Response to BTA’s rebuttals of Republican bias
To the Editor:
I would like to thank Mr. Stewart’s reasoned reply on the benefits and role of the Bedford Taxpayers Association (BTA) in response to my letter to the
editor. However, given the BTA’s charter and “nonpartisan affiliation,” I guess I was under the impression that tax positions (and recommendations
when warranted) would be provided of all candidate especially in a PRIMARY election. BTA rarely, if ever, provides any analysis of Democratic/Independent
Anyways, I accused the BTA of Republican bias in my original letter. It is a bit intellectually dishonest to counter my argument that the BTA didn’t
support Republican Terry Wolf, when in actuality the BTA still recommended another Republican in her place (albeit as a “write-in”). Nonetheless, I
argued the bias went beyond BTA’s support of candidates based strictly based on their fiscal responsible tax positions in accordance with a “non-political
charter”. As I stated previously, the BTA in their 2014 Sample Election ballot, used non-tax, partisan descriptors to recommend most every
Republican candidates. BTA recommended Scott Brown because he “understands foreign affairs” and “opposes failed Obamacare.” Havenstein’s and Brown
were also recommended because they “served” in the military and “retired as Colonels”. Nyquist was labeled “a New Boston liberal lawyer working in
Shaheen’s office.” And Laurie Sanborn is a “Bedford resident and Rep since 2012.” I ask again, what do these have to do with their fiscal tax positions? As
for the County positions, the Republican candidates were recommended because they had “done a good job” or were “well qualified” etc. No mention of
their tax positions. One could recommend Democrat/Independents as well based on these “qualifications”. The above examples are pronouncements that
go beyond tax policy and recommendations. In Mr. Stewart rebuttal he had no explanation for these biased statements other than BTA “recommended a
Democrat” in 2012.
Also, if by Mr. Stewart’s own words “several Republican candidates reached out the BTA” but “not one Democrat”, then this would seem to undermine the
tenet that the BTA is a non-partisan organization. Is this the only way to get the BTA’s supports? So can I presume that all 27 or so Primary/General
election recommended Republicans candidates reached out to the BTA or was it just “several” of them? If they all didn’t reach out, why were they still
recommended when Democrats did not get the same consideration? This explanation makes no sense to support BTA’s process for recommendation.
My “concerns” (characterized by Mr. Stewart) were not with the candidates but BTA’s basis for its recommendations. I shouldn’t
have to join the BTA to get candidates to reach out to keep taxes low. BTA has already stepped forward to do that (Thank you). But it says it is a
“non-partisan organization.” Maybe I am missing something but the voters should expect it do more to represent the tax positions of all candidates
and then if fiscal responsibility is BTA’s litmus test for recommendation, fine. However’ voters shouldn’t endure partisan statement on
candidates that aren’t a direct bearing on this tax policy position. From my vantage, BTA appears to have Republican bias that goes beyond fiscal
responsibility. If I was the director/president of a “NON-PARTISAN” organization and it was accused of bias I would move to quickly to conduct a
review and ensure our process was totally objective, free of partisan jabs.
Thank you and Happy New Year to all.