Left In Lowell

First I want to commend City Councilor Bud Caulfield for making the announcement that he will not seek re-election as soon as he decided. He could have waited but he did not therefore allowing enough time for possible challengers to make plans to run for this open seat. I know all seats are open but in reality the incumbents have a distinct advantage. And as Dick reminded us this week, the election season in Lowell begins on St. Patrick’s Day. I will discuss his 24 years of public service at a later time.

And with this announcement on the Sun’s web site this morning, we finally see a Lowell rumor that is true. Word had begun to go around late last week but with all Lowell political rumors, you really need to wait.

It seems that less and less people want to run for elected office. And as much as certain people want to blame the scrutiny of new media (bloggers) or the coverage of old media (newspapers) for lack of challengers, the issue is much more complex.

First, the time and effort that a local official has to put into his position as a City Councilor is in effect a second job that often encroaches on your career. So, if you are not self-employed or a retired, it must be so difficult to balance a demanding career with your obligations as a City Councilor. And more importantly you have to perform your public duties while trying not to compromise your personal responsibilities to your family. In my opinion, those are the primary reasons why we do not get a flood of challengers these days. And let’s not forget that you need to raise money to run an election. Not an easy task.

Next Tuesday, March 8th, the Lowell City Council Rules Sub-Committee will meet to discuss motions that were introduced on the Council floor regarding municipal elections and increasing civic participation. There are a number of ideas being thrown around, including lowering the voting age for municipal elections, at large districts, changing the election calendar and increasing the stipend local elected officials receive. I think they all merit a healthy discussion.

I know there is a group of loosely affiliated individuals (I am not involved) who are pushing to have this discussion take place not so much because they are pushing this or that agenda but simply because they believe that greater civic participation brings about positive results to the community.

You know what to do today. Go exercise your democratic rights. (Update - find out where you vote and see a ballot preview here!)

Having been so busy lately (teaching, business, etc) I haven’t had much time to post about this election. But suffice to say, I am an enthusiastic NO on all three ballot questions. If any of these pass, we will see a regression in our state, and you will not like the results.

Regarding question one (return of the alcohol exemption) and question three (rollback of the sales tax to 3%), the last thing we need to do in the middle of a time of reduced revenues due to economic woes nationwide is to reduce revenues further by gutting taxes. Yes, math still works the way you were taught in school.

Look, no one loves paying taxes. Everyone would love to have that that $1.25 back on your $20 purchase. However, is that worth seeing more teachers laid off, fewer police, and longer lines at the RMV? We’ve cut the fat, folks, long ago. In fact, Patrick has done a lot to reform the state government - including state transportation department consolidation, which Republican governors have been talking about for years and never accomplished. We’ve started cutting the bone during this recession. Further reducing revenues is suicidal. Forget all the progress we’ve made on jobs, green initiatives, and our kids’ education if we have to cut more essential programs.

With regards to the alcohol tax rollback: don’t listen to the alcohol lobby that you are being “double taxed” on alcohol. What a lot of freaking whining! The excise tax is on volume and is so minuscule, it’s hardly even noticeable - if the excise tax were repealed, prices would hardly change at all. Most other states have a sales tax that applies to alcohol, alongside an excise tax. What the longstanding tax exemption on alcohol was, was a gift and a giveaway. Alcohol is not an essential purchase, so why the hell was it exempt? It should be subject to the same tax that is on all other nonessential goods.

On the sales tax reduction - really, you’re going to save about $3 on a $100 purchase. And remember, sales tax is not applied to most essentials in MA - clothing (unless you buy expensive Gucci) or groceries, for a start. A huge chunk of our discretionary spending budget comes from the sales tax. Is that worth seeing hundreds of teachers laid off? Or unsafe streets? The sales tax cut would be worth a loss of $20 million dollars to Lowell alone, if the cut were applied in full to local aid and Chapter 70 monies from the state. How many city services and school programs do you think $20 million would cut? And since it looks impossible, politically, for Congress to pass another stimulus bill next year, we will be losing the ARRA funding, which has been floating much of our state deficit from reduced tax receipts - our state would be further devastated by the loss of over half the sales tax.

On question 2, the elimination of comprehensive permitting to build affordable housing, also has a regressive result. Of course, many people are frustrated with this law and how it is applied in our communities. However, the repeal of it will have a devastating effect on families who need affordable housing. I don’t have to tell you we have some damned expensive housing costs here in MA. It’s a side effect of our leading-the-nation prosperity. The more people in the middle class and up can afford, the more expensive housing is. The more dense the jobs and opportunity, the more the demand for housing. For those who are in jobs that do not have the same level of opportunity, or for those who are underemployed, disabled, or retired with no savings, the availability of affordable housing is paramount to their survival.

Affecting how difficult is it to build affordable housing in Massachusetts means keeping some families out of the prosperity. That’s not what our state is all about. Maybe the law needs reform (and maybe it doesn’t), but eliminating it is no way to do it. It will only hurt some of our most vulnerable citizens. We’re better than that.

So, I will vote no to all three of the ballot questions. I wish we didn’t have to keep having the same damn debate over revenues and taxes - it’s exhausting to constantly have to defend what is undesirable by any human being. Where’s our ballot question enacting positive initiatives?? But as Governor Patrick has always said, we have to decide what we want government to do, and then decide how to pay for it. Ignoring the reality (and basic math) of the situation to vote for something that feels good now but will hurt us in the long run is just stupid.

Via a friend on facebook, I think this is worth a long full read. It reminds me of Sam Harris’ take on moderate religious people, who, in taking religion off the discussion table, enable the unreasonable far religious right to continue. Only, on the caricaturization of the left, maybe we lefties are actively helping it along.

I don’t begrudge the “coffee movement” or the Stewart/Colbert rally their request for less shrillality - or their satire and humor about it. However, I do have the same worries as Hedges:

The American left is a phantom. It is conjured up by the right wing to tag Barack Obama as a socialist and used by the liberal class to justify its complacency and lethargy. It diverts attention from corporate power. It perpetuates the myth of a democratic system that is influenced by the votes of citizens, political platforms and the work of legislators.

By cartooning ourselves with humor, perhaps we are helping the far right continue the charade of “lefty radicals among us” even though they have no idea what the definition really is.

The loss of a radical left in American politics has been catastrophic. The left once harbored militant anarchist and communist labor unions, an independent, alternative press, social movements and politicians not tethered to corporate benefactors. But its disappearance, the result of long witch hunts for communists, post-industrialization and the silencing of those who did not sign on for the utopian vision of globalization, means that there is no counterforce to halt our slide into corporate neofeudalism. This harsh reality, however, is not palatable. So the corporations that control mass communications conjure up the phantom of a left. They blame the phantom for our debacle. And they get us to speak in absurdities.

Reasonableness in the face of annihilation (of the middle class, of our global climate, of science) is, essentially, rolling onto our backs and letting the loud shouters on the right step on our necks heads. We already know they are capable of it. “Do not go gentle into that goodnight” wrote Thomas. “Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”

If we stop raging in some sort of capitulation to the “be nice, stop fighting” crowd, then we automatically lose. All of us. As Hedges puts it,

The two comics evoked the phantom left, as the liberal class always does, in defense of moderation, which might better be described as apathy. If the right wing is crazy and if the left wing is crazy, the argument goes, then we moderates will be reasonable. We will be nice. Exxon and Goldman Sachs, along with predatory banks and the arms industry, may be ripping the guts out of the country, our rights—including habeas corpus—may have been revoked, but don’t get mad. Don’t be shrill. Don’t be like the crazies on the left.

Moderate, in this country, appears to be a definition of “between the left and the right.” But actual moderate philosophy is quite different. It’s the public option in the health care bill - a total compromise from what is truly “left.” I don’t think you’ll get a single moderate to say we should defund public schools or ignore the problems of global climate change. And yet, when we on the left call for such things, fight for them, we’re called “shrill” by the people cartooning the debate.

I will admit the debate has been cartooned by unreasonable people. However, the unreasonableness is largely one-sided. Let’s call a spade a spade and please, finally, admit this fact.

And remember this: people are not inspired by a vision of moderation and reasonableness. They don’t go out and vote for it, no matter what they say to pollsters. They want leadership, vision, and a sense that the person they are voting for has conviction. And even that this leader will fight for these things.

One final thought:

The modern spectacle, as the theorist Guy Debord pointed out, is a potent tool for pacification and depoliticization. It is a “permanent opium war” which stupefies its viewers and disconnects them from the forces that control their lives.

In the movie Gladiator, Gracchus, a Senator of Rome, says of the tyrant Commodus, “I think he knows what Rome is. Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them and they’ll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they’ll roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the senate, it’s the sand of the coliseum. He’ll bring them death - and they will love him for it.”

Are we still the democratic United States of America? Or are we Rome? I think the jury’s still out on that one. There is coming to our nation a crossroads, one we have experienced in the past. Do we allow the rich so large a chunk of our economy (the greatest since 1928), or do we level the playing field for those not fortunate to be born to wealth? Do we try and salvage some semblance of our world ecology, or do we let global climate change play havoc with humanity in thirty years? Do we lead, or do we blindly follow our corporate masters who gut our freedoms - indeed, coopt them for themselves - while they keep us entertained and distracted by the death and glory of gladiators on the sand?

In other words, it’s the suckiest paper ever. Sorry to the reporters I like there, but that rag is sheer crap. I wouldn’t use it to line a birdcage - it’d be an insult to the bird shit.

Dick Howe outlines the disgusting, pathetic, and useless attack (in other words, employing completely made up outrage) on a veteran in order to score political points against Niki Tsongas.

Essentially, it is a made up scandal, based on the fact that a vet supporting Niki who praised her work on the GI bill is the son of famous-y (sort of) people. So, you know, he might not really have needed the GI bill to get ahead. WTF?? In what universe is it OK to attack a vet for coming home and using what he earned in combat (two wars, and a Bronze Star for valor) to make sure that his future isn’t grim? I’ll follow Dick’s lead and not even link to the ugly thing.

(Also, has the mental midget editor of the Lowell Sun looked at the cost of college lately? Frigging moron. I didn’t think it was possible for you to sink much lower, but I am big enough to admit when I am wrong.)

Go read Dick Howe’s post - it’s a lot more coherent than mine, I am just in outrage here. As should any patriotic American be.

I will ask one question however…Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

With every general election, voters are faced with a series of ballot question. This year we have 3 of them. You should have received in the mail the booklet from the Secretary of States’ office (with Galvin’s name prominently printed on the front) Information for Voters summarizing the three proposed Initiative Petitions. The information is also available on line at the Secretary of State web site. You may also want to check out the Ballotpedia page on the Massachusetts 2010 ballot measures.

Question #1 removes taxes on purchase of alcohol and Question #3 reduces the sales tax percentage. I think Question #2 is the more interesting and complex one; the proponent of this ballot question want to repeal what is popularly known as “40B.”

Chapter 40B is a state statute, which enables local Zoning Boards of Appeals to approve affordable housing developments under flexible rules if at least 20-25% of the units have long-term affordability restrictions.

I had pretty much decided to vote no on this question but yesterday I met the individual who is the driving force of this initiative, John Belskis, chairman of the Coalition to Repeal 40B. Belskis was on the Warren Shaw show on WCAP to discuss his efforts to repeal this law. He informed me that he has been trying for 9 years to reform the law and after seeing forty bills in the State Legislature never leave committee, he decided to take this route.

There is an active group of individuals and organizations, opposing the repeal of this law, Protect Affordable Housing.

Every election cycle, I am always amazed how much money is spent on the campaign to pass or repeal a particular ballot questions. What was black and white yesterday is grey today. But we do have 5 weeks to better inform myself and try to make the right decision.

Apologies in advance for the slightly shaky cam and how dark it is. I had to hold my Evo up over my head to get a decent shot, and the lighting in there isn’t great. (I suppose if I thought I’d have the battery life for sure, I’d have turned on the LED flashes…)

Update: Dick’s post.

An open thread and live blogging thread.

So far they are saying 2:1 for Eileen in Lowell, that she is winning Westford and Groton.

Also, Cobblestones is filling up fast!

Just spotted Rep Arciero, Mayor Milinazzo, C. Roderick, C. Murphy, C. Mendonca, C. Descouteaux. Also SC Jim Leary.

Also, there isn’t a spot left on the floor, it’s so crowded.

And Bill Martin.

9:21 - Word is, Eileen win every precinct in the district save one.

Sorry, busy chatting. Eileen spoke, I got video, will post later.

FYI just found SC Jackie Doherty (no relation). Also CM Lynch.

Here’s SC Connie Martin and her sister Leslie. :

Official #s from Lowell…

Patrick: 4371; Murray: 4635; Coakley: 4841; Galvin: 4820;

Treasurer race: Grossman: 2635 to Murphy: 2936;

Auditors race: Bump: 2765 to Glodis: 1810 to Lake: 986. Tsongas: 4891.

Gov’s Council race: Devaney: 1191 to Belanger: 3988.

State Senate…drum roll please…Donoghue: 4241 to Doherty: 2387.

In case you were not aware, this Tuesday is primary election day for the state of Massachusetts, and we’ve got a state Senate primary goin’ on!

GOTV is in full swing at Donoghue HQ, so if you are a supporter and you want Eileen to win on Tuesday, head on down to the campaign office at 73 East Merrimack St. in Lowell. If you want more information, call the office at 978-601-8898, or email the campaign at donoghueforsenate@gmail.com.

They are doing lit drops and GOTV (get out the vote, for all you newbies!) call reminders for supporters to make sure they get to the polls. Maybe we bloggeres and readers are all plugged in and tuned in, but the average voter has a lot on their minds and sometimes need a reminder. Come on in and they’ll put you to work! I’ll be heading in after the Pats game and putting some time in on Tuesday as well, so I hope to see you there!

Go Eileen! And go Pats!

Oops!

On a different note, as much as the inner partisan in me is gleeful at the prospect of less Republican representation, this is really, ultimately, going to hurt the most vulnerable among us - funding for schools, roads, and all other essential services is based on the census data in large part. That is because that’s the fair way to apportion funding - a straight up counting of people. So, I am sad that there’s a distinct possibility that some counties will be undercounted, and hence, underserved. I would advise against failing to return your census data, except of course, none of the far right would listen to me on that score.

Oh great masters of finance, lead us. (Yes, that’s sarcasm.)

The Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance strikes down a particular law in Massachusetts. So yes, Virginia, that ruling will affect elections as we know it.

(The title and first line, FYI, refers to David’s title, “Allow me to be the first to formally welcome our new corporate overlords.”)