Every day is Groundhog Day for Mass cities and towns

For at least the fourth time since I started to keep track last year, the Boston Globe’s editorial page again calls for Beacon Hill to step up and empower cities and towns to get a handle on skyrocketing health insurance costs:

The 351 cities and towns could make do with less aid if they could bring down the costs of their employees’ pensions and health care without cutting benefits. Patrick and the Legislature should give them the means and the encouragement to do so.

The most obvious step is to give towns the power to buy health insurance through the state’s thrifty Group Insurance Commission. Right now, even minor changes to health plans are subject to collective bargaining, and current law gives unions a veto over whether a community joins the state insurance group. The Legislature should nix the veto – and even consider bonus aid to towns that sign up.

So far, only a handful of communities have made the change. But the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation and the Boston Municipal Research bureau credibly estimated in 2007 that moving all communities into the commission would save more than $200 million in fiscal year 2011 alone. The state currently spends $936 million in unrestricted aid to local governments, so the change would amount to more than a 20 percent increase in local aid. There’s too much money at stake to tolerate the status quo.

Today’s Local Headlines

I read the news today…

Think About It

A brilliant column by Kevin Cullen of the Boston Globe, in anticipation of today’s US Senate race.

Blue Hill Avenue runs like a vein through the city.

It stretches for 4 miles, from River Street in Mattapan to Dudley Street in Roxbury, and a little more than a year ago there was an Obama sign on every block. There were Obama signs in Mattapan barber shops, in the windows of the apartment buildings opposite Franklin Field and Franklin Park, in the restaurants of Grove Hall, in the bodegas near Jermaine Goffigan Park.

Fourteen months ago, there was a buzz on Blue Hill Ave. and the streets that run off it like caterpillar legs. This is the heart of the biggest minority community in the state, and the energy generated by the prospect of Barack Obama becoming president was palpable.

Yesterday, I drove the length of Blue Hill Ave. and counted exactly two Martha Coakley signs. One of them was on a fence next to the Roxbury Energy Gas station, on the corner of Moreland Street. The sign wasn’t properly fastened. It flapped in the wind, revealing a “Mike Flaherty for Mayor’’ sign underneath.

If Martha Coakley loses today, it won’t be because she didn’t put up enough signs on Blue Hill Ave. It’ll be because she failed to convince enough of the people who put up the Obama signs on Blue Hill Ave. and a lot of other avenues across Massachusetts that Obama’s ability to get anything done depends on her winning the election.

Blue Hill Avenue voted for Barack Obama in 2008. Blue Hill Avenue voted for Deval Patrick in 2006–”Together We Can” and “No Ordinary Leader” signs were in virtually every storefront in late-October and early-November of that year.

Think about that as you go into the voting booth today.

UPDATE: Please be sure to join us Tuesday for a special Election Night edition of The Notes on Blog Talk Radio beginning at 8:00pm EST. We will be joined by Stephanie Davis of RFC Radio and Paul Couturier of Blog Talk Radio. Plus, more from WBUR, the Globe and Herald.

Scott Brown Winning Boston.com Survey on Who Won The Debate

It may not be a scientific poll, but if I was gonna predict how a Boston Globe online survey would turn out regarding the outcome of last night’s debate, I figured Coakley would have been able to rely on the state’s significant party loyalty advantage to flood the poll with people who would vote for her as the winner.

Well, apparently, there just aren’t enough who believe she won, because with nearly 11,000 votes, Scott Brown is currently winning with 74.6%. Only 20.9% think Martha Coakley won.

Desperate Coakley Launches Attack Ad

After losing last night’s debate, Martha Coakley decided that desperate situations call for desperate measures, and immediately released an ad attacking Scott Brown.

Why would she go on the attack? I like how Holly Robichaud answers that question.

Do you still believe the Boston Globe’s poll that Martha Coakley is ahead by 15 points?  If you do, I have some swamp land to sell you.

Yesterday Martha Coakley released an ad attacking Scott Brown.  It is the first negative ad by a candidate during this General Election campaign.  It begs the question: If Martha is leading in the polls, then why attempt to discredit a competitor who is behind?  Clearly Scott Brown is running a competitive campaign and this race is neck and neck.  Hence, Martha believes that attacking her opponent is the best way to win.  Furthermore, it also shows that voters are not responding to her message so she needs to make Scott out to be the bad guy. 

Interestingly enough, the ad was reported pulled already because “Massachusetts” is misspelled.

In response to Coakley, false, negative attack, Scott Brown has released a response.

 
Support Scott Brown for U.S. Senate!