# Good Riddance to Gov Romney...



## GateKeeper (Jan 10, 2005)

*Good Riddance to Gov. Romney*

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 *Romney decision ignites 2006 governor's race*

*By STEVE LeBLANC*
*Associated Press Writer*








*BOSTON- *The starting gun sounded for the 2006 governor's race on Wednesday, as Gov. Mitt Romney announced he will not seek re-election, joining a long list of chief executives to leave by choice rather than at the whim of the voters.

The Republican governor made the announcement as he continues to weigh a 2008 run for president. His own party is hoping to hang onto to the governor's office, its one lever of political power in Massachusetts, while Democrats see Romney's decision as a chance to claim an office that has eluded them for more than 15 years.

"Bill Weld wanted to vacation in Mexico. Paul Cellucci fled to Canada. Jane Swift was banished from office. And now Romney has set his sights on Washington," state Democratic Party Chairman Phil Johnston said of Romney's three GOP predecessors. "Once again, a Republican governor is abandoning Massachusetts."

The Democratic field includes Attorney General Thomas Reilly and former Clinton administration official Deval Patrick. Reilly has a larger campaign war chest and more name recognition than Patrick, who has tried to appeal to the party's liberal base.

Reilly said Romney's decision is good for the state since he's clearly not interested in being governor.

"This is about our future, not his future," he said. "His focus has been elsewhere and he's become a distraction. He's held us back."

Patrick said Romney's departure is an opportunity for Democrats, but only if they do more than just bash Republicans.

"It's not enough for us to say to each other and to others that Gov. Romney's administration and their leadership had been bad," he said. "We have to do more."

Republicans are hanging their hopes on Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, who has been courting support by meeting with local officials across the state and gingerly distancing herself from Romney on some key issues.

Former Massachusetts Turnpike board member Christy Mihos is also considering a run, either as a Republican or an independent.

In any case, there will be a new governor when Romney's term expires in January 2007, and such turnover has become commonplace on Beacon Hill.

Weld was elected in 1990 and re-elected in 1994, but he resigned in 1997 after a failed run for U.S. Senate and following the U.S. Senate's rejection of his nomination as ambassador to Mexico.

His lieutenant governor, Cellucci, finished Weld's second term and was elected to his own four-year term in 1998. But he left in 2001 to become President Bush's ambassador to Canada, allowing his lieutenant, Swift, to become acting governor. She decided against running the following year, making way for Romney, who has served less than three years.

While many political observers anticipated Romney's decision, the announcement cleared any lingering doubts and let candidates and activists on all sides ramp up their campaigning.

Of all the candidates, Romney's departure could be the biggest boon to Healey, who has labored under his shadow since he picked her as his running mate for the 2002 Republican primary.

Healey has staked out some positions at odds with Romney, most recently over the issue of emergency contraception, when she broke with the governor and said all hospitals should be required to distribute the pill to rape victims. She also distanced herself from Romney's increasingly conservative positions on other social issues, backing same-sex civil unions - though not gay marriage - while Romney opposes both.

Reilly has stepped up his criticism of Romney in recent months. He panned the administration's initial decision to allow private hospitals to opt out of the emergency contraception law, a decision Romney quickly reversed.

But Reilly has also set himself at odds with leaders of the Democrat-controlled Legislature, saying the state should roll back the income tax rate to 5 percent if the economy continues to grow.

Patrick has taken a position closer to top Democrats in the House and Senate, saying a cooling state revenue outlook "recommends against rolling back the income tax any further."

Fundraising will also play a key role in the race.

Healey is a millionaire and self-financed a portion of her 2002 campaign. She's indicated she could do the same in 2006.

Reilly has about $3.4 million in the bank, while Patrick started the year with $1 in his campaign account and had $406,000 as of Nov. 30.


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2005)

*Re: Good Riddance to Gov. Romney*

Good riddance?

Romney pledged during the election to fully fund the Quinn Bill, a promise he kept to the letter. Shannon O'Brien said one of the first things she would do as Governor would be to cut Quinn Bill funding by 10%, with more to come.

Good riddance??


----------



## JGH_7223 (Jan 11, 2005)

*Re: Good Riddance to Gov. Romney*

*Romney, state police are nearing agreement*

*BOSTON- *The Romney administration has offered the state police a contract that would increase their pay more than 19 percent by 2008, the most generous offer to any union by the Republican governor.

The offer follows two years of negotiations between the Romney administration and the union, the only labor union to endorse Romney in 2002.

The offer was narrowly rejected by rank and file troopers two weeks ago, but top union officials, who endorsed the offer on Nov. 8, hope to conduct another vote on the plan in the next few weeks.

The offer would cover the period from Jan 1, 2004, to Dec. 31, 2008. It calls for a 3.8 percent annual pay increase. It would apply to the approximately 1,900 state troopers on the force.

The information on the offer was included in a memo from the State Police Association of Massachusetts made available to the Boston Globe.

The offer is approximately twice the annual pay raises offered to six other unions by the Romney administration. Because it is retroactive, a trooper's pay would jump by as much as 20 percent.

State police employees make an average $95,000 a year. The new contract could mean an increase of about $20,000 in the annual salary by Jan. 1, 2008.

One sticking point was a cap proposed by the administration on the total number of hours a trooper can put in on the job each week at 85, instead of the current 99.5. Many troopers rely on the extra hours to boost their pay.

It would also cut in half the number of sick days - from 60 days to 30 days a year - and remove up to 47 troopers from teaching safety classes and testing applicants for licenses at the Registry of Motor Vehicles.

Looks like Romney is looking for a endorsement from M.S.P. .


----------



## bbelichick (Aug 25, 2002)

*Re: Good Riddance to Gov. Romney*



JGH_7223 said:


> Looks like Romney is looking for a endorsement from M.S.P. .


1. NOT going to happen.

2. Don't believe everything you read.


----------



## FedCop (Sep 26, 2004)

*Re: Good Riddance to Gov. Romney*

Get ready....here comes Governor Reilly.


----------



## FedCop (Sep 26, 2004)

*Re: Good Riddance to Gov. Romney*

Romney's political career is on life-support; he would not win a second term as Governor in Massachusetts and he can't win the White House, because the southerners do not think he is conservative enough. His only option remaining in politics is to be selected for a cabinet position in a Republican Administration, but 2008 is a wide open race for president and the presidency could go to either party. So long Mitt, we hardly knew ya.


----------



## USMCTrooper (Oct 23, 2003)

*Re: Good Riddance to Gov. Romney*



bbelichick said:


> 1. NOT going to happen.
> 
> 2. Don't believe everything you read.


DITTO

besides...ever heard the phrase "timing is everything"?? Coincidence on time of the story??


----------



## Irish Wampanoag (Apr 6, 2003)

*Re: Good Riddance to Gov. Romney*



Delta784 said:


> Good riddance?
> 
> Romney pledged during the election to fully fund the Quinn Bill, a promise he kept to the letter. Shannon O'Brien said one of the first things she would do as Governor would be to cut Quinn Bill funding by 10%, with more to come.
> 
> Good riddance??


Ya he also cut state and local aid laying off scores of police officers:---)


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

Where were the layoffs? 

Whitman, Pembroke, Brockton, The Bridgewaters, Rockland. The big cities? I'm just curious, cuz I haven't heard of "scores" being laid off.

Wasn't Springfield the only place to lay off in recent time?:|


----------



## Guest (Dec 16, 2005)

*Re: Good Riddance to Gov. Romney*



Irish Wampanoag said:


> Ya he also cut state and local aid laying off scores of police officers


Where were these "scores" of officers layed off from? I don't seem to recall any massive layoffs.


----------



## irish937 (Sep 13, 2005)

My department lost eleven positions. The department had thirty-seven in 2003. Today, we still only have thirty. Call volume is higher and we just took three zeros. Just because you can't see it from your backyard doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's very funny how those communities with Republican leadership didn't lose quite as much local aid. Bye, bye Mitt. Thank God for small favors.


----------



## LenS (Nov 9, 2004)

irish937 said:


> It's very funny how those communities with Republican leadership didn't lose quite as much local aid.


Better take a look at who controls the local aid formulas! It's NOT the governor, but the leadership in the legislature. Is it rigged? Yes, but not by any governor.

Also, almost everything that Romney suggested or vetoed was overturned by the legislature.

I don't think he did (or was able to do, I'm not sure which) much good for MA, but Reilly won't be much better than electing Adolph Hitler as Fuhrer of MA, IMNSHO!


----------



## KozmoKramer (Apr 25, 2004)

I'm with you Len. Reilly scares me.

An inordinately liberal slant in the legislature AND an obvious socialist as governor?
If he wins, there are big changes in store for Mass, and not for the better...
Taxes, gun ownership, illegal immigration, entitlement programs, forget about it..
No way he will be able to honor the "5% tax across the board" pledge, no chance.

Romney, who I'm not a big fan of, was indeed emasculated by the legislature.
He did however fight for the tougher drunk driving laws, and for that I applaud him.
And he did shrink the deficit, roll back the retroactive capital gains tax,
and championed the MCAS standards.

But he lost the homosexual marriage fight, the capital punishment fight,
Mass is still grotesquely strict for licensing lawful gun owners, it goes on and on.
Maybe his feeling was he couldn't win those battles, but as a conservative,
I would have preferred to see a knock down drag out battle
(even if he lost in the end) on those key issues.


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2005)

irish937 said:


> My department lost eleven positions. The department had thirty-seven in 2003. Today, we still only have thirty. Call volume is higher and we just took three zeros. Just because you can't see it from your backyard doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's very funny how those communities with Republican leadership didn't lose quite as much local aid. Bye, bye Mitt. Thank God for small favors.


It doesn't get any more Democrat than Quincy, and we've hired over 30 people in the last year. Local aid has nothing to do with the Governor, it's set by the Democrat-controlled Legislature.

Romney finally put some teeth into the OUI laws, fiercely protected the Quinn Bill, and did his best for the death penalty. Was he perfect? Far from it.

Was he better than Shannon O'Brien would have been? That's a no-brainer.


----------



## irish937 (Sep 13, 2005)

From where I stand, in Central Mass, Romney has failed miserably. Every cop knows OUIs are a joke. Sure, you take him off the road for the night, but it doesn't last long especially after lawyers train their clients to beat them. Regardless, we have a job to do and that includes OUIs. The Quinn Bill still has the Moratorium imposed in 2003. That was signed by Jane Swift earlier. I do not blame Romney for that. My municipality approved it in 2004, so now we're on the outside looking in. Not getting your Quinn would would make you very unhappy, wouldn't it? The death penalty will NEVER fly here. We all know it. Way too many ultra-liberals. He did try, I'll give him that. You have ADDED over 30 positions? That's very impressive. Honestly, I envy Chelsea for being able to do that. I'm not looking for a debate......way too tired of politics. Stay safe!


----------



## irish937 (Sep 13, 2005)

Sorry, Quincy.


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2005)

irish937 said:


> From where I stand, in Central Mass, Romney has failed miserably. Every cop knows OUIs are a joke. Sure, you take him off the road for the night, but it doesn't last long especially after lawyers train their clients to beat them. Regardless, we have a job to do and that includes OUIs.


You have heard of "Melanie's Law" in Central Mass, correct? I thought that law applied to the entire state. Please correct me if I'm wrong.



irish937 said:


> The Quinn Bill still has the Moratorium imposed in 2003. That was signed by Jane Swift earlier. I do not blame Romney for that. My municipality approved it in 2004, so now we're on the outside looking in. Not getting your Quinn would would make you very unhappy, wouldn't it?


As I mentioned, Romney fully-funded the Quinn Bill for every year he was in office. You didn't get your full Quinn Bill check? Take it up with your employer, who is responsible for 50%, because the state has certainly funded their 50%.



irish937 said:


> The death penalty will NEVER fly here. We all know it. Way too many ultra-liberals. He did try, I'll give him that.


Agreed.



irish937 said:


> You have ADDED over 30 positions? That's very impressive. Honestly, I envy Chelsea for being able to do that. I'm not looking for a debate......way too tired of politics. Stay safe!


Added? No, of course not. We've hired over 30 in the last year, just to replace our losses, due to retirement. My point was that we haven't lost any positions, as far as minimal staffing.


----------



## irish937 (Sep 13, 2005)

Delta784 said:


> You have heard of "Melanie's Law" in Central Mass, correct? I thought that law applied to the entire state. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> Thanks for remedial lesson. I enjoy being patronized. My point was that the OUI laws in Massachusetts are a joke. Do you really think there are "teeth" in the law? Is a conviction that much easier now? The loopholes were not closed. Now, being an objective person, I realize the fault does not lie solely with Romney.
> 
> ...


Like I said, that's great, but that's not the case everywhere. You could blame many things (Poor fiscal management, etc.), but when you get cut 20% in state aid there are only a few options. To say that the legislature makes all the decisions and the Governor has absolutely nothing to do with the state budget is crazy.


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2005)

irish937 said:


> Like I said, that's great, but that's not the case everywhere. You could blame many things (Poor fiscal management, etc.), but when you get cut 20% in state aid there are only a few options. To say that the legislature makes all the decisions and the Governor has absolutely nothing to do with the state budget is crazy.


Do the math. The Democrats have a veto-proof majority (actually a monopoly) in the Legislature. The only reason Melanie's Law was eventually passed was because the Dems were shamed into it by the media, who, for once, was on the right side of a hot button issue.

Whenever a crime victim complains to me about the outcome of their case, I have a very succinct comeback...."Stop voting for Democrat lawyers".

I ask you again....do you think we would have been better off with Governor Shannon O'Brien?


----------



## sylvester (Dec 17, 2005)

Delta is right. The Dummycrats are the problem, not Gov.Romney. They are the ones that tampered with the Quinn Bill, gutted Melanie's Law, proposed flagmen... Gov Romney has been faithfully in our corner.


----------



## Irish Wampanoag (Apr 6, 2003)

mpd61 said:


> Where were the layoffs?
> 
> Whitman, Pembroke, Brockton, The Bridgewaters, Rockland. The big cities? I'm just curious, cuz I haven't heard of "scores" being laid off.
> 
> Wasn't Springfield the only place to lay off in recent time?:|


Hey Woody I guess you liked waiting for your retro. And Ah look up some newspapers Summer 2003 to see who got laid off, must I remind you Taunton, Springfield? God knows everyone on this site was crying like a bitch over the civil service rehire list. Yes most were rehired but everyones property taxes went up to make up the difference.


----------



## SinePari (Aug 15, 2004)

First off, let me once again say that your local politics affect your life more than state or federal levels.

Second, there was a lot of ferderal money to hire more POs in the last few years, that has since dried up and many municipalities haven't come up with a way to maintain their staffing levels.

What about the 3 new MSP classes? Where'd that money come from?


----------



## Guest (Dec 27, 2005)

SinePari said:


> What about the 3 new MSP classes? Where'd that money come from?


That money comes from the STATE gov't that the STATE troopers work for. The LOCAL police get paid by the LOCAL gov't. The municipal gov'ts should not expect or depend solely on state funding. Some local governments give HUGE tax breaks to commercial business and universitues and then complain the treasury is empty. That is a problem. There are towns that cannot or will not pay for their own full time police. They are patrolled by the MSP and/or make do with a part time force. Why is it alright for a town, with plenty of money moving around in corporate and private circles, to demand state welfare? That is what it is - welfare.


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2005)

MSP75 said:


> That money comes from the STATE gov't that the STATE troopers work for.


Who, in turn, get millions from the Federal government.



MSP75 said:


> The LOCAL police get paid by the LOCAL gov't. The municipal gov'ts should not expect or depend solely on state funding.


It's all a power play. Because the state gives back millions and millions to cities & towns under "local aid", it's obvious that we're being taxed at a much higher rate than necessary by the state. Yet, you'll never see the state lower the tax rate, in order to have the cities & towns get the money directly, because that would eliminate the carrot-on-a-stick the Legislature currently holds. The same goes for Congress....if you don't pass laws we want you to pass, kiss your Federal highway funding goodbye.



MSP75 said:


> Why is it alright for a town, with plenty of money moving around in corporate and private circles, to demand state welfare? That is what it is - welfare.


Why is it okay for the state to demand Federal welfare? Isn't it the same?

Most public services I need in my personal life (police, fire, EMS, trash pickup, water & sewer, street plowing/paving, etc.) are provided at the local level. It would make a lot more sense to cut-out the middle man, but as long as the Legislature can overrule a city or town, that's never going to happen.


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

I agree, Delta. Let's keep the money local, and in our pockets, and break-up the state/fed monopoly. It's a lot easier to control our local rascals than it is to reign-in the ones in Boston and Washington.

I'm all for the government running the stuff they are supposed to: courts, police, fire, and the military. We can do the rest quite nicely ourselves, thank you.

Now I suppose I'll get jumped on by those bleating bolsheviks from the party of Howard Dean that lurk in the dark recesses of the board...


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2005)

If you are in a town that needs the local aid that is fine. My beef is with some municipalities that have plenty of potential tax revenue. There are plenty of municipalities, esp in the eastern part of the state that give huge tax breaks to rich universities and commercial area and do not get much in return for revenue that can be used for public safety. Tax breaks are great to get business, but what good is it if in the end the area is taken advantage of for private purposes and no tax?


----------



## bbelichick (Aug 25, 2002)

The Local Police get plenty of money from the Feds. In fact, more than the MSP.

If the coffers are dry, disband the LEC's.


----------



## LenS (Nov 9, 2004)

MSP75 said:


> If you are in a town that needs the local aid that is fine. My beef is with some municipalities that have plenty of potential tax revenue. There are plenty of municipalities, esp in the eastern part of the state that give huge tax breaks to rich universities and commercial area and do not get much in return for revenue that can be used for public safety. Tax breaks are great to get business, but what good is it if in the end the area is taken advantage of for private purposes and no tax?


I think you better check the laws!

Only reason that universities get a "free ride" is because they are TAX EXEMPT, just like church properties!

The towns have no say in the matter, it is in MGLs.

True that many towns give extra tax breaks to entice business to locate there, with the hope that new jobs boosts the local economy. A powerful argument and probably true.

Also better talk with your local town admin. Fact is that commercial property usually pays higher taxes than a homeowner for same value of property, and demand LESS SERVICES. Every house where I live statistically adds ~$12-15K/year to the cost of running the schools, while paying an average of $5-7K/year in taxes! Children add to the tax burden of a community in services provided, where most industry/business requires the bare minimum of services. [I'm not making this stuff up, I've been deeply involved in town gov't for ~28 years and have run the numbers with the Town Treasurer and Selectmen/Town Administrator a few times over those years.]


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2005)

There are ways other than using taxe codes. PILOTs and SILOTs are usefull. Somerville and Medford finally got tough with Tufts and got an increase in PILOT. Boston is doing the same after the heavy cost of police OT to babysit the college students during all the championship riots and the presidential debate.

University PILOTs examined
Councilors call for schools to contribute more to city
By Jessica S. Kranish
Published: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 
Article Tools:	Page 1 of 2

To increase the city's revenue, City Councilors on Wednesday suggested requiring universities -- which are exempt from property taxes -- and other non-profit institutions to pay more to the city in the form of PILOTs, or Payments in Lieu of Taxes.

PILOTs are an alternative way for institutions to contribute to the city's revenue. Thirteen colleges and universities, including Boston University, participate in the program, which brings in about $21 million annually to the city. The largest PILOT contributor is the Massachusetts Port Authority, which pays nearly half of that total -- $11.1 million, councilors explained.

Councilor-At-Large Stephen Murphy, who sponsored the Ways and Means Committee hearing, said he was concerned that Boston's taxpayers bear the financial burden of these institutions while the colleges and universities pay less than their fair share.

"Fifty-three percent of our land and buildings in this city are tax-exempt," Murphy said. Boston's institutions of higher education, he said, "bring much to the city, but they also expend much of the city's resources."

Citing the violent celebrations following last year's Patriots and Red Sox wins, Murphy said college students participated in the riots, so colleges and universities should be held responsible for contributing more money to the city.

"We know it's coming mostly from university and college students," Murphy said, referring to the post-game "revelry" that killed two 21-year-olds last year.

In addition, Murphy said, the city's 250,000 students put a strain on the city's police, fire and emergency medical services. Students also benefit from city-provided services such as public transportation and parks, which are funded by Boston's taxpayers, Murphy said, adding that the city should create a "formula that is fair to Boston taxpayers."

Councilor Chuck Turner (Roxbury, Dorchester) also said the city should press for more payments from colleges and universities.

"I think these institutions are fat cats," he said.

Murphy agreed, saying of the high costs, "let the colleges eat it, not the kids."

http://www.dailyfreepress.com/media...News/University.Pilots.Examined-1115055.shtml


----------

