Blind Trust Indeed

Today’s Boston Globe carries a “see-no-evil” AP story piously headlined “Governor to use a trust to avoid conflict”. The story is that Governor Deval Patrick will place his financial assets into a blind trust, which the paper reports is “expected to be completed this week”. Without commenting on Patrick’s tardiness the Globe reports that:

Governor Mitt Romney created a blind trust for his stocks when he took office in January 2003.

Patrick took office in January 2007, Today is the last day of May. If Patrick gets his assets into a trust by next week, it will have taken Patrick 5 months to do this -- something that Romney did his first month in office (probably before his first day in office). Excuse me for cynicism, but if a Republican Governor took 5 months to put his assets into a trust, I doubt the Globe would report the news so calmly. The Globe story does not say why Patrick has waited until this moment to make such an announcement. But the story does give a Pravda-like hint.

Patrick owns stock in more than 80 companies, some of which are regulated by the state or could be affected by legislation that might come across his desk, according to a statement of financial interest filed with the State Ethics Commission.

Probably (again a cynic might suspect) it was the requirement for this filing which pointed out to Patrick’s crack team that holding these assets himself rather than in a trust was a violation of state law. It seems to me that this type of “see no evil” reporting (more precisely “see no incompetence” reporting) shows how much blind trust the Globe places in Deval Patrick.

If you want the real story on this matter, you probably have to check the Herald.

UPDATE: The Berkshire Eagle's version of the same AP story contains some "details" that were removed by the Globe (only because of a lack of space, I'm sure):

The companies listed on Patrick's financial statement include familiar names such as American Express, Bank of America, Cisco Systems, Exxon, General Electric, Lockheed Martin, Office Depot, Payless Shoes, Raytheon, Rent-a-Center, Hewlett Package[sic], Home Depot and Marvel Entertainment.

The report also shows Patrick earned $711,309 in outside income during 2006, when he was campaigning for governor.

That included: $348,445 from the Coca-Cola Co., where he served as a former senior executive; $209,804 from Reebok International Ltd., where he served as a former director; and $2,174 from Texaco Group LLC, where he served as a former senior executive.

Dems Abandon Their Abused Mistress

Today’s Boston Globe carries a story about Cindy Sheehan’s resignation as the public face of the anti-Iraq-war movement. The Globe article by Susan Milligan understates and does not repeat the anti-Democrat rage Sheehan expresses. Her actual letter begins this way:

I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and especially since I became the so-called "Face" of the American anti-war movement. Especially since I renounced any tie I have remaining with the Democratic Party, I have been further trashed on such "liberal blogs" as the Democratic Underground. Being called an "attention whore" and being told "good riddance" are some of the more milder[sic] rebukes.

I have come to some heartbreaking conclusions this Memorial Day Morning. These are not spur of the moment reflections, but things I have been meditating on for about a year now. The conclusions that I have slowly and very reluctantly come to are very heartbreaking to me.

The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a "tool" of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our "two-party" system?

However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the "left" started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used.

Globe readers have a much hard time finding this thread in the watered-down reporting in today’s Globe story. The story lede does state that Sheen’s resignation is “out of frustration with a Democrat-led Congress”, but the Sheehan quotes used in the Globe story lump both parties together.

Sheehan camped out near Bush's Crawford, Texas, home for 26 days during the president's August 2005 vacation, demanding to talk to Bush about the death of her son in Iraq. Subsequently, Sheehan became a globe-trotting opponent of the war, drawing plaudits from antiwar activists and derision from critics who called her a pawn of the left

Sheehan’s resignation confirms both of these analyses. Sheehan was certainly used (and abused) as a pawn and a poster-child by the Democratic Party as well as by the anti-war left. The Democratic party apparatus has no further use for her now that they have captured Congress and her outrage is no longer aimed only at Republicans.

I hope she can find some peace.

Typically, the Globe story does not mention the location (DailyKos) or link to Sheehan’s actual statement, which is here.

Hillary Brings Globe Reporter to Ecstasy

Boston Globe National Correspondent Peter Canellos pens a breathless article today about a recent campaign video made by First Man candidate Bill Clinton. It is headlined “Team Clinton looks stronger than ever". This article reads more like a Clinton campaign press release than a work of journalism. Of course there is always the problem of the Clintonian standard of honesty:

By now, almost everyone probably thinks it's obvious when Bill Clinton is lying. (There's something about the mouth, or is it the eyes?)

I’ll give you a hint, Peter. It’s when his lips move.

Canellos shamelessly ends by swooning:

The good news for the Clintons, as evidenced by the video, is that their new roles actually cast them in a more natural light. Hillary is convincingly tough and competent; Bill is convincingly warm and empathetic. Their commitment to each other seems stronger than ever. So does their chance of returning to the White House.

Throw up your hands, Democrats! Hillary is inevitable!

Many Democrats disagree. Pollsters report that Hillary would struggle to win a general election, while any other Democratic nominee will likely waltz into the White House. That says something about how biased is the Globe’s so-called “National Perspective”.

Another Canellos Fisking

The blog Hatemonger's Quarterly comments on Peter Canellos' May 26 Boston Globe front page hit-piece aimed at the Republican presidential candidates.

Shrum Book Leaks to The Globe

The Boston Globe front page reports today on a new book by Robert Shrum, John Kerry’s 2004 campaign master strategist. Shrum is deeply revered by Republicans for his valuable service during 8 losing Democratic presidential campaigns:

The book by veteran Democratic Party strategist Robert Shrum, titled “No Excuses”, paints a portrait of an often-dysfunctional Kerry presidential campaign in which senior strategists clashed with each other. It also quotes e-mails from Kerry's former campaign manager that are highly critical of the behavior of Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry. An advance copy of the memoir of Shrum's years in politics, slated for release in early June, was provided to the Globe.

During the campaign the Boston Globe provided obligatory coverage of Heinz Kerry’s various apologies, but either did not report on her gaffes or papered over them as they occurred ("...in a moment that quietly delighted some on Kerry's press staff, she told an antagonistic newspaperman to 'shove it' when he challenged her statement that some 'un-American traits' were sullying national politics"). Nor did the Globe inform its readers that the Kerry campaign organization decided to keep Teresa in a low profile role for the last month of the campaign. There is also not much reporting about the content of this book in today’s Globe story.

One new fable about the Swift Boat story does emerge. Shrum is blamed for advising silence as a response to the Swift Boat charges. Today’s Globe article reports:

Shrum said that the decision was forced, in part, by the campaign's need to conserve money for the fall.

Globe reporter Michael Kranish did not ask why it would have required cash for the campaign simply to explain where Kerry actually was during Christmas in 1968.

That Pesky 1st Amendment

A Boston Globe editorial today entitled “It came from the ethics swamp” notes that many House Democrats are unsupportive of the lobbying reform measures that marked their own 2006 campaign.

"The root problem is the amount of money we have to raise," [Congressman Michael Capuano] said. "It's ridiculous. It's obscene." Agreed. But until the US Supreme Court allows absolute limits on campaign spending, restrictions on lobbying and fund-raising techniques are the only way to "break the links" that so offend voters.

I don’t have time to check the references, but I believe the Supreme Court cited those ever-pesky 1^st amendment rights to free speech when it decided not to allow limits on campaign spending by individuals. The Globe Editorial board would be more honest if they explained in detail why they wish to strip these individuals of their 1^st amendment rights.

Diversity Strikes the Globe Op Ed Page

Surprise! Monday’s Boston Globe Op Ed page includes a column written by blogger Dean Barnett entitled “I'm pro-life, but not religious”. Dean’s conclusion:

Some may respond to this logic by asking, "Who are you to foist your values on others?" That's a common question in the abortion debate, and yet it has no rightful place in the argument. It's the precise moral and logical equivalent of antebellum Southerners saying that blacks weren't human beings, and that slavery opponents had no right to even question their peculiar institution. History has judged that argument harshly, and rightly so.

There in a nutshell is why this secular citizen is strongly pro-life. And, please note: In making my case, I didn't refer to God, the Bible, the Koran, or any other holy tract once. Please adjust your stereotypes accordingly.

Kudos to the Globe Op Ed board for experimenting with the concept of ideological diversity.

Road Trip - Light Posting

John Kerry Shows Character, Unlike the Boston Globe

The “Names” column in today’s Boston Globe contains a vile snarky report ripped from a blog post and reporting that John Kerry spent 3 hours playing a video game on his Blackberry while on a transcontinental flight. The Globe (of course) does not link to the original post. It is here.

Neither does the Globe’s gossip column note the concluding remarks of the post:

Everyone played it pretty cool the whole trip (it was First Class after all). But as we landed and the bell sounded for us to get out of our seats, that's when everyone made the mad dash to get close to what could possibly be their last chance to see an almost President. The steward rushed over to tell the senator that they had a friend in common. The lady behind us said "welcome to San Francisco Senator". Someone else said, "Have a good evening Senator". And even Mandy and I quickly sent Aidan over to politely ask for his autograph and to which Senator Kerry politely obliged. Using his own pen and in beautiful handwriting he wrote, “Dear Aidan, Have fun in San Francisco. John Kerry”

I am much more impressed that Senator Kerry behaved politely. Being impolite to “unimportant” people around him is a far worse vice than wasting a few hours on a video game. Play on, Senator Kerry!

And “Names,” sorry to have called your item vile, but this blog does not use the words that more precisely describe such work.

Massachusetts Judges Claim Judicial Infallibility

The lowly Worcester Telegram and Gazette carried an AP story that filled in the blanks left missing from the recent Boston Globe story concerning Martha Coakley’s speech to the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association (no double entendre intended). The Boston Globe story on Coakley’s speech did not include this point:

Coakley said that even though the Supreme Judicial Court ruled last July that the proposed amendment could be placed on the ballot if approved by the Legislature, at least two justices also questioned whether the amendment is constitutional.

She quoted a joint court opinion by Justices John Greaney and Roderick Ireland saying the 2003 SJC decision that legalized same-sex marriage “may be irreversible because of its holding that no rational basis exist, or can be advanced, to support the definition of marriage” as only between a man and a woman. The opinion also noted that the amendment would discriminate against same-sex couples by removing rights they already had been granted.

Fortunately the Court was not ruling ex cathedra at the time (pun intended).

Greaney and Ireland's remark has no small aroma of judicial arrogance, which may be why the Globe story did not attempt to explain the basis of Coakley's argument.

The actual 2006 SJC decision referred to is difficult to find. It concerned challenges to the right of petitioners to place the item on the ballot. SCOTUS blog has a link to an early released MS-Word version here, and a Globe story on the decision from July 2006 is here. The pith of this opinion:

…Put more directly, the Goodridge decision may be irreversible because of its holding that no rational basis exists, or can be advanced, to support the definition of marriage proposed by the initiative and the fact that the Goodridge holding has become part of the fabric of the equality and liberty guarantees of our Constitution. If the initiative is approved by the Legislature and ultimately adopted, there will be time enough, if an appropriate lawsuit is brought, for this court to resolve the question whether our Constitution can be home to provisions that are apparently mutually inconsistent and irreconcilable...

You read that right.

The “no rational basis” argument is notable because in Goodridge the court did actually conclude that this was the case concerning legislation which “privileged” traditional marriage over its homosexual analog.

But the justice’s far more questionable observation is that they believe the Massachusetts Constitution cannot “be home to provisions that are apparently mutually inconsistent and irreconcilable”.

It would be the most remarkable creation in human history if it was not! I suspect, skeptically, there may be just a few such contradictory provisions in the document today.

The justice’s view requires that the present Constitution not only serve as the highest law of the Commonwealth, but as a fundamentally inerrant document – one than literally cannot contain internal contradictions. This is exactly the same view that fundamentalist Christians hold regarding the Scriptures.

But no worries, citizens! Christian fundamentalists must wrestle personally with the many apparent Biblical contradictions. But through a fortunate coincidence, these Massachusetts legal fundamentalists are competent (and empowered by their office) to discern and protect their inerrant document from any error that might be introduced – not only as a result of legislation, but by the processes prescribed in their (inerrant) Constitution itself.

A remarkable skill, that! These men should stand for election to Pope the next time there is a conclave.

Bashing Their Dad

Tuesday’s Boston Globe spends half of its front page on a story (“Bantering for Dad”) poking fun at a Mitt Romney campaign blog written by the candidate’s five sons.

One might imagine that the boys -- who are all between 25 and 37, four of them with children of their own -- might be reluctant to share details of their lives for what is really just a campaign gimmick. But they all seem to have embraced the blogosphere wholeheartedly: New postings go up all the time, full of travel photos, gentle ribbing, and behind-the-scenes looks at some Very Romney holidays, like the recent birthday celebration for mom Ann at the family's New Hampshire vacation home...

What few signs of stress there are in the postings may be what keeps the Romneys' blog from descending into total self-parody…

The boys must be aware that they're becoming the butt of jokes, but they keep up their cheerful postings, and seem to be attracting a lot of followers: Few people can resist the appeal of a large, close family, where everyone is protected and made to feel special.

How charmingly archaic the electorate is!

A better parody than the Romney blog would be one documenting the behind the scenes events in the family of the Clinton campaign. I guess I missed the day the Boston Globe devoted half its front page to poking fun at Hillary Clinton's syrupy and over-produced “Let the conversation begin” phony blog-schtick.

Coakley's Constitution

Saturday’s Boston Globe had a story with the understated headline “Coakley to fight for gay marriage” that reported:

Attorney General Martha Coakley said last night that if Massachusetts voters were to approve a ban on same-sex marriages, she would back any efforts to challenge the measure on constitutional grounds.

“… if the proposed amendment was successful, there would be protracted, hard-fought litigation about the constitutionality of such a provision,” she said in a speech at the annual dinner of the Massachusetts Lesbian & Gay Bar Association. “If that battle is necessary, you have my support.”

One could argue that this amendment is an unwise use of the Constitution (though a use necessitated by our legislature’s practice of fleeing headlong from any legislative action on this question). One could argue that it was “bad law”, making it just one example among so many. But I am stumped as to how the Attorney General could argue that a constitutional amendment enacted through due process was unconstitutional. The Globe didn't ask and doesn't explain. I wasn’t at the MLGBA dinner to drink that Kool-Aid, I guess.

Gun control advocates would doubtless be eager to apply the same legal logic to the 2nd Amendment.

Hat Tip: Constitutionally Correct

Thought vs. Feeling in Religion

James Carroll writes his usual knotty column in today’s Boston Globe (“Thought vs. feeling in religion”)about the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Brazil, but George Wiegel writes a far more perceptive and straightforward column on the same subject in the Boston Pilot which can be read online here. A sample:

Latin American Catholics must recognize that the gains made throughout the continent by evangelical and pentecostalist Protestantism are, in part, the result of Catholic failures — not of some dark plot from El Norte. A sober reckoning with the fact that evangelicalism “works” in Latin America because it instills virtues that Catholicism has found it difficult to inculcate — sobriety, respect for family, thrift, responsibility — would be a good place to start the examination of ecclesial conscience. Latin American Catholic leaders should recognize that the real enemy is not evangelicalism, but secularism… In resisting the secularist tide as well its crypto-Marxist cousin, the back-to-1968 politics of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, evangelicals are the allies of the Catholic Church, not our enemies.

Bio-pork? No thanks.

After almost a week of relentlessly positive coverage in the Boston Globe, Edward L. Glaeser, Globe guest columnist and professor of economics at Harvard, applies substantial criticism to the concepts underlying Deval Patrick’s Biotech Bonanza in a column entitled “Politics, biotechnology a shaky mix”. He states some points already made here, but does so with far more eloquence:

LAST MONDAY, I argued that Massachusetts should embrace biotechnology but eschew “government-sponsored investment funds” that target any one industry. Even the smartest venture capitalists, I wrote, find it difficult to navigate the unpredictable waters of new technologies, and governments have far less expertise. The government also faces enormous political pressures to spread money around, rather than to target projects with high returns…

Moreover, the program can be improved if it plays to government's innate strengths and avoids areas where government is at a competitive disadvantage. The fund should support important research selected through an independent process that puts science above politics. The government should avoid playing venture capitalist -- and should drop any ambition to create biotechnology centers statewide…

The government's comparative advantage lies in subsidizing public goods, like the rule of law and new ideas, that private individuals lack the ability or incentives to provide…

However, the current plan also treads in areas where the government is inherently weak. The governor and legislative leaders talk of guiding ideas to the marketplace. Venture capitalists and other entrepreneurs have the incentives, capital, and knowledge to make that happen. The government shouldn't bet tax dollars on commercial projects that experienced investors don't want to fund. It should spend on basic research that will save lives and attract entrepreneurs…

Consider the plan to fund geographically disperse innovation centers intended to serve as regional economic engines. Massachusetts's edge in biotechnology comes from the cluster of scientists and entrepreneurs in Greater Boston. Building biotech centers from the Cape to the Berkshires sounds like pure pork meant to satisfy statewide constituencies.

Putting Camouflage into Headlines

Joan Vennochi notes in her Boston Globe column today:

EVEN A committed liberal had to laugh at a recent Globe headline: “Patrick campaigns for new income sources for towns” As everyone knows, “new income sources” are new taxes. Camouflaging the T-word doesn't change the truth.

No, Joan, it doesn’t change the truth, as this blog noted at the time. It wasn’t Deval who chose that laughable headline, Joan, but rather the Globe editors. What does it say about the Globe that its editors were not embarrassed to run such an absurd headline?

There is an equally fine example of distortion in another headline in today’s Globe that reads “Murray wants to invest surplus”. Apparently our state government is now running a “surplus”. Huh? It seems to me that the Governor was saying just recently that the state had a deficit of around $1 Billion. How did we suddenly arrive at a surplus?

We did not, but the Globe article carefully avoids that fact.

Murray will propose changing a state law that sends all excess cash to reserves so that it reroutes up to $75 million each year to four state funds that invest in technology and housing.

These are the same reserves that our high level of state spending are already rapidly drawing down. Murray’s proposal will hasten that draw-down.

I don’t enjoy being cynical about the Globe, but here in the space of a few days are two examples where Globe headlines (and stories) have repeated – verbatim – two completely absurd euphemisms mouthed by the state’s Democratic Governor and Democratic State Senate President. I challenge readers to find two examples where Globe headlines distorted the truth to this degree in order to match the words of former Governor Mitt Romney.

Is the Globe actually a newspaper as it claims or is it fundamentally a mouthpiece for our state’s Democratic pols? Judging by the level of fawning in the above examples of “journalism”, the Globe is much more the latter.

Same Story, Different Day

It’s a worn-out media canard that when a party of the left loses an election the reason is not because of their stand on issues but because they failed to communicate well, or that social issues became a “distraction” preventing sympathetic voters from voting their own true preferences. This line was repeated verbatim this week in a Boston Globe article about the defeat of Segolene Royal in the French election:

A lesson might be learned from Royal's displays of emotion, added Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist who managed the presidential campaign for former Vice President Al Gore. “When Ms. Royal lost her cool in the last presidential debate, she displayed what is often seen in women candidates as a weakness,” said Brazile. “Unfortunately, her positions on major issues were not well known and got drowned out by the emotion she displayed. Royal would have pulled an upset if she had proven that she had substance to support her flair,” Brazile said.

Can’t people be honest enough to just say she lost? For all his faults, Bush honestly called the results of the November 2006 election as a “whipping”. Actually, the real driver of this story line is the Clinton campaign, putting out the message that Hillary would not lose that way. Hopefully she won’t get the chance.

Cash Cows

Deval Patrick’s government largesse statement for today, according to the Boston Globe:

Governor Deval Patrick yesterday filed legislation for a $3.6 million bailout of the state's 179 dairy farmers, who are trying to recover from the effects of last year's low prices and high production costs…Patrick's legislation, part of a spending bill expected to be acted on quickly in the Legislature, would send them no-strings-attached checks estimated to be worth $16,000 to $20,000 apiece.

Handing out direct cash state subsidies to distressed businesses. What a creative idea! I wonder if Jacques Chirac has taken a new job as a mentor to Deval?

I would quickly buy myself a cow, but I suspect this legislation might cause an outbreak of lactose intolerance even within our craven state legislature.

By the way, $3,600,000 divided by 179 comes out to $20,112. Of course that does not include the state's administrative expenses...

"New income sources"

Today a Boston Globe headline tells us that “Patrick campaigns for new income sources for towns”. Democratic Governors apparently do not raise taxes as Republicans are always saying; instead they “find new sources of income”. Whose income is that, pray tell?

Governor Deval Patrick began a statewide campaign to gather support for a series of proposals aimed at giving towns new sources of income and reducing property taxes.

How will raising other taxes reduce property taxes?

Communities levying the [new] hotel and meals tax would be required to dedicate at least a quarter of the revenue to reducing residential tax bills.

Just the way all our state Lottery revenues were “dedicated” to education, Governor? We also learn from our Governor that:

"There is no correlation between taxes paid by the phone company and rates," Patrick said.

If that is true, Deval, then do us all a favor and take your notion to its logical limit. Tax only the phone companies so they pay for the whole state budget.

Hubristic Largesse

Deval Patrick’s new front-page $1B state bio-tech initiative consists primarily of funding for academic brick and mortar, with $50M per year in state-sponsored research grants, administered by a panel of state hacks friends of Deval. Here is the pith of the Boston Globe story:

Over 10 years, the state would issue $500 million in bonds to pay for [new] capital investments at public institutions and other facilities. It would also spend $25 million a year on direct research grants and offer $25 million annually in tax credits to biotech companies that promise to create jobs in Massachusetts.

Coincidentally also in today’s Globe is a story about the condition of past state investments in academic brick and mortar:

The University of Massachusetts at Amherst, already in the middle of a building boom, still needs an additional $1.8 billion in the next decade and beyond to keep aging buildings in shape, to add new facilities, and to maintain its infrastructure, according to a report released yesterday…The report, prepared by UMass, states that half of the 140 academic and administrative buildings at UMass-Amherst require immediate attention for various problems, including leaky roofs, malfunctioning heating systems, and out-dated laboratories and classrooms.

And in Deval Patrick’s Boston Globe Op Ed column today about his new plan we read:

Finally, when an idea is ready to become reality, we will help guide it to the marketplace. Breakthroughs are often lost in investment gaps typical of the movement from early academic research to industry development. We will designate grants to translate discoveries into applications and support partnerships to move new ideas along.

“Often lost in investment gaps”? Huh? Governor, what do you think all the venture capitalists and private research labs dotted all over Boston are doing? Playing tiddly-winks? All the biotech venture capital firms in the Boston area (not to mention the Bay Area) will now have to compete with Deval Patrick’s Life Sciences Board. They are shaking in their boots at the prospect, no doubt.

The $1B would be better spent improving maintenance on the MBTA or filling potholes. Venture capitalists and biotech researchers won’t do that, but it will benefit their work.

Romney Surges, Deval Purges

Tuesday’s Boston Globe has 2 stories concerning a rise in the presidential polls of the former Governor of the Commonwealth. First is a news story of a new poll of likely New Hampshire voters taken for WBZ-TV, which showed Romney leading. Second is an Op Ed column by a guest columnist (that’s how I spell RELIEF!) from US News who speculates that Romney is positioned well with the Religious Right.

We shall see. There is no real polling for many months.

Meanwhile, the fellow now occupying Romney’s old office (though with some new drapes) is busy purging the executive branch of long-term appointees.

Governor Deval Patrick, in his latest effort to reshape his administration, has informed all commissioners and agency leaders appointed by his Republican predecessors that they must reapply for their jobs and will be notified by June 1 if they can remain in their positions.

The letter, sent to about 50 GOP holdovers late last week, addresses one of the central concerns of key state Democrats, who have argued that the new governor has not acted decisively enough to put his imprint on an executive branch ruled by Republicans for the last 16 years…

Shortly after Patrick was sworn in, his administration began to prepare for a purge, writing letters asking commissioners and department heads to reapply for their jobs. But those letters were never sent, according to a State House source. The current shake-up was engineered by Rubin, who oversaw a similar staff reorganization several years ago when he worked for State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill.

Soon after taking over, Rubin gathered about 15 long-time Democrats to help Patrick promote his agenda and navigate the labyrinth of internal politics on Beacon Hill. The strategists agreed that the administration must quickly focus on removing the vestiges of 16 years of Republican rule and replace those managers with Patrick loyalists, according to several people who attended…

“Republican rule” indeed. With 7/8 of the Legislature consisting of Democrats and no power even to sustain a veto is some way to “rule”. Now having lost the only state-wide office held by Republicans, any vestige of “Republican rule” would have to be very vestigial.

The most speculation, however, has surrounded [DSS Commissioner] Spence's fate. Yesterday, Patrick told the Associated Press that he thinks the DSS commissioner is "terrific."

“You’re doing a Helluva job, Spencey.”

[State Democratic Party Chair] Johnston said he believes that state government salaries are so low that the administration will have difficulty attracting the best talent.

"I think there are a lot of people who would have been interested in working in state government after 16 years," said Johnston, who called for a special commission to look at state salaries. "The surprise has been that there have not been a lot of people coming forward. One of the reasons is the low salaries."

Yet another Democrat is astounded to find that markets can actually work. We call it a “labor market” for a reason, Mr. Johnston.

Fake, but Inaccurate

From Sunday's Boston Globe:

Correction: Robert Kuttner's column Friday on airline travel incorrectly described a Delta flight that did not provide meals. That flight was from New York to Seattle, not Boston to Seattle. The column also stated incorrectly that Delta has a Boston-to-London flight. It does not. Furthermore, the column stated incorrectly that Delta provides the only nonstop Boston-to-Seattle service. In fact, JetBlue and Air Alaska provide nonstops from Boston, and Delta does not.

After reading Kuttner's inaccurate flaming rant poorly disguised as an Op Ed column, it appears that while he did not eat well on his flight, Kuttner more than made up any lost calories with liquid fortification.

It takes little insight to observe that US airlines have a seriously broken business model, especially since 9/11 with the additional cost and inconvenience of the TSA being passed on directly to their customers. However, the ignoramus economics proposed in this column are oblivious to the functions of markets and to the difficulty of pricing time-sensitive scarce resources -- such as the available capacity of any scheduled transportation service.

Feel really sorry for the poor slobs who had to fly next to the raving Kuttner.

Hat Tip: Best of the Web Today

Dems Push Gay Marriage Back into the Closet

Thursday’s Boston Globe contains an artfully worded article under the misleading headline “Marriage battle could broaden”.

“Broaden” indeed.

The more honest way to report the story here is to say that the national Democratic party does not want the Massachusetts marriage initiative on the 2008 ballot because it will be “extremely divisive and will draw attention and energy away from issues that the Democrats need to win decisively in November ‘08”, says Steve Grossman, the former national Democratic Party Chair. This honest quote is given in the very last line of the Globe article, adding some balance to the many hypocritical quotes from Dems that are reported verbatim throughout the rest of the article, with nary a difficult question asked.

Here is a good one:

Steve Grossman, the former national Democratic Party chairman, said that in recent years Republicans have proven extremely adept at diverting attention from issues that are important to voters and instead forcing candidates to focus on culturally divisive issues.

Heh. And do note the implied definition:

Divisive issue (sometimes called a "diversion' or “distraction”) – an issue that when well publicized causes swing voters to shift toward the Republican Party.

Staff members from gay lobbing group MassEquality met with DNC officials and delivered a list of 20-odd Massachusetts Democratic legislators who they believe could be flipped on the issue provided that national party applies sufficient pressure (or reward). State Democratic Party chair John Walsh also plans to discuss the tactics with DNC Chair Howard Dean at a party meeting next week.

The Massachusetts Legislature has never voted to legalize same-sex marriage. Instead they finessed the question when a creative Supreme Judicial Court discovered that such marriages are a constitutional civil right (Note: This civil right apparently does not extend to those who wish to exercise it with close relatives or with multiple consenting adults. In such cases, portions of the archaic law expressed in Leviticus and later written into the laws of the Commonwealth still hold. Go figure.)

Now the electorate has exercised its prerogative to petition for constitutional amendment. Is the Democratic Party apparatus standing proudly behind this new civil right that they could have voted into law anytime, but never did? Of course not. They are making a concerted effort to stuff gay marriage back into the closet until after the 2008 election.

Hypocrisy is part of the human condition, but this is a delicious case of it. Democrats, who in Massachusetts did nothing for years to “protect” the right to gay marriage by writing it into law, now join with gay lobbyists and twist a few more arms in order to keep the decision of the question away from the electorate. This because nationally Democrats are uncomfortable standing for election in 2008 as the Party of Gay Marriage.

Proud defenders of “civil rights”, these folks. Not.

The property tax is not working?

According to the Boston Globe in a speech before the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, Governor Deval Patrick:

..issued some of his most pointed comments to date, saying the state can no longer afford to rely on the local property tax to fund public education.

“It seems to me the time is at hand, and the appetite is right among you and the folks you represent and so many others, to get back to basics and figure out how to do this right,” Patrick said. “The property tax is not working.”

The Globe story also reported:

Under the existing system, school districts are financed with a combination of local property taxes and state aid, which is distributed by a highly complex formula that has long been subject to legislative tussles over how much different communities receive… currently, the state covers less than 40 percent of the cost of local education, with cities and towns picking up the rest through the property tax. While it is a stable source of revenue, it places a sometimes difficult burden on the elderly or people with fixed incomes, and some argue it increases the disparity between communities based on personal income and property value.

What the Globe story did not report is that the “highly complex formula” is also highly re-distributive. It channels state education funding towards poorer communities and away from wealthier ones. State aid provides 40% of education funding statewide, but it provides over 80% of the school budget for the poorest cities, but less than 20% for the wealthiest towns (click the chart above).

The chart above shows the 10 lowest and 10 highest districts in terms of the percentage of state aid in their target budgets. There are many other (generally wealthier) towns also operating at the same 82.5% fraction of local school funding.

The formula is based on both the total assessed value of property in each district and the total personal income in each district. These are factored into a “local contribution” that is limited to a maximum of 82.5% (click the picture below).

The details of these calculations are online in a spreadsheet maintained by the Massachusetts Department of Education. See this page and the item entitled “Complete formula spreadsheet.”

Though the Globe is correct to say that the formula is complex, the formula is essentially a re-distribution of educational funding. Failure to report this fundamental aspect of state aid for education is either negligent or distorted reporting.

The Governor claimed that “the property tax is not working”. But the property tax represents only 20 cents out of every dollar spent on schools in Lawrence, Holyoke, and Springfield. How does that indicate that they “rely on the property tax” as the Governor claims?

In general wealthier communities, rather than poor ones, are the ones who now rely more on the local property tax to fund their schools.

Just Trying to Help

From today's Boston Globe:

The newly released documents also include correspondence between [BRA Deputy Director] Ali-Salaam and Islamic Society officials, in which the BRA official counsels the society on how to negotiate with his agency to get the best deal in their effort to build a mosque, Islamic cultural center, and school on a 45,000-square-foot parcel in Roxbury Crossing.

In one memorandum, marked "confidential" dated Sept. 22, 1989, Ali-Salaam tells Islamic Society trustees that the BRA sold a Roxbury parcel to the US Postal Service several years earlier for $16 per square foot, but he advised the trustees that a Bank of Kuwait appraisal of the potential society land put the value at $6.50 per square foot. He advised the society that the lower figure could be used when negotiating a purchase and said the purchase price could be reduced further by adding community benefits to the project...

The BRA provided a list of religious organizations that have received land under the renewal program since 1962, but declined yesterday to provide details including the size of the parcels sold or the total prices paid by the religious organizations. [BRA spokesperson] Elsbree also declined to say whether BRA officials who were members of the churches advocated on the organizations' behalf in the deals.

The Water Keeps Rising

The water is still rising at the Globe. From Forbes:

Average daily (Monday through Friday) circulation fell 2.1% from the same period a year earlier among 745 newspapers that submitted data, according to the Newspaper Association of America's analysis of figures released Monday [April 30, 2007] by the Audit Bureau of Circulation. Average Sunday circulation sank 3.1% among 601 reporting papers.

Among the prominent losers were The New York Times, which saw average daily circulation fall 1.9% to 1,120,420; the Washington Post, which slipped 3.5% to 699,130; and the Boston Globe, which sank 3.7% to 382,503.