Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2013 The Sandwich Democratic Town Committee
Linell Grundman brought to the attention of the Free Press an opinion piece written by Jim Butler of Falmouth that appeared in the Cape Cod Time yesterday, May 16th. The piece is entitled “We are the ones we’ve waited for” and chronicles the strength of the Party that was apparent at its May 3rd gathering at the Revere Hotel in Boston. It is definitely worth reading. Mr. Butler states in part:
This was not a bash-the-other-party bash, but rather a kind of celebration of the Democratic ideals and form of government that allow for candid and progressive discussion of the issues at hand, whose deliberation reflects the best America has to offer to not only the state, the nation and the world — but, most important, to the promise of the individual to be an integral part of our own governing apparatus.
You can access his opinion piece at: We are the ones
There seems to be a bit of “déjà vu all over again” happening with U.S. Senate Republican candidate Gabriel Gomez and his exploitation of the tax code. According to a piece in the Boston Globe on Thursday (May 16th) under the headline “Gomez failed to pay, appraiser says” the newspaper revealed that Mr. Gomez had sought and received a special tax break associated with historic preservation of homes or parts of homes.
In this case, Mr. Gomez had sought in 2005 a charitable deduction of over $280,000 associated with granting the National Architectural Trust rights to preserving the façade of his home. The Gómezes were granted the deduction but, according to the Globe report:
In 2011, federal prosecutors, citing findings by the Internal Revenue Service, said the National Architectural Trust had arranged for “unwarranted” claims by homeowners for huge deductions. The Department of Justice obtained a court injunction against some of the Trust’s practices.
As far back as early 2005, the IRS had listed preservation agreements such as the one the Gómezes signed with the trust as one of its ‘Dirty Dozen tax scams.”
While this particular arrangement was not challenged by the IRS it does seem a little manipulative of the tax code given that the town where the property is located had existing laws prohibiting alterations to the façade of historic properties like the one Gomez owns. To date Mr. Gomez has refused to release his 2005 federal returns, the year when he took the deduction. Sound familiar?
Just to make matters a little worse the main focus of the Globe story was on Mr. Gomez’s subsequent refusal to pay the fee of an appraiser he had hired to establish the value of the home’s façade. The fee was $1000 but Mr. Gomez refused to pay it because he did not like the valuation the appraiser had reported. Mr. Gomez hired another appraiser who came back with an assessment that was nearly $40,000 more than the first one. Who knew that you can refuse to pay for an appraisal because you don’t like the results?
Who knew that you could get a tax break for agreeing not to do what the law already prohibits you from doing? Mr. Gomez apparently did. Upon closer examination the otherwise compelling life story that Mr. Gomez has to offer voters may turn out to have more than a few cracks in its own façade.
The folks at Progressive Massachusetts have compiled a comparison of U.S. Senate candidates Ed Markey’s and Gabriel Gomez’s positions on a number of issues. Even for a newcomer to electoral politics Mr. Gomez seems to be hard to pin down on a whole host of issues, on many of which he seems to not have taken a position – at least publicly – that voters can find. For example, while Rep. Markey has a 92% rating from the National Education Association for his support of pro-education policies and supports the President’s “Race to the Top” initiative, Progressive Massachusetts has been unable to find any policy stands related to education on Mr. Gomez’s web site or in his public statements.
What we do know so far doesn’t look particular attractive to the policy stands of many voters across the state. For example, on the question of gun violence and public safety Mr. Gomez does not support universal background checks, a ban on assault weapons, or a ban on high capacity gun clips. Ed Markey supports all three initiatives. Click on Markey v. Gomez On The Issues to see the side by side comparison as it stands today from the Progressive Massachusetts viewpoint.
A front page story in the Boston Globe on May 12th presented stark evidence of just how far-reaching the negative impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case has become. Under the headline “They go to lead, but courting cash is now job 1” Globe writer Tracy Jan describes a truly depressing (for the health of our democracy) situation requiring newly elected members of Congress to spend significant amounts of their time “dialing for dollars.”
She wrote that “At a party-sponsored orientation session, the freshmen [Democrats]…were schooled in their party’s simple list of priorities for them. Raise money. Raise more. Win.” The freshmen were advised to spend at least 4 hours of each day on fundraising. In the sample or model schedule they were given they would spend 1-2 hours on constituent visits, 2 hours on committees or voting, 1 hour on strategic outreach, and 1 hour for “recharge” time. In other words, 40% of the sample 10-hour day was to be spent on fundraising – and that was the minimum!
Both political parties follow essentially the same procedures with similar demands on their elected representatives. They both maintain telemarketing style “boiler room” facilities in nearby buildings (fundraising is illegal on congressional grounds).
“The all-consuming quest for dollars is part of Washington’s permanent, intensely waged campaign for party dominance. It cuts deeply into the typical day of lawmakers, robbing them of time they could spend building relationships with colleagues, dealing with constituent problems, and delving into policy issues. It is a major contributor to party gridlock, and keeps lawmakers dependent on the good graces of lobbyists and other special interests seeking favor on Capitol Hill.”
Equally egregious in today’s political environment are the instant attacks on members of the opposite party aimed at setting them up for defeat in the next election, sometimes even before they are sworn into office on the heels of the last election. Newly elected Rep. Rodney Davis (R) of Illinois found his name on a Democratic “hit list” for 2014 two months before he was even sworn into office. Is there any question about why Washington is paralyzed?
All of this did not start with the now infamous Citizens United decision, but that decision flung open the doors to moneyed interests up and down the land and forced everyone to become almost obsessed with constant fundraising and constant campaigning. No wonder we do not see relationship building and effective governance at work in Washington, D.C. any longer. No wonder the influence of money has gotten totally out of control. Time for the American voter to take back the value of their votes and put an end to the unbridled influence of money on American democratic governance.
Follow Us!