Blue Mass Group

This is a good thing. Good for him.

Markey urged supporters in an email Tuesday to sign a petition his campaign has launched opposing chained CPI, a proposal in the president’s fiscal year 2014 budget that would reduce the cost-of-living adjustment related to senior and veterans benefits. Obama included the proposal as a compromise offer to Republicans, but Markey told supporters he disagreed with the tactic. The petition in Markey’s email redirects to a fundraising page.

“Democrats won huge victories in 2012. We reelected President Obama. We held the Senate and made gains in the House,” he said in the email. “We don’t need to roll over to the right wing when it comes to budget choices.”

So let’s go one step further: increase Social Security. If Ed Markey’s looking for a positive lefty agenda, there’s something to shoot for.

Also it’s worth reflecting on our Democratic president trying to slash Social Security and raiding the Associated Press.

The man who was supposed to be the conscience of the administration on civil liberties has failed time and time again. This time he has certainly gone too far. From failing to close Guantanamo, backpedaling on civilian trials for the Times Square bomber, going after Swartz and defending Ortiz, Fast and Furious, and now the AP Leak it’s time for him to go. A persuasive case from a fellow liberal:

I recognize that there are times when journalists might have to reveal sources—when a person’s life is at stake, say, and others. And remember, the Supreme Court has never recognized a journalist’s right to protect source confidentiality. But even with all that, it’s pretty clear that Obama has been waging a secret war and then pursuing journalists trying to dig into it with more zeal than even the Bush administration did. And it’s an extra irony that Mr. Process Liberal is presiding over all this.

So what’s he going to do now? I think we can predict. He’s going to stand by Eric Holder for now and let some interminable process play out. Just like he’s going to let some lengthy process play out at the IRS.

And while these processes play out, it’s going to be drip, drip, drip. Republicans will say anything they need to say to gain political advantage. And now, this is the kind of matter that’s going to get Democrats worked up too. I wrote yesterday that he needs to crack some heads at the IRS and crack them fast. And now, he ought to ask for Holder’s resignation. This week. Enough already. Holder’s rights here aren’t more important than Obama sending a strong signal that he is in charge and can make hard decisions. Holder will go off and make millions of dollars anyway, and there are lots of other people out there who can be attorney general.

Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie

The passage of a marriage equality law in Delaware last week leaves New Jersey the only Atlantic coast state north of Virginia to retain a discriminatory marriage law.

“[V]acationers this summer can travel anywhere from Portland, Maine, to Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, and all the way to Ocean City, Maryland, to enjoy the Atlantic coastline in destinations that treat all people equally — that is, only if they bypass New Jersey,” said Garden State Equality in a press release.

“It is a blight on our state’s record of leadership and social justice, and on our economy, that Governor Christie has vetoed marriage equality and that the legislature has not yet overridden that veto.”

The New Jersey state legislature passed a marriage equality bill in February, 2012.  Gov. Christie vetoed it immediately.  Since the bill wasn’t passed by a veto-proof majority, the race is on to secure 12 additional votes in the House and 3 in the Senate before the legislative session ends in January, 2014.

This is possible if Gov. Christie, who is known for enforcing party discipline, allows Republican legislators to vote their conscience.  It would be in his best interest to do so, because he’s giving New Jersey a retrograde reputation.

Since his veto last year, Washington, Maine, Maryland, Rhode Island and Delaware have doubled the number of marriage equality states to 11.  Minnesota is expected to become the 12th state on Monday, March 13, with Illinois following suit in the next few weeks.

In contrast, New Jersey keeps its loving, committed same-sex couples segregated into separate and unequal civil unions.  Thanks to Gov. Christie’s veto, New Jersey embraces a discriminatory past while the rest of the country moves on.  Eleven (soon to be 13) states plus the District of Columbia, President Obama, prominent Republicans including former NJ Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, Fortune 500 companies and the country as a whole have evolved on this issue.

Those so inclined can encourage Gov. Christie to get with the program by signing this petition sponsored by Garden State Equality and American Civil Liberties Union.

Cross-posted at Blue Jersey.

Longtime Cape Wind opponent Peter Kenney has an op-ed in today’s New Bedford Standard Times attacking me personally. It’s part of a broader strategy by wind opponents to bully clean energy supporters into silence. Will Massachusetts leaders stand up for reasoned debate, or give into scare tactics?

What was my crime in Kenney’s eyes? Daring to point out that Bill Koch, a billionaire Cape Cod estate owner and heir to a polluting energy fortune, is blocking New Bedford clean energy jobs by bankrolling Cape Wind opposition. I’m only the latest person Kenney has targeted for personal attacks. “Mr. Kenney has a history of not being able to disagree respectfully,” Yarmouth Planning Board Chairman Erik Tolley said last year.

What’s bizarre is that in Kenney’s op-ed, he claims I refused to take his call. I talked to him on April 23 for two minutes. Here’s my annotation of the phone record:

The upcoming referendum on a Boston casino must be conducted in the most fair, open, and transparent manner possible.  I believe that the casino referendum should be citywide so that the voices of all the people of Boston can be heard.

The current law allowing a referendum to take place only in East Boston is potentially unconstitutional and could prove divisive.  While East Boston will undoubtedly feel the greatest impact of a casino, its impact will not be limited to that one neighborhood.  The Boston City Council should vote to authorize a citywide vote.

In order to avoid many of the problems of the past, I also believe that the City Council should use the opportunity before it to make clear that the referendum itself should be read to reflect the support of the city only if it wins a majority of the vote citywide and in the host neighborhood.  In so doing, the referendum gives the people of East Boston a position of primacy, an important protection against others potentially imposing a casino on a neighborhood that may or may not embrace one.  Conversely, this two-part threshold prevents a single neighborhood from setting a course for the entire city that is so potentially momentous.

Finally, we should take whatever steps we can to ensure that the referendum itself is conducted on a level playing field.  Casino interests are clearly in a position to spend millions to affect the outcome of the referendum.  A campaign spending cap would be ideal.  Short of this however, any contributions and expenditures made in the referendum campaign should be completely transparent and fully and publicly disclosed.

We are one city, with one shared future.  If this statement is to be a matter of fact, and not merely a slogan, then the referendum itself must be citywide and its results read to reflect our shared stake in it.

Can someone help me out here. How did Deval Patrick and Barrack Obama first meet? According to my local paper, the Gloucester Daily Times, they were old friends from their Chicago days. When I sent the reporter a note saying the timelines didn’t seem to support that, the next story involving the two of them claimed they were friends from Harvard Law School. The timelines don’t appear to be consistent with that claim either, something I also pointed out to the reporter and his editor, but the claim has appeared again in a story this week.

Why is this of local interest? Patrick reached out to an Obama aide, creating at least the appearance of a request for financial assistance for the fishing industry.

By Lee Harrison, member Democratic State Committee

Back in 2010, when Tea Party Republican Senator Mitch McConnell declared, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” he was essentially declaring unlimited war against the first African-American President of the United States.  And to this day, even after President Obama decisively won a second term, Tea Party Republicans reject his Presidency and continue their scorched-earth tactics, no matter what the cost to nation.

The latest Tea Party Republican to lead the charge against Obama is Gabriel Gomez, the wealthy guy running against Democratic Congressman Ed Markey to fill John Kerry’s Senate seat.  During last fall’s Presidential election Gomez was the spokesman for Opsec, a group of former Navy SEALs and intelligence officers who ran TV “Swiftboat” ads criticizing Obama’s handling of the killing of Osama bin Laden.  Now, that same group is asking for donations for Gomez, saying his victory would be “a devastating blow to Barack Obama’s agenda.”

Well, yes, it would because Gomez would nullify Elizabeth Warren’s votes as well as all the work we did to elect her.  But, as Elizabeth’s big victory last fall proves, Massachusetts voters have learned a thing or two since Scott Brown caught lightning in a bottle back in 2010.  For instance, Gomez, like Brown, is hoping his good looks and life story will blind voters to his conservatism and lack of substance on the issues.  But that dog won’t hunt any more in Massachusetts.  After voters saw Brown in action they rejected him, along with his truck and his barn jacket, for Elizabeth Warren, who really does represent the values and voters of our state.  Voters determined rightly that Scott Brown was acting – and voting – like Kentucky’s third Senator.  And Gabriel Gomez is just more of the same.

Not sure?  Check out the “Issues” page on his website.  Gomez either misrepresents the issues, shows a profound lack of knowledge and depth, or just offers right-wing platitudes.

Let’s start with “Washington, DC has a spending problem.” – This is simply not true.  The deficit is fading – fast.  According to economist Paul Krugman, “as a medium-term (meaning up to 10 years) [the deficit] issue has largely gone away.”  The problem we have as a nation is not that government (state as well as federal) is spending too much, it’s that we’re not spending enough – on infrastructure, schools, etc – to make up for the lack of private-sector spending.  Very simply, we can’t shrink our way to prosperity, but you won’t hear that from Mr. Gomez.  Like Scott Brown before him, he reads from Mitch McConnell’s script.

Of course, the contrasts with Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren go even further.  Unlike Gomez and Brown, both believe in investing in our future and promoting clean energy.  While Gomez supports the Keystone XL pipeline, the dirtiest energy project in America, Ed and Elizabeth oppose it.  And Ed has one of the strongest – and longest – pro-environment records in Congress.  As Casey Stengel used to say, “You could look it up.”  And you would also find that Ed Markey is 100% pro-choice, supports women’s access to free preventive health services, and equal pay for equal work.  Gomez has no “women’s issues” page on his web site.

Oh yes, if you rely on Social Security and Medicare, don’t count on Gabriel Gomez for support, and don’t count on him for any specifics.  “Political leaders in Washington should have the courage to commit to reforming these programs,” he says on his website.  That’s Tea Party Republican code for cuts.  Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren don’t think it’s right to cut seniors’ benefits, and they don’t talk in code.  In fact, Ed Markey’s website says outright that “he opposes any changes to Social Security that would reduce benefits for our nation’s seniors, including misguided proposals to raise the retirement age or reduce cost of living adjustments.  And Ed will always fight against Republicans’ attempts to privatize Social Security.”

So, whom are you going to trust?  A “one-percenter” who speaks in code and platitudes about critical issues and whosebackers promise he’ll cripple the President’s agenda, or someone who will join Elizabeth Warren to give Massachusetts the most formidable duo in the U.S. Senate?  Vote Markey, help Warren … and yourself.

###

from petr:

divestment is one thing, investment quite another…

… almost by definition =-)

Today, fossil fuel companies represent two of the ten largest investments in the both the Public Retiree Investment Trust (PRIT) fund’s $9.4b domestic and $8.2b international equity portfolios. An additional $780 million invested across three other portfolios means the Commonwealth invests around $1.3 billion in state assets in fossil fuels.

While “investing” in fossil fuels often carries with it less risk of loss of principle, and increased chance of returns and dividends, and thus makes it a good “investment”, when seen from a purely mercenary point of view, it really isn’t “investment” in the sense I think you mean: buying stock in Exxon is buying stock in the churn of drill, refine, burn, gasp and, you’re not really making anything better. In addition, there is unlikely to be any sort of multiplier. You might help Exxon pump crude out of the ground faster. You might fund another, bigger, tanker that’ll (hopefully safely) get the crude to the refinery). But you’re not investing in much progress. If anything, you’re working against the present state of things where most modes of conveyance, cars, boats, airplanes and trains are in a race to become more fuel efficient. The actual process of turning crude into petrol isn’t all that different from the cracking processes first invented in the 1890′s and refined in the 1920′s. It’s an industry in stasis and unlikely to change. The only thing that will change is the amount of crude available. I had hopes when British Petroleum tried to change it’s name to “Beyond Petroleum” but they suffer, distinctly, from the same issue described here: the lure of easy cash returns rather than real progress.

But specifically investing in renewables is specifically investing in progress: things will need to be built, problems solved, infrastructures built and maintained, and energy delivered. As such, it’s a real investment and, bonus, likely to have a more potent multiplier and a much longer shelf life. Personally, and for those reasons, I’d like to see that 1.3b spent chasing progress, perhaps even eventually being chased by it, rather than simply chasing more bucks in an ever diminishing spiral of diminishing returns. But I don’t think of it as ‘divestment’ in fossil fuels but ‘investment’ in progress.

Yeah. If you’re running the state’s investment fund and investing in fossil fuels, you’re betting against the state’s interests. You could invest that money elsewhere and get a decent return without directly hastening catastrophe. As a candidate Steve Grossman talked about using the state’s funds to invest in Massachusetts itself; we should keep this frame of reference in mind.

The following is a copy of an email that I sent to my school’s staff earlier this year. As a prelude, I wonder if the Boston Foundation will ever laud BPS for anything. Regardless, we have much to brag about. Charters have much to be ashamed of. They are the educational equivalent of steroid abusing MLB players looking to duke their stats for a more lucrative payout and endorsement deal. Their story ends with Roger Clemens, Rafeal Palmeiro, Jose Canseco, Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, et. al. with tarnished careers and possible legal action imposed against some for lying to Congress. Charters lie too, through a well funded campaign of spin, demonization of career minded middle class union teachers, and omission of who they really teach. The following offers an explanation of how charter magicians’ pull off the “smoke and mirrors” show. Sorry Houdini for giving away the tricks of the trade:

We all should be proud of our “traditional” public school – The Joseph Lee School.
Charters may claim superiority, while never admitting any fallibility. However, here are some facts oft not touted by corporate ed reformers.
“Successful” Charter schools do not backfill seats. (That means once a student leaves – they do not fill the empty seat with another student) Attrition rates at charter schools are obnoxious. One example is the ballyhooed Edward Brooke: suspension rate 25%; this “innovation” incubator started off with 47 sixth graders. In grade seven these 47 sixth graders became 36. By grade eight there were 22 left – all of course SOARED on the MCAS!
A 53% attrition rate, coupled with a 25% suspension rate, should be a violation of civil rights at this “so-called” “public” charter school. (By the way the ELL and SPED populations are virtually non-existent.)
In fact the ACLU sued the district of Fall River for its 18.4% suspension rate. Fall River is the only “public” district represented on the following list of top MA suspension factories:
▪ Roxbury Preparatory Charter: 56.1%
▪ Grove Hall Preparatory Charter: 50%
▪ City on a Hill Charter: 43.6%
▪ Up Academy Charter Boston: 38%
▪ New Leadership Charter: 36.6%
▪ Boston Preparatory Charter: 35.1%
▪ Lowell Middlesex Academy Charter: 32.1%
▪ Holyoke: 27.3%
▪ Edward Brooke Charter: 24.9%
▪ Hampden Charter School of Science: 24.7%
▪ Codman Academy Charter: 23.5%
▪ Spirit of Knowledge Charter: 22.8%
▪ Martin Luther King Jr. Charter School of Excellence: 22.5%
▪ Edward Brooke Charter 2: 22.4%
▪ Boston Green Academy Horace Mann Charter: 19.4%
▪ Community Charter School of Cambridge: 19.4%
▪ Fall River: 18.4%
▪ Berkshires Arts and Technology Academy: 18.1%
▪ Excel Academy Charter Chelsea: 17.9%
▪ Franklin County Regional Vocational Technical Institute: 17.6%
How is this “better” than us? If they want to “compete” they need to tell the truth and stop demonizing US! Where is the ACLU? Where is the outrage? We do a better job at educating EVERYBODY – the way a PUBLIC school is intended to do – bottom line!
Thanks,
I just thought everyone should know the truth,
Colum
P.S. BPS suspension rate is 5%

My letter to the staff was well received. I move to amend the current legislation at the statehouse. We should lift the cap on traditional public schools. We should support education for ALL, not for some. Lastly, the Bruins just scored the winning goal in the most exciting and dramatic comebacks that I have ever witnessed in any sport. Watch out charters – anything is possible!

Colum Whyte

The Huffington Post is reporting that Minnasota Senate Passes Gay Marriage, Governor to Sign. That is immediately after a sometimes bitter fight over their constitution last fall.

<

That’s 25% of the Country. Y’ALL. (Technically 24%, but what is a rounding error between “Friends”)
Hurray for Lake Wobegon!

Gabriel Gomez runs for unknown reasons. Photo credit: Gomez Facebook page

We know that Gabriel Gomez can run, because Rep. Ed Markey‘s Republican opponent for the open U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts spends a fair amount of his campaign time participating in road races. Based on photos posted to his campaign Facebook page, he’s run in no less than six since early April.

While it’s great to see a congressional hopeful modeling health and fitness, it’s also a convenient way for a low-information candidate to get positive public exposure without having to say anything substantive.

The special election is only 6 weeks away, and still Gomez’s Issues page is little more than a back-of-the-envelope doodle.

Almost two weeks ago, shortly after he won the Republican primary, I opined that Gomez was an unknown quantity regarding LGBT-related legislation beyond his support for the freedom to marry.  I wrote:

With the June 25 special election quickly approaching, it’s time for Mr. Gomez to tell voters how he would turn his opposition to “discrimination of any kind” into legislative action, should he be elected to the U.S. Senate.

Here we are two weeks hence and we know nothing more today about Gabriel Gomez’s position on LGBT issues than we did then.  We know that Gabriel Gomez likes to run in road races, but we don’t know why he’s running for U.S. Senate or what he would do if he got there.

Via ABC News

Gabriel Gomez’s incoherence on climate science and energy policy makes a lot more sense once you take a deeper dive into his personal finances, as Joshua Israel did at ThinkProgress:

A ThinkProgress review of Gomez’s personal financial disclosure filings reveals that a significant amount of his own money is invested, directly or indirectly, in dirty energy stocks and bonds. These include investments of between $1,000 and $15,000 each in:

1. Emerson Electric Co., which automates oil and gas operations for energy companies.
2. Exxon Mobil Corp., the world’s largest publicly traded international oil and gas company.
3. Occidental Petroleum Corp., an international oil and gas exploration and production company.
4. Schlumberger Ltd., a the world’s largest supplier of technology and project management services for the oil and gas industry worldwide.
5. Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc., a deepwater drilling contractor for the oil and gas industry.
6. DTE Energy Co., a Detroit-based electric and gas utility.
7. Dominion Resources, a Richmond-based electric utility.
8. Xcel Energy Inc., a Minneapolis-based electric and gas utility.
9. Gulf Power Co., a Florida-based electric utility.
10. Southern California Edison, a California-based electric utility.
11. Entergy Louisiana, a Louisiana-based electric utility

By doing the dirty work of his out-of-state polluting investments, Gomez is turning his back on the more than 71,000 people who work in Massachusetts’ booming clean energy industry. He’s also ignoring the impacts that climate change is already having on Massachusetts – stronger storms like Sandy, rising sea levels, deeper droughts, and deadlier summer heat waves.

As I’m knocking on doors for Ed Markey in the weeks ahead, this story speaks to the one thing I’ll be telling undecided voters: Gomez is so beholden to big money – polluters, national Republicans, shady tax breaks – that we just can’t trust the guy to do what’s right for Massachusetts.

This from The Hill:

Republican Gabriel Gomez lags Democrat Edward Markey by just three points in a new internal poll of the Massachusetts special Senate election released by Gomez’s campaign.

The poll comes at the end of a rough week for Gomez, one the underdog spent defending himself against questions about a tax deduction he took on his home that the IRS labeled one of its “Dirty Dozen” tax scams.

The poll, conducted by Republican pollster OnMessage Inc., gives Markey 46 percent support to Gomez’s 43 percent, with 11 percent of respondents undecided. Markey’s lead is within the poll’s 3.4 percent margin of error, indicating the race is a statistical dead heat.

Both Markey and Gomez have similarly high favorables overall, but fewer respondents view Gomez unfavorably than Markey, likely due to the fact that voters haven’t yet tuned into the race and still don’t know much about him.

But Gomez fares better among independents, a key voting bloc in Massachusetts, as more than half of the state’s voters aren’t registered with either party. Only 10 percent of independents view him negatively, while 44 percent view Markey negatively, putting Markey underwater with independents.

The internal poll was conducted among 800 likely special election voters from May 5-7.

http://thehill.com/video/campaign/299233-gomez-internal-poll-shows-him-trailing-markey-by-3-points

The release of internal polls are what they are – PR moves – and in this case I suspect an attempt to get the national GOP to focus on the race. Ground gaome is still the difference in a special election.

Daniel Kurtman compiles Mark Sanford:

“I remind all you conservative Christians celebrating Mark Sanford’s win that Leviticus commands you to stone adulterers.” -John Fugelsang

“Congratulations to newly elected Rep. Mark Sanford. Finally, the Congress will have an expert on foreign affairs.” -The Capitol Steps

“According to exit polls, Mr. Sanford held a three-to-one lead among voters who described themselves as liars, cheaters, or sleazebags.” -Andy Borowitz

“According to exit polls, voters felt that Mr. Sanford’s opponent, Elizabeth Colbert Busch, did not have the lying experience necessary to serve in Congress.” -Andy Borowitz

Daniel Kurtzman:

Obama at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner:

“Some folks still don’t think I spend enough time with Congress. ‘Why don’t you get a drink with Mitch McConnell?’ they ask. Really? Why don’t you get a drink with Mitch McConnell?”

On the sequester: “Republicans fell in love with this thing, and now they can’t stop talking about how much they hate it. It’s like we’re trapped in a Taylor Swift album.”

On MSNBC: “Some of my former advisers have switched over to the dark side. For example, David Axelrod now works for MSNBC, which is a nice change of pace since MSNBC used to work for David Axelrod.”

On his charm offensive: “I’m taking my charm offensive on the road — a Texas barbeque with Ted Cruz, a Kentucky bluegrass concert with Rand Paul, and a book-burning with Michele Bachmann.”

On plans for the Obama Library: “Some have suggested that we put it in my birthplace, but I’d rather keep it in the United States. Did anybody not see that joke coming? Show of hands. Only Gallup? Maybe Dick Morris?”

Conan O’Brien’s Best Jokes from the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

On Fox News: “My prior experience has taught me how these dinners work. If the President laughs, everyone laughs. And if the Fox News table laughs, a little girl just fell off her bike.”

On print media: “The print media are here for two very good reasons: food and shelter.”

On Chris Christie: “I’d like to acknowledge that earlier this evening, there was some confusion with the seating chart. For a moment, someone accidentally sat Governor Chris Christie with the Republicans. That was awkward, and I apologize.”

On Marco Rubio: “The Republican Party has a new rising star, Marco Rubio, or as he’s known in the Republican Party, our black guy.”

When this story broke, I expected someone from BMG to write a post by now, condemning the actions of how the IRS profiled Tea Party groups for additional scrutiny, akin to what the New Jersey police did when profiling certain drivers on their highways, back in the day. Perhaps it was just a busy few days for everyone, here is hoping this will be my first post promoted by one of the Big 3.

Apparently, IRS officials in Cincinnati, responsible for reviewing applications for tax-exempt status, subjected certain groups with further investigations, that included words like “tea party”, “patriots” or stated issues included government spending, debt, or taxes.  IRS Director Lois Lerner has stated that only low-level employees were involved……..

Anyway, how would BMG’s feel if the IRS, under a Republican POTUS, targeted groups with the names that included “progressive”, or “brotherhood”, or “reproductive rights” or even “blue”?  I believe there would be an outrage, as there should be.

“The Tea Party groups were seeking tax-exempt status under a provision of the tax code for social welfare groups — so called 501(c)(4) organizations. Unlike other charities, these groups are allowed to engage in political advocacy as long as it’s not their primary purpose. ”  For instance, NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation is recognized by the IRS under this section.

The additional information requested of Tea Party groups often included requests for donor lists, which the IRS later admitted was inappropriate and “troubling.” Tea Party groups who protested were told they didn’t have to submit the information, and those donor lists that were submitted have been destroyed,(que pic of Dr Evil above) IRS officials told the inspector general.

In a nutshell, here’s my philosophy on how well the free market solves problems: It works exceedingly well when the proper conditions are in place, but it does not work well in all circumstances.

What you need for the free market to work properly:

Transparency — Consumers have enough information to compare suppliers;

Consumer ease of switching — If you don’t like one supplier, it’s pretty easy to make a change;

Sector ease of entry — If existing suppliers are not meeting consumer needs, it’s possible for others to enter the market within a reasonable timeframe.

Some sort of mechanism to handle abuses by suppliers.

So, there’s a difference between eBay sellers — a sector that meets all the requirements above — and local hospitals, where someone who calls an ambulance typically doesn’t have much choice as to what local hospital they’ll end up in (with the possible exception of high-density medical areas in Boston). This is why I am a big proponent of private-sector competition in, say, Internet retailing yet do not believe in for-profit local hospitals.

In fact, if there is a hospital sector where free-market private-enterprise competition might make sense it would be among world-class hospitals in Boston where consumers tend to have more of a choice and the ability to do research when deciding where to go for treatment of a serious condition that is not an immediate medical emergency. And, it’s rather telling that there are no for-profit entities that are trying to compete with Mass General and Brigham & Women’s. (I know the medical sector has its own enormous issues that I’m not addressing, but I’m trying to stick to free-market issues here).

Which brings us to education. Does primary and secondary education meet the free-market test?

Transparency? Trying to measure schools by median test scores is a joke, sorry all you MCAS fans. By definition, students in a charter school will, *on average*, have parents who are more engaged in their children’s educational outcome, and IMO that’s the single most important factor in a young student’s success. Not to mention the student body in a charter school often differs in substantial other ways with the student body in your average urban public schools. There are schools that constantly get an influx of new immigrant kids who are included in test scoring soon after arrival and other schools that have a more stable student body. And on and on. But finally, I personally do not believe that average standardized test scores accurately measure quality of education, although I suppose it does measure administration creativity in terms of how to classify students.

Ease of switching — in theory, I suppose parents can pull their kids out of one school and move them to another if they’re not happy. In practice, unless the student is remarkably unhappy and has no friends in the current school, how often is that going to happen?

Sector ease of entry — Nope.

Consumer redress for shoddy service — Not sure how that goes for parents. For those of us footing the bill — that is, taxpayers — there is some limited ability to affect direction and budgets for schools depending whether you live in a city or town; but for a charter school, it’s zero. The charter school gets to take my money and pretty much do whatever it wants; I’ve got no say at all. I’m not OK with that, period. If people think there are problems with the public schools, fix the problems in the public schools. Don’t ask me to fund a parallel school structure that decreases efficiency and gives me no say in how that parallel structure functions. My obligation is to make sure that children in my community get an education, but that does not extend to serving as an ATM for education experimentation.

If anything, post-secondary education has more of the free-market conditions in place than high school does: students & parents can better compare alternatives, and typically since the geographical area is wider there’s a lot more choice and college students are more likely to switch schools to find a better program than elementary school kids (at least the ones I know). How is the free market working out for that sector? College costs are rising way faster than the overall inflation rate. What does that tell me? The free market is not working all that well for post-secondary cost containment, even though there are public, private non-profit and private for-profit options that seem to meet some of the general conditions for a free-market solution. And *that* makes me rightly skeptical that charter schools are going to do anything to solve the problems of quality and cost for elementary and secondary education when those sectors have less of the needed factors in place than post-secondary.

Secrets should make us curious. Especially government secrets. After all, if the secret were good for you it would be ballywhoed by every agency and politician able to take any credit for the action – it would not have to be a secret.

At the time the IRS’s secret harassment of political opponents -long denied- comes to light, the good people of Quincy are subject to night overflights. Other than admission of the fact there are overflights, the government people are silent as to the purpose. Can this be good for those that are under these flights?

In light of the history of the government using its citizens as guinea pigs, should not the duly elected that tell us their love for the safety and security of their constituents before each election, get to the bottom of what this activity is all about?

Do you trust nameless government officials?

“Distrust and caution are the parents of security.”  –Benjamin Franklin

While understanding that campaigning in a special election creates conflicts for incumbent elected officials, I must admit that Congressman Markeying missing the vote on the House GOP’s bill (HR 1406) to undercut overtime pay for private sector workers is very disappointing. And re-enforces my reasoning for supporting Congressman Lynch in the Democratic Primary. I felt then that Lynch was far more committed to core Democratic economic issues than Markey. Markey’s decision to skip a vote on a basic econoomic issue like overtime pay (one of only 3 Dems and 5 Congressmen overall to not vote) in a 223 to 204 brings back that concern. And it’s a poor political judgement call as Markey reaches out to blue collar voters in a special election.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll137.xml

This missed vote doesn’t change my support for Markey – the GOP controlled House was going to pass the bill regardless if Markey was sitting on the floor of Congress Wednesday evening. I fully expect Senator Markey to vote against the bill when it reaches the U.S. Senate. But it does make it harder to make the case that Congressman Markey understands the issues facing middle class/ working class voters for this special election. A political mis-step IMO.

Thanks to a robust and forward-thinking partnership amongst the Patrick Administration, Legislature, municipalities, environmental advocates and utilities, Massachusetts has taken the lead on combating climate change. By investing in clean energy and energy efficiency, we are showing the nation that we can reduce our impact on the climate while also creating jobs. Unfortunately, Washington hasn’t seen the wisdom of our ways. Our national energy policy is stuck in a debate about who can promote fossil fuels more.

Given that, we have more to do here in Massachusetts – but what more can we do? I propose we need to stop investing in oil, coal and other fossil fuels with our public pension funds. We need to follow the call of college students on campuses nationwide, the faith community, progressive cities and towns, and others by divesting from fossil fuels. I’ve filed legislation to do this (S. 1225) and I hope you’ll lend your support to make Massachusetts a leader in this effort.

I am not posting here to object to ads from Massachusetts groups and affiliates endorsing candidates for their positions or actions on specific issues. I see a value to the voters in knowing that a candidate is supported by an organization with whom the voter agrees or disagrees. I am, however, horrified by the prospect of our media being polluted by more of these “swift boat” type of ads brought to us by mysterious superPACs whose donors are not acknowledged. There is no accountability for their claims, no validity to the authorship, no fact-checking on their contents, and no limit to their checkbooks.

Ed Markey is calling for the “People’s Pledge” to keep unlimited, undisclosed funds from shady SuperPACs out of this election – thus preserving a more transparent election. Gabriel Gomez rejects the People’s Pledge, although he previously decried out-of-state fringe group negative ads on behalf of one of his primary opponents.

For more information, watch the video from the Markey campaign at: http://youtu.be/XMoKLkchLec or read Markey’s blog post here: http://www.edmarkey.com/blog/2013/gabriel-gomez-should-take-the-peoples-pledge/.

Please speak up and take action to help preserve the integrity of this special senate election.