Kerry Healey, the current lieutenant governor, and presumed Republican nominee for the governor's race, officially announced her candidacy the other night. As is the norm for Republican's in this state, she focused on two main points:

First, she won't "tax and spend." Great plan, Massachusetts schools aren't up to par, the state's higher education system is vastly underfunded, and the solution, of course, is less spending. Though I can certainly admit that property taxes here are obsurd. Boston's residential property tax rate is about 5 times that in my Vermont home town.

Second, she should be elected because the state house is dominated by Democrats and we need someone to keep them in check. Maybe she and Tom "I'm an outsider with unparalled experience" Reilly are sharing a strategiest, because both are far to focused on silly political reasons and not their ideas for the future of the state.


In other Gubanatorial-race news, Deval Patrick out fundraised Tom Reilly by just short of $100,000 dollars in January. Reilly still holds a huge advantage, but it's nice to see that Deval is beginning to benefit from the great support he is enjoying, as demonstrated by the caucuses. TR's people stuck with the strategy discussed last paragraph, pointing out that the Democrat will need a lot of money in order to win in November. Yes, TR, we get it, winning is a good thing. Jack Parker is pretty good at winning too, that doesn't make him less of a drunk.

I was going to blog about the first story I am going to mention here a day ago but I didnt get the chance. Ill start with a quote:
NYT - Some Democrats are Sensing Missed Opportunities

"We're selling our party short; you've got to stand for a lot more than just blasting the other side," said Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee. "The country is wide open to hear some alternatives, but I don't think it's wide open to all these criticisms. I am sitting here and getting all my e-mail about the things we are supposed to say about the president's speech, but it's extremely light on ideas. It's like, 'We're for jobs and we're for America.' "

To a certain extent, the frustrations afflicting Democrats are typical for a party out of power. In Congress, the Democrats have become largely marginalized by the Republican majority, depriving them of a ready platform either to make attacks or offer their own ideas. Presidential campaigns typically produce prominent party leaders, followed around the country by a cluster of reporters and television crews, but that is at least two years away.

Yet in many ways, the Democratic Party's problems seem particularly tangled today, a source of frustration to Democratic leaders as they have watched opinion polls indicating that the public is souring on the Republican Party and receptive to Democratic leadership.

And the problems are besetting Democrats at a pivotal moment, as they struggle to adapt to a shifting American political landscape, and a concerted effort by this White House to make permanent inroads among once traditional Democratic voters.

The Bottom Line is that the Democrats seem to have an opening right now. The Republicans have been in power now for a couple of years and they are starting to get ugly with their power. People are starting to think that there could be better things happening based on the fact that the majority of the country believes that we as a whole are moving in the right direction. It seems pretty clear to me that Democrats could easily have the upper hand on domestic issues if they just had policies out there. Health care is a huge issue for a lot of people and we must as a party re-visit again. Energy independence as I mention day after is a vitally important issue that can be tied to a very well to the issues of national security and keeping America strong for the future. If we can present something real in convincing tersm then we have something very serious to go with. On Social Security -- there clearly needs to be reform and as the people that created it -- we should work hard to create a plan that makes sense and lasts into the future. Democrats can put these policies together -- and can stand together on these policies but they have to think smart. We must be smart and implement this on all levels and just not run on a party of saying no to others. We must offer something better -- that is our obligation.

I think that Democrats have a serious gap on foreign policy. I think on some issues democrats and republicans stand on somewhat of the same territory. However, there are many issues, especially the issue of overall strategy which has never really been laid own by democrats. We essentially need a policy that says we are not pussies and that can be marketed that way but works on all levels as well. The democrats could run on these issues with domestic issues and be really strong but they just arent doing it. We are barely behind in polls discussing national security and we just have to have something smart and substantive to say back that fits into a larger theme. We just better do it. The Northeastern University College Democrats are going to work towards doing it and the national party better as well.

One other item. I have participated in what is below in the past but it really isnt where we should focus our energy because it is ultimately BS and contributes to people seeing the democrats as weak on defense and other issues. We need to take these issues back and we need to be serious. This is what we can't really do anymore:
How Liberals Play Into Karl Rove's Hands - TNR

The point is bigger than just one gathering at a liberal organization. In the years since September 11, many liberals seem to have concluded that you're not really opposing Bush's means unless you also scorn his stated ends. That's too bad. Liberals have no chance of winning the national security debate if they dismiss its premises. I think most liberals recognize this, but some are so disgusted with the current administration that they feel compelled to oppose--and to mock--anything with Bush's name on it. And any Democrats, like Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, who oppose the Bush administration yet decline to scoff at the notion that America ought to stand for the spread of human freedom are liable to be labeled weak, neoconservative, or traitorous to their own cause.

This only stifles the possibility of a serious liberal alternative to Bush's policies. As long as Democrats are required by their base to ridicule Bush's ends rather than his means, they will have lost the debate over foreign policy before it even starts. Indeed, despite the unpopularity of the Iraq war, recent polling shows that Americans still trust Republicans more than Democrats on national security.

We have to do better.

This column is from the Boston Globe of yesterday highlighting the fact that the people that get the worst end of the President's policies are those that deserve it least. I honestly really find this whole thing sick. I believe in a government that lends a helping hand and a fair chance to those that deserve that. Heck, one day that could be just about anyone. Bush instead chooses to serve the people with the most while giving those with less very little. Here is a link and an excerpt:

The Crulest Cuts
By Derrick Z. Jackson, Boston Globe

The majority-Republican House last week narrowly passed $39 billion in budget cuts for Medicaid, Medicare, student loans, and child support. The Republican-majority Senate had already passed the cuts. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the former acting Republican House majority leader, declared, ''Once again, House Republicans are on record as defending budget discipline. We have achieved $39 billion in savings, while streamlining government."

It was a cutthroat lie. Everyone knows the cuts are meant to fund $70 billion in tax breaks for the rich. Bush repeated in the State of the Union that he wants to make the tax cuts permanent. As the government streamlines and disciplines the poor, hope springs eternal for entitlements for the rich.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the cuts in Medicaid would result in 13 million people paying higher prices for prescription drugs by 2010 and 20 million people by 2015. It estimated that federal cuts would force states to impose cost-sharing requirements for at least one nonprescription health service or raise them for 13 million people by 2015.

The CBO predicts that cuts at the federal level would force already strapped states to impose premiums on 900,000 Medicaid enrollees by 2010 and 1.3 million by 2015. Similarly, 900,000 enrollees would see their benefits cut to take care of their teeth, eyes, and mental health.

The CBO estimates that higher healthcare premiums will result in 45,000 enrollees -- more than can fit into Fenway Park -- losing coverage by 2010. By 2015, the number would be 65,000 by 2015, equivalent to the number of privileged people who just packed Detroit's Ford Field for the Super Bowl.

The Globe briefly mentions some newly released gun violence statistics today. Over here in the gentrified Fenway area we can easily forget that Boston has a growing problem on its hands, one that deserves some discussion.

There were two more gun homicides in 2005 than in 2004, but 72 more non-fatal attacks. More disturbing is the difference between last month and the January of 2005. In 1/04 there were 11 attacks, 2 fatal and this January there were 30 attacks, 4 fatal.

One can easily write these statistics off by saying that Boston is still one of the least violent cities of its size, so we shouldn't be worried, and this holds some value. But, one gun death is obviously one too many, and every effort should be taken to decrease gun violence rates.

There are a number of approaches to be considered:

Josh's boy Menino has focuses his efforts on eliminating bad T-shirts. A few months back Menino forced a clothing store to take "Stop Snitching" shirts off of their shelves. It was essentially Boston-Herald-politics, if you will, playing to the headlines instead of looking to solve the actual problem.

The most popular solution amongst City officials is increasing police presence. There are two problems, first Boston's budget is such that it really can't increase the police force to the levels people would like. The second problem is that this is far from a long term solution. The Boston that we all want isn't one with no violence but police on every corner, it's a Boston with real peace. To paraphrase someone quoting MLK at Coretta's funeral, "Peace is not just the absence of war, but the presence of peace." I like that.

So now that we are thinking big, how can this be accomplished. My answer is almost always education, and this is no exception. The first thing we need is an extended school day, with after school activities like we all enjoyed in our fancy suburban schools. The most dangerous time of the day isn't 3 a.m., it's the time between when school lets out and when parents get out of work. If we can occupy students with sports and theater and art, not only we they be better educated but our streets will be safer. There plenty of ideas out there, but I say we start with that one.

Because we love America so much, myself and Jon Kent wrote a column for the Northeastern News. It talks about many of the same issues that we focus on here on the blog so check it out. Below is an Exerpt:
This is the link:
Commentary: Bush should ask us to make sacrifices by Joshua K. Robin and Jon Kent

The president has promised the American people $70 billion in tax cuts while spending over $250 billion on a war, but the citizens must sacrifice something for a stronger future. If we choose not to roll back President Bush's tax cuts while cutting spending, we will face trillions of dollars in debt for the rest of our lives, leaving us with an America that does not resemble the America we have grown up in. We must sacrifice our gas-guzzling cars and conserve energy so we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The president must sacrifice some of his ego abroad and again work with our allies, or we will not be able to win the war on terrorism. As John F. Kennedy said at his inauguration, Americans must again "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

Everyone's favorite friend-of-Deval and everyone's least favorite P.O.W. have been in a nasty fight over the proposed ethics legislation. Obama apparently had promised McCain he would support JM's ethics bill, only to change his mind and accept Senate Democrats request that he run point on their competing ethics bill.

Their fight was waged--as all vicious fights are--by mail.

McCain lead off by accusing Obama of "self-interested partisan posturing" (Snap!) and then doled out some condescension with, "I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics, the public interest isn't always a priority for every one of us." (Double Snap!!)

Obama wasn't having that though, "The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you, nor my willingness to find a bipartisan solution to this problem." (What Now J-Mc! What Now!!)

Of course, hours after the news broke, they now claim to have made up. If anyone is good at pretending to be made up for political gain, though, it is McCain. (Campaigned for Bush despite hating every inch of him, and his whole being nice to Democrats act.)

More important than all this, though, are two of the smaller details of the story:

First, speculation is that Barack was told to take a step back from the bipartisan route because the Democrats use ethics issues against the GOP. Sounds good to me, it's about time we delayed making America better for a second to look long term.

Second, it's nice to see Barack is taking the lead on an issue, for a while there it looked like the DNC might be the peak of his career.

This is really Jon's thing to gloat about but I feel like I should post about it anyways. Anyways, the Boston Globe reports the following today:

In private conversations, key supporters of Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly have long dismissed Deval Patrick as a minor impediment to winning the Democratic nomination for governor. Not anymore, after a lackluster showing in the party caucuses over the weekend capped the worst week of Reilly's political career.

For weeks, Reilly partisans had been spinning low expectations and conceding the convention endorsement in June to Patrick. The purpose was clear: Portray the organizational achievements of the lesser-known Patrick as an inside job by liberal activists and accentuate Reilly's strengths, both real (an almost 6-to-1 cash-on-hand advantage) and supposed (electability in November against the Republican nominee).

But following so closely behind Reilly's blunder in choosing a running mate whose tax and credit problems forced an abrupt withdrawal, the caucus results will be viewed in a different light, several Reilly campaign officials acknowledged in interviews.

Recent events also increase the likelihood that Reilly will be forced to spend heavily and spend earlier and to slug it out with Patrick if he is to win the September primary, said a Reilly adviser who requested anonymity.

Moreover, the caucus results demonstrate that Patrick's team is well on the way to establishing a statewide field organization for the fall primary.

''Tom realizes he's got to throw away the playbook and start anew," Senate President Robert E. Travaglini said after meeting Reilly over lunch with four fellow Democratic senators last week. ''The course of this campaign has changed," Travaglini said, describing himself as ''inclined to be supportive" of Reilly but not yet committed to his candidacy. ''In the eyes of some, he is no longer considered the front-runner."

I think this is a really positive development because in my eyes, Tom Reilly is just another boring old school Democratic candidate. He really doesn't have many ideas if any and he is just sort of a vote for being a Democrat. I do not think this is enough for Democrats and Deval really excites me as someone with something to say and some ideas that could move the state party forward. At the least, I would hope that even if Reilly gets the Democratic nod that the presence of Deval will force him to say something different and put forward some ideas. Still, I think Deval is really the type of fresh face that the Democrats need to start winning elections. This is a Democratic state and we should be winning.

Today -- well yesterday at this point -- the President released his budget. While this is not exactly the most exciting political issue to discuss, it is probably the most important. As just about everyone say, the budget more than any other single document lays out the true priorities of the President and of the government at that any given time. It appears that the President's prioties are mostly just in the area of the politics of tax cuts. The President seems to just enjoy beaming about his tax cuts every year in his speeches and talking about how the government is going to give money back to the people. The president neglects to explain where the money for these tax cuts is coming from and what we lose in return.

In the last five years, the President has pushed that case that we can somehow cut taxes, fight wars, provide more money for national security, grow programs, and still cut taxes. Today, based on the headlines in the major papers this idea seems to be quite heavily challenged and I hope that the American people catch on. The first lines of todays NYT cover story on the budget read the following way:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 — George W. Bush ran for office as a "compassionate conservative," arguing that Americans did not have to choose between huge tax cuts and a government that would do its part to address social needs like education and health care.

Now into his sixth year in the White House, Mr. Bush offered a budget on Monday that showed more clearly than ever the inexorable limits of that political promise.

This sentiment was echoed in that pages of the Washington Post as well:

The budget plan for fiscal 2007 underscores what budget analysts of all political stripes have been saying for years: The goals of balancing the budget, waging a global fight against terrorism and making Bush's first-term tax cuts permanent may be fundamentally at odds.

All across the board it is becoming clearer and clearer that the President cannot do everything at the same time. To be quite honest this all just seems to make sense. It is like saying that I am going to put two additions on my house at the same time as I take a pay cut. It really just doesnt work because these tax cuts are essentially a cut on the revenue of the government, a cost that far exceeds that of fighting the Iraq war and securing our nation in the long term.

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities lays out the tax cuts argument pretty clearly:

Over ten years, the cost just of making expiring tax cuts permanent and extending AMT relief would be approximately $2.8 trillion, not counting the added interest payments on the debt, and $3.3 trillion when the interest costs are included. Those figures do not include the additional costs of the new tax cuts the President is proposing for health savings accounts, retirement and lifetime savings accounts, and other items. In future decades, the combined cost of the various tax cuts the President is proposing would be massive.

At the same time as the president is pushing ahead with his tax cuts and the war, he has chosen to cut vital programs which would be largely covered if it was not for the tax cuts. These cuts are going to strike hard at the core of Americans, especially those that are older or less fortunate. The prime example of this is proposed cuts to medicare and medicade:

And last year, Bush proposed a substantial cut to Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor. But the issue has never before received such prominence in the president's budget. The warning is backed up with a proposal to slow spending on entitlements by $65 billion in the next five years, including a $36 billion reduction in Medicare, which covers health care for older and disabled Americans.

These cuts are going to hurt the core of our nation. More importantly, without reducing the tax cuts no amount of spending cuts in domestic programs provide real hope for reigning in the deficit. Again from the center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

• 
  

As a result, the Administration’s own numbers indicate that the President’s budget proposals would increase deficits by $192 billion over the next five years, compared to what deficits would be if current laws and policies remained unchanged.[1] Indeed, data contained in Administration budget materials show that deficits would total $760 billion over the next five years without the policy changes the Administration is proposing, but would total $952 billion with those policy changes.

A standard part of the President’s budget each year is a summary table that shows the impact of the Administration’s proposed policies on the deficit. (See Table S-12 on page 364 of last year’s budget.) This year, however, the Administration has eliminated that table from its budget publications, presumably to deflect attention from the deficit-increasing impact of its proposals. (The impact of the budget’s proposals on the deficit can be constructed from data in the budget and accompanying Administration budget information, which is what we have done.)

The budget would cause even larger increases in deficits outside the five-year budget window. The budget fails to provide numbers for revenues, expenditures, and deficits for years after fiscal year 2011, an omission that masks the budget’s large effects in swelling long-term deficits. The Administration proposes to make its tax cuts permanent. Since most of the current tax cuts are in effect through 2010, the overwhelming bulk of the cost of making the tax cuts permanent would occur outside the five-year budget period.

And I will end where then end:
Unfortunately, this budget fails the tests of fiscal responsibility, fairness and balance, and transparency. The nation and its policymakers can do better.

The 35,000 who attended the caucuses favored Deval overwhelmingly. Among committed delegates, about 2/3 favored Deval, and Reilly's own daughter failed to win a delegate seat.

Reilly's only strong area was in Boston, where he used Menino's support to his advantage, but even this isn't as encouraging for the TR campaign as it could be. First, Menino apparently is easing away from TR, so come election day the Menino-machine may not be an advantage at all. Secondly, only committed delegates can be counted in one camp or the other, and in my ward the delegates were not committed yet were 100% Deval supporters.

While this is all good news from my point of view, I did read one disturbing sentence in the Globe's story:

"Several voters praised Reilly's appeal to centrist voters, who could be key as Democrats try to win the governors' office after a 20-year drought"

The last time Democratic voters tried to pretend they were professional political strategists, John Kerry won Iowa. And we all know how that turned out. (To be fair, if someone said that to me I would say, "Presidential elections are a referendum on the incumbent, any reasonable candidate would have gotten approximately the same number of votes as Kerry." But still, I don't like the thinking.)