Baker-Tisei Takes The Convention

It comes as no surprise that Charlie Baker and Richard Tisei were victorious at the Massachusetts GOP Convention today.

Today at the Massachusetts Republican Party Convention in Worcester, Charlie Baker and Richard Tisei overwhelmingly received the Republican Party endorsement. With over 2800 delegates in attendance, Baker won by an overwhelming margin of 89 – 11 over Christy Mihos.

“No candidate in modern Republican Convention history has trounced his opponent like this,” said Baker-Tisei Convention Chair and House Minority Leader Brad Jones. “It was a wipeout.”

“To receive the endorsement of the Republican Party is truly an honor,” said Baker. “As I have campaigned across Massachusetts, a consistent theme has been apparent, people are extremely worried about out-of-control spending from the insiders running Beacon Hill. Today marks the start of change.”

I do find it odd that only 4 years ago, the Massachusetts Republican Party was begging Christy Mihos to run as a Republican, and spoke often about the benefits of having a Republican Primary. Mihos’ 11% ensures no primary battle, and that is unfortunate. Why didn’t the Party make sure Christy got 15% so we could have a primary? What’s different now than 4 years ago? It’s just as important this year, if not more, than it was last time around…

Well, I suppose there’s no use wasting any words on pondering the issue.

Congratulations to Team Baker-Tisei. Let’s make it happen.

RMV Tax?

If someone can explain the sense in this, I’m all ears:

Gov. Deval Patrick is quietly whacking beleaguered Bay State motorists with a $5 fee to use Registry of Motor Vehicle branches to renew their licenses and registrations, outraging critics who say the “back-door tax” hits poor and elderly drivers the hardest.

The fee, which goes into effect today, comes on the heels of a $10 license renewal increase last year.

“In this economic climate we shouldn’t be nickel-and-diming people for mandated services,” said state Sen. Steve Baddour (D-Methuen), who co-chairs the Legislative Transportation Committee, and is planning to look into repealing the fee.

Republicans said residents ought to be able to walk in and use their RMV branches without penalty.

“This is a back-door tax that hits the poor and elderly the hardest,” said Tarah Donoghue, spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Republican Party. “They can’t afford or don’t have Internet access and computers. The Patrick-Murray administration is burdening those people who can afford it the least.”

Customers will incur the new $5 fee if they speak with an RMV representative on the phone or go in to one of the 30 branches for the following services:

• Renewing your driver’s license (except for the 10-year renewal required in person);
• Getting a duplicate license or Massachusetts ID;
• Renewing your registration; or
• Requesting an attested driving record.

The fee won’t be charged for transactions completed online, by mail, or over the RMV’s automated phone system.

I just don’t get this. This is essentially a tax for interacting with state employees in lieu of utilizing automated or online services. I find this particularly odd because it’s usually the other way around, and dubbed a “convenience fee.” I’ve gotten my fair share of parking tickets around the Boston area, and wouldn’t you know it, if I wanted to pay my fine online, I was charged a fee; if I paid in person or by mail, no fee.

So which is it? Are we to be levied with fees for utilizing online services, or in-person services? Either way, it’s absurd. More transactions online mean less people to pay at the RMV, so it ends up in a cost savings and it saves people time. It’s a win-win. But charging people to waste their time in line, dealing with people who really couldn’t care less about helping you, for that you are charging a fee?

Screw that. My license expires next year, and since I renewed online 5 years ago, I have no choice but to go stand in line at the RMV, and I’ll be damned if you try to charge me an extra fee to do that.

Who’s the “Party of the Rich” Now?

The special election for U.S. Senate last week revealed some intriguing demographic trends in Massachusetts that present a unique opportunity for the state Republican Party.

Take a look at this map showing margins of victory by town in last week’s election. Notably, Scott Brown generally performed better in exurban towns and less affluent suburbs such as North Andover, Canton, and Reading than in the wealthiest suburbs west of Boston such as Wellesley, Belmont, and Needham. Brown’s margins in many largely middle-class towns were greater than Mitt Romney’s in 2002, which is the last year there was a truly competitive statewide race in Massachusetts. However, Romney performed better than Brown in the upscale western suburbs. What explains this apparent paradox?

These results reflect a larger shift in the demographic makeup of both major political parties, which has been taking place across the country in recent years, culminating in 2008. The Obama coalition that year was formed of three basic demographic elements. The first element was made up of those with the least money in the country; Obama beat out McCain by 48 points among those earning less than $15,000 a year. The second element was made up of many of the wealthiest Americans.

The first element’s support for Obama is not entirely surprising. However, the Democrats’ gains among affluent Americans are somewhat of a surprise, especially given that Republicans have long held a lock on the wealthy vote. For example, as recently as 2004, President Bush won those Americans earning more than $100,000 a year by 17 points, and won those earning more than $200,000 a year by 28 points. In 2008, Obama beat out McCain by 6 points among those earning more than $100,000 a year, a 23 point turnaround in just four years. And Obama tied for the votes of those earning more than $200,000 a year, a 28 point gain from the previous presidential election.

The third element of the Obama coalition was made up of a large number of Americans in between the income extremes, many of whom likely believed he would fulfill his campaign promise to unite Americans by launching a pragmatic, “postpartisan” political era. Indeed, while Bush tied for the votes of those Americans earning in between $30,000-$50,000 a year in 2004, Obama won this group by 12 points in 2008. And while in 2004 Bush won those earning in between $50,000-$75,000 a year by 13 points, Obama tied for the votes of this group four years later. These middle-class voters make up much of the population of the swing districts/states that were crucial to Obama’s victory in 2008, mostly in the middle of the country or in non-coastal sections of coastal states. And they are the same voters who have abandoned Obama in droves over the last year as his campaign promises of bipartisanship have been revealed to be mostly hollow.

One explanation for the migration of wealthy Americans to the Democrats in recent years has its roots in the boom of the technology and financial sectors between 1995-2008, which resulted in the rapid acquisition of great wealth among many Americans. This argument holds that such quick accumulation of wealth has weakened the connection for many affluent Americans between wealth and the policies that encourage success (i.e. low tax rates), which held more salience in the years when wealth was acquired as a result of many years of hard work. Among the new elite, social issues and environmental causes apparently trump economic self-interest. This is especially true among the very wealthy. For them, the impact of the recession has been minimal and the tax consequences of grandiose policy schemes are of little concern.

I would argue that the change is also generational. Newly wealthy members of the younger generations who have never known the days of tax rates as high as 90% in the early 1960s may not be aware of the possible long-term consequences of supporting Democrats. I imagine some of these wealthy Americans may begin to shift their party allegiances as those consequences (i.e. tax increases) become more clear in the coming years.

One definitive consequence of this demographic shift is the change in the power base of the Democratic Party. While still powerful, blue collar constituencies such as unions, already weakened because of declining membership, have lost ground to special interest groups funded by wealthy donors like George Soros, such as Moveon.org. And increasing numbers of Democratic candidates come from the ranks of the very wealthy, with the likes of Jon Corzine, Ned Lamont, and Maria Cantwell, among others, spending millions to fund their own campaigns.

These trends are also evident in Massachusetts, which last week’s election showed is not as ideologically homogenous as some pundits would lead us to believe. Indeed, the state Democratic Party here mirrors the national party in that it is an awkward coalition of conservative and liberal factions. In recent years, the wealthy liberal faction has taken over the leadership of the state Democratic party in Massachusetts, as evidenced by the nomination of Deval Patrick and the ascension of his top supporters into state party leadership. However, these changes have not taken place without some public dissatisfaction from conservative Democrats.

In a wise move, Scott Brown took advantage of this intraparty split by making a specific (and successful) appeal to conservative Democrats tired of the obvious elitism of their party leaders. In doing so, he laid out a political blueprint that may serve other Bay State Republicans well this fall.

Indeed, the intraparty split among Democrats is an important development that could be crucial towards making some serious Republican gains in November. It certainly should be eagerly exploited by state Republican leaders, who should take advantage of this dynamic by recruiting candidates from among the ranks of the middle-class “Brown Majority,” especially conservative Democrats and independents. These candidates could, like Scott Brown, begin to represent a new perception of the Republican brand in this state, and attract conservative Democrats as well as large numbers of middle-class independents who are fed up with the arrogance of state and national Democrats. Let’s hope our state Republican leaders take advantage of this unique opportunity. Their decision to do so could be crucial towards exponentially increasing Republican power from the local level on up this fall.

Mass GOP Statement on Scott Brown’s Victory

Massachusetts Republican Party Chairman Jennifer Nassour released the following statement regarding Senator-elect Scott Brown’s (R-MA) victory this evening:

“Tonight’s historic, come-from-behind victory by Senator-elect Brown will serve as a blueprint for our Republican candidates running in Massachusetts in 2010 and beyond. His relentless focus on fiscal responsibility, lower taxes and a promise to serve as an independent voice for Bay Staters resonated with not only Republicans, but also independents and Democrats who are tired of politics as usual and one-party rule. It is my sincere hope that Senator-elect Brown will be seated immediately so that he can roll up his sleeves for Massachusetts, and work toward continuing Senator Kennedy’s legendary constituent services.”

Gingrich Slams Mass GOP

A much deserved criticism of the Massachusetts Republican Party coming from former House Speaker New Gingrich.

GOP gadfly Newt Gingrich slammed Bay State Republicans for failing to cultivate a new crop of eager and committed contenders – adding the lagging party needs candidates willing to suffer bruising losses and come back for more.

“I would hope that (the Massachusetts Republican Party) would find some people who care enough about the country’s future to go out and get started and keep doing it,” Gingrich told the Herald. “Republicans here have never been able to build the kind of grassroots strength that you need.”

MassGOP chairwoman Jennifer Nassour said the party has scoured the state for new talent.

“Our candidates for 2010 represent a Republican Party of new energy and new ideas to deliver real reforms to Massachusetts,” Nassour said.

Gingrich, who lectured at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government last night, blamed an alliance between the state’s conservative Democrats and liberals for the GOP party’s struggles.

The former U.S. House speaker called state candidates that run only once “sad,” adding, “When people see you coming and they see you’re serious – you can build a momentum over time that you sometimes can’t get in a first campaign.”

The Massachusetts GOP has recently hit a low with only 16 Republicans in the House and five in the state Senate.

At this moment, my faith in the Massachusetts Republican Party to stop the sinking ship is virtually nil. Sure, we have a golden opportunity to take back the Corner Office, but let’s be honest, it’s not the success of the Republican Party that will make that possible, it’s the failure of Governor Deval Patrick.

The Republican Party needs to do more than just talk about change…they have to start making change.