It Is The Soldier  by Charles M. Province, US Army

It is the Soldier, not the minister_
Who has given us freedom of religion.
It is the Soldier, not the reporter_
Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the Soldier, not the writer_
Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the Soldier, not the organizer_
Who has given us freedom to protest.
It is the Soldier, not the lawyer_
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the Soldier, not the politician_
Who has given us the right to vote.
It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,_
Who serves beneath the flag,_
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,_
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.
It is the American Soldier who has given us the right to life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness in the greatest country on earth.

These jobs pay $6.50 an hour -- that's below minimum wage.  They aren't even good jobs. [paraphrase]

The exact figure, according to data posted on Khazei's website, is $6.34 an hour; Khazei says there that "Casino workers are among the worst-paid in the U.S.," and he's made similar comments elsewhere.

But when asked about the relevance of his work at City Year, he said something like this on the radio:

I have created 15,000 jobs.... [and we should] fully fund the Kennedy Serve America Act to create 250,000 jobs. [paraphrase]

And that's similar to the claim in his TV ad, in which he says "I started City Year, and we created 15,000 jobs.... Ted Kennedy Serve America Act: 250,000 jobs."  Similarly, point 5 of his "6-point plan to create good paying jobs in Massachusetts and across America" (posted here at BMG) is

fully fund the new Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act.  The Act will provide 175,000 annual full and part-time service jobs in the first year and a total of 250,000 positions in the second year.

All well and good -- but, as Bob has pointed out, these jobs are not going to put anyone's kids through college.  According to "Erin" in the video Bob posted, the City Year stipend in D.C. is $200 a week, which (assuming a 40-hour work week) is $5 an hour.  City Year participants also apparently can qualify for food stamps, one of the federal goverment's anti-poverty programs.  And that's consistent with Khazei's website, which reports that the Serve America Act will incur average costs of $10,000 per year per member, which equates to $5 an hour, 40 hours a week, 50 weeks.

Now, I'm no math genius, but if I recall my high school calculus class correctly ... let's see, f'(g(x))*g'(x), carry the 3, ... yup, $6.34 an hour is a higher wage than $5 an hour.  It seems to follow that, by Khazei's definition, the service jobs that Khazei has created, and says he wants to create more of, are not "good jobs," and that in fact they must be "among the worst-paid in the U.S."  Now there's a bumper sticker.

Khazei would do very well indeed to heed the advice of long-time BMGer FrankSkeffington, who has declared his support for Khazei in the Dec. 8 primary, but who questions Khazei's ad emphasizing job creation:

I think it's a mistake to spin the jobs angle for a couple of reasons.  First, it exposes the claim to legitimate critiques like Bob's and the bad karma that goes along with it.  Secondly, and more importantly, because "jobs" is the issue de jour, Alan's message is now pretty much the same as the other three and he fails to break through the clutter of the field.

Everyone understands that Alan is the long shot in this short campaign cycle and the only way...THE ONLY WAY...he has a chance of winning is to show he is different from the career politicians and self-funded vanity candidates that we always choose from.  The reality is: Alan and his approaches are different and original.  Yet this ad is just another blah, blah, jobs, blah, Sen. Kennedy, blah, blah, jobs, blah, blah, blah.  Play to your strengths and lose on your own terms, instead of losing based on what the polls indicate people want to hear.

I understand that some may be confused after reading recent media reports on health care reform.  I want to set the record straight and there is no better way of doing that than by communicating directly with you.

In short, I voted for an imperfect House Bill on Health Care Reform to keep it alive so that we can improve it in the US Senate and in Conference Committee.  Martha Coakley has said she would have voted to kill the House Bill, which would have killed our best chance for Health Care Reform in a generation.

On Saturday night, the House of Representatives passed its Health Care Reform bill. In many ways this is the beginning of the process, not even close to the end.

This bill was by no means perfect.  One controversial provision, the Stupak Amendment, has caused widespread concern.  If passed into law, this amendment could deny coverage for abortions to poor women. Consistent with my lifetime 100% rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), I worked against this amendment and voted against it, as did all pro-choice Members.  We lost.

After that loss, those of us who take health care reform seriously were faced with a tough decision on final passage - do we vote no and kill the health care reform effort for the next ten years or do we vote yes and move the fight to the Senate.

Every leading pro-choice voice in the House had the courage to vote to keep the hope of health care reform alive.  That includes Diana DeGette, Louise Slaughter, Nita Lowey, Rosa DeLauro, Nancy Pelosi, Patrick Kennedy, and all 8 pro-choice Massachusetts Members, including me.  President Obama supported our efforts.

If just two more Democrats had voted no - the vote that Martha Coakley has said she would have cast- the bill would have been dead and we lose the opportunity to move health care reform forward.

I will do all I can, along with all my pro-choice colleagues in the House and Senate, to kill the Stupak Amendment as the process moves forward.  I will continue working on other issues as well.  I won't vote for a final bill that includes language that will force poor women back into the alleys of America to receive health care coverage.

I made the same commitment when the Public Option was at stake - I would not support a bill without one ... and I still won't.  I am sure you know that we won that in the House.  

I believe that we CAN win BOTH the Public Option and reasonable pro-choice language before this bill goes to the President's desk.  If this happens, we can also pass real Health Care Reform for America.

We have never been closer in the past 60 years to achieving universal health care.

I am NOT willing to kill this hope before we have a chance to succeed and that is why I voted to move the bill forward!  

The process is just beginning.  Health Care Reform is important.  The legislative process is serious and we cannot allow procedural maneuvers to kill this effort.  If I stood alone in this opinion, I would accept the criticism from my opponents and their supporters.  But when I stand with virtually every Member who is pro-choice AND pro-health care reform, I am compelled to set the record straight.

If you consider yourself both pro-choice and pro-Health Care Reform - would you have stood alone in the House and voted to kill all hope for Health Care Reform ... or ... would you have stood with everyone else who agrees with your positions and vote to move the bill forward to fight another day?

Thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts with you directly about issues I care so deeply about.  I wish you all of the best on this Veterans Day and hope you have the opportunity to take a moment to honor all of our men and women who have served our country.

The plan Alan Khazei described Tuesday here on BMG to bring jobs to Massachusetts and the nation wouldn't even make it to the Hiring Committee by that standard. One expects more of an impressive candidate for U.S. Senate than a collection of words -- sentence gives it too much credit -- like this in an official campaign policy statement:

For far too long people have been falsely led to believe that progressive values and policies that promote business growth are counterintuitive, my priority in the Senate will be putting people back to work, lowering the unemployment rate, and helping new businesses get off the ground.

I suspect that what the candidate, or whoever wrote this piece, is trying to say is not that the values and policies are counterintuitive, but that they are perceived to be at odds with each other. What connection this has with Khazei's priorities in the Senate, however, is anyone's guess from this jumble.

So much for word choice, grammar and meaning. Let's move on to the mechanics.

A campaign press release I received yesterday by email at 3:23 p.m.:

"When Martha Coakley said she would have voted against health care reform that meant that she opposes bringing health care to 36 million more Americans, that she doesn't want to prevent insurance companies from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions, and that, despite her TV commercial saying the opposite, Martha Coakley doesn't support the bill that created a strong public option."

And then, Matt Viser today in the Globe, with David (who helped break this story) offering color commentary and many dozens of excellent comments:

"If the bill comes back the same way as it left the House, I would vote against it,'' Capuano said in an interview. "I am a prochoice person, and I do believe this is [necessary] to provide health care for everyone.''

Capuano could have argued either way on the merits -- an excellent debate -- but to lambaste one's opponent for a position on a central issue that one then adopts oneself within 24 hours smacks of desperation, incompetence, or both, sad to say (because Capuano has many good qualities). Score a big political point for the Coakley campaign (or, as esteemed commenter jconway suggests in the comments, Khazei ... or Pagliuca ... or, just about anyone other than Capuano).

As some of you might know, I released my plan to create more than 100,000 new jobs in Massachusetts this week. Also this week, as I'm sure all of you know, unemployment rates continued their hike in October, reaching 10.2 percent. I feel it is significant to mention this only because of what the unemployment numbers say about our economy and what my six-point Jobs Plan aims to do to fix it. In short it is JOBS. Rather creating new jobs, specifically through small business growth.

The first piece of legislation that I will file if you give me the honor of representing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate will be my plan which will create over 100,000 jobs locally and as many as 5 million nationwide.

We can get employers hiring again if we reward new job creation. My plan has the provisions to do just that and independent analysts agree. According to the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute, implementing a New Jobs Tax Credit would create between 2.5 to 5.0 million jobs over two years. We need those jobs and we need them now.  

For far too long people have been falsely led to believe that progressive values and policies that promote business growth are counterintuitive, my priority in the Senate will be putting people back to work, lowering the unemployment rate, and helping new businesses get off the ground. I see these as core tenants of any good progressive plan because providing good jobs are essential to allow all our citizens to succeed.

Small businesses are the unequivocal engine of the U.S. economy - they are our innovators, our creators, and our entrepreneurs, and they account for the vast majority of our new jobs. I intend on being a forceful voice in the United States Senate for investments in cutting-edge job training and providing tax credits for businesses that create new jobs that will benefit the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

About a week ago I read a post here about the benefits of jobs that a casino would create. http://bluemassgroup.com/diary...

By now many of you are well aware of my strong opposition to casino gaming in Massachusetts. My opposition is not just out of moral or social concern. It is rooted in a strong belief that we can and must do better for the citizens of our state. The jobs that casinos create are not skilled positions worthy of the tremendous talent of the people of Massachusetts.

I believe if we invest in job training and technology, and reward and incentivize job creation, we will be worthy of our status as the greatest state in the country. We were the leader in the effort to reform our health care system and just this week Congress has begun to follow our lead. I want to take the lead at the national level and bring the values and know how of our Commonwealth to create meaningful change in the Senate.

My six-point Jobs Plan:
1. Stimulate and reward job creation wit Job Creation Tax Credits:

? Pass a temporary new job creation tax credit that will refund 15

? 15% of wage costs in 2010 and 10% of new wage costs in 2011 to employers creating new jobs or increasing the wages of existing employees.

? A team of economists at the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute estimated that NJTC's would create as many as 5.1 million new jobs over the next two years or between 50,000 and 100,000 jobs in Massachusetts.

2. Support entrepreneurs and small businesses:

? Offer higher new job tax credits for small businesses.

? Extend the recent temporary changes that doubled expense write-offs for small business investments up to $50,000 and allow accelerated depreciation of 50% for new plant and equipment over the first year.

? Increase access to capital and small business support services.

? Establish a Federal Commission to encourage and support women- and minority-owned businesses.

3. Pass clean energy legislation to create new clean energy and energy efficiency jobs:
? The Markey-Waxman and Kerry-Boxer Climate bills will drive large scale investments in clean energy and energy efficiency.

? Research by the University of California, University of Illinois and Yale University concluded that passing these bills would create between 22,000 and 40,000 jobs in Massachusetts.

4. Invest in clean energy, biotech and other research-intensive industries by supporting programs to accelerate the time from research to new job creation, including:

? Create innovation funds to accelerate the commercialization of ideas from research and development universities, including grants and loans matched with investments from private funds.

? Support the development of incubators to facilitate start-ups, pilots and demonstration projects.

? Enable full scale commercialization of new "first of a kind" technologies by co-investing with private funds to finance the roll-out of new businesses with high fixed costs.

5. Support the growth and development of the social entrepreneur and nonprofit sector:

? Increase investments to scale promising nonprofit models and measure the return on taxpayer investments in these to develop best practices that can be shared with other programs.

? Fully fund the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which will provide up to 250,000 service jobs.

6. Invest in a 21st Century work force development:

? Fund Alan's Comprehensive Education Plan to provide every America with a quality education.

? Develop programs to connect community colleges with local employers to ensure academic programs will fulfill business needs and students will have job opportunities after graduation.

? Reauthorize the federal Workforce Investment Act to incentivize programs to partner with employers and reward successful job placement.

Amazing how things can change so quickly.  For weeks and weeks now, Democratic primary voters have assumed that, for the most part, all four candidates would vote pretty much the same way on all the major issues, and were looking for other ways of making their decision.  Sure, there were a few differences around the edges, but nothing really big.  No game-changers; no deal-breakers.

Well, we've got a potential game-changing deal-breaker now.  Martha Coakley said this morning on WBUR (at 1:20) that if the final health care bill still contains restrictive language on abortion funding like the Stupak-Pitts amendment, she would vote "no" in the Senate, expanding on her comments from yesterday regarding the vote in the House.

In contrast, Alan Khazei and Steve Pagliuca have both said (in statements to BMG) that, in those same circumstances, they would vote "yes."  And Mike Capuano, somewhat curiously given how hard he is trying to hammer Coakley on this, is being cagey about that question.  Today's Globe reports, right after recounting Capuano's deriding of Coakley's position on the House vote:

A spokeswoman for Capuano, however, declined later to say whether he would definitely vote for the final bill if it includes the abortion provision.

I've asked the Capuano campaign that question; no response so far.  Apparently the Globe couldn't get an answer either.  So, um, come on, Mike. SEE UPDATE ABOVE for Capuano's position.

Seriously, though, this is a great chance for a Democratic pickup.  One well-known Dem has already more or less announced.  Who else is likely to be in the game?

Many thanks to Secretary Bowles and his staff for taking the time to chat with me!  Highlights and audio of our conversation are on the flip.
I started by asking about the controversy surrounding a development project in the Middlesex Fells.  Check out earlier BMG posts for background, including some useful documents.  The very, very short version is that a developer (known as Gutierrez) wants to redevelop the old Boston Regional Medical Center site which is inside the Fells.  The project will, among other things, probably increase traffic inside the Fells.  Previous administrations required review under the Mass. Environmental Protection Act (MEPA); however, as a result of changes to the project (including significant downsizing), Secretary Bowles recently opined that MEPA jurisdiction no longer exists.  That has resulted in, among other things, a lawsuit being filed against Bowles, the DCR, and the developer by Friends of the Fells, several individuals, and the City of Medford, to require MEPA review.  That lawsuit has not progressed beyond the initial stages.

I asked Secretary Bowles to give us some background and respond to some specific issues in the case.  Here are some highlights:

• Developer has downsized the project to the point where it didn't require any state permits.  MEPA review only happens when a state permit is needed, so by avoiding the need for state permits, the developer avoids MEPA review - nothing Bowles can do.
• Developer took advantage of a regulatory loophole whereby DCR can only require a permit if the project require a physical alteration (e.g. a curb cut) on a DCR road.  Developer "exploited that loophole."  Increase in traffic, however drastic, does not require a DCR permit unless it entails a physical alteration to the road, so increase in traffic does not trigger MEPA review.
• DCR worked out a deal with developer so that certain roadway improvements would be funded by the developer.
• A frustrating case for Bowles because developer was "successful in exploiting a loophole to avoid environmental review."
• What changed in this project was that, under Cellucci and Romney administrations, the project was big enough to require state permits.  It has now been physically downsized so that state permits are no longer required.
• MEPA is driven by regulatory thresholds.  If you don't exceed any of those thresholds, you don't need MEPA review.
• With respect to the historical traffic levels, even if the developer did misstate historical traffic levels, it would not matter.  The regulatory loophole means that even drastic traffic increase did not require a state permit.  Traffic level is "fundamentally immaterial" to whether or not MEPA jurisdiction exists.
• Going forward, the loophole has been fixed so that traffic increase on DCR roadway will now trigger MEPA review.

Audio of the Fells discussion:

Question 2 was the controversy over water withdrawal, which as you may recall caused some environmental groups to resign from an advisory board in protest over a regulatory change they did not like.  The groups are now back on the board, but I thought it would be useful to ask generally about what the issue was and how it blew up.  Highlights:

• Water Management Act covers two types of water withdrawals: "registered water" is 80% of state water, which is generally grandfathered, i.e., withdrawals that were in place when the Act passed 20 years ago; 20% is "permitted water" over which state has full authority.
• Goal is to develop stream flow standards that will avoid rivers running dry.
• With respect to registered water (the 80%), Patrick administration is the first one to assert conditions over withdrawals.  Authority to do that is controversial -- municipalities and water suppliers object, and the issue was argued last week before the SJC.  Enviro groups support Patrick administration on this.
• Winning the SJC case is vital to our ability to manage water, because it's very hard to solve the problem with just 20% of the water.
• "Fundamentally what DEP did wrong is that they said, 'we're launching the stream flow stuff together with the Secretariat, we're going to sort that out, and trust us, we'll get this right in the end.  Look at what we've done on water registrations and a lot of other things, and it'll all be OK.'  And I think what you heard from the watershed groups is, 'don't change the definition of safe yield' ... I think some of the rhetoric had some hyperbole attached to it, but I think the fundamental point they were making was, as a legal matter, the definition of safe yield is important, ... we don't want to be in a situation where you're just doing an engineering definition of safe yield and then relying only on the stream flow standards.

  "I think they have a good point.  Candidly, it's one that was being worked out a couple of rungs below me, and certainly below the Governor.  I heard about the issue first when Beth Daley from the Globe called, and I think one of the points Governor Patrick made in his meeting with the environmentalists is, 'give me a call, give the Secretary a call, give the Commissioner a call.'  I think that's a fair point -- if you want to have a dialogue, let's have a dialogue.  I think that it's on a good track now."

• "I'm confident this is a situation of perhaps too many lawyers talking to each other, but some fundamental alignment on the big picture goal."

Audio of the water management question:

Next, I asked about the wind power bill noted here by EB3.  My own knee-jerk reaction about this bill was to be concerned; on this one, however, upon further reflection and investigation, I now think that the bill is an unmitigated good thing, and that the folks complaining about it are raising classic NIMBY arguments, nothing more.  Many of the state's major enviro groups agree -- see this letter (PDF) posted at Conservation Law Foundation's website -- calling the bill "a critical step in the right direction."

Secretary Bowles, unsurprisingly, is a strong supporter of the bill.  He outlined the bill's provisions, and the reasons for them, in some detail.  There's tons of information about the bill at this link.  Here's the audio from our conversation:

I also asked for Bowles' position on the recent announcement of the Mass. Historic Preservation Officer that Nantucket Sound "is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places because of its cultural significance for two Native American tribes," which could greatly complicate the Cape Wind project.  Governor Patrick's position was pretty clear:

"I respect the Wampanoags, but this decision is ridiculous," Patrick said. "We are going to have to get serious about alternative energy installations where they make sense, and every environmental and regulatory review has concluded that Cape Wind makes sense."

Bowles, not surprisingly, agreed with the Governor's position.  Audio:

Bowles responded at considerable length to stomv's question.  Highlight:

• "First, my hat's off to stomv who is a perennially excellent poster on your fine website with detailed analyses and questions."

He answered the whole, multipart question.  Here's the audio -- I will leave it to stomv to sort through it!  :-)

Lastly, Bowles wanted to pass the following along to the BMG community:

• Patrick administration has launched the largest land conservation initiative in the state's history, but this hasn't been widely reported in the Boston media.  This includes urban parks, agricultural restrictions, and habitat preservation.
• We are making good on the promise to finish the reform effort at DCR.  It's a historic accomplishment to have moved all the Charles River crossings to the Highway Department (now MassDOT) - DCR needs to be focused on its core mission of parks, beaches, and parkways.

Audio:

Many thanks to Secretary Bowles and his staff for taking the time to chat with me!  Highlights and audio of our conversation are on the flip.
I started by asking about the controversy surrounding a development project in the Middlesex Fells.  Check out earlier BMG posts for background, including some useful documents.  The very, very short version is that a developer (known as Gutierrez) wants to redevelop the old Boston Regional Medical Center site which is inside the Fells.  The project will, among other things, probably increase traffic inside the Fells.  Previous administrations required review under the Mass. Environmental Protection Act (MEPA); however, as a result of changes to the project (including significant downsizing), Secretary Bowles recently opined that MEPA jurisdiction no longer exists.  That has resulted in, among other things, a lawsuit being filed against Bowles, the DCR, and the developer by Friends of the Fells, several individuals, and the City of Medford, to require MEPA review.  That lawsuit has not progressed beyond the initial stages.

I asked Secretary Bowles to give us some background and respond to some specific issues in the case.  Here are some highlights:

• Developer has downsized the project to the point where it didn't require any state permits.  MEPA review only happens when a state permit is needed, so by avoiding the need for state permits, the developer avoids MEPA review - nothing Bowles can do.
• Developer took advantage of a regulatory loophole whereby DCR can only require a permit if the project require a physical alteration (e.g. a curb cut) on a DCR road.  Developer "exploited that loophole."  Increase in traffic, however drastic, does not require a DCR permit unless it entails a physical alteration to the road, so increase in traffic does not trigger MEPA review.
• DCR worked out a deal with developer so that certain roadway improvements would be funded by the developer.
• A frustrating case for Bowles because developer was "successful in exploiting a loophole to avoid environmental review."
• What changed in this project was that, under Cellucci and Romney administrations, the project was big enough to require state permits.  It has now been physically downsized so that state permits are no longer required.
• MEPA is driven by regulatory thresholds.  If you don't exceed any of those thresholds, you don't need MEPA review.
• With respect to the historical traffic levels, even if the developer did misstate historical traffic levels, it would not matter.  The regulatory loophole means that even drastic traffic increase did not require a state permit.  Traffic level is "fundamentally immaterial" to whether or not MEPA jurisdiction exists.
• Going forward, the loophole has been fixed so that traffic increase on DCR roadway will now trigger MEPA review.

Audio of the Fells discussion:

Question 2 was the controversy over water withdrawal, which as you may recall caused some environmental groups to resign from an advisory board in protest over a regulatory change they did not like.  The groups are now back on the board, but I thought it would be useful to ask generally about what the issue was and how it blew up.  Highlights:

• Water Management Act covers two types of water withdrawals: "registered water" is 80% of state water, which is generally grandfathered, i.e., withdrawals that were in place when the Act passed 20 years ago; 20% is "permitted water" over which state has full authority.
• Goal is to develop stream flow standards that will avoid rivers running dry.
• With respect to registered water (the 80%), Patrick administration is the first one to assert conditions over withdrawals.  Authority to do that is controversial -- municipalities and water suppliers object, and the issue was argued last week before the SJC.  Enviro groups support Patrick administration on this.
• Winning the SJC case is vital to our ability to manage water, because it's very hard to solve the problem with just 20% of the water.
• "Fundamentally what DEP did wrong is that they said, 'we're launching the stream flow stuff together with the Secretariat, we're going to sort that out, and trust us, we'll get this right in the end.  Look at what we've done on water registrations and a lot of other things, and it'll all be OK.'  And I think what you heard from the watershed groups is, 'don't change the definition of safe yield' ... I think some of the rhetoric had some hyperbole attached to it, but I think the fundamental point they were making was, as a legal matter, the definition of safe yield is important, ... we don't want to be in a situation where you're just doing an engineering definition of safe yield and then relying only on the stream flow standards.

  "I think they have a good point.  Candidly, it's one that was being worked out a couple of rungs below me, and certainly below the Governor.  I heard about the issue first when Beth Daley from the Globe called, and I think one of the points Governor Patrick made in his meeting with the environmentalists is, 'give me a call, give the Secretary a call, give the Commissioner a call.'  I think that's a fair point -- if you want to have a dialogue, let's have a dialogue.  I think that it's on a good track now."

• "I'm confident this is a situation of perhaps too many lawyers talking to each other, but some fundamental alignment on the big picture goal."

Audio of the water management question:

Next, I asked about the wind power bill noted here by EB3.  My own knee-jerk reaction about this bill was to be concerned; on this one, however, upon further reflection and investigation, I now think that the bill is an unmitigated good thing, and that the folks complaining about it are raising classic NIMBY arguments, nothing more.  Many of the state's major enviro groups agree -- see this letter (PDF) posted at Conservation Law Foundation's website -- calling the bill "a critical step in the right direction."

Secretary Bowles, unsurprisingly, is a strong supporter of the bill.  He outlined the bill's provisions, and the reasons for them, in some detail.  There's tons of information about the bill at this link.  Here's the audio from our conversation:

I also asked for Bowles' position on the recent announcement of the Mass. Historic Preservation Officer that Nantucket Sound "is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places because of its cultural significance for two Native American tribes," which could greatly complicate the Cape Wind project.  Governor Patrick's position was pretty clear:

"I respect the Wampanoags, but this decision is ridiculous," Patrick said. "We are going to have to get serious about alternative energy installations where they make sense, and every environmental and regulatory review has concluded that Cape Wind makes sense."

Bowles, not surprisingly, agreed with the Governor's position.  Audio:

Bowles responded at considerable length to stomv's question.  Highlight:

• "First, my hat's off to stomv who is a perennially excellent poster on your fine website with detailed analyses and questions."

He answered the whole, multipart question.  Here's the audio -- I will leave it to stomv to sort through it!  :-)

Lastly, Bowles wanted to pass the following along to the BMG community:

• Patrick administration has launched the largest land conservation initiative in the state's history, but this hasn't been widely reported in the Boston media.  This includes urban parks, agricultural restrictions, and habitat preservation.
• We are making good on the promise to finish the reform effort at DCR.  It's a historic accomplishment to have moved all the Charles River crossings to the Highway Department (now MassDOT) - DCR needs to be focused on its core mission of parks, beaches, and parkways.

Audio:

U.S. Senate candidate Martha Coakley says she wouldn't have voted for the health care bill that passed the House over the weekend because of an amendment restricting abortion funding.

Rep. Michael Capuano, another Democrat vying to succeed the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, voted against the so-called Stupak-Pitts Amendment but in favor of the overall health care bill that narrowly passed the House late Saturday.

There you have it (Coakley made her statement on WTKK today - the audio is here, starting at about 20:30).  Let's assume that the Senate is unsuccessful in removing the Stupak-Pitts amendment from the bill, so that when the final bill emerges from conference, the restriction on abortion funding is still in there (I think that is a likely outcome).  The vote in both chambers will be very close.  UPDATE: in response to BMG's request for comment, Alan Khazei said that "I would have voted with Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Capuano for Universal Health Care, which only passed by 5 votes.  If the House Democrats listened to Martha Coakley, our best chance for Universal Health Care in 62 years would now be dead."  He further stated that

If the final bill that emerges from the House-Senate conference committee includes the Stupak amendment, I will reluctantly vote for it in order to achieve the important goal of Universal Health Care.  I will then work day and night with pro-choice groups and citizen activists to change that legislation and elect members of Congress who will preserve a woman's right to choose no matter their income level.

FURTHER UPDATE: In a statement to BMG, Steve Pagliuca's campaign confirmed that he, too, would vote "yes" in the Senate for a health care bill that contains something like Stupak-Pitts.

So, as far as we can tell right now:

Capuano [UPDATE: and Khazei and Pagliuca] would vote "yes";
Coakley would vote "no."

FURTHER FURTHER UPDATE: Of course, that's all outdated now.  See this post for the current situation.

So there you go.  Do you go along with a disagreeable restriction on abortion funding in order to move through a major health care overhaul?  Or do you see that restriction as so offensive that it contaminates the bill to the point that you cannot support it?

IMHO, this is the most important difference on the issues that has yet appeared.  I have inquired of the Khazei and Pagliuca campaigns as to their position; will update if I hear anything.

Progress.

Good news from WTKK (96.9 FM):

96.9 FM-WTKK's Jim Braude and Margery Eagan will host the only radio debate scheduled between the four democratic candidates in the race for Senator on Thursday, November 12, 2009 from 9:00am - 10:00am.... In addition to questions from Jim and Margery, the debate will feature listener questions.  Questions must be submitted prior to 5:00 p.m. Wednesday to senatedebate@969wtkk.com.

A radio debate on a weekday at 9 am is good -- better than nothing, certainly -- but of course not enough.  There really, really has to be another prime-time televised debate among the four Democratic candidates.  Today's Globe reports that the Coakley campaign has been, shall we say, less than enthusiastically working with the other campaigns to find a time.  So here's hoping that, instead of taking the usual front-runner's pose of avoiding debates and running out the clock, Team Coakley does the right thing and sets up at least one, and preferably two or three, more televised debates between now and Dec. 8.  

Some blame lies with the local TV stations as well:

the campaigns are now also expressing aggravation with media outlets, which, they say, have told them that, because of competitive interests or financial problems, they have not come together to sponsor any major statewide debates. One possible factor: November is sweeps month, when television stations are often loath to broadcast potentially low-viewership specials like political debates.... At least one network affiliate, WCVB-TV, is trying to sponsor its own debate on Dec. 1, which would also be aired by a partner in Western Massachusetts.... Another group of media outlets [which includes NECN, the Globe, WBUR, and WGBH] is also trying to coordinate a debate scheduled for the following day.... Several other local television stations said they have no plans to sponsor primary debates.  "We currently do not have any plans to televise a Massachusetts Senate debate," said Maggie Hennessey-Nees, a spokeswoman for Fox 25.  "We don't have any plans in the works," said Ro Dooley Webster, spokeswoman for WBZ-TV, which is planning a general election debate.

So kudos to WCVB and to the consortium, who are at least trying.  As for the others: I get that, basically, TV is about making money, and a TV station can no doubt bring in more cash by showing a rerun of Survivor than by airing a Senate debate.  Still, don't TV stations have some obligation, in exchange for the government-conferred exclusive right to occupy certain broadcast frequencies, to give back a little?  Just a little?

UPDATE: Alan Khazei and Steve Pagliuca have sent a letter to all MA media outlets urging more debates (specifically, a debate that would be televised statewide) and offering to help fund them.  The letter is on the flip.
Open Letter to Massachusetts Broadcast and Print Media Outlets
November 9, 2009

Dear Media Outlet:

The special election December 8th primary to replace Edward M. Kennedy in the United States Senate is now less than one month away.  As candidates for that office, we have been campaigning across Massachusetts communicating our vision for the future to the voters.

At the same time, we have been patiently waiting and hoping that the spirit of common civic interest that have produced televised statewide candidate debates in previously high-profile elections would materialize.  For reasons that aren't clear to us, such an effort has yet to gain momentum and unless something changes very quickly, the voters of Massachusetts will be robbed of the critical opportunity to see the candidates in this election debate.  

We believe the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts deserve a minimum of two statewide televised debates.  Thus far there have been none.  We respectfully propose a debate be held in Western Massachusetts on November 20th, and a final debate be held at Faneuil Hall in Boston, on December 3rd or 4th.  We believe both these debates should be shown to voters on a statewide basis.

To date there has been just one prime time television debate.  Unfortunately for the voters, it wasn't shown outside of the Boston media market and didn't include questions from the media.  In tribute to the Senate seat once held by John Quincy Adams, Daniel Webster, John and Edward Kennedy, we believe the people of Massachusetts deserve a more thorough understanding of the candidates' views on the great many issues that face our nation.

As a sign of our commitment to make these debates a reality, our campaigns are willing to help pay for any reasonable production costs associated with holding the debates and putting them on television.

We hope you will join with us to provide Massachusetts' voters the opportunity to take a good look at the Democratic primary candidates seeking to represent us in the United States Senate.

This is an historic election -- an election to choose the successor to one of the greatest Senators in our country's history.  Edward M. Kennedy was the people's Senator, and we believe the people of Massachusetts deserve the chance to see and hear exactly how the candidates for his seat will fulfill his legacy and lead Massachusetts forward.

Sincerely,

Alan Khazei
Steve Pagliuca

I jotted a few notes below and will search for video.
Health Care
Pags- Public Option component of cost reduction.  Admin costs need to be reduced through centralized data.

Brown - goes after Capuano (who sweated the week out in DC fighting not talking about health care reform - my edit)

If you have Medicare "you should be scared"  if you have Cadillac coverage "you should be very worried".  Why should we want to subsidize other people's health care? You can go to jail if you don't take the plan they want you to take.

Robinson - 12 pt plan jackerobinson.com  "Romneycare" in Massachusetts highest premiums in the country - Scott voted for that plan.

No medicare cuts because my 84 year old mother would never let me.  Public option - one of the worst bills in history.

Khazei - family health care providers.  HC is a right not a privilege.   Rolling out a health care plan in western MA tomorrow.  Khazei wants to tax the CEO health care plans, we should not subsidize them...people who can;t afford it should be subsidized.  Bangs on the lobbyists and health insurance industry 6 lobbyists for every Congress person.  Only candidate from purely citizen contributions.

Ok R's how do you feel about the AMA endorsing the public option?
Brown - we have great plans in MA.  We should not subsidize other states...doesn't answer the question.   Dr.s in MA are against the public option according to Brown.  The executives work hard and deserve to not be taxed on their plans.

Robinson - we have not solved univeral coverage at a low cost.  Romneycare too expensive....Scott is enamored with Romneycare.

Khazei - (difficult to hear) - he needs to speak more forcefully.  Has mastery of the subject...citing studies in other regions of the country.  Medicare costs 3%, Private 15%-30%, so we need the public option to bring down costs.

Pags - talks about his experience with health care system.  Tort Reform needed.  Best practice sharing and uniform plans. Time's up.

I'm going to sign off and hope folks are watching.

Congressman Capuano returned from voting in DC on Health care and excused himself from the forum prior to the end.

Coakley had another commitment.  

In the thirty six years that I have been eligible to vote, there has not been a vote that more starkly contrasts the choice between the vision, values, and ideals that the Democratic Party represents and the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the rightwing. This was a deciding moment, and thirty nine "Democrats" failed this crucial test.

In my view, we should draw two key conclusions from this vote. Now is the time to:

1. Shut the door to the GOP: Enough blathering and posturing about "reaching out to the other side." The GOP has demonstrated that their only goal is to obstruct and destroy anything the Democrats propose. It is long past time for we Democrats to close ranks and move on. Our focus should be on advancing the agenda of the overwhelming majority of Americans who we represent. Further efforts to accommodate the GOP are wasted and counterproductive.
2. Replace the DINOs: The thirty nine "Democrats" who voted "no" hurt the party more than they help. They should receive NO more DCCC or other party funding. They should be stripped of ALL seniority and returned to freshman status. They should be opposed in primaries by candidates who support Democratic Party priorities, values, and principles. If it means that we lose those seats, so be it.

1. Adler (NJ)
2. Altmire
3. Baird
4. Barrow
5. Boccieri
6. Boren
7. Boucher
8. Boyd
9. Bright
10. Chandler
11. Childers
12. Davis (AL)
13. Davis (TN)
14. Edwards (TX)
15. Gordon (TN)
16. Griffith
17. Herseth Sandlin
18. Holden
19. Kissell
20. Kosmas
21. Kratovil
22. Kucinich
23. Markey (CO)
24. Marshall
25. Massa
26. Matheson
27. McIntyre
28. McMahon
29. Melancon
30. Minnick
31. Murphy (NY)
32. Nye
33. Peterson
34. Ross
35. Shuler
36. Skelton
37. Tanner
38. Taylor
39. Teague

Here is how the article characterized their positions:
Capuano: Supports. Large social costs must be figured into financial equation"adults should be able to do pretty much what they want if they are not hurting others," including gambling at casinos.

Capuano also acknowledged that casinos won't be a cure-all for the state's fiscal woes, and that any expansion of gambling inevitably comes with a downside.

"There will be some large social costs, and that has to be figured into the financial equation or the state will end up with a net loss," Capuano said in a statement.

Coakley: Does not oppose. Cautions for caution.Coakley said she doesn't oppose casinos but believes the state should approach expanded gambling with caution.

Lawmakers should study other states that already have casinos -- such as New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Nevada -- to try to avoid pitfalls like increased crime, gambling addiction and identity theft, she said.

Massachusetts should adopt new regulations before signing any deals and put in place auditing mechanisms to oversee casinos' financial records, she said. She has filed legislation aimed at aiding investigations into money laundering, enterprise crime and wire interception.

(Ed note:An enterprising person might want to take a look at Martha's legislation to see the authorities granted to the state to "aid" investigations, and measures to decrease crime, remediate gambling addiction, and protect against identity theft. Who has a link?)

Khazei: Opposed, social costs too great"It will fundamentally and irrevocably change our state."

Khazei argues that the social cost of increased gambling outweighs any increase in revenues. He says the state should instead focus on bolstering jobs in sectors such as biotechnology, health care, clean energy and small businesses.

Pagliuca: Conditional support, hard to resist, must be part of bigger business propositionPagliuca sounded a more skeptical note, saying he would support casinos only if they were part of larger developments that included restaurants, entertainment venues and hotels.

Pagliuca, co-owner of the Boston Celtics, said the lure of jobs would be hard to resist, given the state's rising unemployment.

"I have trepidation about casino gambling because of the issues of crime and blight and gambling addiction," he said, adding that he could support a plan if it minimizes those drawbacks and "is proven that it will add significant jobs to the state."

Public: 56% Yea*, 34% Ney, 9% undecided Public opinion appears to support casinos.

A telephone survey of 522 adults found that 56 percent support allowing the state to license casinos, 34 percent are opposed and nine percent are undecided or declined to answer.

The poll of Massachusetts residents was conducted Oct. 18-22 by the Western New England College Polling Institute and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

(* "Yea" but not in my back yard.)

Public: in my back yard? 67% Ney, 12% Yea, 11% undecided
...an overwhelming majority say they don't want a casino as their neighbor.

Western New England College News: Massachusetts Residents Split on Casino Gambling
While Massachusetts residents are divided about whether to allow casino gambling in the state, an overwhelming majority say they don't want a casino as their neighbor. When asked "Are you in favor of a casino in your town?", 57 percent responded they were strongly opposed. Ten percent were somewhat opposed, 11 percent neutral, 12 percent somewhat in favor, and ten percent strongly in favor. Opposition softened somewhat when people were asked "Are you in favor of a casino in your county?", with 38 percent strongly opposed, 11 percent somewhat opposed, 15 percent neutral, 21 percent somewhat in favor, and 16 percent strongly in favor. (More about the poll results here.)

So, on to the Senate!

In an email reported here to the Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education Mitchell Chester, Secretary of Education Paul Reville thanked Commissioner Chester for his felxibility in supporting this charter application since granting it would be a "tough but I think necessary pill to swallow."  Secretary Reville explained that granting this charter would be a "matter of positioning ourselves so that we can be viable to implement the rest of our agenda."

The questions that have yet to be answered are :

Inside the soldier readiness facility on this Army post, Major Nidal M. Hasan opened fire with two pistols, one of them semiautomatic, officials said. The gunfire was continuous, methodical, and well-aimed. Unarmed soldiers who had been waiting for medical appointments scattered or dropped to the floor.... Munley, 34 years old and trained in tactics developed in the wake of the Columbine massacre, raced toward the gunfire. She arrived at 1:27 p.m., about four minutes after the first 911 call, as Hasan was fleeing the building, according to official accounts.

Munley rounded a corner and fired twice at Hasan. He fired back and charged at her, according to the accounts. Munley dropped to the ground in a protective position and continued firing.

At some point, Hasan began to fumble with his gun. "He's reloading," someone screamed, according to an officer on the scene.

In the exchange, Munley was struck in both thighs and one wrist. Hasan was shot four times.

There's no telling how many lives Sgt. Munley saved.  All Americans are in her debt.  Thank you, Sgt. Munley.