Good Grief, Charlie Baker

Charlie Baker is going to have to do some serious spin on this on…

As Republican Charles Baker seeks to capture the independent vote that bolstered U.S. Sen. Scott Brown’s win, a Herald review shows Harvard Pilgrim tripled the former CEO’s annual salary as it hit consumers with a 150 percent increase in premiums.

Brown rode to victory as an independent voice on health care, a position critics say Baker will have a tough time following with those numbers.

Baker defends his record and argues that Gov. Deval Patrick is late to the health-care discussion. He said he’s been “shouting from the rooftops” about the need for hospitals and medical providers to make the cost of health care more transparent, and pushing for legislation that would control costs.

“My salary’s been a matter of public record for 20 years, and I’m probably the only candidate,” for whom that’s the case, Baker said. Baker’s salary as CEO of Harvard Pilgrim surged from $548,351 in 1999 to a high of $1.7 million in 2008. He earned $1.3 million in seven months in 2009 before he resigned to run for governor last summer, filings with the state Attorney General show.

Over the same period, premiums at Harvard Pilgrim went up by 100 to 200 percent.

When Baker took the reins in 1999, rates on Harvard Pilgrim’s most popular plans ranged from about $166 to $187 a month per member. Those rates soared to $425 to $483 a month, as of April, according to filings with the Massachusetts Division of Insurance.

Two months ago, the Commonwealth elected a Republican to the Senate due in part to his promise to be the 41st vote against the health care bill. With health care being at the front line of today’s political battleground, will those same voters ignore the fact that Charlie Baker was “part of the problem” with the health care industry?

“You have to look at him as the incumbent in terms of health-care costs,” said Democratic operative Michael P. Shea. “If you look at his salary and the increases that people are paying now, how can he say he did a good job? It’s absolutely fair to pin this on him. He hasn’t shown he’s part of the solution, he’s part of the problem.”

Patrick is expected to keep the focus on health care – and keep the heat on Baker – as he proposes a so-called soft cap on premium increases. His plan pits him squarely against health insurers in an intensifying three-way race that also features unenrolled candidate Tim Cahill, the state treasurer.

Baker said Patrick is trying to shift the focus.

“This probably beats talking about spending and taxes and unemployment if you’re him,” Baker said. “I’ve supported a lot of things that would put my organization and my industry at risk. I have no idea if it’s going to be good or bad for my company or my industry, but it’s the right thing to do for the people of Massachusetts. I got a lot of grief from people for doing that.”

Sooner or later, he will have to address the real issue, rather than playing the “I’m rubber and you’re glue” argument, just Deval Patrick will have to answer to his criticisms too. A guy making nearly $2 million a year, while us regular people are paying painfully high health care premiums…maybe, according to Harvard Pilgrim, he did deserve the salary bump…but anyone who didn’t see their salaries triple may think differently.

Scott Brown’s Tax Cut

A tax cut… proposed by Senator Scott Brown (R-MA).

Almost one month to the day of entering the U.S. Senate after a race that rocked the political world, Sen. Scott Brown, R-MA, has come out with his first piece of legislation — a tax cut.

It targets mostly working class Americans, those employees making up to about $200,000, with a temporary tax cut that would, according to data released from Brown’s office, save the average worker “about $100 a month for a total of at least $500 for individuals and $1,000 for working couples.”

Brown will win few, if any, Democratic supporters, however, as he seeks to pay for the entire amendment with “all unallocated stimulus funds,” of which Brown estimates there is “over $80 billion.”

There has not yet been a full analysis of the bill, which offers the tax cut for a six month period, which determines its price tag, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Brown’s office, in a statement, said, “Families could immediately use their returned tax dollars to provide for their families and put back into the struggling economy to spur job creation.”

Let’s hope the new senator offers this provision real soon; and let’s also hope that Democrats were inspired by Brown’s non-partisanship and really consider this.

Scott Brown: The Independent Voice

To the surprise–and dismay–of many Republicans, Scott Brown cast a vote in support of a job creation bill.

A modest job-creation bill advanced in the U.S. Senate on Monday as the chamber’s newest Republican bucked his party and sided with Democrats on a $15 billion package of tax cuts and highway spending.

Republican Scott Brown joined four other Republicans, 55 Democrats and two independents to overcome a procedural hurdle that sets up a final vote later this week.

Brown was widely hailed as a conservative hero after his surprise victory in Massachusetts last month gave Republicans enough seats to block most Democratic legislation.

His election prompted President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats to call for increased bipartisanship, and an earlier version of the bill was written with Republican input.

But key Republicans withdrew their support after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scaled it back.

Brown said the bill was not perfect but would help put people back to work.

“I hope my vote today is a strong step toward restoring bipartisanship in Washington,” he said in a statement.

Scott Brown said the following about his vote for the bill:

I came to Washington to be an independent voice, to put politics aside, and to do everything in my power to help create jobs for Massachusetts families. This Senate jobs bill is not perfect. I wish the tax cuts were deeper and broader, but I am voting for it because it contains measures that will help put people back …to work. … I hope for improvements in that process going forward.

Based on the criteria that Scott Brown campaigned on, no one should be surprised by our new Senator’s vote. He said he was an independent thinker, and if he saw a bill he liked, it wouldn’t matter whose bill it was–if it’s good for Massachusetts, he’ll vote for it.

Now, you may disagree with whether or not this bill is “good for Massachusetts,” but for crying out loud, Scott Brown has not done anything that should be a surprise. In fact, if he specifically voted against this bill because of strict party line, I would be disappointed–and I’m equally disappointed in the people who call themselves Republicans who hoped that Brown would be just a rank-and-file Republican who would only vote for a bill if the Republican Party supported it. It wasn’t that long ago that Brown was campaigning, clearly there are more than a few people with short memories.

The problem with politics as usual is that there aren’t enough people willingly to cross party lines and vote for what they believe is a good bill. If you disagree with their judgment, fine, but when you vote for someone who spends millions of dollars telling you he’s going to be an independent voice, don’t be surprised if he “disappoints” you on occasion. Did you think that Scott Brown was an über-conservative? Sorry, if you didn’t know that before you voted for him, than you are the foolish one. If he was a hard-core conservative, he may not be in Washington right now. Think about that.

For the record, I have not read the bill in question; I know nothing about it in detail. I voted for Scott Brown because between him and Martha Coakley, I trust Scott Brown to represent my interests more than Coakley. I can guarantee that over the remainder of the term he is serving, my interests will have been served better by Scott Brown than they would have by Martha Coakley. If your support is going to waver based on singular votes, you’re gonna be in for a bumpy ride.

Do you want to jump ship? Jump ship. You won’t be missed. There may be room on the bandwagon when you change your mind, but don’t expect a warm welcome from me.

Get over it. There will be bigger battles down the road.

Lt. Gov Calls Brown “Flat Wrong”

Lt. Governor Tim Murray is throwing some punches at Senator Scott Brown.

Newly elected Sen. Scott Brown is “flat-out wrong” to suggest the federal stimulus package has not created a single new job in Massachusetts, Lt. Gov. Timothy Murray said Wednesday.

Marking the first anniversary of the $787 billion legislation, the Democrat said more than 25,000 jobs have been saved or created in the Bay State. Brown, the Republican who won the race to succeed the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, has insisted none had been created.

“He’s flat-out wrong. He was flat-out wrong in the campaign, and he’s flat-out wrong now,” Murray told reporters during a conference call organized by the Democratic National Committee.

We all know the Governor is trying to create one job… but what about real jobs–like private sector jobs?
I think we can look to another Senator, Senator Evan Bayh to substantiate Senator Brown’s claim:

“If I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months…”

Brown dismissed Murray’s comments.

“No amount of political spin can change the fact that we have lost jobs every month since the stimulus passed,” said Brown spokesman Colin Reed. “Only in the alternative universe that is Beacon Hill would they consider that a success.”

Why is Murray putting in his two cents? Is Murray’s political posturing indicative of a forthcoming bold move?

Massachusetts Law: Kirk Can’t Vote After Tuesday

The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes explains:

Appointed Senator Paul Kirk will lose his vote in the Senate after Tuesday’s election in Massachusetts of a new senator and cannot be the 60th vote for Democratic health care legislation, according to Republican attorneys.

Kirk has vowed to vote for the Democratic bill even if Republican Scott Brown is elected but not yet certified by state officials and officially seated in the Senate. Kirk’s vote is crucial because without the 60 votes necessary to stop a Republican filibuster, the bill will be defeated.

This would be a devastating loss for President Obama and congressional Democrats. The bill, dubbed ObamaCare, is the centerpiece of the president’s agenda. Brown has campaigned on becoming the 41st vote against ObamaCare.

But in the days after the election, it is Kirk’s status that matters, not Brown’s. Massachusetts law says that an appointed senator remains in office “until election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy.” The vacancy occurred when Senator Edward Kennedy died in August. Kirk was picked as interim senator by Governor Deval Patrick.

Democrats in Massachusetts have talked about delaying Brown’s “certification,” should he defeat Democrat Martha Coakley on Tuesday. Their aim would be to allow Kirk to remain in the Senate and vote the health care bill.

But based on Massachusetts law, Senate precedent, and the U.S. Constitution, Republican attorneys said Kirk will no longer be a senator after election day, period. Brown meets the age, citizenship, and residency requirements in the Constitution to qualify for the Senate. “Qualification” does not require state “certification,” the lawyers said.

An appointed senator’s right to vote is not dependent on whether his successor has been certified, the lawyers said. In Massachusetts, the election of a senator must be certified by the governor, the governor’s council, and the secretary of state – all of them Democrats.

So, all the delays being floated by Democrats are irrelevant. But then again, Massachusetts Democrats have a long record of considering Massachusetts law irrelevant. The way they’ve schemed to keep Brown out of the Senate shows not only contempt for the law and our representative democracy, but for the people who who are governed by those very laws.