Op-Ed

Putting Massachusetts' capital and people back to work [Op-Ed]

Small Business Banking Partnership pays off

Has significant impact on Cape Cod

By Treasurer Steven Grossman

Special to CapeCodToday.com

When I first became Treasurer in January, 2011, I took a full inventory of the potential of my new office. I had campaigned on an agenda of protecting the taxpayer’s money, creating jobs and boosting small businesses, and enhancing government transparency, and I wanted to live up to the expectations of the 1.2 million voters who put their faith in me on election day.

While it may come as a surprise to the casual observer, the Treasury is much more than a simple clearinghouse for state finances and bonding. I saw opportunities to do business in a more innovative way and to leverage the full influence of the office in a manner that more effectively targets valuable resources to needed areas.

Steven Grossman. File photo.In short order, we developed and kicked off the Small Business Banking Partnership, a program that deposits up to $10 million apiece into Massachusetts community banks with the understanding that they will expand their lending to creditworthy small businesses throughout the Commonwealth. With nearly $222 million now on deposit in 43 banks across the state, we’re truly putting our money to work. In fact, nearly 900 loans totaling $133 million have been made by participating banks as of the last reporting period on December 31, 2011.

The funds come from existing Treasury reserves that have traditionally been deposited in large national or international financial institutions. The banks participating in our program offer competitive interest rates, and our deposits are fully insured. There is no cost to the taxpayer, no subsidy whatsoever. The crucial difference is that more Massachusetts banks will have more money to lend to Massachusetts small businesses to help the Massachusetts economy and create jobs right here at home.

While the goals of the Partnership are ambitious, I wanted the program to be simple to administer and simple to participate in. As the former CEO of a 102-year-old family owned business, I knew that complexity – no matter how attractive the lending program – could deter banks from participating. The devil can often be in the details.

To participate in the program, banks have to agree to lend the money to small businesses and post on their websites every 90 days the number of loans made and the total amount of dollars that have been put to work, information that the Treasury also posts on its website. We purposefully put forth program guidelines that give us clear metrics to demonstrate that banks are using our deposits for their intended purpose, but that don’t over-burden them with onerous, redundant, and time-consuming reporting measures or paperwork.

Cape Cod and the Islands have been a substantial beneficiary of the Partnership. Bank of Cape Cod has received $10 million through the program, and Cape Cod Cooperative Bank and Cape Cod Five Cents Savings Bank have each received $5 million. More than just numbers, dollars, and cents, however, this money has played a key role in infusing more capital into small businesses on the Cape, going to fund infrastructure improvements, inventory, new equipment, and other related expenses.

These are the just kind of investments that will grow the small businesses - on the Cape and across the Commonwealth - that are needed to spur the economy, create jobs, and establish a clear path out of the recession that has hung over us for much too long. It’s an innovative approach that forges a true partnership between government and the private sector, one that requires zero risk to the taxpayers and one that isn’t burdened down with bureaucratic requirements or impediments.

In my travels throughout Massachusetts, I see encouraging signs that the economy is starting to improve and that jobs and business are beginning to grow as consumer confidence increases. Now is the critical time to add fuel to the state’s economic engine, and the Small Business Banking Partnership is doing just that.

Steven Grossman is the Treasurer and Receiver General of Massachusetts.

Cape Cod's Reps should not endorse "Stand Your Ground" [Op-Ed]

Cape delegates need to stand down on the “Stand Your Ground” bill

By Brian R. Mannal, Esq.

Every so often, politicians get something right… The proposed “stand your ground” bill (S.661) co-sponsored by Rep. Demetrius Atsalis is not one of those times.

Every so often, politicians get something right… The proposed “stand your ground” bill co-sponsored by State Rep. Demetrius Atsalis is not one of those times.The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has the oldest judicial system in continuous existence in the Western Hemisphere. Quite literally, our courts pre-date the birth of our nation. This unique distinction affords us the benefit and wisdom of (literally) centuries of common law and common sense with respect to the rights and responsibilities of citizens.

Under Massachusetts’ law, a person cannot lawfully act in self-defense unless he has exhausted all other reasonable alternatives before resorting to the use of force. In other words, a person may use physical force in self-defense only if he cannot get out of the situation in some other way that was available and reasonable at the time. This duty to retreat was not borne out of cowardice, but rather the common understanding that the avoidance of violence is preferential to unnecessary bloodshed.       

The courts of the Commonwealth have long recognized an exception to this rule. The so-called “castle doctrine” holds that a person is not required to refrain from using deadly force against an intruder or retreat from their own home, if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder is about to inflict great bodily injury or death on him or on another person who is lawfully in the dwelling.

Vote in our Poll.Should our local Reps sponsor the state "Strand Your Ground" bill.Several weeks ago, the unintended consequences of Florida’s “stand your ground” law made national headlines when an unarmed juvenile was shot and killed by an armed adult who justified the use of deadly force on the grounds that he was entitled to stand his ground— nowhere near his home. 

As a Democratic candidate for State Representative in the 2nd Barnstable District, as well as a practicing attorney, I do not believe that this legislation is warranted or necessary.

Brian Mannal
Centerville, MA

Brian Mannalis running in the Democratic Primary against incumbent Demetrius Atsalis to represent Cape Cod in the 2nd Barnstable State Representative District.

A Cape Cod regional sewer authority? [Op-Ed]

...Or an idea that stinks of a power grab?

By Ron Beaty

When considering the creation of an independent, taxpayer funded, unaccountable & bureaucratic Cape Cod Regional Wastewater Authority, along with its hugely expensive large scale centralized wastewater processing facilities, Cape Codders need to be honestly informed that these are not the only choices available to them and their respective municipalities.

If creation of the Cape Cod Regional Wastewater Authority becomes a reality, then it can and should be directly & locally controlled by the municipalities of Cape Cod. The goals and mission of the regional authority should mainly be advisory and assistance oriented. The nature of its existence should be to serve and benefit the fifteen municipalities of Cape Cod, not feed the egos of some power hungry politicians or enrich the pockets of a few fat-cat bureaucrats. In addition, the primary focus of any such regional authority should be the vigorously focused and expedited advancement and implementation of locally controlled “Adaptive Wastewater Management Practices” as illustrated by the recommendations portrayed within the content of the report by the Barnstable County Peer Review Panel. An equitable system of checks and balances also would need to be put into place. This could be accomplished via creation of a duly elected citizen oversight panel with representatives from of each of the Cape's 15 towns. The citizen oversight panel must have veto powers over all major decisions undertaken by such a regional wastewater authority.

The previously mentioned "Adaptive Wastewater Management Practices" would save Cape Cod taxpayers an untold fortune in wastewater infrastructure costs, potential sewer bills and excessive new regional taxes. It would also help to provide solutions which are not only more cost effective, but which will produce environmental outcomes which are equal to or superior to those offered by large scale sewering. Once again, the alternative option that I speak of is locally controlled "Adaptive Wastewater Management Practices" also known as the "Adaptive Implementation Process."

If one wishes to learn more about "Adaptive Wastewater Management Practices" also known as "Adaptive Implementation Process" then I highly recommend taking a look at the following linked PowerPoint Presentation entitled  Don’t Debate; Adaptive implementation can help water quality professionals achieve TMDL goals.

As mentioned this wastewater treatment policy was actually the preferred option recommended by the Barnstable County Peer Review Panel when issuing their official report a few months ago: Barnstable County Peer Review Panel Report.

You do not need to read the entire document, only the final recommendations to get the general idea of what the panel advocates:

Page 31,  7. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PATH FORWARD

The preceding sections of this report contain numerous specific recommendations pertaining to the overall MEP modeling approach and the individual topic areas. This section contains a high level categorical summary of the Panel recommendations for a path forward. The Panel recommends that the MEP modeling approach be considered within the larger context of the overall decision support system and not be limited to just the linked watershed-embayment model. The Panel further recommends that an adaptive management framework be used for this decision support system, which integrates the watershed-embayment model. This integration should include continued monitoring, data analysis and modeling to improve scientific understanding and reduce uncertainties in the physical, chemical and biological processes in the watersheds and estuaries.

The Panel recommends that the towns proceed within this adaptive management framework to develop and implement wastewater and nutrient management plans, and make improvements along the way to reduce management uncertainties. This will ensure that TMDL implementation is not compromised due to a lack of information, and that progress will be made in the most cost effective manner while gathering new information to improve upon the scientific analysis, and the initial wastewater and nutrient management plans.

The Panel recommends that model sensitivity analyses be conducted for the components and linkages in the watershed-embayment model for each specific estuary. Sensitivity analysis is the principal evaluation tool for characterizing the most and least important sources of uncertainty in environmental models. The Panel believes that a healthy recognition of uncertainty would encourage planning bodies to pursue an adaptive science and management strategy as they move forward to understand and remediate the impacts of excessive nitrogen loadings on the estuaries and embayments.

The Panel recommends that the MEP adopt a more comprehensive approach for assessing the environmental conditions and status of eelgrass at sentinel sites. Predictions for the expansion of eelgrass into unvegetated and formerly impaired sites can be improved by incorporating additional factors that affect eelgrass growth, reproduction and dispersal, such as optical water quality, bottom substrate conditions and water depth. Emphasis should also be placed on the use of standard methods for quantitative assessments of eelgrass health and condition that incorporate and report measures of spatialand temporal variation. The Panel also recommends that SMAST and MDEP develop a coordinated effort to utilize more recent data from the MDEP eelgrass mapping program to establish restoration targets.

Ron Beaty
West Barnstable

Why put bureaucrats in charge of shaping a government? [Op-Ed]

Recommended changes to Barnstable County government

By Andrew Putnam

Often times we find ourselves looking at our local governments and wondering if there is any room for improvement. When we do find room, someone usually forms a committee to explore options and come up with new ideas. Now let’s imagine this committee is made up of current and former politicians. What would you say to a committee of bureaucrats controlling the future structure of your government?

Two hundred years ago, a group of men got together with one goal in mind; to change how their government worked. These same individuals ended up creating a new government (which was not their initial intent). These men were not part of Parliament or Kings or Governors, yet they created the greatest democracy of modern times (if you didn’t get it yet, I am talking about the Founding Fathers). From the efforts of farmers, doctors, generals, blacksmiths, scientists, and lawyers came a country that no one had thought could possibly exist on its own.

It seems to me that the problem with the government is not its structure, but instead the people in government.

Let’s get back to the issue at hand though; why put bureaucrats in charge of shaping a government? You wouldn’t knowingly make the criminal the sheriff and call it a day. It seems to me that the problem with the government is not its structure, but instead the people in government.

Months ago the League of Women Voters on Cape Cod called for a commission on county governance in order to review the current structure and make recommendations on how we could improve County Government. So our County Commissioners said yes and tasked former State Senators Robert O'Leary and Henry Rauschenbach to put together the commission. Who did they hand pick to be on the commission? Former State Senators/Representatives, former County Commissioners, and current Delegates from the County Assembly all sat down to decide the “fate” of the Cape’s future.

The end result of this was a recommendation to eliminate the Assembly (the legislature that represents each of the 15 towns on Cape) and merge it with the Commissioners to have a stronger seven member executive body. They also recommended paying this new body twice as much as we pay our current representatives and creating the change without the approval of the residents of Cape Cod. If I have this right, this means we will have no direct representation, more pay for the elected officials, and no balance of powers?

So I want to ask the question one last time; why put bureaucrats in charge of fixing our local government? The solution isn’t an overhaul of the current government as they would say, but instead the replacement of the bureaucrats with fresh new faces.

Andrew Putnam, a resident of East Falmouth, is a Precinct 9 Town Meeting Member and the Affirmative Action Committee Chairman.

Wastewater Conspiracy of the Most Egregious Kind [Op-Ed]

Public Statement by the Cape-based Group, Voices On Wastewater (VOW)

1. Final Report & Recommendations - Special Commission on County Governance

The group now called VOW has been informed by some of its supporters that the Special Commission co-chairmen, (Henri Rauchenbach and Rob O'Leary), will make their presentation of the recommendations of the Special Commission at the County Commissioners' meeting on Wednesday, March 21, 2012, at 3:00 PM in Rooms 11/12 of the Barnstable Superior Courthouse, Route 6A, Barnstable Village.  The Report will be made available to the public at that time.  The written report includes the recommendation for creation of the Cape Cod Regional Wastewater Authority and the justifications/reasons for it.

The meeting and presentation are open to the public so anyone who wishes to do so may attend. It may be one of the last chances the catch all of the major opposition players in the same location for quite a while to ask them what their true agenda is regarding all of the proposals for dramatic regional government expansion.

In recent weeks, there have been those in county government who claimed that it is too early in the process to express serious concerns about the creation of an independent regional wastewater authority. However, we say that the County Commissioners were the ones that initiated the process prematurely by directing Andrew Gottlieb (Cape Cod Water Protection Collaborative) and Paul Niedzwiecki (Cape Cod Commission) to facilitate creation of Cape Cod's version of the MWRA even before the formal report and final recommendations had been officially issued by the Barnstable County Special Commission on County Governance.

What were the true reasons for such haste? What was the real rationale for separating the vote and recommendation for creation of the regional wastewater authority from the rest of the recommendations of the Special Commission? Perhaps we shall never truly know those answers. What we do know is that the respective municipalities, residents, voters and taxpayers of Cape Cod need to be properly informed about all the various options available to them, including alternative wastewater treatment methodologies and adaptive wastewater management practices, not just building expensive sewer construction or taxpayer funded centralized wastewater treatment facilities.

2. A Decade-Old Wastewater Conspiracy of the Most Egregious Kind?

Former State Senator Rob O'Leary AND current State Senator Dan Wolf, along with the Special Commission on County Governance, and the involved county officials, appear to be conspiring to finally create the tax-dollar sucking and unaccountable Cape-wide sewer authority that they have desired for over ten years. The Conservation Law Foundation lawsuit, among other justifications, have apparently only been a political smokescreen to try and bulldoze this whole issue down the throats of Cape Cod taxpayers and voters by any means necessary.

Do some of our current and former elected officials truly subscribe to the Machiavellian political tenet that "the ends justify the means?"

To many of us, it is what is steadily becoming the most obvious conclusion.

The evidence is clearly illustrated within the content of the following Cape Cod Times news articles dating back as early as the year 2002.

• December 24, 2002. Cape sewer authority unfair, unnecessary.
• January 31, 2004. Officials gear up for wastewater agency crusade.
• January 31, 2004. Cost may sway public opinion.

Thank you very much to the person who we have come to consider our most dedicated supporter for researching and identifying this recent discovery, and subsequently bringing it to our attention.

Sandy Nickerson
Interim Spokesperson

Public Enemies: Fossil Fuels [Op-Ed]

Thanks a lot, Brayton Point and Sandwich, for fouling our air and water

"Clean Coal" is a television fantasy

By Richard Bartlett

We who live on Cape Cod or the Islands know very well the harm that is done by the generation of electricity by burning fossil fuels. The same prevailing winds that will be harvested by Cape Wind are presently bringing us the unwanted gifts of acid rain, increased asthma and cardiac issues, mercury enough to make local fish unsafe to eat, the extinction of some species of birds and plants, and our lawns becoming unwanted moss gardens. The news almost every day reports extreme weather events; floods in some places, droughts in others, more frequent and violent tornadoes and hurricanes.

   Thanks a lot, Brayton Point and Sandwich, for fouling our air and water.

   For several years it has been impossible to watch TV without seeing slick ads for "Clean Coal."  They are advertising something that doesn't exist. It's a television fantasy without a counterpart in the real world. If they had spent their huge advertising budget on making their profitable product less toxic perhaps they would have developed an acceptable fuel by now. But they prefer the hoodwinking approach.

   The coal industry is now pushing for the government to pay for an experimental CCS project. Those letters stand for "Carbon Capture and Storage." Liquified CO2 is buried a mile deep. Citizens in Linden, NJ are bitterly opposed to having a proposed  experimental PurGen plant in their city. With good reason they worry about the risk of the sequestered carbon dioxide leaking upward into the air they breathe. Being invisible and having no odor, it is dangerous. And it hangs low to the ground, excluding healthy, breathable air.

   Those folks in Linden know about a rare natural event that happened in Cameroon in 1986. An underground deposit of carbon dioxide escaped into the air, forming "a low hanging puddle" of gas, causing 1,746 people to die in their sleep.

   Burning "natural" gas produces CO2, so that industry also lobbies for taxpayers to foot the bill for a CCS experimental project. The gas producers use "fracking" to mine the gas deposits trapped in rock formations. Citizens living near those freakin' fracking sites are upset because injected chemicals show up in their drinking water. Whole municipal water systems have been shut down. Anything for the bottom line.

   But what would it cost us, even if it worked?

   Burying just 1/8th of global CO2 emissions today would require an infrastructure the size of the entire global petroleum industry. A CCS system uses so much energy that for every 4 plants to operate a 5th one is needed just to furnish the other 4 their power! PurGen plans to build 3,400 CCS burial projects between 2020 and 2050.

   A CCS system large enough to manage only 20% of global CO2 emissions in 2050 would have a price tag of $45 trillion (That's with a T!) yet the fossil fuel proponents keep telling us their energy is cheap. Just think how little it would cost to substitute truly clean renewable energy by comparison.

   A related issue, nuclear power generation would take a whole letter of its own. The old plants are dangerous, and after all these years the waste disposal problem is unsolved. Around our area we are indebted to Mary Lampert and her Pilgrim Watch group and Paul Rifkin and the Occupiers for battling Entergy's relicensing application and challenging the NRC.
   Richard C. Bartlett
   Cotuit

Roman fireworks [Op-Ed]

Catholic Charities got $3 billion of taxpayers money in 2010

And some say Obama is anti-Catholic

By Richard Bartlett

I'm writing in response to an article on CapeCodToday 2/29/12 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf headed, "Mr. President, you owe me and millions of American Catholics an apology."

Wondering if I should know who Fr. Zuhlsdorf is, and which area parish he serves,I looked him up on Google.

There is a surprising amount of information, including that his parish is  in the Diocese of Velletri-Segni, Italy. He is a very active internet personality and has appeared on Murdoch's Fox TV News.

In his article he uses the GOP candidates spin on President Obama's apology to Muslims for the burning of Korans by U.S. troops. That act of disrespect angered some Muslims to retaliate by shooting two of our soldiers. By issuing an apology, the President forestalled even more revenge killings of U.S. soldiers. It was diplomacy that worked. But I must ask Fr. Zuhlsdorf and the Republican candidates, "What would you do if Muslims set fire to our Bibles?"

He echoes the Republican candidates' charge that the President is "demeaning our Catholic Faith." That is not true. When the American bishops called out the contraception clause in the healthcare bill, President Obama relieved the Church of their need to pay for those women's health services that offended them, shifting the cost to the insurance companies.

The bishops were mollified, but one day later said they changed their minds.

98% of Catholic women practice birth control

As has been pointed out in the media countless times, 98% of Catholic women practice birth control. It looks as though the Church cannot persuade its members to accept out-of-date strictures and wants the government to do their enforcement for them. The Santorum/Tea Party Republicans try to say it's about freedom of religion, but who is not free to practice their religion? Who is forced to obey or disobey their church's teachings?

The ill-conceived Blunt Amendment cosponsored by Sen. Scott Brown would have let any employer deny any part or entire coverage to any or all employees. Shame on him.

Fr. Zuhlsdorf is very much in error when he charges the Obama administration of anti-Catholicism. Catholic Charities got $3 billion of taxpayers money in 2010. That was 60% of their budget. In contrast, only 3% came from church contributions. That's hardly hostile!

Unquestionably, Catholic Charities does a great deal of good work for the poor. Still, it's getting good PR for the Church using money from non-Catholics. When government pays for secular good works that frees up money for ecclesiastical expenditures, a point made by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun in 1976.

And as Republican patron saint Ronald Reagon said in 1984, "Church and State are, and must remain, separate."

Richard C. Bartlett, Cotuit

Double Standards [Op-Ed]

Whatever caused this tragedy is now in the public domain

All the various media have clearly participated in some sort of cover-up.

By Michael Bradley

Ken Nagy.

Jason Lantych.As someone who once served as a police officer and who later worked for many years as a newspaperman, the ongoing news coverage of Beverly police officer Jason Lantych’s shooting by Sgt. Ken Nagy of the Hamilton Police Department is galling.It seems obvious that if Jason Lantych was a general contractor and Ken Nagy was a framing contractor we would already know why Lantych was shot by Nagy. The media, print and electronic, would have been all over the story, probing the business and personal lives of the two men.

We would likely already know more than we cared to know about the two men, including how they did business, who they associated with and why, and perhaps most importantly, we would know if money and a bad business deal were involved or whether it was a love triangle that caused the shooting.

But in this actual case involving police, not contractors, several days after the unfortunate episode all we know is that the two officers from adjacent towns agreed to meet at a diner, but apparently without discussion Lantych was shot several times by Nagy.

We now know that some of the restaurant patrons were heroic in helping to save Lantych from bleeding out, since apparently one of the shots hit an artery in his leg, almost as though the shooter was aiming for the groin. And later that night, in the midst of a police manhunt for one of their own, Sgt. Nagy returned to the proverbial scene of the crime and, unfortunately, killed himself.

That this immediately appears, on the face of it, to be a classic human tragedy involving hopes, dreams and very possibly, love, has been completely ignored by a media that would have torn the covers off of the lives of any average person. The news approach in this case is a farce, which is underscored by the fact that in its most recent reports the TV media is using hints instead of facts, observing that Mrs. Nagy works in the Hamilton Police Department.

There cannot be two sets of media rules for the average citizen and the law enforcement community.The apparent double-standard regarding police suspects and the rest of us was remarkably illustrated by the office of Essex County DA Jonathan Blodgett, whose spokeswoman flatly stated that motive in this case “is not relevant.” After some ridicule, DA Blodgett backed away from that remark.

Whatever caused this tragedy is now in the public domain and all the various media have clearly participated in some sort of cover-up.

It is understandable and human for the police departments and the families involved to desire the story be contained, but there cannot be two sets of media rules for the average citizen and the law enforcement community. It is simply incredible to believe that with all the resources of the Massachusetts media all that is known is the bare facts of the shooting and the status of the wounded officer, Jason Lantych.

It is incredible because everyone realizes that if the tragedy involved them or their family members, the reporting would be diametrically different.

Mike Bradley is a longtime newspaper editor and publisher who lives in Bourne and publishes The Bradley Report. He is a former publisher of the MPG Comminications South Group of five newspapers, the Marion Sentinel, the Mattapoisett Sentinel, the Wareham Courier, the Bourne Courier and the Sandwich Village Broadsider.

The real Obama outrage [Op-Ed]

The Obama Administration's war on religion

By Cynthia Stead

The Obama Administration is waging war on religion by forcing religious institutions to cover contraception on the health plans of their employees.  This is a new and startling outrage.  It has also been the law since 2000.

Back in December of 2000, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that failure to provide such coverage violates the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which is an amendment to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlaws, among other things, discrimination based on gender.  A suit filed by Catholic Charities in California and New York were both decided against them and the 2000 regulation was upheld.

The only thing that the Obama administration is doing is insisting that the employer – religious or not – cannot charge a co-pay from the employee, but in the Progressive Spirit must provide something for nothing.  That is where the issue begins.  Until now, employees of Catholic institutions simply paid a co-payment of 100%, allowing them to have access to the desired contraception while also not forcing the religious institution to subsidize something that violates their principles.

Why wasn’t there a hue and cry back in 2000?  Because Massachusetts employers didn’t have to cover contraception as a medication until 2002.  Women already had to pay that 100% co-pay anyway, so the change in regulation as it pertains to religious institutions slipped under the radar.  Massachusetts comes close to being the contraception-free state that Rick Santorum envisions.  Birth control was illegal here due to the legislative Catholic Democrat majority, and Bill Baird went to jail for giving away birth control in Boston. Historically, the champions of contraception in Massachusetts were the Republicans.  Even when contraception was partially legalized, it was still illegal for ‘unmarried women’ until 1974 – once abortion was legalized, the Democrats decided that maybe contraception wasn’t the end of the world, but they still didn’t want to make access easy and allowed employers to refuse coverage - although Viagara was mandatory as soon as it was invented.  When then-Speaker Tom Finneran was presented with a letter in 2002 signed by 81 legislators demanding that a vote be allowed to require contraception to be covered on health insurance plans, he capitulated and allowed the vote.  He did know how to count.

What IS an outrage is the Obama ‘solution’ to free contraception.  He proposes to make the insurance companies pay for the contraception instead.  By what right does the government require that a private concern (insurance companies) provide product for free to consumers?  Will GM be instructed to provide free cars, now that the government owns them?  If an insurance company decides it would rather not insure a Catholic employer because it doesn’t want to have to bear the cost of providing free medication, will they be penalized for Civil Rights discrimination?  If this precedent is allowed to stand, what other products and services can private industry be required to provide by government fiat?

Social conservatives are snapping at this ‘issue’ like a trout at a fly, not recognizing the real outrage here.  Whether they ‘win’ the religious exemption argument or not, we all should be on guard against this attack on property and freedom by the Obama Administration.

Cynthia E. Stead is the Secretary of the Massachusetts Republican Party. She is also running for re-election as the Cape & Islands Republican State Committee Woman, a position she has held for eight years.

Trickle down urine specimens [Joe Quigley]

   Trickle down economics definitions (take your pick):

By Joe Quigley

• Wikipedia: "Trickle-down economics" and "the trickle-down theory" are terms used in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided by government to businesses and the wealthy will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole.
  "Money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."
• Urban Dictionary:A Failed economic policy that asserts that if you give tax cuts to the rich the profits will trickle down to the lower classes.Time has shown that this Regan policy is nothing more then a scam to give the rich a Free Ride in society
  "Trickle down economics don't trickle down on me! Where's my money and my job? They been outsourced by some elitist rich snob."
• Obama on "Trickle down economics: "Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there’s been a certain crowd in Washington for the last few decades who respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. 'The market will take care of everything,' they tell us. If only we cut more regulations and cut more taxes – especially for the wealthy – our economy will grow stronger.
  
• Sure, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everyone else. And even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, they argue, that’s the price of liberty.
  
  "It’s a simple theory – one that speaks to our rugged individualism and healthy skepticism of too much government. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. Here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible post-war boom of the 50s and 60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade."

Joe Quigley also draws political cartoons for the American Federation of Teachers/Massachusetts, and for the Elizabeth Warren campaign. Right now he has a "Red, White & Blue" sales at his online store on Zazzle. Below are just a few sample of his work on the 2012 campaign.