Blue Mass Group

I’ve said for years that when a campaign releases an internal poll to the press, that’s a good time to ignore it.

The latest from Richard Tisei, the Republican running in the 6th congressional district, is an extreme example of why internal polls should hardly ever be taken seriously.  As you may have heard, the Tisei campaign leaked an “internal poll,” conducted by one John McLaughlin, which purported to show that Tisei was up 7 points over incumbent Democrat John Tierney.  An impressive result, surely, though not completely implausible – and they even got a story in Roll Call out of it.  But suspicions were raised when the poll also purported to show Scott Brown up an extremely unlikely 24 points over Elizabeth Warren.

And, well, would you look at that.  The poll is total crap.

[T]he GOP poll does have elevated Republican representation, GOP poll author John McLaughlin said in an email to The Salem News.

The actual makeup of registered voters in the district is 13 percent Republican, 30 percent Democrat and 57 percent independent. But their poll respondents were 22 percent Republican, 29 percent Democrat and 49 percent independent.

One of the amazing things about this is that the pollster more or less admitted that the poll was crap.

But really, this story should serve as a caution – as if yet another one were necessary – to the media: do not pay attention to or report on internal polls.  And yes, that goes for our side as well as the other guys.  This Tisei poll is so embarrassing that his campaign should try to get its money back, but even in general, internals just not reliable enough to justify the pixels.

I’m closing my eyes, squinting hard and repeating “bloody sock, bloody sock, bloody sock” …

Former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling asked Rhode Island officials for more money for his video game company 38 Studios LLC in a private meeting Wednesday morning, held to discuss whether its reported financial troubles threaten the state’s $75 million investment in the company.

So Rhode Islanders suffer through a lousy economy, cut schools/libraries/fire/police, and this turkey wants another payout?

This is not the way to do things. (And yes, that includes Evergreen and Solyndra.)

When a business says, “Give us a tax break”, the state should say,

“No.

“But here’s what we will give you:

• “We will give you good workers, people who have been well-educated by prepared, accountable school systems.
• “We will provide you with good infrastructure, so that you can get to work on time and get your products to market effectively.
• “We will provide you — to the extent a state can — with good health care, clean air, clean water, and nice public amenities, so that people will want to move here, stay here, and dedicate their lives to your mutual success.
• “We will keep our rules and regulations clear, to make it easy to know where and how to set up, and keep the lawyers away.
• “And because of all of these things, we will provide you with a market for your goods — ie., a public that is capable of affording and enjoying your product.”

That’s setting up a business for success: not throwing good money after bad.

[Cross-posted from the ProgressMass blog.  Like ProgressMass on Facebook and follow on Twitter.]

Back in March, Goldman Sachs’ executive director, Greg Smith, left the firm, noting a toxic culture in which Goldman Sachs’ staff callously talked about “ripping their clients off” as the goal of their work.  With Goldman Sachs receiving additional scrutiny, it seemed an appropriate time to ask “Who’s Winning the Goldman Sachs Primary” in the 2012 Massachusetts Senate race.

The finding was that Republican Scott Brown was “winning” the Goldman Sachs primary in a landslide – referring to the amount of money taken in from Goldman Sachs’ PAC and personnel in political contributions – by a margin of $55,550 for Brown to $0 for Democrat Elizabeth Warren.  (Brown’s haul from Goldman Sachs has since grown to $73,900 as a federal candidate.)

[Cross-posted from the ProgressMass blog.  Like ProgressMass on Facebook and follow on Twitter.]

Republican Scott Brown has been appropriately criticized for his harmful vote to double the student loan interest rate, making a college education even more expensive at a time when household budgets are already stretched beyond the breaking point.  There have been a lot of negative headlines recently for Brown.  He sure could use a positive headline, especially on the issue of the student loan interest rate.

Whatever could he do?  Well, when in need, just make one up!

It’s starting to look that way.  Globe:

Donors from big banks are betting on Mitt Romney to defeat President Obama and repeal new restraints on risky, large-scale investments….

The top five donor groups in Romney’s campaign are individuals and political action committees associated with large financial institutions, led by Wall Street giants Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, according to information compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks campaign donations.

By contrast, Obama’s top five contributor groups include individuals and PACs affiliated with high technology giants Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp., and the global law firms DLA Piper and Sidley Austin, and do not include those associated with banks. In 2008, financial institutions backed him generously….

Records show that the securities and investment industry has given nearly $20 million to Restore Our Future, the independent super PAC associated with Romney, while it has contributed less than $200,000 to Priorities USA Action, the super PAC associated with Obama.

So that’s the presidential race.  And locally, Elizabeth Warren is amping up the Wall Street theme, releasing both radio and TV ads this week.  Here they are:

Relatedly, Scott Brown has been taking a bit of heat over his mysterious “New York City finance committee,” which threw him a big-dollar fundraiser recently. His campaign won’t reveal the names of these shadowy characters, and specifically, won’t say whether anyone from the winner of the Most Embarrassing Big Bank of the Month award, JPMorgan Chase, serves on it – although campaign finance records show that Brown has pulled in at least $50,000 from JP Morgan, and that’s just what’s been reported so far. Here’s some amusing commentary, from Mike Deehan’s MASSter list:

Democrats want Scott Brown to give back any money raised with the help of nasty old JP Morgan bankers. Chill out Democrats, it’s JP Morgan. Just give them a couple weeks and they’ll lose it all anyway.

Heh.

As it turns out, it’s really fine that MA didn’t try to meet Rhode Island’s $75 million loan package to Curt Schilling’s video game company, which is now in deep trouble.

As part of the RI Economic Development Corporation’s effort to create jobs in the state, they offered 38 Studios a $75 million loan, if only they would pack up operations and bring them to Rhode Island. Schilling and co. moved to Providence, and pledged to employ 450 locals. It was a gamble for the state, which only had $125 million for the entire job creation program, and took criticism at the time.

It’s 2012, and 38 Studios is in trouble. They’ve only employed 288 Rhode Islanders so far, and the company recently had to pull out of next month’s E3 showcase because their upcoming game, paid for by the loan, isn’t close to being ready. An independent audit expressed “substantial doubt” about whether the company can remain solvent, and state officials have been meeting with 38 Studios in recent days.

The worst case scenario? 38 Studios goes under, and is unable to repay the loan. If that happens, taxpayers are on the hook for $112.6 million after interest is factored in.

Ugh.  But here is the worst part, which smells an awful lot like “SEC investigation” to me…

Last year Schilling told Reuters that he had invested “$30 million to $35 million” in 38 Studios. [Similarly, this Globe story reports that as of 7/8/11 he claimed to have invested $20 million. -ed.] A disclosure filing obtained by WPRI shows that Schilling advanced the company $4 million of his own money, and has already been paid back—with funds from the Rhode Island loan.

Yikes. UPDATE: Upon further review, I think it’s possible that the author I quoted above misread the WPRI report.  Here’s what WPRI actually said about Schilling paying himself back:

In July 2010, the same month the EDC approved the loan guarantee, 38 Studios established a revolving line of credit with Schilling so it could borrow up to $4 million from him, according to the disclosure filing obtained by WPRI.com. Part of the taxpayer-guaranteed loan money was used to pay Schilling back.

Still on the sleazy side, but not inconsistent with Schilling having made a larger initial investment outside of the revolving line of credit.

As parents, teachers, and community members, we are Massachusetts grassroots activists for education. We read bills, testify at hearings, write letters to the editor, pore over budgets, speak at town meetings, make phone calls, and hold fundraisers. Many of us have done so for years.

It was as part of this work and with great hope that we joined Stand for Children.  And—initially—Stand helped us do great work.  We cast a critical eye on education bills at the State House and testified as needed. We turned back ballot initiatives that would have gutted education funding. We closely watched local budgets to keep dollars close to classrooms. We put our voices, time, money, and reputations into building Stand for Children. Because we were united and we spoke from our experience, we were heard.

Along the way, we learned a great deal about the legislative process, education funding, and policy. We learned to research our positions, present them, and back them up.

But in 2009, while we struggled to give voice to the needs of our schools, Stand’s staff was turning away from our concerns, announcing that it expected its members to forgo community advocacy in favor of a new, special agenda. This agenda, emerging seemingly out of nowhere, touted more charter schools, more testing, and punishing teachers and schools for low student scores.

Americans Elect, a self-proclaimed “centrist” group that aspired to use an online nomination process to choose a candidate who could rise above partisan politics, has failed to rise to the occasion and nominate a candidate.

The organization not only suffered from a severe lack of interest, but transparency, changing its tax status from 501c to 527, allowing it to keep secret the sources of its $20 million in funding. The organization’s bylaws also allowed for the board of directors to veto any nominee that didn’t meet its critera.

Giving BMGer and state representative Dan Winslow (R-Norfolk), the benefit of the doubt, AmberPaw reported on Americans Elect back in November.

Politico reports:

Americans Elect, the deep-pocketed nonprofit group that set out to nominate a centrist third-party presidential ticket, admitted early Tuesday that its ballyhooed online nominating process had failed.

The group had qualified for the general election ballot in 27 states, and had generated concern among Democrats and Republicans alike that it could wreak havoc on a close election between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

But just after a midnight deadline Monday, the group acknowledged that its complicated online nominating process had failed to generate sufficient interest to push any of the candidates who had declared an interest in its nomination over the threshold in its rules….

It had drawn criticism for not disclosing the donors who contributed upward of $20 million to win ballot access and set up the nominating process, and also for rules that some worried could allow insiders to steer its nomination to a candidate of their choosing. Obama political guru David Axelrod once called it an “uber-democracy meets back room bosses.”

The group failed to generate interest in possible campaigns from Sens. Joe Lieberman and Lamar Alexander, and its highest-profile candidate had been former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer, who declared his candidacy after dropping his bid for the GOP presidential nomination.

Over the last month, we’ve seen thousands of people across the country rise up to call out big companies like General Electric, Wells Fargo and Bank of America for their “economic crimes against the 99%”  –  whether inside shareholder meetings or out in the streets. Now it’s our turn to take on corporate greed right here in Massachusetts.

In boardrooms from Wall Street to the West Coast, major corporations are hatching new schemes to line their pockets at the expense of low and middle-income families, destroying communities across the country in the process. Here in Massachusetts, State Street Bank is one of the worst offenders – exploiting loopholes to take $1.88 billion from taxpayers, eliminating thousands of jobs through outsourcing and offshoring, and investing tens of millions in private, for-profit prisons and detention centers.

That’s not all.  State Street has gotten into hot water in recent years over business practices that hurt investors and drained pensions. Investors lost $450 million when State Street lured them into a ‘CDO’ managed by Magnetar – a hedge fund investigated by the SEC for fueling the mortgage crisis (a practice for which they have since been fined). Additionally, more than a dozen states, US Attorneys, the SEC and other regulators that are suing, investigating or outright dumping State Street as a result of its pension pricing.

That’s why we’ve created an Economic ‘Crime’ Unit at MassUniting to educate people about corporate abusers like State Street. To learn more about State Street and how you can get involved visit StopEconomicCrime.org and check out our video below:

As it turns out, there’s no such thing as an official “economic crime against the 99%” in Massachusetts (or anywhere else, really.) But given the way many big banks and corporations exploit the 99%, there sure ought to be – and we are shining a spotlight on these companies to show that things need to change. So while we can’t say State Street did anything illegal, we can see the very real, very negative impact their actions have on Bay State families. We hope you’ll join the Economic Crime Unit in our effort to hold companies like State Street accountable for the harm they’ve done to our communities.

Today, the Senate is debating a big healthcare bill. It will fundamentally restructure the way we pay doctors and hospitals to reward better quality care and help reduce the overall cost of healthcare.

Rherst made an awesome post with just three of Health Care For All’s amendments. Read it!

But, there are about 265 amendments to this massive legislation. So, I imagine that a few folks might be having trouble remembering which amendments to support.

Health Care For All has two posts up here and here which can be guides for those tracking amendments to the Senate bill. But that’s a lot of text.

So, I’ve come up with just a few handy images that might help. If you’ve got suggestions, I’d love to hear them in the comments!

We support a strong public health and prevention trust. It’s a way to get funding for community based public health programs. Amendment 30 from Senator Chandler doesn’t let the Prevention Trust Fund expire after 5 years. 

Surely not even EBIII is on board with Representative O’Flaherty’s proposal to transfer the Chelsea District Court from the District Court to the Boston Municipal Court. The Globe suggests Rep. O’Flaherty is seeking to make the move over the objection of the Trial Court’s Chief Justice for Administration and Management, Robert A. Mulligan, in order to help his friend and ally, clerk magistrate Kevin Murphy. Chief Justice Lynda M. Connolly, the head of the District Court, had disciplined Murphy after evidence went missing in Chelsea, and the move would take Murphy out of Judge Connolly’s power.

Representative O’Flaherty’s explanation of his plan is that it’s nonsense to claim that the “whole reason is to be protective of Kevin Murphy.” (Is that an admission that helping Murphy was part of the reason)? He claims that the main reason for the move is efficiency: Chelsea’s district court should be managed by the same administrators who administer the other equivalent courts in Suffolk County. Really? If efficiency were the goal, then surely the answer would be to rationalize the structure of the courts by folding the BMC into the District Court, so that we have a single statewide district court, as we have a single statewide superior court. What purpose is served by having one district court for the entire commonwealth, and a separate court in Boston? I hate to say it, but this is something Mitt Romney was right about. He proposed merging the courts when he was governor, but the legislature shot the proposal down.

A story in today’s Globe paints a fine picture of how Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown want the Senate race to unfold.

On Sunday, Warren called on Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, to resign from the board of directors of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, after Dimon acknowledged that “we made a terrible, egregious mistake” in dismissing warning signs that preceded the $2 billion loss.

Brown’s campaign held a conference call with reporters … to discuss the controversy surrounding Warren’s claims of Native American heritage.

OK.  So Elizabeth Warren wants to talk about banks that are behaving recklessly and the fact that the head of one such bank also sits on the board of the bank’s regulator, namely, the New York Fed.  To me, the fact that the head of a big bank sits on the board of an entity that’s supposed to regulate it sounds like a conflict of interest, and sounds like the kind of thing that should be stopped if we want to avoid a replay of 2008.  It sounds, in other words, like something that could affect the people of Massachusetts in important ways.  Relatedly, Warren has just sent around an email saying:

I’m calling on Congress to put Wall Street reform back on the agenda and to begin by passing a new Glass-Steagall Act. This was the law that stopped investment banks from gambling away people’s life savings for decades — until Wall Street successfully lobbied to have it repealed in 1999….  A new Glass-Steagall would separate high-risk investment banks from more traditional banking. It would allow Wall Street to take risks, but not by dipping into the life savings and retirement accounts of regular people.  And by making banks smaller, a new Glass-Steagall could also help put an end to banks that are “too big to fail” — further avoiding costly taxpayer bailouts.

Scott Brown, in contrast, wants to talk about Warren’s Native American heritage.  That sounds like … well, it sounds like a waste of time.  I cannot imagine any way in which anything about Warren’s heritage could affect the people of this state, or any other.

See, Brown wants this race to be about personalities.  He wants people to think that Warren is a bad person, because she’s an elitist, because Hollywood people like her, because of something about her heritage.  Whereas he wants people to think he’s a good guy, a jock, a handsome dude with whom you’d like to have a beer.  And, because of that, he thinks he should get to be a Senator.

Warren, in contrast, wants the race to be about the stuff that actually affects people’s lives.  If the banks crash again, that matters.  A lot of people will lose their jobs because of it, just like they did last time.  So I’m glad Warren wants to avoid that, and that she has some ideas for how to do it.  I’d sure like to hear from Scott Brown what he actually wants to do with a six-year term.  Other than the teabagger’s creed that we must “repeal Obamacare” (for reasons that remain obscure), I haven’t heard a damn thing yet.