Worcester County Freedom Trail

I’m appalled the House approved the sales tax increase. But apparently all is not lost in Worcester County. We have 18 rep districts. Nine voted for the increase, nine against.

Time for the nine who voted for the tax increase to go. Here are the details and where we need to field new candidates.

The nine who voted for the increase. These guys have got to go:
- Alicea, Charlton, 6th Worcester
- Binienda, Leicester, 17th Worcester
- DiNatale, Fitchburg, 3rd Worcester
- Fernandes, Milford, 10th Worcester
- Gobi, Spencer, 5th Worcester
- Naughton, Clinton, 12th Worcester
- O’Day, Worcester, 14th Worcester
- Pedone, Worcester, 15th Worcester
- Spellane, Worcester, 13th Worcester

Here are the nine who voted against:
- Callahan, Sutton, 18th Worcester
- Evangelidis, Holden, 1st Worcester
- Fresolo, Worcester, 16th Worcester
- Frost, Auburn, 7th Worcester
- Kujawski, Webster, 8th Worcester
- Peterson, Grafton, 9th Worcester
- Polito, Shrewsbury, 11th Worcester
- Rice, Gardner, 2nd Worcester
- Rosa, Leominster, 4th Worcester

UPDATE:
Had enough? Write a letter to the editor:
- The Boston Globe – letter@globe.com
- The Boston Herald – letterstoeditor@bostonherald.com
- The Worcester Telegram – letters@telegram.com
- The Patriot Ledger – editpage@ledger.com
- The Metrowest Daily News – mdnletters@cnc.com
- The Sentinel & Enterprise – Letters@SentinelAndEnterprise.com
- The Lowell Sun – backtalk@lowellsun.com
- The Eagle-Tribune – kjohnson@eagletribune.com
- The Springfield Republican – http://www.masslive.com/contactus/
- The Cape Cod Times – letters@capecodonline.com
- The Berkshire Eagle – letters@berkshireeagle.com

President Obama has directed his staff to cut $100 million in spending to help make his spending policies look more reasonable. Well, the reality is that this PR stunt just makes his outrageous spending look even worse. Some comments:

AP: “Cut A Latte Or Two Out Of Your Annual Budget And You’ve Just Done As Much Belt-Tightening As President Barack Obama Asked Of His Cabinet On Monday. The thrifty measures Obama ordered for federal agencies are the equivalent of asking a family that spends $60,000 in a year to save $6. Obama made his push for frugality the subject of his first Cabinet meeting, ensuring it would command the capital’s attention. It also set off outbursts of mental math and scribbled calculations as political friend and foe tried to figure out its impact. The bottom line: Not much.” (“Spin Meter: Saving Federal Money The Easy Way,” AP, 4/20/09)
 
CBS: “Imagine You Were Shopping For A $50,000 Car, And The Dealer Offered To Slash The Price By A Dollar? Would You Be Bowled Over? Scramble For Your Checkbook? Leap To Sign The Sales Agreement? Probably Not. That’s why there’s cynicism as President Obama announced he directed the members of his Cabinet today to come up with $100-million in spending cuts in 90 days. Considering his budget this year calls for over $3.9-trillion in spending, $100-million is the same percentage of reduction as taking a buck off the price of a $50,000 car.” (“Is $100 M Much Of A Budget Cut? Ask Obama,” CBS News’ Political Hotsheet Blog, 4/20/09)
 
NEW YORK TIMES: “Budget Analysts Promptly Burst Out Laughing. A Reporter Declared At The White House Briefing That The Initiative Would Become Fodder For Late-Night Talk Show Hosts.” (“Obama Has His Cabinet Looking For Small Change,” The New York Times, 4/21/09)
 
CNN: “In Essence The President Has Asked Government Agencies To Trim The Equivalent of .003% Of The Federal Budget. Looked At Another Way, $100 Million Is .006% Of This Year’s Estimated Budget Deficit.” (“What Cutting $100 Million Really Means,” CNN, 4/20/09)
 
REUTERS On $100 Million: “The Government Spent That Amount In Just 13 Minutes.” “President Barack Obama challenged U.S. government departments on Monday to find $100 million in savings, but the move was mocked by critics who said the government spent that amount in just 13 minutes.”(“White House On Defensive Over Spending Cuts,” Reuters, 4/20/09)
 
WALL STREET JOURNAL: “$100 Million, A Largely Symbolic Effort.” (“Obama Tells Cabinet To Trim Spending,” The Wall Street Journal, 4/21/09)

Holy cow! Did someone forget to tell the Dems on Beacon Hill that we’re in a recession, that people are losing jobs all over the place, that “we the people” have no more to give?

Look at the mess of proposed amendments to the state budget that focus on increases taxes! Are these legislators insane?!?! These are just a few of the 978 amendments to the proposed House budget.

Kocot, Peter V. (D-Northampton) – Has filed an amendment to add a 3% local option meals tax (Amendment #26)

Kocot, Peter V. (D-Northampton) – Has filed an amendment to add a 5% sales tax to services including email, Internet sales, online banking (Amendment #28)

Clark, Katherine M. (D-Melrose) – Has filed an amendment to add the “beer tax” (Amendment #131)

Bowles, Bill (D-Attleboro) – Has filed an amendment increasing the state room occupancy tax rate 1% and increasing the state meals tax 1% (Amendment #201)

Scaccia, Angelo M. (D-Boston) – Has filed an amendment to add a 1% meals tax (Amendment #225)

Scaccia, Angelo M. (D-Boston) – Has filed an amendment to add a 2% meals tax (Amendment #226)

Sanchez, Jeffrey (D-Boston) – Has filed an amendment that levies a 10% sales tax on non-nutritious foods collected monthly by the Department Of Revenue, an $8 per gallon sold levy on wholesale dealers, and 80 cent levies on powdered soft drinks and liquid soft drinks sold (Amendment #348)

Moran, Michael J. (D-Boston) – Has filed an amendment to tax non-profit organizations at a rate of 25% of the commercial real property rate (Amendment #413)

Hecht, Jonathan (D-Watertown) – Has filed an amendment that expands the definition of smokeless tobacco products, increases taxes on smoking tobacco at 90% of the wholesale price of tobacco products, and increases the tax rate on smokeless tobacco from 25% to 45% (Amendment #499)

Atkins, Cory (D-Concord) – Has filed an amendment to increase the sales tax on candy, soft drinks, and alcoholic beverages (Amendment #521)

Khan, Kay (D-Newton) – Has filed an amendment to add a 5% tax on alcoholic beverages purchased from a liquor store (Amendment #534)

Wolf, Alice K. (D-Cambridge) – Has filed an amendment to increase the retail excise tax to 7% (Amendment # 561)

Malia, Elizabeth A. (D-Boston) – Has filed an amendment to eliminate the sales tax exemption on Alcohol (Amendment #584)

Patrick, Matthew (D-Falmouth) – Has filed an amendment to increase the income tax from 5.3% to 6.3% (Amendment #635)

Patrick, Matthew (D-Falmouth) – Has filed an amendment to increase the state sales tax to 6% (Amendment #639)

Brownsberger, William N. (D-Belmont) and Peisch, Alice H. (D-Wellesley) – Have filed amendments eliminating the exemption for gasoline and special fuels from the tax on sales of certain tangible and personal property (Amendment #659 and #835)

Khan, Kay (D-Newton) – Has filed an amendment to increase the gas tax by 29 cents to 50 cents per gallon (Amendment #676)

Balser, Ruth B. (D-Newton) – Has filed an amendment to allow local option 3% meals tax and up to a 6% rooms tax (Amendment #698)

Balser, Ruth B. (D-Newton) – Has filed an amendment to increase the state sales tax from 5% to 6% (Amendment #699)

Sciortino, Carl M., Jr. (D-Somerville) – Has filed an amendment to removes exemptions on classifications of corporations that will effectively require more businesses to be subject to the corporate excise tax of 10.5% (Amendment #712)

Sciortino, Carl M., Jr. (D-Somerville) – Has filed an amendment to increase the state sales tax by 2% (Amendment #717)

Walz, Martha M. (D-Boston) – Has filed an amendment that increases the state gas tax by 25 cents to 46 cents per gallon effective July 1, 2009. Pegs future increases to inflation. (Amendment #892)

Pictures of the Worcester Tea Party keep flowing in from all over the county. Thanks to all who contributed. See if you can find yourself in these pictures!

Btw, did you hear about the horrendous pork being piled on to Gov Patrick’s budget?

House lawmakers have already larded a $27.4 billion state budget with dozens of pork-barrel amendments totaling millions of dollars despite a crippling economy – including one $150,000 request to study the winter moth.

I’m thinking we need a pork roast next, eh?!?!

It’s easy to think conservatives can’t really change public opinion. But look how fast things are changing in Britain. I never thought I’d see the day when the voters would start agitating for lower taxes.

Thanks to Mark for pointing out this tidbit from the Corner at National Review:

If you want an indication of how quickly things can change, Jonah, just look across the pond. There’s been a major new “deliberative” survey on British attitudes to government spending that shows quite clearly that the Brits have suddenly and dramatically reversed their thinking on the issue. As recently as 2005, almost 60% of Britons wanted the same or increased public spending. Now 72% want spending cuts. As the ever-excellent Fraser Nelson says,

“An old orthodoxy still reigns in SW1*: that it is cruel and heartless to want cuts, and that higher state spending is the non-negotiable priority of modern, compassionate Britain. Yet outside the Westminster village, the public is growing increasingly incensed about the way ministers are spending as if the party will never end — from the expenses claimed by Jacqui Smith to cover her husband’s cinematic tastes** to the NHS supercomputer.”

* The zip code for Parliament and Westminster.

** The husband of the Home Secretary (Attorney General equivalent) ordered two porn movies on pay-per-view and charged them as public expenses. No, this was not an April Fool’s joke.

Full details of the poll are here, with some more thoughts from Fraser here.

I heard Rep Jeff Perry (R-Sandwich) give a speech right before WTKK talk show host Michael Graham the other night. Michael, as expected, was superb. But I hadn’t heard Jeff speak until that night. I must say, he was truly inspirational. So when I saw this tidbit from him today, I thought it was worth sharing.

From Rep Jeff Perry on TheCapitolViewLive.com:

It is that time of year again. The Massachusetts Legislature is about to begin our annual budget debate on Beacon Hill. While Governor Patrick and several liberal legislators are suggesting that the only way to solve our current fiscal situation is via new or increased taxation, the fact remains that the State budget is full of earmarks and special interest spending and we have seen very little reform. Taxes aren’t the solution to this economic situation.

Rather than focus on additional taxes, in this recession, government should be lowering taxes. It is Economics 101 that when government collects fewer taxes from the citizens, the additional money is put into the stream of commerce. This will stimulate economic activity, which leads to higher sales and employment tax collections and less people dependent on government programs and services. This is exactly the logic of the federal government lowering interest rates or sending everyone a rebate check when the economy slows down.

The Majority Party on Beacon Hill does not agree with such a proven economic theory and has proposed more than a dozen new or increased taxes. The most widely discussed has been Governor Patrick’s proposed 27-cent increase in the state gas tax. This would give us the highest such tax in the nation, at a total 50.5 cents of taxes per gallon. An increased gas tax will hurt those who least can afford it. Many folks of low or modest income are high consumers of gasoline and would bear the brunt of this increase.

In a direct assault to the tourism industry, Governor Patrick has revived his proposal to raise the meals tax and the hotel taxes. While tourists would be paying a portion of such increases, we all go out to eat and the psychological impact on the restaurant and hotel businesses is potentially devastating. If the message to would be visitors is that Massachusetts is raising our gasoline, meals and hotel taxes, it is only logical many would consider other vacation destinations.

Other ideas of our tax-happy Governor include increasing Registry of Motor Vehicles fees. Governor Patrick is proposing to “update and consolidate” fees at the Registry to raise over $75 million in new revenue (taxes). The Governor has also proposed the sales tax exemption be eliminated on all alcohol, candy and sweetened beverage purchases. This idea would raise over $121 million to fund the growing size and scope of state government.

Not to focus his ideas on just alcohol, Governor Patrick also wants to add a new 5-cent deposit on noncarbonated drinks, including water, flavored water, coffee-based drinks, juices and sports drinks. This tax would raise $20 million annually as the state gets to retain the money for uncollected bottle deposits. We have also heard talk about vacation home rental taxes, higher income and sales taxes, and let us not forgot about those toll increases.

Instead of increasing taxes, I believe by putting more money into the hands of the hardworking American people, history shows that we see more people saving for their future needs (thus less need for government entitlements) and investing or spending into the stream of commerce (to stimulate our businesses and create employment). It is perhaps an overly obvious point, but one always worth pointing out, every time we get someone off a government assistance program and into a job, we gain in three distinct ways. First, government no longer has to subsidize the unemployed worker with unemployment or welfare benefits. Secondly, that same person is now a taxpaying contributor to government via their payroll taxes, sales taxes and social security contributions. And thirdly, and perhaps most importantly for the long-term, this individual is now a productive member of society with a sense of self-worth and pride.

If taxes are the answer to our slow economy, it should be to lower them and let the American people stimulate the economy. Government does not need or deserve any additional tax revenue. The well publicized ethical and patronage problems within state government need to be corrected rather than additional taxation of the hard working people of Massachusetts.

Here’s how Governor Deval Patrick is planning on using the state’s federal bailo…I mean “stimulus” money. I’d like to know what “safety net programs” are. And I can see the teachers unions are very happy today. I’m not sure how $2B to the already well-funded education dept stimulates the economy in the short-run (the whole point of the “stimulus” package). But smarter minds than mine are certainly hard at work on the issue. As long those minds don’t include the Aloisi woman who spent the last 6 months sitting in an empty office!

From State House News Service:

State officials have long estimated that Massachusetts would receive between $6 billion and $9 billion in federal stimulus dollars. Since the passage of that bill on Feb. 17, Massachusetts officials honed in on an $8.7 billion take. Officials warn that, because regulations on this funding have not yet been handed down from the feds, many of the dollar figures are subject to change. Here is a breakdown of the funds, as anticipated by the Patrick administration:

Clean energy: $482 million
Education: $1.955 billion
Housing – $430 million
Labor and workforce: $90 million
Public safety: $71.7 million
Safety net programs: $3.572 billion
Technology and research: $1.295 billion
Transportation: $809 million

In a separate category, Massachusetts residents will receive payroll tax benefits, and municipalities will be offered the chance to sell low-interest and no-interest bonds expected to amount to $5.294 billion.
Other stimulus expenditures for Massachusetts, which fall within the aforementioned broader categories, are expected to include:

$52 million for drinking water projects
$134 million for clean water projects
$1.73 million for diesel emissions reduction
$3.2 million to repair leaky underground storage tanks
$2.5 million for brownfields
$20 million to train workers to audit energy consumption on new weatherization projects

Massachusetts is also set to receive an unspecified portion of $125 million for coastal and marine habitat restoration, $600 million for superfund site cleanup and $589 million for national park construction.

I think the fundamental problem is that our elected officials are politicians, not responsible policy makers. They don’t know how to responsibly manage a budget because most have been on the government dole for way too long. And they spend all their time worrying about being reelected. Witness the spectacle at the Worcester City Council retreat. As soon as you put politicians in front of a reporter, a camera, or a voter, they start performing. I don’t want performances from our elected officials…I want careful thinking and responsible action (or no action, if the situation warrants).

So kudos to the Northborough Selectmen for attempting to hold our legislators accountable. Go Northborough!

Sen. Harriette Chandler, D-Worcester, Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, and Rep. Harold Naughton Jr., D-Clinton, have been sent a letter from Town Administrator John Coderre outlining how the town feels its economic burdens can be eased through legislative reform.

The letter lists six priorities and 10 secondary priorities town officials say they want its delegation to support.

“We’re asking for some relief,” said Coderre. “To look at waste and ways to save money.”

The top issue is the town’s desire for greater control over employee health insurance outside of collective bargaining. Towns must negotiate with unions to make insurance changes, however the state has exempted itself from doing the same.

Northborough could save about $400,000 in its fiscal 2010 budget if a bill filed on plan changes outside of collective bargaining is passed.

“This one reform is the most effective way to bring immediate fiscal relief to all cities and towns and is urgently overdue,” the letter states.

Officials also are seeking an update to purchasing and procurement laws, which they feel are overly restricted and outdated. At a minimum, the requirements should be standardized for projects under $100,000.

“The labyrinth of requirements for even the smallest of projects makes it impossible for public officials to use common sense and good business practices,” the letter says.

Officials are also requesting legislation that would exempt construction projects less than $100,000 from prevailing wage laws, because often prevailing wage is far greater than what local contractors pay.

The letter cites an example of market research done by the Recreation Department on replacing the gym’s floor, and determined a budget of $55,000 was necessary.

That cost jumped to $82,000 after the procurement regulations dictated a need to inform bidders that the project was subject to prevailing wage.

Have you thought about how much of the new debt your household will be responsible for covering? Heritage Foundation estimates close to $20,000! Ack! Here’s an interesting analysis from the Campaign for Liberty with a breakdown by household income.

And here are more scary stats about the atrocious amount of money President Obama is spending. From Eric Cantor, US House Minority Whip:

Deficit:
* 2009: $1.75 trillion (12.3% of GDP), more than triple the previous year.
* 2010: $1.17 trillion (8% of GDP)
* Falls to $533 billion in 2013 (3% of GDP), still higher than any deficit in history.
* Then starts rising ever year reaching $712 billion (3.1% of GDP) in 2019
* Claims $2 trillion in “savings” but figure consists entirely of tax increases and phony Iraq savings (budget uses baseline that assumes that spending in Iraq is at current level for ten years).

National Debt:
* Doubles the national debt in just eight years.
* During the last eight years the debt rose by $4.9 trillion. Democrats will exceed that within three years.

Interest:
* Beginning in 2012, and every year thereafter, the government will spend more than $1 billion a day in net interest.
* By 2019, the government will spend $1.7 billion per day on net interest.

Taxes:
* Raises taxes by $1.4 trillion over ten years.
* Over 50 percent of those filers in the top tax bracket who will see their taxes go up are small businesses (defined as 25 percent or more of their income being business income).
* Carbon Tax: At least $646 billion over ten years to be assessed on all Americans through higher energy costs.

Governor Patrick and the Beacon Hill spendthrifts are salivating over the new federal stimulus package. Too bad we all can’t get a bailout when we mismanage our budgets, at work or at home. But someone has to pay the piper and it’s “we the taxpayers” to the rescue again. Will someone please tell me when we’re going to get rescued?

The Massachusetts Republican Party today issued the following statement regarding the Democratic feeding frenzy on Beacon Hill over the anticipated federal tax dollars in the so-called “stimulus package.”

MassGOP Chair Jennifer Nassour said, “Today, Governor Patrick cements his reputation as a tax-and-spend liberal.  After proposing six tax increases this year alone, he will now oversee a Democratic spending spree on projects that will have no real long-term economic benefit and make highly dubious claims of job creation.  Governor Patrick has failed to address our economic crisis and has instead decided the families of Massachusetts should pay more taxes when they can afford it the least.”

“Instead of spending money on the outrageous pet projects of political allies, Patrick should be trying to lighten the tax burden on workers and employers, which is the best way to stimulate this economy.  When they use the term “shovel ready,” it actually means these projects are so wasteful they should be immediately buried and forgotten,” concluded Nassour.

Some examples of proposed “Shovel Ready” projects:
 
It won’t create jobs, but in the name of ‘public safety’…
Brockton wants to spend $75,000 on “10 Segway X2 Police Units.” Brockton projects this will create ZERO jobs.
 
Put me in coach, I’m ready to spend…
Malden wants $265,000 for “Renovation of Ferryway Park including re-grading and additions and extension of site drainage systems to allow proper drainage of the playing surface, reconstruction of the existing natural grass softball/baseball field and mult.”
 
$500,000 for 4, 10, or 25 Jobs?
Rebuilding the RStreetBridge in Amesbury – Projected Cost $500,000 – Projected Jobs? 25.
Masonry Repairs at Engine 41 in Boston – Projected Cost $500,000 – Projected Jobs? 4.
Courthouse Parking Lot in Chicopee – Projected Cost $500,000 – Projected Jobs? 10.
 
Which one is the better deal?
The City of Haverhill projects that they could spend either:
$2,000,000 to replace a water main, creating 10 jobs…
Or $20,000 for street draining, creating 20 jobs.
 
Is that all you need?
Lynn says that $10,000 for the purchase of a “Fire Dispatch Instant Recorder” will create one job.
 
Source: United States Conference of Mayors, 1/17/09