Blue Mass Group

I Agree (0 Replies)

Although I was the author of the quoted passage above, I do want to make it clear that it was not at all my intent to argue that the Republicans (and the handful of Democratic No’s) should get a free pass. The failure to pass even this pathetic watered-down extension of the current background check system is shameful.

My point, rather, was that when we resort to arguments that are “entirely true” we are using tactics that can easily backfire. I was responding to jconway and his position that we should feel free to say that “your senator voted to give guns to cop killers and child murderers and terrorists”. To me, this may be “entirely true” in some vague sense but only to the extent that it is also “entirely true” that the Yes votes yesterday were also fairly meaningless and truly an ineffective response to the most high profile gun incidents.

Emotional appeals only carry the debate so far when the issues are complex and the solutions are elusive. Short of European-style gun bans (which I would support!), there’s simply no “gun control” that will prevent further Sandy Hook or Aurora type incidents. That doesn’t mean we should do nothing but it does mean, to me, that the President’s emotional appeals are not working.

And I, for one, am tired of all the pointing of fingers and emotional appeals.

Bad Means (2 Replies)

Won’t bring the victims back, won’t bring your grampa who you never got to meet back. If bad means fail to achieve our ends it’s pretty easy to call them bad. But thanks for making left wing talking points about how a simple majority of Senators righteously voted to slightly extend existing background checks despite the fact that they understand that such tepid new regulations would have failed to stop the massacres. Of course they wouldn’t, which is why we need stronger gun regulations and we aren’t getting them without a fight. And we aren’t winning the fight with your tactics of moral outrage, resorting to lies and attempting to confuse the other side.

Nonsense (2 Replies)

Stating clearly and unequivocally “your senator voted to give guns to cop killers and child murderers and terrorists” is exactly a Rove style line, but the difference is it’s entirely true.

This line of thinking is exactly what petr is trying to warn you about. What’s actually “entirely true” is that the 45 Senators in question “voted against a proposal to expand background checks to sales made online and at gun shows.” What’s actually also “entirely true” is that Jared Loughner bought his gun at a licensed gun dealer after passing a background check, James Holmes also passed background checks before purchasing most of his arsenal, and Adam Lanza was too young to own guns but they were legally owned by his mother. Show me a “cop killer” or “child murderer” or “terrorist” who bought their gun online or at a gun show and would not have passed a background check and I’m willing to continue the discussion.

But, what’s entirely false is that anyone voted yesterday “to give guns to cop killers and child murders and terrorists.” Saying that is a lie. Say it is Rove style, if you like, but your outrage doesn’t make it “entirely true” at all.

Personally, I agree with petr, the means and the ends are inexorably intertwined in a complicated debate like this. Good ends to not justify bad means. And bad means undermine the public perception about the goodness of the ends.

It clearly does. (1 Reply)

It is not like it is just going to be people in the neighborhood who are going to pay the costs for higher crime, higher prevalance of gambling problems, more traffic, and the increased likelihood of public corruption.

I’m personally very opposed to casinos and especially a casino in the Boston area. Casinos in isolated areas (like the CT casinos) simply have less associated problems (especially traffic, crime and blight).

That said, I do disagree with your premise that the Eastie won’t see *more* problems than the rest of the City of Boston. Increased traffic, lower housing values and more street crime all would be worse in Eastie than in any other neighborhood. Local restaurants and other business would be more affected than those in, say, Roslindale. My sense is that most residents of Boston couldn’t give you directions to Suffolk Downs nor really understand the impact on Eastie of a big, new casino.

So, as I see it, this issue definitly cuts both ways. As a Boston taxpayer, I’m quite concerned about the impact on the police budget and the very really increased likelihood of public corruption. BUT, I haven’t been to Eastie (outside of Logan airport) in many years. I’ve only been to Suffolk Downs once. I do think that Eastie residents have a better sense of what the true impact will be (both positive and negative) and have a bigger stake in the decision than the rest of the Boston residents.

More On Cousin Brian II (1 Reply)

Looks like the cousin Brian who was killed does exist. He was shot nine times after a bar fight in Southie in August 1996: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8392045.html

Meanwhile, the hate crimes bill was debated prior to that and passed in June 1996. So, the timing doesn’t quite work. Maybe Lynch would have felt differently about promoting his “gay panic” amendment had in known that his cousin Brian (who’s “difficulties” related to being gay Lynch had supposedly observed) was about to be shot and killed at age 25. I guess we’ll never know. But, I do take back my supposition that these events occured in reverse order.

By the way, there is no indication here or anywhere on the internet that Brian Havlin was gay or the victim of a hate crime. Maybe it was a different cousin Brian who was gay?

Enough with This Nonsense! (2 Replies)

The Act to Invest in Communities does reverse the tax burden to the poor, but it simply transfers it mostly to the middle class.

Wrong. Counter-factual. Nonsense. Read the bill (http://ourcommunities.org/an-act-to-invest-in-our-communities.html ). It’s a very simple two section bill. Section 1 increases the personal exemption (for single and joint filers). It then adds a further $2,500 exemption for low-income (under $40,000 a year) seniors and persons with disabilities. Section 2 increases the income tax rate on capital gains (to 8.95%) and on “regular” income (to 5.95%). That’s it. That’s what an Act to Invest does.

As has been detailed time and time again, and your “feelings” aside, an Act to Invest costs those making up to $74,000 a year no more than $33 annually. That’s less than ten cents a day in additional tax burden “transferred to the middle class.” The bill instead transfers the vast majority of the new tax burden from the poor and middle class to those making more than $271,000 a year. It doesn’t get much more progressive than that. For more details, see: http://www.massbudget.org/report_window.php?loc=rates_exemptions_change.html

Governor Patricks plan is a mish mash of tax increases, spanning far wider than simply the sales and income tax, so far reaching and very hard to analyze the impact it will have, except I have a feeling it will impact middle class and lower income pockets rather drastically.

“I, I, I, I’m hooked on a feeling. I’m high on believing.” Well, bully for you. The facts contradict your feelings here. The Governor’s tax proposal is complicated but it is also progressive. It impacts middle class pockets pretty non-drastically. And it reduces the tax burden on lower-income people. The actual difference in percentage of income paid in taxes are small, with the lowest-income taxpayers getting a 1.5 point decrease and the highest-income taxpayers getting a 1 point increase. Middle-income taxpayers rates stay almost exactly the same, with a 17 hundredths of a point increase. See here for more details: http://massbudget.org/report_window.php?loc=revenue_gov_14.html

Truth be told, both proposals do change the distribution of the tax burden. They make the system more fair (progressive) and also raise $2 billion annually in much-needed revenue. Meanwhile the Legislature’s plan makes the system less fair (more regressive) and raises only $500 million annually.

Enough with the feelings, liveandletlive. Let’s have an adult debate based on facts?

Love This Post (1 Reply)

You report news (to me at least). And you work in several insightful “jokes”.

But, recognizing Dot Ave as an important dividing line in Boston is what makes me love this post the most. Anyone who doubts the importance of the (extend it all the way north in your mind) Dot Ave line (and/or lives in some fictional world where they think Southie or Savin Hill have truly become progressive havens already) should look at the first map on this page: http://bostonography.com/2012/blue-and-bluer-massachusetts-and-boston-2012/

If you understand the Dot Ave line (and the general politics of West Roxbury), you’ve gone a long way towards understanding Boston politics.

The problem is timing. (0 Replies)

If this were last year or next year, I could see it as a small but positive step in the right direction. BUT, this is really an historic opportunity to raise taxes in a progressive and significant manner. Several important factors make *now* the best chance to do the right thing and raise the money we need to make the needed investments over the next decade:

- We have a “lame duck” Democratic Governor (and Leutenant Governor) who does not need to run for re-election.
- We have a lame duck Democratic Senate President and a Speaker with apparantly little interest in higher office.
- It’s not an election year for the already overwhelmingly Democratic Legislature.
- The economy is at the “sweet spot” needed for a new tax proposal to really succeed. We’re not so bad off that nay new taxes are inpalatable and not so well-off that increasing revenue seems unecessary. As we (too slowly) recover from the Great Recession, it is the ideal time to seek needed tax reform and new investments.

With all that in place, I hardly see it as a “good thing” that a real, progressive tax increase is being replaced with this pile of insubstantial manure.

The Tax Should *Not Be Repealed (2 Replies)

It would bring in an estimated $29 billion in revenue to support Obamacare over the next ten years.

- The tax does not single out the medical device industry for unfair treatment. The excise tax is one of several new levies on sectors that will gain business due to health reform. The expansion of health coverage will increase the demand for medical devices and could offset the effect of the tax.

- The tax will not cause manufacturers to shift production overseas. The tax applies equally to imported and domestically produced devices, and devices produced in the United States for export are tax-exempt.

- The tax will have little effect on innovation in the medical device industry. To the contrary, health reform may well spur medical device innovation by promoting more cost-effective ways of delivering care.

(These arguments stolen word-for-word from:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3684)

If I'm them... (0 Replies)

I would certainly help fund the “casinos are bad” crowd without it being know that I’m doing that. And then also spend a lot of money “explaining” the downsides of the Suffolk site (traffic, etc) compared to their sites.