3. His message is simple and compelling: End the war, invest at home. Improve our schools, protect the environment.
4. You’ll be in good company. Yesterday’s Globe reported that Congressman Delahunt will be voting O’Leary on Tuesday. He joins Sen. Kirk, 7 state reps, 5 former MA environmental secretaries, and local elected officials and leaders from across the district.
5. O’Leary is endorsed by 23 newspapers, including the Boston Globe and the Patriot Ledger.
Newspapers Endorsing Rob O’Leary:
Abington Mariner
Barnstable Register
Boston Globe
Bourne Courier
Cape Codder
Carver Reporter
Cohasset Mariner
Duxbury Reporter
Falmouth Bulletin
Hanover Mariner
Harwich Oracle
Hingham Journal
Kingston Reporter
Marshfield Mariner
Norwell Mariner
Old Colony Memorial
Patriot Ledger
Pembroke Mariner and Reporter
Provincetown Banner
Rockland Standard
Sandwich Broadsider
Scituate Mariner
Weymouth News
Unions Endorsing Rob O’Leary:
Mass. Teachers Association
UFCW Local 328
SEIU 1199 – United Health Workers East
Organizations Endorsing Rob O’Leary:
Mass. Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus
Mass. League of Environmental Voters
Ocean Champions
Long time reader; first time post. All fine points in support of Senator O’Leary, but the caption “[m]ost important of all, he has a Ph.D. and was a professor of history and politics for many years at the Mass. Maritime Academy” does not really make the case for him. Using that logic, you’d want lawyers making laws in deliberative bodies that make laws. With due respect to both candidates, whether one has a law degree or a Ph.D. doesn’t necessarily make someone more suitable for Congress.
<
p>Give me a man or woman who will listen to his or her constituents and, accordingly, makes decisions based on representing the district he or she was elected to — whether they be a laborer, teacher, police officer, lawyer or professor.
Consider my promotion comment tongue-in-cheek đ
<
p>Thanks for your readership, and your comment!
<
p>Happy voting.
You disappointed me with the last couple of mailings.
is the reason I am not going to vote for him.
Social Security isn’t a problem, there is over 2 trillion dollars in the account to meet future needs. At worst, decades down the road, if every projection about the economy and increases in the monthly amount (not a sure bet 2 months down the road, never mind decades), there might be a need for a small reduction in benefits, but that’s all.
It is a BS argument.
The real problems are that we continue to spend outrageous amounts for defense to support the military industrial complex and we have been under-taxing the wealthy while borrowing from the SS fund to pay for it.
Basically we are borrowing from people who need the money to give tax breaks to those who don’t.
The biggest lie in the debate about Social Security is that life expectancy has gone up so much in the past 70+ years that the financials for SS don’t work anymore. They point to the gain in life expectancy from about 65 in the 30’s to the late 70’s now. What they don’t tell you is that the majority of that gain comes from the decrease in infant and youth mortality, not the fact that retirees live that much longer (when adjusted for that difference, the increase in life expectancy is less than five years).
Another thing you don’t hear is that those whose income level takes them above the maximum taxable level for Social Security will, on average, live twice as long into retirement than those who get taxed on every dollar of their income. Is that fair?
The history professor should have taken an economics course or two and actually studied the issue before repeating the conventional lies.