Coakley Takes One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

In what must be the newspaper equivalent of the full Ginsberg the Boston Herald has three stories about our Attorney General today.

Starting with the good, AG Coakley takes National Grid to task for fleecing its customers:

“During the course of (reviewing National Grid’s rate-hike request), we found at least $300,000 worth of expenses that are outrageous and clearly provide no benefit to Massachusetts rate payers,” Jill Butterworth, spokeswoman for Attorney General Martha Coakley, told the Herald. “(And) we only scratched the surface.”

National Grid recently asked the state Department of Public Utilities to approve a $106 million-a-year rate hike for the company’s 850,000 Hub-area gas customers. That would raise ratepayer bills by about 4 percent to 11 percent, depending on where they live.

Some of the charges National Grid passed on to consumers:

$35,700 to send a senior vice president’s two daughters to the private British School of Boston

$30,000 for an executive’s personal medical bills

$4,363 for an employee’s trip to President Obama’s inauguration

$4,000 for company Christmas cards

$1,602 to matte and frame pictures for Grid President Tom King’s office

$1,433 for Rubik’s Cubes used in a team-building exercise

$1,254 to ship a wine collection across the ocean for a British employee who transferred stateside.

No employee expense was too small, with National Grid even passing on costs for $2 coat-check fees and $3.50 bottled waters.

Thank you Martha Coakley. Not only is the arrogance of National Grid executives a thumb in the eye of hard-pressed consumers, but the rate jump they are requesting isn't supported by the state of our economy. Sure winter is coming, but the economy is in big trouble, which means that natural gas supplies shouldn't be stressed, meaning prices should remain relatively stable. Even Obamanomics can't eliminate the basic rules of supply and demand. Natural gas futures fell slightly today.

Now for the odd:

After last week’s jailhouse suicide by accused Craigslist killer Philip Markoff - before he could be tried for the murder of erotic masseuse Julissa Brisman - Coakley reversed her earlier stance against interfering with the Web forum and demanded that Craigslist take down adult ads.

Coakley said the only reason for running the sex ads is to make money. “Craigslist should end the hypocrisy between its words and its practices,” Coakley wrote.

So, our AG is fine with the ads when a woman is murdered, but when her murderer takes his own life she changes her tune? Craigslist's popularity is based on the fact that it's free to the general public that are looking to post ads to sell a car, find a roomate, post a job etc. Without the revenue Craigslist makes from the adult themed ads, they will either need to start charging to post non-adult ads or go out of business. I'm sure the Globe wouldn't shed any tears if that were to happen.

I wonder when AG Coakley is going to go after "alternative" newspapers like the Boston Phoenix. After all, they make their money selling adult ads too. Maybe if Craigslist had a few reliably left-wing reporters on staff that could be counted on to write favorable stories about Martha, the AG would agree to continue looking the other way?

Finally, Jay Fitzgerald covers the downright indefensible:

Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office is withholding key details from the public about how she arrived at her Cape Wind rate-cut deal.

Coakley - whose office recently negotiated a 10 percent reduction in how much Cape Wind and National Grid can charge customers for wind-generated electricity - submitted a report late last week full of blacked-out pages related to wind-project price comparisons associated with the multibillion-dollar Cape Wind project.

The report, which was Coakley’s official justification of her rate settlement with Cape Wind and National Grid, includes “redacted” words, numbers, sentences, paragraphs and charts. It even blanked out a question asked of an energy expert hired by Coakley’s office - and the expert’s response was also crossed out, records filed with the Department of Public Utilities show.

This is a project that will cost between $2 billion-$2.6 billion when it's all said and done. The public has every right to know all the details. We're the ones that will be paying for the over-priced electicity generated by this green boondoggle. What are the proponents of Cape Wind afraid of?

Massachusetts Miracle

The Democrats will not give up easily. You know the stakes. What are you doing in the next three days to ensure a Scott Brown victory?

The Coakley Treatment

Our Attorney General and wannabe senator showing her common touch. Ms. Coakley, may I be so bold to suggest that the next time one of your campaign thugs decks someone, offer the guy a hand up.

Coakley's Soft Spot: Cap and Trade

We've all seen Rasmussen's numbers, Brown's winning independents 65-21 and still down to Coakley by 9. Which means that Rasmussen doesn't see many independents turning out to vote on the 19th. If you've made calls for Scott, I can guarantee you the folks who've responded " I haven't thought about it" when asked if they'll be supporting Scott are independents. So how do we energize(no pun intended)independents to get out and vote in numbers big enough to carry Scott to victory? My suggestion, Martha Coakley's support of cap and trade legislation.
We need the voters' of MA to know that Martha Coakley wants them to pay more to heat and light their homes, watch the Pats,C's,B's and Sox on the big screen and fill their gas tanks.

A sample ad: I'm sure the folks who get paid to do this kind of thing can come up with something much better.

A shot of a furnace as it comes rumbling to life. A sound all too familiar to Baystaters' this winter. Announcer, "Martha Coakley wants you to pay more to heat your home".

A shot of a lightbulb going on. Announcer, "Martha Coakley wants you to pay more for electricity".

A shot of someone pumping gas(it could even be Scott filling up his truck). Announcer, "Martha Coakley wants you to pay more for gas". Remember, then candidate Obama claimed to be fine with $4 gas. His only complaint is that it happened too quickly.

Then some quick numbers on the screen of the economic impacts of cap and trade(I recommend using those from Heritage).

End with Scott saying something along the lines of " Until the scientists' are 100% positive that it will do any good, I don't think Baystaters' should pay one penny more than they have too to keep warm this winter".

I believe that if we get independents' thinking voting for Coakley is going to cost them money every time the furnace kicks on, they'll show up at the polls and vote for Scott. Call it a benefit of having the election in the middle of winter.

Vote For Balance

There is an old adage that making legislation is like making sausage. Meaning the squeamish best look away if they want to enjoy the end product. However, there are and must be limits in both processes. What Majority leader Reid (D-NV) did to the process of legislating to get the health bill through the US Senate would turn even a strong-stomached butcher green at the gills.

Gone were the promises of open debate on C-Span. Instead we had a rushed debate against an arbitrary Christmas deadline. Why the rush? Because this bill is a monstrosity unworthy of the term reform.

For the first time in our history, Americans will be mandated to purchase health care or pay a fine to the federal government, the House version even has provisions to send people to jail. Once the government assumes the power to mandate behavior we are on a very slippery slope. Today they will mandate we purchase healthcare, tomorrow it could be mandates to buy a hybrid vehicle or fines for eating fast food.

This bill also engages in accounting that would make the folks at Enron blush. From the Congressional Budget Office(CBO):
"To describe the full amount of hospital insurance trust fund savings as both improving the government's ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government's fiscal position." That's called cooking the books. When you combine it with the 21% cut in payments to doctors' to the tune of $210 billion that they will then "fix" in seperate legislation, instead of modestly cutting the deficit in its first 10 years it actually adds over $300 billion. And the real kick in the pants, again from the CBO, this legislation will cause insurance premiums to increase faster than they would if Congress does nothing at all.

The aspect of this process that has justifiably received the most attention is Harry Reid's outright buying of votes with taxpayer money. Sen. Mary Landrieu received $300million for her vote, not bad considering Thomas Jefferson only paid the French $15 million (in 1803 dollars) for the original Louisiana purchase. In what has been called the "cornhusker kickback" Sen. Nelson (D-NE) has ensured that Nebraska will have its Medicaid tab picked up by the Feds forever while the other 49 states are facing a financial tsunami. Last but not least, ethically challenged Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) was allowed to sneak in a provision at the last minute for a mere $100 million for a little homestate pork to aid his flagging re-election chances.

None of this would be possible if Harry Reid didn't have a super-majority of 60 votes in the US Senate. The voters of MA have an opportunity to restore a bit of balance to our government by electing Scott Brown to the Senate and denying Harry Reid his super-majority. Keeping Harry Reid shy of 60 votes means that he will have to negotiate in good faith with Republicans(he calls us "evil-mongers") and the resulting legislation will be more palatable to the American public.

You can bet that if Reid keeps his super-majority he will use the same formula: hyper-partisanship, shady accounting and corrupt bargains in coming legislative battles. Cap and Trade, which represents a massive tax on energy consumption and comprehensive immigration reform ie. amnesty are already in the legislative pipeline. How's your stomach?

Is A Brown Win Possible?

I believe Scott Brown has a chance, albeit a slight one, to shock the political world on January 19th. Call this assessment one part innate republican optimism and one part observations from Ward 2, Newburyport on primary day.

For starters, the lack of intensity by democrats yesterday was simply stunning. MA hasn't had a Senate vacancy since 1984 and turnout was pathetic. What's behind the apathy? One theory expressed to the Daily News "I think it's because people aren't particularly excited about this race. They don't see a big difference in the candidates. They seem pleased with them all," Erickson said." I agree with the first part of this statement and think the second part is dead wrong. There wasn't a dimes worth of difference seperating the 4 democratic candidates on the major issues of this campaign and that's the problem.

If people are excited about a candidate they are going to express it by volunteering or at least showing up to the polls to vote. Yesterday, the only campaign that had folks holding signs was Scott Brown's. Admittedly, it was a bit chilly out there yesterday, but it wasn't unseasonably cold, it is December after all. This lack of excitement is the canary in the coal mine moment for the democrats and they ignore it at their peril.

The US Senate is currently debating legislation on: health care, energy, a potential second (jobs bill) stimulus and a promise/threat of taking up "immigration reform". If enacted these bills will transfer unprecedented power to the Federal government and registered democrats responded to this by staying home. If the majority of democrats in MA were excited by this agenda they would have voted in large numbers. The truth is that this agenda is only popular with the far left of the democratic party, even here in deep blue MA and independents are scared to death by it.

Some completely anecdotal, unscientific examples from yesterday. An independent voter approached me to tell me that he had voted for Scott. He also told me the guy at the desk told him he was requesting the "wrong ballot", just part of the joy of living in MA. Another told me he works for a small plumbing supply company and if the health care bill passes they will be forced to cut their employees from 55 down to 49. They don't want to do this, they simply can't afford to pay the mandates that will be imposed by this legislation.

So, how does all this help Scott? Martha Coakley will be campaigning on issues that only appeal to a small percentage of voters. If Scott Brown and this is a big if, can convince the independens that are a majority of voters in this state to cast a ballot for a republican, probably for the first time in their lives he has a fighting chance.

To give Scott a fighting chance the republicans in the US Senate need to stand up and fight instead of playing nice guy. This election needs to be fought on big issues. The principal one being a victory by Scott Brown denies the democrats 60 votes for the federal takeover of health care.