McCain’s Opposition Research – Part 20


Via or from BuzzFeed comes an opposition research file compiled by the McCain campaign in 2008.  The document is 194 pages long.  Pages 27 – 34  had two documents of different font size, one overlaying the other.  This post begins  in the middle of page 58 and ends in the middle of page 63.

I have bolded the first word in each entry for ease of reading.

Romney Proposed Hiking State Campus Tuition And Fees Proposed $50 Million In Fee And Tuition Hikes.

“As part of an effort to save $150 million in the state education budget, the administration has proposed raising $50 million in new revenues from higher college fees and tuitions, and saving $100 million in administrative costs through consolidations.”

(John Monahan, “Cuts Would Run Gamut,” Telegram & Gazette, 2/27/03)

“Romney Estimated That Tuition Would Rise Between 5 And 15 Percent…”

(Michael Norton, “Romney Lays Out His Priorities In Budget That Barely Boosts Overall Spending,” State House News Service, 2/26/03)

 

In 2003, Romney Vetoed Annual Registration Fee For Sexual Offenders And Up To $750,000 To Cut Down On Backlog Of Sex Offenders Not Classified By State

 

Romney Vetoed New $75 Annual Fee For Sex Offender Registration – His Veto Was Overturned By The House.

“Beacon Hill lawmakers overturned Gov. Mitt Romney’s veto of $23 million in additional state aid to cities and towns … House lawmakers also overturned Romney’s veto of a new $75 annual fee for sex offenders when they renew their listing on the state’s sex offender registry. … Romney vetoed the fee, saying it would discourage sex offenders from renewing their registration.”

(Steve LeBlanc, “Legislature Restores State Aid To Local Communities, Sex Offender Fee,” The Associated Press, 7/8/03)

 

Romney Also Vetoed Up To $750,000 In Funding Aimed At Cutting Down Backlog Of Sex Offenders Not Yet Classified By State – Veto Overturned By House.

“Another section of the budget, also vetoed by Romney,would use up to $750,000 collected from the new [sex offender] fees to cut down on the current backlog of sex offenders yet to be classified by the state. The House overturned that veto too.”

(Steve LeBlanc, “Legislature Restores State Aid To Local Communities, Sex Offender Fee,”

The Associated Press, 7/8/03)

 

Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey (R) Disagreed With Romney Vetoes On Sex Offender Registration Fee And Classification Backlog Funds.

“[Healey] said she disagreed with Romney’s decision in 2003 to veto a $75 fee that would have been imposed on convicted sex offenders. She also said she disagreed with another veto to spend $750,000 collected from the fees to reduce a backlog of sex offenders waiting at the time to be classified by the state. The Legislature overrode those vetoes. … ‘No, I did not,’  Healey said when asked if she supported Romney’s vetoes.”

(Glen Johnson, “Healey Signs Sex Crimes Statute Extension Into Law,” The Associated Press, 9/21/06)

 

In November 2003, Investigation Found State Had Lost Track Of One-Third Of Worst Sex Offenders.

“The Romney administration plans to conduct a month long ‘intensive sweep’ for unregistered sex offenders using the

state police’s fugitive hunting squad, officials said yesterday. … [The] announcement comes in the wake of an investigation by Boston Herald and Fox 25 that found about one-third of Massachusetts’ high-risk offenders –categorized as Level 3 – are skirting the sex offender registry law by providing phony or outdated addresses to the state’s Sex Offender Registry Board.”

(Jack Meyers and Jonathan Wells, “Round ‘Em Up,” Boston Herald, 11/7/03)

 

Legislature Immediately – And Unanimously – Overturned Romney Veto Of $240,000 In Funding For Sex Offender Registry Board.

“Authorities would get an extra $240,000 this year to help track the state’s worst sex offenders, under a measure approved Thursday by the House, whose Democratic leaders took issue with criticism from Gov. Mitt Romney. The unanimous vote was an override of one of Romney’s vetoes … The vote comes days after an investigation by Boston Herald and WFXT-TV showed that Massachusetts has lost track of about one-third of its worst sex offenders because of false or outdated information about their home and work addresses.”

(Ken Maguire, “House Approves Funds To Track Sex Offenders,” The Associated Press, 11/6/03)

 

Romney Vetoed Provision Requiring Sexual Offenders To Pay $75 Registration Fee.

“Gov. Mitt Romney signed the state’s $23.8 billion budget into law on Thursday, but vetoed about $110 million dollars in spending that he deemed ineffective or wasteful. … Romney also got rid of a $75 fee that sexual offenders would have been required to pay when they registered with the state.”

(Theo Emery, “Governor Signs Budget, But Strips About $110Million,” The Associated Press, 6/30/05)

 

State Legislature Upheld Romney’s Veto.

“Lawmakers let stand Romney’s veto of a $75 fee that sexual offenders would have been required to pay when they registered with the state. The administration said the fee would have discouraged offenders from registering.”

(“House And Senate Override Romney Budget Vetoes,” The Associated Press, 7/20/05)

 

Weeks Before Leaving Office, Romney Again Cut The Budget Of The Sex Offender Registry Board.

“In a final splash before leaving the corner office, Gov. Mitt Romney yesterday slashed $425 million from the current year’s budget, saying the Legislature’s irresponsible spending left him no choice. … Included in Romney’s cuts are several items that Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey — who ran for governor on public safety issues — would likely have objected to prior to Election Day: funding for the state police crime lab, the Sex Offender Registry Board…”

(Rebecca Fater, “Romney Slashes State’s Spending,” The Berkshire Eagle, 11/11/06)

 

 

BUSH TAX CUTS 

 

(3 tables deleted in this section because they did not copy well.)

 

Romney Refused To Endorse Bush Tax Cuts, Now Embraces Them After Refusing To Endorse Bush Tax Cuts, Romney Now Making Them “A Central Part Of His Presidential Campaign.”

“After refusing to endorse President Bush’s tax cuts when he was governor, Mitt Romney has now made them a central part of his presidential campaign, stirring accusations that he is changing his position to appeal to GOP primary voters.”

(Casey Ross, “Mitt Changes Tax-Cut Tune,” Boston Herald, 2/8/07)

 

 

Romney Claims “I Supported” Bush Tax Cuts.

“McCain opposed President Bush’s tax cuts, Romney noted. ‘I supported them,’ the former governor said.”

(Lee Bandy, “Romney Targeting McCain,” The State [SC], 2/4/07)

 

Boston Herald:  Romney “Refused To Take A Position On Bush’s Massive, 10-Year Tax Cut Plan.”

“[R]omney spoke at the 10th annual legislative conference organized by U.S. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Lowell)and met with the Massachusetts delegation. … Congressional sources said that a point of contention arose when Romney refused to take a position on Bush’s massive, 10-year tax cut plan. Lawmakers told him that the state is unlikely to get the additional homeland security funds they and the governor are requesting because the money will go to the tax cut. But Romney would not discuss the matter, sources said.”

(Noelle Straub, “Romney Talks Policy With Bush Staffers, Mass. Delegation,” Boston Herald, 4/11/03)

 

 

Romney “Stunned” Massachusetts Congressmen In 2003 “Telling Them That He Would Not Publicly Support Bush’s Tax Cuts.”

“In 2003, Romney stunned a roomful of Bay State congressmen by telling them that he would not publicly support Bush’s tax cuts, which at the time formed the centerpiece of the president’s domestic agenda. He even said he was open to a federal gas tax hike.”

(Casey Ross, “Mitt Changes Tax-Cut Tune,” Boston Herald, 2/8/07)

 

 

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): “I was very pleased [Romney did not endorse the tax cuts] … Here you have afreshman governor refusing to endorse a tax cut presented by a Republican president at the height of hiswartime popularity.”

(Wayne Washington and Glen Johnson, “Romney Weighs In – Carefully – On Bush Tax-Cut Plan,”  The Boston Globe, 4/11/03)

 

Romney Said He Wouldn’t Be “Cheerleader” For Tax Relief Plan He Didn’t Agree With.

“According to the observer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Romney told the delegation that he ‘won’t be a cheerleader’ for proposals he doesn’t agree with, ‘but I have to keep a solid relationship with the White House.’”

(Wayne Washington and Glen Johnson, “Romney Weighs In – Carefully – On Bush Tax-Cut Plan,” The Boston Globe, 4/11/03)

 

“Shawn Feddeman, Romney’s Spokeswoman, Said The Governor Has Neither Endorsed Nor Opposed The Tax Cut Plan Because ‘It’s Just Not A State Matter.’”

(Wayne Washington and Glen Johnson, “Romney Weighs In –Carefully – On Bush Tax-Cut Plan,” The Boston Globe, 4/11/03)

 

“Since Taking Office … Romney Has Been Reluctant To Voice Support Or Opposition To The President’s Tax Cut Proposals.”

(Wayne Washington and Glen Johnson, “Romney Weighs In – Carefully – On Bush Tax-Cut Plan,” The Boston Globe, 4/11/03)

 

Romney Said He’d Let All-Democrat Congressional Delegation “Sort That Out.”

“Pressed further, [Romney]said, ‘I don’t wade into national politics. I will let our delegation sort that out.’”

(Wayne Washington and Glen Johnson,“Romney Weighs In – Carefully – On Bush Tax-Cut Plan,” The Boston Globe, 4/11/03)

JOBS AND ECONOMY 

 

Under Romney, Massachusetts Dramatically Underperformed The Nation In Terms Of Job Growth.

Massachusetts Added Roughly 32,000 Jobs During Romney’s Tenure.  Employees on seasonally adjusted non-farm payroll increased from 3,225,900 when Romney took office in January 2003 to 3,258,000 in December2006 – a net of approximately 32,100 more jobs, which represented an increase of slightly under 1.0% from Romney’s first month.

(Bureau Of Labor Statistics Website,www.bls.gov, Accessed 5/29/07)

 

 

During Same Time Period, The Rest Of The Country Added Over 6.9 Million Jobs – Roughly Five Times The Rate Of Massachusetts.

From January 2003 through December 2006, the U.S. economy grew from roughly130,256,000 non-farm jobs – seasonally adjusted – to roughly 137,167,000 jobs, an increase of 6,911,000 jobs, or5.3%.

(Bureau Of Labor Statistics Website,www.bls.gov, Accessed 5/29/07)

 

 

Former Gov. Michael Dukakis (D) Far Exceeded Romney’s Record On Creating Jobs Massachusetts Added Roughly 407,600 Jobs During Michael Dukakis’ Final Two Terms In Office, An Increase Of Nearly 16%.

Employees on seasonally adjusted non-farm payroll increased from 2,580,100 when Dukakis took office in January 1983 to 2,987,700 in December 1990 – a net of approximately 407,600 more jobs,which represented an increase of roughly 15.8% from Dukakis’s first month.

(Bureau Of Labor Statistics Website,www.bls.gov, Accessed 5/29/07)

 

ROMNEY ON MASSACHUSETTS BUDGET
Romney Often Touts Achievements On Budget Issues In Massachusetts, Fails To Tell Whole Story A Staple Of Romney’s Stump Remarks: “Mr. Romney, who said he inherited a $3 billion deficit when he became governor of Massachusetts, said he balanced the state budget without raising taxes or increasing debt.”
(Betsy Gilliland, “Romney Talks Of Challenges, Strengths,”
The Augusta [Ga.] Chronicle, 1/30/07)
Boston Globe: Romney Boasts About Budget Record “Incomplete And, In Some Ways, Inaccurate.”
“It is the first line on Governor Mitt Romney’s resume as a potential presidential candidate. He closed Massachusetts’$3 billion budget gap by cutting government waste instead of by raising taxes, he tells Republican audiences from New Hampshire to California. He says he saved money by shrinking the public workforce and eliminating superfluous agencies. And, Romney boasts, he protected education from the budget ax. … But his pitch includes some assertions and omissions that leave his audiences with an incomplete and, in some ways, inaccurate picture of what really happened here.”
(Scott Greenberger, “Romney Often Casts Himself As Budget Hero,” The Boston Globe,10/24/05)
Romney’s  “$3 Billion Deficit” Never Materialized Romney’s Oft-Referenced $3 Billion Deficit Never Materialized.
“[T]he $3 billion budget gap Romney cites never materialized. It was a prediction the administration and lawmakers made shortly after Romney took office in January 2003.”
(Scott Greenberger, “Romney Often Casts Himself As Budget Hero,” The Boston Globe, 10/24/05)
Eventual Revenue Numbers Show Romney Faced A Deficit Almost Half The Size He Claims.
“Even before Romney unveiled his budget proposal at the end of February 2003, the state Department of Revenue and outside analysts said the $3 billion figure was rooted in revenue projections that were much too low. Before the year was up, a windfall in capital gains taxes helped cut the $3 billion shortfall by about $1.3 billion.”
(Scott Greenberger,“Romney Often Casts Himself As Budget Hero,” The Boston Globe, 10/24/05)
Romney Left State Budget Unbalanced, Saddling His Successor With “Whopping” $1.3 Billion Deficit Romney Left Massachusetts With $1.3 Billion Deficit After His Term In Office.
“The [Patrick Administration’s]budget also resolves the whopping $1.3 billion deficit left by the Romney Administration.”
(Adrian Walker, Op-Ed, “A Numbers Roadshow,”  The Boston Globe, 3/1/07)
In November 2006, Romney Aides Were Privately Telling Incoming Governor To Expect Deficit As High As$1.1 Billion.
“Patrick aides said Romney administration officials had been painting a grim picture of state finances in private meetings last month and this month. In the Nov. 27 presentation to Patrick’s budget advisers, Romney aides projected a budget deficit for fiscal 2008, which begins in July, of between $400 million and $1.1 billion.”
(Andrea Estes and Michael Levenson, “State Could Face $1b Deficit In ‘07,” The Boston Globe, 12/30/06)
 Fitchburg Sentinel & Enterprise On Romney: “Precious Few Accomplishments … Looks Like State Lawmakers Will Face Another Deficit.”
“[H]e promised to finish the job he started. But in the end, he failed tolive up to that promise. … There’s no doubt Romney will tout his record as the Commonwealth’s chief executive,but he has precious few accomplishments to point to. The biggest thing Romney did was balance the state budget, even though it looks like state lawmakers will face another deficit in fiscal year 2008.”
(Editorial, “Romney Hasn’t Proven He Could Be President,” Sentinel & Enterprise [Fitchburg, MA], 1/7/07)
Romney’s Government “Reforms” Panned As Largely Ineffective Romney’s Vaunted Consolidation Of State Agencies “Saved Relatively Little Money.”
“In his out-of-state speeches, Romney suggests that the consolidation of state agencies was a major factor in closing the budget gap. But those changes saved relatively little money: Folding 16 human-services agencies into four, a change Romney often cites outside the state, saved about $7 million, according to the administration. Eliminating the

Metropolitan District Commission saved about $3.5 million, according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-funded nonprofit group that monitors state spending.”

(Scott Greenberger, “Romney Often Casts Himself As Budget Hero,”  The Boston Globe, 10/24/05)

 

 

Michael Widmer Of The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation:

“No Romney reform has saved any meaningful money. It’s all on the margins. The have no connection to the closing of the [budget] gap…”

(Scott Greenberger, “Romney Often Casts Himself As Budget Hero,” The Boston Globe, 10/24/05)

 

Romney’s Supposed “$2 Billion” In “Waste And Inefficiency … Didn’t Really Exist.”

“One year into his four-year term, Governor Romney has a long way to go to deliver on most of his campaign promises. Not long after taking office, he had to admit that the $2 billion in ‘waste and inefficiency’ he decried so often during the campaign didn’t really exist. And while he won the fight with the Legislature over holding the line on taxes, fees went up$500 million.”

(Tom Benner, “Romney Promises Collide With Reality,” The Patriot Ledger [Quincy, MA], 12/27/03)

 

STATE ECONOMY FALTERED UNDER “C.E.O. GOVERNOR

 

”Massachusetts Was Only State With Three Straight Years Of Shrinking Labor Force From 2003-05Massachusetts Labor Force Contracted By 1.7% Between 2003 And 2005 – Only State In Nation With Three Straight Years of Decline – While National Labor Force Expanded By 3.1%.

“In the most recent three years (2003-2005), the Massachusetts labor force contracted by 1.7%, and it was the only state in the nation to decline each year during this time period. The nation’s labor force expanded by 3.1%.”

(MassINC and Center For Labor Market Studies Report, “Mass Economy: The Labor Supply And Our Economic Future,” 12/06)

 

From 2000-05, Massachusetts Labor Force “Did Not Grow At All.”

“From 2000 to 2005, the Massachusetts resident labor force did not grow at all, while the national labor force grew by nearly 5%. On this measure, Massachusetts ranked 48th lowest among the 50 states.”

(MassINC and Center For Labor Market Studies Report, “Mass Economy: The Labor Supply And Our Economic Future,” 12/06)

 

State On Track For Fourth Consecutive Year Of Shrinking Labor Force, “Unprecedented For Massachusetts In The Post-World War II Era.”

“The most recent data suggest that the state might be heading for its fourth consecutive year of a shrinking labor force, which would be unprecedented for Massachusetts in the post-World War II era.”

(MassINC and Center For Labor Market Studies Report, “Mass Economy: The Labor Supply And Our Economic Future,” 12/06)

 

Massachusetts Is Only State In New England With No Labor Force Growth Since 2000.

“Since 2000, the labor force experiences of Massachusetts have contrasted sharply with the rest of New England. The Massachusetts labor force was the only one not to grow, while the labor forces in all the other New England states grew between 4.6% (CT) and 6.0% (VT).”

(MassINC and Center For Labor Market Studies Report, “Mass Economy: The Labor Supply And Our Economic Future,” 12/06)

 

Massachusetts Was Only State To Lose Population Two Years In A Row In Early Part Of Decade2003-05: Massachusetts Lost 120,000 Workers And 233,000 Residents.

“Between 2003 and 2005,Massachusetts exported 120,000 workers to other states. … From 2000 to 2005, the state lost, on net, 233,000residents to other states. In relative terms, the state lost 3.6% of its 2000 population. Relative to our state’s population, this level of out migration was the 2nd highest in the nation, trailing only New York.”

(MassINC and Center For Labor Market Studies Report, “Mass Economy: The Labor Supply And Our Economic Future,” 12/06)

 

“According To US Census Bureau Estimates, Massachusetts Is The Only State In The Nation To Lose Population For Two Years In A Row.”

(Common Wealth Magazine Website, “Common Wealth Agenda 2006: Demographic Change,”www.massinc.org, Accessed 2/4/06)

 

Massachusetts’ Leadership Of Modern Innovation Economy Threatened December 2006 Report Found That Massachusetts “Continues To Lose Its Grip As One Of The Nation’s Leaders” In Innovation Economy.

“Despite some promising signals of improvement, the Bay State innovation economy continues to lose its grip as one of the nation’s leaders, beset by competition from other states and outpourings of key workforce demographics, a new report finds. The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative’s innovation economy index says flattening federal assistance for research and development combined with the venture capital industry veering away from risky start-ups have reduced cash flow into the state’s economy, at the same time that other states work harder to compete for the same fund.”

(Jim O’Sullivan, “Study: Workforce Needs Still A Challenge For Innovation Sectors,” State House News Service, 12/18/06)

 

High-Tech Sector Lagging Behind:  “[T]he new report warns that Massachusetts lags in restoring high-wage jobs lost in the technology bust early this decade in key industry sectors. It also suggests that migration out of the state is undermining the size and quality of the high-technology workforce – leaving Massachusetts poorly equipped to capitalize on new technologies.”

(Robert Weisman, “Report Calls Mass. A New-Jobs Laggard,” The Boston Globe, 12/18/06)

 

Massachusetts’ Job Growth In Technology “Is Alarmingly Slow.”

“[E]ven though there are recent signs of a modest jobs recovery in some key clusters, the growth in employment in the majority of these clusters is alarmingly slow when compared to the other [leading technology states].”

(Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, “Index Of The Massachusetts Innovation Economy,”www.masstech.org, 12/06)

 

Massachusetts Innovation Economy “Is Burdened By Stagnant Employment Growth In Key Industry Clusters, Persistent Emigration, And A Progressively Limited Workforce.”

“The Massachusetts Innovation Economy is burdened by stagnant employment growth in key industry clusters, persistent emigration, and a progressively limited workforce. Massachusetts has rebounded more slowly than competing [leading technology states] in the aftermath of the 2001 economic downturn. The after effects of the post dot-com downturn have finally fully cleared and there is some promising evidence of an ongoing recovery. Yet this progress may prove to be fleeting unless the Commonwealth can respond to the challenge by maintaining adequate human resources with the skills to sustain and augment this growth.”

(Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, “Index Of The Massachusetts Innovation Economy,”www.masstech.org, 12/06)

 

Massachusetts Innovation Economy “Is Jeopardized By Pervasive Population Loss And A Genuine Concern About The Loss Of Key Skill Levels As Critically Important Demographic Groups Continue To Migrate Out-Of State.”

“The Massachusetts research and innovation infrastructure of world-class institutions and universities is steadfast, the venture capital community thrives, and emerging global markets hold great promise.But the fundamental element that has traditionally sustained the Massachusetts economy in times of uncertainty –a highly capable and available workforce – is jeopardized by pervasive population loss and a genuine concern about the loss of key skill levels as critically important demographic groups continue to migrate out-of state. As a result of this thinning workforce, Massachusetts may find itself sub-optimally equipped to capitalize on the next economic wave, whether fueled by advances in nanotechnology, the life sciences, the Web 2.0 and e-commerce,renewable energy, or other emerging industries or clusters.”

(Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, “Index Of The Massachusetts Innovation Economy,”www.masstech.org, 12/06)

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Politics

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: