Joe Biden: Not a Certified Public Accountant

How should the United States government avoid bankruptcy and national financial humilation?

"Spend more money."

It'd almost be funny if it wasn't so true, and if he wasn't the Vice-President.

Congressman Lynch Holding Out on Health Care

US Congressman Stephen Lynch (D-South Boston) is taking some heat from unions and liberal/progressive activists because of his supposed lack of endorsement for President Obama's health care overhauls. Says Massachusetts SEIU Political Director Harris Gruman:

“He’s out of step with the (Massachusetts congressional) delegation and his party.”

The SEIU's reaction? They're going to picket Lynch's South Boston office.

Now, you may be asking why Lynch has yet to endorse the Obama plan, and that is an excellent question, in which Lynch had this to say:

"[I'm] waiting to take formal stands until [I] sees an actual reform bill...There’s nothing in writing and no bill filed...I want to know how it will be paid for...[I have] similar concerns about the employer-mandate and legal-immigrant proposals."

Well, goodness gracious me! A Congressman that is actually waiting to see financial reports, details, and specifics about something before committing to it outright? What a novel concept!

I'm not a Democrat, but I just may write a check to Lynch's campaign fund on principle alone.

How Should We Question Judges?

In light of Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearings going on in Washington, some are revisiting recent confirmation hearings and how potential nominees to the Court are questioned, proposing potentially better ways in which we can question possible Supreme Court appointees:

Clauses, not cases.

How the United States Congress is Ruining America

Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe this past Sunday outlines how our US Senators and Members of Congress are shirking their responsibilities to us, their constituents, because rarely do they read bills they are voting on, nor do they necessarily know what is even in the bills they are voting on:

Congress frequently votes on huge and complex bills that few if any members of the House or Senate has read through. They couldn’t read them even if they wanted to, since it is not unusual for legislation to be put to a vote just hours after the text is made available to lawmakers. Congress passed the gigantic, $787 billion “stimulus’’ bill in February - the largest spending bill in history - after having had only 13 hours to master its 1,100 pages. A 300-page amendment was added to Waxman-Markey, the mammoth cap-and-trade energy bill, at 3 a.m. on the day the bill was to be voted on by the House.

And that wasn’t the worst of it, as law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University noted in National Review Online:

“When Waxman-Markey finally hit the floor, there was no actual bill. Not one single copy of the full legislation that would, hours later, be subject to a final vote was available to members of the House. The text made available to some members of Congress still had ‘placeholders’ - blank provisions to be filled in by subsequent language.’’

Ramming legislation through Congress so quickly that neither lawmakers nor voters have time to read and digest it is a bipartisan crime; Republicans have been as guilty of it as Democrats. The 341-page Patriot Act, to mention just one notorious example, was introduced in the Republican-controlled House on Oct. 23, 2001, brought to a vote on Oct. 24, adopted by the Democratic-controlled Senate on Oct. 25, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on Oct. 26.

And what do our Representatives think about the prospect of reading bills in their entirety before voting on them?

Steny Hoyer thought it was hilarious.

Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, is the majority leader in the House of Representatives. At a news conference last week, he was talking about the healthcare overhaul being drafted on Capitol Hill, and a reporter asked whether he would support a pledge committing members of Congress to read the bill before voting on it, and to make the full text of the legislation available to the public online for 72 hours before the vote takes place.

That, reported CNSNews, gave Hoyer the giggles: The majority leader “found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. ‘I’m laughing because . . . I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,’ he said.’’

Then came one of those classic Washington gaffes that Michael Kinsley famously defined as “when a politician tells the truth.’’ Hoyer conceded that if lawmakers had to carefully study the bill ahead of time, they would never vote for it. “If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,’’ he said. The majority leader was declaring, in other words, that it is more important for Congress to pass the bill than to understand it.

This is the same Steny Hoyer who stated on "20/20" to John Stossel that even if the economic stimulus package passed by Congress was the wrong way to address the economic slowdown, we had to do it because it's "what the people wanted" and "we live in a democracy."

Clearly a man lacking any leadership qualities.

So why is it important that Members of Congress know what they are voting on? Again, Mr. Jacoby:

Senators and representatives who vote on bills they haven’t read and don’t understand betray their constituents’ trust. It is no excuse to say that Congress would get much less done if every member took the time to read every bill. Fewer and shorter laws more carefully thought through would be a vast improvement over today’s massive bills, which are assembled in the dark and enacted in haste. Steny Hoyer chortles at the thought of asking members of Congress to do their job properly. It’s up to voters to wipe the grin off his face.

Those of you looking for more information on these issues can find it at ReadtheBill.org, Let Freedom Ring and Downsize DC.

"Take Out The Trash" Friday

I'm going to play around with a new feature that I hope will allow me to comment on, or at least bring to any reader's attention, anything that caught my eye during the week but which I did not have time to comment on because of work or school commitments. (And as classes resume next month, I reckon this new feature will become much more frequent).

So, without further adieu...

Editors at The Volokh Conspiracy have a brief but excellent post of Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley's challenge in federal court to DOMA. (As a side note, I find it amazing how liberals/progressives re-fall-in-love with limits on Congressional power and states’ rights under the 10th Amendment when they realize that unthwarted Congressional over-reach/power can trump their sacred cow issues just as easily as it can promote them.)

----------

Yahoo and Politco have extensive analysis (okay, well really more Politico) on the Blue Dog revolt against a public health care option in the House (unless, of course, some of their demands are met beforehand relating to the massive, overall costs).

----------

The New York State Senate stalemate that began last month when two Democrats broke with their caucus and switched to vote with the Republicans has (finally) resolved itself after the two dissident (New York City) Democrats came to their senses, realized they weren't really Republicans, and defected back to the Democratic caucus. What finally got the last dissident Democrat to come back to the Democratic fold after being named Senate President by the Republicans? The Democrats let him be their new majority leader. Shrewed, much? (More from CBS New York Radio and the WSJ.)

----------

A Boston Magazine article assserts that former (and indicted) House Speaker Sal DiMasi may have begun taking bribes as Speaker because he was having financial difficulties while trying to help his in-laws. While if true this would make one feel sympathetic to Sal for having financial troubles, but I still can't feel bad for him for taking bribes. The correct thing to do would have been to resign and return to practicing law to earn more money (and let's face it: it's not as if he would have been lacking in job offers).

Maybe it's not as good to be the King as Mel Brooks once famously claimed.



----------

Politifact takes a closer look at the supposedly 62% support for Obama's health care plans.

----------

Politico outlines what they think may be a Republican comeback in the making for 2010 and beyond. I'll believe it when I see it.

----------

The IRS wants to tax your cell phone as a "fringe benefit." No, seriously, they do.

----------

Obama is a fan of the Badonkadonk -- but really, who isn't, am I right?

----------

Reason Magazine has a great article detailing how classical liberalism helped bolster the Civil Rights movement in America and how the same is the best way to help abolish racism and poverty today.

Racism in 2009?

By now, it is likely just about everyone in the United States has heard of the apparently awful racist incident outside of Philadelphia where a large group of black campers were told to leave a privately owned swimming pool (in which the campers had rented) because, apparently, they were black.

"I heard this lady, she was like, 'Uh, what are all these black kids doing here?' She's like, 'I'm scared they might do something to my child,'" said camper Dymire Baylor.

According to some accounts, club members who enforced the removal of the campers from the club had this to say:

"There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club," John Duesler, President of The Valley Swim Club said in a statement.

Yeah, not looking good. A parent of a camper had this to say:

"When the minority children got in the pool all of the Caucasian children immediately exited the pool," Horace Gibson, parent of a day camp child, wrote in an email. "The pool attendants came and told the black children that they did not allow minorities in the club and needed the children to leave immediately."

So could this really have happened, in 2009? Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying racism exists in our country; however, I cannot imagine any business, club, or other commerical enterprise private or public would actually try to basically enforce racial segregation in the 21st century. It'd literally be professional suicide. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen, though.

On a related note, something like this could have been what was on the mind of the woman who Mr. Baylor quoted above:

Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation.

But to Marty Marshall, his wife and two kids, it seems pretty clear.

It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend's home in South Akron.

Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ''This is our world'' and ''This is a black world'' as they confronted Marshall and his family.

The Marshalls, who are white, say the crowd of teens who attacked them and two friends June 27 on Girard Street numbered close to 50. The teens were all black.

They said it started when one teen, without any words or warning, blindsided and assaulted Marshall's friend as he stood outside with the others.

When Marshall, 39, jumped in, he found himself being attacked by the growing group of teens.

His daughter, Rachel, 15, who weighs about 90 pounds, tried to come to his rescue. The teens pushed her to the ground.

His wife, Yvonne, pushed their son, Donald, 14, into bushes to keep him protected.

''My thing is,'' Marshall said, ''I didn't want this, but I was in fear for my wife, my kids and my friends. I felt I had to stay out there to protect them, because those guys were just jumping, swinging fists and everything.

''I'm lucky. They didn't break my ribs or bruise my ribs. I thank God, they concentrated on my thick head because I do have one. They were trying to take my head off my spine, basically.''

After several minutes of punches and kicks, the attack ended and the group ran off. The Marshalls' two adult male friends were not seriously hurt.

Let there be no mistake: racism is alive in the United States, but I do not believe it is rampant. I just believe that for every act of racism you can find making one group look bad, you can find another example making the victims of the first crime look like the thugs in the next, and vice-versa. The bottom line is that not everyone is going to like each other in our society; we cannot change that. But what we can do is act like civilized people.

I'm not holding my breath.

Do Liberals and Conservatives Agree on Anything in the Bill of Rights?

At first glance, you may think not. But the editors at Reason.tv have apparently found common ground between these two seemingly irreconcilable philosophies:

The Problem With Federal Income Taxes

Our federal tax code in the United States needs to be simplified and needs its base of taxpayers broadened if we as a nation are going to regain fiscal health and responsibility in the future.

Currently, 40% of Americans pay almost all (99%) of all federal income taxes. Ari Fleischer explains in the Wall Street Journal:

[You] find 100 people standing on the sidewalk. Forty of them will be excused from paying income taxes thanks to Congress. Twenty of them, the middle class, will pay barely a thing. The 40 people who remain, the upper middle class and the wealthy, will pay nearly all of the income taxes.

Look at that crowd again and find the richest person there. That individual will pay 37% of all the income taxes owed by those 100 people. The 10 richest people in the crowd will pay 71% of the income-tax bill. The 40 most successful people will pay 99% of everyone's income taxes. Yet for some lawmakers in Washington, these taxpayers aren't paying enough.

Fleischer follows this up with a CBO report, citing the data:

According to a recent study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, those who make more than $43,200 (the top 40%) pay 99.1% of all income taxes, the taxes that support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, for example, fund the federal portion of transportation, education, environmental and welfare spending.

Those who made more than $87,300 in 2004, the top 10%, paid 70.8% of all income taxes, an increase from their share of 48.1% in 1979. Think about it. Ten percent pay seven out of every 10 dollars and their share of the burden is rising...

The combination of across the board marginal income tax rate cuts and repeated expansions of the earned income tax credit (EITC) for lower-income Americans has created this situation in which fewer people are responsible for paying more and more of the income tax...

The EITC program redistributes money from those who pay income taxes to 22 million families and individuals with incomes less than $36,348. These workers not only don't have to pay any income tax, they're given a government check as a subsidy to help make ends meet. The EITC is also designed to relieve them of the cost of paying for their share of Social Security and Medicare.

If Republicans, including their presidential candidates, wonder why their calls for tax relief don't resonate like they used to, it's because there aren't that many income taxpayers left. They've been taken off the rolls.

As for the Democrats, they historically have raised taxes and redistributed income as a core philosophy. It doesn't matter to them how much money some people pay -- the argument is that the wealthy can always pay more. According to this point of view, it's immaterial that the tax code is highly progressive; it can always be made more progressive. While raising taxes on the few to benefit the many might be a political winner, it's an increasingly risky policy to pursue.

If, as now happens, 60% of the people in our democracy can force 40% to pay the bills, what's to stop 65% from making 35% pay it all? Since no one wants to pay taxes, what's to stop 90% of people in a democracy from making 10% pay it all? Or why not let 99% of the country off the hook, as long as the remaining 1% picks up the tab?

In another article for the WSJ, Fleischer further explains why this is a problem:

Picture an upside-down pyramid with its narrow tip at the bottom and its base on top. The only way the pyramid can stand is by spinning fast enough or by having a wide enough tip so it won't fall down. The federal version of this spinning top is the tax code; the government collects its money almost entirely from the people at the narrow tip and then gives it to the people at the wider side. So long as the pyramid spins, the system can work. If it slows down enough, it falls.

Furthermore, Fleischer argues, the myriad of tax credits handed out to seemingly everyone, for any reason, is also cause for alarm:

In addition to exempting almost 50% of the country from income taxes, today nearly every other social cause is given a loophole -- or a preference -- in the tax code. Want to buy a hybrid vehicle? You get a tax break. Do you own a solar water heater? You get a credit. Want to give to charity? You get a deduction. Own a house? There's another tax deduction for you. How about college savings, certain medical costs, and retirement savings? Yes, yes, and of course yes. Did you move, pay alimony, or "provide housing to a Midwestern displaced individual"? More deductions, credits and exemptions there too, if you qualify.

Everyone now has a sacred cow in the tax code. For my money, the most sacred thing of all is our country and its growth, but the sacred cows have turned into a pack of wolves. On both the spending and the tax side, the wolves are devouring our children's future.

The solution? A system where everyone in society pays taxes. Again, Mr. Fleischer:

A certain amount of income redistribution in a capitalistic society is healthy, but this goes too far. The economic and moral problem is that when 50% of the country gets benefits without paying for them and an increasingly smaller number of taxpayers foot the bill, the spinning triangle will no longer be able to support itself. Eventually, it will spin so slowly that it falls down, especially when the economy is contracting and the number of wealthy taxpayers is in sharp decline.

Under an Economic Growth Code, everyone in American would pay income taxes -- everyone. Such a system would be designed to foster broad-based growth for all, in contrast to the loophole-ridden system we have today. Not only is the current code flawed from top to bottom, it is used by politicians to divide the public along class lines and fails to promote prosperity.

Growth is the key to keeping the pyramid spinning, and to keep spinning the pyramid's tip needs to be broadened. Otherwise a country that was raised to believe that national bankruptcy happened elsewhere may have to think again. Given the state of the economy and trillion-dollar deficits projected as far as the eye can see, we need to return to an era of more conservative, fiscal discipline.

And just how, exactly, should such a system be implemented? Glad you asked:

Congress should start by refusing to go along with Mr. Obama's promise to cut taxes for 95% of the country. With the government running an almost $2 trillion deficit, no one should have their taxes cut -- no one. Given the size of the deficit, fiscal responsibility demands nothing less.

Republicans in Congress need to develop their own version of an Economic Growth Code, an alternative tax code that directly targets the current mess and helps us to grow our way out of it. Republicans should not doodle in the margins -- they should use their minority status to launch the next big movement in policy and politics. Nothing creates revenue like growth and that's where Republicans should make their mark.

I favor the abolition of all Social Security, Medicare and estate taxes. In their place, we should create a simple income tax system that has no deductions or credits at all. The result would be a progressive, multi tiered income tax in which everyone pays. The bottom 50% won't be excused from paying the cost of government and top earners will no longer have the loopholes they're used to. The middle-class, whose wages have stagnated, will benefit from economic growth. Social Security and Medicare will be funded from income taxes, ending the myth that these programs are supported through government trust funds and payroll taxes. The tax base will broaden dramatically, allowing rates to fall and helping to foster what's most important -- economic growth.

I'd also create a mechanism so tax rates go up or down for everyone -- no more dividing the country by lowering taxes for some or raising them only for others. A revenue system whose purpose is to pay the government's bills should apply fairly to one and all. If Congress wants to raise or cut taxes, it should do so for everyone.

Another benefit is that such a system will create an environment in which spending programs receive the scrutiny they deserve. It's funny what happens when everyone pays the bills; Americans may want less spending so they can pay fewer bills.

I could not agree more with this assessment. Progressive taxation is one thing, and that's fine. But exempting huge swaths of the nation from taxation is simply wrong and, more importantly, unsustainable. I've mentioned before on this blog the looming bankruptcy of the United States, and this is one of the reasons why the US is financially unstable (the other reason being unsustainable spending habits).

The goal of a tax system should be to generate revenue for the general operation of the government (and by extension, society at large). Taxation should generally not be used to punish certain segments of the population (such as the Estate/Death Tax, which taxes savings/wealth that has already been taxed several times via the income tax, sales taxes, property taxes, etc); however, I do not discount the right of the state to tax certain things that they may want people to engage in less often (such as smoking cigarettes, for example).

Tax credits only confuse and complicate something that should be simple and straightforward for everyone and not only easily understood, by easily complied with. And everyone should pay.

When I worked for the state legislature, I proposed to my boss a new income tax system for the state which would have brought relief to lower income individuals, more revenue to the state's coffers, and simplicity to the tax code, all while giving voters important checks and balances against the powers of the Commonwealth. My rough draft was as follows:

The state should impose a simple progressive bracket structure, as follows:

$0 - $24,999: 2%
$25,000 - $49,999: 4%
$50,000 - $74,999: 6%
$75,000 - $99,999: 8%
$100,000 - greater: 10%

These numbers and rates are/were only a rough draft/brainstorming starting point and open to revision. For example, rates could be sctructured in this way as well:

$0 - $34,999: 1%
$35,000 - $69,999: 2.5%
$70,000 - $99,999: 5%
$100,000 - $149,999: 7.5%
$150,000 - greater: 10%

The basic point of this system was/is to provide relief to those who do not make a lot of money while keeping revenue income to the state neutral or in the black, and at the same time not discouraging growth and investment by the more affluent in the Commonwealth. As importantly, such rates are not burdensome or morally unfair to the more productive members of society, who are so often punished under the federal tax code, with rates currently at 35% (but which have been 90% in decades past, which is basically government sanctioned theft).

Many would reject such a system out of hand, especially in "progressive" Massachusetts, because as "progressive" as our citizens are, we have a strong anti-tax streak, epecially since our elected leaders saddled us with the "Taxachusetts" moniker during the days of Dukakis. To avoid a repeat of tax-happy legislators dolling out taxpayer dollars at will, a few simple checks and balances would help to keep order to the system. First, any increase or decrease in one bracket would automatically trigger a corresponding increase or decrease in the other brackets. This could be done on a one-for-one basis or on a proportional basis. This would ensure that our elected officials could not play class warfare, pitting one bracket against the others (as Congress and our political parties do on a regular basis). Second, any increase or decrease approved by the Legislature would be subject to voter approval at the next general election. The tax could take effect immediately upon passage by the Legislature, and then either be affirmed or rejected during the subsequent vote. If affirmed, then life would go on as normal. If rejected, then the tax would revert back to the previous rate.

These checks on the powers of the Legislature by the people would not only ensure that each member of society had a stake in the fight, but also ensures that the people would have the fate of their own wallets in their hands, and could blame no one but themselves for their own governmental financial fortunes. Furthermore, it would force elected leaders to stop forcing unfunded mandates and large bureaucracies onto the backs of the voters by forcing them to cut funding to various special interest sacred cows with small but powerful constituencies.

Personal responsibility has a nice civic ring to it, doesn't it?

This could not only work on the state level, but I believe it could work on the national level as well, with some variations. The bottom line is that we as a society need to have more of a stake in our government's operations at all levels, and hold leaders accountable for their actions with our money. Keeping the nation on autopilot will only lead to disaster in the long term. Without positive fiscal health and balanced books, almost nothing else really matters policy wise.

Police Corruption and Brutality Becoming the New National Pastime

Right from Springfield, MA, comes the heartwarming tale of two police officers who are accused of stealing the cashed paychecks of immigrants during a traffic stop (a traffic stop in which the police claimed they wrote a ticket for, yet never reported to headquarters):

[The officers] are accused of taking about $2,000 during a traffic stop on Hancock Street on June 27, 2008, from the wallets of three men who were returning from tobacco work with their cashed paychecks.

Asked why he did not fill out the sections on the citation where the officer is supposed to put the race of the driver and the gender, he said, "It was a very stupid mistake."

All three men who said their pay was stolen testified that they only saw Buzzell search the car after their wallets were thrown on the car seats when they were searched and taken out of the car.

The prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Stephen E. Spelman introduced into evidence a "special" report written by Matos at his commanding officer's request on the night of the incident.

Matos acknowledged that he wrote in that statement that "we had them all sit at the rear of the motor vehicle." Matos had testified that Buzzell had put Marcoantonio Gomez in the back of the police cruiser, while the other two men were told to sit on the sidewalk.

The last prosecution witness was Deputy Police Chief Robert T. McFarlin, who testified that officers are required to alert police dispatch to any traffic stops made for safety and other reasons. Testimony has shown Buzzell and Matos did not call the traffic stop in to dispatch. Officers fail to follow the requirement on a regular basis, McFarlin said.

Yes, you read that right. Fake police reports, failing to properly follow procedures and rules on a regular basis (you know, like us civilians are supposed to follow the law?). Ah yes, all in a day's hard, heroic work. I'll admit it, I was wrong to judge you all with a such broad brush over that whole pension loophole thing; you all deserve your bloated, inflated, unearned tens of thousands in taxpayer funded pensions.

Oh, what's that you say? There are more examples, from the heartland, you say? Indeed, this report from CATO literally tells of how almost an entire police department was involved in the dramatic and severe mob beating of a man for no particular reason, other than he may have offended an off-duty officer at a house-warming party. From the writing of the Seventh Circuit's Judge Easterbrook:

Men punched Jude’s face and torso; when he fell to the ground, they kicked his head and thighs. The partygoers behaved as a mob. Not a single person in the house tried to stop the attack or even to call for aid. Jon Clausing, who had slashed Harris’s face, explained his conduct as “just kind of going along with everybody.” That is the way of the mob. Society has police forces to pose a counterweight to mobs, yet here the police became a mob.

Schabel and Martinez were on duty and had not been drinking, so they should have put a stop to the violence. Instead Schabel joined it, while Martinez watched. On being told that Jude had stolen Spengler’s badge, Schabel called Jude a “motherfucker” and stomped on his face until others could hear bones breaking. After telling Martinez “I’m really sorry you have to see this,” Daniel Masarik picked Jude off the ground and kicked him in the crotch so hard that his body left the ground. Jon Bartlett then took one of Schabel’s pens and pressed it into each of Jude’s ear canals, causing severe injury and excruciating pain. The men also broke two of Jude’s fingers by bending them back until they snapped. Spengler put a gun to Jude’s head and said: “I’m the fucking police. I can do whatever I want to do. I could kill you.” Bartlett used a knife to cut off Jude’s jacket and pants, leaving him naked on the street in a pool of his own blood.

Concluding, Judge Easterbrook writes, “The distance between civilization and barbarity, and the time needed to pass from one state to the other, is depressingly short.”

How true it is.

Cahill an Independent

State Treasurer Tim Cahill (D-Quincy) has announced he will officially leave the Democratic Party this week and register as Unenrolled, a first sign that he is planning to run for governor against Deval Patrick as an independent.

State Treasurer Tim Cahill this week will change his political party designation from Democrat to unenrolled, the first step in mounting an independent challenge to Democratic governor Deval Patrick in the 2010 general election, two advisers said today.

Cahill, a lifelong Democrat who has served as treasurer since 2003, would not comment on his plans, but campaign advisers said he will make the switch at Quincy City Hall sometime this week.

Cahill will be the first incumbent officeholder in memory to drop his party affiliation, according to state election officials. They could recall no instance when an independent candidate won statewide office in Massachusetts...

Cahill, a fiscal conservative, has told supporters he feels estranged from the Massachusetts Democratic party, whose tax and spend philosophy, he says, is more liberal than his own...

But more than anything else, some observers say, Cahill may be leaving the party because it would be nearly impossible for him to win enough support from Democratic party members -- 15 percent of the convention vote -- to secure a place on the primary ballot. With his former campaign manager John Walsh as party chairman and with supporters in key party posts, Patrick essentially controls the party apparatus.

The first public strategic move of 2010 goes to Cahill. Governor, the ball's in your court.

UPDATE: The Boston Herald is reporting that Cahill has been considering the move to bolt from the Democratic Party since he was snubbed as a delegate to the national convention last year and since it became clear that the state Democratic Party's views had shifted to Cahill's left:

In a growing sign of his gubernatorial intentions, Treasurer Timothy Cahill will register as an independent this week as he positions himself as an alternative to Gov. Deval Patrick - an anti-tax candidate sticking up for the blue-collar voter, according to sources close to Cahill.

Cahill, who has long been a critic of the state’s Democrat party, decided to make the change following a 25 percent sales tax hike passed in the budget and talk of an income tax hike.

“His views and positions haven’t changed, but the party no longer fits with them,” said a source close to Cahill.

In a previous interview with the Herald, Cahill recently called the Democrat Party “exclusionary.”

For further proof of this "exclusionary" tendency, check out BlueMassGroup, particularly the comment where a poster asks if fiscal conservatives should be Democrats at all, implying that if you aren't a tax and spend liberal seeking to fix all the world's problems via government, then the party has no room for you.

Exactly the reason why I'm not a Democrat; asses like that who form the base of the modern Democratic Party. (See Sarah Palin et al for why I'm no longer a small government fiscally conservative but socially liberal Republican).

UPDATE 2: More from BMG on the apparent disappointment with the new House Speaker, Bob DeLeo, and the jockeying that is already going on to replace him. Apparently, it's a 7-way race split between 4 members currently in DeLeo's inner-circle and 3 popular and influential dark horse candidates recently cut-out of the loop when DiMasi fell on his sword.

Someone get the popcorn!