Worcester County Freedom Trail

Congressmen Jim McGovern and Richard Neal held a town hall on Obamacare at UMass Medical School today. Try though they might, they could not get the crowd that overflowed two big rooms to buy in to the stuff they were shoveling about universal health care. What appalls me most is that they stood there in front of this crowd of as many as 200 and said with a straight face that the voters must be misinformed about their concerns. Excuse me? I’ve ben reading the bill as have many voters. Apparently they haven’t if they can’t answer simple questions from we the people.

The Worcester Telegram didn’t waste any time picking up the story. It was online within hours of the town hall:

U.S. Reps. James P. McGovern and Richard E. Neal were heckled and booed after trying to rally support today for President Barack Obama’s plan for a comprehensive national health insurance program.

The two Worcester-area Democratic lawmakers were shouted down several times by people attending a packed “town hall” meeting at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

UMass officials threatened several times to end the gathering because of the raucous behavior, which occurred despite a heavy police presence.

At one point, Mr. McGovern was likened by an attendee to Josef Mengele, the Nazi officer who performed experiments on concentration camp survivors.

Despite the generally hostile crowd, the two legislators insisted that a health care overhaul was desperately needed and that changes to the system would financially benefit all.

Most attending the meeting, however, disagreed — charging that the huge price tag for a new health care program would bankrupt the country.

They argued care options also would be limited and that life-sustaining support would be denied to senior citizens, points vehemently disputed by the two congressmen.

Mr. McGovern, who represents Worcester and other communities in the 3rd Congressional District, said after the meeting that health care reform opponents clearly managed to muster supporters to attend the meeting.

And in case you haven’t seen this, here’s President Obama supporting single payer, socialized medicine:

I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.

It always puzzles me why we don’t require some form of ID to vote. Are we trying to encourage people to scam the system? I’m happy to see there are efforts underway to get a handle on the voting process here in Massachusetts. There will be a hearing on these bills on Wednesday, July 15, on Beacon Hill.

On Wednesday, July 15, at 1:00 pm in Room A-1 of the State House, the Committee of Election Laws is holding a public hearing on just 12 bills. These bills are in basically two categories: (1) to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote; and (2) to require identification when voting.

The problem is that Massachusetts does not require proof of citizenship to register to vote, nor does it require any identification to vote in an election. In some towns it’s not too difficult to vote several times, if you had the inclination to do so, especially if you knew of people who weren’t likely to vote that day.

It’s amazing that you have to give positive identification to get on an airplane (or a hundred other things) but not for voting, the most important duty we have as citizens. And cities and town politicians are often the strongest to resist making that a requirement.

Here is a list of what’s up for discussion.

H.579, Paul K. Frost, An Act relative to the identification requirements of persons registering to vote

H.583, Bradford R. Hill, An Act for legislation to further regulate the identification process of persons registering to vote

H.565, Stephen R. Canessa, An Act relative to voter identification at election polls

H.569, Vinnie deMacedo, An Act relative to establishing voter identification procedures

H.578, Paul K. Frost, An Act relative to the showing of photo identification when voting

H.668, Karyn E. Polito, An Act relative to the identification requirements for voters

H.581, Colleen M. Garry, An Act relative to the identification requirements for voters

H.587, Bradley H. Jones, Jr., An Act for legislation to require photo-identification for persons voting in elections

H.663, Alice Hanlon Peisch, An Act relative to establishing identification requirements for voters who registered to vote by mail

H.670, Michael F. Rush, An Act relative to requiring voters to furnish identification

S.335, Scott P. Brown, An Act for legislation to require photo identification to receive a ballot

S.360, Richard R. Tisei, An Act for legislation relative to voter identification

You know the system is out of control when legislators sit around thinking up repressive bills that will put control of airline carry-on size in the hands of the federal government. For goodness sake, the airlines can take care of this themselves.

From Townhall.com:

Three-term U.S. Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) this month introduced a bill that would impose a federal limit on the size of baggage allowed to be carried by passengers boarding aircraft. It sounds like while jet-setting to and from the nation’s capital, the Congressman has been somewhat inconvenienced in the past: “The passengers who board the plane last often don’t have any place to stow their carry-ons because the people who got on first fill the overhead bins with oversize roll-on bags,” Lipinski said.

Instead of arriving for flights earlier to secure overhead space, let’s introduce some legislation! While we’re on the subject, can we ban carry-on luggage from being stowed beneath seats? Air travelers should have a right to overhead compartment space and adequate leg room!

If you’re interested, get out your tape measure and read the full story to see if Rep. Lipinski would deem your carry-on acceptable.

Our forefathers never envisioned the role of legislator as permanent or full-time. It’s easy to see the problems. Our elected officials are mere humans and humans in a position of power will more often than not do what it takes to keep their position of power. That includes breaking ethics laws and bending or ignoring rules. In Massachusetts, we see a perfect example in the indictments of three consecutive Speakers of the House: DiMasi, Finneran, and Flaherty.

That’s why I was quite happy to learn that Rep. Karyn Polito (R-Shrewsbury) filed a term limits bill earlier this year.

From the Worcester Telegram’s editorial pages:

‘Allowing the same people to remain in power in decades is not healthy for our democracy and our state,” state Rep. Karyn Polito of Shrewsbury told me during a recent interview. “If we really want to change the culture on Beacon Hill, end entrenched bad practices and level the balance of power, we need a system that encourages fresh ideas and fresh perspectives.”

She made those remarks as she was filing a constitutional amendment that would place term limits on members of the Legislature. “Timing is everything,” she said. “Scandals, mismanagement and the absence of political balance have diminished people’s confidence in government. We need to restore integrity.”

She’s right on target. The alarming loss of credibility on Beacon Hill has many roots, ranging from the criminal indictments of three House speakers in a row, to the ethical morass created by self-serving politicians who bilk the treasury and fatten their pensions — not to mention fiscal irresponsibility that caused state spending to increase 57 percent in a decade. About 40 percent of those lawmakers have been around for more than 12 years, and 80 percent of them belong to the same party, marching in lockstep with leaders who exercise all but dictatorial authority.

Boston Globe editorial on ethics reforms

Details on Rep. Karyn Polito’s term limits bill

It’s downright scary how much goes on behind closed doors on Beacon Hill. Even members of the committees are often left out of discussions and the development of legislation…especially Republican committee members.

Apparently Rep. Jeff Perry (R-Sandwich), ranking member of the House Ethics Committee and appointee to the Conference Committee on the pending Ethics Reform Bill, gets to see the legislation he’s supposed to sign AFTER it’s been written and just moments before it’s to be announced to the public. How bad is that?!? These atrocities need to be made public so voters can see how appallingly the Democrats “in charge” are behaving.

In a statement yesterday, Representative Jeffrey Davis Perry (R-Sandwich) expressed his disappointment with the process of drafting the Ethics Bill which was released yesterday.

Perry was selected to serve on the Conference Committee on the pending Ethics Reform Bill. Perry was among three members from the House of Representatives and three Senate members to serve on this Conference Committee which is charged with ironing out the differences between the different reform bills. In addition to this appointment, Perry also serves as the Ranking Member on the House Ethics Committee.

“With all the ethical scandals involving elected officials on Beacon Hill, citizens have lost a great deal of trust and confidence in their government. I viewed my role in this Conference Committee as making certain that any approved Bill has real and meaningful reforms. Disappointingly for the last nine days, there has been zero opportunity to meaningfully participate in the development of the Bill,” said Representative Perry from the State House.

Perry added: “As a Republican Legislator in Massachusetts, many times my point of view does not prevail. I will review the Bill this evening [Weds] and make my decision whether or not I can support the Bill. I will only support the Bill if it offers meaningful reform. Equally concerning than the substance of the proposal, which I was not allowed to review before the press conference, is the process which the Bill was developed.”

“The culture of Beacon Hill politics, even when developing an Ethics Bill, remains one of backroom deals where only a couple members of one political party have a say,” said Perry.

From the planning committee at the Worcester Tea Party…the next big rally. Call all your friends and neighbors. We can’t sit idly by while Beacon Hill grabs every penny they can.

Dear Tea Party Patriots:

Next week we’ll publicly announce our speakers for the Worcester Tea Party-Rally for Responsible Government, but we’re giving you the information today!  The rally will be held at Elm Park on Saturday, June 20 from noon to 3 p.m. 

Here are some of the speakers that will be featured:

- Chip Faulkner, Associate Director of Citizens for Limited Taxation

- Todd Feinburg, WRKO Radio

- David G. Tuerck, Executive Director of The Beacon Hill Institute and Chairman, Department of Economics Suffolk University

- Nicholas Sanchez, Professor of Economics, College of the Holy Cross

- Carla Howell, President of the Center for Small Government.

Professor Sanchez will also be the featured speaker at our first Worcester Tea Party Forum, to be held in the Saxe Room at the Worcester Public Library.  The forum will be held on Tuesday, June 30 at 7 p.m.  More details about this forum will follow in a couple of weeks.

What can you do to help our movement to bring fiscal responsibility to all levels of government?  Get the word out about our Rally for Responsible Government! 

We need to build our organization so that when elections come around we have the ability to provide meaningful support to fiscally responsible candidates.

Over the weekend I will be emailing you a PDF file with a full color poster for the Rally for Responsible Government.  Please print out several copies and put them up in your neighborhood and at work.  Also, please forward it to everyone you know.  Ask your friends, family, and co-workers to come to the rally and ask them to promote it. 

Finally, if you want to be involved in planning events, please join our committee.   We’ll be having our next meeting this Sunday, May 31 at 7 p.m. in Oxford.  You will need to contact me via the Worcester Tea Party web site if you wish to come.  I will respond with directions.

Thank you for supporting the Worcester Tea Party.

Ken Mandile
Worcester Tea Party Organizer
www.worcesterteaparty.com

We got our hands on the roll call for the State Senate vote for the increase in the sales tax. Here are the good guys, the nay’s on the vote:

- Sen Steven Baddour, D-1st Essex
- Sen Scott Brown, R-Norfolk, Bristol, and Middlesex
- Sen Bob Hedlund, R-Plymouth and Norfolk
- Sen Michael Knapik, R-2nd Hampden and Hampshire
- Sen Mark Montigny, D-2nd Bristol and Plymouth
- Sen Richard Moore, D-Worcester and Norfolk
- Sen Bruce Tarr, R-1st Essex and Middlesex
- Sen James Timilty, D-Bristol and Norfolk
- Sen Richard Tisei, R-Middlesex and Essex
- Sen Susan Tucker, D-2nd Essex and Middlesex

Please tell these guys thank you. And send a “you stink” letter to all the rest!

Sadly, the State Senate passed the tax increases last night. State Senator Bob Hedlund (R, Weymouth) calls this the “New Hampshire Economic Stimulus Bill.” That’s for sure. All my friends in NH are quite pleased with the development. I’m too bummed to write any more at the moment, so I’m going to borrow some well chosen words from a fellow blogger, Tina Hemond.

The Massachusetts Senate approved new taxes last evening – including a rise in the state sales tax from 5% to 6.25% and an increase in taxes on retail alcohol sales. Other taxes passed by the senate, are at the discretion of cash-strapped municipalities – a 2% increase on hotel and restaurant taxes, and most disconcerting, Telecommunications tax on personal property: allowing “cities and towns to assess personal property taxes on poles and overhead wires owned by telecommunications companies on public streets and property.” This will mean an increase in both telephone and Internet charges to consumers that can ill afford yet another “fee”.

Additionally, it appears that an increase in the gas tax was still on the table: according to the Boston Globe: a first round of votes shot down the 19 cent per gallon increase proposed by Governor Deval Patrick, an 11 cent per gallon tax was then rejected. Expect the Gas Tax Increase to be readdressed in some not to distant “Emergency Session”.

The Senate passed the bill with only 10 members voting against any increases in State taxes, the 5 Republican State Senators, and those Democrat members that either grew a conscious or are in districts where any tax increase may allow a Disney Character to replace them in the next election.

From WRKO, individuals within the Commonwealth who still have a sense of humor left, dubbed the Massachusetts Senate Bill: “New Hampshire Economic Recovery Act of 2009”. No Kidding. Increasing the State income tax by 25% will only serve to drive retail sales over the border to friendly New Hampshire, with the possibility of job losses from retailers watching sales decline even further during this recession. Additionally, the added tax burden will be passed onto those consumers who can least afford yet another financial woe, those on fixed incomes. Food prices have already risen approximately 15% in the past year alone, add the 25% increase which applies to all paper products, and seniors will be making the tough choice between a pound of hamburger and a package of toilet paper.

The State expects to generate millions in new revenue from these taxes, but one can bet the house, as in previous fee hikes and tax increases, as long as there are no reforms in the excesses of Beacon Hill, or the people revolt and look at Republican and Third party candidates as viable alternatives to those Democrats on the Hill who are so entrenched, they will have to pry their cold, dead bodies, out of their House and Senate seats, this new tax increase will not eliminate a debt or stem the tide, but give these fiscally irresponsible keepers of the Public Trust, even more incentive to pad the budget.

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

As if the assault on American’s freedom and capitalism wasn’t bad enough, it just got worse. The Obama administration has several formerly private sectors on tinder hooks waiting for more bailout money. The Treasury Secretary is now resorting to blackmail to get CEOs from these companies to resign (see story about Wagoner at GM). And now, hot off the press, Rep Barney Frank is determined to make the government responsible for setting EVERYONE’s salary in the new Pay for Performance Act of 2009:

Now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the “Pay for Performance Act of 2009,” would impose government controls on the pay of all employees — not just top executives — of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

The purpose of the legislation is to “prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards,” according to the bill’s language. That includes regular pay, bonuses — everything — paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.

The Pay for Performance Act of 2009 will start with companies who’ve accepted bailout money. But don’t be surprised when it spreads its wings to all private sector companies.

At this point, we would do well to heed the words of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January 2009. From the Wall Street Journal:

Esteemed colleagues, one is sorely tempted to make simple and popular decisions in times of crisis. However, we could face far greater complications if we merely treat the symptoms of the disease.

Naturally, all national governments and business leaders must take resolute actions. Nevertheless, it is important to avoid making decisions, even in such force majeure circumstances, that we will regret in the future.

This is why I would first like to mention specific measures which should be avoided and which will not be implemented by Russia.

We must not revert to isolationism and unrestrained economic egotism. The leaders of the world’s largest economies agreed during the November 2008 G20 summit not to create barriers hindering global trade and capital flows. Russia shares these principles.

Although additional protectionism will prove inevitable during the crisis, all of us must display a sense of proportion.

Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence is another possible mistake.

True, the state’s increased role in times of crisis is a natural reaction to market setbacks. Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent.

The concentration of surplus assets in the hands of the state is a negative aspect of anti-crisis measures in virtually every nation.

In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.

Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.

And one more point: anti-crisis measures should not escalate into financial populism and a refusal to implement responsible macroeconomic policies. The unjustified swelling of the budgetary deficit and the accumulation of public debts are just as destructive as adventurous stock-jobbing.