While I was out, the Gabrieli campaign thoughtfully recorded a surprisingly nasty robocall on my voicemail. As a public service, I have converted it into an mp3 file: here it is, if you’re interested.
Let’s tally up the misrepresentations contained in this one 30-second call.
- Taxes. The robocaller says that “Deval Patrick opposes cutting income taxes.” As we know, however, that is false. Also, the robocaller says flatly that “Chris Gabrieli supports cutting the income tax” – implying that he wants to do it right away, whereas in fact he has a ten-point plan to do it if certain economic triggers are met. If those triggers aren’t met, no tax cut.
- Immigration. The robocaller says that Gabrieli “opposes illegal immigration,” perhaps trying to imply that Patrick and/or Reilly support it. But that, of course, would be ridiculous, which is why the robocaller doesn’t actually say it. Instead, she goes on to talk about in-state tuition for “illegal immigrants” – but she doesn’t mention that in almost every case we’re talking about children who were brought here by their parents who had no say in whether to come here or not, and who have to promise to become citizens before being eligible for in-state tuition. Furthermore, she says that Gabrieli “won’t spend your tax dollars” on in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants, while in fact we know that “your tax dollars” are not needed for that purpose, since it turns out that allowing children of undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition is a net gain for the schools.
- Cape Wind. The robocaller tells us that Gabs is for it, and Reilly’s against it. Well, that’s fair enough – at least now we know that Gabs isn’t a Republican. đŸ™‚
This call, together with Gabrieli’s remarks this morning that Patrick is “out of touch with the mainstream,” suggest that folks are getting a little panicky over at Gabrieli HQ. Understandable, especially given today’s poll results, which both suggest that Reilly defectors are heading Patrick’s way. But dipping into the Republican playbook to this extent strikes me as distasteful. (“Hello, Karl? What would you suggest? Oh, uh huh, taxes and immigration? Heh, right, always works for you guys, I guess! And do what? Distort their positions? But won’t I get called out on that? Oh, sure, I guess that’s right. Yeah, I guess can do that. Great, thanks.”)
Sounds like the radio commercial he is airing. I heard it twice in a half hour commute.
Nobody in this race put more on the line in support of in-state tuition for immigrant children then Tom Reilly. Deval Patrick also shares the position, but Tom Reilly very vocally championed the issue and actively lobbied the legislature.
<
p>
It took guts and a willingness to take the hit on an obviously sensitive issue that was going to be exploited by somebody. Too bad that somebody is Chris Gabrieli.
<
p>
OK, so politics ain’t beanbag, that much we know. But when you start throwing 17-18 year-old kids under the bus in an 11th hour attempt to tap into the latent resentment of illegal (and in some cases, legal) immigrants, that’s more than pathetic – it is wrong.
I was proud of both Reilly’s and Patrick’s stand on this issue, but especially of Reilly, because A) as a “moderate” candidate politically he might have taken the opposite position, which is pandering, but also B) he put his weight behind it.
<
p>
That said, I’m not changing my vote. ;P
<
p>
Off to do some more REAL phone calls for Patrick – no robocalls here.
comments I’ve seen on this site. I’m pleased to say I was the first to give it a 6, too, since I’m seen as catastrophically and hopelessly biased. đŸ˜‰
<
p>
Well said, MD, well said.
“You like me! You really, really like me!” Or at least this particular point. . .I’ll keep it in perspective. đŸ˜‰
<
p>
Of course, the high rating truly belongs to Tom Reilly. I think it should be clear to everybody – the man cares deeply about children, legal or otherwise.
<
p>
Memo to Tom Reilly: tomorrow night, ask Chris Gabrieli what he would say to that 17 year-old who was brought here as a young child by his parents, graduated from one of our high schools, and now wants to pursue his/her dream alongside his/her “American” friends at a Massachusetts state college.
<
p>
What would you say, Chris? Too freakin’ bad kid – this is where I take a tough stand stand on immigration? That’s pathetic.
<
p>
The tax issue and Cape Wind are fair game. If you want to wage nuanced attacks on issues like those, fair enough, but do not drag these kids into this. Your poll numbers are not their problem. It’s politics at its most base level. It is, to use the parlance of the playground, mean.
I think this robocall clearly paints Gabrieli’s true colors. This has been a productive primary race up to this point, and with one poll, Gabrieli switches tactics to negativity.
<
p>
I find it reprehensible that he would choose to attack another candidate this close to the primary election. Obviously he’s embarrassed by his own tactics as he chose another unnamed person to record his attack.
<
p>
Again, I think that this shows us who Gabrieli really is, and I don’t like what I see. I expected this sort of thing from Reilly.
David, today you’ve lurched from your usual fair-minded perch. What’s up with that? It’s that BMG Bombay Sapphire Martini, isn’t it?
<
p>
DP on income taxes: A fair view is DP no to cut, Reilly yes to cut, Gabs maybe to cut. DP’s argument has always been cutting prop taxes. Your asterisk – that DP has never ruled out a cut years down the road – is thin.
<
p>
The usual “misleading” ad goes like this: “DP proposes many new programs, and since he’ll need new money, he’ll RAISE your taxes.”
<
p>
Gabs on in-state tuition: I strongly disagree with Gabs on this point. But the “net gain” argument is simply ludicrous, as the comments section pointed out on your link.
<
p>
Gabs robocall “Misleading”? No.
<
p>
“Negative?” I suppose, though I’m assuming that your definition would then encompass all of the Dem candidates descriptions of Romney/Healey as negative. I guess I think of negative more as “Tester stands with Al Qaeda.”
<
p>
“Panicky”? Probably.
<
p>
Effective? Unlikely.
<
p>
Relax, bro. Your guy is in good shape. BMG Editors endorsement may have had been the Tipping Point.
It’s totally misleading. Patrick never said he was against cutting the income tax, just that it’d be suicide to do it now. A position not far (hell, almost exactly the same) as Chris’, I might add. Trying to distinguish this much air between himself and Patrick on this one is definitely misleading.
<
p>
Gabrieli should be ASHAMED of himself, making hay (like Republicans do) regarding immigrants. THIS from the self-professed EDUCATION candidate??
<
p>
This robocall, coupled with the attack on Patrick supporters as “a small group of rabid supporters”.
<
p>
Gabrieli only could HOPE for as many “rabid supporters.”
<
p>
Gabs should be careful – Reilly backfired with his unfair attacks which didn’t rattle his opponants but made him look unhinged, turning off many voters. Better toss out that playbook, Chris.
Saying it would be suicide to do the cut now is a reason, not a position. His position is, he’s against it.
He’s against it now, not necessarily later.
<
p>
Chris Gabrieli is against it now, not necessarily later.
<
p>
The only difference in the two of them is that Gabrieli put out an unrealistic position in which he’d actually make the cuts.
<
p>
Someone delete that quote before it ends up in a Kerry Healey ad this October.
This is just sad. The one thing I thought about Gabrieli is that he was an honorable man. Now it appears that honor is something that drops from his sleeve as soon as he is threatened with the truth – or with defeat at the hands of a now clearly better man.
<
p>
Beyond being what can only be a deliberate distortion of Mr. Patrick’s intentions and proposals as governor, in so doing it seems to degrade the character of Gabrieli.
<
p>
Very sad, indeed.
Your candidate has had some great news this week; don’t be so sensitive and occasionally wrong.
<
p>
Deval opposes cutting the income tax. That is true. In your linked post, he says if we “invest in infrastructure,” “one day” we’ll be able to cut it. That is not the same as proposing to cut the income tax. He opposes that.
<
p>
Giving undocumented students the in-state tuition break takes money out of the system that either that student or another non-resident would pay. Your link just makes the point that a small group of students doesn’t increase costs, so whatever they’re paying adds to the system. But the difference between resident and non-resident tuition is money lost to the system.
<
p>
I think we need a little perspective on this “negative” campaigning; it’s about as polite, accurate, and non-personal as you can get while still criticizing your opponent. Heard any of the Casey-Santorum stuff? It’s brutal.
I agree with you on the point that Gabrieli’s robocall is not as bad as it could be. However, I think the point that should be noted is the fact that this type of outright criticism only made itself apparent after Gabrieli found himself behind in the polls. It shows a lowering of the level of the discourse, and furthermore, it shows Gabrieli’s true persona because he has to approve these ads. Is the robocall as negative as it could be? of course not. But it is more negative than this race has been up to this point. Massachusetts is supposed to be the hub of progressive thought and discourse in this country, and as such, I think that we should be allowed to expect a higher level of character from our possible elected leaders.
Let’s say a candidate honestly believe DP’s tax position is wrong.
<
p>
How can he express that position without “lowering the level of discourse?”
I think they can, and we’ve had multiple debates to do that. There’s something about a robocall with the voice of some unidentified woman that makes the whole thing seem like it’s some big nasty secret. The point is that this is not discourse, rather it is a way to try and oversimplify Deval’s positions at the last minute because the most recent poll has Gabrieli looking in trouble. The call is certainly not meant to be a positive thing. It’s not “vote for Gabrieli”, it’s “don’t vote for DP”. And that’s a problem, because eventually we’re all going to have to vote for one of these candidates.
When I arrived home tonight the same robocall was on my answering machine and it was creepy. Almost like the old whispering campaign – “Psst – did you know that…”. Turned me off completely but was not quite sure why. Thanks David for confirming my reaction to the call.
So your position is that you’re against Robocall, and if DP uses it in a general election, you will speak out.
<
p>
Sounds good to me. I find telemarketers annoying, recorded or live.
that much in the way of robocalls will be needed.
<
p>
Likely, it’ll all be slave labor that’ll be used in the general if Patrick wins. I mean that with the greatest affection and respect to the Patrick campaign. As, of course, one of their slaves. đŸ™‚
<
p>
Hrm, wonder when my next paycheck will come in? I have gotten very little done for my business this week. ;P
Nobody likes the robocall, but there is a clear difference between a candidate recording a message in order to energize supporters and make his or her ideas clear as opposed a candidate having some surrogate oversimplify the ideas of another candidate in order to try and persuade you not to vote for them. DP has used them in the past in a positive way, and if Gabrieli had come out with a positive robocall it would have garnered little, if any, attention, and that would have been fine. However, it seems that you like the oversimplification of arguments (as seen above), so I understand why Gabrieli’s robocall appeals to you.
“I honestly believe that my opponent’s position is wrong.. and here is why….”
<
p>
But candidates seldom do that when the poll numbers show too much ground to be made up.
<
p>
I am a Deval Patrick supporter and it is obvious to me that Gabrieli has had enough with running for office and not winning.
It will be interesting to see the response.
<
p>
Indeed, this last-ditch effort from Gabrielli comes in the teeth of Patrick’s fourth TV spot, which speaks, more in sorrow than in anger, against “politics as usual” and “misleading, negative ads.” Gabrielli has fairly walked into that one.
I think Illegal Aliens or Undocumented Immigrant/Workers, whatever you want to call them is down right wrong. Many of them had years to become citizens and chose not to.
<
p>
I could never support a candidate who supports illegal activities by anyone, nevermind a non-U.S. citizen. I have family members who lived here and paid into the Massachusetts system for years, and moved out of state because their job was transferred, and you know what…they have to pay full tuition for their child to go to college here in Massachusetts, because they live out of state…no breaks for them… So tell me, why is it okay for illegal/undocumented immigrants to reap these benefits, while legal citizens are given the shaft.
<
p>
I do think there’s a line where you become too liberal, and this has crossed it.
<
p>
Thanks for opening my eyes to it…I didn’t get the Robocall at my home.
Children who had no say, furthermore, on whether or not to be in that position? Whatever you think of their parents, you are wrong to blame the kids.
<
p>
Look, no one is handing money out to illegals with this bill. They are still not eligible for financial aid. Very few of these kids can afford even the instate tuition. It’d affect a small number of high school graduates. But what would you rather have? Kids of illegal immigrants who are educated and productive, or kids of illegals with no education and maybe not being productive at all?
<
p>
Furthermore, it is a small revenue BOOST to the university system. Dropping the tuition rate to instate levels makes it marginally affordable for some of these kids, and they are paying for it in full for themselves, therefore it is not a drain on our university system but instead a boon.
<
p>
I hate it when people use the illegal immigrant issue as a wedge issue. Stupid. Unproductive. And unhelpful either to citizens of this country or illegals trying to make a better life for themselves.
But you’ve just seen the face of the emotion this tactic was designed to conjure…So the next question is, specifically…How do we deal with it?
Calmly explain what the real moral position is!
<
p>
As I wrote on my blog, my advice to Gabs is not to attack on this point tomorrow night…Patrick has a very good, very emotional response.
It’s so great that the very day you’ve registered here you learned something and it influenced you.
<
p>
Just one question: are you actually on Gabs’ staff or are you part of his “army of volunteers?” Or are you, too, a robot?
<
p>
Great way to change people’s mind…Attack them…Do you work on the Reilly campaign…You dear Publius are the robot.
<
p>
I never said I was voting for “Gabs”. I simply stated I changed my vote. I was on the fence about who to vote for, and was taking into consideration what everyone had to say, but Illegal Immigration is a big deal to me, just as I’m sure some issues are big deal for you
<
p>
And not that it should even be an issue, but I registered today because I just found out this forum existed, and since I’m new to this forum, maybe you could fill me in on how long I’m supposed to be a member before I’m allowed to express an opinion?
Sorry, Mare. I had no good reason to assume you were a plant from a campaign.
<
p>
One thing you’ll read frequently here at BMG if you stay and aren’t turned off by some of us who occasionally hit the “Post” button too quickly is that this tries to be a reality-based site. The reality is, on this issue of college, we are talking about teenagers, almost all of whom came to America with their parents. The particular teens we’re focused on have worked hard enough to graduate from high school and are trying to make a future for themselves. These teens are just not going to get on a bus to Mexico or a plane to Ireland or Cambodia tomorrow. And Massachusetts state government is not going to build a fence around the commonwealth or commit serious resources to rounding up undocumented aliens. And this will be true under Governor Patrick, or Gabrieli, or Reilly, or Healey.
<
p>
There’s a study that says these kids will not be costing the state money, that their in-state tuition dollars would add to the pool of money, and that most of them couldn’t afford the out-of-state rate and would thus not attend if they had to pay it. Maybe, maybe not. But I try to imagine what these kids will do if they can’t afford to continue their education.
<
p>
Yes, saying undocumenteds have to pay out-of state tuition will send a message. The message doesn’t start at high school graduation, though. When those kids are 6 or 10 or 14, their parents will know, and eventually they’ll know, that even though Lowell or Cambridge or Framingham is the only home some of these kids have ever known, that they’re not truly welcome here. Maybe that’s the message you want our state to send. If so, by all means, vote for Gabrieli, who seems intent on throwing away a well-earned reputation of concern about kids’ education in search of a Rove-style wedge issue.
<
p>
I’ll be voting for Patrick, who along with Reilly had the guts to take a position that may lose some votes but that better reflects the value of investing in the kids around us whether their parents have a green card or not.
<
p>
Calling someone a robot violates our rules of the road. Next ones get deleted. Please be constructive.
in a less strident way.
<
p>
your family that moved to another state – they have in-state tuition options wherever they live. if they moved to NY, it’s true that they can’t have in-state for UMass, but they do have SUNY.
<
p>
D is a student i know, graduated high school a year ago, from the caribbean. she’s been here since age 5. she knows almost nobody in her nation of birth. her mom came here illegally.
<
p>
i feel there are two competing ethics here. one is: we want people to play by the rules. the other is: we want to reward those who work hard.
<
p>
in this case, mom didn’t play by the rules. D did – followed all the rules of her school, didn’t get into any trouble in the neighborhood, worked hard in high school, learned a ton, can do well in college.
<
p>
big picture, i’d love to see policy that DOES reduce the flow of illegal immigrants, so that some from mexico cannot jump ahead of those from argentina, cameroon, bangladesh, etc., which is effectively what happens now. that’s federal policy. if that came FIRST – results in enforcement – then i think we’d be in a much better position to humanely and sensibly deal with illegals who are here.
<
p>
but that’s not the hand we’re dealt. that’s mostly federal, this is state, and we can support kids whose parents didn’t play by the rules, but the kids did. it does cost us some $$$ but it’s the right thing to do.
at least at the college level – they pay their full way in regardless of having instate tuition access.
<
p>
So even that boondoggle of a reaction can be countered.
<
p>
It’s basically free money for the university, because no financial aid can go to that student anyway. If the student can afford an intuition rate, they’ll be paying it, if not, they bear the brunt of the private or family loan (at not-student-loan rates).
<
p>
it could actually raise money for the university system.
This argument is so poorly constructed that I can only assume this is a zealous Gab supporter trying to do a good thing for her (?) candidate.
<
p>
Mare, I’m sorry, but your comments reveal you to be seriously bereft of both facts and compassion. That’s a bad combo, I’m afraid. I’m hopeful you will read closely the informed and thoughtful comments that others have written in response to you and reconsider your thoughts on this issue.
Sorry you are incorrect in your point that I’m a Gabrieli supporter. And how nice that you can put down someone who maybe isn’t as articulate in expressing their views of subjects…I can’t help but wonder that if I were an illegal immigrant that you may have a bit more compassion.
<
p>
I am “unenrolled”…what that means is I take into account all that I hear and find out about every candidate and background. Parties to me don’t mean a thing. And I was reading things about DP that I found interesting, but sorry if you don’t like what I have to say, but I cannot and will not agree with any candidate that I see as encouraging illegal behavior.
<
p>
I feel for those children who were brought here by their parent illegally, but, there are proper ways of becoming a citizen, and those chose to put their child in that position..by not even attempting to become legal, that parent is the one who has done them wrong…not me.
<
p>
I have compassion for alot of things, but I have do not have tolerance for those who think they are above everyone else and think they can take a short cut before others who try to do things the right/legal way.
<
p>
And I am taking into consideration, the comments that have followed my original post, so thank you for the constructive critism.
<
p>
Look, I worked with immigrants obtaining permanent residence, worker authorization and ultimately citizenship for several years. It is an extremely expensive and long process. Many immigrant families pay taxes and have “mixed” families that include citizens, legal immigrants & illegal immigrants. Most families work on gaining citizenship for each member individually. For a family of 4 it would cost over $700 in application fees alone, and that does not include legal fees.
<
p>
Let me give you a scenario: Mother comes illegally into the U.S. because she doesn’t know any better and thinks its her only way to provide better for her 1 year old daughter and unborn baby. Mother has baby boy in U.S. and he becomes a U.S. citzen. Should his one year old sister be denied the same rights he has?
<
p>
In this situation the son can petition for his mother’s permanent residence. Then once the mother becomes a PR she can apply for citizenship and then after being granted citizenship she can petition for her daughter’s citizenship – this could take 5+ years – depending on the families financial situation. The brother could petition for his sister, but believe it or not, it would actually take a shorter amt of time for his mother to get citizenship and then petition for her doughter.
<
p>
Sorry if that was confusing. But, like I said – its not that easy.
Because, in your scenario I find it somewhat troubling because an illegal alien mother gives birth in america her child then gives her her citizenship and the rest of her family. Maybe none of them should have citizenship. We should not reward illegal imigration by given illegals who come here to have baby’s citizenship.
<
p>
You are right this is a tough issue. I think a lot of liberals, myself included, think that we have real imigration issues. We need to be focussing on them at the Federal level as there is really not a whole lot the Governor of Massachusetts can do for imigration. BUt on the point, if they can afford to pay the instate tuition in cash, they might as well pay the out of state tuition in cash also.
<
p>
Is this just for Umass or does this apply to community colleges as well??
<
p>
So it’s okay to punish the children then, because their parents did it to them? I just want to get that straight.
<
p>
<
p>
What about people who are stuck here because they’re parents brought them here. You do realize that poor people can’t just up and move. Just look at New Orleans! There was a catagory 5 hurricane and still people stuck in poverty couldn’t move.
<
p>
The fact is that Deval’s proposal would add money into schools – it wouldn’t cost our schools money – and help educate someone stuck in America who didn’t want to be here in the first place. People just can’t sign up for citizenship, it takes years. In the meantime, let’s either a) help them relocate since they’re poor and can’t afford to do so on their own or b) educate them so they can adequately provide for themselves.
<
p>
Lastly, you realize this applies to less than a thousand people in the entire state – I think it’s more like 200. Such an argument as you are making shows a clear lack of the right priorities. We have real issues in Massachusetts and, with these sorts of attitudes, you aren’t part of the solution.
I’m sorry if this comes across as personal, because I sincerely don’t mean it that way. However, I’m just sick and tired of the cynical, kick ’em while they’re down approach to society.
<
p>
So, you have family who got a tough break. Instead of arguing for a position that would be both noble and help the tens of thousands of people like them, you want to drag everyone down to your family’s level. It isn’t enough that they got a dose of bad luck, now it’s time for the immigrant kid who never asked to be here to get his too – even though you can be almost positive that most illegal immigrants are in far worse shape than you and your family already.
<
p>
Do you want to know what you should do? Vote for hope. Vote for leadership. Your family has obviously had to deal with something that isn’t right. Instead of complaining about something completely unrelated, why don’t you DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT? What you should be arguing is for a change in policy – arguing that your family’s children who lived in Massachusetts for years and years should still get in-state tuition. Anyone who has lived in Massachusetts for 5-10 years should be eligible for in-state tuition in my book.
<
p>
Vote for a politics of hope; vote for a better tommorow. I suggest you vote for Deval Patrick; he’s the only one who cares about these things in this race – he’s the only one who cares about a new kind of politics that’s completely inclusive and, better yet, hopeful.
I’d agree with you if we really enforced all our laws. We don’t. That’s part of how we got into this mess in the first place.
So, your family was screwed. That’s it, plain and simple. They were screwed. And, I might add, they were screwed by the marketplace–which only liberals seem to want to regulate more equitably in favor of people and not profits.
<
p>
What I don’t understand is why you don’t advocate changing the law on eligibility requirements for in-state tuition so that people like your family don’t get screwed in the future. It makes sense to me: if you paid in for 5 years, 10 years (or some fair amount of time frame)–you don’t forfeit your eligibility if your kids come up for college in the next, let’s say 5 years.
<
p>
Why, instead, do you take the position, “my family was screwed, so others should be screwed.” These people are paying into the system too. THAT, is fundamental to the argument, the rest is secondary. These people live here, and PAY INTO THE SYSTEM. Illegals are PRECISELY the people who are NOT living off the fat of the land.
<
p>
You position reminds me of B-list actor Ronald Reagan campaigning for Governor of California. You can still watch the b&w videotape (though it was actually shot in 16mm film because in those days there were no portable video cameras). He would go around the state talking to agricultural communities and blue collars and he would point out to them that their health insurance will NOT pay for prescription eyewear, but that people on medicare got their prescription eyewear for nothing!!!!
<
p>
Harumph! Harumph! Everyone thinks. How unfair!!! And they were right. It WAS unfair. But what conclusion does Reagan lead the audience to? Not, “let’s find a way to make your insurer’s pay because it’s better for the system overall,” no, instead his conclusion was, “let’s take that benefit away from poor people because they are getting more out of the system than you.”
<
p>
Too liberal? When too liberal means fundamentally and constantly being committed to the humanity of all, and trying to find ways to more equitably share resources, then brand me a screaming freakin liberal.
What is your feeling on letting those kids attend colleges in Massachusetts by paying the out-of-state rate?
<
p>
What is your feeling on letting those kids attend grammar or high school in Massachusetts? Should potential students have to prove citizenship? What happens to those who can’t? Should they sit around and watch TV all day?
<
p>
What if an illegal immigrant gets run over by a car? Do you think the hospital should deny treatment because they are here illegally and most likely don’t have any insurance? Should everyone have to prove citizenship before being treated?
<
p>
There are a lot of illegal immigrants in this country. I believe that to be somewhat of a problem, although I don’t believe it is the defining problem of our generation the way the Republican party or Howie Carr is pushing it to be. I think the problems center more on the depression of wages enabled by a large underclass of powerless people desparate for work.
<
p>
There are places to fight this problem, and there are places where a fight is unproductive, particularly without federal support. Remember, the federal government is not pursuing a plan to round up and deport all illegal immigrants at this time, so many are here with tacit approval from Washington.
<
p>
Pretending that illegal immigrants shouldn’t exist, when they clearly do, is bad policy. Trying to make the best out of the situation for the state is good policy.
<
p>
Given that extending the in-state tuition rate to the children of illegal immigrants will result in more education for people of this state, and more citizens with an education (since the law requires the students to apply for citizenship), I think that this law results in a state that is better off than a state without it.
I’m assuming that most of your question are rhetorical and you probably know that there’s case law that compels states to provide public education for illegal aliens.
<
p>
But, I’ll ask you a question: should employers be allowed to employee illegal aliens with threat of fine? Should potential employees have to prove citizenship? What happens to those who can’t? Should they sit around and watch TV all day?
I think there are two sources of employers out there. There are employers that consciously look the other way when it comes to employing illegal immigrants. One stereotyped industry is in the cleaning services. Those companies may even be encouraging illegal immigration. And there are companies who inadvertently hire illegal aliens from time to time, probably because no one is running citizenship checks on potential employees.
<
p>
I think that fining companies that consistently employ and encorage illegal immigrants is the right thing to do. Those companies are likely also breaking wage laws, and are likely taking advantage of their workers because they know the workers don’t have much of a choice.
<
p>
I think that fines should not be levied on the company that hires a stray illegal alien — for example, maybe an engineer from India who overstayed his visa.
<
p>
I don’t have an answer as to how to determine the difference between the first kind of company and the second without doing citizenship analyses on every company in the state. And even then, I think you’d miss the companies that don’t operate in an above-board manner — like construction companies.
<
p>
I think that immigration to this country is a good thing. I think that the country needs to focus on immigrants who will improve the country, rather than on immigrants who will exert downward wage pressures.
<
p>
I don’t know how federal immigration works, and I do understand the idea of not letting people jump to the front of the line. But I think that in this very limited instance, preventing someone living here, someone who probably grew up here, from getting an education is far worse than the line jumping.
I’m happy to see Gabrielli’s attack adds. You’re not going to see 99.9% of the Patrick supporters defect to anyone at this point, whereas Gabrieli supporters as a rule don’t seem so convinced.
<
p>
In other news, it’s funny that if you look at a contributor map, you’ll find that Gabrieli’s neighbors gave money to Reilly and Patrick, but not him.
Yes that’s plural.
<
p>
Do Patrick supporters realize that Deval is the only candidate proposing a property tax and an income tax cut(some time in the future)? That strikes me as the most “Republican like” position of all the Dem candidates.
<
p>
What say you?
that despite what Deval and others may believe, he can no more propose property tax cuts as governor than he can propose an invasion of El Salvador.
Deval Patrick, as Governor, can restore funding to towns and cities to pre-2002 levels. The decrease in funding is what has caused the increase in overrides and the rise in property taxes. He has already proposed reimburusement of school fees per student per town or city conditional upon agreements to eliminate those fees. Why the heck shouldn’t he do the same thing with property taxes?
<
p>
And since we’re having this discussion, what’s Gabbers doing to address the property tax or override problems? Isn’t adding more charter schools just adding to the problems that exist? Let’s drain the school systems dry. Don’t worry, your child will still have a great education, as long as you can afford private school.
Chris’s proposal dedicates a portion of all revenue increases to local aid. He has also proposed expanding the lottery-local aid stream by allowing casinos. And a $2,500 credit to all first-time home buyers.
<
p>
People can rail against charter schools all they want, but they are popular and provide options to parents in struggling districts. Here’s a case for Gabrieli-type expanded schoolday by two charter school administrators in Dorchester.
…how all these people who want to drag the government to the bathtub to drown it, want all these charter schools. Multiple parallel little school districts with multiple little bureaucracies.
<
p>
What is it, Chris? Is it the profits you smell in a large unexploited marketplace?
<
p>
Of course, with Gabrieli’s comments in today’s Herald…
…who needs Republicans?
“all these people who want to drag the government to the bathtub to drown it”
<
p>
Rabid indeed.
That’s a true quote from Grover Norquist. There are people like that. They’re called Republicans, mostly.
But it’s pretty, um, frothy, to equate charter school supporters with Grover Norquist.
…an investor in for-profit charter schools and a for-profit Head Start corporation. Someone who advocates privatization and then seeks to profit from it. Then someone who has the gaul to talk about a small group of left-wing rabid supporters trying to win a Democratic primary?
<
p>
Romney said the same thing four years ago. Only his delivery was much smoother.
<
p>
That’s all he can do. The town fathers can spend the extra tax money on senior housing, better schools, flat roads. Whether they give the money back is their call.
<
p>
So imagine if you’d be “tired” of this constitutional reality/ “meme” — Deval promises to lower property taxes. Local Aid goes up, and is absorbed by town spending.
<
p>
Selectmen and mayors decide not to cut taxes, and who is blamed for promising something he couldn’t deliver? Deval. More importantly — the Democratic Party is blamed for high taxes.
posting your meme, you would have understood what Deval has said about controls and incentives to prevent what you are suggesting. Read what I said one more time, and you might get it — or not. I’m very tired of my words or Deval’s being misconstrued in the now negative and pitiful Gabs campaign. He has insulted the 56% of the delegates who voted for Deval and entire communities who voted for them. Takes a certain amount of egotism to slap around that many people and expect to succeed.
Actually, correct me if I’m wrong, but the Commander-In-Chief of the Massachusetts National Guard is the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Precisely what happens when the President “calls up” the National Guard or Guard units is to federalize them and transfer the power from the Governor TO the President.
<
p>
At any point in time the Governor can mobilize the Massachusetts National Guard, and if he were to order them to invade El Salvador, it would rest with the individual commanders to disobey him, recognizing that only Congress can declare war.
<
p>
But El Salvador has plans to invade Massachusetts to gain access to deep water ports in the Atlantic!!!
<
p>
Well, it’s defending Massachusetts against an armed aggressor, and after all, “fighting them over there is better than fighting them over here.”
<
p>
Hmmmmmmm.
<
p>
Sounds like property tax cuts coming from the Governor are a lot more feasible.
I think the plan is that the return of local aid is a carrot contingent on cooperation between the municipality and the state to make local spending more efficient, and undoing increases over inflation from overrides or major public service cuts forced by the Romney local aid cuts. I agree that Patrick needs to much more direct talking about how he’ll do this, but that’s my interpretation based on his calls for local/state cooperation combined with his criticisms of local aid cuts causing local cuts or property tax increases.
We keep income taxes high, then a miracle occurs, and your property taxes drop.
Your cynicism isn’t supported by fact.
<
p>
Yes, some communities tax to the maximum. I think you’ll find that services in those same communities are poor, because there is more need for them and less money to provide them. Other communities frequently leave room under their levy limit.
<
p>
In towns that tax to the maximum, the proposition 2.5 levy limit is probably below the amount that the town actually needs. Remember, the “starting point” in the game was in 1980, and some cities and towns have changed drastically since then. Those changes often result in higher expenses and lower taxable property. It’s a double-whammy.
<
p>
You can check the excess capacity numbers yourself on the state’s DLS website. Pick any of the wealthier towns (the poorer ones are bad examples because, as I pointed out, need is high and income is low, so they tax to the maximum). I’ll pick one from a map right now — from Eastern MA, so I don’t know much about character of the town. I’m going for Northeastern MA, since I get the impression that it’s a bit wealthier. I pick Boxford.
<
p>
In FY06, Boxford left $466,439 on the table — in other words, it could have charged its residents that amount and spent it. Yet it didn’t, and it left between $211k and $731k on the table every year from 2000 to 2006. The 1990’s were a different story. Eight of the ten years in that decade, Boxford was within $100k of their limit. But one year — 1995 — they left $528k on the table.
<
p>
Boxford is an example against the premise that towns will automatically take as much as they are allowed from their citizens. In fact, if you look at the total of all cities and towns, they collectively left between $172m and $197m on the table during the 00Â’s.
<
p>
This money isn’t cumulative. Money left on the table can be recouped at a later date. But there is a clear trend that correlates with state aid levels. The amount left on the table in the 1980’s was decent ($71m in 1985, peaking at $102m in 1987, and then decreasing to $75m in 1989).
<
p>
It was small in the 90’s ($37m in 1990) and grew ($177m in 1999), probably because of the recession. In the 00’s, it grew until 2002, and then shrank until 2005, experiencing an increase in 2006 (when state aid was finally increased).
<
p>
I agree 100% that $1 given back to a city and town isnÂ’t $1 that will be refunded or even not increased in property taxes, especially since cities and towns have scaled things back for the past few years and we are still at pre-2000 aid levels. But I donÂ’t agree that $1 given back means that taxes will still automatically increase to the maximum because they arenÂ’t automatically increased to the maximum now.
<
p>
And don’t forget, any town that does increase to the maximum will be doing so via local control, via officials elected by local voters. If the voters aren’t happy they have two choices; elect someone new, or move. IsnÂ’t that what Massachusetts is all about?
And drag along the howitzers we fire during the 1812 Ouverture as weapons.
<
p>
Much of the Nat’l Guard is cops … we’ll just tell them we’re considering opening up flag duties to non-police, and that many Salvadoreans have applied for the positions. That’ll do it.
You need Congress to declare a war to invade a country. We should be so lucky.
I think that was part of some document…I forget what it’s called…the Ministry of Truth informs me that provision has been stricken since the late 40’s.
<
p>
Heck, we could run a decent model UN just using nations we’ve invaded without Congressional permission.
It should have read –
<
p>
You need Congress to declare a war to invade a country? We should be so lucky.
When you have the money and not the footsoldiers, that’s how you campaign. How’s that working out?