I am not an economist, but even I know that supply side economics is a crock.

It’s nothing but magical thinking…no better than “if you build it, they will come”. It is not the “rising tide that lifts all boats” that Jack Kemp, one of the earliest advocates of enterprise zones, promised when he introduced the use of tax cuts to stimulate economic growth in certain areas. Thirty-five years later, this newest plan set forth by Rep. Dale Kooyenga and Sen. Alberta Darling to create enterprise zones in poverty stricken urban areas (you know they mean Milwaukee, right?) is further proof of the ineffectiveness of the concept. The plan includes eliminating corporate income taxes for new “industry”, ending minimum mark-up, and preventing unionization of the workforce. I can’t begin to comprehend how these so-called incentives would infuse cash into the surrounding community, thereby lifting the residents out of poverty. It’s just more of the same failed policies. If folks can’t get a good paying job, they can’t spend any money. If there’s no money to spend….the whole thing doesn’t work.

Seeing as poverty is the number one reason for poor performance in school, their companion proposal to implement recovery zone policies for the same areas is even more insulting. The only way to combat poverty is to guarantee a minimum level of food, shelter and medical care…Medicare and Social Security have proven to be the most effective programs to combat poverty ever implemented in the US.

Wisconsin needs to demand better from our legislature (and our Governor) than these old, tired ideas.

Author – Zach Wisniewski

The Fracking Boom is a Fracking Bubble

Gas prices have plunged to the low $2 range-except in Pennsylvania.

In Pennsylvania, the prices at the pump are in the mid-$2 range.

That’s because Gov. Tom Corbett and the legislature imposed a 28-cent per gallon surcharge tax. Until 2019, Pennsylvanians will be paying an additional $2.3 billion a year in taxes and fees-$11.5 billion total-to improve the state’s infrastructure. In addition to the increased tax on gas at the pumps, Pennsylvania motorists will also be spending more for license registrations, renewals, and title certificates.

For far too many years, the state’s politicians of both major parties, preaching fiscal austerity-and hoping to be re-elected by taxpayers upset with government spending-neglected the roads, bridges, and other critical problems.

What the state government doesn’t readily acknowledge is that much of the damage to roads and bridges has come from increased truck traffic from the fracking industry.
The state roads, especially the section of I-80 that bisects the northern and southern halves of the state, were already in disrepair, as any long-haul trucker can attest. The addition of 40-ton fracking trucks on two-lane roads, highways and the Interstates, has added to the problem.

“The damage caused by this additional truck traffic rapidly deteriorates from minor surface damage to completely undermining the roadway base [and] caused deterioration of several of our weaker bridge structures,” Scott Christie, Pennsylvania’s deputy secretary of the Department of Transportation, told a legislative committee in 2010. Since then, the damage has increased in proportion to the number of wells drilled into the state. There are about 7,100 active gas wells in the state, with the cost of road repair estimated at about $13,000 to $25,000 per well. The fracking truck traffic to each well is the equivalent of about 3.5 million cars on the road, says Christie.

Although corporations drilling into Pennsylvania have agreed to fund repairs of roads they travel that have less than two inches depth of asphalt on them, the fees don’t cover the full cost of repair. Had the state imposed an extraction tax on each well, instead of a much-lower impact tax, there would have been enough money to fund road and bridge repair without additional taxes for motorists. Every state with shale oil but Pennsylvania has an extraction tax.

Gov.-elect Tom Wolf, who supports fracking, says he wants the state to begin to impose those extraction taxes. The politicians, who benefitted from campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, claim the industry-and all its jobs-will leave the state if the taxes are too high.

There are several realities the oil/gas industry knows, but the politicians, chambers of commerce, and those who believe everything politicians and corporations tell them don’t know or won’t publicly admit knowing.

First-As long as it’s economical to mine the gas, the industry won’t leave the state, even if they have to pay a 5 percent extraction tax, which is at the low end of taxes charged by other states.

Second-Tthe expected $1 billion in extraction tax per year, even if the legislature approves, should not be expected. The industry has already found most of the “sweet spots,” and production will likely fall off in 2015, leading to less income to the state and to leaseholders.

Third-Like a five-year-old in a candy shop, the industry salivated at the newly-found technology and gas availability and overdrilled the past four years, leading to a glut and falling prices. End of the year prices are about $3.17 per million cubic feet, down almost 30 percent from November.

Fourth-Falling prices have led to drilling not being as profitable as it could be.

Fifth-The OPEC countries have not lowered their own production of oil, and the reason for the lower gas prices at the pumps is not because of the shale gas boom, but because of the plunging price of oil per barrel, which has declined by about 40 percent since Summer. Once oil prices fell beneath about $70-73 per barrel, American shale frackers found themselves unable to compete economically.

Sixth-To compensate for lower prices in the United States, the megacorporate drilling corporations have begun to find alternative ways to make money. One way is to build a massive maze of pipelines, and send natural gas to refineries in Philadelphia and the Gulf Coast, changing the gas into the extremely volatile liquefied natural gas (LNG), putting it onto ships, and exporting it to countries that are willing to pay more than three times what Americans are paying for natural gas. However, there is an unexpected twist. The OPEC low-cost oil has led to a severe drop in Russia’s economy and value of the ruble. Gazprom, the Russian-owned world’s largest gas supplier, is now forced to drop its own prices to be competitive, and has been developing plans to provide gas to Europe and Asia, especially China where American gas is headed, at a price that makes it uneconomical to do long-term contracts.

Seventh-The banks and investment lenders are getting testy. Because of overdrilling, combined with inflated estimates of how much gas really is in the Marcellus Shale, corporations have found themselves in trouble. Many corporations have begun cutting their drilling operations; others have already left the state, burdened by debt to the lending institutions; some corporations have sold parts of their operations or declared bankruptcy.

Eighth-The jobs promised by the politicians, the various chambers of commerce, and the industry never met the expectations. Gov. Tom Corbett claimed 240,000 additional jobs. The reality is the increase in jobs is about one-tenth of that; more important, most of the full-time jobs on the rigs and well pads are taken by workers from Texas and Oklahoma who have extensive experience in drilling; most of the other jobs are temporary, and layoffs have already begun.

Ninth-The fracking boom for Pennsylvania is more like the housing bubble. At first, the availability of mortgages looked like a boom. However, a combination of greedy investors and lending institutions with almost no governmental oversight, combined by a client base of ordinary people who were lured into buying houses with inflated prices they couldn’t afford, led to the Great Recession. Those who didn’t learn from the housing bubble guaranteed the fracking boom would become a fracking bubble.

Tenth-The continued push for fossil fuel development, and more than $4 billion in governmental subsidies, slows the development of renewable energy, while escalating the problems associated with climate change and brings the world closer to a time when global warming is irreversible.

Finally, but most important-The fracking industry doesn’t acknowledge that this newer process to extract gas, which has been viable less than a decade, is destroying the environment, leading to increased climate change, and putting public health at risk, something that dozens of independent scientific studies are starting to reveal. It was a 154-page analysis of public health implications, conducted by the New York Department of Health, and based upon scientific and medical studies, that led New York this month to ban all drilling-and infuriate many politicians and some landowners who were expecting to make extraordinary wealth by leasing mineral rights beneath their land to the gas companies. Of course, they didn’t look to their neighbor to the south to learn the wealth promised was never as much as the royalties delivered and that many landowners now say they should never have given up their mineral rights and the destruction of the land and farms that came with it.

Until prices stabilize, Americans are paying lower prices for gas at the pump; Pennsylvanians are also paying lower prices, but not as low as the rest of the country.

And the politicians and industry front groups continue to foolishly claim there are no environmental or health effects from horizontal fracking, only blue sky and rainbows of riches.

Author – Walter Brasch

I Was On The Radio Today

I was on the radio today during my drive home from work. I spoke to Leslie Marshall. I always enjoy an opportunity to do that. Spoke to Tom Hartman once too. I mentioned in an earlier post that AM radio is filled with crazy talk, but to hear people with what I consider to be a more thoughtful approach to news and politics is a real treat. It is hardly ever the case. I am glad I called in when I did too because after about fifteen minutes the station went to fuzz. Michael Savage and Rush are clear as a bell all day long, even when driving through a forest!

Listening to the Leslie Marshall show today, Marshall asked her listeners: “Do we need boots on the ground to fight against ISIS?” “How do we form a coalition?” “Will we be in Iraq for one hundred years?” “Why is defeating ISIS taking so long?”

Today I was reading headlines like “ U.S. Airstrikes Fail To Slow Militant Offensive” and “Syrian Kurds say air strikes against Isis are not working.” It’s been, what, a week? We have become so accustomed to seeing complicated things sorted out in an hour on t.v. and so caught up in an overwhelming influx of news that we truly do not understand anything. How do you defeat something like ISIS in a week, or at all?

To defeat ISIS you first need to understand the problem. Dropping bombs is what got us here. It’s not the solution. I told Ms. Marshall that there was only two ways to defeat ISIS: 1. Understand that hate cannot be blown up or 2. Bring back the only person who was ever able to keep that part of the world in check. You know who I mean.

When I was hung up I felt relieved to have gotten that out over the airwaves and into the vastness of space for all eternity. I also felt let down that when I finally could tune in a liberal station the topic seemed as mindless as the crap I hear on the right.

Oh well. Thanks Leslie Marshall. That was fun.

Author – tmcbpatriot

We don’t shoot young, unarmed, African American males, do we?

Outrage In Missouri Town After Police Shooting Of 18-Yr-Old Man

Amadou Diallo, Timothy Thomas, Kimoni Gray, Kendrec McDade, Timothy Russel, Patrick Dorismond, Ousmane Zongo, Timothy Stansbury Jr., Sean Bell, Orlando Barlow, Aaron Campbell, Victor Steen, Steven Eugene Washington, Wendell Allen, Ronald Madison, James Brissette, Travares McGill, Trayvon Martin, Ramarley Graham, Oscar Grant, Trayvon Martin, Armand Bennett, Ezell Ford, Jeremy Lake, John Crawford, and Michael Brown. All unarmed African American males shot by in most cases police, security or “wannabe” cop. This list only scratches the surface of the shooting of young, black, African American males by police. We have been down this road before.

This week, we will continue on with our discussion on the five young, unarmed African American males shot in August of 2014 alone. While the shooting of Michael Brown outraged much of America, galvanizing protest in the streets of Ferguson, this is not a new phenomenon. Our last show, featured the cases of Armand Bennet, Ezell Ford and Jeremy Lake. We will focus on the shootings of John Crawford (shot while at Walmart) and Michael Brown.

Please join Fred and Marg on BTR’s, Lies My Country Told Me, “We don’t shoot young, unarmed, African American males, do we?“, on Sunday, October 12, 2014 at 12:00 pm EST. You can join us in the chatroom or call in with your opinion at (347) 677-1814. If you have any questions, or something to add to the conversation, you can also email us at [email protected]

Source – www.liesmycountrytoldme.com

Why are we all surprised that making our tax policy more regressive restrained economic growth?

Yesterday, everyone was sharing Stephen Henderson’s column that made the very unsurprising point that a) the state’s tax burden was shifted from business to people, specifically people who can least afford to shoulder it, which led to b) no measurable positive impact on the growth of the state’s economy.

People pay more.

Businesses pay less.

And the jobs picture is still clouded by slow growth and unemployment.

Four years into Gov. Rick Snyder’s first term in office, that’s the net effect of the signature tax reforms he pushed through the Legislature in 2011.

Snyder’s plans relied heavily on the premise that lower taxes for businesses would create a stellar turnaround, ending the depression that gripped the state when he took office. And many of his changes made good policy sense.

They made sense only in a theoretical sense if you didn’t jibing them with how we understand a market-based economy to work and didn’t look back on 30 years of this theory being put to practical effect in shaping how tax and spending policy works at the federal level. Back before it became the “in thing” that everyone knew was going to work aaaaaaany second now, George H.W. Bush called it something very different.

The problem is that the idea that you spur growth by cutting taxes for the top earners is still taken on such faith in our media and political elite circles that Rick Haglund’s column yesterday about why we should look at a graduated income tax was greeted with a sigh of relief (as in, “Finally, someone said it!”) in some corners and ignored in others. I mean, the last time we talked about a graduated income tax in this state was just last decade, during the 2007 budget showdown. Someone brought up a graduated income tax as an alternative to a hike in the flat rate, and Mike Bishop said it would prompt all of our rich people to flee for Florida because … Goin’ Galt. Nobody bothered to ask him whether he was basing that on hard data of some kind or just because the idea of a graduated income tax bored him, and it was dropped until Haglund’s column yesterday (the Michigan League for Public Policy trots it out every so often, but that’s a lobby for poor people so no one pays any attention to them).

How entrenched is this idea? We’re about to send Bishop to Congress.

The first step to reversing this is to stop pretending that there is anything interesting to an idea that further cuts taxes for the wealthy while hiking taxes on the working poor. There is nothing interesting to that idea. For instance, the belief that business taxes had to be eliminating on a wide swath of businesses because the owners paid income tax at the end of the year and we needed “tax fairness” is hilariously awful. If you own a storefront that gets broken in to, the police still show up and they draw tax-funded paychecks. The idea that paying for police and fire protection aren’t legitimate business expenses is silly. But, that’s what we got.

Anyway, we have 30 years of experience on whether there was going to be an actual payoff to our benevolent overlord’s tax shift. It was at the federal level, and there the data shows that, no, cutting taxes for the wealthy doesn’t stimulate economic growth all that much.

Author – Eric B.

Poverty of ideas

One of the many ill effects of polarized government is the absence of new thinking about our most pressing problems.

Several years ago state Senator Michael Ellis proposed adding “poverty” to the list of “special education” needs that the state compensated school districts for.

His argument was two-pronged. The schools are being asked to deal with a social problem for which they have no training or expertise. The schools in districts that serve a population that is disproportionately composed of low-to-non-income residents are not performing well.

He saw a connection. He did not necessarily think that the education system should be reshaped to deal with this massive, unsolved social problem, but that since they couldn’t avoid its effects on what the education is intended to do they should get more than free lunches to do what they might be able to do.

This proposal went nowhere.

Representative Paul Ryan has put forward a broader proposal to deal with the cancer of poverty, which, not unlike what then-President Lyndon Johnson authored 50 years ago, is getting a skeptical reception as well.

Meanwhile, over in the ivory tower occupied by the academics, the irrepressible professor Karn Bogenschneider has introduced us to ideas about early brain development that are being tested and proved. These, too, are poverty connected. Dealing with this problem/opportunity is also expensive and complicated.

The subject is difficult. All the ideas proposed have to or had to deal with the political realities: they cost a lot of immediate money; the payoff is years in the future; it’s another government handout which will be scammed by the inevitable dole parasites.

All of them have the virtue of raising our sights by asking in effect, “What kind of a country do we want this to be?” which is the real question.

None of them are part of any campaign by any candidate of any party that I know of who is seeking office in November.

I put Paul Ryan in a different category. He will be elected in his gerrymandered district this November. His ideas are for something he might want to be elected to in November of 2016.

The fact that the only people I know who are thinking seriously about the far-reaching effects of immutable poverty are Republicans and academics raises the specter of “consider the source” dismissal.

The Dems don’t like anything Paul or Mike like, because they are Dems and Paul and Mike are not.

The real Republicans (their categorization) don’t like anything an academic proposes, because all academics are soft-hearted and soft-headed overt or covert Dems.

So the curse of poverty just lies there and metastasizes and the country is the worse for our lack of attention, effort, and imagination to curing the incurable.


Author – Bill Kraus

Rolling Stone: Inside the Koch Brothers’ Toxic Empire

Last Wednesday Rolling Stone printed a great expose by Tim Dickinson shedding some light on the toxic (literally) empire of the conservative Koch Brothers. Here’s just a bit of the expose, which is very much worth reading in its entirety.

The enormity of the Koch fortune is no mystery. Brothers Charles and David are each worth more than $40 billion. The electoral influence of the Koch brothers is similarly well-chronicled. The Kochs are our homegrown oligarchs; they’ve cornered the market on Republican politics and are nakedly attempting to buy Congress and the White House. Their political network helped finance the Tea Party and powers today’s GOP. Koch-affiliated organizations raised some $400 million during the 2012 election, and aim to spend another $290 million to elect Republicans in this year’s midterms. So far in this cycle, Koch-backed entities have bought 44,000 political ads to boost Republican efforts to take back the Senate.

What is less clear is where all that money comes from. Koch Industries is headquartered in a squat, smoked-glass building that rises above the prairie on the outskirts of Wichita, Kansas. The building, like the brothers’ fiercely private firm, is literally and figuratively a black box. Koch touts only one top-line financial figure: $115 billion in annual revenue, as estimated by Forbes. By that metric, it is larger than IBM, Honda or Hewlett-Packard and is America’s second-largest private company after agribusiness colossus Cargill. The company’s stock response to inquiries from reporters: “We are privately held and don’t disclose this information.”

But Koch Industries is not entirely opaque. The company’s troubled legal history – including a trail of congressional investigations, Department of Justice consent decrees, civil lawsuits and felony convictions – augmented by internal company documents, leaked State Department cables, Freedom of Information disclosures and company whistle­-blowers, combine to cast an unwelcome spotlight on the toxic empire whose profits finance the modern GOP.

Under the nearly five-decade reign of CEO Charles Koch, the company has paid out record civil and criminal environmental penalties. And in 1999, a jury handed down to Koch’s pipeline company what was then the largest wrongful-death judgment of its type in U.S. history, resulting from the explosion of a defective pipeline that incinerated a pair of Texas teenagers.

The volume of Koch Industries’ toxic output is staggering. According to the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute, only three companies rank among the top 30 polluters of America’s air, water and climate: ExxonMobil, American Electric Power and Koch Industries. Thanks in part to its 2005 purchase of paper-mill giant Georgia-Pacific, Koch Industries dumps more pollutants into the nation’s waterways than General Electric and International Paper combined. The company ranks 13th in the nation for toxic air pollution. Koch’s climate pollution, meanwhile, outpaces oil giants including Valero, Chevron and Shell. Across its businesses, Koch generates 24 million metric tons of greenhouse gases a year.

Author – Zach Wisniewski

Worse than Congress

The Capital Times often runs a feature in its print edition called WisPolitics Stock Report. The article, written by WisPolitics staff, rates the fortunes of various politicians or political groups with an up arrow for rising or a down arrow for falling.

A recent edition of the report awarded an up arrow to former Senator Neal Kedzie, who recently resigned his office mid-term. He received the “rising” review because he landed a lucrative new job. He will replace Tom Howells, who has retired after many years lobbying for the Wisconsin trucking industry.

Kedzie’s move from legislator to lobbyist is nothing new in the revolving door of Wisconsin politics. Assuming he’ll soon be a registered lobbyist as was Howells, his abrupt shift from a legislator making laws to a lobbyist trying to influence what laws are made points to a deep flaw in Wisconsin’s ethical standards.

Wisconsin law should require a significant cooling-off period between legislating and lobbying. While Kedzie is a Republican, my criticism is by no means partisan or personal. I served with Neal and like him and the same switcheroo has been pulled by both Democrats and Republicans.

I’ve always felt it is unseemly to see legislators voting one day on important legislation and then coming back to the Capitol soon thereafter as highly paid, special-interest lobbyists. Most state officials are already prohibited by law from lobbying their agency for one year. Unfortunately, legislators exempted themselves from that common sense rule. It is time to close the loophole and subject legislators, at a minimum, to the same standard that applies to other state employees.

When I was in the Legislature, I repeatedly introduced legislation to Wisconsin lawmakers from lobbying for special interests after leaving office. I had support from a number of legislators, most notably former Republican Representative Steve Freese and current Democratic Senator Julie Lassa.

But the bill never went anywhere. In a rare show of bipartisan unity, most legislators wanted nothing to do with this reform. It seems like the one thing a majority of Democrats and Republicans could agree on was keeping the loophole open for legislators to lobby for special interests and cash in on their days in the Capitol. When legislators know they can count on receiving cushy jobs from the same corporations and groups they are supposed to oversee, people start to wonder whose interests they really represent.

Many states ban this revolving-door practice of legislators becoming lobbyists shortly after they leave public office. Even Congress, not generally known as a hotbed of ethical conduct, has a federal ethics law that prohibits former U.S. representatives and senators from lobbying their erstwhile colleagues for two years after leaving office.

It’s not so long ago that Wisconsin was considered the model of clean government. It’s hard to believe that the U.S. Congress is tougher on politicians’ ethics than is the Wisconsin Legislature. Wisconsin has fallen far from its once proud reputation as a state with clean, open and ethical government. That reputation was a strong asset for the state and it has for all practical purposes been lost. There are a great many reforms needed for Wisconsin to regain that progressive legacy. Closing the revolving door between lawmakers and special interests would be a good place to start.

Author – Spencer Black

Wisconsin progressives: the original Tea Partiers

Over at The Atlantic, Michael Wolraich has an excellent article outlining how Wisconsin progressives like “Fighting Bob” La Follette were the original Tea Party challenging the political status quo.

If “Fighting Bob” were alive today, he’d be howling in the Capitol. A hundred years before the Tea Parties, Senator Bob La Follette of Wisconsin was the original Republican insurgent. In the early 1900s, he led a grassroots revolt against the GOP establishment and pioneered the ferocious tactics that the Tea Parties use today—long-shot primary challenges, sensational filibusters, uncompromising ideology, and populist rhetoric. But there was a crucial difference between La Follette and today’s right-wing insurgents: “Fighting Bob” was a founding father of the progressive movement.

A century ago, the country struggled with challenges similar to our own—economic inequality, financial instability, low wages, and environmental devastation. The two major political parties, both corrupt and dominated by corporations, crushed reformers’ efforts to remedy the nation’s problems. Even President Theodore Roosevelt was powerless to push serious reform bills through Congress.

Unlike Roosevelt, La Follette did not believe that reform was possible under the prevailing political order. He insisted that the system must become more democratic and the parties be made accountable to the people. His political insurgency began as a forlorn and hopeless campaign, scorned by the party establishment, mocked by the press, and dismissed by Roosevelt. A decade later, it brought the once-dominant Republican Party to its knees and initiated the greatest period of political change in American history.

Author – Zach Wisniewski

What Is Scott Brown Really Afraid Of? The Voters Of New Hampshire


Over the past few weeks the national news media has been talking non-stop about how Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader, was ousted by an unknown primary contender. The main talking point of the post primary results is that Cantor “phoned it in.” He spent all of his time traveling the country rallying the GOP base for other candidates, and neglected to spend any time in his own home district. At one point Cantor was booed off the stage during a campaign speech.

How does this relate to New Hampshire politics?

There is an eerie similarity to Cantor and former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown’s campaign for the US Senate seat from New Hampshire.

Scott Brown has been driving his truck all across New Hampshire in an attempt to convince Granite Staters that he is one of us. Telling people that by spending time in New Hampshire as kid or weekends at his vacation home makes him a real Granite Stater.

True Granite Staters are just not buying it.

If Brown were a real Granite Stater, he would understand that we are less about grandstanding and photo ops, and more about substance. We want candidates who talk about their positions and are willing to stand up for their beliefs.

Brown is snubbing the people of New Hampshire by refusing to participate in local debates. Brown skipped a debate in Bedford in April, and now he is “booked up” an unable or unwilling to participate in the Merrimack Business Association’s debate tomorrow.

David McCray, chairman of the Merrimack Business Association and a former Merrimack town councilor, was less than impressed at the way that the Brown campaign treated him and his initiation to debate.

“McCray is angry at the way his business group was treated by the Brown campaign. An invitation to the June 18 Merrimack event went out to the candidates by registered mail on April 23,” McCray told the Union Leader. “In early May, McCray learned that Brown would not be attending, not from Brown’s campaign but from a Union Leader reporter. Offer rescinded.”

The irony is that McCray was a supporter of Scott Brown when he ran against Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts.

“We went to Stoneham on the day of the Massachusetts election when he ran against Elizabeth Warren and held Scott Brown signs, standing out in the cold for eight hours,” McCray told the Sentinel Enterprise. “He knew that. And yet he didn’t even have the common courtesy to respond to our invitation to a debate in 16 days. That bothered me.”

Even ultra-right wing conservative blogger, Granite Grok, had some choice words about Brown skipping the debate.

“So, Scott Brown, you used a media outlet as a cover to screw over a forum in which you’d be a sitting duck in being directly compared to your competition. Sure, you’ve accepted the big TV event debate – but that’s not how campaigning works here in NH.”

This is not the first time that Brown has ducked constituent questions.

“Twice in the last week Brown was confronted by real Granite Staters who asked him straight out if he supported raising the minimum wage.”

Brown’s response:

“I’ve supported a minimum wage increase before. It’s something that I think needs to be periodically reviewed, but it’s really important to make sure that everyone’s at the table, especially people who are hiring and growing,” Brown told the Concord Monitor.

Avoiding actually answering questions from real Granite Staters is quickly becoming a trend for Scott Brown.

What is Brown afraid of? Is he afraid to tell the people where he stands because he thinks it will hurt him with the ultra-conservatives who tend to vote in the primary? Or is he afraid that it will hurt him in a general election, if he actually gets through the primary.

Granite Staters take pride in being informed about whom they are voting for, and Brown thinks he can get away with B.S. answers and newspaper quotes instead of participating in local politics. It is bad enough that he did not work his way up through the ranks in New Hampshire like many of the other candidates.

The Union Leader asked McCray why he thinks Brown is ignoring the Merrimack debate and the voters of Merrimack?

“He’s playing it as if he has already won,” said McCray.

I am sure that is exactly what Eric Cantor thought too.

If you liked this post consider subscribing to the NH Labor News via email. There are more great articles to come.

Author – Matt Murray