Blue Mass Group

Austerity conservatives have blown it in Britain. They raised the top income tax rate to 50% only to experience declining revenues from that bracket:

The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period.

Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate. The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad.

Since the 10th Amendment says nothing about nuclear power, shouldn’t it be the right of a state (let’s say Vermont) to shut down a nuclear power plant?

For that matter shouldn’t individual states or communities be able to stop a pipeline from coming through?   I didn’t see anything in the 10th Amendment about oil sands, either.

Last week Scott Brown proudly announced he would lead the charge for an extreme measure being considered in the U.S. Senate that would allow employers and insurance companies to deny medical coverage.

The “Blunt amendment” that Brown is pushing goes so far beyond religious institutions and birth control that a Boston Globe columnist wondered if Brown had wandered off in to “crazyland” and a columnist for the Boston Herald said he had “sided with the nuts.”

And for good reason.

Under Brown’s plan, employers and insurance companies can refuse to cover ANY treatment for ANY person.

This measure is a threat to women…and everyone else.

Spread the word by sharing this image in your Facebook timeline.

Imagine CEOs in board rooms looming over doctors offices, deciding which medical care they will let you have – it sounds like something out of a dystopian novel, but the bill Scott Brown has endorsed could make this your reality.

President Obama’s health care reform does not require any religious institution to cover contraception. This is yet another issue where the Republicans have created controversy out of thin air to change the subject from their anti-middle class agenda.

We can only stop Scott Brown if we make sure the truth gets out – that’s why we need your help.

Let your friends know by visiting our Facebook page and clicking “share” underneath the image.

If you don’t have a Facebook account, you can also help by emailing this to 5 friends. I know you can come up with five people in your life that would be affected by this legislation because everyone could be affected by it. Send this along to make sure they have the facts.

Clare Kelly

Executive Director

Massachusetts Democratic Party

SNL takes on the Party of Santorum. Funny:

If SNL is any indication of the conventional wisdom … it’s gonna be a blowout this year.

Steven Bright on the failure of the public defender system

Steven Bright makes clear that the explosive growth in the number of incarcerated Americans is the result of over worked public defenders with impossible case loads, under funded courts, and innocent people behind bars.

1 in 100 United States Adults are behind bars.  1 in 36 Hispanic adults are behind bars.  1 in 15 black men are behind bars.  You don’t have to take my word for it.   According to Steven Bright this awful social blight results from a failure to follow the mandate of the 6th Amendment and Gideon v. Wainwright.

Now, the goal was not window dressing.  By window dressing, I mean the appearance of an attorney, but without the resources in terms of time and support staff to do the job.  A defense attorney has to meet with and interview the client, investigate sometimes using a private investigator, hunt down witnesses and evidence.  Unlike prosecutors, there is not an army of police and detectives at the ready.

At one time, this state was known for having zealous defense by experienced private attorneys appointed to defend individuals, who could say know when their caseloads got too high, as could public defenders.  Sadly, Governor Deval Patrick is intent on dismantling this system, and requiring 200 or more cases per public defender.

Broken lives,  Broken dreams – and a cost of $43,000.00 per incarcerated adult per year to the taxpayer, with limited re-entry and far too many of these individuals were pled out – and under our Governor’s plan, this will only get worse.

The measure of a democracy is, in part, its commitment to the rule of law.  This must include a commitment to “innocent until proven guilty.”  For “innocent until proven guilty” to be a reality,  funding for the judicial branch must be realistic and adequate, and so much funding for indigent defense.

Equating indigent defense to what prosecutors do is, in fact, dead wrong.  Listen to Steven Bright a second time.  Maybe Deval Patrick will listen.  Maybe Secretary of Administration and Finance Gonzalez will listen to Steven Bright.  They sure have not listened to Massachususetts Lawyers Weekly, the Massachusetts Bar Association (MBA) or me.

2 20 12 MLW Editorial Opposing Govs plan

Eugene Robinson wrote today in The Washington Post that Rick Santorum could take Republicans down with him. These days, any place that you can find left-leaning commentary has something rightfully slagging Santorum and his extremist ideologies.  There is a treasure trove of low-hanging Santorum fruit that we tee up and rip apart, and I don’t like it one bit.

If Santorum is indeed the Francesco Schettino of the 2012 GOP, then let’s sit back, grab some pop corn, and enjoy watching the good captain run this capsizing ship into the beach. Save the heavy ammunition in case he makes it to the general election, for when after the GOP chooses a candidate more difficult to elect than Romney. Don’t do any heavy lifting for Mitt.

[Cross-posted from the ProgressMass Blog.]

Since social media, and the internet in general, can provide us with information overload from time to time, we should make sure that strong progressive voices make it through the noise of the crowd. To that end, ProgressMass would like to recommend ten such strong progressive voices to “Like” on Facebook and follow on Twitter. This list is by no means exhaustive. In the comments, please offer your recommendations for progressive voices we should keep track of via social media.

MA Dem Party Chair John Walsh is always funny, always fun and scary smart. He joined us today at Left Ahead to talk strategy and prospects for the 2012 elections, but he won’t ever forget early 2010.

He led the commonwealth Dems to sweeping victory in November 2012 while the rest of the nation was awash in GOP fervor. In no small part, that was because he learned from the special-election loss at the start of the year that saw Republican Scott Brown edge Dem Martha Coakley for the US Senate seat. He continues to build on the lessons he learned after that, including conversations with Dem activists and pols.

Chief among those are:

• start early
• put resources in the hands of the locals and listen to their judgment

Today’s report (2/22/12) in the Washington Post indicates that the mandatory invasive procedure may well be scaled back to voluntary – 1000 pairs of eyes staring at legislator’s as the entered the Virginia State House may have made all the difference, see the WaPo story.

Photo courtesy of the Rachel Maddow Blog

Apparently, Virginia has passed laws making chanting or carrying signs illegal on the grounds of its capitol building.  How constitutional is that one wonders.  The organizers of yesterday’s February 20, 2012 protest drew inspiration from Occupy UC’s silent protest of their chancellor.  Their occupy-inspired silent protest drew Virginians to stand silently for hours.  Enough Virginians, mostly women, but some children and men attended to completely ring their capitol building, and stare silently at the Virginia legislators who were supposedly going to vote that medically unnecessary probes would be inserted into women seeking abortions – See Lynne Lupien’s post from a few days ago:  http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/02/hey-virginia-state-house-stick-it-up-your-own/

The vote did not happen yesterday – and of course, that silent cordon cannot be there every day.  The only way we will reclaim democracy, in this state, in the USA, or anywhere else including Virginia is to stand up and fight back – and if that means being the first person to say “The Emperor has no clothes” despite a public rush towards a popular injustice like the state-sanctioned rape by wand in Virginia, or a hyped up, immoral war based on lies like Iraq or the current bogus run up on Iran, so be it .   My shoes are made for marching – how about yours?

Links to the MSN blog post by Maddow and also the facebook page used to organize the protest are here:  http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/20/10459213-silent-protest-outside-virginia-house-puts-off-ultrasound-vote

There’s an old saying: “Anybody who calls themselves a realist is steeling themselves to do something of which they are secretly ashamed…”

On Scott Browns Campaign Website there are to be seen many iterations of the words “independent” and “moderate”. There are even some allusions to “opponents” clearly of the Democratic stripe. But startlingly few allusions to Scott Brown as a member of the REPUBLICAN party. Is he ashamed? Why would there be so very little mention of the political party Scott Brown has long been affiliated with… Not even his “Bio” pages refers to the party that supported him as a state senator and then, later, as a Senate candidate. (note bene: it was in just this Senate Candidacy when Scott Brown was heard to say “it’s not the Kennedy’s seat, and it’s not the Democrat’s seat, it’s the people’s seat.” Even then, it appears, he had trouble admitting to a party affiliation.)

But the entire website reads like a denaturated mime (it will act it out, but it won’t say it) of Karl Roves id: a congerie of Republican talking points, anti-democratic venom, faux-populist sloganeering, vividly vague pronouncements about “Obamacare” and “border protection”, braggadocia about never having voted for a tax increase, and gripes about ‘partisan bickering’ where only one partisan does any bickering.

One is left to wonder exactly whom it is that Scott Brown and his supposedly brilliant tactical staff thinks they are fooling? Who is that they think will swallow this notion of lopsided independence without question?

Republicans? One can imagine a few Republicans who are mercenary enough to overlook subtle attempts at subterfuge like the occasional reference to “independents” and “moderate” Any Republican, however, worth his/her salt can’t be too comfortable with this level of head-in-the-sand: after all, if it’s a superior orthodoxy it can’t possibly hurt to trumpet the good news far and wide…Right? Don’t hide your light under a bushel, right? I can’t imagine it can be all that easy for his campaign staff, many of whom are, sheepish grin, admitted Republicans. And will hard-core Republican donors pony up the cash for somebody who’s, at least publicly, a little squishy about where they might stand? How does That conversation go…?

Independents? It’s hard to square the notion of ‘independents’ and ‘moderation’ with a relentless trumpet of ‘democratic opposition’ and denuded Republican talking points. Does the Brown brain trust think that true independents are that easily fooled? I’ve often thought that many independents are those most sensitive to the notion that the parties are manipulative and are declaring ‘independence’ from just this sort of manipulation. It that’s the case then Scott Browns naked manipulation, in concert with his denial of his own Republicanism, probably won’t sit to will with those independents. And even those independents willing to give the benefit of the doubt… how will they know to trust him when he does, or doesn’t, act independently? Is there a base posture from which deviations can be measured? Is he merely a political sand-dune, washed to and fro? Is he really just mealy-mouthed and wishy-washy? Where does he truly stand, if he can’t self-identify with a party? What if he does, quite clearly, self-identify with the Republican party… but doesn’t trust the independents with that information? What about him is truly ‘independent’ rather than simply entropic?

And if he is truly independent, why doesn’t he just run against Elizabeth Warren (or whomever) in the Democratic primary? If he really is not a Republican, then what does it matter?

Is he trying to soften up Democrats? Well, in the only thing close to an admission of party affiliation, Brown brags several times of “reaching across the aisle” (why don’t you start by describing which particular side of the aisle from which you are reaching, hmm, Senator…?) in an effort, the only real effort, to entice Democrats. It’s a small ray of hope in an otherwise dismally partisan, in act if not in speech, website: a well polished turd trying to sell itself as a ‘gem quality’ stone.

Scott Brown won’t even say who he is. He won’t even say “this is what I believe and where I stand. All my choices will reflect this somehow” Instead he opts for a process independence withal spreading a caricature of a Democratic bogey-man and passive-aggressively trumpeting all but the most blatantly Right-Wing talking points… without ever feeling the need to say “I am a Republican”. It’s patently obvious to all but the meanest intelligence. Maybe he is just ashamed.

He ought to be, in any case…

Santorum & the right to privacy.

Student loans – the next bubble of derivatives to burst?  Up to one trillion – and as for newly minted attorneys – only 68% can find jobs in law, at an average salary of $63,000 for those with jobs.  How will they pay back loans of $150,000 – $200,000?  Only the top 10% earn what folks think attorneys earn.

Oh – and this one sums up my view of today’s Republican Party.  That may explain why, as unhappy as I am with much about the Democratic Party, I stay involved in the fight for it’s political “soul”.

I know – its not Friday so the normal joke and cartoon list was a few days ago, but these were too poignant not to share.

Check out this comedy gold email, just in from Team Brown:

Frankly, I don’t trust any poll

. . . because I know I am the underdog in this race.

Every poll that comes out, they use it to raise money from their national supporters. So will you answer my call for help? Your generous online support of $10 – $50 will get us there. Every seat in Congress is “the People’s Seat,” so don’t let the ultra-liberal special interests buy this one.

Matched up against Professor Elizabeth Warren, we know these five things:

The race will be close
She’ll have money to burn
I’m the underdog
We’re going to win because
We’ve got the best supporters

…

But we must run harder and work longer to win this race because that’s what underdogs must do. Your online contribution of $10 – $50 will help us beat the odds.

Reality check here, folks.  Scott Brown closed 2011 with almost $13 million in the bank – the second-highest tally of any candidate for Senate in the entire United States.  And, as of that time, Brown had better than a 2-1 advantage over Elizabeth Warren in terms of cash-on-hand (for the record, Warren’s total ranked 10th in the country among Senate candidates – not bad).  Combine that with the obvious fact that he’s the incumbent, and it’s awfully hard to see him as the “underdog” – no matter how many times he repeats that word in his fundraising emails (three, in this case).

I do love the extent to which Brown’s consultants are enamored of the “Professor” moniker.  They seem absolutely certain that every time they remind voters that Warren is, well, smart, they flip a voter into the Brown column.  I don’t believe it.

Yes you.  The Massachusetts House Rules concentrate power in the hands of a few key players who determine which legislation makes it to the floor and which will die in committee.  For over 10 years, for example, the updated bottle bill (which PIRG claims is supported by a majority of the members of the House) never has made it to the floor for debate and a vote.  The amount of debate has diminished considerably compared to 20 and 30 years ago.  Transparency has suffered as amendments are “consolidated” behind closed doors and a majority of the House meets in private before every important formal session to determine the outcome of legislation before debate.  (And yes, Amberpaw, I support application of the OML and public records law to the legislative process).

This is where you come in.  Please contact your Representative and urge him or her to join the Rule 28 Coalition.  You can see who has joined to date here:  http://www.rule28.com.  The leadership’s talking points warn rank and file Democrats not to join because the Coalition is an “election year Republican ploy” to increase debate, transparency and accountability.  If that’s the ploy, perhaps more Democrats should be part of it.  The proposal has received support from the Metrowest Daily News, http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/editorials/x1085184647/Editorial-Letting-the-state-reps-vote, and The Boston Globe, http://rule28.com/news/globe-for-livelier-debate-over-ideas-house-must-get-bills-on-floor/1241/, two publications not known for their complicity in Republican plots.

Your Representatives need to hear from you and not just the warning shot that was sent over their bows by the Democratic leadership.  All the Rule 28 Coalition requires is a vote to discharge legislation from committee to the floor for debate.  Members are not required to support any bill on the floor and are free to argue and vote for or against any legislation.  But there’d be a debate, a vote and the ability for voters to see whether their Representative represents their interests.  The danger (as we sadly have seen in the recent past) is that a top-down system allows one lobbyist or interest group to convince a handful of leaders to shut down the progress of any particular bill.  That’s not healthy and it’s certainly not democratic.

Please post your Representative’s responses here.  Or better yet, let’s have some Representatives join the discussion.  At least we’re free to debate on BMG.

This just seems crazy to me.  Gloucester Times:

The state’s full congressional delegation, with the exception of Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, has written to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services backing a Massachusetts Fishing Partnership application for a three-year, $4 million grant for a project aimed at helping fishermen find their best fit for health insurance….

Brown declined due to the program’s funding source — “Obamacare,” Brown’s press secretary, John Donnelly, told the Times on Thursday…. According to Fishing Partnership statistics, the community outreach-based model and collective prevention efforts — whose “navigators” include Angela Sanfilippo of the Gloucester Fishermen’s Wives Association — has helped reduce the rate of uninsured fishermen from 43 percent to 13 percent.

Yeah, it sure would be terrible to get Obamacare-tainted money to find health insurance for fishermen.  Because God knows those guys are living high on the hog these days without a care in the world.  Thank goodness we’ve got Scott Brown to stand on principle on things like this.

It seems like the attorney general is sweeping certain things under the rug.

After investigating illegal campaign practice’s in the Criminal Clerks office the Office of campaign and political Finance is allowing certain people who testified under oath to re testify, so they may tell the truth this time and white wash the clerks practices using Clerk employees and her office to do her campaign business. I guess if no one knows it never happened.

Dear Ms. Braga:

      I have received the petition appealing the response of the City of Boston (City) to the request for public records. G. L. c. 66 s 10(b);
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleX/Chapter66/Section10

see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)
http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/source/mass/cmr/950cmr.html
Specifically requested that an electronic copy of the output created by the stenographer for the Boston City Council (Council) be provided via e-mail.

      The Public Records Law
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/preidx.htm
strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G L. c. 66, s 10(c); 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any town of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, s 7(26).
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleI/Chapter4

      It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, s 10(c); see also District Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption).
http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/419/419mass507.html

      It has recently come to the attention of this office that the Council’s stenographer has acquired a new [ Diamante
http://stenograph.com ]
stenographic machine that creates an electronic output file. Subsequent to Council meetings, the file is downloaded onto a computer operated by the stenographer who works for the Council as a contract employee. The City has not claimed any exemption to permit or require the withholding of the electronic record generated by the stenographic machine.

Ms. Ann Hess Braga, Esq.
Page Two
February 16, 2012

SPR11/366

      In a meeting in the Council Chamber between you, the stenographer and me, the stenographer indicated that the file is not easily read by the average computer user. Please note that a custodian of records is not obligated to create a record in response to a request, nor is one required to convert a record into a readable format. The request was made for the file itself, and the file in its native form is a public record, absent any redactions; it need not be converted into a more accessible form.

      The stenographer has indicated that each stenographer possesses a particular style and language in stenographic notation that is unique. The responsive file may be indecipherable by the average reader. Again, the City has no obligation to translate or otherwise convert the file into a more accessible form. The Public Records Law relates to the status of records as they exist at the time of the request The responsive record, in whatever form it exists, must be provided to the requester. [Key may be requested for transcribing.]

      Finally, the stenographer has posed a question as to whether the output file is the property of the City. It has long been the position of this office that records created by third party contractors for governmental entities are public records, regardless of the physical location of the record. The legal custody lies with the governmental entity. The physical location of the record does not change its status as a public record.

      In order to withhold a record requested pursuant to the Public Records Law, the record custodian is charged with the duty of providing with specificity how a particular exemption applies to each individual record requested. See G. L. c. 66, s 10(c); see also District Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995). To date, the City has provided no explanation as to why an electronic copy of the stenographic output should not be provided.

      Accordingly, I find that the City has not met its burden and has not overcome the presumption that the responsive records are public records. You are hereby ordered to obtain a copy of the record from the stenographer, and provide a copy of the electronic record within ten (10) days.

      If the City is planning to charge for the cost of complying with the public records request, the requester must be provided with a written, good faith estimate. Once the City receives the estimate funds, the records must be provided. A custodian of records may assess a reasonable fee for complying with a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, s 10(a); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(2). Absent specific statutory authority to the contrary, the fees to be charged for complying with requests for public records are established by the Public Records Access Regulations (Regulations). See 950 C.M.R. 32.06. Under the Regulations, a custodian of records may assess a maximum fee of twenty cents ($.20) per page for a photocopy of a public record and fifty cents ($.50) per page for a computer print out of a public record. See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(1)(a). Please note that as the request is for an electronic record, no charge should be assessed for copies, as no paper copies have been requested.

Ms. Ann Hess Braga, Esq.
Page Three
February 16, 2012

SPR11/366

      Whereas it is the finding of this office that the responsive record is public, this administrative appeal is now closed.
Very truly yours,
Shawn A. Williams, Assistant Director
email
pre at sec.state.ma.us
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/arc/arcrmu/rmuidx.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Massachusetts.svg
ENSE PETIT PLACIDAM SVB LIBERTATE QVIETEM
She seeks with the sword a quiet peace under liberty

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth
Public Records Division
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/arc/arcrmu/rmuidx.htm

One Ashburton Place 17th Floor
Boston Massachusetts 02108
telephone 617 727-2832
fax 617 727-5914

cc:
Ms. Ann Hess Braga, Esq.
City of Boston
Boston City Hall 5th Floor
Boston Massachusetts 02201
telephone 617 635-3040
fax 617 635-4203
email
city.council at cityofboston.gov
http://cityofboston.gov/citycouncil

February 16, 2012
SPR11/366

http://www.charbase.com/267c-unicode-recycled-paper-symbol
50% Recycled Paper
30% Post-Consumer

Onion:

New Breeding Program Aimed At Keeping Moderate Republicans From Going Extinct

WASHINGTON—Saying the now critically endangered species of politician is at high risk for complete extinction within the next 10 years, Beltway-area conservationists announced plans Monday for a new captive breeding program designed to save moderate Republicans.

According to members of the Initiative to Protect the Political Middle (IPPM), centrist Republicans, who once freely roamed the nation calling for both economic deregulation and a return to Reagan-era tax rates on the wealthy, are in dire need of protection, having lost large portions of their natural terrain to the highly territorial Evangelical and Tea Party breeds.

“Our new program is designed to isolate the few remaining specimens of moderate Republicans, mate them in captivity, and then safely release these rare and precious creatures back into the electorate,” said IPPM’s Cynthia Rollins, who traces the decline of the species to changes in the political climate and rampant, predatory fanaticism. “Within our safe, enclosed habitats, these middle-of-the-road Republican Party members can freely support increased funding for public education and even gay rights without being threatened by the far-right subgenus.” …

“Last week we shot Gov. Mitch Daniels with a tranquilizer dart from a blind we’d set up near the Indiana Capitol, and we plan on mating him very soon with a senator we trapped up in Maine,” said IPPM reproductive expert Gabriel Burke, adding that forced breeding of centrist Republicans in captivity is a humane, carefully regulated procedure designed to simulate mating in the wild. “While captive specimens tend to be wary around each other at first, once they sense they’re both opponents of labor unions yet also willing to make tough compromises on collective bargaining rights, the sexual ritual begins almost instantly.”

Borowitz:

Fact That No One Likes Him May Be Hurting Romney

DENVER (The Borowitz Report) – Exit polls from last night’s Republican contests reveal that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney’s key obstacle to gaining the GOP nomination is the fact that voters cannot stand him. …

Exit polls taken last night bear out that theory, with a majority of voters agreeing with the statement, “I think Mitt Romney is so odious, I would rather vote for a random doofus I’ve never heard of who goes around in sweater vests.”

The beneficiary of that sentiment last night was former Sen. Rick Santorum, who told supporters at a victory rally in Missouri, “I support the rights of the unborn child until it’s born and wants a gay marriage.”

Speaking to supporters in Denver, Mr. Romney uttered what some political experts are calling a possible gaffe: “I don’t care about all the people who didn’t vote for me. They just envy my massive wealth. And poor people? They can curl up and die, and I won’t lose a wink of sleep. I bet you a million crisp dollars from my vault in Geneva.”

Kurtzman:

“They announced the winner of the Westminster Dog Show, and tomorrow the winning dog gets to ride on the roof of Mitt Romney’s car.” –David Letterman

“Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are both against gay marriage. Really, against gay marriage? I tell you, the problem with this is they’d make such a cute couple.” –David letterman

“The vice president of China showed up at the White House today. That’s what happens when you get behind on the rent. The landlord shows up, starts looking around.” –Jay Leno

“Congratulations to Mitt Romney. He got an honorary Grammy for best spoken word for being able to speak out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.” –Jay Leno

Before we get to what is important, i need to get this out of the way….

A recent post here discussed  fernald, and a supplemental 10 million dollars to keep fernald program open for its residents.

Because i replied critically to the post i was, interestingly, accused of being a sock puppet for ADDP.  I’m not.  I’m not Gary Blumenthal either.  Never met him, don’t know him, although i think i did see him once. maybe. I think he introduced peter paul and mary at a rally i attended.

Wait…maybe it was just Peter, or Paul…Mary definitely was not there. No matter.

But they were introduced by some one who gave an speech in support of restoring budgets cuts that were effecting the states disabled.  Whomever he was, i agreed with what I heard. Might have been from Blumenthal. Wasn’t me, thats for sure.

So full disclosure. I post here as a parent of disabled adult. Period. Full stop. For those who care ( apparently this matters ) he receives services from a private not for profit agency which is funded, in part, by the state; as opposed to receiving state services directly. ( My apoligies, Dave ). I volunteer at that agency, as i have been involved in every place my son has ever been… whether it be local school, state programs or his current one. Although i certainly would work for a human services agency or the state- i don’t.

I’m a life long resident of the state. And i don’t plan any further discussion of sock puppets.

whew. got that out of the way.

According to DDS over 20,000 individuals whom are disabled live with their family. That includes children and adults. This extensive report talks about their needs…often in their words for instance::

“My wife and I have only been away from our son 2 nights in our 20 years of marriage. Divorce rates are high for parents of special needs individuals. We are continually running on empty. We don’t need a support group. We can never attend anything for our other children together. Taking care of our son is more than a full time job. “

All parents can relate to the need for a break…its only ratcheted up when your child is disabled…and the breaks, even if for just a hour or two are so important.

Yet here is an example of cuts: DDS Family and Respite Support.

For those of you not familiar, this funds programs that enable folks to stay with their families. It helps families. Caring for a disabled family member is difficult. But respite and familly support helps make it possible. Its apple pie, or should be.  And its been cut in the past and is proposed to be cut again.

$5.5 million cut for FY13.

But its been cut before as well, $10m cut in FY10. So over time this line item has seen $15 million in cuts.

The current proposed cut is estimated by the arc to cause 2,000 individuals to lose support. As its current funding it only can help about  half of the folks in need.

Cuts make it harder for families to stay together, harder to care for a loved one at home. For families that are trying to care for a disabled individual we should do everything we can to help them.

I support restoring the funding to FY10 levels…and oppose the proposed cuts.

A video regarding religious liberty, Scott Brown and then Senator John Kennedy.

I wonder what our former governor’s thoughts are about the current MBTA funding scheme. A little leadership from the executive branch would be refreshing.

I don’t think anyone is playing us like a violin to gain critical mass for a long-term solution. IMHO the institutional stakeholders are pulling in slightly different directions based on their various missions  and T riders are going to take it on the chin again when the heat dissipates. You have to love tone deaf MASSPORT though. 1 billion dollars for superLogan renovation. You need a ferry system.

Anecdotally, a friend  in Lynn said that over two hundred people showed up at a recent public meeting about the fare hike. She was agog because ” 200 people at any meeting in Lynn is unheard of.” Will all these people end up with a bad taste in their mouth because of  another round of can kicking?

My solution: A Damon/Affleck film with 1.4 million  extras portraying subway riders.  Would DeLeo acknowledge T riders then?

Matt Damon’s line from December still rings true “people are literally- without any focus or leadership- just wandering out into the streets to yell right now because they are so pissed off … Imagine if they had a leader.”

BTW  Speaking of institutional leaders, where the #**# is the Conservation Law Foundation?  You all are pretty quiet considering.  See:  http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/02/proposed-mbta-service-cutsfare-increase-passing-the-buck-for-mitigation/