Left In Lowell

Folks expect your taxes to go down next year; because the majority of this new City Council believes that too many people’s property taxes went up this year, more than it should have (snark!). But as CC Rodney Elliott reminded everyone, if you want to control taxes, you need to cut back on your budget. The lengthy discussion was the result of two motions on the issue of “Overvaluation/Abatement Applications” and “FY 07 Property Valuation Process.”

I am looking forward to the June discussions, when the CC will really have the opportunity to help keep our taxes low. It is easy to speak about taxes in January; it is more difficult to do it when budget times comes around and you need to make the real difficult decisions; like lay-offs.

In my opinion, some of the CC members tried to diminish the low tax rate increase (+2.6%) that was reflected in the chart distributed by this administration. So, the CM will provide similar charts for the previous years (avg +6%).

Oh, by the way, Lowell finally likes something that Chelmsford does and wants this Administration to implement it! The former Town Manager of Chelmsford had put in place a tax bill form (full of details and easy to read) that the City Council now wants the current City Manager of Lowell to implement. (more…)

I wonder…is there a silver lining after eight years of Bush, should the country overwhelmingly come out and “vote for change”? (If Obama’s poll numbers bear out - NH could be a blowout, and SC is looking good too).

So let’s look forward, though we don’t know the outcome of the election. Let’s say a “change” candidate Democrat (Edwards or probably Obama at this point) gets into the White House. Are our allies overseas so eager to bring us back into the fold, that we could get a lot more than average accomplished? Even with a win for Hillary, with the fondness the world had for Bill Clinton and his active role in foreign affairs…I think if our Democratic winner were to jumpstart a frantic foreign diplomacy campaign starting in January 2009 to fix our reputation with our allies, and even our enemies, we could witness a leap forward in world relations unseen since the second World War.

An involved Democratic president could finally solve the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Or broker a lasting political solution in Iraq, make some progress with Iran, or reopen a dialog with North Korea. After eight years of saber rattling and uninformed bluster from Bush, will the world’s leaders breath a collective sigh of relief and roll up their sleeves?

Such a euphoria, should it occur, would be short lived. After all, it happened with a vengeance after 9/11, where the world - including Iran - overwhelmingly sympathized with us, which Bush more than squandered. But with someone in charge poised to capitalize on that short window, perhaps serious progress could be made. Enough, even, to make up for the wasted years of George W. Bush. As Bush erased the Clinton era, we would be best served to erase and renounce the Bush presidency as quickly as possible.

There’s a political debate raging everywhere, in particular on Tony’s post. Not about different health care proposals or poll bounces. Nope, it’s about whether or not Hillary Clinton really shed those tears.

For my own part, I suspect the tears were sincere, but to me it seemed more like the stress of her tailspinning campaign is getting to her and I think that may have had a hand in it.

I do sympathize with Clinton, despite the fact I do not want her as our nominee. The question she must have had to ask herself when she entered politics on her own terms is, “Do I act extra-tough because I need to prove that it doesn’t matter that I’m a woman?” But when she does, she winds up acting out of expectations for a woman (ie, people start calling her “bitchy”), therefore making her less electable or attractive (less human).

It’s a stupid, stupid world, where these questions are asked. To my mind, she should be able to be herself, whatever that is, and not have to worry about expectations of being the first woman with a real shot at the White House. But there it is. It’s a hard balancing act, and as she has taken on the mantle of “war hawk” in the Dem primary, she leaned towards “tough” instead of “feminine.” Then when she exhibits emotions, everyone leaps on her. She can’t win.

Truth to tell, this silly teargate is less important (for me, in choosing a candidate) than her actual votes in the Senate or her Establishment hawkishness or neoliberal economic policies or her taking lobbyist money. I only wish the MEDIA, and by extension the American people, were as capable of setting aside the stupid expectations of our glass-ceiling society and looking at the candidates carefully.

Maybe that’s the case. The media throws itself into a tizzy because of the tears…were they faked or calculated…is she showing her female (aka “soft”) side finally? But I think the voters in New Hampshire, and indeed in Iowa before and in the states after, know in general they are looking for “change,” and know in general that she is Old Guard. Maybe we’ll have a real democracy despite ourselves.

And the media will be left scratching its head trying to analyze it all.