Teaparty Updates – Worcester, MA
June 7, 2009 by Boston Patriot
Filed under Elections & Voting
The Teaparty events of April enabled conservatives,libertarians, and others the necessary room to blow off some much needed steam. In order to turn the Teaparty events into a legitimate movement for change, events such as those taking place in Worcester are essential. Here is a sample:
Saturday, June 20, Noon-3 p.m. Worcester Tea Party-Rally for Responsible Government, Elm Park, Worcester.
FREE family friendly rally and picnic (bring your own). Speakers, live music. Bring chairs or a blanket to sit on.
Tuesday, June 30, 7 p.m.-8:30 p.m. Worcester Tea Party Forum, Worcester Public Library, Saxe Room:
Nicholas Sanchez, Prof. of Economics, College of the Holy Cross will be discussing the federal budget [and how we got into our current economic mess — shari]
Ken Mandile
Worcester Tea Party
Shari Worthington, sharilee@telesian.com
MassGOP State Committee, 2nd Worcester District
Worcester Republican City Committee, Ward 5 Chair
Massachusetts Republican Assembly, National Committeewoman
Tel: (508) 755-5242 Cell: (508) 397-6345
http://www.worcestercountyrepublicanclub.com
http://blog.worcestercountyrepublicanclub.com
http://www.mass-republican-assembly.com
Endangered Species: Female Democrats?
June 4, 2009 by Boston Patriot
Filed under Elections & Voting, Transparency
The impetus for this post originated with Boston Phoenix writer David Bernstein. The bottom line: what do male Democrats have against their female counterparts?
A tip of the cap to Boston Phoenix writer David Bernstein on this one:
Congress passed a res. yesterday for 30th anniv of Thatcher becoming 1st female PM. Mass. delegation all voted no, except Tsongas.
Much of the activity that takes place on the floor of the United States Congress (ditto The US Senate and most political bodies) is irrelevant, trivial pursuit, people looking for ways to justify their existence (and our votes). So let me say before I get into the meat of this post, that I believe that this motion and others like it generally have no place. There are plenty of Constitutionally-mandated duties Congress should follow, and if it did, life in America would be a lot better. Nonetheless, pn May 12,2009, the House Roll Call 245 passed with 339 Ayes, 64 Nays, 24 Abstaining, and 6 Presents. (The vote tally is here.) Had I been a member, I would have abstained or voted present. Of the 64 Nays, all were Democrats. Of the 174 Democrats who voted Aye, only one came from Massachusetts, not surprisingly, and the vote belonged to the Bay State’s sole female member: Niki Tsongas. And thus arises the question: why only Tsongas and why Tsongas at all. Presumably she’s no fan of the Iron Lady’s pro-growth fiscal policies (as am I). As such, she would be well within her rights to vote Nay with her Democrat colleagues. Had she chosen to do so, no one would have noticed or cared. Moreover, had the entire delegation voted to Abstain or vote present, no one would have noticed or cared either. Is it possible that male Democrats are hostile to powerful women? Might not Hillary Clinton answer (secretly, off the record), in the affirmative. It’s an open secret that many female Massachusetts Democrats are still miffed at the lack of support shown for Hillary Clinton by their male counterparts. It seems, at least on the surface, that women have no place in the Democrat tent, unless it’s one of subservience. Only one female has won statewide elective office in Massachusetts; for that matter, Tsongas is only the second woman to represent Massachusetts at the Congressional level, after a 25 year drought. How can this be, given the prominence of women in the Democrat Party and the omnipresence of Democrats in Massachusetts. I have no answers for you in this regard, only questions and observations. What doYOU think?
Announcing – Small Government Summit
May 7, 2009 by Boston Patriot
Filed under Fiscal Reforms
The Center for Small Government announces its upcoming 1-day summit on June 6th in Newton. Details here. For those of you wondering what is the Center For Small Government, think Carla Howell and the drive to eliminate the Massachusetts State Income tax. The news wires are replete with stories of outrageous government largesse. In our opinion, The Center for Small Government definitely has a place in the debate over our fiscal future.
Stephen F. Lynch – A Profile in Leadership
April 30, 2009 by Boston Patriot
Filed under Editorials
From an editorial standpoint, we here at Massachusetts NewsPlatoon wholeheartedly support the principles of modest and efficient government, personal responsibility, individual liberty, and self-reliance. History shows that these principles have demonstrable utility, therefore it is our considered judgement that societies whose public policies hew most closely to the aforementioned ideals will succeed in providing the greatest good to the greatest number of individuals living within those societies. Unfortunately, the Massachusetts Congressional delegation, taken as a whole, promotes an expansionist central bureaucracy that is immeasurably at odds with the advance of individual liberty and prosperity.
Occasionally however a clear voice arises from the political clamor and this time it belongs to Stephen F. Lynch, whose soundings of late come as a pleasant surprise. Lynch began his federal congressional career in 2001, representing Massachusetts’ 9th Congressional district, and on more than one occasion since that time has demonstrated a level of wisdom and sound judgement that is both refreshing and rare amongst the modern-day cabal dominating political discourse.
A notable case in point is Lynch’s strident vote against the initial Wall Street bailout, a difficult and seemingly unpopular position to take given the considerable pressure to hew the party line (party in this case meaning bailout). While America’s financial markets were roiling under the weight of previously misguided public policy decisions, Lynch rose above the fear-mongering to oppose Treasury Secretary Paulson’s overwrought proposal. To his everlasting credit, Lynch twice declined to support the Emergency Stabilization Act of 2008, one of only two Massachusetts congressmen to do so. He wisely based his opposition on an aversion to placing taxpayer dollars at risk for the “sins” of others and a lingering concern that the “cure” might ultimately prove more harmful than the problem itself. We wish that Senator John McCain (R,AZ) had demonstrated a similar degree of leadership and foresight, but that’s an issue for another day.
Lynch’s latest act of grace under fire concerns the fate of The Boston Globe, an institution literally near (the Globe resides in his district) the his heart. On April 24, 2009, the Massachusetts Congressional delegation (House and Senate), in yet another dubious exercise, endorsed a letter to Globe parent/owner Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr., requesting that he keep the paper open. While all nine Democrats signed the letter without reservation, Lynch declined to follow, wisely citing “conflict of interest” concerns. Such concerns should be obvious to all thinking men and women: there MUST be a wall of separation between elected officials and the journalists and publications who cover them.
The skeptics among us, never in short supply, might attribute Lynch’s decision-making to naked self interest. He has truthfully signaled his intentions to become the next U.S. Senator from Massachusetts. To bolster his resume, he has added a healthy dose of foreign travel, including visits to Iraq, India, Syria and Morocco. These expeditions certainly won’t diminish his Senatorial ambitions. Neither will establishing a record of independence, courage, integrity and good judgement. The Massachusetts Congressional delegation has survived in large part on an unhealthy diet of group think and stale paradigms. Lynch’s ability to break out of this mindset is welcome, and we encourage more of the same.
Revenue problem or….SPENDING problem?
April 23, 2009 by Boston Patriot
Filed under Editorials, Fiscal Reforms
According to this Boston Globe article, “Political momentum builds for state sales tax increase”. Indeed; and so the Massachusetts Welfare State continues its efforts to stave off a death it well deserves, the talk turns toward tax increases, again. No talk of meaningful spending reforms that will address the inherent STRUCTURAL inefficiencies characteristic of most government/state bureaucracies. These reforms include Pacheco Law repeal, Project Labor Agreement termination, and sale of the MBTA (rife with corruption and inefficiency) for starters. It goes without saying that the public employee pension gravy train has run its course. Time for these folks to get off the dole and try living in the real world, where pensions are largely a relic of the past. In its essence, Massachusetts has a spending problem and not a revenue problem. Let genuine reform begin before anyone searches for “new” revenue.
Don’t let the baby drown – Use transparency to drain the cesspool
April 21, 2009 by kjainauditor
Filed under Transparency
Over the past 8-9 months I have been trying to obtain more information from the Massachusetts State Comptroller’s office and they have now gone from stonewalling me to outright ignoring me, no longer responding to my phone messages or emails. There is no one in government at any level that has an interest in actual transparency; it is an inherent conflict of their self-interest.
In my 13+ years of political activism I consistently hear from people that the things most important to them that government provides are local aid, education, public safety and transportation infrastructure like roads, bridges, etc. Those are what many consider “core functions” of government, and yet in Massachusetts they account for just over 20% of total state spending. That is a factoid that, while not all that hard to deduce, is not spoken about by our state government.
Similar “surprises” exist at the municipal level, though each city and town has its own pathology.
Whenever anyone calls for cutting government we immediately see threats of reductions in the 20% of core services. That is no accident. In fact, there is no shortage of politicians in the legislature and right up through current and former governors who have made clear that any reductions will deeply and severely impact those core services, and that the cuts will be made as painful as possible.
Some argue that you shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, but that is an inappropriate metaphor. Trying to save a baby that’s drowning in a cesspool would more accurately depict the relative proportions and the murkiness of the situation. Only transparency can save the baby.
Does transparency have to cost a lot? Nope, not at all. Government already has the data and the technical potential to bring transparency about quickly and cheaply. Assuming no legal roadblocks, I could do it for the state government with a team of 10 people in about 6 months and a modest budget. Consider then that between the Massachusetts State Auditor’s Office and the Comptroller’s office there are over 450 employees according to the FY2009 limited data available online. Over 450 employees with millions of dollars in payroll and other expenses…and no transparency.
The only statewide office which could bring transparency to the people would be the State Auditor, and Joe DeNucci has proven in his nearly 22 years in office that transparency is not a priority. The State Auditor is a statewide constitutional officeholder elected by the people.
Another bad idea….
April 17, 2009 by Boston Patriot
Filed under Fiscal Reforms
from the bad idea factory a.k.a. the Massachusetts Legislature. Desparate to find new sources of revenue to feed the beast they themselves have created, the solons on Beacon Hill are mulling an increase in the sales tax yet again. And it’s still a bad idea and you still need to and MUST call your legislator and let him/her know how you feel. (We hope you feel like opposing it and any and all other “REVENUE ENHANCEMENTS”.) There are major structural inefficiencies which MUST be addressed first. Remember, Massachusetts has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Declaration of Independence
April 14, 2009 by D. R. Tucker
Filed under Elections & Voting, Media Rites
Would a divided GOP help Republicans in Massachusetts?
On April 14, a contributor to conservative activist Patrick Ruffini’s blog TheNextRight.com argued that splitting the GOP into two parts would actually improve the party’s overall prospects. “The remedies to the GOP’s slide proposed thus far follow the same basic paradigm,” the contributor wrote. “The purists say that the GOP needs to purge the RINOs and create a clear distinction between the parties. The problem is that the American public sees the difference between the parties and is choosing Democrats. It turns out that the endless harping on pork and nomination battles nominally related to abortion drive the base, but seems petty and shortsighted to most everyone else. On the other hand, the reformers are more interested in creating more conservative and market-based solutions to problems Democrats are also addressing, but they are scorned by a base that sees them as part of a cocktail-sipping Northeastern elite, thus apostates unworthy of attention. Moderate Republican candidates who have shown their ability to win in blue states are targeted by the Club for Growth. They may hardly better than Democrats on some issues, but they contribute to creating a majority of seats.
“So how do you hold on to a base that holds increasingly unpopular ideas on social policy while reaching out beyond so-called ‘real America’ where many voters agree with our foreign and fiscal policy but can’t stand the anti-intellectualism and public moral posturing of the hard-right southern wing? Set it free! Why not split the GOP into a regional southern party while creating a new fiscally-conservative, socially-moderate party in the Northeast, Great Lakes and West?… If the goal is not a GOP revival for its own sake, but the implementation of conservative governance, it’s worth looking at.”
“Reviving Massachusetts’ Republican Party is in the best interests of everyone, not just Republicans,” Peyser wrote. “One-party rule, especially when it’s as lopsided as it is here, inevitably leads to intellectual laziness, excess, and, all too often, corruption. The recent spate of subpoenas and surveillance photos on Beacon Hill suggests that we may already be sliding down that slippery slope.”
Peyser further noted that “…[the] underlying problem for Republicans is the absence of a compelling conservative vision for the future that is aligned with New England’s more tolerant and civic-minded political sensibilities. Typically, political observers say that the national Republican Party has moved too far to the right for moderate New Englanders. But I think a more telling way to frame the problem is that the national party has drifted away from the core conservative principles that used to unite Republicans from all parts of the country, in favor of policies that appeal to an increasingly narrow, albeit fervent, base.”
“If the national party no longer reflects the views of Republicans in Massachusetts,” Peyser continued, “what does the local GOP leadership stand for? I think today the only fair answer is ‘less’ – less tax, less spending, less (I know, ‘fewer’) Democrats. Take whatever the Democrats want, subtract about a third, and what’s left will usually be the Republican position on the issue. This is hardly a rallying cry for the party faithful or potential candidates, and it is certainly not an effective appeal to independent voters.”
“Lacking a governing philosophy of their own, Massachusetts’ Republicans have been tarred with the increasingly unpopular (and often unconservative) positions of the Bush administration and its mostly southern and western allies in Congress.” The Bay State GOP has to have a “governing philosophy…grounded in the basic tenets of conservatism: limited and accountable government, individual liberty and responsibility, and free markets.” However, this philosophy alone “…may not be enough to change the tarnished Republican brand. A name change might also be in order, to symbolize the fresh start and create some distance from the national party. In Minnesota, the local Democratic Party is called the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. Maybe here in Massachusetts – or across New England – the GOP should start calling itself the Independent Republican Party.”
“Now, some dyed-in-the-wool Republicans might blanch at the idea of splintering the national party. But if this is the only way the GOP’s Massachusetts branch can make a comeback, then it would seem to be in the best interests of the national party, too. Equally important, a vibrant state party that is generating new ideas and winning elections could spark a needed reappraisal of conservatism and expand the Republican base in other parts of the country.”
Establishing a clear separation between the Republican Party in this region and the national Republican Party would have tangible benefits, both psychological and political. Such a separation would signal to independents and moderates that Republicans in this region recognize the national party’s flaws and wish to actually deliver on promises, as opposed to breaking them. An “Independent Republican Party” would also avoid the usual lefty accusations of slavish devotion to talk radio and Fox News.
Is there a potential downside to having an “Independent Republican Party” in this region? Perhaps. While the Northeast lacks large numbers of social conservatives, those on the social right who live in this region might feel disenfranchised by the establishment of a putatively conservative political entity that clearly wishes to deemphasize the importance of social issues. If an “Independent Republican Party” is established in this region, the party’s leaders must make clear that they are not hostile to blue-state residents with red-state sensibilities.
Having said that, the creation of an “Independent Republican Party” in the Northeast could be the vaccine that cures the disease of one-party rule. The GOP’s diminished presence in the Northeast is sickening. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could get well soon?
“Pension Reform”, Razzle Dazzle & Life in the Commonwealth
April 1, 2009 by Boston Patriot
Filed under Editorials
Massachusetts House Speaker Robert DeLeo’s recent rhetoric is encouraging even to the most hard-edged cynics. It begs the following question: Will the rhetoric be accompanied by substantive, genuine action? If the past is prologue to the future, the answer is an unqualified “no”. Jeff Jacoby does an excellent job of constructing an anthology of the multiple reports, committees and commissions that have been created to “address” the issue of public employee pension reform. So Speaker DeLeo and Senate President Murray, we here at Massachusetts News Platoon wish you well in your endeavors and hope for the best for the great state of Massachusetts. Particularly, we hope that this is not yet another excise in public policy razzle dazzle. As is often the case however, the issue of reform receives more in the way of lip service than of tangible action, and for a very simple reason: the public employee tail wags the public policy/political dog. As long as public employee unions dominate the Massachusetts political landscape, meaningful reform will not be forthcoming, EVER. Or at least until the Commonwealth’s fiscal house of cards collapses and plunges it into bankruptcy. Which is not an entirely bad thing, assuming elected officials know what to do in such an environment. To quote a recent phrase: A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.
Hat Tip to good friend and contributor D.R. Tucker.
Public Employee Pension Report…
March 31, 2009 by Boston Patriot
Filed under Fiscal Reforms
This report comes to us courtesy of the Worcester Regional Research Bureau. It states the obvious: the goose that layed the golden egg of gold-plated public employee retirement plans is dysfunctional and in need of REFORM. Special thanks to President and CEO Roberta R. Schaefer.
