If only GOP Rep. Dan Webster practiced what he preached…
A weird tale that is somewhat reminiscent of Dianne Wilkerson's serial inability to comply with tax and campaign finance laws.
On April 3, 2006 the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed “An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality Accountable Healthcare” by a 155-2 vote. The two State Representatives who voted against this legislation will no doubt go down in history as the two biggest hypocrites in the history of the Massachusetts GOP Caucus, and it’s not because they continued to take advantage of a generous taxpayer-funded health care plan after voting against affordable healthcare for their constituents.
The first hypocrite is Jeff Perry of Sandwich. Rep. Perry spent his career decrying government waste. He even took the time in his farewell speech in 2011 to take a jab at public employees. Perry went on to take a $110,000/year job as Barnstable County Special Sheriff, a position that had been vacant for two years. But you knew that.
The second hypocrite you might not know – meet Rep. Daniel K. Webster. Much like Perry, Webster is a far-right wing Republican who aligns with Brian Camenker on social issues. He currently represents Duxbury, Halifax, Hanson, and Pembroke in the House of Representatives. I’d mention which town he resides in, but he moves around so much that I’m not exactly sure.
Like many members of the Mass GOP, Rep. Webster has spent his career campaigning on fiscal responsibility. He wants the Commonwealth to live within its means the way his constituents do. Unfortunately, instead of working to model the Commonwealth’s finances after that of his constituents, Dan Webster has been working to model his own finances after the Commonwealth’s. He’s done quite a good job at it, too.
Public records tell quite a tale of Webster’s fiscal IRresponsibility… Keep in mind that per financial disclosures filed with the state Webster takes home between $120,000 and $200,000 per year from his job at the State House and his law practice.
Webster’s first instance of public fiscal irresponsibility seems to have taken place during the period from 2005 through 2007. According to a 2009 decision by the OCPF, Webster’s campaign violated numerous aspects of campaign finance law by not reporting all of its’ expenditures, lying about the source of campaign contributions, not reporting campaign contributions, and receiving improper contributions. Webster was fined $1,000 and had to submit an increased number of campaign finance reports along with significant backup information for a period of two years. You have to give Webster credit for violating almost every aspect of campaign finance law – well done, Representative!
Tax Day 2006 came and passed without much action from Webster when he didn’t bother to pay the $6,658 he owed on his income tax return. The Internal Revenue Service filed a lien on Webster’s real estate on November 6, 2006. He waited until 2009 to pay it back – the lien was released on March 12, 2009.
June of 2007 marked the beginning of Webster’s failure to file payroll tax returns for his law firm. Between April 1, 2007 and June 30, 2008 Webster had failed to file six payroll returns for a total of $13,647 due to the federal government. The government slapped yet another lien on his real estate on October 6, 2008. Like any fiscally responsible Republican, Webster responded by doing the fiscally irresponsible thing: he didn’t pay the next payroll tax return that was due, either. He was rewarded with a third lien, this one for $57.46.
Based on the liens, one could guess cash was tight for Webster in 2008. He needed cash quick so he took out a $175,000 mortgage with Rockland Trust with his then-girlfriend in November of that year. Unfortunately it seems that Webster thought he was signing onto a “Get Rich Quick” scheme, not a mortgage. He failed to make more than a few payments on the mortgage and foreclosure proceedings began in 2010. The court docket for Rockland Trust v. Webster tells an interesting tale. The initial filing took place in August of 2010. Hearings were continued through June of 2011 when it was disclosed that Webster was in bankruptcy. In November of 2011 Webster was ordered to appear in court on February 13, 2012 at 2pm in Brockton for final judgment of the proceedings. Like any fiscally responsible Republican, Webster did the irresponsible thing: he didn’t show up at court. Webster defaulted on a $125,135 balance and the court further assessed him interest, costs, and attorney fees. The total judgment against Webster last month was $191,106.95.
2009 brought more trouble for Webster. He wrote a $40 check to renew his license, but the check bounced. As a result, his license to drive was suspended for a one month period beginning March 23, 2009. But something funny happened during that period – Webster drove to work twelve times and took home $312 in per diems for doing so. Driving on a suspended license is a criminal offense in Massachusetts with a penalty of up to $10,000 in fines and 60 days to 2-1/2 years in jail, while writing a bad check is just a civil offense.
2010 brought yet another license suspension over bounced checks, but this time Webster’s law license was suspended for mis-managing client funds. Every penny of client funds that come in and go out of an attorney’s IOLTA bank account must be properly accounted for. Webster failed to do this AND ignored requests by the Board of Bar Overseers for an explanation of the error. His license to practice law was suspended from June 4, 2010 through June 25, 2010. To apparently make up for lost legal income Webster drove himself to Beacon Hill 12 times during that three week period for another $312 in per diems.
The per diem thing REALLY bothers me. Fiscally responsible Republicans always decry wasteful spending like the per diem but they always seem to take them. Per diems make sense if you live in The Berkshires, Provincetown, Martha’s Vineyard or Nantucket, but not Halifax or Hanson or Pembroke. Per diems are working out pretty well for Webster, though. He’s taken home over $10,000 worth since 2009. Based on that average Webster may well have taken home an additional $30,000 since being first elected… FOR DRIVING TO WORK!
Fortunately for us, Rep. Daniel K. Webster is a very humble man. With his history of financial ineptitude, Rep. Webster would never dare stand in the rostrum calling for fiscal responsibility.
Actually, he would. Two days after defaulting on almost $200,000 in court Rep. Webster had the courage to say this:
The citizens of this Commonwealth ARE demanding fiscal responsibility. They’re also demanding something further: personal responsibility.
Sorry Rep. Webster – it’s time for you to focus on your own personal finances before you have any input on legislation affecting the personal finances of six million.
Hypocrite.
Rep. Daniel Webster supported GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ADDICTION which will expand the bureaucracy, regulatory staffing and no one knows the COSTS.
When the article above was discovered, I posted it on Rep. Daniel Webster's facebook page and requested a response, after all, this is the public domain. Surely, Rep. Daniel Webster had a defensible explanation. Right?
Or is facebook only about Kissey Face/Huggy Lips?
Instead, it appears that Rep. Daniel Webster has deleted his facebook page and moved on with no explanation.
When a MASSACHUSETTS REPUBLICAN claims to be conservative, yet supports expanding GOVERNMENT, what does that say?
If we know that for every $1 GAMBLING pays to the state, the cost is $3, why would Republicans support it?
Massachusetts HOUSE vote
Massachusetts SENATE vote
Posts
