Mike Lake vs Suzanne Bump on other progressive issues:
They are both pro-choice and both pro-equal marriage.
Mike Lake opposes any income tax cut (from an email response from the Lake campaign)
Mike could not support a tax cut at a time when so many families in Massachusetts are relying on the services provided by the funds generated by state taxes. He believes it would not be prudent to cut state services programs further than we have already been forced to cut. In addition, with Mike’s vision for a more proactive Auditor’s Office, he will identify and eliminate inefficiencies in state government to redirect those resources to the programs and services in great demand. We must support the working families of Massachusetts and we must do so with the most efficient and effective state government possible.<blockquote>
There is no position (that I could find) on Bump’s website regarding tax cuts.
The State Auditor has final approval on privatization plans for state services. Neither Lake nor Bump address the Pacheco-Menard Taxpayer Protection Law on their websites but Lake’s campaign did respond to an email question:
Mike is a supporter of the Pacheco Law as it protects rights of hard working state employees and provides a safeguard to ensure that state revenues are spent wisely and effectively. As you probably know, the Pacheco Law grants the State Auditor significant responsibilities in the decision making process of awarding contracts to private vendors for services provided by the state.
Another interesting note comes from Votesmart.org which lists organizations that Bump is associated with – and includes the South Shore Chamber of Commerce – the most conserative Chamber in the state.
Organizations:
Former Advisory Member, Government Relations Committee, Boston Symphony Orchestra
Former Treasurer, EMH Recovery
Saint Francis House, Boston
South Shore Chamber of Commerce.http://www.votesmart.org/bio.p…
Here are a couple of examples of the South Shore Chamber’s positions on issues:
An item left out of the proposal called for indexing, which would have increased the minimum wage based on inflation for a period of years. The $1.25 increase called for in the bill would also have been added on. South Shore Chamber of Commerce President Peter Forman called this “the scariest” of all the proposals made.
The South Shore Chamber of Commerce has adamantly opposed the tax (local meals and hotel) in Quincy and in the other South Shore communities where it has been proposed. Abington and Braintree rejected the new tax. In Plymouth, the tax was defeated in a referendum by an 80% to 20% margin.
Opposing the minimum wage indexing and opposing a local option tax (Quincy is facing 200 teacher layoffs this year) doesn’t sound progressive to me.
So the question is, who is the real progressive in the State Auditor’s race – the insurance bobbyist or the United Way Development Director?
Full disclosure: my union has endorsed Guy Glodis and I will be voting for him at the Democratic Convention. I don’t think it matters who asks the question, just what the real answer is.
It seems to me that we should focus most on issues where the Auditor can have the most impact. On some issues (like privatization), it sounds as if ideology certainly matters. I’m hard pressed to see where social issues come in or where favoring or opposing casino gambling is all that significant.
<
p>I’d also expect that there is a big component that is non-ideological (competence, integrity, managerial ability, etc.)
<
p>Full disclosure I am a Bump supporter………)
of EVERY group that she is affiliated with?
<
p>Do you vote for EVERY SINGLE candidate that your Union endorses? Or do you happen to agree with them most of the time (which is why you associate yourself with them), but in the end, make your own decisions?
<
p>Lake seems like one heck of an impressive fellow. But so far, it looks to me like Bump is the candidate who can beat Guy Glodis in this three-way race.
<
p>Why? I think her position in the Patrick administration gives her a leg up in an election where only Ds and Is are voting.
Is why is a bigot, and a DINO like guy glodis cares about who the real progressive in the race is?
<
p>The campaign has already stuck a plant who now pitches themselves as a Lake supporter and gone negative against Bump on more than a few occasions.
<
p>Bump is the progressive in the race, and the candidate who can win in November. Let’s get this race right please.
But there’s a fair bit of time before we need to make this determination. The primary is four months away, and I think there remains plenty of time to learn about these candidates and where they stand.
<
p>The clear, but softly spoken reality is that Suzanne Bump would be hurt by Mike Lake’s presence on the ballot, and Glodis would benefit. Make no mistake — a lot of the debate here and elsewhere revolves around that one reality.
I want to love the guy, but his campaign proves he isn’t the “true Progressive” this post would have you believe.
<
p>He continues to tout his months in the White House as “experience” in a way that distorts his actual role and importance, something I don’t think you do if you are qualified to do a job. If the candidate himself thinks he has to inflate his resume to seem experienced enough, I have a problem voting for him. And let’s not forget this from Bernstein:
<
p>
<
p>Experience managing large departments with hundreds of staff is essential if the Auditor is going to be effective – and Lake’s never managed anybody.
<
p>I also have doubts about Lake’s Progressive credentials because he stayed in the White House under President Bush . . . an anti-choice, anti-gay, pro-gun, and pro-death penalty President. That same White House position he puts on every piece of literature and touts in every speech? The majority of Lake’s months in that position were under Bush. Would you have stayed on if you were even a little bit driven by a liberal ideology? It sounds to me like he wanted the position to put on his resume more than he wanted to be a “true Progressive.”
<
p>I wish it weren’t true. But the “young, fresh candidate,” the “reform-minded Beacon Hill outsider” has proven himself to be as much of an opportunist political animal as many who have been on Beacon Hill for decades.
I have managerial concerns. However, I don’t think merely working in Bush’s White House necessarily disqualifies him. Different ideologies in this country should be able to at least work together.
… the magnitude of the ‘rot agencies from within’ attitude of the GWB administration, I don’t think anyone in there deserves the benefit of the doubt either.
It seems to me that the question of experience and temperament are more important to the job of Auditor than ideology, per se. The reason I lean towards Bump at this point is because she has both relevant experience and seemingly good temperament, which is where Lake (little experience) and Glodis (poor temperament) suffer by comparison.
<
p>Also, the entire argument about the South Shore Chamber of Commerce is quite odd (and not just because it’s all in blockquotes). For one, you say that the South Shore Chamber of Commerce is “the most conservative Chamber in the state”, and then go on to imply that Bump therefore must be very conservative.
<
p>I don’t know whether it’s true that the South Shore Chamber is indeed the most conservative, but there’s a pretty simple explanation for why she lists that Chamber and not others — she represented Braintree when she was a state representative, which just so happens to be on the South Shore. I would hope that she had some contact with the local Chamber of Commerce as a representative from the area, just as I would hope she would have some contact with local unions, local small businesses, local community groups, etc. It certainly doesn’t mean that she agrees with all of the positions of these groups — meaning that the bulk of of your argument here is at best irrelevant and quite possibly intentionally misleading.
Jeez this is a bad hack /troll job. You’re for Glodis (why I don’t know) and have been shilling for him here for a while. Now you’re going troll.
<
p>Please stop.
<
p>Talk all you want about Glodis, even get snarky about Bump and Lake, but stop with this fake “concerned reader” crap.
<
p>Do YOU care who’s the “real” progressive here?
<
p>Do you really think this is going to help Glodis?
<
p>What does “progressive” have to do with auditor? Unless “progressive” means smart, open minded, and effective. It’s about making state government run better and smarter, so we all get more from our tax dollar. Effective government that makes the day to day life of state residents better is “progressive”. “Progressive” views on abortion, same sex marriage, or tiddlywinks doesn’t matter much in that regard.
<
p>
<
p>Yes, it does matter, when it’s a silly loaded troll question like this. This is middle school politics.
<
p>Leave the Lake campaign to Lake and his people. You go find some stupid racist emails for Guy to forward. We know who the “progressive” isn’t.
<
p>
Who is the real auditor in the Auditor’s race? This is what I care about – does this candidate have the ability and the character to be a great auditor for the Commonwealth. The rest is just window dressing.
I know Republicans want to downsize government on everything (because it worked out so great re:oil industry regulation), but do you really think the Auditor personally goes over the books of the Commonwealth?
<
p>Do you think the Attorney General writes all the legal briefs personally as well? Do you think the Treasurer spends the day sitting in a bank vault, counting the Commonwealth’s money?
<
p>In the 21st century, the job of auditor is a lot more managerial and political than that. If you put two people in an elevator with Connaughton, by the time they reach the top floor she’ll have p-ssed one off and lied to other — not primo Auditor material.
I don’t see Cahill in a bank vault, but he WAS Norfolk County treasurer. I don’t think Coakley writes every brief, no matter what she claims, but I do think she is a lawyer.
<
p>It is interesting to see you advocagte the politicization of what ought to be an independent watchdog – the Dems really will miss DeNooch, won’t they?
<
p>
<
p>Any basis for a cheap slam like that? Or were you thinking about Glodis again?
I’m recognizing reality. An elected position with supervision over a large division is political.
<
p>As for Connaughton, you’re familiar enough with her history to know — and dislike — the truth in what I said.
Should the CEO of an airline be a trained pilot?
<
p>Running an organization is an entirely different skill set than actually manufacturing the widgets. While familiarity doesn’t hurt, it’s not at all clear that the sill set for managing a large government bureaucracy have much to do with sniffing out problems with balance sheets.
How about we follow Reagan’s rule and not let any progressive attack the other progressive? Lets have Bump and Lake positively debate the issues and their credentials, but let them both sign a cease fire and preserve their ammo for Glodis, they guy they gotta beat and the guy that would most set our commonwealth back.
<
p>I would argue that both Lake and Bump have the credentials and the experience needed to make great auditors, I think both are a breath of fresh air and would open the office to full public transparency and efficiency in a way their predecessor never dared or dreamed to do, and certainly in a manner more progressive than hack/bigot Glodis. I even think the Republican candidate has a lot of great ideas and a lot going for her as well. Right now I am leaning towards Bump because I think she is the more electable of the two against Glodis and because she has come on here, defended herself, and really impressed me with the way she answered all of my questions and with the wealth of experience she has. I am confident she will make a great auditor, equally confident that Lake or Connaughton would make good auditors, completely confident that Glodis would severely set our party and our state backward.
QUINCY, Mass., June 1, 2010 – Suzanne Bump, a Democratic candidate for Massachusetts State Auditor, today announced she has received the endorsement of Congressman Barney Frank, who represents the Fourth District of the Commonwealth and is the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Chairman Frank has been a member of the Massachusetts delegation since 1980 and is currently running for his 16th term.
<
p>”I have known Suzanne since she was first elected in 1985, and from her time as a state representative to her most recent tenure as head of the Labor and Workforce Office, she has always placed the highest premium on accountability and delivering measurable results for all residents in Massachusetts,” said Frank. “Suzanne is also the best candidate to represent the values of the Democratic Party. Her many years of experience and passion for her work make her the best choice to be the Commonwealth’s next state auditor.”
about the virtues and capabilities of Guy Glodis?
He will positively hire many campaign contributors and keep patronage alive and well.
<
p>I am positive he will expand the auditors payroll and bloat at all levels
<
p>I am positive he will continue to give away no bid contracts to donors and friends.
<
p>I am positive he will use his office and ego for personal gain and to satiate his giant ego.
<
p>Positively!
Bump supporters seem very afraid that Mike Lake will be taken seriously by progressive voters.
<
p>So let’s see, casino gaming is a progressive issue unless Bump is pro-casino. And it’s not an issue in the Auditor’s race? The Auditor won’t have any authority to review and/or audit the license fees and other revenues that casinos generate to ensure the state receives the corrct amount? Suuuuuure.
<
p>Notice that the attacks on Glodis really don’t address the question posted – who is the real progressive in the Auditor’s race. Calling out Glodis or even Glodis supporters doesn’t make Bump a progressive.
<
p>And yes I am a Glodis supporter (have disclosed such in every post on the Auditor’s race). His record on overall Labor issues has been great and it’s the Labor issues that take priority for me.
<
p>And hey Davesoko – yes Bump is responsible for the policy of the people she chooses to work for. American Insurance Industry and Citigroup were her employers – she implemented their lobbying agenda, she owns it. South Shore Chamber – maybe a streech on my part but I didn’t create that association, votesmart did.
<
p>Hey MedfieldBlueBob – I am as progressive as anyone on this site (and have been posting about the same amount of time as you) but now I get to be a troll because I dare raise a legit question. IMO Lake is the real progressive in this race and I made my case.
<
p>FYI – I think Lake hurts Glodis in the primary (two male and one female candidate give the female the edge.)
<
p>If the legislature enacted casino gambling in Massachusetts and it was signed into law by the Governor, I would hope that any Auditor, whether pro- or anti-casino, would properly audit license fees to ensure that the state receives the correct amount. By the time the Auditor gets involved in this issue, the policy has already been enacted and the Auditor’s position on casinos is (or should be) completely irrelevant to his or her job.
<
p>
<
p>Again, your implication that Bump must agree with everything that her employers other associated groups agree with is false. That’s like saying, as people sometimes do, that because you’re an associate in a large law firm that handles Wal-Mart as a client, you’re therefore a Wal-Mart lackey and profoundly anti-union because Sam Walton was anti-union.
<
p>It doesn’t work that way. Candidates should be judged on their own merits, not by taking the highly questionable approach of attempting to put the South Shore Chamber’s or Citigroup’s CEO’s opinions in Suzanne Bump’s mouth. To my knowledge, Bump never expressed support for the entirety of those organization’s opinions. On the other hand, we’re well aware of what Glodis’s opinions are on several matters, and it isn’t pretty.
If Lake is the real progressive in the race why are you supporting Glodis?
<
p>If you are a real progressive why are you supporting Glodis who has so far proven to be corrupt, racist, and fairly conservative for a Democrat even in MA?
<
p>Also you are the only one making negative claims about Bump, backhanded positive claims about Lake, and you have distanced yourself from Glodis at every turn.
<
p>Look at my post above, let the candidates debate the issues, I am proud to have Lake or Bump as my Auditor, I am leaning Bump because she answered my questions on this site really well and has more experience than Lake. But I’d be happy with Lake as well. I see no reason to attack either person.
<
p>Lastly why is Glodis so ‘pro-labor’, you have asserted this several times but made no substantiating claims? Give us a record, give us proposals he passed, tell us, beyond the fact that the unions endorse him, what makes him ‘pro-labor’?
<
p>’Looking out for friends, family, and supporters’ does not amount to pro-labor in my book, does it in yours?
<
p>Articulating why he earns your vote as opposed to why the other candidates suck is a better way to win over supporters for him by the by.
<
p>You’re entitled.
<
p>I think it reflects badly on organized labor myself. Be interesting to see if they can deliver the votes of their members as well they did for Martha Coakley.
I said you were a troll, feebly shilling for one candidate to support your – certifiably non-progressive – candidate. It sounds like some middle school girls’ clique thing.
<
p>Fine, you’re a progressive and so’s Mike Lake. Case closed.
<
p>So what? It doesn’t matter to you that he’s such a great progressive, why should we care? And why do you keep telling us what a great progressive he is, when you’re supporting the least progressive candidate in the race?
<
p>I’ve met Mike Lake. I like him. Same with Suzanne Bump.
<
p>So, stop lovin’ on Mike Lake for a minute or three and make your case FOR Glodis. Let Mike make his own case.
<
p>
Not whether someone is a bigot or against raising revenue to support the very state services that your job relies on.
<
p>Glodis’ record on labor issues is a farce as long as he opposes progressive tax policies. That is where the rubber meets the road in state politics. That is the third rail. He may talk the game on labor but he ain’t willing to cross the track for labor.
<
p>Maybe you can illuminate his views on tax policy and why he walked away every time there was a tough vote on it.
<
p>If anyone is worried here its you, because you keep stoking fire against Bump.
<
p>
Glodis pushed hard to pass the voter initiative interfering in curriculum in schools, forcing politics to make the judgment about how teachers should teach to students whose families speak a foreign language, and ignoring the judgment of educators.
<
p>The teacher’s unions expended great effort and money to fight this proposal–efforts that we could have spent on improving education. That initiative brought threats of lawsuits to teachers who may have made the judgment that speaking in Spanish could help a student understand the lesson. It’s just irresponsible for a public official to encourage frivolous lawsuits.
<
p>Glodis made the wrong call, and he needs to apologize to teachers for putting his political desires above what was best for children.
You did that, but it saddens me to see that these attack/undermine Suzzanne’s progressive credentials diaries lost you some of your credibility in the BMG community. You have been an influential voice for labor here, with a long record of smart, informed insightful diaries.
<
p>On a positive note your diaries prompted us to take another look at Mike Lake, smart young man with great potential, and read the various anti Glodis comments and realize it was very important for us to do everything we can to help Suzzanne beat Guy Glodis in September. Assuming he gets 15% at the convention.
Nat Fortune
When Bump was head of the state insurance commission (not sure if this is accurate), she wanted state insurance rates to be determined by credit rating, which would of course hurt the working class. Can anyone verify this? I heard this in conversation but can’t find substantiating documents.