seven of his children: “That means there are at least eight people in this country who don’t understand evolution.”

In a lighter moment, Sen. Santorum told his audience what he said was his favorite joke: “A Kenyan, a Muslim and a socialist walk into a bar. And then he makes everyone get an abortion.”

Elsewhere on the campaign trail, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich scored points with this comment on education: “We should leave no child behind, only wives.”

Daniel Kurtzman:

“It’s National Pancake Week. Of course Mitt Romney was in a debate tonight, so it’s also National Waffle Week.” –Jimmy Fallon

“Girl Scouts sell cookies. They don’t promote homosexuality. They promote obesity.” –Jimmy Kimmel

“This guy is really conservative. In fact, Rick Santorum is so conservative he won’t even go down on an escalator.” –Jay Leno

“Santorum says that if he’s elected, he’s going to leave the interns alone and just screw the American people directly.” –Jay Leno

“Here in New York City we celebrate Presidents Day by allowing people to park on both sides of the street.” –David Letterman

“He is so conservative he thinks male bankers should only screw over female customers. That’s how bad.” –Jay Leno

Federal Court Judge Mark Wolf is the smartest man in the history of jurisprudence.

Look at his record. Thank God he’s been here the past umty-nine years as an assistant U.S. attorney and a trial judge watching our ignorant backs as the benevolent arbitrator of justice.

Because of who he is I have no doubt there must be some primo legal and moral reasoning supporting his decision to use the power of the Federal Court to protect the identity of a human trafficker. It seems the person trafficked for sex (the prostitute) threatened to report the trafficker (well known rich guy from Newton) to whomever cared in exchange for money.

She, the hooker, was charged and convicted of blackmail and ordered not to identify the rich john. He was not charged with violation of any john statutes. (could have been referred to local prosecutors).

This stinks to high heaven. The man conspired with the woman to commit a crime and they followed through on it. Equally guilty.

Now one of the criminals threatens to expose the other criminal unless paid off.

Hmm, two choices. Pay her off and try to work something out. Or, report to authorities and tell them what?

“My partner in crime is blackmailing me?”

But if you’re a well know powerful rich guy you have a third choice. Have the Federal Court protect you.

Where is NOW on this? Where are the people taking the bows for the human trafficking bill?

This case goes to heart of human trafficking. Rich powerful men v. women (and girls) whose circumstances result in forced or willful prostitution.

The rich guy was not being blackmailed for exposing a legal act (like telling his mother he’s not keeping kosher).

No, this was the Genovese family ratting to the fed that the Gambino family is blackmailing them.

Hey rich guy, when you arranged to pay this hooker for sex you took all the chances that billions of men have taken since the oldest profession opened shop. You lost.

But you’re a spoiled rich powerful man. You’re special.  We understand how you think. It’s human nature. Not your fault.

But, Judge Mark Wolf an the U.S. Attorneys Office have a duty to the country not to treat you special.

Carmen Ortiz “person of the Year”? How about Carmen Ortiz “Tool of the Year”.

These federal judges do have a nightlife you know. One thing after another for being so good at what they do. Award dinners, lectures, and such stuff. I wonder if Mr. Newton rich guy travels in the same circles as some of the feds?

They came from all over the state. Including Lynn.

And, after months of prep work and meetings they got a splendid editorial in the Boston Globe (who described the young people as “earnest” a throwback to Tom Winship we think.)

MANY BOSTONIANS over the age of 40 can recall the ease of finding summer employment during their teenage years. But it’s not so for today’s teens, especially without the help of city officials who employ young people in city work crews or match them with corporate partners.

Today, scores of Boston teens from the Dorchester-based Youth Jobs Coalition are scheduled to demonstrate for summer jobs in the Financial District. They are targeting Fidelity Investments, which last year employed only a handful of teens through the city’s summer jobs program, according to city officials. Other financial-services firms, including State Street, Liberty Mutual, Bank of America, and John Hancock, hired more from the city program.

And then they did extensive outreach to various local media that included an official data packed Report YJC Report that documented the situation and suggested some specific solutions.

We have explained 6 reasons of the value of youth jobs and the consequences to youth, communities, and the economy when so many youth lack jobs. We have talked about companies that have stepped up to provide jobs. We have spotlighted that it is a major problem that when just looking at Boston employers, we find 86% of 590 larger employers are not hiring youth and we have named some of these companies. Some institutions in the health care sector must step up and hire youth too. We’ve shown that the state has done some funding to help and needs to do more, while the City of Boston has done a lot, and the federal government is now doing $0 in funding for youth jobs

Some of the media coverage included interviews with students in the Lynn Item and some great videos. First one called Youth Jobs Rally from the State House News, then see Univision, and Chanel 22 from Springfield. Fox news did one too, but only counted to 200 in the headline. Bad eyesight maybe? Thankfully a fact checker corrected the text.

And finally the Governor responded with his own press release that sounded a trifle defensive, but as long as he continues to “strongly support” youth jobs, he’s ok with us.

Governor Patrick continues to seek funding for such initiatives through 2013, which will afford employers the resources to increase the number of opportunities available to the youth of Massachusetts.

Meanwhile………….they work with their own legislative delegations. Can you spot Rep Liz Malia here?

cross posted on the Mass Policy and Organizing Leadership Academy

Anyway, on that general topic, you should check out three pieces in today’s Globe.  The first two, authored by Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown, set out diametrically opposed positions on the crazy Blunt Amendment that would, if passed (which of course it won’t be), allow any employer to deny coverage to his employers for anything, as long as he has a “moral conviction” against it.  I stand by that interpretation, and I haven’t seen anything from those who claim it’s wrong that is the least bit persuasive.  If you’re HIV-positive and your employer has a “moral conviction” against AIDS treatment, well, tough luck for you.

Among the most dishonest parts of Brown’s position is that it’s indistinguishable from Ted Kennedy’s.  Unfortunately, Ted Kennedy isn’t here to rebut him, but I’m 100% confident that Brown is wrong.  I discussed this in detail a couple of days ago, and I also discussed why the Catholic Bishops’ “kosher deli” parable actually emphasizes that, on this issue, Ted Kennedy≠Scott Brown.

I’m disappointed that, as of yet, nobody in the mainstream media has pressed Scott Brown on his dramatic flip-flop on this very issue.  As explained here, Brown voted in favor of a Massachusetts law whose mandate is actually more onerous (if that’s the right word) with respect to Catholic-affiliated institutions like universities and hospitals – and he did so over the strenuous objection of the Boston Archdiocese, who fought the mandate tooth and nail.  Maybe they’re holding it in reserve for the debates.  We’ll keep putting it out there.

The third Globe piece worth reading is Scot Lehigh’s takedown of Rick Santorum’s candidacy.  His bottom line:

the Republican primary campaign has revealed a candidate too governed by faith to lead a diverse country.

That’s not because he’s Catholic. Rather, it’s because his ultra-conservative religious beliefs so inform his life, his values, and his worldview that he couldn’t separate that perspective from public-policy questions, or decide an issue on the facts rather than faith, even if he wanted to. Not that he does, of course.

That’s only partially correct.  Because, as Juan Cole has convincingly outlined, Santorum in fact routinely departs from explicit teachings of the Catholic Church when it suits his extreme political views.  On the death penalty, on raising the minimum wage, on universal health care, on Iraq, on immigration, and on other topics, Santorum’s views are directly at odds with those of the church.

So Santorum is, in fact, the worst kind of hypocrite (if that’s the right word – maybe “narcissist” is better).  Lehigh is certainly correct that Santorum shouldn’t be president – but it’s not because he is governed by his faith, but rather because he puts himself above it while claiming the opposite.  Having a person like Santorum in the Senate was bad enough, and the people of Pennsylvania very sensibly put an end to that in convincing fashion a few years ago.  Putting such a person in the White House would be an invitation to real disaster.

The Phoenix posted an editorial today, entitled “Scott Brown, Crazy Person,” on Scott Brown co-sponsoring legislation that allows employers to restrict contraception coverage. Brown has also move from a moderate position within the Massachusetts legislature to a hard right position as the Obama compromise is in essence what we have been doing in Massachusetts.

When Massachusetts junior senator Scott Brown last week signed on to support a Republican initiative to nullify President Barack Obama’s birth-control compromise, Brown joined the vast and growing right-wing war on women.

Brown’s new archconservative position on birth control stands in contrast to the stance he took 10 years ago when, as a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, Brown favored legislation requiring all health-care providers to offer contraception coverage.

That law provided a narrow exclusion for churches or “church-controlled organizations,” but it was benign when compared to the pending Republican anti-birth-control legislation. In fact, since 2002, Massachusetts has been operating under what is essentially the Obama compromise.

The GOP scheme would allow any business, not just those allied with a religion, to opt out of providing insurance coverage for birth control if the business deemed contraception to conflict with its moral or religious beliefs.

Another interesting point is that Scott Brown left the usual group of moderates in the Republican caucus behind, both Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins will not support Blunt/Brown, even when hedging support on the compromise.

Brown’s fellow Republican senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine, may not have found Obama’s birth-control compromise perfect, but they have said, in effect, that it is perfectly workable.

In case anyone, Republican, Democrat or Independent believes that Brown is taking a moderate position, he’s not, centrist Republicans have abandoned him.

I’m Kate Donaghue and I am running for re-election to the Democratic State Committee. I am not unopposed and I need votes on Tuesday, March 6.  The district where I am running, ably represented by Senator Jamie Eldridge,  includes  Acton, Ayer, Boxborough, Harvard, Hudson, Littleton, Marlborough, Maynard, Northborough (partial), Shirley, Southborough, Stow, Sudbury (partial), and Westborough.

Long time readers of BMG may know me. I’ve blogged on BMG since the early days and I’m proud of having user number 134! A few years ago, Sue Kennedy wrote, “Kate plays an important role here on BMG, always available to answer questions about arcane Democratic Party processes.”

As a DSC member, I take my role very seriously, working with the town and ward committees that I was elected to represent. I spend most of my free time volunteering for the Democratic Party, our candidates, issues and organizations.

Usually when I am here I am asking for help for other candidates. This time I am asking for help for me.

1) If you live in the district, please vote for me on Tuesday, March 6 on the presidential primary ballot. Please bring a friend. If you are not in the district, please ask a friend to vote for me.

2) If you are on facebook, please “like” my re-election page. Share the link with friends.

3) If you want to volunteer, please contact me at 508-404-8531 or KateDonaghue AT aol DOT com.  I can use help, especially on Tuesday, March 6.

4) If you are so inclined, please send a donation. There are expenses associated with this campaign and with my work as a DSC member. Checks payable to Kate Donaghue Committee, 17 Gary Circle, Westborough, MA 01581.

Many thanks to all who are interested in supporting my candidacy.

Last week Scott Brown proudly announced he would lead the charge for an extreme measure being considered in the U.S. Senate that would allow employers and insurance companies to deny medical coverage.

The “Blunt amendment” that Brown is pushing goes so far beyond religious institutions and birth control that a Boston Globe columnist wondered if Brown had wandered off in to “crazyland” and a columnist for the Boston Herald said he had “sided with the nuts.”

And for good reason.

Under Brown’s plan, employers and insurance companies can refuse to cover ANY treatment for ANY person.

This measure is a threat to women…and everyone else.

Spread the word by sharing this image in your Facebook timeline.

Imagine CEOs in board rooms looming over doctors offices, deciding which medical care they will let you have – it sounds like something out of a dystopian novel, but the bill Scott Brown has endorsed could make this your reality.

President Obama’s health care reform does not require any religious institution to cover contraception. This is yet another issue where the Republicans have created controversy out of thin air to change the subject from their anti-middle class agenda.

We can only stop Scott Brown if we make sure the truth gets out – that’s why we need your help.

Let your friends know by visiting our Facebook page and clicking “share” underneath the image.

If you don’t have a Facebook account, you can also help by emailing this to 5 friends. I know you can come up with five people in your life that would be affected by this legislation because everyone could be affected by it. Send this along to make sure they have the facts.

Clare Kelly

Executive Director

Massachusetts Democratic Party

If SNL is any indication of the conventional wisdom … it’s gonna be a blowout this year.

Eugene Robinson wrote today in The Washington Post that Rick Santorum could take Republicans down with him. These days, any place that you can find left-leaning commentary has something rightfully slagging Santorum and his extremist ideologies.  There is a treasure trove of low-hanging Santorum fruit that we tee up and rip apart, and I don’t like it one bit.

If Santorum is indeed the Francesco Schettino of the 2012 GOP, then let’s sit back, grab some pop corn, and enjoy watching the good captain run this capsizing ship into the beach. Save the heavy ammunition in case he makes it to the general election, for when after the GOP chooses a candidate more difficult to elect than Romney. Don’t do any heavy lifting for Mitt.

MA Dem Party Chair John Walsh is always funny, always fun and scary smart. He joined us today at Left Ahead to talk strategy and prospects for the 2012 elections, but he won’t ever forget early 2010.

He led the commonwealth Dems to sweeping victory in November 2012 while the rest of the nation was awash in GOP fervor. In no small part, that was because he learned from the special-election loss at the start of the year that saw Republican Scott Brown edge Dem Martha Coakley for the US Senate seat. He continues to build on the lessons he learned after that, including conversations with Dem activists and pols.

Chief among those are:

• start early
• put resources in the hands of the locals and listen to their judgment

For the first, he knows that it would be disastrous for some party official in Boston to show up five weeks before the election with a new, improved plan for campaigning. Instead, the found that it is at the precinct and ward level where the organizers understand the patterns and trends locally. Communication needs to be both ways bottom to top and top to bottom.

I started with my own recurring atonement as illustrated with the attached organizer pad for the 2010 campaign to re-elect Gov. Deval Partrick and Lt. Gov. Tim Murray. When Walsh made it plain that the party strategy centered on activists playing the role of organizers for people they knew, I had no doubt that was a losing plan. As I freely admit, it was instead a winning plan, one that was the foundation for Walsh’s current strategy. While the nation wallowed in red, MA was astonishingly blue, losing only a couple of state representative seats in the reactionary tide. I keep this pad handy to remind me of my pundit fallibility.

Click below to hear John speak of the refined version of keeping and improving on his party’s position. Dems are spreading the word through training and data on possible non-voting party members and party leaners who have not voted in the past two or three Presidentials. Through these vote-builder accounts, local activists can ID those and get them to the polls.

Walsh noted that the difference in that painful special-election defeat was about 50 votes per precinct (”It seemed like much worse,” he told us). Depending on the election (POTUS or not), there can be between 300,000 and 600,000 Dems or leaning Dems among non-voters. For many of those, voting is on their list, but not as high as “brushing teeth and pushing amrs in sweaters” in the case of those with kids. Some are young voters not in the habit yet and others are older voters recently infirm. He sees some of these are candidates for absentee voting.

Others don’t understand the big and small issues in the current contests. In these latter cases, Walsh notes, “When we have voters who don’t get it, it’s our fault.” That’s where he concentrates his work — getting out the vote and making sure Dems know the importance of the issues.

Walsh added that “as much as it pains me to say it,” about 1.1 million MA residents voted for Sarah Palin, largely GOP and unenrolled ones. While 1.9 million smeared the ovals for Joe Biden, the difference per election for Dems is getting them to the polls. Listen in as he describes how the party uses the online voter lists and has gotten 300 town committees trained so far in face-to-face work with those who have not been voting.

For this November, he is well aware that following the Citizens United decision, a disheartening amount of winger ads and other expenditures will target both President Obama and the MA Dem candidate for US Senate. He’s a firm believer that “the only thing that can beat big money” is face-to-face contact, real citizens v. Citizens United. He said that money only “simulates the relationships.”

Beyond the election, he indulged us on the questions at least one US Senate candidate, Marisa DeFranco, raised earlier this month about the process of getting on the ballot. Listen in as he agrees that it can seem arduous to get 10,000 signatures, the 15% of party delegates (around 750) at the June convention to get on the primary ballot. He has the luxury of inheriting the state law and party rules, but added that he’s open to refinements.

This go in November, Walsh is working toward getting an additional 20% to 30% more Dems and leaning Dems to the polls.

~Mike

Cross-post note: This will appear also at Left Ahead.

There’s an old saying: “Anybody who calls themselves a realist is steeling themselves to do something of which they are secretly ashamed…”

On Scott Browns Campaign Website there are to be seen many iterations of the words “independent” and “moderate”. There are even some allusions to “opponents” clearly of the Democratic stripe. But startlingly few allusions to Scott Brown as a member of the REPUBLICAN party. Is he ashamed? Why would there be so very little mention of the political party Scott Brown has long been affiliated with… Not even his “Bio” pages refers to the party that supported him as a state senator and then, later, as a Senate candidate. (note bene: it was in just this Senate Candidacy when Scott Brown was heard to say “it’s not the Kennedy’s seat, and it’s not the Democrat’s seat, it’s the people’s seat.” Even then, it appears, he had trouble admitting to a party affiliation.)

But the entire website reads like a denaturated mime (it will act it out, but it won’t say it) of Karl Roves id: a congerie of Republican talking points, anti-democratic venom, faux-populist sloganeering, vividly vague pronouncements about “Obamacare” and “border protection”, braggadocia about never having voted for a tax increase, and gripes about ‘partisan bickering’ where only one partisan does any bickering.

One is left to wonder exactly whom it is that Scott Brown and his supposedly brilliant tactical staff thinks they are fooling? Who is that they think will swallow this notion of lopsided independence without question?

Republicans? One can imagine a few Republicans who are mercenary enough to overlook subtle attempts at subterfuge like the occasional reference to “independents” and “moderate” Any Republican, however, worth his/her salt can’t be too comfortable with this level of head-in-the-sand: after all, if it’s a superior orthodoxy it can’t possibly hurt to trumpet the good news far and wide…Right? Don’t hide your light under a bushel, right? I can’t imagine it can be all that easy for his campaign staff, many of whom are, sheepish grin, admitted Republicans. And will hard-core Republican donors pony up the cash for somebody who’s, at least publicly, a little squishy about where they might stand? How does That conversation go…?

Independents? It’s hard to square the notion of ‘independents’ and ‘moderation’ with a relentless trumpet of ‘democratic opposition’ and denuded Republican talking points. Does the Brown brain trust think that true independents are that easily fooled? I’ve often thought that many independents are those most sensitive to the notion that the parties are manipulative and are declaring ‘independence’ from just this sort of manipulation. It that’s the case then Scott Browns naked manipulation, in concert with his denial of his own Republicanism, probably won’t sit to will with those independents. And even those independents willing to give the benefit of the doubt… how will they know to trust him when he does, or doesn’t, act independently? Is there a base posture from which deviations can be measured? Is he merely a political sand-dune, washed to and fro? Is he really just mealy-mouthed and wishy-washy? Where does he truly stand, if he can’t self-identify with a party? What if he does, quite clearly, self-identify with the Republican party… but doesn’t trust the independents with that information? What about him is truly ‘independent’ rather than simply entropic?

And if he is truly independent, why doesn’t he just run against Elizabeth Warren (or whomever) in the Democratic primary? If he really is not a Republican, then what does it matter?

Is he trying to soften up Democrats? Well, in the only thing close to an admission of party affiliation, Brown brags several times of “reaching across the aisle” (why don’t you start by describing which particular side of the aisle from which you are reaching, hmm, Senator…?) in an effort, the only real effort, to entice Democrats. It’s a small ray of hope in an otherwise dismally partisan, in act if not in speech, website: a well polished turd trying to sell itself as a ‘gem quality’ stone.

Scott Brown won’t even say who he is. He won’t even say “this is what I believe and where I stand. All my choices will reflect this somehow” Instead he opts for a process independence withal spreading a caricature of a Democratic bogey-man and passive-aggressively trumpeting all but the most blatantly Right-Wing talking points… without ever feeling the need to say “I am a Republican”. It’s patently obvious to all but the meanest intelligence. Maybe he is just ashamed.

He ought to be, in any case…

Santorum & the right to privacy.

Student loans – the next bubble of derivatives to burst?  Up to one trillion – and as for newly minted attorneys – only 68% can find jobs in law, at an average salary of $63,000 for those with jobs.  How will they pay back loans of $150,000 – $200,000?  Only the top 10% earn what folks think attorneys earn.

Oh – and this one sums up my view of today’s Republican Party.  That may explain why, as unhappy as I am with much about the Democratic Party, I stay involved in the fight for it’s political “soul”.

I know – its not Friday so the normal joke and cartoon list was a few days ago, but these were too poignant not to share.

Frankly, I don’t trust any poll

. . . because I know I am the underdog in this race.

Every poll that comes out, they use it to raise money from their national supporters. So will you answer my call for help? Your generous online support of $10 – $50 will get us there. Every seat in Congress is “the People’s Seat,” so don’t let the ultra-liberal special interests buy this one.

Matched up against Professor Elizabeth Warren, we know these five things:

The race will be close
She’ll have money to burn
I’m the underdog
We’re going to win because
We’ve got the best supporters

…

But we must run harder and work longer to win this race because that’s what underdogs must do. Your online contribution of $10 – $50 will help us beat the odds.

Reality check here, folks.  Scott Brown closed 2011 with almost $13 million in the bank – the second-highest tally of any candidate for Senate in the entire United States.  And, as of that time, Brown had better than a 2-1 advantage over Elizabeth Warren in terms of cash-on-hand (for the record, Warren’s total ranked 10th in the country among Senate candidates – not bad).  Combine that with the obvious fact that he’s the incumbent, and it’s awfully hard to see him as the “underdog” – no matter how many times he repeats that word in his fundraising emails (three, in this case).

I do love the extent to which Brown’s consultants are enamored of the “Professor” moniker.  They seem absolutely certain that every time they remind voters that Warren is, well, smart, they flip a voter into the Brown column.  I don’t believe it.

Yes you.  The Massachusetts House Rules concentrate power in the hands of a few key players who determine which legislation makes it to the floor and which will die in committee.  For over 10 years, for example, the updated bottle bill (which PIRG claims is supported by a majority of the members of the House) never has made it to the floor for debate and a vote.  The amount of debate has diminished considerably compared to 20 and 30 years ago.  Transparency has suffered as amendments are “consolidated” behind closed doors and a majority of the House meets in private before every important formal session to determine the outcome of legislation before debate.  (And yes, Amberpaw, I support application of the OML and public records law to the legislative process).

This is where you come in.  Please contact your Representative and urge him or her to join the Rule 28 Coalition.  You can see who has joined to date here:  http://www.rule28.com.  The leadership’s talking points warn rank and file Democrats not to join because the Coalition is an “election year Republican ploy” to increase debate, transparency and accountability.  If that’s the ploy, perhaps more Democrats should be part of it.  The proposal has received support from the Metrowest Daily News, http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/editorials/x1085184647/Editorial-Letting-the-state-reps-vote, and The Boston Globe, http://rule28.com/news/globe-for-livelier-debate-over-ideas-house-must-get-bills-on-floor/1241/, two publications not known for their complicity in Republican plots.

Your Representatives need to hear from you and not just the warning shot that was sent over their bows by the Democratic leadership.  All the Rule 28 Coalition requires is a vote to discharge legislation from committee to the floor for debate.  Members are not required to support any bill on the floor and are free to argue and vote for or against any legislation.  But there’d be a debate, a vote and the ability for voters to see whether their Representative represents their interests.  The danger (as we sadly have seen in the recent past) is that a top-down system allows one lobbyist or interest group to convince a handful of leaders to shut down the progress of any particular bill.  That’s not healthy and it’s certainly not democratic.

Please post your Representative’s responses here.  Or better yet, let’s have some Representatives join the discussion.  At least we’re free to debate on BMG.

The state’s full congressional delegation, with the exception of Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, has written to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services backing a Massachusetts Fishing Partnership application for a three-year, $4 million grant for a project aimed at helping fishermen find their best fit for health insurance….

Brown declined due to the program’s funding source — “Obamacare,” Brown’s press secretary, John Donnelly, told the Times on Thursday…. According to Fishing Partnership statistics, the community outreach-based model and collective prevention efforts — whose “navigators” include Angela Sanfilippo of the Gloucester Fishermen’s Wives Association — has helped reduce the rate of uninsured fishermen from 43 percent to 13 percent.

Yeah, it sure would be terrible to get Obamacare-tainted money to find health insurance for fishermen.  Because God knows those guys are living high on the hog these days without a care in the world.  Thank goodness we’ve got Scott Brown to stand on principle on things like this.

Onion:

New Breeding Program Aimed At Keeping Moderate Republicans From Going Extinct

WASHINGTON—Saying the now critically endangered species of politician is at high risk for complete extinction within the next 10 years, Beltway-area conservationists announced plans Monday for a new captive breeding program designed to save moderate Republicans.

According to members of the Initiative to Protect the Political Middle (IPPM), centrist Republicans, who once freely roamed the nation calling for both economic deregulation and a return to Reagan-era tax rates on the wealthy, are in dire need of protection, having lost large portions of their natural terrain to the highly territorial Evangelical and Tea Party breeds.

“Our new program is designed to isolate the few remaining specimens of moderate Republicans, mate them in captivity, and then safely release these rare and precious creatures back into the electorate,” said IPPM’s Cynthia Rollins, who traces the decline of the species to changes in the political climate and rampant, predatory fanaticism. “Within our safe, enclosed habitats, these middle-of-the-road Republican Party members can freely support increased funding for public education and even gay rights without being threatened by the far-right subgenus.” …

“Last week we shot Gov. Mitch Daniels with a tranquilizer dart from a blind we’d set up near the Indiana Capitol, and we plan on mating him very soon with a senator we trapped up in Maine,” said IPPM reproductive expert Gabriel Burke, adding that forced breeding of centrist Republicans in captivity is a humane, carefully regulated procedure designed to simulate mating in the wild. “While captive specimens tend to be wary around each other at first, once they sense they’re both opponents of labor unions yet also willing to make tough compromises on collective bargaining rights, the sexual ritual begins almost instantly.”

Borowitz:

Fact That No One Likes Him May Be Hurting Romney

DENVER (The Borowitz Report) – Exit polls from last night’s Republican contests reveal that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney’s key obstacle to gaining the GOP nomination is the fact that voters cannot stand him. …

Exit polls taken last night bear out that theory, with a majority of voters agreeing with the statement, “I think Mitt Romney is so odious, I would rather vote for a random doofus I’ve never heard of who goes around in sweater vests.”

The beneficiary of that sentiment last night was former Sen. Rick Santorum, who told supporters at a victory rally in Missouri, “I support the rights of the unborn child until it’s born and wants a gay marriage.”

Speaking to supporters in Denver, Mr. Romney uttered what some political experts are calling a possible gaffe: “I don’t care about all the people who didn’t vote for me. They just envy my massive wealth. And poor people? They can curl up and die, and I won’t lose a wink of sleep. I bet you a million crisp dollars from my vault in Geneva.”

Kurtzman:

“They announced the winner of the Westminster Dog Show, and tomorrow the winning dog gets to ride on the roof of Mitt Romney’s car.” –David Letterman

“Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are both against gay marriage. Really, against gay marriage? I tell you, the problem with this is they’d make such a cute couple.” –David letterman

“The vice president of China showed up at the White House today. That’s what happens when you get behind on the rent. The landlord shows up, starts looking around.” –Jay Leno

“Congratulations to Mitt Romney. He got an honorary Grammy for best spoken word for being able to speak out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.” –Jay Leno

Obama believes in a “phony ideology — not a theology based on the Bible,” Santorum said, according to Steve Peoples of the Associated Press.

That would seem to be in tension, to say the least, with one of the most important parts of the Constitution of the United States:

no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

“No religious test.”  ”Ever.”  Pretty strong words – if there was one thing we can be pretty sure that the Founders agreed on, that would seem to be it.

Combine that with this one, spoken by Santorum in 2008 and just unearthed by Think Progress, and it adds up to what we always thought Rick Santorum was anyway: an intolerant radical who cloaks his extreme views in sweater vests.

of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.

My goodness.  So apparently the millions and millions of mainline Protestants in this country aren’t actually Christians – at least, not Christians as defined in the Gospel According To Rick.  That’ll come as a surprise to them.

Can I just say again how much I desperately hope this guy ends up being the Republican nominee for president?  The blowout will rival Reagan’s.

Recently my family participated in Credo Mobile’s campaign “Tell Congress: Fight to pass the Respect for Marriage Act and repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act”.

In response, we received the following letter from Senator Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts). Sen. Brown clearly supports the discriminatory federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but tries to change the subject instead of directly admitting it.

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). As always, I value your input on all issues, and appreciate hearing from you.I believe in the right of every citizen to live in the manner he or she chooses. People should be entitled to basic civil rights, protection from violence and the freedom to pursue their dreams.

DOMA was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996 and defines marriage in federal law as a legal union between one man and one woman. As enacted, DOMA contains protections for the rights of states that do not want to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Some states, including Massachusetts, have moved in a different direction by recognizing marriages between individuals of the same sex. Although it is my personal belief that marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman, I support the ability of each state to make its own laws in this area. It is important that these laws reflect the will of the people, either directly or through their representatives. Likewise, I recognize that civil unions provide a mechanism for a legal partnership and help preserve equality.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Should legislation regarding marriage be debated by the Senate during the 112th Congress, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind. If you have any additional comments or concerns, please feel free to contact me or visit my website at www.scottbrown.senate.gov.

These are weasel words because the issue with DOMA isn’t whether states should have a right to make their own marriage laws — the U.S. Constitution already guarantees that they do — but whether the federal government has unconstitutionally used DOMA to disrespect those state laws by refusing to confer on same-sex couples married under state law the 1138 federal rights, responsibilities and benefits that only come with marriage.

Sen. Brown is trying to deflect the conversation into one of states’ rights so that he doesn’t have to answer the real question: Since each state has the Constitutional right to make their own marriage laws, does Sen. Brown approve of the federal government’s usurpation of those rights through laws like DOMA?

Although Sen. Brown has a reputation for avoiding meaningful dialog on LGBT legislative issues, he did have a position statement on marriage posted on this website as recently as December, 2011. It said:

Marriage
I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. States should be free to make their own laws in this area, so long as they reflect the people’s will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their elected representatives.

Sometime in January, 2012, however, Sen. Brown removed even that from his website. It exists now only in old cached versions.

Interestingly, Sen. Brown’s Issues page now has a subsection called “Independent Voice”, where he prides himself on being “an independent voter and thinker”. Yet in the links provided to illustrate the senator’s independence, there is no mention of his vote in 2010 to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. As one of only four Senate Republicans voting for repeal, and considering how contentious that vote was at the time but how uncontroversial it is now, you’d think he would trumpet it as an example of “an independent voter and thinker” in action.

It’s as if Sen. Brown is afraid to let his constituents know his mind or voting record on any legislative issue related to LGBT people. Why is that?

Elizabeth Warren, the leading Democrat vying for Brown’s Senate seat, has made clear and unequivocal statements to the press of her support for LGBT equality and addresses LGBT equality in the Civil Rights and Equality section of her Issues page. She’s even made an “It Gets Better” video.

In the face of Elizabeth Warren’s forthrightness and transparency on LGBT legislative issues, is Brown trying to hide his DADT repeal vote from conservative voters, or is he trying to hide his lingering anti-LGBT bias from independent and fair-minded voters? The only thing that seems certain is that he is hiding.

Cross-posted at Pam’s House Blend.

Via dkos, there appears to be some serious questions about the recent Suffolk poll showing Brown in a 9-point lead – questioned even by the polling outfit employed by Brown himself:

One possible explanation for the divergent results comes from the questions asked just before the vote preference question. Both the Suffolk and MassINC polls begin by asking voters whether they have favorable or unfavorable impressions of each of the candidates. The MassINC poll then immediately asks about vote preference, while the Suffolk poll also asks the following:

Q9. Does Senator Scott Brown deserve to be re-elected or is it time to give someone else a chance?Q10. What is the first word or phrase that comes to your mind when you hear the name Scott Brown?

Q11. What is the first word or phrase that comes to your mind when you hear the name Elizabeth Warren?

Q12. Does Elizabeth Warren have the experience to be a United States Senator?

Q13. Is Scott Brown a leader in the United States Senate, or a follower?

Q14. If the General Election for United States Senate were held today and the candidates were Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Elizabeth Warren for whom would you vote or towards whom would you lean at this time?

The two open-ended questions (Q10 and Q11) are not troublesome, but the order of the other items is. While each uses neutral wording, they may have the collective side-effect of reminding respondents, three times, that Scott Brown is an incumbent senator. They may also raise doubts about Elizabeth Warren’s experience while planting the suggestion that Brown has been a leader in the Senate, not a “follower.”

And it’s not just liberals questioning it, it’s poll outfits like the one Romney and Brown employ:

The issue on the Suffolk survey is similar to a criticism leveled earlier this month by Mitt Romney campaign pollster Neil Newhouse about a recent ABC News/Washington Post survey. Newhouse argued that just before measuring the Barack Obama-Romney sentiment, the pollsters asked a series of questions that “introduced specific negative information about Governor Romney.” These included a set of questions about three candidates — Romney, Newt Gingrich and President Obama — as well as several more specific items about Romney. These included a question about whether, given his “work as a corporate investor … Mitt Romney did more to create jobs or more to cut jobs,” and a question asking whether Romney “is or is not paying his fair share of taxes” having “paid about a 14% federal tax rate on income of about 22 million dollars last year.”

Asked to comment by the The Huffington Post, Newhouse — who is also the pollster for Scott Brown — said that the criticisms he leveled against the ABC/Washington Post poll would “absolutely” apply to the Suffolk poll, “though not to the same degree” as the ABC/Post poll.

Suffolk, of course, is pointing to the “but look how accurate we were in the special election!” argument to back their poll up. But in polling, past performance is not always indicative of future accuracy. When your poll is already an outlier, you should expect to have your methods examined with a fine tooth comb. Especially from other pollsters who have everything to gain from your loss of credibility, even if it hurts a candidate they are working for.

David Nir also argues that Suffolk isn’t one of the stronger poll outfits, to begin with.

Senator James Eldridge introduced S. 772;  Lynne Lupien was has provided the wording in her post, as her state senator Eileen Donoghue has signed on as a co-sponsor:  http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/02/sen-donoghue-cosponsors-resolution-against-citizens-united/

The organization Free Speech for People has organized a lobby day in support of S. 772, which if passed will make Massachusetts just the 3rd state in the country to formally call for a constitutional Amendment that will restore democracy in the United States of America to “We the people” by limiting the ability of corporations to pour money into politics to buy elections.  After all, 95% of the time, whoever spends more wins.  Do we want them to win by being able to continue to pour money into PACs and buy elections:

The same “corporate people” who sold fraudulent

securities?  Paid themselves billions in bonuses as record numbers of homes went into foreclosures due to reckless lending and bogus documentation?

Here is what YOU can do:

Come to the State House before 11:30 AM on February 28, 2012.  Attend the “Free Speech is for People” training in Room 167 at 11:30 AM that day.

Come to the hearing on S. 772, and quietly listen, perhaps testify as to why you support this legislation.  Visit your own senators and representatives afterwards, using the materials provided by Free Speech for People.

I am not employed as a lobbyist or strategist, nor am I employed by Free Speech for People.  This is a non-partisan event, I will be attending in an unpaid capacity, as a citizen activist concerned about the corrupting influence of money on politics, whether from the top 1% of the top 1%, or corporations.  I hope to see you there!

The Massachusetts 2012 Senate race is shaping up to be an expensive contest, and although I think money is corrupting our political system, it plays a huge factor in our elections. Fortunately, Open Secrets (a project of the Center for Responsive Politics) that analyzes campaign contributions has finally posted its breakdown of our senate race. Most remarkable is the fact that Elizabeth Warren took in slightly more money than Scott Brown, who still has slightly more than a 2 to 1 advantage.

As it stands, Scott Brown has a 2 to 1 advantage in cash on hand with $12,892,256. One third of this sizable chunk of change ($3-4 million) came from his previous race against the ill-fated, ill-equipped candidacy of Martha Coakley. Elizabeth Warren has evidently paid some bills; of the $8.9 million raised, she has $6.8 million on hand. Not surprisingly, the Globe’s article touting the amount of money Warren raised from out-of-staters is both stupid and misleading.

Individual Contributions. It would be nice to say that the decline in the percentage of individual contributions to the Brown campaign reflects him being co-opted by larger interests. But this decline could be attributed to the fact that he is the incumbent in the race. In 2010 individual donations made up 93% of his campaign funds; this time around, they account for 79%. Of the $8.9 million dollars the Warren campaign has raised thus far, individual donations accounted for 98% of the total. I have to wonder whether this percentage will decrease as more money is collected.

Out of State Donations. Elizabeth Warren received more a greater percentage out-of-state donations than Scott Brown did. In 2012, she received 60% of her money ($562,810) from out-of-state and 40% ($375,159) from in state; Brown raised 45% of his funds raised ($1,483,865) from out-of-state.  The percentages are different, but in dollars, Brown accepted more than three times as much as Warren. Interestingly, Warren’s percentages are the exactly the same as Scott Brown’s in 2010 when 60% of his campaign contributions from out-of-state donations.

Sectors & Industry. Scott Brown received more donations from every sector, except labor. There’s no question who’s raking in the bucks from the financial sector. For every dollar Elizabeth Warren ($44,200) received in donations, Scott Brown raked in about $32 for a total of $1,574,250.

Labor. Money from labor is not much of a factor at this point. Although Warren ($44,000) has received 4 times as much from labor as Brown ($11,400), the numbers are a small fraction of a percent of the total amount of money Warren raised. Business has contributed far, far more than labor.

I’d like to take a moment to pause from the politics and acknowledge the end of what I think can be fairly called a great career with the Red Sox. As you’ve probably heard, Tim Wakefield will announce his retirement today after 17 seasons with the Sox. Chad Finn has a very good retrospective over at the Boston Globe.

From his first year with the team in 1995 when he went 16-8 with a 2.95 ERA, to playing a subtle but important role in helping the Sox win their first World Series in 86 years, to today’s announcement ending a generation-long career almost all (save his first couple seasons) with the same team, Wakefield was the paragon of a class act. Wake might not have had a Hall of Fame-caliber career, but there are few Red Sox that will leave such a positive impression on so many Sox fans. As his teammates came and went (from Mike Greenwell to Nomar to Mo to Youk to Adrian Gonzalez), Wake had his ups (his 200 career wins, including several shutouts and near no-hitters) and downs (Aaron Boone) on the field, but throughout everything he remained a consummate professional and a true Red Sock.

Thanks, Wake, for a tremendous Red Sox career!

Don’t you love it when this happens? Someone thinks he’s being super-clever by coming up with an analogy designed to show just how ridiculous the other side’s position is … and what it actually shows is that his own position is wrong.

Here’s the context.  The US Conference of Catholic Bishops, as you know, remains up in arms about some Catholic-affiliated institutions having to offer health insurance that covers services they don’t like – namely, birth control – even though, under the Obama compromise, the institutions now do not have to pay for it.  Yesterday, one Bishop Lori, on behalf of the Conference, testified before Congress as follows:

For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let’s call it, “The Parable of the Kosher Deli.”

Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork. There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.

You can see where this is going.  Of course it’s ridiculous for the government to force a kosher deli to serve pork … but that’s exactly what ObamaCare is doing to us, right?

But if you think about it, you see that Bishop Lori is precisely wrong.  The “parable of the kosher deli” is an exact analogue to what Ted Kennedy was doing with his proposed conscience clause: he wanted to exempt doctors and hospitals from having to provide services to which they objected.  Government shouldn’t force an observant Catholic doctor to perform an abortion, nor should it force an observant Jew to sell pork in his deli.  (For purposes of this exercise, we will set aside the fact that that the deli probably doesn’t depend in large part on taxpayer dollars for its operating budget…)

But the Blunt amendment is not about protecting service providers.  It’s about health insurance.  So the real analogy would be this: under the “Blunt/kosher deli” amendment, the owners of the kosher deli would be allowed to pay their employees in special money that cannot be used to buy pork anywhere.  That’s not a problem for the employees who are observant Jews.  But what about those employees of the deli who aren’t Jewish (or who don’t keep kosher), and who would like to take their earnings to the grocery store after work and buy some pork for dinner?  Too bad for them – the money that their employer pays them cannot be used to buy pork in any store.

That, of course, would be absurd.  That’s not what Ted Kennedy wanted.  But that’s what Roy Blunt and Scott Brown want.  That’s the difference.  Thank you, Bishop Lori, for clearing it up.

Another day, another explanation by the Brown campaign.

Scott Brown is still trying to figure out a way to squirm out of responsibility for co-sponsoring the Blunt Amendment which allows employers to take away health coverage from employees. Yesterday, Scott Brown rolled out that he’s Ted Kennedy, given that Ted’s life work was to provide health care coverage for the nation and Scott’s desire is to repeal it, it’s not surprising that it went over with a big thud.

Round two.

This time the Brown campaign tries out this head scratcher. They are now saying that it doesn’t matter because the Obama’s compromise would still require employers to provide coverage even if the Blunt/Brown amendment passes.

Scott? If it doesn’t matter then why the F even have the amendment in the first place? You want us to believe that you co-sponsored an amendment, went on media outlets to fight for the amendment because it really doesn’t do anything? This is seriously the best your brain trust came up with?

Elizabeth Warren was on Braude yesterday and Jim asked her about Brown’s latest response:

“So excuse me, what I think he’s saying then is he’s advocating for an amendment that will leave the law exactly where it is right now with President Obama, oh come on! Then all he’s really saying is I’m just trying to stir up trouble and see what I can do here. Because if this doesn’t make any difference in the law then why are they trying to get this amendment passed. Why is he arguing so hard for it? That doesn’t make any sense.”

I would recommend watching the whole interview it was very good, after this Brown fiasco and word twisting, it good to hear basic commonsense from a candidate.

Adding video (hopefully it works):

In any event, the message is clear: this race has a long, long way to go, and nobody had better get comfortable.

Thanks for directing the discussion about the recurring MBTA funding crisis to the Big Pig — corporate welfare.  As I commented at that posting, we are losing far more than the $150 million in film tax credits to what Auditor Suzanne Bump called the two-billion-dollar “black box” of corporate subsidies when she testified to the committee hearing bills on disclosure of these give-aways (bills that are still languishing in committee!).

There should be another focus for this conversation, and that is on the tax rates paid by m/billionaires.  A recent report  found that almost 9,400 tax filers in Massachusetts make over a million dollars a year, with a total income of $28.4 billion. A 4% surtax would bring in $1,136,000,000.  And really, it should be a higher surtax on the 82 guys making $25 million to $100 million.  Many of those are in the financial industries, which brought down the house.  Two billion a year would take care of a lot of subway fares, school teachers, potholes and day care centers.

Come to think of it — last year, the state raked in $2 billion more in income tax than they expected. Yet, instead of spending it on the services the state had just slashed, the Gov tucked most of it into the rainy day fund.  And then gave us a sales tax holiday to boot.  So…maybe our elected officials just don’t want to give us our services, even if they have the money…

Now, let me say that I agree with those who point out that the T has been unfairly saddled with Big Dig debt (mostly dumped on the Turnpike Authority, which collapsed, and some of which the T is now trying to shift to Massport in ferry costs, as if musical debt will solve the problem).  And I agree that the T is inefficient and poorly managed and full of layabouts and negligent in fare collection and all those other Boston-Herald-commenter types of gripes — but then, most every department is similar, and most private companies too, for that matter.  I fully agree that we should audit and examine the agency’s operations to cut the very substantial waste, fraud and abuse. Agree, agree.

But we should also recover the big missing public money lost to massive corporate welfare, and to the uber-rich, most of whom are spawn of corporate welfare.

False.  HT hesterprynne.

Here’s why: the legislation that Ted Kennedy filed (section 1162, p. 84) would have created a broad “conscience” exemption for doctors and nurses, and for hospitals.  Under his bill, no “health professional,” and no “health facility,” could be required to offer or perform any item or service, “if the professional or facility objects to doing so on the basis of a religious belief or moral conviction.”

Yes, that’s the same broad “conscience” language in the Roy Blunt amendment.  But the context is completely different.  In Kennedy’s bill, the concern was forcing, say, a doctor who believed that abortion was murder to nonetheless perform an abortion.  Or to require that Catholic hospitals offer abortions.  But Ted Kennedy – who was famously pro-choice despite his Catholic faith – would no doubt have expected that a woman who wanted an abortion would simply go to a different doctor.

That, of course, is miles away from what we are talking about with the Blunt amendment.  Under Blunt/Brown, it doesn’t matter where the woman goes, because if her employer has a “moral conviction” that she shouldn’t get an abortion, or AIDS treatment, or a blood transfusion, then it doesn’t matter where she goes; her insurance won’t pay for it.  Kennedy’s concern was that doctors and hospitals not have to provide services that conflict with their faith.  But the Blunt amendment says that any employer (religious or not) can make it effectively impossible for his employees to receive health care services to which he objects (by exempting them from insurance coverage), even when the patient wants, and the doctor is willing to provide, those services.

Not the same thing.  At all.

So to review: in Massachusetts, under the law that Scott Brown voted for, religiously-affiliated employers like hospitals and universities must offer health care that covers prescription contraceptives on the same terms as other prescription drugs.  When President Obama tried to impose that rule nationally, the uproar was such that he backed off, engineering a clever compromise that prevents employers from having to pay for something to which they object – and major Catholic employers like Catholic Charities USA and the hospital-affiliated Catholic Health Association have said they are pleased with the compromise (though the bishops of course are not).  And yet, Scott Brown now claims that the Obama compromise isn’t good enough – even though he voted for a law that goes further.  ???

The Massachusetts law was not without controversy at the time it was passed.  The Globe reported (paywall) as follows:

The House vote, taken after nearly three hours of debate, would make Massachusetts the 18th state in the nation and the last in New England to require insurers to cover birth control and hormone replacement therapy for women to the same extent that their policies cover other prescription drugs….

The Catholic Conference of Massachusetts, the lobbying arm of the Archdiocese of Boston, have long fought the bill, and legislative opponents fought hard yesterday to include an amendment exempting organizations that are affiliated with the Catholic church or have a moral objection to contraception.

Federal law already excludes organizations directly controlled by the church from the requirement, but the proposed amendment would have allowed affiliated institutions such as hospitals, universities, and nursing homes to deny their employees coverage.

In a strong endorsement of the bill’s original language, the amendment failed, 106 to 49, paving the way for its landslide victory, 140 to 16.

Interestingly, among those 16 voting “no” was then-Speaker Thomas Finneran (well known for his socially conservative views) and 14 other Democrats.  Only one of the 22 Republicans, Rep. Poirier, voted “no.”  All the others, including Scott Brown, voted “yes” on final passage.

So what’s the story, Scott?  By voting “yes” in 2002, you must have “assumed the mantle of oppressor,” right?  Why weren’t you “dictating to Catholics and other people of faith that they must do as they are told when it comes to health care or face the consequences, regardless of their personal religious beliefs,” as you now claim the opponents of the Blunt amendment are doing?

Here’s hoping someone asks Scott Brown those questions.

Today, lots of commentary is rolling in, and it’s bad.  Perhaps the most telling is from Margery Eagan, the Herald columnist who is no wild-eyed lefty, but is rather a middle-of-the-roader who no doubt sometimes votes Republican and sometimes Democratic, and who is also (obviously) female.  I also assume, but don’t know for sure, that she’s Catholic.  She is, in short, exactly the kind of voter Scott Brown absolutely must have in his corner to win reelection.  Here’s her take:

U.S. Sen. Scott Brown has co-sponsored a bill that would allow health plans to deny coverage both for contraception and any service that violates the planners’ beliefs.

It was a huge mistake….

It’s 2012, not 1950, not the Middle Ages. Contraception in 2012 is the routine method prescribed by doctors and used by hundreds of millions to prevent pregnancies or the abortions so many find repugnant. And I thought everybody was onboard with this, except nuts like Rick Santorum and the out-of-touch, elderly and celibate Catholic bishops who call contraception an “intrinsic evil.”

Now Scott Brown, who has so skillfully managed a reasonable and across-the-aisle Senate dance, has sided with nuts and the “intrinsic evil” set.

Surely he’s not sided with Catholic lay people. Many, if not most of them, have ignored the bishops on contraception since 1968, when the church first weighed in against it. Ninety-eight percent of Catholic women have used contraception. Even Sister Carol Keehan, head of of the Catholic Hospital Association, supports President Obama’s Friday compromise (allowing insurance companies, not religious institutions, to pay for contraception)….

No matter how he explains this latest move, underneath it all there’s an unspoken message: There is something morally wrong with a loving husband and wife using contraception to prevent pregnancy.

That’s crazy.

That’s about as strongly-worded a column as I’ve ever seen from Eagan.

The Globe’s Yvonne Abraham is more reliably left-of-center, but her points strike me as awfully hard to argue with.

Blunt has brought us to Crazyland, a place far beyond the issue of contraception, not to mention common sense. What’s mystifying is that Brown has followed him there. During his short career in the Senate, Brown has avoided going out on limbs, refusing to take a position at all on some issues and siding with Democrats on enough of the others to avoid alienating the state’s moderate electorate. That strategy has paid off: In a recent WBUR poll, 48 percent of respondents said Brown has compromised “about the right amount” in Washington. A September poll found that, while voters believed that the GOP as a whole was too conservative, they saw Brown as “about right.”

But Brown is definitely on a high outer branch now. Adding to the peril: He really needs women voters to win this election. In 2010, he beat Martha Coakley by narrowing the gender gap to just three points. Right now, Democrat Elizabeth Warren outpolls him among women, 48 percent to 41 percent, according to the WBUR poll, conducted by the MassINC Polling Group. The Blunt amendment won’t endear him to many of them.

And here’s another review, from Herald commentator and daughter-of-Tim Makena Cahill:

He knows he’s running in MA right? Stupid move for Brown in general, but really stupid considering he needs female vote

Again, this is from someone not generally thought to be a super-lefty.  She adds in a subsequent tweet that Brown’s “personality is not going to carry him” this time around.

The only slightly positive commentary I’ve seen comes from David Bernstein at the Phoenix, who thinks that Brown may be playing smart politics with this issue.  Here’s his take:

Brown is well familiar with the type of Democratic-identifying crossover voters who he’s needed to win in Massachusetts, for state senate or US Senate. They are, in very large part, white, discontented, blue-collar, Irish-American Catholics.

This move checks off the Catholic box.

Maybe.  But Eagan says that Brown “[s]urely [has] not sided with Catholic lay people.”  And with all due respect to Bernstein, I put more stock in Eagan’s assessment of how the voters Bernstein is talking about are going to feel about Brown’s move, since Eagan herself is much closer to being one of them than Bernstein is.  Furthermore, let’s even assume that Bernstein is right that Brown’s move “checks off the Catholic box” for some conservative male Catholics.  It seems almost certain to have unchecked the “female voter” box – and if Brown can’t significantly narrow the gender gap, he can’t win.

The next big prize in the GOP primaries is Michigan, one of Mitt Romney’s five home states (along with MA, NH, UT, and CA).  He’s released an ad showing him driving around in a fancy Chrysler while he talks about how much he loves Michigan, and all.  Here’s the ad:

And here’s the problem: that Chrysler that he’s driving is a 300 model, and the 300 is made in Canada.

How do we know?  Here’s a screenshot from the ad (click for larger) – the key is the dashboard layout in the lower right hand corner.

Compare that interior layout to that of two Chrysler models – the 200, which is made in the U.S., and the 300, which is made in Canada (click the images for larger views):

Chrysler 200	Chrysler 300

The biggest giveaway is the air vents, which are tall and skinny in the 300, but are sort of square-shaped in the 200.  You can see that the 300 is an exact match for what Romney is driving; the 200 is not.

#FAIL

By the way, I don’t know nearly enough about cars to have caught this myself.  An alert reader named David Shorr spotted it and passed it along – thanks David!

Not quite sold on this quest to get Beacon Hill to stop wasting tax dollars on corporate welfare to Hollywood, when millions of lives are at stake with the MBTA?

Well, how’s this one?

Since the Film Tax Credit legally mandates the state to pay for 25% of the costs of filming in Massachusetts, we have to pay 25% of the millionaire salaries of A-List Hollywood.

With A-Listers making $20 million or more, that means all it takes is one Tom Cruise to cost this state $5 million bucks… or more.

Well, what else costs $5 million bucks? In the MBTA’s Plan 1, services would be cut on the commuter rail for all trains after 10pm and throughout all weekends, all to save a measely $5.7 million (pg 15).

That means we’re one Angelina Jolie or Adam Sandler away from being able to afford to keep weekend services on the commuter rail. 

Sign the petition to tell Beacon Hill this is wrong, that our public transportation, serving more than a million people every day, is more important than giving corporate welfare to Hollywood.

And, certainly, weekend trains, affecting millions of people a year, are more important than paying for a quarter of Johnny Depp’s salary, should he decide to do his next movie here.

—

There’s no money to hire a field staff, or create a commercial, or to start a PAC, so if you think we should keep the MBTA, consider yourself drafted.

You are the PR team. You are the field staff. You are the boss.

You are ultimately the people who will benefit if we can get this to be seriously considered on Beacon Hill, as well as your friends, neighbors and anyone you know who relies on or even cares about public transportation. That means you have to draft them, too.

Even if you’re from outside the Metro region, this is important, because if the MBTA dies, who thinks public transportation in other parts of the state will be able to survive it?

That means we need more BMG’ers to sign – and, most especially, to pass it forward to your friends, co-workers and people you know who ride the T.

What everyone should do now is get out a piece of paper and write the numbers 1 through 10 down, row-by-row.

Now, think of names to put in each of those slots: people who ride the T, people you know, people who serve on the same local board or committee, people who’ll just sign the darn thing for you because you asked.

If that list was hard to create, you’re done. If it was easy, write down 10 more numbers and keep writing 10 more until it gets hard.

Now, email each of those people directly and ask them to sign. If they don’t do it right away, send them a text or plop a link to the petition on their facebook wall and remind them.

Let them know if they still don’t do it, you’ll be calling them next, and if that doesn’t work, you’ll be knocking on their door.

Now, you won’t actually have to do any of those things… because signing becomes the much easier thing for them to do, so they’ll get off their butts and do it. This is just how to get them to act.

—-

Remember, no one thought that Bank of America would walk back on its monthly fee to use debit cards, or that Komen would so quickly be disgraced and forced to apologize, or that Obama would actually block the Keystone Pipeline.

None of that would have happened without a few crazy people stepping out there and getting the ball rolling.

But none of that can happen without that second group of slightly-less-crazy people who see that the idea isn’t half bad and get their friends and acquaintances on board. These are the most important people.

That means it’s up to you.

That’s what this is all about, after all… you. Your ability to get from Point A to Point B in a civilized society. Your ability to go to work and then back home again, or to go into the city some Saturday night and catch up with old friends.

Let’s make this happen.

Just when you thought Rick Santorum had Google problems all to himself, along come the people of SpreadingRomney.com to posit a new definition for “Romney”: “to defecate in terror,” as poor old Seamus the dog did while in a dog crate that was strapped to the roof of the Romney family car.

And it seems to be working.  Here’s a Google search for “Romney” (click for larger):

Politics ain’t beanbag.  HT Lynne.

There are now conflicting reports about what happened to Seamus the dog after his terrifying ride for 12 hours in a crate on top of Mitt Romney’s family station wagon.

Did he really live a “ripe old age” at the Romney estates as has been quoted by Ann Romney? Or did he run the hell away at the end of his harrowing journey to Canada?

If it’s the latter, I really hope he found a better home than that unsympathetic jerk could give him.

In other news, Seamus’ legacy lives on. The third result on a simple Google search for “Romney” is the new definition that has been created for the former dog torturer, “To defecate in terror.”

Ride on, Seamus, ride on.

(Cross posted because it was a good rant, very cathartic, so I thought I would spread the love.)

A bunch of dried up old male a$$h@les in Virginia are passing a law that mandates transvaginal ultrasounds for women before getting an abortion:

The ultrasound legislation would constitute an unprecedented government mandate to insert vaginal ultrasonic probes into women as part of a state-ordered effort to dissuade them from terminating pregnancies, legislative opponents noted.

“We’re talking about inside a woman’s body,” Del. Charnielle Herring, a Democrat, said in an emotional floor speech. “This is the first time, if we pass this bill, that we will be dictating a medical procedure to a physician.”

Tell you what, Virginia State House (and Senate and Governor if it passes and is signed): why don’t you take this probe, lube it up nice and good (this’ll be cold for a moment), and stick it up your own most intimate orifice?

So you literally want to tell a doctor what procedure they must use on a woman? And for what? “Informed consent” my ass. Of course, everyone knows that this is a lie and it’s about controlling women, but just to spell it out, do you think women are dumb? That they are not informed about what the end result of not terminating a pregnancy is? Oh, gee, it ends with having a baby. You really must think us wee widdle women are idiots.

Except we know one thing: the instant the government mandated you get a stick up your ass or else face lifelong, dire consequences (which bringing a child to term is, for better or worse), you’d be howling and screaming about the violation of your right to privacy and to make up your own mind on the advice of your doctor about what medical procedures are necessary or needed in your own personal case.

But probing a woman with an invasive ultrasound that isn’t even medically necessary in most cases where a woman chooses to have an abortion, hey that’s not a bridge too far for you. This bill makes no sense whatsoever on its supposed merits, unless of course you believe that the poor little woman with a medical probe sticking out of her vagina, upon seeing the fetus wiggling on the screen, will so fall in love with the little tiny heartbeat and fingernails that they suddenly change their minds and hey! you’ve saved a tiny human life that houses a soul (according to YOU) from some sort of gruesome murder.

Except that is not your choice to make, or influence. You’re not only hypocritical in passing this bill that you would not ever pass about male patients, you are tormentors. Bullies. You are misogynists of the most vile kind. I have worse names for you, but I think I have made my point.

Get out of my vagina, and the vaginae of the rest of America’s women. You are not fit to govern, nevermind tell me and my doctor what procedures are or are not necessary.

Marlborough City Council candidate pleads not guilty in voter fraud case; allegedly submitted absentee voter application for dead man 

A former candidate for Marlborough City Council was arraigned today on voter fraud charges for allegedly handing in an absentee ballot application at City Hall for a man who had died earlier in the year, Middlesex County prosecutors said today.

Mark Evangelous, 51, 0f Marlborough faces charges of forgery, uttering, and violating absentee voting laws, District Attorney Gerard T. Leone Jr.’s office said.

It doesn’t say so in the Globe article (I wonder why), but Evangelous is a prominent Republican in the town. Oddly, he doesn’t seem to have videotaped himself committing voter fraud. Also not known is whether he’s on the Marlborough Republican Town Committee.

Scott Brown, who is down in the polls and scrambling desperately for a winning strategy, has apparently concluded that his path to victory runs through those voters who … don’t like birth control??!!

As you may have heard, right-wing Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) has offered a truly extreme amendment to the Affordable Care Act.  Of course it is not going to pass, but it’s turned into something of a flash point.  And the critical thing to realize about Blunt’s amendment is this: it goes way beyond birth control, and it goes way beyond religious belief.  Blunt’s amendment would permit any employer, insurer, or health care provider to deny coverage for anything, as long as they say that covering that thing is against either their religious beliefs or their “moral convictions” - and “moral convictions” is not defined in the amendment.  Apparently, if you say “I’m agin’ it” three times, that’ll do.

For the sticklers out there, here is the relevant text of Blunt’s amendment:

A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) … on the basis that it declines to provide coverage of specific items or services because— (i) providing coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or (ii) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.

Nothing about abortion or contraception, just “specific items or services,” which seems potentially to include everything.  And note that “religious beliefs” and “moral convictions” are distinct categories of reasons that it’s OK to deny coverage.  So even if your religion doesn’t say anything about a particular health care service, an employer can deny coverage just because, well, he doesn’t like it.  Employer doesn’t want to pay for AIDS treatment because he thinks it’s a disease that bad people like gays and drug addicts get?  No problem – his “moral convictions” let him deny coverage.  Here are two more examples, from health care expert (and Warren supporter) John McDonough:

Let’s say you had me as your employer. Let’s say I assumed all folks with substance abuse problems should join Alcoholics or Narcotics Anonymous, and that should be enough treatment. Under the Blunt-Brown proposal, I would be acting within my rights as your employer.

Here’s another: regular readers of this column know that I’m vegan, in other words, I don’t eat anything that has a mother. That’s a health judgment on my part, and it’s also a moral conviction. Under this proposed legislation, I would be within my rights as your employer to provide no coverage for any essential or preventive health benefit tied to Type II diabetes because I believe it’s largely caused by our awful American diet. I guess no diabetic would want to work for me, and then I’d save a lot of money too. All potentially legal under the Blunt-Brown view of how things should be.

Folks, this is crazy talk.  And Scott Brown is all for it.  Here’s the email from Team Brown that I just got:

One of our most fundamental rights as a people is the freedom of religion. It was right here in Plymouth, Massachusetts that pilgrims from Europe established a colony because of religious persecution at home.

Now, it is Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren who has assumed the mantle of oppressor. She and her allies on the left are dictating to Catholics and other people of faith that they must do as they are told when it comes to health care or face the consequences, regardless of their personal religious beliefs.

That’s not the America our Founding Fathers envisioned, and it’s just one of the unhealthy side effects of Obamacare, which seeks to impose a one-size-fits-all, government-knows-best health care program on the whole country.

Obamacare is bad law and needs to be repealed. Until that day arrives, it’s important we fight to protect the public from some of its worst aspects.

I support a conscience exemption in health care for Catholics and other people of faith. That’s why I signed on to Senator Roy Blunt’s bill to restore the conscience protections in the law that existed prior to the passage of Obamacare.

Professor Warren is opposed to providing a conscience exemption. Her view is that government can mandate religious people and organizations to act in ways that are contrary to their most deeply-held principles. This type of thinking strikes at the very heart of the religious freedoms enshrined in our Constitution.

My last opponent, Martha Coakley, took the same position and said Catholics who work in emergency rooms should find a new line of work. This attitude is highly offensive to all Americans, not just people of faith.

Religious liberty is at the core of our nation’s founding, and we in Massachusetts know that better than anyone. It is has helped make us a strong and diverse nation. We must continue to cherish it and fight back against those who would chip away at it.

Sincerely,

Scott Brown

Now, either Scott hasn’t read the Blunt amendment and doesn’t know what’s in it, or he doesn’t care (I’m not sure which is worse).  Because to read his email, you’d think the Blunt amendment was all about religious liberty, whereas, as we have just demonstrated it’s not.  And to read his email, you’d think that employers who simply don’t like something (whether for religious or other reasons) have always been allowed to refuse to pay for it, whereas in fact that is not the case.  Blunt’s kooky amendment goes way beyond anything we’ve ever contemplated.

In short, Scott Brown is panicking.  When people panic, they often make bad decisions because they are so freaked out that they fail to think through the consequences of their actions.  It sure looks to me like that’s exactly what Brown is doing with the Blunt amendment.  Blunt is an extreme guy, and his amendment is an extreme proposal.  No way it’s going to fly in Massachusetts.

Elizabeth Warren’s statement on this business is on the flip.

New Proposal Threatens Everyone’s Health Care
ELIZABETH WARREN CONDEMNS REPUBLICAN BILL CO-SPONSORED BY SENATOR BROWN

Proposal would allow any employer or insurance company to deny anyone access to any health service

SOMERVILLE, MA– Consumer advocate and U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren today said a Republican proposal that would allow any employer or insurance company to deny anyone access to any health service is irresponsible.

“This is a completely new attack that threatens everyone’s health care,” said Warren, of the proposal, introduced by Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) and co-sponsored by Senator Scott Brown (R-MA). “It is an irresponsible assault on the health care of every family in Massachusetts and around our country.”

“I respect the solution President Obama provided last week that ensures that religious institutions are not forced to cover contraception but still makes sure women can get the health services they need. This new bill is not about any of that. This bill would allow any employer or insurance company to refuse to cover anyone for anything,” Warren said.

The Blunt-Brown bill is different from previous proposals, taking an extremely broad approach that allows any employer or insurance company to claim any objection and use it to deny any health insurance coverage to anyone, for any health service. The company needs to claim only that it has a “moral conviction,” an expansive term that is not defined in the proposed legislation.

“Scott Brown is on the wrong side here, standing with Washington and Republican extremists and against the people of Massachusetts – our families, our seniors, and everyone who relies on health insurance to get the care they need,” said Warren. “This is a critical issue and when he ought to be putting the people of Massachusetts first, he’s not.”

The amendment, supported by Brown, was introduced as President Obama offered a compromise to religious institutions that were uncomfortable with offering contraceptive and other health care coverage to their employees. Supporters of the amendment wrongly claim it writes the compromise into law. In fact, it would undermine health insurance and health care, especially recently passed reforms expanding coverage.

###

Hey everyone –

I’m so riled up about what’s going on at the MBTA — and how easy it would be to solve this problem by asking our politicians to make one grown-up decision — that I’ve gone and done something that I’ve never done before…. started a petition.

If you agree with me — that Beacon Hill, who caused this problem by dropping $2 billion in Big Dig debt on the MBTA, should have to fix it, please sign.

My goal is to get 500 signatures to start with, and then we can see where things go from there… so please sign!

——-

Let’s talk some numbers, to show why this is important:

The MBTA has 1.349 million daily riders, as of September of last year. They are at modern-day record highs, as more and more people in the Commonwealth have been turning toward public transportation.

Moreover, ridership is quickly growing and there’s no reason to expect that growth to slow anytime soon — so long as there’s no draconian service cuts and fare hikes.

The big areas that are being penned for cuts are used by hundreds of thousands of people, including 400,000 daily users on the MBTA’s bus routes and over 130,000 on the commuter rail. Even the oft-derided ferries, just .41% of the MBTA’s ridership, has over a million rides a year.

Here’s the damage: Plan 1′s service cuts would “effect” (euphemism for shutting down) 9.6 million riders a year, including cutting off all weekend commuter rail to save a measly $5.7 million bucks, while Plan 2 would similarly “effect” a whopping 38.1 million riders.

That doesn’t count how many rides would be “effected” by Plan 1′s 43% or Plan 2′s 35% fare hikes.

All of that to fill up the $161 million deficit — a deficit derived from the $2 billion in Big Dig debt Beacon Hill threw on the back of the MBTA.

—–

Of course, there’s a much easier and painless way to come up with the money to plug the hole at the MBTA: Divert the state’s spending on the Film Tax Credit, which the state spent $146 million on last year, to MBTA debt relief.

The Department of Revenue’s report, as mentioned in my last diary on this topic, was merciless on the Film Tax Credit. Not only does it not help our state grow jobs, but because that money could be spent much wiser, we actually lose jobs because of it.

Some dead-enders are clinging to the notion that the Film Tax Credit is like spending money on advertising, helping out the state’s tourism industry… and that’s why those poor schmucks in the Metro Region who can’t afford a BMW to get into town every day should suffer.

Beyond the fact that it may not help Massachusetts to advertise us as the worldwide hub of heroine addicts, bank robbers and the Irish mafia, I have a question to ask:

What do you think the state’s museums, restaurants, clubs and stores — you know, the tourism industry — think is more important to their bottom line? The millions of people who use the MBTA every day, or the tangential vibes (good or bad) of the city people may or may not get from a few extra movies being filmed in Massachusetts?

Are more people going to go to out to the North End, shop on Newbury Street or go see the Bruins because Ben Affleck made a film in Charlestown, or because they had an easy and cheap way to get into town that saved surburbanites too terrified from driving in Boston — or paying the, what is it? $40? — to park here on a game night?

So, let’s lay the “tourism” thing to bed. The MBTA is far more important to tourism than Film Tax Credits, and that’s not even getting into the fact that the Film Tax Credit is a jobs killer, according to the state’s own numbers.

—-

Finally, some of you may be asking me, “Ryan, why put the Film Tax Credit in contention with the MBTA? What does one have to do with the other?”

Beyond the fact that the money at play here alone is enough to almost fully plug the MBTA’s hole, there’s also the strategy involved. How people will feel about the MBTA will largely depend on what question is asked.

If people are asked, “Should the state save the MBTA?” the answer may not be very clear.

People may want to save it, but if they don’t use it every day, it’s easy to muddle up the question. After all, the government is a huge, monolithic thing, too large and confusing to expect people to know a nuanced approach out of a government mess.

Suddenly, in people’s heads, the question may not be “Should we save the MBTA,” but rather, “What else should be cut?” People will quickly think of their schools, or roads or other government services, or taxes having to be raised, even if that’s not what this is about.

That makes it all the more convenient for a politician to say, “Gee, I really wish we could help, but our budget is brutal… so the MBTA has to go out on its own.”

Politicians who don’t like doing the right thing love how monolithic government is, because they can blame their failure to do something that isn’t really a priority to them on any number of other issues… instead of themselves.

That’s pretty much what the Speaker is saying right now.

However, all of that changes when we change the question. If the question is, “What’s more important, Film Tax Credits that don’t grow jobs, or the MBTA… which our entire state depends on for jobs, and the basic necessity of getting from Point A to Point B?”

We’re going to get a very different answer.

That’s why it’s critically important to de-clutter this issue, creating an easy and easy-to-understand choice that reflects the real stakes here and gets at the values of our Commonwealth.

Do we want to grow jobs and help the millions of people who depend on the MBTA every day, or do we want to give Hollywood hundreds of millions in corporate welfare? Are we for the people, or are we for Hollywood studios?

The answer will be clear — and the MBTA will win. Maybe… for once… we just may be able to do something decent in this world.

So, start asking your friends, neighbors, coworkers… and politicians. Email the petition to your friends. Post it on Facebook and Twitter. And, for heaven’s sake, sign it.

Let’s make this happen!

Selected WBUR Poll Data Points:

View On Massachusetts Health Care Overhaul:
- 62% of those polled said they support the 2006 law
- 33% of those polled said they oppose the law

Its Influence On National Law:
- A majority (54%) said they think the state law was a “major influence” on the national overhaul
- 28% said it was a “minor influence”
- 11% said it was “not an influence”

Romney’s Health Care Stance:
- 68% said they think Mitt Romney disagrees with the national overhaul because he’s “trying to win votes”

Duh, right?

Mitt Romney gained national recognition because of his constructive engagement on the 2006 health care law. He would have no national profile without it — he’d be, say, Tim Pawlenty. And he defends the Massachusetts law — while simultaneously vowing to repeal the national law which is the “same f$%@ing bill” modeled itself after ours.

No Swift, no Twain, no Onion could possibly make Mitt Romney sillier than he has made himself. He is beyond parody; a sad joke that he has made at his own expense. We know it. The GOP knows it. The media knows it. The sooner we drop the pretense of taking him seriously, the better.

And meanwhile, we have health care in MA, and will have it throughout the country as the national law continues to be implemented. Amen to that. Thanks and good work, Mitt.

A lot of people have told me that out of all the Congresspeople in Massachusetts, Congressman Tierney’s most at risk. He won by a large margin last election, but had a Tea Party “birther” candidate running against him, Bill Hudak, who thought President Obama was a Kenyan Muslim terrorist, or something…

That’s why a lot of people have taken former State Senator and Lt. Governor nominee Richard Tisei, who’s challenging Congressman Tierney in the upcoming election, seriously. Because he’s a “moderate” and “reasonable” Republican.

Well, Richard Tisei wanted to take a break from the rest of his busy day to inform everyone he’s officially joined the lunatic fringe:

“Requiring employees who work for the church to carry insurance that reimburses for things that are against the teachings of the church just shows how big and intrusive government has become,” Tisei said, adding, “With all the problems facing the country, I don’t understand why the Obama administration has made this a priority.”

I’ll be waiting for him to speak out about how he thinks nonprofits affiliated with Jehovah Witnesses should be able to ban blood transfusions, Scientologists should be able to ban depression meds and Christian Scientists should be able to ban… the practice of medicine.

The good news is Congressman Tierney’s staff had a far more rational position:

“As our middle class families continue to struggle to make ends meet, it is critical that they are able to afford basic health care, such as contraception, regardless of which hospital or university employs them.”

I’m glad to see Richard Tisei wants to take the Tea Party approach toward victory as Bill Hudak did before him, instead of the much more rational path of fellow New England Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. It’s good to know Tisei hasn’t learned anything from his epic defeat in the 2010 Governor’s race.

Most of all, I’m glad Tisei’s outing himself as a Tea Party conservative now, so he won’t be able to fool the public later — and that he’s giving some great reasons for people to get behind Congressman Tierney.

A big part of the reason, I suspect, is that Brown has done more than almost any other person in America to delay and water down our economic recovery, from supporting GOP efforts to continue the economic policies of the Bush administration that produced the 2008 economic collapse to advocating tax breaks for the rich while denying investment to more productive parts of the economy. He is the GOP point guard, and he has played his position skillfully.

At the same time, he has shown a keen eye for the main chance: keeping his name in the newspapers  — I saw Osama bin Laden dead, and I’m going to “do some missions” in Afghanistan — and reaping the rewards: a $700,000 book advance. Celebrity does not mean Senator.

If past GOP practice in Massachusetts is any guide, look for negative attacks and dirty tricks like the “Crazy Khazei” Twitter smear mounted by a top Brown lieutenant, or the “Inmates for Deval” program in which Kerry Healey’s campaign sent men dressed in jumpsuits to stake out the home of Democratic Party Chair John Walsh (succeeding in frightening his 12-year old).

Brown has an overwhelming financial advantage. Warren remains the underdog so long as it persists. He is an exceptionally able professional politician, and will use his wealth to maximum effect.

Talking Points Memo has a nifty graph showing the polling history on Warren v. Brown. (I can’t get the embed to work.) Warren is up by 3 points in the latest WBUR poll.

Gotta believe that the news is even better for Warren, as she’ll be downticket of Obama, who will undoubtedly win Massachusetts by 15%, if not the 21.3% margin he had over McCain in 2008. What’s that worth? Another 3%?

Governor Mitt Romney has installed his most prominent aide, Eric Fehrnstrom, as the state appointee on the Brookline Housing Authority, a move that will allow Fehrnstrom to qualify for a state pension when he reaches retirement age. Fehrnstrom, who earns close to $160,000 and is scheduled to leave his state job Jan. 4, would have been nearly two years short of the decade of service required of state employees to vest in the pension system. The five-year housing authority term will allow Fehrnstrom, the governor’s communications director, to exceed the 10-year threshold and be vested.

Editor Lawrence Harmon says:

“But politics is a game of addition in the Patrick administration, which adheres to the core Democratic belief that a job for a politically wired candidate today will lead to an important campaign alliance or policy victory down the road.”

AS OPPOSED TO

“John Moffitt served as chief secretary for former Republican Governor William Weld during the early 1990s. He, too, was in charge of major personnel appointments and patronage. But he took a different view of the job. ‘I saw my role as a goalie for a hockey team – keep pucks out of the net,’ said Moffitt.”

Anyone with an intact memory must have gotten a huge belly laugh out of the Moffitt quote considering back in ’96 he wasn’t stopping pucks, he was the GOP’s patronage high scorer! Case in point: On his way out the door, Weld ‘eliminated’ the position of Susan Costello (GOP activist, Weld ally and Assistant Secretary of Human Services) two days after she reached 20 years in the state system.  As a result of her ‘elimination’ and 20 year employment the 42 year old Costello received a state pension, which I’m sure came in very handy in supplementing her pay in her next job with a lobbying firm headed by none other than – you guessed it! - Weld’s pal and former patronage chief, John Moffit. Same John Moffitt who memory challenged Larry Harmon wants us to canonize now.

I am very concerned about Larry Harmon’s memory. They say hindsight is 20/20 but it appears that Larry’s political memory has gone off the tracks and become very weak and purposefully selective.

BMGers! Let’s help Larry fill in the GOP political patronage gaps that he is for whatever reason missing:

.  District Court Judge Douglas Stoddart – former Republican state rep.  (Appointed by GOP Gov Weld or Cellucci).

.  District Court Judge Robert Howarth – former Republican state rep.  (Appointed by Weld).

.  District Court Judge David Locke, Jr. - son of Senate Minority Leader David Locke, Sr. and brother of Republican state rep John Locke (Cellucci)

.  Jeffrey Locke – appointed Norfolk DA after Delahunt elected to Congress.  And, OMG what a coincidence, another son of the Senate Minority Leader and brother of the state rep!! (Weld)

.  William Constantino – Republican state rep and non-lawyer appointed as a Dept. of Industrial Accident judge (Weld)

.  Greg White – failed Republican candidate for Worcester County DA, appointed a DIA judge by Romney (though he had no experience in workers comp or industrial accident cases)

.  The Massport crew:

.      Jane Swift – no experience in aeronautics (the helicopter flight came years later)

.      Peter Blute – need I say anything? Refer all calls to Sandy Tennant in the marina.

.      Stephen Tocco, former Deputy COS - I guess the airport needed a pharmacist

.      Joseph Lawless, (Weld driver / trooper)

.      Charlotte Amorello – Matt Amorello’s then-wife

.       Bob Marsh, former Republican state rep appointed to Massport Board (I think by Romney).  Completely impossible that a Republican would make an appointment to influence patronage though.  In Harmon’s world, that is the rule for Dem’s board appointments but apparently not Repubs.

.  Mitch Adams – Weld’s college roommate was at MTC making some $300k plus or minus for years.  Protected by Republican appointed board and impossible to fire until a second Democratic term (due to length of board appointments).  Definitely not a hack though, because he went to Haahvaahd.

.  Peter Torkildson – appointed by Romney as exec director of the Mass. Workforce Investment Board.

.  Dan Winslow – seen today as rising political star , experienced judge, etc.  But when Weld appointed him to the District Court, he had minimal experience and just happened to be the young legal counsel to the state GOP

.  Matt Amorello – MassHighway and Mass Turnpike

.  SJC Justice Bob Cordy – Weld’s former general counsel, with no previous judicial experience.

MDC Commissioner David Balfour who took creating and fulfillng patronage jobs to new levels

State Treasurer Joe Malone, don’t even know where to begin with his operation! Not enough bandwidth on this site!

These are just a handful of examples from over the years, but I am sure BMGers with sharper memories than Editor Harmon can think of the many others from GOP state committee members, donors, etc.

Truth be told (but not so much lately in the Globe), most Republicans appointed to or recommended for state positions were qualified for the positions, as are most Democratic appointees. But the double standard the Globe is applying is blatant, offensive and absolutely ludicrous. Why is it okay and appropriate for GOP leaders and office holders to have their team in place (through patronage appointments) to move state government forward, but nothing short of ‘hackerama’ for the Dems to do the exact same?

BMGers, HELP ME HELP LARRY! EDITOR HARMON NEEDS OUR ASSISTANCE TO RESTORE HIS MEMORY! (and some of the Globe’s credibility that is being squandered of late)

Share whatever you can…every little bit helps when dealing with this serious condition…

Just imagine for a moment what an ecologically dirty project like Keystone would look like from out there in space.  Not who stands to make money, but the planet itself.

Lobbyists can and DO work full time and overtime to advance the causes of their paymasters.  That is simply what they do.  According to www.keystone.org there is stealth legislation moving silently in the United States Senate to do just this – an end run against President Obama, an end run against the indigenous peoples who are fighting the Keystone Pipeline, and the 1000+ people who were arrested in this cause.  To sign an online petition against the Keystone Pipeline go to:  http://act.350.org/sign/kxl/

Further, there is now ALEC – the American Legislative Exchange Counsel writing legislation, with a large staff funded by corporate and plutocratic interests to do this full time, and then pitch and fund PACs for elected officials, and wine and dine staff so that the legislation written by ALEC is filed in state legislatures all over the country “as if” a legislator wrote it advancing the agenda of the Neo Robber Barons of this new gilded age,  The 1% has weapons and resources that dwarf any individual, and only an alert, educated and united population will protect the future well-being of coming generations.  Great editorial about this see The Big Money Behind State Laws.  While I hope that OUR state legislators write their own legislation and are not pitching for ALEC, with 8000+ bills filed, it is hard for an outsider with limited time to monitor.

As to the current push to bring back Keystone and make it happen, for sure, that is the goal of big money and its paid minions out there.  Stand up!  Fight back!  Don’t let this ecological disaster sneak by.

Individuals like the Koch brothers who seem to believe anything they believe is right and must happen.  Big money oil firms we subsidize simply buy what they want – including subsidies while as a country we allow a 43% poverty rate in neighborhoods like Dorchester.  It is impossible to fight this economic hydra of concentrated wealth without a conscience on all fronts – but lets make as big a pushback on the dirty oil Keystone project as we can.

MBTA officials have unleashed a tsunami. State leaders had better be listening or they will be swept up by the wave.

It’s almost unheard of — standing room only at public hearings. Yet that’s what is happening at location after location across eastern Massachusetts as transit officials bring their proposal for fare hikes and service cuts out for a test drive.

… Frankly, I don’t think Transportation Secretary Richard Davey is ignoring them: he is playing them like a violin, orchestrating the furor into a crescendo that will force Patrick and lawmakers to act.

And Davey’s the guy to do it. He’s new, young, politically clean and unscathed. He’s the one to point out the dire consequences of past inaction. We can continue the T’s death spiral, or pull out of it with heroic action.

As truncated in OL’s post, DeLeo’s comment that “Right now, I feel like a solution is really a T issue rather than a legislative issue” seems a bit more cavalier than he wanted to sound — more context here — but they don’t quite reflect the level of anxiety and fury that the public feels. I’m pretty confident, though, that Patrick, Terry Murray, and a critical mass of legislators are feeling the urgency of the moment.

There will be a variety of workable ideas to emerge from the legislature or relevant interested parties, think tanks, and the public. The hard part, as I continue to see it, will be ensuring that legislators have political cover and public support to vote for a bold, real solution. They didn’t have it for the gas tax a couple of years ago. They’ll need it this time.

Keep it up!