Soaking the Poor, State by State | Mother Jones.

This is dumb. And wrong. As we know, in Massachusetts a progressive income tax is in fact prohibited by our constitution, although there may be some loopholes/workarounds to that.

A progressive income tax has been on the BMG agenda for years now. It would minimize the pain caused by revenue increases needed to stabilize the MBTA, for instance. In other words, a gas tax hike causes more actual quality-of-life-changing deprivation than would a slight progressive income tax tweak.

Conservatives frame progressive taxation as “punishing success” or “class warfare”. That’s silly, and a red herring, in that it proposes an “evil” intent behind the idea of progressive taxation — without actually demonstrating how it would be bad. Progressive taxation makes necessary public investments possible, while minimizing the actual human cost of raising the money. I strongly suspect that much anti-tax feeling among the non-rich is precisely the result of regressive taxation.

These public investments — infrastructure, education, health, justice — make broad-based prosperity possible, just as they also enable and make possible enormous private prosperity. If you’re going to get rich selling stuff, you need someone with the means to buy it.

We tax in a dumb way which causes more pain than it should. We should stop doing that.

What a disaster. The Komen Foundation backed down today from its decision earlier this week to join God’s Army, rename itself Pray for the Cure, and defund Planned Parenthood. NYT: “The reversal comes in the face of an enormous furor over the decision and widespread complaints that the Komen foundation was tying breast cancer to the abortion issue.”

But the damage to its reputation may be irreparable. First, attention has focused on its religious right Board members who remade the organization into a right-wing political campaigner. Nation:

Because while you were shaking your head over pink Bibles and stem-cell futurology, Komen was hiring Karen Handel as senior vice president for public policy. Handel is not your typical philanthropy administrator. She is a Republican pol, a former Georgia secretary of state, who ran in the 2010 gubernatorial primary, with endorsements from Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and anti-immigrant finger-pointing Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. At that time she described herself as “staunchly and unequivocally pro-life,” opposed to stem cell research and a fan of crisis pregnancy centers—places that have repeatedly been shown to use scare tactics and misinformation to dissuade women from seeking abortions. She vowed to eliminate from the state budget pass-through grants to Planned Parenthood for breast and cervical cancer screenings.

More here from Democracy Now!

Second, with impeccable timing comes Pink Ribbons, Inc., which argues that money, not health, may be even more fundamental to the group’s agenda than GOP talking points:

Komen should have stuck to fighting breast cancer rather than fighting against the right of women to control their own bodies.

Onion:

MIAMI—At a hastily assembled press conference Tuesday, presidential candidate Mitt Romney reached out to the nation’s Hispanics, asking if they would please return the watch he had left on his dresser earlier. “As I stand before you today, I wish to issue an appeal to my Hispanic friends all across this great land of ours: Please do the right thing and give me back my property,” said Romney, adding that while he didn’t want to accuse the nation’s 21.7 million registered Hispanic voters of stealing the watch, he was certain that no one in his family stole it, and that watches don’t just walk off by themselves. “I pledge to every single Hispanic-American—whether you came here from Mexico to start a new life for your family or fled the brutality of Castro’s Cuba—that if my watch is put back in its rightful place in the next two hours, I will consider the matter closed and no one will be the wiser.” With the watch still not returned at press time, Romney begged the nation’s Hispanics, “Please don’t make me call the—how do you say it? El policío? La policía? The appropriate authorities.”

Daniel Kurtzman:

“Mitt Romney is getting some heat today for something he said on CNN. He said he’s not concerned about the very poor. I’m pretty sure you’re not supposed to say that out loud. Romney said the quote was taken out of context. And that he absolutely cares about the poor. In fact, his campaign bus runs on the tears of the poor.” –Jimmy Kimmel

“To be fair, to Mitt Romney the ‘very poor’ means anyone who doesn’t use a solid gold toilet.” –Craig Ferguson

‎”Mitt didn’t just beat Newt Gingrich, he stomped him by a devastating 14 percent margin. Fourteen percent! That is higher than Mitt’s tax rate.” –Stephen Colbert

“Newt Gingrich is not conceding Florida. He said that Florida has made it clear that this is a two-person race. Yeah, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.” –Jay Leno

“Mitt Romney’s campaign will start getting Secret Service protection this week. That’s just to protect him from Newt Gingrich.” –Jay Leno

“After he wowed the crowd at the Apollo Theater with his singing voice, producers at ‘American Idol’ have invited President Obama to sing on their show this season. Not to be outdone, Ron Paul’s book will be appraised on the next edition of ‘Antiques Roadshow.’” –Jay Leno

“Studies are showing that Republican candidates are buying a lot of their ad time on the Weather Channel. You can tell because last night, the weatherman blamed the cold front on immigration and gay marriage.” –Conan O’Brien

“I don’t know whether Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich won but we do know one thing for certain: tomorrow both of them can go back to ignoring Latinos.” –Stephen Colbert

“Ron Paul was not in Florida, he was campaigning up in Maine. They think he was afraid that if he went to Florida, they’d grab him and put him in an old folks home.” –Jay Leno

“Look at that (image of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s finger in Obama’s face). Right to the President of the United States. Now, Jan Brewer says she regrets the confrontation, but these are the kind of problems that arise when we permit negroes to read.” –Bill Maher

“Yes, Mitt finally released his tax returns for one year. It turns out he keeps a lot of his money in the Cayman Islands, in Bermuda, Luxemburg, a Swiss bank account. And he said he’s not trying to evade paying taxes by keeping his money in these places. That’s like saying I got caught with meth and crack, but it wasn’t because I was trying to get high.” –Bill Maher

The indictment rumors have gone crazy. I heard a new name the other day that really blew me out of the water.

I’d bet they come down Tuesday or Wednesday. Tuesday if the Pats lose. Wednesday if they win.

When that happens I hope the good journalists break down the case against each defendant so we the people can see if there are any bullshit cases against certain individuals. The indictments should show some real graft but I also expect some over-reaching charges based on the honest services law. Odds are good we will see a good fact pattern to test the law on appeal. (Unlike Sal’s)

The particulars of each case should be interesting. I can’t wait to read them.

I also can’t wait to see how the roster of defendants and lawyers shapes up. Who will be representing whom? Who will be tried together? How will the feds witnesses hold up under multiple cross-examninations by experienced criminal trial lawyers. Of course theres should be some pleas, but we should see a trial or two before all is done.

Many of the witnesses will be people who just wanted jobs they were qualified for testifying against the politician who made the phone call. Along the way there may have been a campaign contribution. How is this different from the Governor appointing judges or getting appointees to quasi-public agencies to do his bidding with the implicit understanding that to not do so jeopardizes agency funding (or worse, extinction) and re-appointment to the board?

As this thing goes along a number of back room scenarios will be showcased. When it does lets be fair and give each case a fair look and not lump the stupid or the soon to be extinct “old-school” in with the thieves.

Because I do expect there to be some real indictments involving real pay-offs?

——

Half-Man George Regan, the p.r. guru and former Kevin White press flack who told Ernie Boch, Jr to offer the mizerly reward he did to out me so “Howie Carr could terrorize [me] on his radio show everyday”, was at his finest on the Emily Rooney Show the other evening with Lowell Sun columnist Peter Lucas.

According to witnesses and press reports Emily asked them both about the famous Herald headline declaring Kevin White would seek re-election. That evening White announced he was retiring. White has never denied misleading Peter Lucas, the Herald reporter who is credited with the gaffe. In fact, over the years White indicated when asked that he played Lucas on that one.

Good laugh by all. Including Lucas as the years went by.

So annnnnnywaaay. Lucas and Regan are together on the Rooney show when this brought up. Lucas first gives his stock good spirited answer. The Half-Man however went berzerk and made up facts about Lucas job situation at the time and accused him of lying about White’s role.

His antics resulted in the spot being un-airable and a re-take was necessary after everyone calmed down. Lucas was begged to stay by the producers because they were really up against the clock and were in a bind. Lucas didn’t want to screw them so he stayed for the re-do. So did the Half-Man.

Thanks for this gift Half-Man. In return allow me to offer you some unsolicited advice.

Stay behind the scenes!!!

——–

Speaking of advice.

Hey Boston Globe! Really dudes, don’t you get it? Stick to sports, gossip, and pulitzer prize chasing. But please stay away from the big time.

The I-wouldn’t-join-a-club-that-would-accept-me-rule applies. Or, I would never pay Don King with my family’s wealth in return for the rights Michael Jackson’s merchandize. Why? Because Don chose me to do the deal indicates it’s a bad deal. (for you newbies this how the Sullivan family lost ownership of the New England Patriots)

Likewise the Boston Globe should never attempt an investigative piece on any subject outside 495. The rest is New York Times territory. Papa Bear to the Globe’s Baby Bear. If the Times doesn’t want it than it must be a piece of shit.

Case in point is the recent re-traction the Globe had to make for possibly defaming former Liberian mass murdering, human rights violator, and international war criminal Charles Taylor. This was on the threat of law suit. The dictator bagged the Globe for sloppy journalism or worse.

How fucking funny is that. Really dudes. I love your obituaries and your sports. But we all know you’re not what you used to be.

Oh, and Papa Bear is not your real father. He just moved in on Mama Bear after your real father left. He’s an abusive step father. Came in and right away cut your allowance and got rid of some siblings.

Did the Times set the Globe up on this? When was the last time the Globe investigated C.I.A. connections with despots? Why didn’t the Times handle this one?

Really Globe, Stick to what you know best. Stick to fish mislabeling stories? There maybe a Pulitzer in it.

But frankly scallop I don’t give a clam.

–

Too many people have questioned why I don’t tweet anything but links to my posts.

Well, it’s like this. Under the terms of my contract with Charley, Bob, and David BMG has exclusive rights to my work. Unlike Howie Carr I honor my contracts.

My policy has also been to refuse to discuss post-BMG contracts with anyone until my contract runs out. I need to concentrate on this season and not let contract talk get in the way. (that is what my agent told me to say)

——–

Is there anything more pathetic than “sports journalists” at the Super Bowl. Watching them interview the athletes with the eyes and smiles of sixth graders is sometimes painful. But hey, whatever gets you the girls I guess.

But really guys, whatever happened to self-respect?

Now, I’m no sports professional, but it sure seems to me that if the Giants lose, Rudy Giuliani should have to wear a Red Sox hat to a Yankees-Red Sox game.  So this “wager” seems exactly backward. #FAIL

This gaffe might not be quite in the Coakley/Schilling league, but it’s yet another sloppy mistake in a race where Brown is going to have to bring his “A” game to have a chance.

UPDATE: Sure enough, it was a boo-boo.  Here’s the latest:

Meant that Rudy will wear Sox hat to Fenway when Giants lose! Even better!

Great!  Glad we’ve clarified that!  Why are we ending all our sentences with exclamation points!

Stop me if you’ve already heard this ad, but really? Really? Listen for yourself here: http://www.youtube.com/user/scottbrownma#p/u/1/l2Zxa-107Q4

Sen Brown’s campaign spends thousands, if not more, on a full minute spot where he talks about great moments in New England sports history and gives a shout out to the Patriots for their Super Bowl appearance. You have got to be kidding me! If I was one of his financial supporters, I’d be asking for my money back right now.

This ad highlights several things. First, Senator Brown has plenty of money to spend. Second, he has nothing to say on the issues important to residents of Massachusetts. If he did, he wouldn’t waste money on ads like this and he’d commit to participating in town halls. Whoever is responsible for generating this ad should be sent packing. Finally, for me, it indicates some key differences between Sen. Brown and his likely opponent Elizabeth Warren. In November you can vote for a man who will talk with you about his passion for sports or a woman who will talk with you about her passion for fighting to save the middle class. You can vote for a man who’s raised millions from Wall Street while gutting financial reforms in the Senate or a woman who worked and fought hard developing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. My vote is for Elizabeth Warren, the candidate fighting for all of us.

Scott Brown’s reelection campaign reads a lot like Macbeth:

“Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”

The case of Arthur Winn is the latest example of everything that’s wrong with money in politics.

I’m sure most readers of this learned blog have heard of Arthur Winn — but to recap — Winn spent the better part of the last decade soliciting public and private funds and working to gain approval of a sprawling complex that was to be built upon “the air rights” above a section of the Mass Pike in between the Back Bay and the South End.

Everything was going according to plan, but when the real estate and credit markets tanked in 2007, the project fell through…

After the dust settled, Winn was charged with using “strawmen” to bribe all of our local political leaders — according to court records, he “reimbursed relatives he convinced to donate to his favored candidates, thus hiding the true source of the money.”

The list of local politicians that accepted Winn’s bribes is long and illustrious: Rep. Mike Capuano, Rep. Steven Lynch, former Governor Mitt Romney, Governor Deval Patrick, Senator John Kerry, Mayor Thomas Menino, Rep. Edward Markey, and state senator Dianne Wilkerson, just to name a few.

For his criminal efforts, Winn managed to secure over $60,000,000.00 in state and federal aid, and he was asking for lots more when the bubble finally burst!

Yesterday, at his “sentencing” hearing — the Prosecution asked that Winn be sent to jail for six months, for crimes that were “an affront to our democratic system” — but the federal judge ruled that Winn should not go to jail.

I would have been satisfied if he went to jail for six weeks.  Heck, I would have been satisfied with six days.  Anything to demonstrate that we take our democratic process somewhat seriously!

But, no.  Instead, Winn will pay $100,000 in fines and walk free.  Tonight we posted this item on the Occupy Boston facebook page — and one keen observer noted: “that’s just the cost of doing business.”  I found that comment to be particularly ironic in light of the fact that yesterday, the Boston Globe broke this story not on the front page, not in the news section, not in the politics section, not even in the crime blotter, but rather, they broke it in the “Business Journal” section.

For Winn, that fine is no problem.  “You can be sure it will be paid promptly,” Winn’s attorney told the judge.

Why does our media focus so much on the G.O.P. dog-and-pony show down in the state of Florida, when democracy itself is being bought and sold right here in our back yard?

Yesterday’s reporting offered no clue as to where Attorney General Martha Coakley’s investigation stands.  Back in October, the Globe reported that Coakley was “looking into it.”  Is the plan to wait until the statue of limitations expires completely?  Or is there a conflict of interest when a politically-charged official such as the Attorney General is responsible for investigating wholesale corruption of the entire Massachusetts political establishment?

Yesterday’s case was in federal court and only pertained to Winn’s bribery of United States Reps. Mike Capuano and Steven Lynch; Winn has yet to be prosecuted for bribing state-level officials (although he’s admitted to doing that…)

Moreover, I am interested in the fact that the lead law firm on the Winn development — Goulston & Storrs — is also a major contributor to local politicians such as Rep. Mike Capuano and Sen. John Kerry.  I haven’t seen that connection noted anywhere else, but a Coffee-Party friend recently provided this link with more background into Winn’s overall lobbying effort.

For me, the most troubling part of all of this is how Winn’s defense attorney explained why Winn should not be blamed: “Arthur did not know…the fact that what he was doing could have just as easily been accomplished legally had he known someone who knew how to navigate the system.”

In other words, Winn’s position is: there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with purchasing support from every politician in town and securing tens of millions of dollars in public money for your crazy project, as long as you hire someone to walk you through the legal technicalities of corrupting our democratic system.

Komen says the key reason is that Planned Parenthood is under investigation in Congress – a probe launched by a conservative Republican who was urged to act by anti-abortion groups. Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun said the charity recently adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities.

So much for innocent until proven guilty. In its rush to judgment, Komen has aligned itself with the religious right. Unfortunately, as Patrick Hurd, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Virginia, noted in the context of his wife Betsi’s struggles with breast cancer:

“It sounds almost trite, going through this with Betsi, but cancer doesn’t care if you’re pro-choice, anti-choice, progressive, conservative,” Hurd said. “Victims of cancer could care less about people’s politics.”

No more Race for the Cure events for me. I want my effort and my money to go to science and fighting cancer, not political grandstanding and religious extremism.

Interestingly, the Massachusetts affiliate of the national Foundation has posted a sort of pathetic attempt to backpedal and distance itself from its new commitment to religious fundamentalism national parent:

This decision on granting strategy and performance criteria was made on a national level and we at the Massachusetts Affiliate are not part of these overarching decisions. … We pride ourselves on evidence and outcomes-based programming … Currently, Planned Parenthood is not a grantee of the Affiliate and no funding for vital services in Massachusetts has been halted. … We hope that you will continue to work with our organization.

Not me. If the worthy members of the Massachusetts chapter of the Komen Foundation mean what they say about “evidence and outcomes-based programming,” they should withdraw from the national group (or get them to reverse their decision). I’d urge participants in the upcoming Chefs for a Cure event to withdraw from the politicized event, and use their time and energy to fight cancer, not endorse the religious right. Next time you visit One Bistro, Finale, Myers & Chang, Taranta, Union Bar and Grill or Gaslight ask them why they are supporting this politicized group. There are lots of other ways to work to end cancer. For example, here is a list of Relay for Life events by the American Cancer Society in Massachusetts, and here is a link to the local Ellie Fund.

Frank Rich has a new article about Mitt Romney in the January 29th issue of New York Magazine. It’s entitled, “Who in God’s Name is Mitt Romney?” The theme of the article, that Romney is missing a “human core,” is reinforced in the artwork:

To our overflowing store of examples of Romney’s disengagement — calling Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey “Sherry Healey,” for example — Rich adds more: that a business colleague once nicknamed Romney “Tin Man” because of his inability to connect, that many people who have worked with him regard him as “a man who sometimes seems to be looking not into your eyes but past them” and that, among members of the Massachusetts legislature, he was notorious for having no idea what their names were.

Apparently, one of those lawmakers whose name Mitt had no clue about was State Representative Scott Brown. The Herald Column from May 25, 2003 ($), excerpted below, recounts a time during Mitt’s tenure as Governor when he failed to recognize Scott, then one of 24 Republicans in the House, at a Boston fundraiser. Scott says that Mitt apologized for the slight, both immediately and afterwards. Mitt says he knew all along that it was Scott and was just teasing him for not showing up for regular meetings.

POLS & POLITICS

Word around the hallowed State House halls last week was that Romney had really ticked off one in his small band of Republican friends: GOP state Rep. Scott Brown of Wrentham.

As the story goes, Brown approached Romney at a May 8 fund-raiser at Bakey’s, a restaurant downtown. Romney apparently caught that Brown is a rep and made a near-fatal assumption.

“We’ll have to get you over to our side one of these days,” Romney reportedly said.

When a friend reminded Romney that Brown is, indeed, a Republican, the governor blanched – and quickly apologized.

“It was one of those brain fart-type things; we both laughed after it,” Brown said last week.

“Hey, we had met each other many times – the state convention, in his office. At his swearing-in, my daughter sang ‘God Bless America’ for him and was first to meet him at the door to the State House. For whatever reason, it just didn’t click.”

Brown said the two have joked about it since and that Romney sent a “nice note” apologizing for the gaffe.

Interestingly, Romney’s peeps tell another story.

“Of course the governor knows who Scott Brown is,” said Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman. “The comment was a humorous dig at the rep, who hasn’t been showing up to the regular meetings the governor holds with Republican legislators.”

Feddeman said Brown apparently “took it the wrong way.”

Now, nine years later, when they’re both national celebrities, things almost certainly have been patched up. Still, it’s a little hard not to wonder who was right. I’m betting on Scott, but if Eric Fehrnstrom has anything to say about it, we’ll never know.

The truth may remain a mystery, but at least now we know that Mitt Romney farts. With his brain.

Romney      775,015      46%
Gingrich      533,118      32%
Santorum    222,799      13%
Paul             117,105      7%

What wrong with these people below? Do they even read the paper to find out their candidates aren’t even running anymore?

Perry           6,768
Huntsman   6,198
Bachmann  3,959
Cain            3,492

One of the biggest problems with Washington is that it’s rigged for those who’ve already made it, like successful corporations and billionaires, instead of small businesses and the middle class. I’m all for people succeeding and becoming millionaires, but everybody willing to work hard ought to have a fair shot at it. And once they make it, they ought to pay their fair share to help the folks behind them get ahead.

This is one of the places where Scott Brown and I see things differently.

Just last week, Scott Brown said in an interview that he thinks Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett should get special tax breaks that are not available to most Americans. I don’t think that’s fair.

Senator Brown opposes what’s called the Buffett Rule, which would get rid of the special tax breaks that allow a billionaire like Warren Buffett to pay taxes at a lower rate than his secretary. President Obama, in his State of the Union speech, called on Congress to enact the Buffett rule to require people making more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent in taxes. Senator Brown told a newspaper that higher taxes would hurt millionaires.

People in Massachusetts tell me all the time that it’s pretty obvious what’s wrong with Washington. “We work harder than ever, but it’s harder than ever to get ahead. Instead of helping us, Washington helps the big guys.” They are right.

Look at the tax laws. Huge corporations like GE can pay zero in taxes, while small businesses and working families suffer. How did that happen? The lobbyists that represent large corporations have fought for twists, turns, and complications that will let their clients off the hook, and their friends in Congress have gone right along. Things are so out of control that a recent report (highlighted on BMG) found that 30 corporations pay more for lobbyists than they pay in federal taxes. I think that’s wrong.

Lately, Senator Brown has been telling the people of Massachusetts that we don’t understand Mitt Romney’s tax bracket. No, we understand. Mitt Romney pays 14 percent of his income in taxes. Many people who work for a living pay 25, 28, 33 percent of their hard-earned dollars. Mitt Romney gets a better deal because he earns his income in a way that has been specially protected in the tax code to help people like him.

This isn’t the first time Senator Brown has been more concerned with protecting millionaires than helping working families. Just last fall, Brown opposed three jobs bills that would have made a big difference in Massachusetts. The first could have supported 22,000 jobs in the Commonwealth. The second would have prevented layoffs of teachers, firefighters, and police officers. The third would have supported 11,000 jobs rebuilding roads, bridges and other infrastructure. Each bill would have been paid for with a small tax on people making more than one million dollars a year. Senator Brown and every other Republican voted against those jobs.

This isn’t about criticizing people for making a lot of money. This is about basic fairness, and it is about our values. Do we really believe that we should protect tax breaks for those who have already made it while we tell our children to take on more debt to get an education or tell our seniors that they will have to get by on less?

I think that’s wrong and that Washington – and Senator Brown – don’t get it.

Reporter Hunter Walker in Politicker:

Mitt Romney may not have told the whole truth about the scandalous tale of his Irish Setter, Seamus, being strapped to the roof of his car during a 12-hour family road trip to Canada. According to a trusted Politicker tipster, two of Mr. Romney’s sons had an off-record conversation with reporters where they revealed the dog ran away when they reached their destination on that infamous journey in 1983.

Mr. Romney’s wife, Ann, has previously said Seamus survived the trip and went on to live to a “ripe old age.” As of this writing, Mr. Romney’s campaign has not responded to multiple requests for comment on this story.

The article also does a nice job of reviewing the various ways in which this story has dribbled down into the national consciousness:

The Globe initially presented the story as an example of Mr. Romney’s “emotion-free crisis management,” but the incident has enraged many animal lovers and caused many issues on the campaign trail. Seamus inspired an attack ad from Mr. Romney’s Republican rival Newt Gingrich, a “Google bomb” coining “Romney” as a verb meaning “to defecate in terror,” a mocking Tweet from President Barack Obama’s advisor, David Axelrod, and, of course, an angry statement from PETA.

Meanwhile, as noted earlier on this page, millions believe the man’s first name is “Mittens.” Dino Grandoni in The Atlantic on 3 January:

Quick: What’s Mitt Romney’s real first name? (No Googling!) If you didn’t guess “Willard,” you’re in the same boat as 94 percent of America that somehow still doesn’t know all that much about a guy who’s been running for president for five years. According a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll, a 20 percent plurality of us thought that “Mitt” was his real name and not a glove-like nickname. 18 percent said “Mitchell”; 8 percent, Milton; and only 6 percent correctly said “Willard.” But the most important stat from the survey is that somehow, in some way, 2 percent of real-life adult voting Americans believe that his name is “Mittens.”

You’re probably at least somewhat aware, but I’d like to quote the MBTA’s “Scenario #2″ for proposed bus cuts that would spare a large fare increase:

Bus Route Reductions: Eliminate Routes (all days): 4, 5, 14, 18, 27, 29, 33, 37, 38, 40, 43, 45, 48, 50, 51, 52, 55, 59, 60, 62, 64, 67, 68, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 85, 90, 92, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 105, 106, 108, 112, 119, 120, 121, 131, 132, 136, 137, 170, 171, 201, 202, 210, 211, 212, 215, 217, 230, 236, 238, 240, 245, 275, 276, 277, 325, 326, 350, 351, 352, 354, 355, 411, 424, 428, 429, 430, 431, 434, 435, 436, 439, 441, 448, 449, 451, 456, 459, 465, 468, 500, 501, 502, 503, 505, 553, 554, 555, 556, 558, CT3

Uh, right. So we have communities all over Greater Boston that have grown up predicated on the availability of public transportation, and now we take those away.

Nutty.

So this won’t work. And if people don’t want big fare increases, then that means the money has to come from someplace else. The Governor and legislature have actually done a good job laying some of the ground work, addressing some issues of accountability in restructuring the transportation bureaucracy and ending some obvious and expensive abuses, like 23-and-out. T

The gas tax plan didn’t fly last time … and predictably, the MBTA’s woes didn’t vanish simply because the legislature ignored them.

So what’s the plan now? For us, now’s a good time to have a talk with our elected reps at the State House: 617-722-2000. They need to know from us, as they’re hearing from the cities n’ towns, that a long-term fix is needed, and that there’s support and political cover for such.

Sorry about the pun, but I can’t resist.

The GOP now strives to lionize Steve Jobs, spawning another round of lies to prop up their failed dogma. The lie goes something like “Steve Jobs created more jobs than President Obama’s stimulus package” (the version told by Mitch Daniels) or “Apple should reaffirm for us that American innovation is alive and kicking…Naturally, President Obama has a plan: punish them.” (John Sununu, today’s Globe).

The GOP would like to cast Steve Jobs as a “job creator”. Being dead, the late Mr. Jobs is not in a position to rebut the castle of lies the GOP is attempting to construct on his barely-cold body (unless spinning in the grave counts). One awkward truth is that Steve Jobs and Apple was famously and passionately anti-political. Another is that when Steve Jobs did contribute, he gave to Democrats. He gave $50,000 to the Democratic National Committee in 2000, and $26,700 to the DCCC in 2006 (IEEE Spectrum: In the Politics of Innovation, Steve Jobs Shows Less Is More). He appointed Al Gore as an Apple director, and yanked Apple out of the United States Chamber of Commerce in response to the flagrant denialism of that body.

The more profound truth about the “Steve Jobs as Job Creator” lie is that the overwhelming majority of the jobs he created were in China. Apple has created about 43,000 jobs in America. Apple has created about 700,000 jobs in China. That’s more than 16 to 1, and it exemplifies the downward spiral that the isolationist go-it-alone entrepreneur, so loved by the GOP, creates.

Paul Krugman, in yet another marvelous piece from last week, eloquently both paints the lie and spells out the superior alternative (emphasis mine):

The point is that successful companies — or, at any rate, companies that make a large contribution to a nation’s economy — don’t exist in isolation. Prosperity depends on the synergy between companies, on the cluster, not the individual entrepreneur.

But the current Republican worldview has no room for such considerations. From the G.O.P.’s perspective, it’s all about the heroic entrepreneur, the John Galt, I mean Steve Jobs-type “job creator” who showers benefits on the rest of us and who must, of course, be rewarded with tax rates lower than those paid by many middle-class workers.

And this vision helps explain why Republicans were so furiously opposed to the single most successful policy initiative of recent years: the auto industry bailout.

The case for this bailout — which Mr. Daniels has denounced as “crony capitalism” — rested crucially on the notion that the survival of any one firm in the industry depended on the survival of the broader industry “ecology” created by the cluster of producers and suppliers in America’s industrial heartland. If G.M. and Chrysler had been allowed to go under, they would probably have taken much of the supply chain with them — and Ford would have gone the same way.

Fortunately, the Obama administration didn’t let that happen, and the unemployment rate in Michigan, which hit 14.1 percent as the bailout was going into effect, is now down to a still-terrible-but-much-better 9.3 percent. And the details aside, much of Mr. Obama’s State of the Union address can be read as an attempt to apply the lessons of that success more broadly.

So we should be grateful to Mr. Daniels for his remarks Tuesday. He got his facts wrong, but he did, unintentionally, manage to highlight an important philosophical difference between the parties. One side believes that economies succeed solely thanks to heroic entrepreneurs; the other has nothing against entrepreneurs, but believes that entrepreneurs need a supportive environment, and that sometimes government has to help create or sustain that supportive environment.

And the view that it takes more than business heroes is the one that fits the facts.

“Got his facts wrong” indeed — Mr. Krugman is too polite to call Mitch Daniels a liar. The GOP adds yet another lie to its already overweight baggage. If our political lie-detectors were as widespread as our airport metal detectors, the GOP would be landlocked and immobilized. The sheer audacity of these guys — their positive eagerness to stack one lie on another, apparently striving to reach the moon with dishonesty (is that the secret to Newt Gingrich’s moon fantasies?) — is breathtaking.

The cheesy tackiness of the GOP effort to ride the coattails of the legacy left by Steve Jobs is simply disgusting.

Massachusetts First State in the Nation to Pursue ‘Pay For Success’ Social Innovation Contracts

Commonwealth to seek performance-based investments to spur innovative solutions to social issues, achieve better outcomes and save money

BOSTON — Wednesday, January 18, 2012 — The Patrick-Murray Administration today announced a first in the nation initiative to allow Massachusetts to enter into “pay for success” contracts designed to encourage innovative solutions to social problems, improve the performance of government and save taxpayer money. The Executive Office for Administration and Finance (ANF) today issued Requests for Response (RFRs) as a next step in pursuing these social innovation financing contracts.

“Social innovation financing is a tool that helps us tackle long term social issues with innovative methods,” said Governor Deval Patrick. “These initiatives will help us change the delivery of state services to save money and improve program performance.”

Massachusetts is the first state in the nation to issue a competitive procurement to obtain services using this approach. Funding for the Commonwealth’s program would be paid from budgetary resources, but only if the programs work to deliver better social outcomes and savings to the state budget. President Obama’s FY 2012 budget included a proposal to invest $100 million in “pay for success” projects in seven pilot areas including job training, education, juvenile justice and care of children with disabilities. Through this initiative, the Commonwealth expects to be well-positioned to compete for any federal funding that may be available in the future.

“Social innovation financing is one of the tools we are pursuing to accelerate system-wide improvements in government performance,” said Secretary of Administration and Finance Jay Gonzalez. “It’s a creative idea based on a simple premise – have government pay for demonstrated success rather than the promise of success.”

Performance-based investments will help encourage innovation and tackle challenging social issues. New and innovative programs have potential for success, but often have trouble securing government funding because it can be hard to rigorously prove their effectiveness. Social innovation financing allows the government to partner with innovative service providers and, if necessary, private foundations or other investors willing to cover the upfront costs and assume performance risk, to expand promising programs, while assuring that taxpayers will not pay for the programs unless they demonstrate success in achieving the desired outcomes.

Initially, the Patrick-Murray Administration plans to explore the use of social innovation financing to tackle two challenging issues:

Chronic Homelessness – The Administration seeks to partner with social entrepreneurs to provide stable housing for several hundred chronically homeless individuals. The goal of the initiative will be to improve the well-being of the individuals while simultaneously reducing housing and Medicaid costs.
Juvenile Justice – The Administration seeks to partner with social entrepreneurs to support youth aging out of the juvenile corrections and probation systems so as to assist them in making successful transitions to adulthood. The juvenile justice contract will be designed with the specific goal of reducing recidivism and improving education and employment outcomes over a six-year period for a significant segment of the more than 750 youth who exit the juvenile corrections and probation systems annually.
The Administration may expand these initiatives to additional policy domains in the future.

Through the RFRs being issued today, the Patrick-Murray Administration will explore a number of options for social innovation financing, including:

Pay-for-success contracts – agreements which will allow the state to pay service providers after they have demonstrated success, rather than the current process of paying for the promise of success. These contracts will target innovative social service programs in domains where sophisticated, multi-year performance measurement is possible.

Social impact bonds – financing arrangements where third party intermediaries and investors give service providers, typically non-profits, upfront funding and other expertise to allow them to enter into pay-for-success contracts with the government. For example, the United Kingdom is piloting a social impact bond program to reduce criminal recidivism.

Sure, it has been an unusually warm winter for us in New England, but that’s not why more than 150 activists took to the streets with snorkels and swimsuits today in the financial district.

Sporting goggles, flippers and life preservers, demonstrators marched on the big banks today to call attention to the scourge of underwater mortgages. Foreclosure victims lead by City Life and New England’s Bank Tenant Associations were joined by allies from MASSUNITING and the Occupy movement in calling on financial institutions to take meaningful steps to address the mortgage crisis.  Their primary demand of JP Morgan Chase, Fannie Mae, Bank of America and other big banks: reduce the principal owed on underwater homes.

“Millions of homes are underwater due to the greed of Bank of America, Fannie Mae, JP Morgan Chase and the rest of the big banks,” said Melonie Griffiths, an organizer with City Life/Vida Urbana. “They’re directly responsible for the mortgage crisis, and it’s about time they did something to clean up their wreckage and help drowning homeowners.”

More than 25% of mortgages are underwater nationwide – meaning the amount owed on the mortgage exceeds the value of the home. This growing problem has become one of the driving factors behind the ongoing mortgage crisis, leading many analysts to agree that comprehensive principal reduction is the only plausible path to reversing course. Yet, most major financial institutions have flatly refused to take the necessary steps to address the crisis.

“The big banks took trillions in taxpayer bailouts, but refuse to take even the simplest steps to get our economy back on track,” said Antonio Ennis, a Dorchester resident fighting foreclosure from Bank of America. “That’s why we’re marching today – we kept the big banks afloat, now it’s time for them to throw us a lifeline.”

President Obama has called on financial institutions to take action on principal reduction – even going as far as to provide incentives to participating firms. But the administration has yet to forward hard requirements, and the major banks have been largely unwilling to comply.

Monday’s march was organized by the Bank Tenant movement in New England – led by City Life/Vida Urbana, Chelsea Collaborative, and other community groups. The Bank Tenant movement organizes in nine cities across New England, with each group demanding reductions of principal to real value and an end to no-fault evictions after foreclosure.

Anyway, today’s Globe reports that Rob Willington, of CrazyKhazei fame, is the latest to benefit from Jenzabar’s ongoing largesse.  Entirely by coincidence, Willington has also been hired to update the Mass. GOP’s “digital media plan,” and also works for Scott Brown’s campaign.

It’s not implausible that Jenzabar might actually be able to use a guy like Willington, and that hire probably wouldn’t have made the news were it not for the fact that Blute and Torkildsen are already on Jenzabar’s payroll.  As it is, though, it’s hard to escape the suspicion that maybe, just maybe, consulting gigs at Jenzabar are being parceled out after something less than nationwide searches for who might be of the most value to the company.  Still, I’m sure there’s an entirely innocent explanation that would dispel any such suspicions.

Neither Willington nor a Jenzabar spokeswoman returned repeated calls from the Globe.

Ah.

Does Tisei have a chance? If he’s going to have a chance, he need to answer these two simple questions:

1. Will you vote for John Boehner for Speaker? Eric Cantor for Majority Leader?
2. If not them, then who?

If he can’t credibly answer those questions, then the district really ought to be yellow-dog Democrat. I’d love to hear that Tierney is better than a yellow dog, but I wonder.

Someone tell me something good.

[G]iven the enormity of what he inherited, and given what he explicitly promised, it remains simply a fact that Obama has delivered in a way that the unhinged right and purist left have yet to understand or absorb. Their short-term outbursts have missed Obama’s long game—and why his reelection remains, in my view, as essential for this country’s future as his original election in 2008.

This is how he makes his case:

But the right isn’t alone in getting Obama wrong. While the left is less unhinged in its critique, it is just as likely to miss the screen for the pixels. From the start, liberals projected onto Obama absurd notions of what a president can actually do in a polarized country, where anything requires 60 Senate votes even to stand a chance of making it into law. They have described him as a hapless tool of Wall Street, a continuation of Bush in civil liberties, a cloistered elitist unable to grasp the populist moment that is his historic opportunity. They rail against his attempts to reach a Grand Bargain on entitlement reform. They decry his too-small stimulus, his too-weak financial reform, and his too-cautious approach to gay civil rights. They despair that he reacts to rabid Republican assaults with lofty appeals to unity and compromise.

They miss, it seems to me, two vital things. The first is the simple scale of what has been accomplished on issues liberals say they care about. A depression was averted. The bail-out of the auto industry was—amazingly—successful. Even the bank bailouts have been repaid to a great extent by a recovering banking sector. The Iraq War—the issue that made Obama the nominee—has been ended on time and, vitally, with no troops left behind. Defense is being cut steadily, even as Obama has moved his own party away from a Pelosi-style reflexive defense of all federal entitlements. Under Obama, support for marriage equality and marijuana legalization has crested to record levels. Under Obama, a crucial state, New York, made marriage equality for gays an irreversible fact of American life. Gays now openly serve in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act is dying in the courts, undefended by the Obama Justice Department. Vast government money has been poured into noncarbon energy investments, via the stimulus. Fuel-emission standards have been drastically increased. Torture was ended. Two moderately liberal women replaced men on the Supreme Court. Oh, yes, and the liberal holy grail that eluded Johnson and Carter and Clinton, nearly universal health care, has been set into law. Politifact recently noted that of 508 specific promises, a third had been fulfilled and only two have not had some action taken on them. To have done all this while simultaneously battling an economic hurricane makes Obama about as honest a follow-through artist as anyone can expect from a politician.

David Frum, representing the unhinged right, burnishes his credentials with this response. They could use some burnishing.

Be sure to visit the “Dog’s Against Romney” super-pack.

Onion:

Romneymania Sweeps America

TAMPA, FL—From coast to coast, town to town, and in nearly every public meeting place and private residence across America, millions have been captivated, inspired, and in some cases moved to tears by presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who now finds himself campaigning before a nation in the throes of full-scale Romneymania.

“The raw energy and enthusiasm Mitt Romney stirs inside people is like nothing I’ve ever seen,” Youngstown, OH auto mechanic Chris Ritenour said Wednesday. “Everything he says resonates with Americans. His moving story of growing up privileged, his inspiring rise from moderate wealth to overwhelming riches, his thrilling work in the highest echelons of corporate finance—he really speaks to the heart and mind of the common man.” … Countless reverent portraits of Romney have appeared in storefront windows and on building facades throughout the country, often accompanied by one of the candidate’s signature inspirational phrases, like “Let Detroit go bankrupt” or “Corporations are people, my friend.” …

“Mitt’s firm belief in unlimited corporate campaign donations is what first got me really excited,” said 48-year-old pipe fitter David Flores, adding that another reason he joined “Romney Nation” was because he found it “pretty cool” that Romney pays a lower income tax rate than he does. “Money is speech—that’s what the First Amendment is all about. Finally, there’s a candidate who speaks directly to me.” …

While surveys show Romneymania has swept across almost every demographic, Romney’s appeal among the nation’s youth, in particular, is nearly unanimous. Many young Americans acknowledged they had felt disillusioned by politics until hearing Romney’s explanation of how his coordination of corporate funding for the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics renders him uniquely qualified to be president, an assertion they said immediately revived their faith in American democracy. …

During a stop in Tampa, FL earlier this week, Romney was seen whipping a crowd of thousands into a delirious frenzy with his beloved, decade-old talking points about how he is not a career politician. The candidate reportedly inspired optimism and confidence by explaining he “never actually supported an individual mandate for health insurance at the federal level,” a battle cry that prompted the audience to chant his name for five straight minutes.

In a moment his supporters called “genuine” and “down-to-earth,” Romney then told the crowd that he, too, is currently unemployed and truly understands the fear of being laid off.

Borowitz:

Obama Risks Alienating Republicans By Using Facts: Radical Tactic Sparks Outrage

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) – In what some critics are calling the most radical tactic ever employed in a State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama risked alienating congressional Republicans last night by repeatedly using facts.

Mr. Obama stirred controversy throughout the speech with his relentless references to facts, data, and things that have actually happened, all long considered the third rail of American politics. … “We want to work with the President for the good of the American people,” added House Speaker John Boehner. “But he’s going to have to take facts off the table. That’s a deal-breaker for us.”

Daniel Kurtzman:

“Mitt Romney lost in South Carolina. He’s getting desperate. With the Florida primaries coming up, today Mitt Romney’s campaign staff said the gloves are off. Or to use Romney’s exact words, “Jeeves, be a good chap and remove my opera gloves.’” –Conan O’Brien

“After Iowa and New Hampshire, Newt’s campaign looked terminally ill, which is when he generally moves on to something better.” –Stephen Colbert

“There’s a State of the Union drinking game. Let me just say this, if you really are playing the State of the Union drinking game, you’re probably an alcoholic.” –Jimmy Kimmel

“Mitt Romney is going to release 2010 and 2011 tax returns. Not to be outdone, Newt Gingrich is going to release his 1988, 1994, and 2005 wedding vows.” –Conan O’Brien

Heard on the late news tonight that Hon. Kevin White, former Mayor of Boston (1967-1983) passed away today. He steered the city through the bussing crisis of the 1970s. He was the Democratic nominee for Governor in 1970 and on the short list for VP in 1972.

Thou Knoweth Who I Am Brother Christopher Thy am the wind that blows from the sea carrying seeds of truth. Thy am the seagull poop that fertilizes thou seeds. Thy am the the dingle berries that grow from the seeds of truth that were fertilized by thou seagull poop. Thy am the wombat that feeds on the dingle berries that grow from the seeds of truth that were fertilized by thou seagull poop. Thy am the highway worker that scraped from the road the wombat that feeds on the dingle berries that grew from the seeds of truth that were fertilized by thou seagull poop.

What does it take to get the Globe to write a retraction? God knows. And so does former Liberian dictator Charles Taylor.

Check this out. The Globe apologizes for taking a small piece of information and drawing unsubstantiated conclusions. On threat of law suit, which still may come, they broke down their malfeasance and shined a light on how they operate. Take a fact and draw unsubstantiated conclusions that eventually become embedded in the collective psyche as fact.

It took a third world thug to call them on it.  Well, we should all call them on it.  Below the retraction they state:

The Globe welcomes information about errors that call for corrections. Information may be sent tocomments@globe.com or left in a message at 617-929-8230. A listing of other Globe contacts can be found on Page B2.

How embarrassing for not just The Globe but also for our city which must take the good with the bad when it comes to provincial pride. So yeah our team is in the Super Bowl but our newspaper is currently the laughing stock of the international press corps. and their bosses.

—–

I’m beginning to see a Romney presidency. Who would you rather answer the phone at 2:00 a.m.? Mitt or Newt? Right, Mitt, a no-brainer.

Who would they average American want answering the phone at 2:00 a.m.? Obama or Mitt? Well I’m seeing the pendulum swing towards Mitt. Those two a.m. call are not just defense related. Right now we are in an economic crisis where the president is expected to make serious choices resulting in success. Mitt beats the President on that one in the minds of too many Americans.

But then again, don’t forget the anti-Mormon vote. Will the evangelicals blank it?

——-

Is Steve Grossman fanning the Tim Murray fire at the Globe? He so wants to be governor so taking out Murray is big. The Lt. Gov. can do more favors than the treasurer so he can build a good organization. Grossman is making a name for himself by allowing debit card purchases of lottery tickets.

His knocking of the legislature for not consulting him before a bill was filed was very off-off-off Broadway. Not only did it show a lack of understand the system it highlighted his lack of political skills.

Question, since when does the state treasurer’s job description include being the state’s gambling cheerleader? That’s all we seem to hear come out that office since the lottery began in the early 70s.

Suzanne Bump, a real lightweight, wants to be governor also. But really, do you think she has the brains to manipulate the Globe. Actually it more like using the Globe and letting the Globe use her.

Because whoever is pushing and feeding this has to tow the line or payback will be a bitch.

Martha? Sure she’s a sneaky ultra-ambitious coldhearted  politician, but the Globe won’t be helping her out.

Soi, if you believe like me it’s from the Democratic side than Grossman is the prime suspect.

New Mass. GOP Chairman Robert Maginn has plans to increase his party’s share of members in the Massachusetts House to the point where they could sustain a veto without any help from Democrats.

It’s called “Project 54,” a reference to that magic number. Maginn, touting that the number of GOP reps doubled in the 2010, hopes to repeat that trick in 2012.

While he’s right that the number of GOP representatives increased from 16 to 33 in the last election, that doesn’t quite tell the whole story. As the graph illustrates,

the number of GOP reps has mostly hovered around 32 since 1978, when the State Constitution was amended to reduce the size of the House from 240 representatives to the present 160. The doubling of the GOP membership in 2010 essentially restored them to the mean over the past 34 years, after the drought years of 2002-2008, when their numbers dipped as low as 16.

Which brings us to the next point. Maginn is hoping that Mitt Romney will be Republican Presidential nominee and he believes that Romney’s candidacy will help the party meet its “Project 54” goal. And who was Governor for most of the time when the state GOP’s fortunes were at their lowest?

As they say in the private equity world, past performance is not a guarantee of future success.

An official alternate to our beloved blimp.

D’oh! ABC:

Romney Failed to Disclose Swiss Bank Account Income

Mitt Romney’s campaign is amending the financial disclosure form he filed in 2011 to acknowledge that a Romney trust earned interest income from a Swiss bank account, a detail that had been missing from the report. … The discovery that the Romneys had $3 million in an account with the Swiss bank UBS came only after the Republican presidential candidate released his tax returns for 2010 on Tuesday.

And of all the banks in the world, of course, UBS is perhaps the worst possible one in which to have a hidden bank account. Wikipedia:

In July 2008, a United States Senate panel accused Swiss banks, including UBS and LGT Group, of helping wealthy Americans evade taxes through offshore accounts. … UBS agreed on February 18, 2009 to pay a fine of $780 million to the U.S. government and entered into a deferred prosecution agreement on charges of conspiring to defraud the United States by impeding the Internal Revenue Service. … The day after settling its criminal case on February 19, 2009, the U.S. government filed a civil suit against UBS to reveal the names of all 52,000 American customers, alleging that the bank and these customers conspired to defraud the IRS and federal government of legitimately owed tax revenue.

Oh, Mitt. Never enough, never enough.

This Monday evening, I’ll be sharing the stage as a guest speaker with an all-star lineup at Clark University to discuss “Corporations Are Not People: People’s Rights, Corporate Money, and What Comes Next.”

Joining me on stage will be State Senator Jamie Eldridge, longtime national voting rights expert and Director of “Free Speech for People” John Bonifaz, and Jeff Clements, also a FSFP co-founder, and author of Corporations Are Not People.

I’m thrilled to be invited to be a part of this incredible group and event, and I hope you’ll join us. For more information, visit our Facebook event here.

Last night’s State of the Union address was the perfect example of why Barack Obama is going to win re-election in November.  Let’s ignore for a moment that BO is polling extraordinarily well nationwide (this in spite of the fact that all of the media attention is on the Republicans).  Let’s ignore for a moment that Newt Gingrich is surging, meaning that the Republicans are in for a long primary season that is sure to hurt whoever ends up being the nominee.  Let’s imagine a perfect world for the Republicans and why, even in such a world, neither Mitt Romney nor Newt Gingrich stand a chance.  And let’s examine why BO’s speech last night makes that even more clear.

First of all, what do Republicans like to do more than anything else when criticizing Obama?  Call him a socialist.  Of course, liberals know that this sort of rhetoric is ridiculous, but alas, many people do, for better or for worse, buy into it.  Republicans accuse Obama’s desire for increased upward mobility with an ideology that most Americans equate with Fascism.  How does Barack respond to these accusations last night?

Those of us who’ve been sent here to serve can learn a thing or two from the service of our troops. When you put on that uniform, it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white; Asian, Latino, Native American; conservative, liberal; rich, poor; gay, straight. When you’re marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you, or the mission fails. When you’re in the thick of the fight, you rise or fall as one unit, serving one nation, leaving no one behind.

The key words here, of course, are “leaving no one behind”.  Four short words that have so many political implications.  Here, Obama is able to equate upward social mobility with fighting the War on Terror.  Obviously, fighting a War on Terror is a decidedly anti-socialist idea, which on its own refutes the accusations he has been receiving, but he takes it a step further.  He challenges Americans to leave nobody behind.  In doing this, he says, in effect, “upward social mobility is not socialism; rather, it is the obligation of a democratic society: look to our soldiers as an example”.  In doing this, he is able to shift the dialogue completely.  No longer is helping others a radical socialist idea; now, it is what is expected of every American, just as it is expected of every soldier.

Of course, beginning and ending his speech with the killing of Bin Laden runs the risk of the media perceiving him as a man trying to avoid addressing the issues most Americans are concerned about.  But he is able to rectify this by linking that accomplishment to other issues, which makes for fantastic oration.

But what is the other issue that Republicans hit him hard on?  Aside from jobs, which he addresses very competently early in the speech by making it clear that job creation is at its highest since 2005 and that manufacturers are creation jobs for the first time since the 1990s, that other issue is health care.  This issue, of course, ties directly into socialism, as the right loves to paint “Obamacare” as a prime example of socialism.  But BO fights back:

I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.  That’s why my education reform offers more competition, and more control for schools and states. That’s why we’re getting rid of regulations that don’t work. That’s why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a government program.

This is really his only mention of health care in his speech.  Naturally, many liberals dislike this, preferring a single payer system.  But with one short statement, he is able to put down all the claims of socialism when it comes to his reforms.  Once again, he shifts the dialogue in a way that quells the fears of his detractors on both the left and the right.

Throughout last night’s speech, I think most liberals were shocked and awed at the Obama they saw.  He was not pandering to the right, something that he has done for much of his term (to the ire of those on the left).  In fact, it appears as if his advisers have decided to “let Obama be Obama”:

The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.  What’s at stake aren’t Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. And we have to reclaim them.

Despite going back to his liberal roots, however, he is also able to appeal to right leaning conservatives throughout his speech.  He throws a few barbs at the right, but those barbs are subtle.  He panders to his liberal base, but again, that pandering is quite subtle.  It is this kind of rhetoric about bringing the country together that allowed him to win in 2008.

With Republicans like Mitt Romney talking about how conservative values come before serving your country, it is the same kind of rhetoric that will allow him to win in 2012.

Elizabeth Warren, the leading Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts and strong supporter of equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, draws on her personal experiences as a teacher in a new It Gets Better video.

Professor Warren introduces her video with this message on her Facebook page:

MA has been the nation’s leader in protecting and promoting equality, but there’s more to do. Speak out against bullying this No Name Calling Week. Watch our new It Gets Better video and remember: you are not alone, there are people who love you, and if it feels too hard, you can call the Trevor Project at 866-4-U-TREVOR (866-488-7386).

Watch the video here.

Last summer the entire Massachusetts Congressional delegation — minus Sen. Scott Brown (R) — posted an It Gets Better message of encouragement and support for LGBTQ youth.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has announced that today is “No Name Calling Day” in the Bay State.

Cross-posted at Pam’s House Blend.

UMASS tents went up in the University Student Center today, with its first general assembly tonight.  With Governor Patrick doing his “State of the State” address tonight, and Senator Brown and senate candidate Warren doing their historic agreement to try and rein in spending by PACs, and state parties, and others, it is a rather busy evening.  Some astrologer might talk about the alignment of the stars to explain why all three events happened the same evening, and of course, each will play out and be covered by the media, both main stream and citizen journalist.  Quite a media buffet!

To follow the UMASS occupation on twitter,@occupyUMASS, to follow coverage by Occupy Boston, http://www.occupyboston.org/2012/01/23/umass-boston-ccupied/

As to the historic attempt by the Brown and Warren campaign to rein in the attack advertisements and have the focus be on who they are and what they say, I give them an “A for effort” and hope that this effort succeeds.

As for the State of the State address, somehow, I doubt there will be good news for the Judicial Branch or indigent defense (not many votes there!) but am none the less grateful that return of capitol (what has been termed, in Orwellian language “local aid”) will not be cut.  I say “Orwellian language” because Beacon Hill does not create capitol.  There are no state manufacturing or other enterprises; in fact Beacon Hill collects capitol from citizens in cities and towns, and then doles it back out in dollops while pretending that these dolled out dollops are charity or aid.  I say “pretending” because $145 million plus is given away in “movie tax credits” to be resold, making $33 million in profits to middleman while the state chops away at the entire Judicial Branch as if it were a mere agency, and eviscerates a once proud system of indigent defense, and pushes for 225 cases per public defender while nickle and diming the bar advocate.

In this state, far more is spent to incarcerate than to educate, and far more on prosecution and incarceration than on defense or eradication of addiction or treatment of mental illness.  This matters because secure civil commitment of addicts happens in prisons, more mentally ill are incarcerated than treated.  And as for the no-holds-barred assualt on the private indigent defense bar, I don’t expect that to be reined in at all.  Further, the disparate impact of poorly designed “three strike bills” are ripping apart entire communities and rendering a generation fatherless.  This does not serve either public safety, or the future of this Commonwealth.

As for the Occupation of UMASS Boston, the $450,000 haul made by Jack Wilson as his retirement was probably the last straw.  With student debt approaching a trillion dollars nationwide, and our Commonwealth’s support for public higher education in the gutter at 45th per capita in the nation, it was only a matter of time before the combination of $25,000+ debt, excessive salaries for administrators, and lackluster job prospects led to some form of visible activism, where the legislature treats public higher education in the Commonwealth with as much disrespect as it does the entire Judicial Branch.

Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich takes responsibility for the slayings and expresses remorse to the victims' families during his sentencing hearing after pleading guilty to negligent dereliction of duty.

Does anybody care about this story? Have we passed into the territory where innocent people in other countries are no longer officially human? Have we given up, once and for all, on the idea that there are “rules of war” that apply to the United States? Is that Obama’s attitude, and Eric Holder’s as well? Is intentionally killing women and children now acceptable conduct overseas?

This judicial proceeding seems like it was a complete and utter joke- note the apparently lackadaisical attitude of the presiding “judge”, or whatever the hell he is. I guess this is what happens when you’re the only superpower- you can get away with this stuff because there’s nobody else strong enough to hold you accountable. America runs the world- which would be a happy ending to history if America had a conscience. These women and children who were murdered in their own homes by our troops didn’t deserve what happened to them any more than the U.S. civilians who died on 9/11. They didn’t ask to have their country invaded by a foreign army, and they didn’t deserve to be slaughtered like animals because of faulty intelligence or the derangement of burnt-out soldiers.

It’s sickening that we think so little of these people that their deaths mean nothing. They are beneath the necessity of justice, because they’re Iraqis (or Afghans, Pakistanis, etc). Merely living in an ill-favored country is now a crime punishable by death. It seems so much of the Left has lost its imagination, or perhaps everybody’s just given up. But this stuff should matter. There is still such a thing as right and wrong. Killing innocent women and children is evil- whether it’s done by terrorists, serial killers, or the United States military.

If there’s to be no regard for human rights, or human life, or justice, then what’s the point of politics? What’s the point of America? What’s the point of anything?

Yeah, hyperbole and half. But really, isn’t that what being in love with the community you chose to live in is all about?

I normally would not post about a post on Left in Lowell that really is only of interest to us Lowellians, except I know there are public transit fanatics here and you might want to hear about the study outlining an incredible vision for Lowell and public transit – a return to trolleys. This has been talked about for a few years, ever since we broke ground on the redevelopment of the Hamilton Canal District (which is adjacent to downtown Lowell). A taste:

The report proposes (and mind you, it’s an initial proposal, so lots of changes could happen between here and build out, if it happens at all) to have a trolley line from the Gallahger, through Hamilton Canal District to downtown, and using the existing LNHP track (which they use mostly as historic ambiance than moving people from place to place), the trolley would split and a small branch heads to Middlesex College, and the other down Father Morressette Blvd past University Ave Bridge, then down Fletcher to Broadway to UML’s South Campus. Other stops include the Inn & Conference Center, the Tsongas Arena, and LeLacheur Park, as well as existing locations such as Boott Cotton Mills and the Mogan Center.

Go check it out and be awed by the awesomeness that is Lowell when it’s at its absolute best!

And while we’re at it, please ignore my last 10 tweets which are about Lowell at its worst…LOL.

Scott Brown launched his revamped website today. It’s very well done as you’d expect for a candidate with millions in the bank.

I found something to be very interesting – the Scott Brown Timeline featured on the homepage.It contains events referred to as “the highlights of Scott’s life and career.”

It has the following events with a blurb about each:

• 1959: Scott Brown Born
• 1977: Graduates High School
• 1979: Joins Mass Army National Guard
• 1981: Graduates Tufts
• 1982: Wins centerfold contest
• 1986: Marries Gail Huff
• 1988: Ayla Brown born
• 1990: Arianna Brown born
• 1995: Scott takes up duathlons and triathlons
• 2004: Elected to state senate
• 2010: Elected to US Senate
• 2010: Sworn in to US Senate
• 2010 – Present: US Senator

Since this is a list of life and career accomplishments I think it’s safe to say that Scott Brown is now and plans to continue being a “career politician”… No accomplishments to highlight from his time in private practice? Only a centerfold and a few elections?

Is it just me or does it seem strange that Brown’s campaign is highlighting his winning of a centerfold contest as a highlight of his life? They even took the time to post the letter Brown received from Cosmo notifying him of his win and clarify that his sister entered the pictures into the contest. Based on the question about Scott Brown’s centerfold asked by the GOP plant at the UMass Lowell Debate I guess it’s clear that Brown’s team sees a benefit from keeping the centerfold on the minds of voters.

Vin Weber: There’s a huge opportunity for us now in terms of conventional fossil fuels. Offshore drilling, fracking and natural gas, that have the potential to change the equation favorably in the energy marketplace for the country. If the president took couple steps on any aspect of that toward the Republicans, I think that would be pretty well received.

Ah yes, drill baby drill, frack baby frack. Never mind earthquakes, flammable tap water, and rising sea levels.

Insane.

I’m sure many of you in the Blue Mass community will be watching the State of the Union tonight. And I’m just as sure that you’ll be brimming with comments and insights about what the President says (and what it means).

Tonight, MassUniting is joining with activists from across the country in an online chat LIVE as the President is speaking, and continuing once the speech has concluded.

We would love to have you all join the us online tonight. And we hope that by engaging with people from across the country, we can have a real discussion about what it means to have an economy that works for everyone, not just the richest 1% of Americans.

Click here to learn more about the discussion tonight.

We hope that you’ll join us tonight, and happy viewing!

Jon Stewart Loses His Marbles Over Newt’s Hypocrisy | TPM2012.

I’ve never seen a political party attempt suicide en masse before. But this primary is shaping up to be the GOP Jonestown. Shocking, baffling, and morbidly intriguing.

I share his impatience with the legislature’s pace of action on health care cost containment. He’s right to praise the slowing of inflation, which has been accomplished by market actors — i.e. the insurers, emboldened by the backup threat of state action, like last year’s freeze on insurance premiums. The governor cites an increase of 2.3% this year; however, premiums were up somewhere between 4%-8%, as opposed to 9% nationwide. [Not sure where the Governor's number comes from, and what's an apples to apples comparison -- someone feel free to chime in.] Anyway, the beast is hardly tamed.

Is there any more important issue — for businesses large and small; for municipalities and school systems; for teachers; for retirees; for the health care system itself? DeLeo et al have slow-rolled this thing long enough. It’s time to get it done.

The Governor did not address the MBTA death spiral, or the protests on Monday against service cuts. But this issue is here. It’s on the table, because people feel the fare increases and service cuts in their daily lives. Doubtless we’ll hear a lot of moaning about a “big lift” for the legislature, and complaining from the Herald and ‘RKO about big spending, and whining from the public about having to ever pay for the things it uses and benefits from. The Governor should address the listlessness, fear and inertia among legislators, and the fear (partly justified) among the public that any new support and expansion of the MBTA will be throwing good money after bad. We need to come together on this. We need to demand the service we need; and imagine the kind of service we’re going to need in the future.

This isn’t some kind of bonbon or would-be-nice trinket: It’s about getting to work, on time, reliably. The MBTA must be fixed.

Full text here, and below the fold.

State of the Commonwealth Address – As Delivered
State House – House Chamber
Boston, MA
January 23, 2012

Lieutenant Governor and fellow Constitutional Officers, Madame President, Mr. Speaker and Members of the Senate and of the House, Members of the Judiciary, Members of the Cabinet and of our Administration, Mayor Menino and other Municipal Officials, Reverend Clergy and most especially fellow Citizens of Massachusetts.

Good evening and thank you for joining me for my annual report on the state of our Commonwealth.

I would like to start by acknowledging and thanking our First Lady, Diane Patrick.  Diane, I so appreciate your leadership in your public life and your patience in your private one.  I know we all do.

And let us all acknowledge and thank the relatives, friends and neighbors from Massachusetts who are serving today in the military.  We appreciate you – and your families – for your service to our Commonwealth and our country.  A special welcome home to Senator Rush who is here. Representative Parisella who is here. Both have returned from combat duty in Iraq safely and we are so pleased.

*  *  *

This is my sixth speech of this kind.  In that time, the world has experienced dramatic change and even turmoil.  A global economic collapse.  Slow job growth.  Crumbling infrastructure.  Growing inequality.  A public craving change.

Periods of challenge and uncertainty are not new – not in Massachusetts and not in history.  What defines us is not the challenge, but how we meet it.  We remember with gratitude the generations before ours who rose to the challenges of their time and left for us a better Commonwealth.  Thanks to them, many of us in this room tonight sit where our parents and grandparents could hardly imagine.

Now we face our test.  It is a test for our time and for the future. And while others elsewhere in positions like yours and mine succumb to division and stalemate, we here pulled together and, for the good of the Commonwealth, made hard choices.

Like every state, we cut spending and headcount, and slimmed down programs or eliminated some.  But we also chose to invest in education, in health care and in job creation – because we all know that educating our kids, having health care you can depend on, and a good job is the path to a better future.

That’s why today our students lead the nation in overall achievement and the world in math and science.

That’s why we lead the nation in health care coverage with over 98 percent of our residents insured.

That’s why we have moved from 47^th in the nation in job creation in 2006 to 5^th in the nation in the last two years, and why our state’s economy is growing faster than the national growth rate.

That’s why we lead the nation in energy efficiency and in veterans’ services.

And it’s also why we have not only closed our budget gaps, eliminated our structural deficit, and achieved the highest bond rating in our history, but – with labor at the table – made the kinds of meaningful reforms in the pension system, in municipal health benefits, in our schools, in our transportation and so much more that had eluded our predecessors for a long, long time.

None of this is happening by accident.

Auto insurance rates fell 13 percent in the last couple of years, the largest drop in America – not by accident but because we chose to reinvent that system and introduce managed competition.

The clean energy industry grew nearly 7 percent in Massachusetts last year, and added thousands of kilowatts of renewable generation and thousands of jobs – not by accident but because we passed the Green Communities Act and joined the world’s fundamental shift towards efficiency and renewable energy.

A thousand families moved out of shelters and motels and into permanent housing last year – not by accident but because we chose to move toward a “housing first” strategy, to work to end homelessness for good.

This and much more of the progress we have made together is happening because of the choices we have made together, choices inspired by our generational responsibility, our commitment to leave to others a better Commonwealth than we found.

And so, to the members of the Legislature: I know that some of the votes I have asked you to take were politically tough.  They may even have made some of you uncomfortable.  But now is no time for making each other comfortable.  Now is the time to step up.  And time after time, for the good of the Commonwealth, you have.  So, let me thank Mister Speaker, and you Madame President, and each and every member of the House and Senate for working together with my administration in that spirit.  We have a lot of progress to celebrate and to be proud of.

*  *  *

And yet, as proud as we may be, there are parents across our state who wonder tonight whether they will be able to do as well for their children as their parents did for them.  There are workers, some unemployed for many months, who wonder tonight whether this new economy has a place for them.  There are small businesses and working families who now have the security of health insurance, but who wonder tonight whether they can manage the ever-increasing costs.  There are children tonight who wonder whether they will be safe when they step outside their own front door.  We are not yet fulfilling our generational responsibility to them.

The strength of our progress is an indisputable fact.  Things are better in Massachusetts than in most other places in America.  But that doesn’t mean they are good enough.  We have hard choices yet to make.

And so I will again ask the Legislature and the people of Massachusetts to move an ambitious agenda this year.  We need action promptly on helping people get back to work, lowering health care costs, and making neighborhoods safer.  In each of these I will again ask the Legislature and the people to make hard choices.

*  *  *

Starting with jobs.

There are 240,000 people still looking for work in Massachusetts – and nearly 120,000 job openings.  Why?  How can we have so much opportunity available and so many people still looking for their chance?  Business leaders tell me over and over again that it is because the people looking for jobs don’t have the skills required.  Many of these openings are for so called “middle skills” jobs that require more than a high school diploma but not necessarily a four-year degree: jobs in medical device manufacturing or as lab technicians or solar installers, for example.  And a lot of those forced by this economic downturn to make career changes, people in their thirties or forties or fifties, don’t have the proper training for those jobs.  We have a “skills gap.”

We can do something about that.  We can help people get back to work.  And our community colleges should be at the very center of it.

We have fifteen public community colleges across Massachusetts.  Each strives to meet a whole array of needs: preparing high school graduates for four-year college; training workers for new careers; helping newcomers master the English language; enabling people to scratch an intellectual itch.  They give a chance to people who often times have few.  For the work they do, community colleges rarely receive proper recognition, let alone adequate funding.  I have visited their campuses and seen their good work.  They are an important resource, and we must ask more of them.

I believe community colleges are uniquely positioned to help close our skills gap and get people back to work.

Some are already making impressive contributions to workforce development.  Middlesex Community College for example runs an Academy of Health Professions in Bedford and Lowell tied to industry growth in Merrimack Valley.  Springfield Technical Community College is an indispensable source of trained workers for precision manufacturing companies in Western Massachusetts.  Bunker Hill Community College just this month launched a pilot co-op program that gives students a combination of classroom learning and on-the-job training at some of our largest employers.

We need that kind of sharper mission across the Commonwealth, so that community colleges become a fully integrated part of the state’s workforce development plan.  They must be aligned with employers, voc-tech schools and Workforce Investment Boards in the regions where they operate; aligned with each other in core course offerings; and aligned with the Commonwealth’s job growth strategy.  We can’t do that if 15 different campuses have 15 different strategies.  We need to do this together.  We need a unified community college system in Massachusetts.

In a unified system, students would find courses specifically tailored to meet local workforce needs alongside a core curriculum that emphasizes STEM subjects and with credits that are easily transferable to another community college or a four-year college.  In a unified system, we could create “learn and earn” programs across the entire state enabling students to get practical workplace experience while completing course work.  In a unified system, students would earn a certificate of workplace readiness that would open doors in their chosen field anywhere in the state.  And as they near course completion, one-stop career centers right on campus would help them move into, or back into, the workplace.

To support this mission, I will propose in my budget to streamline the funding and governance of community colleges, and to increase overall funding by $10 million.  I challenge the business community to match that new funding with an additional $10 million.  I also propose to channel more state workforce training dollars through the community colleges.  With this sharper focus, simpler structure, increased funding and greater accountability, community colleges can help us better prepare people for the middle skills jobs of today and tomorrow.

Now, for some, this will be another tough vote, another challenging reform.

But consider what it would mean if those 120,000 open positions were filled.  It would mean the Commonwealth’s unemployment rate would be cut in half, to its lowest in a decade.  It would mean 120,000 people would go from being unemployed, at a cost to the state of $800 million, to being earners, contributing more than $500 million in new tax revenue, a revenue that we can invest in further growth.  And most important of all it would offer a way forward to those who are wondering tonight whether there is a place for them in tomorrow’s economy.

For the good of the Commonwealth, let’s do this and do it now.

*  *  *

We can do more to control health care costs as well.

Nearly a year ago, after lots of study and broad consultation, I asked you to act on a plan to control the rising costs of health care.  We all know health care costs too much and goes up too fast.  We all know it consumes too much of family, small business and government budgets.  Our businesses, employees, families, governments — all of us combined — spend $66 billion on health care in Massachusetts every year.  And that spending doubled in the last decade and, without intervention, will double again in the next ten years.

So, starting two years ago, we intervened.  And it’s helping.

Average premium increases were 16.3 percent two years ago.  Today, they are 2.3 percent.

Hospitals and insurance carriers have reopened their contracts and cut rate increases, in some cases by more than half.

We created limited network plans to give consumers opportunities to get great care in neighborhood settings at lower cost, we are ending administrative duplication by requiring common codes and forms by insurers and providers, and there are new plans coming out for small businesses that promise to be as much as 20 percent cheaper.

In state government, by using these new tools and new approaches to how we pay for care, we will avoid nearly a billion dollars in cost increases in this fiscal year and another several hundred million more next year.

The market is moving in the right direction and that’s very good news.  But it is not enough.

Too many small businesses and too many working families still go through an annual ritual that starts with notice of another premium increase, and too often ends with a new plan costing the same or more for less coverage.  Slowing the rate of increase is critical, but unless that slowdown is sustained, health care costs will continue to squeeze everything else – including job growth itself.

We need to put an end to the “fee-for-service” model.  We need to stop paying for the amount of care, and start paying instead for the quality of care.  We need to empower doctors to coordinate patient care and to focus on wellness rather than sickness.  And we need medical malpractice reform.  All of this is addressed in the bill I filed last year.

I believe that with these tools and the right oversight, we can slow the growth in health care costs significantly.  And knowing we can count on the creativity, civic responsibility and partnership of those who work in and lead our health care industry, just as we have to make the progress to this point, I am confident we can do this the right way.

The Legislature has done considerable work on our proposed reforms, and I want to congratulate your care and thoughtfulness.  Now it’s time to act.  Before you take up next year’s budget, pass health care cost containment legislation.  This is another hard decision.  But for the good of the Commonwealth, let’s do this and do it now.

*  *  *

Lastly, I ask you to continue your support of our public safety plan and send me a crime bill that is both strong and smart.

There are too many tragedies to recount.  It really doesn’t matter if it doesn’t happen in your city or your neighborhood.  Whether it’s 14-year old Steven Odom shot and killed by a 19-year old in Boston, or Officer John Maguire shot and killed by a parolee in Woburn, everybody’s loss matters.  The overall rates of violent crime in many of our cities are down.  But there are still too many instances of young people killing other young people, and isolated but no less shocking instances of repeat offenders committing further acts of violence.  This problem belongs to all of us.

Last summer, the Legislature approved and funded our “Safe and Successful Youth Initiative.”  We are working alongside municipal leaders, local law enforcement and community groups in high crime areas to focus on those young people most likely to commit or be victims of crime.  We want to support strategies that address local realities, with measurable success at reducing violence and engaging young people at risk, and to stop funding programs, however well intentioned, that are not getting results.  I thank the Legislature for supporting this initiative and will ask you to do so again in our next budget.  Together with our work to close achievement gaps in the schools, support summer jobs and mentoring, and improve job training, we have a sound and comprehensive plan.

Another piece of that strategy is before you now in a proposed crime bill.  We have proposed reforms to both our Habitual Offender law and to our mandatory minimum sentencing laws to make the public safer.  Both are important, and you must send me both.

In the past ten years, 84 people have been convicted and sentenced under our existing Habitual Offender law for committing three felonies.   I proposed to lengthen the time before a third-time violent felon would become eligible for parole, and will support a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole for anyone whose third felony is murder or a similarly heinous act of violence.  These reforms are not about sweeping up the innocent or the unlucky.  They rightly focus on the worst of those who repeatedly prey on our residents.  We cannot and will not pursue a strategy that categorically rejects the proper place of parole in public safety.  But that small number of the most hardened and destructive offenders ought to be separated from the public for a long time.

At the other end of the spectrum are non-violent drug offenders.  And in these cases, we have to deal with the fact that simply warehousing non-violent offenders is a costly policy failure.  Our spending on prisons has grown 30 percent in the past decade, much of that because of longer sentences for first-time and nonviolent drug offenders.  We have moved, at massive public expense, from treatment for drug offenders to indiscriminate prison sentences, and gained nothing in public safety.  92 percent of the total prison population – 92 percent – is eligible for release at some point, and many come out more dangerous than they were when they went in.  States across the country – most recently, Ohio, Delaware and South Carolina – have already recognized the folly of mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders and made significant reforms.

So, alongside our reform of the Habitual Offender rules, we must have a comprehensive reentry program.  We need more education and job training, and certainly more drug treatment, in prisons and we need mandatory supervision after release.  And we must make non-violent drug offenders eligible for parole sooner.  By permitting them to have supervised release after serving half their sentence, we can begin to re-integrate four to five hundred non-violent offenders in the next year and save millions in prison costs every year.

We must be smarter about how we protect public safety.  That means targeting the most dangerous and damaging for the strictest sentences, and better preparing the non-dangerous for eventual release and reintegration.  We don’t have to choose the one or the other, and emphasizing prison time without successful re-entry has failed.  Again, for the good of the Commonwealth, send me a bill with the right reforms to both our Habitual Offender law and our mandatory minimum sentencing laws for nonviolent drug offenders.  I will not accept one without the other.

*  *  *

We have risen to past challenges – and we will rise to these – if we stay true to our values and work together.

When we stay true to our values, we make decisions for the good of our future, choices that transcend momentary political convenience.  I still believe that our Commonwealth is a community and that we have a stake in each other.  That value leads us time after time to better choices however difficult they may be.

When we work together, when we put aside sound-bite politics and insider games, we can overcome any challenge, I have no doubt about it.  If you have any doubt about that, think back to last June.

That tornado touched down in Western Massachusetts without much warning.  In a matter of minutes, it tore a 40-mile long, half-mile wide trail of utter destruction through nine communities.  When I visited in the hours after it hit, I was struck by how random the damage was.  If you happened to be in the tornado’s path, you lost everything.  But if you were just a few feet away, your home was relatively untouched.

Now, the fortunate ones did not just walk away and count their blessings.  They didn’t tell their neighbors, “You’re were on your own.”  The people of Westfield and Monson, of Brimfield and West Springfield, the people of Massachusetts, opened their homes and their hearts.  They cried together and they prayed together and then they went to work together rebuilding their community.  And we worked and continue to work alongside them — because their community is our community.

The challenge facing people in doubt about the future of their American Dream and their place in the workforce is ours, too.  The challenge facing small businesses and working families struggling with the cost of health care is ours, too.  The challenge facing those who fear for their safety and those seeking a way back, successfully, into mainstream life is ours, too.  We can meet those challenges if we work together.  After all, we are here today because someone did the same for us.  For the good of the Commonwealth and the sake of our future, so must we.

God bless our work and all of you.  And God bless the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Thank you very much.

Sorry for the second consecutive post, but one thing that makes me livid is disrespect for the Presidency. President Obama honored the Bruins for their Stanley Cup victory last year, but goaltender Tim Thomas made a point of not attending, citing “political reasons”. The President in our system is not just head of government, but also head of state. As such there are aspects to his office that are not political. When the President of the United States invites you to the White House, you show up – period!

For me, there is one charity deserving above all others: the MSPCA, to honor Seamus Romney.

Globe Photo from Jane Romney

Who are your candidates? A BMG mug to the most inspired suggestion.

Here is the good stuff.  First, the letters that Brown and Warren will jointly send to third parties:

Dear [Third Party Organization]:

We write you to notify you of the agreement our campaigns have entered into regarding outside third party spending in the 2012 Massachusetts Senate race - The Peoples’ Pledge. A copy of this pledge is enclosed.

The Pledge makes clear the following. If you spend money on advertising in Massachusetts in support of either one of us, that candidate’s campaign will pay 50% of the cost of your ad buy to a charity of the other candidate’s choice. If you spend money on advertising in Massachusetts in opposition to either one of us, the opposing candidate’s campaign will pay 50% of the cost of your ad buy to a charity of the opposed candidate’s choice.

In short, your spending will damage the candidate you intend to help.

The Peoples’ Pledge includes all independent expenditure advertisements, and any issue advocacy advertisements – including any issue advocacy advertisements coordinated with either campaign. It applies to advertising in all media – broadcast and cable television, radio, and internet.

It is a pledge we have made with the people of Massachusetts, and we are serious about honoring it. We hope that you regard our pledge seriously as well, and undertake no political advertising in our Senate race for the duration of the 2012 election.

We are determined to make our Senate race one in which we each stand on our own and speak to the people of Massachusetts directly. We are running to serve the people of Massachusetts, and we have taken The Peoples’ Pledge to be clear that they are who we will answer to as their Senator.

Sincerely,

Scott Brown Elizabeth Warren

Next, the letter they are jointly sending to TV and radio stations:

Dear Station Manager:

We write to inform you of the agreement that we have entered into regarding third party spending on advertisements in our 2012 Senate race – The Peoples’ Pledge.

The Pledge imposes strict penalties on each of our campaign committees should a third party purchase advertising supporting or opposing either one of us. A copy of the Pledge is enclosed for your review.

We have entered into this historic agreement in order to ensure that in our race we each speak to the people of Massachusetts directly, as their candidates, and that our messages are not overtaken by special interests and outside agendas.

We have sent a letter to active third party organizations informing them of our pledge, and will send the same to any new groups as they emerge.

We ask you to support our efforts by refusing to allow any third parties to purchase advertising concerning our Senate race, or either of us individually. As you are aware, your station is under no obligation to air third party political advertisements – all we ask is that you exercise your option not to, and help us make Massachusetts an example for the nation.

We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Scott Brown           Elizabeth Warren

And, finally, the agreement itself:

The Peoples’ Pledge

Because outside third party organizations – including but not limited to individuals, corporations, 527 organizations, 501(c) organizations, SuperPACs, and national and state party committees – are airing, and will continue to air, independent expenditure advertisements and issue advertisements either supporting or attacking Senator Scott Brown or Elizabeth Warren (individually the “Candidate” and collectively the ”Candidates”); and

Because these groups function as independent expenditure organizations that are outside the direct control of either of the Candidates; and

Because the Candidates agree that they do not approve of such independent expenditure advertisements, and want those advertisements to immediately cease and desist for the duration of the 2012 election cycle; and

Because the Candidates recognize that in order to make Massachusetts a national example, and provide the citizens of Massachusetts with an election free of third party independent expenditure advertisements, they must be willing to include an enforcement mechanism that runs not to the third party organizations but instead to the Candidates’ own campaigns:

The Candidates on behalf of their respective campaigns hereby agree to the following:

• In the event that a third party organization airs any independent expenditure broadcast (including radio), cable, satellite, or online advertising in support of a named, referenced (including by title) or otherwise identified Candidate, that Candidate’s campaign shall, within three (3) days of discovery of the advertisement buy’s total cost, duration, and source, pay 50% of the cost of that advertising buy to a charity of the opposing Candidate’s choice.

• In the event that a third party organization airs any independent expenditure broadcast (including radio, cable, or satellite advertising, or online advertising in opposition to a named, referenced (including by title) or otherwise identified Candidate, the opposing Candidate’s campaign shall, within three (3) days of discovery of the advertisement buy’s total cost, duration, and source, pay 50% of the cost of that advertising buy to a charity of the opposed Candidate’s choice.

• In the event that a third party organization airs any broadcast (including radio, cable, or satellite advertising that promotes or supports a named, referenced (including by title) or otherwise identified Candidate, that Candidate’s campaign shall, within three (3) days of discovery of the advertisement buy’s total cost, duration, and source, pay 50% of the cost of that advertising buy to a charity of the opposing Candidates choice.

• In the event that a third party organization airs any broadcast (including radio), cable, or satellite advertising that attacks or opposes a named, referenced (including by title) or otherwise identified Candidate, the opposing Candidate’s campaign shall, within three (3) days of discovery of the advertisement buy’s total cost, duration, and source, pay 50% of the cost of that advertising buy to a charity of the opposed Candidate’s choice.

• The Candidates and their campaigns agree that neither they nor anyone acting on their behalf shall coordinate with any third party on any paid advertising for the duration of the 2012 election cycle. In the event that either Candidate or their campaign or anyone acting on their behalf coordinates any paid advertisement with a third party organization that Candidate’s campaign shall pay 50% of the cost of the ad buy to a charity of the opposing Candidate’s choice.

• The Candidates and their campaigns agree to continue to work together to limit the influence of third party advertisements and to close any loopholes (including coverage of sham ads) that arise in this agreement during the course of the campaign.

SIGNED:

Scott Brown

Elizabeth Warren

I congratulate both candidates for doing this.  It will be extremely interesting to see how it plays out.  But we might well be looking at a campaign in which the people of Massachusetts base their decision on what the candidates themselves have to say – and not much else.  Wouldn’t that be something?

PPP is reporting that Romney and Newt are neck and neck in Florida, Romney had an average lead of 18.5 percent prior to the South Carolina primary.

It’s pretty much even:

2 more people picked Mitt than Newt out of about 600 people we polled tonight…that’s how close we’re talking

Pass the popcorn, it’s going to get ugly.

You can also get the list of rallies, meetings, and events at this link.

The elimination of weekend commuter rail service is a major concern. That would mean many fathers would not be able to visit their children, as visitation often occurs on weekends, and many father’s cannot both pay child support and own and operate a vehicle. Similarly, the parents of children who are in residential treatment facilities and work during the week will be unable to visit them. The commuter rail is a major link that helps keep families together.

Some of the bus routes, if eliminated, would also disrupt schooling, medical care, and visitation.

People forget that Beacon Hill dumped its poor management of the Big Dig on the MBTA – and to have every dollar of fares go towards that debt is unmanageable. The incompetent stewardship by Beacon Hill (not the MBTA management who had a mess dropped on them) involved in running the MBTA into the ground deserves a big, fat “E” – a failing grade all around.

Pats win on Billy Cundiffs missed kick 23-20. Boy what a roller coaster of a sloppy game, but a wins a win. I think we just out-quarterbacked and out-coached Baltimore. Also as a Wire fan,I know Cundiff’s gonna get got, possibly at the hand of Ray Lewis. Anyway lets see how the NFC turns out and then we can figure out how well the Pats will do. Thoughts, comments, concerns always welcome.

To get a sense of how extraordinary Romney’s collapse was, take a look at this summary of all the polling in South Carolina since the beginning of the year:

Up until about five days ago, Romney was still ahead, even though his lead was slowly shrinking.  And then, rather suddenly, the wheels came off: Romney kept botching questions about his tax returns, Gingrich turned in a couple of solid debate performances, and bam – Romney’s stock sank like a stone.

So now, on to Florida.  Romney still has way more money, and Florida is a big, expensive state.  But Gingrich can expect to see a lot of money pour in after tonight’s results, and, perhaps more importantly, he is motivated in a way that he wasn’t earlier in the cycle: after what Romney did to him in Iowa, Gingrich wants nothing more than to destroy Mitt Romney’s political career.

Pass the popcorn.

Speaking of the modern GOP, a commenter to Andrew Sullivan basically has it right:

… [A] Gingrich nomination would be poetic justice – or maybe just justice. Gingrich didn’t transform the GOP alone, but he is arguably more responsible than any one person for the Republican party becoming the cynical, reckless, destructive piece of s@# it is now. I am not a fan of the Reagan Administration, but there is a big difference – as Newt would say a “fundamental” difference – between the party of Reagan and the one Newt was so instrumental in shaping, the current, decadent GOP.

The Republican Party of today is the party of Newt. I think the best bet for reforming it is for Republican grassroots to nominate someone who so thoroughly exemplifies it, and have him lose spectacularly. It would also be cathartic for the country if Obama finally grasped the nettle and took the opportunity to definitively crush, rhetorically as well as electorally, Gingrichism and its variants.

Ah well. It’s just South Carolina, right? The phony will win the nomination eventually.

Remember Tom Weaver and Ralph Zazula? Tom lost a primary for Congress and joined up with Ralph to start “Show ID to Vote” which is focused on demanding IDs at the polls – regardless of whether or not its the law. Rachel Maddow picked up the BMG post on it and ran a story a few months ago. Secretary of the Commonwealth Bill Galvin found the sign to be illegal and the Department of Justice was contacted.

To quickly summarize, Weaver and Zazula set up the sign above inside a New Bedford polling location with big letters saying “SHOW ID TO VOTE”… But it’s not the law. Show ID to Vote is a voter suppression group, pure and simple.

Well, here they are again:

Image adapted from MassLive.com. Click Here for original.

From Laurel’s fantastic post yesterday, we know that the stage was carefully managed to get the “right” people up there. A lot of the Mass GOP House delegation is up there, including Ryan Fattman who’s standing right behind Tom Weaver. It seems likely that Brown’s staff made sure the electeds and big GOP folks got up there. Seems that the voter suppression experts are included in that.

So, Senator Brown – do you support the “Show ID to Vote” group? Not voter ID laws, but this group. This Massachusetts-based group that prides itself on its voter intimidation efforts. Do you support them? I’d ask you in person, but don’t have the extra few hundred bucks to fly down to DC for your monthly coffee with the public.

The current national Republican coalition — the rich, plus religious fundamentalists and social regressives — coalesces into two representatives: Romney for the former, Gingrich for the latter. The twice divorced former Speaker of the House, evidently now the Family Values candidate, (“The Gingrich Question: Cheating vs. Open Marriage”) magnificently epitomizes the underling incoherence of his faction. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum reconfirm their status as afterthoughts.

Interesting exit poll results here.

Gingrich will be easier for Obama to beat than Romney, and even if Romney eventually gets the nomination this result will make his road more difficult and costly so, in all, these results are a step forward for the forces of reason, and some sand in the gearbox for the GOP.

Scott Brown talked to the Lowell Sun’s editorial board yesterday.  He’ll no doubt get the Sun’s endorsement, but that was a given anyway, and the interview may well have done him more harm than good.  Just check this out.

Brown also took on President Barack Obama for proposing tax hikes on families who earn more than $250,000 per year, saying that would hurt “teachers, firefighters, policemen, folks who work two jobs.”

Asked which public servants earn that much money, Brown said it is common for police officers to earn well over $100,000 annually when overtime is factored into their pay.

“You throw in a teacher who’s working, plus a summer job, it adds up pretty quickly,” he said. “There’s quite a few of them.”

Whoa!  That’s a head-snapper right there.  Apparently, the 1% is populated with teachers and cops – who knew?  But, of course, this is hogwash.  TPM explains why:

It doesn’t sound like there’s an epidemic of high-income public servants based on the available data for the area. According to Salary.com, which tracks average pay across various professions, 90% of Boston police patrol officers made a base salary below $75,307 last year and 90% of Lowell patrol officers made a base salary below $70,857. 90% of firefighters in Boston make under $68,793, and below $64,729 in Lowell. The average teacher in Lowell makes about $80,841 a year, according to the Massachusetts Department of Education, higher than the statewide average of $68,781.

It is, of course, possible that there’s a handful of teacher/cop couples whose combined income exceeds $250,000 – as TPM notes, “a couple hundred turnpike cops were found to be making $100k+ salaries in 2009 thanks to prodigious overtime numbers, for example, and in theory some of them have a spouse in a similar position.”  But we’re talking a trivial number of people.  One might also ask whether, if a two-cop family is indeed making over $250,000, there’s some good reason that they should nonetheless pay less tax than other high-income earners.

Brown was also asked about his own salary.

“No one has ever really asked, but if they want to see what Gail and I pay, then whatever. I don’t care,” said Brown, referring to his wife, former Boston television reporter Gail Huff. “It’s not a heck of a lot. I mean, you know, I don’t make a heck of a lot, so I’m paying what I should be paying. Trust me.”

Brown, who earns $174,000 as a senator and received a $700,000 advance to pen his autobiography, was asked to clarify his comment.

“I mean, aside from the book deal that I got, which is really a once-in-a-lifetime thing, I get paid what every member of Congress is paid,” he said.

Wow.  So we need to worry about all those cops and teachers who are raking it in, but Scott Brown, who earns nearly $200,000 all by himself, never mind what his TV personality wife makes, plus all those book advances and the rest of it, “do[es]n’t make a heck of a lot.”  I can think of a lot of people who wouldn’t mind not making “a heck of a lot” the way Brown does.

Nobody is claiming that Scott Brown’s wealth is anything like, say, Mitt Romney’s – obviously, it is not.  But when Brown starts getting worried about the teachers and cops who are in danger of climbing into the 1%, while also thinking that he and his wife don’t make “a heck of a lot” even though they are almost surely in the top 5% of income earners nationally … well, let’s just say it makes one wonder whether Scott Brown really has any clue about this stuff.

“They’ll try again and again to talk about something else during this election. They’ll wage class warfare, pitting one group of Americans against another. They will attack success, and our free enterprise system. They will use terms like ‘us’ and ‘them.’ Our campaign will always be about ‘We the People.’”

OK, got it.  Only bad people use “terms like ‘us’ and ‘them.’”  But wait – didn’t Brown just say that “they” are going to do all kinds of bad things?  And furthermore, what’s that over Brown’s shoulder as he is delivering those very words? (Photo via masslive.com)

He’s for “us.”  Not “we the people,” but “us.”  As opposed to “them” – you know, the ones who use bad words like “us” and “them.”  Wait, I’m confused…

Memo to Team Brown: next time, could the speechwriters please coordinate with the sign makers?

The flavor of the month to deal with Citizens United seems to be a constitutional amendment to revoke the judge-made doctrine that, at least for some purposes, corporations are people and therefore get to exercise some constitutional rights.  Several proposed amendments have been introduced in Congress.  Rep. Jim McGovern has introduced one, called “The People’s Rights Amendment,” and today he has an op-ed in the Globe making the case for it.

Here’s the text that McGovern introduced:

‘Section 2. The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.