Massaschusetts Alzheimer Legislation Hearing held requires speed action and no further delays on proposal.
Compassion, Care, and Concern is needed to deal with this serious issue affecting citizens and families. Solutions not excuses are needed now to pro-actively deal with this dreaded disease.
What are not needed are once again inefficiency, waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars and family savings to be handed over to the Human Services Industrial Establishment of Vendors, Providers, and Consultants with little or no Accountability or Oversight. Hopefully, those desperate and in needed do not again are used by the Special Interest Profiteers to fill their pockets with $$$$ and little or no services beyond the cosmetics are provided.
Massachusetts Pacheco Law: The Boston Globe in an Editorial is absolutely wrong and continues to make misleading statements along with their columnist Scot Lehigh on the so called make believe law that allows and enables private sector government contracting by no bid Vendors, Consultants, and Provider Special interests and Campaign Contributors who receive Government Contracts. This so called law with so many loopholes continues to allow by smokescreen more costly work to be performed by private contractors even if more expensive than being done by Government Workers. The law lacks any teeth to enforce proper provisions and is only fakery at its finest. The media tools to coverup in the hands of the Globe Editorial Board and Columnist Lehigh is contaminated filled with guilt as the record shows they either supported or blinked their eyes when those who tryed along with their own employed by newspasper to expose and seek accountability on the Big Dig. They were all dismissed and not listened to trying to get accountability and oversight on the unsafe,costly,and most expensive in the World so called Transportation mismanaged project. The hero Globe writers dismissed and attacked included Peter Howe, John Coughlin, and Charles Sennott.
The so called Pacheco Law does nothing to prevent literally or any unchecked privatization of government services. A smoke screen at best.
Just look at the massive number of traditional former services provided by government services now provided by unchecked no bid contracts by private consultants, providers, and vendors in shadow government. This is done outside Open Meeting Laws, Freedom of Information Act, and the State Ethics Commission.
Massachusetts Taxpayers are paying for employees in the private sector that doesn’t openly show up in reading the State budget. The Globe and the media continues to focus on the number of State Employees and never looking at what is being paid for in the so called private sector and what the actual value is. What and who are this employees?
Union Bosses and Pacheco himself know the so called legislation has not worked, is not working, and will not work, The law only sounds good on the surface.
Inefficiency, waste, and mismanagement continue with the Pacheco Bill not preventing bad expenditure of Tax Dollars.
A major flaw in the legislation Pacheco and his allies allowed in this poorly crafted legislation was allowing Engineering and Design services being exempted. when this so called Pacheco failed law passed that permitted no bid, unaccountable BIG DIG costs to run away with little or no oversight to the Bernie Madeof and unsafe disgrace the project became from the original $2billion to the ridiculous $23 Billion private sector profiteering it now is. The Editorial Board of the time allowed and dismissed all who blew the whistle on the Big Dig. In recent years, a former Globe Editorial Writer Jon Keller now of Boston CBS4 stated the Globe Editorial Board was “in the tank” on the Big Dig and even outed a member of the group.
The Pacheco legislation does not work only accomplishes a false mirage for misguided journalists.
If the Pacheco Law is rigid why there is so much continual waste, fraud, abuse and lack of oversight in Government Contracting that only continues and is not stopped?
I challenge to be corrected.
The so called Pacheco Law does nothing to prevent literally or any unchecked privatization of government services. A smoke screen at best.
Just look at the massive number of traditional former services provided by government services now provided by unchecked no bid contracts by private consultants, providers, and vendors in shadow government. This is done outside Open Meeting Laws, Freedom of Information Act, and the State Ethics Commission.
Massachusetts Taxpayers are paying for employees in the private sector that doesn’t openly show up in reading the State budget. The Globe and the media continues to focus on the number of State Employees and never looking at what is being paid for in the so called private sector and what the actual value is. What and who are this employees?
Union Bosses and Pacheco himself know the so called legislation has not worked, is not working, and will not work, The law only sounds good on the surface.
Inefficiency, waste, and mismanagement continue with the Pacheco Bill not preventing bad expenditure of Tax Dollars.
A major flaw in the legislation Pacheco and his allies allowed in this poorly crafted legislation was allowing Engineering and Design services being exempted. when this so called Pacheco failed law passed that permitted no bid, unaccountable BIG DIG costs to run away with little or no oversight to the Bernie Madeof and unsafe disgrace the project became from the original $2billion to the ridiculous $23 Billion private sector profiteering it now is. The Editorial Board of the time allowed and dismissed all who blew the whistle on the Big Dig. In recent years, a former Globe Editorial Writer Jon Keller now of Boston CBS4 stated the Globe Editorial Board was “in the tank” on the Big Dig and even outed a member of the group.
The Pacheco legislation does not work only accomplishes a false mirage for misguided journalists.
If the Pacheco Law is rigid why there is so much continual waste, fraud, abuse and lack of oversight in Government Contracting that only continues and is not stopped?
I challenge to be corrected.
THE UNTOLD STORY BEHIND THE INAUGERATION AGAIN OF MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR DEVAL PATRICK AND POLITICAL ASSISTANT LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR TIM MURRAY
The so called BIG BIG Business Group Massachusetts Taxpayers Association organization membership that promotes Bernie MadEoff failures against taxpayers and citizens is well represented in the list of private contributors paying along with the Union Bosses who did not seek direct approval from their membership to spend BIG $$$$ for the Patrick-Murray anointing again festivities.
Now, we have cosmetic groups who are part of the so called ethics study group formed by the governor like Common Cause trying to have it both ways in being part of the problem than being critical of the coronation.
Meanwhile, the citizens and taxpayers continue to watch inefficiency, w3aste, fraud, and abuse in state government with a so called dysfunctional legislature incapable of providing oversight and accountability to insure government services and expenditures are needed and and proper.
Needed and legitimate services by government get the budget ax while the royalty of consultants, vendors, and providers most Special Interests continue no matter if a Republican or Democratic Administration is in office.
The well financed Special interests always win against the citizens less powerful.
$700, 000 allegedly being spent to coronate another 4 years of Governor Patrick-Murray miscues is rather cheap money to spend to try to get access and be part of the team?
Happy Inauguration to the Special Interests while Massachusetts Children, Women, and Men continue to suffer from a failed economy and government structure.
When will integrity with true public service not perpetual self service start in Massachusetts?
The so called BIG BIG Business Group Massachusetts Taxpayers Association organization membership that promotes Bernie MadEoff failures against taxpayers and citizens is well represented in the list of private contributors paying along with the Union Bosses who did not seek direct approval from their membership to spend BIG $$$$ for the Patrick-Murray anointing again festivities.
Now, we have cosmetic groups who are part of the so called ethics study group formed by the governor like Common Cause trying to have it both ways in being part of the problem than being critical of the coronation.
Meanwhile, the citizens and taxpayers continue to watch inefficiency, w3aste, fraud, and abuse in state government with a so called dysfunctional legislature incapable of providing oversight and accountability to insure government services and expenditures are needed and and proper.
Needed and legitimate services by government get the budget ax while the royalty of consultants, vendors, and providers most Special Interests continue no matter if a Republican or Democratic Administration is in office.
The well financed Special interests always win against the citizens less powerful.
$700, 000 allegedly being spent to coronate another 4 years of Governor Patrick-Murray miscues is rather cheap money to spend to try to get access and be part of the team?
Happy Inauguration to the Special Interests while Massachusetts Children, Women, and Men continue to suffer from a failed economy and government structure.
When will integrity with true public service not perpetual self service start in Massachusetts?
MASSACHUSETTS BUDGET CUTS AGAIN THIS YEAR,Next Year, or Forever!!!!...WHO IS THE DUMB, DUMBER, DUMBEST? THE GOVERNOR, LEGISLATURE, OR CITIZENS WHO BELIEVE THERE IS AN ACTUAL CRISIS AND NOT ANOTHER COVERUP? WHEN WILL THE MEDIA DO SOME OR ANY RESEARCH ON THEIR OWN AND NOT LISTEN TO ALL THE TIME TO THOSE WHO CAUSE THE PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE CAUSING INACCURATE NEWS STORIES AND JOURNALISM. IS THIS ANOTHER MAKE BELIEVE SCHEME TO ONCE AGAIN JUSTIFY INEFFICIENCY, WASTE, OR MISMANAGEMENT FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GIVING MORE TO THE SPECIAL INTERESTS AND PRESERVING MORE PATRONAGE SPECIAL INTEREST SPENDING FOR INSIDERS AND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTERS?
Massachusetts Unecessary Budget Cuts Are Another Scheme To Fool The Taxpayers and Citizens
Shame and stupidity prevails on any proposed Massachusetts budget cuts with the Governor cutting budgets even wanting supreme powers to cut at will. This clearly shows an absolute dumbness that only depicts a continual lack of leadership failure with both the House and Senate Leadership enablers being part of the scheme. Unfortunately, most in the media will not report the real facts as always not to antagonize future access to the political elite.
There should be no budget shortfalls and a leaner budget to begin with. Stop feeding the addiction of costly no bid contracts to vendors, providers, and consultants that cost billions of budget taxpayer dollars. The shadow Massachusetts Government of outsourced employees from bought services that are never revealed or discussed should be the first place to start along with their executive perks and salaries. Elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse rampant throughout in several budget areas alone could solve any deficiency. Going after the so called underground economy that flourishes in the state alone means billions of additional revenue.
The elimination of unneeded patronage positions will enable the career dedicated workforce to perform their mandated duties on behalf of the taxpayers and citizens of Massachusetts.
Time for a true line item, subsidiary accounts, object codes, and a scheduling state budget filled with true accountability and oversight devices to regain the trust in government by the citizenry.
These are the solutions in plain talk. The bad taste of the Big Dig, Turnpike, Special Interest Campaign Contributions, and those who practice personal gain instead of the common good has left citizens to be cynical and have no trust in Massachusetts Government.
Reforms are needed now, not yesterday, or tomorrow. Show us there is indeed a crisis and waste, fraud, and abuse has been eliminated openly and honestly then belief in our government will be restored and the citizens will follow.
http://oversightwatchmassachusetts.blogspot.com/
There have been several recent contacts by affected public employeees requesting additional information on Whistleblower Protections. In all cases,to those potentially legitimately being victimized:
WARNING. DO NOT CONTACT OR REPORT WASTE, FRAUD, ABUSE OR ANY FORM OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO ANY IN THE MEDIA, UNION OFFICIAL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, FBI, LOCAL OR STATE POLICE AS THESE ENTITIES MAY PROTECT OR REPRESENT THOSE WHO MAY BE DOING THE VIOLATIONS AND NOT YOU....FIRST, YOU MUST SEEK A REPUTABLE PRIVATE LAWYER YOU TRUST BEFORE COMMUNICATING, TALKING TO, OR ACTING OUTSIDE YOUR EMPLOYER,....
John Gatti Jr
Enclosed is the LAW
The Massachusetts Whistleblower Protection Act
THE MASSACHUSETTS WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT
"An Act to Protect Conscientious Employees"
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
Chapter 149 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 1992 Official edition, is hereby amended by inserting after section 184 the following:
Section 185.
(a) As used in this section, the following words shall have the following meanings:
(1) "Employee", any individual who preforms services for and under the control and direction of an employer for wages or other remuneration.
(2) "Employer", the commonwealth, and its agencies or subdivisions, including, but not limited to, cities, towns, counties and regional school districts, or any authority, commission, board or instrumentality thereof.
(3) "Public body",
(A) the United States Congress, any state legislature, including the general court, or any popularly elected local government body. or any member or employee thereof;
(B) any federal, state, or local judiciary, or any member or employee thereof, or any grand or petit jury;
(C) any federal, state or local law enforcement agency, prosecutorial office, or police or peace officer; or
(D) any division, board,bureau, office, committee or commission of any of the public bodies described in the above paragraphs of this subsection.
(4) "Supervisor", any individual to whom an employer has given the authority to direct and control the work performance of the affected employee, who has the authority to take corrective action regarding the violation of the law, rule or regulation of which the employee complains, or who has been designated by the employer on the notice required under subsection (g).
(5) "Retaliatory action", the discharge, suspension or demotion of an employee, or other adverse employment action taken against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment.
(b) An employer shall not take any retaliatory action against an employee because the employee does any of the following:
(1) Discloses, or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer, or of an other employer with whom the employee's employer has a business relationship, that the employee reasonably believes is in violation of the law, or rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, or which the employee reasonably believes poses a risk to public health, safety or the environment;
(2) Provides information to, or testifies before, any public boy conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry into any violation of law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, or activity, policy or practice which the employee reasonably believes poses a risk to public health, safety or the environment by the employer, or by another employer with whom the employee's employer has a business relationship; or
(3) Objects to, or refuse to participate in any activity, policy or practice which the employee reasonably believes poses a risk to public health, safety or the environment.
(c)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the protection against retaliatory action provided by subsection (b)(1) shall not apply to an employee who makes a disclosure to a public body unless the employee has brought the activity, policy or practice in violation of the law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, or which the employee reasonably believes poses a risk to public health, safety or the environment, to the attention of a supervisor of the employee by written notice and has afforded the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the activity, policy or practice.
(2) An employee is not required to comply with paragraph (1) if he:
(A) is reasonably certain that the activity, policy or practice ia known to one or more supervisors of the employer and the situation is emergency in nature;
(B) reasonably fears physical harm as a result of the disclosure provided; or
(C) makes the disclosure to a public body as defined in clause (B) or (D) of the definition of 'public body" in subsection (a) for the purpose of providing evidence of what the employee reasonably believes to be a crime.
(d) Any employee or former employee aggrieved by a violation of this section may, within two years, institute a civil action in the superior court. Any party to said action shall be entitled to claim a jury trial. All remedies available in common law tort actions shall be made available to prevailing plaintiffs. These remedies are in a addition to any legal or equitable relief provided herein. The court may:
(1) issue temporary restraining orders or preliminary or permanent injunctions to restrain continued violation of this section;
(2) reinstate the employee to the same position held before the retaliatory action, or to an equivalent position;
(3) reinstate full fringe benefits ad seniority rights to the employee;
(4) compensate the employee for three times the lost wages, benefits and other remuneration, and interest thereon; and
(5) order payment by the employer of reasonable costs, and attorneys' fees.
(e)
(1) except as provided in paragraph (2), in any action brought by an employee under subsection (d), if the court finds the action was without basis in law or fact, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees and court costs to the employer.
(2) An employee shall not be assessed attorney's fees under paragraph 1 one (1) if, after exercising reasonable and diligent efforts after filing a suit, the employee moves to dismiss the action against the employer, or files a notice agreeing to a voluntary dismissal, within a reasonable time after determining that the employer would not be found liable for damages.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges or remedies of any employee under any other federal or state law or regulation, or under any collective bargaining agreement or employment contract; except that the institution of a private action in accordance subsection (d) shall be deemed a waiver by the plaintiff of the rights and remedies available to him, for the actions of the employer, under any other contract, collective bargaining agreement, state law, rule or regulation, or under common law.
(g) An employer shall conspicuously display notices reasonably designed to inform its employees of their protection and obligations under this section, and use other appropriate means to keep its employees informed. Each notice posted pursuant to this subsection shall include the name of the person or person the employer has designated to receive written notification pursuant to subsection (
WARNING. DO NOT CONTACT OR REPORT WASTE, FRAUD, ABUSE OR ANY FORM OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO ANY IN THE MEDIA, UNION OFFICIAL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, FBI, LOCAL OR STATE POLICE AS THESE ENTITIES MAY PROTECT OR REPRESENT THOSE WHO MAY BE DOING THE VIOLATIONS AND NOT YOU....FIRST, YOU MUST SEEK A REPUTABLE PRIVATE LAWYER YOU TRUST BEFORE COMMUNICATING, TALKING TO, OR ACTING OUTSIDE YOUR EMPLOYER,....
John Gatti Jr
Enclosed is the LAW
The Massachusetts Whistleblower Protection Act
THE MASSACHUSETTS WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT
"An Act to Protect Conscientious Employees"
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
Chapter 149 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 1992 Official edition, is hereby amended by inserting after section 184 the following:
Section 185.
(a) As used in this section, the following words shall have the following meanings:
(1) "Employee", any individual who preforms services for and under the control and direction of an employer for wages or other remuneration.
(2) "Employer", the commonwealth, and its agencies or subdivisions, including, but not limited to, cities, towns, counties and regional school districts, or any authority, commission, board or instrumentality thereof.
(3) "Public body",
(A) the United States Congress, any state legislature, including the general court, or any popularly elected local government body. or any member or employee thereof;
(B) any federal, state, or local judiciary, or any member or employee thereof, or any grand or petit jury;
(C) any federal, state or local law enforcement agency, prosecutorial office, or police or peace officer; or
(D) any division, board,bureau, office, committee or commission of any of the public bodies described in the above paragraphs of this subsection.
(4) "Supervisor", any individual to whom an employer has given the authority to direct and control the work performance of the affected employee, who has the authority to take corrective action regarding the violation of the law, rule or regulation of which the employee complains, or who has been designated by the employer on the notice required under subsection (g).
(5) "Retaliatory action", the discharge, suspension or demotion of an employee, or other adverse employment action taken against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment.
(b) An employer shall not take any retaliatory action against an employee because the employee does any of the following:
(1) Discloses, or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer, or of an other employer with whom the employee's employer has a business relationship, that the employee reasonably believes is in violation of the law, or rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, or which the employee reasonably believes poses a risk to public health, safety or the environment;
(2) Provides information to, or testifies before, any public boy conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry into any violation of law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, or activity, policy or practice which the employee reasonably believes poses a risk to public health, safety or the environment by the employer, or by another employer with whom the employee's employer has a business relationship; or
(3) Objects to, or refuse to participate in any activity, policy or practice which the employee reasonably believes poses a risk to public health, safety or the environment.
(c)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the protection against retaliatory action provided by subsection (b)(1) shall not apply to an employee who makes a disclosure to a public body unless the employee has brought the activity, policy or practice in violation of the law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, or which the employee reasonably believes poses a risk to public health, safety or the environment, to the attention of a supervisor of the employee by written notice and has afforded the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the activity, policy or practice.
(2) An employee is not required to comply with paragraph (1) if he:
(A) is reasonably certain that the activity, policy or practice ia known to one or more supervisors of the employer and the situation is emergency in nature;
(B) reasonably fears physical harm as a result of the disclosure provided; or
(C) makes the disclosure to a public body as defined in clause (B) or (D) of the definition of 'public body" in subsection (a) for the purpose of providing evidence of what the employee reasonably believes to be a crime.
(d) Any employee or former employee aggrieved by a violation of this section may, within two years, institute a civil action in the superior court. Any party to said action shall be entitled to claim a jury trial. All remedies available in common law tort actions shall be made available to prevailing plaintiffs. These remedies are in a addition to any legal or equitable relief provided herein. The court may:
(1) issue temporary restraining orders or preliminary or permanent injunctions to restrain continued violation of this section;
(2) reinstate the employee to the same position held before the retaliatory action, or to an equivalent position;
(3) reinstate full fringe benefits ad seniority rights to the employee;
(4) compensate the employee for three times the lost wages, benefits and other remuneration, and interest thereon; and
(5) order payment by the employer of reasonable costs, and attorneys' fees.
(e)
(1) except as provided in paragraph (2), in any action brought by an employee under subsection (d), if the court finds the action was without basis in law or fact, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees and court costs to the employer.
(2) An employee shall not be assessed attorney's fees under paragraph 1 one (1) if, after exercising reasonable and diligent efforts after filing a suit, the employee moves to dismiss the action against the employer, or files a notice agreeing to a voluntary dismissal, within a reasonable time after determining that the employer would not be found liable for damages.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges or remedies of any employee under any other federal or state law or regulation, or under any collective bargaining agreement or employment contract; except that the institution of a private action in accordance subsection (d) shall be deemed a waiver by the plaintiff of the rights and remedies available to him, for the actions of the employer, under any other contract, collective bargaining agreement, state law, rule or regulation, or under common law.
(g) An employer shall conspicuously display notices reasonably designed to inform its employees of their protection and obligations under this section, and use other appropriate means to keep its employees informed. Each notice posted pursuant to this subsection shall include the name of the person or person the employer has designated to receive written notification pursuant to subsection (
Former Democratic Massachusetts Attorney general Tom Reilly endorses Republican Candidate for Governor Charlie Baker? No one should be surprised. The Special Self Interest Crowd always supports each other at the expense of the public interest.
Charlie Baker held several state government positions from 1990-1998 including the head of Administration and Finance that controlled the finances of the state government. His record of siding with the Big Dig Special Interest machine, vendors, providers, and consultants on government expenditures with little or no accountability or oversight is a national model for inefficiency, waste and mismanagement. In !998, Baker went into the revolving door over to Harvard Vangard Medical Associates and the head of its parent company Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, a so called health insurer that was in trouble.
Along came the new Attorney General Tom Reilly in 1999. Together they teamed for a questionable bailout deal worked out to prevent the entity from merging, being sold, or subscribers being transferred to other carriers all Wall Street Bankers would be proud. The subscribers and citizens were told this was good! No state tax dollars were said to be involved. What about political special influence that the media never thoroughly explored? Baker went on from earning his starting salary allegedly from $400,000 to $1.7 million when he left. Baker was a strong national leader advocate for higher premiums for less coverage that business and industries and their employees must pay.
Since the Wall Street type bailout of Harvard Pilgrim, Michael J. Widmer of the misnamed Special Interest group so called Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, whose membership is composed of so many powerful medical, health, and insurance members that pay big dues to promote and protect their special self interest, is weighing in because of the Reilly endorsement as a damage control defender apparently to sound credible.
However, the public should see through this and not be fooled as the media has for more than a decade.
Charlie Baker held several state government positions from 1990-1998 including the head of Administration and Finance that controlled the finances of the state government. His record of siding with the Big Dig Special Interest machine, vendors, providers, and consultants on government expenditures with little or no accountability or oversight is a national model for inefficiency, waste and mismanagement. In !998, Baker went into the revolving door over to Harvard Vangard Medical Associates and the head of its parent company Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, a so called health insurer that was in trouble.
Along came the new Attorney General Tom Reilly in 1999. Together they teamed for a questionable bailout deal worked out to prevent the entity from merging, being sold, or subscribers being transferred to other carriers all Wall Street Bankers would be proud. The subscribers and citizens were told this was good! No state tax dollars were said to be involved. What about political special influence that the media never thoroughly explored? Baker went on from earning his starting salary allegedly from $400,000 to $1.7 million when he left. Baker was a strong national leader advocate for higher premiums for less coverage that business and industries and their employees must pay.
Since the Wall Street type bailout of Harvard Pilgrim, Michael J. Widmer of the misnamed Special Interest group so called Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, whose membership is composed of so many powerful medical, health, and insurance members that pay big dues to promote and protect their special self interest, is weighing in because of the Reilly endorsement as a damage control defender apparently to sound credible.
However, the public should see through this and not be fooled as the media has for more than a decade.
Boston Globe waking up and talking about attack ads on the race for Massachusetts Governor acting surprise when they should have been reporting and separating facts from fiction
Now the facts are coming out on both Baker and Patrick in so called cosmetic political ads for both these so called special interest candidates. When will you reporters early on in campaigns do real investigative journalism from the start of the election process that may have gotten better candidates?
As for Baker, he only has to have his mirage work for the next few weeks and hope more information does not come out on his jobs of destruction and to citizens and taxpayers that is an unexposed record when Baker his government job failures as Assistant Secretary of Human Services, Secretary of Human Services, and the Chief State Budget Dictator and Know All before going on to be head of the bailed out failed HMO Harvard Pilgrim with its $million+ salary that gouged businesses and industries wanting to provide healthcare to their employees and citizens in need of quality health insurance.
Now, we will have the Charlie attack ads from out of state and in state from his Special Interest Machine and so called not associated groups that will make big buck profits for Massachusetts broadcast media outlets
Now the facts are coming out on both Baker and Patrick in so called cosmetic political ads for both these so called special interest candidates. When will you reporters early on in campaigns do real investigative journalism from the start of the election process that may have gotten better candidates?
As for Baker, he only has to have his mirage work for the next few weeks and hope more information does not come out on his jobs of destruction and to citizens and taxpayers that is an unexposed record when Baker his government job failures as Assistant Secretary of Human Services, Secretary of Human Services, and the Chief State Budget Dictator and Know All before going on to be head of the bailed out failed HMO Harvard Pilgrim with its $million+ salary that gouged businesses and industries wanting to provide healthcare to their employees and citizens in need of quality health insurance.
Now, we will have the Charlie attack ads from out of state and in state from his Special Interest Machine and so called not associated groups that will make big buck profits for Massachusetts broadcast media outlets
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)