Well, take heart, breakfast is the most important meal of the day.

Since when did "liberal interest groups" include the police? I think you're confusing liberalism with special interests.

When you talk about excess benefit packages for public employees, you should start with the 100% sick-time buyback policy of the Republican appointed boards in this state.

And don't underestimate the backlash to the negative (despicable would be a better word) advertising by the Healey campaign. They have gone to that playbook once too often, and its demise will be better for all of us in the future.

If you want to change the balance in the State, you must address the legislative branch, for it is such a strong majority it can override the Executive in most matters, and now it provides an excuse for inaction by the Governor. At least when Patrick is Governor there will not be that lame excuse to fall back on.

Meanwhile, the economy of Massachusetts has taken a big hit under Romney/Healey. There is negative real growth in the Gross State Product, unemployment exceeds the national average, the infrastructure is collapsing and the working class is leaving the area. This has happened with a reduction in the State income tax rate, which tends to discount that old Republican theory that tax reductions spur growth.

You are certainly correct that the national performance of the Republicans are a key factor in this race, and Romney has made that connection back to the State with his recent antics.

JP, you sound like a Deval Patrick publicist. First of all, the 200,000 people who have fled the state since 2001 started thinking about it long before Romney became governor. They did so because of the existing policies of a Democratic-controlled Legislature that squandered millions of dollars during the stock market boom in the late 1990s. The surpluses from capital gains were spent, rather than saved, and when the bubble burst, the Legislature was forced to raise taxes and fees by $3.2 billion in 2003. Since taking over, Romney has not been the business star he promised to be. However, the state has maintained its superior technological edge, exporting more goods overseas than ever before. While the job market is stagnant, the state has still recorded three straight years of budget surpluses in new tax revenues. Things aren't as dire as you paint them, and it's certainly not the fault of a Republican administration that can do very little to sustain a veto on Beacon Hill. This year, Democrats raided the surplus account for nearly $750 million to go on an election year spending spree that had nothing to do with improving infrastructure or education. Take heed, my friend. This is only the beginning of a new prosperity in Massachusetts — for special interest groups.
The police unions, believe it or not, are controlled by more liberal leaders than they are represented in the rank-in-file. But you are right. The public safety unions are a special interest group rather than a liberal society of wine drinkers.

JP, when did any Republican have any control over anything that went on in this state. These appointed boards are full of Democratic hacks that have been on them forever and the legislature passes bills to extend their terms just to prevent the governor from having control over them. They did that with Amarello before and were trying to extend him again when the tunnel collapsed. As far as the "negative" advertising goes, point out one falsehood in any of those ads. They are fact based and just because they hurt your candidate doesn't make them negative or despicable. She could have been a lot tougher with the ads. Deval has been getting advice from Dukakis and Billy Bulger and I would have hung that image on him and never let up on it, I may have even used the famous Dukakis tank photo for laughs. Finally, if you think people are leaving the state now in big numbers, watch what happens if Deval is elected and the spending spree starts. This is what hinders growth. I do however agree with you about the legislature, it is definitely time to clean house but as long as all that is paid attention to is how much money they bring to their districts, it will never change.

Jim, Deval Patrick is the only chance for "real" change in Massachusetts. This needs to become a two party state again. Without Republican governors to blame, the "donkeys" will get the full share of blame when things inevitably go south, like the middle class and business dollars.

Then, and only then, will the GOP have a chance to win enough seats in the legislature to create a true checks and balances system.

Hey Jim,

While you are correct about sick leave buy backs and to an extent longevity, there isn't a major problem with public pensions. Pension reform is a buzzword in the "You can't get what I don't get!" crowd. Most local retirement boards do very well on their own. A few badly managed boards without proper oversight are giving the majority a bad name.

Under the Republican "defined contribution" plan they would divide up all the pension funds into individual employee accounts costing more in fees to the individual investor. In addition that would take all the power away from retirement boards (local member investors) who together have the capital to be major investors in the market (which they are) and give it to private companies like Healey's husband's company for example.

Private financial companies see public employee investment funds as a major source of untapped revenues for themselves and are major contributors to the suppossed pension reform candidates. Needless to say this is not in the taxpayer's best interests, just a way to divide and conquer. The gains boards make with their investments reduce the public liability to the fund. Compounding interest makes lot more money the bigger amount you have in one place.

The real problem with pensions is the board oversight and formulas pensions are calculated on which allow loop holes for politicians, not the regular rank and file.

To get 80 percent in my classification group you need to work a minimum of 32 years and be at least 55 years old. Since most people don't come on the jobs at the young age of 23 (the average age is more like 30), they tend to retire in their mid sixties like most Americans. Anyone who is hired at age 34 or older never gets enough years of service to qualify for 80 percent anyways.

To get 80 percent you can't protect your spouse, so your pension dies with you. If you want to protect your spouse (something you get with Social Security) you have to take between 60 and 70 percent instead. By the way, public employees aren't allowed in social security. We have been excluded to save local government (the taxpayer)the cost of paying payroll taxes. Local goverment makes up only what the employee's contributions don't cover, the pension liability. This tends to fluctuate based on the state of the economy. The employee contribution rate is now at a manditory 9-10 percent weekly payroll deduction for anyone hired in the last 15 years and will be that rate or higher from here on out. Some employees pay even more. The ones that pay less are decreasing every year.

Lowell's pension fund for example is solid and close to self sufficient. In addition if you worked in the private sector and earned enough social security quarters before taking a public sector job, your social security amount is capped, so you don't realize a return on what you paid in (I wonder where that money goes?). You don't get credit with social security for public pension fund contributions. These factors prevent most people from leaving the public sector for other employment.

Public employees know where the problem is. It is with politicians who get credited full years of full time service for serving on part time boards or commissions. At the end they get a job for 3 years on the public payroll say at Massport, the Pike, UMass or a Sheriff's Office to get their three best years and get a good pension, despite not working their careers full time in public service. The other method is to be a state rep, make a decent middle class salary, build up your political base and then pull a Billy Bulger, go to UMass for a few years and cash out at over $100,000 per year.

If full time employment was the condition for creditable years of service you wouldn't see politicians cashing out at the end of their careers on money they didn't pay into the system. Make full time employment and true salary a condition of the pension equation so people who earn their pensions serving the public their whole lives don't pay for the johnny come lately who takes from the system.

Politicians benefit the most from the loopholes and their campaign contributors benefit most from the proposed changes. Anyone see them stepping up to the plate to cut their own pay or campaing accounts lately?

Me Neither,
Smokey

Smokey, thanks for the classroom instruction on public pensions, but why should I, Jim Q. Public, contribute to your pension? My tax dollars are supporting it, whereas I have to fund my own 401K at work. Teachers pay about 11 percent of their salaries into their pension fund. Who pays the rest? Plus, when things go badly in my household, I have to hold back on my 401K contribution to pay the bills, or a college education bill. Do public servants have to worry? No. You are right about a lot of things, but public servants should take care of their pensions just like I have to.

"...and it's certainly not the fault of a Republican administration that can do very little to sustain a veto on Beacon Hill."---jim c

You make my point. If you want to change that lame excuse, you must get a more balanced legislature.

Jim,

Apparently you don't get it. The government is an employer just like any other. Obviously most companies have stopped giving traditional pension plans. Generally pension plans only pay full salary in the time between the day you retire and the day social security kicks in, when they then make up the difference of your salary. That's the way pensions worked for my grandparent's companies. Today most people work as late as they have to until they get social security. If they have invested in retirement accounts, usually with employer contributions, they may be able to retire earlier or have additional income drawing on their accounts on top of social security.

Everyone in the private sector pays into and receives benefits from social security, but public pensioners are excluded. I will never get social security. There is little difference between the two systems, though they are separate. We pay our percentage into the public pension fund like everyone else pays into social security. You aren't contributing to my 401k account. Taxpayers make up the difference to those actually on a pension today, same as social security. People don't tend to live as long retired as they do paying into the system, that accounts for some of the difference too. In fact as the public pension system goes on, it continues to grow thus decreasing the taxpayer's contribution to the system. It is essentially a large annuity. You can't say that about social security.

Just like you pay out on top of your social security if we want a 401K we also pay out extra on top of what we pay out into our manditory pension contribution. We don't get any employer contribution like most companies provide their employees. You can't stop paying social security and we can't stop paying into the pension fund. We aren't getting any special treatment. The jobs with earlier retirement ages (55) tend to be the ones that are physically demanding. Studies have proven public safety workers die earlier based on job exposures. So at least we try to save you some money there.

I'm sure you have a very difficult life in the private sector making all these sacrifices for the public employees. It seems to me you think your life is so much harder than those of us who work in the public sector. Our bills are the same as anyone else's. Please get over yourself. I haven't seen the Sun laying off editors lately.

If you don't believe in taxpayer supported money for retirement will you be refusing your social security benefits or would you prefer to see the system eliminated all together and just let everyone fend for themselves?

Smokey

I can sum up in three words why healey is losing and its Romney and healey's fault!

Higher property taxes

Michael, please explain how Romney and Healey made property taxes go up. By that statement I assume that you're a supporter of Deval Patrick. Do you really believe that he has any interest in lowering property taxes? If he was truly sincere about this would the teachers and police unions be backing him?

Jack C, it is pretty obvious where your loyalties lie as well. If you take the approximately $650M that has been offered by Healey with the income tax reduction, there is a good amount to be used for the added police and property tax relief. To the average citizen, 0.3% in income tax reduction may mean about $150, whereas someone like Kerry Healey would save $15,000, as Mihos has pointed out. Look at how the city of Lowell reserves have dwindled with the local aid cutbacks under Romney/Healey, from over $17M to nearly nothing now. Look at how fees have been added and raised to cover the cost of government in the past few years. The difference seems to be in the method of taxation, and which element of the population is most affected by the changes. At least the income tax hits the higher earner in proportion to his ability to pay, whereas the property tax can be onerous to those on fixed and limited income.

JP, that sounds like it's right out of of Deval's campaign literature but you REALLY can't believe that property taxes will drop at all because of Deval Patrick's policies. For that to happen, cities and towns would have to say that have enough money and don't need more. When does that ever happen.

Well, Lowell appears to have a City Manager that is active in reducing wasteful spending, I would like to see him have the chance to reduce the property tax with some better State aid.