Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Barbara Anderson — supporting the Governor’s reforms

By

sort of, but not his revenue proposals. (Or anybody else's for that matter.) Here she is expaining it all to Keller after the ad.

I miss working at the State House with Barbara to tell the truth: She's an honest, kind, principled, witty and demanding advocate for good government that is both effective and efficient. But then I've got a soft spot for white haired activists who lack the patience to suffer fools gladly.

And while so many us hate all the work we have to do to win Prop 2 1/2 over rides, we have to admit that the process forces budget transparency in local government and forces us to ask the essential question, “What kind of Government do we want and how do we pay for it?”

 

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. we have to admit that the process forces budget transparency in local government and forces us to ask the essential question, “What kind of Government do we want and how do we pay for it?”

    <

    p>No it doesn’t. And Barbara Anderson as romantic activist figure?  Sorry, no can do.

    <

    p>The process scapegoats education and the rising costs thereof while providing a cover for people who don’t want to admit they’d rather not pay to educate other people’s kids.  

    • As I’ve noted before Barbara and other members of the Citizens for Limited Taxation leadership team were the most frequent guests on the MassResistance radio show.  

      <

      p>She combines the worst of the neocon instincts — an “I got mine” approach to the budget and tolerance of discrimination as long as it doesn’t affect her.

      • Barbara Anderson has nurtured a culture propagates the notion that taxation is bad, that high taxes are worse, and that nothing is so valuable that you should have to actually pay for it.

        <

        p>Anderson and people like her have impeded any rational conversation about what government should look like by creating a bogeyman known as “taxes.”  Barbara Anderson isn’t interested in transparency, and she isn’t interested in responsible government.  She’s interested in her own paycheck–which, btw, has been wholly supplemented by her “anti-tax” crusade.  Gotta love it.    

      • Mass Resistance has a radio show?
        I generally do any talk radio that wants me on the air.  Don’t all political activists? But if I was on a MassResistance show, it certainly can’t have been frequently or I’d remember.  
        As for Chip Faulkner, he organizes the Center-Right Coalition in Massachusetts. Some of us disagree strongly on social issues, but all seem to be fiscal conservatives, so we keep in touch. Though I am generally pro-choice (on abortion, education vouchers, etc., and support gay marriage as well as supporting constitutionally required votes on initiative petitions), the socially conservative activists seem to tolerate me. It’s all about diversity, right?

        • If you’re conservative, there are things you MUST think!  IT’s the HIVE MIND!  There is no diversity among conservatives!  Do you want people like ‘huh’ to have to listen to individual people instead of slurring them all equally as if they had different ideas?

          <

          p>Good grief – the next thing you know Dick Cheney will come out in favor of gay marriage!

          • follow the link.  Besides, Barbara’s own writings show her to be firmly on the side of “marriage should mean between a man and a woman.”

            <

            p>Disingenuousness appears to be one of your shared traits.

            • Read what I said: “Barbara and other members of the CLT leadership team”

              <

              p>For example:

              <

              p>

              April 22/23 – Barbara Anderson on new health care; David Parker

              Segments 1 & 2:  The latest horror show from the homosexual movement – Lexington teacher reads “modern” fairy tale on gay love and “marriage” to second-grade class.  David Parker, Lexington parent, talks about it.

              Segments 3 & 4:  Barbara Anderson, of Citizens for Limited Taxation, talks about the new universal Health Care Reform Law passed by the Legislature & signed by Gov. Romney with great fanfare. Is it a great solution, or will it just another pie-in-the-sky program that will bankrupt the state?

              Segment 5:  Wrap-up, what you can do.

              • CLT has only four staffers, and no leadership team. While all CLT members generally agree on tax issues, which is why they join us, surely one can’t assume that all of them can speak for us on other issues. David Parker is a social conservative, I’m a social libertarian. Still, we enjoy our points of contact.

                • Your site lists you as “Executive Director” and Chip Faulkner as “Director of Operations.”

                  <

                  p>Disingenuous is as disengenous does, I guess.

            • Everyone should read that column you cite,which intelligently outlined the arguments of both sides — and could not possibly be considered “firmly” on any side. However, it was written early in the debate, and concluded with the desire that there be an open discussion on the issue so that everyone could learn something. Thanks to the petitioners, that debate went forward, and somewhere in there I read a letter to the editor that addressed my concerns about linguistics by reminding us that the word “marriage’ is used to describe a connection of ideas, and other things besides family unions.  Obvious, should have thought of that myself.  

              • Here’s the full text:

                <

                p>

                But the statement by John O’Sullivan haunts me. My moral intuition and love of linguistics say that words must have meaning that is respected, and “marriage” has always meant a man and a woman. During President’s Month, it might be good to recall Abraham Lincoln’s observation that, if you call a tail a leg, a dog still has only four legs.

                This support for tradition should not be equated, as it often was during the first Con-Con debate, with racism or fascism. In the end, let’s hope that voters will define the issue by its many decent proponents and opponents, not by the fringe elements on both sides whose name-calling drowns out their arguments and hurts their cause.

                <

                p>Please do not ask me to embrace discrimination in the name of “tradition” or having an “open mind.”

                <

                p>What are the traditions of the British Navy, again?

          • You hang out on this site all the time, and are still sane?  How do you do that? I used to be a populist until I started reading some of the comments after my own column in the Eagle Tribune papers…Now I find myself quoting Randy Wayne White’s Doc Ford: “We gave up life in the trees , the ability to hang by our toes and scratch our own backs, for this?”

        • Here it is again.

          <

          p>Discrimination is NOT diversity.  MassResistance’s stated goal is to drive homosexuals from the public arena.

          <

          p>But, as I said, one of the worst neocon traits is tolerance of discrimination that doesn’t affect you.  

          • Fortunately, the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn’t get to tell me with whom to associate.  I knew Brian Camenker long before he created MassResistance. He disagrees strongly with my position on gay issues, and yet he is always friendly when we run into each other.
            Question: Should I avoid talking with people who hate Brian Camenker?

  2. There’s nothing about ham-handed arbitrary measures like Prop. 2 1/2 that automatically creates good government.  It hamstrings local governments that are perfectly capable of making responsible spending decisions (and many are, believe it or not) from doing what is necessary when it’s necessary.

    <

    p>By the way, when is the next public meeting of Citizens For Limited Taxation?  I couldn’t find this information on the web site, although there seem to be a lot of press releases and columns written by Barbara Anderson, and a way to donate, of course.  I would swing by the office and ask, but the address is a P.O. Box.  They claim to be the only voice of the Massachusetts taxpayer, but I know how to get hold of my state rep and senator, I’m allowed to attend and vote at town meeting, and I can attend any town board or committee meeting — by law, they are all public — or watch it on cable TV.

    <

    p>Barbara Anderson is either a lone agent or a faux-activist front for a consortium of real-estate interests and (mostly wealthy) tax curmudgeons who operate exclusively on greed and self-interest, and could care less about who gets hurt in the process, so let’s please spare the language about “honest and principled”.  She may not suffer fools gladly, but she thinks everyone who understand that good government comes at a cost is a fool — in fact, she talks as if we are all fools (I clicked on the Jon Keller link), so let’s not romanticize that too much.

    <

    p>”No revenue without reform” means different things to different people.  Deval Patrick is sincerely interested in a healthy Commonwealth, whereas she wants to burn it to the ground to save a few bucks out of her wallet.  If every reform that Barbara Anderson thinks should be passed was passed, would she then support fair revenue proposals?  I think we all know the answer to that question.

    • The CLT Web site is truly awful, but they do list their staff members in the history section:

      <

      p>

      CLT is staffed by Barbara Anderson (executive director), Chip Ford (director of operations), associate director Chip Faulkner and executive assistant Loretta Hayden.

      <

      p>Francis “Chip” Faulkner heads their PAC. He was an even more frequent visitor to MassResistance than Barbara.

      • I understand that you have come to regard this woman as some kind of old war buddy.

        <

        p>I don’t.

        <

        p>She is part of why so many of the kids and families I work with have so little hope, and why the schools where I live do not have libraries or school nurses like they did when my kids went to them.

        <

        p>I have neither fondness nor nostalgia for your old battle axe of a friend.  I may well be viewed as an old battle axe too – but at least I have a heart.

    • But asking about the PO Box is legitimate.  Back in the mid-90s when rents increased in Boston, the four CLT staffers moved their filing cabinets to their homes. It’s true, though, we don’t want fools visiting us.As Peter Porcupine notes,liberals who tried to make a point by visiting me were very disappointed; I’d hate to see them wasting more human services money taking a bus to Marblehead (not Beverly).  Of course, Peter, I’d describe my little converted summer cottage as cute, not dumpy; but there are lots of liberals in McMansions around town they could drop by to have tea with.

      <

      p>As for Deborah: a battle axe without a brain is a terrible thing. Where is the Wizard of Oz when you need him?

      • It’s true, though, we don’t want fools visiting us.

        <

        p>This quote say it all about Barbara. She and CLT have so little respect for the voters and taxpayers of Massachusetts, they certainly didn’t want them stoping by with opinions.

        <

        p>Just imagine if State Reps and State Senators hid at home, refusing to see voters and taxpayers. No state house office, no phone numbers for voters to call.  Anderson would be screaming.

        • But members of Citizens for Limited Taxation can stop by anytime.
          You really don’t see a difference between private citizens and elected representatives?
          Heck, I will probably soon be bored even blogging with idiots, never mind having to look at them.

      • I’m thinking of having a T-shirt made:  “Barbara Anderson joined BMG just to call me a fool”.  

        <

        p>Everybody in the state could wear one.

        • Although technically, it was to call AmberPaw a fool and “a battle axe without a brain.”  

          <

          p>Now there’s a t-shirt!

      • I am always glad to give another old lady a good laugh.

        <

        p>And, really, being called a battle axe without a brain by you is a compliment I will wear with pride.

        <

        p>You may want to run that one by our friend Judy Meredith, though.  Nice to share a good laugh, eh?

        • Did everyone forget that Amberpaw first called me a battleaxe without a heart? Geesh, I was just making a clever reference to the Wizard of Oz.

          <

          p>.. have neither fondness nor nostalgia for your old battle axe of a friend.  I may well be viewed as an old battle axe too – but at least I have a heart.

          <

          p>Deborah Sirotkin Butler

          <

          p>AmberPaw dot @aol.com  

  3. CLT doesn’t have regular monthly meetings – they do have an annual meeitng, usually in December.  This past December, it was at Lantana in Randolph, and three were about 150 people there.

    <

    p>And while ‘The Bluest State’ isn’t the most POPULAR book on the forum, the chapter about activists marching on Barbara’s home in Beverly, and finding it empty (because she was at work), and kind of small and dumpy (as opposed to the luxurious house they expected) is pricelesss..

    • That 150 cranks are able to have the disproportionate impact on the quality of life for a Commonwealth of approximately 6.5 million people is testimony to the efficacy of a media ruse that borders on genius — in this case, malevolent genius —  as well as an abominable mockery of grass-roots democracy.

      <

      p>If you were part of a hypothetical group of wealthy individuals, corporations, and real-estate interests looking for a legal way to cheat their way out of paying taxes on their extravagant holdings, would you send a corporate lawyer in a $2,000 suit and a gold-plated watch?

      <

      p>Or would you have a better chance of posing as a grass-roots movement and getting the doe-eyed attention of irresponsible media cretins like Jon Keller if you hired some shrill harridan whose studied frumpiness is a nothing more than a cold-eyed calculation?

      • <

        p>Or –

        <

        p>”Someday an army of grey haired women will quietly take over the earth.” – Gloria Steinham

        <

        p>Ain’t no law says they have to be liberals, buddy!

        • I had to look back up the page to make sure we were still talking about Barbara Anderson.  Unless you change the meaning of “thoughtful” to “thoughtless”, the meaning of “quietly” to “while destroying everything in her path”, the meaning of “committed” to “blindly obsessed”, and the meaning of “army” to include “army of one”, neither of those quotes applies.  But lack of applicability never stopped you before, did it?

          • And if the current situation in California is any indication, it doesn’t seem as if we are much danger.

            • He’s constantly threatening to sue the association so he doesn’t have to pay for budget item X, since he doesn’t use it.  When challenged with facts, he inevitably claims to be smarter than everyone else.  Discussion with him is equally unsatisfying.

              • As Argus Hamilton said, “Never make the mistake of arguing with idiots. They just drag you down to their level  and then beat you with experience”.
                But sometimes I think, heck,sometimes it’s fun to amuse oneself by seeing just how silly liberals can be…

                • Possibly it is time for you to return to the fleecy clouds from whence you descended.

  4. We white haired activists may not suffer fools gladly, but we still have to suffer them. But hey, let’s make an effort to show them what an intelligent conversation looks like.

    <

    p>Everybody draw a circle, as in pie chart, named all the money in the state.  Mark off a section called “what taxpayers get to keep for themselves”. My section will be bigger than yours, but that’s not the point right now. Next, mark a section called “money spent on essential services”. Your definition of essential will be broader than mine, but never mind.  Now mark the final section, money wasted on self-serving benefits for insiders, other political crap.  This section is getting bigger every day.

    <

    p>I propose that the difference between fiscal conservatives like me and real liberals like Judy and another old war buddy Jim Braude (as opposed to what Congressman Joe Kennedy called poverty pimps)is the amount of political crap we are willing to tolerate in order to get the essential services. For us, it’s not much.  When you decide how much you will tolerate, remember that when the system collapses from its own corrupt weight, your services will be at the bottom of the heap, while fed-up taxpayers leave and take their money with them.  

    • … surely you have some evidence that “self-serving benefits for insiders, other political crap” is a fast growing segment?

      <

      p>BTW, how do you feel about GOP state committee members working for the state?

      • In fact, read any newspaper, watch TV news. I think the indictment of yet another Speaker is some evidence.

        <

        p>I can’t offhand think of any who do, but can’t think of any reason why GOP or DSC members shouldn’t work for the state.  They all pay for it.

    • That’s an integral part of the snake oil you’re selling, isn’t it; to try to get people to forget that they might also be workers, fathers, mothers, students, teachers, renters, landlords, business owners, consumers, community members, drivers, pedestrians, citizens, or — and there are exactly the same number of these in the Commonwealth as “taxpayers” — beneficiaries of state services?

      <

      p>Would you like to sign my initiative petition to change state law to cap yearly increases in health care and insurance premiums, rent, groceries, student activity fees, school bus fees, child care, home heating fuel, and gasoline at two-and-a-half percent?  These are expenditures that make my property taxes look like loose change in the couch cushions.

      <

      p>Your explanation of state economics has a charming, almost Fisher-Price quality — that obviously works on the rubes, like any good con game, but be advised that many of this crowd have been around the block a few times.

      <

      p>Let’s see, has it been about twenty-five years now that you and your self-identified “taxpayers” have been fed up and threatening to leave?  We’ve been holding the door open for you all the whole time, so that it wouldn’t hit you in your swollen wallets on your way out.  Here’s a tip:  I hear the free-staters are building a country of their own on a floating platform out in the ocean…

      <

      p>Let’s assume you are sincere about supporting “reform before revenue”.  Here’s a chance to prove it’s not just about lowering your taxes, period:  If every reform Governor Patrick proposed passed and was successfully implemented,  which revenue proposals would you support?  

      <

      p>Is that the sound of crickets chirping?

      • If every reform Governor Patrick proposed passed and was successfully implemented, I’d say, bravo, Gov! nice start!

    • So you’re not cashing your Social Security check, right? And not taking any Medicare benefits, right? Because my kids’ schools would be a lot better off if I could spend that money on them instead of you. Or was I supposed to draw your benefits in the “essential services” category?

      • Social Security and Medicare, into which I paid more than I have used so far, are funded by the federal government. Money withheld from our paychecks by the feds would not be going to your kids’schools anyhow.
        Geesh, didn’t you learn ANYthing in the public schools?

        • that mrigney knows the difference between local and federal government. However, if a glowing feeling of superiority improves your mood, who am I to spoil it?

        • I have to say I’m a little disappointed. I had expected more from a legendary battleaxe. I didn’t really think it was an original question but I still sort of hoped for more than a non sequitur followed by an ad hominem. But maybe that’s all there is.

  5. In 1988, Anderson joined up with Steve Tocco and Jenny Buckingham (then with the non-union Associated Builders & Contractors) to write and promote a ballot question that would have repealed the State Prevailing Wage Law on public construction projects. Tocco later became a Republican political op and Bill Weld staffer. Buckingham was running Massport on 9/11 and went onto the Herald as a “columnist”.

    <

    p>Anderson’s concept, cut construction workers’ wages and the cost of public construction projects would drop – saving taxpayers money. No cap on contractor profit, no restrictions on legal fees, or any other professional fees, no cap on financing, no restriction on the costs or markup of materials – just cut blue collar workers wages.

    <

    p>Oh yeah, the question repealed all record-keeping with regard to numbers of women and people of color working on public construction projects as well.  

    <

    p>Progressives, Jim Braude comes to mind (he was the head of TEAM then) joined Labor and elected officials ( Mike Dukakis, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Evelyn Murphy come to mind)to oppose the repeal – Question #2.

    <

    p>Massachusetts voters rejected Anderson and the ABC by a 58 to 42% vote with 349 of the 351 cities and towns defeating the question.

    <

    p>Barbara Anderson has never had the guts to put her name on the ballot and let voters have their say on her. She stays on the electoral sidelines and attacks those who hold office.

    <

    p>Sorry Judy, you are way off base on this post.

    • If I ran for office, someone would have to do my job anyhow. So easier to stay here and support others.
      BTW, you would never attack any politician (Weld, Reagan,Bush, Cheney?) unless you ran yourself? Or maybe you have, and did run for office. Hard to tell, your name isn’t even on your postings!  

  6. This diary could have come with an engraved invitation:

    You are cordially
    invited to attend a diary
    where being rude and dismissive
    will be treated as the virtue of:
    not suffering fools gladly.

    <

    p>I’m frankly uninterested in who Barbara Anderson thinks is a fool and isn’t a fool.

    • Like Ollie North was admired because he “stood up for what he believed in”.

  7. …that Barbara Anderson herself joined this discussion.  I for one don’t doubt her sincerity, but I can’t think of many laws more damaging than Prop. 2 1/2.

    • I don’t agree.

      <

      p>Her contribution on this thread has been that of a troll. At Judy’s invitation, she has taken on a tone of ugly intellectual superiority. I don’t think there’s been a diary where I’ve marked so many comments “Delete”.

      • Before this, I just found her politics distasteful.  It’s somehow comforting to know those are just one piece of an unpleasant whole.  

        • I’d expect that Ms. Anderson did not expect to be mentioned on a liberal blog and was unprepared for sudden attention here. Were the reverse to happen to me, I too might respond emotionally and not so intelligently.

          <

          p>Daily Kos, for example, used to be chock full of diaries warning liberals not to treat conservatives as stupid people who, if they were just presented with a handful of facts, would make a conversion to the correct and true way of seeing things. The illusion, that the ideological adversary suffers stupidity or moral depravity or both, is easy to acquire and easy to sink into. It’s a point of view that takes discipline to avoid. It must be especially tempting when “surrounded”.

          <

          p>Possibly with better preparation Ms. Anderson could be more witty, generous, and persuasive to the audience here.

          <

          p>And possibly not.

          • No amount of surprise justifies that.  

            <

            p>Besides, I’ve seen her on Braude.  Witty and generous don’t seem to be traits she values.  Snarky, sure.

            <

            p>I do appreciate the reminder of why I left the GOP, so thanks for that.

            • Did everyone forget that Amberpaw started this? writing
              …I have neither fondness nor nostalgia for your old battle axe of a friend.  I may well be viewed as an old battle axe too – but at least I have a heart.

              <

              p>Deborah Sirotkin Butler

              <

              p>AmberPaw dot @aol.com  

              • You note, too, that I consider that in many quarters I AM viewed as “an old battle ax” and that, for me and from me, that is NOT an insult.  I spend a good part of my time working on behalf of the folk who have been terribly harmed by the results of the “tax meanies” aka CLT aka “Prop 2 and 1/2” and at least in my opinion, the anti-tax, and anti-services for legal orphans, wards of the state, cognitively limited, etc. etc. are in fact lacking empathy [or in my opinion and my view, heartless].

                <

                p>so just so you know, for this 4’10” self employed citizen activist to be seen as a “battle axe”  by Barbara Anderson – is a compliment and I assure you, Barbara Anderson has never met me, I have never met her, and she is not one of those people whose opinions I happen to care about at this point in time.

                <

                p>The interactions online in this thread have not raised her in my estimation, but rather do seem entirely in character with Ms. Anderson’s public persona as previously encountered by me.

                <

                p>In poetic terms [and I can and may use this poem online because I wrote it and I hold the copy right to it]:

                <

                p>Opposition

                <

                p>…grinds the diamond of the soul

                <

                p>until

                <

                p>refraction

                <

                p>is perfect.
                cDeborah Sirotkin Butler

    • You sound like a nice person.
      Prop 2 1/2 gives power to the people, both by being created by initiative petition, then by requiring local governments to ask local taxpayers before taking more than the limit. The majority rules, and I guess gets to define “damage”.

      <

      p>Raising property taxes on struggling homeowners, on the unemployed, on people on fixed incomes, does harm. On my side of Prop 2 1/2, these are the people we care about.

      • In a town-meeting style government such as Dracut has I thought the populace had to approve the annual budget anyway, both how much is raised and how it’s spent.  My experience has soured my view of direct democracy as people look out only for their own wallets and fail to see the bigger picture.  Too many still have a Rev. War mentality regarding taxation, but seem to forget that in our system taxation comes WITH representation.  Raising taxes by elected officials seems to strike the right balance between a far off Crown-Parliament which will raise taxes with no accountability and the people at large who will never be enthusiastic.  If I recall correctly, you have publicly expressed your wish that override attempts fail in the past so it seems you want people to have the right to decide, but still hope they decide your way.

        <

        p>I am convinced that Prop. 2 1/2 has been extremely damaging to Dracut.  When it first passed in 1981 we had to shut down schools.  Subsequent failed override attempts in the late 1980s and early 1990s led to further cuts resulting in crowded classrooms and closed fire stations, inter alia.  Enrichment and music programs were slashed, which by the way, I hardly consider luxuries.  By the time I attended junior high school it was very barebones.  Many of us had one or two study halls a day.  We no longer had shop or home economics classes (which I admit I’m not complaining too loudly about) and fees were charged to participate in band or ride the school bus.

        <

        p>It just got worse over the next couple of years.  After another failed override attempt I began my eighth grade year with no foreign language and no history!  Certainly nobody could argue that even these were just extras.  By October they figured out how to give us three days a week of those subjects, but that’s hardly adequate.  At the end of eighth grade I asked my French (the only language offered) teacher to recommend me for French II for my freshman year.  She refused, not because I hadn’t done well, but because between only three days per week in eighth grade and not having it at all in seventh grade we simply had not learned enough.

        <

        p>The true low point of all this came in 1992.  This time town leadership decided to divide the override question into nine parts with the first five questions addressing whether the town should override for the purpose of funding (insert service here) and questions 6-9 being different levels of school funding to choose from.  Even given control over what was funded the voters rejected all nine parts.  The most notorious result was the complete closing of our public library, which generated national news in a way as you can imagine we could have done without.  My understanding is that such a move was unprecedented even during the Great Depression.  As a student it made doing school projects rather difficult.  By then I was attending Bishop Guertin in Nashua rather than Dracut High, since the latter had accreditation issues which of course couldn’t be resolved without money.

        <

        p>Override attempts should really be done when times are good so as to alleviate the extra pinch – the “fix the roof while the sun shines” concept.  In 2002, Dracut DID approve debt exclusions for a new library and police station following a campaign which I chaired.  Each question passed with 55% of the vote.  When I spoke at town meeting I suggested to voters that taking such a step would have the effect of symbolically expunging from the record the awful result of ten years previous regarding the library.  It was gratifying to me to be involved for the first time the question had come up since I turned 18.  I was personally affected by law over which, being a minor, I had no say previously.

        <

        p>All this being said I should note that many progressives are in principle opposed to the property tax due to its regressive nature.  I have wished for a long time that municipal services were not tied to the property tax and thus dependent on local wealth.  Living near New Hampshire I see the effects of relying so heavily on property taxes, but approve of their statewide assessment system.  One thing that frustrates me is people see NH as a tax-free paradise due to a lack of income and sales tax, but fail to see the other side of that coin.  My philosophy is that one way or another our services need money, so while property taxes may not be the best system I continue to support anything to weaken Prop. 2 1/2 for the same reason that’s given for robbing a bank – that’s where the money is!  I’d be open to discussing a higher cap so it doesn’t become a free-for-all.  I will close by pointing out that my town’s leadership knows we’re frugal and is not in the habit of asking for overrides/debt exclusions except as a last resort.

        • Throughout the Prop 2 1/2 years, our per pupil K-12 spending has remained among the highest in the nation. It’s up to local groups to argue about where the money is going. Before Prop 2 1/2, no one had any reason to care; the taxpayers were just milked at the will of those who saw no limit in how much they should take from others.

          <

          p>But I had hoped that by now Prop 2 1/2 would have led to my ideal: a public education system funded by taxpayers (as Thomas Jefferson recommended in order to sustain democracy) but not run by the government or teachers unions. I’d use Massachusetts existing income and sales tax revenues to fund education vouchers, so that parents could choose the kind of school they want for their own kids. Had hoped that as more local aid went to the cities and towns for education, that new amount could eventually be used to give equal vouchers to each child.

          <

          p>Just think of how it would end so many angry discussions.  Do you want sex education, no sex education; prayer, no prayer; open classrooms, back to basics; evolution, evolution/creationism; union, no union teachers; whatever? Choose what is best for your child. Choice, a good thing.

          <

          p>As I’ve said elsewhere, I wouldn’t give NH the broad-based taxes because of how they change the culture; they do have more local control than we do anyhow.

          • You say you want schools taxpayer funded, but not government run – really?  If something is taxpayer funded I thought someone like you would especially WANT us to oversee the use of such funds which we do through the medium of government.  I don’t understand (and I don’t have counter-statistics at the moment) how you can say our per pupil expenditures are so high; it certainly didn’t feel that way during the years I described.  It’s a whole other topic, but suffice to say I’m dead set against vouchers.  Public money should be reserved for maintaining the public school system.  I’ve also heard way too many horror stories to accept the idea that parents always know what is best for their children.

  8. Always better to have a discussion that can be printed out, where many people can fact check, don’t you think?

    • Actually, this thread has next to no fact checking contained within it.  

      <

      p>The contents appear to be principally bashing Barbara Anderson because she’s philosophically at odds with posters or else because she associates with some who oppose gay marriage.  More like heckling than fact checking.

        • You keep railing about dishonesty.  I keep following the links to find it, and don’t.  

          • She denied even knowing that MR had a radio show, then when caught, denied being part of the CLT leadership team, then turned to personal insults…

            <

            p>What part are you missing?

            • Just to be clear, she said:

              <

              p>

              Mass Resistance has a radio show?
              I generally do any talk radio that wants me on the air.  Don’t all political activists? But if I was on a MassResistance show, it certainly can’t have been frequently or I’d remember.

              <

              p>First, MR doesn’t have a radio show and hasn’t since 2007.  And second, you link to a single podcast from 2006, and stomp around shouting that she’s dishonest because she claimed not to remember the phone call broadcast.  Then, split hairs as to whether 4 staffers constitute a “leadership team”?!  

              • i can see how she wouldn’t remember.  And you’re right – having the title “executive director” has nothing to do with running being the leader of an organization.  What was I thinking? I didn’t even touch denying her own stance on gay marriage.

                <

                p>Sheesh.  How far are you willing to sacrifice your own credibility to avoid violating the Republican 11th commandment?

                • When you call someone a liar or dishonest, you bear the burden of proof.

                  <

                  p>Take your statement for example:

                  <

                  p>

                  As I’ve noted before Barbara and other members of the Citizens for Limited Taxation leadership team were the most frequent guests on the MassResistance radio show.

                  <

                  p>It appears from a search that Ms. Anderson did one podcast, and Chip Faulkner, also once. A Mister C.J. Doyle appear far more frequently, yet, you’ve stated that CLT was the “most” frequent.

                  <

                  p>Done.  I’ve proved your statement wrong.  

                  <

                  p>Doesn’t mean you’re a liar, simply mistaken.  

                  <

                  p>But, if I adopt your logical process of determining dishonesty, well, yeah, you’re a liar, and you’re acting like a dink, seizing two innocuous statements (appears that way to me anyway) and charging dishonesty.

                • She also denied being the leader of her own organization.  See the difference?  I’m guessing not.  

                  <

                  p>In any case, I called Barbara disingenuous. Peter Porcupine I called dishonest.   I called neither a liar.  I’m guessing the subtly will be lost on you.

                  <

                  p>As to your convoluted counter example, that’s not the only list of shows, just an example.  I was a regular listener, and Chip was on multiple times.  Not as much as CJ Doyle, but more than anyone else.

                  <

                  p>Rule of thumb: if you have to resort to gross exaggeration, e.g. accusing people of shouting, stomping, etc., you’re argument is probably too weak to run with.

                  <

                  p>

                • I ASK you, upthread, where’s the dishonesty.  You replied “up above”.   Could you have been a tiny bit more specific for God’s sake.  All this while, I thought you were calling Ms. Anderson dishonest.  Criminy, you type paragraph after useless paragraph, and when I ask for a bit of clarification, you know, something useful, you’re brief?!

                • Yes, the dishonesty was here.  I was relying to a PP post, after all.   Still should have been more specific.

                  <

                  p>Oh, and that should be “your argument” — bad typing day, apparently.

  9. that Prop 2 1/2 forces us to ask ourselves as well as our neighbors –let’s call it civic engagement — is:

    <

    p>

    “What kind of Government do we want and how do we pay for it?”

    <

    p>Now while I think that you and I may have a different list of what kinds of public structures we need to build and maintain a healthy community at a local level(come to think of it we probably have different definitions of healthy and community as well),  let me try to reframe shiltone’s question above.

    <

    p>How would you define the kind of government we need at the state level and how you would suggest we pay for it?  

    • You’ll never live down inviting me onto this site. Sorry.

      <

      p>Simple answer, I’d look north at New Hampshire. “Live free or die” fits with our friend Grover Norquist’s “Leave us alone” coalition theme.  Part-time legislature, goes home in the afternoon and most of the year, regular people with real jobs or retired from real jobs who relate more to their neighbors than to other politicians. No broad-based taxes to give political egos too much power. I know property taxes there are high and an income tax or sales tax is more fair, but the trade-off — creating a professional political class to spend all that money– isn’t worth it.  

      • Who says that cronyism is a liberal vice?

        <

        p>Thanks for your input, Ms. Anderson.  I hear property is cheap in NH.   Maybe you could afford a less dumpy house, there.  Pity about the property taxes and health care system, though.

  10. This is getting really silly for a diary that was off the  page a couple of hours ago. Peter is sane. Neither Amberpaw or Barbara are Battleaxes, and both have very big brains.

    <

    p>KBush, your comment made a fine point.

    <

    p>

    This diary could have come with an engraved invitation:
    You are cordially
    invited to attend a diary
    where being rude and dismissive
    will be treated as the virtue of:
    not suffering fools gladly.

    <

    p>Rude dismissive namecalling is a frequent visitor here and only invites more. Doesn’t matter who started it or who invited it in.  

    <

    p>Time out and time for bed people.  

    • A “battleaxe” is double bladed, sharp, see:

      <

      p>http://www.a2armory.com/battle…  Fine medieval weapons – implication, folk who hold on to their own, not majoritarian values with some fierceness are “battle axes” or, for more on the actual weapon:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B…

      <

      p>In British slang, a “battleaxe” is a female warrior.  See:  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t…

      <

      p>  A political woman known to strike fear into the heart of her oponent is known as a “battleaxe” in England.

      <

      p>See also:  http://www.gladiatorszone.co.u…  A website about British female wrestlers also called “battleaxes”.

      <

      p>So, yeah, I DO use the term “battleaxe” for myself at home.  Comes of reading too much English English and I don’t think of it as a slur.

      <

      p>So. Barbara.  In my view both of us are “Battleaxes”  Enjoy!

Archives