Boehner's Bluff

Posted on December 19, 2012 by billmanzi

Just when it looked like there might be some movement towards a fiscal cliff deal, with the President and Speaker engaging in a good negotiating give and take, the Speaker has once again blanched, threatening to go with “plan B”. This so called Plan B would have the Speaker bringing legislation to the floor that would lift tax rates for those making $1 million and above to 39.6%, and leaving all other rates constant.

The Speaker, in letting out the existence of plan B, has said it might include the patch for the Alternative Minimum Tax, and an estate tax change. But the idea is to throw the ball into the Senate with the clock running out, and then blame Democrats for going over the cliff. The Politico story focused on this dynamic, with an emphasis on Plan B being dead on arrival in the Senate. But unless Boehner has more Republican votes than I think he has unanimous Democratic opposition in the House should, when coupled with Republican opponents to any tax hikes, be sufficient to defeat the Speaker in his own House.

My analysis will be dead wrong if the Speaker has imposed Party discipline on his caucus, and can deliver the entire bloc for a tax raising bill. If he takes a mere 27 defections and the Democrats hold strong he will end up with a lot of egg on his face, even if he pulls the bill in advance of a vote. If Nancy Pelosi can hold the fort within her own Party then the Democrats should start clamoring for this bill to hit the floor. The Club for Growth has started hitting the Speaker already.

“First Speaker Boehner offered to raise tax rates after promising not to, and now he’s offering to raise the debt ceiling. Raising tax rates is anti-growth and raising the debt ceiling is pro-government growth – and this is the Republican position?” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola.

Lets see if the Speaker can deliver 218 Republican votes for Plan B. I say put him to the test now. Maybe he can get Mitch McConnell to come over and filibuster it. (Oh darn they don’t have filibusters in the House of Representatives)

Posted in National News | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Automaton Factor: Zero Sum Politics

Posted on December 17, 2012 by billmanzi

One of the more interesting political stories in the past two weeks has been the “right to work” controversy in Michigan, with the Republican Legislature there passing a (right to work)bill in the closing days of their session, and Republican Governor Rick Snyder signing it into law.

The political ramifications are clear, with Wisconsin like battle lines being drawn. There are many different pieces of this story that can be talked about, but the one I am interested in is the Governor. Governor Snyder had been on record as saying that “right to work” was not on his “agenda”, and that any attempt to impose such legislation would be “divisive”. The Governor really seemed to be trying, as a Republican, not to stir up that hornets nest. But in the end he signed, and went on a public relations tour trying to sell the idea that right to work actually would be helpful to unions. Why the switch? I must attribute it to what I call the “automaton” factor.

What the hell am I talking about? Snyder was faced with certain realities relative to the powerful Republican donor class, who are truly behind this move. With Snyder you can see a moderate trying to escape from the ideological straight-jacket, but he just could not get loose. Why is that? Leaving aside the issue of the donors for just a moment let us imagine that we are in the room as Snyder and his advisers consider what his response should be.

Snyder’s political folks will be telling him that his re-elect will be strongly opposed by the same unions that have so much riding on this legislation. I can hear them saying that it would be great to de-fang them, because they will oppose you even if you veto this legislation. Since no matter what you do they will work to defeat you why help them now? The assumption that the unions are now “automatons” for the Democrats must produce “automatons” for the Republicans. And then there is the money.

Today’s New York Times talks about the money poured into Republican efforts to win control in Michigan and other states, highlighting the huge infusion of cash by the DeVos family to defeat a pro-union ballot initiative, and then to push Republicans to adopt the “right to work” legislation. Think that one billionaire cannot exert huge influence? Listen to DeVos brag about his role in the Times story.

Although Mr. Obama won Michigan handily, Republicans had kept control of the Legislature. A union-backed ballot measure to enshrine collective bargaining rights in the State Constitution was defeated, thanks to an aggressive campaign against it that was financed in part by $2 million of DeVos family money.

The time had come, Mr. DeVos told Republican lawmakers, for the bold stroke they were considering: a law banning requirements that workers pay union dues or fees, in the state where the modern American labor movement was born. If the lawmakers later found themselves facing recalls or tough re-election fights, Mr. DeVos told them, he would be there to help.

“That was when I started to say, you know what, this thing could happen,” Mr. DeVos said on Friday. “These people really are serious and committed.”

So what was Snyder looking at? Not only, from his perspective, did he see no upside to a veto, but should he have issued that veto he would likely have seen a well financed Republican opponent with plenty of DeVos money behind that candidacy in a primary. The ability of Republicans to peel off Democrats, and vice versa, is diminishing, leaving someone like the Governor in a difficult situation politically. I thought the Governor should veto the bill, because it is not the right prescription for Michigan. But the middle of the road is becoming tough political terrain for members of either party. That fact is making politics in our country much more of a zero sum game, and deviancy from party orthodoxy much harder to sustain for elected officials. The Republicans have upped the ante on fighting unions, and ultimately even folks like Rick Snyder must march in lockstep, or switch parties a la Charlie Crist. Our party system is producing “automatons”, and with that dynamic real deals are harder to come by. Getting robots to change perspective, even a little, can be very difficult.

Posted in National News | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A Horrible Day

Posted on December 15, 2012 by billmanzi

The tragedy of yesterday’s mass killing is still weighing on the entire nation. Our prayers go to the families and the entire community, and our appreciation for the teachers and staff who acted so courageously to protect the children can never be measured. A time to mourn, and to pray for those who have had their lives so terribly changed.

Posted in National News | Leave a comment

What Ails Republicans? No New Ideas.

Posted on December 14, 2012 by billmanzi

The very nerve of a partisan Democrat like myself talking about what types of problems the Republican Party has. But yes it needs to be talked about in a serious way, as those problems will have a big impact on the country in the next two years. Two new columns from opposite sides of the political spectrum lay out some issues that Republicans just cannot seem to solve. Many have recognized the problems, and I have made the prediction of a dive off the fiscal cliff based on the very issues highlighted by Paul Krugman on the left, and Peggy Noonan on the right. Let us start with Krugman.

Krugman is a man that Republicans love to hate. George Will and Mary Matalin openly loath him when he is a panelist on “This Week” on ABC. But Krugman brings that no room to move truth to discussions, and that makes members of both parties squirm. (Trust me he is not a favorite of the Obama financial folks). His latest column brings some more of that hard edged truth to the table in discussing the Republicans. Krugman uses the current fiscal cliff talks to highlight the Republican quandary.

Before I talk about that reality, a word about the current state of budget “negotiations.”

Why the scare quotes? Because these aren’t normal negotiations in which each side presents specific proposals, and horse-trading proceeds until the two sides converge. By all accounts, Republicans have, so far, offered almost no specifics. They claim that they’re willing to raise $800 billion in revenue by closing loopholes, but they refuse to specify which loopholes they would close; they are demanding large cuts in spending, but the specific cuts they have been willing to lay out wouldn’t come close to delivering the savings they demand.

It’s a very peculiar situation. In effect, Republicans are saying to President Obama, “Come up with something that will make us happy.” He is, understandably, not willing to play that game. And so the talks are stuck.

Funny thing is that by all accounts Krugman is right on this point. Republicans have offered a couple of ideas on “entitlement savings” that do not come anywhere near providing the budgetary savings they claim to want to achieve. (Such as changing the COLA index for Social Security, and increasing the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67.) They are indicating that they are fine with raising $800 billion in revenue, but insist that it be done through the “closing of loopholes”. Which loopholes? Don’t ask them that. I guess they want the President to decide. What specific Medicare cuts beyond raising the age are they advocating? They will get back to us on that. Beyond the simple mantra of cutting taxes what do they have to offer? While Krugman and Noonan come at that question from slightly different viewpoints I think it is fair to say that both agree that the Republican idea machine is empty. Krugman is more direct, but I think both hold out the prospect of the Republicans going the way of the Whigs.

My Republican friends out there they are likely to point to the two speeches given by Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio, which after a bit of positive Republican response have essentially sunk like lead weights. I was struck by the total dearth of anything new, except for the point made by both that re-packaging the old, and explaining to folks why they should embrace the old, is the best way forward for Republicans. I mean these guys are really stuck in a tight ideological box which must ultimately asphyxiate them. Noonan on the Paul Ryan speech at the Kemp Institute:

Rep. Ryan’s speech was OK but insufficient. He didn’t say anything terrible but he didn’t stake out new ground or take chances. Actually, the part where he said Mitt Romney made “a big election about big ideas and offering serious solutions to serious problems” was slightly terrible because it isn’t in a general way true, and it forestalls analysis that might actually be helpful in the long term. Mr. Ryan got points for loyalty but no one doubts he’s loyal, and it undercut his central message, which is that the Republican Party needs “new thinking,” “fresh ideas and serious leadership,” and must find “new ways to apply our timeless principles to the challenges of today.”

Well, yes, that’s true. But what thinking do you suggest? In what area? Which fresh ideas? Do you have one?

The thrust of Mr. Ryan’s remarks seemed to suggest the party has to show its economic stands are aligned with the views of the working and middle classes. Fine. But how, exactly? What changes should be made, not just to message but content?

Noonan of course has it right. What these folks are saying is we tried to serve dinner to the American people, but they didn’t like the meal. So our plan is to bring the same dinner out, but maybe sprinkle a little salt on it. Either that or we just serve the same dinner, but call it something else. That formula is not likely to work for the Republicans, and will make them a regional party at best in the years to come.

So where are the ideas? The Republicans, in my view, are constrained from ideological deviation by their donor class, who just cannot accept the types of changes that might result in some electoral gain. Noonan broaches two ideas in her column that would bring howls of outrage from the donor base.

If conservatives are going to appeal to the nonrich, perhaps we want to be talking about—I don’t know, let’s float an idea—breaking up the banks? Too big to fail is too big to live, didn’t we learn that in 2008? Why aren’t we debating this? How about doing away with the carried interest deduction? Would billionaire hedge-fund contributors not like that? Isn’t that just kind of . . . too bad?

Too bad for hedge fund billionaires???? That is heresy in Republican circles. But Noonan, (and Krugman) both understand the death spiral that the GOP appears to be in because of the tight fitting ideological straight jacket. The Republicans need to change to win national elections. But can they do so without rupturing the Party itself? I make them a decided underdog.

Posted in National News | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Susan Rice Withdraws

Posted on December 13, 2012 by billmanzi

Susan Rice today took her name out of contention for the Secretary of State position, seemingly clearing the way for John Kerry to be named by the President to that slot, possibly as early as tomorrow. The intrigue may begin in Massachusetts. Will the Legislature change the law governing succession? If not will Governor Patrick impose a “promise not to run” caveat on the person he names to the interim slot? Buckle up, here we go. President Obama’s statement on Ambassador Rice’s withdrawal is below.

Today, I spoke to Ambassador Susan Rice, and accepted her decision to remove her name from consideration for Secretary of State. For two decades, Susan has proven to be an extraordinarily capable, patriotic, and passionate public servant. As my Ambassador to the United Nations, she plays an indispensable role in advancing America’s interests. Already, she has secured international support for sanctions against Iran and North Korea, worked to protect the people of Libya, helped achieve an independent South Sudan, stood up for Israel’s security and legitimacy, and served as an advocate for UN reform and the human rights of all people. I am grateful that Susan will continue to serve as our Ambassador at the United Nations and a key member of my cabinet and national security team, carrying her work forward on all of these and other issues. I have every confidence that Susan has limitless capability to serve our country now and in the years to come, and know that I will continue to rely on her as an advisor and friend. While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first. The American people can be proud to have a public servant of her caliber and character representing our country.

Posted in National News | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Cahill Case

Posted on December 13, 2012 by billmanzi

There has been much writing, and plenty of really obnoxious pontificating, on the Tim Cahill case. We have run the gamut, from speculation on retrying Cahill, to whether the non-verdict is a reflection on Martha Coakley, and how that impacts her political future, all the way to Bill Weld talking about Mazola oil.

Cahill was tried under a new statute that criminalizes the utilization of public monies for self promotion. The 2009 law tries to discourage the type of behavior that Cahill was charged with, and I am not sure who could argue with the premise. But as the Cahill trial showed, proving the allegation, even with an email trail, can be exceedingly difficult. So what can be done to achieve the policy goal that the new law seeks? Is it to place Tim Cahill into criminal court facing a five year jail term? I submit that it is not.

As with many things in government these days problems are not addressed with workable solutions, but with public relations stunts that end up leaving a big pile of smelly stuff on the table. And that smelly stuff is just what we ended up with in the Cahill case. We have the Globe editorial board admitting that this was a cluster, but urging folks not to take the wrong lessons from this case. The editorial showed just how stupid this law, and this prosecution, were, while trying to show the exact opposite.

It’s certainly true that the line between self-promotion and the outright diversion of resources can be hard to find in politics. Elected officials pursue policies that reward their supporters and make appearances at public expense in places whose voters they’d like to court. Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino famously has his name on anything and everything the city touches — up to and including its recycling bags. The public should resist such practices. Yet the very pervasiveness of this conduct suggests the need to set some sort of line, to separate the gross abuses from the mundane. A politician who allegedly spends $1.5 million in public ad money for the stated purpose of promoting himself should be subject to prosecution. That money could better serve countless legitimate social needs.

So now we need to allow some of this conduct, but draw a red line at some undefined point. Recycling bags with pictures are not good but should not result in charges, but Tim Cahill must be prosecuted because he ran ads that did not mention him. Intriguing theory. Who will draw the line? Prosecutors? We have constitutional officers now making public pronouncements that they will omit any pictures and references to themselves. Hilarious. Are they aware that a public service message too close to an election might trip a prosecution? Or would it? The law itself will never bring a single conviction in its current form. The Cahill case, from a prosecutors view, is as good as it will ever get. That’s only my opinion, and I am not a lawyer, but lets see what the future brings.

In light of the above do I believe that using public resources for political gain should just be allowed? Is Weld right in calling it Mazola oil? I don’t think so. Adjudicating claims against office holders of this type belongs with the State Ethics Commission, with big fines for activities that are clearly defined. If Cahill ended up before Ethics he might have thrown in the towel, agreed to a finding, paid the fine and moved on. The idea that even in light of the result it was a good idea to prosecute Cahill to promote future adherence to the law is more of that smelly stuff that the law itself left behind. Cahill and his family are human beings, and the idea of using them as guinea pigs should repulse decent people. He is, and was, dead politically.

Attorney General Coakley was in a difficult position. If she did not prosecute she would likely be accused of declining on the basis of politics. When she did prosecute she was accused along the same lines. The fault lies with the law, not with the A.G. But now the wise and prudent choice,moving forward, is the obvious one. I hope she declines to re-try.

When Tim Cahill was the Treasurer I served as Mayor of Methuen. He was very kind to the City in his capacity as the head of the Massachusetts School Building Authority, and the Methuen High School Project moved forward with his support. In the race for Governor I endorsed Deval Patrick.

As a footnote to this much has been made of Cahill’s lack of political acumen. He was repeatedly told that an independent candidacy for Governor was suicidal politically. But like many folks who think that normal rules of politics do not apply to them Cahill plunged forward and got his ass handed to him. He has been derided for that judgement, and justifiably so. But you cannot be tried for political stupidity. I hope that someone has the guts to look at the law, and recommend necessary changes.

Posted in State News | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Shocking!

Posted on December 12, 2012 by billmanzi

I have done a couple of posts about the setting of the “municipal tax factor”, and the annual request by City Councilors from around the Commonwealth to Mayors and Managers to lower tax bills by raiding free cash and reserves. As you know I have been against such actions, and have outlined my reasons in those prior postings.

I find it amusing (but maddening when I was a Mayor) to hear City Councilors express “shock” at tax classification time at the idea that the budget that they voted for would now have to be funded. Of course that “shock” is now reverberating throughout the Commonwealth, as Councilors urge the burning of reserves that have taken years to build. Such actions go against every model of responsible financial management, and have no support from any responsible financial folks familiar with municipal budgeting. They lead to “structural deficits” in the following year, since the level of spending remains the same or goes up, while revenue remains below expenses by the amount of the utilization of one time revenues. What that means is that the following year you need to raise that money, by taxation, or cut spending. The burning of reserves now takes its place as the local version of the budgeting fad known as “kicking the can down the road”. Don’t want to make tough decisions at budget time? Burn some reserves at tax time, and let us promise to get tough in the next budget cycle! (Which will not be here for another six months.) Then rinse, and repeat.

When a municipal budget is submitted it is shown to be in balance by law, with the Manager or Mayor submitting not only the expense side, but the revenue side as well. That revenue side contains a number for the “tax levy”, the amount to be raised by property taxes. For those municipal councilors expressing “shock, horror, despair and despondency” during tax setting time the question must be asked: Why didn’t you demand that the tax levy number be reduced at budget time? And then why did you not propose budget cuts equal to the levy reduction? The property tax burden goes down for every dollar that you reduce the tax levy. That is how you reduce the property tax burden, not by burning reserves. So for citizens wondering about local budgetary double talk you can start right there.

Another rather funny response from those looking to burn reserves at classification time comes when they are shown the process, and the math, in public settings or through the media. They invariably shake their heads and come up with one of the following:

1) “The Mayor or Manager should cut the budget, not me.”

2) “I understand that your math and facts are absolutely right, but lets do this so we look good.”

3) “Even if citizens are actually seeing a reduction in their tax bills, it is bad for us if they think bills are going up.” “Lets burn reserves to combat that perception problem.”

Hilarious stuff, as long as you are not the CEO. But it is truly dangerous stuff for creating a stable financial outlook for so many cities and towns that have been hit hard by the economic downturn, and who still have serious financial challenges ahead.

Councilors have the right, at budget time, to cut the budget submitted by the Mayor or Manager. The next time you are at a coffee shop and you hear a Councilor railing against the tax burden ask him how much he proposed cutting out of the municipal budget. When you hear crickets chirping you will know that the tax talk is more political double talk.

Posted in Municipal Finance | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Weekly Chat with Ted Panos on WCAP

Posted on December 9, 2012 by billmanzi

A podcast of my weekly chat with Teddy Panos and the morning crew over at WCAP. Talking about the fiscal cliff, the potential for a deal, and what the right ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases should be. Thanks to Ted, Tod and Chris for having me on.

https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F70650199 Weekly Chat with Former Methuen Mayor Bill Manzi 980 WCAP – The Voice of the Valley! December by Bill Manzi

Posted in WCAP Podcast | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Essential Republican (Boehner) Dilemma

Posted on December 8, 2012 by billmanzi

Republicans in Congress find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place. As the President digs in on the issue of tax rates for the top 2% of earners the Republican Party seems to be imploding, unable to make decisions that are both necessary, and ultimately in their own interest.

I have predicted here that we ultimately would “go over” the so called fiscal cliff. I based that on my idea that Republicans would not be able to be able to vote for any increase in the top tax rates, and that inability would force us over the cliff. So far the Republicans are meeting expectations. Why should the Republicans agree with the President? Wouldn’t that just be giving in?

Republicans helped craft both the “sequester” as well as the “temporary” Bush tax cuts. The sequester is a big group of budget cuts, including defense, that was designed to be so “onerous” that neither party would fail to reach agreement through the so called “super committee” to come up with a deficit reduction plan. The Bush tax cuts were designed as temporary by Republicans who were attempting to reduce the impact to the deficit score put out by CBO. It was calculated and deliberate. With the sequester coming on line, and the Bush tax cuts going off line Republicans want to eliminate the sequester (or at least the Defense portion) and extend all the Bush tax cuts. So much for their stated desire for deficit reduction. With President Obama winning re-election the Republican strategy of hold and grab, giving nothing and refusing to deal on anything until the election, has effectively blown up in their face. So where do they go from here?

Due to the strategy of the Republicans own making the Bush tax rates are going to expire for the top 2% no matter what they do. The only question left is whether, in a fit of pique, or just because they are having a temper tantrum, the Republicans refuse to pass tax relief for the other 98% of Americans. Their options at this point are not great, and if they had any sanity left the facts on the ground would compel a deal. As they look back at the blown opportunity for a “grand bargain” with President Obama they must now realize what a mistake they made. That mistake was driven by the hard right in the House Republican caucus, and led by Eric Cantor. Leaving aside the substance of the tax issue the political reality is that Cantor and the Republican caucus rolled the dice and came up empty, but now want a redo. The President is not having any of it. Republicans can drive us off the cliff, but the rates for the top 2% will still be 39.6%. And they will pay a heavy political price for having done so.

So the Speaker is stuck with some of the same circular firing squad members as he had before, and his help from outside the House is not what I would call assistance from friends. Speaker Boehner has offered $800 billion in revenues as part of his proposal, but claims you can get that number from “closing loopholes”. But he fails to identify which loopholes would produce the revenues. He also fails to take into account how such loophole closings might impact potential tax reform in the next Congress. All iterations of tax reform seem to rely on reducing or eliminating loopholes, and producing a simpler rate structure. Boehner’s plan would grab some of those now for simple revenue production, just to stop a relatively small increase in the tax rate for the top 2%. Unless reality sets in the Speaker is going to end up with egg on his face again. So what is a surrounded Speaker to do?

The Speaker first needs to determine that he will allow forward a bill that does not have a “majority of the majority”. If he refuses to move a compromise forward on that basis the odds are we go over that cliff. What might that compromise look like? I believe that the Speaker, being a realist and a deal cutter at heart, is willing to give on rates. But they do not have to be a replica of the Clinton era rates. The current threshold of $250,000 could be changed, with a smaller rate increase for that category, and new higher rates for higher thresholds. ($500,000 and $1 million?) Obviously the numbers have to work (the new revenue number will be reduced from the Presidential ask of $1.6 trillion down to between $1 and $1.2 trillion as part of the bargain). Once that part of the problem has been solved everything else will fall into place, with the possible exception of the debt ceiling. A new sequester will be devised for the bulk of the “entitlement” issue, which will essentially kick that can down the road to the next Congress. The President and Speaker could eliminate the defense sequester, but leave some portion of the non-defense sequester in place to satiate Republicans. The AMT patch could be enacted, and the two may trade off on the estate tax and capital gains tax, with a likely result being a hike in the capital gains rate in exchange for some level of continuation of current law on the estate tax. There does not seem to be a lot of support in Washington for an extension of the payroll tax cut, but that could be coupled with an extension of unemployment benefits that in some way has each side giving some. (Republicans give on unemployment but manage to get rid of the payroll tax cut).

Sounds pretty easy, eh? Maybe it is, for me. But the Speaker, if he agrees to what he must end up accepting anyway, will be put under a massive attack by that circular Republican firing squad. A deal that requires the Speaker to rely on Democratic House votes to pass is packed with political peril for John Boehner personally. But a deal that requires Republican majority support will be substantially harder to find. The Speaker is trying to gain control of his caucus, and he got Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, and Kevin McCarthy to sign on to the $800 billion revenue offer. Can he get those three to sign on to rate increases? Doubtful at best.

For those looking for the betting line: Over the cliff is still a favorite, although the odds have been reduced in favor of a deal. The President’s weekly address is below.

Posted in National News | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Rep. DiZoglio to Host Charity Fundraiser

Posted on December 7, 2012 by billmanzi

FOR RELEASE: Thursday, December 6, 2012

Rep-Elect DiZoglio to Host Holiday Jazz Brunch to
Support Local Families in Need

Methuen, MA – State Representative-elect Diana DiZoglio (D-Methuen) invites local residents to join the Methuen Arlington Neighborhood Inc.’s effort to help local families in need this holiday season. DiZoglio will be sponsoring a Holiday Jazz Brunch to raise awareness and support for their “Adopt-A-Family” program. All donations welcome and %100 of the proceeds will go directly to the families in need.

The goal of Methuen Arlington Neighborhood Inc. is to increase and enhance entrepreneurial opportunities, neighborhood investment, revitalization activities, and self-sufficiency of low and moderate income residents of the Methuen Arlington Neighborhood.

“We support low-income, working poor families that otherwise would not have anything under the tree for their children because they are just trying to make ends meet”, said Safe Haven Coordinator Linda Soucy. The Executive Director of the Methuen Arlington Neighborhood, Bill Manzi, points out that the “Adopt-A-Family” program, has sustained great success over the past sixteen years. “We have helped many working/poor families in the neighborhood enjoy their holiday thanks to the unmatched support and generosity from individuals and companies in the community”, said Manzi. “The Adopt-A-Family Program and Holiday Food Basket Delivery are crucial to the families of our neighborhood. These specific programs ensure that financially strapped families in our community are able to enjoy their holiday season, grateful that their children have been provided with food and presents during this stressful time of year. With your help and support, we can continue this great tradition,” said Manzi.

The Holiday Jazz Brunch will be held on Sunday, December 16th, from 11:30am – 2:00pm at Taza Mediterranean Cuisine Restaurant at 169 East Street, Methuen. A buffet style brunch will be served and guests will enjoy a live, jazz performance by Ed Saindon and Billy Novik.

“I spoke with members of the board at Methuen Arlington Neighborhood Inc. to find that the sorts of things on the wish lists for these children are warm winter boots and blankets. I am pleased to host this event and join in the effort to engage our community by providing an opportunity to meet other active residents, listen to live music, and enjoy a great meal to support neighbors in need this holiday season,” said DiZoglio.

Please contact M.A.N with any questions about this amazing program by calling (978) 691-5645, or by emailing methuenarlington@yahoo.com. For more information about the Methuen Arlington Neighborhood Inc. visit their website at http://www.methuenarlington.com. To find out more about the Holiday Jazz Brunch, please contact Chris Cremens by calling (617) 413-4935 or by emailing Chris@DianaDiZoglio.com.

PRESS CONTACT:
Diana DiZoglio State Representative-elect – 14th Essex District
Cell: (978) – 390 – 0408 http://www.VoteDiZoglio.com Email: Diana@DianaDizoglio.com

Posted in Methuen | Tagged , | Leave a comment