If he spent the weekend in NH, should we argue (to be logically consistent) that by doing so he was hypocritical for not spending his weekend lodging and meal money in MA? No, no one would say he can’t spend his weekend trip money in NH. If this is a case, which I think it is, of a guy bought booze on his way home from a weekend in NH, then I find no hypocrisy. If he drove there to avoid the tax, then I would say, fair enough, becuase he voted to increase the sales tax from 5-6.25% and the sales tax on booze from 0 to 6.25%, he is subject to claims of hypocrisy by teabaggers, who cannot connect the relationship between state revenue to state services.

To claim it doesn’t belong on page one is to misunderstand what the Herald is about. You’ve got hypocrisy by a legislator who gets caught in the act and populist outrage.

Caught in the act of what? This “scandal” was manufactured by the Herald. The facts of the case don’t support scandal. Bad optics, yes. Scandal, far from it.

The Herald calls itself a newspaper, doesn’t it?

They have an obligation to report all the facts, mot just the ones that make it look like he drove up their on his lunch break.

B. It isn’t a matter of how much tax RR owed, but the principle. Why do people buy liquor in NH? Because the taxes in Mass. are higher, and therefore, the price in NH is lower. And who can control that? Legislators.

C. By buying in NH, RR was chasing revenue from Mass. vendors to NH while participating in the creation of laws that make it impossible for Mass. vendors to compete.

D. Even though he bought the liquor in NH, Mass. still claims a “use tax” on any purchases, not only from RR but from anyone bring untaxed liquor into the state. If RR doesn’t like that tax, maybe he should file a bill to repeal it.

He has this blog, and comments, both for and against his position, are the price he pays for choosing to put himself in the spotlight.

I am sure that even Dan appreciates that.

And BTW, as an academic, he should be well versed in, and decidedly in favor of, peer review, even if he thinks the commentators are somewhat less than peers.

I never understand comments that question the blogger’s choice of topic. It’s Dan’s blog, and he can write about whatever the hell he wants to write about.

What is the tax due on ‘three bottles of hard liquor and two bottles of wine’ at 6.25%? 5 bottles x $20 each is about

$6.25.

The horror.

Have you ever been in NH and stopped at the NH liquor store becuase of the public restrooms? I have. Do you have any evidence that the state reps claim was a lie? I don’t. Do you?

If you believe he’s covering up wrong-doing, it certainly sounds like an excuse, but if you don’t believe he’s covering up wrong-doing?

Finally, have you no explanation for the other two strikes?