The Boston Globe has the editorial Charlie Baker for governor: To move Mass. forward, state government must work better.  I responded online to the editors with the following comments:

Charlie Baker has a habit of finding state agencies that are not performing up to snuff, but he doesn’t fix them. He just closes them and let’s the people who depended on them fend for themselves. The local cities and towns are left to make up for what the state government just stops doing. No wonder the cities and towns are starving for local aid from the state.

The state’s finances look great because the state fobs off its responsibilities on the cities and towns.  You can have a great looking record if you force others to do your job.  The beauty is that if they fail, it doesn’t reflect on what you did.  You can always blame the cities and towns for not being capable.  Maybe nobody will notice that the cities and towns can’t do the job because they can’t collect taxes to pay for the work the way the state used to do before the Charlie Baker’s  came on the scene to pillage the state.  Is this the kind of behavior we  ought to reward?

Charlie Baker’s so called economic plan would be devastating to the state. Here we have a state that has high quality advantages that corporations strongly desire, but Baker wants to compete with other states on price. He wants to give corporations financial incentives to locate in Massachusetts rather than invest our precious tax revenues in enhancing what makes Massachusetts so desirable for companies. Martha Coakley is the first candidate for Governor that I have ever heard understanding that when you have a quality product like Massachusetts, you tout its qualities rather than try to sell it on the lowest price.

Does the Globe try to sell its papers by competing on price with the Herald? Or does the Globe sell its papers on the premise that it is a better product? If you, the editors,  have fallen for the price competition, maybe that is why the Globe is struggling to continue to put out a quality product. No wonder your editors aren’t smart enough to endorse Coakley.

Another comment on the editorial states:

zauberfriend10/26/14 09:48 PM –
This is not your father’s Globe, it’s John Henry’s Globe. Still a great paper. Deal with it.

My response to this comment was:

But John Henry is not going to keep it as a great paper if he decides that cutting costs and prices is the best way to compete for readers. The Red Sox don’t have loyal fans because they sell seats at Fenway for the lowest price.

Charlie Baker claims that he saved Harvard/Pilgrim by making it the best health care company around. Harvard/Pi;grim does not compete on price.  Charlie Baker actually raised premiums. He didn’t compete for the job as CEO by cutting his salary, in fact he tripled it.

So why is Baker so smart because he wants to do state government on the cheap? Not only that, but what revenues the state does collect he wants to pay out to corporations to attract them to Massachusetts. Doesn’t he realize what a quality state Massachusetts is, and that he ought to be spending tax revenues to keep it that way?

If we don’t get online to dispel the fiction about Charlie Baker, then have we really done enough to insure that the state gets the governor that it needs at this time?