Thursday, March 24, 2005
A House Divided

Sorry, kids. We're not buying.

As we've heard tell, when Team Reform goes out to eat, Willard Mitt won't even let his Lightweight Lieutenant Governor, Sherry Kerry Healey, order her own salad dressing. Romney makes her cut her steak with a butter knife and sit at the kids table during Sunday dinner. But now we're expected to believe that Healey was free-lancing when she sat with the State House News Service and let loose that 'the elderly should give up their houses for the young' pap?

No sir. We're not buying. Not gonna happen. Wouldn't. Be. Prudent.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves.

As most of you know, Team Reform has not exactly been pro-Grandma and Grandpa Taxpayer. The Fraud Governor has proposed taking their homes to pay for Medicaid, doing away with the Department of Elder Services (source: RiaF, 5/16/2003), and he vetoed a senior tax relief plan approved by the Legislature. (source: Boston Globe, 3/22/2005)

So when Sherry Kerry said "to extend tax breaks to seniors in order to keep them overhoused and isolated in the suburbs is not necessarily the right answer ... they're probably aging in homes that are too expensive or difficult for them to maintain and where the property taxes are larger than their fixed incomes. Plus, they may have three or four bedrooms and only be using one of them. There are families that need that housing" we weren't surprised. We assumed Team Reform was just being Team Reform: kicking the elderly until they found something better to do.

Then Romney threw Sherry Kerry under the bus and 'backed away' from Healey's suggestion. (source: Boston Herald, 3/22/2005)

This after Romney has spent years suggesting that public policy be directed at reducing the cost of home ownership in Massachusetts. (source: Cape Cod Times, 10/23/2002) Which sounds great if you are 25, looking to score your first unfinished Cape. But sounds suspiciously like collectivism if you are 75 and your house holds your life savings.

Okay already. We'll play Willard Mitt's game.

Madam Lightweight LG, were intrigued by "your" suggestion that the elderly move out of their homes so that young families can move in. We have a few questions.

First, just how much house should a family have? Is 3,000 square feet too much? How about 1,500 square feet?

If 3,000 (or 2,000 or 1,500) square feet is too much for an elderly couple, is it also too much for a young couple? What if the young couple only have one child? What if they find out they can't have any children? Should they, too, move into "more appropriate housing"?

Let's get back to our initital question: how much house should a family have? Because as our pals over at Bear Left pointed out, your four-person family lives in a six-bedroom house. Is your family 'over-housed'? Will your family set an example by swapping homes with a more deserving family of six from, say, Dorchester?

Madam LW LG, when did you become a Communist? And is this what you and Willard Mitt meant when you said you were Red State Republicans?

Finally, how the heck did you get the State House News Service to hold this story for two weeks? What did you offer Craig Sandler to kill that piece?

Nope. We just not buying it. We think Willard Mitt was using Sherry Kerry as a trial balloon.

Hey, they don't call her Lightweight for nothing.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?