Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

  1. to stop the House from putting the “loophole” back in the MA tax package.  The worst of it is, it favors those corporations that offshore work.

    <

    p>

    Tax measure could cost state millions
    Late amendment would create break on corporate offshore holdings
    By Matt Viser
    Globe Staff / April 24, 2008
    Governor Deval Patrick’s quest to tighten corporate tax laws and reap hundreds of millions of dollars in new revenue might be undermined by a last-minute amendment providing new offshore tax breaks that was tacked onto the legislation by the House, according to state officials.

    more stories like thisThe complex amendment was backed by the House leadership and approved with little debate during mid-evening voting two weeks ago as representatives were adopting the overall tax package. Several lawmakers said they were unaware of the details of the provision, which was sought by the state’s largest business lobbying group.

    The provision would permit large corporations to avoid up to $200 million in state taxes a year if they maintain large portions of their business operations overseas, according to an estimate by the state Department of Revenue. The tax-shelter strategy has proved controversial in other states.

  2. Blog posts and meetings are not “wins”. After a year of big misses and deserved negative press, Patrick needs to rack up some successes, not just dialogue, before he or his supporters can expect positive coverage.

    <

    p>Charlie, you’d be wiser to demand those successes, rather than carry Patrick’s water before he’s earned it.

    • Patience.  Remember — the legislative session is a 2-year session.  It ends in July, and most of the big stuff doesn’t roll out until shortly before the end.  My prediction is that, when the session is over, suddenly Governor Patrick will have a pretty solid record of achievement.

      <

      p>These things do take time.  My other quote in Adam’s article:

      <

      p>

      “Deval never promised he’d be able to turn Beacon Hill around overnight – he said it was going to take time,” says Kravitz. “Most of us didn’t think it was going to happen overnight, either. . . . All of a sudden, it’s starting to look like some of what he’s been talking about is taking hold in the legislature, and that, to me, is very encouraging.”

      <

      p>I’ll stand by that.  Let’s reconvene this discussion at the end of July.

          • Knows where to aim their tomatoes.  With a legislature packed “gimme mine” local officials, its no wonder little gets done.  Its all fine and good to blame the Governor but don’t forget all politics is local.  Look at who you elected from your town and you’ll probably find a better target for your tomato

          • I am not throwing tomatoes, in any of my comments upthread. All I did was rein Charlie in, from his position describing a modicum of outreach in the wake of several public fiascos as a “win”, which it is not.

            <

            p>Then you misinterpreted and said I was judging events too quickly, when in fact I was simply holding Charlie back from doing the same.

            <

            p>Then I clarified…and you made the same misinterpretation again…and here we are.

            <

            p>I hope that you will soon have a moment to re-read my posts with this exposition in mind.

    • I’m late to this … but you put the word “wins” in quotes. Not only did I not use that word, as you’re implying. My language throughout the post is qualified and, I think, cautious. The article focuses in part on Patrick’s relationship with the grassroots. My point — made pretty clear, I think — is that that seems to be changing for the better as of late. For what it’s worth.

      <

      p>I do indeed expect results, and legislative victories. So we agree on something, Will.

      <

      p>It never ceases to amaze me how much people are ready to call us BIG DEVAL SHILLS at the slightest provocation. We support him and say nice things when we think he’s right. We say he’s wrong when we think he’s wrong. It’s really not very hard to figure out. That we agree with him on Issue X or Strategy Y is not evidence that we’ve decided to jettison our critical thinking. And I think our record reflects that.

  3. It was very interesting meeting, I can say it meant a lot for him to show up in North Central Mass (During election night converage Keller was shocked that Patrick was winning here).

    <

    p>It was great, he talked about the need to move forward on revenue proposals and listened to concerns of the city (we have a five million dollar budget shortfall).  Seems to have a good working relationship with our rep DiNatale and brought a lot of people into the conversation, other city leaders and students from Fitchburg State College.

    <

    p>I agree with David that by the end of the session we are going to see a lot has been accomplished.  

    <

    p>Removing the outdated Telecom immunity might be one area to push, It was discussed at the meeting.  As I said there were students from FSC there who were unfamiliiar with the issue and Patrick did an excellent job in presenting the arguments.

    <

    p>We face a lot of challenges in Fitchburg (don’t get me started on Unitil – our power company), but we just elected an new mayor who is ready to move forward and our reps (in Fitchburg and Lemonister) are anxious to work with the Governor to move our city (and the state) forward.

  4. Not to File:  If anyone criticizes the administration or suggests how we can do something better, savagely attack them!

    <

    p>If only we had re-education camps.  It would be so much easier if Deval could make everyone think correctly.

    <

    p>

    • How is writing a blog post a “save attack” or even in the same universe as “re-education camp.”

      <

      p>Someone wrote an article, Charley read it and presented arguments as to why he disagree with it.  Where I come from that is also called criticism.  Tolerating criticism is actually a two way street.   The BMG thought police are not racing to the Phoenix to drag Mr. Reilly away.

      <

      p>People do have a right to criticize the adminstration, you are correct, but they don’t have a right to expect that no one can respond.

  5. In the Phoenix print article, Jim Braude flatters us, but also mentions our inherent limitations:

    “I love Blue Mass. Group”, says Braude. “But as a person who’s organized most of the my lfe, the written word never organizes one-thousandth of the people that the spoken word does[*] … The more the public hears from [Patrick’s] lips, the better he does.”

    <

    p>oh… I don’t know about that… Last I checked the Declaration of Independence was an example of the written word… and one that has organized many over the course of a span several times the length of Braudes’ life.

    <

    p>I can’t tell if this is an implicit criticism of our education system or an implicit pat on the back for Braude and his (apparent) life-long exploitation of our education system.

    <

    p>

      • The Internet is great in bringing together like minded people to share thoughts and ideas via a site such as Blue Mass Group.  HOWEVER, the Internet also lets folks find their own little comfortable niche amid these same like minded people.  “Preaching to the Choir”, although well pre-dating BBN’s work on Arpanet and Tim Berners-Lee, is still very appropriate here.  That is the point that Braude is trying to get at with his comment IMHO.

    • I’ve read the Declaration of Independence and while powerful much less so than MLK’s I have a dream speech.  While both present the similar ideas, I have to believe that the spoken word is more powerful than the written word, no matter how elegant…

      • Really??? (0.00 / 0)

        I’ve read the Declaration of Independence and while powerful much less so than MLK’s I have a dream speech.  While both present the similar ideas, I have to believe that the spoken word is more powerful than the written word, no matter how elegant…

        <

        p>MLK’s speeches (most of those that I’ve read and heard, at least) are themselves a derivative of the written word and, when spoken, (at least as regards me…) gets crammed into my already quite full brain alongside typesetting like the Gospels, Melville, Euclid, Voltaire, Tennyson, Descartes, Freud, The Federalist Papers and MAD magazine, among others…   Once in there, it gets churned around until I’ve digested, compared, belched and scratched, analyzed and thought through to a conclusion that makes sense to me in the context of every other thing I’ve ever heard and or read.   How do you learn?

        <

        p>MLK agrees with me.  From a speech:

        We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

        We shall overcome because Carlyle is right  “No lie can live forever.”

        We shall overcome because William Cullen Bryant is right “Truth, crushed to earth, will rise again.”

        We shall overcome because James Russell Lowell is right as we were singing earlier today,

          Truth forever on the scaffold,
          Wrong forever on the throne.
          Yet that scaffold sways the future.
          And behind the dim unknown stands God,
          Within the shadow keeping watch above his own.

        With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair the stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.

        Thank God for John, who centuries ago out on a lonely, obscure island called Patmos caught vision of a new Jerusalem descending out of heaven from God, who heard a voice saying, “Behold, I make all things new; former things are passed away.”

        <

        p>MLK is quoting the written word:  Carlyle, Bryant and Lowell were all long dead ere MLK was born…  I’ll leave it as an excercise to the reader to discover John of Patmos.

        <

        p>My point, however, has less to do with the relative merits of reading versus listening, and much more to do with the implicit pat on the back that Braude gives himself for his exploitation of the fact that not a lot of people read…   That he twists it to say that’s the natural, or even desirable, state doesn’t give you an excuse to fall for it.

        <

        p>

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Archives