Keller on 2006 Gubernatorial Spending

Last week, Jon Keller had a blog post where he confessed his love for Michael Dukakis. He took issue, however, with the Duke's comment at South Shore Democrats party for former Massachusetts Democratic party chairman Phil Johnston. Keller calls Dukakis "flat wrong" when he said that then-candidate Deval Patrick was outspent by, overall, some huge number. Here's the quote that gives Keller so much trouble:

Turning to John Walsh, the new state Democratic Party chair who managed Deval Patrick's run for governor last year, Dukakis says: "Yeah, you raised some bucks in the end John, but I don't know what he was outspent by, overall. It was huge, and he won by 21 percentage points. And it had everything to do with that grassroots precinct-based organization... We have the most dramatic example of the effectiveness of this right here in the Commonwealth because of what happened last fall."

(Keller also commits an Internet faux pas by not identifying where he found the Dukakis video -- I assume he found it through BMG, and not by trolling around YouTube looking for former Massachusetts Governors)

Keller then goes into the numbers from the Office of Campaign and Political Finance and shows that Patrick spent $8.9 million and Kerry Healey spent $13.2 million, but when you take independent expenditures into account, the difference between the two was not "huge" and therefore you can't say for sure that grassroots organizing makes more of a difference than spending.

Here's the problem, while Keller adds the amount that the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the Service Employees International unit 1199 (a total of $3.418 million) to Deval Patrick's spending total, he neglects to add the amount the Republican Governor's Association spent on Kerry Healey's campaign (nearly $1 million). You could make the argument that you can ignore the RGA expenditures because they didn't make a difference, but if you do that you may as well ignore all of Healey's spending -- after all, she lost. Keller also omits the $8.5 million that Christy Mihos spent trying to become Governor. If the premise that "Patrick was outspent" is what Keller is disagreeing with -- remember, Dukakis never mentioned who he was outspent by -- then it seems like leaving out the massive amount Mihos spent in his own quest to become governor would mean you're getting an incomplete picture, particularly when Dukakis uses the word "overall".

I also think it's important to note that Patrick was significantly outspent on the airwaves. While Patrick may have achieved near parity in total spending, at least in Keller's eyes, the premise of Dukakis' speech was that grassroots organizing wins out over TV ads. Healey's camp spent $9.6 million on media buys, while Patrick spent a paltry $4.3 million in comparison. Even after adding in the third-party issue ads, Patrick still was outspent by nearly $3 million dollars in the media. That's not nothin', and when people talk about campaign spending, this is generally what they're talking about, not payroll or field events. Dukakis' point was that Patrick focused on field instead of media. Field isn't necessarily cheap, and Patrick's spending there made a huge difference overcoming his lack of TV presence.

In addition, I think that it's important to note that Patrick had two elections to win, while Healey (and Mihos) only had one. Patrick was massively outspent in the primary by Chris Gabrieli. If you count only the money spent before the primary, Gabrieli outspent Patrick two to one. It's not clear which election Dukakis is talking about when he says Patrick "won by twenty-one percentage points". While Patrick won the general by 20 points, he also won the primary by a similar margin -- 22 points. Everything Dukakis says is equally applicable to the primary as it is to the general election, and it would be laughable to say that Patrick was not outspent in the primary. When you take into account how much Patrick was outspent overall, it's clear that the primary should be part of the picture.

She's Back

I just saw former Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey on tonight's Greater Boston with Emily Rooney. I'm not sure why she was there, other than to perform her familiar job of talking up Mitt Romney, this time in the context of his Presidential campaign. I will give her credit, though. Rooney gave her two opportunities to go after current Governor Deval Patrick, who defeated her in November for that job. Healey did not rise to the bait. She said, simply, "Governor Patrick has been in office for one month, I think it would be premature," and that she should let him file the budget. I thought that was classy from someone who's campaign last year suffered because of its perceived classlessness.

Anyway, she was touting Mitt's conservative credentials, particularly the way he fought marriage equality, stem-cell research and plan B contraceptives. It got me thinking. Is that going to be the official Romney line? He's a true conservative, and here are three high-profile battles that he lost. He failed to stop gay marriage or the other conservative bugaboos. Is that going to be very reassuring to people who believe in these causes? "He failed in Massachusetts, but he fought the good fight!" doesn't seem like a compelling battle cry to me.

Kerry Healey Snubs Watertown

Yesterday was Watertown's 8th Annual Faire on the Square, an event that brings thousands of people from around the area to Watertown. This was the first year that the Faire organizers allowed political candidates to have booths. Deval Patrick made an appearance around noon and made the rounds accompanied by Rep. Rachel Kaprielian and Senator Steven Tolman. He, of course, was great as always, and the faire-goers who stopped by our booth all seemed really excited to have him there.

Patrick was the only gubernatorial candidate who stopped by the Faire. Christy Mihos had volunteers staff a booth for him where they gave out pins and bumperstickers with that unfortunate light blue/purple/pink color scheme. Kerry Healey, however, was no where to be found. Someone had reserved a booth for her campaign, but it remained empty the entire day. The organizers were also expecting Healey herself to show up at some point during the day, but she never did. We talked to one of the members of the Coordinating Committee afterwards and he again confirmed that they were expecting her during the day and they were mystified as to why not even the people who reserved the booth had bothered to show up.

Healey Hiding From Women's Groups

Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey is reportedly refusing to answer questions from women's rights groups as she makes her run for Governor. From the Boston Globe:

Healey, a Republican who has repeatedly cast herself as a supporter of abortion rights, declined to answer written questions or be interviewed by the local chapters of the National Organization for Women, the Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund, and the National Abortion Rights Action League.

Healey's campaign claims that they get hundreds of questionnaires and can't possibly answer all of them. That hardly seems like a good enough excuse. It's not like the National Organization for Women is just some chump with a blog. If I sent the Healey campaign a questionnaire, I would expect to be ignored, but these are long standing, well respected groups who would not be openly hostile to a Healey endorsement (the way a group like MoveOn or Democracy for America would be).

Now, it's true that these groups are more closely aligned with Democrats than Republicans in general, but if Healey wants to escape from Governor Mitt Romney's conservative shadow, wouldn't it be prudent to at least try for their endorsement? Endorsements from these types of interest groups wouldn't make or break her candidacy, but at least answering their questions would go a long way toward assuring the public that her pro-choice views are not going to 'evolve' the way the Governor's have. If she supports reproductive rights, then what does she have to fear by answering a questionnaire? Is she worried about alienating the few conservative Republicans left in Massachusetts?

The Supreme Court is becoming more conservative. It is not inconceivable that the legality of abortions could be tossed back to the states under the next Governor's term. Whether you agree with abortion or not, the public deserves to know the candidates full stances, beyond just "I'm prochoice".

More Healey/Hillman Fear Mongering on Needles

Current Republican Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey and her would be successor, candidate Reed Hillman, are running around the state campaigning hard against the bill legallizing over-the-counter sales of hypodermic needles that the legislature passed but Governor Romney is expected to veto. Healey and Hillman both continue to make assertions unsupported by any facts, despite the fact that Healey claims to be an expert on crime and Hillman was formerly the state's top trooper.

Here is Reed Hillman as quoted in the Globe's political blog:

"I'm not ready to give someone who is abusing heroin the benefit of the doubt when it comes to properly disposing a dirty needle."

Here's what Hillman fails to point out: in areas without needle exchange programs, there is currently no way for users to properly dispose of dirty needles short of sneaking into a hospital. The bill under consideration creates needle collection centers. Not only does this add a point of contact with addicts that could aid intervention, but if even one user disposes of their dirty needle correctly, it's an infinite percentage better than the 0% that are currently doing so.

As far as increasing the amount of syringes lying around goes, Johns Hopkins did a two month study with a two year later follow-up after Baltimore started up a needle exchange program in 1994. The first study showed that discarded syringes as a percentage of total waste did not increase in the months following the program's initiation compared to a measure taken before it started. Not only that, but in the follow-up study, the amount of needle litter actually decreased. One might argue that maybe there was less litter because there were fewer addicts, but then you can't claim, as Reed Hillman does, that increased access to clean needles increases drug use.

In addition, a 2003 study of New York's syringe program showed that access to clean needles did not increase discarded needles or syringes on the street or in the regular trash recepticals. In fact, the law brought about educational efforts promoting the safe disposal of used needles. New York experienced neither an increase in needlestick injuries to municipal workers (law enforcement, sanitation, etc) or an increase criminal drug-related activity.

Opponents of the bill also raise the specter of bandits holding up stores with newfound needles. This strikes me as absurd on the face of it. How many establishments are held up with needles (illegal) compared to guns (legal) or knives (also legal)? Heck, there have been more than 200 shootings in Boston alone this year, and I don't see the state GOP saying we should ban guns. Not only that, but as I mentioned previously, there was a 66% decrease in syringe stick injuries to police officers over a six-month period after pharmacy sales legislation passed in Connecticut. In Canada, when they were considering needle exchange programs in prisons, they studied prisons in Europe that gave inmates access to clean needles. They found no evidence that the prisoners were using the syringes as weapons, and there was no increased danger to the staff. I know it's not exactly comparable, but one would think that if any population was more likely to use sharps as shivs, it would be convicted criminals. The evidence did not bear that out.

I don't know why this issue gets under my skin (pardon the pun) so much -- I don't work in public health or AIDS advocacy or anything and I don't have any particular sympathy for junkies. I think it's because Healey and Hillman are making claims without any evidence to back them up, aside from the fact that little Billy once found a syringe on the Common. They are purposely misleading the public with scenarios that run contrary to the experiences of the 47 other states where syringes are legal (including every state that borders Massachusetts). If this is the kind of leadership we can expect from a Healey/Hillman administration, then count me out.

Kerry Healey Should Know Better

The Phoenix's Adam Reilly has some of Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey's remarks opposing legalized syringe sales from the statehouse today. Healey is opposed to allowing over-the-counter sale of syringes, even though it is proven to reduce the spread of blood borne diseases like AIDS and hepatitis, because a ten-year-old once found a needle on Boston Common and someone held up a convenience store with one. Note first, that these things happened even though needles are not legal to buy over the counter currently. Healey does not bother to explain why keeping them illegal would stop such things from happening. Also, as Adam points out, Healey is basing her opposition completely on anecdotal evidence, and not on any data or any study. The reason, of course, is because there are no studies that show an increase in needle waste, needle assaults or IV drug use after other states remove their bans on over the counter syringe sales.

The Mass Democrats released a statement today blasting Healey for her opposition to this important public safety measure. Current Middlesex DA and future Attorney General Martha Coakley had this to say about the bill:

"Based on the findings of several states that have already adopted similar legislation, there is no evidence that giving the public access to syringes will increase rates for crime and/or drug abuse," said Middlesex District Attorney Martha Coakley. "adopting this bill is a cost-effective measure that would help prevent the spread of HIV and other infectious diseases. Although studies reflect the benefits of increased syringe access, common sense tells us that adopting this legislation will put the Commonwealth on the path towards prevention of deadly infectious diseases."

The worst thing about this is that Kerry Healey should know better. She is, or at least claims to be, an expert in criminology. I saw her on NECN (I think it was Jim Braude's show, but I don't recall) saying that she decided to get into government because she saw a disconnect between the wealth of research that they had in the academic world and the decisions they made in government. Well, here's here chance. There's plenty of research that says over-the-counter sales of needles don't increase intravenous drug use. I pointed to some of it last week. Instead of relying on this research or the experience of the 47 other states that have this law, she decides do base her position on the fact that someone found a needle on the Common. She is clearly pandering at the expense of public health.

Bad Timing for Healey Pension Plan?

Am I the only one who thinks that it's crazy for Kerry Healey to be pushing her new pension scheme right now? The Dow lost 100 points yesterday and is down nearly 800 since this time last month. Is this the environment that you want to sell switching guaranteed pensions over to 401(k) style plans? I'm looking at my 401(k) right now and, let me tell you, it's not pretty. Of course, having said that the market will probably rebound today just to prove me wrong.

Offering 401(k) plans will be cheaper for the state, that's true. That's why almost every corporation has dropped their pension plan in favor of them. That's a small comfort, however, to the worker that plans to retire at the bottom of a bear market.

I do think that consolidating local pension boards is probably a good idea. I've often thought that there are a lot of savings that can be had if we reduce the overhead for cities and towns by encouraging them to pool resources. I'm not sure I'd put all my eggs in one basket, so to speak, but I don't see any reason that there should be more than one pension board for every three cities and towns in Massachusetts.

Gax Tax Repeal or Oil Company Giveaway?

Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey and fellow gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos have joined each other in favoring a temporary gas tax rollback. Even Governor Mitt Romney thinks this is a bad idea, saying that lowering the gas tax would only encourage people to use more, and we should instead be trying to encourage people to conserve gas. He is right about this -- lowering or eliminating the tax is like putting a band aid on a bullet wound. Sure it might help a little, but it's not going to stop the bleeding and ultimately it's not going to make a difference unless the underlying problems are addressed.

Conservation arguments aside, how many days will it take for gas prices to make up that 21 cents a gallon after the tax is repealed? We've recently seen the prices go up that high in an afternoon. The oil companies know we're willing to pay three bucks a gallon -- why should they charge any less? They're more worried about their next executive's $400 million retirement package than whether you have to choose between gas or food. There's no incentive for them to charge a penny less than what we're willing to pay, particularly in the short term. If gas prices end up staying the same, that 21 cents will just end up going to oil barons instead of the state. I don't think anyone would argue that our roads and bridges are in such excellent shape that we couldn't use the money locally. Of course, maybe if our roads and bridges fall apart, people will end up conserving gas because they can't actually drive anywhere anymore. I don't think that's what the Lieutenant Governor has in mind, though.

I've said this before, but this issue is just a trap. It's a gimmick so that Republicans can say that Democrats don't want to lower your taxes, never mind that the highest ranking Republican in the state also opposes rolling back the tax. Frankly this is another example of Kerry Healey promising to lower taxes at the same time she says she's going to increase education spending and even start taking a salary again. Not that this would ever happen, but if we're going to monkey around with the gas taxes, why not change them from a flat per-gallon fee to a percentage of the total bill? Yes, it would be more complicated to calculate, but this could be a revenue neutral way to lower the burden of the gas tax on people who use less gas. Not only that, but as gas prices rose and oil companies got rich, the state would see a corresponding increase in the amount coming in through the tax.

Healey Flip-Flop Caught On Tape

Fresh off her state GOP Convention speech where she called Attorney General Tom Reilly a flip-flopping political chameleon, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey is revealed to have done some flip-flopping of her own. The Boston Herald revealed today that Healey, in her 2002 campaign said she was open to lowering the age of consent to 16, something that her campaign vigorously denied she had ever advocated. They denied it, that is, until the Herald came up with the video (Quicktime required) of her 2002 debate preparations.

Personally, I think the charge of 'flip-flopping' is silly in general, and here in Massachusetts, 62% of us voted for John Kerry, who was infamously plagued by those charges in 2004. If the Republicans wage a campaign that makes people remember why they voted for the Democrat two years ago, well, I'm not going to stop them. That said, the fact that Healey denied that she had ever thought about lowering the age of consent until confronted by video evidence is a big deal. It's one thing to be up front with voters and tell them why you changed your position, but to lie about it and pretend that the position you have now is the only one you ever had shows a lack of character. What else is Healey lying about, I wonder.

Also, make sure that you watch the video. You'll understand why Healey is refusing to debate on the 18th. For her sake, I hope she's improved some in the past four years.

Healey Declines First Live Debate

Mark your calendars, the first live gubernatorial debate is now scheduled for May 18th, at 7pm, broadcast live on NECN and WBUR. Democrats Tom Reilly, Chris Gabrieli and Deval Patrick, and Independent candidate Christy Mihos are all expected to participate. Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey has declined, despite having issued a challenge recently to debate her Democratic opponent four times after the September primaries. Apparently Healey is in favor of debates, but not just yet.

So what's Kerry Healey afraid of? Was she hoping that the Democrat would refuse to debate her? Is she so unprepared, even after three and a half years of Lieutenant Governoring, that she needs to spend the next four months training for the debates? Is she worried that the three Democrats and Christy Mihos will gang up on her? I like Kerry Healey -- Out of Touch's response to that (emphasis in original):

If Kerry Healey cannot defend her positions and hold her own against three Democrats, what chance will she have holding her own as Governor against 150+ Democrats?

Herald Slams Healey/DeLay Judge Plan

Yesterday, the Boston Herald unveiled Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey's plan to destroy the independent judiciary, one that seemed more inspired by Tom DeLay than John Adams. Today's Editorial page slams the idea as not only political posturing worthy of our current governor, but also entirely unnecessary.

[P]utting aside the fact that her idea would require amending the Massachusetts Constitution, a difficult and time-consuming exercise (in other words, folks, don't hold your breath), it would also make the final arbiter of who stays and who goes the Governor's Council. What on Earth could Healey be thinking!

Yep, that's just want you want to do, give this body that should have been abolished decades ago more power. Way to go, Ms. Gubernatorial Wannabe.

Rather than following the example set by Gov. Mitt Romney and engaging in governing by press release, Healey could propose a real reform.

The Herald goes on to describe a much simpler reform that would make public the results of judicial evaluations that are currently only for internal use of the court system. Right now lawyers, court personnel and jurors fill out anonymous questionnaires which ask about a judge's demeanor, knowledge of the law, and other criteria. Rather than creating another complex layer of bureaucracy, just letting the public know which judges are, in the Herald's words, "doing a good job and who a bad job and what is being done about the latter" would make the system more transparent and give the public more confidence in it. Personally, I don't buy into the idea that there's some judicial crisis of accountability, but if these procedures are already in place, then I see no reason why the public should be kept in the dark.

Update: AmericaBlog has a full list of poisonous GOP rhetoric on judges. Why does Kerry Healey want to associate herself with these people?

Healey's LG Picks Down to Three

The Globe reports today that Kerry Healey has narrowed down her possible lieutenant governor picks to a list of three. Among them are two everyone expected, Senator Scott Brown (R-Wrentham) and US Attorney Michael Sullivan, and one who was not on the radar screen -- former state representative Reed V. Hillman (R-Sturbridge). Hillman left his seat in 2004 and was replaced by his legislative aid, Republican rep Todd Smola (R-Palmer). Hillman has also been colonel of the State Police and was nominated by Governor Romney to be US Marshal for Massachusetts. Should Healey pick Hillman, it would seem to indicate a strong focus for her campaign on criminal justice and crime issues. Here's what he had to say to the Globe:

Asked what his areas of concentration would be if he were elected lieutenant governor, Hillman named public safety, homeland security, and disaster preparedness. He said he was concerned about the environment and would work on that issue at the State House.

Hillman has positions similar to Healey's on several hot-button social issues. He said he supports a woman's right to choose abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy and supports civil unions for same-sex couples.

Kerry Healey -- Out of Touch had a great post yesterday handicapping the GOP LG sweepstakes. Somehow even they missed Hillman, despite listing just about every Massachusetts Republican left.

Healey Makes it Official Today

Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey is due to 'officially' announce her campaign for governor at a press conference today at noon. This comes as no surprise to anyone since she unofficially announced her candidacy even before Governor Mitt Romney finally decided he was ditching the corner office. Look for her to yap about taxes and Melanie's Law and tout her experience intervening on behalf of cities and towns in the administration.

Recent poll numbers show Healey losing to either Tom Reilly or Deval Patrick. Not only that, but Healey's efforts to pump up Jonathan Dennehy's campaign were to no avail. Dennehy lost yesterday to Gardner lawyer Robert Rice by a margin of 2 to 1.

Where is Kerry Healey?

That's the question that Eileen McNamara asked in her column yesterday. McNamara wondered why the Lieutenant Governor has not spoken up now that the public has turned its attention to crime, her supposed area of expertise. Instead of using Romney's continued absence and detachment from the state as an excuse to speak out, she's tooling around the state, holding low-profile roundtable discussions that maybe a dozen people outside of the Massachusetts Executive branch will ever hear about.

Healey should be the political beneficiary of Romney's detachment. He delegated criminal justice to her. If she is not the dominant voice on these issues now, when will the public get to hear her?

Maybe soon, now that Mitt Romney has finally announced his intentions. But maybe Healey just isn't comfortable using her position to speak out. After all, the last time she was given a microphone in front of a large audience, she was called "a new contender for Most Revolting Politician in America" by Slate's William Saletan. Even yesterday, Healey shied away from the spotlight.

"Today is a day really about Gov. Romney and I would like to keep the focus on him," she said. "My intentions haven't changed."

Healey said she expected to make a formal announcement about her candidacy sometime during the winter, which ends March 20.

As an aside, what is the Romney/Healey administration's obsession with the exact starting and ending dates of the seasons? Romney said he'd make his decision in the Fall, which he reminded us doesn't end until December 20th -- even though a quick look out the window confirms that it's Winter, despite what the calendar may say.

Oh, and to the person who found my site yesterday by searching for the terms 'Kerry healy will get trounced', we can all hope you're right. In the meantime, perhaps this will be a better resource for you.

Party Girl and Pretty Boy 2006

Margery Egan has a whole column (subscription required) in today's Herald about how good looking Republican state Senator Scott Brown is. Oh, imagine how beautiful the Republican ticket would be, Egan proclaims, if rumors that Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey wants to pick Brown to succeed her should Governor Romney decline to run for reelection are true. The model/athlete/Adonis is surely what the Massachusetts GOP needs as an antidote to a governor who cares more about image than policy.

Personally, I liked ad exec Will Keyser's response:

"Scott Brown. Who's he? A state senator? A Republican state senator? There are such things?"

Of course, Egan's column is not completely superficial. She mentions that Brown doesn't like sex offenders. A bold stance indeed!

Kerrie Antoinette

You can always count on Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey for a tone-deaf remark or two. Healey had a "let them eat cake" moment yesterday on the John DePetro Show on WRKO during a discussion about the bill that would allow the children of illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates with Attorney General Tom Reilly. Healey apparently missed the point of the tuition breaks and said that if these immigrants wanted to go to college so bad, they should just go to private school instead. From the Globe:

"Let them go to private schools if they want to," Healey said on WRKO radio. Moments later, she repeated: "Let them go to private schools."

In Healey's world, money is never an obstacle and people who can't afford the $18,400 for UMass can surely just cash in a few stock options and pay the $23,000 it costs for an average private school. Of course some scholarships may be available, but these particular students, whose immigration status is the fault of their parents -- not theirs, are not illegible for Federal aid.

While state Republican leaders may agree with Healey on the merits of her comment, one has to wonder if they're not getting nervous about her being anointed as Governor Romney's successor should he decline a run for reelection. If the big story after a radio debate with her likely 2006 competition is how out of touch she is, maybe it's time to start exploring other options.

As for the issue itself, one thing that's lost in this debate is how Massachusetts is really in no position to be turning away anyone -- we're the only state losing population. If letting the children of undocumented residents, particularly those who have graduated Massachusetts high schools and who would have to sign an affidavit affirming that they are applying for citizenship, pay in-state tuition keeps them here, maybe we can stem the loss of political and economic clout that comes with a declining population.

Reilly On Healey's "Sweetheart Deal"

Affiliated Managers Group, the company headed by Kerry Healey's husband Sean Healey, has returned the tax break it got for moving to the wealthy Prides Crossing neighborhood of Beverly, but that hasn't settled the controversy. Today's Boston Globe has the following statement from Attorney General and 2006 gubernatorial candidate Tom Reilly:

"The reason that Sean Healey and AMG gave the money back was they were caught cheating taxpayers of well over a million dollars," Reilly said in an interview yesterday. "This is inside politics at its very worst, a sweetheart deal with tax breaks to the well-connected and wired, all the way to the top of the Republican Party and the administration. It doesn't even come close to passing the smell test."

Reilly is not alone in his criticism. Remember that the original report that brought these tax credits to light charged that they were "handed out as favors". That, of course, didn't stop Romney/Healey campaign spokesman Tim O'Brien, the former executive director of the Massachusetts Republicans, from jumping to the defense of the administration:

"There was no sweetheart deal because the deal was done years before Romney and Healey came into office," he said. "Tom Reilly thinks tax breaks for companies and individuals are a sweetheart deal. But, again, it was awarded years before they came into office."

O'Brien is technically right -- AMG got their tax break in 2001, and Kerry Healey did not take office as Lieutenant Governor until January of 2003. Still, the Healey family had tendrils, and more importantly dollars, in Republican Party politics. Kerry ran for the House in 1998 and 2000, and at the very least Sean kicked in the maximum amount to the State Republican Committee in 1998. By the end of 2001, Kerry Healey had not only been elected to the Republican State Committee, but had been chosen as its chairwoman. So, while it's true that Kerry Healey was not in office at the time of the tax breaks, it's ridiculous to say that her and her husband were not influential in the insular world of the Massachusetts GOP. It's obvious that this was an insider deal worthy of Halliburton.

As an aside, I've replaced the offending router, so I should be back to my once or twice a day posting schedule, now with 802.11g! Let's see if you can tell the difference.

Healey on the Defensive

Today's Brian McGrory column in the Boston Globe savages Lieutenant Governor (and presumptive 2006 Republican gubernatorial nominee) Kerry Healey on her reaction to claims that the administration squelched a report by the Inspector General which criticized a incentive program under which her husband benefited to the tune of $1 million. McGrory argues that Healey should have just admitted that the tax incentive program, which was supposed to incourage businesses to move into blighted areas but ended up being "handed out as favors", was not operating as it was intended. Instead she got defensive, evasive and accused her critics of playing politics -- I suppose there's a lot of that going around in Republican circles these days. Here's the money quote, but you should read the whole column:

Kerry Healey denied, dodged, and damned. She denied that she or the governor played any role in squelching a state report that was initially critical of the incentives, quickly withdrawn, and dramatically softened. She dodged questions over whether there were problems with the program. And she damned Inspector General Gregory W. Sullivan, telling the Globe's Frank Phillips, "That's not the area of his expertise."

Expertise? He's the inspector general, emphasis intended. His expertise is taxpayer abuse, and Sean Healey's tax incentive appears to fall right within his wheelhouse. Beyond that, Sullivan, a Harvard grad, holds a master's degree from MIT's Sloan School of Management with a concentration in finance. Short of having Alan Greenspan investigate tax breaches in Massachusetts, I'm feeling pretty good about the guy we have.

Of course, Republicans are clucking that Sullivan, a Democrat, is politically motivated in his investigation. Let's see, the tax incentive in question was written under Bill Weld. Weld later served on the board of Affiliated Managers Group Inc., Healey's company. AMG's chief financial officer is Darrell Crate, former chairman of the state Republican Party. Ray Howell, Weld's former strategist, is AMG's spokesman. Guys, do you really want to start talking about political motivations?

For more information on the squelching of the Department of Revenue's report check out what I wrote last month, or this post at Blue Mass. Group. Or, I suppose you could just read about it in the Globe.

One Week, Two GOP Scandals

Last week, we in the Commonwealth were treated to two Republican scandals. The first involved none other than our Lieutenant Governor and possible 2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate Kerry Healey. According to the Globe, Healey's husband benefited to the tune of $1 million from tax credits under a Romney economic development program. That in and of itself would be unremarkable under a Republican administration, but a Department of Revenue report came out last October claiming that the credits were "handed out as favors" to recipients. That report was mysteriously withdrawn five days later and disappeared into the political ether. Here's what the Blue Mass. Group has to say about that:

DOR denies that it withdrew the report because of pressure from higher-ups. Uh huh. And if you believe that, I have some lovely waterfront property in Brooklyn that you might be interested in.

More recently, Massachusetts Republican Party vice-chairman and chair of the Brockton GOP, Larry Novak (seen here relaxing after burning some evidence?) has resigned after being arrested for allegedly laundering over $100,000 of drug money for one of his clients. Novak, who of course was running for Brockton City Council on an anticrime platform, is also under investigation by US Attorney Michael Sullivan for allegedly advising that same client to file false affidavits in court in an effort to get his prior state convictions overturned.

Chimes at Midnight won