Democrats Still Divided After Bitter Primary

Ever since Scott Brown won the People’s Seat, Democrats all across the country seem to be getting nervous-maybe even a little crazy. Take for instance last week’s special state Senate primary for the seat formerly held by Scott Brown, where Rep. Harkins is being a bit of a sore loser.

Rep. Lida Harkins, defeated in a special state Senate primary last week, ripped former opponent Peter Smulowitz as “slanderous” and accused party officials of not refereeing the Democratic contest.

Harkins, a longtime House leader who was back-benched by Speaker Robert DeLeo, said Smulowitz, a Needham physician, painted her as a criminal by implicating her as beholden to three former speakers accused of violating federal law. Smulowitz now faces off with GOP Rep. Richard Ross, vying to take the seat opened by Scott Brown’s election to the U.S. Senate.

“He not only went negative, he went slanderous,” Harkins said.

“Losing is easy. Restoring your reputation is not,” Harkins told the News Service. “He went out of his way to destroy my reputation, to make me sound like Dianne Wilkerson.”

Smulowitz beat Harkins by fewer than 200 votes, after linking her to former House speakers Salvatore DiMasi, Thomas Finneran, and Charles Flaherty all of whom left office amid criminal investigations. Flaherty pleaded guilty to tax evasion. Finneran pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice after testifying in a redistricting case. DiMasi has pleaded not guilty to federal corruption charges.

Smulowitz knocked Harkins during the campaign for accepting political donations from “corrupt politicians,” including the former speakers. Smulowitz circulated a flier that Harkins said damaged her outside her Needham power base. At Saturday’s committee meeting, Harkins read a list of other Democratic officeholders who had received money from the speakers.

Legislative leaders maintain campaign accounts to fund candidates from their own party.

“I do not think that my opponent played very fair,” Harkins said. “I’m not really thrilled with the tactics.”

I’m not sure what her problem is, or if she understands that she’s in the world of politics. Seems to me she’s being nothing but a sore loser, and giving a poor impression of the state of the Massachusetts Democratic Party being far from a unified front heading into general election. Compare this to the ‘beer summit’ between Charlie Baker and Christy Mihos, and you can see a huge difference. Republicans are showing class, and Rep. Harkins is making herself, and her party, look really, really bad.

Does it mean anything? Maybe not… but with Rep. Harkins claiming her former opponent was slanderous, and bashing the Democrat Party for letting her opponent a big mean bully, well, I’m not impressed. Get over yourself. Just because you’re a Democrat doesn’t mean you are entitled to anything…even in Massachusetts (remember January 19th?).

Is this a sign of Post-Scott Brown Special Election Derangement Syndrome (more popularly known as PSBSEDS)?

Scott Brown: Fighting For Massachusetts

The Boston Globe has published story critical of Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) and his assertion that proposed financial overhaul bill would result in lost jobs in Massachusetts.

Senator Scott Brown’s use of as-yet-unsubstantiated industry estimates to predict the number of jobs that would be lost to greater financial regulation drew fire yesterday as partisan debate continued to heat up in the US Senate.

Brown said yesterday that his weekend prediction on national TV Sunday that tightening Wall Street rules would kill 25,000 to 35,000 jobs in Massachusetts was “based on my speaking with industry leaders’’ in recent weeks, but he did not cite any specific analysis.

That varied from an explanation offered by his representatives on Sunday, when his office said Brown was given the estimate by the chief executive of MassMutual, a large insurance company headquartered in Springfield.

MassMutual officials said Sunday, and again yesterday, that they did not give Brown any firm estimates of projected job losses in the Bay State.

The company said it warned of unspecified job losses in the future and provided him with estimates — dramatically inflated estimates, the company acknowledged yesterday — of jobs lost thus far in the current recession.

I’m not what the problem is. Estimates are exactly that: estimates. Based on information Senator Brown has, he gave an estimate of the number of lost jobs and has brought that issue to the forefront. Forget about the specific number of jobs lost…the real point is:  jobs will be lost.

The idea that the financial overhaul bill would cost jobs has not, until Brown’s weekend assertion, been part of the debate in Washington.

“No one has argued to us this is going to be cutting jobs as an overall in the economy,’’ said Representative Barney Frank, a Newton Democrat and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who authored the House version of the financial overhaul. “I have no idea where that figure came from. I don’t think anybody does. It may have just been spewed out by the Icelandic volcano with some of the other debris.’’

If Brown’s estimate on “Face the Nation’’ were true, the measure would eliminate up to 17 percent of the 207,000 jobs in the Bay State’s financial services sector.

“I stand by them,’’ Brown said in a brief interview yesterday in which he defended the remark. “And there will be larger numbers nationally.’’

Pressed to describe the source of his estimate, Brown said the figure was “based on my speaking with the industry leaders over the last month or so.’’

Brown aides last night also cited a study by the Business Roundtable — which largely opposes the current bill — estimating that a crackdown on a financial tool called over-the-counter derivatives would cause companies to be less profitable, resulting in 100,000 to 120,000 direct and indirect job cuts nationwide. The industry group did not provide any Massachusetts-specific figures.

Although MassMutual’s initial calculation put the number of financial sector jobs lost to date at 33,000, data compiled by the state’s Department of Labor and Workforce show there have been 18,700 jobs lost in all financial activities — including finance, insurance, and real estate — over the last three years.

There were 225,700 jobs in those categories in March 2007, and 207,000 as of last month.

The Boston Globe’s story is completely missing the point. As it stands today, this financial overhaul bill is will subject Massachusetts companies that didn’t take TARP funds, or contribute to financial meltdown, with huge fees and burdensome regulations, and will certainly cost the Commonwealth jobs. That is what Senator Scott Brown was saying on Sunday. Whether is 2,000 or 20,000, jobs lost in the Commonwealth is an end result we sent Scott Brown to Washington to prevent from happening. Thanks to him, now it’s being discussed.

Scott Brown is in Washington standing up for the interests Massachusetts. This bill, as currently written, would negatively impact the more than 200,000 Massachusetts employees. The financial services industry is important to the Massachusetts economy; and Scott Brown is fighting to keep those jobs. What more could we ask for?

Thank you, Senator Scott Brown, for doing exactly what we sent you to Washington to do.

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.