(I cannot get their video to work on my Mac (even w/ Windows Media Player, so if anyone finds this debate posted in another format, please chime in! – promoted by eli_beckerman)
The State Auditor candidates debate hosted on Tuesday (12 Oct) by the Rappaport Center and State House News Service at Suffolk University Law School hasn’t generated much press coverage, but it should! You can find a link to a full length video of the debate here on the Rappaport Center home page (requires Windows Media Player): http://www.rappaportcenter.org/
I obviously hope that if you watch the full debate then you will find yourself convinced you should vote for me, but I would appreciate any feedback you have on the arguments put forward by my opponents and me in either case.
One small exception to the coverage focus on what Bump said about Connaughton (and what Connaughton did or didn’t say about Bump) are the following two paragraphs from Matt Murphy of State House News Service in the extended text. Note that I only got a couple of paragraphs of coverage, but these were two good paragraphs to get! http://ow.ly/2Szw0
Fortune called tax-incentive programs part of the “great America jobs scam,” saying not only would he audit those programs but push for the money currently diverted to lure specific businesses to be reinvested in communities for police, teachers and librarians instead. “Electing an auditor to tell you that the money is being thrown away exactly as expected is not going to help,” he said.
I had thought I had also specified firefighters (like those laid off in Lawrence MA) but if not, I should have. And finally,
Nat Fortune, running as a Green Rainbow candidate, sided with Connaughton on the issue of campaign finance, explaining that he neither accepts nor belongs to a party that accepts special interest money. “Those two things set me apart, and also mean I have a low campaign budget,” said Fortune, a physics professor at Smith College.
Of course, you could help fix that problem!
Sustainably yours,
Nat Fortune, Green-Rainbow Party Candidate for State Auditor
#
I’m a Mac user too, Eli! try using the Flip for Mac plug-INS for QuickTime Player (instead of the buggy WMV for Mac application): http://www.microsoft.com/mac/p…
Then, open the video in QuickTime.
#
At about 52:00 you were responding to this question:
“…are there any changes you would make as to how the auditor’s office weighs in on pending legistlation and adresses the impact on of pending bills on cities and towns?”
Your response was exactly what I was hoping to hear, but I have questions about this portion:
“…we could lower overall taxes for everyone under $70,000
if we just reverse the regressive taxes and actually had a dramatic increase in the exemptions the sales tax to make it really reflect 200% of the poverty lever, $24,000 per person, $7500 per child…”
I personally transcribed this so it may not be entirely accurate. My question is what exemption are you talking about? The personal exemption we currently take at about $8,000 for married filing jointly? Is that the sales tax exemption you are talking about? If that’s the case, then increasing it to over $50,000 for a family of three would flood the middle working class with discretionary dollars and would have a huge impact on growth in our state. I think it’s an excellent idea, if that’s what you meant. So my question is: is that what you meant?
My other question is about lowering taxes for those making less than $70,000 a year. I am hoping that our leaders will understand that even people earning up to $150,000 can struggle and live paycheck to paycheck, depending on where they live and what their healthcare and education expenses are. So while I am absolutely for raising taxes on the highest incomes because that is where all the discretionary dollars are being hoarded right now, I’m hoping that there will be some relief even for those earning up to $150,000. If not relief, than no increases. My family doesn’t make anywhere near that much, we are closer to the $70,000 that you mention and we are pinched to the limit, have very few discretionary dollars during the year (whenever we do then some utility, healthcare or grocery cost increase goes into effect usually and takes it right away). So I guess my question is: Do you support raising taxes on families earning more than $70,000yr.
#
There is no reason a family can’t live on 75k.
Means you drive ONE old car. Means you buy a lot of your clothes at the thrift shops (and still look professional). Means you cut your own family’s hair and vice versa. You don’t go out, you don’t take meaningless vacations–but you obviously already know that.
College tuition is, of course, the really murderous fly in the ointment. But U-Mass does a terrific job at funding those who can’t afford it.
The idea that people making 150k are struggling is beyond the bounds of comprehension for me.
#
FInd it here: http://www.rappaportcenter.com…
or go to main site at http://www.rappaportcenter.com and click on Public Policy Programs, then click on Past Programs