The Year in Springfield, 2011...

(WMassP&I)

With another year under Springfield’s belt comes another edition of the Year in Springfield.  In its 375th year of existence the City of Homes suffered through one of the most erratic year of weather on record which brought a range of immense destruction and gross inconvenience.  Politically, it was also a tumultuous time from Springfield City Hall to Beacon Hill to the steps of Harvard University.

The year 2011 opened in Springfield with an eye, as in other places, to Washington, where a cadre of increasingly nihilistic “citizens” took their place in Congress and in state capitals across the nation.  While the boat rocked in Massachusetts with a shrunken, but still massive Democratic edge in the State House, Governor Deval Patrick took the oath of office once more. 

However, America was rocked only eight days into January when Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head, by quite literally a madman.  Early accusations pointed to tea party extremism, but ultimately mental disease and not right-wing anarchy drove the young man to shoot Giffords and twelve others while murdering six.  Gifford suffered a traumatic shot to the head, be saved by the quick thinking of her intern of five days.

Cong. Gifford w/ her Mother weeks

after the shooting (PK Weis via Facebook)

President Barack Obama, given his first significant opportunity to play the healer-in-chief gave a stirring speech at a memorial service attended by Arizona’s Senators, its governor with Obama has frequently clashed, Giffords’ husband, Mark Kelly and Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who oversees the Ninth Circuit within which the slain judge, John Roll, served.

The event took on somewhat of a local relevance when Congressman Richard Neal held a press conference after the shooting noting that he had known Giffords and had raised money for her ahead of what had been a difficult reelection in 2010.  However, he also urged that parties take down a notch the vitriol and anger that had become pervasive in politics whether Loughner was driven by politics or not.

Also in January Amaad Rivera took office as the Ward 6 Councilor following the resignation of Keith Wright.  He took office because the city’s succession law is only written with only at-large councilors in mind and fills vacancies with runners-up.  Technically, Rivera was a runner-up even though he lost the 2009 election.  The chorus of dissent included this blog and came to a head on a vote for eminent domain as part of Forest Park Middle School renovations.  Rivera invoked Rule 20, the council’s parliamentary motion to delay the project to the shock of other councilors.  While we would settle our differences with Rivera, many remained incensed over the use of Rule 20, ironically including some who would encounter similar anger over its usage.

Councilor Amaad Rivera (WMassP&I)

However, the focus on Rivera would lessen as he became one of a super-majority of councilors that opposed a wood-burning biomass plant.  The special permit had been granted in 2008 by the last council on a 7-2 vote.  All ward councilors and two at-large councilors, including Jose Tosado who voted for the permit in 2008.  The Callahan Family, owners of Palmer Renewable Energy and like-named paving company poured money into experts who dismissed, often condescendingly, the health concerns raised by opponents.  Against the din of protests and threats of legal action the council revoked PRE’s permit on a 10-2 vote.

WANTED: Economic Development...Director, too...

From Left, Kevin Kennedy, Mayor Sarno, Cong. Neal
(WMassP&I)

Today was a busy day for Springfield political news.  The Springfield City Council held its last meeting of 2011 and with that the last meeting of the 2010-2011 council.  However in the morning Mayor Domenic Sarno and Congressman Richard Neal held a press conference to make an economic development announcement.

Since the departure of John Judge earlier this year, the city had been without a director for Economic Development.  Chris Moskal had been serving in that role on an interim basis.  However, today a permanent replacement was named.

Longtime Neal staffer, Kevin Kennedy, was selected to head Springfield’s Economic Development team.  Sarno, in making the appointment, also announced that Moskal would be named the executive director of the Springfield Redevelopment Authority.  He praised  Kennedy as somebody who will “get the deal done” in terms of economic development in the city whether the project is large or small.

Cong. Neal w/ Mayor Sarno (WMassP&I)

Neal spoke very highly of Kennedy noting that the Springfield resident had been a staffer of his for 26 years.  Kennedy has worked with Neal since the congressman had been the city’s mayor and played roles in development projects of the 1980’s like Monarch Place.  Neal mentioned a letter from Springfield-based US District Court Judge Michael Ponsor praising Kennedy for his efforts in making the new courthouse on State Street a reality.  Kennedy has in recent years been Neal’s Scheduler and a key district aide.

Kennedy’s own remarks reflected a desire to pursue economic development in the city on all levels.  His top two large scale priorities were the implementation of Rebuild Springfield, the city’s post-tornado redevelopment effort and Union Station, a project that has eluded city planners for decades.  However, Kennedy also expressed an interest in smaller projects like CVS’s redevelopment of its Forest Park store and the UniFirst land swap enacted last week.

Speaking to reporters after the formal announcement, Kennedy spoke about the need to building “capacity” at the economic development office.  By capacity, Kennedy explained, the city needs to develop a team that can handle the myriad economic development opportunities across the city.  He is somewhat optimistic about the city’s outlook given the pent-up demand and unique opportunity rebuilding after the tornado offers.  More  bluntly, he described the city as having only one direction to go, impliedly up.

Kevin Kennedy at center (WMassP&I)

Asked about the prospect of a casino in Springfield, Kennedy offered perhaps the most cautious words of any city official so far.  While he said the city should pursue a casino project, he warned that it should not become a citadel.  If it became that, “it won’t be a long-term benefit.”  He offered Towersquare as a parallel, which, when built in 1973 as Bay State West, “sucked all the businesses” out of downtown, only to collapse as a retail venue itself.  The proposed casino on Page Boulevard could become such a “citadel.”  He suggested downtown as a better location for a casino where it could be integrated with the MassMutual Center and other downtown amenities.

Because Union Station has been an elusive goal of Neal’s both as mayor and a member of the House of Representatives, Kennedy was also asked about that project.  Construction is set to begin within the year, but it has been a torturous path.  Kennedy emphasized that projects like Union Station have to be practical.  The current plan calls for office space principally for the transit agencies set to serve it along with traveler oriented retail.  Prior plans were far more ambitious, perhaps unrealistic.

However, many of the projects Kennedy has worked on and will work on were public endeavors.  For Springfield to succeed, Kennedy explained, private business will need to step up to the plate.

...It Must Not Break the Bonds of Our Affection...

Cong. Giffords (wikipedia)

A Special Editor’s (Extended) Note:

It has been just over a week since a mad gunman ripped apart a scene that illustrates one of the central tenets of our democracy.  After an initial rash of caustic finger-pointing and demands that we learn something it, the country might actually be able to start the healing process.

Sarah Palin did not bring this tragedy upon Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the six who lost their lives and the other twelve that were injured.  Any direct or even indirect blame was not fair to her or to the others on the right that have spoken in strident, even violent rhetoric over the past two years.  In the immediate aftermath at least some of those attempting to come to grips with the tragedy were acting out of shocked delirium.  Others, though just as horrified very likely jumped to the conclusion that this was part and parcel of the rising tide of an overly vitriolic political environment.

Frank Rich (NY Times)

Frank Rich, a New York Times columnist, wisely noted that in the aftermath of the shooting, the left scrubbed their own overly violent rhetoric while the right vociferously denied that anything they said or did could even be criticized lest the First Amendment be threatened.  While the left’s attack was dishonest and the right’s defense disingenuous, what Rich felt spurred this reaction was the undeniable fact that regardless of blame, there had been a rising tide of violence emanating from the right, not unlike the violence that came from the left in the 60’s.  It has gotten bad enough that even Fox's Shepard Smith and conservative David Frum have noted and/or criticized it.

To name a few events, some Rich mentioned and others mentioned here: the vandalism of Cong. Giffords office following health care reform; a man has been arrested for threatening Cong. Jim McDermott of Seattle; death threats against Sen. Patty Murray D-WA escalated to the point that a man was sent to jail for the incendiary remarks; a man flew a plane into an IRS building.  The list goes on.  These events share a common thread: anti-government sentiments common among the hard-core conservative right.  Again, nobody is saying (and if they are, then they wrong) that one does not have the right to complain, be angry or be passionate in their objections.  However, must the pitch and tone be such that in the words of Cong. Neal everything’s “Armageddon”?

While Sarah Palin’s crosshairs map paired against the infamous tweet, “Don’t retreat…RELOAD!” were, to be kind, pushing the envelope, they in all likelihood had no apparent role in Jared Loughner's attack.  Indeed, we might assume his grudge predated Sarah Palin’s entrance to the stage.  Rather than merely condemning the wisdom of her map, while noting her innocence (or at least guilt no greater than any other actor in the political scene, left or right), many leapt right on her.  Some were more measured and again I would mention Keith Olbermann’s wholesale condemnation or violence and violent rhetoric, which included his own.

Tina Fey (wikipedia)

As such Sarah Palin had plenty of reason to be upset when she finally responded to the tragedy with her eight minute video.  Many were wondering if Sarah Palin would respond in such a way that would elevate her above the rut of unpopularity that has plagued her ever since Tina Fey donned her persona.  Still, a mere five days after a bullet went through a Congresswoman’s brain, the former Alaska governor three quarters of her video licking her own wounds.  Less than two minutes of that eight minute video even discussed the victims and Cong. Giffords name was mentioned sparingly.  Let’s leave the unfortunate blood-libel thing for others to discuss.

As Frank Rich noted, Palin’s comments about tone and stridency not being new is correct, however, there is the problem with the megaphone of the Internet turning everything into “Armageddon.”  Where Palin went off the reservation, however was the notion that exercising a First Amendment right to criticize one’s free speech runs afoul of free speech.  Since when was it un-American to question what Sarah Palin believes when she is questioning what I believe?  That said, since when, regardless of history, is it wrong to say that violent terminology may not be serving our politics or our nation well?

Though Passion May Have Strained...

Yoda (Wookiepedia)

"Fear Leads to Anger.  Anger leads to Hate.  Hate...leads to suffering."


It is not everyday that the words of Yoda of Star Wars is quoted in the face of a national tragedy, but it seems that the George Lucas character may have said it best.  Perhaps this quote would be better known had it not come from the better forgotten Episode I: The Phantom Menace.

As of this writing, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords remains in critical condition.  She is alive and at the direction of anesthesiologists, unconscious.  Her brain function looks good, but it is still too early to tell.  Swelling, which remains the most dangerous threat to her recovery now, is still possible for the next few days.  Her long term prognosis may not be known for months.  Six people, including the Chief Judge of the US District Court in Arizona, a 9 year-old girl, her 30 year-old community relations director, and three retirees are dead.  A dozen or so were injured—some remain hospitalized.  Others have been released.



Cong. Giffords (wikipedia)

 The alleged assailant, Jared Loughner, by all accounts seems to be a very troubled, very probably mentally ill individual.  His online life, ostensibly his only solid outward connection to the world, is a patchwork of paranoid delusions and, yes, some off-kilter political ideology.  He has been charged with attempted assassination of a member of Congress as the evidence shows that Giffords was the target.  The last significant attack on an American political figure was John Hinckley's attempt on President Ronald Reagan's life in 1981.  Hinckley's motives were not really at all political.

The focus of this posting is not the ease with which Loughner secured his weapon and ammunition.  However, we will say that these events are not inconceivable or, as has been described "unimaginable."  Gun violence, even public assaults like these, is quite common and yet we do little to stop it.  The extended clip Loughner allegedly used had no purpose, but to as kill many people as possible.  Police carry the same weapon and use the standard 12 round clip as opposed to the 33 round clips Loughner had purchased from a Wal-Mart.  These extended clips had been banned under now expired Brady Bill provisions and are now readily available.  While passage is unlikely, sooner or later, we have to seriously ask ourselves how much safer we are with these devices, which serve no purpose, but to kill.  The issue is not banning guns wholesale, but whether their sheer preponderance in our society serves or undermines their stated purpose.

Jared Lougner (AZ Star)

Although Loughner's motives are probably at best remotely political, it has brought much, if not all of the political apparatus—politicians, newsman, and commentators—into a moment of reflection.  That reflection is needed and overdue.  Congresswoman Giffords was the subject of innuendo and outright threats of violence in the past.  A protester waving one of those misappropriated Gadsden flags dropped a gun that had been held in his armpit.  Her office was vandalized following the health care vote, which she supported.  Then there was Sarah Palin's "reload" campaign complete with cross hairs aimed at formerly Republican districts including Giffords'.  Indeed the number of members of Congress receiving serious threats nearly tripled in 2010 from the year before.  A man is currently incarcerated for threatening to kill Washington Sen. Patty Murray over her health care vote.

The right has responded stridently to the claims that it is to blame.  Truly, they are not directly to blame for the shooting in Tucson, but the vitriol and vile language that they—and some voices on the left—have stirred up has not added to the national conversation and certainly has made a climate that has only aggravated the fear, distrust, and aggression in our society.  Throw into the mix mentally ill or otherwise unbalanced people and you do have a recipe for disaster.

The tone in the national political discourse has certainly taken a turn for the worse.  Sarah Palin's reload/target graphic is the least of it.  Joyce Kaufman, a talk radio personality and Florida and nearly a freshman congressman's chief of staff, spoke about how if "ballots don't work, bullets will."  Tea partiers relish Thomas Jefferson's statement that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time withe blood of patriots & tyrants."  In typical fashion, however, the statement is out of context.  Jefferson was commenting on Shays Rebellion of all things.  Among the many gripes of Shay and his ilk were that ineffectual nature of the Articles of Confederation, which was replaced by our present Constitution its strong central government.



Cong. Richard Neal (WMassP&I)

This blog is not comfortable with the term hate speech, because it is too broad and lends itself to misinterpretation.  Moreover, we do not gain anything by going to opposite extreme and purge our political discourse of passion and live in a cacophony of political correctness.  However, we must tamp down the negativity and the demonizing of political opponents.  As Congressman Richard Neal said at his press conference today those on the other side are our "opponents, not our enemies."  In addition, Neal noted that many Congressmen need to remember that not every issue is "Armageddon."

The Year in Springfield 2010...

So comes again another year the wide world of Springfield.  As is tradition, WMassP&I will recount the events and news that made 2010 different from 1876 in Springfield.  As both a city and as one of 351 parts of Massachusetts, Springfield saw its share of ups and downs that may come back to haunt, er, define us in the coming decade.  I guess it really depends.

City Hall (WmassP&I)

The year's most important event may very well have been a continuation of an event we mentioned last year.  The Springfield City Council underwent a paramount shift not only in structure, but in composition as it expanded form nine to thirteen in order to welcome new councilors from the city's eight wards.  Five seats remained at-large.  Four of those seats were retained by councilors under the old setup, with former School Committeeman Thomas Ashe filling out the fifth.  The diverse group of newcomers included time-tested figures like E. Henry Twiggs and past city council candidates John Lysak and Clodo Concepcion.  New faces included the city's youngest councilor in its history, Michael Fenton, Tim Allen, Melvin Edwards, Zaida Luna, and Keith Wright, a Springfield schoolteacher.

Not long afterward, Massachusetts rocked the national political landscape by electing State Senator Scott Brown to the United States Senate.  While national Republicans spun a fairy tale that the President Obama's allegedly left-wing policies were to blame, determined tea partiers aside, the result was due to a dismal campaign by Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Beacon Hill was not without its share of attention.  Budget troubles meant more cuts, particularly for cities and towns meant a reduction in school and unrestricted aid.  The entire situation was laid against the backdrop of an election for governor, which even early in the year was thought to be a bruiser for Democrats.  Charles Baker was coming at Gov. Deval Patrick from the right, Tim Cahill, former Democrat, was coming from the further right, while Jill Stein attempted to slip in from the left.  

Mohegan Sun (wikipedia)

Casinos, too, became an issue that would crest at the end of the session.  Massachusetts Speaker Robert DeLeo rammed through casino legislation that would have essentially given dying racetracks the right to open slot parlors in an attempt to make it like it never was when Deleo's father worked at the tracks.  Locally Mohegan Sun, who forays into non-Connecticut states has not been without controversy, got behind building a casino right off the Mass Pike in Palmer.

Longtime Hampden County District Attorney William Bennett announced his intention to retire this year. 

How Obama Got His Groove Back...

Pres. Obama (White House)

It may be a little premature to announce that President Barack Obama has taken his self-described shellacking and turned it into a force of political and legislative nature.  However, with his tax deal with Republicans and the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" passing just yesterday, the president has satisfied the country's desire for bipartisanship and fulfilled a campaign promise in only a week's time.  Although his New START Treaty with Russia hangs in the balance, the president may yet corral the 66-67 (If Sen. Ron Wyden is absent due to surgery, only 66 votes will be necessary, normally its 67).

Although we never made public any opinions about the deal, this blog reluctantly believes its passage was for the best.  To call the extension of the top bracket Bush tax cuts and a lower estate tax odious, harms the reputation of the word "odious."  However, in the words of one of many commentators on the issue, most people could not believe what Republicans were willing to give up to maintain tax breaks for millionaires.  The exact reasoning among Republicans is difficult to fully understand as many sitting Republican members of Congress thought Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were outlandish nine years ago.  The most likely answer is the intractability of GOP Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, and an ungodly fear of tea partiers.  The "Taxed Enough Already" crowd has, like the majority of Americans, actually seen their tax burden drop (unless their earnings relative to inflation have skyrocketed like the income of the tea party's leading faces has).  Not to mention, there exists fear among GOP senators up for reelection in 2012, like our dear Senator Scott Brown and Maine's Olympia Snowe, that could face a primary challenge and lose.  However, they may risk this anyway as the tea party is not really just an anti-tax, anti-government group, but a solidly anti-Obama and anti-anything good for Obama group.

"Migrant Mother" (Dorothea Lange)

The tax deal is for all intents and purposes a second stimulus.  While it lacks the infrastructural monies that are associated with the first stimulus, it includes many of the tax breaks that made up the bulk of the stimulus.  Also missing was aid to states to minimize budget cuts.  The legislation's most important characteristic, beyond the tax cuts, was an extension of unemployment benefits.  Under current law, after an individual's standard 26 week state benefits expire, the federal program kicks in for a total benefit time of up to 99 weeks.  The funding is largely paid out of the government's pocket, unlike standard benefits which rely on trust funds paid for by employers.  During the economic downturn, some states have exhausted their funds are relied on federal loans to continuing paying benefits under the standard plan.  Others like Massachusetts, automatically raise the employer contributions to maintain the fund's liquidity.

Cong. Neal (wikipedia)

A curious addition to the bill was a 2% cut in social security contributions on the employee side.  All workers must pay 6.2% of their earning, matched by their employer.  Unlike income taxes, employees contribute this income regardless of their income level.  Even the (working) poor pay into Social Security and do not get any of the money back until they begin to collect.  While the tax break will translate into real savings, Cong. Richard Neal, who voted against the deal, worried that it could undermine the solvency of Social Security.  Specifically, it would seem he was alluding to concerns that Republicans may demand that the payroll taxes (as Social Security benefits are technically called) remain lower in their increasingly quixotic demand that all taxes fall into oblivion.  This concern has merit and Neal's position is based less on the liberal discontent over Republican protection of the rich and a more on a real concern about the health of Social Security.

Still, it was a good thing for President Obama to make the deal and to sign the bill.  With little to no hope of pushing through changes absent the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster, this was the only way.  Obama knew that some form of economic stimulation by the government was needed to push the economy to begin hiring again and among the most effective things was, ironically, the unemployment extension.  In the end, the Democrats who voted for the bill will face less repercussions in two years than the Republicans who forced the issue.  More on that next time.

Military info on DADT (wikipedia)

The president also achieved a major victory by making good on a campaign promise to repeal DADT.  The Clinton-era policy was actually designed as a compromise to what had been a zero-tolerance policy toward gays and lesbians.  As conceived DADT would have allowed gay service members, albeit closeted ones.  However, due to the idiosyncrasies of the military and an increasing meddling of conservative Christian influence, the rule was often turned on its head, leading eminently qualified, but otherwise gay servicemen and women to a dishonorable discharge--something that follows you for life.

Even in international context, the DADT policy was, well, queer.  Most major western armed forces have ended bans, including Russia, Canada, the UK, France, Australia, and most of the European Union.  The most notable member of this group is Israel.  As the Jewish state is virtually a European country demographically, that it has a similar policy is not surprising.  However, what is most telling is its policy on homosexuals in sensitive intelligence positions.  Almost the complete opposite of the theory of DADT, the Israeli intelligence services permit gays and lesbians provided that they are not closeted.  The theory, presumably, is that a closeted Israeli intelligence agent might be more willing to talk if enemies tried to use their secret against him or her.

Maine Senator Susan Collins (wikipedia)

The latest repeal effort was a legislative Hail Mary.  According to the New York Times topics database on the issue, the Obama administration dragged its feet to avoid waging another partisan war during the health care debate.  However, when lawsuits threatened to upend the ban, Obama and his justice department did not want to be caught defending a law with which he disagreed.  Originally attempts to attach the bill to a defense re-authorization bill were thought best, allowing repeal to occur after a survey of troops was completed.  It ran into road blocks, first over the survey and then, in the lame duck, over amendments to the massive defense bill.  After the last failure of the defense bill, Sen. Susan Collins, who for a while recoiled into her caucus' position, stepped forward with Connecticut senator Independent (read Democrat) Joseph Lieberman and Colorado senator Mark Udall to push a stand-alone appeal.  With the tax deal done (but not the budget), Republican publicly in support of repeal came out of the closet themselves to vote for repeal.  Very probably part of the reason Republicans who supported repeal voted as such was that very little debate on the measure was necessary and therefore it would not take away an appreciable amount of time from other matters.

The end of a gay ban in the military is really more important than just ending what was itself a wrong-headed and discriminatory policy.  It was the end of the last major public policy of the United States that ensconced and endorsed discrimination.  Efforts to paint repeal as endangering troops, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, reveal a naked attempt to define and by extension condemn, an individual based on their sexuality, not their humanity.  Any opposition within the armed services is likely based on common misconceptions about homosexuals either culturally or religiously based.  In any event, as the Department of Defense's brass have said, including Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen, this can be mostly corrected with training.

Adm. Mike Mullen (wikipedia)

With the death of DADT, the United States government has banished active discrimination against homosexuals in the military much as it did against blacks and other minorities when President Truman ordered the armed services desegregated.  Then, as now, the primary fear was unit cohesion and national security.  However, the repeal bill offers a buffer of time to allow for an orderly change in policy, very likely starting from back office operations and moving lastly to the front lines.  Overwhelmingly, the members of the armed forces operate in non-combat support positions.  Had the courts weighed in, the result may have been a more immediate and chaotic repeal.  Given Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy's vote in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws, the Supreme Court may have endorsed such an action.

While there remains inequities on the subject of marriage and/or domestic rights of gay couples, it would be wrong, outside of those states that sought to quash any hope for such benefits, to say that there exists any national law that actively endorses discrimination.  The Defense of Marriage Act may do so to some extent, but largely the worst anti-gay legislation exists on a state level now.  Hate crime legislation, though problematic in and of themselves, now include homophobic attacks.  Federal protection for employment discrimination is not yet available, but such legislation has Republican support and could pass under the next Congress.

Pres. G.W.H. Bush and Premier Gorbachev at START signing (wikipedia)

There exists some concern that the DADT vote could endanger the Start treaty.  Essentially, START is the embodiment on the late Ronald Reagan's call to "trust but verify."  The treaty, which replaces an older one passed under the elder President Bush, calls for US-Russian teams to inspect nuclear facilities and encourage responsible practices.  The Bush I-era treaty has expired leaving the US with no mechanism to verify that Russian nuclear materials are being handled responsibly, particularly that it is kept out of the hands of terrorists.  Republicans opposed to the treaty appear obsessed with the notion that the US is not upgrading it own nuclear stockpile fast enough.  Such concerns are only tangentially related to the treaty's broader goals of nuclear non-proliferation and arms reduction.  Still, some key Senators like Lindsey Graham were disheartened enough by the DADT vote that they threatened to vote against START.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sarcastically called similar threats "real statesmanship."

Pres. Obama in White House East Room (White House)

START's fate and liberal discontent over the tax cuts notwithstanding, President Barack Obama has achieved a major coup.  While many groused about the lame duck session being used this way, those comments reflect the concern that officials are voting contrary to how their successors would vote or had campaigned.  Certainly, DADT would not come up for a vote under a Boehner-led House, but would it have not passed?  We do not know.  Likewise, had all eight Republicans joined Democrats in January to end DADT the result might be the same.   For now, Barack Obama has shown that midterm failure has not destroyed him.  Pragmatism and persistence can and do mesh well for this president and he has proven it.  While liberals feel he caved on taxes, he in fact gave a little to get a lot and with DADT's repeal in his belt, shown those "lines in the sand" he described do exist.  The next legislative session may be more acrimonious than some would like, but certainly less conciliatory than liberals fear.

Where There's a Way, There's a Means...

 *Update, WMassP&I has learned the Democratic Caucus has rejected Neal's recommendation from a steering committee.  Sander Levin will be the ranking member on Ways and Means.


Western Mass Politics & Insight has learned that Cong. Richard Neal of Springfield has cleared a major hurdle to become the Democrat's ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means.  Both the Republican and the Boston Globe confirm this.  At a steering committee meeting, Neal beat out Michigan Congressman, Sander Levin, who has more seniority than Neal.  The news is an incredible coup for the Springfield Democrat putting himself and his district in a position of considerable influence.

Levin has been chairman of the committee since New York Representative Charles Rangel stepped down pending an ethics investigation.  On December 2, the House censured Rangel for those charges.  Technically, California Congressman Pete Stark had more seniority than even Levin, but he stepped aside to hold onto his subcommittee chairmanship.  Two other congressmen held more seniority than Neal, Washington Rep. Jim McDermott and Georgia Rep John Lewis, a pioneer in the Civil Rights movement.  Neither had expressed public interest in the ranking position.

Neal's confirmation as ranking member still requires caucus-wide approval, but the above sources say he expects to receive it.  Levin would likely remain chairman, nominally, until January when Democrats go into the minority.  The minority party's most senior member of a committee is called their "ranking" member.

Ways and Means governs Social Security, Medicare, trade tariffs, unemployment, TANF, and tax laws.  Even in the minority, Neal stands to have a great deal of power as his party's point man  defending Democrats' agenda and as a negotiator with Republicans.  The Republican chairman of Ways and Means in January is expected to be David Camp of Midland, Michigan.

Pro Tempore Today...On Probation Tomorrow...

Fallout from the release of a damning report on the administration of the commonwealth's Probation Department has finally landed on the head of State Representative Thomas Petrolati.  The Ludlow Democrat, whose district includes Indian Orchard in Springfield was the Speaker Pro Temp of the Massachusetts House of Representatives.  He has held that position, which serves little, if any purpose, since the last Speaker, Salvatore DiMasi clawed his way into the speakership.  Speaker Robert DeLeo announced Petrolati will step down from the post when the legislature convenes in January.

Rep. Petrolati (mass.gov)

The Probation Scandal, about which you can read more at Boston Globe, in short consisted of rampant favoritism, corruption, mismanagement, and possible pay-for-play personnel decisions.  Petrolati was called the king of Western Mass Patronage, implicated as being among the more flagrant probation jobs-for-donations participants.

When the scandal broke, the Supreme Judicial Court appointed Boston attorney Paul Ware to investigate the corruption.  During his probe, he subpoenaed Petrolati who attempted to behind some legislative privilege as a reason why he need not testify.  The SJC told him otherwise, but reportedly, Petrolati made heavy use of his Fifth Amendment Protection against self-incrimination.

Gov. Deval Patrick (WMassP&I)

Petrolati may actually be remembered best as the sole dissenting voice of any consequence against placing the State Backup Data center at the site of Springfield former Technical High School.  For reasons never completely understood, Petrolati wanted the center put at the STCC's Technology Park, despite the complex lacking the adequate security that could be easily built into the Tech building during its gutting and renovation.  The considerable sway of Petrolati's constructed office gave him the power to change the bill that funded the data center to suit his needs, possibly out power-playing Cong. Richard Neal.  In the end, wishing to avert an inter-party war over a non-issue, the Legislature decided to leave that final decision of the data center's location to Gov. Deval Patrick.  Patrick, to the surprise of few, picked Tech over Technology Park.

This controversy and Petrolati's odd continuance in the pointless House office even after Robert DeLeo became speaker might have inspired somebody, anybody, to oppose Petrolati in his race to continue as representative.  Not so.  Even in a Republican year (or the impression of one in Massachusetts), nobody Democrat or Republican, opposed Petrolati.  If for no other reason, the GOP should be ashamed because, again in their logic, the town of Ludlow went Scott Brown in January.

Even in the dysfunction and complicity of Democrats in the Springfield area and Massachusetts as a whole, Petrolati has come to stand out.  His Pro Temp appointment raised eyebrows and his involvement in the data center raised objections--from virtually everybody.  Like many politicians he has remained glued to his seat in large part because of his intimate connection to the people of Ludlow (we are largely of the opinion Petrolati has done squat for I.O.).

Speaker DeLeo (mass.gov)

In dismissing Petrolati, WFCR reported that Speaker Robert DeLeo implied that Petrolati's refusal to answer Paul Ware's questions was part of the reason the Ludlow representative was leaving the leadership.  Although couched as a mutual agreement as reported by the Globe, the writing on the wall as it is, DeLeo's account is very likely very generous in how things actually played out for Petrolati.

While the yawning scandal may very well capture more members of the legislature, the reports have only highlighted a few so far.  Inspector General Gregory Sullivan has begun an investigation and Attorney General Martha Coakley and US Attorney Carmen Diaz may yet open investigations, which may turn up more evidence and official corruption.  However, none locally or even statewide have been implicated quite so damningly as Petrolati.  It may be premature to call his political career over, but do not be surprised if the voters in Ludlow and Springfield find themselves springing for an election ahead of schedule.

If anybody will miss Petrolati, it may only be those diehards in Ldulow, who, for whatever reason, continued to support him even as his shine had long since dimmed.  It is hard to say what Petrolati's fate is or for that matter what good he has done for his district.  However, if the allegations are true regarding his involvement in the Probation office and were there some malfeasance in his data center position, it seems likely if not certain the representative had his hand in many other less than honest endeavors.

Surveying the Wreckage: The View from Beacon Hill...

Gustave Dore's The Enigma

More than two weeks from the election, here in Massachusetts too, bodies litter the political battlefield.  Their stricken bodies lay there, teeth still gnashed, fists clenched, and determined scowls plastered to their faces.  While more than a few Democrats add to this scene, overwhelmingly, the slain are Republicans, many with teabags still in hand.  Democrats swept every Congressional District, 36 out of 40 state Senate seats, and every statewide office, most notably the governor's.  Republicans only made gains on a handful of seats in the Massachusetts House of Representatives.

CT Senator-elect Richard Blumenthal (wikipedia)

This event would be just another Massachusetts political quirk were it not for two things.  One, as a state, we are to some a godsend and to others a culprit for Democrats losing their 60 seat majority in the Senate by sending Republican Scott Brown to fill out the late Edward Kennedy's term.  Two, we were not alone.  In Connecticut Democrats swept statewide races and all Congressional seats, including the open Senate seat going to AG Richard Blumenthal.  In Rhode Island, Democrats took both seats including the open seat of retiring Congressman Patrick Kennedy, son of the Bay State's late senator.  Former Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee, a liberal, won the governor's office as an independent.  Across the country in Washington state, only one Congressional seat went Republican and the same appears true in California.  While in many crucial Midwest states and others like Florida, Democrats were beaten soundly, in states most akin to Massachusetts the damage was much less severe.  Indeed, only in New Hampshire was there a true Republican takeover (or takeback) in New England.  In Maine, while Republicans did win the Governor's office (by a limp 38% plurality) and the state house, both Congressional seats remained Democratic.

So while Scott Brown's election may have heralded the Democratic losses nationwide, the message was largely ignored or otherwise not felt in the good Senator's own home state.

US Rep-elect Bill Keating (candidate site)

Notably, the only Massachusetts congressional seat that was not secured with an absolute majority was the open seat of retiring Congressman William Delahunt whose South Shore/Cape Cod district went heavily for Scott Brown.  Despite heavy lobbying by the state's Republican US Senator, Norfolk County District Attorney Democrat William Keating beat Cape Cod state House rep Republican Jeff Perry by four percentage points, missing a majority by as many points.  Perry lost traction after his role in a strip search controversy when he was a police sergeant came back to haunt him.  The story had come up when Perry first ran for state rep in 2002.  Notably, Keating pulled off the win despite Deval Patrick losing much of the district.

In other Congressional races, Reps Ed Markey and Stephen Lynch both took in 2/3 of the vote.  Niki Tsongas and John Tierney also held off challengers in their North of Boston districts.  Tierney's race deserves some notice as his wife had plead guilty to tax fraud in an October surprise, but it did not translate into any traction for his opponent Bill Hudak, who filed a lawsuit for defamation in the campaign's closing days.  Barney Frank survived a tough challenge, but secured a respectable majority as well.  Worcester area Congressman Jim McGovern also survived a challenge.  Cong. Mike Capuano, who represents most of Boston, as well as Cambridge and Somerville was unopposed.

Cong. Richard Neal (WMassP&I)

To hear the right-leaning commentators tell the story, the results in Western Mass would suggest wins for Congressmen John Olver and Richard Neal by a hair.  In fact, Olver secured the third highest percentage of the vote of the nine contested Congressional races.  Olver, who by far has the largest district in terms of geography scored several decisive wins in a town by town analysis.  He carried some towns in the conservative Westfield area, including that city.  He won big in the cities, Holyoke, Pittsfield, the Adamses, and Amherst and carried many small towns.  The Republican Bill Gunn scored only significant wins in some towns including, notably Southwick.  Olver lives in Amherst.
 

Richard Neal, by comparison, may not have won by the same margin as Olver, but still cleaned up.  His decisive, if not massive, fourteen point spread was right in the middle of for Mass Congressional victors' margins.  Neal dominated in Springfield, Northampton, and the surrounding suburbs.  His opponent, Tom Wesley, only picked up leads in the far eastern small towns of the district.  However, Wesley, a tea party supported candidate, lost the district's metaphorical eastern punctuation mark, Milford.  The preponderance of Wesley signs belied the actual support he had in the Western more populous end of the district.  Even with low turnout in Springfield, the city's conservative suburbs flocked to Neal, obviating any absolute need for an edge in the city itself.  Had turnout been higher in Springfield, it seems unlikely that Wesley could have broken Neal's four-to-one edge. The city's lowest turnout was in areas that almost universally go Democratic  Neal lives in Springfield.

Gov. Patrick in Springfield  (WMassP&I)

On the statewide level, Governor Deval Patrick scored a major victory by winning, by plurality, a second term.  A graphic from the Boston Globe showed a town by town result of the Governor's race.  It is clear Western Massachusetts, the islands and Metro Boston form the governor's strongest support.  Notably Western Mass exercised considerable sway in this election.  Otherwise, the Worcester suburbs and the North and South Shore suburbs were friendly to Republican Charlie Baker.  These numbers are distorted, however, because the race was a four-way.  While Green Party candidate Jill Stein negligibly hurt Deval Patrick, the conventional wisdom was that Independent Tim Cahill siphoned conservative votes from Baker.  However, Cahill's pro-tea Party proclivities were not widely reported, so it is just as possible that towns that Patrick lost narrowly might have gone to him if some Cahill votes went to him.

Auditor-elect Suzanne Bump (WMassP&I)

Still, Patrick won by 140,000 statewide.  Strong turnout in Democratic bases and in the above areas pushed him over the edge.  Generally good economic news raised Patrick and the spat between Tim Cahill and his staff defections to Baker probably hurt both candidates.  Further evidence of an overall Democratic tilt to the electorate can be seen in the other Constitutional office races.
 

Martha Coakley, who lost to Scott Brown in January trounced political newcomer James McKenna.  Suzanne Bump a former Patrick cabinet member beat out Mary Connaughton, who was this blog's token Republican endorsement also by plurality, the Globe map mirroring Patrick's.  Notably, the Green party candidate in that race captured more of the vote than Stein.

Treasurer-elect Steve Grossman (WMassP&I)

Perhaps part repudiation of his opponent and part his more realistic plans for the office he sought, Democrat Steve Grossman handily defeated GOP candidate state rep Karyn Polito.  Grossman's campaign focused on common sense changes to the Treasurer's office and government openness.  Polito is probably best remembered for slowing down passage of a supplemental spending bill in the State House of Representatives even after her party gave the green light.  Ironically, the bill passed when Polito got caught in traffic on her way to Beacon Hill.

Republicans did pick up a dozen or two State House seats.  In western Massachusetts Nicholas Boldyga defeated Rosemarie Sandlin.  The Agawam Democrat's loss has been attributed, at least in part, to a third party race.  Otherwise, incumbents like Angelo Puppolo and Brian Ashe won their races.  Puppolo's victory was pretty solid.  Ashe won by two points.  In a Republican year, his opponent seemed a shoe-in, but a Democratic bend in Longmeadow, and help from Monson and the lone Springfield precinct in the district along with Republican Marie Angelides poor personal turnout in past elections left her weak going into the race.  The open West Springfield seat vacated by Jim Welch to run the seat of retiring State Senator Steve Buoniconti went to Democrat Michael Finn.

State Senator-elect Jim Welch (Facebook)

In the State Senate, Republicans actually lost a seat as Richard Tisei, Charlie Baker's running mate left an open seat snapped up by state rep Katherine Clark.  Senate President Therese Murray survived a tough challenge, but came out on top by four points.  In Western Mass, Jim Welch won the seat of Stephen Buoniconti (who lost his bid for District Attorney to Mark Mastroianni, who ran as an independent).  Welch only lost the hometown of his opponent City Councilor Robert McGovern.  Gale Candaras won every town in her district except for East Longmeadow.  Senator-elect Welch and Senator Candaras' districts split Springfield in half.

The half and half victories on Beacon Hill for Republicans may actually benefit Deval Patrick more than the GOP as they may form an inadvertent bulwark for any potential Patrick vetoes.  Otherwise, it may simply serve as an incubator for later races for the State Senate or Congress.

The true victory, may not come in the form of Democratic sweeps, but in voters' wise rejection of Question 3, which would have slashed the sales tax to 3%.  The vote would have severely hampered the state's ability to deliver essential services ahead of a projected deficit for the next fiscal year.  This blog has been critical of the increase in the sales tax and remains sure some savings still exist, but the ballot initiative was too far.  Voters, apparently agreed.  Registering some concern for taxes, voters did approve chopping the sales tax from alcohol purchases.  Oddly, polling had until the end consistently suggested the opposite result, but ads that explained, if a little oddly, the double taxation of the alcohol tax won the day.  This will likely signal to Beacon Hill that while voters rejected slash and burn budget cuts, they are not to be taken for granted.  Voters in Massachusetts recognized the need for taxes, however, inconvenient, especially during a recession.  However, the argument that education resonated with voters and having seen layoffs already, voters decided to hold the line to extent that they can.

Former US Senator Edward Brooke (wikipedia)

In an election year that the pummeled Democrats, Republicans actually needed victories in New England beyond New Hampshire.  Few thought that they could ever return to their pre-JFK strength in Massachusetts, but at the very least they would like an 80's sized minority and a solid gubernatorial win.  It would have made them competitive in New England generally to hold the line when the GOP loses the districts they otherwise won this year.  Remember, when Democrats lost the House in 1994, the GOP already held seats in Connecticut and Massachusetts that Dems won in 2010 by healthy margins. 
 

Just as importantly, it calls into question the GOP's chances for non-Gubernatorial statewide races.  Treasurer is the only non-Gubernatorial Constitutional office (held by Joe Malone, who lost the Republican nomination for the 10th Congressional district to Jeff Perry) Republicans have won in 40 years.  Before that  Elliot Richardson was the last Republican elected for another statewide office, Attorney General.  His last elected predecessor?  Edward Brooke, the first black Senator since Reconstruction and also the last Republican Senator from Massachusetts until...

...Scott Brown.  The telegenic captain of the New England Republican advance still stands, safely two years removed from reelection, the bodies of his Bay State comrades largely strewn all about.  Looking over his shoulder, Brown now has the target on his back.

Sen. Scott Brown (Boston Herald)

Endorsements on Parade: Neal Gets our Seal of Approval...

Rock stars seldom come to Springfield, but between the screaming fans, packed seats, and the music of the Black Eyed Peas and the Dropkick Murphys, you would never know it.  Governor Deval Patrick and everybody on down in the Springfield area Democratic party were there, crowded into a sweltering Old First Church for a Get Out the Vote rally.  Speakers included the governor, emcee Hampden County Sheriff Michael Ashe, Springfield Mayor Domenic Sarno, Democratic nominee for Treasurer Steve Grossman, Democratic nominee for Auditor Suzanne Bump, Ward 2 City Councilor Michael Fenton, and, of course, Congressman Richard Neal.

The event was meant to drum up enthusiasm and support for Democratic candidates in Massachusetts for Election Day, which nationally, if not locally, is expected to be tough for Democrats.  For the most part, the candidates appeared to do their job in this regard drawing cheers and applause from the diverse crowd of workers, volunteers, and ordinary citizens.

Our focus here, however, is to endorse Congressman Richard Neal for reelection to the United States House of Representatives for the 2nd Massachusetts Congressional District.  His rousing speech only underscored the reasons we mentioned earlier this year as to why he is well-respected and well-thought of in Springfield, Chicopee, Northampton, and the suburbs east which form his district.

Taken in context his remarks were before a friendly audience, though they nonetheless highlighted the fact that many of the nation's greatest social endeavors and economies were overseen by Democrats.  Neal also spoke of the $750 million Iraq war $2.3 trillion Bush tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003.  All were paid for with debt.

Neal made a particular point to highlight his vote against the invasion of Iraq, while praising the work done by those soldiers that have been deployed overseas.  This statement, alone has not earned our approval.  Neal has been a tireless advocate for tax reform, notably the Alternative Minimum Tax, whose ensnarement of the middle class has its roots in the 1986 tax code.  He has been a tireless advocate for the preservation of Social Security.   A great deal of credit rightly goes to Neal for the peaceful solution in Northern Ireland.

The subject of Ireland, incidentally, brings us to his opponent.  Businessman Tom Wesley of Hopedale spoke before the primary of how Ireland was a model for us since its corporate business tax is among the world's lowest.  However, it is worth noting that the Republic of Ireland has suffered mightily during this fiscal crisis and its economy will absorb billions of euros worth of bank losses, that if their economy was scaled to ours in size, would equal trillions of dollars.  Nowhere near that much has been lost here.  Wesley touts his business experience and good work with numbers, but he filed for bankruptcy ten years ago.  We say these points, not to tear down Wesley, but to illustrate that he is not what he seems.  His mentioning Ireland was clearly a dig on Neal given the Congressman's work regarding the Emerald Isle.  However, it ended up being a cheap shot and hollow one to boot.  Ireland's economy had already nearly disintegrated (by far it was in worse condition than the US economy), when Wesley made that statement.

No, we are fully confident that Neal represents us admirably in Washington.  Much has been made in this election season that the problem is incumbents and politicians, but we submit that they alone are not at the heart of the problem.  We will save a larger reflection of America and society for another time, but we will note that the vitriol, screaming, and anger has not served the interests of anybody.  It is not surprising that people are reacting this way, but any sensible person would agree that the best decisions in our lives are made calmly and thoughtfully.

Our endorsements this election season, if a little predictable, were made with the same thoughtfulness.  One may criticize what seems like a Springfield-centric approach we made in our past assessment of Neal, but that was not the result of provincial attitudes.  The truth is that much of Western and Central Mass, its cities, suburbs, and rural communities share a common destiny and common problems.  We are not Boston with its name recognition and influence nationally and regionally.  For those reasons we need an advocate like Neal who delivers not just reliably, but compassionately.

Some years ago a woman in Chicopee lost the flag given to her after a close relative died.  The rumor was that it had been stolen.  Richard Neal personally delivered a replacement.  Maybe other Congressman have done that, but it does not matter because our Congressman did.

We could go on, but instead, we shall simply end with saying that Richard Neal receives our highest endorsement for election to the US House of Representatives.