Rasmussen showing similar results as the September 7News-Suffolk poll.  Republican nominee has little impact as Mihos and Baker show similar numbers against Patrick.  Still a significant percentage of unsure voters.  Plus, it's still very early in the campaign.

Election 2010: Massachusetts Governor

Deval Patrick (D) 34%
Christy Mihos (R) 23%
Tim Cahill    (I) 23%
Not sure          19%

Election 2010: Massachusetts Governor

Deval Patrick (D) 34%
Charlie Baker (R) 24%
Tim Cahill    (I) 23%
Not sure          19%

Rasmussen's August Poll was pre-Cahill, Patrick's numbers are similar with some fluctuation in "some other candidate" and Patrick with Baker included.  The largest impact with the inclusion of Cahill is the with the Republican nominee losing 16%-17% of voters.
August numbers:

Election 2010: Massachusetts Governor

Christy Mihos (R) 40%
Deval Patrick (D) 35%
Some other candidate 11%
Not sure             15%

Election 2010: Massachusetts Governor

Charlie Baker (R) 39%
Deval Patrick (D) 40%
Some other candidate  7%
Not sure             15%  

In the BMG spirit of respectful debate and dissent, I am pleased to post the following link from the recent "Progressives for Menino" announcement:

http://www.mayormenino.com/pro...

In the videos on that page, a number of progressive activists from around the city representing labor, women's organizations, environmentalists, community-based housing developers, shelter providers and food activists explain their ongoing work with Mayor Menino and their support for his agenda.  Sheriff Andrea Cabral also announced her support. Among the others attending were advocates such as Lew Finfer (housing), Valerie Bassett (public health) and Tim Schofield of Brighton.
To date, Mayor Menino has received the support of (partial list):

Advocacy organizations:
National Organization of Women (NOW) (Boston Chapter)
MassEquality
Massachusetts League of Environmental Voters (MLEV)- first municipal official to be endorsed
?O?ste?
Coalition of New American Voters (CNAV)
Haitian American Political Action Committee

Democratic Ward Committees:
Ward 1 (East Boston)
Ward 4 (South End, Fenway/Kenmore)
Ward 5 (Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Bay Village)
Ward 13 (Savin Hill region of Dorchester, parts of Roxbury)
Ward 15 (Meeting House Hill, Bowdoin Street areas of Dorchester)
Ward 16 (Neponset region of Dorchester)
Ward 22 (Brighton)

Unions:
United Food and Commercial Workers (UFC) Local 1445
United Auto Workers of Massachusetts
Service Employees Industry Union (SEIU) State Council
Boston Building Trades Council

A number of elected officials including Reps. Linda Dorcena-Forry (Mattapan/Dorchester), Liz Malia (JP/Roxbury), Jeff Sanchez (JP/Mission Hill) and Mike Moran (Allston/Brighton) are endorsers.

The Mayor was also endorsed this week by a group of community health center directors. And separate from political endorsements, the Massachusetts Association of School Committees gave Menino their "Urban Educator of the Year" award last week (interesting as Boston is the only city in the Commonwealth with an appointed committee).

-------------------------------------------------

In short, many progressives who live in the city are strongly supporting the Mayor's reelection bid.  I have had the opportunity to know him for many years, work for him in various posts, and work with him recently on the establishment of a Boston Food Policy Council which we hope will reshape the way the city works to encourage healthier eating, particularly in the schools and inner city, free up more land for urban agriculture, and encourage more local food
production and partnerships.  On this issue, as with so many others, Tom Menino continues to move Boston forward.

From differently-winged poster JohnD ... (his source)

 

It's always about raising taxes, not reviewing spending... 

Does Bristol Community College have to pay an Interpreter $93K for working 30 hours a week?

Does the State have to pay 20-30 Chief Probation Officers a salary of over $100K?

Does the President of Cape Cod Community College have to make $178K?

How about these 2008 incomes for the State Police from the Mass Pike...

$240,809.52
$240,493.24
$231,624.46
$224,008.81
$217,161.73
$211,966.65
$211,142.09
$208,314.26
$202,906.74
$197,119.23
$196,367.11
$196,112.60
$195,797.97
$193,004.88
$192,972.01
$192,800.00
$192,478.03
$192,272.21
$191,735.67
$191,104.23

Oh ya, we have really cut this state budget to the bones so increasing taxes is the ONLY way to fix things. What a joke!!!

PS Before anyone defends these highly trained police officers, realize that there isn't a Judge, AG, DA or lawyer working for the state that makes what these yahoos make for money (for sitting in their cars on details). Another joke!

I'm not one to call staties "yahoos", and I wouldn't denigrate their professionalism. But there's a lot of area between "yahoos" and "worth $200 grand/year." What is the appropriate, fair, and just salary for someone who does that kind of work?

Anyway, these are good questions to ask.

Oh dear. Bloomberg:

Salvatore Calvanese, the treasurer of Springfield, Massachusetts, for four years, had a ready defense for why he risked $14 million of taxpayer money on collateralized-debt obligations laden with subprime mortgages in 2007.

He didn't know what he was buying, he says, and trusted the financial professionals who sold them and told him they were safe.

"I thought they were money markets that were just paying more," Calvanese said in an interview. "Nobody ever used the term 'CDO,' and I am not sure I would have known what that was anyway."

Such financial mistakes, often enabled by public officials' lack of disclosure and accountability for almost 90 percent of government financings in the $2.8 trillion municipal bond market, are costing U.S. taxpayers as much as $6 billion a year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg in more than a dozen states.

I think we have to hand it to Mr. Calvanese for being forthright, which is refreshing. If only the brain trust at the Turnpike Authority were equally clear-minded.  

First US Senate debate

Michael Flaherty is the best candidate for Mayor of Boston and deserves your vote for three essential reasons.

First, he has created an effective coalition for change in Boston by allying with running mate Sam Yoon. We applaud the deft political vision that created a Mayoral running mate in a system that has no such position, to the surprise of almost everyone. His responsive and well-run campaign has shown similar resourcefulness in its exploitation of virtually every communications media open to it, from advertising and the traditional news media to blogs, Facebook, and email. It is quite amazing, for example, that 26 percent of respondents to a recent Globe poll said they have met the relatively young Flaherty. As one runs, often so one serves and the Flaherty campaign bodes well for the City of Boston.

Second, he has outlined a variety of specific reforms that can have a significant beneficial impact on the Hub. The whitepaper-packed issues page on his website would do a Presidential candidate proud, and puts several of the current crop of Senate candidates to shame. From implementation of technological solutions like CitiStat that will increase accountability, to a pledge to take on the Boston Redevelopment Authority, to familiarity with the public schools as the parent of three children in them, Flaherty has defined an impressive, realistic, and specific program of reform.

Third, after 16 years in office Tom Menino should find another way to serve Boston. The cavalier -- criminal? -- disdain of his top aide for our public records laws is just the latest evidence of an administration that has come to believe the city serves it, rather than the other way around (CW Unbound summarizes EmailGate here). A quick trip to New York shows how many creative opportunities to improve both quality of life and economic performance Boston has missed. From streets turned into parks for the summer to tree planting programs to automatic plea bargaining for traffic tickets, our southern neighbor is abuzz with urban experiments while Boston is still trying to figure out the mechanics of urban management. What can one really say about a Mayor who has spent money to install a voicemail system at City Hall, but refuses to allow its use during working hours?

To my friends and all others who care about the Commonwealth:

I have always considered myself a proud and progressive Democrat.  For the thirty years that I have worked on social justice issues I have been aligned with progressive organizations in the environmental, labor, human rights, human services, and corporate responsibility fields.  

I think I can even claim some history of progressive leadership as the founder of the Global Reporting Initiative, the leading form of corporate disclosure on social, environmental, and economic impacts, now in use by over 1,000 multinationals worldwide and mandatory in many countries.   And I have served my party:  as co-chair of a state issues convention, member of the national Rules Committee, and as Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor in 1994.

Though my party affiliation has been important to me, it has never barred me from friendships with people of differing parties, views, perspectives, or beliefs.  Today I write to you all.  

I, like many people, have friends all through the Democratic party.   Some became my friends because they were such good candidates.

In this category I count Deval Patrick, who impressed me so much when I first spoke to him that I realized that I might have found a truly new candidate, representing a new kind of politics.   My wife and I, after thinking carefully, organized the first major house party for Deval in Somerville, a full year before the election, where we carefully brought together more than 100 representatives of all the major political factions in the city.   They were also impressed.   Deval went on, through his own hard work, to win 59.7% of the city's primary vote against two opponents.

I am as appalled as anyone in this state at the damage our declining budget is likely to do to real human beings who need help.  I have lived and worked in Somerville for more than 25 years and for part of that time I was the pastor of a small Episcopal church where I saw the need for social services up close - among many parishioners, among the 12 "shut-in" senior citizens whom I regularly visited in their homes, among the children on the streets and in the parks.   My children attended public school next to the Mystic View projects.   So I yield to no one in my sense of urgency about what a dollar cut from the budget can mean in the life of a citizen or family who has no where else to turn.

But I must say - reluctantly, but bluntly - that I am shocked by the behavior of many friends in the face of this recent budget crisis.   Because of their understandable concern about the nature of the current budget mess, they have allowed themselves to be silenced by the cynical forces pressing for predatory gambling in this state.  And every time I receive - on the dozens of the listservs that I get - another plea to put pressure on the governor to find more revenue, I wonder if the people who are putting out these appeals fully realize what a cruel irony they are perpetuating.

Let's start with the unions....  
I have not been a member of a union, so I can't call myself a brother or a sister, but I have worked on virtually every issue that unions have cared about: equal pay, health care, worker protections.   I cheered when Bob Haynes, another friend, says that unions are there for those who can least protect themselves.   And I grieve when I listen to the electricians and carpenters and others who talk about the astronomically high unemployment rates in their ranks.

But here is how they have chosen to do handle the problem: they have - not for the first time in labor history - been bamboozled by the wealthy.   They have bought the false numbers and false arguments that have been advanced by industry consultants and lobbyists who are using them.    They have ignored the bankruptcies around the country and the huge amount of evidence that has been piled up by economists from outside the state.   I won't go through it here - much of it is available at the website of [United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts - http:www.uss-mass.org]   Please read up, then sign up.  

One point, proven over and over again, but conveniently forgotten: every slot machine kills one permanent job in an economy.  Why?  Very simple.  A slot machine requires no labor.  It is simply a reverse ATM that sucks money from your account into the casino or racetracks account - money that you could have spent somewhere else.

Labor, sadly, has denied, blocked, or avoided any serious discussion with gambling opponents.   The political committee meeting was a love fest with casino owners.   Their "Jobs With Justice" dinner committee refused to run an ad from a long-time member, Tom Larkin, paid for with his own money, simply asking for a serious debate.   They have held "informational meetings" at Suffolks Downs.   They have used long discredited numbers produced by casino-company reports with flawed or deceptive methodologies.    

And every time I have mentioned this to Bobby Haynes, he says, "I know, I don't like slot machines, but we need the jobs."   The jobs are fake Bobby.  It's not worth selling the birthright of the labor movement for this mess of pottage.

And it is not just the construction trades.  The SEIU, which should be trembling at the thought of tens of thousands more gambling addicts sweeping down on our overburdened system, has been silent.   The people concerned about domestic violence or co-addiction or criminal justice have taken a little stroll.   The nurses are on break.  The Mass Teacher's Association, to their lasting discredit, has endorsed a system of "job creation" created by a predatory industry that is targeting our video-game loving children for the next wave of  gambling traps.

The social service advocates and good government advocates are also embarrassingly silent.   Common Cause, of which my grandmother was a founding board member, has decided that they care about corruption, but only at a limited scale - the wholesale distortion of the an entire process in the legislature by gambling interests - not only here but around the country - is something they wish to ignore.  Please, Pam. do a little more reading about what is happening around the country.  

I could list a large number of groups that have intensified the pressure on the governor and on Beacon Hill not to pursue cuts, but who seem so out of touch with politics that they don't realize that this sets up the perfect hole-in-the-pocket shot by Big Gambling.   ,

And then there are the churches.   The Mass Council of Churches has been an opponentbut the individual denominations and congregations are too busy worrying about problems in other countries or other decades to pay any real attention to what it is about to happen in their midst.   The evangelical communities like Park Street Church and Gordon Conwell seminary - proud heirs to many social movements - have wandered off into the wilderness on this.   The Greater Boston Interfaith Organization - an organization I love and of which my church is a member - is proud of the 400 of their financial literacy program that has moved people out of debt.   How many people will people will be cast into debt through thousands and thousands of neurologically addictive slot machines.   Even though their leaders know - in their bones - that we will reap the whirlwind, they do not speak out.  Rev. Hamilton, you are my hero in many ways, please speak the truth here as powerfully as you have throughout your life.

And what about my friends in politics?  Some have stood up to fight this - such as those who passed a resolution at the Democratic Issues Convention making it the policy of the party to oppose predatory gambling.   There have been powerful leaders against predatory gambling such as Susan Tucker in the Senate, and Dan Bosley in the House - they will eventually be proven to have been not only courageous but right.

The U.S. Senate candidates have, with one exception, been an embarrassment.   Michael Capuano, someone I have known for 20 years in Somerville, usually deserves his reputation as a straight-up shooter, who will tell you what he thinks.   But he is ducking the question, saying that gambling is not a national issue.  

Tell that the people in Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Iowa,and other places who have been fleeced by national and international companies working their way state by state across the country like locusts.   Tell that to Congress, which passed the perverse Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which has allowed international cartels and billionaires to use Indian tribes as fronts for their investments.    Or to the Supreme Court which squashed "reservation shopping" for casino lands, something that can only be reversed by an act of Congress.   At the very least, it is a regional issue, where a strong social justice Senator could bring together all the parties to slow, stop, and reverse the race to the bottom.  Come on, Mike, step up to the plate.

Martha Coakley said that as chief law enforcement official she is working with the legislature to craft the laws that casinos will be necessary if legislation is passed.    Martha, if you are elected you will no longer be in this job - in a few weeks.  What will you do as a Senator?  You used to be opposed to gambling - is your current silence due to your union support and to Senate President Teresa Murray's enthusiasm for your candidacy?   Martha, we want to see some spark, some fire in the belly for what's right, not a recitation of your current job description.

Steve Pagliuca says that he hasn't really been able to evaluate whether would be good or bad.   That's amazing.  The man has spent his career assessing companies, but suddenly his skills disappear when he hits controversy.   Steve, step up to a real challenge, something a little more robust than telling Democrats you are for health care reform.

Only Alan Khazei has said - today - that he believes casinos and slot machines are predatory.   He deserves praise for his courage.     When something is predatory, it means that a practice takes advantage of people who aren't aware of the dangers, which are deliberately concealed.   Democrats have opposed predatory pricing, predatory marketing, predatory lending, and now they should oppose predatory gambling.  Again, that is the official position of the State Democratic Party.

But do the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, or the Governor of the Commonwealth care?   Apparently not.   What about the House and Senate?   We will see.

And why is this?  In part because our legislators are desperate for revenue.   But the darker side is that many former campaign managers, operatives, field organizers, pollsters, and even former candidates and public officials themselves - have gone on the lobbying payroll of different casino or slot companies.   I won't embarrass them further by listing them here, but I think that Blue Mass Group should publish a list of every consultant and every lawyer whose firm is now working on the inside, spending some of the $1 million of lobbying funds that have already been spent to our legislature.

All these forces are going to come to a head in the next few months.   The House and Senate are holding joint hearings on gambling this Thursday that will be packed with union members who have been bussed into to support something that won't help them and will harm their communities and their families.  The churches will twiddle their thumbs, holding meetings on other topics in other places.   The social service groups advocates will demand more money - we don't care how you get it.    The lobbyists will smile and adjust the cuffs of their expensive suits and admire the shine of their expensive shoes.   The governor will forget that people elected him not for his managerial skills alone but also for his moral courage.  

The decision is still in the hand of legislators, many of whom have staked their entire careers on their progressive records.   They don't realize that they may be about to cast the vote for which they will most be remembered, wiping out the good work they did through years - even decades - in the legislature.

None of us can escape the simple truth that how we raise money to pay for public services says as much about our values as how we spend it.

If a vote comes in the new year to bring in a set of destructive forces because ALL OF US refused to raise our heads for a few minutes from the distractions offered to us by those who are in this for private gain, unless we look with wisdom and compassion to the hills of the future, then we will have sacrificed the principles of the progressive movement, the Democratic party, and the Commonwealth at one stroke.  

This is what will happen.  Unless there are enough of my friends - and others inside and outside the legislature - who have the courage to stand up and say:

No.

Bob Massie

A couple of attention-worthy items:

• US Senate candidate Alan Khazei has come out strongly against casino gambling in Massachusetts.  So far, anyway, he's the only one -- the others are staying away from the issue.

  In comments following the meeting, US Representative Michael Capuano said he was not actively involved in the casino gambling issue because it is not a matter that will be addressed by the US Senate.

  Attorney General Martha Coakley said that in her position as the state's top lawyer she has been advising lawmakers and Governor Deval Patrick on how to properly enforce and regulate any gaming industry the state eventually embraces.

  Steven Pagliuca, co-owner of the Boston Celtics and a successful businessman, said he is skeptical casino gambling will help the state's economy, but could be convinced to support the concept if advocates show there will be permanent job creation.
  

  Technically, of course Capuano is right -- it's a state issue, not a federal one.  But it's certainly one we can expect a US Senator to weigh in on.  Here's hoping it comes up at tonight's debate.



• And speaking of debates -- don't forget to watch!  It's tonight at 7 pm, carried I believe by most local TV and radio stations.  I'm planning to live-blog, for added entertainment value.  Feel free to chime in.


• A recent(ish) poll taken last week showed Martha Coakley holding a solid lead: 37%, followed by Steve Pagliuca (whose TV blitz is obviously having some effect) at 14%, Mike Capuano at 13%, and Alan Khazei at 4%; 26% are undecided.  But caution is in order: the poll surveyed "registered voters," not likely Democratic primary voters; and of course, the poll is pre-debate.


• Jon Keller offered a helping hand to Barbara Anderson and Citizens for Limited Taxation, which has been experiencing well-publicized financial difficulties.  His lead-in:

  Over the past three decades, Massachusetts taxpayers have relied on the group Citizens for Limited Taxation to be a vocal counterweight to a political establishment that often indulges in tax-and-spend behavior.
  

  Are you a Massachusetts taxpayer?  Do you "rely" on CLT?  And at the end of the 7-minute-plus piece:

  KELLER: If people want to help CLT financially, or in other ways, how can they do it?

  ANDERSON: They can go to our website, cltg.org, www.cltg.org, or just Google Citizens for Limited Taxation.  And they can join us, or they can come to our brunch.
  

  Jeff Jacoby also urged readers to chip in.  I'm trying to think of another instance in which local mainstream media folks have used their platforms to try to help raise money for an organization like this, but I'm not coming up with anything.

  Speaking of which, what kind of organization exactly is Citizens for Limited Taxation?  And what's its relation to the Citizens Economic Research Foundation, of which Barbara Anderson is the president?  CLT is not registered with the Secretary of State, OCPF, or the IRS, as far as I can tell, but CERF is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.  However, CLT's membership form makes clear that the two are distinct entities: "CLT can accept all contributions, including corporate, but they are not tax deductible.  Contributions to CERF (Citizens Economic Research Foundation), CLT's non-profit educational organization, are tax deductible."  This is not meant to be a "gotcha" - I'm genuinely curious.

UPDATE: That's right, kids.  Senator Tisei -- the Senate minority leader, and a co-sponsor of the flag education bill we've been talking about -- thought that the flag had, maybe, twenty stripes.  Maybe he failed third grade.  Don't believe it?  Here's the WBZ story, and here's the relevant audio:

Kudos to WBZ reporter David Wade for this particular bit of awesomeness.  :D

--------------

Pop quiz.  No looking, no Googling:

How many stars, how many stripes, and why?

Answers in the comments, please.

Now, why do I ask?  There's a good reason.  Stay tuned ... I'll update later today, and all will become clear.

Also, for your entertainment, check out the discussion over at WBZ, which has picked up on our little quarrel with Senator Tisei over his flag education bill.  :D  Apparently the story was on one of the WBZ morning news shows as well, but I haven't found a video link.

What is up over at One Herald Square?  Here's today's Herald's front page:

Wow!  A "Palin-esque slip" -- strong words.  Must've been terrible.  And here's the story:

Rivals blasted the strange foreign policy credentials offered by Attorney General Martha Coakley yesterday after the U.S. Senate candidate - in an answer reminiscent of former vice presidential contender Sarah Palin - counted her sister's overseas home as part of her own international know-how.... Coakley made the blunder in response to a question about her lack of international experience and her travels abroad during an interview on WCVB's Channel 5's "On the Record" program yesterday.  "I have a sister who lives overseas, and she's been in England and now lives in the Middle East," Coakley said, adding she has traveled but declining to say where.

The remark struck political observers as a stretch to bolster her credentials - similar to Alaskan Gov. Palin's widely parodied claim that she had insight into Russian relations because, "you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska."

Now, I confess that I was initially fooled by the Herald's story, not having seen the interview.  But, at alert reader LynPB's suggestion, I went back and watched the whole thing.  (It's available here - search for "coakley" in the search box to bring up both segments.)

And, as it turns out, the Herald's "interpretation" is a total hatchet job.  Coakley did mention her sister who lives overseas -- but that was in response to Janet Wu's overly long, multipart question.  Here's the actual Q&A.  Wu seemed most interested not in "foreign policy experience," but rather in overseas travel.  And in that context, I think you'll agree that Coakley's response was entirely appropriate and not even remotely "Palin-esque."

So shame on me for assuming that the Herald wrote a legit story.  But really, shame on the Herald for wrenching a single quote entirely out of context and trying to make it into something that it clearly was not.  This episode also doesn't reflect all that well on Scott Brown, Pagliuca spokesman Will Keyser, and BU prof Bruce Schulman, all of whom bought into the Herald's take on this -- it's unclear from the article whether any of them actually watched the interview.  (Capuano spokeswoman Alison Mills is also quoted, but she didn't take the Herald's bait, instead touting Capuano's foreign policy experience.)

Below is the text of a comment made by a new BMGer Coe. He or she is, I believe, a member of the Friends of the Fells, a plaintiff in the suit to stop the development.

The comment summarizes perfectly the shenanigans that's going on in the administration regarding this development.

It makes the "anti-leave-some-for-the-fish-policy" stink even more like rotten fish.

Bake's environmental/conservation ad writes itself. And will destroy Deval's credibility.

Unless of course Deval rides in and saves the day.

In 2006 MEPA (Mass Enviornmental Proetection Agency) issued a ruling on the Fells development project saying that the over-scaled project would cause unacceptable environmental traffic impacts to the Fells Reservation historic parkways and parkland.

In that ruling the environmental affairs Secretary stated that the project  "cannot be considered by the MEPA Office to be a 'reduced build alternative [that] can be built without adversely affecting the character of the parkway' as was required by the previous state environmental review decision."

The environmental affairs Secretary ruled that the Developers were required to file a Supplemental Final Impact Report to be subject to MEPA review on a smaller scale project before state permits to allow the project could be considered.

Continues on the flip (--Bob)
To prove that such a smaller project could be built without environmental harm the Secretary's ruling required quantification of traffic numbers for a reduced build alternative: citing "DCR's (Department Conservation and Recreation - old M.D.C.)concerns regarding the validity of historical traffic numbers," the Secretary's ruling stated in 2006: "The primary impact of concern for this project is traffic. Therefore, an appropriate reduced build alternative will be one whose associated traffic impacts can be reasonably mitigated without adversely affecting the character of the parkways. Necessary and responsive mitigation, in turn, cannot be developed until the project's traffic impacts have been quantified, which itself requires accurate contemporary baseline information."  

The Fells site developers refused to comply with this ruling and refused to provide any such traffic data for public review, and in September 2009 the environmental affairs Secretary did an about face and rescinded the 2006 ruling requiring that data of traffic level environmental impacts on a new smaller project be reviewed by MEPA and the public prior to permits being granted.  

The Secretary simply removed the project from any further environmental review, based solely on the claims made by the developers that the project required no permits because they claimed there would be no need to make alterations to the historic parkways to add capacity for thousands of additional daily traffic trips.

This deal stemmed from a letter dated April 15, 2007, in which the developers notified state officials of a proposed change in the configuration of a revised project plan, consisting of a mere 10% reduction in the proposed new office space to 225,000 square feet, and a mere 10% reduction in the proposed new residential space to 405 dwelling units compared to the prior project scale which had been rejected by the state in 2006.  The developers claimed that, with the new configuration, project traffic would be an additional 7,540 daily traffic trips. The developers unilaterally declared that "the project is now in line with historic traffic levels and we feel that a compelling argument can be made that there is now no requirement for [a DCR Access Permit]."

In presenting this unsupported claim, the Developers ignored questions that DCR and the Secretary had raised in prior environmental MEPA reviews about inconsistencies in the developers' earlier reports of the baseline traffic level for the Site, a matter that the Secretary had required to be addressed in the Supplemental Final Impact Report.

Subsequently, throughout the period between July 3, 2008, and April 21, 2009, the developers negotiated with representatives of DCR and EOEEA in an effort to identify a method for the project to proceed without any further MEPA review. Despite prior  doubts raised by DCR staff regarding the accuracy of the developers' traffic numbers the primary objective of these negotiations was to create a scheme by which the developer could begin project construction immediately without submitting any traffic impact reports for public review. On September 18, 2009, the goal of the developers to begin immediate construction was granted in a Memorandum of Understanding signed by DCR and the developer, an action which is being challenged in Superior Court by citizens, the City of Medford and the Friends of the Middlesex Fells Reservation.

Do they really have to make it this easy?  It's not even fun.  Well, maybe a little.  ;-)

Senate minority leader Richard Tisei has an op-ed in today's Globe in which he castigates both the Governor and the legislature.  He is shocked! shocked! that, in a time of high unemployment and falling revenues, the legislature "is occupying itself with most trivial and frivolous issues."  Here's his oh-so-pious bottom line:

The Legislature should convene in emergency session to discuss what can be done to jump-start the Massachusetts economy, restructure government, and make service delivery more efficient.

But more importantly, we need to stop debating inconsequential legislation like the Fluffernutter bill and focus on doing everything we can to promote job growth and get the state's economy back on track.

Oh, tut tut!  There's that ol' Fluffernutter bill again, every Republican's favorite bugaboo.  Where's Senator Barrios when we need him?

Sadly, elsewhere in today's Globe, we learn the following:

Republican state lawmakers are pushing for a change in law that would require public elementary and high schools to instruct students on the proper use and display of the American flag.... The bill would mandate that schools also teach students about "the proper etiquette, the correct use and display of the flag." The proposal is set to come up at a public hearing Tuesday at the State House. The bill is cosponsored by the five Republican members of the Massachusetts Senate, including Scott Brown of Wrentham, a candidate for the special election to fill Edward M. Kennedy's US Senate seat. (AP)

Ah.  A real job-creator, that one.  Focused like a laser beam on "what can be done to jump-start the Massachusetts economy, restructure government, and make service delivery more efficient."  No doubt this bill -- co-sponsored by Senator Tisei himself -- has nothing to do with draping the Senate Republican caucus in the flag (fortunately, a fairly small flag would suffice) when one of its tiny number is running for US Senate.  Because as we all know, there has been an absolute epidemic lately of improper displays of the flag in public schools around the state, which has led directly to the drop in budget revenues.

Please, Senator Tisei.  Make it a little more challenging for us, will ya?

It might happen.  We have a commission with a lot of electeds.  

They did hearings.  

They just issued a report.  Raise the compulsory age from 16 to 18 and couple this with adequate supportive programming and services to effectively implement and enforce the changes in school attendance law.  
A Waltham principal worries it'll be an unfunded mandate."To put another burden on local communities and towns without funding is unfair," Graceffa said. "How can we add new programs? Let's be realistic."

In today's Globe, Yvonne Abraham says deal with teen moms.For about a quarter of dropouts, it's a little simpler: They leave school because they're having children. And the girls who are already mothers need someone to care for their babies while they go to school.

That's obvious to Beth Anderson. Her Phoenix Charter Academy, on the Chelsea-Everett line, specializes in working with the dropouts who have state officials wringing their hands.

Sixteen of her 180 students are pregnant or parenting. They get the same intensive teaching and counseling as everybody else, and are held to the same standards: They can't graduate without a college acceptance letter.  They also get on-site day care.

I know Beth and 2 teachers at her school.  Young moms are often unusually GOOD students if day care is provided.  That population is "low-hanging fruit" in that so many go through a gigantic shift in self-efficacy once they become moms.  

The nuttiest idea on dropouts was in the Washington Post last year.  

Some crazy guy wanted to let kids drop out at 16, but hold the $10,000 to $15,000 per year for his schooling like an IRA, with his name on it, that he could use a few years later to return to school.  

Luckily, this is the perfect issue for BMG.  Rennie Center found there's really not any reliable research on whether raising the age, in net, works.  

(Not that studies contrary to our opinion stop us BMGers anyway from commenting).  

So what do you think?  

What Mark Sanford thinks of Ayn Rand. In Newsweek, no less.

Just thought I'd pass that along. Too delightful and enlightening to pass up.

Homeless teens  Here is a description of one teen's day as he struggles to complete high school:

Like smoke, he's drifted through abandoned buildings, parked cars, the city bus station - any place he could get warm and sleep.  By morning he was gone.  Off to the UMass Rec Center to shower before heading to high school.

Sound like YOUR teen high school years?  How about Pagliuca's High School yrs - or Deval Patrick's?

This kid's goal is to keep his grades up, and pass the MCAS, but he says:

It was hard keeping my grades up when I didn't know where I was going to sleep or when I was going to eat," he said.  "You could be Einstein in the streets, but without a little help there's only so much you can do."

Once a poor kid hits 18, there is almost nothing.  If they do not have parents or family who provide them with housing, they either must make it on their own, or mostly, they become homeless.  There is almost nothing available for them in Massachusetts, and even less in many other states.  Did YOU rent your first apartment at age 18?

The real number of homeless kids far exceeds what's been counted," said Robyn Frost, executive director of the state's homeless coalition.  "teens tend to do whatever it takes to remain hidden out of embarrassment or a fear of getting pulled into the DCF (Department of Children and Family Services) system.

There are few resources available to help homeless teens.  Teens are the fastest growing segment of the homeless.  There are hundreds of homeless adolescents in Greater Lowell.  And three people whose job is finding them.

Sometimes they are on the street because a parent remarries, and the family just doesn't blend - and they are kicked out to manage on their own.  Our family has taken in several kids who were in that position that we knew over the years, and provided housing and a haven until they could make it on their own.  I wish some of the folks getting millions of dollars in bailout money did the same!

Sometimes they are kicked out just because they are the oldest kid and there are too many mouths to feed at home.  My own father had to leave school in 1926 and go to work to help his widowed mother support his six siblings; so maybe this is not new.

Advocates say those ages 18 to 23 are probably the hardest to assist.

As soon as someone turns 18, suddenly there is no more eligibility for most programs and supports.  For example:

Edwyn, now 19, has held a job and gone to school without a real address.  Until age 18, he was in the care of DCF (formerly DSS).  Once he turned 19, state help ended."No one at work knew I was homeless,: Edwyn said.  "It's not something you want people to know."

And don't just say, "Why don't they just go to a shelter?"

The reality is that there are very few shelters for adolescents from 16 to 21," she said.  "this is a forgotten population with no resources to serve it.  When I get calls, it's really heart-wrenching to say that one someone's sitting there trying to find a warm bed to sleep in."

Investing in our future should mean investing in our youth.  
Whether what is needed is a program for empty nesters to rent unused bedrooms, with some supports in place, or government run transitional rooming houses, this situation is an emergency.

We must do better than to throw the wards of the state mostly onto the street when they turn 18.  Granted, those who "make it" may well be strong survivors, but what about all the casualties, and those who turn to crime or pay for shelter with sex to survive?

Will history look at us and put the way America - and Massachusetts - treats teens especially those who age out of foster care along side the Irish who died from the potato famine - that we let them die in abandoned buildings and starve along side abundance?
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try gain."

On the flip you can read Globe reporter Matt Viser's "pool report" of some of the official White House version of President Obama's remarks at the Deval Patrick fundraiser this afternoon.  Anticipated earnings from the event: over $600,000, according to Steve Crawford.  UPDATE: I've moved Matt Viser's version to the comments.
THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, Boston!  (Applause.)  It is good to be back in Massachusetts.  (Applause.)  It's good to see some familiar faces -- some folks I haven't seen before, I'm glad about that too.

In addition to this outstanding team behind me, I know that my great friend, Congressman Mike Capuano is in the house, so give Mike a big round of applause.  (Applause.)

Yes, it is good to be back in Boston.  I've got some pretty good memories of this town.  I spent three years in the library across the river -- (laughter) -- trying to make sure I graduated from law school.  I came back here, I gave a little convention speech that went okay.  (Laughter and applause.)  And it was exactly two years ago today, on a beautiful fall night in Boston Common, that I received the endorsement of a man that I am proud to stand with today; a man who's absolutely committed to fighting for Massachusetts families and Massachusetts' future; your governor, my dear, dear friend, Deval Patrick.  (Applause.)

Now, Deval and I go a ways back.  I was mentioning to some folks in the other room we've got a lot in common.  We both have ties to the South Side of Chicago.  (Applause.)  South Side.  (Laughter.)  We're both Sox fans.  (Applause.)  I just said "Sox," that's all I said.  (Laughter.)  We're both surrounded by three beautiful women in our lives that keep us grounded.  (Applause.)  Which means they tell us what to do.  (Laughter.)  These days, I have to actually compete for attention with a dog -- (laughter) -- I don't know if Deval has to deal with that.

Deval supported me when I ran for the United States Senate in Illinois at a time when none of you could pronounce my name.  (Laughter.)  And I remember when he came to me just after I had taken office, and said, "Barack, I've got this crazy idea.  I've got this feeling that the people of Massachusetts might be interested in a different kind of politics.  I've got this hunger to serve."

Now, I have to say that this was when Deval was a bit of a long shot.  He didn't have money or big-name support.  And the pundits didn't give him a chance -- although some people thought it was a good ballot name because they were sure a guy named "Patrick" must be Irish.  (Laughter.)

But here's the thing.  Since he had endorsed me when nobody knew me and I had no chance, I had to return the favor -- even though I really wasn't sure he had much of a chance.  (Laughter.)   It would be pretty hard to say, "Well, now, Deval, hold on a second.  Have you thought everything logically through?" -- when Barack Hussein Obama had run for the United States Senate.

But here's what else was going on.  I had a feeling about Deval that I've always had ever since I've known him.  And as I watched him travel all across this commonwealth, listening to you, building his campaign -- house by house, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood -- I was reminded that Deval is competent enough to understand that this isn't about him; it's about you; that this was your campaign -- (applause) -- that you were building a movement for change that couldn't be denied.  And that core integrity of his, that generous vision of his that everybody has a part to play in rebuilding the best possible America that we can, that's something that I felt somehow would end up being irresistible.  And I've come back to Boston today because I need you to understand what a prize you got in Deval Patrick and why we need Deval Patrick and Tim Murray more than ever.  This is the team that's going to lead the Commonwealth of Massachusetts into the future.  (Applause.)

Now, I don't have to tell you we're in challenging times -- not just for Massachusetts, but for America.  You see it in your own lives and your own communities.  Too many folks are out of work, looking for work.  Too many hardworking families are being squeezed by the skyrocketing costs on everything on one side and shrinking wages on the other.  They're men and women who've worked hard all their lives, done everything right -- and now they're worried about whether they can retire with dignity and respect, or send their kids to college; whether they can be the kinds of husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, that they hoped to be because of economic factors that aren't under their control.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  We need health care!

THE PRESIDENT:  Okay.  (Laughter.)

So I know these are tough times.  I know folks are hurting.  But I also know this:  For the past three years, you've had leaders at the helm of this commonwealth during one of the most difficult periods in its history.  And you've had a leader who's been willing to make tough choices in tough times without ever forgetting who he's working for.  You've had a leader who's been willing to put the interests of hardworking families ahead of  special interests.  You've had a leader who's woken up every day asking what he can do on behalf of the people of Massachusetts. That's the kind of Governor Deval Patrick has been.  That's the kind of Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray has been.  That's the kind of leadership that you need.  (Applause.)

Think about what they have done.  Think about what these guys have done.  In just three years, Deval has delivered the reforms and real change that folks on Beacon Hill have been talking about for decades.  He's taken on corruption, he's begun to rebuild the public trust by enacting the first comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform in three decades -- (applause); transportation reform that's saved taxpayers almost $200 million; auto insurance reform that's introduced competition and saved the average family hundreds of dollars at a time when they need it most.

When it came to jumpstarting job-creation and turning the economy around, Deval and I, we've been working hand in hand.  We worked together to enact a Recovery Act that's making a meaningful difference for families all across Massachusetts and all across America.  Because of the Recovery Act, we've put a middle class tax cut into the pockets of 95 percent of hardworking families -- that includes 2.4 million hardworking Massachusetts families.

We've helped stem the tide of layoffs in police departments and fire departments and schools across this commonwealth and across this country -- keeping 100 police officers on Boston's streets alone, 215 teachers and support staff in Boston schools who otherwise would have been let go.  We've increased and extended unemployment insurance for 16 million Americans to help them weather the economic storm, including nearly 420,000 right here in Massachusetts.  We've made COBRA 65 percent cheaper to ensure that you don't lose your health insurance while you're looking for work.  We've funded eight new affordable housing projects right here in Massachusetts that will create more than 900 jobs building 450 housing units for Massachusetts families.  (Applause.)

Now, the Recovery Act didn't just include the most progressive tax cut in American history.  It didn't just include emergency relief for families who've borne the brunt of this recession.  It didn't just help out states with their budgets.  It made critical investments in our long-term priorities.  And that's been the essence of the Patrick/Murray team; that sense of a long-term vision for the future.

Our Recovery Act made the largest investment in clean energy in American history, which helped double the number of solar energy jobs right here in Massachusetts.  (Applause.)  It made the largest investment in education in American history, thanks to the effort of Deval and other far-seeing governors.  It made the largest investment in our nation's infrastructure since President Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System back in the 1950s -- an investment that's putting Americans to work here in Massachusetts and all across America, rebuilding roads and bridges and waterways.

Even as Deval is helping change the way business is done on Beacon Hill; even as he's leading Massachusetts through the most difficult economic period in our lifetimes; Deval has never lost sight of what makes Massachusetts strong today and what it takes to keep it strong going into the future.

He's solidified Massachusetts' position as not just a national leader in biotechnology, but a world leader, creating new jobs, right now, and a market for new jobs tomorrow.  He's strengthened Massachusetts' position as a national leader in clean energy, convincing companies to create new green jobs right here in Massachusetts.  He successfully implemented health reform, so that 97 percent of this commonwealth's residents today have health insurance.  And because Deval and I know that the only reason we are here is because somebody somewhere gave us a chance at an outstanding education, he's worked to promote innovations in our schools, and close the achievement gap among our children, and protect financial aid for higher education; and he's made the strongest investment in K through 12 funding in Massachusetts history so this commonwealth remains not just the national leader in test scores, but an international leader in test scores.  (Applause.)

That's not bad for three years.  But, you know, there's a tendency to take folks for granted; to ask, well, what have you don't for me lately.  Look, that's understandable.  That's part of what we sign up for.  We ask for this incredible honor of leadership and it means we are responsible for what happens during our watch.

The reason I'm here today, the reason Deval Patrick is here today, and the reason you're here today is because we know our work is far from over.  We've still got huge challenges in this commonwealth and across America.  We're not going to -- we're not going to rest until we solve them.  We're not going to rest until everybody who's looking for work can find a job.  Until the markets aren't just about a stock market going up, but about businesses hiring again.  Until the American Dream is within reach for anybody who believes in it, anybody who's willing to fight for it.  We will not rest until that's happened.  (Applause.)

It's not going to be easy.  It's not going to happen overnight.  But here's what I can say with absolute certainty.  The work of forging a better future has begun.  It has begun in Massachusetts.  It has begun across America.

We've begun to build a clean energy economy that can free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil and generate green jobs that can't be outsourced, and pay well.  We've begun to put in place better standards in our schools, and make college and advanced training more affordable, so that we're preparing American children, Massachusetts children to be able to compete for any job, anywhere in the world.

We're closer than ever to passing health reform nationally that will finally make quality health insurance available to those who don't have coverage.  (Applause.)  And bring stability and security to Americans who do.  And finally, get some control over skyrocketing health care costs that are bankrupting families and businesses and our state and federal budgets.

    I mean, think about it.  For all the affordable health insurance, world-class education, new, clean energy future, a strong economy that works from everybody, that's fair -- that's what Deval has been about.  That's what Tim has been about.  That's what you're about.  That's why you're here.  (Applause.)

    But as I said, it's not going to be easy.  And so in the months ahead as you're going around, you're talking to your friends and neighbors, your family members -- you know what you're going to have to be fighting against.  You'll have to fight against some misinformation, that's always out there in political campaigns.

    But you're also going to just have to fight against the core cynicism that people have when it comes to politics.  I know folks here -- a lot of you in the past have been skeptical about whether your leaders can or will do anything about really hard problems.  And you have every right to be cynical and skeptical.  Because year after year, decade after decade, you've seen progress stymied by special interests and partisan gridlock, whether it's on Beacon Hill or in Washington.

But I'm here today because I want to remind you you've got a governor who represents a better kind of politics.  He's not perfect -- (laughter) -- his wife will tell you.  (Laughter.)  And as he mentioned, sometimes he's stubborn like a mule and he doesn't want to act the part of the politician.  He doesn't like talking about himself and his accomplishments.  But he's smart.  He's honest.  (Applause.)  He's devoted to the people of this state.  (Applause.)  He's asked for nothing but the opportunity to serve for you, to serve the people of Boston and Pittsfield and Worcester and Plymouth; to serve all the people of Massachusetts.

But we're going to have to fight for him.  Remember, when this campaign began it wasn't just about him; it was about you -- what are you willing to do?  How hard are you willing to fight?  We ought to give him our continued support because this is when it counts.

We face big challenges right now.  You know, campaigns are always fun -- well, not always, I mean, there was a -- (laughter.)  But there's an aspect of the campaign it's all about, you know, projecting our hopes and our dreams and it's full of excitement.  And now we're in governing mode.  And governing is always tough because, well, there are conflicting interests -- we're in a democracy, it's complicated, things take time, people argue.

Our problems won't be solved overnight -- especially problems that grew over the course of decades -- they're going to take years in some cases to get us to where we want to be.  But that's not a reason to lose heart.

Our first patriots here in Boston, they didn't say, you know, that British Empire, that seems really big.  (Laughter.)  I'm not sure about this whole independence thing.  (Laughter.)  FDR didn't say, I don't think we've got what it takes to get through this Great Depression, fear's not so bad.  (Laughter.)  "I'm scared."  (Laughter.)  JFK didn't say no, that moon, that's just too far, let's go someplace closer.  (Laughter.)

That's not what we do.  We're Americans.  We persist.  We rise to the challenge.  Think about how this country was built:  people striking out, not knowing what they might find but understanding that if they just stayed put they'd never get to where they wanted to be.  They were willing to take enormous risks.  That's in our DNA.  That's where we come from.  That's how all these folks here gathered together.  That's who we are.  That's who we have to be today.  (Applause.)

So if you're willing to stand with me and Deval and Tim; if you're willing to stand up and keep fighting for our future; if you're willing to once again prove that there's nothing false about hope -- then we're going to do what those previous generations did.  We're going to build something better to leave to our children and grandchildren.

And so I just want to make sure you guys aren't tired.  I want to make sure you guys are energized.  This is the fun part here -- fighting for your future.  (Applause.)  I want everybody on the battlefield.  I want you knocking on doors.  I want you to make phone calls.  We've got a lot of work to do.  Our finish -- business is unfinished.  But if you all are working hard, we're going to reelect the Patrick/Murray team and all of you are going to be proud about what happens in this commonwealth.  (Applause.)

 Thank you very much, everybody.  God bless you.  God bless America.  (Applause.)

We understand that many of you don't have a lot of spare cash lying around these days.  But we hope you might find enough change under the couch cushions to send a dollar -- that's right, $1.00 -- to BMG PAC.

Why?  Easy.  PACs gather clout by showing that they represent the interests of a lot of people.  We think BMG PAC can actually have some influence around here (we wouldn't be going to the trouble otherwise), but it will only happen if we can make the case that BMG PAC has the support of more than just a handful of people.  We would love to be able to say that BMG PAC has the support of 20 -- 50? 100? more? -- readers who are willing to put their money where their bloggy mouths are.

We know that a lot of people read this site, and we hope that a lot of our readers agree with the principles set forth in the BMG PAC announcement post.  If that's you, the best way to show it is to make a donation of any size.  So seriously: send us a dollar.  We've tested the Google Checkout thing for credit cards, and it seems to work smoothly.  Or you can send a check if you'd prefer.  All the info is in the "Support BMG PAC" box in the left-hand sidebar.

We'll get to the higher-dollar fundraisers later.  There's plenty of time for that.  Right now, though, we want to kick-start this project by getting a lot of people signed up.

We're also interested in getting some quick feedback on how our Google-based contribution system works. So after you make your donation, please drop a comment if you have any suggestions for how the system could be improved.

One dollar to help change the world.  Are you likely to get a better offer today?  ;-)

I want to pass along kudos to the students from Tufts University and Boston Architectural College (Team Boston) who competed in the Solar Decathlon on the National Mall this month.

The Solar Decathlon, a competition sponsored by the Department of Energy, brought together twenty teams of students from around the world who designed, engineered and built solar-powered homes showcased in Washington, D.C.

To see these energy-saving homes, and to hear from the students themselves, please watch this video put together by my Select Committee:

Much like this competition, the United States is currently in a race with China, Spain and other nations for clean energy jobs and technology. In June, the House passed the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act which includes green building provisions along with renewable electricity and efficiency measures that would help move the ideas displayed on the Mall into neighborhoods across Massachusetts and the across the nation. Helping families save money on energy bills while putting more contractors, electricians, and builders to work is smart policy.

Cross-posted from Blue News Tribune.

Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, issued an ACORN funding memo to federal agencies. It's a doozy.

The PDF is linked here (third item).

No future obligations of funds. No agency or department should obligate or award any Federal funds to ACORN or any of its affiliates

Suspension of grant or contractual payment. If your agency has an existing grant with ACORN or any of its affiliates, the agency should: (i) where possible, immediately suspend performance of any obligations under the contract or agreement, including payment of Federal funds; (ii) consult promptly with the agency's general counsel and, if necessary, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Justice concerning the legal considerations that bear on the performance of such obligations under the existing contract or agreement.

No funding of ACORN and its affiliates through Federal grantees or contractors.

Yay, Democratic Congress! Way to cave to phony Fox controversies and GOP pressure! Great kneejerk management of federal dollars! Yay, President Obama for failing to lead on this!