SwiftVets.com

[rds]

John Kerry was Lt Gov of Mass before he ran for the Senate. Since I haven't heard any comment or claim about this position, I was wondering about any achievements while holding this office.

[kate]

He held that position only 2 years before he ran for the US Senate

JOHN KERRY: MICHAEL DUKAKIS' LT. GOVERNOR (1983-1984) Kerry Wrong On Taxes & Spending As Lt. Governor

In 1983 Letter, Kerry Said Federal Government Didn't Need To Cut Taxes. "We don't need enormous tax breaks for the wealthy …" (Lt. Gov. John F. Kerry, Letter To Paul Mann, 4/83)

Kerry Called 1981 Tax Cut, Which Reduced Top Rate To 50 Percent, "Misguided." "Our offices of Federal/State Relations has been studying [President Reagan's FY 1985 budget] … Based on these preliminary findings, we can report that the President's proposals once again ask our state to shoulder the burden for misguided policies of the past three years which have attempted to cut taxes for the wealthy …" (Lt. Gov. John F. Kerry, Statement, 2/1/84)

Dukakis-Kerry Administration Supported Higher Gas Taxes. "The Massachusetts Legislature … passed and sent to Gov. Michael S. Dukakis a gasoline tax bill that establishes an 11-cent-a-gallon floor, which means an increase of 1.1 cents a gallon over the current tax. … It was seen as a victory for the Dukakis administration … The administration, in one of the heaviest lobbying efforts in recent years, pushed for the … floor when wholesale prices began dropping sharply because of a world oil glut." (Andrew Blake, "Mass. Legislature OK's Bill Putting Floor Under Gas Tax," The Boston Globe, 3/30/83)

"At A March 1983 Cabinet Meeting, Mr. Kerry Wrote, 'Gas Tax - Full Court Press.' Two Weeks Later, The Measure Was Law." (Josh Gerstein, "Archives Tell Tale Of Kerry's Career," The New York Sun, 1/26/04)

Dukakis-Kerry Vetoed Tax Cuts That Would Have Helped Elderly. "Hours after the Legislature gave lopsided approval to a four-year tax cut, Gov. Michael S. Dukakis … vetoed it, denouncing it as 'irresponsible' and 'sloppily put together.' … The tax cut … would have saved taxpayers from $280 million to $600 million over the four year period. The two-pronged package would have increased personal exemptions by $200 - resulting in cuts of from $10.75 to nearly $90 per taxpayer - and eliminated the 10 percent tax on unearned income up to $6600 for couples over 65." (Laurence Collins, "Tax Cut Is Vetoed By Dukakis," The Boston Globe, 7/12/84)

FY 1984 Dukakis-Kerry Budget Would Have Increased Taxes By $131 Million. (Norman Lockman, "Those Who Would Feel The Bite," The Boston Globe, 3/6/83)

Dukakis-Kerry Proposal Would Have Raised Taxes On: "Smokers, Motorists, Gamblers, Beverage Industry, Hospitals And Banks." (Norman Lockman, "Those Who Would Feel The Bite," The Boston Globe, 3/6/83)

Tax Hikes Came As Dukakis-Kerry Added $295 Million To Budget. "Contributing to th[e] deficit are $295 million in budget additions made by the Dukakis team. They come in the areas of human services, crime-fighting, economic development, higher education, housing for the homeless and increasing the state's own anti-corruption efforts." (Editorial, "The Duke's Budget," The Boston Herald, 3/3/83)
_________________
.
one of..... We The People

[Scott]

From John Kerry's website:

[truthseeker]

The "Massachusetts Miracle" of the 1980's was a fraud. Don't know how much of it I want to blame on Kerry. By the way, if you want to see what Massachusetts insiders thought about him, or at least one group of such insiders, look at Boston talk-show host Howie Carr. Try the Boston Herald, or HowieCarr.com

I'm born and raised in Massachusetts, though long gone from the People's Republic of Massachusetts.

Funny, back then, everyone sort of assumed Kerry was Irish. I know I did (I'm not Irish). He never seemed to go out of his way to dispel the notion, even when Irish organizations were giving him honorary memberships and all that. Though I don't know how much I'd fault any politician for that peccadillo.

Ronald Reagan was probably the best thing that ever happened to Massachusetts in the 1980's. A lot of Boston's high-tech industry, especially back then, was high-tech military. Patriot missles, cruise missles, even the Quartermaster Corps was high-tech uniforms, R+D, etc.

I'm not military at all. My friends that went into computer-related industries back then, seems they all were doing something defense-related.

So money poured into the state. And real-estate was grossly undervalued in those days, because the economy was so bad in the 1970's. Geez, they were giving away mansions back in the 1970's, no one wanted them, too much to heat, and taxed out the wazoo. A recipe for a boom.

Problem was, as much money poured into the state, to go into state taxes and all that, Dukakis spent all that.....and more. All through the 1980's, he was sort of playing a shell game. Accounting tricks to make the budget look balanced when it was not. So he could run for President on his "Massachusetts Miracle", and how he balanced so many state budgets so many years in a row.

Problem was, when he ran for President, he couldn't play that shell game AND run a Presidential campaign at the same time. Especially when the state economy had softened a bit.

So state funds ran short in accounts. He couldn't transfer funds as quickly and tapdance like he had done when he was sitting in Boston. The LOCAL newspapers were reporting that businesses that worked with the state of Massachusetts were getting bounced checks. You pave a sidewalk or ship a gross of paperclips or whatever, the state paid you, and the check bounced. LOCAL papers wrote about this, not NATIONAL papers.

I wonder why?

Remember the Lloyd Bentsen-Dan Quayle debate? "You're no Jack Kennedy"

The line that really hit me was a remark by Quayle about how the country should vote for Bush/Quayle because they would continue Reagan economic policies. Bentsen's reply was "Anybody can make the economy look good by writing hot checks" referring to defecit spending.

A reasonable criticism as far as it goes. Thing is, at the time I was listening to that line, I could look at local papers and see that the State of Massachusetts was LITERALLY writing hot checks.

Well, Dukakis loses the 1988 election.

A few weeks after the election, there was an editorial line in the Wall Street Journal. Look at Massachusetts bond rating. You will see the rating plummet. Not today, not next week, but in a year. FUTURE TENSE, you WILL see the rating plummet.

The reason was, the bond rating agencies knew exactly what was going on in Massachusetts. But they were not willing to say anything about it in an election season, lest they be accused of favoring the Republicans. But after the election, they would not say anything, lest they be accused of having suppressed the news to favor the Democrats. So they decided to wait a year, lower the ratings then, and hope everyone would have forgotten the whole thing.

And that's what happened. Massachusetts bond ratings by 1989 were the worst or second-worst in the country. The state economy just tanked to 1970's levels. My local newspaper was filled with bankruptcy sales.

Funny how the WSJ could predict the future like that.

How much you want to pin that on a Lt. Governor for a couple years, who moved on to the Senate by 1984.............

But in my book, he gets no credit for any improvement in the state's economy, that's for sure.

Oh, and one more thing. Look at Southeastern Massachusetts, "Buzzard's Bay". You see Nantucket seaward, then Martha's Vineyard, then a chain of islands called the Elizabeth Islands (includes Cuttyhunk, Naushon, Nashawena, Pasque, Gosnold, Penikese).

As the dictionary describes them: "....chain of small islands off Cape Cod that form the southern boundary of Buzzards Bay; SE Mass. Naushon is the largest island. Cuttyhunk Island was settled in 1641 and has a U.S. Coast Guard station. Most of the islands are privately owned."

Guess who the private owner is.

The Kennedy's and the Bush's have a compound. The Forbes family has islands. Plural.