Left In Lowell

The Patrick administration is announcing a couple more initiatives to get the state onto more efficient, renewable energy. From their press release:

Governor Deval Patrick has set two new goals for energy efficiency and renewable energy: making all new malls and “big box” retail stores energy efficient and powered in part by solar energy by 2010 and offering a super-efficient building code as a local option for municipalities looking to take the lead in combating global climate change.

With the U.S. Green Building Council’s Greenbuild International Conference under way at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center, Governor Patrick directed Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs to initiate a dialogue with the development community to put together the technical assistance, financing support, and regulatory standards to facilitate the universal adoption of solar power and super-efficient buildings for large retail stores and malls, typically greater than 50,000 square feet in size.
….
Secretary Bowles noted that there are already substantial financial incentives in place for solar power, but that only a few large retailers have taken advantage of them. These incentives include Commonwealth Solar, the state’s rebate program, which provides as much as 40 percent of the cost of a solar energy installation, and federal investment tax credits for solar installations, which were recently extended for another eight years.

“We want to work with the development community to make them aware of the opportunity they have before them in energy efficiency and solar energy, and work with them to find out what they need to take advantage of that opportunity,” said Secretary Bowles. “Malls and big box stores have big flat roofs that are naturals for solar power, and Governor Patrick wants to see them put to use generating clean, renewable energy.”
In addition, Governor Patrick has asked staff at the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and the Department of Public Safety to develop a super-efficient energy code for consideration by the Board of Building Regulations and Standards as a local option for municipalities that want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from development in their communities.

Under the Green Communities Act, the comprehensive energy reform bill signed by the Governor in July, Massachusetts is required to incorporate the latest version of the International Energy Conservation Code in its building code within one year of its adoption. The IECC approved its 2009 standards in September, and the BBRS is expected to update the Massachusetts energy code to include these standards sometime next year.

The new law also allows the BBRS to adopt standards event more stringent than the IECC, and Governor Patrick proposes the Board do so by creating a second, super-efficient code that local officials could adopt as a local option.

“The state is already adopting the highest standards of energy efficiency for its building code, but some municipalities would like to go further,” said Governor Patrick. “An alternative code that is 20 to 30 percent more efficient they can adopt as an option will give cities and towns the tool they are looking for to reduce their community’s carbon footprint as development moves forward.”

This “stretch” code, which will be presented to the BBRS for adoption in the coming months, will be based on established national voluntary above-code efficiency standards that have shown themselves to be cost-effective in producing energy savings, such as the Energy Star For Homes program and the New Buildings Institute’s “Core Performance” program for commercial properties. As an optional addendum to the state building code, the stretch code would be voted on by the BBRS following a public hearing. Once approved by the BBRS, any municipality choosing to adopt the stretch code would have to do so by a vote of town meeting or city council.

So, if there’s more solar going up on all new big retail and mall buildings, adding energy to the power grid, and many cities and towns adopt the more stringent building codes, there’s no need to build more polluting power plants. If we can reduce our usage in this state (and there are a lot of low-hanging fruits to achieve this quite quickly), then this state should have to host NO NEW traditional power plants ever again. Maybe even start thinking of closing some older, seriously carbon-polluting dinosaurs. Right?

This myth that “well, the future isn’t here yet so we still need to build CO2-producing power plants in the interim in order to sustain the current system” is bull. Don’t listen to it. You’d be surprised how rapid the tipping point towards lessening our dependence on fossil fuels will come with the right initiatives in place. I mean, do you like paying more every year for natural gas to heat your home? I sure as hell don’t. The fault for that lies at higher demand for supplies…because more natural gas power plants like the one proposed in Billerica are being built. I say it’s high time to stop the insanity.

David outlines how the article claimed by DiMasi to protect his records from investigation is, well, no such thing.

What is clear from the text of [Article 21] is that even if it does apply, it does not somehow require DiMasi to keep the records secret. Nor does it even appear to entitle him to do so. To the contrary, the main purpose of the Article is to shield legislators from civil or criminal liability for things that they say in public, on the floor of the legislature.

So that’s pretty much that. Article 21 reads:

The freedom of deliberation, speech and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.

David’s seems to be quite a reasonable interpretation of the Article. It appears to be a protection of legislators to say things in debate and not expect to be prosecuted. How it would protect personal records is beyond me. Though I guess the state Supreme Court will have to weigh in on that one.

The frustrating thing about this is, if there isn’t any wrongdoing here, this whole secretive thing is undermining confidence in the House, in the leadership, and jeopardizes DiMasi’s hold on the Speakership. Presumably he’s doing this in order to protect his leadership (whether actually guilty, appearing guilty but actually innocent, or completely innocent). If on one hand he is guilty, well, I guess we’ll have to ferret this out the hard way. If innocent, however, protecting himself in this manner (ie, acting guilty) is only likely to lose him the leadership. Of course if he’s found to have done something wrong I want him gone. But if he goes, and we find out this was a trumped-up witch hunt, we’re going to regret it, and to a large extent, it’ll be his own damn fault.

Ryan posits (and is not the first to do so) that even this latest ethics story regarding Sal DiMasi is “spurious, at best” and that the Globe, and Sal’s detractors in the House, have demonstrated their pro-casino obsessions…are they linked?

It is definitely true that Sal has had people gunning for him, and those people are pro-slot/casino people. Those people are looking to gain the Speakership should he step down.

Then why, oh why, doesn’t Sal DiMasi just cooperate with the investigation and get it off the table and out of the news? If DiMasi didn’t do anything wrong, (and maybe he did, but maybe he didn’t), then this damage to his leadership isn’t helping us on the many fronts on which we need him to lead. Not the least of which are slots, which the racetrack people have renewed vigor and zest to push now that they can’t beat up on greyhounds for profit anymore.

People be aghast! Yes, I agree with this editorial in the Sun, that should there be a Senate vacancy…for any reason, though the current one regards Kerry’s potential resignation to join the Obama administration (how good that feels to type!)…a special election should be held for the voters to decide at least on some level who to replace him with.

Let’s face it - name recognition and a war chest (I can think of some current and former Reps, especially former, who have kept and/or raised money for this moment) in a special election will count for more than grassroots ground game. The turnaround on a special election is so short, no one can run a real campaign. I find this incredibly sad, but still better than the alternative - appointing someone for a nearly 6-year term, crowning them with incumbency which is a near-guarantee of reelection in 2014. Now, unlike the Sun leadership, I actually am happy the Dems control the state legislature, and even happier that we have the Governorship, and do trust Governor Patrick’s motivations and abilities to pick out a stellar candidate for the job - but that still doesn’t make it right. If anything, the special election law should be changed to make the campaign a longer one instead of a mere 160 days, so that we can truly have a real race. (Then again, most nations’ national elections are about that short - the US is the only place where people run for the top spot for over two years…)

PS - I do want to pick a nit with the editorial, however. It gives you the impression Patrick is pushing for appointment capability. He’s not - he said he’d be interested in doing it in the interest of saving money, but he’s not going to lobby for the case. Given that, it’s far more likely that the legislature changes the special elections law to give itself the capability to “elect” the next Senator rather than hand it over to Patrick. Also a bad move in my opinion.

Well, you can’t say Governor Patrick is sitting around on his hands with this ethics problem swirling around Beacon Hill. From a press release yesterday:

GOVERNOR PATRICK ESTABLISHES TASK FORCE ON PUBLIC INTEGRITY
Bi-Partisan Task Force Will Advise Governor on Ethics and Lobbying Reform

Governor Deval Patrick today signed an Executive Order forming the Governor’s Task Force on Public Integrity. The task force will examine the existing regulatory frameworks that govern ethics, lobbying and public employee conduct, and will seek input from public officials, experts and the public. The group will make recommendations within 60 days relative to legislation necessary to strengthen current laws, regulations, investigative and enforcement mechanisms, and penalties.

“We in public office are not entitled to our positions. We are placed here by voters to do the best we can on their behalf, and we are expected to conduct their business honestly and openly,” said Governor Patrick. “The members of this task force offer a broad range of professional backgrounds and experience. All of them share a commitment to ensuring the highest standards of honesty and public integrity.”

For more details, you can go here for the full press release (including the names of the people appointed to the 12-member task force) and the video/transcript of the speech.

Who knows if this will really do anything in the end (though I like the idea of this coming down to legislation the Governor introduces…at the very least, even if it fails, it’ll showcase the good guys and the bad in the legislature). But hey, it can’t hurt. It’s better than a kick to the head, anyway.

By the way, this task force includes getting input from the public, so if you have something productive to offer, please do. If you are one of those people who bitch and moan about the corruption on Beacon Hill and you don’t put your input in, I don’t ever want to hear you complain again, on this blog or anywhere. This is your chance to do something productive about this problem instead of just trying to run candidates against it. (That means you conservatives, too.) Of course, to my mind, those same people who do the most bitching are the ones that want to keep that corruption around - it strengthens their arguments against Big Government. If government actually worked really well (I argue that it already is headed there under progressives), then how would you convince people to be pissed off about it and vote for your guy? You might actually then have to run on the issues…heaven forfend.

As many of you know (ad infinitum), I have done some work in support of a few candidates this cycle, and in particular, for Jen Benson (Representative-Elect, 37th Middlesex) and Obama in NH. Now it is time to analyze the experience and share some thoughts I had in doing it.

Jen was running against a very negative candidate, who was willing to lie and distort her record and her positions, not only in his own literature (some of which he didn’t bother to even label as from him, due to some loophole), but also in the local media. Though this seat was previously held by a progressive Dem, whose values Jen shares, it was by no means a slam dunk that she would win this election. There are several small towns in the district, many of which go Republican as much as Democrat.

I arrived a week and a half before Election Day to do my afternoon of phone banking for Jen, as promised, and took up a packet or two of Unenrolled in Harvard, MA. I didn’t say it then (for “stategery” reasons), but I felt really good about Jen’s chances after that day, both from the results of the phone bank and from watching her campaign in action.

First, the phone numbers in the packet were about as good as I’d ever seen. Maybe it’s a town with less transient residents than our area, but I scarcely got a bad number all day. So that is lesson #1 - get the best phone/address lists you can possibly get. It wastes less time for your volunteers, for one. Secondarily, I didn’t find a single supporter for Kurt Hayes the whole time (and no one else there that day did either) and plenty for Jen. So that made me feel pretty optimistic.

But the real reason I am writing this post is the campaign I witnessed on Election Day itself. That day, I met campaign manager Mike Mackin, who was running the show from Benson HQ. I found out that he was something of a rookie in the position; but I can tell you, he certainly was not acting like one.

The campaign had a strategy that ran like a textbook grassroots program: by the time election day had rolled around, they had canvass- and phone-banked-ID’ed your typical likely Dem voters, your Unenrolled, and even, the so-called “Lazy Dems” - the infrequent registered voters. Now, the Benson campaign had the fortune of landing in a presidential year, when more voters typically show up, as well as in Obama’s year, when turnout reached record levels, even in our “safe Obama state.” I suspect Jen did get a percentage point or two more because of this effect (though she still would have handily won). However, that does not mean that this campaign wasn’t prepared for any turnout scenario.

What struck me was that they had, along with GOTV calls and visibility outside the polls, observers at every polling place checking off the voters who had come in (which is allowed). The plan was that they would compile a list of the Benson-ID’ed voters by early afternoon who had not yet voted and send out a squad of canvassers knock on the doors of these supporters, asking them personally to come out and vote. I myself was on the list of volunteers scheduled to canvass. Now, by happenstance and a good year for Dems, so many of those people had come out to vote that the afternoon canvass became unnecessary. But the volunteer canvassers were lined up to do their jobs should they be needed.

I had a similar experience with the Obama campaign in NH - this was an expert campaign in an atmosphere that can, and often is, very chaotic. They too ran a completely traditional, grassroots campaign where boots on the ground matter more than money in the bank (though money helps hire organizers). They had the right emphasis on the former, such that the latter (the small donors) snowballed into record amounts of donors and donations.

It was evident to me from both my experiences with the Benson campaign and the Obama NH operation that they had planned and executed a great grassroots strategy to get out the vote. And in both cases, this was coupled with a positive campaign that just kept plugging along with its message no matter what the Hayes or McCain campaigns barfed up; you can see why Jen did so well in the 37th Middlesex, and Obama in the electoral college. If our goal as progressive Democrats is to elect more and better Democrats, we also want more and better campaigns. To my eye, that’s exactly what we got with Jen Benson and Obama, and I can sincerely say they both earned their wins last Tuesday.

Last of all, I want to say congratulations to Jen Benson and to Mike Mackin. They should be really proud of the campaign they waged. (And they probably will sleep for a week!)

I suppose this was, in effect, inevitable, with the credit crisis…Trinity now says it needs the state to come through with its earmarked (though not completely committed) monies in the bond bill the state passed this year.

It’s another Matt Murphy article and it’s full of meat and lays out the situation clearly and fairly. Go read the whole thing.

Keefe, in a letter to Panagiotakos dated Oct. 15, told the senator he was counting on three key sources of state funding to move forward with construction. The timing of the request and amount of money being sought could prove to be very difficult to secure at a moment when the state is monitoring every penny closely.

Apparently this took the Lowell delegation by surprise, as they were not really ever told (by Trinity presumably) how much exactly Trinity was expecting in help from the state. The Appleton Mill itself is in such bad repair, I’d expect no developer would ever touch it except to demolish it without incentives…though how suddenly now telling us that the funding is urgent helps their case I don’t know.

Presumably (though I am making an assumption here) Trinity thinks or knows its investors are a bit spooked by the markets, but would be encouraged by city and state investment if it comes through quickly. Hopefully by spring the credit crisis is somewhat abated, but it is an extremely difficult atmosphere to develop in, even though the live-work spaces would be in demand (affordable housing rental units always are) and wouldn’t be available for two years, when it’s likely we’ll be in better shape economically.

Still, this isn’t the best news for the project, though rescue of the proposed schedule is still possible. Let’s hope that the Lowell delegation can work their magic and with a progressive and decidedly-pro-growth Governor and staff, I’m still not too worried yet.

The City of Lowell and NPS are seeking volunteers for this years City of Lights Parade.

The schedule of the day will include:
12– 4 pm: Stroll downtown for affordable and original gifts and be
entertained…with holiday street performers, hay rides, face painting, art
exhibits and warm winter treats!
4:30pm: City of Lights Parade begins along Jackson Street
6:30pm: City of Lights Parade concludes, and Photos w/ Santa at Lowell City
Hall
6:30 – 8:00pm: Parade of Lights Choral Concert at St. Anne’s Church

We could use your help in the following ways:
greeting visitors at various locations
assisting with coordinating and setting up downtown venues
guiding street performers
marching in costumes to entertain children
providing crowd control at key intersections downtown
assisting in photos w/ Santa

Your commitment would be minimal (a 2-3 hour shift), and all volunteers
will receive a City of Lights fleece holiday scarf as a token of
appreciation.

Please contact Michael Paglia in the Mayor’s Office to RSVP as a volunteer:
978.970.4040; mpaglia at lowellma.gov

It never looks good when, under any sort of inquiry or investigation, one claims an obscure and rare form of immunity for yourself. It looks really, really bad. Sort of a doth-protest-too-much moment.

Such is DiMasi’s strategy with the State Ethics Commission investigation into payments to his friends received from companies seeking government contracts. He’s claiming “constitutional immunity.” If that sounds really weird to you, it ought to. It was last used here (successfully) in 1808.

And what the hell is DiMasi doing meeting with other lawmakers behind closed doors to explain his side of the story?

What angers me most is that this puts progress in Massachusetts in jeopardy. DiMasi, while not perfect on the issues, is far more progressive than the Reps hungrily lining up to take his place should he fall. Though I could smack DiMasi on tax loophole closing bills, as Speaker he’s been awesome on the environment, gay marriage, and a host of other issues. If he turns out to be hiding wrongdoing, I want his head, on a platter, served up with a side of baked beans. And then if he still won’t resign, primary his ass.

In an article addressing the shrinking revenues and the tough time facing the new session of the state legislature, Matt Murphy (my fave local journalist by the way) tells us that government officials, while cutting as much as they can, may be looking at revenue streams such as an increase in the gas or sales tax, or casinos (ug, more on that later).

I have a fix! It will solve all our problems, and be a much fairer tax system than increasing the sales tax (which hits the lower and middle classes disproportionately harder). You can even call it a tax cut for middle income and lower income families. We need a progressive income tax.

More than half the states in the Union have progressive income tax. A progressive income tax is based on the ability to pay. Families struggling to buy food to feed their families are hit harder by a flat income tax than a family making $500,000 a year - a larger percent of the former family’s income is dedicated to essentials such as shelter (mortgage or rent), food, commuting, basic clothing. Therefore, a 5.3% tax rate for them takes up money they need, whereas 5.3% of $500,000 takes money off the top - that richer family can forgo a few nonessentials in order to pay it.

So, why not give a nice, bound-to-be-popular income tax cut…to anyone making less than, say, $100,000? Give them a reduced rate of 4%, maybe even 3.5%. People making $100K-$200K could get taxed at 5.5%. Then people making more than $200,000 get taxed at, say, 7%. New Jersey’s top tax rate on incomes over $500,000 is 9%, and no, there was no “rich flight” out of that state.

It’s proven to all but some stubborn trickle-downers and libertarians that prosperity still flourishes when top tax rates are much higher than they are now. Some of our best years as a nation were under much higher top tax rates. When you put the tax burden proportionately on people who can least afford it, upward mobility suffers, and so do revenues that can accomplish the level playing field (like quality education and affordable higher ed). You just don’t have enough money to do that job when you’re squeezing blood from a stone.

At some point, yes, some ridiculously high taxes even on rich people does probably slow down growth and reinvestment. But it is completely evident to anyone with half a brain cell that we are no where near that point in our current taxing regime. The so-called Laffer curve (the basis for that disproven trickle-down economic theory) never bothers to tell you where we are sitting on that curve. Well, we’re at pretty historic lows for the different tax brackets, particularly the top brackets. I don’t think anyone can really claim that less is more at these tax levels, nor at levels significantly higher than where we are now.

But if we did this right, we’d be giving a tax cut to those who really need it (like Obama is proposing on the national level) and still could come out ahead on revenues, so we can fix our ailing infrastructure, invest in higher ed, keep our universal health care (with fixes of course), stop the bleeding in our public schools, and have great program to combat hunger and poverty.

If my husband and I were making so much money that I stopped worrying where my next mortgage payment was going to come from, I’d gladly pay a higher tax. Call it giving back to a system which would have given me a lot of breaks I wouldn’t have otherwise had (like affordable higher education).

Now, I know the legislature is a bunch of cowards on tax issues. Sorry, but they are. They would never in a million years take up a bill (or, if I recall, a necessary Constitutional Convention) that would do this. So, I propose that we get aggressive in fighting the anti-taxers in our midst who keep putting initiatives that would destroy the revenues for the state like this last round. I say we put a progressive tax on the ballot. Tell voters that if they make less than that upper end of the lowest tax bracket, they will get a lovely tax cut. There are more of us middle class folks than there is rich people. I think it would pass, especially given that it is obvious from the margin of defeat on Question 1 that people understand that we cannot expect a level playing field and services for ourselves and our families, if we do not share in the burden of paying for it.