The real scoop on Baker and his “pledge” to protect outsourcing loopholes.

Bay State Future, and independent liberal group affiliated with the Democratic Governors Association (DGA), recently began running bogus attack ads against Massachusetts Republican gubernatorial nominee Charlie Baker for signing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

Their claim: Signing the Pledge is proof that Baker “favors tax loopholes that encourage corporations to ship jobs overseas.”

Really? Let’s look at what the Pledge he signed actually says. In signing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, Charlie Baker has simply promised Massachusetts residents that he will “oppose and veto any and all efforts to raise taxes.”

How Bay State Future takes that and equates it to shipping jobs overseas is beyond me, or any objective observer for that matter. This is not surprising though. As the midterm elections approach and the Left becomes increasingly desperate to stem the tide of voter retribution that awaits them on Nov. 2nd. They are avoiding substantive policy discussions and downright misleading voters. This false attack on Baker’s signing of the Pledge just being the latest example.


Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously stated that “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Gov. Deval Patrick, the DGA, and Bay State Future may be of the opinion that higher taxes should always be on the table. However, the fact remains that Charlie Baker’s pledge to stop all further tax increases will improve the commonwealth’s business tax climate and actually entice more employers to set up shop and create jobs in the Bay State.

The only question is: Which is uglier, the lies posed against Baker or the crunchy teacher with the spit gap who put her face in the ad on purpose?

the question posed was approved by the Ken Pittman Show

About Ken Pittman

  • nomad943

    Since the dems brought this subject up with their bogus ad camapign I am of the opinion that this could be a good opportunity for a serious educational moment.

    That is if anyone actualy would care to step up and defend this ads premise.

    Its a basic philisophical difference that is highlighted and the results are stark.

    Similarly, there is much common ground shared between defending this tax “loophole” and the sales tax rollback initiative.

    The supposed corporate loophole is being maintained because it gives American businesses a fighting chance to compete in the global theater on the same footing as their global competition, without having to be severly handicapped in that competiton by our excess American taxation.

    The exact same sentiment could be expressed regarding our state’s sales tax, which at 6 1/4% makes the concept of competition with bordering NH ludicrous.

    Rather than creating LOOPHOLES what we need to see done is to have these taxes permanantly lowered to a level similar to our competitors.

    In the case of the sales tax, why are we thinking in reverse? Why do we see proponents sell this tax reduction in terms of how much more competative we would be versus NH? Imagine how much better situated we would be as a state when competing with the likes of RI, NY and CT?

    When Mihos set up the web cam showing shoppers heading north into NH he erred by placing the camera on the Mass side of the line. That type of thinking led us to feel as though we were on the defensive. The camera should have been placed on the NH side showing all the new construction and commerce just over the line that was a direct result of the positive tax differential those people in NH experience. That experience would be ours all along our borders with these other states who have high taxes themselves. We could see the same effect nationaly by seeing proper adjustments to our corporate tax structure.

    This is an educational moment IMO. Who wants to make the ad?