Massachusetts – New Round of Tax Hikes – Gas, Income, Computer Repair - Karl Rove at UMASS Amherst – Into the Lion’s Den –WRKO's Howie Carr to Host 2 of 3 Republican Senate Candidates in Debate Today

Karl Rove's Appearance at UMass may result in the usual peaceful demonstrations - Image student riot after Super Bowl (normal riot) - image Boston Herald)

If it isn’t nailed down (or if it is) the Legislature and Governor Deval Patrick are interested in how to slap a tax on whatever “it” may be. Currently a war of press conferences has been held while the Democrat Controlled Legislature and the Governor Battle over just how much the public is going to pay. The Governor is keen on a 1.9 Billion dollar “revenue” (“tax”) proposal that would “invest” in education and a high speed rail See SouthCoast Today Editorial “Lawmakers test our patience at their peril”, suggesting that the Democrats in the Legislature had better get in behind the larger tax proposal – or else.”) The Legislature is split between the Speaker and the Governor – a Berkshire Democrat, Farley Bouvier, suggests: House-Senate proposal hikes gasoline taxes by 3 cents from the current 23.5 cents a gallon, along with hiking tobacco and some business-related taxes to fund the transportation budget.

"I’m definitely in favor of using the income tax [as in the governor’s plan], because I feel it will be more evenly distributed across the state," Farley-Bouvier said. (Berkshire Eagle)

Some feel it is a ploy by the Legislature and the Governor (who is also apparently thinking of a 2016 run for the Oval Office) Holly Robichaud, at the Boston Herald, suggests the whole fight between the Governor and House Speaker over how much to tax the residents is a ploy by both sides: “Today, the Massachusetts House is debating the transportation finance bill, which includes multiple tax increases. As it stands now the bill clobbers the middle class and working poor with a gas tax increase tied to inflation, higher taxes on utility bills, a $1 increase on tobacco and an inexplicable new service sales tax on computer design work.

To sell Speaker Robert DeLeo’s $500 million tax package, there is a whole lot of political theater being staged to fool low information voters into being grateful it’s not Gov. Deval Patrick’s $1.9 billion plan." (Boston Herald)

Therefore, today, the state of Massachusetts will increase revenue one way or the other – and those who work in the State of Massachusetts will be seeing less cash in their wallets, at a time when there is less of everything. Ms. Robichaud reminded her readers that the Governor’s 2009 tax increases led to an increase in Republicans in the Massachusetts Legislature in 2010 – actually they did double their numbers, however, too few to compete with the Progressives on Beacon Hill. A tax on Computer Design Work? – Almost as bad as a tax on one’s dogs!

Over at the University of Massachusetts, an imminent threat to all that is Progressive, is being discussed at Masslive.com The article title says it all: “Karl Rove’s upcoming visit to UMASS causes Uproar in Liberal Community” Rove has agreed to speak in the People’s Republic of Amherst, at UMASS for the Republican Club this Tuesday (April 9th) at 8:00 pm – (open to the public – doors open at 7:30) (Springfield Republican). Expect pies to be thrown, chanting, and a whole lot of “love” shown the speaker – which will make for news, of sorts – that said, Rove is from Texas. Judging from the comments at MassLive, the majority favors Rove over UMASS – it’s a hoot reading the comments, specifically the support for those who are in an uproar over Rove’s appearance.

Lastly, today, between 5 and 6 pm, two of the three Republican Candidates for the U.S. Senate Seat will take part in a debate on the Howie Carr show on WRKO radio. The candidates, Michael Sullivan and Gabriel Gomez, have had words of sort – this might be interesting. Sullivan, a former U.S. Attorney General, and Gomez, a former Democrat, who had written a letter to Deval Patrick asking the Governor to Appoint him, as a Republican to the vacant Senate Seat – because he Supported Barack Obama and his gun control proposals, are at odds over some remarks made during the course of the campaign (Primary date is April 30th – there are three Republican Candidates, Sullivan, Gomez and Dan Winslow (the Libertarian leaning, sane (editorializing) candidate, and two Democrats, Ed Markey (has been in the U.S. Congress so long, if it were a private sector job, he’d be retiring), and Stephen Lynch – a rarity in Massachusetts, a Democrat who voted against Obama Care, and thinks outside of the box.) In a perfect world, one would have the choice in the election between Winslow and Lynch, however, Markey has been pre-ordained by the State Democrat Leadership (as well as the national leadership) – and it would take a miracle for anyone else to be elected to that vacant Senate Seat – although – in Massachusetts, Miracles in special elections – do happen.

The debate should be worth a listen – visit www.wrko.com/howie for live streaming, or for a list of affiliates in New England visit www.wroko.com/wrkonetwork.

Is Rand Paul Paranoid? – The Press Begins to Crank Up 2016 Opposition “Crazy Talk”

The UN Statue -No Need for Words here - image from Chicago Outdoor Sculpture Blog - New York and Chicago

Rand Paul, the Senator from Kentucky, is pretty darn smart – that from someone who watched C-Span for hours on end, while the Senator spoke endlessly, with certainty, eloquence and did not miss a beat hammering home the dangers of an Executive Branch who could not, or would not answer a simple question – did the President believe he had the authority to drone U.S. civilians into oblivion? The answer came to Paul in the form of a note after endless hours on the floor of the senate – Nope – the President does not have that authority. That’s when the nation stood up and took notice of Senator Paul - and it was a varied bunch supporting him – a vigil of sorts, watching C-Span into the wee hours of the morning and tweeting “I stand with Rand” – from Code Pink to your grandmothers who had never tweeted – to Republicans and Democrats who found a common issue.

In other words, the Senator breached the political divide - he’s also headed to New Hampshire and Iowa – a sure sign that he has eyes on running for President in 2016. Now the Senator is a crackpot – according to the Press. There will be derogatory remarks made against this Doctor turned Senator, some will be more aggressive than others, there may even be the outright lie, here and there – however, one knows he is upsetting the applecart of DC when the press goes nuclear.

The latest attempt to suggest the Senator may have a screw loose comes from the Washington Post – the blog title: ”Rand Paul and the Politics of Paranoia”, written by one of those anti-gun nuts that are battling the NRA and the Second Amendment (more on that). In the article, it suggests that Rand Paul is “feeding the craziness” that surrounds sane gun control measures, simply because he believes that that UN is pushing the US to a global gun-control measure, and that is stopping progress of insuring that law abiding citizens can’t get their hands on guns without going through hoops.

One who understands that Senator Paul is a Libertarian leaning Republican, and one who understands the differences between the political philosophies, will also understand that Libertarians are keen on the U.S. Constitution – A global treaty that the UN is pushing would restrict U.S. citizens second amendment rights – which is fine with the Post’s blogger who obviously cannot see the forest through the trees.

The UN is a political body that is protected and funded by the U.S. as its headquarters sits in NYC. They unsuccessfully attempt to solve world conflicts, and come up with ways to stop hunger in third world nations (also not going swimmingly well) – which is where their “authority” should stop.

Therefore, when the US and some members of its body politic are seriously considering a UN treaty that would be a conflict to our Constitution – it would not be unusual for a Libertarian to suggest it’s a bad idea. It should not be unusual for the entire nation to stand up and say – hey- bad idea. Those Democrats and some Republicans who are pushing for gun control, most likely have good intentions, but there is the Law of the Land (Constitution), and they might find another way to control violence.

However, the article on the face of it is not solely about gun control (as it appears) but at taking a swipe at someone who is currently polling in single digits against Hillary Clinton in 2016 (Public Policy Polling). (She polls ahead of every Republican named in this survey by single digits – and she is the frontrunner for the Democrat Party in this 2016 poll.) It’s planting the seed for 2016 – just in case there is a repeat performance of support for Paul – in a primary and general election. Out will come the “crackpot” articles and interviews on CBS, NBC and ABC, et al. The problem these sources have, is that the louder they scream, it appears the fewer viewers they have – go figure. Expect more of the same in the coming months and through the 2016 election cycle.

On the gun control issue – the problem we face is multi-faceted, and unless and until the politicians and the media get a grip on the situation we are faced with in this nation – mass shootings such as the ones in Newtown Connecticut and Aurora Colorado, will continue to occur. The focus should not be on those who legally own guns, who already go through background checks in the licensing process (Check the individual state, pick one, any one licensing requirements, such as Massachusetts for example: you will find that a criminal background check is in order, complete with FBI fingerprinting, a mental health questionnaire, et al.) The individual attempting to legally own a gun is doing so for protection, hunting, and or sport, not to go out on a rampage. Massachusetts, with some of the strictest gun control laws, has murders nightly and routinely (just Google shooting in Massachusetts) – those that take place, are generally gang related, and one can bet the house it was a gun purchased on the street – when no gun is available, knives do quite well. Yet no one appears to be talking about legislation that would lock up someone for possession of an illegal weapon for an extended period of time – no parole. Neither is there much talk of monitoring those who have serious mental nervous issues that might suggest a mass killing. If one looks back at the multiple murders (high profile) committed over the past few decades, one finds a disturbing pattern – the majority were males, with serious mental/nervous conditions. Yet, the big focus is on the individual citizen who is in possession of a firearm. Those that are sitting in ivory towers may theorize that if the citizens can’t get guns, neither can the criminals, may also be a step closer to the crazy train than those who feel that having a gun may protect one from those same criminals, or that the UN has no business interfering with U.S. Constitutional Rights. Surely the Post Blogger is smart enough to grasp that concept – therefore, one might suggest that it is a “political hit”.

Go figure.

2016 Begins - Rand Paul Headed for New Hampshire – PPP Poll Show Paul Gaining Ground on Christie While Clinton Leads Overall – for Now

The 2016 Field Suggested by PP

Senator Rand Paul will be in New Hampshire in Mayto attend the New Hampshire GOP Liberty Dinner. Rand Paul will be the first potential 2016 candidate to step foot in the Granite State, according to CNN. Paul is also schedule to attend Lincoln Day Dinner in Cedar Rapids, Iowa in May(USA Today). This puts the Kentucky Senator in the two “first” states for 2016 – the first primary being held in New Hampshire and the first caucus being held in Iowa. To those watching the 2016 field begin to unfold, it is a clear sign that Paul has intentions of running for the Oval Office.

If one questions how well Rand Paul would fare, Public Policy Polling has begun their 2016 survey’s – the Miami Herald offers an overview of the poll which shows Paul gaining significant ground on Marc Rubio (R-FL), now coming in second place, pushing New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to 3rd. On the Democrat side, it is clear, at this point, that Hillary Clinton has the majority of support, followed by V.P. Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren (the new Democrat Senator from Massachusetts) and rounding out the field, Andrew Cuomo of New York. This poll shows Clinton besting all rivals, on both sides, but in match-ups against Republican’s the margin is at 7% approximately – Christie fares the best (Clinton 46, Christie 42), with Rand Paul in second (Clinton 49, Paul 43)(Miami Herald)

In reality it is still far too early to poll seriously, given the fact that there are potential candidates on both sides of the usual aisles that have not either been included in the polling, or have not come to the forefront. There are two key points that can be taken from PPP’s early polling. The first is that Rand Paul is a potential candidate that requires watching. His brand of Libertarian Republicanism appeals across a broad spectrum, which includes individuals from both parties. He is young, and fresh, compared with the balance of those forecasted (with the obvious exception of Marc Rubio). Hillary Clinton commands serious speculation; however, one must be wary of the powers that be in the Democrat machine when it comes to Clinton. She is more than qualified, as she was in 2008 (compared to the field which included John McCain and Barack Obama). However, despite winning the popular vote in the primary, she was shut down at the Democrat Convention as the party leaders used Super-Delegates to oust Clinton and hand Barack Obama the nomination. Those operatives in the same Progressive segment of the Democrat Party have decided to push one Elizabeth Warren in 2016 – should Clinton decide to throw her hat in the ring, Warren if she runs as she told to do – and one could very well see a repeat of the Super Delegates voting the half term Senator from Massachustts to the top of the ticket. Warren, a former Harvard Professor, sailed to a win in Massachusetts against the popular Scott Brown, basically due to Massachusetts Democrat Leanings, during a general election, on a ticket with Barack Obama, who has one of his highest approval ratings in the nation in Massachustts. In other words, Democrats swept Massachusetts on Barack Obama’s coattails. This does not bode well for a general election candidate on their own, regardless of, or perhaps especially if that candidate is a woman.

From the perspective of a feminist, Clinton was the no-brainer candidate in 2008, the one chance the Democrats had of being the first major political party to put a woman in the White House. Statistically, the odds are not good that there would be a woman nominated in such a short period of time (given the 3 decades between the first woman to be nominated to the bottom of a ticket, (Ferraro) and the last to e nominated to the bottom of a ticket (Palin), and in both cases, that ticket lost. Have hearts and minds towards women in leadership positions changed in the last eight years? That is the question, which, political correctness aside, anyone with any sense understands it has not. The only woman that would stand a chance and only a chance of besting an opponent would be Clinton, and that would strongly depend upon who the opponent might be.

Clinton comes across are formidable, out of all the candidates named in the PPP poll. However, a mere 7 points separates her, even this early in the game from the GOP names tossed into the poll. Pretending all things are equal and Clinton would be viewed on a par with male counterparts, and would be treated the same by media and the populace in general, she would have a dickens of a time against the Doctor turned Senator from Kentucky. Paul would have no problem with the youth vote, his fiscal conservative credentials would bode well with the Republican base, with the exception of some social conservatives that may have a problem with his stance certain positions – however, that said, his stance on those positions from a Libertarian standpoint, coincide with the Constitution – giving States the power to decide social issues - that’s a plus and could easily be used as a persuadable. He’s already shown he can cross partisan line (See the variety of supporters of his now-infamous drone filibuster.), and to boot, he’s younger. The later attribute should not be a factor, however, it was used successfully in the last two elections, the first with John McCain, no need to explain that one, and the second, with Romney as being “out-of-touch”, parodies as being more from the 50’s - not quite as “hip” as the President. It was pitting Thurston Howell the Third, against James Dean. Therefore, if one were looking through a crystal ball (which does not exist), at the current crop mentioned in the PPO poll, one would see Paul taking the GOP primary field, and, based on recent history, Elizabeth Warren as the opponent. No need to speculate on the outcome there. To be fair, it would be difficult for any Democrat to contrast themselves to Paul’s brand of Republicanism, unless the Democrat nominee were to come out of the closet as a Socialist and all that implies. The only powers capable of mucking up the waters on both sides of the spectrum are the party players not mentioned those in the National GOP and DNC, especially if one is running as a Republican.

All said and done, it is still wildly early to speculate, as again, there are the unknowns at this point, and far too many variables that exist, given the year before one starts to see those who would begin to challenge. That should logically occur after the mid-terms in 2014.