The Spirit of '76

In addition to being one of our most colorful and quotable Founding Fathers, Ben Franklin was also a pioneer in a sad Massachusetts traditon, being born here, but moving to more favorable locals to seek opportunity. Well, in his case escaping messy domestic entanglements ran a close second to expanded job prospects. Lately, it seems hardly a day can pass without coming across a story that brings to mind Franklin's warning that "If you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you". In our modern drama, the roles of the original "wolves"(King George and Parliament), are being played by progressive politicians and their special interest allies.

Close to home we have Mayor Holaday, who is demanding that we pay more in taxes and the princely sum of $50 for the privilege of parking downtown while she receives a hefty raise. In the case of Governor Patrick we have someone who has raised taxes eight times and promises to raise them again if he's re-elected. We are represented in Congress by Rep. Tierney, who has repeatedly voted to bailout his union allies(both public and private), while voting for cap and trade and Obamacare which will cost the average household thousands of dollars more a year. Cap and trade alone is expected to decrease economic activity by $9.4 trillion between 2012-2035, that's a lot of jobs that won't be created in a country already suffering 9.6% unemployment. Last but not least we have Sen. Kerry(Captain My Captain to the crew of the Isabel) who attempted to skate on $500,000 in taxes by docking his $7 million yacht in R.I..

While they occupy different offices, their solution is always the same, raise taxes. My question, borrowed from the movie "Wall St." for our progressive leaders is how much is enough? If they're in an honest mood they'll tell you that taxes will have to increase until the ever changing goal of "social justice" is achieved. Meaning, that government will of necessity get ever bigger, requiring ever more bureaucrats and ever more of our money. We know the path they are leading us on is unsustainable, the Congressional Budget office (CBO) has said so and now progressive hero Fidel and his equally tyrannical brother Raul have admitted as much. The statement from the Cuban government read in part "Our state can't keep maintaining...bloated payrolls," . Neither can we.

This Fall our choice is clear. We can meekly follow our progressive leaders as they attempt to transform our city, state and nation into another Greece or Cuba or we can vote for candidates who embrace the concepts of economic freedom, individual liberty and individual responsibility. Our forefather's risked everything to give us a Republic, it's up to us to ensure that it doesn't become an oligarchy. Once we go down that road it's almost impossible to come back. Just ask the Castro's, they wanted to lay off a million bureaucrats, but settled for half that after they saw their Greek counterparts firebombing banks.

Daily News Calls Out Governor Patrick

To the editors' of the Newburyport Daily News, welcome to the fight.

Some excerpts:

Gov. Deval Patrick filed a bill last week seeking $28.5 million to cover appropriations for the fiscal year that just ended on June 30. It is intended to cover a variety of things, including summer jobs and the settlement of various claims. But it also includes $9.5 million to fund more than 30 collective bargaining agreements.

and

This comes on the heels of the governor backing a project labor agreement for the $750 million rehabilitation of the University of Massachusetts Boston campus. The agreement requires the use of union labor in exchange for the unions agreeing not to strike while the work is under way. But it is expected to add as much as $100 million to what it would cost if it were put out to truly competitive bidding.

Read the whole thing http://www.newburyportnews.com/opinion/x536265353/Governor-sends-wrong-message

Romneycare

Governor Patrick has gone to war with the health insurance industry in Massachusetts and wonder of wonders they are fighting back. I guess he figured that since the insurance industry didn't fight President Obama's federal takeover, they would take baby Obama's campaign posturing lying down as well. The difference is that Obamacare promises the health care insurers a few boom years before the bust, in MA we're officially at bust time.

Want a preview of ObamaCare in action? Check out the Massachusetts insurance market—which earlier this week entered a state of "market chaos" after Governor Deval Patrick denied a host of health insurance rate increases.

More from the Wall Street Journal:

This week it became impossible in Massachusetts for small businesses and individuals to buy health-care coverage after Governor Deval Patrick imposed price controls on premiums. Read on, because under ObamaCare this kind of political showdown will soon be coming to an insurance market near you.

The Massachusetts small-group market that serves about 800,000 residents shut down after Mr. Patrick kicked off his re-election campaign by presumptively rejecting about 90% of the premium increases the state's insurers had asked regulators to approve. Health costs have run off the rails since former GOP Governor Mitt Romney and Beacon Hill passed universal coverage in 2006, and Mr. Patrick now claims price controls are the sensible response to this ostensibly industry greed.

Yet all of the major Massachusetts insurers are nonprofits. Three of largest four — Blue Cross Blue Shield, Tufts Health Plan and Fallon Community Health — posted operating losses in 2009. In an emergency suit heard in Boston superior court yesterday, they argued that the arbitrary rate cap will result in another $100 million in collective losses this year and make it impossible to pay the anticipated cost of claims. It may even threaten the near-term solvency of some companies. So until the matter is resolved, the insurers have simply stopped selling new policies.

How do companies, even non-profits, manage to lose money when the citizens of MA are mandated to buy their product? Simple:

The Boston Globe reports, “Thousands of consumers are gaming Massachusetts’ 2006 health insurance law by buying insurance when they need to cover pricey medical care, such as fertility treatments and knee surgery, and then swiftly dropping coverage, a practice that insurance executives say is driving up costs for other people and small businesses.”

Predictably, costs in Massachusetts — always high — have only gone higher; the state now spends about 30 percent more per capita on health care than the rest of the nation. Predictably, the insurance regulations have only made insurance more expensive, as has been the case elsewhere; premiums in the individual market have been growing at a 30 percent annual rate. Predictably, the new health-care program has cost more than expected; spending grew by about 40 percent from 2006 to 2009.

It's funny how every government "entitlement program" ends up costing a lot more than the bean counters expected. First it was Social Security that needed a fix, aka a tax hike and increase in retirement age and then Medicare and Medicaid began busting holes in the federal and states' budgets. Now, it's Romneycare in MA,and ME,TN,KY and OR have all experienced budget busting experiences with socialized medicine, soon Obamacare will bring the phenomenon nationwide.

On a related note:

Dependency: The Democrats' reform bill had hardly become law before doctors and insurers began getting calls asking about free health care. The growing sense of entitlement is disheartening, to say the least.
'Where do we get the free ObamaCare, and how do I sign up for that?" That's what Carrie McLean, an agent for eHealthInsurance.com, told McClatchy newspapers she's been hearing from callers.
She said that the company's phone center has been "inundated by uninsured consumers who were hoping that the overhaul would translate into instant, affordable coverage."

Mitt Romney has the skills and smarts to be a very effective president. Unfortunately, his obstinancy in defending a deeply flawed and costly health care delivery system makes that increasingly unlikely.

Commonwealth of Burma

Everyone is familiar, or should be, by the recent statement of our appointed Senator, Paul Kirk:

"Absolutely," Kirk said, according to the State House News Service, when asked if he'd vote for the bill even if Brown captures the seat. "It would be my responsibility as United States senator, representing the people and understanding Sen. Kennedy's agenda and the rest of it."

Now that the initial outrage has passed, along with the temptation to light out for Utah. It occurs to me that this should be a teachable moment in our history. This election is now no longer just about Scott Brown vs Martha Coakley; it's about whether or not the will of the people expressed in a free election will be respected.
Simply put, have we become like Burma, where elections that go against the desires of the ruling junta are simply ignored?

Governor Patrick installed Paul Kirk because he is a party hack that could be depended on to follow orders. In his mindless obedience to the Democratic machine, Kirk is simply doing what he believes is expected of him. Every dog trainer worth their salt will tell you not to blame the dog, blame the owner, in this case, Governor Patrick.

So Governor Patrick, you have eight days to train Kirk to respect the Democratic process. That should be ample time to teach him to recuse himself from voting for a health care bill that the voters of the Commonwealth don't support. Make no mistake about it, if the voters of Massachusetts elect Scott Brown to the US Senate next Tuesday it will be because he OPPOSES what the Democrats are trying to do. The voters screaming NO at the top of their lungs must be respected, even by a Senator who owes his seat to a dubious appointment. This Senate seat belongs to the people of Massachusetts, not to Ted Kennedy and certainly not to the Democratic party. The results of this election must be respected, whoever the people of this state decide will serve their interests best.

One More Freedom Lost

While it would be an exaggeration to suggest that our forefathers at Bunker Hill were fighting King George to protect themselves and their progeny from paying a tax to fish for stripers. It's only because taxing people for fishing was a step too far, even for the tax loving British parliament. Hence, a freedom we have enjoyed since colonial times was lost late Monday night. Starting in January, surfcasters and those fishing within 3 miles of shore will need to pony up $10 to the Commonwealth for the privilege of wetting a line.

Governor Patrick claims his hand was forced by the Feds. "The Patrick administration is emphasizing the lower permit fee and the local retention of fee revenues to cover program administration, better fisheries management and improved public access for recreational fishing". A more honest response would be to admit that with the budget deficit Massachusetts is experiencing, there is no way the Patrick administration would forgo a new revenue stream. After all, those of us who already pay $29 for a fresh water license will not be spared from paying the new fee.

To maintain that the fee is to cover better fisheries management is a joke. In all the years I have been buying a license, no official has asked to see it. In all the years that I have been fishing, the only people to ask if I had caught anything were fellow anglers. Now, I suppose some of them may have been undercover agents of the Fish and Game department, but I highly doubt it.

This money is going to pad the budget of some bureaucrat in that black hole of taxpayer money on Beacon Hill. Trust me, that $10 fee will only increase and probably quickly.

signage as stimulus

Some States Forgo Signs on Stimulus
By MICHAEL COOPER
"The Great Depression had its red, white and blue “U.S.A. Work Program” signs and the ubiquitous “We Do Our Part” blue eagle emblems, which can still be seen in the credits of films of the era. This recession has green highway signs telling drivers when construction work was paid for by the stimulus program — but not in Georgia, which just became the latest of at least half a dozen states to forgo the signs as a waste of money.
The signs, which proclaim “Project Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” over the red, white, blue and green logo of the stimulus, cost an average of $1,200 apiece in Georgia, said David Spear, the press secretary for the Georgia Department of Transportation. With the state putting up two signs at each project and 119 construction contracts awarded through September, the cost of the signs was adding up. The sign issue became a lightning rod for critics of the stimulus, and many of them complained to the department about their cost.
“The more we reflected on it, the more we realized they were absolutely right: it’s not the best use of the money,” said Mr. Spear, who added that the decision would save tens of thousands of dollars that could be spent on more construction work.
The use of signs for stimulus projects was strongly encouraged by the Federal Highway Administration but not required.
“We think the signs promote transparency and accountability — so taxpayers can know where their money is being spent and on what,” said Jill Zuckman, the Department of Transportation’s director for public affairs. “But the important thing is that the projects be sound, well run and job creating.”
The sign question has taken on partisan overtones. Some Republicans say the signs are essentially publicly financed advertisements for one of the Obama administration’s signature programs.
“These signs are simply for political self-interest, and it’s high time we stop using stimulus dollars to fund them, and instead use these dollars for their intended purpose of creating economic activity,” Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, a Republican who voted against the stimulus package, said in a statement last month. He tried — and failed — to prohibit the use of the signs.
At the local level, though, the issue seems to be more about red ink than red states. Georgia, which made the decision this month to stop buying the signs, is led by Gov. Sonny Perdue, a Republican. Texas, another largely Republican state, also banned the signs. But Virginia, which decided from the beginning not to use any of its stimulus money on signs, is led by Gov. Tim Kaine, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Florida, whose Republican governor, Charlie Crist, broke ranks with his party to support the stimulus, decided not to use the signs. And New York, a largely Democratic state, stopped requiring them this summer after it was embarrassed by reports that contractors were asking for more than $4,000 for the largest signs."

If only Governor Patrick would follow the example set by these governors. At 2 signs per construction project, that's at least $2,400 wasted on every road project. While that amount of money isn't even a rounding number for Congress, for the average American it's still a lot of money. Since it's our money we should expect that Congress, the president and Governor Patrick spend it wisely.