|
Norfolknet Politics, Opinions, and Rants of a Relevant Nature as Deemed by the Webmaster [Previous, Election 2008], [one before]
"It is important that people talk with each other, rather than at
each other, on issues of public importance," said Winslow. "I
welcome the opportunity to engage in a respectful, thoughtful
discussion with a union representative that hopefully will shed
more light than heat on the subject." In January, Winslow filed
legislation to extend the existing MBTA Management Rights law to
all state and local government. The MBTA Management Rights law was
proposed by then State Representative Barney Frank, approved by a
Democratic Legislature, and signed by a Democratic Governor.
According to the MBTA's outside labor counsel, the law has saved
millions for the MBTA by allowing greater management flexibility,
while at the same time providing MBTA employees among the highest
wages of transit workers in the US. "I believe that local and state
government stands on the same fiscal precipice that the MBTA stood
on in 1980 when the original Management Rights law was enacted,"
noted Winslow, "and = extending that law to all state and local
government will save millions of dollars by improving management
while respecting and preserving the traditional collective bargaining
topics of wages, hours and working conditions." "We don't have a
union problem in Massachusetts, we have a management problem. This
proposal will give management the tools and accountability to manage
well."
"I hope this debate will set an example for other states that are
considering these reforms," said Winslow, "as well as encourage
our own legislative leadership to recognize that respectful debate
is good, and voting on the merits of ideas is even better, in a
democracy." Winslow and Gruman will square off at WCVB studios
on Monday, March 14 at 7:30 p.m.
NORFOLK (November 29, 2010)-- In a bipartisan show of
support for President Obama's decision to freeze federal employee
salaries, State Representative-elect Dan Winslow today applauded
the President's announced freeze and urged Governor Patrick and the
Legislature to follow the example for state and local government
employees who received any pay increases in the past two years.
"With more than 10 percent unemployment in some of our communities,
it is important to end the disconnect between private sector job
fears and public sector wage increases," said Winslow. "In the
depths of the worst recession of our lifetime, it is unconscionable
that government employees have been laid off to fund raises for
other government employees. Government leads best by example and
government employees who have received raises or step increases in
the past two years need to set an example of shared hardship by
foregoing raises and step increases in the next two years," said
Winslow.
Winslow has pledged to forego any increase in legislative salary
until the unemployment level in every town of the 9th Norfolk
district is less than 5 percent. Last week, Winslow notified the
State Treasurer's office that he will not accept any per diem
reimbursements for commuting to the State House after he is sworn
into office. The 9th Norfolk district includes the towns of Medfield,
Norfolk, Plainville, Millis, Walpole, and Wrentham.
For news coverage of the Obama pay freeze, see:
[page link]
NORFOLK-- Saying "public corruption anywhere hurts public trust
and confidence in government everywhere" incoming Republican State
Representative Dan Winslow today backed Mayor Menino's call for the
ouster of convicted corrupt Boston City Councillor Chuck Turner.
"Councillor Turner had full due process by a jury of his peers and
was convicted of corruption in public office. If he refuses to
resign pending the Council expulsion hearing, the city of Boston
should immediately suspend his pay pending the hearing. State
taxpayers support Boston with local aid payments, and not one thin
dime of taxpayer money should go into Turner's pocket now that he
has been convicted."
Winslow said it is important for elected officials to give no comfort
for the corrupt, invoking Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for
the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Winslow is a former Massachusetts Judge who was elected on November
2 to the 9th Norfolk House district.
From: "AmericaSpeaks: Our Budget, Our Economy" info@usabudgetdiscussion.org
Good afternoon,
"Tonight is not just a victory by me, it's a statement by the
voters," said Winslow ``we need to get Massachusetts working again
by increasing jobs and decreasing waste. I am thankful to the many
people who supported me throughout the campaign."
Winslow congratulated his opponent Stan Nacewicz on a vibrant race
that focused on the issues and avoided negative tactics and wished
him the best of luck in his future endeavors.
Winslow previously served as the Presiding Justice of the Wrentham
District Court and left the bench during the state's last fiscal
downturn to serve as Governor Romney's Chief Legal Counsel, where
he was part of the team that turned a $3 billion state deficit into
a $1 billion surplus within two years. Most recently he served as
the Legal Counsel for Scott Brown's historic campaign for the U.S.
Senate. He is a Senior Counsel at Proskauer, a Manhattan-based law
firm with a focus on trial practice and problem solving.
The 9th Norfolk House district includes the towns of Wrentham,
Plainville, Norfolk, and parts of Millis, Walpole and Medfield.
Winslow previously served as the Presiding Justice of the Wrentham
District Court and left the bench during the state's last fiscal
downturn to serve as Governor Romney's Chief Legal Counsel, where
he was part of the team that turned a $3 billion state deficit into
a $1 billion surplus within two years. If elected, he will work
to grow jobs and the economy, reduce taxes and waste, and preserve
core local services.
The Walpole Times editorial stated that Winslow's experience has
prepared him for the role of state representative of the 9th Norfolk
District, and urges voters to support him on November 2. The full
article can be found here:
[article]
The 9th Norfolk House district includes the towns of Wrentham,
Plainville, Norfolk, and parts of Millis, Walpole and Medfield.
Winslow previously served as the Presiding Justice of the Wrentham
District Court and left the bench during the state's last fiscal
downturn to serve as Governor Romney's Chief Legal Counsel, where
he was part of the team that turned a $3 billion state deficit into
a $1 billion surplus within two years. The Globe describes Winslow
as a candidate who "boasts wide knowledge of the inner workings of
state government and the criminal justice system, having served as
both a sitting judge and legal counsel to then-Governor Mitt Romney.
The Norfolk resident understands the mechanism of cutting wasteful
spending while preserving core services."
According to the Globe editorial, "The lack of competitive party
politics in Massachusetts has empowered political bosses in the
state Legislature and bred cynicism among the public. Although
diversity of political opinion is alive in Massachusetts, no one
would know it by counting Republicans in the state Legislature --
just five GOP members in the 40-member Senate and 15 in the 160-member
House. With a slew of incumbents either resigning their seats or
seeking higher office, there is a significant opportunity on Tuesday
to promote sound tax policy, increase accountability, and restore
some needed balance in both branches of the Legislature." The full
article can be found here:
[Globe article]
"I am humbled to have Senator Brown's support for my election to
the House of Representatives," said Winslow. "Senator Brown is
working to move our Nation forward and I hope to join him in that
effort at the state level to get Massachusetts working again. We
deserve to have a government worthy of the people it serves."
Winslow served as the Chief Legal Counsel to Scott Brown's historic
campaign for the United States Senate.
Winslow lives in Norfolk with his wife Susan and their three children.
The 9th Norfolk House district includes the towns of Wrentham,
Norfolk and Plainville and parts of South Walpole, Millis and
Medfield.
Winslow previously served as the Presiding Justice of the Wrentham
District Court and left the bench during the state's last fiscal
downturn to serve as Governor Romney's Chief Legal Counsel, where
he was part of the team that turned a $3 billion state deficit into
a $1 billion surplus within two years. "I am proud to be endorsed
by the Boston Herald," Winslow said, " If elected, I will work with
Democrats and Republicans to grow jobs and the economy, reduce taxes
and waste, and preserve core local services."
According to the Herald, "there are 26 open seats in the House,
leaving plenty of room in the chamber for more reformers, more
reliable fiscal conservatives. And sometimes it's just about fresh
blood, about challenging the old State House way of doing business."
The full article can be found here,
[Herald article]
The 9th Norfolk House district includes the towns of Plainville,
Wrentham, Norfolk, and parts of South Walpole, Millis and Medfield.
Paid for by the Dan Winslow Committee
NORFOLK (October 20, 2010)-- Dan Winslow, candidate for State
Representative of the 9th Norfolk House district, was officially
endorsed by the taxpayer advocacy group Citizens for Limited Taxation
(CLT) today.
Winslow earned CLT's endorsement because of his record of fiscal
prudence, innovation to reduce government waste, and promise to
fight increases in taxes. ``During tough economic times the worst
thing the government can do is to take money out of American's
pockets,'' Winslow said, ``I will vote against tax increases, will
work to roll back the impact of the sales tax and income tax to 5%,
and will focus on reducing wasteful state spending, giving towns
the tools and incentives for fiscally responsible management, and
making state government smarter and leaner."
Winslow previously served as the Presiding Justice of the Wrentham
District Court and left the bench during the state's last fiscal
downturn to serve as Governor Romney's Chief Legal Counsel, where
he was part of the team that turned a $3 billion state deficit into
a $1 billion surplus within two years. His opponent has proposed
to increase the motor vehicle excise tax by 50%, a move that Winslow
has rejected.
The 9th Norfolk House district includes the towns of Wrentham,
Plainville, Norfolk, and parts of Millis, Walpole and Medfield.
``The Massachusetts League of Environmental Voters is happy to
endorse Dan Winslow for State Representative. We are confident he
will be a leader in advancing commonsense environmental solutions
for the Commonwealth. He has been a local leader on these issues
and we look forward to working with him in the State House,'' said
Lora Wondolowski, Executive Director.
Winslow has made job creation a priority of his campaign. He has
pledged to reject the upcoming automatic legislative payraise if
elected until unemployment is below 5% in all towns in the 9th
Norfolk House district. "I am pleased to accept the endorsement
of the Massachusetts League of Environmental Voters," said Winslow,
"particularly because green energy and renewable industries create
private sector job opportunities. Together, we can get Massachusetts
working again."
The 9th Norfolk House district includes the towns of Wrentham,
Plainville, Norfolk and parts of Millis, South Walpole and Medfield.
Winslow is the former Presiding Justice of the Wrentham District
Court.
State Representative candidate for the 9th Norfolk House District,
Dan Winslow, who made headlines early in the campaign for riding
his bike door to door, has revealed one of his secrets for retail
politics: he carries a supply of dog biscuits wherever he goes.
Winslow's efforts to win over four-footed voters are aimed at
enhancing his chances for victory at the state election on November
2. "It's easier for voters to support me if their dog likes me too."
Winslow served as the Presiding Justice of the Wrentham District
Court and left the bench to serve as Governor Romney's Chief Legal
Counsel during the state's last fiscal crisis. He was part of the
senior team who turned a $3 billion state deficit into a $1 billion
surplus in two years. He now practices law in Boston and has been
knocking on doors (and meeting voters and their dogs) since March.
The 9th Norfolk House district includes the towns of Wrentham,
Norfolk, Plainville, and parts of Medfield, Millis and South Walpole.
The program, ``Property Tax Freeze for Seniors'', would halt property
tax hikes for Senior Citizens who meet both of the following criteria:
1. He or She must be of the age 65 and over and
2. Must have 15 years residency in the town for which they apply
``More and more people these days, particularly our Senior Citizens,
are getting the boot because of unfair property tax hikes,'' Nacewicz
says. ``As Chief Tax Assessor for the City of Attleboro , I'm
constantly hearing stories of whole families being forced to move
out-of-state or with loved ones because they can't afford property
taxes.''
Nacewicz thinks the time is right to propose an initiative like
``Tax Freeze for Seniors'' on Beacon Hill .
``I think there will be enough support for a proposal like this
simply because everyone is seeing the same trend. Senior Citizens,
and folks on fixed incomes, can't and shouldn't be forced to choose
between their homes or their life savings.''
The ``Property Tax Freeze for Seniors'' program would be determined
at the state level and could be optioned by each city or town in
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts .
Nacewicz adds, ``This proposal will help fix a broken system while
giving the local governments the option to assist their Seniors.
The present exemption for Seniors is outdated and needs to be
reformed as it has been done in other states.''
Nacewicz is the Democratic Candidate for State Representative in
the Ninth Norfolk District. District includes: Wrentham, Plainville
, Norfolk , Millis (Precinct 1), Medfield (Pct. 3, 4), and Walpole
(Pct. 5).
More information on Nacewicz's positions can be found online at
www.ElectStan.com
NORFOLK (September 4, 2010) - State Representative candidate Dan Winslow today
filed his Pre-Primary campaign report with the Massachusetts Office of Campaign
Finance, (2)http://www.efs.cpf.state.ma.us/DisplayReport.aspx?reportId=119296,
showing that he has raised more than $42,000 for his effort to earn election in
the 9th Norfolk House district. With the exception of one donation from
Scott
Brown's political committee, all of Winslow's contributors consisted of
individual donors and not PACs. Winslow is the only candidate in the race who
refuses to accept contributions from PACs or special interests. Winslow
has
more than $20,000 cash on hand as he enters the last two months of the
campaign.
"I am so thankful for the support of so many friends, family and citizens in
the 9th Norfolk House district," said Winslow. "This level of support will
ensure that my message to create private sector jobs and help our economy,
reduce wasteful spending to keep taxes low, and to preserve core local services
such as education, public safety and infrastructure will be heard by every
voter before November." Winslow served as the Presiding Justice of the
Wrentham District Court before leaving the bench to serve as Governor Romney's
Chief Legal Counsel during the state's last fiscal downturn. He is running on
a platform of fiscal prudence to "get Massachusetts working again." He has
made detailed proposals to grow the economy, cut waste, and improve government
transparency and accountability on his website, (3)www.danwinslow.com.
Winslow plans to officially kick off his campaign with a party at Fore Kicks in
Norfolk on Wednesday, September 15 from 7 to 9 p.m., with music provided
by DJ
Reggie Beas, lots of food and cash bar. Admission is free and everyone
interested in meeting Dan Winslow or volunteering to help with his campaign is
welcome. He filed his campaign finance report three days before the deadline.
The 9th Norfolk House district includes the towns of Plainville, Norfolk,
Wrentham, and parts of Medfield, Millis and Walpole.
Invitation:
Campaign Kick-off Party -
Meet State Representative Candidate
Dan Winslow,
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
7 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Free admission.
Music with DJ Reggie Beas.
Fore Kicks,
10 Pine St, Route 115,
Norfolk.
The MTF has proposed that town officials have the power to design cost-saving
health insurance plans for local employees. They also have proposed other
cost-saving steps to reduce municipal health care costs, which have grown from
6 percent of local spending to 14 percent today to a projected 20 percent in
2020. ``Anyone who can do math knows that the current system is unsustainable.
We need to unstack this house of cards by real reform to avert fiscal
failure,'' Winslow said.
For public pensions, the MTF has proposed to cap public pensions at $100,000
yearly and to increase the minimum retirement age from 55 to 60 for non-public
safety employees. Winslow's reforms would go even further: Winslow released a
(2)position paper that calls for a shift of the public pension system from a
defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan for non-vested public
employees like most private sector employees have. Winslow also would
consolidate the dozens of separate public pension systems into a single state
pension system administered by the State Treasurer to eliminate duplicate
management costs and waste.
``I think it is important for legislators to treat themselves the way they treat
others,'' Winslow said. ``For that reason, if Massachusetts adopts this reform
and converts to a defined contribution pension system, I will voluntarily give
up my current pension benefits and join the contribution plan instead.''
Winslow is running for State Representative in the 9^th Norfolk district,
consisting of the towns of Wrentham, Plainville, Norfolk and parts of Millis,
Walpole and Medfield.
Norfolk (August 9, 2010) - State Representative candidate Dan Winslow today
proposed to reform the state transportation standards to eliminate millions of
dollars of wasted money on state-funded road construction and instead to
stretch tax dollars to allow repaving of local roads and create more
construction jobs in Massachusetts communities. Existing state specifications
require towns that use state roadway funds to rebuild roads that encourage
faster vehicle traffic than posted speed limits. Road construction with faster
design speeds, however, is more expensive than simply rebuilding roads to match
existing speed limits. Winslow would require roadway design speeds to match
posted speed limits, which would save millions of dollars of transportation
money each year.
``It costs more money to build a road with a 40 mph design speed than a
30 mph
design speed,'' Winslow noted, ``so new roadways that allow faster traffic than
posted speed limits waste money and create a safety hazard through
neighborhoods. Instead of requiring towns to overengineer road construction,
the state should aim for cost savings by matching design speeds to the posted
speeds which will save millions of dollars each year.'' Winslow pointed out
that these cost savings can instead be used for local road repaving projects to
improve infrastructure and create local construction jobs.
``Skipping repaving of a road is like skipping paint on building,'' Winslow said,
``since the costs to repair damaged roads increase as pavement is undermined.''
Outdated state road specifications waste money and deprive towns of needed road
maintenance funding, according to Winslow. ``If elected, I will work to cut
wasteful state spending, encourage local job creation, and improve local
road
infrastructure,'' he said.
Dan Winslow is the former Presiding Justice of the Wrentham District Court.
The 9th Norfolk House district includes the towns of Wrentham, Plainville,
Norfolk and parts of Medfield, Millis and Walpole. Winslow is facing
Plainville Democrat Stanley Nacewicz, owner of the former Falk's Market in
downtown Plainville. Details of Winslow's proposal are available at his
campaign website
[here].
You might enjoy reading them. You might even be inspired by some of
them.
Norfolk (August 1, 2010) -- State Representative candidate Dan Winslow today
made a series of reform proposals to cut crime and improve police and public
safety, without spending more tax dollars. Winslow, who served as the Presiding
Justice of the Wrentham District Court, said, ``We need new ideas to solve old
problems to get Massachusetts working again. These reforms, and others, will
improve public safety and police officer safety, reduce crime, and improve our
criminal justice system without costing additional tax monies.'' Winslow is
campaigning on a platform of problem solving in state government and has
promised to be innovative and ``advance the power of ideas to solve problems'' if
elected to the Massachusetts House.
The reforms, all of which could be enacted by the Legislature, include:
* Awarding forfeited bail to police departments that arrest defendants who
default on court appearances. ``With rare exception, no one is looking for
defendants who skip out on court. Local police departments cannot take on the
burden of arresting the same person two, three or four times without additional
resources. This reform will help fund the cost of searching for and arresting
defaulters and help prevent layoffs of public safety personnel who are needed
now more than ever.''
* Requiring judges to consider a defendant's status as an illegal immigrant in
setting the amount of bail. ``Illegal immigrants who commit crimes in
Massachusetts have a powerful incentive to disappear from future court dates,
but the existing law does not require judges to take a defendant's lawful
immigration status into account when setting bail. It should. Regardless
of the
federal debate about immigration reform, I think most people will agree that
unlawful immigrants who commit crimes are an unacceptable risk to our
citizens.''
* Creating a priority warrant system to protect police officers from dangerous
defendants. ``With rare exception, all default warrants are put into the same
category of warrant with no distinction between shoplifters who default and
child molesters and armed robbers who default. I propose to create higher
priority warrants for persons with a history of violence or who pose a danger
to police and the public. A police officer needs to know instantly what he or
she is dealing with when running warrant checks during lawful stops.''
* Enforce the bail jumping law. Existing law provides an additional penalty for
defendants who jump bail or skip court dates. Incredibly, despite high default
rates, most prosecutors do not charge defaulters under the bail jumping law.
They should. ``If elected, I will make sure that prosecutors are enforcing the
bail jumping law or justifying in their budgets why the additional revenues
from fines are not being collected from persons who default on court
appearances.''
``These reforms will help our communities to support public safety and protect
cops and citizens from harm. They don't cost any more money but it's
a smarter
use of money we already spend.''
Winslow is running for State Representative in the 9^th Norfolk House district,
consisting of the towns of Plainville, Wrentham, Norfolk, and parts of Millis,
Walpole and Medfield. The Wrentham District Court included five of the six
towns in the House district.
Winslow's full proposal can be read on his website.
What Does It Take to Have a Civil Conversation These Days?
Wrentham (July 25, 2010) - State Representative candidate Dan Winslow today
attended a send-off for Joshua Walker, Steven Tyler Morse, and Justin
Rose, three members of the Army National Guard headed to Afghanistan. Winslow
greeted family, friends, and local veterans at a cookout at Wrentham American
Legion function hall.
"As local servicemen and women leave to serve our country, the Legislature
needs to redouble its efforts to assure that good, private sector jobs await
their return," Winslow said. "If I am elected, my priority will be to create
economic opportunity and get Massachusetts working again."
Winslow served as the Presiding Justice of the Wrentham District Court for
nearly eight years, and then left the bench to serve as the Governor Mitt
Romney's Chief Legal Counsel during the state's previous fiscal crisis. He
most recently served as the Legal Counsel to Scott Brown's historic campaign
for the U.S. Senate. He is a Senior Counsel at the Proskauer law firm.
Winslow said he wishes the very best, and a safe return, for Walker, Morse, and
Rose.
Norfolk (July 12, 2010) - House candidate Dan Winslow, the former Presiding
Justice of the Wrentham District Court, today released a proposal for ``MOJO'' in
job creation in the Commonwealth. The plan, called ``MOJO'' for ``Massachusetts is
Open for Job Opportunities,'' would create new private sector jobs by
encouraging entrepreneurship and growth of start up businesses in cottage
industries. Winslow earlier called for tax relief to encourage job creation in
the state. ``Jobs are Job One,'' Winslow said, who noted that the current
recession has had the worst impact on jobs (4)since the Great Depression.
``We are facing an economic emergency, and a crisis for working men and
women
and families where one or both parents have been out of work for an extended
time, and we must treat it like the emergency that it is. Business as usual is
simply not an option when so many people are unemployed,'' Winslow said.
``There's no such thing as a jobless recovery for a person who is out
of work.
We have an obligation to do everything in our power to create private sector
jobs and opportunity for working men and women and their families.'' Winslow's
solution? Capitalism, unburdened by bureaucratic cost, delay and red tape, for
entrepreneurs and cottage industries.
``Start-up businesses are the best immediate source of new jobs,'' Winslow noted,
``yet the process of launching a business in Massachusetts pits state and local
government in an adversarial role rather than a supportive role. We need
to get
government out of the way for start-up businesses so that a person with an
idea, or a product, or a service can test out their business in the
marketplace. If a business succeeds after a year, there's plenty of time for
paperwork and costs at the end of the process rather than at the beginning when
it can crush innovation.''
Under Winslow's MOJO proposal, cities and towns would have the option to create
``Free Enterprise Zones'' -- areas ranging in size from a sidewalk, to a street, to
a block to a neighborhood depending on the level of local support -- where newly
launched businesses that create jobs would have a one year moratorium on
most
local and state regulations, licenses, and fees except those relating to
public
health, safety and the state Building Code. Businesses also could not create
off-site impacts, such as smoke or noise, which adversely affects their
neighbors. After one year, the business would be subject to the usual local and
state review process.
The other part of Winslow's MOJO proposal is aimed at encouraging cottage
industries, or home-based businesses. ``A person's cottage is their castle,''
Winslow said, ``and some of the best companies in America started in someone's
garage or in their kitchen. We need to encourage that kind of cottage industry
innovation by suspending state and local restrictions on home-based businesses,
provided that any home-based business does not adversely impact neighbors. If a
business idea creates a job, doesn't violate any criminal laws, or hurt people,
animals or the environment, we should be asking ourselves how we can make it
happen immediately. The recession has created opportunity for innovation
and
entrepreneurship, but we need to get out of the way and let it happen. When it
comes to private sector job creation, we need to get our MOJO back.''
Winslow is seeking the State Representative seat in the 9th Norfolk district,
which includes the towns of Wrentham, Norfolk, Plainville, and portions of
Millis, Walpole, and Medfield. Those towns have unemployment levels ranging
from about 8% to 12%. Winslow has vowed not to accept any legislative pay raise
until the unemployment levels in each town in the district is less than 5%. The
full MOJO proposal can be read (5)here.
To see 24 brief video clips, go to
[youtube page]
The third line from the top of the window reads
"americaspeaksdotorg 24 videos Subscribe"
Click on the button between "24 videos" and "Subscribe", and then
select a video clip to watch.
For the preliminary results, see
[usabudgetdiscussion.org page]
The video was made in 2007 by students in a class on Facilitating
Communication at DeAnza College. It features an interview with Bob
Dole and lots of "people on the street" in front of the Capital
Building. It gives a brief introduction to the idea of alternative
ways of communicating in public and brief descriptions of some popular
methods as examples.
In the United States, our military is under the command of our
civilian government, and the President is the Commander in Chief of
our Armed Forces. So if a military officer publicly disparages his
commander or publicly belittles the civilian authorities to whom he
reports, that is insubordination. Most high ranking military officers
(regardless of party affiliation or political leanings) agreed that
General McChrystal had to be relieved of his post.
Norfolk (June 23, 2010) - State Representative candidate Dan Winslow today
called on the Deval Patrick administration to drop plans to fund state employee
salaries by borrowing money. According to press reports, the Patrick
administration proposes to borrow $1 billion over the next five years to
fund
MassDOT employee salaries.
"The state needs to live within its means," said Winslow, "and borrowing
to
fund salaries solves nothing. It just creates bigger and more expensive
problems down the road." Winslow said the state should instead repeal the
Pacheco Law which prevents state government from hiring contractors for
project-specific duties.
"We need to get Massachusetts working again," said Winslow, who is running on a
pro-jobs and pro-growth platform. "The way to do that is to create private
sector opportunity and not to borrow against our future."
Winslow pledged to propose budget restrictions in the legislative budget
process to prevent agencies from spending in excess of their appropriated
budget. Winslow is the former Presiding Justice of the Wrentham District
Court. He is running for State Representative in the 9th Norfolk district. The
district includes the towns of Wrentham, Plainville, Norfolk and parts of
Millis, Walpole and Medfield.
NORFOLK (June 14, 2010) - Dan Winslow, Republican candidate for the state House
of Representatives and former Presiding Justice of the Wrentham District
Court,
today called on Massachusetts to follow the example set by the states of
Washington, California, and other jurisdictions and abolish state-funded
Party
primaries in favor of Open Primaries in Massachusetts. Under Winslow's
proposal, Massachusetts state officials would be elected in an Open Primary
election, where anyone could run regardless of their political affiliation, and
then the top two vote-getters would square off in the General Election.
Political parties still could endorse candidates by caucuses or Party
conventions, run at the political parties' own expense. California voters last
week approved a similar (4)proposal.
"In Massachusetts, the majority of voters belong to neither political Party,"
said Winslow, "yet the majority of voters are using their tax money to support
a political Party nominating process that has failed to create political
competition or to advance the best and brightest into state government."
In the
2010 election, according to the State Secretary's website, almost all races for
the state House and Senate have no Party primary opponents for (5)Democrats or
(6)Republicans. Candidates for Governor and most constitutional offices also
face no political Primary competition. "At a time when teachers, police and
firefighters are being laid off, Massachusetts cities and towns will spend
millions of dollars to conduct Party primary elections where there is no
contest. It is a complete waste of money and a sham of a process," said
Winslow.
"The current system is broken and needs to be fixed. The lack of political
competition in Massachusetts hurts democracy and results in a quality of
government not worthy of the people it serves. Most state legislative
candidates are effectively elected to office by a small minority of registered
voters, which gives greater sway to special interests in Massachusetts. Yes, we
need to restore two-Party competition in Massachusetts, but it's more important
to restore political competition so the government is responsive to the
people," said Winslow, who is unopposed in the Republican Primary and will face
off in November against a candidate who is unopposed in the Democratic Primary.
Winslow said that if he is elected he will file legislation to create an
Open
Primary system where the top two vote-getters square off in the General
Election regardless of Party affiliation. "If I cannot succeed in having
this
idea considered in the legislative process, I promise that I will work with
good government groups and concerned citizens across Massachusetts to bring the
decision directly to the people by the initiative referendum process," said
Winslow.
Norfolk (June 7, 2010) -- Republican State Representative candidate Dan Winslow
today proposed a statewide Management Rights law that is modeled on a most
unlikely source: the MBTA management rights statute championed by then State
Representative -- now Congressman -- union darling, Barney Frank. If enacted, the
legislation would preserve core management rights for state and local
government and prevent situations where taxpayers are asked to give public
employees extra pay for staying sober or honest on the job.
``By any measure, Massachusetts is in a downward spiral of unsustainability
where the employers -- the taxpayers -- are working longer hours and digging deeper
into their own pockets to support public employees in jobs that have higher
pay, better benefits, unreachable pensions, and more vacation time than their
private sector counterparts. The system is fundamentally unfair, economically
unsupportable, and must be reformed. Without reform, essential state
government functions and services will collapse,'' said Winslow.
Under Winslow's proposal, public management and labor would be required to
negotiate over wages, hours, working conditions and the assignment of work
schedules and locations on the basis of seniority. However, the parties
could
not negotiate issues that traditionally were a function of management,
including the powers to:
* Appoint and employ employees and to determine the standards for employment,
including confirming fitness for duty;
* Fire employees for good cause, subject only to grievance arbitration, or no
cause in the event of insufficient appropriation;
* Plan and determine the level of service required to be provided by the
agency;
* Direct, supervise, plan, control and evaluate the agency's programs;
* To create job classifications and determine the duties and standards of
productivity for each classification;
* To determine and develop levels of staffing and training, subject only
to
grievances based on employee safety;
* Determine whether goods and services should be purchased or leased, on
a
temporary or permanent basis;
* Assign and apportion overtime;
* Hire part-time employees;
* Exclude overtime pay from pension calculations;
* Excluding automatic cost of living indexes.
According to Winslow, ``this criticism is not aimed at state or local employees,
most of whom perform important work with little recognition and less thanks.
The single greatest impediment to an effective workforce is ineffective
management. We need to get management back into the equation in
labor-management relations in Massachusetts.''
Winslow is running for State Representative in the 9^th Norfolk House district,
which includes the towns of Wrentham, Norfolk, Plainville, and parts of Millis,
Walpole, and Medfield. His policy paper on the Massachusetts Management
Rights
proposal is (4)posted on his website,
danwinslow.com.
NORFOLK (May 24, 2010) - One candidate for the state House of Representatives
has a unique perspective on the need for reform of patronage and waste in the
court system: former District Court Judge Dan Winslow. Winslow, who earned
national praise as well as local scorn as a judicial reformer, served as
the
Presiding Justice of the Wrentham District Court before resigning from the
bench to serve as Governor Romney's Chief Legal Counsel during the state's
previous fiscal crisis. He now seeks election as a "citizen legislator"
in the
9th Norfolk House district, which includes the towns of Wrentham, Plainville,
Norfolk, Millis, Walpole, and Medfield.
"The Boston Globe's story regarding waste, lack of accountability and patronage
is not unique to the Probation Department," noted Winslow. "Sadly, the
politics of patronage pervade much of state government and interfere with the
important mission that many hard-working state employees perform with little
fanfare and even less thanks." "Voters need to recognize that they have
the
power to end the corrosive effect of one-party political monopoly on Beacon
Hill and restore competition and new ideas to state government," said Winslow,
who described the cost of patronage and resulting wasteful spending as "a
hidden tax that yields no benefit to the Commonwealth."
In addition to electing new people to the Legislature, Winslow offered a
seven
point proposal to reduce waste and fraud in the Probation Department:
[C o n t i n u e d . . .]
NORFOLK (May 19, 2010) - State Representative candidate Dan Winslow
today filed more than 300 certified signatures to qualify for the
ballot in his campaign for the Massachusetts House of Representatives.
Only 150 certified signatures are required by law.
``We collected signatures in all six towns of the House district,''
Winslow noted, ``because I want citizens to know that I will be the
Representative for all the people in all the towns of the 9th Norfolk
district and that every town is important to me.''
Winslow faces no opposition for the Republican nomination at the
Primary election in September and will square off against any
Democratic nominee at the general election November 2. He is
campaigning to ``get Massachusetts working again'' with a focus on
``creating jobs, cutting waste to keep taxes down, and preserving
core local services such as education, public safety and infrastructure.''
Winslow served as the Presiding Justice of the Wrentham District
Court for nearly eight years, and then left the bench to serve as
the Governor Mitt Romney's Chief Legal Counsel during the state's
previous fiscal crisis. He most recently served as the Legal Counsel
to Scott Brown's historic campaign for the U.S. Senate. Winslow,
his wife Susan, and their three children live in Norfolk.
Paid for by the Dan Winslow Committee
www.danwinslow.com
1. People who are found to be here illegally must be given a
hearing as to their status and deported immediately. If they return
they should face monetary penalties, which they can pay for with
labor in lieu of imprisonment and sent packing when their debt is
paid off.
2. If a company is found to hiring illegal immigrants they
must be fined an amount that would make it not worth their efforts
to repeat the violations. Repeated violation equals higher penalties.
3.
We must stop squandering our tax dollars by giving it to anyone who
happens to have their feet on our soil. Free housing, food, social
security, hospital visits etc must be restricted. Unless you paid
into the system then you get nothing in return.
4. Enforce the
policies we have and give law enforcement the tools they need to
do the job. Give them the power to arrest, detain, and enforce the
laws.
5. If we are going to change immigration laws them let's look
at some of our neighboring nations and maybe take a page from their
playbook. Many nations across the globe would never have porous
borders.
6. Immigration is good... illegal immigration is not. We
must continue letting immigrants into America but do so with caution
and due regard. No sponsor, job etc. no entry... No ticky no laundry.
After all the hoopla about the recent Arizona law I found it somewhat
laughable that the Fed's arrested 2 Massachusetts men in connection
with the Times Square bombing attempt and charged them with immigration
violations. Hmm isn't that what everyone is complaining about in
the southwest?
Larry's idea is to have typical supporters who make small donations
(like most of us) pledge to NOT donate to any candidate who opposes
the Fair Elections Now Act.
You can see a video on the home page of the "Fix Congress First"
website at
fixcongressfirst.org
and read Larry's letter at
[article]
I
agree that something is definitely wrong and that both Democrats and
Republicans share responsibility for getting us into this mess. I
agree that what congress is trying to do doesn't seem like it will fix
the underlying problem. I'm not sure that I agree that Lessig's
proposed change to how campaigns are funded will solve the problems.
Anyway, you can read his piece and make up your own mind - perhaps
make your own proposal for how we can get politicians to work for the
people.
Dr. Smulowitz has worked tirelessly to reach out and address our concerns.
I'm confident that he's the candidate for us. He will always put our needs
ahead of partisan politics, just as he's worked for his patients in the
emergency room, 100%!! I hope you'll join me in voting for Dr. Peter
Smulowitz for State Senate on May 11th! Our votes count!
Thank you,
Norfolk (April 30, 2010) - State Representative Candidate for the Ninth
Norfolk District, Dan Winslow, kept a promise of more than 20 years last
weekend when he presented a neighbor with the first spool of thread
purchased from the newly opened Walgreens store in Norfolk Center.
Twenty-three years ago, Winslow was running for a position on the Norfolk
Town Planning Board. As he went door-to-door asking for support, he met a
neighbor who said her biggest frustration was that she could not buy a
spool of thread in the town of Norfolk. Winslow promised that if he were
elected, he would propose new zoning laws to encourage the Town Center to
develop as a New England Village and that he would personally buy his
neighbor the first spool of thread when the new stores opened.
Last weekend, 23 years later, Winslow kept good on his first political
promise when he presented Ms. Field, on her mother's behalf with the first
spool of thread purchased from the Walgreens, which was built in accordance
with the Smart Growth policies that Winslow supported on the Planning
Board.
See More:
Wicked
Local Wrentham: "Winslow Makes Good on a 'Spool'ish
Promise"
NORFOLK (April 20, 2010) - Scott Brown gained victory by driving his truck
around Massachusetts, and House candidate Dan Winslow hopes for similar
results as he rides around the 9th Norfolk House district door to door on
his bike.
Winslow today released a Youtube video spoofing Brown's truck ad, featuring
Winslow's mode of transportation, along with a puppy chase scene and a
cameo appearance by the famous truck.
The video can be viewed at:
[youtube link]
or
on Winslow's website at
www.danwinslow.com.
The 9th Norfolk district
includes the towns of Wrentham, Plainville, Norfolk, and parts of Medfield,
Millis and Walpole.
Winslow has confidence in Ross's experience in local and state government
and his dedication to fostering economic growth and job creation in
Massachusetts. "We need a Senator who will focus on reducing tax burdens
and cutting wasteful spending, increase private sector jobs, and enhance
local core services by making government work smarter," said Winslow. "We
need more political balance in Massachusetts state government, because
monopoly leads to corruption, waste, and indifference to the needs of the
people." "I endorse Richard Ross to be our next Senator and I will urge
voters to support him as well." Winslow looks forward to discussing with
Ross the various ways in which the government can reduce its spending and
become more fiscally responsible.
Both Winslow and Ross are active community leaders. Winslow is the former
Presiding Justice of the Wrentham District Court.
WINSLOW PROPOSES RESTORATIVE JUSTICE APPROACH TO BULLYING
A BILLRead on: [Library of Congress page]
Call your congressmen! Rep. Alan Grayson has just brought a 3 page bill
before the Congress. It is called the the `Medicare You
Can Buy Into Act'. This Act may be cited as the `Public Option Act' as well.
Grayson wants to have this passed in 3 months, not 3 yea...rs! If you care
about this or if you really need affordable health care reform, get on
this! Now! Please!
[I was wondering, how will the "reconciliation" affect the bill? - Wm.]
U.S. | March 24, 2010[Article - if requires registration, google the title "How different types..." and click the google link - Wm.]
My understanding is that without this bill, over the next ten years,
400 billion "health care" dollars would go to insurance companies
rather than to providing health care. Right now, about 25% of
insurance premiums paid to for-profit insurance companies go for
administrative costs (such as advertising, exorbitant executive
salaries and bonuses, a staff to figure out how to deny paying
benefits and rescind the policies of people who get sick, dividends to
shareholders, and actually processing the claims) rather than to
paying for health care. Under the bill, things are a bit better, but
still not great. Insurance companies will be limited to 15% for
administrative costs and will have to spend 85% of the insurance
premiums on paying for health care. The Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) estimates that Medicare overhead costs are 2%. Critics argue
that Medicare overhead costs are really 6 - 8%. I would have preferred
"Medicare for all" to remove the profit and minimize the overhead (not
just from 25% to 15%, but to 2%, according to the CBO) so that almost
all the money could go to paying for health care.
Medicare Advantage plans are private health insurance plans. There are
a number of different types of Medicare Advantage plans. The
subscribers pay their regular Medicare Part B premium to Medicare and
(usually) an additional premium to the private insurance company.
Medicare pays the private health plan a set amount every month for
each subscriber. In the 1970s, when Medicare beneficiaries were first
given the option to receive their Medicare benefits through private
health plans, Medicare's payments to the private plans were generally
set at 95% of the original Medicare (Fee for Service) costs. The
payments have gone up. By 2009, Medicare's payments to Medicare
Advantage plans for each subscriber had risen to an average of 114% of
the Fee for Service costs. Some of this extra 14% (plus the extra
premium paid by the subscriber directly to the private plan) goes
toward extra benefits. But much of it goes to extra profits for the
private insurers. It is this extra 14% per subscriber that constitutes
the 132 billion dollar subsidy (i.e. gift) to insurance companies. If
the private health insurance plans really are more efficient than
Medicare, they should be able to compete with Medicare at (or less
than) the same premiums as Medicare (plus the extra premiums they
charge the subscribers for the extra benefits they provide). If the
Medicare Advantage plans can't compete, the subscribers will move back
to original Medicare, possibly with a private supplemental plan for
extra benefits (such as reduced co-pays, a limit on their members'
annual out-of-pocket spending on medical care, or providing some
insurance against catastrophic costs over $5,000, for example).
An Absence of ClassTo read more, please go to the above url link.
PS -
Biography of Bob Herbert* Bob Herbert joined The New York Times as an Op-Ed columnist in 1993. His twice a week column comments on politics, urban affairs and social trends.
Enjoy your Pyrrhic victory folks.
Just this past August, Blue Cross of MA sent me a letter, informing me that
my health insurance monthly premium was going up another $300.00 because I
was turning 60. With but a few days notice and with the economy such as it
is, I was unable to continue my coverage at that increased rate. By
changing my plan I would incur a much higher deductible limit as well as
higher co-pays. Now, due to ongoing health issues, I have found myself in
a
terrible situation. I subsequently called Blue Cross to find out WHY my
rate was being increased so much... (yes, %39% for both my husband and me)
and a very sullen and short fused, charming fellow in sales informed me
that, "We can't get rid of you because of pre-existing conditions, but we
CAN raise your monthly premiums to the max."
Gee, that was really nice to hear, ON MY BIRTHDAY!
So, I am figuring... if I had to go through that "disagreeable interchange"
which has now impacted my life so mightily, imagine how many other people
with far more serious and life-threatening health issues than I are being
forced to cancel their health insurance policies as well! How many of those
individuals will die because they cannot afford the horrifically overpriced
medicines, medical care and tests that could very well heal them.
Obviously, health insurance FOR PROFIT only profits the stock holders, the
CEO's and possibly employees of those insurance companies. It does not
insure complete coverage and wellness mentality for the millions of people
who must decide whether to pay their mortgage, purchase food or their health
insurance each month. And that is screwed up. If the Post Office decided
to hold your mail ransom until you paid some outrageous amount of money to
get your mail delivered, sent, whatever... would that be cool? And on and
on....
Now consider this please. Okay, you lose your job, your wife gets breast
cancer, your kid gets life threatening asthma and your father gets
Alzheimer's... what do you do????? Blame those pinko commie Democrats,
again....? Or do you thank some politicians in Washington, DC, politicians
you may not like or even agree with, for having the courage to act now, and
have faith in the ultimate understanding of the American people, to do the
right thing and at least BEGIN the process of reforming our system of
receiving and paying for our health care. It is the moral and, yes, the
Christian thing to do... something that we should have done over 100 years
ago. Not-for-profit health care... It is coming! And we live in
Massachusetts... best state in the nation! Ahhh!
NOW Please look at these three links. Thank you. I have included excerpts
to tweak your interest. Educate yourself if you are unfamiliar with some of
this information! Information is power and and understanding brings peace.
*1. READ THIS!* Please...
The first proposal put before the Federal Government was by.... you guessed
it, a WOMAN!!! Her name was Dorthea Dix!! And she grew up in
Worcester!!!! So chew on that for a while!!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Dix
[C o n t i n u e d . . .]
Another thing of note is that insurance companies can still deny
coverage based on pre-existing conditions because that clause does not
go in to effect until 2014. The good news is that children with
pre-existing conditions will go into effect immediately.
This new law has many fine points, but some drawbacks as well. I know
that we have to start somewhere, but it is not a panacea by a long
shot.
It is true that at the end of the Clinton presidency we had a budget
surplus and at the end of George W. Bush presidency we had the biggest
budget deficit that we'd ever had. PT seems to agree that running huge
deficits is bad. So it seems inconsistent that PT opposes a health
care reform bill that will reduce the deficit.
A study published in 2009 by the American Journal of Medicine
estimated that 62 percent (nearly two out of every three) personal
bankruptcies were due to medical bills. Those with health insurance
can be susceptible if they're hit with a very serious illness. Nearly
80 percent of those in the study who went bankrupt due to health-care
costs had health insurance when they first became ill. There probably
are some freeloaders who are gaming the system. And there is some
fraud. But there are plenty of hardworking people who pay for their
own health insurance and get screwed by greedy companies. Of course we
need to catch all the cheaters. But we are country that cares about
our fellow citizens and will step up to help - not a bunch of people
who sit and laugh while a neighbor's house burns down.
PT wrote "You probally voted for the new school didn't you?" Yes, I
did. I never had and never will have any children in the Norfolk
School system. But I am willing to pay higher taxes because I want my
neighbors' kids to get a good education in a decent and safe facility.
I feel the same way about health care. A better health care system
will make us a better country - even if I personally don't benefit
from it.
I believe that health care plans will be required to include at least
some basic mental health coverage. There might be an anger management
provision which PT could use.
Every time some group of people cry that they can't afford this or
that, they look to the goverment and the regular guy who goes to
work and dosen't cry poor mouth foots the bill. Heath insurance is
not a right, just like having a car is not a right. You work and
pay for it like anything else. All these people looking for the
freebie. They can afford a couple of tv's and a new car, smoke
butts, buy $100.00+ sneakers, ipods, dvds, etc... but take of
your self before you get sick, why the goverment will take care of
it. Well, I am sick of it. You guys want to pay for, write a
check. you want to bring down the cost of heath insurance, cut out
the fraud and the stupid, I have a pain in my stomach, but only ate
3 cheesburgers today and topped it off with a hot fudge sunday
mentality. Common sense has been replaced with, ahhhh someone else
will pay for it.
TC, DR, keep it up, the country will be at 25% unemployment and
will be debt till my great grand-kids are dead.
Try reading about the financial crash of 1920 and what the
Harding/Coolidge adminstration did to correct in 1 year. People,
history repeats itself, we make the same mistakes, we will suffer
the same fate.
As to your reference, what am I smoking. Not what Pelosi "We have
to pass it to find out whats in it" is smoking.
You probally voted for the new school didn't you? I'll send you my
tax bill. Schmucks.
This will be my last post.
Since PT seems to wish the bill hadn't passed, I've gone through the
sections and have the following recommendations about how PT can
negate the bill for him/herself. I list them in the order of the items
in the navigation bar on the web page cited above.
Individual mandate (Starting in 2014, require that most Americans have
a minimum level of health insurance or else pay a penalty):
Generally, if your income is above the tax-filing threshold ($9,350
for individuals and $18,700 for couples in 2009) you should have
health insurance. Subsidies are available for lower income people.
They idea behind insurance is that lots of people buy the insurance,
but only a small number of them have claims. If only people who were
very likely to have claims bought insurance, it wouldn't work (and it
wouldn't be insurance). You can think about it being similar to the
individual mandate to have automobile liability insurance. Since you
live in Massachusetts where Governor Mitt Romney put an individual
health care mandate in place in 2006, the individual mandate isn't a
change for you.
Insurance exchange (Health insurance marketplaces, where individuals
and employers can shop for insurance and compare prices and benefits):
Ignore the exchanges.
Public plan (New government insurance plan to compete with private
insurers): Unfortunately, there is none.
Subsidies for individuals (Provide tax credits to low- and middle-
income people to help them buy insurance through the exchange): If you
qualify for a subsidy, refuse to accept it.
Employer contribution (Starting in 2014, penalize some employers if
low- and middle-income workers use federal subsidies to buy
insurance): Doesn't effect employers with fewer than 50 workers.
Doesn't effect employers who provide health care for their workers.
Doesn't effect employers who pay their workers well enough so that the
workers aren't eligible for subsidies. If you are a large employer (50
or more employees) who doesn't provide health care and who pays
workers so poorly that they are eligible for subsidies, then rather
than having taxpayers provide the full subsidy, you can contribute to
the subsidy too.
Subsidies for employers (Tax credits to small businesses that want to
offer coverage and subsidies for employer plans that cover early
retirees ages 55 to 64): If you qualify for a tax credit or subsidy,
refuse to accept it.
Expand Medicaid (Cover millions of additional people, including
parents and childless adults who are not eligible under current
rules): If you would become eligible for Medicaid, give the extra
money that you would have had to pay for your private insurance to the
insurance company.
Medicare drug benefits (Close a gap in Medicare coverage of
prescription drugs, known as the doughnut hole): Take the additional
money that you would have had to pay for drugs and give it to the
pharmaceutical company.
Defining benefits (Require insurance plans to offer a minimum package
of health insurance benefits, to be defined by the federal
government): If you want a plan that has less than the minimum level
of benefits, don't use any of the extra benefits that you are offered.
Insurance regulation (Prohibit insurers from denying coverage or
charging higher premiums because of a person's medical history or
health condition): If you become sick of have a pre-existing
condition, pretend that your insurance was dropped and don't use any
benefits.
Dependent coverage (Require health plans, including employer-sponsored
plans, to cover children of policyholders up to a certain age): If you
have children that need health care insurance, but wouldn't be allowed
on your current plan, tell them they are out of luck and they'll have
to make do on their own.
Long-term cate (Starting in 2011, establish a voluntary federal
program to provide long-term care insurance and cash benefits to
people with severe disabilities): If you have any disabilities, manage
on your own and don't accept any help.
Abortion (Prohibit use of federal money for abortions, except as
allowed by current law -- in cases of rape or incest or if the life of
a pregnant woman was in danger): No changes from the current law. If a
plan receives federal subsidies and offers abortion coverage, it is
required to segregate the federal money into separate accounts and use
only the premium money and co-payments contributed by consumers to
cover the abortion procedures.
Illegal immigrants (Limit access to the exchange and federal subsidies
for illegal immigrants): illegal immigrants don't get any subsidies.
They are not allowed to use the exchanges, even if they are willing to
pay the full cost themselves.
Children of the poor (Changes to the Children's Health Insurance
Program, which benefits children of the working poor): If you have any
children who would qualify, tell them that they should just tough it
out without any medical care.
Total cost and coverage: 32 million people would gain coverage. If you
get pleasure from their suffering without health coverage, there will
still be 22 million uninsured who's suffering you can enjoy. The bill
will cost about $940 billion, but it is fully paid for and is expected
to reduce deficits by $138 billion. If you are bothered by reducing
the deficit by $138 billion, steal the proportionate amount from your
children and grandchildren.
Paying for the proposals (Impose new fees and taxes. Curb Medicare
payments to hospitals and many other health care providers.): There
are increased Medicare taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000
a year and families earning more than $250,000. There is an excise tax
on "Cadillac" employer-sponsored group health plans. There is a
Medicare payroll tax on capital gains, dividends, interest and other
"unearned income." See the web site for details. Of note is the saving
of the current $132 billion annual gift to private insurance companies
offering Medicare Advantage plans. Depending on your situation, these
taxes may or may not effect you.
To DR, this is the one thing that will break this country financially
and morally. The only thing we owe Frank, Kerry and Pelosi is a big kick
in the arse. I just hope and pray the states that sue the government for
this ABORTION of a bill and defeats in the courts. This is
unconstitutional.
I hope you are happy that this bill continues slavery in this country.
The correct way to reform the health care industry would be to control
the cost of procedures which would have brought down insurance costs.
But now the premiums will continue to go up and you will be fined for
not having insurance.
Unbelievable.
I am totally depressed.
True lovers of freedom, remember this in November.
On the other hand, we aren't getting a single payer system (Medicare
for all). So (over the next ten years) something like 400 billion
"healthcare" dollars is going to private for-profit healthcare
insurance companies, rather than going to provide healthcare.
Assuming that this does go through, I think we all owe a very big
thank you to President Obama, Barney Frank, John Kerry, and all the
other politicians who put the interests of the people first. For all
those politicians who voted for the interests of the insurance
companies instead of our interests, I think we should return the favor
and not vote for them.
(1) Sean Bielat. He has never held or run for public office prior to
this campaign and apparently is part of (or subscribes to) the "get the
government out of my Medicare movement." A quick scan of the Internet
reveals that a substantial part of his views focus on the horrors of
government. For example, he believes government programs shouldn't be
responsible for solutions, yet the guy got his master's degree from
Harvard due to the GI Bill. Duh! The last time I looked the GI Bill
continues to be one of the most inspired and respected government
programs ever assembled.
(2) Earl Sholley. It would not be a stretch to call this guy a
perennial loser and for a variety of reasons. In 2008 he lost big-time
to Frank with Barney garnering a whopping 68% of the vote. He has never
won a political office, losing bids for the state Senate in 1996, 2000,
2002, and 2004. In addition, throughout the 1990s he was in repeated
trouble with the law and the court system, resorting to hotheaded
threats directed at a judge and a prosecutor. And not only was he found
guilty of threatening to commit a crime and being disorderly due to his
ugly behavior, he also did time in the slammer for probation violations
resulting from being found guilty of assault and battery on his own
daughter.
(3) Keith Messina. The "baby" in the group (he's only 25) and despite
his young age and inexperience (not only in politics but in just about
everything else), it comes as no surprise that he's a tad more
impressive than the others, at least on the surface and after examining
a couple of well thought out views on his site. Unfortunately, a closer
look reveals a slew of additional opinions that leads one to believe he
wants to return to the same delusions and economic policies that caused
the catastrophic economic mess in the first place, including naive
positions that suggest he still believes the free market corrects itself
(where has he been for the last two years?!). Additionally, he provides
absolutely no solutions for last year's failing banks and financial
institutions and apparently would have been in favor of no government
intervention and a full nationwide economic collapse instead. And let's
be real here. In one-on-one political debates, Barney would risk getting
ostracized for the cruel and unusual thrashing of a youngster.
Sean Bielat is a talented young man with many fine qualities.
seanbielat.org
Keith Messina is anothe fine young man with great qualities as well.
keithmessina.com
Earl Sholley has built a quite impressive team in the past 2 years.
His momentum is growing in the New Bedford/Fall River area.
sholleyforcongress.us
All these fine candidates have great web pages and are fully engaged
in the social networking such as: Facebook, Twitter... etc.
I hope you find the time to learn about these candidates and decide
to support one of them..
And with hard work and some luck, we can retire Barney Frank and
send him on his way.
WINSLOW LAUNCHES WEBSITE FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE CAMPAIGN
We should also know there are potential advantages to having a "townie" in
Boston representing us.
However, folks in other 9th District towns might not be as familiar with Dan
and his unique qualifications.
These towns include: Plainville, Wrentham, Walpole; (Pct. 5), Millis (Pct.
1), and Medfield (Pct 3, 4).
If you know anyone in these towns please give them a call and let them know
that Dan Winslow is running for State Representative and tell them about his
qualifications.
Why vote for Dan Winslow?
1. Establish healthy competition on Beacon Hill and get them working for
your vote.
2. Dan is a fiscally sound thinker always seeking new ways to keep our
money where it belongs, in our pockets.
3. Dan is the former Presiding Judge of the Wrentham District Court; he
knows what local problems look like.
Please spread the word about Dan so we can get someone in Boston who is on
our side!
www.danwinslow.com
[Proposal for Mortage Relief PDF]
This is so important to all of us. It is now in the senate, and the
banking lobbyists are trying to prevent it from happening. Senator Dodd
is now thinking to withdraw this from legislation.
Here is a link to Bloomberg.com
[article]
You can call Senator Kerry's office or our new Senator Brown and ask
them to support this bill.
H.R. 3126: Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009
This is really not about party rhetoric, this is about us, the people.
We need to pay attention to this.
You also neglect the
inescapable reality that this Administration's initial moves can be
looked upon as directly saving our financial system from collapse
(including the stabilization of 19 financial institutions), or fail to
acknowledge his rescue of the US auto industry, or his ending of
uncivilized torture techniques and compliance with the Geneva Convention
standards, or the renewed confidence in our nation worldwide, or the
gradual climb of the stock market, or the beginning of the long overdue
withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.
I will spare our beloved webmaster
(who has been pretty busy keeping this site up-to-date due to the Senate
race) and keep my response as brief as possible. However, for a far more
complete list of Obama achievements, see the following compilation put
together by Robert P. Watson, a Professor and the Coordinator of
American Studies at Lynn University. Go to:
[page link]
@ DR - I agree that perhaps he was uncertain as to what he was being handed. I
said throughout the entire Presidential campaign, "not a job I would want to
be taking over". I think he's a great campaigner, but that is all. As for
healthcare, the Republicans are trying to sabotage it because of many
reasons: 1. They aren't being included in the debate when it comes to reform
2. They don't like the closed-door, back room meetings where they are buying
the votes of their constituents. 3. Giving deals to the labor unions, which
in turn will now put the additional burden of 60 billion dollars on the
American people and small/private business. The only transparency in this
administration is we can all clearly see the corruption. It shows that if
you support the Democratic machine, you will be rewarded. What does that say
about those that didn't need or get a bailout, what about the business owner
that is just trying to get by? What about us "working stiffs" taking on
another job just to make ends meet. He has Reid and Pelosi handling the
healthcare reform, and they are unpopular amongst Republicans and
Democrats-another one of his downfalls. You cannot have a one-party rule and
expect that all American's are going to go along with it. He is moving in a
direction that makes the American people nervous. While you say that we
don't want to be ripped off by big for profit insurance agencies, we don't
want to be ripped off by big government either. The majority of Americans
wish to see healthcare reform; however, not like this. President Obama is not
letting the Republicans be heard, he's not willing to negotiate with the
GOP, as he stated he would. As for making the wealthy pay their fair share,
they do that already, and under the Bush tax cuts, they actually paid more,
but also boosted the economy and stock market (see here:
[article]
) The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all
taxes. It's the wealthy that will create jobs, it's the wealthy that pay the
most in taxes. 43% of American's do not pay any taxes. There are
approximately 60 million people that do not pay any taxes, but collect a
check from the gov't. So any argument that comes to me about it being "fair"
is just ridiculous". How is fair that those that don't work, or pay taxes,
are entitled to our money?
It has been very disappointing to watch every single Republican
senator disregard the interests of the people that they are supposed
to represent and do their best to sabotage health care reform (to try
to make it Obama's Waterloo) rather than to provide the health care
that their constituents want. It is painful for me to have to admit
that the "Blue Dog Democrats" aren't much better, since they, in
effect, held the bill hostage trying to get special advantages. (If a
few Republicans had helped, the Blue Dog Democrats wouldn't have
gotten away with their tactics.)
The majority of Americans don't want to be ripped off by big for-profit
insurance companies, they don't want the insecurity of knowing
that if they lose their jobs they've also lost their health care, they
don't want an environment where, after paying premiums for years and
years, they can have their coverage dropped if they get seriously ill,
they don't want to be prevented from getting health insurance because
of some pre-existing condition, and they understand that if the cost
of health care continues to rise much faster than inflation (which is
already rising faster than salaries) they simply won't be able to
afford health care.
You are correct that groups who had given up on voting in the past
turned out in greater numbers in the 2008 presidential election - not
because they expected a free ride, but because they expected a fair
shake. Rather than having a president who gave tax breaks to the
wealthiest Americans and left the middle class footing the bill, Obama
said that he would make wealthy Americans pay their fair share so that
middle class Americans didn't have the full burden fall on their
shoulders (and their children's shoulders and their grandchildren's
shoulders and their great grandchildren's shoulders).
This turnout was despite some minority voters being told to vote on
Wednesday rather than Tuesday, having to wait on multi-hour lines
while voters in "Republican neighborhoods" had only a few minutes
wait, being intimidated by the police on their way to vote, or being
removed from the voter registration database because they had names
that were "close to" the names of felons.
As I said in my post of 1/7 5:47pm, Republicans have a valid point
that we have to have procedures in place which limit voting to people
who should have a right to vote. However, we have to make it as easy
as possible for all citizens to vote and to be sure that the
procedures which limit voting to people who should have a right to
vote don't become obstacles for citizens who should have a right to
vote. As I mentioned in my post, some of these procedures are
obstacles for citizens who should have a right to vote and they were
probably designed with the intention of being obstacles for
demographic groups that are likely to vote Democratic in higher
proportions (poorer people, minorities, etc.).
If I understand your last point correctly, it was that "areas with the
demographic groups I was talking about went heavily for Obama, so they
must not have encountered obstacles to voting". (I don't think that
"the Majority of America (per square mile)" comment was really part of
the point you wanted to make.) I think that the voters' enthusiasm
about the possibility of electing a president who wasn't going to
screw them probably inspired many to persist despite the long lines,
misleading information, intimidation, and other tactics. My fear is
that since the Republicans saw that they lost despite the obstacles
they erected, they will try to create even more obstacles before the
next election.
As for you comment "By some strange coincidence, demographic groups that are
likely to vote Democratic in higher proportions (poorer people, minorities,
etc.) seem to be the ones for whom there are obstacles to voting." It was
those groups that turned out in record numbers to vote. Not because he would
better America... but because they thought they would be getting the "free
ride" they have been looking for all along. Let us not forget this:
[youtube link].
Or the voter intimidation in
Philly by the Black Panthers as seen here:
[youtube 2].
So to say that it's a strange
coincidence that demographic groups that are likely to vote Democratic in
higher proportions is just not true. Look at this map
[Washington Post link]
you will notice that the Majority of America (per square
mile) voted McCain. If you look at the small pockets that went Obama (in the
red states) it is the major metropolises; which falls under your description
of "demographic groups that are likely to vote Democratic in high
proportions (poorer people, minorities, etc).
See the clip from The DailyShow with Jon Stewart at
[page link]
about the idea that when you lose an election and the party who won
doesn't do exactly what you would have done, you have to accept that
as the way a democracy works.
The Republicans say they are concerned about people who shouldn't be
able to vote "sneaking in" and voting. The Democrats say they are
concerned about people who be should be able to vote being prevented
from voting. Both Republicans and Democrats have valid points. There
has been almost no evidence of people who shouldn't be able to vote,
voting. (I'm not saying it never happens or couldn't happen, but cases
are very, very rare.) There is a lot of evidence of people who are
citizens and should have a right to vote being prevented from voting
in various ways - making it difficult or expensive for them to
register, preventing them from getting to the polling places, not
having enough polling stations, etc. By some strange coincidence,
demographic groups that are likely to vote Democratic in higher
proportions (poorer people, minorities, etc.) seem to be the ones for
whom there are obstacles to voting. In view of the abuses that the
country has experienced, it is important that all citizens who should
have a right to vote can easily register and are not impeded,
threatened, misled, or harassed while trying to exercise their rights.
Experience has shown that Republican have used the issue of making
sure that only people who should have the right to vote get
registered, as a way to prevent people who should have the right to
vote, but are likely to vote Democratic, from registering.
Don't forget to vote on January 19th.
I will say this, though: Major overhaul
(preferably a single-payer system) should have been instituted in this
nation over 60 years ago, and it remains a national disgrace and outrage
that a handful of insurance megamonopolies and their present and former
hired guns (like McCaughey) continue to this day to employ scare
tactics, distortion, and misinformation (for example, pointless claims
and laughable predictions that a public option is "socialized medicine"
and will put the private sector out of business, or it will banish us
all to "group visits with the doctor," doom granny to a death panel, and
increase our risk of cancer). In addition, they spend millions upon
millions of dollars in an ongoing effort to maintain a life-threatening,
consumer unfriendly, and utterly baffling mess of a healthcare system
that not only leaves out some 50 million of us (a number that increases
daily) and threatens future economic collapse, but also has directly
resulted in our healthcare being ranked 37th worldwide by the World
Health Organization. Why would anyone in their right mind want to defend
this?!!
Frankly, it is almost understandable why many of our
politicians, like Boehner and Lieberman, are in bed with these
self-perpetuating corporate behemoths; but, what is really depressing
and incomprehensible are those private citizens who continue to fight
against their own best interests by supporting such a punishing,
private-sector death grip on their own health, the health of their
families, the health of their fellow-citizens, and, ultimately, the
health of their nation.
Project Vote Smart
[votesmart.org]
describes itself as
"The Voter's Self-Defense System". It is a non-partisan site with
information about officials' voting records and positions. It doesn't
seem to include information on campaign donations. It has some
information about state officials, but it is focused more on the
federal government. In particular, note the "Political Courage
Test" (= Issue Positions) which they describe as "The Political
Courage Test is a key component of Project Vote Smart's Voter Self-
Defense system. Major leaders of the media, major parties and Project
Vote Smart repetitiously ask candidates one central question: ``Are you
willing to tell citizens your positions on the issues you will most
likely face on their behalf?'' The Political Courage Test is
administered to all candidates for presidential, congressional,
gubernatorial, and state legislative offices. ... At a time when
Americans are increasingly frustrated with the attack advertising and
empty rhetoric of many campaigns, the need for this relevant
information has never been greater. The public integrity of candidates
and the quality of their campaigns can be viewed, in part, as a
measurement of their willingness to provide their prospective
employers (voters) with this information during a campaign, the point
when voters need the most help and when the candidates are asking for
their vote."
The past couple weeks, as the national health care debate has raged on, people have been coming to Change-Congress.org in droves to join our fight for fundamental campaign finance reform.
I've tried to look up a few U.S. senators on the FEC website, but that
site is usually busy and non-responsive.
Does anyone know what that private website address pertaining to the FEC
is?
The Secretary of State in Massachusetts has a webpage about elections:
[ma.us page link]
There may be a list of how much various local and state politicians
received, and from whom, but I didn't see it. Is there such a website
for Massachusetts?
Thanks,
You asked "Why is the Obama administration actually blogging about him
(Glenn Beck) on the White House blog?" You've probably heard of the
"Big Lie" - the idea that if a lie is repeated often enough, people
will start to believe it. Fox provides people like Beck with a big
soapbox. If the only thing people heard was what he said, they might
start to believe him. I suspect that the White House wants to be sure
that people have an opportunity to hear the truth and weigh that
against what Beck says.
Two non-partisan fact checking sites are
factcheck.org
and
the Pulitzer Prize winning
politifact.com
An example of a non-issue to which I was referring is the suggestion
that Healthcare reform will include "Death Panels". The statement "A
provision in the health care reform bill for end-of-life counseling
for seniors is not 'entirely voluntary'." was rated as "False" by
politifact. The more outrageous statement that "Seniors and the
disabled will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his
bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level
of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."
was given the "Pants On Fire" rating with the description "Sci-fi
scenario not based in reality".
Obama said "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will
insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm
proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." That
prompted Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina to shout "You lie!".
According to factcheck.org
The president is correct: The House bill contains a section (Sec. 246)
titled "NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS," which states:
"Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for
affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully
present in the United States."
I encourage you to continue taking an active role in what is happening
in this country - to be skeptical of all politicians on both sides of
the aisle and to check what they said they would do against what they
actually did. You wrote "I will call me representatives in congress
and the senate, state and federal and let them know how I feel. I will
continue to watch what they do govern my self accordingly." I applaud
that sentiment (if not the grammar ;) ). I think this town, and the
country in general, would benefit from citizens expressing their
opinions in a civil and rational manner, and respectfully listening to
other people's opinions with an open mind.
Quite apart from the effect on our ability as a country to hold civil
discussions with each other, this is also having a deleterious effect
on the Republican party. See the op-ed piece by David Brooks (one of
the New York Times' conservative, but civil, opinion writers) titled
"The Wizard of Beck" at
[article link]
To DR: When America is destroyed, it won't be by Fox News, believe me.
Are they scared people are actually listening and
checking to see if what he says is true? I'm not sure what non-issues
you are talking about. If you mean the ACORN non-issue. Well that seems
like a pretty strong issue to me. They get tax payer dollars to advice
how to set up a prostitution ring and import under age girls into the
country and not pay taxes, beside voter registration fraud. Yea, that's
a non-issue. Or how about Van Jones, who signed the truther petition.
Yeah another non-issue. Or how Obama is dragging his feet while soldiers
are dying in Afghanistan. After he said in March, that he will do
whatever is needed to win there. Another non-issue. Or maybe the Health
care debate where a congressman called the President a liar to the
amazement of everyone. As it turns out the President was not completely
truthful. Another non-issue. Or perhaps Cap & Tax, where energy rates
will skyrocket all in the name of global warming, yeah right.
We being taken as fools by special interest, unions, the UN and many
other charlatans.
As for Mr. Friedman in the NY Times, he may be correct or may be a
moron. I think the latter. I am not a big fan of certain conservative
pundits. But I know BS when I see it. And the Obama administration is
full of it. As many have said before, he is a great charmer, can read a
teleprompter like nobody else can, but he is very inexperienced and
naive. He is trying to spend our way out of this recession. He is
going to bankrupt us.
As for destroying America, Michael Moore, Hollyweird and NBC/GE is doing
just fine taking care of that. FOX happens to be engaging people to
take part in their country's management for the first time in over 100
years. The other network are basically telling everyone to shut up and
do what you're told. Well, I will not let these career politicians ruin
this country. I will call me representatives in congress and the
senate, state and federal and let them know how I feel. I will continue
to watch what they do govern my self accordingly.
To MJD, Glad you had fun
P.S. All hail MON
So if your having a Tea Party please let me know I have a few friends
that would be interested in showing up with signs.
They have no trouble from Obama down spending so much money that taking
23K for a person night out with wife on our dime doesn't seem to bother
the liberals in this state - no, correction - in this country. I would like
to know what kind of attention would the mainstream media would have
given if it was GWB who disrupted NYC just for a night out with his
wife.
Anyone going to say that DC doesn't have live entertainment suitable for
the first family?
Please call or email Mr. Frank and Speaker Pelosi and let them know it
is not OK to release these pictures. The individuals that were
responsible for these actions have been prosecuted and punished. Enough
is enough.
I called to today and got a very rude aide that said Mr. Frank didn't
care what I thought.
Barney FrankWashington office- 202-225-5931 Boston office - 617-332-3920 Email - [link]
Speaker Nancy Pelosi[speaker.house.gov] or [www.speaker.gov]
If the web contact form doesn't work, use this email address:
AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov
Office of the SpeakerH-232, US Capitol Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-0100
Please call today
Wow, $24000.00 for a date. Hope luck was on his side.
But instead of collecting Shiny OBJECTS I collected the HEADS of LOCAL
Socialists, Communists, And DemiGods Who believe They Know Wha's Best....
And I kept them in My high nest... My Treasures!
NOT YOURS! Mine!
The The Population O' Norfolk Suddenly Dropped by 2 maybe more!
And The Other Crows Resounded! CAW! CAW!
[Socialist as in those who suggest the taxpayers subsidize commercial landowners in town, or socialist as in those who think public money should be spent for the public good? Us politically unaware bumpkins need things explained. - Wm.]
IF ANY STATE could be called a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party, it would be Massachusetts. Its statewide elected officials [wiki] are all Democrats, as is every member of its congressional delegation [MA congress]. The Legislature is the most lopsidedly Democratic [page link] in the union -- there are only five Republicans among the 40 senators, and just 16 in the 160-member House of Representatives -- and it has been more than half a century since the GOP controlled either branch. Political analyst Jon Keller writes in The Bluest State [ref], his uninhibited survey of contemporary Bay State politics, "Massachusetts over the past few decades has been a Democrats' Burger King: They always have it their way."
The Disney channel is already doing it.
[article]
Political Correctness is destroying America.
The United States is in a severe recession, and the stock market Dow is
below 7000, unemployment is rising, house foreclosures are increasing,
college costs are preventing many youngsters from going ot college, and
cities and towns are laying off Police, Fire, and municipal personnel.
This is not the time to be giving away millions of our dollars to any
foreigh country or organization, especially after the State Department
built a huge embassy in Iraq, complete with swimming pool. Of course,
the embassy buildings are not designed to withstand mortar attacks, and
may not last long.
Tell our senstors and reps to keep the money here in the United States
for a change.
1) Management changes. How can the same CEOs,
CFOs and Chairmen be expected to act fiscally responsible when they so
grossly mismanaged their companies in the first place? If the banks accept
public money, than they are vetted to the SAME rules and oversights as any
government institution.
2) Explicit regulations regarding how the money
will be used both in the housing and credit sector. Publish the regulations
in language the public can understand. Close the loopholes.
3) Accountability. Those found to be complicit
in the unethical use of public money will be held responsible, both
financially and criminally in a court of law.
Please, take a few minutes to call or email your representatives. I have
and have heard back from two out of five so far. Fortunately, our
congressman, Barney Frank, is the Chairman of the Financial Services
Committee; he has a major influence on how/where bailout money is spent.
Collectively, we CAN have control over our tax money. Go to: www.usa.gov to
find your elected officials.
Norfolknet.com your community, on-line |
