It’s 7:23 a.m. on a Tuesday.
Like most weekdays at this time, I am getting ready to walk down to Lechmere to catch the Green Line into work. My fiancée Kacy is feeding our two cats, and in just a few minutes, she’ll hop on her bike and pedal over to her office in Porter Square.
It’s another perfectly average day for us, with one exception…
This morning, I am announcing my clean, “No Money” campaign to serve the people of Cambridge and Somerville as Representative in General Court for the 26th Middlesex State House District.
I am not a politician, but I am running to be your new State Representative because I understand that the people of Cambridge and Somerville are working harder than ever — just to make ends meet — and yet, when we look to our state legislature, we see a system that is clearly broken.
Beacon Hill is a place where corporate lobbyists and party leaders team up to put the interests of the rich and powerful ahead of our common needs. Meanwhile, rank-and-file legislators are granted a few favors in exchange for quietly going along with the status quo.
In the end, the progressive issues that really matter to us—such as public transportation, single-payer healthcare, clean elections, and global warming—are neglected, rejected, nullified, and ignored.
Of course, talking about change is easy — politicians do that all the time. To transcend the status quo, we have to actually be the change we wish to see…
A few months ago, I started knocking on doors and meeting with local progressives. I told everyone the same thing: I want to be your new State Representative, but I do not want to raise any money to run for this public office. Instead, I want you to donate your attention, your energy, your knowledge, your ideas, and your artwork — and together, we will set a powerful, new example for our democracy.
Together, we quickly organized a successful signature drive to earn an independent spot on the November ballot, and then we were featured in the Huffington Post, on the Occupy Boston website, and in local blogs.
Meanwhile, over 40 volunteers have signed up to get involved, and we’re now assembling a structured operation, complete with a campaign manager, an issues committee, and a homemade-sign-making team. In addition, we’ve also received more than 200 individual contributions, each in the amount of $0.00.
In the coming weeks and months, we intend to ask some tough questions: Why did our legislature shackle the MBTA with billions of dollars of debt from the Big Dig? When will the legislature finally settle on a plan to pay for the Green Line Extension? Why can’t the state help us turn the McGrath Highway into a liveable city street? And is there a conflict of interest when one individual holds two public offices at the same time?
I hope you will join us as we work to answer these questions, but right now, I need to get going, or else I will be late for work! But don’t worry — come this weekend, I will be going door-to-door, working as hard as I possibly can to earn your support as the “Progressive Independent” candidate in the November election. I hope to see you around soon!
Sincerely yours,
Mike Connolly
http://www.nomoneyconnolly.org/
Is this an open seat? If not who is the incumbent. If there is one can you explain why he/she should be replaced and by you?
You win elections by having a better explanation for what is happening to the economy and proposing a solution for growth.
Most progressives are living off the system and have no interest in changing it.
Are you some kind of bullshit dispenser?
Scott Brown is a “progressive”?
His last line especially is baloney. A Somerville/Cambridge district will have plenty of progressives, not living off the system, but caring about those who have been shafted by the system. My concern is that the candidate’s website indicates an independent run so if there is a Dem nominee there is a risk of vote splittling. Personally, I would have prefered the Mr. Connolly contest the Dem primary. I too look forward to the answers to EB3’s questions.
?
And have for quite a while. Try listening.
There’s nothing wrong with local Dem committees supporting an independent candidate.
1. Will you forgo a public pension?
2. Will you support capping all state pensions at 75K?
3. Do you support having retiree’s who receive public pensions over 50K pay the MA income tax?
1. Why should an employee forgo their retirement contributions? Should they plan on eating cat food?
2. While tweaking the pension formulae to use a greater timeframe or just base salary or other adjustments to prevent exorbitant pensions is supported by damn near everyone, why should a pension be capped at $75k?
3. Collecting tax on the portion of public pensions which exceed $50k doesn’t seem like it would generate a whole lot of money. I haven’t seen a study, but how many folks are pulling in public pensions in excess of $50k? More importantly, what is the total dollar amount of that excess? Got any numbers or even any guesses? Multiply that number by 0.053 and you find out how many dollars the tax generates.
Do tell — how much revenue does (3) generate?
Correct, pensions have disappeared from the private sector. Since we underpay workers of comparable skill in the public sector, they get and deserve to get compensating benefits. Some public sector workers don’t get social security.
Please stop it with the grocer’s apostrophes. They make your points look even more stupid.
Where any public employees drafted into their jobs? Oh right, private sector parking attendants make over six figures, like they do at Mass Port.
The elite 1% of the middle class, our public employees, deserve the obscene benefits that no private or federal employee gets. When you need to point out grocer’s apostrophes ( what a loser, right?), you admit defeat in the arena of ideas. Stop screwing the taxpayers, Ok, oh wait, is it okay? How about k?
… as if this were worth debating. We’ve already achieved a typical conservative “I have random anecdotes” vs. a liberal “I have statistics” exchange. Yawn. Not worth it.
I look forward to BMG recruiting more intellectually interesting conservatives.
Don’t scare us like that by typing OH MY! OH MY!!! I thought the tape holding you eyeglasses together fell off and you were having a panic attack.
By your own ridiculous standards, you just lost big time. Obviously you cannot cite statistics so you just insult.
.
Obviously it is not a reply to stomv who, of course, is incapable of grocer’s apostrophes.
Eyeglasses fixed?
Your trollish comment was deleted.
The one I sent to Stomv? I know, but I doubt he complained, he knows I was kidding around. In all honesty, I don’t mean to offend anyone, I can take jokes to an extreme and everything I say is with a smile, no hate here. Sort of like Andrew Dice Clay of the 80’s….
Some on this board have no personality, like hall monitor, running to the Principal’s Office, no? Oh, Did I use a proper apostrophe?
1. It doesn’t make sense to focus on one portion of the package [pension] and not consider the entire package — wages, time off (paid/unpaid), health benefits, and post-employment benefits. When you add it all up, public employees are *underpaid* compared to private employees, and there are plenty of studies to show it.
Being a public servant (politician or civil servant) doesn’t mean that you should give up on a middle class lifestyle, or even an upper-middle class style if your education and experience demands more compensation. It’s like asking you to volunteer to pay tolls on I-95 or I-84 in Massachusetts since, after all, if it were a private road it wouldn’t be free. In short, it’s dumb.
2. The “high rollers” ought to serve and be served. You know, work and be paid for it. There is a natural cap on pension, since it’s based on salary. Fraud is fraud, it’s not a function of a cap. I’m not opposed to revising pension rules [as I mentioned above and you promptly ignored]. You’ve got to do better than GOP talking points to get any traction.
3. So, lets say those 145 retirees got $150k pensions. That’s $100k taxable at 5.3%, bringing in a whopping $770,000 in tax revenue a year. That’s chump change. It won’t fix the T, hell, it won’t even fix a school in trouble. I’m not arguing that we should leave money on the table, and I’m not arguing that a $100k+ pension is appropriate or not appropriate. I am arguing that challenging a candidate to not take a pension because a whopping 145 retirees statewide have a $100k+ pension is dumb.
Do me a favor — start going after private companies with high wages and post-employement benefits which do business with the government. After all, that’s taxpayer dollars too, and there’s a hell of a lot more than 145 of those guys. It’s cool, we’ll wait.
P.S. You’ll notice that while I called your ideas dumb, I didn’t call you dumb. Nor did I call you “Stooge” or “fool”.
How many teachers can I hire for the kids in Waltham with 770K? How many millions can I get if we impose the income starting at 50K? I have seen this before, “get the money from the other guy”, right?
Wanna fix the MBTA debt of $8 billion, first go after Harvard Univ with their $32 billion in their endowment fund, not the sap who doesn’t even use the darn thing who lives in western MA.
You made no such suggestions of reforming pensions in your first post, just snide remarks about people forced to eat cat food if pensions are done away with. Hence, I called you a name which I won’t repeat.
Tell me, you know any private business receiving govt contracts who offer retitree pensions and health care insurance? I know of none, zero, nada.
All I would say is before any company or individual is asked to fork over any more money to bail out the T or pensions or whatever, that those who have the monies ( hello Harvard/MIT) or those receiving large public pensions, to pony up a little, before the rest of the horde is asked. Leave no stone unturned, my brother.
Lastly, I can show you studies where salaries/benefits outpace those in the private sector. Just show us some mercy, PLEASE!!!
Much of the left-right debate on the “Bush Tax Cuts” focuses on the taxes on the “rich” rather than the taxes on everyone, even though the “non-rich” tax cuts that Democrats are trying to preserve are far, far more expensive than the tax cuts on the rich that Democrats are trying to eliminate in the name of fiscal prudence. The Dem position doesn’t make sense from a fiscal perspective; it may make sense from a fairness perspective.
So, asking about how much money that would raise is, at best, a dodge. I’ll allow that it was an artful one.
> The Dem position doesn’t make sense from a fiscal perspective; it may make sense from a fairness perspective.
It can also make sense from a fiscal perspective, if you take the position that what our economy needs right now is more short term consumption to pull us out of recession, and then reasonably note that slightly higher taxes on very high incomes won’t have much effect on short term consumption, but slightly higher taxes on middle incomes will.
Personally I think we ought to repeal all of the Bush tax cuts, and that spending that revenue in the form of Government infrastructure repair/improvement and aid to states to hire (or not fire) teachers, civil servants, firefighters, etc. would help our economy more.
However, I do see the case for only repealing the Bush tax cuts on higher incomes and leaving them for middle incomes as long as our economy is weak. It’s not a case I agree with but it is a reasonable one.
there is very little room to say that we need more revenue. That’s not to say that the top marginal rates are too low. They are too low. We need more revenue than even raising those will provide.
The ugly thing that has happened is that Republican public opinion has turned decisively against the social safety net. See David Brooks’ column What Republicans Think. Scary stuff.
Do you stand a better chance than Avi Green?
Could be an indicator of your feelings towards consitutent services.
You really think you’re going to be able to win a campaign against an entrenched incumbent without any fliers, mailings or yard signs? Even if all your staff are volunteers, you’re not going to be able to reach everyone in person. Even when you do, many voters appreciate a flier that they can look over later to refresh their memory of who you are and where you stand.
Lastly, who’s paying for your website? It doesn’t look like a free site to me…
…and yes, it would be great if they were more guaranteed in the private sector. However, the government does not pay those. For me it is perfectly appropriate for an elected official to be honored for his/her service with a pension. The President and Congress all get theirs so it makes sense for their state equivalents to get likewise. If you want a pension I would suggest you organize and negotiate for one, but meanwhile a public pension doesn’t really have much to do with whether private sector workers get one. In some ways I would almost rather an elected official live off a pension than be spending his legislative career looking for the next gig which might create a conflict of interest. As long as the law says a legislator is entitled to a pension there is no shame in taking it; I sure as heck would.
4 real? You putting me on? We should encourage people to serve for a short period of time, and get back to the real world. Entrenched/career politicians serve themselves and allow nepotism to run amuck.
Sorry Chris, you if the private sector offered pensions and retiree health care, nobody would be able to work, all the businesses would be bankrupt.
Uh, pensions and retiree health care were not at all uncommon 50 years ago. I suppose back then nobody was able to work and all the businesses were bankrupt?
This barrage of insults (“Dummy”? “Stooge” @ stomv of all people?), combined with aggressively trollish comments, is tiresome and boorish.
I’ve had enough of this clown.
Insults were hurled at me long ago. I question pensions and called a troll. When bush said I use too many grocer’s apostrophes, what he/she saying about me or my opinions.
Thank you everyone for reading and commenting on my announcement! Indeed, I was at work all day, and I just got home a few minutes ago.
To EB3’s question:
The seat has been held for the past twenty years by Tim Toomey, who also serves concurrently as a Cambridge City Councillor.
The people of Cambridge and East Somerville should seriously consider my campaign because Tim Toomey has failed to establish himself as a strong progressive leader on Beacon Hill, even though he is a longtime State House veteran from one of the most progressive districts in the nation.
Tim has always maintained four signature priorities: 1) Transportation, 2) Public Safety, 3) Health Care, 4) and the Environment.
On Transportation, there has been failure. On Tim’s watch, the MBTA was shackled with debt from the Big Dig, and the fiscal problem that was created by the “forward funding” scheme has been allowed to develop into a full blown crisis. Now fares are going up, and after years of delays, the future of the Green Line Extension remains uncertain.
Meanwhile, despite an impassioned local effort to remove the McGrath Highway and convert it into a livable city street, the state government recently informed us that this dangerous, obtrusive structure is going to continue to cut through the heart of our district for at least another decade. That’s failure.
I won’t knock Tim’s record on Public Safety — but that issue speaks more to his other job as Cambridge City Councillor.
Finally, on Health Care and the Environment, we have failed to see adequate progress. In Vermont, they are moving forward with single-payer healthcare, but here in Massachusetts, it seems like our healthcare policy is being drafted by lobbyists. Meanwhile, we’ve fallen behind on our plan to reduce emissions that cause global warming, and while we continue to wait for the GLX, many people in Cambridge and Somerville are suffering from asthma.
To clean up this mess, we need strong progressive leadership. I will be that leader for the people of Cambridge and Somerville. Want proof that I can have an impact? I already am.
In just the past week — after going a long time with just these four stated priorities — Tim announced a brand new number one issue! Transparent Elections and Campaign Finance Reform. It’s quite a coincidence, because that is my personal focus as a progressive activist.
And it’s also ironic, because Tim was never a friend to the cause of Clean Elections — the Boston Phoenix actually put him on their Clean Elections “Roll of Shame“) — but then our humble little “No Money” campaign comes along, and all of a sudden, it’s listed as his top issue.
Afraid or in the tank?
This comment violates the TOS against personal attacks.
It should be removed.
Ok remove the last post but keep the title.
I promise not to respond to your answers, and yes, u r showing courage by putting yourself out there by running, no doubt about it, more than I ever done. But I do feel these questions are important and if you answer correctly, I think is a feather in your cap.
Ok, that is it for me, and hope you win, regardless how u answer. Fresh faces are always a good thing so I hope u win.
…this reply feels pretty negative.
While Tim Toomey may not be the most outspoken member of the House, he is a solid progressive who always puts his district first. I have met many people who think very highly of him.
You seem very passionate and like someone who really believes in progressive values. I hope you don’t turn this into an attack-oriented campaign.
It is clear you are not a trust fund baby. You work.
It is clear you are not in the tank – you are not taking or seeking donations but are out here talking to people while being responsible and a worker.
It is clear you are not a coat holder, did not work your way up the feeding chain, and are your own man.
Refreshing.
Of course they need to be elected, and I’m more than happy to vote against an incumbent I don’t like, but politics seems to be the only we want people to move along rather than practice. You wouldn’t tell a doctor, lawyer, teacher, tradesman, etc they have say ten years tops then find another line of work. Elections guard against misbehavior as long as we pay attention, but when we honor certain of our neighbors with positions of leadership we should treat them accordingly. Again the prospect of other work often corrupts too.
Chris-Jack Abramhoff loved entrenched politicians. He loved the predictability and made influence peddling much easier.
Need to be elected? Most of the districts are gerrymandered so most incumbents win rather easily. You may call it an election, but I call it being fixed. Unlike your examples, the longer people stay in elected office, the further detach they become from reality.
On the one hand, you are right– I will not be one to celebrate the virtues of professional politicians, and shorter terms may be a way to deal with many of the vices of entrenched politicians, which need not be re-recited here.
On the other hand, once the entrenched politicians are gone, then the lion’s share of the institutional memory of government resides in lobbyists and non-elected bureaucrats. That doesn’t seem so ideal, either.
In any event, trying to backdoor term limits by stiffing elected officials on their pensions doesn’t seem particularly fair, or particularly likely to be an effective means of achieving any particular goal.
…but if the people really want an incumbent out they can always make that happen, provided opposition steps forward, whether in a primary or general context.
and I don’t think it should be changed.
I do think however that I-93 and I-495 cut my own town of Andover into four pieces so I would like those two interstates either removed or put underground so that Andover can become whole again.
No doubt you like it as is. A better plan would be to raise Rt 28 to an elevated thoroughfare, especially across the intersection with Elm/Central street, so that commuters can more easily reach Lawrence.
There is almost no traffic commuting north into Lawrence. All the traffic on 28 moves southward into Andover.
The portion of the elevated highway in question has been a blight on Somerville since it was built. You wouldn’t accept a similar structure in Andover, and I think you know that.
but no I don’t get your drift.
I spent a great deal of time in Somerville in 03-05 and so I know of what I speak. I am not a commuter.
The McGrath-O”Brien is an exceptionally useful way to get from Somerville itself into Boston and Cambridge at any time, though of course it relieves pressure on the highway during the commute.
I heard some people on NPR on afternoon from the Back Bay who wanted Storrow shut off from commuters. Another great idea.
Your point about Andover is not valid, because an elevated highway there (downtown) would be stupid, not useful.
We have two interstates and a commuter rail right through town, so clearly we’re doing our part in the transportation system. Every community needs to do their part.
By the way you can park in Andover without too much trouble. Between myself, my then girlfriend, and her roommate our cars in Somerville were routinely vandalized, probably by you or your anti-car friends. One day someone punctured the tires of over 10 cars on the street. Nice place.
At an old style diner, neighbors looked nice. Drawback is Somerville is a sanctuary city, so giving the finger to federal law is never a good thing.
I can’t tell whether the author wrote this because he is an unpleasant person or because conservatives generally have difficulty distinguishing liberals from the whacky ultra-left fringe.
I’m only curious, though, as to how somervilletom responds to this.
Fat cats give money to political campaigns so that they can put on ads. These ads usually don’t say anything that really matters. In exchange, fat cats tell politicians which laws to pass, and the politicians obey.
If you get in doing this, it will be BRILLIANT, and it will change this nation. Going directly to the people, and giving them what they want without the meaningless ads will make this country go in the right direction for ordinary people, not the fat cats.
Also, I really like the idea of single payer health care and doing something about the MBTA’s financial problems, which have been created by the vested interests.
There can hardly be fat cats when the individual limit is $500, and at most the ads such a candidate will run are business-card sized ads in the local paper, possibly an occasional spot on local-market radio, but certainly no TV. I’ve been involved in races that have been forced to run on very few resources and they don’t get very far. Campaigns cost money, nothing wrong with that. I suspect that as an attorney this particular candidate can put his own resources into this. Nothing wrong with that either, but if the voters come to expect this it essentially shuts those with more limited means out of a chance to run and serve.
Success in this area is self-evident. If no one is listening to you, it’s because you’re saying nonsense or obvious junk. If you say things people think will work, you’ll get votes and all money you need.
The progressive model of government first is a discredited joke that very few even on Beacon Hill actually believes in. If they do believe it, they are steered away from positions where they can actually do anything. They just make the noises with their mouths, but the only reason they get re-elected is that they don’t actually do much.
You’re getting awfully trollish, you know.
Of course you need money. You can have all the answers, but if you cannot communicate them (and I don’t know of many effective communication methods that don’t require at least some money), it’s not going to matter because nobody will know. Plus people with plenty of money spout nonsense all the time and ARE listened to precisely because they have the resources to make themselves heard.
As for the progressive model being discredited, funny how it worked in Europe until everyone decided austerity was cool. Even conservatives over there (Canada too) are to the left of our center. The New Deal worked, and other progressive tenants in terms of rights and justice are simply the right thing to do regardless.