Let voter anger live on

Obama couldn't buy a win

by Michael Graham
DNN Staff-EXCLUSIVE!
Monday, May 24, 2010

If you think the Red Sox are struggling for a win, consider poor President Obama.

Tuesday, in his own party’s primary, in a state he carried 55-45 percent, Barack Obama’s personally-endorsed candidate, longtime incumbent Arlen Specter got walloped in Pennsylvania. Not only is Obama unable to deliver for his endorsed candidates, he can’t deliver among Democrats.

Add that loss to the president’s performances in Virginia, New Jersey - not to mention Martha Coakley in super-blue Massachusetts - and the amazing, leg-tingling, hope-and-change president has a worse win-loss record than Dice-K.

Now, all politics is local, and a president’s impact on any race is limited - but still. The “Southside Kid” doesn’t have a single campaign victory since taking office? Nobody expected that. Certainly not Obama’s good friend and political doppelganger, Deval Patrick.

Gov. Patrick’s supporters say he’s on a roll, that his re-election prospects have never been better. That’s an odd way to describe an incumbent whose best re-elect number in a year was 45 percent, but given how bleak things were six months ago, he’ll take it. And the assumption has always been that, come the fall, Obama would barnstorm into Massachusetts and put it away for Patrick.

Not anymore. The latest rumor is that Obama has a secret plan to help Patrick win in November. He’s going to spend October campaigning for Charlie Baker.

With the defeat of Specter, Tuesday’s primaries made a lot of headlines. But they were just another series in this political season, showing the same trends: It’s a bad year for incumbents, a good year for challengers, and a terrible year to have anything to do with Obama.

Which means it’s likely to be a bad year for Patrick.

The governor is a nice guy, but even his most ardent supporters admit he’s got a record that’s tough to defend: Tax hikes, toll hikes, business costs up, employment down, health care costs exploding and Beacon Hill is more of a rudderless mess than when he took office.

His winning strategy for months has been the double-play: Keep the 60 percent anti-Deval vote divided among two candidates. If Tim Cahill keeps fading, that game plan goes out the window. What Patrick needs is magic.

Two storylines of 2010 continued through Tuesday. One is the unpopularity of incumbents. The other, the unpopularity of Obama’s policies. That’s two strikes against Patrick.

For example, the Democrat who held on to Rep. John Murtha’s seat in Pennsylvania, Mark Critz, actually ran against Obama. In Arkansas, Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s votes for the stimulus and Obamacare forced her into a runoff in the Democratic primary, and make her a Dead Dem Walking if she survives until November.

The Tea Party trend that helped Scott Brown here helped give Rand Paul the GOP nomination in Kentucky. The Tea Party will certainly last until November.

So come Election Day Patrick will take the field with the same troubled line up - the same president, the same unpopular policies on health care and immigration and the same anti-incumbent mood.

Will Patrick win? Maybe if he can convince his pal Obama to spend campaign season hanging out with his closest friends - in Hawaii.

Another one bites the dust:
Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., and his wife Joan Specter,
right, leave the election party after Specter gave his
concession speech to supporters last week
in Philadelphia. (DNN Staff photo)



Boston O'Reilly, Graham Carr Siciliano

Unlike the others, we tell you what's really happening.

Will D'backs feel boycott?

Fine tuning Arizona's immigration law


by Michael Graham
DNN Staff - EXCLUSIVE!
Monday, May 17, 2010

Well there goes Boston’s chance to host the next MENSA convention.

Last week’s political marquee was dominated by dim bulbs. First was Mayor Tom Menino’s listing of “ionic” moments in local sports, including “Varitek splitting the uprights.” (Just be thankful nobody asked him about Matsuzaka.)

Then Boston City Council President Michael Ross told Fox 25 that Arizona’s immigration crackdown - the crackdown that inspired city councilors to unanimously support a boycott of that state - “is certainly not an issue for Boston City Council . . . It’s not a Boston issue.”

I hate to think what the council would have done if the Arizona law had been “a Boston issue.” A declaration of war? Firing on flights from Phoenix?

“It’s not a City Council issue, but we voted on it anyway.” This is the level of intellectual discourse the left’s obsession with open borders and amnesty has brought us.

One bright spot: In Worcester Tuesday, opponents of a boycott resolution forced a vote on whether the topic was even germane to the City Council. They beat down the boycott nonsense 7-4.

In Illinois, the news is not as good. PC administrators canceled the Highland Park High girls’ basketball team’s trip to an Arizona tournament. School officials invoked both security concerns and liberal principles in shooting down the long-planned, student-funded event.

Security? Maybe. After all, criminal immigration has driven crime rates through the roof in Arizona, and Phoenix is now the kidnapping capital of America.

But that’s not what administrators meant. “We would want to ensure that all of our students had the opportunity to be included and be safe,” said Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson. The school is reportedly concerned that someone on the team might be rousted by the Arizona authorities and asked for ID.

But, Hebson added, going to Arizona at this time “would not be aligned with our beliefs and values.”

This from a school that has sent students to China. You know - the home of Tiananmen Square, forced abortions and Internet censorship? But they won’t let the kids go to Arizona?

Hey liberals! How ’bout if all the girls agree to wear “Free Tibet” logos on their game jerseys?

OK, so these school administrators look stupid. But not any more stupid than our own City Council. And at least the high school can claim the courage of their convictions. They’re doing a boycott that matters.

Boston? Not so much. If they were serious, June 15 would be a red letter day. That’s when the Red Sox are scheduled to host the Diamondbacks at Fenway. The Arizona Diamondbacks.

The D’backs will be here to play ball and pick up a sack of money. And because of the bizarre tax laws affecting professional athletes, many of the Arizona players will pay income taxes to Massachusetts.

So how serious are you about this boycott, Councilor Ross? Will the city forbid cops to work Fenway at the D’backs games? Will Arizona’s team be denied city water and sewer services? Will the City Council urge Massachusetts to reject any tax revenues from the team? Or maybe even stop the team bus at Logan?

Or will Ross - who represents the Fenway area - treat his principles like his parking tickets - an inconvenience to be ignored.

How ’bout it, Michael - a real boycott of Arizona? Oh, that’s right. This “isn’t an issue for City Council.”

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, left, shakes the
hand of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer while speaking
at a news conference about border security at the
JW Marriott Desert Ridge in Phoenix on Saturday.
(DNN Staff photo)




Boston O'Reilly Graham Carr Siciliano

Unlike the others, we tell you what's really happening.

Reason aplenty to boycott Hub

City leaders always on wrong side of taxpayers


by Michael Graham
DNN Staff -EXCLUSIVE!
Monday, May 10, 2010

The Boston City Council passed its boycott of Arizona last week, and already one Bostonian has pledged not to go anywhere near the Grand Canyon State until they stop enforcing immigration laws:

Aunt Zeituni.

No, she’s content to stay right where she is, in a taxpayer-subsidized apartment, collecting her city check and other benefits while receiving the best medical care in the world for her long list of ailments - all on the taxpayer’s dime. She’s like a welcoming beacon to every illegal immigrant in Arizona. “Come to Boston,” is her message. “I’ve been ordered deported twice - and they still won’t throw me out!”

That’s Boston. We don’t punish immigration law breakers. We embrace them.

Gov. Deval Patrick ended our participation in a federal program that allowed our state police to help enforce immigration laws. Just last week the House shot down Rep. Jeff Perry’s modest request that everyone applying for state benefits prove they’re in the U.S. legally.

And in 2008 the City Council unanimously endorsed the “Welcoming Massachusetts” pledge. Deportations and workplace enforcement, according to the council, “violate civil and human rights of [illegal] immigrants and, therefore, the core value that all people are endowed with unalienable rights.”

In other words, if you can get here, you can stay. While the rest of us pay and pay.

I could recount the body of social science on the impact of illegal immigration, how it costs taxpayers billions of dollars a year while driving down wages for working Americans, etc. But the City Council’s vote was untethered from facts or even basic logic.

On WTTK-FM yesterday, the resolution’s co-sponsor Felix Arroyo Jr. insisted, “Anyone in this country who is breaking the law should be dealt with. But that’s a completely separate issue” from illegal immigration.

So “breaking the law” is bad, but “illegal” is OK. Got it?

Arroyo also said Arizona’s law was offensive because “I want to walk down the street without having to worry about someone stopping me and asking me for papers.”

This merely proves that Arroyo has no idea what the Arizona law he’s boycotting actually does. It applies only in cases when a police officer has made a “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” So unless Arroyo is stumbling drunk down the street or carrying a severed head, he won’t have any problems.

But, once again, who cares about the facts when you’re busy pandering for politics? My question is, who is the City Council pandering to? Poll after poll shows Americans support the Arizona law by a 2-1 margin. Of those who oppose it, a significant number think Arizona isn’t going far enough.

When word of this boycott reaches the rest of the country, who is more likely to lose casual family tourists this summer - the Grand Canyon or the Big Dig? Phoenix or Fenway Park]?

There is no evidence that the Arizona law is harming Boston. On the other hand, Boston’s “Welcoming Massachusetts” embrace of illegals costs millions in federal tax dollars, a cost shared by Arizonans.

If anything, they’re the ones who should be boycotting us until we stop encouraging criminal immigrants to cross their border and burden U.S. taxpayers. But Arizonans aren’t as arrogant as our city councilors.

They’re more than happy to take care of their immigration problems while letting us care for Aunt Zeituni.

In this April 29, 2010 file photo Maricopa County
Sheriff Joe Arpaio answers questions during a
news conference to announce his latest crime
suppression enforcement patrols in Phoenix.




Boston O'Reilly Graham Carr Siciliano

Unlike the others, we tell you what's really happening.

No hable Ingles? No Welfare!

New proposal would rid illegals out of Mass.



by Howie Carr
DNN Staff - EXCLUSIVE!
Tuesday, May 4, 2010

I have a big problem with giving my fellow American citizens welfare, so why the hell would I want to extend the handouts to every freeloading illegal alien in the world?

Auntie Zeituni, this means you!

OK, so this proposed cutoff of “services” to non-citizens by GOP Rep. Jeff Perry is a political ploy in his campaign for Congress. Who cares? What exactly is Barack Obama doing proposing amnesty for millions of illegals but trying to gin up his vote for the fall?

What was the problem with the immigration system before Ted Kennedy reformed it back in 1965? If you wanted to immigrate here, you had to have a sponsor, and your American sponsor had to sign an affidavit swearing that you, the immigrant, would not become a burden on the taxpaying public.

Those were indeed the good old days. According to a Harvard University study a few years back, now one-third of all immigrant households are getting one handout or another, compared to 15 percent of native-born households.

Since when has it been nativist and racist to be in favor of enforcing the laws on the books? You and I have to obey them, why aren’t they enforced for everyone? Here’s how it should work for foreigners. Come over here - legally. Work - repeat, work - for a few years. Pay into the system, learn the language, then become a citizen. Then collect, if you need it.

And by the way, no more anchor babies. Changing that law is job one.

Yeah, I know, the illegals are only doing the jobs Americans won’t do. That’s what George Bush used to say. But if that’s the case, if so many of them are working so darned hard, how come they and their “advocates” seem so obsessed with welfare programs, whether it’s free health care (which they already have in hospital emergency rooms) or what amounts to free in-state college tuition.

Perry’s amendment is just a sidebar to the larger story, out of Arizona, about the new law making illegal immigration a crime out there along the border. A rancher was recently murdered out there by a, well, let’s just say the cops believe that an undocumented worker is the new American of interest.

According to the latest polls, 70 percent of the Arizona citizenry supports the crackdown. That includes 51 percent of Arizona Democrats. Yet the legislation is invariably described as “polarizing.”

Close to 60 percent of the American people oppose the nationalization of health care. Yet, as has been noted on the Internet, have you ever once heard the lame-stream media describe the health-care legislation as “polarizing?” Oh no, it’s a reform.

The unemployment rate in Massachusetts is over 9 percent. It’s 9.5 percent nationally. Everyone is broke, yet the illegals still come, hands out. Here’s a novel thought: Charity begins at home.

State Rep. Jeff Perry (R-Sandwich)has filed an amendment
to the budget that would force state departments offering
taxpayer-funded assistance to check the applicant with
federal immigration authorities. (DNN Staff photo)



Boston Graham O'Reilly Carr Siciliano

Unlike the others, we tell you what's really happening.

Feel the taxpayers' heat

Pay hike for fire fighters is budget-buster



by Michael Graham
DNN Staff -EXCLUSIVE!
Monday, Apr. 26,2010

Mayor Menino, you’re not going to win this fight relying on your good looks and soaring rhetoric.

No, to stop the spending monster unleashed by an arbitrator on Boston last week, you’re going to need a crucifix and a wooden stake. Or, at the very least, an angry, pitchfork-wielding mob.

More on them - or should I say “us” - later.

There are many terrifying numbers in this fiscal horror story.

$74 million - the money it will take to raise the pay of Boston firefighters by 19 percent over their 2006 salaries.

$30 million - the gap between the money Boston had set aside for raises and the actual costs.

$3.5 million - how much more this pay hike will cost next year alone.

But the numbers that will keep the mayor and council up at night are 44 and 55.

The Boston firefighters union’s budget-busting deal is just one of the 44 contract negotiations the city has to handle. Which means there are 43 other government worker cabals waiting to be fed. Now they smell blood.

And 55? That’s the age at which Boston firefighters can retire on their generous pensions and benefits - often while going on to another full-time career. Maybe a full-time government career.

Double-dipping: It’s not just for bureaucrats anymore . . .

So now take the salaries of firefighters like Messrs. Maloney, Little and Mason, for example - names I picked at random from bostonherald.com’s excellent “Public Records Database” and who each earned well over $100K last year. Now increase those six-figure salaries by 19 percent (give or take, depending on overtime or special duty) and then multiply the cost to taxpayers, not just for the length of their fine careers, but for 30 years after.

Now keep retiring more and more of these well-paid city employees year after year, all living longer and longer, and you can see why Menino looked so pale in Tuesday’s paper. He had seen the fiscal horror show awaiting all of us.

I don’t blame the firefighters for gloating. Menino asked for arbitration so they get to have their cake and hit him in the face with it, too.

But a 19-percent pay raise in this economy is more than a chance to mock Menino. It’s a punch in the gut for every city taxpayer.

I have a question for the cowardly Ed Kelly, the union president who was spotted running from reporters as recently as yesterday. Ed, how many of your neighbors who work in the private sector are earning 19 percent more today than they did in 2006?

Actually, we have an idea. U.S. incomes went down an average of more than 3 percent last year. And according to MSNBC, metro Boston lost still more jobs in 2009.

But these workers, these taxpayers and these (for the moment, at least) homeowners now have to pony up millions today, and hundreds of millions more over the next decade. All to pay benefits for government workers that far exceed what they’re getting from their own jobs.

Which brings us back to that torch-waving mob.

When it comes to confronting government unions, the City Council isn’t exactly Buffy the Vampire Slayer. They’re more like Igor the clueless but obedient lackey.

We are the townspeople. There are a lot more of us than there are union thugs. Individually we’re not as scary, but as a group we can bring down every elected official in the city.

Tell your city councilor to forget the union, you and your fellow taxpayers are lighting the torches.

Mayor Menino claims the 19 percent pay hike for
firemen will cause more job losses and cuts for the
City of Boston. (DNN Staff photo)




Boston Graham O'Reilly Carr Siciliano

Unlike the others, we tell you what's really happening.