Worcester County Freedom Trail

An update on the national polls in the presidential race from HumanEventsOnline.com. Looks like it’s still a neck-and-neck race. This, even though Obama’s been getting all the breaks from the mainstream media, including kid glove treatment on his recent, overly-staged, international travels.

The complete lack of movement in the national polls is good news for Sen. John McCain and bad news for Sen. Barack Obama, even as the Democrat continues to hold a modest lead.
First, a word of caution: National polls are generally given undue attention in the press. There is no national election, but rather 51 state elections. On that score, our Electoral College count shows a razor-thin Obama lead (273 to 265).

The usefulness in national polls is in getting rough ideas of a candidate’s popularity, and more importantly as a judge of momentum. It is on this latter score that Obama needs to worry. On June 4, Rasmussen Reports released its first daily tracking poll of the general election (3,000 likely voters over three nights, with a margin of error of +/-2%), and it showed Obama 47%, McCain 45%. Fifty-seven days later, the Wednesday, July 30 poll showed Obama at 48% to McCain’s 46%-virtually no movement. In the interim, neither candidate has shown movement outside the margin of error.

The first observation to draw is that voters aren’t paying close attention, and so minimal movement is to be expected. This is important: It’s still too early to foresee the outcome of the race.

But the deeper significance of these national poll numbers is the way in which Obama lags his party and has failed to break 50% nationally, even while all the breaks go his way.

In all corners of the country, it’s good to be a Democrat and bad to be a Republican. Democrats are guaranteed double-digit gains in the U.S. House (with pickups possible even in places like Alabama and Idaho) and significant gains in the Senate (with no seriously vulnerable incumbents or open seats). On generic ballots, Democrats post 15% leads.

Why does Obama lag his party? His unprecedented combination of youth, race, and inexperience makes many voters wary. Playing basketball well and often appeals to many voters, but it may come across to others as unpresidential, especially in combination with his thin resume and younger-than-his-age looks.

From LifeSiteNews:

According to new statistics released today from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), premature babies – babies born too soon and too small – accounted for a growing proportion of infant deaths. When linked with previous studies that have shown that abortion increases a woman’s chance of having a baby prematurely, the conclusion is that women who have had abortions are more likely to bear children who die as infants or suffer from severe health issues.

According to “Infant Mortality Statistics from the 2005 Period Linked Birth/Infant Death Data Set,” Vol. 57, No. 2, of the National Vital Statistics Report, low birth weight and preterm birth are leading causes of infant mortality and the rates of both have increased steadily since the mid-1980s.

Babies who died of preterm-related causes accounted for 36.5 percent of infant deaths in 2005, up from 34.6 percent in 2000.

More than a half million babies are born premature (less than 37 weeks gestation) each year and those who survive face the risk of life long health consequences, such as breathing and feeding problems, cerebral palsy, and learning problems.

Mortality rates for infants born even a few weeks early, or “late preterm” (between 34 weeks of gestation) were three times those for full-term infants.

The findings of the NCHS help identify abortion as a leading cause of infant mortality, with former studies having revealed that women who have had abortions in the past are much more likely to give birth prematurely.

House Speaker Sal DiMasi has some explaining to do about his monetary connections to lobbyists and doctors that are directly benefiting from his sidetracking a law that would allow optometrists to prescribe eye medications.

This from the Boston Herald:

House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi and his second-in-command hauled in a combined $42,000 in two days from eye doctors and their lobbyists as a law that would hurt their business was condemned to legislative limbo, a Herald review has found.

DiMasi and Speaker Pro Tempore Thomas M. Petrolati (D-Ludlow) raked in the special interest cash from dozens of eye doctors last year as part of an organized campaign to block a bill that would allow optometrists to prescribe eye medicine. Currently, Massachusetts is the only state in the nation where only opthamologists can prescribe medicine for ailments like glaucoma – even though optometrists are authorized to diagnose the disease.

The bill has been stalled on Beacon Hill since January, despite an impassioned plea last month from Rep. Daniel Bosley, who sponsored the proposal. Bosley (D-North Adams) penned a letter signed by 70 lawmakers to DiMasi asking the speaker to release the bill to the Senate, saying the proposed law would make eye care more affordable and accessible, especially for seniors suffering from glaucoma.

The special interest money to DiMasi and Petrolati poured in on two days last year from opthamologists and their lobbyists. DiMasi received a total of $23,650 in campaign cash on Jan. 25, 2007. Petrolati, meanwhile, received $18,650, all of it donated on June 30, 2007, records show.

Among those donating to both lawmakers on those days was lobbyist Joseph Grant, who worked against the bill on behalf of the Massachusetts Society of Eye Physicians & Surgeons and the Massachusetts Medical Society.

The two special interest groups have paid Grant a combined $210,000 since 2007, records show.

Howie Carr is often a bit over the edge for me. But today he nails it. Beacon Hill is out of control. It appears the only leverage we have is the budget. Vote No on Question 1 in November. It’s time to repeal the state income tax.

This from the Boston Herald:

“This town needs an enema.” The Joker was right, only it’s not just the town, it’s the state, and I have the prescription: Question 1, the referendum question on the November ballot to abolish the state income tax.

It becomes clearer by the day the entire hackerama has careened utterly out of control. It requires an intervention. It’s got to go cold turkey. And since the hacks can no longer even pretend to control their spending habits, someone has got to stop them.

On Nov. 4, vote “yes” on Question 1. If it passes, it will return to working people $12.5 billion the hacks now squander handing each other six-figure jobs, lifetime pensions beginning in their 40s, endless raises, free health care – you know the list. Every day brings more headlines about new outrages. Yesterday, it was the news that 337 employees of the MBTA made more than $100,000 last year.

Vote yes on Question 1. If you make $50,000 a year, by abolishing the income tax you’ll be giving yourself a $2,600 pay raise.

The economic reality is that you cannot have an ever-dwindling group of productive, working citizens supporting an ever-larger mob of indolent hacks, moonbats, illegal aliens and perverts. The parasites have learned to rally around one another – and the more heinous the crimes, the more hysterical the support. Think Sen. Jim Marzilli, the perv in the Prius. Or the 5-foot-3, 300-pound woman with the nine-page rap sheet (including common-nightwalking charges) who went crazy on the Expressway this week, Sandra Howes.

How dare the cops pull guns on her, her (public-defender) lawyer fumed, just because she was ramming cars? How dare the Herald put quotation marks around the word “wife” to describe her galpal? Six restraining orders against her by four different women – what are you, a homophobe?

Vote yes on Question 1. The teachers’ unions redefined “marriage” for you without your permission, now you get a chance to redefine “budget” for them.

Another scandal: One of Gov. Deval Patrick’s judicial picks was on the Parole Board when they cut loose a convicted murderer who was just charged with a vicious rape in Haverhill last weekend. At Maureen Walsh’s hearing before the Governor’s Council, no one thought to ask her about the fact that the district attorney and the murder victim’s family begged her Parole Board not to let this fiend out to commit more crimes.

Walsh followed the traditional modus operandi of future judges: She gave money to pols, ponying up nicely for Governor’s Councilor Tom Merrigan, a prep-school classmate of mine, who just happened to chair the confirmation hearing for his campaign contributor.

Merrigan shrugged off the fact that no one asked a Parole Board member about a rape committed three days earlier by a plug-ugly who’d been cut loose by that very same Parole Board. “You do the best you can with what you’ve got and you can’t guarantee the future,” said Merrigan, who collected $100 from the future judge who can’t guarantee the future, although I can. I guarantee she will be confirmed, on Wednesday.

Vote yes on Question 1. Give yourself a pay raise, just like they’re giving out at the Pike.

Consider the brother of ex-Sen. Cheryl Jacques. Two years ago Steve Jacques, the Pike’s “director of business development,” was making $90,000.43. Last year, his pay rose to $96,484.59. What Pike budget crisis? And now the former solon is herself back at the public trough, compliments of Gov. Patrick, with a $108,000 sinecure at the Industrial Accidents Board for which she is surely just as qualified as Maureen Walsh.

Then there’s the brother-in-law of Rep. Michael Kane of Holyoke. With overtime, Kane’s in-law made $66,512.88 last year as a Pike “maintenance worker.” Hey, Rep. Kane, try to move up in leadership will you. Doesn’t your brother-in-law deserve to make more than 100 large too, just like the felon’s?

This state needs an enema. A Question 1 enema.

Even more dissension on Beacon Hill as legislators line up to be top dog after Speaker Sal DiMasi retires. Of course, DiMasi doesn’t yet know he’s retiring. But there are a lot of Dem’s ethics violations swirling around in public view. And the big dogs aren’t taking any chances and are lining up support and ruffling feathers along the way.

This from the Boston Herald:

Speaker Sal DiMasi is again struggling to prevent key House members from jockeying to succeed him even after he made a dramatic plea to halt the disruptive hardball tactics.

DiMasi, facing a slew of ethics complaints and plagued with persistent rumors of his imminent departure, personally called both Rep. Robert A. DeLeo (D-Winthrop) and Rep. John H. Rogers (D-Norwood) in the past three days asking them to cease lining up support and focus on the end of the legislative session ahead, according to several Beacon Hill sources.

“Right now, we have a sitting speaker and we need to be respectful to him. It’s not my role to go out and solicit votes,” said DeLeo, who confirmed he spoke with DiMasi over the weekend. “On the other hand, you have to be prepared in terms of the future. Whenever the speaker decides to leave, there are people who want to be supportive of me.”

Both supporters of DeLeo and Rogers accused the other camp of being disrespectful to DiMasi yesterday after the speaker laid down the law in a morning leadership meeting, reminding House leaders he has the final say on budget veto overrides and announcing he will have more of a presence in the chambers as they close the session.

One Rogers loyalist charged that DiMasi’s second-in-command, Rep. Thomas M. Petrolati (D-Ludlow), has been twisting arms behind closed doors, telling lawmakers to support DeLeo or risk having their pet projects fall victim to Gov. Deval Patrick’s vetoes.

The House is slated in the coming days to take up 160 override votes, which will be prioritized by DeLeo’s inner circle, the lawmaker added.

House lawmakers have even coined a term for those who give in to Petrolati’s alleged veiled threats: “Petro-fied.”

Petrolati could not be reached, but a DeLeo backer insisted that lawmakers can’t pick and choose which earmarks to override, saying, “Not only is it absolutely false, they should know it is legislatively impossible.”

From what I’ve heard, if DiMasi wants to pick and choose which earmarks do or do not get through, he absolutely can make it work that way.

Nice to see some dissension in the ranks on Beacon Hill. The House voted to strip Governor Deval Patrick’s fee increases from the 2009 budget. I hope they found some places to cut spending, too.

Of course, then they went and made life miserable for poll workers by approving same day voter registration. Maybe now’s a good time for me to cut back on my election day duties. It’s a long and tiring day without having to also verify and register new voters.

This from the Springfield Republican:

The state House of Representatives today killed a disputed proposal by the governor to raise license fees for guns – and then voted to dramatically lower the existing fee.

The Senate, aiming to boost participation in elections, also voted 33-5 to approve a bill to allow voters in general and state elections to register to vote on Election Day itself. The bill would allow people to register as little as 14 days in advance, down from the current 20 days, or on the day of the election. The election bill was sent to the House, where it’s fate is unclear.

In a surprise move, the House voted 94-57 to lower the fee for a firearms license from $100 to $40.

The proposed $40 fee was approved as part of a more comprehensive bill filed by Gov. Deval L. Patrick. The bill calls for raising money to help finance the state’s near universal health care law.

When Patrick filed the bill on July 13, he proposed to increase the fee for a six-year firearms license from $100 to $200, establish a new annual $100 license inspection fee for gun dealers and hike the fee for someone from another state to carry a firearm in Massachusetts from $100 to $250. Patrick was seeking to raise money for state services.

House leaders stripped out the governor’s proposed fee increases before the bill reached the floor for a vote.

Volunteering means you do something good for someone else without being paid. I love volunteering and am happy to see more people involved. I not so thrilled when Secretary of Health and Human Services Dr. JudyAnn Bigby takes a contingent of her employees to an NGO to prepare meals for critically ill people. If she was doing it on non-work time, I’d be ecstatic. But this was time we’re paying for out of our wallets that she should have been spending elsewhere. Or, better yet, not spending at all!

This from Gov. Deval Patrick’s “The Civic Engagement Times” newsletter:

Every day, the lives of residents across Massachusetts are impacted by their government and the dedicated state employees that work in public services. In that spirit, one of Governor Patrick’s first Executive Orders aimed to enhance and promote yet another opportunity for state employees to lead by example and rebuild our sense of community through volunteers.

The State Employees Responding as Volunteers (or SERV) Program provides eligible state employees from Pittsfield to Provincetown the opportunity to volunteer up to eight hours per month at approved organizations ranging in scope from education and mentoring, to health and human services, to public safety and the environment. [NOTE: This isn't volunteering, this is taking time from work government employees should be doing with our tax dollars to do work in other government agencies or NGOs. Could it be that we don't need quite so many government employees if they have time to spend elsewhere? -- ed.]

Since January 2007, Executive Branch state employees have volunteered over 27,000 hours at food banks, public schools, hospitals, mentoring organizations, and a host of other municipal and non-profit entities that provide needed services to communities across our Commonwealth. Most recently, Secretary of Health and Human Services Dr. JudyAnn Bigby and a contingent of ten employees from the 17 agencies under her supervision visited Community Servings, a non-profit organization in Jamaica Plain that is dedicated to providing free home-delivered meals throughout eastern Massachusetts to people homebound with HIV/AIDS and othe racute life-threatening illnesses.

Two questions: Would Bigby have done this if she and her contingent weren’t being paid? If Bigby has so much spare time, can we get some of our tax dollars back so we can afford to take the time off to do more volunteer work ourselves?

This from the Lowell Sun:

State Rep. Kevin Murphy (D-Lowell) represented the four School Department assistant superintendents — one of whom is his wife — who landed new contracts that include hefty pay raises and additional perks and benefits.

Murphy is a local attorney and husband of Assistant Superintendent of Student Services Ann Murphy. She received the largest pay raise among the four administrators, increasing from $108,000 a year to $118,963.

Murphy said he was not paid. Besides serving as a state representative, Murphy’s political resume is strong. He is a former Lowell assistant city solicitor and also represents the Dracut School Committee.

State Ethics Commission spokesman David Giannotti declined to comment on the issue, directing questions to the chapters in state law that prohibit public employees from voting on or participating in matters from which they or their families stand to benefit financially.

Who needs to get paid when your wife gets the biggest salary increase?!?!?

MassGOP Executive Director Rob Willington said, “It’s important that the people of Massachusetts have faith in their elected officials to do the right thing for their constituents. The ethics law exists for a reason, and  the Massachusetts Republican Party will continue to fight to make sure everyone works under a fair and open process, and that no special advantage is given to the friends and family of Beacon Hill insiders.”

Holy cow, this is hilarious. Thanks to Anthony Hopson for pointing out this great editorial from The (London) Times:

The anointed one’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action – and a blessing to all his faithful followers…

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth – for the first time – to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media.

Read the entire editorial at The Times.

From the Wall Street Journal:

The federal minimum wage rose by 70 cents yesterday to $6.55 per hour, and left-wing advocates are celebrating the increase as a boon for the so-called working poor. Not to be party poopers, but the reality is that most poor people in the U.S. already earn more than the minimum wage, and most workers who do earn the minimum wage aren’t poor.

The wage hike is the second of three annual increases mandated by a 2007 law. Next year the federal wage floor will rise to $7.25. This year’s increase will touch some 1.5 million workers, in a workforce numbering more than 146 million. Census data compiled by the Employment Policies Institute reveal that less than 1% of U.S. workers over 25 is earning the minimum wage. Who are these folks?

Most are not family heads making the minimum wage full-time all year. They are young single adults, teenagers living at home or spouses providing a second income. The average family income of a minimum-wage earner is $44,636, and 42% of these workers live with a parent or other relative. Only 15% of employees making the minimum wage are single earners with dependents. “A minimum wage increase today is a middle-class family entitlement,” says EPI Executive Director Rick Berman, “because that’s who’s working at the minimum wage in second and third jobs.”

Repeated studies have shown that minimum-wage increases are more likely to slow job creation than reduce poverty. A large share of the costs of these mandates are borne by the same low-income families the wage hike is supposed to help. Employers inevitably pass wage increases onto consumers as higher prices for goods and services, which erodes the spending power of all consumers but especially the poor. Employers also respond by hiring fewer unskilled workers, a disproportionate number of whom are teenagers and minorities.

Artificially increasing the cost of labor is always a bad idea because it distorts the free market. But the timing for this latest minimum-wage hike, amid a weak economy, could hardly be worse.