CLT
UPDATE
Sunday, September 17 2006
Democrats diss voters ... 'cause
they can
A rollback of the Massachusetts income tax rate to 5
percent -- something voters mandated in 2000 by decisively approving
Question 4 on the state ballot -- is said to be a key issue in the
campaign for governor. But that's not quite accurate....
Each gubernatorial candidate claims to respect the voters. Presumably,
each is prepared to be treated by the voters with the same respect. With
that in mind, I offer a modest proposal: Let the winner of the November
election take office in accordance with his or her approach to the tax
cut voters approved six years ago....
Ballot measures are a check and balance on political highhandedness and
an important vehicle for redressing citizens' grievances. Governors and
lawmakers must not be allowed to trash them at will. Those who try to do
so might benefit from a taste of their own undemocratic medicine.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, September 17, 2006
A question of voter respect
By Jeff Jacoby
It's time to hold Kerry Healey accountable....
Healey has two issues going for her: taxes and the illusion of bringing balance
to Beacon Hill....
Healey's biggest advantage is the ability to make the state income tax rollback
the defining issue of the 2006 governor's race. Patrick's anti rollback position
thrills liberals but puts him at a big disadvantage in the general election.
Barring the rollback door entirely is a tough sell to the electorate. This is
one place where nuance -- a responsible tax rollback, which does not jeopardize
education, healthcare or local aid -- may win over more reasonable voters.
That's Gabrieli's approach and it's another reason Healey doesn't want to run
against him.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Smart on taxes, tough on Healey
By Joan Vennochi
Former Gov. Michael Dukakis blasted Lt. Gov. Kerry
Healey for launching a "disgraceful" television ad targeting Democratic
gubernatorial candidate Chris Gabrieli’s stance on stem cell research.
The Healey ad, which rolled out this week, suggests the venture
capitalist stands to profit from his proposal to publicly fund stem cell
research....
"We’ve been a target of baseless smear attacks by our opponents and
their special-interest friends," O’Brien said, referring to the
anti-Healey ad.
"I have no idea who that group is," Dukakis said. As for the Patriot
Majority Fund’s ads themselves, he said: "I’ve never seen them."
The Boston Herald
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Duke: Healey ad positively 'disgraceful'
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
How do you like that, it's become the "the defining
issue of the 2006 governor's race," even according to liberal Boston
Globe columnist Joan Vennochi? Just as we at CLT were resigning
ourselves to the fact that no matter what, the intransigent Legislature
was not going to give in to mere voters and taken-for-granted
constituents. None of the Democrats allegedly representing us
intends to grant the voters' 59-41
percent mandate in 2000 that the income tax rate be finally rolled back
to 5 percent, never mind their votes or the democratic process.
Nonetheless, it's become the Democrat gubernatorial candidates'
albatross. Each of them has "a plan" of one sort or another
to address the polling data. Deval
Patrick's keeps shifting: I guess today it's no rollback, or maybe some
day down the road when state government has more money than he can
ingeniously spend
on his new programs; something like that, who knows? Check back
again for an update on Deval's evolving "plan," a moving target.
An AP report in the
Times Daily, an Alabama newspaper, yesterday focused on our
Massachusetts Democrat gubernatorial primary campaign, of all things.
It noted:
In a state where consumers have soured on the
economy, cutting the state's income tax has emerged as the most
contentious economic issue dividing the three Democratic candidates
for governor.... Despite their contrasting philosophies on economic
issues, the differences in the candidates' job-growth plans may be
subtle enough to make little or no impression on voters compared with
the stark disagreements on cutting the income tax rate.
Alabama?!? I suppose if a tax cut can happen
here in Taxachusetts it's national news.
The Boston Globe's token conservative columnist, Jeff
Jacoby, hit it on the mark this morning in his column: if votes
and voters truly matter at all whatsoever to Democrats, then they should equally
respect voters and their vote before taking office, or put off assuming that
position until they can and do. We first presented this
uniquely-foreign concept in a July
news release, "Gabrieli Tax Plan." Personally, I like Jeff's
formula.
Honestly, you've got to admire Mike Dukakis and his
desperate attempt to become relevant again, resurrect himself and his
abysmal record, the poor soul. He's heading-up some kind of
arcane Democrat committee to oversee its candidates and their
messages -- but with nothing else to do in his free time as the state
party's "elder statesman," he's going
after the Republican candidate, oh gosh. But he has proven to be
as just clueless as before, unintentionally hapless or otherwise.
He apparently missed the illicit union/party attacks
against Healey now airing -- beneath the radar of the new "campaign
finance reform" law.
Michael Stanley, keep yourself out there for the
world to see -- see and remember at this critical point -- so we can all recall the
last Democrat who
reigned as our state's governor, and what a disaster you were for this
commonwealth, the billions you have cost us -- are still taking
from
our pockets seventeen years of
your broken promise
later -- about a third of my lifetime ago.
You still don't recognize opposition party attack
ads? Apparently you learned nothing from first Al Gore's then later GWH
Bush's Willy Horton ads, mister failed would-be President of the US of
A. By the way, how's that tank helmet fitting these days --
getting a little tighter is it?
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Globe
Sunday, September 17, 2006
A question of voter respect
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist
A rollback of the Massachusetts income tax rate to 5 percent --
something voters mandated in 2000 by decisively approving Question 4 on
the state ballot -- is said to be a key issue in the campaign for
governor. But that's not quite accurate. To be sure, the candidates have
had plenty to say on the subject, especially since an August poll showed
that a solid majority of likely Democratic voters want the tax reduced
from the current 5.3 percent. The real question at the heart of the
candidates' differing positions is not "Should the income tax be cut to
5 percent?" It is this: "Should politicians treat voters' decisions with
deference -- or as mere recommendations they can ignore with impunity?"
Each gubernatorial candidate claims to respect the voters. Presumably,
each is prepared to be treated by the voters with the same respect. With
that in mind, I offer a modest proposal: Let the winner of the November
election take office in accordance with his or her approach to the tax
cut voters approved six years ago.
Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey has consistently called for the income
tax to be rolled back immediately, in keeping with the 2000 mandate. If
she wins, she would be sworn in on the first Thursday in January, the
normal inauguration day.
Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly firmly opposed the rollback until
December 2005, when he suddenly shifted his position on the grounds that
Massachusetts was now at the "point of having sufficient reserves" to
afford a tax cut. If he wins in November, his inauguration would be
delayed until December 2011, nearly five years after the date specified
by law.
Businessman Chris Gabrieli spent $15,000 to defeat Question 4 in 2000
and opposes it to this day. Rather than implement the law as voters
passed it, he proposes instead to gradually reduce the tax rate if
revenues rise faster than inflation. His inauguration, should he win,
would be delayed for six years, after which he would very gradually
assume office -- at first serving just one day a week, then two days,
etc. -- on a schedule tied to the economy. With sustained economic
growth, Gabrieli could expect to be a full-time governor before 2020.
Former Clinton administration official Deval Patrick has maintained that
Question 4 should not take effect. Accordingly, if he wins in November,
he would not take office.
I think that's reasonable, don't you? What's that, Mr. Patrick -- you
don't agree? And Messrs. Reilly and Gabrieli, you don't like my proposal
either? But why not? If you don't consider an election binding when it
comes to a ballot measure, why should a majority vote for a candidate be
considered final? On the other hand, if you're prepared to accept the
voters' judgment in choosing a governor, why treat their decision on a
ballot initiative with such contempt?
For 88 years, Massachusetts voters have had the power to pass
legislation at the ballot through initiatives and referenda. For nearly
all that time, their legislative decisions were regarded as sacrosanct.
Successful ballot measures took effect, even if political elites
disliked them. Only in the last few years has Beacon Hill had the gall
to undermine laws adopted by the people. It refused to fund the
so-called Clean Elections campaign finance scheme that voters approved
in 1998 (the law was eventually repealed through a subsequent ballot
measure). And it pulled the plug on the two tax cuts voters adopted in
2000 -- Question 4's income tax rollback and the tax deduction for
charitable gifts created by Question 7.
Such behavior is outrageous and antidemocratic. Politicians who refuse
to honor your vote are politicians who don't deserve to receive your
vote. That doesn't mean that candidates have to agree with the outcome
of an election. It *does* mean that, whether they agree with it or not,
they will abide by it.
Is there no other course? Sure there is: Gabrieli, Patrick, or anyone
else who thinks Massachusetts cannot "afford" to reduce its income tax
rate by three-tenths of a percentage point can always mount a ballot
campaign to reverse Question 4. Anything else -- including "freezing"
the rollback at 5.3 percent, as the Legislature did in 2002 -- is
dishonorable.
Ballot measures are a check and balance on political highhandedness and
an important vehicle for redressing citizens' grievances. Governors and
lawmakers must not be allowed to trash them at will. Those who try to do
so might benefit from a taste of their own undemocratic medicine.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Smart on taxes, tough on Healey
By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist
It's time to hold Kerry Healey accountable.
Her resume is thinner than an iPod Nano. Why should she be the next
governor?
As lieutenant governor, Healey held the hands of mayors across the
Commonwealth as they watched municipal budgets implode, compliments of
the Romney-Healey administration.
She also spent time standing behind Romney at press conferences. This
summer, she helped Romney adjust his safety vest before he patrolled a
Big Dig tunnel. This month, when Dick Cheney came to Boston for a
fund-raiser, she was there, too. But, she didn't have the guts to greet
the unpopular vice president at the airport -- or the guts to decline
the invitation to the Cheney event.
Her willingness to stand by her GOP men is matched by her unwillingness
to challenge the policies they represent.
When Romney cut and ran from the moderate social positions the
Romney-Healey ticket embraced in 2002, Healey said nothing. Even though
she says she is prochoice, she let Romney get away with flip-flops on
abortion rights. She never distanced herself from his right-leaning tilt
-- until, as a candidate for governor, she saw political benefit in
supporting emergency contraception legislation.
As for the Bush-Cheney agenda, she told NECN's Jim Braude, "I feel very
strongly that there are things that I agree with in national policy --
keeping taxes lower and having an aggressive foreign policy and having
standards in education." Yes, those Bush administration priorities --
tax breaks for the rich, the war in Iraq, and educational standards
without federal funding to back them up -- are real popular here in
Massachusetts.
Shortly before primary day, Healey launched a silly and dishonest attack
ad at Chris Gabrieli, one of three Democrats running for governor. The
ad calls Gabrieli a "tycoon" and charges him with supporting public
investment in stem cell research strictly to enrich himself. This
accusation comes from the wife of a ``tycoon." Her husband, Sean, got a
questionable $1.2 million state tax credit that he later returned after
negative publicity.
In response to the Healey attack, Gabrieli said he did not believe any
of the companies he invested in are doing stem cell research; but even
if they are, ``I believe in stem cell research, and it's going to take
public and private financing to cure these diseases." He also pledged
that if he is elected governor, he would sell his stock in any biotech
or high-tech company to avoid even the appearance of conflict.
In case you missed it, Healey really doesn't want to run against
Gabrieli. He has what her husband has -- lots of money -- and everything
she lacks -- a portfolio of personal accomplishment and executive
leadership skills. Democrats Deval Patrick and Tom Reilly also boast
impressive records of personal and professional accomplishment, in
strong contrast to Healey. Before she was plucked to run with Romney,
she was a law and public safety consultant at Abt Associates and twice
ran unsuccessfully for the state Legislature.
Healey has two issues going for her: taxes and the illusion of bringing
balance to Beacon Hill.
Since Bill Weld's victory in 1990, Republican gubernatorial candidates
continue to press and win the argument that they are needed to offset
Democrats who control the House and Senate. But think about it. Does
Healey have the stature, clout, or experience to hold House Speaker
Salvatore DiMasi and Senate President Robert Travaglini in check? Romney
accomplished it rarely, and only when public pressure was so strong that
legislative leaders could not resist it. One example of that is
Melanie's Law, championed by Romney and Healey, to toughen drunken
driving penalties.
Healey's biggest advantage is the ability to make the state income tax
rollback the defining issue of the 2006 governor's race. Patrick's anti
rollback position thrills liberals but puts him at a big disadvantage in
the general election. Barring the rollback door entirely is a tough sell
to the electorate. This is one place where nuance -- a responsible tax
rollback, which does not jeopardize education, healthcare or local aid
-- may win over more reasonable voters. That's Gabrieli's approach and
it's another reason Healey doesn't want to run against him.
She's smart -- she went to Harvard, after all. She is willing to play
tough politics, as demonstrated by her first strike against Gabrieli.
The Democrat who wins on Tuesday better be smarter, tougher -- and ready
to make Healey, not taxes, the issue. And fast.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Duke: Healey ad positively 'disgraceful'
By Kimberly Atkins
Former Gov. Michael Dukakis blasted Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey for launching
a "disgraceful" television ad targeting Democratic gubernatorial
candidate Chris Gabrieli’s stance on stem cell research.
The Healey ad, which rolled out this week, suggests the venture
capitalist stands to profit from his proposal to publicly fund stem cell
research.
"It’s a disgraceful ad," Dukakis said from his Northeastern University
office. "To suggest that this guy is supporting stem cell research
because he’s going to make money off of it is ludicrous."
He also said the ad shows that the post-primary race will be bloody.
"She is going to be attacking, and attacking and attacking," Dukakis
said.
The former governor, who is the head of a state Democratic Party panel
aimed at banning Democratic candidates from running attack ads, said
that while no television spot has prompted any reprimands, they aren’t
exactly the picture of positivity.
"Well, I would have preferred that the race stay positive," Dukakis
said, but in the grand scheme of things, "I’ve seen a lot worse, let me
tell you."
Healey spokesman Tim O’Brien said the ad was launched in response to a
spot broadcast throughout Massachusetts by the Democratic group the
Patriot Majority Fund.
The tax-exempt group funded by Democratic and labor groups portrayed
Healey as an out-of-touch power abuser.
"We’ve been a target of baseless smear attacks by our opponents and
their special-interest friends," O’Brien said, referring to the
anti-Healey ad.
"I have no idea who that group is," Dukakis said. As for the Patriot
Majority Fund’s ads themselves, he said: "I’ve never seen them."
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
|