Massachusetts rises to the occasion in the face of tragedy

The full impact of this week's wild weather in Western Massachusetts is now becoming fully apparent, and we're finding the images truly shocking.

Storms like these normally don't happen here in Massachusetts. Just look at this YouTube video of the awesome power of the storm as it ravaged Springfield. Incredible.



One of the best representations of the aftermath that we've seen so far is this photo gallery in today's Boston Globe. We found these pictures especially moving - some of them because of the violent power of Mother Nature they showed, and others because of the equally strong power of human compassion they depicted.

Our hearts go out to all of the victims of this tragedy as they try to get back on their feet and rebuild their lives.

We also give credit to a very impressive response by state officials to the situation, including by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. Much like he did during the MWRA broken pipe crisis, Patrick is showing himself to be a capable manager of a crisis in this situation, and we give him credit for being hands-on and on-the-scene.

We also want to thank members of the media for their role in protecting the public during the storm. We're news junkies, and we have to admit we had been following the recent severe weather outbreak as it tore across the country. Much like their mid-western counterparts we watched livestraming in recent weeks, local meteorologists were on-the-job telling people to keep an eye to the sky and to hunker down when storms got close. We watched NECN meteorologist Matt Noyes all afternoon, and there's no doubt in our minds that his attentiveness and on-air warnings saved lives in this storm. Kudos to him and his colleagues for a great job.

Around the World in 80 Days

According to our planners, today marks the 80th day of 2011; the 12th week of the year.

And, according to the political page on Boston.com, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has been out-of-state for 23 of those days. That's more than one-quarter of the time. And, roughly half of that time was spent internationally.

But, while we think our traveling Governor is vulnerable to criticism for having been away from Massachusetts quite a bit lately, we do give him credit for at least attempting to address certain issues facing our state. Contrast that with the complete and utter silence of our full-time Legislature so far this year.

Oh, pardon us. The Legislature is still in the process of "organizing" itself after last year's elections. It takes time to assign new office space to everyone, dole out plum committee assignments, and process the many thousands of ground-breaking bills filed by legislators.

Right.

But, think about it. So far, the state has paid our 200 senators and representatives about $2.8 million in base pay so far in 2011 to do... um... pretty much nothing.

What have they really accomplished? Well, they froze unemployment insurance rates this year, which is good news for employers but also an action that was under deadline. They passed a reorganization plan proposed by the Governor, but that's a pretty small accomplishment after 4 years of the Patrick administration.

And, other than that.... Well, not a lot that we can see. A couple of sick leave banks and a local bill for Medford. Some hearings. A protest march or two outside the windows. But, nothing that would really affect the daily lives of people struggling to make it through a cold winter with lower salaries and higher gas prices.

Meanwhile, it was recently reported by our friends at Beacon Hill Roll Call that legislators raked in a whopping $462,546 worth of per diem payments last year.

Must be nice.

People on Beacon Hill sometimes wonder why legislators have a bad name with the electorate. We say, wonder no more. Tick, tock. People can't afford to wait for political action on important economic and public safety issues.

Presidential governing by bracket

If only all of life's conflicts could fit neatly into a nice little bracketed chart...

We're thinking that's probably what President Barack Obama was thinking recently as he proudly filled out his pick sheet for this year's NCAA basketball tournament.

Now, don't get us wrong. It's exceedingly cool that our rock star president has the wherewithal to pick college hoops champs live on television.

But, might he have had something better to do with his time?

Like, maybe, fix the economy, or solve foreign crises?

Then again, we're wondering if maybe there's something more at play.

Could it be that the president has found a new way to solve problems in the White House?

Just think about it.

How do you decide which world problem to address today? Well, just put them all into neat little brackets and... voila!

Need to choose how to spend money on new programs? Put 'em in a bracket.

Need to figure out whether existing tyrants or opposition forces should prevail in foreign conflicts? Put 'em head-to-head into brackets and see who wins.

Hey, this is easy. And totally fun.

So much fun, in fact, that we could see other politicians using it.

Governor Patrick, do you need to decide which new upstart company Massachusetts should invest in this week? Put 'em in a bracket. (Note: Evergreen Solar was his number one seed, but it got knocked out in the first round. Maybe next year.)

Massachusetts Legislature, do you need a plan for how people should get jobs in the probation department? We could just put 'em all into brackets...

Well, maybe not.

Sadly, most of life's problems don't get solved this way. They take leadership, not brackets, to address them successfully.

Massachusetts By The Numbers

Just in case you're wondering how our state government is doing these days, we thought we would provide you with the following crib sheet:

290,000	Approximate number of unemployed people in Massachusetts as of March 3, 2011 (Source: WBZ)
8.3%	Massachusetts unemployment rate as of March 3, 2011 (Source: WBZ)
1100	Number of jobs Fidelity has announced that it will trim from its Marlborough campus by next year (Source: The Boston Globe)
21	Number of full or partial days Governor Patrick has been out of state since January 1 of this year (Source: The Boston Globe)
0	New jobs announced by the Patrick Administration while the Governor has been on his trade mission to Israel and Great Britain (Source: The Boston Globe)

Show Us The Money

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is in the middle of a ten-day trade mission to Israel and Great Britain this week.

Governor Patrick isn't the first Massachusetts governor who's traveled overseas in search of enhanced trade for the Bay State, nor will he likely be the last. We think it's appropriate to withhold judgment on Governor Patrick's travels for now, and to give Governor Patrick provisional credit for his efforts to improve the economy and increase jobs for Massachusetts residents.

However, we think it's also fair for Massachusetts taxpayers to hold Governor Patrick accountable for these travels upon his return. After all, according to the Boston Herald, taxpayers are paying about $150,000 for an overseas mission that (by our tally) will encompass nearly one percent of the Governor's term of office.

First, we think it's fair to ask what Massachusetts will receive following this investment of time and effort by the Patrick Administration. In other words, was the trip worth it? How many jobs will be created? How much additional tax revenue will we realize?

Second, we think taxpayers deserve to know how the fort is being held down while Governor Patrick is away. What is Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray doing this week? Who is covering for the dozen or so cabinet members and support staff accompanying the Governor on his trip, and what are they doing this week? If this is a trade mission and not a vacation, then all official duties should be attended to in these officials' absence.

Third, what, if anything, is Massachusetts committing to business leaders or foreign officials as part of this trip? In other words, what are we giving up in exchange for added business here? Perhaps this trip is merely to market our state abroad. Fair enough. But, if commitments are made for tax incentives, investments, infrastructure improvements, etc., we'd like to know what that those commitments are, and what they will cost. And (back to our first question), in either case, what we can expect to receive in return?

Obama and Patrick: Collectively Bargaining for Union Support

Can someone please tell Barack Obama and Deval Patrick that they are elected chief executives, not union cheerleaders?

Yesterday, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick made it a point to attend a rowdy protest outside the Statehouse put on by over 1,000 union members. His public statement to the angry mob:

“I’m here to deliver one very simple message, which is we don’t need to attack public sector workers to make change for the people of the Commonwealth." Link to Source: Boston Globe

This reminds us of a previous incident from 2009, when Governor Patrick hosted a meeting with fired Hyatt Hotel workers and union leaders, and threatened Hyatt Hotels with a state boycott if it refused to hire back housekeeping staff.

“But surely there is some way to retain the jobs for your housekeeping staffs, as other hotels have done, and to work with them to help the company meet its current challenges, rather than tossing them out unceremoniously to fend for themselves while the people they trained take their jobs at barely livable wages.’’ Link to Source: Boston Globe

Meanwhile, the Patrick administration is delivering a much different message to the Massachusetts private sector. For example, on efforts to increase tax collections from Massachusetts businesses next year, Department of Revenue spokesman Robert Bliss reportedly said, "You hunt where the ducks are." Link to Source: Boston Globe

This isn't just a Massachusetts phenomenon. It's also playing out on the national stage.

President Obama's political machine and Democratic party officials are reportedly working to help organize union protests around the country in unity with public labor marches in Wisconsin. Link to Source: Washington Post

AFL-CIO boss Richard Trumka recently made comments claiming that he speaks with officials in the White House daily and visits the White House several times a week, while at the same time it's reported that President Obama hasn't spoken with some members of his own cabinet in years. Check out the videos in this link.

Then, there are Obama's recent comments to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, where he challenged the business community to "get in the game" and spend some of their money to create jobs. Link to Source: Boston Herald

It's abundantly clear to us that leaders in Washington and Massachusetts are firmly taking the side of organized labor in economic matters at the same time they are siding against business interests. Can there be any doubt why? Check out the latest report of independent expenditures in the most recent round of Massachusetts state elections. The list is filled with unions.

We happen to disagree with Obama and Patrick's one-sided support of unions. But, we think that what makes it so wrong isn't necessarily that they are making the wrong choice, it's that they are choosing sides in the first place.

The proper role of a chief executive isn't to pick sides. It's to promote the advancement of everyone. Obama and Patrick would do well to remember that they have a responsibility to help all Americans get ahead, not just those who carry union cards in their wallets.

Boston Herald Gets it Right, Obama Gets it Wrong

Today's Boston Herald editorial page has an excellent interpretation of President Obama's visit to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce yesterday.

It's a must-read for anyone trying to decipher where the current administration stands on economic policy:

Boston Herald Editorial: The 'new' Obama
President Obama actually had the nerve to go to the nation's business leaders yesterday and try out his best impersonation of President Kennedy. "Businesses," he said, "have a responsibility to America.... Ask yourselves what you can do for America."

This is the same mentality Massachusetts officials have used when dealing with Bay State businesses in recent years.

"We contend it is only fair for our largest companies to share responsibility for supporting public services they and their employees need and want."
- Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, March 5, 2008
  (my.mass.gov/Agov3/video/2008-03-05_rtest.rtf)

In both cases, it's the wrong approach.

Every business is, at its core, an investment. People invest capital (money and labor) into a business with the expectation that the business will generate a greater return for them.

We acknowledge that government has a legitimate role to tax and regulate within the economy to keep the system prosperous. We also agree with basic notions of good corporate citizenship.

But, businesses already serve the public good just by virtue of being there in the first place and providing jobs and a commercial tax base. In many cases, good corporate citizenship is alive and well. We see examples every day in our own community where business leaders make up the lion's share of those involved in civic organizations and charitable groups.

We don't agree with President Obama that Uncle Sam should be able to consider himself as basically a majority shareholder in every U.S. corporation.

When government demands a seat at the table and makes businesses work to serve the public interest as much as the private interest of their investors, the whole system gets skewed. That's when profits dry up, factories close, and jobs move overseas.

If President Obama wants to get the nation's unemployment rate down and put America back to work, he needs to stop blaming businesses and get out of their way by reducing the regulations that are hindering their growth. Businesses are already walking a tightrope in this economy. Let's not burden them even more.

State set to see Patrick’s plans for next year’s budget... will it be more of the same?

PLEASE SEE BELOW FOR UPDATED POST...

All eyes will be on the annual meeting of the Massachusetts Municipal Association today as Governor Patrick addresses members regarding his upcoming budget plans.

Traditionally, this address is one of the first and most telling insights into the governor's budget plan before it is filed at the end of January. It is also a glimpse for city and town leaders into the governor's intentions regarding local aid.

There is no doubt that balancing this year's budget is a difficult endeavor. Current projections are for available revenues to track about $1.5 billion behind desired spending, leaving a sizable gap for state leaders to close before the new fiscal year begins in July. (Exact revenue estimates are $20.525 billion, up from an estimate of $19.784 billion in FY2011, which was itself adjusted upward by $706 million from original benchmarks. You can read an AP article with full details here.)

But we insist that budgeting always needs to be seen as a process of setting priorities, not fulfilling wishes or policy goals. Too often, the state budget process is simply a function of looking at the prior year's appropriations and adjusting them program-by-program to meet available revenue in the coming year. This process lacks vision. It also tends to perpetuate waste and duplication and fails to weigh the merits of programs against each other appropriately.

We advocate instead what is often referred to as "zero-based budgeting," where it is assumed that each program or line item in the budget will not be funded (in other words, the appropriation begins at zero dollars). Then, leaders examine the merits of spending money on each cause, and in the process of funding them, they hopefully find ways to streamline government by eliminating wasteful spending and consolidating less-important programs. This naturally frees up more money for more important priorities and also takes the pressure off tax increases and tapping stabilization funds. It's still a very difficult process, but the outcome should be a more considered and thoughtful approach to budgeting.

We look forward to hearing the Governor's proposals later today. Until then, we ask our readers: how would you propose that Governor Patrick should balance this year's budget? Please post us a comment below with your thoughts.


UPDATED POST - Check out this Boston Globe article for an explanation of what Governor Patrick said at the MMA meeting today: Patrick proposes cuts in non-school aid, changes in municipal worker health care

A step forward, back, in pension reform

We applaud Governor Patrick's recently-announced plan to reform state public employee pensions by raising the retirement age to 60 and by eliminating "double-dipping" and "spiking."

There is a lot to like in the Governor's plan, which would appear to save the state money and also bring public benefits more into line with those in the private sector.

But one thing we don't agree with is the Governor's proposal to extend the timetable for paying down our state's $20 billion unfunded pension liability by 15 years, stretching it from 2025 to 2040.

No doubt this move is part of the Governor's plan to address a gaping budget shortfall in next year's budget, since extending the repayment window will reduce annual budget transfers to cover the pension fund gap. But it's also a costly long-term move for Massachusetts taxpayers. We also question what affect it might have on our state's bond rating.

We understand the need for short-term fixes in our budget, but we also think it's necessary to keep long-term effects in mind. Our state's unfunded pension liability is an albatross around our neck that needs to be addressed. We can't keep postponing the inevitable by extending the timetable for repayment.

A week well worth watching

Most Bay State residents are beginning their day today thinking about what they did over the past three-day weekend and looking forward to an abbreviated workweek.

But as we begin this week, we think it's worth spotlighting some profound events that will transpire over the next few days.

The first event will take place today, as Congress begins debating the repeal of last year's health care reform bill. We honestly don't know where this will all end up. But, we do know it will be the first test of how Democrats and Republicans work together in the new Congress, and it will show us how strong the Republican majority is in the House.

This will probably also serve as a starting off point for what will happen one week later, on January 25, as President Obama delivers his State of the Union message to Congress.

For the President, the main challenge will be to explain to the American people how he will reduce the size of the $14 trillion national debt, what his plan is to finish our engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what his vision is to get America back to work.

Interestingly, this is the same challenge Obama faced a year ago. Here are some of his opening remarks from his 2010 State of the Union address:

"One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted -– immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.

But the devastation remains. One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. And for those who'd already known poverty, life has become that much harder."

- President Barack Obama, 2010 State of the Union Address
January 27, 2010
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address

Not much appears to have changed since then – except that now, one year later, President Obama has lost the benefit of having a friendly Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.

The second event will happen the following day, January 26, as Governor Patrick files his first budget recommendation of his second term. (Expect details to be leaked by then Governor's Office between now and then.)

The biggest challenge for the Governor will be to come up with a plan to successfully bridge a multi-billion dollar budget gap – preferably in a way that does not increase taxes or place vulnerable populations at risk. With the disappearance of many one-time funding sources this year, this task will require large-scale cuts and innovative ways to reform government so that essential services are delivered more efficiently. We look forward to seeing his plan, which will frame most political debate here in Massachusetts through the spring.

Like most Americans, Bay State residents don't have another year to wait to see these problems addressed successfully by political leaders. Now is the time for decisive action.

Will this next week be the start of it? Only time will tell...

When it comes to public figures, is 2011 the 'Year of No Excuses?'

Two weeks into the new year, it appears 2011 is shaping up to be the "Year of No Excuses," where titles like "state senator," "congressman's wife" and "gubernatorial appointee" no longer buy anyone a "get out of jail free card."

Last week, former state senator Dianne Wilkerson was sentenced to 3 and 1/2 years in a federal prison for taking bribes. The U.S. District judge who handed down the sentence said he believed the law had been too lenient toward Massachusetts politicians who engage in political corruption. And then Gov. Deval Patrick yesterday cleaned house at the state parole board, accepting the resignations of much of the Parole Board, firing certain parole employees and reprimanding and suspending others after a report showed major lapses in procedure and judgment in the release of a convicted con who killed a Woburn police officer the day after Christmas.

And now a federal judge has sentenced Patrice Tierney, wife of Congressman John Tierney, to 30 days in prison for aiding and abetting the filing of false tax returns for her brother. Even prosecutors — who are supposed to be working on behalf of the government — argued that Tierney should be let off with house arrest saying the embarrassment she faced for her crime was punishment enough. But the judge vehemently disagreed, saying he could not "excuse a violation of the law of this severity" and that "there must be an actual sanction." Read the full story here.

It seems those who make our laws and enforce them have come to the place where the average citizen has been for quite a while now — fed up with politicians and public figures who act as though they are above the law, who make excuses and pleas for special treatment when it comes time for justice to be meted out. This is a good thing, and it's the only way to restore public confidence in the justice system and in public figures themselves.

It looks like the old "do you know who I am?" trick doesn't necessarily work anymore. In fact, it might land you in hotter water. Laws should be enforced equally, according to what you did and not who you are. As Judge Young said about Patrice Tierney in court yesterday, when it comes to public figures who break the law, they "should get the same sentence anyone else would get."

Patrick takes action to end criminal justice failures

This afternoon, Governor Deval Patrick told bold action to combat recent failures in the criminal justice system, largely in response to the December murder of a Woburn police officer.

Some of Patrick's moves include accepting the resignation of certain members of the Parole Board, terminating certain parole employees, instituting new evidence-based standards for parole hearings, and filing legislation for greater truth in sentencing for repeat offenders.

We applaud Governor Patrick for taking bold, decisive and meaningful action to address shortcomings in the system. We spoke about the need for some of these moves in a recent post: Chaos in the criminal justice system threatens everyone.

We find Governor Patrick's tough talk and strong action refreshing, and we look forward to assessing the full content and impact of his moves today.

"This inauguration brought to you by..."

Earlier today, Governor Deval Patrick was sworn in to his second term of office after having raised over $700,000 in private donations to fund inaugural festivities.

Governor Patrick deserves credit for releasing the list of private sponsors to the public, something he did voluntarily. But, it shouldn't be up to him. While the giving and receipt of these donations was not inappropriate under existing campaign finance and ethics laws, we believe the contributions should be subject to public reporting requirements, contribution limits, and corporate prohibitions that are the same or similar to those that pertain to political contributions.

Take a look at the list in this GateHouse Media / State House News Service article. It includes labor unions, insurance companies, banks, sports teams and manufacturers.

Many of the sponsors have a stake in what happens on Beacon Hill after the inauguration, from health care to gaming to insurance and financial regulation. (And, curiously, the last time several of these highly generous sponsors made big news was to report Massachusetts job layoffs, but we'll leave that to their PR departments to sort out.)

Our point is that, in almost every other circumstance in which these sponsors would make a politically-oriented donation, their donation would be highly regulated. For example, corporate sponsors are prohibited from giving political donations under campaign finance law. Individuals are prohibited from donating more than $500 a year. In this case, some individuals or couples apparently contributed $25,000. Why is an inauguration really any different?

We've written before about how Massachusetts law requires public school teachers to publicly report gifts they receive in amounts of less than $50, and it forbids personal gifts over $50 and class gifts over $150. The purpose is to eliminate the appearance of improper influence. Why can corporations contribute $50,000 to sponsor a statewide inauguration?

It's well and good for us to celebrate the orderly transition of government as part of our democracy, regardless of who is in charge and which party they represent. And, it's fair to ask willing private donors to pick up some of the tab. But we think it's also reasonable to have reporting and contribution guidelines in place, just like during the campaign that made the inauguration possible.

Chaos in the criminal justice system threatens everyone

We are happy to hear that Governor Deval Patrick plans to do something to address youth violence during his second term of office.

But, we hope that action is meaningful and also more encompassing. The plain truth is that the Massachusetts criminal justice system is in a state of chaos. It is threatening our safety and security, and needs immediate attention.

The grisly headlines speak for themselves: On the day after Christmas in 2009, a convenience store clerk is gunned down behind his counter, allegedly by a convicted murderer. In 2010, a pizza deliveryman is murdered for sport by teens. A toddler is gunned down in the streets, caught in the crossfire of an apparent robbery. And the day after Christmas in 2010, a Woburn police officer is murdered by a paroled armed robber who had been sentenced to serve three concurrent life sentences.

Sadly, the tragic list of cases goes on. Each is a solemn example of a system that is failing. If such failures occurred elsewhere, for example in our schools or hospitals, remedial measures would be taken instantly. But, for some reason, the criminal justice system seems immune to meaningful change as people continue to die in our streets.

We're not here to cast blame, and we'd like to specifically point out that police and prosecutors are not to blame. In fact, their tireless dedication and heroic efforts are betrayed the most by these heinous crimes because our criminal justice system works against them.

We're here to demand action. Our state's criminal justice system is too soft on crime, too short on resources, and too laden with politics and patronage to achieve effective results. The Ware Report on the probation department and the New Year's Eve resignation of Commissioner O'Brien leave little doubt that this is true.

Massachusetts needs to put politics aside and put an end to the violence.

State leaders should immediately appoint an independent, comprehensive commission to evaluate our current probation, parole, and sex offender registry systems. And, by a commission, we mean a real working commission that actually meets and achieves results. We must make sure dangerous felons are locked up, not liberated to the streets to reoffend. We need to competently evaluate the risk and monitor the whereabouts of those who are released early.

In addition, the Legislature should partner with judicial officials to undertake a comprehensive reevaluation of our criminal code to identify areas where our laws are failing us. The Legislature should revisit the idea of sentencing guidelines for crimes in this state. The Legislature also should reconsider recent changes to CORI so it is easier for the public to know criminals' violent tendencies.

Finally, we think the FY2012 state budget process should include a thorough, multi-disciplinary evaluation of the capital and operating needs of the criminal justice system. The state should develop a long-term criminal justice spending plan that would help to incorporate additional technology and other resources to assist law enforcement efforts statewide.

There are many components contributing to our crime crisis, including underlying social and economic factors. These will take time to solve. But immediate action is needed to stop the wave of violence sweeping across our state. An entire generation is at risk. Our state is under siege.

Gov. Patrick and the Legislature need to do more to address violent crime

When Domino's pizza delivery man Richel Nova was brutally murdered in September, Suffolk District Attorney Daniel Conley was quoted in the Boston Globe summing up the crime this way:

"This was one of those crimes that shocked the city in a year, unfortunately, of some pretty shocking crimes."

A new study being released today confirms Conley's statement. According to the Massachusetts Health Council, Massachusetts officially has a higher rate of violent crime than New York. In fact, Massachusetts leads the entire Northeast when it comes to violent crimes.

Governor Patrick, what are you going to do about this?

Whenever there is a violent crime, we have become accustomed to seeing Boston Mayor Tom Menino and Police Commissioner Ed Davis at a press conference expressing outrage and vowing to do more to combat crime. Mayor Menino, who had a personal connection to Richel Nova, was criticized for saying he would "slowly torture" the people who committed that crime.

But where have Governor Patrick, Senate President Murray and House Speaker DeLeo been? Why have they not been asked to do more to address violent crime statewide? Why does the press never take them to task for this issue?

Even the Boston Globe seems to give state government a free pass. In a recent Globe editorial about "grisly" murders in Mattapan, the paper credited government for building an expensive state-of-the-art library and community health center in the neighborhood where the crime took place. For the violence, they blamed the "depraved soldiers of the illegal drug trade," and they said the responsibility for dealing with crime lies with law enforcement and neighborhood residents.

We acknowledge the difficulty of solving violent crime. But, we also think leadership starts at the top, and political leadership on the issue of violent crime has been sorely lacking once you step outside City Hall. We hope that Governor Patrick's second term will give him and colleagues in the Legislature opportunity to do more than issue press releases about ways to deal with violent crime in our streets. Perhaps this morning's latest headline, this time about a murder victim in Governor Patrick's usually-tranquil home town of Milton, will give leaders renewed reason to focus attention on this issue.

Massachusetts businesses feeling the post-election blues?

The Associated Press reports that Massachusetts employers have announced a wave of layoffs in the one week since Deval Patrick was re-elected Governor.

Could there be any doubt why? AIM reported before the election that business confidence was up, partly on the assumption that pro-tax-cutting candidates would be elected to the U.S. House in November. Could it be that Massachusetts businesses have the post-election blues after seeing Mass. Democrats prevail again?

One of Patrick's first initiatives when he took office was to raise corporate taxes by hundreds of millions of dollars. And, he capped off his first term by signing into law a crushing 25% increase in the state sales tax. Do we expect anything to really change in a second term, especially with the prospect of a multi-billion dollar state budget deficit next year?

It's disappointing to see tax policies sting some of our state's largest employers. But, small businesses are feeling the pinch too, even though it doesn't always make headlines. We see it every day as we talk to fellow small business owners struggling to deal with the rising cost of health care and tax increases.

These are the people who know on a deeply personal level what it's like to meet a bottom line and keep their people employed. These are the people who actually write the checks for health insurance, rent and federal and state taxes. They know first-hand how Massachusetts' economic policies rob businesses of any incentive to grow.

Small business owners are good citizens. By their very nature, they want to create jobs and be a thriving part of the state's economy. And, they're more than willing to pay their fair share for services they use. The problem is that, in Massachusetts, the government takes advantage of them. In the Bay State, growing your business means having to pay substantially bigger tax bills and deal with much higher costs of doing business. At the end of the day, it's often a wash, and small business owners simply can't get ahead - or even survive.

If we expect to retain and grow jobs here, our political leaders need to understand that small businesses need room to breathe, and that raising taxes is not the answer every time they try to spend money and state coffers come up short.

As a state, we rely on the entrepreneurial spirit of small business owners to keep our economy going. Yet, we do little as a state to encourage that spirit and allow it to prosper.