Is Martha Coakley a Socialist?

Oh no, not the Socialist rant again! Sorry dear friends, but if the shoe fits....it must be a duck.

While Martha Coakley may not be a Socialist, she has certainly aligned herself with them by way of a group called Emily's List.

Before Miss Coakley was able to gain their support however she had to flip flop on her death penalty stance, because Emily's list will not support anyone who supports Capital Punishment.

Now who or exactly is Emily's list? To quote their own website they are "dedicated to building a progressive America by electing pro-choice Democratic women to office." They also have stated that their "immediate focus is to make sure President Obama has the strong Democratic majorities he needs to enact his progressive agenda."

So there you have it. Oh, and for those of you who don't know, "Progressive" is just a hipper way of saying "Communist".

House Leaders Order Furloughs for Staff

We wonder if Rep. Steve D'Amico will volunteer to take the five furlough days to help return to the taxpayers the $3000.00 plus raise that was "forced" onto him.
Story from the AP Nov 21, 2009:

House leaders are ordering their staff to take five furlough days, although lawmakers will not have to take them. House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and minority leader Bradley Jones of North Reading said in a statement yesterday that furloughs for the 540 staff members will save the state $620,000. They also highlighted other recent cuts, including discontinuing reimbursement of Massachusetts bar fees and staff business cards, capping franking privileges, and reducing cleaning costs. But this week lawmakers rejected Governor Deval Patrick’s request for authority so he could cut both legislative and judicial budgets himself. The furloughs do not apply to the 160 House members because their salaries are set by constitutional amendment.

Republicans Second Shot at Redemption

"There exists a limit to the force even the most powerfull may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengence, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences" ~Frank Herbert

What did we really see on November 2, 2009? Was it really a reprimand of Barack Obama? Has the country recognized the error of it's ways and returned to it's conservative roots? The answer is yes, and the answer is no.

The American people on 11/2 showed at the very least they are not head-over-heals in love with Obama anymore. They are no longer buying his excuse that the problems we face today are problems that he inherited from Republicans. Because almost a year into it Mr. President; You own it. At the very worst the American people are realizing that Obama is not giving them the government they thought they were getting. Perhaps they are realizing that instead of "change" what they are really getting are "chains".

Republicans have a special moment here. A second chance. A shot at redemption. They way they respond to this opportunity to return to grace will dictate if they succeed, or illustrate how quickly they too can fall.

The American people have not forgotten that the Republicans made some big mistakes over the last decade. To say their hands are clean would be laughable. But theere is a reason that the Republicans were allowed to toil for 8 years, and it seems the democrats barely get 2 years. We are awake now, and we are paying attention. We the People expect to be heard and not ridiculed when we speak to our government.

When the American people voted for Barack Obama they were voting for change yes, but they were voting for change that they wanted. They were not voting for the radical change that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid seem to want. The American people do not want a changed America; they want their old America back.

The American people voted the Democrats into power because the Democrats promised that they would listen. However between the stimulus package, cap and trade, government bailouts and government takeovers of business and healthcare; it has become painfully clear that the Democrats have no intention of listening to the American people.

Republicans will not be voted back into power on their conservatice philosophy alone. The Republicans are being voted back into power because they are being given another chance to listen to the American people.

I hope they do.

Democrats on Beacon Hill are all about standing up for the little guy. Until they aren’t.

At the bidding of public employee unions and some car insurance providers, the party in power is doing its best to kill a pilot program that allows thousands of Massachusetts motorists to renew licenses and car registrations without waiting in endless Registry lines.

The Registry of Motor Vehicles has coped with the fiscal crisis by closing seven branches since July - doubling wait times - but has been operating a pilot program that allowed members of the American Automobile Association to conduct routine business at AAA offices in Newton and Worcester.

So in the same way an auto dealership is equipped to handle your new registration, those AAA branches are allowed to handle your renewal. Easier on the drivers and easier on overburdened Registry offices. Maine and Rhode Island have a similar arrangement, and the RMV had hoped to expand it beyond Newton and Worcester.

But fearful of losing government jobs, the unions have pressured their legislative allies to kill the program. And since AAA also happens to write auto insurance policies for a single provider, pressure also came from that company’s rivals.

The pilot program is to expire on March 31, and Sen. Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton) and his Democratic colleagues last week spiked a Republican effort that would have made it permanent. So the special interests won out over the average harried motorist.

Yep, it’s all about the little guy. Until it isn’t

An Op-Ed by Richard R. Tisei

WITH UNEMPLOYMENT at a 33-year high of 9.3 percent and the state budget tanking because of free-falling tax revenues, you would think that Governor Deval Patrick and the Legislature would be working around the clock doing everything possible to eliminate wasteful spending and make state government run more efficiently.

Instead, the message coming out of the Legislature and the corner office during the last couple of weeks seems to lack any real sense of urgency.

Patrick just announced he is convening an economic summit this month that will focus on jobs creation and getting the state’s economy back on track. What took him so long? Patrick’s wait-and-see-approach to a crisis that has been percolating for the last three budget cycles amounts to a case of too little, too late.

If Patrick has been slow to react to the crisis, the Legislature has been even slower. As the budget continues to bleed red ink, and agencies that service some of the state’s most vulnerable residents brace for additional budget cuts, here are some of the “urgent’’ matters the Legislature has been focused on:

■ We’re debating whether the Fluffernutter should be designated the official state sandwich. Thousands of people are worrying about being able to put food on the table, but we’re determined to make sure Massachusetts is the first state in the nation with an “official’’ sandwich.

■ The governor and some legislators are calling for boycotts of Massachusetts businesses at the same time unemployment is fast approaching double figures and many companies are struggling to remain solvent. Have we forgotten that it is businesses - not government - that are responsible for creating the jobs and generating the tax revenues that help fuel the economy?

■ Some legislators are proposing a bill that could require some dog owners to pay an increase of more than 1,000 percent for a basic license. It’s hardly surprising, considering the Legislature just hiked the sales tax, the meals tax, satellite dish tax, and the hotel tax, and created an alcohol tax. Now they’re talking about an income tax hike - where does it end?

■ For some legislators, the most important issue seems to be passing a bill that would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to preregister to vote before they’re even old enough to legally cast a ballot. Meanwhile, many adults who are old enough to vote are losing their jobs, and the Legislature doesn’t seem to be doing much to get people back to work.

■ We’re even being asked to consider a bill that would require banks and insurance companies that do business with the state to document past profits earned from the slave trade. Meanwhile, those employers are dealing with one of the biggest corporate tax increases in the state’s history, which is driving businesses away from Massachusetts and forcing some companies to close their doors.

September revenues dropped $333 million compared to last year and were $243 million below current benchmarks. For the first quarter of the current fiscal year, the numbers are down $477 million from 2008 and $212 million short of year-to-date benchmarks.

Economists estimate that the state budget is out of balance by as much as $1 billion, and predict that the state could face a deficit at least double that amount in fiscal 2011. State revenues are not expected to rebound to pre-recession levels for another four to five years.

The Legislature needs to be proactive in dealing with this problem, but instead it is occupying itself with most trivial and frivolous issues. We’re doing everything we can to avoid tackling the real problems facing the Commonwealth when we should be rolling up our sleeves and making the difficult decisions that are required to get us through this economic crisis.

If we’re really serious about getting state spending under control, then we need to implement an immediate hiring and pay freeze, just like many private employers have been forced to do. We also need to consider moving the state’s Medicaid recipients into managed care plans to rein in health care costs, which make up a significant portion of the budget. And while we are at it, we should repeal the anti-privatization Pacheco law, which costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Legislature should convene in emergency session to discuss what can be done to jump-start the Massachusetts economy, restructure government, and make service delivery more efficient.

But more importantly, we need to stop debating inconsequential legislation like the Fluffernutter bill and focus on doing everything we can to promote job growth and get the state’s economy back on track.

Richard R. Tisei is minority leader of the Massachusetts Senate.

Job Well Done by Cavaco

I’d like to commend Chairman Francis Cavaco for putting a setting together where Seekonk’s representation on Beacon Hill came down to answer some questions/concerns of the Board of Selectman and those citizens who came to the High School(Wednesday Sept 30 Seekonk High School).

It was obvious after the first question that there has been a lack of communication between Seekonk’s leadership and our “close to home” Rep. Steven D’Amico. It is incumbent; in fact it is the responsibility, of both D’Amico and Timillty to have a continued dialogue with our town leadership, in order to be aware of our towns needs.

Sen. Timilty seemed to be doing his best to say that, “If you had come to me about this issue, I would have been sure to address it.”
Rep. D’Amico took a simple yes or no question on eliminating or lifting the requirements for the local census and blamed the State’s “antiquated computer system” for being a hindrance.

Seekonk’s leadership should continue this dialogue and work with our State representation to serve our town with its best possible interests and commit to getting things done.

Stop all the arguing and embrace 'Oh!BarbaraCare' by Barbera Anderson

Now that I have watched the latest televised presentation by the president on ObamaCare (the one in which he lied), and studied research and suggestions from various organizations and columnists, I am ready to present my "Oh!BarbaraCare" plan.

I realize that I'm no more qualified to have my own health care plan than most citizens. But all citizens of a representative democracy should acquire enough solid information so they can guide their representatives on vital issues. So if you don't like my plan, feel free and competent enough to do your own.

We must first use our rational faculties to challenge assumptions before we begin offering solutions.

Assumption One: All of us are entitled to health care.

Question: At whose expense? We can't be entitled to something that someone else must be forced to provide. Aside from the payments, what if no one wants to be a doctor or a nurse?

Yet: We as a society have decided that we want all Americans (and legal immigrants) to have at least basic and emergency health care. To ensure this, we must be careful not to discourage providers and hospitals by paying them less than the service is worth to them.

Assumption Two: The U.S. health care system is broken.

Reality: The U.S. health care system is the best and the most effective in the world.

However: There are some problems, and it does need to be reformed.

Assumption Three: The U.S. health care system is too expensive.

Consumers, define "too expensive." How much is it worth it to you to be healthy?

However: It's reasonable to assume that health care could cost less if waste, fraud and inefficiency were addressed.

Anyway, President Obama says that HisCare will be funded by addressing these things, so that the cost doesn't add to the deficit.

Oh!BarbaraCare says, address those things now with existing government programs, before adding even more people to a wasteful system. Let's get those legitimate savings, then proceed to address the real problems, which are:

1.) Cost. Some low-income people, not eligible for Medicaid, and many small businesses, really can't afford expensive health insurance.

Oh!BarbaraCare would continue and expand the programs that subsidize basic insurance for the poor. For all of us, the focus should be on insurance for catastrophic health events, requiring almost everyone to pay reasonable deductibles and co-pays (see "not entitled," above).

One big change here: Oh!BarbaraCare would not use business to provide insurance. Business provides the jobs that allow us to afford life's basics. Let's encourage more job creation, not additional expenses that hurt that basic business mission.

If we consumers own our own health insurance, as we own our automobile insurance, then we keep it even if we lose our jobs. Also, our unemployment is less likely if the government doesn't burden businesses with mandated expenses.

There should be tax breaks for buying basic insurance and for health savings accounts, paid for by no longer allowing tax breaks for business-supplied health insurance. Since the latter includes Cadillac plans for executives and unions, the savings should be substantial.

We should be able to choose from many health insurance companies across the nation to maximize competition. And, we should be able to organize in our own groups — small business, baseball fans, redheads — to allow for economy of scale, just as seniors do for AARP services.

Another way to cut costs is to address malpractice insurance — paying patients for avoidable mistakes and clear negligence, but not for the assumption that we are all entitled to every test. And for truly frivolous suits, the loser should pay all court costs.

2.) Pre-existing conditions. Clearly, if insurance companies must cover all pre-existing conditions, then no one would buy insurance until he was sick! No one would pay into the system until it was time for him to take out of the system.

So the only way to cover pre-existing conditions is to mandate that everyone get insurance and that there are companies for everyone to choose from.

When we own our own policies, with Oh!BarbaraCare, anyone who has been paying all along for health insurance will be covered, at the level they originally chose, when they get sick, even if for some reason they have changed policies.

For those who make a case that it is unconstitutional to force citizens to get insurance, Oh!BarbaraCare would allow them to opt out of this requirement if they sign a statement that they will not expect the system to pay for their care. They can self-insure, or when necessary, roll over and die. However, compassionate Oh!BarbaraCare would provide hospice care to make the end easier for them.

Which takes us to the controversial ...

3.) End-of-life counseling. It's true that extraordinary costs accrue during the final months of some patients' lives, when they are kept alive with extraordinary efforts.

Oh!BarbaraCare would advocate living wills and more choice for patients who want to leave peacefully on their own terms. Death is natural, we should learn to accept and embrace it when the time comes.

However, Oh!BarbaraCare would provide legal assistance to elderly patients who were being pressured by family or providers, rather than counseled.

So there it is. Of course, I'm always open to bipartisan negotiation with anyone who doesn't lie.