CLT
UPDATE
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Hypocrisy reaches a new plateau with
Boston Globe editorial
State senators need to go much further than the step
they took last week if they are to make sense of the highly politicized
tax cut debate.
The Senate voted to implement a phased rollback of the personal income
tax rate from the current 5.3 percent to 5 percent over three years --
if state distributions to the cities and towns regain 2002 funding
levels, adjusted for inflation.
Even though the vote was unanimous, the Senate quickly came under fire
from tax-cut zealots....
In truth, the Senate made a sensible move in
recognizing that the rollback approved by voters in 2000 is still on
people's minds, but the mandate is open to debate. Common
sense dictates that the Senate should complete the job and require that
all major budget items be restored to 2000 levels before the rollback is
considered....
One of the problems with ballot questions is
that they limit the electorate's vocabulary to two words -- yes and no.
Legislative intent can often be divined, but voter intent is
inscrutable, at least when it comes to the details of ballot questions.
A Boston Globe editorial
Sunday, May 28, 2006
No tax cut before its time
Results are in from the candidate filings with city
and town clerks statewide, and the winners are: the incumbents. And the
losers are: the voters.
Only 14 of the Senate's 40 seats, and only 58 of the 160 seats in the
House, are being contested this year, raising the question of where
democracy has gone.
If you think of it, to "elect" means to choose. If there's no choice,
how can there be an election? And if there's no true election, where's
the democracy? ...
One reason is that the General Court is full of legislators
who think the current system is fine -- after all, it put them in office.
So when a reform such as the public-financing Clean
Elections Law comes along seeking to give challengers a better chance,
legislators kill it, even though it was approved by the voters....
Massachusetts enjoys a reputation as a birthplace of democracy and a
hotbed of politics. But for legislative incumbents, and some others, the
home of the Freedom Trail has become the home of the free ride.
A Boston Globe editorial
Saturday, June 3, 2006
Incumbents rule
The Globe probably doesn't see any inconsistency in these two
editorial positions, or feel embarrassment over its consistent endorsement of
incumbents over challengers, no matter how hard-working and viable.
The Boston Globe
Friday, June 9, 2006
Letters to the editor
Incumbents may rule, but so does the paper
Barbara Anderson, Citizens for Limited Taxation
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
If it wasn't so disgusting, these two Boston Globe
editorials clashing together would be hilarious coming within six days
of each other.
What hypocritical audacity that newspaper's ivory tower editorial
writers have displayed, coming up with such a disingenuous plea against
diminished democracy, the very system they have strived to undermine and weaken if not kill outright
for so long.
In pursuit of its own agenda, Boston Globe editorials
have persistently trashed democracy, the value of voting, and election
results. Incongruously, they regularly rail against the Legislature's
repeal of the Globe's sacred "Clean Elections Law" -- after the
Legislature put it back onto the ballot and the voters rejected it
the second time around. "Voter intent" wasn't "inscrutable" whatsoever
in that instance, but the Globe didn't like the result of the ballot
question.
It didn't like the result of the 2000 tax rollback
ballot question either. Those self-righteous editorial elitists
cheer the Legislature for giving the Beacon Hill middle-finger salute
to voters who passed the income tax rollback over the Globe's
opposition, defined our 59-41 percent victory "inscrutable" and slurred
the victors as "tax cut zealots."
But now the Boston Globe's pompous editorial board
would have us believe it is concerned about democracy in Massachusetts.
Give me a break.
Any other newspaper or media outlet in the state
would have at least some credibility if decrying the dearth of candidates, the limited or
absence
of choice for the electorate. The Boston Globe has consistently
promoted the status quo and more of it, a lopsided liberal Legislature,
and
one-party rule for as far back as memory serves. It has almost
always been in the cheering gallery for incumbents, so long as they are Democrats.
In the last election (2004) a
record 125 Republican candidates ran for seats in the Legislature -- many of them very
impressive and hard-working campaigners. I can't recall the Globe
endorsing any of them against Democrat incumbents. In its June 3
editorial, it dismissed its institutionalized bias by unilaterally decreeing that
these challengers -- all 125 Republicans -- were "rightly and soundly squashed by the voters."
Now the Boston Globe's liberal editorial elitists would
have us believe the results of one-party rule is . . . suddenly
troublesome for them. They are concerned, so very concerned over
so few private citizens willing to put aside their lives and incomes,
spend the next five months running vigorous campaigns for the Globe to
again marginalize and trash.
"The fact is that Massachusetts has a disgraceful
record of non-competitiveness in its legislative races, ranking worst,
or next worst, of all the states over the last two decades," its
editorial recognized. The Boston Globe admitted that Massachusetts
is a shameful oligarchy, a national disgrace. With that editorial
it has lamely attempted to distance itself for any well-deserved blame.
The Boston Globe editorialists' attempted
sleight-of-hand, appearing to cry out for more democracy, is shameless.
It promotes "democracy" only so long as we vote in lockstep their way,
give them the results they advocate. Otherwise, the Globe will
again demand that election results be overturned, trashed and replaced
by their alleged superior socialist vision.
Every time you think that blind inconsistency,
blatant hypocrisy, and hollow self-righteousness have reached a new plateau in the Boston Globe's
editorial pages, the pontificators manage to outdo and further embarrass
themselves.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Globe
Sunday, May 28, 2006
A Boston Globe editorial
No tax cut before its time
State senators need to go much further than the step they took last week
if they are to make sense of the highly politicized tax cut debate.
The Senate voted to implement a phased rollback of the personal income
tax rate from the current 5.3 percent to 5 percent over three years --
if state distributions to the cities and towns regain 2002 funding
levels, adjusted for inflation.
Even though the vote was unanimous, the Senate quickly came under fire
from tax-cut zealots. Since local aid distributions are below those
levels, by about $300 million according to some estimates, the Senate
was accused of attempting to align itself with the tax cutters in an
election year, while not delivering the cuts.
In truth, the Senate made a sensible move in recognizing that the
rollback approved by voters in 2000 is still on people's minds, but the
mandate is open to debate. Common sense dictates that the Senate should
complete the job and require that all major budget items be restored to
2000 levels before the rollback is considered.
The leading proponent of the cut in 2000, then-governor Paul Cellucci,
promised over and over that there was plenty of revenue and that the tax
cut would require no program cuts. Indeed, according to Cellucci, the
rollback would guarantee the state's health -- the reduction "will make
sure that the economy does not go south," he said just after it was
approved. He was wrong, deeply wrong, on both counts.
How many Massachusetts voters approved the tax cut in 2000 because tax
reduction was their first priority, and how many voted yes only because
Cellucci and others promised that no services would be cut? We will
never know. One of the problems with ballot questions is that they limit
the electorate's vocabulary to two words -- yes and no. Legislative
intent can often be divined, but voter intent is inscrutable, at least
when it comes to the details of ballot questions.
And here is the problem. Not only aid to cities and towns, but also
public higher education, the Public Health Department, maintenance of
state parks, aspects of education reform including MCAS remediation, and
countless other state obligations are still funded at reduced levels.
And while the rainy day fund has been restored to $1.7 billion, near its
peak, recent experience has shown that this crucial reserve should be
substantially larger to guard against economic fluctuations.
So the job for Massachusetts legislators now is to act as true
representatives, using their judgment to promote the state's welfare,
while mindful of the voters' action six years ago.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Saturday, June 3, 2006
A Boston Globe editorial
Incumbents rule
Results are in from the candidate filings with city and town clerks
statewide, and the winners are: the incumbents. And the losers are: the
voters.
Only 14 of the Senate's 40 seats, and only 58 of the 160 seats in the
House, are being contested this year, raising the question of where
democracy has gone.
If you think of it, to "elect" means to choose. If there's no choice,
how can there be an election? And if there's no true election, where's
the democracy?
The fact is that Massachusetts has a disgraceful record of
non-competitiveness in its legislative races, ranking worst, or next
worst, of all the states over the last two decades. The 2004 state
election saw what appeared to be a healthy spike, with 125 of the 200
seats contested, largely due to Republican Governor Mitt Romney's
efforts to recruit Republican challengers. But most were ineffective.
And those who followed the advice of Romney's hired consultants ran
bruising attack campaigns that were rightly and soundly squashed by the
voters. The GOP lost seats in both branches.
Romney could have tried again, with better technique, but he did not. So
now the ledger is back near its low point, with candidates in nearly
two-thirds of the districts running completely unopposed. One reason is
that the General Court is full of legislators who think the current
system is fine -- after all, it put them in office. So when a reform
such as the public-financing Clean Elections Law comes along seeking to
give challengers a better chance, legislators kill it, even though it
was approved by the voters. It is an equal-opportunity travesty: Despite
the dominance of the Democratic Party in the Legislature, Republican
incumbents are almost as likely to escape challenge as the Democrats.
The phenomenon is not confined to the Legislature. In an extraordinary
development, the high office of attorney general, being vacated by Tom
Reilly, will apparently go to Middlesex District Attorney Martha Coakley
uncontested by a challenger from either party. Voters will not be asked
to express an opinion.
Massachusetts enjoys a reputation as a birthplace of democracy and a
hotbed of politics. But for legislative incumbents, and some others, the
home of the Freedom Trail has become the home of the free ride.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Friday, June 9, 2006
Letter to the editor
Incumbents may rule, but so does the paper
I read with amusement your June 3 editorial, "Incumbents rule." It seems
the Globe is torn between a need for lively stories and its strong
ideological bent to dismiss political opponents.
You can't have a real choice in elections if all candidates share the
same political viewpoint. Why should a first-time Republican candidate
give up his job and family for nine or 10 months of fund-raising and
organizing with scant chance of success?
In Massachusetts, not only are labor, the media, and academia solidly
Democratic, but even businesspeople and the well-to-do.
You also did not mention the huge Democratic registration advantage.
Incumbents such as Senator Kennedy, who plays the Globe like a fiddle
(see the feel-good May 7 story about his dog Splash), get incalculable
assistance from your paper.
With the deck stacked against challengers as it is, is there any wonder
why there is no electoral competition?
Robert F. Belida
Norton
It's almost funny that the Globe would editorialize that incumbent
politicians rule in Massachusetts. Day after day you tear down any
Republican still in office. On May 28 you printed four letters that tore
into Governor Romney over his trip to Iraq.
In the final paragraph of your editorial, you write, "Massachusetts
enjoys a reputation as a birthplace of democracy," yet your paper has
done more than its share to make this a one-party socialist state.
Tony Ferlazzo
Natick
You deplore the lack of legislative challengers for this year's
election, and the fact that legislators killed the Clean Elections Law
"even though it was approved by the voters." This follows a May 28
editorial in which the Globe celebrates, for the umpteenth time, the
Legislature's ignoring the voters' approval of the income tax rollback.
The Globe probably doesn't see any inconsistency in these two editorial
positions, or feel embarrassment over its consistent endorsement of
incumbents over challengers, no matter how hard-working and viable.
Barbara Anderson
Executive director
Citizens for Limited Taxation
Marblehead
Return to top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|