12 days to Go - Local/County/State Politics

A few days ago, the Massachusetts G.O.P. launched an initiative aimed at providing financial support to state legislative candidates. With the the state legislature 88%Democratic, the need to support Republican candidates speaks for itself. The View supports this effort. For more information click HERE for Rob Willington's letter as posted on Red Mass Group.

At the same time, there are several local races where Republican candidates can use your support and your vote.

Vinny deMacedo is running for re-election as Mass. State representative in the First Plymouth District. As one of only 18 republican House members, and as one of the most effective members of the Legislature, Vinny has earned our support. For more on this, Click HERE to read The View/s recent endorsement.




Jeff Beatty is running a very tough uphill race to unseat Senator John Kerry. While an impressive candidate in his own right, Beatty has been severely handicapped by Kerry's deep pockets and high visibility. Getting out the vote for Jeff Beatty will send a message regarding Kerry's thin record of accomplishment. Learn more about Jeff by clicking BEATTY.



Marshfield's Ed O'Connell is running a strong campaign for Plymouth County Treasurer. Visit his WEBSITE to review Ed's plans for improving county government and to see why Ed deserves your support at the polls.






Ron Davy, long active in Plymouth County as well as in his home town of Hull is running for Plymouth County Commissioner. He brings impeccable credentials and a strong Republican ethic to the task. Click DAVY to learn more about Ron Davy and why he deserves your vote.



Given the low number of Republicans holding, or running for, office in Massachusetts makes it clear that these are not the best of times for the GOP. At the same time, The coming Tsunami of cutbacks in State government will highlight the abject failure of one-party Democratic rule that lacks the checks and balances needed for effective government. Support of these candidates and contributions to the GOP Farm Team are important first steps, but the need to do more is obvious.

As we move beyond the election, the Republican Party must reach out beyond its immediate constituency to conservatives and moderates with concerns about the dangers of a one-party system. It must convince purists, and others, that while not perfect, the GOP is the only party with the organization and resources to lead the fight to regaining the balance in government that strives to treat all citizens fairly.

Re-Elect Vinny deMacedo

For ten years, Vinny deMacedo has represented the First Plymouth District in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. At present, he is the ranking Republican on the powerful Ways and Means Committee. The View wholeheartedly endorses deMacedo for re-election.

First and foremost, Vinny deMacedo is a family man with deep roots in the local Plymouth community. As a small business owner, he experiences firsthand the impact of the laws passed by his colleagues on Beacon Hill. He knows the demands of providing for a family and meeting a payroll. Vinny also understands the workings of state government. He was voted Legislator of the Year by the Massachusetts Town Clerk's Association at its annual meeting in June, 2008.

As one of only nineteen Republicans, out of a total of 160 House members, Vinny provides the crucial leadership for the continuation of a two-party system in Massachusetts. Dominated by the other party, state spending has grown disproportionately as more and more expensive tax-payer supported programs are created, without adequate, or possibly any, concern for the cost side of the ledger, pushing the state budget to unsustainable levels. This extremism is also carried over to non-financial issues where government-initiated social changes have been pushed through without regard for the traditional values being trampled. While lacking the power to act unilaterally, Republicans like Vinny deMacedo are the sole voice of reason. As William F. Buckley, Jr. might have said, they are standing athwart history yelling "stop".

On October 30th, a birthday celebration for Vinny deMacedo will be held at the John Alden Club in Plymouth from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m.. Click HERE for more details. All are invited to come down to show support for Vinny deMacedo. If you are unable to attend, but would like to make a donation, please send a personal check to The deMacedo Committee P.O. Box 882, Plymouth, MA 02362

Blunt Ax Economics

Many observers would like to dismiss the referendum to appear as Question 1 on the November Massachusetts ballot, as crazy talk. Among the choices facing the voters Question 1 will be an up or down vote on eliminating the state income tax. In round numbers, income tax revenues for fiscal 2009 are expected to provide $12.5 billion against total budgeted expenditures of $28 billion. It doesn't take a fiscal analyst to envision the disruption that such a change would cause. Out-of-state readers must be scratching their heads to learn that Question No.1 is garnering increasing support. Writing in today's GLOBE, house conservative, Jeff Jacoby does an excellent job of tracing the ongoing frustration endured by Massachusetts voters seeking lower taxes. Not only has the state government ignored previous voter initiatives to lower taxes, but the rate of growth in the state budget continues unabated:

"Just last week, Governor Deval Patrick's office promised "hundreds of millions of dollars" in reduced outlays this fiscal year. And yet, somehow, the state budget continues to bloat: It was $22 billion in 2005, $23 billion in 2006, $25 billion in 2007, and $26 billion in 2008. The fiscal 2009 budget adopted in July - the one Patrick now claims he will cut unilaterally - totaled $28.2 billion. But if anything in Massachusetts is certain, it is that when the books close on the current fiscal year, state spending will have gone up by hundreds of millions of dollars, not down."


The Greek chorus of Politicians, public employees and others with a stake in the continued flow of income tax dollars have been sounding the alarm, citing the litany of crucial services that would fall victim to the passage of Question 1. Rather than reflecting taxpayer ignorance, however, the growing support for Question 1 may show the limits of taxpayer patience.

The Massachusetts Bailout

While our attention has been riveted on the Congress and its struggles with the enormous proposed bailout for the nation's financial markets, the federal Department of Health and Human Services has quietly approved a three-year renewal of a Medicaid waiver for the Massachusetts health care program. Remarkably, amid intense concern for the impact that massive amount of bailout funds would have on the federal government's budget, the three-year renewal also included a $4.3 billion increase over the next three years!

The Massachusetts program essentially follows a dual track to achieve the goal of universal coverage: Most employers are mandated to provide health insurance for their employees or face stiff penalties; while, individuals must buy health insurance on the market, unless they qualify for subsidized coverage from the state. To date, roughly two-thirds of the 650,000 formerly uninsured have secured coverage. While the View is not a big proponent of this program, we will acknowledge that the coverage is provided primarily by private insurance companies, which, at least, prevents the birth of a whole new bureaucracy. Unfortunately, that is about the limit of the good news.

Governor Patrick speaks of "our commitment to affordable, accessible, high-quality health care for every man, woman and child in the commonwealth." A very noble pronouncement, but what is missing is any reference to the growing costs of the program. If any of you have had to purchase individual health insurance, you are well aware of the cost of these programs, driven by the high cost of our health care system.

The state's way of dealing with this expense is to provide free, or subsidized coverage through its Commonwealth Care program. One of the issues during the renewal negotiations was the fact that Commonwealth care provides subsidized coverage for people making up to three times the poverty level, while the federal limit is two times. This means for example, that a family of four making less than $63,500 per year qualify for subsidized coverage. No wonder people are rushing to enroll. Well over half of the new enrollees have signed up for free or subsidized coverage.

It's not clear at this point how the federal government justifies this this renewal, especially without getting a reduction to the income eligibility threshold. Maybe the folks at Health and Human Services have been too busy to tune into C-Span and its coverage of all the dire predictions for financial ruin. Oh and by the way, many commentators have pointed out that provisions of the Massachusetts health plan bears a strong resemblance to that being proposed by Barack Obama for the whole country.

Taxachusetts no more? Right.

We have several issues with the editorial in today"s GLOBE trumpeting the "progress" made by Massachusetts in terms of the tax burden it levies on its citizens, according to a study by the National Tax Foundation, which compares the total annual state and local tax burden for each state with annual income to come up with a "tax burden" index, which the Globe somehow likens to a wind chill factor. The "progress" in question is the fact that Massachusetts ranks 23rd this year in terms of the state rankings, a significant advancement from its second place showing in 1980. Like many statistical studies, however, it pays to look a little deeper and unpeel the onion.

Among the data included in the STUDY (scroll down to 2008) is the total annual amount of state and local taxes paid, per capita, for each state. Expressing the total tax amounts on a per capita basis allows for comparisons between states of various sizes. Ranking the states on this basis, however, shows that Massachusetts ranks sixth with $5,377 per capita vs. the average for the US of $4,283. If our taxes are ranked relatively high, then it must be the income numbers that are pushing down the tax burden ranking.

According to the study, Massachusetts ranks second, behind only Connecticut in terms of per capita income at $56,661, compared with a national average of $44,254. Who knew we were living in such high cotton? But even assuming that this number is correct, what does it imply for tax policy. The Globe, and perhaps the National Tax Foundation is telling us that we shouldn't complain as we have the means to pay taxes at a rate 25% above the national average. In other words, don't worry, be happy and pay up for the T deficits, the Big Dig overrides, free health care and, of course, those marvelous pensions. If the recently passed pork-filled budget represented anything close to fiscal responsibility, maybe the "tax burden" argument might hold water.

Another point that deserves a further look is the comparison being drawn between the current ranking and the 1980 ranking. If there has been progress since 1980, it would seem that the prime driver would be the limitations on growth in property taxes due to the adoption of Proposition 2 1/2. With the growth in property taxes essentially capped, the growth that has put us in sixth place is primarily due to increases in state taxes, which, it would appear, has more than offset the relief from 2 1/2.

The editorial's last paragraph provides us a glimpse of what is behind this smokescreen:

"In November, voters will be faced with a ballot question to eliminate the state income tax. The tax foundation's report shows Massachusetts moving in the right direction. It should help inform a debate based on facts, not slogans."

The fact is that the most effective tax containment measure on the books is proposition 2 1/2. While eliminating the state income tax (Question No. 1 on the November Ballot) could be seen as heavy-handed, it has increasingly become clear that this may be the only way for the taxpayers to rein in the big spenders on Beacon Hill.

Remedy for Fiscal Irresponsibility

For forty years the Retired State, County and Municipal Employees Association of Massachusetts has provided retired public employees their own voice on Beacon Hill.

As the legislative session wound down last week, a bill to provide a special cost of living raise to state retirees was passed on a voice vote with no debate. While supporters of the bill were quick to point out that this increase amounts to only $10 per month per pensioner, the total cost of this increase is $1 billion. Actually, the cost would be "only" $1 billion" if the legislature stepped up and funded the increase in the current budget. As is noted in an editorial in TODAY's GLOBE, the legislation provides a funding schedule that is worthy of a Ponzi scheme:

"The problem is that the legislation puts off even beginning to pay for the pension increases until 2024. That is just as the state's current large unfunded pension liability is scheduled to be retired. The Legislature's proposal would delay that date by three more years - long after most of today's legislators are safely out of office. It is irresponsible to saddle future generations of taxpayers with debt - estimated at more than $3 billion - to gain a political benefit today"

In a recent GLOBE ARTICLE, Ralph White, President of the Retired State, County and Municipal Employees Association of Massachusetts, cited the lack of legislative opposition for the bill:

"In the Legislature itself? No," White said yesterday. "There were varying opinions but no one opposed it. I think we did a god job of lobbying, truthfully."

Who was lobbying for the taxpayers against this bill that the Boston Globe says "is just too expensive for the state to afford?" Moreover, pumping up its unfunded liability weakens the pension system itself.


If, as reflected by the lack of opposition, or for that matter, any debate, this increase was in the best interest of the people of Massachusetts, then it falls to the legislature to first of all recognize the significant costs involved, and second, review the rest of the budget and delete enough spending so as to fund the increases and balance the budget. Since the state budget is already way out of balance as we are already in the hole for items like road and bridge repairs, this would be some heavy lifting, not the type of work the legislature likes to perform. Instead, increased pensions have been given to some 100,000 retirees and the cost is pushed off on future taxpayers. Yes, it is an election year, but it makes you wonder if the Solons have any children who might be among those who they just saddled with $3 billion of future debt?

This is exactly the kind of fiscal irresponsibility that is fuelling the initiative to eliminate the state income tax. When both the Boston Globe and the Wall Street Journal both contain editorials criticising the fiscal ineptitude of Massachusetts government on the same day, perhaps the stars really are aligning for a big change. In today's WSJ editorial, the stage is being set for a battle between embattled taxpayers and the entrenched special interests that feed at the public trough. To wit:

"The forces of the tax and spend status quo will descend on this initiative like British troops after the original Boston tea party, but someone has to make an effort to stop the relentless growth of government."

Is Anyone Listening?

A hat tip to Mass Roots for re-printing Matt Kinnaman's article from the North Adams transcript regarding the Imperial Attitude of the Massachusetts Legislature. Specifically:

"Consider this: In its July 15 decision to repeal the "1913 Law," a Massachusetts marriage statute prohibiting out-of-state persons from marriages in the commonwealth which would be illegal in their home states, the Senate took a voice vote, allowing its members to avoid individually recorded votes on a question at the very center of our most momentous human understandings."

Apparently feeling the need for additional justification, the Senators cited the law's alleged racist roots in spite of the fact that the Mass. Supreme Court, finders of the "Right" to gay marriage, had upheld the law in 2006 on Constitutional grounds. Not much of a fig leaf.

Given the strength of opinions on both sides of the gay marriage issue, it was difficult to get voters to focus on the underlying procedural issues. A petition signed by 170,000 Massachusetts voters was ignored by the Solons as they refused to allow the question to be put on the state-wide ballot. While supporters of gay marriage were happy to "win the day", they might have been a little more concerned about the process.

So let's shift gears and look at an issue on which most can agree: taxes. Question 1 on the November ballot calls for the repeal of the Massachusetts Income Tax. Some will recall a similar question on the 2002 ballot that garnered 45% of the vote. You may also have noticed the arrogance with which this vote was ignored by the state government.

Is Question 1 a bit of overkill? You bet. It would delete $12 billion from a total state budget of $28 billion. Lawmakers and special interest groups (you may want to click HERE to see just who is mobilizing against this Question)are quick to cite a litany of vital services that might go unfunded, and, of course, the threat that property taxes will go up! Which brings up the effect of Prop 2 1/2. As a matter of fact, property taxes can't go up, at least by more than 2 1/2% without approval of the municipal voters. Was Prop 2 1/2 a radical measure? You bet. But it seems like hard and fast, broad-based mandates are the only thing that has a chance of reigning in governmental spending.

Speaker Sal has already signaled his intention to ignore the results of the vote on question 1. Arrogant? you bet. But hey, how do we expect the government to continue its largess like the Big Dig, Universal Health Care, and most sacred of all, fat pensions?

Those Wedding Bell Blues

First it was black jack tables that were going to balance the state budget. Governor, Deval Patrick's proposal for four regional casinos, spread around Massachusetts, would generate so much revenue to the state, that he even pencilled in some anticipated income for fiscal 2009. Now we find that there is an economic benefit to be derived from the proposed repeal of the 1913 state law which has prevented same-sex marriages marriages between residents of other states. The law basically says that a couple who may not legally marry in their home state, may not marry in Massachusetts. By repealing the law, we now find, thanks to information developed by the Williams Institute at UCLA, that the state can expect $111 million into its economy over the next three years as couples come to Massachusetts and spend big on wedding cakes, marriage licenses and food and lodging. While the Massachusetts study is not up on the Institute's web site as of yet, A similar studies on several other states, provide statistical context. Details of the Massachusetts study released by the Massachusetts Office of Housing and Economic Development, are cited in today's Globe. Perhaps we might see a string of Las-Vegas style wedding chapels spring up along rte 1A, near the airport, to accommodate the more budget-minded.

State Senator, Diane Wilkerson, (D-Roxbury), quoted on Newsweek. com maintains that another reason for repealing the law is that it is a throwback to a century-ago prohibition against interracial marriage. She called the law "evil. This is one of the most pernicious statutes on our books. This bill puts the final nail in the coffin of those dark days." But according to the San Francisco Chronicle:

"The genesis of the law remains murky. It was approved at a time when many states barred interracial marriages, although supporters say there's no evidence it was racially motivated in Massachusetts, which began allowing interracial marriages in 1843.

There's no record of the legislative debate on the bill, which raced through the Massachusetts Legislature in three weeks and was quickly signed into law.

It appeared to come out of a nationwide effort to eliminate conflicts among the country's patchwork of laws. But it also came during a time of racial tension, including a scandal over black heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson's marriage to Lucille Cameron, who was white."

It is also interesting to note that Wilkerson, who lead the charge in the senate to repeal this law on moral grounds, has had no small amount of trouble in recognizing her own moral obligations when it comes to taxes and campaign spending.

Advocates for gay marriage maintain that same sex weddings have now become an accepted part of the State's culture. This would certainly appear to be the case in the Massachusetts Senate, but ignores the concerns of many citizens, including the 170,000 or so that petitioned the General Court to put the question to the people through a ballot referendum.

In the same Globe article, Cardinal Sean O'Malley cites constitutional, cultural and religious reasons for his opposition to the repeal of the law. Joining the state's other three Catholic Bishops, "They said eliminating the law would infringe on the on the rights of states to set their own marriage laws, and they emphasized their commitment to the traditional definition of marriage."

The House is expected to take up the repeal before the July 31st adjournment. If passed, the bill would then go to the Governor for his signature which he has indicated he will affix to the bill. Some may see this as a "victory", but many in Massachusetts, and across the country, see it as further evidence that Massachusetts is losing touch with the traditional values as we export our wrong-headed policies to other states.