The Telegram article continued in part:
“Andrea C. Silbert, of Harwich, founder of the Center for Women and Enterprise, said she and her husband, Craig Caldwell, a graphic designer and artist, made a combined income of $52,047 last year, paying federal taxes of $11,290 and receiving a refund of $5,818.
“In 2004, Ms. Silbert and her husband reported a combined income of $133,007. In 2003, when she was still CEO of the nonprofit group, she and Mr. Caldwell earned a combined $89,955. …
“Mr. Murray, a lawyer, and his wife, Tammy, an occupational therapist, together made less than $100,000 in 2005, including Mr. Murrayâs mayoral salary of $18,000, according to Scott Ferson, a spokesman for Mr. Murray.
“The Worcester mayorâs position is part-time and without executive authority; the mayor is a city councilor who runs the council and also serves as chairman of the School Committee. A professional city manager oversees the city government.”
for âwalking the walkâ when it comes to good government. If Democrats do not stand for transparency and full disclosure, how are we any better than a Republican Party that allows big oil to write our energy policies and delivers no-bid contracts to Halliburton? We cannot afford to cede the high ground on the ethics issue – especially at a time when many citizens are skeptical of both parties. Republican Governors Weld and Cellucci were willing to share their income tax returns with the public. Until now, every Democrat to run for Governor since 1990 had done the same. Mitt Romney broke that tradition in 2002 because, well, he just believes he is above exposing his potential conflicts to good old fashioned sunlight. Well, it wasnât right for the Republican nominee in 2002 and itâs not right the Democrats in 2006. If we want to bring higher standards of accountability to the corner office, our actions must reflect our beliefs. As Democrats, we should not settle for anything less. Otherwise, independent voters will not be able to distinguish our partyâs nominees from theirs. Tom Reilly and Andrea Silbert are right to take a stand on this issue and the other candidates should follow their lead. Massachusetts deserves to have leaders who respect them enough to believe that he or she must earn their trust and not just take it for granted by carrying on Mitt Romneyâs and Kerry Healey’s legacy of indifference.
sounds awfully familiar …
Do we have to type out a policy somewhere stating it’s bad form to copy and paste your own (or without attribution, anyone else’s) comments from thread to thread. It’s becoming a real nuisance on many blogs lately.
<
p>
What about releasing personal tax returns is about open government? I never understood the flap over that (even before I was on Deval’s volunteer list). If I ran as a candidate, I wouldn’t want to release mine either, rich OR poor (for me, it’s poor)…yeesh.
<
p>
What’s next? I should release the number of times I have sex with my husband?
<
p>
If there was a tax problem (evasion, whatever) those problems, though they come out anyway (read: St. Fleur) should be disclosed (and they were), but WTF can I find out from any candidate’s returns? How rich they are, so I can beat them up over it?
Let me go out on a limb and suggest that you would not have a problem with my re-post if you happened to agree with my opinion. If authors were only allowed to publish their work once, we would all be fighting over the one and only copy of “The Catcher in the Rye.” (Not that I am comparing the quality of my work to J.D. Salinger’s.)
<
p>
My re-post is on point and if you happen to have already read it, you should feel free to skip over it. No harm, no foul. Of course, if it is my opinion that offends you, well, that is an entirely different matter. If we profess to be a party of acceptance than we should practice what we preach. I do not accept the right’s intolerance of opposing opinion, nor do I accept it from the left.
<
p>
For the record, financial disclosure is not about crucifying the wealthy. (In fact, I cannot think of a single candidate who has suffered embarassment as a result of disclosure since the practice was universally adopted in 1990). However, when a candidate seeks the most powerful office in the state, he or she should be willing to share their potential conflicts.
<
p>
Wasn’t it important to know that Kerry Healey’s husband’s company was unfairly awarded a $1 million tax credit by the Romney-Healey Administration? If we want to be the better party, we must set a higher standard and we must hold ourselves to it.
<
p>
There is nothing invasive about the process. We already know that Deval Patrick and Chris Gabrieli have made millions. There is nothing wrong with that. However, the public is entitled to know if our candidate’s personal interests may conflict with his or her private interests. A little sunlight is good for everything.
What is wrong with re-posting comments so long as they are substantive and on-point. If you don’t like it, move on.
It was beginning to feel a little chilly in here! 🙂
Sorry about that!
You know what company Healey’s husband owns. You know this information without his tax return.
<
p>
When the company got the contract, you found out there was a conflict of interest.
<
p>
Healey has never released her return.
<
p>
What’s your point again?
(I’m glad that my parents taught me enough basic decorum that I do not refer to people I disagree with as “idiots.”)
<
p>
However, moving back to the issue (which is the most important thing), I used Kerry Healey’s husband’s tax break as an illustration as to why transparency is a good thing. It is demonstrative (although not exactly the same) of the type of revelations that may be obtained from an income tax return. I also preferred to use an example dealing with a Republican.
<
p>
As another example (and in response to your disatisfaction with my first effort), Glen Johnson of the Associated Press wrote a piece that I posted under User Posts yesterday. In that article, he noted that Deval Patrick is paid to sit on the board of Ameriquest, a company whose unethical lending practices has forced them to pay a settlement with virtually every state. Inferences such as these would be easily dispelled if a candidate would simply release his or her tax return statements, as Tom Reilly, Andrea Silber, and Tim Murray have done.
<
p>
I hope that clarified the type of issues that I am talking about.
polk wasn’t referring to your post or “utterance”? Are you asuming Polk was referringf to you personally or your comment. I am assuming since you parents took the time to teach you basic decorum they taught you about seeking facts. If not its rather simple.
especially on a blog. So it quite rational and appropriate that when someone calls my opinion “idiocy,” he or she is effectively calling me an “idiot.” I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: intolerance of opinion from the left is just as wrong as intolerance of opinion from the right
<
p>
However, the issue is financial disclosures, transparency, and holding our party’s candidates to a higher standard. Personal attacks typically indicate weak arguments on the actual subject.
My parents always taught me that there’s a substantial difference between what people say and what they are. Just because you’ve said something stupid doesn’t mean you are stupid. Unless you want to be stupid. Or an idiot. This is a great country, where you can be whatever you want to be.
<
p>
Now that we’ve got the baseless personal attacks out of the way (blog requirement), lets move on.
<
p>
Your second post was more facts free (now less filling!) than the first.
<
p>
The Deval example is a new classic. Deval doesn’t hide his involvement in Ameriquest. In fact, at numerous events, I’ve seen him speak about the issue, where he says something along the lines of…
<
p>
“Ameriquest had a lot of trouble, and they asked me to come on their board to oversee a transformation in how they do business, in order to stop violating the law. It’s always been my belief that it’s easy to criticize, the hardest but most fulfilling work is actually righting the wrong, instead of just talking about it. And that’s what I’m doing on their board, helping them clean up their act.”
<
p>
If you had his tax return, you’d know how much they paid him. It wouldn’t help you at all.
<
p>
I’m going to ask this question one last time, in the fading hope that I might receive a sensible answer.
<
p>
What will his tax return give you? [that you do not already have?] Why [other than a perverse desire to dig into a man’s personal life because you think you have the right to] do you need it?
Firt of all, I said you are what you believe, not you are what you say. There is a big difference. We all say things we don;t believe. However, I believe financial disclosure is important.
<
p>
Second, if the Quartering Act wasn’t an invasion of privacy, I don’t know what is. What is more personal than one’s home? Isn’t that what we tell the morality police on the right wing?
<
p>
Finally, I do not care how much any of these candidates make. I hope they are all doing outstanding. I care about WHERE their money is coming from. That is why disclosures are important (see: Cheney-Halliburton).
Dear Lynne,
<
p>
This is the Moral Police. I need to know everything about your personal life, especially how many times you have sex with your husband. You see, if it’s too often, that probably means you’re a slut, so people should know that so they don’t vote for you. If it’s not often enough, that probably means you’re either prudish or a closet lesbian, either way there’s probably a better (male) candidate that voters should consider.
<
p>
Sincerely,
<
p>
Sargeant Morality
However, if the candidate is trading sex for financial favors or, to retreat from your analogy to the actual point, potentially tied to a company with interests before the Commonwealth, that might be worth knowing. Of course, it is hihgly unlikely that either Patrick or Gabrieli are hiding those kinds of skeletons, in which case, full disclosure is a no-brainer.
Patrick Henry and the rest of the people who established our country and fought for privacy rights must be spinning in their graves.
is not always compelled by the law. Financial disclosures by candidates are purely voluntary. A candidate that is willing to share his or her potential conflicts with the public is going the extra mile to earn the public’s trust and confidence.
<
p>
If Patrick Henry was concerned with privacy, it was over the Quartering Act, and not the willingness of Tom Reilly, Andrea Silbert, and Tim Murray to subject themselves to public scrutiny as they campaign for the highest offices in our Commonwealth.
Henry’s concerns with the Quartering Act probably had more to do with property than privacy. Your property rights didn’t mean much if the army could station (quarter) a soldier in your home, take your food, etc.
I don’t agree
People who run for office do so to become public servants not slaves. Their personal finances are exactly that. Personal, and none of our business. If they have done something illegal, there are enough checks to ferret it out. If they commit improprieties in office, we can toss them out.
As it is, they are subject to more than enough invasion of their personal lives by anyone who is inclined to play gotcha and will distort the facts in order to do it. Not to mention the possible misinterpretation of those facts by well meaning people. Disclosure of what are likely to be complicated tax returns will only add to it.
<
p>
Worse, disclosure might leave the candidate spending most of his time defending him or herself against unfounded charges rather than discussing the issues.
<
p>
This whole business of the public having “a right to know” about their personal finances is, in my judgement, utter nonesense. We have no such right, and should be careful with such a frivolous use of the word.
<
p>
It seems to me that we should do everything we can to encourage good people to run for office; this is just one more thing that will make them run for the hills.
Should politicians disclose their financial records? Sure, why not. However, is this something we should be making major issues out of? Does this deserve Scott Lehigh’s attention, for example?
<
p>
Are you kidding?
<
p>
Seriously, there are thousands of more important issues. Why was Reilly so hesistant to support equality in marraige? Who the heck is this new candidate Gabrielli? If Patrick doesn’t want to roll back the income tax, does he support trimming the already much-increased property taxes?
<
p>
There are serious questions we can be asking. Tim Murray may not have been politically expedient, but he was right when he said this issue is “gimmicky.”
I ain’t a big fan of this – I agree with Murray’s spokesguy that this is gimmicky.
<
p>
But I understand why it was done: to make the others release their returns too and show Silbert to be a regular working mom financially with exceptional professional skills, running against a crowd of people who make more than her.
<
p>
If that was her intention, and if the others are pushed into releasing, then this move was a success – except Murray doesn’t appear to be making as much $ as a lawyer as he could be (82K between them, and he’s a lawyer? Bill some more hours, dude!)
<
p>
I think the Silbert folks could also call parts of the T&G article a success because they got a soundbite that says Murray is “part-time mayor” without authority and doesn’t actually run the city. That’s pretty harsh. It’ll be even more of a success for Silbert if Goldberg and Kelley release their taxes and show how loaded they are (I’m assuming w/ Kelley since he’s clearly either self-funding or, as has been said before, heading for Sarah Cannon Holden-ville.)
Well, I give Andrea credit for nailing this issue first out of the LG candidates. Well done on taking advantage of some good, though empty, political capital.
<
p>
Honestly, I couldn’t care less how much a candidate makes. This is merely a political scheme for candidates with a lesser income to illustrate the financial disparity they have with other candidates. It’s a way of saying “see, average citizen, I make as much money as you…I’m just like you.”
<
p>
I don’t want you to be just like me. I want you to be better and smarter, and more successful than me (of course, assuming I AM the average citizen). If that means that you make more money than me (which most everyone does, since I’m a grad student living off of loans and savings), then great…good job being financially successful.
<
p>
I think these calls to release tax returns are nonsense political stunts that serve no purpose other than to boost up the financially “less advantaged” candidates. I would have been impressed if someone with Andrea’s income said “you know what, tax returns aren’t important…we need to focus on issues, JOBS, education, health care, the environment.” THAT would have impressed me, since she only has something to gain from the tax return thing. The people of this state don’t/shouldn’t care about someone’s tax returns unless there is a HUGE problem. And, like someone said earlier, that will be uncovered regardless of the voluntary release of the returns.
<
p>
By the way, this in no way is a result of the people I support in these races (I’ve felt this way for a long time).
I dunno, Caro, I think Silbert could get some pretty good kudos here for this reason: she could be out making millions with her epxerience, but instead she chose to take the public service road — she started a wildly successful company that has generated thousands of jobs and millions in revenue for the public trough. I dare say that she IS better, smarter and more successful than the average citizen – and I’m sure she and the other candidates are all going to try to convince the populus of that.
<
p>
I think by doing this she’s able to say: I’m the anti-Healey. I did better for the world than anyone else in this race, yet refused to get uber-rich doing it. To me, that’s more honorable than just about anything else, and that’s in a field that has a decorated doctor, a dedicated mayor and a former selectman – all people who chose to serve others. Throughout her career, unlike most of us, Silbert has only been a servant to those who need her help. I wish I could say that I was more than a slave to my salary and spent as much time doing good as I’d like. But that’s my lame-ass problem…
I agree completely that Silbert’s move was gimmicky, but compared to the gimmick of acting like you run the 2nd biggest city in a state when you’re really a part-timer with no executive power, it’s pretty harmless.
<
p>
Now, before the Murray folks go nuts here, I recognize that he does play a role in city policy setting and he is a popular city councilor. In fact, that popularity is how he gets the title of “mayor.” But, if you read his site, you are not left with the impression that he is part-timer with no executive power. That, friends, is a gimmick.
I feel like you are a broken record at this point . . .and ya know what, feel free to say what you want. If you lived in Worcester you would understand the impact Murray has had on Worcester, and the changes he has been able to make in the past 4 years as Mayor.
<
p>
The position of Mayor is there for a reason. Murray has worked with unions, corporations, voters, & fellow public servants to ensure that Worcester continues to progress and improve. And its has 3-fold since he took office. He was elected as Mayor by the people of Worcester. He had to run as both a city councilor & as Mayor. In order to be elected he needed a majority of the votes, which he got. It’s not a popularity race, it is a reflection of how people feel about the job he is doing.
<
p>
On his website he says that he is Mayor (which he is) and the campaign site talks about all the renewal and improvements that have occurred throughout his time in office. Doesn’t sound gimmicky to me.
<
p>
At least u admitted that your own candidate made a gimmicky move. . .
just like one pretending to have personally created thousands of jobs or pretending you are a field guy by posting with the name fieldguy.
<
p> BTW you are way off base saying his popularity is how he gets the title of “mayor”
I can personally tell you that while the position may be “part time” he has not since the day he bacame mayor put in “part time” hours or dedication. Maybe that fact in and of itself is what acounts for his popularity, or maybe it is how he is leading the city through a revitilization. Actually fieldguy, he has accomplished alot in spite of his lack of executive power thanks for bringing that out.
bill more hours, he spends too much time doing the “part time ” mayor thing…….. I am serious.
Including, for example, Deval Patrick and Kerry Healey. The people have a right to know where their leaders’ economic interests lie before they vote for them.
but I am less concerned at their AGI and more concerned at how much they’ve donated in money or time to charities , if they are taking advantage of huge tax cuts dems like me will never see, and if they have huge trust funds that aren;t taxable. I wonder if those even show up on tax returns hmmm…. Not too many writing about those things though.
A highly relevant article ton this exact subject is on the AP wire right now. I have posted it under “User Posts.” Johnson’s questions and inferences are precisely the reason why it is in both the public and the candidates’ best interests to disclose financial ties.
In seems that Murray and his wife are obviously in the middle-class combined income bracket. Silbert and her own husband seem to be in the same economic range, though Silbert’s money has flucuated over the years (probably due to her decision to run for LG). Also, one must wonder how much they have stored away for a rainy day. I also wonder how much Goldberg has as her yearly income, given her trust fund status?
<
p>
Personally, I do think it is nice that all the candidates are saying — look I’m not Ms. St. Fleur. They all want to identify with middle/working class voters, based on their incomes. But, this shouldn’t matter as much as the core issues that effect the people of MA, specifically working families. This should be more about, “look I have done” (positive of course), “look what I plan on doing” and then “this is why it is important.” Though if it is an important issue, we should already know the “Why.” It is great if you are a candidate who is part of the working class, I respect that. But, if you are championing working class issues that I care about, then it doesn’t matter to me how much money you earned in 2004.
<
p>
I love that Murray represents the working class in his upbringing as well as the life he currently leads, but this isn’t why I am voting for him. I am supporting him because of his understanding of the issues that truly effect working families and young people. The fact that he has tackled these issues head on as Mayor of Worcester and has shown a strong stance with regards to tackling these issues on the state level as a candidate for Lt. Governor.
<
p>
In addition, I am proud to say that I will be supporting Murray at the Convention in June, because I have just been informed that I am a Youth Delegate 🙂
<
p>
I understand the youth delegate slots are extremely difficult to get. Something on the order of 400 applications for 100 slots or something similar. Very cool.
<
p>
Maybe I’ll see you there. My minority add-on app. was approved. 🙂
See you there 🙂
I can’t believe people are making such a big deal out of this. Andrea Silbert LIVES IN HARWICH. I am sure she has made quite a lot of money but her decision to run has also affected her decision on “choosing to work in the public sector”.
<
p>
My thoughts on tax releases in general are that they should not be released. Why? It’s not required by law. Why give the other party(s) more information to say rediculous things about you? I am pretty sure everyone knows that you have to have money somewhere if you are mulling a run for office.
Lets simply understand how he and his wife can afford an admitted $450,000 per year in living expenses for two mansions. The extremists are quivering in their boots at the thought of what full disclosure will reveal if the Patricks clan turns out to be underwater financially. What is he hiding?
THEY’RE RICH!!!
<
p>
That’s how they can afford it… she’s a partner at one of Boston’s largest firms, and he sits on several corporate boards, and probably has nice options/gifts/investments from his former employers … two huge American corporations where he served as General Counsel.
<
p>
He’s got more money than you. That doesn’t mean you have the right to know how much more. Now move along, important things are waiting.
It doesn’t matter how much the candidates are making. It does matter where the money is coming from and why. That’s the point of disclosure.
Today, The Boston Globe takes a stand in favor of financial disclosure by gobrnatorial candidates (“For a more open campaign,” 4/14/06).
<
p>
For a More Open Campign
If your a quality politician you like to talk about the issues. A day waisted talking about who makes more than the other is a blow to the democrates quest for governor and lieutenant governor. With so many issues in MASS and with so little time left should we really be talking about this. Look if you would like to disclose your taxes do so but don’t make a fuss and call others to do the same. This is a peronal decision mad by candidates, personally I don’t see where it comes to play for the voters. This is just a way to get PR and both candidates from the governor and lieutenant governors race who are calling upon others to realease there campaignes are of 2 people who all of a sudden find themselves behind probably because they dodge the issues.
of why financial disclosures are very relevant to good government, consider Dick Cheney’s current financial ties to Halliburton and whether you feel comfortable with his role in formulating the nation’s energy policies. I addressed this in a User Post earlier today (The Odd Couple: Dick Cheney and Good Government).
<
p>
This is hardly a diversion. It is a real issue. Reilly, Silbert, and Murray are all viable candidates, so I do not see this as a desparate act, but rather a respectful effort to earn the public’s trust. Remember, until Mitt Romney in ’02, every Democrat and Republican has voluntarily made his or her income details available since 1990. Transparency is not a new issue. The refusal by Democratic gubernatorial candidates, however, is new.
<
p>
Hopefully, our own millionaire candidates won’t establish an unfortunate precedent in the tradition of Mitt Romney and Kerry Healey. No one is going to hold it against them that they have made money. People just want to make sure that a candidate is well-positioned to make the right choices without personal conflicts.
In seems that Murray and his wife are obviously in the middle-class combined income bracket. Silbert and her own husband seem to be in the same economic range, though Silbert’s money has flucuated over the years (probably due to her decision to run for LG). Also, one must wonder how much they have stored away for a rainy day. I also wonder how much Goldberg has as her yearly income, given her trust fund status?
<
p>
Personally, I do think it is nice that all the candidates are saying — look I’m not Ms. St. Fleur. They all want to identify with middle/working class voters, based on their incomes. But, this shouldn’t matter as much as the core issues that effect the people of MA, specifically working families. This should be more about, “look I have done” (positive of course), “look what I plan on doing” and then “this is why it is important.” Though if it is an important issue, we should already know the “Why.” It is great if you are a candidate who is part of the working class, I respect that. But, if you are championing working class issues that I care about, then it doesn’t matter to me how much money you earned in 2004.
<
p>
I love that Murray represents the working class in his upbringing as well as the life he currently leads, but this isn’t why I am voting for him. I am supporting him because of his understanding of the issues that truly effect working families and young people. The fact that he has tackled these issues head on as Mayor of Worcester and has shown a strong stance with regards to tackling these issues on the state level as a candidate for Lt. Governor.
<
p>
In addition, I am proud to say that I will be supporting Murray at the Convention in June, because I have just been informed that I am a Youth Delegate 🙂
<
p>