First in an occasional series of posts on candidates challenging Democratic incumbents in the legislature.
As we’ve already discussed, there are very very few Democrats trying to dislodge incumbent Democrats in the legislature this year. Only one race, that for Dianne Wilkerson’s seat, is receiving any significant coverage, and that’s because she didn’t manage to get her name on the ballot. So we thought we’d try to direct a little attention to some of the other challengers, all of whom, to say the least, have their work cut out for them.
Leah O’Leary is a social worker and teacher, and is a lifelong resident of Norwood. She is trying to unseat Rep. John Rogers. No easy task: Rogers is the House majority leader, so he’s got lots of money, and lots of insider support. Rogers has a distasteful history of backing anti-gay legislation, including being the lead sponsor of the local DOMA, and twice voting in favor of constitutional amendments that would ban gay marriage. On the other hand, Rogers made news in his district in May by announcing that he opposes the anti-marriage proposal that is currently before the legislature, and he took a lot of flack in his district for doing so.
In any event, O’Leary has racked up a couple of noteworthy endorsements: the Mass. Sierra Club, the Mass. NOW PAC, and Mass. Peace Action are all behind her. So too, apparently, is this columnist from the Norwood Bulletin newspaper.
I emailed a couple of questions to the O’Leary campaign. (O’Leary’s campaign manager, it turns out, is a BMG denizen – though I can’t tell you who!) Here’s what she had to say:
1. What are the issues that are most important to you?
On the most fundamental level, the state needs more revenue – without this there is no way to proceed realistically. Without adequate funding, any program, no matter how well intentioned or well planned, will not be able to succeed and will not be able to serve the people and communities for whom it is created. I believe there are fair ways to increase state revenues that don’t harm those who are already struggling to make ends meet. By taking a fresh look at our tax codes, we can find ways to close corporate loopholes and restructure the income tax in such a way so as to increase revenues while not increasing the burden on the lowest income brackets.
With additional revenues available, we can then give other programs the funding they need and deserve. Our schools need our help K-6 programs are too often left languishing, arts and music are disappearing from curricula, and teachers need to be given wages that will make them want to continue working in our schools. Our cities and towns need our help too. With state budget cuts have come significant reductions in local aid, forcing reductions in important town programs, increases in property taxes, and unnecessary divisions in our communities. With restoration of local aid, I believe cities and towns will be able to go a much longer way towards adequately meeting the needs of their citizens.
As a legislator, these issues and more would always be at the forefront of my thinking, and I would hope to serve pragmatically and effectively. Keeping the big picture in mind, I would look for opportunities to move the whole of my agenda forward. There are no discrete pieces, and I am confident that through good working relationships with my colleagues, an open mind, and fresh ideas I would be able to find many perhaps unexpected openings through which to advance progressive policies that would show real benefits to families and individuals.
2. Why are you trying to unseat John Rogers? Do you feel that his views don’t reflect those of the voters in your district? If so, in what respect?
There has been silence in this district for 14 years – Rep. Rogers has never been opposed during his 7 term tenure in office. I felt that his views across the board – on the hot button issues and the bread butter ones – weren’t in step with those of the people living here, and certainly weren’t the views I wanted my representative to express on Beacon Hill. Many in Massachusetts will know him as the original filer of DOMA – Rogers was an architecht of the anti-gay movement in Massachusetts; or perhaps they know him as the legislator who tried to strip last summer’s Emergency Contraception Bill of provisions that would allow women to get adequate emergency room care after sexual assaults. People in Norwood and Walpole know him as the legislator who hasn’t been there for them. Over the past 14 years, property taxes have skyrocketed, the local economy has slumped, and schools have been deteriorating. Rep. Rogers has been too preoccupied to pay attention to what people in his district really need. He also hasn’t been there in the literal sense: as I’ve been knocking on doors, people have remarked again and again that Rep. Rogers has been absent from the district.
I’m challenging John Rogers because I want to bring a new set of priorities to Beacon Hill. I am determined to be a legislator who puts real people and their concerns first. I believe that our values and our concerns should be reflected in the actions of our leaders. Governing, on the most fundamental level, is about choices: does a legislator choose to put our needs and priorities first, or does he favor his own career? Do we choose to use state money to increase local aid, or do we force towns to raise property taxes astronomically? These are the choices legislators must make every day, and we need legislators who will always put the priorities of real people first when making those choices. I am running for State Representative because I believe that I will be a better advocate for our real concerns and priorities than Rep. Rogers has been. As a progressive Democrat, I am determined to prioritize not only bread and butter issues like improving our schools, but also more controversial (but equally important) issues like defending equal marriage rights and access to contraception. I want a legislature that sees people – all people – as real, and treats them as such by listening and responding to their concerns. This race is about helping to create that legislature.
3. With under five weeks to go, do you feel that you are on track to accomplish your goals? Has your campaign fundraising been sufficient to mount a serious challenge to Rep. Rogers (who at the end of 2005 – the most recent online report – had about $46,000 in his campaign account)?
There was no question when we started this campaign that we were being ambitious, to say the least. Rogers is well funded and well established, but I feel that we are certainly mounting a serious challenge. I am working hard to raise money – contributions are coming in in amounts that will allow us to get our message to our voters, but against an opponent with so much money at his disposal, more is always necessary. My campaign’s financial resources are supplemented by a dedicated and hard-working group of volunteers. The response we’ve been getting from voters in the district as we’ve been going door to door has been tremendous. We don’t have the money to blanket this district with mailings, but our grassroots volunteer program, the backbone of this campaign, I believe, is an effective way for us to talk to vote
rs, change minds, and get votes.
Interested? Here’s her website. Looking for more info? They’d be happy to hear from you. Already sold? You know what to do!
Whenever I read something like
<
p>
<
p>
I completely lose interest. Not because that isn’t a worthy endeavour — it is. It seems, however, that this is always a campaign promise at all levels, and I’ve rarely (ever?!) heard of any results in this area.
<
p>
The tax code is public information. Instead of making blank empty promises like this one, look at the tax code, find so-called corporate loopholes, and propose new tax code that would close those loopholes while maintaining fairness and not opening new loopholes. Do it while you’re a candidate, so we can see that you’re for real.
<
p>
This is not to pick on Leah O’Leary; I’m sure she’s swell. I’m just sick of the pro-fair-taxation group (all of us!) proposing general solutions to specific and unidentified problems.
Got any specific ideas?
<
p>
As to the broader topic of O’Leary’s candidacy, I’ve been hearing good things about her from people I respect.
<
p>
I think, as a general principle, contesting seats is a good idea, but especially in this case when it seems that the incumbent has not been a good standard-bearer for Democratic values. At least that’s my take on it from what I know, here at the other end of the state…
I’ve been saying it a while now…
<
p>
“…restructure the income tax in such a way so as to increase revenues while not increasing the burden on the lowest income brackets.“
<
p>
A progressive income tax, just a slightly more fair one, would work WONDERS. Reduce the income tax a little for low income earners (a category my husband and I would not qualify for, so I’ve no vested interest) – say, to 4.5%. Raise the upper state income tax level to about 5.5% or 6%.
<
p>
It’s been studied, confirmed, and on a practical level, tested, that a progressive income tax structure is more fair, does more good, and steadies the economy and the level of opportunity for all citizens. Money doesn’t reapportion itself, spreading itself to the walks of life that don’t have it. That’s why we have government.
<
p>
Run the numbers:
–Single earning $20,000 pays $788 of Mass income tax. That’s 3.94%.
–Single earning $30,000 pays $1295 of Mass income tax. That’s 4.3%.
–Single earning $100,000 pays 5%.
<
p>
It’s already progressive. I can run the numbers for married but you’ll see the progression. You propose raising the rate on everyone, including the lower earners, and especially the high earners. (Q: Why did Dellinger rob banks A: That’s where the money was.)
<
p>
There are fair and reasoned opinions on each side of the progressive tax argument, and there’s some strong flat tax reasoning. I think you’d be hard pressed to find the definitive study that concludes that progressive tax “does more good, is more fair, etc., etc.,” PARTICULARLY with regards to the much lower state tax systems.
<
p>
Your source? I’d love to see it.
<
p>
The quote:
<
p>
So sugarcoated and tailored it’s insulting. Here’s what he really said: “We need more tax dollars and the rich should pay for it.” Right?
A truly progressive structure (different tax rates for different income levels) would require a constitutional amendment in MA. It’s been tried a couple of times and has failed.
<
p>
Loopholes are up there with waste and crime on the list that Politicians love to hate.
<
p>
Here ya go. A loophole that’s supposedly worth about $5.0 million in tax revenue per year. It’s called the ‘unrelated business income tax’ loophole.
<
p>
Your church (or any charity) takes in money from the collection plate, donations, etc. but, because it has some empty building on its property decides to rent it to the organist and his family. The ‘rental income’ is probably unrelated business income and is taxable for Federal tax purposes, but, for several reasons, usually avoids Massachusetts taxation.
<
p>
Close the loophole and tax the church (or charity)?
<
p>
Here are the other loopholes that I’m aware of that are most often cited for reform in Massachusetts (I don’t have a cite):
<
p>
–Enforcement of sales/use tax on software transmitted into state;
–Enforcement of use tax on internet sales delivered into Mass:
–Deed excise avoidance (i.e. selling shares in a business that owns title to land)
–Intercompany pricing (i.e. how much profit is charged when a Mass company sells to an affiliate in another state?)
With all due respect to Ms. O’Leary who I do not know nor have I heard of until this posting, John Rogers has been repeatedly re-elected by the Democrats in Norwood and Walpole precisely because he does reflect their views and because he has “delivered” ( I hate that term but it’s apt here) for the people in his district whether it be a new public safety facility, a school, senior housing or a tank of home fuel oil for a family in financial distress….he pays attention to them and goes to bat for them on big and small issues….Democratic value issues: feed the hungry, care for the sick, protect the vulnerable, educate all children…
<
p>
As for the hot button issues, Norwood and Walpole are moderate leaning conservative communities, the Catholic Church is a factor for many families…they are not going to turn their backs on a Representative they like because he does not line up with Democrats from Cambridge or Brookline on hot button issues.
<
p>
Democrats beware…there are MANY values issues…and all politics IS in fact very, very LOCAL.
I admit I know nothing about that area, so I appreciate the insight.
<
p>
I’m wondering about your statement, though:
<
p>
Again, please educate me, but how many terms has he served and how many times did he have Primary opponents? If he has always run unopposed, e.g., it would be hard to claim that he does or does not represent the views of the district.
<
p>
Also, I’m sure he’s “delivered” but do you know any Rep who hasn’t? That’s part of their job. It’s possible that some may get more than their fair share, and since he’s been part of the leadership, maybe that’s true here, but I still find it to be an odd claim.
Also, I’m sure he’s “delivered” but do you know any Rep who hasn’t?
<
p>
Yes. Vinnie Ciampa. Contrary to popular myth, Carl Sciortino’s initial decision to run against Ciampa wasn’t because of Ciampa’s opposition to gay marriage, it was Carl’s frustration as a constituent with Ciampa poor constituent service and communication (for example, never answering his letters).
Rogers has never been opposed. (Question 2) Don’t know if she’s talking primary, general, or both.
Joyce who has yet to be able to run unnopposed is facing tough opposition again in Peabody. The race is not getting a lot of attention but should be. Joyce was highlighted nationally in a documentary that won the Provincetown Film Festival for her tireless efforts to ban same sex marriage and her work with Phil Travis to make sure that marriage was protected! This from someone who I believe has been divorced and remarried. I love it when they call the kettle black. She basically called her straight opponent a Lesbian and claim to unfit to be on the school committee due to the contact with children. She is a coock and totally out of tocuh.
<
p>
Might be an interesting challenged incumbent to look at.
Who is the challenger? Does she have a website (kind of a sine qua non for a blog profile)? We’ll be happy to get in touch with her.
Rep. Spiliotis’ website is:
http://joycespilioti…
<
p>
Sean Fitzgerald’s website:
http://www.fitz4rep….
Thanks. I’ve emailed him. If you know him, encourage him to contact us!
If his technology skills match his progressive credentials. One would hope he has the capacity to respond to email. I dont know him, but actually read the Globe article you posted and remembered Joyce Spiliotis’ last race.