Eric Dahlberg, a candidate for the 3rd Middlesex Senate District, has called out the legislature for failing to pass health insurance ‘plan design’ for cities and towns.

A central feature in Massachusetts health care reform is the creation the Group Insurance Commission (GIC) Health Insurance law. All private entities and the state government benefit from the reduced health insurance costs.

In the past few years the budgets of our cities and towns have been being decimated on two sides. On the one hand the legislature has cut the chapter 70 local aid that towns use to fund their school budgets. On the other side, health insurance costs for city workers have been increasing every year. The result has been reduced city services, school program cuts, teacher layoffs and property tax increases.

Municipalities have been trying to get a law passed to allow them to put city workers on GIC insurance, which is opposed by municipal workers unions. The legislature, which is as always beholden to every special interest that pays campaign contributions, has opposed the reform.

The reform would save municipalities $100 million per year, and would to some extent shield them from further health insurance cost rises. Without this, taxpayers will continue to see their municipal budgets eaten up by health insurance costs.

Today in a letter to the Lowell Sun, Eric Dahlberg has called out the legislature for again failing to protect Massachusetts tax payers:

The Legislature’s conference committee budget for fiscal 2011 misses a $100 million opportunity to deliver services to the taxpayers more efficiently and effectively. It excludes a provision to grant health- insurance plan-design authority to cities and towns.

Such authority is currently exercised by every private-sector organization in the state, as well as by state government itself. If granted to the 351 communities of the commonwealth, it would empower local elected officials to make cost-saving changes to municipal health plans without having to go through the collective-bargaining process. This is clearly in the best interest of the taxpayers.

The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation estimates that granting such authority would save up to $100 million annually. That’s money we in local government could use to provide property-tax relief to residents, to improve deficient services, or to replenish our stabilization funds.

It is concerning and, frankly, bizarre that our legislators have failed to include this straightforward, common-sense measure in the fiscal 2011 budget, even as the economy continues to lag and federal stimulus funds dry up.

Yet again, Beacon Hill’s special-interest politics has gotten in the way of prudent public policy.

A budget amendment with a watered down ‘plan design’ provision narrowly passed the Senate in May, but was defeated in a conference committee. The Massachusetts Municipal Association has a discussion of the amendment which shows us exactly on whose side our legislators are on.

The watered down provision would allow only 25% of the health insurance cost savings to go to town budgets – our school budget and police department budgets. 25% of the savings would be a windfall for city workers unions. The remaining 50% would be negotiated with unions.

Under this amendment, small towns in Massachusetts would have just 45 days to negotiate with multiple state-wide workers unions simultaneously! And if negotiations failed the town would be ineligible for GIC.

But even this amendment, highly favorable to the unions, was defeated. The great majority of our legislators failed to vote even for that.

By coming out in support of ‘plan design’ Eric Dahlberg isn’t going to make any friends with municipal workers unions – but he’s putting Massachusetts taxpayer’s interests first.

The Massachusetts alimony reform bill (H1785) is for now stuck in committee while key legislators are busy with the casino bill battle.

A compromise alimony reform bill is being worked on in the Alimony Reform Task force.

This is a committee comprised of:

• Rep. Steven Walsh, the bill’s lead sponsor
• Rep. John Fernandes
• Sen. Gale Candaras
• Steve Hitner, a lead activist for alimony reform
• Three representatives from the various bar associations
• A representative of the judiciary

The task force has met several times now, and worked out much of the compromise. The task force is hoping to be able to recommend a compromise bill at their next meeting.

But there is now difficulty in scheduling their next meeting because several of the legislators are busy trying to overcome opposition to the casino bill. It’s likely that a new meeting will be scheduled in the next few weeks.

Public Pressure is Building

Pressure on legislators to deal with the alimony issue this year is intense. The Massachusetts alimony statute is badly out of date. Massachusetts is the only state with lifetime alimony, which continues even after payors retire. And the current law offers no clear guidelines causing headaches for judges and resulting in wildly variable alimony awards.

The current alimony bill has wide legislative support – with over 70 co-sponsors. It has been receiving a lot of positive media attention:

• Till Death Do Us Pay (Boston Magazine)
• Alimony Agony (Boston Globe)
• Lifetime Alimony is Archaic (Lowel Sun)

Massachusetts Alimony Reform has a more complete list of the media coverage. And the attention to the issue is not about to go away. Several major new articles and TV news stories are likely to hit in the coming weeks.

At least one key legislator, Senate Judiciary Chairwoman Cynthia Creem, is facing particularly strong pressure. She is not only the committee chairwoman, but a practicing divorce attorney. Some have questioned if her opposition to Alimony Reform isn’t a conflict of interest.

Creem is facing a tough election challenge from Charles Rudnick this year, and if the alimony issue isn’t dealt with it’s likely to come up as a campaign wedge issue. Comments about her position on alimony reform continue to pop up wherever her name is mentioned. ( 1, 2, 3, or try searching “Creem Alimony Reform” )

Everyone in the legislature seems to want this issue dealt with this year. Their fear is if a solid bill doesn’t come out of committee, it will be one more pressing issue the legislature failed to deal with in what is looking like an extremely difficult electoral climate for incumbents.

Alimony Reform Task Force Status

The members of the task force essentially line up in several camps.

The Judiciary wants to see a bill come out that has clear and fair guidelines – like we have for child support. The courts are overworked, especially after suffering several rounds of budget cuts, and alimony actions are 30% of the caseload. The cases are difficult, and without clear guidelines judges are commonly criticized by all parties to an alimony case  – both by payors and recipients.

The only party strongly opposed to clear guidelines are the various bar associations. The lack of clear guidelines results in large legal bills for litigants. The problem for them on the task force is that since they are practicing attorneys they have a hard time disagreeing with judges who appear to testify before the committee. The last thing any practicing lawyer wants is to appear before a judge they have publicly disagreed with. To some extent the bar association representatives have had to moderate their position.

Legislators are eager to get a good bill out. They want something most legislators can agree on, and get past the alimony reform issue before the elections. The last thing they want is to be seen to be protecting legal industry profits at the expense of the public.

For alimony reform advocates the main issue is the lack of clear guidelines. Without them litigants don’t know what to expect. Awards can be inappropriately high or rare cases low.

Hopefully this year Massachusetts can join the rest of the nation in having a rational alimony statute, and stop the abuse of the public’s judicial system by the legal industry.

Ray Medeiros

We received an update from Ray Medeiros who is running for Representative in the 9th Representative district, (Dartmouth, Freetown, Lakeville, New Bedford). Ray is an electrician with a young family. His campaign’s message is focused on advocating for working families.

His message follows:

I wanted to take this opportunity to introduce myself to you.  I am Ray Medeiros and I am running for the 9th Bristol State Representative seat.  I am a proud blue collar professional. I have been a licensed electrician for close to a decade.  My main concern and the #1 reason why I am running is because I believe that Boston is lacking the perspective of the working class man and woman.  Beacon Hill is filled with people from various professions, whether they are Lawyers, Doctors, Business owners and the occasional educator.  What I believe is missing is the perspective of the working class.

I will be the defender of working families and small businesses. Too often we see and hear about millions of our tax dollars in this Commonwealth going to large corporations as subsidies and tax breaks leaving little behind for working families and small businesses.  By bringing the so-called “outside” budget into the “real” budget we can see how our tax dollars are being invested in regards to subsidies and tax breaks.

I will work to bring good paying jobs to Massachusetts and the 9th Bristol District.  I am highly in favor of the Bio-Park and Casino.   I have also issued a working class education proposal that will provide students the tools needed for industries that are coming in the future, for example Bio-Life and Green technologies.  We need to have a workforce ready and trained in these industries now so we can attract good paying manufacturing jobs in the future.

A Cambridge woman arrested and charged Sunday with being a Russian spy donated to state Rep. Marty Walz’s campaign in 2004.

According to state campaign finance records, Tracey Lee Ann Foley of 111 Trowbridge St., Cambridge, gave $50 to Walz on May 30, 2004.

Walz said Foley was the wife of alleged Russian spy Donald Healthfield, who was in her class at Harvard’s Kennedy School.

Walz said she sent out an e-mail asking for campaign contributions from her classmates and Foley must have signed the check.

Walz said there was nothing to distinguish Healthfield, other than the fact that “we thought he was Canadian.”

According to state records, Foley had a real estate license.

Paul Hampel, SVR agent posing as Donald Heathfield

We don’t think Marty Walz knew they were spies of course. But it’s still kind of interesting who Russian spies are supporting these days.

Here is what a Russian spy’s linked in profile looks like, and his “corporate profile“. The spy even had a patent on predicting the future! now that’s dedication.

The complete spy allegations story is pretty interesting.

The Department of Justice claims that Donald Howard Heathfield and his wife, Tracey Lee Ann Foley, surveilled by the FBI in their townhouse, discussed how to send digital photographs encrypted with data to their Russian handlers. The surveillance operation also discovered that the pair was receiving electronic messages from Russian agents discussing communication via  radiograms — short bursts of radio static encoded with data.

According to Reuters, it appears the two were part of an 11 member international spy ring:

The group, dubbed the “Illegals,” was accused of being tasked by the Russian intelligence agency SVR to enter the United States, assume false identities and become “deep-cover” Americans, according to the U.S. Justice Department.

Their goal was to “become sufficiently ‘Americanized’ such that they could gather information about the United States for Russia and can successfully recruit sources who are in, or are able to infiltrate, United States policy-making circles,” according to criminal complaints filed in U.S. federal court.

The Associated Press has a pretty complete story, with pictures of the spy’s home in Cambridge.

“Donald Heathfield” appears to be the genuine article – a true Russian SVR agent. According to the National Post, he was born Paul Hampel and took on the name of a deceased child “Donald Heathfield” while under cover in Canada:

One of the agents was posing as Donald Howard Graham Heathfield, a Canadian infant who died in 1962. The FBI said it found a copy of Donald’s birth certificate in the agent’s safety deposit box in Cambridge, Mass. The Russian assumed the dead baby’s identity and attempted to recruit high-level U.S. government sources to find out about a “bunker buster” nuclear warhead research program, according to the indictment unsealed yesterday in New York.

The late Donald Heathfield is buried with his grandparents at a cemetery in Montreal, where the SVR agent known as Paul Hampel had lived, leaving open the possibility he found the name during a visit to the graveyard.

In the underworld, the process is called “tombstoning” because the names of dead children are often culled from cemeteries. More information on the deceased — including the parents’ names — is often gleaned from newspaper obituaries, museum records or genealogical databases.

I wonder if the donations to Walz were part of their “deep cover” or if Marty Walz really was their candidate of choice?

Rep. Marty Walz is being challenged by Brad Marston. It’s a very Democratic district, but Marston has been running a very vigorous and sophisticated campaign. It will be one to watch, and we’ll be covering it soon.

Rep. Robert Nyman

Rep. Robert Nyman was found dead at his home last night. The Globe is reporting:

Massachusetts State Representative Robert Nyman, 49, was found dead in a swimming pool at his Hanover home Friday night, authorities said.

Nyman had gone to a local golf course earlier in the day to participate in the planning of a charity event and returned home briefly and then went back to the course at approximately 1 p.m., according to a statement from the office of Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz.

It was not clear when he returned home again, but his family came home at about 8:30 p.m. and found him unresponsive in the family pool, according to the statement. The cause and circumstances of his death were not released.

The Patriot Ledger has more details:

Nyman had been at a planning meeting for a charity golf event earlier in the day and when his family returned home at 8:30 p.m., they found him in the pool, dressed and unresponsive, Cruz said.

Hanover police received 911 calls from the Nyman home at 8:30 p.m., reporting that Nyman had been found in the pool. Hanover Police Chief Walter Sweeney issued a joint statement with Cruz.

Nyman was pulled out of the pool by neighbors who had come to assist his family. A neighbor attempted CPR until the Hanover Fire Department arrived and took over rescue efforts.

Nyman was wearing a shirt and shorts when he was found in the pool. He was taken to South Shore Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Gov. Deval Patrick had been scheduled to come to Hanover Saturday to meet Rep. Nyman and be shown around during the town’s celebration of Hanover Days. A spokesman said Saturday morning the governor was talking to local officials about his course of action. Nyman, a Democrat, had represented the Fifth Plymouth District in the Massachusetts House since 1999. He and his wife, Rhonda, had two children.

He had attended the grand opening of the Hanover Senior Center two weeks ago and presided at the ceremony. Seniors said Saturday that he had been a energetic advocate for them and they couldn’t imagine the town without him.

At the Nyman house, there was a steady stream of family and friends coming to pay their respects. The street was overflowing with visitors.

Police have issued the following statement:

Hanover Police Chief Walter Sweeney and Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz today announced that State Representative Robert Nyman of Hanover died unexpectedly last night.

On Friday June 25, 2010, the Hanover Police received 911 calls from the Nyman home stating that Representative Nyman had been found unresponsive in the pool. He was pulled out of the pool by neighbors who had come to assist his family. A neighbor attempted CPR until Hanover Fire Department arrived and took over rescue efforts. The victim was transported by emergency personnel to the South Shore Hospital, where he was later pronounced dead at 9:02 p.m. At the time the victim was discovered, he was wearing a collared shirt and shorts.

Interviews determined that the victim had gone out late morning to a local golf course to assist in the planning of an upcoming charity golf tournament. The victim returned home and then left again at approximately 1:00 p.m. to return to the golf course. His family returned home at approximately 8:30 p.m. and found the victim unresponsive in the pool.

There were no signs of a struggle and the home was neat and orderly. No foul play is suspected. An autopsy will be conducted by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner to determine the cause of death.

House Speaker Robert DeLeo released the following statement:

It is with great sadness and regret that we mourn the passing of Representative Bob Nyman of Hanover. Not only was Bob a fierce advocate for his district, he was a true friend to all in the House where he served with honor, integrity and distinction since 1999. To simply say we will miss him would not do justice to the deep personal sense of loss we all feel at this moment. Our thoughts and prayers are with Bob’s loving wife Rhonda and with his children. The Massachusetts House of Representatives extends its most sincere condolences to the entire Nyman family and to all who were privileged to count Bob as a friend.

Governor Patrick released the following statement:

“Diane and I are shocked and deeply saddened by the sudden loss of Bob Nyman and send our sympathies to his family, his constituents and his colleagues. Throughout his 11 years of service in the House of Representatives, Bob Nyman was a tireless and passionate advocate for his district and for a better, stronger Commonwealth. He was a valued partner and a dear and kind friend. This is a profound loss personally and for the Legislature.”

Massachusetts Republican Party Chairwoman Jennifer Nassour issued the following statement:

I am deeply saddened to hear of the untimely passing of State Representative Robert Nyman. He was a devoted and thoughtful public servant and this is certainly a difficult loss for the people of the Fifth Plymouth. Today is a day to put politics aside and remember his contributions and generosity to those he represented in Hanover, Norwell and Rockland. Our sincerest condolences go out to Representative Nyman’s family and friends.

House Minority Leader Bradley H. Jones, Jr. released the following statement:

I am saddened to hear of the passing of my friend and colleague, Representative Bob Nyman.  My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends as they go through this very difficult time.  To say Bob will be greatly missed by his family, friends, colleagues and the people of the 5^th Plymouth District is an understatement.

Nyman was being challenged in the 5th Bristol Representative District by Jared Valanzola and Korey Welch. Both are new to state politics and Nyman was likely to have won the challenge.

Age, Sex and Race Playing a Significant Role

The race is tightening. In the latest Rasmussen Poll, Patrick who last polled at 45% has seen support drop to 41%. He is still seeing benefits from good economic news. Before recent reports of an economic turn around Patrick was polling in the low 30′s.

Baker continues to rise. As the number of voters with no opinion of Baker shrinks he is seeing his poll numbers rise as expected. Probably not as quickly as he needs to, but the differential between Patrick and Baker is narrowing.

Cahill who was polling well above 25%, is again showing extremely low support, and high unfavorability. He is at least holding level for now. 14% from one poll to 16% in another is within the noise and tells us nothing about whether he’s gaining – or continuing to drop. As we get closer to the election and it looks like Cahill doesn’t have a chance of actually winning, these voters are likely to break for Baker more than Patrick.

One significantly missing piece of data is that Rasmussen’s tracking poll doesn’t include Jill Stein. In the most recent WNEC poll, Stein was polling at a very significant 8%. It’s difficult for Rasmussen to include her now without damaging the validity of his tracking. But without including her, it’s hard to judge how many progressives ultimately will go with Stein or Patrick.

For Patrick the drop from 45% to 41% is probably significant. And I think Baker’s rise is probably true as well – as it’s a continuation of a rising trend.

The key number in this poll – like all the other recent Governor’s race polls is how many people are undecided about Baker. Patrick and Cahill now have almost no people undecided about them. Their movement is going to be more limited.

Baker still has 20% undecideds to mine so it’s likely that his rising trend will continue over the coming weeks. By end of July I think Baker will be well known to voters and then the competitive landscape will even out with all candidates having to convert people who are already decided on another candidate.

If there is no significant positive or negative news on Patrick and Baker, I expect that by late July they will be about even, just from the trend of people getting to know Baker better.

• Biggest risk for Patrick: economic news reverses itself.
• Biggest risk for Cahill: continuing bad news about his insider ties keep him down, lack of money hurts his ability to get his message out.
• Biggest risk for Baker: that he fails to convert a significant portion of the 20% undecided block to his column. he needs to end July about even with Patrick or its an uphill battle for him.

Demographics Playing a Very Key Role

Age

Among working age voters 18-49, Baker leads significantly ( Baker 42%, Patrick 39%, Cahill 16% ). Patrick is making up the differential in older voters ( 65+ going with Patrick by 51%)

One thing that could be going on here is that older voters may be more swayed by good economic news because they aren’t directly affected by the very poor job market. Working age voters are probably not seeing good jobs news on the ground.

You see this also in the Governor’s favorability ratings by age. Only 2% of voters 18-39 see Patrick’s performance as governor favorably. ( Really – I did a double take when I saw that ). For voters 65+, 24% see Patrick favorably. The good news for Patrick is that older voters are more likely to turn out on election day. The bad news of course is that its younger voters who turn out volunteer for campaigns.

Patrick really needs to get a jobs program for recent college grads going this summer if he wants to get campaign volunteers.

Gender

Baker is leading among men ( Baker 37%, Patrick 36%, Cahill 19% ). Patrick among women ( Baker 31%, Patrick 46%, Cahill 13% ). Given Patrick’s extremely low approval among young voters, this preference by women must be coming disproportionately from women 50 or older. That’s looking like a key demographic for him, and an opportunity for Baker if he can get a more finely focused message to them.

Race

Not surprisingly Patrick leads among black voters ( Baker 16%, Patrick 72%, Cahill 13% ). He leads more narrowly among white voters ( Baker 34%, Patrick 41%, Cahill 15% ).

What is really surprising here is that among voters who identify as “other” ( presumably Hispanic and Asian voters ) Baker leads by a very wide margin ( Baker 46%, Patrick 20%, Cahill 27% ). Patrick is so unpopular in this demographic that even Cahill is beating him. (Someone call the RGA and tell them to run their ads in Spanish!)

More surprising still is that Baker supports the bill to limit services to illegal immigrants and Patrick doesn’t.

What People Are Saying

The spin from various camps is predictable. Doug Rubin, Patrick’s former Chief of Staff and campaign manager tries to put the poll in the best light possible, calling out that Patrick is leading, and that Baker has been unable to close the gap:

As you can see, Governor Patrick’s lead has been as low as 3% and as high as 14% in the poll, and I assume it will continue to move around due to the methodology of the poll, but it has remained roughly the same as it was in November 2009.

The Rasmussen data also shows a significant increase in Governor Patrick’s favorability ratings since last year, spurred in part by the positive economic news of the past few months.  April showed the largest monthly job gain in 17 years, and MA has created over 44,000 new jobs in the last four months.  In addition, business confidence has grown 13 out of the last 15 months, and numerous independent studies have shown that MA is recovering faster and stronger than the rest of the country.

Overall, this latest Rasmussen poll is good news for the Patrick campaign.  We have weathered a significant negative TV blitz, forced the Baker campaign to spend hundreds of thousands on TV ads early, and maintained a solid lead in the polls.  We still have a lot of work to do, but our grassroots organization is growing exponentially, and Governor Patrick and Lieutenant Governor Murray are delivering every day for the people of Massachusetts.

Jon Keller sees this poll as we do, very unfavorable to Patrick:

These numbers can and will be spun every which way, and to some extent early polling often reflects little more than name recognition. But Patrick cannot be pleased at continuing to struggle to get into the low 40s, especially after several months of positive free-media exposure, marginally improved economic news, and underwhelming performances by his opponents.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – elections featuring incumbents are usually a referendum on those incumbents, and Deval Patrick is one of the least-popular incumbents I’ve seen in more than three decades of covering Massachusetts politics.

Republican activist Paul Ferro sees it as bad for Patrick as well:

As I’ve said all along, this race is between Deval and Not Deval.  Deval is at 40%+/- Not Deval is at 60%+/-.  Not Deval wins.  With Cahill stagnant at 15% (I’m averaging) it’s really going to be whether people will want Deval or Baker.

I think Deval is pretty much stuck at 40%, and won’t move very much.  Stein will draw off 2-3% from the left.  When push comes to shove, Cahill’s 15% will drop to between 7-10%, and those votes will go to Baker (Main Not Deval) as the vast majority of undecideds, as they tend to do, break to the Challenger.

Final score?  Right now, I’d say 47% Baker, 10% Cahill, 3% Stien, 40% Deval.

RedMassGroup is reporting that a recent Public Opinion Strategies poll shows Jeff Perry with a commanding lead over Joe Malone of 41% to 25%.

• Seniors:  Perry +37%
• Republicans:  Perry +25%
• “Tea Party” Supporters: Perry +26%
• “Very Interested” Voters: Perry +18%
• Heard of both candidates: Perry +42%
• Opinion of both candidates: Perry +60%

Candidate » Jeff Perry (R) » Joe Malone (R) » Bill Keating (D) » Rob O’Leary (D)

Perry’s opponents have been trying to make an issue of an incident in the early 1990s’ when Perry was  a Wareham police sargent, one of the officers reporting to him was involved in a questionable strip search of a 14 year old girl. But Perry is currently polling a very strong 45% favorable, and only 3% unfavorable showing that the story has not gained much traction. Primaries are generally less contentious than general elections, and its possible that criticism of Perry may become more vicious in the general. While the incident is troubling, and the officer involved received a 4 year prison sentence, Perry was not directly involved – neither participating or having directly witnessed it. This poll shows that voters may think that attempts to tie Perry to the incident is unfair. So a candidate who tries to push this issue may find that it backfires. Perry has been polling extremely well in a number of Republican “straw polls”. In a Plymouth County GOP straw poll in June Perry received 59% of the vote in a field of 8 candidates. In the Cape Cod Republican Club straw poll Perry received 95% Perry won another straw polls by the Sandwich Republican Town Committee Candidate’s Online Presence Both Malone and Perry have been running strong well run campaigns. But Perry seems to be consolidating the majority of early Republican support on the internet. Perry has 2,800 facebook friends to Malone’s 712. He has a lead on twitter as well ( 627 to Malone’s 116). His strategy of organizing activists with his “Perry’s Patriots” site has gathered 437 members to date. Both Perry and Malone’s internet strategies are leading John O’Leary by a large margin. O’Leary has gathered only 541 facebook friends, and 85 twitter followers. Why is Perry Doing So Well? The 10th Congressional District has been trending strongly toward Republican candidates in recent years, voting for Scott Brown with 70% of the vote. Sot it’s not surprising that both Republicans are doing well here. Perry has a number of basic social advantages: he’s younger, better looking and a better speaker than his competitors. His speaking style is clear, easy to understand and inspirational. But there are issues that resonate with voters as well. Both Malone and Perry have clear messages that resonate with voters: on jobs, the economy, health care reform, and political reform. O’Leary has not been able yet to articulate a clear message on these issues. His message so far has a top line of the environment, supporting cape wind, and his work with non-profits. These are things that many voters will view positively – but they are not among voters main concerns this election cycle. Between Malone and Perry, Perry has just been able to get his message out better and faster than Malone. Perry has one other advantage: Like Scott Brown, he is a long time supporter of Father’s Rights issues. He is currently a co-sponsor of both H1400 the Shared Parenting bill, and H1785 the Alimony Reform bill. Perry has been a leader on these issues for several years running, and the very active supporters of these popular bills are coming out for him over Malone who has so far been silent on them. O’Leary is a supporter of Shared Parenting as well.

Josh Cutler

Josh Cutler is a candidate for the 6th Plymouth Representative District (Duxbury, Halifax, Hanson and Pembroke).

Cutler was honored as one of the region’s top 40 young business leaders last week. The “40 under 40” awards, sponsored by Plymouth and Cape Business Magazine, are designed “to spotlight young business leaders who excel in their industry and show dynamic leadership.” An awards banquet was held at the Plymouth Radisson on Wednesday. Cutler, 39, previously served 10 years as publisher of a family-owned newspaper business. He is running for state representative as the Democratic candidate in the 6th Plymouth District. For more information on the Cutler Campaign, visit www.joshcutler.com.

Candidate OCPF » Daniel K. Webster (R) $2,146 (Incumbent) » Josh S. Cutler (D) $13,034

Cutler is a former Hull selectman, a legislative aide for State Senator Mark Montigny, and for many years was editor of the Duxbury Clipper.  He has a more complete biography here.

Cutler is challenging Republican Daniel Webster. The 6th Plymouth is a Republican leaning district that voted for Scott Brown by about 65%.

Cutler is running as a centrist Democrat with a focus on preserving quality of life while maintaining responsible budgets. He has a smart top line issue: preserving local aid:

As the parent of a young child, Josh knows there’s nothing more fundamental than the promise of a quality education. Continued state budget cuts imperil that promise. Even in difficult economic times protecting local aid will always be Josh’s priority.

The chapter 70 local aid budget is used by cities and towns to supplement their school budgets. It has been cut three years in a row now, and will almost certainly be cut again this year ( even as the entire patronage laden state budget is likely to grow by 3% ).

Mike Walsh

Attorney Mike Walsh, Democract from Westwood, officially announced his candidacy for the Suffolk and Norfolk State Senate District. (Westwood, Norwood, Dedham, West Roxbury, Roslindale and Hyde Park )

State Rep. Mike Rush is also running for the seat, but he has been dogged by his close ties to the Probation Department Patronage Scandal. It’s a dirty and fascinating story about how insider politics works in Massachusetts.

His two challengers, Democrat Mike Walsh, and Republican Brad Williams have booth been running partly on a platform of reform of the long standing patronage problem and clean politics generally. And Walsh addresses it directly in his announcement:

Attorney Michael (“Mike”) Walsh has announced his candidacy for the State Senate seat in the Suffolk/Norfolk District, which includes Boston (ward 20, sixteen precincts of ward 18 and two precincts in ward 19), and the towns of Dedham, Norwood and Westwood.

In announcing his candidacy, Walsh said he is “running for State Senate because hard-working families are struggling in these challenging economic times and strong leadership is needed. Massachusetts is tired of the arguments, innuendos, gamesmanship, deals and patronage that have come to characterize the state legislature.”

Walsh was born the son of a retired Boston Police Officer and a retired Vice President of Meetinghouse Cooperative bank in Dorchester, both of whom were from Mission Hill. He grew up in Dorchester, the oldest of four, and lived in West Roxbury for eleven years. He moved to Westwood four years ago.

Michael Walsh is an attorney with a distinguished, unblemished career. His career includes 22 years of aggressively representing working individuals and their families. “Living in the City of Boston and now Westwood,” Walsh said, “I have a personal knowledge of a wide variety of people and neighborhoods, and have acquired the life skills needed to fight for the things that matter to the entire district.”

A Democrat who believes strongly in the values of the Democratic Party, in the State and US Constitutions, and in defending them and their provisions, Walsh has never held an elected government position.

• He is disappointed in the patronage, lobbyists and self-service at the expense of tax payers that seem epidemic in government, and promises to fight these practices and keep them from polluting the Suffolk and Norfolk District’s public service and representation.
• He believes in being fiscally responsible to the taxpayers.
• He believes in term limits and representing the will of the citizens of the Commonwealth.
• He believes that a solid education with good public schools (in all neighborhoods) will make us a stronger Massachusetts and the leader in this Country.

“As Senator, I will work for you each and every day,” said Walsh, adding that he will “meet with businesses to develop increased economic opportunities and create jobs, and work with primary care physicians to fix the Massachusetts health care system by containing costs.” Communication, strong leadership and standing his ground will be hallmarks of his Senate service, he said. “I have learned to listen to you, return phone calls and work to get results,” he promised. “When elected, I will not forget these vastly important life skills.”

Walsh is having his Kick-off/Fundraiser on Wednesday June 23, 2010 at the Norfolk Golf Course at 6:30PM.

Walsh also sends voters the following message:

Think running for office is political? Try getting endorsements. Nothing is more discouraging then spending time answering the questionnaire after questionnaire about how you feel and how you would vote as the next senator, if legislation were proposed on a certain topic, only to have your effort wasted by a sham of a process. For example, after first announcing my candidacy for State Senate I was asked to complete an association’s questionnaire. (The Association will remain nameless at this point, but let’s say you find its membership at every hospital.) After answering favorable to most, if not all questions and stating the reasons substantiating my opinion, the endorsement of this association was posted on my opponent’s website. No phone call, no interview, no courtesy explanation. Lesson learned.

Another and still discouraging endorsement was by the very union that I serve as of counsel to, representing the membership for most, if not all workers’ compensation claims. They have decided to support the state rep.  Fortunately, my clients will support me and get the word about my dedication, my character to the membership. How do such things happen? Politics. No, not the politics I know and believe, but the “politics” we have let our country become by standing on the sidelines and watching. When we stand on the side, we let special interests take control.

I have been called a pit-bull by my opponents and guardian angel by my clients. I am humbled and flattered by both. I never forget, nor will I forget, that I work for my clients. I must do what is best for them. Not for me, or for my benefit.

If you ‘re satisfied with the direction this country is headed, then continue to stand by the side, don’t vote, don’t volunteer, don’t get involved.

I’m running because I care. I care about the future; the future of this state, this country. I want to change the direction for my children, for your children and grandchildren. I want our future to be better, but I can’t do it alone. I believe one person can make a difference when elected. So what will you do this year? In September? In November?

The choice is yours, I’ve made mine. www.mwalsh.com

“Leadership is a potent combination of character and strategy. But if you must be without one, be without strategy.” General Norman H. Schwarzkopf Jr.

5th Congressional District Republican Candidates Debate

The four Republican candidates challenging Rep. Niki Tsongas for 5th Congressional Representative debated at the Shirley Republican Town Committee Candidate Forum on April 10th. The video was posted today, and it helps give us a sense if any of these challengers can be a serious threat to Rep. Tsongas.

Jon Golnik is clearly the standout from among the four. He had specific, rational policy ideas on every question. He knows the facts behind the issues, and his policy ideas seem to be based on practicality and reality. He seems like the kind of practical political leader who can listen to different sides of an issue and find reasonable solutions.

Sam Meas also represented himself fairly well. He had many good policy ideas and he seemed to know the issues – but not nearly as well as Golnik. Language is a problem for him. His English isn’t great, and being a politician requires among other things, the ability to communicate well. He would be at a severe disadvantage debating Tsongas. She doesn’t have the rhetorical gifts of someone like Barney Frank, but she can be a powerful speaker. To have a chance Republicans need a candidate who has the language skills to go up against her. (Watch the video of Tsongas to get a sense of what these candidates are up against.

Tom Weaver and Bob Shapiro don’t sound like serious candidates, and were simply not well prepared. Neither of them gave many policy specifics. They were vague and long on rhetoric, but very short on substance. And some of the things they said were frankly wacky.

Candidate OCPF » Niki Tsongas (D) $380,660 (incumbent) » Jon Golnik (R) $133,396 » Sam S. Meas (R) $-6,960 » Robert L. Shapiro (R) $1,898 » Thomas J. M. Weaver (R)

The Points Made in the Debate

I watched the whole 8 part mini-series. It’s worth watching part of the debate to get a rough sense of how these candidates present themselves. If you just want to skip to their policy positions I have the following notes:

Jon Golnik:

Health Care Reform:

• The current healthcare reform bill is a “job killer”
• He believes real health care reform starts with tort reform, which he says would save $94 billion over 10 years.
• He would increase competition among insurers by allowing people to buy insurance across state lines.
• He believes states must repeal mandated coverage for some procedures to control costs.
• The current health care bill includes a 3% excise tax on medical device manufacturers, which would hurt the district’s manufacturing base.
• The current healthcare bill cuts MediCare re-imbursements, which reduces citizen access to healthcare.

Economy and Jobs:

• He would give $10,000 tax credit for businesses that hire new employees.
• He would increase small businesses access to credit by expanding SBA loans.
• He would reduce the current 35% corporate tax rate.

Controlling Spending:

• He is against TARP bailouts and government overspending.
• Extend bush tax cuts to 2012
• Reduce spending by repealing the health care bill, stopping further spending on economic stimulus and government bailouts.
• Eliminate dept. of education, devolve decision making to the state and local level.

Illegal Immigration:

• He belives in diversity, and that immigrants are a benefit to the country, but insists they must come here legally.
• He is practical on amnesty for illegal immigrants. He would consider amnesty if it worked, but Reagan tried it, and it didn’t work so he does not support it.
• He would strictly enforce employer verification of illegal immigrants.

Foreign Policy:

• He supports the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• The biggest foreign policy threats are failed states: Iraq Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, North Korea.
• Does not support trying terrorists in civil courts. He said: “Someone comes here and tries to destroy our constitution should not be afforded the protections of that very document.” (ed: I think here he misunderstands the purpose of civil liberties. We must extend constitutional protections to others so that our own rights are protected.)

Other Stuff:

• He believes Tsongas unresponsive to voter concerns – especially on healthcare reform.
• Democrats and Republicans are well intentioned but would put country on different paths.
• Does not promise to be perfect – but promises to be responsive, and to let people know where he stands.

The debate was about an hour long, and each candidate got to speak for about 12 minutes total. You can see from this list that Golnik was able to cover a lot of ground, with a great deal of detail. One great thing, is that even though he was able to communicate ideas quickly – he managed to keep the language simple and straightforward.

As a speaker was not especially passionate or inspiring, but definitely sounded professional and competent. He sounded like a congressman.

part 2

part 3

part 4

part 5

part 6

part 7

part 8

Sam Meas:

Health Care Reform:

• Supports parts of the bill, including insurance for catastrophic care and pediatrics.
• Says the rest is a disaster, increased costs and beaurocracy. Would repeal most of it.
• Supports tort reform.
• He would increase competition among insurers by allowing people to buy insurance across state lines.

Economy and Jobs:

• Would remove penalty on early withdrawls from 401k so people can access their retirement during the recession.
• Would cut business taxes 50% across the board

Illegal Immigrations:

• Against illegal immigration
• Against amnesty
• Against factory raids. Says they are counter productive.
• Penalize employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
• Increase foreign aid around the world and then charge foreign nations for health care costs to illegal immigrants from that nation. (ed: Does that mean we have to start by sending massive foreign aid to Mexico, before we can charge them with their health care costs? )
• Would make sure borders are sealed.

Foreign Policy:

• Supports the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
• Says we got rid of the Taliban. (ed: really?)

Controlling Spending:

• We should focus on spending cuts before tax cuts.
• We can’t cut spending without sacrifice: Would reduce spending on Social Security and MediCare.

Other:

• Says we must get rid of Niki Tsongas, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and vote in more Republicans to the Massachusetts state legislature.

Robert Shapiro:

Shapiro’s answers were generally rambling, short on specifics and sometimes a little wacky.

Health Care Reform:

• Would repeal the health care bill
• Says people have always had access to health care through emergency rooms. (ed: the problem with that is out of control costs)

Foreign Policy:

• Focus less on fighting in Afghanistan & Iraq and more on sealing up our borders and beefing up intelligence so we can see threats in advance.

Controlling Spending:

• Would Lower taxes. Said: “There is no such thing as a tax cut without a spending cut”.  Cut spending first, then cut taxes.
• Predicts deficit spending may cause hyperinflation.

Illegal Immigration:

• Would “seal the borders”.
• No public benefits to illegals since they don’t pay taxes. (ed: they do)
• Against amnesty.
• Be prepared the price of lettuce to go up.

Other:

• All bills should have to go through a “constitution committee” which would approve them only if they are constitutional. (ed: Wouldn’t this then be a super committee that essentially would control congress. Can I be on that?)
• Would impose a 100 page limit on any bill submitted to congress.

Weaver:

Weaver has a sort of Wilfred Brimley warmth to him. His answers were full of metaphors, and folksy imagery, but very little in the way of policy.

• Cites navy experience
• Would lower taxes to create jobs.
• Would repeal the health care bill.
• Can’t set tax rates while spending is out of control.
• Legislators should read the constitution to control spending.
• Supports a balanced budget amendment.
• Hinted at cutting retirement programs like social security, but didn’t quite say it.
• Seemed to advocate a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
• Would “seal the borders”.