Psuedo-Con Baker’s Plan? The same As Cahill’s!

Last week we were treated to an exciting posting entitled Psuedo-Con Tim Cahill’s Plan? Balance state budget on backs of cities and towns “

In this post it was revealed that Cahill stated he would have cut funding to local communities before he would have considered cutting funding for the Quinn bill.

While opinions seemed split, a good number of posters took the position that Cahill was being a hack and that the Quinn bill was nothing more than a giant payoff to the police unions.

In the interest of fairness it should be noted that we no longer have to wonder how Baker would handle the exact same question.

The Herald reports that he took the exact same position as Cahill.

Thou shall not stand up to public service unions.

It is a cardinal rule amongst our state “conservative” elite.

http://news.bostonherald.com/n…

****Scoring update! Originaly no points were awarded for this question. Cahill’s point for answering a tough question was quickly lost for giving the wrong answer. In light of the latest information a point is now awarded; to Deval Patrick who is beginning to appear to be the true conservative in the race in light of Baker’s new plan to halt the civilian flagger program

About nomad943

  • What Charlie said in the article is that he would fund the Quinn Bill, which is what he should do. What the legislature did was create an unfunded mandate for cities and towns by cutting funding for a program, but keeping the program in place. I would think that all Republicans join Charlie in being against unfunded mandates.

    Tim Cahill’s position was that he would fund the Quinn Bill through additional cuts in local aid. That’s not the same as Charlie’s plan to restore local aid through cuts in state government.

    Regarding Deval being the true conservative, it’s laughable to support his plan of paying flagman at the same rate as a police officer, and calling it reform. His flagman reform is just like his turnpike reform and his pension reform. They are all bills that don’t reform anything, but carry the reform title that he wants to use on the campaign trail.

    So, if we are scoring that’s 1 point for Charlie on opposing unfunded mandates, and no points for anyone regarding flagman until they call for a simultaneous repeal of the prevailing wage laws.