The Boston Globe Gets It Right

I live in Massachusetts. I don’t plan to live in Massachusetts too much longer as my husband will be retiring at the end of this year, and the Massachusetts tax structure does not make retirement here a reasonable option. Real estate taxes are high, the temporary increase in the rate of the state income tax has been with us for more than twenty years, and if the current governor has his way, things will only be getting worse.

Today’s Boston Globe posted an editorial by Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. The article is entitled, “Manage money from previous tax hikes first.” That pretty much says it all, but she goes on to explain what she means.

The article reminds us of some of the history of tax increase in Massachusetts:

In 1989, Governor Michael Dukakis returned from the presidential campaign trail and demanded tax hikes to fund a billion-dollar budget increase; supporters rallied at the State House, some of them dressed as giant crayons, to protest potential cuts to the arts. The legislative leadership was able to get the votes for the tax package only after promising that the new income tax rate, increased from 5 percent to 5.75 percent, would be temporary. The Legislature raised the rate again the next year, “temporarily,” to 6.25 percent.

…Instead, in 2011 a formula created in 2002 dropped the rate to 5.25 percent, where it remains — 24 years after the first “temporary” increase, and 12 years after the voters demanded a rollback to 5 percent.

Ms. Anderson further reminds us:

The Massachusetts tax burden is the fourth highest in the nation per capita, eighth highest relative to personal income. The state is not suffering from a lack of taxes; it is suffering from a lack of accountability for the taxes already paid. The ongoing scandal over electronic-benefits cards is a maddening example of this.

I think taxpayers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts might be a little less grumpy about their tax rate if we didn’t routinely see stories about the Commonwealth’s waste of taxpayer money. Part of that waste is due to the fact that politicians like to spend other people’s money, but another part is the fault of the voters who keep electing the same people year after year. Until someone holds the Massachusetts legislature accountable, they will continue to be out of control. It also would help to have two viable political parties in the Commonwealth, but that may be a pipe dream!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Gun Owners Rally In Boston

Yesterday Fox News Boston and GOAL (Gun Owners’ Action League).org reported on a rally held at the statehouse in Boston by gun owners protesting the new laws being discussed in the state and in Washington.

Fox News reports:

Gov. Patrick unveiled a bill on Wednesday that would tighten access to high-powered rounds of ammunition, create four new types of firearms-related crimes and mandate buyers to undergo background checks before purchasing weapons at gun shows. It would also restrict gun owners to purchasing one firearm a month.

The bill would also allow Mass. courts to send all relevant mental health records to the state’s criminal justice information system so the federal government could include this information in a national gun license registry. Patrick said that would bring Massachusetts into compliance with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

The bill includes $5 million for Department of Mental Health programs, including training teachers to recognize symptoms of mental illness in students.

The only part of this proposed legislation that would have any impact on recent mass murders in America is the mental illness aspect of this. I have no problem with criminal background checks for gun owners, but I have a major problem with a national gun license registry. No one needs to know who has a gun and who does not.

The article at GOAL.org reports:

For years Massachusetts residents who lawfully own firearms have endured abusive restrictions and regulation which do nothing to lower crime and in fact have had the opposite effect.

Today, in the shadow of more legislation introduced over the last week by Governor Patrick and Rep. Linsky, many concerened citizens said “enough” and stepped out into the light to make their voice heard and to say “no more”.

All who attended were concerned about this new legislation, having witnessed the failure of the acts of 1998, and knowing that this increased scrutiny will only lead to the criminalization of the law abiding.

We need to remember as we listen to this debate that new laws will not impact criminals–they don’t follow the laws to begin with. New laws will only impact law abiding citizens. Is that really our intention?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Where Is Common Sense ?

Fox 25 News in Boston posted a story yesterday about a rapist who is requesting visiting rights to the child he fathered in the rape. Seriously?

The story reports:

An admitted Massachusetts rapist is seeking visitation rights to the child he fathered after raping his underage victim, setting the stage for a precedent-setting legal fight in the Bay State.

There is a sentence in this story that indicates where our society is going:

The attorney for the man who admitted raping the teenager would not comment on his client’s fight for visitation rights. But he did claim the relationship was consensual, even though he acknowledged it was inappropriate, given the victim was only 14 and his client was 20.

The bottom line:

“The consequences of sentencing this man to probation for 16 years, which is really until the child becomes an adult, and making him declare paternity and pay child support, includes that this guy gets a legal father-child relationship out of the deal,” Murphy (family attorney attorney Wendy Murphy) said.

Murphy has filed a motion with the court, asking the judge to amend the sentencing conditions and order the man to pay restitution instead of child support, which would force him to support the child he fathered but not give him visitation and other parental rights.

Murphy’s motion also asks that the man be ordered to stay away from the mother and the child.

“All this family wants is to cut the cord. Get the rapist out of their lives. And if the judge wants to help them financially that’s great. But let’s call it restitution, not child support,” Murphy said.

It will be interesting to see how the court rules on this. I really can understand the judge’s decision for probation, but I think a restraining order should be included in that sentence to protect both the mother and the child. Regardless of whether or not you choose to blame the victim, it is obvious that the 20-year-old father had very poor judgement and very poor moral standards.

Enhanced by Zemanta

From The Plainview Patch

I live in Massachusetts. Because the planes that were involved in the September 11th attacks came out of Boston, many Massachusetts residents were affected. However, the majority of the casualties on September 11th were New Yorkers, and New York remembers.

The Plainview (NY) Patch posted a story this morning about a 9/11 Commemoration Service held at the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church yesterday. The first two pews at the front of the church had been left empty so that the Plainview firefighters could sit there. The firefighters came to mourn fallen comrades and to honor those lost on September 11th. Unfortunately, the service was delayed–the firefighters’ beepers went off as they arrived at the church, and they left to answer the call. The service began about a half-hour later when the firemen returned.

The article reports:

When it was over, the community and the firefighters stood outside the sanctuary, shook hands, exchanged words of thanks and went on their way.

Not 15 minutes later, distant sirens cut the stillness of the Plainview night.

They had another run.

The firemen were still doing their job, even as they mourned the loss of their comrades on September 11th.

Enhanced by Zemanta

As A Non-Prisoner I Would Have To Pay For This Myself !

WCVB in Boston reported today that a Massachusetts Judge has declared that the Massachusetts taxpayers must pay for sex change surgery for Michelle Kosilek (formerly Robert Kosilek). Michael Kosilek killed his wife in 1990 and was sentenced to life in prison.

The article reports:

Kosilek first sued the Massachusetts Department of Correction 12 years ago. Two years later, Wolf ruled that Kosilek was entitled to treatment for gender-identity disorder but stopped short of ordering surgery. Kosilek sued again in 2005, arguing that the surgery is a medical necessity.

In his 126-page ruling Tuesday, Wolf found that surgery is the “only adequate treatment” for Kosilek and that “there is no less intrusive means to correct the prolonged violation of Kosilek’s Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care.”

Prison officials have repeatedly cited security risks in the case, saying that allowing Kosilek to have the surgery would make her a target for sexual assaults by other inmates.

But Wolf, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, found that the security concerns are “either pretextual or can be dealt with.” He said it would be up to prison officials to decide how and where to house Kosilek after the surgery.

I can see the next step coming. Kosilek will sue after the surgery to be put in a separate unit because he feels threatened.

I think the thing that bothers me the most about this is that if Kosilek were any place other than jail, he would be expected to find a way to pay for the surgery himself. Because he is currently living at taxpayers’ expense (don’t forget that he is in jail because he killed his wife), the surgery is free to him. This passed ridiculous a long time ago.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Much Ado About Something

This story is based on two articles–one posted at The Blaze on Tuesday and one posted at Hot Air on Tuesday. The article at The Blaze reports that the Jim Henson company will be donating its profits from its partnership with Chick-fil- A to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). The two companies were in discussions about a deal to include muppet toys in children’s’ meals at the restaurant. That won’t be happening.

All of this is in response to Chick-fil-A’s owners making a statement that they support traditional marriage.

Hot Air reports the comment that started the controversy:

The company invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation (WinShape.com). The name comes from the idea of shaping people to be winners. It began as a college scholarship and expanded to a foster care program, an international ministry, and a conference and retreat center modeled after the Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove.

“That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries,” Cathy added.

Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position. “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. …

“We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized. “We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

Chick-fil-A’s stand on marriage is not news to anyone familiar with the company. They are simply practicing their First Amendment rights. Unfortunately, Boston and Chicago are attempting to ban the restaurant from their cities because of that stand.

Can’t we all just get along?

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Greater Boston Tea Party Statement On The Supreme Court’s Ruling On The Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act

Greater Boston Tea Party statement on the Supreme Court’s ruling

on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

 We are extremely disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which will allow the Obama administration to move forward in implementing its radical policy that violates our constitutional right of individual Liberty.  We have opened the door to a government that sees no limit to the amount of freedoms it can take away.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and its accompanying “tax”, represents an egregious affront to liberty, and is opposed by Americans of all political persuasions.  “We will redouble our efforts to educate and inform political activists of threat to individual Liberty this policy represents,” said Greater Boston Tea Party President Christine Morabito. “We were told repeatedly this is not a tax. We expect Congress to act immediately to block seizing funds from American citizens to pay for a political whim.”

People who believe in preserving and protecting constitutional principles will continue the fight to repeal any policy that would tax individuals in order to pay for a product deemed a civil right based on political ideology. The Greater Boston Tea party will continue our efforts to petition Congress to repeal this devastating policy, which undermines our individual Liberty.  We will continue to educate activists as to their constitutional rights and how to defend those rights. If we do not stand up and make our voices heard, it is only a matter of time before our remaining liberties come under direct assault.

Now is the time to act! Leaders in Congress are already calling for a vote to repeal the act in early July. Call Congress and demand a repeal of this law. 202-225-3121 Forward this email to family and friends and tell them to do the same!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Click And Clack Are Retiring

Today’s Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Magliozzi Brothers, Tom and Ray, of the NPR Radio Show “Car Talk” (where they are known as the Tappet Brothers) are retiring. They will stop recording new shows in October. “Car Talk” began taping 35 years ago at Boston’s MBUR radio station. I have no idea how good their advice was, but they were extremely entertaining. I also enjoyed the ‘puzzler’ that they would inject into the show. I am sorry to see them go.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

The American (the online magazine of the American Enterprise Institute) posted an article yesterday by Marc Theissen about some recent actions by President Obama regarding the Supreme Court.

The article reported some events this week in a Boston, Massachusetts, court:

On Wednesday, oral arguments took place over another law passed by a “strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” — the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Indeed, both cases feature the same lawyer — former solicitor general Paul Clement — who delivered the argument against Obamacare before the Supreme Court last week and in defense of DOMA before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit this week.

Why is Clement, and not the Justice Department, defending this law in federal court? Because the Obama administration announced last year that it had decided that it would no longer defend DOMA in court. Quite the opposite, the Justice Department is actively urging district courts around the country to … you guessed it … overturn this law.

The irony here is that DOMA was passed by a “strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” In the House the vote was 342-67, and in the Senate the vote was 85-14. That actually is a strong majority.

Last year in a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, Attorney General Eric Holder stated:

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

So the President and the Attorney General have decided only to uphold those laws that they happen to agree with.

Has anyone in this administration read the U. S. Constitution?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Cost Of Occupy Boston

The Occupy Boston camp at the Dewey Square section of the Greenway has been removed. Across the nation, the rap sheet on the Occupy Wall Street movement reached 417 as of December 9th according to Big Government. So what is the legacy of Occupy Boston?

The Boston Herald reports today that 46 of the Occupy Boston protesters were arrested as the camp was closed.

The Boston Herald reports:

Brennan (Nancy Brennan, executive director of the Rose Kennedy Greenway Conservancy) said the grass, which has turned into a mud pit, will need to be completely resodded, and she fears several trees that have been damaged will have to be replanted.

“Three or four trees might be lost. There’s browning of the foliage, and there are some broken and bent limbs,” she said. “Part of what we need to do is check on the root systems, and that is just going to take a little bit of time.”

Brennan also expects that the sprinkler system was damaged so much it will have to be repaired or replaced. Also in need of replacement are about 20 percent of the shrubbery and the pebbles from a pedestrian walkway that runs along Purchase Street.

She also said the wall of the large air intake tower for the O’Neill Tunnel will have to be power-hosed to remove markings and messages left behind by the squatters.

“The grass crete has really taken a beating,” said Brennan, referring to the concrete-type material covering the delivery truck driveway that allows grass to grow through. “We need to see if we can restore or replace it.”

Brennan couldn’t provide an estimate for what the final repair bill will be, but local landscapers pegged it at upward of $50,000.

My first question is who will pay for the restoration. There were never any permits for Occupy Boston, so there was no deposit to the city for sanitation fees or police detail fees.

WCVB TV5 reported on November 30:

Crime in the Dewey Square encampment of “Occupy Boston” is out of control, Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis told Newscenter 5.

“(There are) drugs, vandalism and assaultive behavior,’’ Davis said.

As of Wednesday, taxpayers had paid $723,000 in police overtime to patrol the tent city protest.

I believe in free speech, but what happened in Dewey Square was ridiculous. The Occupiers should have been removed at the end of the first day–not allowed to set up camp and destroy public property. As a taxpayer, I resent having to finance the activities of people who decided it was their right to camp out on public property at my expense without proper permits or sanitary facilities.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Occupy Wall Street Branches Out

 

A Grad rocket hit in Beer Sheba during the 200...

Image via Wikipedia

Israel National News is reporting today that a group of thugs attempted to barge into the Israeli Consulate in Boston to protest Israel’s seizure of the Canadian-Irish flotilla ships that attempted to sail to Gaza.  I would like to remind anyone who agrees with these thugs that the naval blockade of Gaza has been declared legal under international law.

According to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been  smuggled into Gaza via the sea.

Considering the number of rocket attacks on Israel that have originated in Gaza, this makes perfect sense.

The Israel National News further reports:

The activists were “spillovers” from the Occupy Boston protests, one of many Occupy Wall Street protests, some with anti- Semitic undertones, being held in the U.S. demanding social justice. At least three people have been arrested on drug charges in the protests over the past several days, and police report numerous knife fights between homeless individuals who are participating in the protests. Police also report a significant rise in vandalism in downtown Boston.

If Occupy Wall Street does actually represent more than 5 percent of the American population, we are in serious trouble.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Actually Might Make Sense Somewhere Other Than New England

Shorter 1980s bicycle

Image via Wikipedia

I live in Massachusetts. Sometimes that is somewhat awkward as I truly hate cold weather. I am an expert at hibernating. My car has heated seats. My house has two pellet stoves. Occasionally I do actually get warm.

Therefore, a story in yesterday’s Boston Herald caught my eye. The story reported that Massachusetts Avenue in Boston will lose about 70 parking spaces in order to make way for a new bicycle lane.

The article reports:

The 71 parking spaces on the northbound side of the busy thoroughfare will be eliminated by year’s end to make way for the new bike lane, with construction possibly starting as early as this week and stretching two-thirds of a mile from Symphony Hall to the Charles River bridge, officials said.

I learned to drive in New Jersey, so I will spare you my comments on Massachusetts drivers, but I will say that finding a parking space in Boston at any time of day or night is a major accomplishment. I understand the desire to get cars out of the city, but I am not sure a bike lane in New England is the answer. We have winters of snow, sleet, and freezing rain. I am not convinced that a bike is even safe in any of those conditions. Public transportation is not totally awful in Massachusetts–there are trains, subways and buses–all of which are used by the state residents. The federal government just financed the Big Dig (costing over over $14.6 billion), which provided more access to and through the city for cars. Why, after all that, are we taking away parking spaces–we should be putting up multiple-story parking lots!

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Double Standard At Work

The Boston Globe is reporting today that Boston will ban smoking in public housing, beginning in September 2012.

The article reports:

The policy is aimed at protecting nonsmokers, especially children, from breathing in secondhand cigarette smoke from neighboring units, which can cause asthma attacks, respiratory infections, lung cancer, and heart disease.

“We feel this is in the best interests of our residents,’’ said the Boston Housing Authority’s spokeswoman, Lydia Agro. “When you have buildings with multiple apartments next to each other, there is no way to contain the smoke.’’

Meanwhile, back at the ranch… WTSP Channel 10 in Tampa Bay, Florida, reports that the Florida law requiring welfare recipients to pass a drug test is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

The article reports:

In 2003, a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from Michigan backed that up saying, “Michigan law authorizing suspicionless drug testing of welfare recipients was unconstitutional.”

…As we 10News reported Wednesday, attorneys from the ACLU are already working on a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of these drug tests.

First of all, I would like to state that as someone who has never smoked or used illegal drugs, I don’t have a horse in this race. I do, however, possess a rather ironic sense of humor, and I think looking at these two stories together is very interesting. Which is more harmful to a child–a parent who smokes or a parent who uses illegal drugs? Before you answer than, consider the people the parent comes in contact with in obtaining illegal drugs. Smoking is legal; illegal drugs are illegal. Why is the ACLU fighting the drug test and not the smoking ban? This seems a little odd to me.

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Understand The Desire To Report The News But I Wonder About This…

Yesterday the Boston Globe reported the name of the person who told the FBI where to find James “Whitey” Bulger. Whitey Bulger had been a fugitive since 1994. He fled Boston when he was tipped off by a former FBI handler about a pending indictment on Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) charges.

Whitey Bulger had a lot of questionable connections in both the worlds of crime and law enforcement. Some of those connections are still alive and well. My concern is whether or not the Boston Globe put that person in danger by reporting that she is the one who told the FBI where to find Whitey Bulger. When he was operating in Boston, he was not known as a very nice person. Hopefully his reach does not extend her location.

Enhanced by Zemanta