Posted by Daniel Griswold here
Lawmakers in the Bay State are rushing to change state law to make sure the late Sen. Edward Kennedy’s seat is filled as soon as possible with a reliable Democratic successor.
Never mind that as recently as 2004 the same state legislature had changed state law to mandate that a vacant Senate seat could only be filled by a special election to be held within five months of the vacancy.
Before then, as in most other states, vacancies were filled by an appointment of the governor, with the seat coming up for a vote at the next federal election. But in 2004, the Democratic legislature changed the law to prevent then-governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, from naming a Republican to replace Democratic Sen. John Kerry if he were to be elected president. Kerry lost to George W. Bush, but the law remained on the books.
That was then; now is now. With Democrats in Washington wanting to maintain their 60-vote caucus in the Senate, a five-month delay to let the people of Massachusetts actually vote on who will replace Kennedy has become an intolerable roadblock to progress. According to a report from Bloomberg News this morning, the Democratically-dominated legislature in Massachusetts is about to change the law back to allow the now-Democratic governor to appoint a successor within a month.
This is a textbook example of how politicians routinely ignore The Rule of Law in pursuit of political aims.
In his book, The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek devoted an entire chapter to the importance of the rule of law to a free society. “Nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principles know as the Rule of Law,” Hayek wrote. He defined the phrase to mean “that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand,” and not subject to be changed arbitrarily depending on circumstances.
The Bloomberg story contained a less scholarly but equally sound critique of what is going on in Massachusetts: “It shows Democrats don’t care about principle,” said Massachusetts House Minority Leader Bradley Jones, a North Reading Republican. “They don’t care about debate. They don’t care about the rules. It really is disgusting.”
(note from Medford GOP, this craven move by power mad Democrats doesn't even mention how unconstitutional this move is by nature of it being ex post facto;In the United States, the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and the states are prohibited from the same by clause 1 of section 10. But this current crop of thieves in high places aren't about to let something as petty as the U.S. Constitution stand in their way.)
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
New poll, 52% of Massachusetts voters support Kennedy hypocrisy
Even the typically soft-on-Kennedy Boston Herald had to admit, Kennedy's last minute ditch effort to secure communism for future generations by re-rigging the game in Massachusetts was high hypocrisy. Kennedy led the charge to change the Senate appointment rules in 2004 foolishly thinking the fraudulent John Kerry would be President. Now on death's door, Kennedy wants the rules changed back so that our far left governor can appoint a replacement by fiat and avoid the special elections of the 2004 legislation.
More surprisingly, a Rasmussen poll today showed that 52% of voters support this new measure. What is wrong with this state? Are there really that few of us left here that work for a living that this constant abuse from lawmakers is not just accepted, but welcomed?
Very disconcerting that liberty and democracy are in such a sad state here in the state of John and Sam Adams, Paul Revere, John Hanckock, John Glover and Elbridge Gerry.
More surprisingly, a Rasmussen poll today showed that 52% of voters support this new measure. What is wrong with this state? Are there really that few of us left here that work for a living that this constant abuse from lawmakers is not just accepted, but welcomed?
Very disconcerting that liberty and democracy are in such a sad state here in the state of John and Sam Adams, Paul Revere, John Hanckock, John Glover and Elbridge Gerry.
New report:Ed Markey's Cap and Trade boondoggle to hit Massachusetts residents hard.
Massachusetts will be hit as follows by this socialist pap;
For the state of Massachusetts, over
the 2012–2035 timeframe, on average
the Waxman–Markey bill would:
Lower gross state product by $8,043 million
Reduce personal income by $3,207 million
Destroy 21,810 jobs
Raise electricity prices by $556.25 per household
Raise gasoline prices by $0.66 per gallon
Source: Heritage Foundation calculations based on the IHS/Global
Insight U.S. Macroeconomic and Energy models.
August 19, 2009
Impact of the Waxman–Markey Climate Change Legislation on the States
by David Kreutzer, Ph.D., Karen Campbell, Ph.D., William W. Beach, Ben Lieberman and Nicolas Loris
On June 26, the House of Representatives narrowly passed climate change legislation designed by Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA). The 1,427-page bill would restrict greenhouse gas emissions from industry, mainly carbon dioxide from the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas.
If passed by the Senate, the bill would burden families with thousands of dollars per year in direct and indirect energy costs. According to a new study produced by Heritage's Center for Data Analysis (CDA), forecasts severe consequences—including crushing energy costs, millions of jobs lost and falling household income—if Congress enacts the so-called Waxman-Markey bill.
Full article
For the state of Massachusetts, over
the 2012–2035 timeframe, on average
the Waxman–Markey bill would:
Lower gross state product by $8,043 million
Reduce personal income by $3,207 million
Destroy 21,810 jobs
Raise electricity prices by $556.25 per household
Raise gasoline prices by $0.66 per gallon
Source: Heritage Foundation calculations based on the IHS/Global
Insight U.S. Macroeconomic and Energy models.
August 19, 2009
Impact of the Waxman–Markey Climate Change Legislation on the States
by David Kreutzer, Ph.D., Karen Campbell, Ph.D., William W. Beach, Ben Lieberman and Nicolas Loris
On June 26, the House of Representatives narrowly passed climate change legislation designed by Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA). The 1,427-page bill would restrict greenhouse gas emissions from industry, mainly carbon dioxide from the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas.
If passed by the Senate, the bill would burden families with thousands of dollars per year in direct and indirect energy costs. According to a new study produced by Heritage's Center for Data Analysis (CDA), forecasts severe consequences—including crushing energy costs, millions of jobs lost and falling household income—if Congress enacts the so-called Waxman-Markey bill.
Full article
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Medford City Council tables meal tax hike, tells Mayor to discuss measure first
The Medford City Council made the right call last night, tabling the meal tax hike sought by the McGlynn administration until there is time to speak with the Mayor, restaurant owners and Medford citizens, to and examine the issue fully before voting, as the Medford Transcript reports.
“I do not think we can debate the importance of maximizing revenues to provide an appropriate level of services to our citizens,” McGlynn said by letter, in a move reminiscent of Deval Patrick's absence during his controversial casino bill. And also like Deval Patrick, Mayor McGlynn has already put the additional $175,000 the state tells him a tax hike will generate into the city budget, which is likely why there is such immediacy from his administration to pass the measure with no debate.
City Solicitor Mark Rumley was present to represent Mayor McGlynn, and sounded like Barrack Obama talking about healthcare, adamantly opposing the thought of a special meeting, or any debate on the matter. “There is only one certainty in this matter,” Rumley said. “Should you not vote to accept this tonight, there will be no revenue generated from this increase until at least the third quarter of this fiscal year. The only certainty is that if the matter is not passed this evening, we will be forgoing this revenue opportunity until January 2010. That is a certainty.”
Contrary to the Solicitor's comments and the Mayor's letter, no doubt motivated by the fact that the city has squandered all of our tax money and is trying to cover other unnecessary and/or imprudent expenditures, none of what the McGlynn office is putting forward is a "certainty". The whole estimate of $175,000 additional revenue being generated by a meals tax hike comes from a single report from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue. The state of Massachusetts' has been making bad law based upon bad predictions for years now, and stands to lose a U.S. Representative in 2010 as a direct result of both. Why should we listen to the State of Massachusetts unquestioningly about the fiscal health of our city when they have done such a poor job of forecasting economic conditions, and managing their own affairs? This .75% local meals tax hike provision is just another piece of the widely opposed 25% tax hike the State legislature just rammed through, are we then to follow them off the cliff like lemmings? Mayor McGlynn would have us do so. His friends at the state level would too; every local meals tax crammed through directs voter anger away from Beacon Hill and distills the outrage across localities. But where do us taxpayers fit into this process? If Mayor McGlynn has his way, we don't.
The fact is, much to McGlynn's dismay, similar to government healthcare and man-made global warming, the matter of a new local tax is still very much open to a debate, and we are still members of a democracy. Other cities and towns in Massachusetts are rejecting the local meals tax option, because they know that the last thing people need now is another new tax, especially a meals tax when restauranteurs are trying to get peope just to come out and eat.
“This is absolutely not the business climate to create an extra burden,” said State Rep. Michael Rodrigues, a Democrat of Westport and part of Fall River. “We’re concerned it might harm local businesses,” said Somerset Town Administrator Dennis Luttrell, and Swansea Town Chairman Scott Ventura voiced his well founded fears that the new tax - any new tax - would be opposed by diners, saying “It’s the principal. There’s always that ‘I’m not paying that,’” when taxes are raised.
Haverhill restaurant owners also voiced opposition to the new tax in their town. From the point of view of trying to run a business, I'm not in favor of it," said Fred Habeeb, part owner of George's Restaurant and Mal's Jazz & Blues Lounge on Washington Street. It's putting people out of business and it has a trickle-down effect with people losing jobs."
According to the Lawrence Eagle Tribune, John Fahimian, owner of the Tap Restaurant and Brew Pub, one of the downtown's anchor businesses, said taxing an industry that is trying to survive is "wrong."
And Haverhill City Council President Michael Hart summed up the proposed new tax thusly;"At this juncture, unless we absolutely need it we shouldn't be asking for it," Hart said. "The comments from the restaurant owners are valid. They have all had to absorb additional hits, including an increase in the sales tax. The only thing they are not getting right now are the benefits of a booming economy."
I am not seeing the "certainty" Solicitor Rumley is talking about or the lack of need to debate as stated by Mayor McGlynn. It must be like the "broad support" for government takeover of our healthcare that Barrack Obama likes to invoke whenever he paints himself into a corner during his ongoing campaign for President, only visible to partisan tax-and-spend Democrats.
Being looked at as the Mayor's rubber stamp by the McGlynn administration seemed to appropriately give the council pause. One Councilor, Robert Penta, cited the ram-it-through approach to this bill to be the reason for his vote to table, “If this gets voted up or down, there is no reason for us to be here,” he said. “There has been absolutely no conversation that has taken place. It’s a complete waste. If they want a vote tonight, we’d be better off having seven councilors come in and replace us.” And another Councilor, Michael Marks, said uncertainty about how the money would be spent alone creates the need for a discussion on the matter, saying, “Everyone is saying that we could lose this money if we don’t act now, but I personally want to know what the mayor is going to do with this money before I vote."
But that seems to be a discussion the McGlynn Administration does not want to have, perhaps because as we all tighten our belts, as the NY Times reporsts, state and city governments have expanded their payrolls throughout this recession. Mr. Mayor, in this economic climate, should you not be looking at more efficient, less expensive government in Medford, not new taxes to pay for more waste?
If the Mayor refuses to meet with the Council and the taxpayers - a trick he picked up from Ted Kennedy and John Kerry perhaps? - we will have to continue to speculate. I for one would like to know a)what has changed from last year to this that we have a $175,000 budget gap requiring a meals tax, b)is this a case of the Mayor imposing a tax simply because the new 25% state sales tax hike bill invited him to do so, and c)why his staff has so much faith in a prediction by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue that the history of meal tax hikes has soundly refuted and many towns in Massachusetts have already roundly rejected?
Mr. Mayor, this is a poor political climate for a Democrat to go into hiding from his constituents while trying to expand government and raise taxes, do so at your own peril.
Nick McNulty
Medford GOP
“I do not think we can debate the importance of maximizing revenues to provide an appropriate level of services to our citizens,” McGlynn said by letter, in a move reminiscent of Deval Patrick's absence during his controversial casino bill. And also like Deval Patrick, Mayor McGlynn has already put the additional $175,000 the state tells him a tax hike will generate into the city budget, which is likely why there is such immediacy from his administration to pass the measure with no debate.
City Solicitor Mark Rumley was present to represent Mayor McGlynn, and sounded like Barrack Obama talking about healthcare, adamantly opposing the thought of a special meeting, or any debate on the matter. “There is only one certainty in this matter,” Rumley said. “Should you not vote to accept this tonight, there will be no revenue generated from this increase until at least the third quarter of this fiscal year. The only certainty is that if the matter is not passed this evening, we will be forgoing this revenue opportunity until January 2010. That is a certainty.”
Contrary to the Solicitor's comments and the Mayor's letter, no doubt motivated by the fact that the city has squandered all of our tax money and is trying to cover other unnecessary and/or imprudent expenditures, none of what the McGlynn office is putting forward is a "certainty". The whole estimate of $175,000 additional revenue being generated by a meals tax hike comes from a single report from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue. The state of Massachusetts' has been making bad law based upon bad predictions for years now, and stands to lose a U.S. Representative in 2010 as a direct result of both. Why should we listen to the State of Massachusetts unquestioningly about the fiscal health of our city when they have done such a poor job of forecasting economic conditions, and managing their own affairs? This .75% local meals tax hike provision is just another piece of the widely opposed 25% tax hike the State legislature just rammed through, are we then to follow them off the cliff like lemmings? Mayor McGlynn would have us do so. His friends at the state level would too; every local meals tax crammed through directs voter anger away from Beacon Hill and distills the outrage across localities. But where do us taxpayers fit into this process? If Mayor McGlynn has his way, we don't.
The fact is, much to McGlynn's dismay, similar to government healthcare and man-made global warming, the matter of a new local tax is still very much open to a debate, and we are still members of a democracy. Other cities and towns in Massachusetts are rejecting the local meals tax option, because they know that the last thing people need now is another new tax, especially a meals tax when restauranteurs are trying to get peope just to come out and eat.
“This is absolutely not the business climate to create an extra burden,” said State Rep. Michael Rodrigues, a Democrat of Westport and part of Fall River. “We’re concerned it might harm local businesses,” said Somerset Town Administrator Dennis Luttrell, and Swansea Town Chairman Scott Ventura voiced his well founded fears that the new tax - any new tax - would be opposed by diners, saying “It’s the principal. There’s always that ‘I’m not paying that,’” when taxes are raised.
Haverhill restaurant owners also voiced opposition to the new tax in their town. From the point of view of trying to run a business, I'm not in favor of it," said Fred Habeeb, part owner of George's Restaurant and Mal's Jazz & Blues Lounge on Washington Street. It's putting people out of business and it has a trickle-down effect with people losing jobs."
According to the Lawrence Eagle Tribune, John Fahimian, owner of the Tap Restaurant and Brew Pub, one of the downtown's anchor businesses, said taxing an industry that is trying to survive is "wrong."
And Haverhill City Council President Michael Hart summed up the proposed new tax thusly;"At this juncture, unless we absolutely need it we shouldn't be asking for it," Hart said. "The comments from the restaurant owners are valid. They have all had to absorb additional hits, including an increase in the sales tax. The only thing they are not getting right now are the benefits of a booming economy."
I am not seeing the "certainty" Solicitor Rumley is talking about or the lack of need to debate as stated by Mayor McGlynn. It must be like the "broad support" for government takeover of our healthcare that Barrack Obama likes to invoke whenever he paints himself into a corner during his ongoing campaign for President, only visible to partisan tax-and-spend Democrats.
Being looked at as the Mayor's rubber stamp by the McGlynn administration seemed to appropriately give the council pause. One Councilor, Robert Penta, cited the ram-it-through approach to this bill to be the reason for his vote to table, “If this gets voted up or down, there is no reason for us to be here,” he said. “There has been absolutely no conversation that has taken place. It’s a complete waste. If they want a vote tonight, we’d be better off having seven councilors come in and replace us.” And another Councilor, Michael Marks, said uncertainty about how the money would be spent alone creates the need for a discussion on the matter, saying, “Everyone is saying that we could lose this money if we don’t act now, but I personally want to know what the mayor is going to do with this money before I vote."
But that seems to be a discussion the McGlynn Administration does not want to have, perhaps because as we all tighten our belts, as the NY Times reporsts, state and city governments have expanded their payrolls throughout this recession. Mr. Mayor, in this economic climate, should you not be looking at more efficient, less expensive government in Medford, not new taxes to pay for more waste?
If the Mayor refuses to meet with the Council and the taxpayers - a trick he picked up from Ted Kennedy and John Kerry perhaps? - we will have to continue to speculate. I for one would like to know a)what has changed from last year to this that we have a $175,000 budget gap requiring a meals tax, b)is this a case of the Mayor imposing a tax simply because the new 25% state sales tax hike bill invited him to do so, and c)why his staff has so much faith in a prediction by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue that the history of meal tax hikes has soundly refuted and many towns in Massachusetts have already roundly rejected?
Mr. Mayor, this is a poor political climate for a Democrat to go into hiding from his constituents while trying to expand government and raise taxes, do so at your own peril.
Nick McNulty
Medford GOP
Monday, August 17, 2009
Reminder:.75% Medford Only meals tax to be debated tomorrow
August 18, 2009, City Hall.
Mayor McGlynn will try to impose the .75% Medford Only meals tax through the City Council, a measure that will dampen restaurant business in Medford, giving surrounding towns a built in competitive advantage over our restauranteurs.
With the raising of gas tax, alcohol tax, tobacco tax, and sales tax, all in this year, do we really need another tax? Is there no end to what the one-party leadership in this state will do to us taxpayers?
Show up and be heard, tell Mayor McGlynn that the last thing the citizens of Medford need now is another tax during a recession. Tell Democrats to stop killing our local and state economies and hurting working families.
Mayor McGlynn will try to impose the .75% Medford Only meals tax through the City Council, a measure that will dampen restaurant business in Medford, giving surrounding towns a built in competitive advantage over our restauranteurs.
With the raising of gas tax, alcohol tax, tobacco tax, and sales tax, all in this year, do we really need another tax? Is there no end to what the one-party leadership in this state will do to us taxpayers?
Show up and be heard, tell Mayor McGlynn that the last thing the citizens of Medford need now is another tax during a recession. Tell Democrats to stop killing our local and state economies and hurting working families.
Hybrid Only parking at Stations Landing
The Green Tyrants are invading Medford now, with the preferential treatment of Special Citizens popularized through such unconstitutional initiatives as the Cash for Clunkers boondoggle now giving way to special parking spots for the Green Citizens. A quick look through the Massachusetts legal codes fails to reveal where such preferential treatment based upon vehicle type is sanctioned. An email to the Mayor's office on the matter went unanswered - McGlynn is running unopposed this year, so as is often the case, he is beginning to rule unchallenged.
The Green movement is many things - at it's best, a fantastical religion, at it's worst, a junk-science fueled assault on capitalism - but one thing it is not is settled science. The members of global warming critics within the scientific community now outnumbers that of global warming supporters, but when the left-wing statist bureaucrats are added to the mix, the scales tilt.
It is a perversion of our legal system to unilaterally declare certain citizens as "better" than others and warranting preferential treatment over their peers. This "Hybrid Only" miscarriage of legal power is just the latest assault from the Green Tyrants, an assault that is now alive and well in Medford.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
The Administration That Couldn't Shoot Straight
Gaffe after gaffe, bad prediction after bad prediction, broken promise after broken promise, President Obama is the antithesis of Senator Obama. A man that once had the midas touch, that could turn water into wine, dissent into consensus, could spin plattitudes into gold now has the heatmiser's touch - every thing he touches, melts in his clutches.
From jobless numbers, to GDP growth, to unemployment figures, to budget estimates this administration has become the Big Dig of Presidents - we hear a lot of "On time and under budget" coming from Robert Gibbs, while we see more and more missed predictions, budget overruns, and "stimulus" projects being robbed blind by public and private sector members alike. This is truly the Administration That Couldn't Shoot Straight, may their single term pass quickly.
Clunker bucks buy guzzlersUnder the $3 billion program, buyers can get rebates of up to $4,500 to purchase massive vehicles such as a Hummer H3T, a six-cylinder Cadillac SRX, or the 19-mpg Lincoln MKX - as long as they are trading in vehicles with at least 2 mpg less in fuel efficiency than the new purchase. And the new wheels can’t cost more than $45,000.
$200 per child for school supplies: The Real Deal“One person said she was going to buy a cell phone, I said ‘Wow, I thought the money was supposed to be for the kids -- other people were just buying cigarettes and beer,” says Sunoco gas station owner Diane Goly.
Biden: We 'Misread the Economy' "We misread how bad the economy was, but we are now only about 120 days into the recovery package," he said. "The truth of the matter was, no one anticipated, no one expected that that recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having to distribute the bulk of money."
Wasted Stimulus Bill Money (an excerpt)
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$1 billion for community-development block grants
$4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities”
$650 million for digital-TV coupons; $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations”
$600 million to convert the federal auto fleet to hybrids
$450 million for NASA (carve-out for “climate-research missions”)
$600 million for NOAA (carve-out for “climate modeling”)
$1 billion for the Census Bureau
$89 billion for Medicaid
$20 billion for food stamps
$7.6 billion for “rural community advancement programs”
$150 million for agricultural-commodity purchases
$150 million for “producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised fish”
$2 billion for renewable-energy research ($400 million for global-warming research)
$2 billion for a “clean coal” power plant in Illinois
$6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program
$3.5 billion for energy-efficiency and conservation block grants
$300 million for energy-efficient-appliance rebate programs
$400 million for hybrid cars for state and local governments
$1.5 billion for green-technology loan guarantees
$8 billion for innovative-technology loan-guarantee program
$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
Deval Patrick to send $4.7 million to Switzerland
Devalue Patrick thinks the height of a recession is a great time to spend $4.7 milllion in tax dollars on Swiss technology to address a non-existent problem. Hey, Devalue, thanks to your punitive tax hikes, no one buys cigarettes in this state anymore anyways!
Gov. Deval Patrick seeks to snuff out fake butts
Critics rip plan to burn through $5M
Millions of taxpayer dollars are going up in smoke as the Patrick administration moves to buy a pricey high-tech cigarette tax-stamping system despite little evidence of counterfeit butts in the Bay State, lawmakers charged yesterday.
Gov. Deval Patrick - who has wrangled with the state’s two major zoos over $4 million in state funding - plans to shell out nearly $5 million over the next three years for the new digital stamper.
“I’ve looked at this issue, and quite frankly (administration officials) don’t seem to have made the case that we need to move to this technology,” said Rep. Antonio Cabral (D-New Bedford), who co-chairs the legislative committee on bonding.
“The money would be better spent somewhere else on local aid or restoring any of the services we had to cut,” Cabral said.
Sicpa, a Swiss company, has been awarded a $4.7 million contract for digital equipment to stamp cigarette packs instead of the stickers used now. The state is expected to spend $800,000 in fiscal year 2010 because the system won’t be implemented until midway through the year.
“This is another example of an incredibly mismanaged government. On the one hand you have the governor making unwise budget cuts that are turning services upside down, but on the other hand the state’s wasting millions on useless contracts,” said Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei (R-Wakefield).
Full story
Gov. Deval Patrick seeks to snuff out fake butts
Critics rip plan to burn through $5M
Millions of taxpayer dollars are going up in smoke as the Patrick administration moves to buy a pricey high-tech cigarette tax-stamping system despite little evidence of counterfeit butts in the Bay State, lawmakers charged yesterday.
Gov. Deval Patrick - who has wrangled with the state’s two major zoos over $4 million in state funding - plans to shell out nearly $5 million over the next three years for the new digital stamper.
“I’ve looked at this issue, and quite frankly (administration officials) don’t seem to have made the case that we need to move to this technology,” said Rep. Antonio Cabral (D-New Bedford), who co-chairs the legislative committee on bonding.
“The money would be better spent somewhere else on local aid or restoring any of the services we had to cut,” Cabral said.
Sicpa, a Swiss company, has been awarded a $4.7 million contract for digital equipment to stamp cigarette packs instead of the stickers used now. The state is expected to spend $800,000 in fiscal year 2010 because the system won’t be implemented until midway through the year.
“This is another example of an incredibly mismanaged government. On the one hand you have the governor making unwise budget cuts that are turning services upside down, but on the other hand the state’s wasting millions on useless contracts,” said Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei (R-Wakefield).
Full story
Friday, August 14, 2009
Update: New meal tax to be crammed through at next City Council meeting
Apparently, the new .75 percent local meals tax hike requested by the Mayor will be rubberstamped post-haste on Tuesday night, at 7PM at City Hall. What is the rush for Mayor McGlynn to enact this .75 percent local meal tax without any chance of debate? Is he trying to emulate President Obama with his Cap and Trade, Stimulus, and Health Care tactics, ie, rush the new spending through before voters have a chance to protest?
The Medford City Council has been asked by the Mayor to approve this new tax hike on Tuesday night, August 18th, at 7PM in the weekly City Council meeting. This story was just made available to the public today, on Friday, August 14th, during the day of the week that people read the least amount of news. What a coincidence.
Studies show time and again that tax hikes reduce economic activity, not increase it, and despite the repeatedly disproven claims of Democrat tax and spenders, these new taxes almost never lead to more revenue generated for the city, state or fed. The business that local Medford restaurants will soon lose to neighboring towns will be lost for years, all due to a legislative decision that was crammed through in 3 days when nobody was looking.
This is very shady behavior from our local Democrats that is startlingly similar to the behavior of our elitist, out-of-touch, spend-crazed federal Democrats. The public should have ample time to review and debate any new taxes that will negatively impact us all
The Medford City Council has been asked by the Mayor to approve this new tax hike on Tuesday night, August 18th, at 7PM in the weekly City Council meeting. This story was just made available to the public today, on Friday, August 14th, during the day of the week that people read the least amount of news. What a coincidence.
Studies show time and again that tax hikes reduce economic activity, not increase it, and despite the repeatedly disproven claims of Democrat tax and spenders, these new taxes almost never lead to more revenue generated for the city, state or fed. The business that local Medford restaurants will soon lose to neighboring towns will be lost for years, all due to a legislative decision that was crammed through in 3 days when nobody was looking.
This is very shady behavior from our local Democrats that is startlingly similar to the behavior of our elitist, out-of-touch, spend-crazed federal Democrats. The public should have ample time to review and debate any new taxes that will negatively impact us all
Health care anger on display outside Mass. congressman's
I don't see why Democrats are so surprised about the anger towards their rule by fiat, since taking the White House and majority in congress, liberal Democrats have stood before the American people saying "We are going to enact our far left agenda, and you are going to like it". Any town hall meetings - packed like Porstmouth or otherwise - are just pantomime, Obama, Pelosi, and Schumer have made clear that they are going to pass their version of health care socialization, regardless of what Republicans or regular Americans say.
That is not how democracy works, and Americans are understandably angry at the tyrrants in power in Washington D.C. today.
Republican recruiting underway in MA
Published : Thursday, 13 Aug 2009, 7:49 PM EDT
by Lynn Barry
SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (WWLP) - The Chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party, Jennifer Nassour, says they are actively recruiting candidates across the state to run and they have a new grassroots effort to increase party membership.
Their goal is to increase the number of Republican legislators on Beacon Hill and other elected offices.
There are now just 16 Republicans in the House and 5 in the Senate.
Nassour, was in the Springfield area for one of the GOP's "Headquarters on the Road" Open Houses in West Springfield where she met with party members and heard from citizens.
Nassour, told 22News, that the Republicans can offer an alternative to the Democrats tax raising on Beacon Hill.
Medford Democrats seek to impose business killing local tax hikes
I am sure Somerville and Malden restaurants are hoping Medford raises local meal taxes, much the way New Hampshire benefits every time Deval Patrick raises our state sales taxes.
To tax or not to tax?: Medford debates debates .75 percent hike on meals
By Matthew Reid/medford@cnc.com
I certainly don’t like to raise taxes, but this extra .75 percent is certainly not as regressive as raising someone’s property taxes,” said Mayor Michael J. McGlynn. “You hope raising taxes is never the way to go, but right now the city is running out of options for raising revenue.”
A city or town must vote to adopt the additional .75 percent tax increase no later than Aug. 31 if it is to impose the additional excise starting on Oct 1.
McGlynn said he will be recommending the tax to the City Council at its scheduled Aug. 18 meeting, the final council meeting before the Aug. 31 deadline. He has contacted all seven council members and spoken to four directly.
“So far the council members I have spoken to have been non-committal,” McGlynn said. “I will be recommending to them that we adopt this tax, and I really hope they approve it, but I don’t know how the vote will go.”
“The chamber hasn’t had an official meeting about the tax, but there is some concern,” White said. “One of my biggest concerns is that if Medford decides to go ahead with this tax, and a neighboring community like Malden doesn’t, where are people going to eat? When faced with a decision, how often will people decide to eat at a place that is slightly cheaper?”
White added it is the smaller businesses that could feel the brunt of the tax.
“When the initial buzz about the tax came up, there was a fear that many of the businesses in the city could lose revenue,” White said. “Either it’s people not eating out as often, or servers feeling the loss with less gratuity.”
Full story
To tax or not to tax?: Medford debates debates .75 percent hike on meals
By Matthew Reid/medford@cnc.com
I certainly don’t like to raise taxes, but this extra .75 percent is certainly not as regressive as raising someone’s property taxes,” said Mayor Michael J. McGlynn. “You hope raising taxes is never the way to go, but right now the city is running out of options for raising revenue.”
A city or town must vote to adopt the additional .75 percent tax increase no later than Aug. 31 if it is to impose the additional excise starting on Oct 1.
McGlynn said he will be recommending the tax to the City Council at its scheduled Aug. 18 meeting, the final council meeting before the Aug. 31 deadline. He has contacted all seven council members and spoken to four directly.
“So far the council members I have spoken to have been non-committal,” McGlynn said. “I will be recommending to them that we adopt this tax, and I really hope they approve it, but I don’t know how the vote will go.”
“The chamber hasn’t had an official meeting about the tax, but there is some concern,” White said. “One of my biggest concerns is that if Medford decides to go ahead with this tax, and a neighboring community like Malden doesn’t, where are people going to eat? When faced with a decision, how often will people decide to eat at a place that is slightly cheaper?”
White added it is the smaller businesses that could feel the brunt of the tax.
“When the initial buzz about the tax came up, there was a fear that many of the businesses in the city could lose revenue,” White said. “Either it’s people not eating out as often, or servers feeling the loss with less gratuity.”
Full story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
