Recently Carol Bragg wrote a column calling for the unification and continuity of government in Seekonk. She encouraged voters to vote for Mr. Brady and Mr. Richardson. I will not do that, and here is why.
Over the weekend I received a brochure in the mail from the Brady/Richardson campaign. It was presented as a checklist of supposed accomplishments that they achieved during their respective terms serving on the Board of Selectmen. I did not even make it past the first accomplishment.
The first item on the list was "No 2 1/2 override". Next to it was a check in the "yes" column. While it is true that the override failed I would like to remind the voters that both Mike Brady and Bob Richardson were vocal proponents of the override. Mike Brady was prominently displayed on the "YesforSeekonk" website in favor of the override.
While I have great respect and admiration for Carol Bragg I cannot disagree more with her logic on this matter. Yes Seekonk has a continuity problem and yes there are people in the community who like to bully to achieve their goals. However just as we should reject the politics of fault-finding and scapegoating , we MUST also hold our elected officials to higher standard. Dishonesty cannot be tolerated in any form from our elected officials. I would have more concern for a community who tolerated that, than I would for a community who removes the problem and searches for a better solution.
I think Carol Bragg will find that if our elected officials display honesty and integrity first and foremost, much like her, the voters in town will not react as fervently at the poles. The residents of Seekonk know that there are no easy answers, and they know that sometimes the wrong decisions will be made. But if we perceive that our elected officials are equally engaged in pointing fingers, and are using bullying tactics to pursue only one course of action rather than engaging the community and seeking compromise then we as voters have no other choice than to remove those people from office.
In the end if the only we voice we are given is one in the voting booth, then that is the voice we will use.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Open Space Surcharges. How will it affect you?
I'll start by saying that I really have no idea of this question is going to make it to the ballot or not. As of February 25 the Seekonk Land Conservation Trust is seeking signatures to place the question of creating a "Conservative Protection Act" fund on the April Ballot. This fund will create an additional tax to the property owners of Seekonk. They were seeking signatures, but I have not been able to find out if they have succeeded. Maybe if Seekonks Official website updated more than once a year the information would be on there!
But let's assume this question will be on the ballot. What does this mean for you? It means that the town will be able to collect an additional 1% to 3% of your property value in taxes. The SLCT has stated that they are looking for a 1.25% increase in property taxes. Here are the estimated numbers:
House Value Cost
100,000 $15.00
200,000 $30.00
300,000 $43.00
500,000 $73.00
Keep in mind the above numbers are factored in at 1.25%. If the rate were to be increased to the max 3% the average cost for a $300,000 home would be anywhere between $125 -$150. The 1.25% does not seem like a lot, but remember this is in addition to the annual increase of your property taxes. So if they go up 100 dollars like the average Seekonk home did this year, they will really go up $150.
I don't like taxes. Who does right? I am also a big fan of nature. But....I don't like taxes. And I don't think it is fair to ask our citizens...scratch...mandate our citizens to pay out of pocket for discretionary spending. If the citizens of Seekonk wish to volunteer their time and money...or donate land...that is their own individual right. Because where does it end? Every year in town this town some fee is going up. Trash fees go up, trash bags go up, property taxes go up; everything goes up. Furthermore how many Prop 2 1/2 exclusions are we paying for at the moment? So now, we the tax payers, need to foot the bill for the pet projects of others? I don't think so!
But let's assume this question will be on the ballot. What does this mean for you? It means that the town will be able to collect an additional 1% to 3% of your property value in taxes. The SLCT has stated that they are looking for a 1.25% increase in property taxes. Here are the estimated numbers:
House Value Cost
100,000 $15.00
200,000 $30.00
300,000 $43.00
500,000 $73.00
Keep in mind the above numbers are factored in at 1.25%. If the rate were to be increased to the max 3% the average cost for a $300,000 home would be anywhere between $125 -$150. The 1.25% does not seem like a lot, but remember this is in addition to the annual increase of your property taxes. So if they go up 100 dollars like the average Seekonk home did this year, they will really go up $150.
I don't like taxes. Who does right? I am also a big fan of nature. But....I don't like taxes. And I don't think it is fair to ask our citizens...scratch...mandate our citizens to pay out of pocket for discretionary spending. If the citizens of Seekonk wish to volunteer their time and money...or donate land...that is their own individual right. Because where does it end? Every year in town this town some fee is going up. Trash fees go up, trash bags go up, property taxes go up; everything goes up. Furthermore how many Prop 2 1/2 exclusions are we paying for at the moment? So now, we the tax payers, need to foot the bill for the pet projects of others? I don't think so!
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Same-day voter registration a cause for debate in area
BY MAITE JULLIAN FOR THE SUN CHRONICLESunday, March 2, 2008 11:15 PM EST
On Jan. 16, the deadline for voters to register for the presidential primary election, a whopping 117 people showed up at election offices in Attleboro to sign up.Some of them would have done it on the day of the election - if it was possible, said Joan Pilkington-Smyth, chairwoman of the city's election commission.
The expectation of even more crowds and long lines on Election Day has made Pilkington-Smyth leery of a proposal to allow citizens to register and vote on the same day.
"Trying to get as many people out to vote is a good thing," Pilkington-Smyth said. "But with people just showing up that day, the problem is going to be able to find out if they are not registered somewhere else.
"The Legislature's Election Law Committee endorsed a bill, filed by State Sen. Cynthia S. Creem, D-Newton, last week that would allow same-day registration in the 2008 and 2010 general elections.
Some local legislators think the state should give same-day registration a try.
"It is a good compromise because it is an opportunity to see how it works, and then decide what to do," said State Rep. Steve D'Amico, D-Seekonk, who co-sponsored the legislation.
Supporters say giving voters the opportunity to register on Election Day will increase participation and make the process even easier by eliminating the registration deadline.
But most election commissions in cities and towns are concerned about the law. Opponents question where the funding would come from and worry about potential voter fraud.
"We already have some difficulties verifying voters' information. We would need a lot more poll workers," said Pilkington-Smyth. "I would like to see an innovative idea to get people out to vote, but one that would look at the costs and process.
"Kevin Poirier, North Attleboro's election commissioner, said voter registration is simple already. Adding to the complexity on voting day, he said, would only increase long lines at the polling stations.
"I see it creating a chaotic situation at the polls," he said. "On the upcoming election, we'll probably have between 75 and 80 percent of registered voters voting. If unregistered voters are coming too, it will create one more backlog, and we really don't need that.
"Opponents in the Legislature have also raised concerns about the funding of such a measure.
"Though I appreciate any efforts that open up our election system to more voters, I have deep concerns about any proposal that is not crystal clear in addressing the costs associated with the necessary technology and the education of its operators," said Sen. Scott Brown, R-Wrentham.
"Our election officials are already overburdened with unfunded mandates, as it is," he said.
The election division of the Secretary of State's Office is studying the legislation, and declined to estimate potential costs.
The governor's office said funds will be considered in the 2009 fiscal budget if the measure becomes law.
MassVOTE, a voting advocacy organization that co-sponsored the bill, estimates it would cost an average of $250 in each precinct, or $500,000 for the state. The figure is based on an average of $110 per poll worker, along with additional ballots.
MassVOTE Executive Director Avi Green said the costs would mainly occur the first year. As provisional ballots - used to cast a vote when there is some question regarding a voter's eligibility - are eliminated at polls, the funds they require would be shifted to same-day registration.
MassVOTE's estimate is based on how people move within the state and on other states that have same-day registration.
"To get 200,000 more voters is worth every penny," Green said.Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Wyoming have passed similar laws. Green said four of those states were among the top six in voter participation during the 2004 presidential election.
But opponents, including Rep. Betty Poirier, R-North Attleboro, say there are no guarantees same-day registration would increase voter turn out.
"They are talking about something that we don't know," Poirier said. "I don't think it would affect participation."
Norfolk Town Clerk Gail Bernardo agrees.
"In Norfolk, people do register to vote," he said. "We have very few problems on Election Day."
D'Amico counters that the upcoming presidential election will bring out more potential voters than have been seen in decades."
Attention gets higher when we get close to an election," D'Amico said. "Then people who would like to vote find out that they can't because it's too late to register."
Opponents say people who are willing to vote will register, no matter what and argue that same-day registration will only increase voter fraud.
MassVOTE says New Hampshire has seen few incidents of fraud in its same-day registration. And Green said voter fraud is rare in Massachusetts.
Still, Poirier said there is great potential to take advantage of the system."I have a great objection that people just show up and register," she said. "Some candidates might bring their own people to polls and give them incentives to do so. There is no way to know what kind of frauds there will be, but I know it will happen."
Poirier said voters have a responsibility to stay active in the election process. If people are involved, and want to vote, she said, they will know when they have to register.
"If someone is not interested in registering to vote, I find it difficult to have empathy for that person," she said.
On Jan. 16, the deadline for voters to register for the presidential primary election, a whopping 117 people showed up at election offices in Attleboro to sign up.Some of them would have done it on the day of the election - if it was possible, said Joan Pilkington-Smyth, chairwoman of the city's election commission.
The expectation of even more crowds and long lines on Election Day has made Pilkington-Smyth leery of a proposal to allow citizens to register and vote on the same day.
"Trying to get as many people out to vote is a good thing," Pilkington-Smyth said. "But with people just showing up that day, the problem is going to be able to find out if they are not registered somewhere else.
"The Legislature's Election Law Committee endorsed a bill, filed by State Sen. Cynthia S. Creem, D-Newton, last week that would allow same-day registration in the 2008 and 2010 general elections.
Some local legislators think the state should give same-day registration a try.
"It is a good compromise because it is an opportunity to see how it works, and then decide what to do," said State Rep. Steve D'Amico, D-Seekonk, who co-sponsored the legislation.
Supporters say giving voters the opportunity to register on Election Day will increase participation and make the process even easier by eliminating the registration deadline.
But most election commissions in cities and towns are concerned about the law. Opponents question where the funding would come from and worry about potential voter fraud.
"We already have some difficulties verifying voters' information. We would need a lot more poll workers," said Pilkington-Smyth. "I would like to see an innovative idea to get people out to vote, but one that would look at the costs and process.
"Kevin Poirier, North Attleboro's election commissioner, said voter registration is simple already. Adding to the complexity on voting day, he said, would only increase long lines at the polling stations.
"I see it creating a chaotic situation at the polls," he said. "On the upcoming election, we'll probably have between 75 and 80 percent of registered voters voting. If unregistered voters are coming too, it will create one more backlog, and we really don't need that.
"Opponents in the Legislature have also raised concerns about the funding of such a measure.
"Though I appreciate any efforts that open up our election system to more voters, I have deep concerns about any proposal that is not crystal clear in addressing the costs associated with the necessary technology and the education of its operators," said Sen. Scott Brown, R-Wrentham.
"Our election officials are already overburdened with unfunded mandates, as it is," he said.
The election division of the Secretary of State's Office is studying the legislation, and declined to estimate potential costs.
The governor's office said funds will be considered in the 2009 fiscal budget if the measure becomes law.
MassVOTE, a voting advocacy organization that co-sponsored the bill, estimates it would cost an average of $250 in each precinct, or $500,000 for the state. The figure is based on an average of $110 per poll worker, along with additional ballots.
MassVOTE Executive Director Avi Green said the costs would mainly occur the first year. As provisional ballots - used to cast a vote when there is some question regarding a voter's eligibility - are eliminated at polls, the funds they require would be shifted to same-day registration.
MassVOTE's estimate is based on how people move within the state and on other states that have same-day registration.
"To get 200,000 more voters is worth every penny," Green said.Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Wyoming have passed similar laws. Green said four of those states were among the top six in voter participation during the 2004 presidential election.
But opponents, including Rep. Betty Poirier, R-North Attleboro, say there are no guarantees same-day registration would increase voter turn out.
"They are talking about something that we don't know," Poirier said. "I don't think it would affect participation."
Norfolk Town Clerk Gail Bernardo agrees.
"In Norfolk, people do register to vote," he said. "We have very few problems on Election Day."
D'Amico counters that the upcoming presidential election will bring out more potential voters than have been seen in decades."
Attention gets higher when we get close to an election," D'Amico said. "Then people who would like to vote find out that they can't because it's too late to register."
Opponents say people who are willing to vote will register, no matter what and argue that same-day registration will only increase voter fraud.
MassVOTE says New Hampshire has seen few incidents of fraud in its same-day registration. And Green said voter fraud is rare in Massachusetts.
Still, Poirier said there is great potential to take advantage of the system."I have a great objection that people just show up and register," she said. "Some candidates might bring their own people to polls and give them incentives to do so. There is no way to know what kind of frauds there will be, but I know it will happen."
Poirier said voters have a responsibility to stay active in the election process. If people are involved, and want to vote, she said, they will know when they have to register.
"If someone is not interested in registering to vote, I find it difficult to have empathy for that person," she said.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Beacon Hill’s Attempt to Weaken Prop 2.5
The House voted 111-34 to pass legislation (House Bill 4534) giving communities the option of exempting residents that are age 65 and older, who earn less than $60,000 per year, from paying for voter-approved property tax overrides. Critics correctly say the legislation seeks to circumvent Proposition 2½, the state’s tax-limiting law, by focusing on elderly voters who are seen as most likely to oppose overrides. The bill is criticized as an end-run around Proposition 2½ tax limits. The bill is now careening toward the Senate and Gov. Deval Patrick.
When asked by Boston Herald reporter Casey Ross, the governor's spokeswoman replied: “We’ll have to take it under review, but in general we’re supportive of property tax relief.” Does this indicate that Gov. Patrick supports property tax relief for all, or property tax relief for just some? We don't know, but he's been an enigma since assuming the governorship.
“This effort is very cynical attempt to do an end-run around Proposition 2½,” said state Rep. Donald Humason (R-Westfield). Passing this bill is only going to shift the burden onto the remaining taxpayers.”
Before this bill is passed more questions need to be asked and answered. What happens when Baby boomers start retiring? As many of the baby boomers begin to turn sixty-five, who is going to foot the bill if this legislation becomes law? It is clear that a heavier burden of paying property taxes will fall on middle and low-income families year after year.
This approach to property tax relief is not relief at all. This bill is confined to accomplishing only one thing: make it easier for towns and cities to increase your property taxes and permit them to expand without any limits.
When asked by Boston Herald reporter Casey Ross, the governor's spokeswoman replied: “We’ll have to take it under review, but in general we’re supportive of property tax relief.” Does this indicate that Gov. Patrick supports property tax relief for all, or property tax relief for just some? We don't know, but he's been an enigma since assuming the governorship.
“This effort is very cynical attempt to do an end-run around Proposition 2½,” said state Rep. Donald Humason (R-Westfield). Passing this bill is only going to shift the burden onto the remaining taxpayers.”
Before this bill is passed more questions need to be asked and answered. What happens when Baby boomers start retiring? As many of the baby boomers begin to turn sixty-five, who is going to foot the bill if this legislation becomes law? It is clear that a heavier burden of paying property taxes will fall on middle and low-income families year after year.
This approach to property tax relief is not relief at all. This bill is confined to accomplishing only one thing: make it easier for towns and cities to increase your property taxes and permit them to expand without any limits.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Where we Stand on the National Front
First I apologize for being silent for a while. Myself and my kids seems to be passing one virus after another between ourselves so I have had my ands full of Kleenex and cold medicine for the last month or so. Further more things have been moving so quickly on the National political front that by the time I sat down to analyze the information, the story lines were changing.
I guess in one sense it is good that I have not had a chance to put anything in writing, because all of my predictions would have proven incorrect. So I will try and piece everything together from the campaigns, to global events and what things might look like for us in the future.
But "oh Happy Day!" Looks at the choices we have for President! We have John McCain on the Republican side who (I believe)as time goes on is going to get called out on his level of hypocrisy ranging from the Keating Five Scandal to the NY Times Article to his attempt to back out of Publicly Financing his campaign , something he championed. Maybe it has to do with all of the deals and money and support he is getting from lobbyists during his current Presidential Campaign that his causing him to backpedal. Sorry John, but you can't make me believe for one second that you can dine with the enemy and say you oppose everything to stand for. I believe you said it best when you were blasting Mitt Romney, and I quote "If you wrestle with a pig you both get mud on you". Sounds about right to me. And let us not forget the famous "I hate the gooks statement". I'm sure I could go on and on.
Not that the Democrats are any better. I'm just being hardest on McCain because he "Represents" my political party. But do I really need to go into the list of lies and cover-ups related to Hillary Clinton? I think not!
Why do I bring this up? Because the mantra this year for every candidate on the campaign trail has been "change".
"We need change"
"I am going to change"
"Health Care needs change"
"We need Change in tax codes"
"We need spending change"
"We need an attitude change"
"we need to change how we do trade"
"WE NEED TO CHANGE WASHINGTON"
What the hell is change? Today I am healthy and happy. Tomorrow I may not be. That's change, but it's not good change. Not exactly the change I was looking for.
Yeah, we need change. We need politicians like the above stated and the hundreds that have come before them to get off their butts and go home so we can bring in some new blood and really get things done. What did Clinton campaign on in 1992? Health care. What did he campaign on in 1996? Health care and Taxes. What did Bush campaign on in 2000? Health care and Social Security and Taxes. What did he campaign on in 2004? Health care and Social Security and Taxes and Terrorism. What will the Candidates be campaigning on this year? Health care, Social Security, taxes, terrorism and the War.
Same problems, different year...same results....nothing.
But hey...it's hard work.
I know it must seem like all I do is rant about the political machine, and to a point I do. But not because I hate politics, or even hate politicians. I just believe that we have reached a point in our history that the Founding Fathers never intended us to go. I believe that the government is supposed to be by the people and for the people, not run by the same powerful few.
I guess in one sense it is good that I have not had a chance to put anything in writing, because all of my predictions would have proven incorrect. So I will try and piece everything together from the campaigns, to global events and what things might look like for us in the future.
But "oh Happy Day!" Looks at the choices we have for President! We have John McCain on the Republican side who (I believe)as time goes on is going to get called out on his level of hypocrisy ranging from the Keating Five Scandal to the NY Times Article to his attempt to back out of Publicly Financing his campaign , something he championed. Maybe it has to do with all of the deals and money and support he is getting from lobbyists during his current Presidential Campaign that his causing him to backpedal. Sorry John, but you can't make me believe for one second that you can dine with the enemy and say you oppose everything to stand for. I believe you said it best when you were blasting Mitt Romney, and I quote "If you wrestle with a pig you both get mud on you". Sounds about right to me. And let us not forget the famous "I hate the gooks statement". I'm sure I could go on and on.
Not that the Democrats are any better. I'm just being hardest on McCain because he "Represents" my political party. But do I really need to go into the list of lies and cover-ups related to Hillary Clinton? I think not!
Why do I bring this up? Because the mantra this year for every candidate on the campaign trail has been "change".
"We need change"
"I am going to change"
"Health Care needs change"
"We need Change in tax codes"
"We need spending change"
"We need an attitude change"
"we need to change how we do trade"
"WE NEED TO CHANGE WASHINGTON"
What the hell is change? Today I am healthy and happy. Tomorrow I may not be. That's change, but it's not good change. Not exactly the change I was looking for.
Yeah, we need change. We need politicians like the above stated and the hundreds that have come before them to get off their butts and go home so we can bring in some new blood and really get things done. What did Clinton campaign on in 1992? Health care. What did he campaign on in 1996? Health care and Taxes. What did Bush campaign on in 2000? Health care and Social Security and Taxes. What did he campaign on in 2004? Health care and Social Security and Taxes and Terrorism. What will the Candidates be campaigning on this year? Health care, Social Security, taxes, terrorism and the War.
Same problems, different year...same results....nothing.
But hey...it's hard work.
I know it must seem like all I do is rant about the political machine, and to a point I do. But not because I hate politics, or even hate politicians. I just believe that we have reached a point in our history that the Founding Fathers never intended us to go. I believe that the government is supposed to be by the people and for the people, not run by the same powerful few.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Super Tuesday
Here we are after Iowa, New Hampshire, Wyoming, South Carolina, Nevada, Florida and Maine.
John McCain has been able to three primaries, one of them in "Republican only" Florida. Mitt Romney's campaign has only been able to win one primary and three caucuses, all-open.
Romney's strategy would make sense if he really was a true conservative and a consistent conservative. But for nearly a dozen years prior to deciding to run for President, Mitt was very clearly a moderate Republican with barely a smattering of conservative views and an equal number of liberal views.
John McCain's difficulties in selling himself to GOP voters reflect his many liberal lurches over the years. From taxes to free speech, prescription drugs and global warming cap and trade. Republicans have a pretty good sense of where he might betray them. Yet few doubt that on other issues including national security and spending. McCain will stick to his principles no matter the opinion polls.
The polls hold for McCain in 10 of the delegate rich states including California, New York and Georgia. Romney has a lead in Massachusetts, but he been losing ground in the last few days. Then there is Utah and Idaho. Most disingenuous to me is that Mitt has been asking Mike Huckabee to bow out of the race and let it be a two-man race. Obviously Huckabee is going no where. Romney's attack ads against him have proven to be a thorn for him. Huckabee is going all the way to take conservative votes away. As I have said in the beginning, Romney's strategy hurt him. Now we will have a race between McCain against Obama or Hillary. Not going to call the Dems yet!
John McCain has been able to three primaries, one of them in "Republican only" Florida. Mitt Romney's campaign has only been able to win one primary and three caucuses, all-open.
Romney's strategy would make sense if he really was a true conservative and a consistent conservative. But for nearly a dozen years prior to deciding to run for President, Mitt was very clearly a moderate Republican with barely a smattering of conservative views and an equal number of liberal views.
John McCain's difficulties in selling himself to GOP voters reflect his many liberal lurches over the years. From taxes to free speech, prescription drugs and global warming cap and trade. Republicans have a pretty good sense of where he might betray them. Yet few doubt that on other issues including national security and spending. McCain will stick to his principles no matter the opinion polls.
The polls hold for McCain in 10 of the delegate rich states including California, New York and Georgia. Romney has a lead in Massachusetts, but he been losing ground in the last few days. Then there is Utah and Idaho. Most disingenuous to me is that Mitt has been asking Mike Huckabee to bow out of the race and let it be a two-man race. Obviously Huckabee is going no where. Romney's attack ads against him have proven to be a thorn for him. Huckabee is going all the way to take conservative votes away. As I have said in the beginning, Romney's strategy hurt him. Now we will have a race between McCain against Obama or Hillary. Not going to call the Dems yet!
Monday, January 28, 2008
Romney's Health Care Plan
An Article by CNSNEWS.com reports that the cost of Massachusetts' health insurance mandate will rise 85 percent, or $400 million, in 2009.
According to The Boston Globe, the cost increase is largely due to an increase in the number of people signing up for state-subsidized health insurance. State and federal taxpayers are likely to shoulder the cost increase.
As we all know, Romney has been praising this mandate on the campaign trail. "We put in place a plan that gets every citizen in our state health insurance, and it didn't cost us new money," he said during the Republican debate in New Hampshire on Jan. 5. "It didn't require us to raise taxes."
The article also says that he would not mandate at the federal level. "But what I would say at the federal level is we'll keep giving you these special payments we make if you adopt plans that get everybody insured. I'd say each state needs to get busy on the job of getting all our citizens insured. It does not cost more money."
This is a man who has been emphasizing his economic credentials and criticizing McCain's understanding of the economy.
According to The Boston Globe, the cost increase is largely due to an increase in the number of people signing up for state-subsidized health insurance. State and federal taxpayers are likely to shoulder the cost increase.
As we all know, Romney has been praising this mandate on the campaign trail. "We put in place a plan that gets every citizen in our state health insurance, and it didn't cost us new money," he said during the Republican debate in New Hampshire on Jan. 5. "It didn't require us to raise taxes."
The article also says that he would not mandate at the federal level. "But what I would say at the federal level is we'll keep giving you these special payments we make if you adopt plans that get everybody insured. I'd say each state needs to get busy on the job of getting all our citizens insured. It does not cost more money."
This is a man who has been emphasizing his economic credentials and criticizing McCain's understanding of the economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
