Tag Archives: Gloucester Daily Times

THANK YOU TAYLOR ANN BRADFORD AND THE GLOUCESTER TIMES FOR THE GREAT STORY ABOUT OUR GHB PIPLS! AND HAPPY FOUR WEEKS OLD MARSHMALLOW!

Good Morning PiPl Friends and Ambassadors,

As I was leaving, Heidi and I crossed paths on the footbridge. What a joy to be replaced each day by Heidi and have a moment of good conversation, something I am sure many of us are not getting enough of during the pandemic.

The raker had not yet come but Dad and Marshmallow were peacefully foraging down at the Creek. More bathing, preening, floofing, and flippy floppy flying thing, with only the Killdeers causing Dad to leave his post.

Taylor Ann Bradford from the Gloucester Times wrote a very thoughtful article about our PiPls – here is the link: https://www.gloucestertimes.com/news/local_news/piping-plovers-are-back/article_bf6d8ab4-da1b-59ce-b3c2-2bb8ca6ccf50.html I think she is doing a fantastic job at the Times and it was a pleasure to speak with her!

Terrific quote from Jennie, thank you Jennie so much for keeping it positive <3

Here is the link to Marshmallow taking a bath yesterday- https://kimsmithdesigns.com/2020/07/19/marshmallow-takes-a-bath/

A heartfelt thank you to all our Ambassadors, Mayor Sefatia, Dave Rimmer from Greenbelt, Councilor Memhard, PiPl Friends, City Council, GDP, GPD, and all who are lending a hand and good wishes for Marshmallow reaching the tremendous milestone of 28 days, tremendous in the way that, thanks to you all, he is getting off to an excellent start, despite growing up in our most highly trafficked and wildly popular City beach. Only (roughly) two more weeks to go <3

Have a great day!
xxKimMarshmallow preening after bathing

Tom Hauck Letter to the Gloucester Daily Times

Thank you Tom! Another perspicacious Tom Hauck Letter to the Gloucester Daily Times (May 16 editorial page), calling them once again on their uber-conservative far-right editorial bias:

To the editor:

Just when you think it’s safe to read the Times again, another zinger appears that gets reasonable readers riled up. The case in point is the editorial of May 11 entitled “Partisanship has no place in League of Women Voters.” The issue is a series of TV ads run by the national and state League of Women Voters criticizing Senator Scott Brown for a vote he cast on four environmental bills. The Times characterized the ads as “nasty,” “shameful,” and “vicious.” To support the editorial, the Times quoted a press release from Senator Brown’s office and provided a statement from Tim Buckley, who is the state GOP spokesperson. As would be expected, Senator Brown and Mr. Buckley thought the ads attacking the senator were unfair and partisan.

For some reason the Times either failed to contact the state or national LWV to get their side of the story, or did not report the results of any attempted contact. Therefore it is incumbent upon readers of the Times to do their own investigating.

The ads are running in Massachusetts and also in Missouri, where they target Senator Claire McCaskill, who is a Democrat. Here is what Elisabeth MacNamara, national president of the League of Women Voters, says on the LVW website: “Air pollution is a life or death issue. Senators Brown and McCaskill cast dangerous votes that put public health at risk…Voting to block clean air standards is bad for America and deadly for many Americans.” The LVW website also says, “The campaign includes 30-second spots that point to the public health consequences of the Senators’ April 6 votes. The ads depict a child suffering from respiratory illness and ask viewers to consider the votes and ‘imagine what it could’ve done – to her.’”

The website states that the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts and the League of Women Voters Missouri joined in this effort, and that the League has been a strong and active supporter of the Clean Air Act.

The League’s ad campaign, which targets both a Republican and a Democrat, is non-partisan. It does not present anything that is not factual: both Senators Brown and McCaskill voted in favor of four amendments that would have crippled the bipartisan Clean Air Act, which was signed into law in 1970 by President Richard Nixon, a Republican. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said, “The Senate stood up for children and families by defeating four amendments that would have interfered with EPA’s efforts to protect the health and safety of the American public. The Clean Air Act has had strong bipartisan support since it was passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by President Nixon. The American people support EPA’s efforts to safeguard us from polluters.”

If the Times chooses to adopt an editorial policy that is to the right of the majority of Cape Ann voters, that is the paper’s prerogative. But to present an editorial that parrots the public statements of one political party is reprehensible. Readers of the Times deserve the full story.

Thomas Hauck

Gloucester, MA

Vote for Duval Patrick: Tom Hauck letter to the Gloucester Daily Times Editor

A thought-provoking succinctly stated published letter to the editor of the Gloucester Daily Times, in support of Governor Duval Patrick, written by my husband Tom Hauck:

In their attempts to sway Massachusetts voters, Republican candidates, including Charlie Baker and Bill Hudak, offer the seductive elixir of tax cuts as the cure for our economic woes and the way to revitalize our economy. We have heard this merry tune before, and we should know that it hasn’t worked in the past and won’t work again.

“Supply-side economics” states that by lowering economic barriers for people to produce or supply goods and services, the result is economic growth. These barriers to supply are lowered not by investing, but by reducing income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by reducing government regulation. In theory, the result is an expanded economy that leads to an increase in tax revenue.

The Reagan administration was the first to implement supply-side policies. President Reagan promised that the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. It didn’t happen. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the Reagan tax cuts. Reagan entered office in 1980 with a $79.0 billion budget deficit. By September 1988, the deficit had ballooned to $2.6 trillion – over thirty times as large. Meanwhile, a reduction in the top marginal individual income tax rate from 70% to 28% helped to widen the gap between the rich and the poor. The theory was that by helping the rich get richer, wealth would “trickle down” to the middle class. This was nonsense. The rising tide did not lift all boats, only the yachts of the wealthy.

Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, was forced to raise taxes to offset the massive federal deficit caused by a recession and low tax revenues. For his courage he was (and still is) vilified by the far-right wing of the Republican Party.

Members of Reagan’s own staff have repudiated supply-side economics. Most recently, in a New York Times op-ed piece of July 31, 2010, David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Reagan, says, “If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. . . It is unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase.”

Republicans have a recurring habit of wanting to play Santa Claus to the voters. They hand out irresponsible tax cuts like candy at a holiday party. Then the economy sours and the Republicans stand back while Democrats come in and do the dirty work of restoring tax rates to former levels. Once the economy is healthy again, the Republicans howl about the terrible Democrats increasing taxes. It is a tiresome routine that voters should reject on November 2 in favor of realistic, progressive solutions to the challenges facing our state. We don’t need Santa Claus promising unsustainable tax cuts. To elect leaders willing to make tough decisions, vote for Deval Patrick and John Tierney.

Thomas Hauck

Gloucester, MA