Left In Lowell

Kudos on Senator Brown for voting for the (meager, filled with Republican pork aka useless tax cuts) jobs bill that came up for a vote recently. Of course, he wasn’t the swing vote, since several Senate Republicans voted for it, so it hardly shows a pattern of bucking Republican directives, but it’s worth noting.

However, I wonder where Senator Brown stands on the unemployment and COBRA extension bills now being filibustered by his colleague, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY)? Bunning is insisting that existing stimulus funding go toward the benefits, which expire Sunday unless Congress extends them. Get that? People on unemployment will go without, and the jobs stimulus money which might be able to put them to work would be stolen for their benefits. This time, the Dems are making Bunning stand and actually filibuster. (Thank goodness, they found a spine somewhere!) As John says (bold mine),

This idiot wants us to use the stimulus funds that haven’t yet been spent, but are about to be spent. By CBO’s estimate, up to 3.5 million jobs are depending on the stimulus for their existence this coming year. This moron wants to wipe that out. The economy isn’t out of trouble yet. A lot of economist worry that the economy may contract again the fall. Taking back the remaining stimulus funds while the economy is still teetering, i.e., decreasing demand, is insane.

So, when cloture comes up, Senator Brown, are you voting with the people of Massachusetts depending on both jobs growth and unemployment to hold them over until they get there? Or are you a Republican?

Update: Sigh. I take it back. It’s not a “real” filibuster, though the Dems are reportedly going to repeatedly ask for “unanimous consensus” to try to pass the bill. I say, keep the Senate open all weekend, and again, MAKE the guy ACTUALLY filibuster. I really do hate the Dems sometimes.

Update II: Oh my lord. This is a quote from Bunning:

And at one point during the debate, which dragged on till nearly midnight, Bunning complained of missing a basketball game.

“I have missed the Kentucky-South Carolina game that started at 9:00,” he said,
“and it’s the only redeeming chance we had to beat South Carolina since they’re the only team that has beat Kentucky this year.

Screw you unemployed, and can we have a break? I need to go potty and watch some basketball. God damn.

Update III: I take it back. I really. Really. Really hate Democrats. WAKE UP YOU PANSIES! Gah. I hope none of my readers are on extended unemployment, because there’s a good chance you’ll lose it come Sunday, if this impasse is not broken.

I was a bit perplexed by last night’s Finance Sub-Committee (CC R. Elliott (Chair); K. Broderick and J. Mendonca) meeting . The Sun had an article about this meeting agenda focusing solely on the “meal tax.” I did not remember who and when the motion was made to discuss this issue at the Sub-Committee meeting. Apparently, the whole thing was triggered by a letter from the town City of Methuen asking Lowell what their plans are on this issue.

Most of the 1-hour or so meeting did focus on an update on the FY 2010 Budget. (Here is the link to the bliptv/LTC broadcast). Both CM Bernie Lynch and CFO Tom Moses provided the CC with an update and answered questions. If I am not mistaken, it appears that things are o.k. for this year.

Then Chair Rodney Elliott raised the issue of the potential local meals’ tax. Currently, the State charges 6.25% meal tax and has given cities/towns the option to add on an additional 0.75%. That is $0.75 for every $100 you spent. This is when the discussion got interesting. First of all, CM Lynch reiterated that at “this time he does not have a proposal, still not sure what he will do; they are working through the budget.” CC Elliott is correct in asking that this issue be vetted out before the budget is presented as it was last year. But as the CM stated last year, there was a lot of uncertainty about local aid and the administration had to make some assumptions in its budget. I think this but issue should be discussed during budget season along with all the other budget issues and probably during a full Council meeting.

I have stated in the past that I favor the City Council passing this local option; if it means maintaining a certain level of service, why not?

Did you ever wonder why those who are quick to tell us that Lowellians are running to New Hampshire to buy their alcohol because of high taxes here do not present the counter argument that New Hampshirites rush to Massachusetts to eat because the meal tax in the Granite State is 9% and here in Massachusetts, it is no more than 7%.

Back to the meeting, CC Elliott and CM Lynch had an interesting exchange. Here is a clip:

It is pretty simple, your revenues have to match your expenses. Either you increase your revenue or you decrease your expenses. It is not complicated. And as far as the politics of budget decisions… please. Didn’t CC Elliott take part in a budget decision last year that reeked of politics? It would be nice to think that all budget decisions made by the CM and the CCs are based solely on good governance and not politics; but no one is that naïve.

I think that CM Lynch is right when he stated this morning, during his regular Wednesday morning segment on WCAP, that last year there was not the political will in the CC to adopt the local meal tax. And I am not sure if there is the will or desire this year either. My guess is no but this City Council better come up with some creative way to pay for the health benefits, sick day buy- outs and pensions that were approved by previous CCs without a drastic cut in services.

It has been a few years since I had written about Bob Katzen’s Beacon Hill Roll Call but today at work I saw a copy of the Sun on the cafeteria table and it was opened to page 4, where Mr. Katzen’s column appeared.

As I had written back in 2007 “The report “provides an unbiased summary of bills and amendments, arguments from floor debate on both sides of the issue and each legislator’s vote or lack of vote on the matter.” Today’s column discussed the per diem state representatives received in 2009.

I knew that representatives receive a per diem for mileage, food and lodging expenses (nice deal if you can get it) and that the amount is based on how far you have to travel but I did not know that not all Representative turn in their invoices to be reimbursed.

And as far as our three local reps, Rep. Tom Golden is one of the representatives who did not apply for the money. There is no time limit so he may at a later date but I would think if he did not do it by now, he won’t.

Rep. Kevin Murphy received per diem for 67 days, totaling $1,742 for 67 days and Rep. David Nangle received per diem for 159 days, totaling $4,134.

I can see giving some kind of traveling expense for those reps who live on Nantucket or in the Berkshires but why do we need to offer reimbursement to all of them.

Two weeks ago during the regular scheduled City Council meeting, the Councilor did a bit of self-analysis. Here is a short clip of the exchange between CC B. Caulfield and Mayor J. Millinazzo regarding the issue:

So, should a CC member express his/her opinion on an issue prior to a “public hearing”?

This was the issue that triggered the discussion and concluded with the CC asking the City Solicitor for an interpretation of this Council “rule.” But it is common sense that if you are going to deliberate on a topic and you are requesting the public’s input, you should have an open mind but it should not be an empty mind.

I assume that once the City Solicitor issues her opinion, the matter will be moved to the Rules Sub-Committee for further discussion and the CC can define a set of rules they can all understand, accept and follow.

At the end of the day, the problem is not that one has an opinion; the real problem is that one discusses the issue publicly outside of the hearing. The discussion is then moved to the pages of the newspaper, the radio airwaves, local access TV and blogs and the narrative is constructed more often than not incomplete and inaccurate facts.

There are a lot of reasons to shake your head at this clip, not the least of which is that Senator Brown compares the anger towards government that the pilot in Texas apparently felt committing an act of murder there, to it being related somehow to his getting elected, but our junior Senator really outdoes himself in the empty suit promise of his campaign with this quote (relevant crazy in bold):

The way we’re trying to deal with things and have been in the past at least until I got here is there is such a log jam in Washington and people want us to do better, they want us to solve the problems that are affecting the American a very real way.

Considering you ran as a Republican, and the Republicans are the and only reason that nothing is getting done in Washington, and that you’ve already contributed to the Party of No on blocking a perfectly good nominee to the National Labor Relations Board (good lord, a labor lawyer on the Labor Board! No! Nooooooo!), I think this quote from Brown on Fixed News is pretty damn ballsy.

Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, our Savior in Washington. He’ll … block more votes for you. Nice. Folks, you elected him! Pottery Barn rule…you bought it, you broke it. Enjoy its fruits. And learn better next time! You get another opportunity in 2012.

Thursday, Feb. 18 at 7PM at The Old Court (upstairs), $5 at the door. Brought to you by the Lowell Film Collaborative.

I am not sure what the School Superintendent hopes will occur differently when we go back out there to search for the new Lowell High School headmaster.

Today’s Lowell Sun has the article by Jennifer Myers’ Search continues for LHS headmaster which gives you the background story.

Lowell was not successful in finding a suitable Headmaster for LHS. Why did we not get more than 13 applicants? No one is sure. Tonight during their regular scheduled bi-weekly meeting, the Lowell School Committee heard the Superintendent’s report, which was followed by an extensive discussion.

I agree with School Committeeman Jim Leary, get a recruiter. The ads are going to be placed in the same publications. Who are we going to attract that we did not before?

There was a lot of, and I mean, a lot of discussion on the salary range. There is a school of thought (excuse the pun) that the small difference between what the current headmaster makes and what the leaders of his team at LHS make is so low that it is obvious that a lot of qualified individuals probably said, I do not need that headache.

The Committee gave the Superintendent a couple of potential options: recruiter or change the salary. And then there is the issue of “restructuring” the leadership team at LHS.

What is disturbing about this search and its “failure” and here I echo School Committeewoman Alison Laraba, we should be able to find someone who has drive, ambition and wants the challenge; and let the salary be secondary. Where is that person?

As a taxpayer and a LHS alumni it is a bit frustrating that we knew years ago that the current Headmaster was going to retire; of course, he kept moving the date and we got rid of Karla because she wanted to bring about the change. But here we are about 4 months away from his retirement date and we do not have anyone to lead the high school.

I don’t think the Greater Lowell Technical High School Committee (GLTHS) gets it. The majority of its membership seems to be tone deaf. First there was the outrageous contract of the current GLTHS Superintendent and now is the search process for his replacement.

This past Saturday, School Committee member George O’Hare, one of the four Lowell representatives, was on the Warren Shaw show on WCAP. Warren had invited O’Hare to discuss the selection process for the Superintendent of GLTHS.

Mr. O’Hare, who sounds like a nice gentleman, does not seem to understand what the furor is about. For example, in response to having stake holders participate in the process, therefore assuring diversity, he listed the professions of the School Committee members.

Thanks in part to the aggressive reporting of the Lowell Sun’s Erin Smith and to the watchdog efforts of Move Lowell Forward, the GLTHS Committee has come under close scrutiny. I do not think this oversight will slow down either.
 
Bottom line is that there is a distrust of the judgment and with some, the motive, of the majority of this GLTHS Committee. The concern is that after an “extensive and exhaustive” search, an insider will get the job, not because they are the best qualified but because they are an insider.

The Lowell Sun column (cannot link to it because the paper has chosen not to provide this popular item free of charge on line) had a lengthy piece on the Lowell Housing Authority (LHA) Board of Commissioners, specifically the seat currently held by James Hall. You may need a score card to understand the players, the motivation, the intrigue, the machination…Lowell politics at its best or at its worst, depending on your point of view.

Here is the short version: Hall’s appointment expired last month. This particular commissioner appointment is made by the Governor. Mr. Hall used to be a registered Republican, now is a registered Democrat. Meanwhile, Bob McMahon used to be on the LHA Board but when his term was up, the current City Manager did not re-appoint him. Mr. McMahon, who is currently the Manager of the SAC Club, wants his seat back and he has solicited the aid of his son and others to lobby the current governor. I know I am not doing justice to the piece in the Column. You really should read it to get the full flavor.

The Column makes reference to “local Democrats…ramping up the pressure.” It is not clear to me if they are ramping up the pressure to remove Hall and re-appoint McMahon or simply to remove Hall. Also, I am not sure who these “local Democrats” are. And who decides who is the “good” Democrat? I understand how politics works, you appoint your allies. I hope whoever the Governor chooses, it is someone with some credentials, not merely someone who wants to get on the Board so that they can beat up on the Executive Director.

Rachel Maddow puts it in stark, unblinking terms: there is no such thing as a reasonable elected Republican. That sounds like rhetoric, but seriously…time and again, the Republicans appear to be for some policy or other…only to vote no when Obama and the Democrats bring it up. Even their own policies, that they themselves came up with or supported on the record. This is a must-see. I’m not kidding - even if you think you are a moderate “above” such politicking, you need to know exactly what is going on in Congress.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy