D'Amico's response to the Gambling Bill

From the news wire

Rep. D'Amico of Seekonk said, I appreciate the community you represent and how much this means to you. And I respect your leadership and the way we have conducted this debate over the last two days. Seems like two years. Nonetheless, I rise in opposition to the bill.

We've heard a lot about jobs. But there's little evidence that casinos will spur long term economic development. And the gentleman from North Adams explained why. Whatever modest economic benefits that gambling brought to these communities, they were diminished and they went away. Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun have laid off well over 1,000 people during this recession, many of those skilled workers. Many of those will be knocking on our doors to take some of the best jobs.

Studies estimate for every 1,000 in gambling spending there is a reduction in spending in other businesses nearby. The gambling industry is predatory. It preys on the vulnerable. Like Big Tobacco, it addicts people to its products. By inviting the predatory gambling industry into Massachusetts, we will double the number of families destroyed by this predatory industry.

There are those who argue we need to recapture revenue lost. But we can't recapture it without a high cost. Massachusetts gamblers visit casinos four times a year. Connecticut residents visit eight times a year. We will create 140,297 new problem gamblers in our communities. That is three and a half times larger than the districts each of us represents.

Shattered lives. Broken families. We're told not to worry though. The bill includes $5 million to make the problem go away. Addiction is never cured. It's a lifetime struggle. The children of newly recruited pathological gamblers, they will carry the scars with them their entire lives. I ask each of you to look into your hearts, is this the best we can do for our people? Mr. Speaker, I hope the bill does not pass.

HOUSE BUDGET RAISES SPENDING 3.2 PERCENT, CUTS LOCAL AID $234 MILLION

The House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday morning approved a $27.8 billion fiscal 2011 state budget bill that increases overall state spending by 3.2 percent while cutting local aid to cities and towns by $234 million.

Immediately after the committee vote, Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation President Michael Widmer said he expected most of the local aid cut to come from education allocations under the Chapter 70 program and agreed with the assessment that the cut represents the biggest cut in state school aid of the recession cycle.

While targeting school aid that was insulated from cuts this fiscal year and in the last one, the House committee budget sustains existing state funding levels in other smaller local aid programs, including payments in lieu of taxes, regional school transportation, and funding for local public libraries.

The budget includes $1.4 billion in spending cuts and savings, including $300 million derived from a debt restructuring proposal endorsed separately by the committee. The panel also voted for a six-point bill aimed at easing pressure on municipal spending, in part by allowing local systems to defer rising pension system liabilities, authorizing a municipal early retirement incentive program, and promoting shared public safety resources.

With health care cost increases at the forefront of public debate, the committee budget allocated nearly $9 billion for Medicaid health insurance coverage to 1.2 million enrollees, a $601 million increase to fund a projected 3 percent increase in enrollment. Separately, the bill includes $838 million for Commonwealth Care, the subsidized insurance program that serves 170,000 individuals and was at the core of the state’s 2006 health care reform law.

Murphy said the bill includes $111 million in state savings under the MassHealth program – the bill reduces rates for providers and “restructures” health services, for instance - and reduces spending on an immigrant health insurance program by $15 million, to $60 million, while capping enrollment in that program. The budget spends $160 million in one-time federal funds in connection with a recent announcement regarding prescription drugs.

Murphy called the budget “reasonable and balanced.”

The bill reduces spending in certain line items by $750 million, Murphy said, and includes no draws from the state's dwindling rainy day fund and no tax increases - Gov. Deval Patrick had proposed increases in taxes on candy and soda as well as a reduction in tax breaks enjoyed by the film industry.

Murphy said the bill includes $1.5 billion in one-time federal stimulus funds that the state may not be able to rely on in fiscal 2012. The budget also does not eliminate any tax exemptions, or tax breaks and credits, Murphy said.

"From a fiscal point of view, this is an improvement over the governor's budget," said Widmer, focusing his praise on the committee's decision to stop spending state reserve funds that he said will be needed in fiscal 2012.

"The cuts are going to be difficult but they're absolutely essential," Widmer said. Asked about the local aid cut, Widmer said, "They need to share in the pain, given our fiscal realities. Human services has borne the brunt of cuts to date."

Widmer said the debt restructuring plan was a "legitimate" attempt to take advantage of lower interest rates but said he would have preferred that the savings be socked away in the rainy day fund rather than spent.

Rep. Viriato deMacedo (R-Plymouth), the committee's ranking Republican member, said the committee budget cuts spending by $400 million more than Patrick's budget. He said he was pleased that the committee budget didn't include tax increases or spending from reserves.
"How they spend the 27.8 billion dollars, that's something that we're going to take a look at," deMacedo said. "Frankly, this isn't going to be the worst year. Next year is going to be the worst year. We're still operating off of $1.5 billion dollars of stimulus dollars that aren't going to be there next year."

Republicans will look at ways to address the local aid cut. "We didn't write the budget," deMacedo said. "We'll take a look and see if we have any different ideas to help address the local aid cut issue." When the budget hits the House floor for debate the last week in April, deMacedo said, observers will see "a lot of amendments." But he added, "There's not a lot of resources. You can only do what you can do."

The Plymouth Republican said he was more optimistic that Democrats will not add taxes to the committee budget, as they did last year, because, he said, people are hurting more this year than last year.

"Every day I run into a new person who tells me, 'Hey, I just got laid off.' . . . If they do go back to work, they're going back to work at far less money than they previously made."
Last year's major sales tax increase, he said, caused Massachusetts to lose business, and associated tax revenues, to New Hampshire retailers who are seeing more customers file in from Massachusetts.

"Everybody is watching every dime," he said. "The Dunkin’ Donuts, which used to be the place to go, is not seeing the business that it used to see because people are now making coffee at home."

After the committee vote on the budget, House members headed into a closed caucus to discuss the bill. Murphy plans a 1 p.m. press conference to discuss the spending plan.

What's Next?

In Today's Story in the Sun Chronicle Rep. D'Amico says he is finally giving up his quest to end the state's tax credit program for the film industry. Saying, "Once you start giving out money and build a constituency for that money, it's tough to take it away." OK...if he knew this all along, why did he waste our time and taxpayer money fighting for this?
When Mr. D'Amico became our Representative, he said "growing the state's economy is one of his priorities this year." He would also work on bills that would create more State revenue.

Well, we all know he worked to raise taxes to bring in more revenue...but as his web site states; he is not working for the district he represents.

Rep. D’Amico’s 2009-2010 Legislation:
Transparency and Accountability in Economic Development Spending (H333)
An Act establishing seventeen year-old primary voting (H568)
Dark Skies (H3064)
An Act to promote small plot farming in the Commonwealth (H715)
An Act relative to towing storage (H234)
An Act relative to optometrists (H2036)
An Act providing for distinctive registration plate for firefighters (H3191)

Do these look like bills that will bring back jobs to our community? Are these growing our economy? I do not think so...As the article states, "he has often been a lonely voice against the tax credit,D’Amico said he will now move on to other causes such as demanding more transparency in the Legislature's budget." The lonely voice continues on...

A History of Violence.

House Majority leader Steny Hoyer is speaking out against alleged threats of violence being made against at least 10 house Democrats as they get ready to go back to their districts before Easter. He has demanded, of course, that the Republican leaders openly condemn this violence, as if the people committing such acts wouldn't see through the political chivalry.

Minority Leader John Boehner has condemned the acts and added that threats of violence are not the American way. He said instead we need to make our voices heard and register people to vote, call our congressmen or volunteer on a political campaign in order to get our voices heard.

With all due respect to Mr. Boehner; violence is the American way. Does he not remember the Boston Tea Party? Does he not remember the American Revolution? It was through violence that we won our independence against the tyrannical government of the King of England. It was through violence that the North and South sought to have their political views upheld over the others. It was America that invented the most destructive device in human history, and it was America that used it on Hiroshima and Nagasaki effectively committing one of the most violent acts in human history.

We are a nation of violence. Our technological and industrial dominance over the last century has not changed that, the opposite, it has simply given us bigger and better and more sophisticated ways of which to commit violence.

And again, with all due respect to Mr. Boehner the Americans have been trying to make their voices heard and the government refuses to listen. Tell the residents of New Jersey that their voices are being heard. Tell the residents of Massachusetts that their voices are being heard. Tell the protesters outside of the Capital that their voices are being heard. Tell the Town Hall attendees that their voices are being heard. Tell the Americans who called the capital last week to the tune of 100 thousand calls per hour that their voices are being heard.

The American people are screaming at the top of their lungs at their government and they are being ignored!

While I too do not promote violence against a fellow human being, let's not be so naive into thinking that this government may be pushing it's citizens a bit to hard, and let's not be fooled into thinking that given the right circumstances the government could be creating it's very own recipe for disaster.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

D'Amico is running out of gas!

Now Mr. Representative, time to give up this fight and work for the district you represent!

The film industry easily survived a challenge in the House Wednesday to tax breaks that opponents say are giveaways but which supporters claim are necessary inducements for industry jobs in Massachusetts.
Efforts to pass a pair of proposals scaling back industry tax breaks, an idea that Gov. Deval Patrick supports as part of overall budget-balancing plans, won only 10 and 15 votes in the House after lengthy debate. Patrick had proposed capping the tax credits to $50 million in fiscal 2011. Critics of the film tax credits had proposed limiting them to $7 million, the same level they were capped at in
2006 before lawmakers voted to expand the program. One of those critics, Rep. Matthew Patrick, came to the verge of tears as he slammed his colleagues for supporting the credits. "What message are we sending to the 400 mental health workers we laid off? That Hollywood is better than they are? That those people who dedicate their lives to this commonwealth aren't as good?" he shouted. "Think about it." But Patrick found himself outnumber by members like Rep.
Paul McMurtry, who, in his first-ever speech on the House floor, said "thousands of people" in Massachusetts depend on the movie industry to provide for their families. "Do not bring Massachusetts back to the days of silent films," he said. McMurtry, who owns a Dedham cinema, said some constituents offered their support to him on the condition that he keep his theater open. Proponents claimed the film tax credit has generated half a billion dollars of economic activity, drawing tourism, filling hotels and providing free marketing of Massachusetts in the films shot here. Rep. Ronald Mariano described actress Sandra Bullock telling a morning TV audience about spending a summer on Gloucester. But critics said much of the economic activity simply subsidizes rich actors' salaries and fails to generate enough revenue to pay for itself. The debate, which lasted just shy of three hours, also featured comments from Reps. Carl Sciortino, Steven D'Amico, Jay Barrows, Brian Wallace, Jay Kaufman and John Keenan. Defending the tax breaks, Keenan said film star Leonardo DiCaprio will probably pay more in income taxes in Massachusetts than the Salem rep will pay in his life.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

Rep. D'Amico keeps up the fight for the Fourth Bristol District. Check is coming in the mail. JUST STAY HOME FOLKS!!!

FROM THE SUN CHRONICLE

State Rep. Steve D'Amico made another stab at limiting or ending state subsidies for the film industry Thursday, but was accused by the industry of trying to send business out of state.

D'Amico, D-Seekonk, held a briefing for the media and fellow legislators at the Statehouse in support of Gov. Deval Patrick's proposal to limit tax credits for films made in Massachusetts to $50 million a year.

A longtime opponent of the credits, D'Amico said Patrick's plan would save an estimated $75 million a year, money that otherwise would have to be cut out of aid to cities and towns or other important programs.

D'Amico said he would go further than the governor and end the program, but would settle for the $50 million cap for now.

He said tax credits are not like tax deductions. The credits are cash payments to the film industry that are wasteful ways of creating jobs. The state Department of Revenue found that the state spends $89,000 in tax credits for every $67,000 job that is created.

"It would be cheaper to pay people to stay home," he said.

He also said the state study found that the $118 million the state spent in film tax credits in 2008 generated only $17.5 million in revenue from other taxes.

But, Mary Fifield, who represents a Massachusetts film group called The Production Coalition, said D'Amico misunderstands the purpose of a tax credit.

She said credits are intended to spur economic activity, not tax revenue.

Over the past four years, the tax credits have encouraged $1 billion in economic activity in Massachusetts.

She said only one major film was made in Massachusetts in 2006, while 38 were filmed here over the past four years.

"The tax credit has worked exactly the way tax credits are suppose to work," she said.

Fifield also took issue with D'Amico using consultant Ned Rightor to support his case.

She said Rightor has worked for the New York film industry and has an interest in movies being made there, rather than in Massachusetts. D'Amico disputed her claim. He said Rightor has done some consulting for New York, but his study conducted with a Cornell University professor was not funded by the film industry.

In fact, he said, the New York film industry did not like the report by Rightor because it criticized the tax credits New York gives out.

D'Amico has been campaigning against film tax credits for several years, and said Thursday he believes he is making progress convincing his colleagues they are a bad idea.

FILM INDUSTRY ADDING CONSTRUCTION JOBS

Another fight that Rep. D'Amico and now Governor Patrick find themselves against their union supporters. Support from the base is dwindling FAST!

From the House News Wire:

While most of the nation’s film and television production still takes place in New York and California, Massachusetts ranks high among the fastest growing locations, according to a UMass-Boston study released Thursday.

The film and television industry has also aided local job growth in the construction and transportation sectors and generated new career paths for Bay State college graduates, the report added.

“Employment in film and television production has increased in Massachusetts during a period when total state employment has been on the decline,” the report said. “There is also evidence that some of this job growth has helped to offset job losses in particularly hard hit trades like construction and transportation, as workers from these sectors have found work in film and television production.”

The 72-page study comes as Gov. Deval Patrick has proposed cutting back on a tax credit program for the film industry – capping a $125 million incentive program at $50 million – as one of several ways to close a $2.7 billion structural deficit in the fiscal 2011 budget. The tax credit program was created in 2005 by the Legislature.

According to data the study uses from the Motion Picture Association of America and others, the state grabbed slightly over 1 percent of total national spending on motion pictures and television productions in 2007.

“While Massachusetts does not currently capture a large percentage of the national film and television production spending, it seems to be growing more rapidly than other states (some of which have more generous tax programs) and capturing work that might otherwise be taking place elsewhere,” the report said.

Chris O’Donnell, a film industry union official and founding member of the Massachusetts Production Coalition, cited the report in urging Patrick not to cut the tax credit.

“While we empathize with the Governor’s need to identify revenue to help fill the budget gap, we are concerned that the proposed $50 million cap on the credit will drive the film and television industry to another state. The benefits of the credit – jobs creation and building the industry’s infrastructure – far outweigh its cost.”

The study, funded through a “creative economy initiatives” fund at UMass-Boston, was primarily authored by Pacey Foster, a management and marketing professor, and David Terkla, an economics professor. The study employed federal and local economic data, interviews with industry participants, and employment and spending data provided by local unions.

D'Amico Disses paying Taxes

In an interview done by Janet Wu of Channel 5 News Boston, ( Some State Reps Pay Little Or No Federal Income Tax - Boston News Story - WCVB Boston ) the incumbent State Rep. Steven D'Amico, admitted that he personally took advantage of a special federal tax deduction given to MA state representatives who live greater than 50 miles from the Statehouse. According to MapQuest, Rep. D’Amico barely qualifies at 50.83 miles.

When prodded, D’Amico admitted that he paid no federal taxes in 2007 or 2008, saying he didn't want to look "a gift horse in the mouth." For someone who campaigned vigorously on closing corporate loopholes, we find it quite hypocritical that he would find a way to use one of these "loopholes" for his own personal benefit.

HELLO, he was elected to represent us, not himself. In less than two terms, he has quickly become what he once criticized.

What we have gotten from him these past three years is nothing more than dribbled up diatribe! He has worked to squeeze more money out of us while he has taken a substantial increase in salary...has gotten mileage paid for his "long" haul to Boston... has told his staff to take furlough's... has voted to raised sales/meals/ cigarette taxes and voted to instituted a liquor tax. And now this? This man wrote the eulogy to the hypocrite's oath! What more can you ask for?

We, the voters of MA need to send a clear message to D'Amico and his socialist friends on November 2nd, 2010… take a long hike and don’t come back any time soon!

SOUR GRAPES LEGISLATION

Story from the Attleboro Sun on "D'Amico and the Dissidents"
SEEKONK - State Rep. Steve D'Amico has joined a small House rebellion calling for more transparency and less concentration of power in the hands of Speaker Robert Deleo.

D'Amico, D-Seekonk, has clashed with House leadership in the past, but now he has signed on with seven other dissidents in seeking formal changes in the way the Legislature operates.

The revolt broke out into the open at the end of last year, when it was revealed that almost $400,000 was being spent from the House operating budget for legal expenses related to the indictment of former Speaker Sal DiMasi.

The money was being spent without the knowledge of most House members.

Four of the members started shutting down informal sessions of the House in protest, demanding an accounting of the money. Now four more have joined the ranks and written to their colleagues demanding reforms.

They want detailed budgeting of House expenses, more authority for committees to bring legislation to the floor for a vote, and more say by rank and file members in who chairs committees.

They also propose to make the House subject to the state Open Meeting Law.

D'Amico said making the House more transparent has always been a priority for him and he has sponsored legislation to try to accomplish that.

For example, he said money left over from the House operation budget at the end of the year does not revert back to the general fund as it does with other departments.

Instead, he said, it goes into a "slush fund" that is spent at the speaker's discretion.

He has filed a bill to stop the practice.

D'Amico said he initially was reluctant to join the original rebels because they were accused of acting out of "sour grapes" because DeLeo had laid off some of their staffers.

At least two of the dissidents are leaving the House and running for other positions.

But the revelation that money was being spent on the DiMasi case without House members knowing about it was a turning point, he said. D'Amico has fought with leadership in the past over making public information about tax breaks for the film industry and economic development projects. He also agreed to sign on to "Fix Beacon Hill" legislation sought by reform groups.

Other House members joining the effort are: Reps. Lida Harkin, D-Needham; Matthew C. Patrick, D-Barnstable; Thomas M. Stanley, D-Waltham; William Greene, D-Billerica; Will Brownsberger, D-Belmont; Joseph R. Driscoll, D-Braintree; and John F. Quinn, D-Dartmouth.

Brownsberger recently resigned his position as vice chairman of the committee on global warming in protest.

DeLeo issued a statement saying he has already taken steps to make the House a more transparent chamber, and said he has an open-door policy for members.

D'Amico making more friends on Beacon Hill

From the news wire....
Steven D'Amico has made a few disenfranchised friends on Beacon Hill...because of his merits, Seekonk can bet that it will not be recieving any help from the leadership. Maybe a Republican can do better?


STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, JAN. 21, 2010…..Eight disenfranchised House members, feeling the branch has become undemocratic and the committee process “irrelevant,” are asking colleagues to join them in efforts to reel in House Speaker Robert DeLeo, arguing the House Speaker “determines everything.”

Saying bills no longer reach the floor because of their merits as judged by committees and instead are debated only if permitted by DeLeo, the representatives say they’ll push for greater transparency in House operations and procedural changes they say will take away from the “consolidation of power” in DeLeo’s office.

“A representative form of government is supposed to give us all a voice at the table so the interests of our constituents are adequately represented, but when all power is put in the hands of one person, it corrupts that process and opens the door to abuse,” the representatives wrote in an email circulated Thursday.

The email, entitled “The Larger Problem in the House,” was presented by Reps. Matthew Patrick, Thomas Stanley, Lida Harkins, William Greene Jr., Will Brownsberger, Steven D’Amico, Joseph Driscoll and John Quinn. The rank-and-file Democrats are not part of DeLeo’s leadership team.

Some of the legislators seeking reforms served in leadership posts under House Speakers Salvatore DiMasi and Thomas Finneran, House chieftains who also faced criticism for exercising too much control over legislating.

The legislators describe a House where the committee process is “irrelevant,” where details of the House’s $47 million budget are kept secret, where members are apprehensive about voting against leadership’s wishes, where floor debate is often “meaningless,” and where lobbyists have “more power because they know that if they get the Speaker behind a bill, it will pass.”

“A Speaker now determines everything in the Massachusetts House,” the representatives wrote. “He determines which bills come to the floor for a debate, and he appoints his paid and unpaid leadership team that constitutes a majority when the Republicans take themselves out of the picture. When in his favor, he may give members good office space, additional staff or, more importantly, allow budget amendments to pass.”

The eight lawmakers say they’ve developed specific proposals and hope to advance them over the next year.

The proposals include: ensuring that home rule petitions can be discharged from the Rules Committee in a timely fashion; making the state budget process in the House more transparent, and making the House operating budget specifics accessible to all members; provide a leadership election and committee appointment process that distributes more power to the members and less power to the Speaker; providing legislators with greater control of the operating budgets for their offices; and eliminating or narrowing legislative exemptions to the open meeting law, public records law, and purchasing standards.

In response to the letter, DeLeo spokesman Seth Gitell said in an emailed statement: "From the start of the Speakership, Speaker DeLeo has worked to make the House a more open and transparent place. He has, among other actions, set a term limit on the Speakership, required the Clerk to make all bills introduced and admitted for consideration to the House available to members electronically, and required notice of committee hearings to be posted on the internet.

"He has kept an open door policy with members, meeting with them in groups and individually on a myriad of issues.” Gitell added, "Speaker DeLeo remains focused on growing jobs and improving the state economy."

In his own email, House Minority Leader Brad Jones thanked the authors of the email for their observations, before pointing out that House Democrats have often stood united against similar reforms proposed by Republicans.

“I appreciate the observations and ideas in light of Scott Brown’s resounding victory on Tuesday,” Jones wrote. “I look forward to evaluating the ideas you have put forth along with similar and companion ideas the Republican Caucus has offered numerous times over the years which have been traditionally and almost exclusively defeated on party line votes.

“These votes would indicate that “THE LARGER PROBLEM IN THE MASSACHUSETTS HOUSE” is the one-party domination in the legislature the cure for which lies at the ballot box.”

Unions Threaten, Obama Concedes; Scott Brown Takes the Lead!

The New Suffolk University Poll out today shows Scott Brown with a 4 point lead. Interestingly, and comically I suppose is 64% of the people polled still think Coakley will win! It would seem we poor Massachusetts residents don't think that anyone else is voting for Scott Brown even though 5o% of those polled will be!

GET OUT AND VOTE ON TUESDAY!

Now for other news and more motivation to elect Scott Brown.

Two days ago the heads of the major labor unions, who were already stating their dislike of the extra tax on Cadillac health care plans, put Obama on notice. They warned him that if union health care plans were included in the Cadillac tax that has been proposed in the health care bill, the democrat members of congress would experience defeat 1994 style.

Obama conceded. All collective bargaining units will be exempt from the Cadillac Tax until 2018. That will save the unions about 60 billion dollars.

For those of you who do not know what a Cadillac plan is, you should probably look at yours, because you probably have one. A Cadillac plan is a health care plan that has a total annual cost (premiums only) of 8,000 dollars for a single payer, and 23,000 dollars for a family plan. The total includes not just what you contribute, but your employer as well and the cost of your Dental and vision plans are added in as well...unless of course you work for a Union where even after their sweet little deal expires in 2018, they get a little extension that exempts the costs of their Dental, vision, and flex plans.

Depending on what part of the country you live in, you may be looking at the amounts and asking what the big deal is. Well depending on what part of the country you live in, means that your costs may be far lower than others. Massachusetts, for example has incredibly high health care costs compared to the rest of the nation, where Idaho has some of the lowest.

You also have to look at other factors. Companies with thousands of employees have much more bargaining power with the insurance companies to help keep costs down. The companies that have only a few hundred or less typically pay much higher prices per employee per plan.

Regardless, this is just another bribe, in the long list of bribes, that Obama has given to get this legislation that no one wants passed.

1,101 days left.

Why I support Scott Brown

With just a few weeks left in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race, it is imperative that the voters of Seekonk realize the enormity of what is at stake. January 19, 2010 will be one of the most important votes to come to our community and state. This office, held by the late Senator Edward Kennedy for over 40 years, now has a real chance of being represented by someone who will bring our fight to Washington against wasteful government spending and higher taxes. This candidate, who like me, believes it is wrong to pass down to our children and grandchildren the insurmountable amount of debt the Democratic controlled legislature has pushed through this past year.
Scott Brown is that person. As a Republican representing us on Beacon Hill, Scott started his public career as a Selectman in Wrentham. He then went on to serve three terms as a State Representative and won his current State Senate seat in a special election in 2004 while also serving our country and state as an JAG officer in the Massachusetts National Guard. Currently in his third Senate term, Senator Brown has fought hard to restore people’s faith in government by introducing transparency, accountability and reform. With the ongoing economic crisis and several recent scandals that have shaken the foundation of our state government, Senator Brown has filed bills that have focused specifically on good government reforms, improving business competitiveness, and holding the line on taxes and spending, as well as continually working to strengthen public safety and education. In 2007, Senator Brown wrote the first-in the-nation law that sets up a check off box on State income tax forms to indicate if the filer is a veteran of the Iraq or Afghanistan conflicts. This information is necessary to locate returning veterans so that they can be notified of the benefits and services to which they are entitled. Scott Brown is the person we need in Washington to represent us!
Clear distinctions separate Scott Brown and Democrat candidate Martha Coakley. For example, she is in favor of over $2 trillion in higher taxes over the next five years, from her support of cap-and-trade ($233 billion) to her refusal to renew the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 ($928 billion). Scott believes that taxes are high enough! A vote for Coakley will help to ensure the continuing out-of-control spending that follow the likes of Reid and Pelosi. She will be a rubber stamp vote for the passage of any of their proposed legislation that will ultimately hurt Massachusetts residents in their pockets.

Please take the time to compare the differences between these two candidates. Do you really want more of the same representation that for over the last forty years has brought us big government, wasteful spending, state cutbacks, high cost of health insurance, and of course, higher taxes? The choice is very clear to me. We need change on Capitol Hill and Scott Brown is that change.

Democrats Not Excited About Coakley

January 7, 2010

HEADLINE: Sluggish Coakley effort irks Dems
BYLINE: Jim Hand, Sun Chronicle Staff

Dennis Naughton was standing out in the cold at 7:15 Wednesday morning waving to passing motorists in Foxboro and holding a sign for U.S. Senate candidate Martha Coakley.

So when he hears reports that Democrats are not excited about supporting Coakley, he wonders who they are talking about.
"I think people are pretty motivated," he said of his party's faithful.

But, a poll out Tuesday and interviews with local Democrats tell another story.

The Democrats said Coakley has been too passive, and a Rasmussen poll found that state Sen. Scott Brown, R-Wrentham, had closed Coakley's once commanding lead to a mere 9 points.

"I'm not happy with the level of campaign effort I've seen," state Rep. Bill Bowles, D-Attleboro, said of Coakley. "I think the campaign needs to step it up a notch."

Furthermore, the Rasmussen poll said Republicans supporting Brown were much more motivated to vote in a special election Jan. 19 than Democrats because of their dislike of health care reform.

"Special elections are typically decided by who shows up to vote, and it is clear from the data that Brown's supporters are more enthusiastic," the poll said.

"In fact, among those who are absolutely certain they will vote, Brown pulls to within two points of Coakley. That suggests a very low turnout will help the Republican and a higher turnout is better for the Democrat."

Coakley supporters have expressed fears that her sleepy campaign style and aversion to confronting Brown will drag down Democratic turnout in the election to fill the seat once held by the late Edward Kennedy.

One local Democratic activist who asked not to be named said there is a great deal of frustration with Coakley's inactivity.

The activist wants to rev up the local effort for Coakley, but the campaign keeps saying there is nothing to worry about because Coakley is going to win.

"This is the worst campaign I've ever seen in my life. I don't get it. I just don't get it," the activist said.

Naughton, a member of the Democratic State Committee, said if there truly was a lack of motivation among his party, the poll might be just the shot in the arm Coakley's backers need.

Nothing gets Democrats worked up like the prospect of another Republican going to Washington to obstruct work on important problems, he said.

"Actually, I was glad to see that poll. I think it will motivate people. Some people were worried voters would stay home" because they thought Coakley will win easily, he said.

Naughton said he intends to cite the poll in the telephone calls he makes for Coakley's campaign.

The poll is also a boon to Brown. National Republican groups have been slow to come to his aid, not wanting to spend money on a race if the GOP is unlikely to win.

Now Brown has an independent poll on his side to show the race could be winnable.

Even before the evidence was in, Brown had repeatedly said his campaign was surging because it had energy on its side.

He contrasts his frenetic campaign pace with what he calls Coakley's "bunker mentality" a reference to her rare public appearances.

Brown, Coakley Final Phase

Now that someone has finally conducted a poll on the Brown Coakley Senate Race, it would seem there could be an upset in the making.

According to a Rasmussen Reports poll Democrat Martha Coakley holds a slim 9 point lead over Republican Candidate Scott Brown.

In most states a 9 point lead would not be considered slim by any means, but this is Massachusetts and by all media accounts Martha Coakley should have a 30 point lead over Brown. At least that is what they want you to believe.

The Poll was a sampling of 500 likely voters, and also showed that 7% of those polled are still undecided. Since we do not have any other polls to go on, there is no way of telling at this point which candidate the undecided voters are trending towards. But if I had to speculate, I would say that at least 2 to 3% of those still undecided will not vote. This is a special election, and a very short one at that, if you have not decided then most likely you have not been paying attention.

What is interesting is the Health Care reform numbers. Health Care is going to be a big issue in this race, because if Scott Brown wins, he will be the 41st vote for the republicans which will eliminate the democrats ability to force Health Care reform through the US Senate on their own. Of the 500 polled (and mind you this is ultra liberal Massachusetts) 53% favored the health care reform bill, with 26% of that group only stating that they "somewhat favored it". While on the other side 45% opposed it with only 9% somewhat opposing it, and 36% strongly opposing it. Of those polled 2% were not sure.

So stay tuned, because this really could be an upset in making. When you look at the voters who have strong opinions on health care reform you have 36% strongly opposing it while only 27% strongly favor it. Those are the people most likely to vote. Furthermore on the national level voters have been trending away from health care reform being presented by the democrats.

The democrats currently stationed in Washington could very well be hurting Martha Coakley as news is hitting the wire today that they intend to hold secret meetings to reconcile the the House bill and the Senate bill.

More importantly, this race is going to come down to turnout. Which candidate do you think has the most energized base at the moment?

While a Scott Brown loss would not likely be considered a referendum on Obama and democrats as a whole, a Scott Brown victory would be a hard-right to the jaw of every democrat in Congress and the White House.

Reposted from Rantrave.com