From Boston.com: Senator Scott Brown said today that he will accept a debate at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute, but only on the condition that Vicki Kennedy stay neutral in the election and MSNBC drop out as the sponsor. The campaign said in a statement that it would agree to allowing Tom Brokaw to moderate. Elizabeth Warren has already accepted the Sept. 27 debate, but Brown had previously not committed. The candidates are jointly committed to two other televised debates so far, one in the Boston market and a second one in Western Massachusetts. Today’s statement from the Brown camp regarding Vicki Kennedy’s invitation to a third debate at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute has set the liberal blogosphere and twitter-sphere ablaze (currently trending worldwide: #ScottBrownDebateDemands). Tweeters have pulled out all of the ironic stops from “Scott Brown will only debate if the McRib is made available year round,” to “Scott Brown will only debate if the moderator’s ring tone is changed to Call Me Maybe.” Funny stuff, but is Brown truly deserving of such harsh criticism in this matter? It’s only natural that the campaign would be cautious of accepting a debate invitation from someone who likely supports Warren, non-partisan organization or [...]
I live near (but not in) the Second Worcester State House district, and I’ve been thinking of getting involved in the race. I don’t know much about politics in the Gardner area though, I was wondering if anybody could tell me anything about the contest? I’ve read the candidates’ websites and seen the voting history (incumbent Republican Richard Bastien won with 43% in 2010) but I was wondering if anyone had any anecdotal information or experience they could share.
NYT: “C.E.O. Pay Is Rising Despite the Din.” A compelling reason to vote for consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren over “Tax breaks for the rich” Scott Brown. But rewards at the top are still rich — and getting richer. Now that 2011 proxy statements have been filed, the extent of executive pay last year has finally become clear. Median pay of the nation’s 200 top-paid C.E.O.’s was $14.5 million, according to a study conducted for The New York Times by Equilar, a compensation data firm based in Redwood City, Calif. The median pay raise among those C.E.O.’s was 5 percent. (The full list is available here.) That 5 percent raise is smaller than last year’s. But it comes at a time of stubbornly high unemployment and declining wealth for many ordinary Americans. Even corporate pay experts say that this is hardly the kind of change that will quell anger over the nation’s have-a-lots by the have-lesses, particularly in an election year.
(Cross-posted from The COFAR Blog) The state Department of Developmental Services is proposing changes to its regulations that we believe will take away guardian and family rights and water down the scope of services that are listed in individual clients’ care plans. We at COFAR view these proposed changes as an attempt to reverse critically important gains made by the intellectually disabled and their families and guardians in Massachusetts from the 1970s through the 1990s. We’re joined in our concerns by the Wrentham Association, a COFAR member organization and one of the original plaintiffs in the landmark Ricci v. Okin federal consent decree case that upgraded care of the intellectually disabled in Massachusetts. In written comments submitted to DDS last week, the Wrentham family group maintained (and we concur) that the proposed changes to the regulations would violate the historic 1993 Disengagement Order in the Ricci case of U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro. As the Wrentham Association letter noted, the Disengagement Order requires DDS ”to continually evaluate the needs of each individual class member and to develop strategies to address those needs.” Several of the proposed changes to the DDS regulations “would substantially dilute” client care plans, known as Individual Support Plans or ISPs, and would exclude or limit [...]
[Cross-posted from the ProgressMass blog. Like ProgressMass on Facebook and follow on Twitter.] A few weeks back, an event took place at Faneuil Hall to celebrate the opening of a new visitor’s center. There was a fancy ribbon cutting, with our Republican junior Senator, Scott Brown, front and center for the photo opportunity. Unfortunately for Republican Scott Brown, his presence at the celebratory event and ribbon cutting ceremony reeked of hypocrisy. Why? Congressman Michael Capuano put it plainly: US Representative Michael E. Capuano, clearly needling Brown, who was seated at his side, declared twice that the funding to renovate the hall came from the stimulus package and from an earmark. As the crowd applauded the Somerville Democrat’s comments, Brown, who has been critical of earmarks and the stimulus program, sat quietly with his hands folded.