Friday, January 27, 2017


Registered Democrats in Littleton will hold their annual caucus in Room 103 of the Town Offices Building, 37 Shattuck Street, on Saturday, February 11th at 1:00 pm to elect 5 delegates and 4 alternates to the 2017 Massachusetts Democratic Convention, where Democrats from across Massachusetts will gather to adopt a new Party Platform. The Convention will be held on Saturday, June 3rd at the Tsongas Arena in Lowell.

“Our caucus is a great opportunity to come together and be involved in our shared Democratic values,” commented Jane Chrisfield, chair of the Littleton Town Democratic Committee. “This year, more than ever, we need people to participate to make a difference as we vote on our Party Platform at the Convention.”

The caucus is open to all registered and pre-registered Democrats in Littleton and the Democratic Committee welcomes participation. Pre-registered Democrats who will be age 18 by September 11, 2018, the anticipated date of the primary, will be able to participate in the caucus and run for delegate. Delegates will be divided equally between men and women, and all ballots will be written and secret.
In the spirit of inclusion, youth, minorities, and people with disabilities, who are not elected as delegates or alternates, may apply to be add-on delegates, either at the caucus or online at

For more information on the Littleton caucus or the Littleton Town Democratic Committee, please contact Jane Chrisfield at / 978-486-4419

Monday, September 28, 2015

Littleton Democrats call for a price on carbon

At their September quarterly meeting, The Littleton Town Democratic Committee endorsed a ground-breaking proposal by State Senator Mike Barrett, D-Lexington to tackle climate change. Barrett addressed the meeting on his submitted legislation, “An Act Combating Climate Change” that places a charge on dirty fuel emissions that contribute to global warming and then returns the money -- in direct rebates -- to residents, businesses, and non-profits.

“Right before our eyes, in our own time, we’re seeing extreme temperatures, rising oceans, wilder storms, and worsening droughts,” Barrett said.  “A statewide carbon fee is the most ambitious step state government can take to combat the problem.” 

Barrett’s proposal draws on the success of British Columbia, the Canadian province whose right-of-center party instituted revenue-neutral carbon pricing in 2008.  “Emissions are down, provincial GDP is up, and public opinion polls show high voter satisfaction.  That’s a win-win-win,” Barrett said.

Carbon fees mean higher prices initially to incorporate downstream environmental and health costs.  Higher prices motivate consumers to cut back when they can.  Later, fee proceeds are sent back in equal shares to individuals and businesses.  If a family conserves, it can collect more in rebates than it pays in fees.  Because all money is returned, the bill does not put an unfair burden on the poor or on small business.

In addition to lowering pollution, carbon fees in energy-importing states like Massachusetts mean less money goes to supporting jobs in fossil fuel-producing places like North Dakota, Oklahoma, and the Middle East.  But the decline in out-of-state expenditures keeps more money in Massachusetts, where it’s eventually spent, creating jobs here -- 4,000 - 10,000 of them, according to a recent analysis.  “The carbon fee-and-rebate approach is job-positive,” Barrett said.

Barrett added that the work of community groups such as the Littleton Town Democratic Committee is crucial to the bill’s success.  “Tip of the hat to community leaders,” Barrett said.  He added that a revenue-neutral approach has much to offer conservatives, too.  The proposal isn’t about growing the size of government.  It doesn’t involve direct regulation.  “This is an idea that should appeal not only to Democrats but to Republicans and Independents.”

Jane Chrisfield, Chairperson of the Committee, thanked Senator Barrett for his advocacy on solutions to climate change and noted “we also thank our State Senator, Jamie Eldridge, for being among the 43 co-sponsors of the legislation.”

Saturday, March 9, 2013

The Littleton Town Democratic Committe Now Accepts Donations Via ActBlue

The Littleton Town Democratic Committee now makes member "donations" and outside donations easier with an ActBlue account. In addition to promoting the party in town, the Littleton Town Democratic Committee actively campaigns for and donates to nominated Democrat candidates on all levels of government. We can always use your financial help. Follow this link to donate.

Friday, July 20, 2012

Letter to a devout Republican

When we lived in Belmont my kids went trick-or-treating on Halloween and knocked on Romney's door.  He handed out toothbrushes. The man is clueless. If he didn't want to play he should have turned out his lights. He is also responsible for ramming the Mormon temple down the throat of the town. He is despised in Belmont, a mostly Republican town.

“Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me,” wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald. He didn’t just mean that they have more money. What he meant, at least in part, was that many of the very rich expect a level of deference that the rest of us never experience and are deeply distressed when they don’t get the special treatment they consider their birthright. "They think, deep down, that they are better than we are.”

Romney is not the creator of jobs he claims. Take Staples, for example, When Staples started they were a warehouse store, cheap and with every conceivable stationary item.  They paid well and trained their staff well ... and they lost money. That is until they put all the mom and pop stationary stores out of business. Then they stopped being the warehouse store they started out to be (they reduced their SKU's from over 100,000 items to under 10,000 ) and stopped most of their employee training and began paying McDonald's wages. If, for example, go into a staples today and ask for log-linear chart paper and you'll only get a dumb stare. Look in the catalog and you won't find it there either.  Some economists have estimated that Staples alone is responsible for the net loss of over 20,000 median income jobs. Romney did a splendid job of feathering his own nest at the expense of others. That is, of course, his right and one could say his duty to his stockholders as a businessman (he was the sole stockholder at Bain) but that is not the job of a president.

Romney is not your friend. Romney's stated policies would eliminate as much of the safety net. He would reduce or eliminate Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, unemployment, etc., as well as remove regulation from the financial industry and industry in general like ending the EPA, etc., while furthering the benefits to the very rich. American incomes have (adjusted for inflation) largely remained flat for almost 30 years (thanks to policies begun by Richard Nixon) while American productivity has more than doubled. Where has that added wealth gone? It has gone to the top 1% who have increased their income by 400% over that same 30 years.  The taxes on the top 1% are the lowest they have been in 85 years yet Romney wants to eliminate the capital gains tax and the corporate income tax.

Romney is not your friend. When he was Governor his stated reason for "Romneycare" was to save the state money. He has no interest in you or me. He just didn't want the state to pay for people going to the emergency rooms when they had nowhere else to go so he mandated that everyone had to buy insurance or pay a fine. What a nice Republican. He's against "Obamacare" simply because he thinks it will get him votes, no other reason. He is a man without convictions, without a moral center despite (or because of?) his Mormonism.

I can honestly say that I'd enjoy sitting down with any of the Bushes for a chat (or a beer), as well as Ronald Reagan and perhaps even Richard Nixon in his later years but I get the feeling that any "conversation" with Romney would quickly sink into a lecture about how father knows best. He is clueless both about policy (he doesn't have any except whatever he or his minions think will get votes) and the plight of the common man. His presidency would be one of the greatest disaster to befall the United States. I can easily imagine the United States devolving into a third world nation where the rich live in their isolated enclaves and the rest of us live in unsanitary slums. This is not the America I want to see, not the America my forefathers fought for, not the America my forefathers pledged their lives , their fortunes and their sacred honor for.

- Steve Glines

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

G.O.P. Considers ‘Purity’ Resolution for Candidates

The Republicans have recently come up with a set of 10 positions that the faithful must take to be considered "pure". I wrote a rebuttal of these in an email to Paul Avella a Littleton Republican and a past and future candidate for State Rep. and a member of the Littleton Rotary Club.

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Glines
To: Paul Avella
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 5:54:03 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: G.O.P. Considers 'Purity' Resolution for Candidates – The Caucus Blog -

So now I know what you stand for. ;)

----- Reply Message -----

Paul Avella wrote:
And which of the ten do you disagree with?


----- Reply Message -----

Steve Glines wrote:

PJ - Here are MY thoughts:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

Calling it Obama's bill is a pushing it a bit. Everyone wanted it. If McCain had been elected he would have done exactly the same. Democrat and Republican economists gave exactly the same advice - pure Keynesian economics. Heck even Nixon once said, "We're all Keynesian now."

Obama was very conservative. Real Keynesian theory would have dictated almost $3 trillion in spending (the GDP deficit) but since the Fed created $3 trillion in new money to prop up friends of the Republican party (wall St.) Obama and friends restrained themselves. Besides it would have been hard to spend that much short of creating another war. Bush/Cheaney would have created another war (Pakistan? Korea?) which is one of the reasons why I think Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize.

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;

Why not support the 1960's style Blue Cross/ Blue shield system (which worked very well) where each state had only one non-profit monopoly. More to the point I believe that it's the function of government to provide (or at least regulate) those things we can't provide for ourselves. I think government should run (or heavily regulate) our education system, our "Public Works" - water & sewage, our communications systems, our roads, railroads and even the airline industry, our defense (including police) and, yes, our health care system.

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

If global warning is real and CO2 is the problem then how would you propose solving the problem ... within a market economy of course? Cap and trade worked very well with CFC's in a market economy.

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

Absolutely so long as the ballot really is secret and organizers are allowed access to the employees and companies aren't allowed to manufacture artificial, temporary workers.

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

Well, they are here and they aren't going home. Since most of them are working, paying taxes and contributing to society (and we obviously need them as workers) why not acknowledge that fact and give those working to earn the American Dream a way into American Citizenship., After all most of us are immigrants and I'll bet not all of us started out as completely legal immigrants.

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

I may differ from most of my colleges in at least partially agreeing with you. The fact is we're there and we made a mess of Iraq so are honor bound to clean it up. As to Afghanistan I'm inclined to simply nuke it enough to get Bin Laden then declare victory and leave. If the Afghans can't get it together then to heck with them. Al qaeda is the enemy not a bunch of foolish religious nuts that are happy living in 1400. But then I'm not the president … thank god you're thinking.

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

Containment certainly but containment without engagement is a long term loosing proposition. Neither of the nut cases will be around forever and we must be in the position to take advantage of a change in leadership to bring those countries back into the international fold. Obama knows this but I get the impression that most Republicans don't. Bush and Chaney certainly didn't think that far ahead.

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

When I was running for school committee in Belmont a lady asked me what I thought of abortions. My answer was that it was none of my business. As far as I was concerned the abortion issue was a very private matter between a woman, her doctor and her conscience/religion and that since it was none of my business, by extension, it was none of the states business either. I would say the choice of domestic partner falls into the same category.

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion;

Yikes you've got to be kidding, health care is rationed today and not providing a public non-profit option is a death sentence to many. The health care ration available to the indigent, low income and unemployed is limited to the suggestion that they take an aspirin and the advise that they get a job. That's not acceptable. The health care bill working its way through congress is designed to insure that health care is available to all regardless of economic status. There will always be some kind of health care rationing lets just not define it by income.

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

I've always read both clauses as forming a single sentence. If there were two thoughts the use of a coma would have been replaced by a period. As a single thought the first phrase frames the rest:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In other words each town is allowed to have and manage its own police force (militia) and there is nothing the state or the federal government can say about it. To me that also says that the police (the well regulated militia) as controlled by the local government has the right to regulate all private arms within its jurisdiction. Of course, all citizens are part of the militia by default whether they are armed or not. I suspect most police would not necessarily like my interpretation any more than they like the Republican interpretation which permits a greater chance of being shot at.

Steve Glines