Senator Eldridge has a longstanding history of working very hard for this district, making tremendous strides in areas such as transportation, housing, environmental and economic development issues. His personal connection with his constituents is rare, and his integrity is unquestionable. Mr. Cavaretta simply does not stand up in comparison.

Mr. Eldridge is simply on the right side of every issue. He fights for what's best for his constituents and for his state everyday. I've been proud of his stance against legalizing casinos in Massachusetts, and his support to overturm Citizen's United especially. He's intelligent, influential, and carefully considers his all positions, whether they support the party line or not (e.g., casino gambling). I'm happy and proud to call Senator Eldridge one of my representatives in the State House.

If you have been paying attention, then you understand that Jamie Eldridge is hard working, effective, progressive, thoughtful, knowledgeable, and as good as one could possibly hope for in a politician. We are extremely lucky to have Jamie Eldridge representing us.

For my pet issue the building and funding of more rail trails, Jamie has been the most pro-active and effective Beacon Hill leader statewide. And locally, the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail will become a reality in Acton in 2014-2015 because of Jamie. Without him it would have been at least ten more years, and perhaps it would never would have been funded and built.

Mr. Cavaretta is perfectly nice person, but he pales in comparison to Mr. Eldridge of someone who I want representing me on Beacon Hill.

Sincerely,

Tom Michelman

Agree to all the comments on Jamie above!

There are far too many Democrats on Beacon Hill, especially in the Senate, to have an effective government for all the people. Eldridge is an especially liberal Senator who has supported every tax and spending bill - would not even vote to put in EBT reforms. Sorry - time for a change. Eldridge must go and many others with him. I am going to support Dean this time.

To Katy G. - Citizens United is a conservative non-profit organization in the United States. Its president and chairman is David Bossie. It is best known for the U.S. Supreme Court case on campaign finance Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. They pushed to have anonymous and unlimited campaign donations.

Bud, who can argue with the fact that Democrats have won consistently for over 60 years in Massachusetts. THis is why MA is a political wasteland and the joke of American politics. The tide is turning, however, as Senator Brown's victory up and down 495 and Metro West attests and the rising number of Central Mass Reps. You may appreciate Senator Eldridge, but I am hopeful that other readers will be more inclined to realize that he was front and center on the 25% increase in the Sales Tax and the Beer Tax - as if we did not live adjacent to New Hampshire. THis is the kind of spend and taxing (not to mention the failure to support EBT reform) that has got MA into the mess we are in. I am certain that Mr. Cavaretta will continue to reach the District's voters with his specific proposals - which will restrain spending and taxing and help bring back more balance to the Senate. By the way, wasn't this the former Governor's Cellucci's seat at one time? Why not Republican again - sorry, buit we need a change.

Bud, you are too much fun, and such a devoted ideologue. Pass the Kool-aid why don't you. First an aside, in your description of Citizen's United you left out the important point that Unions have been co-opting the Democrat Party, here and in the Nation, for scores of years. Their contribution - essentially confiscated dues and SEIU people trying to influence elections have been a National disgrace.

You have to ask yourself, if MA is so precious (and I am a lifer here), why was MA the only State to lose population in the past decade? If our education is so grreat, why do people take their MA education to other States? Why is Fidelity moving 1500 of our jobs from the District in which we live?

I am sorry, but I will not be sippin' from your cup, and a growing number of people have had enough of it as well. But, from a positive perspective, I admire your loyalty to a Party that is doing its best to destroy America, just like it has already reduced MA.

Look at it this way. Our forefathers revolted to get rid of monarchic government, only to see all their hard work result in a one-party-rule government. Not much "learning from history," wouldn't you agree? All the best.

Hi Bud. Dean does have specific plans on many issues. I am posting links to his plans on the economy and education- two issues I think we can all agree are very important.

http://acton.patch.com/blog_posts/the-cavaretta-for-state-senate-jobs-plan-dde62d79

http://www.momsanddadsfordean.com/platform.htm

As for transportation, Dean has worked with MassDOT under two different administrations, (Cellucci and Patrick) so transportation is a very important issue to him. Please learn more about his experience at MassDOT.
http://acton.patch.com/blog_posts/most-ma-road-bridge-projects-take-7-10-years-to-complete

http://www.deancavaretta.com/Bio.html (second paragraph)

Dean wants to use his experience in transportation to reduce the time it takes to construct roads and bridges in the state. Currently, the average time is 7-10 years.

I hope this helps you and everyone learn more about him.

Bud do you consider yourself riding in the wagon or pulling the wagon?

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

If we have a Senator who is so politically correct that he cannot say "no" to allowing tax payer dollars to pay for tattoos, bail, boat cruises or porn, id say we got ourselves a fella that looks out for welfare recipients pleasure centers, more than he does for the guys money who works all day to earn a living. Isn't it getting just a little too easy to spend other peoples money on stupi crap. Jamie's gotta go. I'm sorry. That's just stupid. I'm sorry to be insulting, but allowing tax payer funded porn is just too much,
Dean, expect my vote and my money....

Here is a link to Senator Jamie Eldridge's website for re-election http://www.senatoreldridge.com with links and information about where he stands on the issues and a video (click lower right on the site). Good luck and thanks to Jamie for his continued service to our communities and district!

Dean you got me and my wife's vote!

Thanks for the information, Micheal. I read that there was abuse of EBT cards. I didn't know that Representative Eldridge voted against EBT reform. My husband and I and our older kids all work hard and pay our own way in this state. Dean Cavaretta will get my vote and my husband's vote. I'll tell our older kids what you've told me. Thanks for all of the good information everyone!

Jamie Edridge deliveres performance and commitment.

Chris,

Are you sure you could survive in any other state? Your parochial viewpoint and liberal bias make you ill suited for many other locales.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

Nancy Evans, Please give specific examples of how Mr. Eldridge delivers performance and commitment. From what's posted above it sounds as if he is committed to allowing welfare recipients to purchase pornography, visit strip clubs, and gamble with their welfare money. Please don't respond by saying that it's no one's business what someone on welfare does with their money. It's the business of the taxpayers who are footing the bill for all of this.
If Mr. Eldridge has done enough good in this state to compensate for giving my hard earned money to someone who is going to spend it on pornography then please let me know. At this point he's lost my vote over this issue easily. People with integrity hold other people to a higher standard, not a lower one.

MA is a great place to live now, but many of us are concerned about the future.

Our world has changed. In a global economy, can we keep our "high income" advantage and still compete? Will the wages and benefits we pay for our state workers end up putting so much pressure on local budgets that we tax ourselves into oblivion?

Will the high-tax rates and regulations on businesses end up causing a net outflow of jobs in the future?

Will the continued corruption of our elected officials and one-party rule make people give up on local government? (A one-party system effectively makes the above problems worse because there is no check and balance.)

Will Massachusetts be able to afford the coming tax increases, which will disproportionally hit our "high income" residents?

Acton right now has become an education town. Many residents come for the schools and then leave when their kids graduate. Is this phenomenon responsible for Massachusetts' loss of population and will this trend accelerate?

Our current crop of politicians for reelection all promise "business as usual" and will continue these policies. Do we want higher taxes to pay for more public services? Can we afford it? What happens if we discover too late that this is a big mistake?

Allen

Allen,
You've made an excellent point. Is anyone else as concerned as I am that the democrats have not submitted a budget in over three years. We are $16,000,000,000,000 in debt and rising. The feds are monetizing our debt to make things look good for the short term, but this spells economic collapse in the near future as the dollar will become worthless. If I am wrong in my assessment of the current economic situation of this country could someone please set me straight? I wish desperately to be wrong. There are too many good people in this town, too many kids who I love in my neighborhood and parents and friends that I care for, too many good hard working people in this country for this economy to collapse and no one to care about it.

Hi Katy,

I'm a Republican, but this isn't a partisan issue--certainly not anymore. Republicans have been complicit in agreeing to this spending (and some of them have been defeated for re-election because of it).

But then we hear how Republicans don't "compromise." They've been "compromising" for years and that's why we have a $16 Trillion debt and about $100 Trillion in other obligations and promises.

Both parties need to come together and STOP SPENDING. That is step one.

Step two could involve a tax increase (in my view) but only if the deficit is zero and the entire amount of the tax increase went to pay off the debt. In other words, STOP SPENDING.

I don't believe a lot of people understand (yet) why we must STOP SPENDING because the Democrats continue to propose spending programs, including new "stimulus" programs. They are not telling their constituents that we need to cut back. NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR THAT!!!

And the Democrats' voter base is largely comprised of people who receive benefits more than they pay taxes, and many of these people simply won't support anyone who doesn't keep the gravy train flowing.

Allen

Three thoughts:
1) wanna balance the budget? cut defense spending - 20% of the federal budget right there. US is 40% of worldwide military spending. Why?
2) the idea that lower marginal tax rates result in increased tax revenue (the Laffer curve) continues to poison our discussions, even thirty years after Reaganomics, and despite being discredited many times over. The Republicans I hear from aren't interested in a balanced budget, they just want lower taxes. All the Ryan/Romney "balanced" budget plans rely on magical thinking and future savings as yet undetermined.
3) debt is not the issue (if it were, interest rates would be much higher). The issue is a depressed economy. Austerity in the face of depression is a poor idea economically - we are repeating the mistakes of the 1930's.

Hi Chris,

1. We are the world's policeman, that's why. Should we or shouldn't we be? That's a topic for another post.

2. I disagree with your point. Lower tax rates result in more economic activity. It is common sense. But the economy is so complicated that we can't look at one event and declare a cause and effect. For example, if we lower tax rates and revenue decreases, would it have decreased more had we not taken that step? There is no way to know.

I suspect that conservatives believe that lower taxes encourages business growth and investment, and liberals believe the opposite. And I guess the ballot box will determine this issue, not us on this blog.

3. Debt IS the issue here. Interest rates are low because the federal government is controlling the rates. Look at Italy, Greece....even with the low US interest rates and our help, their rates are much higher than ours. But we can print money and people still believe in "the dollar" (as perhaps one of the few safe havens left).

If interest rates spike up unexpectedly--and they have no where to go but up, mind you--we are going to be in a world of hurt.

The problem Chris is not that we've had a period of nothing and now want austerity. Instead, we've had a period of wild, reckless spending and some want this to continue.

Allen

Paul Turner wrote: "Allen, with respect, you ask "What happens if we discover too late that this is a big mistake"(in reference to higher taxes for public service). Maybe it WON'T be a big mistake. We just don't know, but it's time to let the future answer that."

Paul, the issue is risk. We both know the "upsides" of stimulus spending. What about the downsides?

In your view, the downside is a worse economy because we don't have "growth."

In my view, the downside is a complete fiscal meltdown because any temporary growth will have to entail a double-whammy after the stimulus spending stops. We have to pay back our prior debts and obligations and then the extra stimulus spending on top of that.

Let me ask you to think about this in terms of a household budget. If you had income of $100k per year, spent $150k per year, and your credit card debt was $500k, but interest rates were near zero so you didn't have to worry about the debt for the moment, what would you do? Would you keep charging more on your credit card, because that is what you are advocating.

Allen

"Our national debt after all is an internal debt owed not only by the Nation but to the Nation. If our children have to pay interest on it they will pay that interest to themselves. A reasonable internal debt will not impoverish our children or put the Nation into bankruptcy." - FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, speech, May 22, 1939

And that is why it is different than household debt.

Chris:

1. Please stop personally attacking people with whom you disagree. Any further personal attacks and I will have to stop this dialog.

2. Our national debt is owed to both citizens and foreigners. In either case, it has to be repaid. To repay it, you need to cut spending or raise taxes. Right now, no payments are being made (and in fact the debt is growing fast) so when we start making payments is when the "pain" is going to come.

The pain is being delayed because interest rates are historically low and being kept there artificially. When will this end, as one day it must?

When it does end, do you think the US will not pay off its debts because it will be "paying interest to itself"?

If you think that is true, then I guess our national debt of $16 Trillion and growing is not a problem and it is no wonder then that borrowing more is an attractive option. Why not, since you don't think it ever needs to be repaid.

I'm sure there are many people who disagree with you, and hopefully they will all be voting in November.

Allen

Italy and Greece and soon France can't print their own money, so they aren't able to postpone paying off their debts.

The U.S. can print its own money, and its creditors don't seem to mind...yet.

But if interest rates rise, if inflation grows, if credit is cut off, if we start to cut the deficit or if we start to payoff the debt, things will change rapidly.

Do you think citizens and foreigners will continue to buy government bonds at 1% interest when we go back into recession or worse?

We are in the "eye of the storm" right now, sheltered only by countries in Europe who have gone a little further down the road and don't have some of the resources we have.

Our time is coming.

But let's keep borrowing and spending, what a great idea!!

Allen

Allen we can sense your frustration in trying to reason with Chris. It's not that liberals are wired differently; it's that much of the wiring in missing.

"Liberals feel; conservatives think."

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

One of the issues here is that the dollar is the worlds "reserve currency". Oil and gold and other items are priced only in dollars as it seems to be the most stable currency.
As the holder of the reserve currency, If we get into trouble with debt, we can and WILL simply print more money. Inflation ensues, which essentially acts as a tax that is levied upon everybody that spends money, rich and poor alike. But we can "print" our way out of trouble as the reserve currency. Thats why the dems aren't too upset with the huge debt we have. However, there is now a move afoot, internationally, to displace the dollar with the Yuan or a mixture of the Yuan and other curriences (a "basket currency"). IF this happens we are ....screwed. Our "internal debt" that Chris quotes FDR in poo-pooing, becomes REAL debt. and the interest rates shoot up...quite frankly all over the world, as everyone who holds dollars will suffer. And everyone is holding dollars. The Dem plan of "recovery" is dependedent on the dollar staying the reserve currency. ... It may not. (Que music from "Jaws")

"Please stop personally attacking people with whom you disagree." What did I say?

"Trying to compare the country's budget to a household budget shows a basic lack of understanding of economics. " is not a personal attack. Certainly less of one than saying I have missing wiring.

If bond purchasers were worried about future interest rates, it would be reflected in the market. Instead the market is telling us that it expects continued depression. I thought you conservatives trusted the market?

Michael, for more on countries inflating themselves out of debt and thereby crushing debt holders, I suggest "Famous Financial Fiascos" or "Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds". You don't require the reading but others here do... especially Jamie Eldridge.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

You didnt' say "you don't understand." Go back and re-read your comment. You are an engineer, I am an English major, so you'll have to trust me on this one.

We've been "using" monetary policy for years now, and it doesn't appear to be working too well. Why keep doing it, when we are very far in debt and running an annual deficit WITHOUT further stimulus spending.

The fact is that our borrowing and debt needs to be under control before private enterprise can help us dig us out...which is the "supply side" economics theory you so despise.

Spending more money to provide more stimulus is a potential short-term solution which only masks the underlying problem, which is a spending problem.

Allen

Allan, I am not advocating printing money and continued borrowing,...I am trying to explain the thinking that is going on in the LEFT side of this nations brain. I hope I am clear about what side of this argument I am on.
No, Eldridge and other spenders of other peoples money have it wrong, though it doesn't "feel" wrong to them. It feels "good" to them, just as any giving away of goods, money or services feels good to the giver.
Because of the way it makes them feel, they mistake feeling good for morally good, hence the sense of superiority and lofty moral justification in their arguments, and their quick use of ad hominum attacks found embedded within their reasoning. The right is "mean" and "greedy" because we feel strongly that consequences should follow behavior. Good behavior gets good consequences ( Example, stay in school, work hard, get married, be a good parent...usually results in being socially responsible and thriving in the marketplace of society) Bad behavior such as dropping out of school, getting arrested, doing drugs, fathering babies out of wedlock, will yield a person that is a failure at being a productive, successful citizen). When that natural correlation is interrupted by artificial safety nets that insulate bad behavior from its bad consequences, that behavior becomes a cancer that spreads throughout that society.
Pretty simple actually. No secret.

Hi Chris,

We all want to do what works, obviously. The problem is that when times were good, we continued to spend and borrow. Now that times are bad, that option is no longer available to us.

Taking one example, like WW2, is not "a lesson" that we can take to the bank. For example, the population made many sacrifices during WW2, like rationing. We were also outside of the war zone. We also didn't have 50% of the population paying no federal income taxes. So I don't think the lessons are necessarily transferrable.

Here is my question for you, Chris. Let's say we spend another $4 Trillion we don't have, and in the near future, we have a deficit of $1 Trillion, we have a debt of $20 Trillion, and we have Obamacare, which is the public takeover of our private sector healthcare.

And let's say interest rates are at a very reasonable 3%.

Tell me what scenario you envision for a prosperous economy while we have a budget surplus that allows us to make the interest and principle payments on our debt?

And how we can also put aside money to pay for the unfunded obligations we have also promised (another $100 Trillion, approx.)

I'd really like to know.

Allen

Allen,

Why can't we just rush headlong toward the abyss? Couldn't we ask Germany for rescue, as France will in a couple of years?

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

The public sector, (local, state, and federal) consumes 40% of GDP. It consumed 33% of GDP 12 years ago. 48% of Americans receive some sort of government handout. Record numbers of people are going on SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance) when they run out of unemployment benefits because they are unable to find work. Last month more Americans went on SSDI than found work. How is this going to 'grow' the economy? HP is going to lay off 30,000 workers. How is having 30,000 more people on unemployment going to 'grow' the economy? The economy grows when companies like HP as well as small businesses across this country are hiring, not when they're laying people off who subsequently receive money from the government and no longer pay taxes. From his posts it's obvious to me that Allen knows more about how all of this works than I do, but it would take a good deal of twisting and contorting the obvious to try to see this as anything but a disaster. But Jamie Eldridge and his associates think that it's just fine for those of us who are still paying an ever greater tax burden to have the hard earned money taken from us used for pornography and tattoos. Sorry, Chris, but your arguments don't hold water from where I'm standing. I've met Jamie. He's such a nice guy, but a person with integrity expects integrity of others. If you care about someone you set a high standard for them to reach, not a low one for them to fall to.

Thanks Katy for your comments.

Keep in mind, all of this is happening as the deficit continues each fiscal year, at over $1 trillion, and as no payments are made towards the debt, at $16 Trillion.

If interest rates eventually rise, interest payments on the debt could be one of our largest single annual expense, something we are currently avoiding entirely.

Instead, we artificially keep interest rates low, thereby hurting people who have saved money all their life and expected some modest return on their portfolio in their retirement.

A study that came out today said that state's budget deficits and unfunded obligations are also not being met, and they listed six or seven fiscal dangers for states. When the federal government starts to cut back (as it must), that will include state aid, which will put pressure on state and local governments as well.

Can we just keep spending and borrowing money? Seems quite foolish to me.

Allen

It's funny when you think about it. Liberals throw cutbacks to the police and fire departments in the faces of conservatives when they express concern for the deficit, but local governments pay for local police and fire departments, not the federal government, right? How do these same liberal democrats think that the police and fire departments will be payed for when we go bankrupt from the governmental waste and bloat? If the economy collapses what's to motivate any police officer or fire fighter to risk their safety for the sake of our community if we can't adequately pay them? How many people in Acton are capable of defending their own neighborhoods without the hardworking Members of Service who currently keep their streets safe? Fast and Furious released over 2,000 automatic weapons (that we know of) to drug cartels and thugs. How many of them are in Mexico? How many are in this country? Who do you suppose will be in charge if the economy collapses? Hoarding food won't protect you if society itself can't function anymore because you can no longer rely on people to behave ethically when they've been raised with no values to begin with. The thin edifice that holds our country together will quickly come apart in a country where the commander in chief seeks to divide us by race and income, and stirs up resentments, when we no longer have a stable functioning economy.

Hi Katy,

Acton has a Triple A Bond rating because of its ability to repay any loans it takes out. That is because we can raise property taxes (2.5% per year, plus overrides). We do get some federal and state monies to supplement our town and school budgets, but they are in the 10% range or less. (Some school districts are almost entirely funded by the state.)

Acton's very high property taxes ensure that we will continue to pay our staff. And as their salaries and benefits rise, taxpayers' tax bills will most probably rise with them.

The problem is not that the town will become insolvent, it is that the taxpayers will.

Allen

Thanks for explaining that to me, Allen. I thought that Obama was wrong when he made a comment about Republicans not wanting people to have fresh water if the feds don't get more money. Water is a municipal resource. I don't think that it comes from the federal government. There's something discomforting when politicians rely on the ignorance of the voters to make a point. If you have to lie to make a point you don't have a point to make.
If the tax payers are insolvent, then the town staff will no longer get payed as well as the folks living on government money.

This article illustrates that there are no savings realized in Obamacare.

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/medicaid-financial-burdens-continue-regardless-reform/2012-07-18

The future looks bleak indeed unless something is done to change course immediately.