The members of the Harvard Republican Town Committee consist of enrolled members of the Republican Party who reside in the Town of Harvard. We are a voice for common sense in our community.

We are dedicated to gathering individuals together for the purpose of advancing a conservative agenda of small government, limited taxation, individual liberty and individual responsibility while protecting fundamental basics such as public safety and public education. We champion job creation, entrepreneurship, and small businesses.

We also will support candidates for town, state, and federal elections who share the ideals that government should limit its role to its constitutional responsibilities and promote individual rights as our founding fathers intended.

PDF Print E-mail

Obama’s Job Czar?? GE moves healthcare division’s x-ray unit headquarters from Wisconsin to China… Libs and unions silent

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

RWBN:  This is the guy that Obama put in charge of creating jobs in the U.S. This could be the reason unemployment is hovering around 10%… and they paid no taxes to boot?  Where is the union’s outrage?

( General Electric’s health-care unit is moving the headquarters of its x-ray business from Waukesha, Wisconsin to Beijing to gain from Chinese growth, according to Bloomberg.

The company said only a few of its top managers would move to China, and that it expects no job losses at its Wisconsin office, that has 120 employees.  GE Healthcare will however hire 65 new engineers and other staff at the new Chengdu facility.

This is part of the parent-company’s broader plan to invest $2 billion in China.  General Electric expects its health-care revenue in China to rise 20% annually through 2015.

Earlier this year GE Healthcare launched a three-year “Spring Wind” initiative that aims to helps the Chinese government by developing affordable healthcare products, boost medical distribution network across China and offer training for Chinese healthcare professionals.  In 2010, GE Healthcare also committed to sending 500 members into rural China to help grassroot medical institutions.

While the company reported no job losses in the U.S. stemming from the move, President Obama and Jeffrey Immelt are likely to face flak, since Obama appointed Immelt the top outside economic adviser and charged him with running a jobs-focused panel to help bring the U.S. economy back on track.

GE came under scrutiny earlier this year after The New York Times reported the company did not pay any taxes in 2010. It has since been reported that GE had not finished its tax filing, and that the company expected to pay taxes.

Immelt has also been criticized for employing 36,000 more people abroad than in the U.S. and cutting 34,000 American jobs after becoming CEO, according to The Huffington Post.

Read more:


PDF Print E-mail


Obama's Fables Sell Health Care To The Gullible

By Michelle Malkin
Posted 07/15/2011 06:23 PM ET

Is there a health insurance horror story put out by the White House and its allies that ever turned out to be true? ObamaCare advocates have exercised more artistic license than a convention of Photoshoppers.

Now, a prominent sob story shilled by President Obama himself about his own mother is in doubt. It's high past time to call their bluffs.
The tall-tale-teller-in-chief cited mom Stanley Ann Dunham's deathbed fight with her insurer several times over the years to support his successful push to ban pre-existing condition exclusions by insurers. In a typical recounting, Obama shared his personalized trauma in a 2008 debate:

"For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they're saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don't have to pay her treatment, there's something fundamentally wrong about that."
But there was something fundamentally wrong with Obama's story. In a recently published biography of Obama's mother, author and New York Times reporter Janny Scott discovered that Dunham's health insurer had in fact reimbursed her medical expenses with nary an objection. The actual coverage dispute centered on a separate disability insurance policy.

A White House spokesman insisted to the Times that the anecdote somehow still "speaks powerfully to the impact of pre-existing condition limits on insurance protection from health care costs" — though Dunham's primary health insurer did everything it was supposed to do and met all its contractual obligations.
No matter. Expanding government control over health care means never having to say you're sorry for impugning private insurers. Democrats have dragged every available human shield into the debate over Obama's federal takeover of health care.

The Dunham sham-ecdote is the latest entry in an ever-expanding catalogue of ObamaCare fables:
Otto Raddatz. In 2009, Obama publicized the plight of this Illinois cancer patient, who supposedly died after he was dropped from his Fortis/Assurant Health insurance plan when his insurer discovered an unreported gallstone the patient hadn't known about. The truth? He got the treatment he needed in 2005 and lived four more years.

Robin Beaton. Also in 2009, Obama claimed Beaton — a breast cancer patient — lost her insurance after "she forgot to declare a case of acne." In fact, she failed to disclose a previous heart condition and did not list her weight accurately, but had her insurance restored anyway after intense public lobbying.

PDF Print E-mail

The Green Economy Withers

Investor's Business Daily Editorial
Posted 07/14/2011 06:54 PM ET

Energy: Even after fudging numbers and ignoring the huge subsidies, a liberal think tank reports that growth in the alternative-energy sector lags the rest of the economy.

Green jobs were supposed to be our salvation, both for the earth and for the economy, according to the Obama administration. White House policy based on this flawed premise led to offshore and onshore drilling bans and the locking-up of energy-rich lands while huge alternative energy subsidies (aka "investments") found their way into the stimulus and other legislation.

As happens when government tries to pick winners and losers, the government lost — no, we all lost. As has happened in countries such as Spain, this misallocation of resources has succeeded only in stalling our economy as unemployment and debt grow.

In Spain's case, it was found that for every "green" job created, 2.2 jobs were lost in the rest of the economy.
Along comes the Brookings Institution with a report touting the fact that nearly 2.7 million people brought home paychecks in 2010 working in the "clean economy." That's a 3.4% increase in "green jobs" since 2003, and it sounds terrific until you realize the economy as a whole grew at a 4.2% rate over the same period.

As the folks at duly note, Brookings got to its conclusions by including, for example, all mass transit workers regardless of the actual energy source. They also lump in people such as organic farmers and nuclear energy workers, though the greenies have never touted nuclear energy as "clean" or nuclear jobs as "green."

Discounted is the role of government mandates and subsidies, without which the alternative energy sector would wither and die. A good many of these "green jobs" exist in the public sector of federal, state and local governments. And they come at huge expense.

A 2008 report by the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration reported that in 2007, while the average subsidy per megawatt hour for all energy sources was $1.65, the subsidy for wind and solar was about $24 per megawatt hour. On the nonelectricity generating side, ethanol received a subsidy of $5.72 per million British thermal unit.

Remember Solyndra Inc., the first recipient of $535 million of stimulus cash in 2009 to hire 1,000 workers for "green jobs"? The company had never shown a profit, and in the end the Fremont, Calif.-based solar panel manufacturer never came through.
A month after President Obama's visit, the company he praised withdrew its public offering plans. A few weeks later, congressional auditors announced that the Energy Department had given favorable treatment to some loan-guarantee applicants.

Coincidently, Solyndra's majority owner, billionaire George Kaiser, was a top fundraiser for the 2008 Obama-Biden campaign.
This is how we set energy policy. It is based not on the free market and supply and demand, but on ideology and crony capitalism. Energy prices then "necessarily skyrocket," causing job loss and consumer pain as money that might be spent to buy stuff goes just to keep the lights on.

As we have noted, the focus on green jobs comes at the expense of other jobs. An oil industry study says that 190,000 jobs could be created by 2013 if offshore development permits in the Gulf of Mexico were returned. Just finishing the Keystone XL pipeline to bring Canadian tar sands oil to Houston-area refineries could net hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Alternative energy cannot survive without mandates and subsidies, and cannot compete in the free market with proven and plentiful sources like petroleum.

The Brookings report may have been meant to tout the green economy, but it only serves to underscore its failure and the opportunity costs it imposes on the American people and economy.

PDF Print E-mail

Editorial: Now Can We Say Obama Economic Plan Fails?

Investor's Business Daily Editorial
Posted 07/08/2011 07:02 PM ET

Economy: With unemployment now at 9.2% and job growth at a standstill, is there anyone not blinded by ideology or rank partisanship who can't see that Obama's spend-and-regulate economic plan has been an utter failure?

When Obama was running for office, he likened himself to Ronald Reagan. Not because he liked Reagan's policies — he despised them — but because he saw Reagan as a transformative figure worthy of emulation.

"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not," he said during the campaign. He's since talked endlessly about the need to "remake" the economy, and "do big things."

Well, Obama's been transformative all right. While Reagan rescued a country mired in hopelessness, stagflation and fear, Obama has managed, by reversing Rea-ganomics, to bring it all back again.

• The unemployment rate has never been under 8% since Obama took office, and it has dipped below 9% in only five of Obama's 29 months in the White House. No president since the Great Depression can match that record of failure.
• At 40 weeks, the average length of unemployment is almost twice the previous post-World War II peak.
• Inflation is once again on the rise — climbing in each of the past six months.
• And by almost every measure available, including GDP growth, the Obama recovery is the worst since the Great Depression.

Now, thanks to Obama's grand economic failures, hopelessness is again sweeping the land. An astounding four in 10 say the economy is in a "permanent decline," according to a New York Times/CBS poll, and an equally eye-opening 48% told CNN that another Great Depression is likely to occur in the next year, the highest level ever in the CNN survey.

More than half — 54% — say their personal finances are getting worse, according to a Rasmussen survey.

Yet, rather than admit failure, Obama's only response is to try to shift blame and convince us to lower our expectations. "The economic challenges that we face weren't created overnight," he said on Friday, "and they're not going to be solved overnight."

Translation: How can you expect anything more, when everything was so messed up when I got into town? Poppycock.

After the long, painful and equally deep recession in the early 1980s, the economy roared back to life, powered by Reagan's mix of tax cuts and deregulation. By this point in the Reagan recovery, growth was so fast and furious it slashed unemployment by a third.

Obama also expects us to believe that "head winds" are to blame for the economy's lousy performance. But the only head winds holding the economy back are his own "transformative" policies — massive new government spending and debt, ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, endless talk of tax hikes on the "rich" and corporations, and a job-killing regulatory beast unleashed against every productive corner of the economy.

Obamanomics has been weighed, measured and found wanting. Time now to get back on course.

PDF Print E-mail


League of Women Dispenses with its Non-Partisan Image

May 12, 2011

Article from "Boston Globe"

WASHINGTON — At a League of Women Voters board meeting several years ago, its president suggested a new strategy: It was time to take off the white gloves.

Leaders of the venerable group, known mainly as a genteel organizer of impartial candidate forums, wanted to raise their voices and push more boldly for its positions.
Nobody dissented. “Nope, not a one,’’ recalled Judy Davis, a board member from Tennessee. “Some even said, ‘Well it’s about darn time.’ ’’

Thirteen days ago, in the highest-profile expression yet of the new strategy, the League began airing blistering, campaign-style ads targeting Senators Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Claire McCaskill of Missouri for their votes on air-quality regulation.

The blowback has been fierce — but League officers are standing firm.
“We chose this time to use a bigger megaphone because the terms of the debate need to be changed,’’ said Elisabeth MacNamara, the group’s national president, who was elected last June. “At some point you’ve got to get people’s attention. The ad is intended to educate people in Massachusetts, and hopefully educate Senator Brown.’’

Brown and his political allies have complained almost ceaselessly since the ads appeared April 29, accusing the League of “gutter’’ politics. The Massachusetts Republican Party filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission this week, accusing the League of breaking election law.

Officials at the 91-year-old voter-education organization maintain that it is still nonpartisan and the campaign is only an extension of advocacy on other major issues. It also supported campaign finance reform and offered backing for President Obama’s health care overhaul.

“We are a nonpartisan organization, but we are political,’’ MacNamara said.
Critics say the institution went too far with its recent foray into campaign-style attack advertising and risks losing its longstanding reputation as a trusted voter service organization.

“To the extent that the League of Women Voters still sponsors candidate debates, it is problematic for it to be airing ads against candidates, regardless of whether you call it issue advocacy or not,’’ said professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson, who studies campaign advertising at the University of Pennsylvania. “It calls into question how neutral the venue actually is.’’

The ad blitz has also exposed the group to accusations of hypocrisy. The League has advocated for more disclosure of the sources of money for campaign advertising. But it has been unwilling to disclose its source of funds for the current ad campaign, saying the public will find out next year when it files its annual report.

The League of Women Voters was founded in 1920, growing out of the women’s suffrage movement. Its original mission was to educate enfranchised women about issues and elections after the ratification of the 19th Amendment that year extended the right to vote to women. The group now has about 140,000 members.

The League’s political stances have become increasingly aggressive since its deliberate decision to try to be heard over the din of partisan politics, several board members said.

“To cut through the clutter sometimes you have to be very bold because people have become inured to this type of thing,’’ said Davis.

During the 2009-2010 health care debate, the League targeted Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent, with radio ads and a Facebook campaign, urging him to “do the right thing’’ and support a public option to the health care bill.

The group’s national president at the time, Mary Wilson, also appeared in a League TV ad urging an end to “the lies’’ about health care overhaul. That ad aired in Arkansas, Maine, and North Dakota, where key senators lived, the League said.

Clean air and climate change are top priorities for the League. So when Brown, a Republican, and McCaskill, a Democrat, voted last month to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency, the League’s national leadership saw an opportunity for a swift and forceful response.

The League’s TV ad centers on a little girl wheezing into an oxygen mask, as an announcer’s voice chastises Brown for his April 6 vote in favor of stripping the EPA of its power to regulate greenhouse gases. It asks the viewer to “just imagine’’ what Brown’s vote could have done to that asthmatic little girl.

“Nothing speaks like images,’’ said MacNamara. Portions of the ads, which are costing the League more than $1 million, have also appeared on websites, including, the Globe’s online counterpart.

The harsh tone surprised many rank-and-file members of the organization, with some expressing concerns that the ads are “a little hard-hitting,’’ said Janis McMillen, a League director from Kansas.

“It is a bold move for the League, which has not done this typically in the past,’’ she said. “What I’ve been telling the members is, ‘Look, we spend a lot of time developing positions for advocacy purposes. And if we don’t use those positions, why do we bother?’ ’’

The ads were too bold for the League’s Andover/North Andover chapter, which issued a statement on Tuesday distancing itself from the campaign. Chapter president Kerri Ford also stepped down in protest, a local officer said in an interview yesterday.
The EPA measure Brown supported failed in the Senate on a 50-50 vote, falling short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

The Missouri ad takes McCaskill to task for a different vote, also on April 6, that would have delayed EPA action on many greenhouse gas emissions. McCaskill was one of just 12 senators to support the measure; Brown also voted yes.

Brown and McCaskill are both up for reelection next year.

Brown explained his vote in a statement on his Web page — saying this is not the time for the unelected EPA to be saddling businesses with more regulation — and is using the League’s attack as a fund-raising opportunity. His website includes an online donation form for visitors to give money to Brown’s campaign “to help us fight back.’’

League supporters throw the hypocrisy accusation back at Brown, saying he helped kill legislation last year that sought to increase disclosure requirements in political advertising.

A League of Women Voters board member from Massachusetts, Marlene O’Brien of Wellesley, deferred comment to MacNamara, the group’s president.

Despite the risks to its reputation, being more forceful could make the League a bigger player in the national debate, said Darrell West, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

“Candidates take you more seriously when you’re running attack ads,’’ he said. “They notice.’’

Mark Arsenault can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

PDF Print E-mail

Obama administration floats draft plan to tax cars by the mile

By Pete Kasperowicz - 05/05/11 07:45 AM ET

The Obama administration has floated a transportation authorization bill that would require the study and implementation of a plan to tax automobile drivers based on how many miles they drive.

The plan is a part of the administration's Transportation Opportunities Act, an undated draft of which was obtained this week by Transportation Weekly.

The White House, however, said the bill is only an early draft that was not formally circulated within the administration. “This is not an administration proposal," White House spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said. "This is not a bill supported by the administration. This was an early working draft proposal that was never formally circulated within the administration, does not taken into account the advice of the president’s senior advisers, economic team or Cabinet officials, and does not represent the views of the president.”

News of the draft follows a March Congressional Budget Office report that supported the idea of taxing drivers based on miles driven.

Among other things, CBO suggested that a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax could be tracked by installing electronic equipment on each car to determine how many miles were driven; payment could take place electronically at filling stations.

The CBO report was requested by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who has proposed taxing cars by the mile as a way to increase federal highway revenues.

The proposal seems to follow up on that idea in section 2218 of the draft bill. That section would create, within the Federal Highway Administration, a Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office. It would be tasked with creating a "study framework that defines the functionality of a mileage-based user fee system and other systems."

The department seemed to be aware of the need to prepare the public for what would likely be a controversial change to the way highway funds are collected. For example, the office is called on to serve a public-relations function, as the draft says it should "increase public awareness regarding the need for an alternative funding source for surface transportation programs and provide information on possible approaches."

The draft bill says the "study framework" for the project and a public awareness communications plan should be established within two years of creating the office, and that field tests should begin within four years.

The office would be required to consider four factors in field trials: the capability of states to enforce payment, the reliability of technology, administrative costs and "user acceptance." The draft does not specify where field trials should begin.
The new office would be funded a total of $300 million through fiscal 2017 for the project.

PDF Print E-mail

November 2, 2010 Recap

Harvard Republicans and friends:

Obviously, many of us are disappointed to see Massachusetts in general, and Harvard in particular, continue to be so enamored of single-party rule and reinforcement of a political philosophy which is at an extreme end of the nationwide spectrum. Voters in the state re-elected a congressman (Barney Frank) who, among other things, was a vigorous proponent of the policies leading to the mortgage meltdown and associated economic collapse, while claiming all along that there was no crisis brewing, and subsequently blaming the entire thing on Wall Street. Voters in Harvard and the district re-elected Niki Tsongas, who at a trivial level was willing to violate the law by campaigning inside the no-campaigning buffer zone at Methuen polling places, and at a much more important level has been nothing but a parrot for Nancy Pelosi, blindly repeating Pelosi's piratical votes against the citizenry. Voters in Harvard and the district re-elected Jen Benson, one of a fraction of state representatives endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) due to her steadfast devotion to hard-left policies, and someone whose anti-corporate rhetoric extends even to smearing an outstanding local employer such as IBM. Jamie Eldridge, also endorsed by the DSA, and renowned for his belief that we are taxed too little, was re-elected, in the face of a very low-key campaign by his Republican opponent George Thompson.

However, there are many areas for satisfaction and pride.

NATION: Republicans have regained control of the House, and Nancy Pelosi must give up the speaker's gavel. She and her parrot Niki will now be voting as part of the house minority. The last time so many seats changed hands was in 1948. Yesterday, voters delivered a remarkably stern rebuke to the direction taken by the Obamacrats since January 2009. So, across the country, voters appear to be coming to their senses, a trend which may someday penetrate our state and even our town.

STATE: Some races remain open, but we appear poised to have doubled our representation on Beacon Hill, from 10% to 20% of those seats. Yes, we wish Kurt Hayes were joining this group, and are sad to see that seat remain occupied by Jen, but to double the party presence on Beacon Hill is a huge win. We also wish that Charlie Baker, Jim McKenna, Bill Campbell, Mary Connaughton and Karyn Polito were joining the new Republican representatives in Boston, but they ran very strong campaigns, sticking to the issues in the face of countless smears, and they energized the party across the state.

COUNTY: Lew Evangelidis won! Any of you who have met him will know that he is a politician from whom we will hear more, someone who will someday be a formidable contender for state or national office.

TOWN: Mary Connaughton actually won outright in Harvard, gaining 51% of the vote. Harvard voted overwhelmingly to repeal Chapter 40B, though Question 2 was defeated statewide. And, though this is a bit subtle, Harvard has moved substantially towards the right since Scott Brown's victory in January, as measured by how Republican candidates fared in Harvard, versus their districts as a whole. On January 19, Scott brown received 45.5% of the vote in Harvard, while getting 52.5% statewide. Harvard thus exhibited a 7% left-leaning gap, relative to the rest of the district (the state). Within Worcester County, the gap was 16% (!), as Scott Brown secured nearly 62% of the vote in out strongly-Republican county. Within MA-5, the gap was 11.3%, as Scott took 56.8%, and within Middlesex 37th (Kurt's goal), the gap was 7.3%. What happened yesterday? The gap for Kurt was just 0.9% (he won 44.3% in Harvard, 45.2% district-wide). The gap for Baker, 3.3%, was less than half the gap had been for Scott Brown. Mary Connaughton, Bill Campbell and Jim McKenna all did BETTER in Harvard than they did state-wide. Harvard voted overwhelmingly (57%) to repeal 40B, and was only 1% behind statewide anti-tax sentiment on Question 3.

That's a lot of statistics. What can we conclude from them? That Harvard, during 2010, has moved away from being a left-leaning outlier, where Republican candidates and issues fare much worse than they do in the broader districts of which Harvard is a part, and is now voting closer to district-wide averages, and, in some cases, voting to the right of those averages. THAT IS PROGRESS.

On behalf of the Harvard Republican Town Committee, I'd like to thank everyone who helped out, be that simply by voting, or volunteering for a campaign, or putting up yard signs, or participating in stand-outs, or encouraging friends and neighbors to take a fresh and objective look at the issues and candidates we support.

You will hear from us periodically as we catch our breath during 2011, and we can all look forward to continuing our progress in 2012's general election.

Bill Barton, Chairman, Harvard Republican Town Committee

PDF Print E-mail

Standout at the Polls on 11/2/10

Thank you to all those who gave their time and energy to support our candidates!

We're working for the future of our party!


Page 8 of 10