BMG endorses these candidates for election in 2010! Help them win - fill in a donation amount and click "Contribute" to be directed to BMG's Act Blue page.
Here in Massachusetts, we have great down-ballot races, including the hyper-important treasurer slot. The Steves, Dem Grossman and Murphy, head to next week's deciding primary and have just released TV and net ads. One's annoying and the other set oddly impersonal for a personable candidate.
Below are Murphy's annoying spot and Grossman's soft-sell.
(Vigorous debate strikes in the comments. - promoted by Bob Neer)
This election is about choices and we just launched our first TV ad of the campaign that makes the choice clear.
I'm the only candidate in this race who risked his political career by taking on Bill Bulger in the senate to pass reforms and I'll do the same in Washington. My opponent can talk about getting results or fighting for reform, but I have done it.
I'm also the only candidate, Democrat or Republican who will not cut Social Security or raise the retirement age already at 67 years for most people. My opponent is standing with Republicans who are in favor of raising the retirement age and cutting other Social Security benefits, and now says "we need to put everything on the table".
I am also the only candidate in this race who supports Cape Wind, a project that will help create clean energy jobs, enhance our environmental security, and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. That's why the Sierra Club endorsed our campaign.
Elections are about choices, and in this election we have the power to make a choice between moving our nation forward in a positive direction or returning to the failed agenda of the Bush administration.
(Is @&)(;$ also "illegible?" - promoted by Bob Neer)
Glodis is the candidate that keeps on giving. While this is not as good as his promise to "Reign (over) Wasteful Political Spending"...or balking at paying taxes that everyone agrees his campaign has to pay...it's still a gem for someone running for "Auditor"
Glodis' latest campaign finance report is out (I was poking around to see what brilliant high-paid consultant was responsible for the Reign/Rein blooper) and found this...
Glodis itemized three spending items on his campaign finance report totaling nearly $10,000 as ILLEGIBLE under the "purpose" column.
So Glodis thinks its OK to itemize things as "ILLEGIBLE" when documenting spending...just the kind of quality we need to be looking for in the next Auditor.
A Columbia University study recently found a doubling of the rate of prescribing antipsychotic drugs for privately insured 2- to 5-year-olds from 2000 to 2007. Only 40 percent of them had received a proper mental health assessment, violating practice standards from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
The quote below goes to why I don't want drug salesmen giving goodies to doctors:
Even the most reluctant prescribers encounter a marketing juggernaut that has made antipsychotics the nation's top-selling class of drugs by revenue, $14.6 billion last year, with prominent promotions aimed at treating children. In the waiting room of Kyle's original child psychiatrist, children played with Legos stamped with the word Risperdal, made by Johnson & Johnson. It has since lost its patent on the drug and stopped handing out the toys.
Why all these meds? Well, for one thing, medicating is cheaper than therapy, and for another, medicated kids may be more "docile". Bothers me, at least, that so many of those medicated kids are the ones in foster care:
But it is cheaper to medicate children than to pay for family counseling, a fact highlighted by a Rutgers University study last year that found children from low-income families, like Kyle, were four times as likely as the privately insured to receive antipsychotic medicines.
Texas Medicaid data obtained by The New York Times showed a record $96 million was spent last year on antipsychotic drugs for teenagers and children - including three unidentified infants who were given the drugs before their first birthdays.
In addition, foster care children seem to be medicated more often, prompting a Senate panel in June to ask the Government Accountability Office to investigate such practices.
(A bump for pumped Bump on the stump. Odious Glodis glowers, groans, grows ghostly ... Know this: voters notice. Mike Lake takes licks, quakes ... clock ticks. - promoted by Charley on the MTA)
Tomorrow's Boston Sunday Globe features an endorsement of Suzanne Bump in the Democratic Primary for State Auditor. Here is the Globe's reasoning:
Of the three candidates for the Democratic nomination for auditor, former state labor secretary Suzanne Bump is best positioned to look out for the interest of citizens. She argues that, as a believer in the power of government to improve people's lives, she feels an obligation to make sure it runs well.
Bump has a clearer fix than her opponents on how the auditor's office might be used for the public good. She promises to zero in on the state's Medicaid program, MassHealth, as a way of ensuring that parties involved in health care reform are doing their jobs at maximum efficiency; it's a shrewd allocation of resources, a cardinal example of where a state auditor can do the most good.
Guy Glodis, currently the Worcester County sheriff, promises to promote economic development, but some of his proposals - such as investigating the use of out-of-state labor on local projects - lie at some distance from the essential duties of the auditor. Mike Lake, a whiz kid who worked at the White House at the end of the Clinton administration, seems genuinely interested in holding public agencies accountable, but his lack of experience at the state or local level could hamper his ability to carry out the nuts-and-bolts aspects of the job.
In a state dominated by Democratic elected officials, the Democratic nominee for auditor has a special burden to demonstrate independence from the party's establishment and its most powerful constituencies. Perhaps because she has DeNucci's support, Bump appears loath to criticize the raises he ordered. Still, she's displayed significant spine in other ways. As a state legislator, Bump earned the ire of trial lawyers, and lost her seat to a primary challenger, in part because of her efforts to bring down out-of-control worker-compensation costs.
Her Democratic opponents for auditor also tout their independence: Lake has the best claim to outsider status, and Glodis won his current job by challenging an incumbent. But Bump has a clear edge. She's committed to finding ways to improve government - and knowledgeable enough about government to know where to look.
Hope this gives some kind of a bump to the Bump Campaign.
As we all know, the front of Guy Glodis's direct mail piece, which many of you have probably received by today, contains a truly hilarious, indeed epic, gaffe that results in the central message of the piece being exactly the opposite of what was intended.
As it turns out, the back of the mailer has a good one too, though it's less spectacular than the one on the front. Here's the back (click for larger view):
Looks like Guy Glodis speaking at a rally. I believe (though it's hard to be certain) it's a photo of him speaking last year at a protest at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Worcester, which had chosen to hire out-of-state labor for its renovations.
But wait - what does that sign right next to Glodis's head say?
It's a bit hard to read, but I'm pretty sure it says "Crowne Plaza W.T.F."
In keeping with BMG's "Family-Friendly Front Page Policy," I must direct you to the flip for the remainder of this post. :-)
(Good questions, worth answering. Is this Terrence Kennedy the same guy who was Jim Marzilli's lawyer? - promoted by David)
I've got opinions on the Treasure race and the Auditor race, but I just noticed we've got two candidates for Democratic nominee for Governor's Councillor in the Sixth District, and I know absolutely nothing about either of them. I also haven't seen them mentioned on Blue Mass Group, so I just did a search and found nothing about this race.
The Governor's Council approves judicial appointments, as well as giving approval or oversight on a few other things such as pardons and notaries public.
The Sixth District [PDF map] covers a bit of downtown and Allston, most of Cambridge, and then a bunch of cities and towns to the north including Somerville, Medford, Malden, Chelsea, Revere... up to Reading and Billerica.
It's the seat currently held by Michael Callahan, known to many of us from Blue Mass Group's first high profile race, the 2005 State Senate special election. He's one of three councillors retiring this year.
What do you know about them?
Wanna advocate for or against either?
Edit: Verdict so far: Nobody here seems to know anything about them either, but people have seen evidence of Kennedy campaigning, and none of English-Merullo.
FiveThirtyEight.com became a must-read during the 2008 presidential race for its insightful, truly reality-based analysis of otherwise very confusing numbers that were constantly being tossed around. Nate Silver, the blog's proprietor, is left-leaning, but knows what he's doing and doesn't let his ideological views cloud his assessments.
To its credit, the New York Times has given him space on its blog pages, so he now resides on the NYT's website. He's located at http://bmg.ma/d0Br5J
A couple of days ago, 538 released comprehensive analyses of the state of the Governor's races across the country. His take on Massachusetts, based on the numbers available so far, is this:
Likely results: Patrick 46.9%; Baker 42.4%; Cahill 8.3%
Likelihood of win: Patrick 73.4%; Baker 26.6%; Cahill 0.0%
For what little its worth, those numbers are in line with my "seat of the pants," "gut instinct" assessment. There are others whose gut instinct "likelihood of win" numbers are different, but 538's is the one to watch, since it's the one based on data. Obviously, these numbers will change as time goes on. But keep your eye on 538's analysis.
(This is one of those rare occasions on which I whole-heartedly agree with JohnD: Cahill's piece is indeed a "must read." Cahill starts off:
Howie, your latest column was confusing. You don't want me in this race? Poor little Charlie Baker might not be able to win it on his own? Why do we bother having elections at all?
And it gets better from there. Do check it out. - promoted by David)
Tim, exactly how much do-re-mi will it take to get you out of this fight? I've asked you this on the air, and you laughed, as if I were kidding. I wasn't. You said neither Deval nor President Obama have offered you anything to continue your kamikaze campaign for governor, so I think you're available at what they used to call popular prices.
(OMG. This is unbearably awesome. :D - promoted by David)
Watch your mailboxes over the next few days because Guy Glodis, candidate for Auditor, has delivered us a classic that will go down in the history of Freudian political slips.
His glossy four-page color campaign flier leads with the following headline:
Guy Glodis Will Reign In Wasteful Political Spending.
(More details on the poll, including fav/unfav numbers, are available here. - promoted by David)
September Rasmussen Poll has been released, numbers are largely unchanged, Patrick still maintains his lead and Charlie Baker can't get out of the low 30s.
Election 2010: Massachusetts Governor
Deval Patrick (D) 39%
Charlie Baker (R) 34%
Tim Cahill (I) 18%
Not sure 8%
Some other candidate 1%
There's an interesting article on Lt. Gov. Tim Murray in the September issue of Boston Magazine. It's by State House News Service stalwart Jim O'Sullivan, one of the best political writers going, and it's well worth reading. It may not bring a lot of new information to folks who have been watching Beacon Hill closely (though there are some anecdotes that were new to me), but it's a good portrait of a guy who has managed to use the rather vaguely-defined office of Lieutenant Governor to advance the Patrick-Murray administration's agenda pretty effectively. It touts Murray's savvy in working behind the scenes to move things forward, and also notes his fundraising prowess. For the political non-junkies out there, it's a very useful piece.
The problem is the title.
Hack in Action
Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray is exactly the kind of politician Deval Patrick railed against four years ago. He's also the reason Patrick may win again in November.
When I first saw that headline, I thought, whoa, has O'Sullivan dug up some new dirt on Murray? Has he uncovered some ethical lapse that would make it fair to characterize Murray as a "hack," and even more extremely, as "exactly the kind of politician Deval Patrick railed against four years ago"? Does Murray have some connection to the "Big Dig culture of Beacon Hill" (against which Patrick indeed railed) that we didn't know about? And why haven't we heard about any of this before?
When you read the article, you quickly realize that there's no new dirt, there's no new scandal, and no, Murray is not a "hack." So what's up with the scary headline?
First, for the record, I have confirmed (not via O'Sullivan himself) that O'Sullivan did not write the headline. It was the work of anonymous headline writers at Boston Magazine.
Second, the headline is really unfortunate, and a disservice to Murray. The article's bottom line is this, in assessing Murray's prospects for higher office down the road:
If Murray is to advance, ... [h]e'll somehow need to convey to voters that an insider can sometimes be more than a cynical bureaucrat, that a professional politician can be (gasp) good for politics - a lesson even Deval Patrick has come to appreciate.
I think that's a fair assessment. What's grossly unfair is to equate "professional politician" with "hack." They are the same in Howie Carr-land, but Carr-land is a right-wing fantasy that bears little resemblance to Planet Earth. So here's a suggestion to the droll headline writers at BoMag: stop listening to Howie Carr, and start paying attention to how good work does sometimes get done in politics.
(This is because Patrick is clearly the more credible candidate. People want to go with the winner. And Patrick will win. Work it! - promoted by Charley on the MTA)
At one time all we heard is Charlie Baker breaking records on fundraising. But we don't hear much of that anymore. The Globe is now reporting that Patrick, Murray and the state Democratic Party is out raising Baker, Tiesi and the state Republican party by more than 2-to-1.
Funds raised over the past month:
Patrick, Murray and Dems raised: $988,127
Baker, Tiesi and Repubs raised: $418,581
Ouch! With momentum going towards Patrick it's no wonder the Baker campaign is out on the attack once again.
Hey folks. Lurker here. Joining the conversation to let you all know that BMG endorsed candidate Mac D'Alessandro just posted a fundraising appeal on dailykos. We have all been working hard and digging deep for Mac. It's time to tap into the national network of progressives. Please help get the word out by heading over to dkos and clicking the recommend button:
http://bmg.ma/aJeCgL
As you may know, it's possible these days to use a custom domain for short URLs. That is, rather than using popular but generic URL shorteners like tinyurl.com or bit.ly, you can set up your own, more personalized domain, so that short URLs that you create reflect your website, your company, or yourself.
We thought this sounded fun. So we have set up the bmg.ma domain for this purpose. It reflects us (get it? BMG plus .ma for Massachusetts?), plus it's nice and short, as a URL shortener should be. The actual URL shortening is done through our account at bit.ly, so bmg.ma itself simply maps to bit.ly. But the short URLs on the bmg.ma domain can map directly to whatever long URL we want. For instance, want to know how to get to the State House? Here's a Google map: http://bmg.ma/9FlQNX
Henceforth, our twitterfeed (which automatically tweets every new BMG front-page post, and if you use Twitter but don't follow us, you should!) will send out short URLs on the bmg.ma domain. We'll also drop bmg.ma shortened URLs into posts, when we're inspired to do so. At the moment, unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be possible to open things up so that you, too, can create bmg.ma short URLs. If that changes, though, we'll let you know!
Well, apparently the Globe has its talons dug deep into the burning question whether various state officials' campaigns have paid required state and federal taxes on investment earnings from campaign funds that were invested in vehicles like certificates of deposit. Not exactly the kind of hot-button issue that makes voters' heads explode, but obviously, taxes owed should be paid.
What's the upshot of all this? Several campaigns - Martha Coakley's, Tim Cahill's, Tim Murray's, and Guy Glodis's - appear to have made more or less the same mistake in terms of not paying the required taxes. The mistakes shouldn't have been made, but they were. The correct reaction is the reaction from the Coakley, Cahill, and Murray campaigns: we screwed up, we owe the taxes, and we are going to pay them. That is how to make the story go away quickly, and for those three campaigns, it seems very likely to do so.
The story that threatens to stick around longer than a day or two comes from the Glodis campaign, which is taking an unusual approach, particularly when the candidate is running for Auditor:
Glodis argued that he did not have to pay federal taxes on income his committee earned. He asserted the Internal Revenue Service code governing political committees allows them to deduct fund-raising expenses, which in his case, he said, were greater than the interest income....
"My committee sought opinions from two separate certified public accountants over a four-year period, both of whom advised the committee that there was no tax liability for interest earned on certificates of deposit because fund-raising expenses exceeded interest earned on the CDs, according to IRS instructions attached to the applicable tax form," said Glodis, whose committee at times has held as much as $428,000 in certificates of deposit over the past four years.
This interpretation appears to conflict with the instructions accompanying IRS Form 1120-POL, the tax return for political organizations. It specifically states: "No deduction is allowed for general administrative or indirect expenses." It does allow deducting for expenses incurred in making investments....
Secretary of State William F. Galvin, whose committee has paid $30,000 to $40,000 a year in state and federal taxes, said he has no doubt the IRS code does not allow deducting for administrative or fund-raising costs. "My reading of the instructions does not allow me to do that," Galvin said. "Believe me, if I thought I was entitled, I would take it."
Big, big mistake on Glodis's part. First, he's practically begging the IRS to audit or otherwise make unpleasant inquiries into the situation. Second, he is begging dogged reporters to figure out who the CPAs were who gave these opinions, and whether they have any connection to Glodis's impressive political operation. Third, he appears to be trying to take advantage of a highly technical interpretation (some might call it a "loophole") in the IRS regulations that ends up being financially very favorable to his campaign - all the while, campaigning for an office whose basic purpose is to make sure that money ends up where it's supposed to be.
Glodis has the money. He'd be smart just to pay the federal taxes and be done with it.
A recent report from the Tax Foundation shows us the importance the personal income tax has in the overall state's finances:
“Massachusetts is the third most income-tax-dependent state in the nation, deriving 36.8 percent of its revenue from its 5.3 percent tax on individual earnings, and nearly cracked the top-ten list of states most dependent on property taxes, according to a new report from the Non-partisan Tax Foundation”
“Massachusetts derives 34.3 percent of its total government revenues from property taxes, 18.4 percent from sales taxes, 6.4 percent from corporate taxes and 4.2 percent from licenses and other taxes, according to the report.”
My heartiest condemnation is reserved for the Cape Cod Commission and the Town of Barnstable for bringing this case in the first place, although a skosh less for Barnstable.
You see, not long ago the Cape Cod Commission sued the Energy Facilities Siting Board claiming they had jurisdiction, if not intelligence or expertise, to decide where the gas company should run a new gas line. The gas company wanted to run it down Old Main Street in Yarmouth, and the CCC wanted it to be under the bike path. Of course,the bike path isn't plowed or maintained in the winter making it difficult to get AT the gas pipe for emergency or maintence. But gee, the houses on Old Main are so NICE...
The SJC affirmed the right of the EFSB to trump the Commission. So naturally, when Cape Wind was OK'd by the EFSB the Commission filed suit to claim jurisdiction. What's the line about doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result?
Now if the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound wants to waste money and time, that's different. Some of its money is sincere, some is sinister, but it's theirs. BUT THE CAPE COD COMMISSION IS EXPENDING SCARCE TAXPAYER DOLLARS on its hubristic quest to rule land and seas. And Barnstable deserves condemnation for joining in this expensive fool's errand.
My take on the fact that Ron Kaufman, MA GOP's representative to the Republican National Committee (and Andy Card brother in law), being a lobbyist for Chavez is not so much about the hypocrisy of Republicans calling out Dems for so-called bad behavior (that is self-evident). No, this is yet another example of activists on both sides being conned by their leaders.
Kaufman lobbying for Chavez is akin to Chuck Schumer or Chris Dodd carrying the water for Wall Street...we are the fools.
