Category / Politics

by hereandsphere

OUR VIEW : TEACHER TENURE IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL !

California teachers case

Three days ago a California court ruled that California laws addressing tenure for teachers is unconstitutional. We disagree in part.

Laws regarding tenure may be overturned and may be ruled unconstitutional. But for the most part, tenure is not a matter of statute but of contract. Already the ruling by Judge Rolf Treu of Los Angeles Superior Court has generated big ideas from those groups who want to break teachers’ unions, and one can surely expect cases like the California instance to be brought in many states. It’s not a development I welcome at all.

Before i discuss my own opinion, I invite you to read Judge Treu’s. Follow the link below :

Judge Treu is correct that California has handled teacher tenure in a discriminatory way. I applaud him for seeking to undo the harm caused. But the problem, as I see it, is not tenure. the problem is its misapplication. Granted, that tenure by state statute opens the door to misapplication, where tenure by contract negotiation does not.

In Massachusetts, teacher tenure is a contractual covenant. Both the MTA and BTU unions have such a covenant in their collective bargain agreements. as such, the provision is a fairly dealt deal and appropriately implemented. Tenure by contract does not require the imposition of bad teachers on students in the classroom. In boston the contract includes a provision — which Superintendent McDonough is now using — that enables principals hiring autonomy and to slot replaced teachers into other school jobs. this isn’t ideal — it would be more effective simply to terminate incompetent teachers, by buying out their tenure if need be — but it’s not scandalous. Covenants bargained for cannot be pushed aside.

Every time a teacher union contract comes up for negotiation, because the public is the payer, the public gets to opine on what should or cannot be in the new contract. it’s a kind of referendum, that legitimizes the agreement eventually agreed to. call it democracy in action — a good thing.

Tenure by state statute seems less democratic and much harder to administer. Still, there are answers even to tenure by law that fall short of declaring them unconstitutional. The law can be spelled out in state regulations issued thereunder that authorize (1) buyouts of tenured employees not performing to standard (2) a longer period before tenure is granted — in California the period is two years, much too brief (3) a board of monitors to oversee teacher assignment, so that poor and minority school districts do not become dumping grounds for poor teachers.

Life is complex. No part of it more so than public education, an institution vast and heterodox to the max. But : you want to have public education, you learn to live with heterodoxy. it’s not beyond our pay grade.

That California has failed, Judge Treu makes clear. His remedy however seems more like a hasty rant than a wise ruling.

—- Mike Freedberg / Here and Sphere

by hereandsphere

MASSACHUSETTS : CHOOSING A NEXT ATTORNEY GENERAL

photo (32)

photo (31)

top photo : Warren Tolman with State Rep. Ed Coppinger of West Roxbury

bottom photo : Maura Healey at a meet & greet in Jamaica Plain

— — — —

Voters have to choose, sometimes between the lesser of two evils but not always. once in a while voters get to choose between two candidates both superb. That’s difficult. it’s difficult for me. In politics I’m not used to such luxury, but in the current race to choose a new Massachusetts Att0rney General that’s what we’ve got.

Warren Tolman would have been a superior candidate for governor much less Attorney General. Watertown town meeting member, State Representative, State Senator; retired to private practice as an attorney of distinction. his brother Steven Tolman is a major, long time labor leader in our state. Tolman speaks impressively, has commanding presence, should easily be nominated and just as readily elected over the very honorable but politically nowhere, Republican nominee, John Miller of Winchester.

Except that Tolman has a rival of almost equal resume and who is a very eloquent speaker to boot. Maura Healey currently serves as Martha Coakley’s top Att0rney General assistant and claims insider status : she knows the office and has alrready worked — successfully, passionately — on the issues it confronts. At a recent met and greet at Canary Square in Jamaica Plain — hosted by District City councillor Matt O’Malley, Healey spoke forcefully on point, hitting the bullseye on every count, from civil rights to consumer protection to mortgage lender confrontations. She also looked terrific — and yes, that may seem like a sexist remark, but it still matters a lot where a female candidate is at issue. (and is there something wrong with looking one’s best ? I hope not.)

Tolman will NOT get the authoritative better of Healey. But neither will she get the better of him. When it comes to fund raising, both candidates show major clout. Each has raised more than four of the seven or eight) Governor candidates. Below is a tally of each’s fundraising since March 1, 2014 :

Tolman :

raised March 1 -1 5 41,217.97
raised March 16-31 94,598.47
raised April 1 – 15 56,310.00
raised April 16-30 75,161.50
raised May 1 – 15 64,177.48
raised May 16-31 98,979.88
— ending balance 766,262.14

Healey

raised March 1 -15 19,651.86
raised March 16-31 81,736.11
raised April 1 – 15 25,145.90
raised April 16-30 81,377.81
raised May 1- 15 23,474.61
raised May 16-31 79,498.89
— ending balance 484,884.90

The money says that Healey is an underdog. So does her following : it’s weighted heavily to the Progressive side, representing about one-third — not more — of activist Democrats. Tolman, on the other hand, commands big support from labor — as you’d expect — and from legislators and establishment types.

Tolman hasn’t set priorities yet, and it’s unlikely he will concentrate on cutting edge legal strategies. Healey will surely oversee the state’s three casino projects rigorously ; she opposes casinos but acknowledges that our State is probably going to have them. Tolman’s labor supporters very much want the casinos for the jobs they will bring.

All this said, both candidates merit a strong thumbs up from this journalist, and they have it. It may be a cowardly decision on my part, but i am going to say it anyway : readers, pick either candidate. You won’t go wrong.

—- Mike Freedberg / Here and Sphere

by hereandsphere

MAGOV14 : THE NEW GLOBE POLL AND WHAT IT TELLS US

1 Baker and Coakley BG

^ closing the gap ; Martha Coakley now leads Charlie Baker by only 5 points, and the lean is in his direction

—- —- —-

About three hours ago the Boston Globe published anew poll showing some significant movement in the relative positions of the leading candidates for Governor. Specifically, the poll showed these numbers

Baker 32  Coakley 37

Baker 32 Grossman 26

Against Juliette Kayyem and Don Berwick, Baker leads. Kayyem and Berwick remain unknown to almost 80 percent of Massachusetts voters.

This is a link to the graphic detailing the numbers in this poll : http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2014/06/05/close-race-for-governor-ahead/lGwwKzkrTQlulHrEXdTgDO/igraphic.html

Now let us take a closer look at baker’s numbers against Grossman and Coakley and you will see that he is doing better even than these numbers indicate :

Baker is unknown by over 20 % of Massachusetts voters but draws 32 percent.
Coakley is unknown by only 5 % (or less) and draws 37 %. What this comparison actually tells us that Baker is ahead even of Coakley though he polls behind by 5 points. Baker gets his 32 percent from 80% — a “win rate” of 40 %. Coakley gets her 37 % from 95 % of voters : a “win rate of 38 %. assuming that Baker continues to win 40 % of the 20 % who don’t know him, and Coakley wins only 38 % of these voters, the November result would be something like Coakley 44.5 %, Baker 40 %, leaving the decision up to a still large number of undecideds (the two independent candidates draw 9 % and 2 % respectively, but as election day nears their vote will decrease).

Against Steve Grossman, Baker gets, as I said, his same 32 percent from 80 % of the voters; Steve Grossman gets his 26 % from the 60 % of voters who know his name. Grossman’s “win rate” is much higher than Coakley’s. He is getting 42 % among the 60 % of voters who know him. This gives him a November target of 43 %, a margin of three points over Baker’s November potential.

Both Baker results now point to a very close race; and the momentum at present is strongly running in baker’s direction. He is making a strong impression, and — surprise — capturing the interest, and tweaking the imagination, of city voters. Given that about 16 % of Massachusetts voters remain undecided (or supporting one of the side candidates), Baker has strong potential to close the gap with both Grossman and Coakley. A nine to seven break in his favor makes it a one point race versus Grossman and a two pointer versus Coakley.

At that point., all bets are off. Baker can win this thing. Right now I think he will. But yes, there is a long way to go and much can change.

—- Mike Freedberg / Here and Sphere

by hereandsphere

MAGOV14 : WHAT THE DORCHESTER DAY PARADE SHOWED ME

1 charlie b aker and karyn polito

^ right now, the team to beat : Karyn Polito and Charlie Baker

—- —- —-

Governor campaigns in Massachusetts resemble no other partisan election here. Whatever the polarization poisoning elections to national office, none have any force when our commonwealth’s voters go to choose who will run things at the State House. It was proved to me forcefully, yesterday at the iconic Dorchester day parade. There, marching over three miles along Dorchester Avenue from Lower Mills to Columbia Road, Republican candidate Charlie Baker got a very enthusiastic reception from the crowd — mot of whose hands he shook. There, in the heartland of Marty Walsh’s almost entirely Democratic-enrolled wards of Boston, Baker — and his electrifying running mate Karyn Polito — conquered all. Beyond the reception, which might well be just a nicety, there was commitment given by many activists and neighborhood leaders whom i talked to. There was also, so a first hand source told me, a very good bond established– revived — even celebrated — between Mayor Walsh and both Baker and Polito, conversing before the parade’s start, with whom, after all, Walsh served during his legislative time. I do not suppose a commitment was given; that wouldn’t work. But my source’s impression — that of a political activist — was that Baker, Polito, and Walsh made it clear to each other that they could work together and would work together if Baker is elected. One friend, who is himself a candidate this year (not for Governor), seeing the reception given to Baker, told me quite directly : “Baker’s gonna win.” There are several solid reasons why Baker and Polito look so strong right now : 1. Baker and Polito are running as a team. On the Democratic side, with four (of five) governor hopefuls running and three (or four) lieutenant governor hopefuls, who knows who will be the ticket ? Or if they can work together, even like one another ? In addition, none of the Democratic candidates or the second spot has anything close to the experience that Karyn Polito has, not to mention the charisma. 2. Baker — and Polito — have forged solid ties to several big-city ethnic communities, not to mention the LGBT communities. I’ve personally witnessed it and seen the results as I have talked to many, many people whom I know in all these communities. The reception given baker and Polito at the Dorchester Day parade tells me that, as of now, they’d win a much bigger share of the Boston vote than any of the Democratic hopefuls : possibly as much as 40 %. Of course the election is NOT now. But the momentum and presence is there. 3.The fundamental fact of how Massachusetts is governed is that only a GOP governor has a power base big enough, and independent enough, to deal with the Speaker of the House on a more or less equal footing. When the governor is a Democrat, he or she and the Speaker compete for influence within the same party — or else they split the party, and as has been shown time and again, the Speaker always wins that fight. It’s his agenda, his priorities, his timing, his details, that get enacted. With a strongly based GOP governor — and baker would be that — there’s influence on legislation beyond the Speaker’s range of power, and a GOP governor isn’t embarrassed, as Governor Patrick has been, facing a Speaker who is also a Democrat, to compromise with a Speaker not of his own party. Thus the fact ; a GOP governor and Democratic Speaker move the state forward with strong political efficiency. At last night’s Governor / Lieutenant Governor Forum at Roxbury Community College, all of the weaknesses of the Democratic position stood in plain sight. The lieutenant governor trio — Mike Lake, Steve Kerrigfan, James Arena-DeRosa- either bloviated with great prolixity Lake) or talked blue ribbon agendas that would do justice to a high school civics aclass but on which no elected lieutenant governor — certainly not these three, whom no one but activists has ever heard of — would have the slightest influence. The governor hopefuls definitely have learned a thing or two since I first saw them on stage Forum-ing. At the Roxbury event several actually mentioned Speaker DeLeo, quite respectfully too. Clearly they see that they had better include him in their message, because of exactly the problem i have outlined. The matter is not merely my own thing. at several recent Forums, progressives have pushed the governor hopefuls ; what exactly will you do about the Spreaker’s conservatism ? the answer that i heard most often last night was “compromise.” That they will have to do, because the agendas set forth by several at the Forum reach for the moon, a place that does not include Speaker DeLeo in its population. It is not a good sign when candidates feel the need to mae promises which they surely cannot keep, just as surely will have to unravel if they’re to get anything at all done. And much needs be done. Juliette Kayyem continues to get the fundamental point, one that Charlie baker has been talking for two months ; the state needs to modernize its systems big time. Baker calls it “move the state’s technology into the 21st Century,” Kayyem calls it “better data management,’ but the policy point is the same. Steve Grossman soke the Forum’s best answer, to any question, when in two minutes he summed up the injustice and the financial waste of incarcerating people for low level drug offenses. His message is too “jobs and business” to fit the progressive dream, but time and again he shows long and profound command of social justice issues. Clearly as governor he will be as aggressive as possible ; “level playing field, no one left out.” Yet Grossman has no more, or longer, commitment to social justice issues than Baker, and so far I have yet to see a Grossman plan that surpasses the social justice, economic connection tandem that Charlie Baker has put forth. All of what i have just written can change. Next weekend the democrats convene to choose a party nominee. After that, media focus will shift to that nominee and to the Democratic run up to the September primary. Baker will no longer have the voters basically to himself. And if the Democratic nominee has to play catch-up — ironic, in this bluest of states on national issues — there’s plenty of Democratic voters to play catch up with. Still, Baker and Polito have given themselves a huge head start; and my experience says that votes won early are the votes won most solidly. Steve Grossman, now the likely Democratic nominee, has a huge fight on his hands.

—- Mike Freedberg / Here and Sphere

by hereandsphere

SCHOOLS REFORM : THE BOSTON SCHOOL FOOD SCANDAL

 

Image

^ answering questions, as here at a recent Mayor Walsh town hall, will be something that Superintendent John McDonough will have to do a lot of, with a big food scandal on the menu

—- —- —-

That the Boston School department’s food operation was seriously flawed, we already knew, well before the Boston Globe’s recent front page story. John Connolly, in last year’s Mayor campaign, made an issue of finding spoiled food in the Department’s food works. The issue didn’t commandeer the campaign because much larger forces rolled into the arena; yet it forecast something we now are paying large attention to, an issue that Mayor Walsh has to deal with whether he likes it or not.

Thanks to a full review of the School Department’s food operation commissioned by interim Superintendent John McDonough, what seemed the entire story was fully bruited. Yet it proved not to be the entire story. Only a few days ago we learned that the Boston school department has eliminated its salad bar, healthy food program from those schools that had it, citing costs. In its place, snacks — the very snacks we don’t want to see kids eating in school (or at all).

Costs matter a lot to John McDonough, who was the Department’s chief financial officer for 20 years, before he became interim superintendent. They do matter. Still, diet seems to me a poor place to economize. Parents already pay for school lunches, if they can. Surely the department can give them value for their money.

McDonough notes that next year’s school budget includes lots of layoffs from the Department’s central administration. These we approve. reports abound of mismanagement, duplication, even no management at all. Problems are reported, then not dealt with. Sometimes it seems as though the managers working under McDonough have but two job goals : first, keep the “super” unaware of the problem and (2) make sure they don’t become news. Surely that mindset will not survive the layoffs, or the story now on every Boston school parent’s reading table. I doubt that the Boston Globe is going to back off at this point, simply because the story is so ripe.

Meanwhile, as my own State Representative tells me he thinks school nutrition is a local, District-level matter, I ask the thirteen good folks on the Boston City Council : can we not pass an ordinance requiring healthy foods at school lunches and banning sugar snacks entirely ? And funding the ordinance, if need be ?

—- Mike Freedberg / Here and Sphere

by hereandsphere

MEMORIAL DAY : OUR VIEW

1 memorial day

^ Memorial day, 1868 : freed former slaves honor the dead who sacrificed to make them free citizens

—- —- —-

What does Memorial Day mean to us ? Surely you already know what this holiday means to the nation’s politicians. they honor the nation’s war dead. So do we; but in doing so, we only skim the surface of a profound social deep. To us, memorial day means…memory. The past. That which cannot be undone because it is done.

Every society must decide what use it will make of its past : because it has happened, and we are ell aware that it happened, and much of it we do not like. Our society does not pike war, we do not favor seeing our sons and daughters die in battle far away or in the streets of downtown. Much that has happened we are glad of; but none of that can trump that which we wish had not happened at all, and in remembering, we resolve to overcome its happening again.

That, i think, is how our society uses the past today. America is a nation founded on doing better than it has done. Continuous improvement is what we are about; thus we use the past as a kind pf marker : this is how we scored yesterday, tomorrow we must score higher.

The politicians will say that we honor our war dead and thank them for their sacrifice. That is the easy part, the obvious. Less obvious, an d certainly more difficult, is to resolve that never again will we deliver our young heroes and heroines headlong into combat. Never again will we readily place our nation in the line of fire that besets so much of the world that our ancestors -=- so runs the mythology and, yes, the fact — left behind for a better land where civil peace accompanies and guides the opportunity to accomplish your dreams.

And if our nation today seems impeded by economic dislocation, chaffed by social prejudices, intimidated by unregulated guns, set adrift by division by class, what do these portend for Dream nation ? Do we continue to move forward, singly and together, or have we turned upon ourselves to find blame instead of friendship and alienation rather than welcome diversity ? And if this ?

that is what Memorial Day ultimately means to me. Not just the heroics of yesterday which we gave thanks to, but whether or not we step up, exchange that kind of heroics for the greater heroism of building a society that prospers together and diversely, and in the process become better people than we have been.

And while we are at it : let us never forget that the honoring of Memorial day began after our Civil war and was the brainchild of freed slaves celebrating those died so that they could be free and full citizens of the nation they did so much to build.

—- Mike Freedberg / Here and Sphere

by hereandsphere

SCHOOLS REFORM : THE HOUSE SAYS YES TO CHARTER CAP LIFT

photo (37) jpg

 

^ triumph day in the House for State Representative Russell Holmes

—- —- —–

Debate on the charter cap lift legislation began at 2 PM yesterday and, according to my best source, who received the news by e-mail, the bill was adopted by a vote of 116 to 35. According to my source, the bill — styled “an act to further narrow the achievement gap,” and first filed by Dorchester State Representative Russell Holmes, was adopted with no amendments. And there were plenty on offer.

Earlier this year I opined at length on the goods and bads of this legislation. In particular I disliked that the bill lifts the cap on charter sc hools only for “underperforming’ districts,’ as state education laws define the term. To me, this was an invitation to shaky, but not disastrous, school distticts, to slack their efforts, so as to be designated “underperforming” ; because parents a with children enrolled in such districts would now have an alternative very much desired and currently not availoable to them. This was what happened when our state adopted Special education’s school plan for children so designated. Parents fought to win “special needs” designation for their children so that they could get the one-on-one curriculum offered by the program.

That said, it is most significant that this legislation was offered by Russell Holmes, who represents one of the economically poorest districts in the state. charter schools are intensely wanted by parents in such neighborhoods, which have had to bear with some of the worst performing schools in the State. It’s hard not to conclude that the money and talent goes to school districts with higher income, more influential parents. Those without money lack power; that;s a fact. One doesn’t like to see low-income districts lose confidence in public schools, but that’s how it is; and who are we to tell such parents that no, you can’t have a chance at something better ?

It was argued to me, by my own state Representative, that the teachers and staff in marginal districts would fight NOT to be designated as “underperforming” because it might mean layoffs and the imposition of principals’ autin hiring new staff. This is a powerful argument; I think that my State Rep has it right.

If so, then the House’s 116-35 enactment vote yesterday will be on balance a good thing. Reimubursement, for pupils lost to charter schools, to the school districts so affected remains an issue both ways. The formula seems arbitrary. But it’s also a way to get more State funds into the budgets of affected school districts. As State education funds aid to local school systems has all but diusapperared, the reimbursement money will surely be very welciome at the district level.

—- Mike Freedberg / Here and Sphere

by hereandsphere

6th CONGRESS DISTRCT : THREE CANDIDATES, ALL FLAWED

Image

Image

^ from the top : John Tierney (D-incumbent) and Rich Tisei (R-challenger); Seth Moulton (D-challenger)

—- —- —-

What to make of the puzzling battle hotting up in our State’s 6th Congressional District ? It’s not a simple matter. I live in the District, have been involved with its Congressional elections since 2010, know and like both the Republican nominee, Rich Tisei, and the Democratic incumbent, John Tierney; I haven’t yet met Tierney’s Democratic Primary challenger, Seth Moulton of Marblehead, but am impressed by what i have seen of him on social media and in the press. Still, impressed doesn’t mean convinced. Not convinced by Moulton and also not by Tierney or Tisei.

Let me tell you why. I speak here as a voter in the District as well as a journo :

First, Rich Tisei, the Republican challenger. A few days ago I received an e-mail from his campaign in which he spoke of economic growth. Now, let’s be clear ; Tisei is a hero of civil rights; I was hopeful to find from him some equally bold proposals for economic advance. If not bold, then at least common sense. But what did I read ? That economic growth requires tax breaks for corporations. Why ? Because, said civil rights hero Tisei, they need these incentives in order to start hiring again and to spur their own growth.

Really ?

Didn’t I read the same thing from Mit6t Romney all during the 2012 election ? It made no sense then and doesn’t now.

Word : businesses don’t hire people because they get tax breaks. They hire because consumer demand for their products or services increases. Put more money in consumers’ wallets, they will spend more, and businesses ill hire more people.

This isn’t rocket science, but Tisei doesn’t seem to get it. At a Salem Republican city Committee meeting in 2012, at which tisei — then a Congress candidate for the first run — spoke, he talked about a mortgage broker friend of his being out of work.

I challenged him. said i : “I’m sorry about your mortgage broker friend, but how about 1,000 people with mortgages they can’t pay and which the banks won’t modify ? Rich,” said I,” this is math. Your mortgage broker has one vote. Mortgage borrowers out there have 1,000 votes. what are you going to do about the 1,000 ?”

He had no answer. He still has no answer.

2.Tisei’s big fail on economic issues puts the spotlight on his opponent, incumbemt ten term Congressman john Tierney. It should be an easy decision for me — for you — to vote Tierney, who does get it on economic issues and who almost always promotes the economic reforms — including a much higher living wage — that ordinary people need and which therefore grow the economy. So why not Tierney ?

Why not, is because of the kinds of campaigns that Tierney has run since the worm started turning on him. we all know what that worm was ; he married into a family with a criminal history. His wife Pat is a great gal; I like her a lot. (I also like John.) but John clearly knew more of the Aramian brothers’ affairs than he has admitted, and if only to be a good husband to Pat, he clearly allowed her to accept large sums of money from the trust set up under Federal Court order to oversee the Aramians’ funds. I think that John also did promote legislation that aided his brothers-in-law, and he found himself ensnared and then turned on by his in-laws.

None of the above is in any way criminal. John Tierney is an upstanding citizen. but when you find yourself married into a family with criminals in it, and you are a powerful Congressman, you get trapped. Our district needs a Congressman whose time and energy are not commandeered by criminal in-laws wanting favors and threatening consequences if they don’t get them.

Criminals suck the soul out of those close to them; they are users, users of everything that has social calories. It will take John Tierney much energy to get his criminal in-laws out of his life, much less out of his wife’s. Better he do that as a private citizen and not as our Congressman.

3.So that brings us to Tierney’s most significant Primary challenger, Seth Moulton. (There are two others.) Moulton has raised tons of money — outraised Tierrney each of the last three quarters — and has a fine local resume : US marine, grew up in Salem, raised in Marblehead, graduated from Phillips Andover (disclosure : my alma mater too) and Harvard College.

As for issues, on gun control alone — such a crucial matter — Moulton speaks eloquently for broad-based reform of a situation long since out of control and epidemic. says his website :

“The reality is each year thousands of people are killed in gun-related crimes. We need common sense gun reform, starting with the implementation of universal background checks. It’s too easy for powerful guns to get in the hands of the wrong people. We need to put a stop to that by requiring all gun sellers – whether federally licensed or at a gun show – to run a background check before completing a sale. In addition, we must crack down on gun traffickers with tougher penalties for straw purchasers, ban high-capacity magazines, and keep guns away from domestic abusers and out of schools, churches, bars and restaurants.

I applaud the efforts of Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) for coming together in a bipartisan effort to put forth stronger background checks. While the measure ultimately failed, Senator Manchin plans to revive the amendment in the Senate, and I will advocate for and propose similar legislation in the House.”

This is language you won’t hear from Tierney, for whom bi-partisanship doesn’t exist (and who has called Rich Tisei a Tea Party candidate — a charge so ridiculous it calls in question Tierney’s political sanity. You also won’t likely hear the gun part of it from Tisei, who would like to not mention gun issues at all, given that the national GOP is fully in thrall to this organization of threateners.

But Tisei does talk bipartisanship and has a proven record of it from 22 years serving as Malden-Melrose’s State Senator, as eat that he commanded so strongly that usually he ran unopposed. Tisei’s forward stand on civil rights assures that he will stand well outside the circle of oppose-everything anals who comprise the House GOP. Tisei will, in fact, have no choice bit to work with the House’s Democratic members — though that will require him to lose his “job creator” horse effluent.

Moulton has no such record. If it’s bipartisanship that our District wants, Tisei is the surer choice by far. Also troubling is that Moulton has called Tisei “too extreme” for the District. that sounds a whole lot like John Tierney calling Rich Tisei a tea party candidate. It is demagoguery and unworthy of my vote.

So there you have it. None of the three major candidates seeking the support of our 6th District’s 200,000-plus voters fits the bill very well. Yet one must choose. Right now, my choice, despite serious reservations on economic policy, is Rich Tisei.

—- Mike Freedberg / Here and Sphere

by hereandsphere

MAGOV14 : “IT’S AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE VOTERS A SENSE OF WHO YOU ARE”

 

Image

^ brothers forever, solid love : as it should be :Charlie Baker and Alex Baker

—- —- —-

Charlie Baker, Republican nominee for Governor, yesterday released a vidclip of him meeting with his brother Alex at Alex’s South Boston home. Much comment has been generated, starting with a thread of my facebook page wall, a thread that quickly went viral.

Why all the fuss ? it’s because Alex Baker is gay, and married to his husband, and Charlie Baker has now made this side of his family’s life a flash point in the campaign. As he said in the quote that made this column’s header, the vid gives voters a sense of who Baker is.

Why did he do it ? Or perhaps I should ask, why did he feel he had to do it ? Why did a veteran of the Weld/Cellucci governorships — in which gay citizens were brought fully and openly into into public life – feel the need to prove his civil rights bona fides ? After all, support for one’s gay family member should no longer be any issue at all. In Massachusetts, full civil rights for gay people is a settled matter. Even for transgendered people, full civil rights is settled, at least among ordinary people. But when one is a Massachusetts Republican, these are issues indeed. The national GOP’s blatant bigotry against so many sorts of people who don’t fit its fanciful picture leaves serious politicians like baker almost no choice. Even here in progressive Massachusetts this had to be done, because, as almost everybody now knows, the Massachusetts Republican state Committee infamously revised its party platform to express solidarity with “traditional marriage.”

This, in the state that was first to recognise marriage equality.

The move by the Republican state committee was especially shameful because the republican state committees of other states — far less progressive than we -=- are moving to drop opposition to marriage equality from their platforms.

Immediately after the state committee platform vote, there was outcry and push back. The state party’s own chairperson, Kirsten Hughes, rejected the platform. This was good; but as Baker’s vidclip shows, it wasn’t enough. Massachusetts voters have made it very clear that the national GOP’s toxic views are extremely unwelcome, and Baker felt — correctly — that he needs to make the clearest possible break between him and it. and with the Massachusetts GOP state committee if he hopes to be seen by Massachusetts voters as free of all that toxin.

All of that said, I disagree with Charlie Baker that a campaign is an opportunity to show voters who you are. It’s only an issue when voters fear that who you are might be something quite unlikable.

A campaign — the Charlie Baker campaign too — should be about what your policy plans are and how you intend to implement them, how you’ll work with the legislature, all that stuff. The five Democrats running all have their plans and all of them talk about their plaws and priorities at every Forum and in almost every event. They are serious candidates and they take the job seriously.

Which means that I also disagree with Charlie Baker’s first premise too. Running for office IS a “job interview.” it is that, and it is set up to be that. And Baker has his plans and priorities and has spoken about them at length and continues to. It’s only because the national GOP, and its local state committee division, have imposed a disgraceful burden on his back that he has needed to take this vidclip trip into giving voters “a sense of who (he is).”

—- Mike Freedberg / Here and Sphere

by hereandsphere

MAGOV14 : CHARLIE BAKER’S WELFARE OVERHAUL IS THE WRONG PLAN

 

 1 charlie b aker and karyn polito

^ a welfare overhaul plan that misses the mark : Charlie Baker needs to rethink

—- —- —-

Charlie Baker ought to be rising to victory in this year’s Governor election. his insistence on upgrading the state’s technology — Juliette Kayyem calls it “better data management” — addresses a really big need, one that would lift DCF out of its crises and make all of state government more responsive and transparent. Baker also has shrewd ideas on the use of state-owned real estate, currently non-used, and on building innovation districts so that start-up companies can enable. Baker addresses the state’s homelessness situation more authoritatively than any of the five Democrats, and he supports raising the minimum age — to $ 10.50 or even to $ 11.00 an hour, as well as expanding the earned income tax credit to childless families who would otherwise qualify.

All of these are forward positions, realistic progressivism. They stand squarely in the Massachusetts Governor GOP tradition that gave us reformist government by Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci, and Mitt Romney.

So far, so good. But this week Baker back-slid into the welfare / public assistance issue with a policy paper that makes clear he doesn’t understand the lives of people in need much better than he did in 2010.

One night in that 2010 campaign I asked Charlie Baker to embrace, not put off, our state’s undocumented immigrants. He wasn’t having it. They cost the state too much money in public assistance, he told me.

Never mind that undocumented immigrants work harder than hard, that many pay taxes, and that the last thing most want is to receive welfare. To Baker, undocumented immigrants were simply a burden, a cost. that they might also be consumers and thus row the economy, he didn’t seem to get.

That, it appears, is how he sees people needing public assistance in fact or potentially.

His new plan, which you can read by clicking this link —

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2014/05/gops_baker_unveils_proposal_to_overhaul_welfare

— calls for public assistance applicants to search for work before they receive cash assistance. This suggestion alone would make it almost impossible for people in need to receive it. Does Baker have no clue how hard it is for anyone unemployed to search for work, much less people with no money and usually no way of transporting themselves to job centers ? Most public  assistance goes to single moms who can’t afford child care and who are full-time employed caring for their children. Does Baker not understand that being a full-time care giver to minor children is full time work, hard work too ? Many other people who seek public assistance live in mental crisis. they — and many single moms too — lack the self-confidence to find work or hold a job; they usually lack basic workplace skills as well as social skills essential to working with other employees. Does Baker not understand this ?

I would like to think that he does understand but prefers to “make some cheap political points,’ as Steve Grossman said of him. After all, a large chunk of Baker’s support thinks the poor are a problem, not an opportunity. Fact : Baker’s tweeted his “welfare overhaul” plan, and that tweet has been retweeted more often (30 times as I write this) than any other Baker tweet I looked at.

Baker says that that’s the message he gets from workers at battered women’s shelters and homeless facilities : get tough, give tough love. It might work, were the state to hire 1000s of social service counsellors to guide people in poverty up into the work-force. Maybe Felix G. Arroyo could get it done. Arroyo understands how hard the task is, and he has the trust of many. But Arroyo isn’t part of the Baker team.

Others of Baker’s suggestions compound his view that those in need are simply malingerers. To quote the Boston Herald article I linked above : “Baker said he’d reduce benefit extensions. Instead of allowing six-month extensions of benefits (besides the 24 months allowable under law), he would limit extensions to three months.

“He said that while education should be an allowable substitute for the work requirement, the state should have a 24-month cap for four-year college or community college and a 12-month cap for vocational programs.

Baker’s overhaul seems a combination of “hurry these leeches off our backs and a desire to inflict pain. How else to explain his wanting to increase the age at which recipients become exempt from the work requirement from 60 to 66 ? Does he have any idea what life is like for poor people at age 60, 63, 66 ? I think he knows very well.

Public assistance (PA) needs reform just as almost every part of state administration need reform. But reform should make life better for people, not harder. The legislature is trying to work out PA reforms of its own. Some of these reforms make scant sense. Putting a photograph on a recipient’s EBT card, for example, makes it harder for an invalid, or a person without transportation, to shop for food. As things stand now, a person who cannot get around can give her card to a family member or friend who can shop for her. And why can a person buy most food with her EBT card but not pre-cooked ? It’s strange to see people at Market Basket have to pass by the pre-cooked chickens because EBT won’t allow purchase.

Baker makes two sensible suggestions : (1) denying benefits to people who spend more than 90 days out of state and (2) banning the use of EBT cards for electronic wire transfers. We do want EBT benefits to go to the recipient herself, not to family living elsewhere. even so, the state says that EBT fraud tallies about 0.7 % of the EBT budget. What’s the big deal ?

What suggestions do i have for reforming PA in a way that accounts for reality without being sloppy ? How about these :

1.grant recipients enough food stamps to actually buy a full month’s food, say 60.00 per week per family member. In far too many PA homes people go hungry the last week.

2.award child care assistance to PA recipients seeking work, transitioning to work, and during their entire probation period (usually three months) on the job.

3.include a 5.00 a week EBT allowance for specific household necessities : toilet paper, dishwashing fluid, toothpaste, soap. PA families sometimes have to sell some of their EBT in order to buy these items with cash.

4.expand the state’s “Career Centers” beyond the minimalist job postings — many for abusive and/or very low wage employers — now available. Staff each “Career Center” with an actual job recruiter/headhunter; and budget him or her sufficient pay to want to do the job diligently

5.because communication is essential for PA people, who often have major health issues, expand the number of minutes available to PA recipients who use the State’s “track phone,” and offer a phone that has texting and address book capabilities.

6.Raise the minimum wage to at least $ 11.00 an hour — maybe higher — so that work (1) will enable people to not need PA and (2) pays significantly more than PA.

I look forward to hearing what Charlie Baker has to say about these reforms; but I’m not holding my breath.

—- Mike Freedberg / Here and Sphere