The Salem News
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Voters nix axing state income tax
By Chris Cassidy
Voters overwhelmingly
rejected a proposal to abolish the state income tax last night.
Statewide, Question 1
failed by a tally of about 70 percent to 30 percent.
Across the North Shore, the
ballot initiative fell by close to 2-1 margins in Beverly, Danvers,
Hamilton, Ipswich, Peabody, Salem and Swampscott.
Only voters in
Manchester-by-the-Sea approved the measure by a mere 160 votes.
For Question 1 backers, it
was an evening of disappointment.
"I really don't think they
(voters) like things the way they are in Massachusetts," said Barbara
Anderson, the executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation
and a Question 1 supporter. "They seem to understand the scams and the
corruption and the benefit packages. ... They just haven't found the
nerve to do anything about it."
Dennis Corrigan of Boxford,
a Question 1 supporter, said opponents of the initiative spent millions
of dollars in a last-minute advertising blitz — something his side
simply couldn't compete with.
"I think the spending was
probably the key thing," Corrigan said.
At a busy polling location
at the Marblehead Community Center during dinnertime last night, many
voters said they feared abolishing the income tax would decimate
essential state programs at a time when Massachusetts is already facing
a more than $1 billion budget deficit. Last month, Gov. Deval Patrick
announced major cuts to the state budget.
"I think it would cripple
all the services in the state," said Richard Allen of Marblehead.
"I'm pretty nervous about a
lot of cuts to state funding," said Jeremy Louisos of Marblehead. "The
past couple weeks, we've had innumerable cuts that I haven't been in
favor of."
Peter Hendrickson, an
engineer from Boxford, said Question 1 doesn't meet economic realities.
"I think it would be a
disaster," he said. "... Our country and state are so badly in debt. I
hate to say it: We may need more taxes."
Others felt a vote to
eliminate the income tax would send a message to Beacon Hill lawmakers
that they're fed up with seeing their tax money wasted.
Leaving a polling location
at Bentley School in Salem last night, Jacqueline Field-Swenbeck said
she already pays enough taxes.
"I don't want the
government — Beacon Hill — to handle any more of my tax dollars," Field-Swenbeck
said. "I think they've done a disservice to Massachusetts citizens
already."
But Kristen Strong of Salem
said abolishing the income tax would have two effects — a drastic cut in
state services and a dramatic rise in property tax bills.
"My feeling is if you don't
want to pay property taxes," Strong said, "go to New Hampshire."
Staff writer Mike Stucka
contributed to this story.
Associated Press
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Mass. rejects elimination of state income tax
BOSTON -- Massachusetts
voters rejected a call to eliminate the state’s income tax after critics
said it would have wreaked fiscal havoc at a time when the state is
already grappling with a financial downturn.
The measure would have cut
the 5.3 percent tax rate in half in January, and then killed it
completely in January 2010.
Supporters, led by the
Committee for Small Government, had argued the best way to cut
government waste and overspending was to eliminate the tax, which would
have reduced annual state revenues by 40 percent or about $12.5 billion.
Backers also said the
question would have saved the average taxpayer about $3,700.
Committee Chairwoman Carla
Howell blamed the defeat on the massive advertising campaign by
opponents of the measure, saying both sides were initially in a dead
heat in the polls and that voters were ultimately swayed by "scare
tactics." Opponents spent more than $5 million while supporters raised
only about $500,000.
"We knew this was a David
vs. Goliath battle," Howell said. "All we needed was a bigger stone."
But opponents, including
Gov. Deval Patrick and virtually every elected officials in the state,
had said the cuts would have crippled state services, driven up property
taxes and scared away business.
The measure was being
defeated by more than a 2-to-1 margin with 50 percent of precincts
reporting.
Steve Crawford, a spokesman
for the Coalition for Our Communities, which led the opposition to the
question, said voters didn’t buy into promises of easy money even in a
tough economy.
"We clearly see the voters
of Massachusetts sending a strong message that we care about good
schools, police and fire protection, good roads and bridges, and
especially strong communities," Crawford said.
Opponents also argued that
ending the income tax would have forced local communities to raise
property taxes, and said it would have hurt the state’s credit rating,
making it costlier for the state to borrow money.
Michael Widmer of the
business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which also fought
the question, called the decisive vote against the measure a "terrific
result."
"There was enough public
education so voters could resist the superficial lure of a tax cut and
realize in the end it would result in dramatic cuts across state
government but especially in aid to cities and towns," he said.
Backers of the measure
faced increasingly dire news about the state’s economy, making the tax
cut a tougher sell as election day approached.
In mid-October, Patrick
unveiled a plan to cut more than a billion from the budget, institute
spending controls and eliminate 1,000 state jobs after state revenues
plummeted during the first quarter of the fiscal year.
Patrick and Democratic
leaders in the House and Senate never said how they would have dealt
with the loss of the tax revenue — saying they were instead focused on
killing the measure.
Lawmakers would have had
the option of repealing or amending the question if it had become law,
but they would have risked the ire of voters.
A similar question narrowly
lost six years ago. At the time opponents largely ignored the question.
That didn’t happen this
year. Unions representing teachers and other public employees poured
millions into the campaign to kill the measure, far more than supporters
had to persuade voters to back it.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Voters reject income tax repeal
By Eric Moskowitz
Massachusetts voters
yesterday once again defeated an effort to repeal the state's income
tax, following a big-spending campaign by unions and other opponents who
warned that eliminating the tax would gut state government.
At the same time, voters
approved a ballot question decriminalizing the possession of small
amounts of marijuana and another ballot question to ban dog racing.
In other statewide voting,
US Senator John F. Kerry easily defeated Republican Jeff Beatty to win a
fifth term.
In 2002, a question to
repeal the income tax attracted little attention and no formal
opposition but nearly passed. Stunned tax supporters took no chances
this time, spending millions of dollars on an aggressive campaign to
warn that repealing the income tax would damage the state, trigger
drastic cuts to services, and prompt increases to other taxes and fees.
"We appealed to common
sense," said Harris Gruman, campaign manager for Coalition for Our
Communities, which led the opposition. "And if you have the time and
money to do that, common sense prevails, especially in Massachusetts."
The coalition outspent the
supporters of Question 1 by a 10-to-1 ratio through mid-October, a gap
expected to widen on finance reports that will be filed after the
election. That enabled the question's opponents to pay for a flurry of
television ads and a sophisticated effort to identify likely and swing
voters.
Carla Howell, the former
Libertarian gubernatorial candidate who led the effort to repeal the
tax, blamed the defeat on the fund-raising gap.
"The teachers unions spent
100 times more on advertising than we did. The message to voters:
advertising works," said Howell, chairwoman of the Committee for Small
Government, speaking to a crowd of about 20 supporters at Ken's Steak
House in Framingham last night.
But there was more than a
monetary gap at play. The Coalition for Our Communities drew on a
network of door-to-door activists worried about cuts to schools, health
centers, public safety, and other programs. In Dorchester and Mattapan
alone, more than 100 volunteers from several nonprofits offered rides to
the polls and handed out thousands of No-on-1 cards.
"We know how important
Question 1 is to many services that are important to working families
across the state," said Cortina Vann, a community organizer with the
Dorchester-based Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance.
On the other side, the
Committee for Small Government, invested a chunk of its limited
resources, which totaled $431,000 through mid-October, early in the
campaign on the drive to get the question on the ballot.
After that, Question 1
advocates hoped that frustration with government waste as well as
fatigue from strained family budgets would lead many of the state's 3.4
million workers to strike a blow against the 5.3 percent income tax.
"We're getting taxed to
death in Massachusetts," said Bernie Friesecke, a North Reading voter
who contributed $85 to the Committee for Small Government.
"You get these television
ads that tell you we're going to lose this, that, and the other thing,"
said Friesecke, 78, a retired aeronautical engineer. "No one's ever
telling you that we've got corruption and spending on stuff we don't
need, in huge quantities."
The question called for
cutting the income tax to 2.65 percent on or after Jan. 1 and for
eliminating it entirely a year later. That would return an average of
about $3,700 per worker but strip the state of roughly $12.5 billion a
year, about 40 percent of funding for the current budget.
Opponents warned that the
question would also harm the state's credit rating and destabilize its
economy, in addition to forcing cuts to the myriad services. The
coalition received heavy funding from public labor unions but also
attracted allies in the state's leading business groups and from a wide
range of government officials.
Howell's campaign won votes
yesterday from those who believed the question would pass as well as
from those who did not. Andrew Gray, a microbiology graduate student
from Somerville, said he knew some supporters who just wanted to tweak
government and send a message, thinking it would either lose or be
immediately repealed by lawmakers if it passed.
Six years ago, 12 percent
of people left the question blank. But the question carried 45 percent
of votes cast in 2002 and won wide support in several communities,
including Lynnfield. Some there supported it again, such as 47-year-old
engineer George Bloom.
"I agree with virtually
nothing the Legislature does. I think they're the biggest bunch of hacks
in the world," said Bloom, citing what he considered mismanagement of
funds, outsized public-employee pensions and inefficient road projects.
But others in Lynnfield
echoed the message of the Coalition for Our Communities.
"I just think it's kind of
reckless," said Christine Noonan, 55, who works as a planner for GE.
"And I really don't want to see my property taxes go up."
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Crime rap for pot snuffed
No jail for small amounts
By Jessica Van Sack
QUESTION ONE: Eliminate the
state’s income tax?
YES: 31% NO: 69%
QUESTION TWO: Decriminalize
possession of marijuana?
YES: 65% NO: 35%
QUESTION THREE: Ban dog
racing?
YES: 57% NO: 43%
Unofficial results
Bay State voters opted last
night to weed out the recreational reefer users from drug-pushing punks,
as they voted for ballot Question 2 to decriminalize small amounts of
marijuana.
On the other two questions,
voters scotched an effort to eliminate the state income tax, but voted
in a ban on dog racing.
“It’s great to see the
people of Massachusetts were able to see what a sensible, modest
proposal Question 2 is,” said Whitney Taylor of the Committee for
Sensible Marijuana Policy.
Voters passed the measure
65 percent to 35 percent. When it takes effect in 30 days, possession of
an ounce of weed will mean a $100 fine and a clerk magistrate hearing -
not handcuffs and jail.
The pot, however, will
still be confiscated.
Anyone younger than 18 also
would have to complete a drug awareness program and community service,
and their parents would be notified.
Meanwhile, anti-income-tax
crudaders were nursing their wounds after 69 percent of voters turned
down their radical tax cut.
“We knew this was a David
vs. Goliath campaign,” said Carla Howell of the Committee for Small
Government, which says it was outspent 100-to-one. The effort to quash
the proposed income-tax rollback was financed by public-employee unions,
who got their message out via TV and radio ads.
“We felt if we could have a
full debate on the issue, that common sense would prevail the way it did
tonight,” said Harris Gruman of the Coalition for Our Communities.
Thomas Nee, president of the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association,
which also fought the measure, said, “We were responsible. We didn’t try
to scare people.”
But Katherine Armstrong,
35, didn’t want any more of her tax dollars spent on waste. “The state
is bankrupt because the finances are mismanaged,” she said.
Animal rights advocates
celebrated their 53-47 percent win over dog-racing supporters who argued
that hundreds of employees at the state’s two dog tracks would lose
their jobs.
Domenico Mastrototaro
brought his four chihuahuahs to a Hub polling station yesterday to make
a statement.
“They say it’s about the
jobs, but some jobs should be eliminated,” he said. “Should we bring
back slave traders?”
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
A Boston Globe editorial
In Mass., a vote for sanity
Massachusetts voters had
the good sense yesterday to reject decisively the ballot question that
would have repealed the state's income tax. As weakened as the state's
finances have been by the drop in revenues caused by the recession, the
fiscal picture would have been bleak indeed if Question 1 had passed.
The income tax provides
about 40 percent of state revenues, more than $12 billion. A phalanx of
business leaders, municipal officials, and both Republican and
Democratic leaders mobilized against the tax repeal. As the
business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation pointed out, about
$13 billion of the state budget is not discretionary but required by
federal law, the constitution, or court order. Finding $12 billion to
cut in the rest of the budget would have had a devastating impact on
human services, higher education, and the aid the state provides to
towns and cities.
Communities have had a
difficult enough time balancing their books with the level of state aid
they are getting now. Keeping police officers, firefighters, and
teachers on the job with sharply reduced state aid would have been
impossible. Recent unsuccessful efforts to raise local revenues by
overriding Proposition 2˝ have demonstrated that strapped homeowners are
in no position to offset any loss of state aid.
The question's chief
advocate, Carla Howell, never could explain how the state could
compensate for the lost revenue. Instead, she referred to a survey
showing that the public thought 41 percent of state spending is wasted.
Doubtless, there is waste, and the recession-linked loss of more than $1
billion will force the governor and Legislature to reduce it. But any
cuts should be done judiciously. Voters were right to reject the
bludgeoning that repeal would have demanded.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
A Boston Herald editorial
Common sense on taxes
When it came to the ballot
questions in Massachusetts common sense won out . . . except when it
didn’t.
Beacon Hill truly dodged a
bullet when voters decided by a 2-1 margin to keep the income tax spigot
flowing. But Gov. Deval Patrick and legislative leaders would be foolish
to see the rejection of Question 1 as an endorsement of their spending
habits - or a particular fondness for taxes generally.
The fact is that Question 1
threatened the state’s ability to provide basic services, including
local aid. The prospect of trading the income tax for a huge boost in
the property tax was - not surprisingly - less than appealing for the
state’s voters.
That fact and the united
front presented by business and labor helped good sense prevail.
On Question 2, meanwhile,
voters rejected the advice of the state’s entire law enforcement
leadership and approved a measure to decriminalize possession of an
ounce or less of marijuana. That means carrying around enough pot to
roll dozens of joints will draw not an arrest, but a $100 ticket - and
for a juvenile, just a phone call home to Mom and Dad. Hey, who says we
send mixed messages on what constitutes law and order here in the
commonwealth!
And finally, greyhound
advocates managed a victory in their epic quest to ban dog racing.
Perhaps now they can launch a new advocacy group and a new campaign -
this one for all those human beings who will be forced by this vote into
the commonwealth’s growing unemployment line.
What we are left with is
the usual confusion left by ballot questions - at best a clumsy way to
make law.
The Salem News
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
A Salem News editorial
Voters reject meat-ax approach to cutting government waste
We trust those on Beacon
Hill and in city and town halls throughout the state won't view the
rejection of Question 1 as a license to continue business as usual.
There is still much anger
and frustration with the overly generous collective bargaining
contracts, special-interest legislation, archaic practices and
duplication of effort that inflate the cost of government in the Bay
State.
But repeal of the income
tax — the most progressive of the state's levies, which accounts for 40
percent of its revenues — was not the solution.
"People are mad, but
they're not crazy," WBZ's John Henning observed as the results came in
last night.
Indeed, given the
challenges facing our schools, the limits on local taxation imposed by
Proposition 2˝, and the huge costs involved in repairing the state
bridges and roads, it can be reasonably argued that more, not less,
revenue is required.
Gov. Deval Patrick is among
those who realize, however, that elected officials must show they are
serious about squeezing every bit of waste out of the system before they
can sell voters on new taxes. That's why he's seeking to reduce
construction costs by allowing the use of flaggers on highway projects
and calling for the consolidation of services on both the state and
local level.
There may be some on Beacon
Hill who view the vote on Question 1 as a license to spend and continue
kowtowing to the public employee unions. It is important voters pay
attention and send those legislators packing in 2010.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Increases rejected in 5 communities
By Lisa Kocian and Christine Legere
It was the worst time in
years to ask people to increase their property taxes, and the idea did
not go over well at all in five communities yesterday.
Voters defeated proposed
property tax overrides in Walpole, Brockton, Mattapoisett, Newburyport,
and East Bridgewater yesterday. But Needham, seeking money to run a new
elementary school, approved a tax increase.
Town officials across the
region blamed the tough economy for the defeats, even as they worried
how they will pay for police officers, firefighters, and even the cost
of curbside trash and recycling programs without the revenue sought by
the property tax hikes.
"Everybody is pretty bummed
right now," Mattapoisett Fire Chief Ronald Scott said last night. "It's
the economic times. Everyone is just scared."
Mattapoisett voters
rejected a $4,580,000 debt exclusion for a fire station 1,973 to 1,809,
according to unofficial returns. The current station was built in 1952
and doesn't meet accessibility or safety codes.
Walpole voters defeated the
$7 million debt exclusion for a new library with 6,108 in favor and
6,976 opposed. Audree Dyson, a library supporter who had worked to
promote the override, was disappointed. "I guess we'll have to keep
doing what we've been doing," she said last night. "Things like putting
out tarps when it rains."
Brockton voters defeated
all three overrides on the ballot. The trio totaled $3.59 million.
"I'm disappointed, but I
understand," said Brockton Library director Harry Williams. "I think
people are just focused on the dollars in their wallets."
Statewide, voters have
rejected nearly two-thirds of property tax overrides this year. Some of
the tax increases are permanent, and some will expire after several
years, but all had to be approved directly by voters under the state's
Proposition 2˝ law.
Needham voters approved
$1.9 million to operate the High Rock School, scheduled to open this
fall for sixth grade students. With 99 percent of the vote tabulated,
the Town Clerk's office said the vote was 8,885 in favor and 7,731
opposed.
"I am so proud of this
community," said Michael Greis, School Committee chairman. "Even in an
extraordinarily painful financial environment we have reaffirmed our
commitment to opening the High Rock 6th Grade Center."
Needham voter Barbara
Forte, 60, said she approved of the funding "because I think education
is really important."
"If you don't have that,
you don't have anything," she said.
Retired firefighter Bob
Johnston, 75, disagreed: "We're taxed to death," he said just after
voting against the funding. "Somebody's got to run the town right."
In Newburyport, the request
for $7.8 million to pay off debt and free up cash for restoring school
programs and other priorities lost 5,049 to 4,988.
"I'm very stunned by how
close it was," said James Shanley, City Council president, who supported
the funding. "I'm really happy at the same time . . . because it means
enough people took the time to look closely at the issue and think about
it."
He said he expected it to
fail because of the tough economic climate, and he noted that there was
no organized campaign in support of the override.
In East Bridgewater, about
82 percent of registered voters cast ballots, and they resoundingly
defeated a $1.25 million permanent increase to their taxes to fund
capital improvements.
Selectwoman Theresa McNulty
said she was not surprised by the results. "I think the results are
reflective of the bad economic situation we're in, and people's fear
over how long it may last," she said.
In Brockton, Police Chief
William Conlon carried his campaign to multiple community gatherings
over the last several weeks, saying Brockton desperately needs more
police on the street. Fire Chief Ken Galligan warned that one of the
city's stations is in jeopardy of closing without the extra funding.
Some Brockton voters,
however, questioned whether the extra money was needed. "I think the
city has spent enough, and it's costing people too much money," said
Florence Sirois.
In Shirley, voters were
being asked to approve $327,809 for several departments and services
including police, fire, public works, Council on Aging, the library, and
trash collection.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Democrats try to build on their majority in State House
By Andrea Estes
Despite the turmoil that
has engulfed Beacon Hill in recent weeks, Democrats yesterday were
poised to increase their overwhelming majority in the state Legislature,
grabbing at least two seats from the already scant Republican ranks.
As of 1 a.m., Democrats had
won a seat previously held by a retiring Republican, John A. Lepper of
Attleboro. Democrat Bill Bowles defeated Republican George Ross in the
race for that open seat. They also won the seat vacated by Paul J.P.
Loscocco of Holliston. Carolyn Dykema, a Democrat, defeated Republican
opponent Dan Haley.
Democrats were also ahead
in the race to succeed one other Republican who gave up her seat this
year - Mary S. Rogeness of Longmeadow.
Republicans, who currently
hold 19 seats in the 160-member House and five seats in the 40-member
Senate, had not recorded a net gain in 18 years.
"We're disappointed," said
state GOP spokesman Barney Keller. "Clearly a wave hit us. But when a
wave hits you, you have to get back up and keep fighting. People deserve
to know their corrupt Democratic Party's dismal record on both the
economy and job-killing tax hikes. That's what we have to do."
But there will be few major
changes in the makeup of the Legislature come January.
Most incumbent state
lawmakers, Democrat and Republican alike, had no challenger and were
assured of victory before the first vote was cast. Twenty others did not
run for reelection or were ousted in the primaries.
Five senators, all
Democrats, are leaving office, including two who have been criminally
indicted. Senator Dianne Wilkerson of Roxbury is accused of accepting
bribes, and Arlington Senator J. James Marzilli Jr. allegedly accosted
four women last summer in Lowell. Edward M. Augustus Jr. of Worcester,
Pamela Resor of Acton, and Robert S. Creedon Jr. of Brockton did not run
for reelection.
Of the remaining 35
senators, only five had opponents, and insiders predicted all would win
reelection.
In the House, there will
also be few changes when the new session begins in January.
Two incumbents,
Representative Patrick M. Natale, Democrat of Woburn, and Representative
Anthony J. Verga, Democrat of Gloucester, lost their September
primaries, but the overwhelming majority survived that month and 114 had
no opposition yesterday. Just 31 faced opponents and 15 seats were being
vacated.
Three Democratic incumbents
- Tom Conroy of Wayland, Geraldo Alicea of Charlton, and Paul Kujawski
of Webster - appeared to have fended off aggressive challenges.
Conroy won a rematch with
Republican Susan W. Pope, who held the seat before Conroy narrowly beat
her in 2006.
The GOP yesterday had hoped
not only to keep the seats held by Lepper, Loscocco, and Rogeness, but
they were also looking to flip seats held by departing Democrats
including Augustus and Representatives Stephen P. LeDuc of Marlborough,
who left earlier this year, and Geoffrey D. Hall of Littleton.
Democrats were winning the
races to succeed Augustus and LeDuc. As of 11 p.m. Republican Paul
Avella was slightly ahead of Democrat James Arciero in the fight to
succeed Hall.
Democratic Party chairman
John Walsh said Democratic candidates won because they were the better
choices. "Voters compared the candidates and found that Democratic
candidates were better and worked harder district by district, town by
town, voter by voter," he said. "The Democratic enthusiasm out there
came from having good candidates."
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Voters embrace change, Barack Obama
Issue decisive victory in historic race
By Dave Wedge and Hillary Chabot
Barack Obama’s meteoric
rise from little-known state lawmaker to the nation’s first black
president became complete last night as he rolled over GOP Sen. John
McCain and pledged to usher in “the hope of a better day” for America.
“If there is anyone out
there who still doubts that anything is possible . . . who questions the
power of our democracy, tonight is your answer,” Obama said in a
stirring acceptance speech before 70,000 revelers crammed into Chicago’s
Grant Park last night. “Change has come to America.”
With the crowd chanting
“Yes we can!” Obama vowed to tackle the nation’s broken economy, fight
off global threats and support soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“The road ahead will be
long. The climb will be steep. But America, I have never been more
hopeful that we will get there,” Obama said.
McCain graciously conceded
defeat around 11:30 p.m. in an impassioned speech in which he recognized
the historical significance of Obama’s election, wished the Democrat
“godspeed” and vowed to work with him in Washington.
“Senator Obama has achieved
a great thing. I applaud him,” McCain said. “These are difficult times .
. . I pledge tonight to do everything I can to help him.”
President Bush called and
congratulated Obama on his “awesome night,” according to White House
spokeswoman Dana Perino.
“I promise to make this a
smooth transition. You are about to go on one of the great journeys of
life. Congratulations and go enjoy yourself,” Bush told Obama, according
to Perino.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, a
friend and ardent backer of Obama, said: “Americans spoke loud and clear
and demanded change by electing Barack Obama as our next president. They
understood his vision of a fairer and more just America and embraced
it.”
Obama, a 47-year-old
Harvard Law School grad, won in an electoral college landslide and
decisive popular vote, besting McCain in several key battleground
states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. He also swept the New
England states, including a strong win in Massachusetts.
“What a wonderful and long
overdue night for America,” Sen. John F. Kerry said at an Obama party at
Boston’s Fairmont Copley Plaza Hotel last night. “I have the latest exit
polls - Bush is exiting, Cheney is exiting and Barack Obama is entering
the White House.”
Obama’s impressive victory
marked the end of one of America’s most grueling and polarizing races
for the White House. The roller coaster journey included bitter primary
races on both sides, two momentous political conventions and vicious
smear tactics that targeted everything from McCain’s age and health to
Obama’s ties to a race-baiting pastor.
While Obama celebrated with
70,000 jubilant revelers in Chicago, voters in Boston weighed in on his
historic rise to power and cited the nation’s fiscal fiasco and war as
reasons for the Illinois senator’s win.
“I’ve been voting all my
life. Today is history,” said James Charvis, a 78-year-old black voter
from Dorchester. “And it’s about time.”
“We need a damn change,”
added Lorena Gorski, 58, of the South End. “We are billions in debt, we
are in two wars, the rest of the world hates us, so it is time for a
change.”
Among the revelers in
Chicago with Obama was Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, who was one of
Obama’s national campaign co-chairs. Before flying to Chicago, Patrick
told Boston reporters he has “no intention” of taking a Cabinet post
with Obama.
The Rev. Ray Hammond,
pastor of the Bethel AME Church in Jamaica Plain, summed up Obama’s win,
saying: “It doesn’t mean that the nightmare of race relations in America
is over. But it does mean we’ve made significant progress. That’s
exciting for many people.”
S.] Senate in Tuesday’s voting,
increasing their control in the 100-seat upper house to at least 56.
They currently have a 51-49 majority, including two independents who
vote in
their caucus.... In the lower chamber, the [U.S.] House of
Representatives, the Democrats expanded their majority by dominating the
Northeast and ousting Republicans in every region.... " Every
Massachusetts congressional incumbent was soundly re-elected, naturally.
.
Yet another report will be due in another two weeks, and I expect
to see even more cash flowing in.
