Karyn Polito's Blog

CHARITY GOLF TOURNAMENT AND AWARDS DINNER

2010-08-05T10:44:00.001-04:00

It is with great honor that on Monday, August 9th, I'll be hosting the 9th Annual Karyn Polito Charity Golf Tournament at the Pleasant Valley Country Clubat at 95 Armsby Road in Sutton..

The Annual Charity Tournament beneftis two local charities: Shrewsbury Youth and Family Services and the Westborough Food Pantry. With the help and generosity of many residents and local businesses, over $200,000 has been raised and distributed to date to these worthwhile organizations.

This year’s major sponsors include Central One Federal Credit Union, Dunkin Donuts, Roche Brothers, Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc., J.A. Polito & Sons, Inc. and Polito Development Corp.

Registration begins at 9:30AM where a continental breakfast will also be served. There will be a shotgun start at 11:00AM. For more information, please contact Monique Rose mrose@centralfcu.com or call 508-842-2802.

AUGUST OFFICE HOURS

2010-07-28T11:11:00.002-04:00

I am pleased to announce that I will be holding office hours in the month of August during the following times:

August 6th from 9:00AM-10:30AM at the Senior Center in Shrewsbury. 98 Maple Avenue.

August 6th from 11:00AM-12:00PM at the Senior Center in Westborough. 4 Rogers Road.

No appointment is necessary.

JULY OFFICE HOURS

2010-07-13T12:02:00.002-04:00

I am pleased to announce that I will be holding office hours in the month of July during the following times:

July 16th from 9:00AM-10:30AM at the Senior Center in Shrewsbury. 98 Maple Avenue.

July 16th from 11:00AM-12:00PM at the Senior Center in Westborough. 4 Rogers Road.

No appointment is necessary.

JUNE OFFICE HOURS

2010-06-01T15:03:00.001-04:00

I am pleased to announce that I will be holding office hours in the month of June during the following times:

June 11th from 9:00AM-10:30AM at the Senior Center in Shrewsbury. 98 Maple Avenue.

June 11th from 11:00AM-12:00PM at the Senior Center in Westborough. 4 Rogers Road.

No appointment is necessary.

MAY OFFICE HOURS

2010-05-06T08:19:00.000-04:00

I am pleased to announce that I will be holding office hours in the month of May during the following times:

May 7th from 9:00AM-10:30AM at the Senior Center in Shrewsbury. 98 Maple Avenue.

May 7th from 11:00AM-12:00PM at the Senior Center in Westborough. 4 Rogers Road.

No appointment is necessary.

Statement of Karyn Polito on the House Budget

2010-04-30T18:58:00.000-04:00

I voted no on the House budget because I believe it is the product of poor policies and even poorer procedures. At a time when our Commonwealth is facing serious challenges, the people of Massachusetts deserve a more thoughtful approach to the problems before us and better procedures to debate policy. Unfortunately, very few ideas were permitted to be debated and voted on this week. That’s bad for the House as an institution and it’s bad for the people of Massachusetts.

POLITO ANNOUNCES PASSAGE OF “RESTAURANT REJUVENATION ACT”

2010-04-29T19:06:00.003-04:00

State Representative Karyn Polito (R – Shrewsbury) is pleased to announce that the House has adopted a budget amendment she introduced that will allow restaurants to serve alcohol during Sunday brunch hours.

Known as the “Restaurant Rejuvenation Act” and advocated by television’s “Phantom Gourmet,” Dave Andelman, the legislation has the potential to give an economic boost to the Massachusetts restaurant industry. That industry employs approximately one out of ten Massachusetts workers, or almost 300,000 people, and it is responsible for over $12 billion in annual sales. However, the restaurant industry has suffered greatly due to recent economic difficulties.

“I am thrilled my colleagues recognized the potential of the Restaurant Rejuvenation Act to create additional jobs in Massachusetts,” said Polito, who was the main sponsor of the budget amendment to enact the legislation in the House. “Massachusetts restaurants are facing tremendous challenges due to the recession, the meals tax, higher sales taxes and a new tax on alcoholic beverages. I hope the passage of this amendment will help to offset some of the costs on businesses.”

Under current law, Massachusetts restaurants outside of Suffolk county are prohibited from selling alcoholic beverages before noon on Sundays, unless local licensing boards grant permission. The Restaurant Rejuvenation Act would move the starting time back to 10:00 a.m. statewide, thereby helping restaurants to compete with neighboring states for Sunday brunch business and removing licensing differences between communities.

The legislation now moves to the Senate for its consideration.

POLITO AND LOCAL OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS RESTORING LOCAL AID

2010-04-27T17:53:00.004-04:00

State Representative Karyn Polito and local officials will hold a media availability tomorrow, April 28, at 11:30 a.m., outside the House Chamber on the third floor of the Statehouse. Polito will speak about her amendment to dedicate 75% of state revenues that come in above forecast for restoration of local aid to Massachusetts cities and towns.

STATEMENT OF KARYN POLITO REGARDING HER VOTE AGAINST THE GAMING BILL PASSED BY THE HOUSE TODAY

2010-04-14T20:03:00.000-04:00

The gaming bill approved by the House today is a bad deal for Massachusetts. These are the biggest licenses ever awarded by our state and it would be wrong to hand them out on a no-bid basis. The only way to obtain maximum value for the taxpayers is through a competitive bidding process. I hope the Senate makes the bill better by adding language that encourages competition and openness. As we look to expand gaming in the state, we need to do it in a way that maintains the public's confidence.

APRIL OFFICE HOURS

2010-04-05T11:05:00.000-04:00

I am pleased to announce that I will be holding office hours in the month of April during the following times:

April 9th from 9-10:30AM at the Senior Center in Shrewsbury. 98 Maple Avenue

April 16th from 9-10AM at the Shrewsbury Towers. 36 N. Quinsigamond Avenue and 10:30-11:30AM at the Senior Center in Westborough. 4 Rogers Road

No appointment is necessary.

STATEMENT OF STATE REPRESENTATIVE KARYN POLITO ON RESOLUTION BY LEGISLATIVE LEADERS TO REDUCE LOCAL AID TO CITIES AND TOWNS

2010-03-16T16:13:00.000-04:00

“Democratic leaders on Beacon Hill dealt a heavy blow to already-struggling municipal budgets last week by announcing that they intend to cut local aid by 4 percent in FY2011, amounting to a reduction of $200 million. I am disappointed that the legislative leadership is attempting to balance this year’s state budget at the expense of cities and towns.

While the press release distributed by the House Speaker, Senate President and Ways and Means chairs last Friday purported to speak on behalf of the entire Legislature, the House and Senate do still get a chance to vote on this proposed resolution. When we do, I will stand up against this cut for cities and towns, advocate for at least level-funding the local aid account, and I will urge my colleagues to do the same.

Times are tough and spending cuts need to be made, but our cities and towns should not be the place we look to make sacrifices. We need to keep our commitment to provide resources to our communities so that they can, in turn, continue providing vital local services to the hard-working people of Massachusetts.”

###

FIRST Robotics Regional Competition

2010-03-12T17:00:00.000-05:00

This morning, I attended the US FIRST Robotics Regional Competition opening ceremonies at Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Inside Harrington Auditorium, you could feel the energy and excitement of the students, their engineering mentors and everyone else involved in the competition. Over the course of the next few days, 29 high school teams from across New England will compete for a chance to advance to the World Championships at the Georgia Dome in April.

This event truly showcases our future scientists, engineers and business leaders and makes me believe that our investment into STEM education is paying off with these students being able to work side by side with professional engineers designing and building robots all while learning to use sophisticated hardware and software.

If you have time, I encourage you to come down to WPI and check out all the hard work that these students have put in and their amazing results. Good luck to all the teams!

Karyn Polito for Treasurer

2010-03-02T14:09:00.006-05:00

On March 1, I announced that I am running for State Treasurer this fall. If you would like to learn more about my campaign, please visit:

http://www.karynpolitofortreasurer.com

Thought of the Day - 02/26/2010

2010-02-26T08:45:00.000-05:00

There's an interesting story in today's Boston Globe that reports that up to 30 state legislative seats could turn over next year.

The turnover is due to a number of factors. But one thing is clear. Next year's legislature is likely to include a high number of newly-elected members, and that's a good thing.

I filed a bill for term limits on the legislature earlier this session because I believe that turnover is beneficial for our state. Public office was never meant to be a career. Instead, our founding fathers envisioned a citizen legislature made up of people who volunteered a brief portion of their lives to making Massachusetts a better place. They wanted people to bring the richness of their collective personal and professional experiences into the the legislature and to apply them to public policy with energy and fresh ideas. And after awhile, they intended for them to let others take their place to start the process anew.

It will be interesting to see what the legislature looks like in 2011. Hopefully it will be one full of new faces, fresh ideas, and an energetic spirit poised to take action on the important issues facing us.

Thought of the Day – 02/25/2010

2010-02-25T07:59:00.003-05:00

Yesterday, the House of Representatives took a positive step forward on the issue of protecting children from obscenity.

The House passed an important bill prohibiting people from sending sexually graphic instant messages to minors.

Passing this law is necessary because, a few weeks ago, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found a loophole in our criminal laws that prevents prosecutors from enforcing obscenity laws (which were originally designed to apply to printed materials in the days before e-mail and texting) against sexually graphic instant messages. This is a growing problem in Massachusetts and in other states as people try to exploit children who are using computers and cell phones to communicate at younger and younger ages.

I voted in favor of the bill, and I hope it’s the first of many steps that the Legislature will take to protect children this session. I’ve filed other proposals that would strengthen our obscenity laws and to impose greater punishment for crimes like posing of a minor. I am also continuing my fight for stronger mandatory minimum sentences for people who commit sex offenses against children, in hopes that we can fully-implement Jessica’s Law here in Massachusetts soon.

The obscenity law we passed yesterday still awaits Senate approval before it can be passed into law. I’ll keep you posted on its progress.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY - 2/24/2010

2010-02-24T08:36:00.000-05:00

Yesterday brought encouraging news for cities and towns as a legislative committee gave its initial approval to a “municipal relief” bill and moved it closer to passage.

The concept of “municipal relief” is nothing more than the idea that helping cities and towns financially does not necessarily involve giving them more money; it can also mean easing burdens, cutting costs and streamlining procedures so local governments have more opportunity to save money. If enough opportunities are created, the savings can really start to add up. And in most cases, the changes being made are systemic, so they will create savings year after year.

This particular bill appears to include provisions like allowing electronic payment systems in cities and towns, opening up new insurance options for municipal employees, and allowing communities to band together for bulk purchasing and mutual aid. (You can read more about the bill in this Associated Press story in today's Boston Herald.)

It remains to be seen what this bill will ultimately look like when it gets to the House for a vote, but in general, I’m a strong advocate for municipal relief. In fact, I have filed several bills of my own which would cut local health care costs and give cities and towns more ways to save money. I’m hopeful that a municipal relief bill will make its way to the House for a vote soon, and when it does, I hope that some of the ideas I have proposed might be included in the final version. I will keep you updated on the bill’s progress.

Do you have any ideas for municipal relief. Please let me know. You can post a comment below.

Thought of the Day - 02/23/2010

2010-02-23T07:11:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, legislation to help finances in Lawrence moved forward as the Ways and Means Committee issued a favorable report on the bill, thus preparing it for debate by the full House of Representatives.

But I don’t really think the bill is a big step forward because it doesn’t go far enough to protect taxpayers and to ensure a good result. I voted "no" on the bill coming out of the Ways and Means Committee.

The basic problem is that the bill opens up $35 million of financing to the city without setting up appropriate oversight. The bill does appoint an overseer to help the city manage its finances, but it stops short of appointing a finance control board.

I think the more-sweeping powers of a control board are necessary to make sure the $35 million is well spent and that Massachusetts taxpayers don’t ultimately become responsible for paying this money back or bailing out the city any more.

There’s no question that Lawrence needs our help. Regardless of how this mess developed in the first place, Massachusetts can’t turn its back on one of its largest communities and its people in their time of need. But it’s both fair and responsible for us to put protections in place to make sure that any financing package will work and that taxpayers in other communities – many of which are also struggling these days – don’t end up paying the price for what happened in Lawrence.

You can read more about the bill and my thoughts about it in this story in today’s Lawrence Eagle Tribune. A vote is scheduled for next week. It remains to be seen how some of my colleagues will react to this bill; many are skeptical about it and want questions answered. I will keep you posted on what’s happening in the debate.

Until then, what do you think? Do you support helping Lawrence this way, or do you favor the added protections of a control board? Please post a comment below and let me know what you think.

Thought of the Day - 02/22/2010

2010-02-22T07:33:00.003-05:00

There’s an editorial in today’s Boston Herald that is a must-read for anyone interested in improving the business climate here in Massachusetts and growing jobs in this state.

The editorial talks about the fact that Massachusetts recently passed legislation that slows the growth of unemployment insurance rates charged to employers in this state.

As a result, Massachusetts employers will save about $400 million this year as compared to what they would have paid had there been no rate reform.

But the editorial also says that reform shouldn’t stop here. Massachusetts still has one of the most generous benefits systems in the nation, and it costs Massachusetts-based employers a lot of money to run the system. That discourages investment here, and it ultimately fuels the same job problem the unemployment system is supposed to address.

If we want to grow jobs here, we need to institute “systemic” reforms of the nature the Herald talks about while still making sure we keep an adequate safety net in place for those who lose their jobs. And it shouldn’t stop with unemployment insurance. Health insurance costs are also plaguing employers, and there is more our state could do to ease this burden without sacrificing access to coverage or quality of care. We also need to look at our business tax structure and permitting structure to make our state more business-friendly.

What do you think? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts. Please post a comment below to let me know what you think.

Thought of the Day - 2/18/2010

2010-02-18T07:52:00.000-05:00

This morning’s Boston Globe features an editorial in favor of Governor Patrick’s plan to levy a sales tax on soda and candy.

I disagree strongly with their rationale in favor of the tax.

The Globe editorial is centered around a belief that raising taxes is a good way to encourage social behavior; in this case, deterring children and obese adults from eating too much soda and candy. It suggests that reducing intake of soda and candy would have numerous health benefits, including possibly lowering the risk of cancer. The editorial also suggests optimistically that other, similar steps to reduce the consumption of unhealthy items could come in the future.

Even if all of the Globe’s facts and markers about nutrition are correct (I don’t argue with them here), I still think this tax is a bad idea. It’s the latest in a series of proposals on Beacon Hill that use arguments smacking of paternalism to justify taxes and spending that taxpayers can’t (and shouldn’t have to) afford. And that’s wrong.

First, state leaders wanted to raise the gas tax as a way to encourage conservation… and, of course, to help balance the state budget without making further spending cuts. Some wanted to raise the cigarette tax to discourage smoking… and to preserve spending that otherwise would have to be cut. Now, they want to take the first step in taxing foods on the basis of their nutritional value… supposedly as a way to encourage healthy eating, but also as a way to pay for health programs that we otherwise can’t afford.

These are all mixed messages for taxpayers, but in the end, the message is clear: government wants to tell people what to do, and it expects people to pay extra for it.

I believe government does a disservice to those it represents whenever it views taxes as anything more than the necessary price taxpayers need to pay for core government services and priorities. Using taxes as a way for government to exert itself over wholly-private decisions, like what people should eat, is just as bad as using taxes to pay for government spending that’s not essential to run our state.

What do you think? Is taxing people for their consumption of unhealthy foods a good idea, or is it just plain wrong? Please post a comment below and let me know your thoughts.

Thought of the Day - 02/17/2010

2010-02-17T10:00:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, all the major candidates in the race for Governor – except the Governor himself – actually agreed that the state sales tax should be rolled back.

As the Boston Herald points out today, the candidates had different views on what should happen afterwards. But there was consensus among them that the sales tax increase from 5 percent to 6.25 percent needs to be undone.

Then, there is Governor Patrick. He not only thinks that the sales tax should remain at its current level until tax revenues pick up again, he also proposes additional tax increases on certain consumer products like candy bars this year.

Our elected officials need to remember something very important. Raising taxes during a recession is a bad idea. Instead of turning to taxpayers for more money when revenues plummet, government needs to learn to live within its means. The decisions might be difficult to make, but cutting back on the size and scope of government is the only way to solve our revenue problems, and the first place to start is to trim waste and inefficiency through comprehensive reforms.

The state budget process for Fiscal Year 2011 is well underway, and it will present a huge opportunity for our state to address some of these problems. Hopefully, there will be room for lots of creative solutions and solid ideas to reform state government. I know that’s what I will be looking for, and I will keep you informed of what happens throughout the process.

Thought of the Day - 02/16/2010

2010-02-16T08:52:00.001-05:00

Did you see the story in today’s Herald about open road tolling?

Supposedly, Governor Patrick is already looking to hire someone to implement the system along the Massachusetts Turnpike -- at a salary of $102,000 a year.

I find it disappointing that, of all the different ways Governor Patrick could try to make government more efficient, he is focusing on more efficient ways to collect money from people.

Open road tolling probably would save money in the long run by eliminating some of the infrastructure needed to collect tolls from motorists. So, on the surface at least, it looks like a worthwhile reform to explore. But you have to take a step back and think about the situation to understand what’s really going on here.

First of all, as the salary of the Governor’s proposed new “toll czar” indicates, implementing a new open road tolling system will cost money. Essentially, it’s going to cost us money to save money. Unfortunately, as I’ve pointed out before, that seems to be a common theme whenever Governor Patrick talks about reforming our state’s transportation system.

Second, the Patrick Administration says that open road tolling would be limited only to the Turnpike, where we already have toll collection in place. In other words, it would only replace existing, inefficient ways of collecting tolls; the state wouldn’t use the system to collect new tolls. Call me cynical, but are we really to believe that the state won’t expand the use of open road tolling technology to new roadways if it proves to be efficient and if we need additional money to pay for transportation?

This leads me to my third -- and most important -- point. This whole idea for open road tolling misses the mark because the focus should be on ELIMINATING the tolls, not on finding more ingenious and efficient ways of collecting them from motorists.

Someone needs to remind Governor Patrick that the most cost-effective toll system is no system at all. Coincidentally, that’s exactly the sort of system that was envisioned when the Turnpike was built. The Turnpike tolls were never meant to last forever, and it’s time for us to start finding ways to eliminate them once and for all.

What do you think about open road tolling? Please post a comment below.

Thought of the Day - 02/12/2010

2010-02-12T07:28:00.000-05:00

Last night, I appeared on NECN's Broadside with Jim Braude to talk about legislation to help finances in the City of Lawrence.

I spoke about the need for a finance control board in the city and the need to avoid simply giving the city and its leaders a bailout without sufficient conditions or controls.

There's no question in my mind that the good people of Lawrence need help. The city has asked the state for help, and now we need to figure out the best way to do that. But when we do that, we ought to make sure that there are safeguards in place to make sure our work is effective and that it will generate long-term success, not just short-term solutions. And, we need to protect taxpayers by minimizing their exposure on the solutions we propose. That's why I believe we should be looking more closely at an option to place the city under receivership or to institute a finance control board.

If you'd like to watch the video, please click here.

Thought of the Day - 02/11/2010

2010-02-11T11:11:00.000-05:00

There’s been lots of talk lately about the best way to stimulate our economy in Massachusetts and how to grow jobs here. As well there should be; this is the number one issue facing many Massachusetts residents these days.

I continue to believe that what we need to do is to make our state more competitive for businesses by lowering their costs of doing business here. And one of the best ways to do that is to make our tax system fair.

The other day, Governor Patrick proposed tax credits for small businesses and job creation in our state. These credits are worthwhile proposals but they seem like small steps forward in a much larger effort, especially when you consider recent hefty increases in the sales tax and corporate excise tax.

There is growing evidence that tax policy works to lure businesses here. For example, today’s Boston Globe has a story about a tax credit allotted to the film industry in 2005. The story says the tax credit has the potential to create a “small but robust film industry” here and to “support thousands of good-paying jobs.”

It’s particularly interesting that the study shows that Massachusetts has been more successful than other states that also offer tax credits because we have a better infrastructure and a more talented workforce in place for moviemakers to utilize. In other words, it suggests that the film industry was always willing to consider Massachusetts as a venue for its business because of what we have to offer, but the cost of doing business here was too high. Once we lowered the price, Massachusetts was able to compete with other states and to bring the business into the Bay State successfully.

As our economy lingers in recession, we should be looking for new ways to improve the business climate here in Massachusetts, and one of the first things we need to examine is our tax structure. Two leading candidates for reform are the sales tax and corporate excise taxes, both of which have undergone substantial recent increases.

Growing jobs in Massachusetts has to be Economic Priority Number One for our state, and tax policy is a great way to affect positive change.

What do you think? Do you support tax credits to lure businesses here? Please post a comment below.

Thought of the Day - 02/09/2010

2010-02-09T07:26:00.000-05:00

There are two issues circulating around Beacon Hill today that I’m particularly focused on today.

The first is a $35 million bailout bill for the City of Lawrence that’s up for a public hearing today and scheduled for a House vote tomorrow.

There’s no question that the people of Lawrence are in a tough spot and they need help. But I don’t think the solution is to give more money to the same politicians who got the city into trouble in the first place. I think we need to be taking a more serious look at placing the city under receivership or a finance control board that would make the difficult decisions the city needs to get back on-track responsibly, and to make sure that state taxpayers ultimately won’t be on the hook to pay back any money the city receives in loans.

The other issue is a proposal by Governor Patrick to institute electronic toll collection systems along the Mass. Turnpike. Open-road tolling sounds attractive when you hear the Governor talk about the fact that it would dramatically reduce or eliminate toll collectors along the Turnpike and thereby save money. But, as the Boston Herald reports, the system would cost us $100 million to implement, and we can’t afford that – especially while we still have a bloated Turnpike and toll collection system in place.

And, at a more basic level, I wish the Governor would place more emphasis on eliminating tolls along the Turnpike (especially the Western Turnpike) instead of finding more efficient ways to collect them from drivers.

I’m interested to see what my colleagues think about these proposals. I’ll keep you updated on what I hear from them. But more importantly, I’d like to hear from you. What do you think about the Lawrence bailout bill or open-road tolling? Please post a comment to let me know.

Thought of the Day - 02/08/2010

2010-02-08T11:06:00.000-05:00

Governor Patrick and Senate President Murray appear poised to offer a plan they say would help grow jobs here, according to a story in today’s Boston Globe.

Growing jobs in Massachusetts should be our state’s top priority. But you have to wonder… isn’t this plan a day late and a dollar short?

The plan under discussion would create a $50 million small business tax credit, it would make $25 million of small business loans available, it would freeze unemployment insurance rates, and it would merge together several state agencies that deal with small business issues.

I give this plan some credit because these ideas all seem worthwhile to consider. There’s no question that our state needs to do something to help job growth, particularly when it comes to the small businesses that serve as the lifeblood of our economy. And I am always happy to hear of proposals to merge responsibilities in state agencies as a reform that would save us money and increase efficiency.

But it’s also worth considering that these modest proposals come on the heels of other recent decisions that have put a stranglehold on businesses here. For example, we have levied hundreds of millions of dollars of additional corporate taxes from businesses here in recent years, increases that Governor Patrick proposed and the Legislature approved. The same goes for recent hikes in the sales tax, which makes it difficult for businesses to compete in the same way that it increases costs for individual consumers.

There is no question in my mind that these tax increases, along with other business-unfriendly policies, have forced businesses and their jobs out of Massachusetts. The latest plan from Governor Patrick, however good it might be, probably won’t be enough to get those jobs back here.

So, while I applaud these most recent efforts, I have to stop and wonder if these are really heartfelt efforts to grow jobs in Massachusetts, or if they’re just window dressing on an otherwise crucial problem our state is facing. I guess only time will tell.

What do you think? Would passing these proposals make Massachusetts friendly enough for businesses to grow jobs here, or is this plan just a glimmer of hope? Please post a comment below and let’s get a discussion going.

Thought of the Day - 02/05/2010

2010-02-05T08:16:00.000-05:00

My office received news yesterday that's relieving.

It appears the Glavin Center will not be sold by the state this year after all, despite fears that Governor Patrick was moving to expedite closure and disposition of the property.

Recent developments started when the Governor's FY2011 budget plan was released in late January. The document contained a provision to allow the state to expedite the sale of certain "surplus" properties, and the Glavin Center was listed as one of the targeted parcels.

The Governor's budget language came as a surprise because the parcel was supposed to be under a cost/benefit study by the Patrick Administration following negotiations I had with the Governor last year. As it turns out, following further investigation, the Division of Capital Asset Management has clarified that the Glavin Center was mistakenly included on the list of properties subject to expedited sale, and that it won't be sold in 2011 after all.

The long-term future of the Glavin Center remains uncertain, and I am continuing to work with the Patrick Administration to identify its best use and the best outcome for the patients who call the center home. I am firmly committed to the current use of the facility for residents. And I believe that any discussions about a different use must be done in an open, transparent and fair manner, with the highest regard for the residents who call Glavin their home. At least for now, the facility will remain open without the threat of an imminent sale.

Thought of the Day - 02/04/2010

2010-02-04T09:10:00.002-05:00

Have you been following the situation up in Lawrence?

The city is currently in dire fiscal straits. The budget is so far out-of-balance that city officials can’t figure out how bad the problem really is. And until they figure that out, the city can’t send out tax bills to residents, which is making the problem even worse.

City officials have turned to the state for a $35 million bailout. That bailout could be voted on soon. But there are two glaring problems with that plan.

First, Lawrence isn’t the only community in our state that’s experiencing financial trouble. But it is one of the few communities that has caused many of its own problems, and it’s currently the only one getting any form of preferential treatment. Aside from the fact that I’m no fan of bailouts, this just doesn’t seem fair to the 350 other municipalities in our state who are struggling just as much to make ends meet locally.

And second, the bill stops short of placing Lawrence into receivership. Past experiences in Chelsea and in Springfield show us that receivership is the best option when a city like Lawrence is unable to solve its own problems. Giving more money to the same local officials who can’t manage the money they already have won’t solve any problems. It’s time for new leadership to straighten things out and to get the city back on track. And it’s unfair for the current mayor of the city to hold onto that position (at a reported salary of $100,000 a year) and to also serve as the city’s state representative at the same time (at $60,000 a year).

I’ve sent a letter to state officials asking them to look deeper into the issue of receivership and to present their rationale for or against receivership to the House when a vote is scheduled. I know why the good people of Lawrence need assistance, but I’m curious to hear why my colleagues might think that local officials there deserve to be bailed out.

What do you think? Are you in favor of a bailout? Please post a comment below.

Thought of the Day - 02/03/2010

2010-02-03T09:08:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, the Board of Higher Education approved a plan for UMass Dartmouth to accept the assets of Southern New England School of Law as a gift, and to thereby operate a public law school in Massachusetts.

I think this plan is a mistake at this time.

When you listen to proponents of the plan, it sounds like a great idea. After all, how could the state turn down a gift like this one, one that involves an entire private law school? Having a public law school would create additional affordable education opportunities for Massachusetts residents. It also would increase our stock of public interest lawyers and it would improve the diversity of our legal community.

So why would we say “no?”

Well, the problem lies in the fact that Southern New England School of Law is not accredited by the American Bar Association. That limits what its students can do after graduation and thereby makes it a less competitive option than other accredited law schools.

The main reason Southern New England School of Law is not accredited in the first place is because it lacks the financial capacity to invest in itself and to make improvements needed to be accepted, things like adding to its law library collection. That’s why it offered itself to the state – the state has public funds to invest in the school that aren’t available to the private institution. Under the Board of Higher Education’s decision yesterday, that responsibility now lies with the state.

These are taxpayer dollars we’re talking about. I say that now is not the time for our state to put investing in a public law school at the head of our education priority list. UMass has already been forced to make cutbacks in its regular course offerings because of budget cuts. Why put more responsibility on its plate when it can’t meet its existing obligations? And why should we invest in ideas like this one when we have other education responsibilities we can’t meet, like funding Chapter 70 for cities and towns and improving under-performing school districts?

If you ask me, this is a bad idea for our state right now. But, now I’m asking you. What do you think? Is the Board of Higher Education’s vote a good one, or will this “gift” end up costing our state too much money? Please post a comment and let’s get a discussion going.

Thought of the Day - 02/02/2010

2010-02-02T08:46:00.001-05:00

The Worcester Telegram has a story today about an issue that’s very important for my district: the potential closure of the Irving A. Glavin Regional Center in Shrewsbury.

I oppose the closure of this facility because of the unique services it provides dozens of patients and their families that I represent in and around the town of Shrewsbury.

Governor Patrick has discussed closing the facility several times in the past. Last year, there was an agreement that there would be a cost-benefit study conducted before any further steps were taken. The results of that study are due this summer. But now, Governor Patrick has included language in his FY2011 budget proposal to allow the state to declare the Glavin Center as “surplus” property and to sell it to a private developer.

The 120-acre Glavin Center property, which is along the Route 9 business district, obviously would be attractive to private developers if it were sold by the state. And its reuse could have certain economic benefits for the town.

But it would be devastating for the 55 residents who call the Glavin Center home, and for their families, who would be left with no alternative for their care.

The Glavin Center stands out from many other state facilities because it is a community-based center. Its residents are encouraged to become an active part of the Shrewsbury community by holding jobs at local businesses and by participating in local activities. The facility itself already provides benefits to the community by providing agricultural land to a local farmer and by providing soccer fields for community use. The Glavin Center also contains three group homes for higher-functioning residents, homes offered by the local Shrewsbury Housing Authority. I helped to secure state funding for the construction of these homes just a few years ago.

The Glavin Center also stands out from other state facilities because it is an efficiently-run campus. It has a modern physical plant that places few demands on state resources. It also employs 165 staff members, serving a vital need in the local economy.

To be honest, I fail to see how closing such a modern, well-run facility could be a cost-cutting priority for the state when there are so many other programs we could cut from our budget that would not have such a profound impact on vulnerable individuals. That’s why I am working with State Senator Michael Moore to see Governor Patrick’s language removed from the state budget.

What do you think? Is allowing the state to declare the Glavin Center surplus a good idea, or is the price just too much to pay? Please post a comment below and let me know what you think.

Thought of the Day - 02/01/2010

2010-02-01T09:11:00.000-05:00

Have you heard the news?

Powerball is here in the Bay State.

That’s right. Because of a recent deal state Treasurer Tim Cahill entered with other states, Massachusetts is now one of 33 states that offer the Powerball lottery game to residents.

Many people here will be excited to be able to play. Because of the game’s size, jackpots are typically very large, making it very tempting to play. And tickets cost just $1. According to the Boston Globe, participating merchants had sold 85,000 by 2:30 p.m. yesterday, the first day Powerball tickets were available in Massachusetts.

But the real winners here are Massachusetts cities and towns, who will be the primary beneficiaries of the $25 million annual deal. Most of the money goes to local aid, and with the problems municipalities are facing these days, any money we can put toward local aid is welcome news.

Are you happy to have Powerball here in the Bay State? Do you think you’ll buy a ticket? Please let me know by posting a comment.

Thought of the Day - 01/29/2010

2010-01-29T09:37:00.000-05:00

I began my day yesterday at a Corridor Nine Chamber of Commerce breakfast to discuss the status of current political issues on Beacon Hill and Capitol Hill.

One of the things I focused on is the state budget. Basically, I think the budget plan that Governor Patrick released the other day is unsustainable because it relies too much on a risky hope that tax revenues will pick up this year and that additional stimulus money will be received. It also adds about three percent to the bottom line of last year’s budget using one-time money from the federal government and the Rainy Day Fund, money that won’t be there for us when we try to balance the budget next year.

I also talked about health care. To be sure, health care is one of the biggest issues facing America right now given the debate in Washington, D.C. It was interesting to hear Congressman McGovern’s thoughts in that regard. But health care also remains an important policy issue for state government. There’s more our state could do independently to help drive down health care costs. For example, Governor Patrick should be doing more to require insurers, providers and hospitals to be accountable and explain why their costs are going up at regular public hearings. We passed such a law in 2008, but it remains virtually unenforced.

By mid-day, I was sitting in the House Chamber in Boston listening to Speaker Robert DeLeo tell legislators his visions for the upcoming year. He sees the House passing a budget that’s free of new taxes, and possibly a gaming bill that creates jobs. He promised to pass additional cost-saving reforms. Meanwhile, there is lots of talk about the possibility of passing legislation to cut municipal budget costs and to ban texting while driving. It will be interesting to see how these visions play out over the coming months and how many of them turn into reality.

What’s your vision of how things are going on Beacon Hill and where things might go over the next few months? I’d like to know. Please post a comment below.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY - 01/28/2010

2010-01-28T07:57:00.004-05:00

Yesterday, Governor Deval Patrick announced his budget plan for Fiscal Year 2011. Here’s how I think the Governor’s Budget adds up:

Patrick’s recommendation for an overall three percent increase in spending, based on a risky bet that state tax collections in this poor economy will actually increase by about the same amount;

PLUS, Patrick’s plan to base long-term spending commitments on $800 million of one-time federal economic stimulus payments that have been promised to our state this year;

PLUS, Patrick’s proposal to base spending on the uncertain receipt of another $600 million of federal economic stimulus funds that have not even been committed by Congress yet;

PLUS, Patrick’s withdrawal of another $175 million from our state’s already-depleted Rainy Day Fund to cover spending;

PLUS, Patrick’s request for new tax hikes on tobacco, candy, and soft drinks;

PLUS, Patrick’s empty promise not to cut local aid, which does not account for local aid cuts last year, and which overlooks his request for additional “9C powers” that would allow him to cut local aid after the budget is passed;

PLUS, Patrick’s blueprint for state government that includes 66,575 full-time equivalent positions, up from about 62,000 workers needed to run state government just five years ago;

PLUS, Patrick’s plan to cut spending on some vulnerable populations as a way to cover spending increases in other areas;

EQUALS, a spending plan that is: not fiscally responsible; unsustainable; contrary to the best interests of Massachusetts residents; and, something I can’t support.

What’s your calculus? How do you think the Governor’s budget adds up? I’d love to hear from you. Please let me know your thoughts.

Thought of the Day - 01/27/2010

2010-01-27T08:33:00.000-05:00

Jeff Jacoby has a great column in today’s Boston Globe that points out one of the glaring problems with government today.

He notes that, at a time when unemployment has hit the ten percent mark, the federal government has been adding more than 10,000 jobs a month, and the number of federal employees making more than $100,000 has jumped 14 percent. He also says that public employee pension costs are starting to skyrocket and to take a real bite out of state budgets.

Massachusetts is no exception to this trend. A recent study by the Pioneer Institute showed that our state government added 7,500 positions to its payroll from 2004 to 2009. According to their analysis, about 6,400 of these positions are unsustainable because they don’t provide direct assistance to vulnerable populations in our state.

Meanwhile, there have been several recent stories pointing to growth of public employee salaries here. Take, for example, this story that “consolidation” of state transportation agencies actually led to the creation of 11 new public relations positions for a total of more than $800,000 a year. And our public pension system costs us millions of dollars a year to run.

Jacoby points out in his column that this trend is testing taxpayer patience nationwide. I think he’s right, and it’s time for something to change. We simply can’t afford the sort of government that spends money like this on itself.

What do you think?

Thought of the Day - 01/26/2010

2010-01-26T08:06:00.000-05:00

Governor Patrick is filing is budget plan for Fiscal Year 2011 tomorrow, and today's morning papers are providing our first glance into what his plans might include.

According to the Boston Globe, Governor Patrick is proposing to change several laws related to state pension benefits as a way of cutting down on pension costs and closing loopholes that allow unfair benefits. In a separate story, the paper reports that the Governor is proposing to consolidate energy costs within the executive branch.

Together, these proposals could save millions of dollars a year.

I give credit to the Governor for taking these steps to help balance our budget and keep costs down. But, I wonder if they are mostly symbolic, or if they are actually indicative of a budget that starts making more responsible choices than we’ve been accustomed to.

Yesterday, the Beacon Hill Institute put out a press release advocating for a Tax and Expenditure Limitation (TEL) on state spending. That sort of plan would limit line item expenditure growth to the rate of inflation, adjusted for population growth. There are lots of details that would have to be worked out, but overall, I think this is the sort of bold reform we need to bring our budget back under control.

We need to get our state fiscal priorities back in order, and there’s no better time than right now.

I hope Governor Patrick’s budget will include solid ideas to save our state money, and that it will place a priority on local aid, health and human services spending, education, job creation and housing. These are the things Massachusetts residents need the most in this current economy.

I also call upon the Governor to submit a budget that’s free of new taxes, and which includes bold reforms that will streamline state government and improve our delivery of core services while eliminating waste, duplication and inefficiency, and stripping out spending on unnecessary programs or programs that could wait until a better day to be funded.

We will see tomorrow what Governor Patrick ends up proposing in his budget, what his priorities are and how they would affect the quality of life of citizens across our state during the coming year.

And, if I’m not satisfied by the Governor’s solutions, I will start working immediately to make sure the budget that comes out of the Legislature this summer is one we can be proud of, and one that will protect people and communities the right way.

Thought of the Day - 01/25/2010

2010-01-25T08:46:00.001-05:00

The opening line of this story in today’s Boston Globe says it all:

“Massachusetts marked a sobering milestone last month: For the first time since World War II, the state ended a decade with fewer jobs than it had at the beginning.”

According to the article, Massachusetts has failed to replace many of the high-tech jobs that were lost when the dot-com bubble burst several years ago. At the same time, we’ve also lost a full one-third of our manufacturing jobs. The net job loss since 1999 is about 55,000 jobs.

The sad reality is that many Massachusetts families don’t need a newspaper story to tell them what’s wrong with our economy. Thousands of families are dealing with job loss as part of their daily lives, and as unemployment checks, bank accounts and retirement savings begin to run out, people are struggling to find ways to pay the bills.

When you hold up today’s Globe story against another recent article in the MetroWest Daily News, you begin to understand the real effects of this problem. According to numbers cited in the MetroWest Daily News, about 277,000 people have moved out of Massachusetts since 2000.

As far as I’m concerned, the inescapable conclusion is that, for every job Massachusetts lost, a family was forced to move out of this state to search for better opportunities elsewhere. And they took with them the job skills they sought to apply here, and the kids they sought to educate here, and the talents they sought to enrich our state with.

This trend is more than just unsustainable. It’s a recipe for economic disaster. And it’s time for our state to do something to grow jobs here.

Governor Patrick promised to do something about creating jobs in his State of the Commonwealth Address last week. But he needs to realize that Massachusetts residents need more than just another year of promises and false hope. They need jobs. Now.

How has the recession been affecting you? Do you know someone who was forced to move out of Massachusetts due to job loss? What do you think we should do about these problems? Please post a comment below. I’d love to hear from you.

Thought of the Day - 01/21/2010

2010-01-21T23:21:00.000-05:00

On Tuesday, more than two million Massachusetts voters went to the polls in search of someone and something to believe in. They found it in the form of Scott Brown and his promise of bold new leadership in Washington.

Last night, those same voters will be disappointed by what Deval Patrick failed to offer them in his State of the Commonwealth address.

Governor Patrick had an opportunity to prove to Massachusetts residents that he has a way to lead us through the next year with plans and strategies to make Massachusetts a better place. He had a chance to rise to the occasion and to match the energy in the electorate with an energetic vision for progress for our state. But he didn’t.

I am disappointed because the Governor did not offer a vision that adequately addresses ways to fix our state’s economy. He needed to demonstrate that he can bring jobs back to Massachusetts and trigger investment here. But he didn’t.

He also needed to confidently show that he will balance the budget this year and control state spending, while holding the line on new taxes and fees. But he didn’t.

Governor Patrick had an opportunity to roll out new ideas to make government less costly, more efficient, increasingly transparent, and completely accountable to those it serves. But he didn’t.

And, he could have shown leadership by getting back to basics and putting emphasis on the right priorities this year, things like supporting cities and towns with local aid, improving our schools and making our streets safer. But he didn’t.

In short, Deval Patrick had an opportunity to prove to Massachusetts voters last night why he is the right man to lead Massachusetts and to fix the problems our residents are facing in their daily lives. He needed to convince voters that he deserves another chance. But he didn’t.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY – 01/21/2010

2010-01-21T08:06:00.001-05:00

Now that the US Senate race is over, some political attention is shifting back to Beacon Hill.

People are asking how Massachusetts political leaders intend to address some of the biggest problems facing our state.

Tonight, we might get a glimpse into some of those proposals when Governor Deval Patrick delivers his annual State of the Commonwealth Address.

I will be listening intently to what the Governor says in his remarks, and specifically what he envisions for the upcoming year. And, I’ll be looking for him to make specific proposals to move our state forward in several ways, including:

FIXING THE ECONOMY – In order to be successful tonight, I think Governor Patrick needs to prove that he has a plan to fix our state’s economy. He needs to demonstrate that he can bring jobs back to Massachusetts and trigger investment here.
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY – I want Governor Patrick to show me that he will balance the budget this year and control state spending, while holding the line on new taxes and fees.
GOOD GOVERNMENT – I will be watching to see if Governor Patrick has any new ideas to make government less costly, more efficient, increasingly transparent, and completely accountable to those it serves.
RIGHT PRIORITIES – In addition to the above, I hope Governor Patrick will convince me that he is getting back to basics and putting emphasis on the right priorities this year, things like supporting cities and towns with local aid, improving our schools and making our streets safer.
LEADERSHIP – Most of all, I think Governor Patrick needs to lay out a vision for how to make Massachusetts a better place and how he intends to take the lead in making that vision a reality.

It sounds like a tall order, but that’s what I think our state needs in order to succeed. Interestingly, it looks like the editors over at The Boston Globe will be looking for more or less the same thing. There’s an editorial in today’s Globe that calls on the Governor to show “what else he will do to promote government that is both responsive and frugal.”

We’ll see what happens when the speech starts at 7 p.m. tonight. I’ll be sure to let you know what I think. Until then, I’d love it if you’d let me know what you think. What should Governor Patrick talk about tonight? Please post a comment below and let me know.

Thought of the Day - 01/20/2010

2010-01-20T10:44:00.000-05:00

Yesterday was an historic day in Massachusetts as Scott Brown won the special election for the United States Senate.

I think what makes the day so significant is that the residents of Massachusetts have restored this seat in the Senate as the people’s seat. Over two million people voted yesterday, and their votes actually counted.

I’ve talked to many friends and constituents about what happened yesterday, and in general, I’m finding that people feel empowered in that they did something to take back their government. People from all over the state united around Scott Brown, notwithstanding their different circumstances or differing political views. That’s something very special in politics these days.

The fact that Scott Brown was able to win yesterday means that we once again have a level playing field for candidates here in Massachusetts. It sends a message to elite political leaders in this state who have ignored the people for too long. These people are upset with how things are going, but they also believe in the strength of our country and they feel that America’s best days are ahead of her, not over.

What do you think about yesterday’s results? Please post a comment below.

Thought of the Day - 01/19/2010 - PLEASE REMEMBER TO VOTE TODAY

2010-01-19T06:57:00.003-05:00

Today is Election Day in Massachusetts.

Today is the day when Massachusetts voters will choose someone to represent them in the United States Senate, in the first open contest for the seat in almost half a century.

Today is the day when people will decide how they want to be represented in Washington on issues as important as health care, the war on terror, and the economy, just to name a few.

Today is the day when we get to tell the nation what sort of future we want for our state.

Today is the day when the din of television ads, “robo-calls” and stump speeches gives way to the only sound that really matters: the voice of the electorate.

Today is the day when one person living within our democracy can exert more political influence than millions of oppressed people across the world combined.

Today is the day when ordinary citizens are called upon to make extraordinary decisions.

Today is the day.

Whatever your choice, whatever your opinions, whatever your schedule today, please get out and cast your vote.

Martin Luther King Day

2010-01-18T08:34:00.003-05:00

May we all pause today to remember the life and legacy of
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Thought of the Day - 01/15/2010

2010-01-15T07:50:00.000-05:00

There is news in the Boston Globe today that the state’s Health Connector is taking over administering health insurance plans for about 17,000 small businesses. These businesses typically employ fewer than 5 people, and they formerly looked to a private agency, the Small Business Service Bureau, to help them administer health care costs.

It’s reported that the move could save these private employers about $300 a year in health care costs for each employee. And in this economy, those are welcome savings.

But the fact is that there are many costs that are straining small businesses these days, and our state simply isn’t doing enough to make life easier for them. And that’s unfortunate, because small businesses form the backbone of our economy.

Massachusetts needs a pro-business mentality if we hope to keep people from leaving this state, much less if we hope to attract economic activity. The number one problem facing Massachusetts residents these days is a lack of quality jobs, and our state needs to be taking the lead in creating opportunities for job growth here. And that’s true whether you’re talking about a Fortune 500 company or a budding entrepreneur starting their own business.

What do you think? What do you think our state should be doing to grow jobs? Please post a comment below and join the discussion.

Thought of the Day - 01/14/2010

2010-01-14T09:39:00.000-05:00

Later today, the House and Senate are poised to take a vote on a plan to reform education in under-performing school districts across our state, and to position Massachusetts to access federal “Race to the Top” funding by expanding charter schools.

Sadly, it’s difficult to say whether or not passage of this bill today is good news.

Even though state officials have known for months that reforming our education laws would be necessary in order to tap into Race to the Top funds, they have waited until the very last minute to pass those reforms into law. In fact, applications for states to access Race to the Top funds are due next Tuesday.

To make matters worse, the final bill has been worked out behind closed doors by a legislative conference committee. Its final decisions were not made until late last night under the cover of darkness.

This means that a two-thirds vote of both branches is needed to even discuss the bill today, much less to pass it into law. Most legislators won’t have had enough time to read the bill completely and to accurately decide whether to vote for it or not based on its details. These details matter a lot, and I believe the importance of the issue at stake merits more than today’s last-minute rush job.

One of the most important parts of this bill for me is what it means to traditional public school districts. An early look at the final product indicates that the bill extends the reimbursement schedule from three years to six years, and it increases the total reimbursement amount from 200 to 225 percent. To me, this means that the bill overall might improve opportunities for students in under-performing school, but it does little to address financial concerns of school districts that are working hard and performing well. Over time, the issue of fair reimbursement to districts that send students to charter schools may become more pronounced as more charter schools are established, and we will have to wait and see how this turns out.

Unfortunately, because it’s a conference committee report that’s up for debate, there is no opportunity under legislative rules to amend its provisions to make it better today, even if legislators find problems with it.

I’ll keep you posted on the process in the House today. Until then, what do you think about this bill? Please post a comment below to let me know your thoughts.

Thought of the Day - 01/13/2010

2010-01-13T11:15:00.001-05:00

According to the Boston Globe, cities and towns across Massachusetts are growing increasingly concerned about the state’s bleak financial picture and what it will mean for local aid, fearing deep cuts in school assistance from the state later this year.

I don’t need a newspaper to tell me how important local aid is to cities and towns, and how debilitating a further cut in local aid would be this year, particularly when it comes to supporting our schools.

Cities and towns should not be made to suffer for the state’s poor fiscal management and unwillingness to make tough decisions to balance our budget. We should not be talking about laying off teachers when we have waste in our state budget, like millions of dollars of unnecessary legislative expenses, and when our state transportation agency is still bloated with administrative positions. Teachers are on the front line of helping kids in our state, and we should make it our priority to fund them before we pay for wasteful state programs.

Governor Patrick has been restoring money to several important programs lately because of better-than-expected revenue numbers. I’m hoping that local aid will continue to be a priority. I’m also hoping that local aid will be a priority when Governor Patrick files his budget in a few weeks. I’ll be checking his budget closely for state aid numbers, and I will be looking for ways to make sure cities and towns have the support they need if it’s not already in the budget.

Thought of the Day - 01/12/2010

2010-01-12T07:10:00.003-05:00

Yesterday, local employer Charles River Labs announced that it plans to cease operations in Shrewsbury due to a slowdown in the biopharmaceutical industry, laying off approximately 300 employees in the process. This is the latest of a series of job reductions announced by Massachusetts employers in recent months. For my district, it’s especially bad news because it hits home.

Our state can’t afford to keep seeing bad headlines like this in the papers. Massachusetts residents need jobs. The strength of our economy depends on jobs, as does the strength of every household across the commonwealth. Whenever we hear of an employer like Charles River Labs cutting back its operations, it’s evidence that we still have a lot to do to fix our economy and to put Massachusetts back to work again.

On the surface, this decision and others like it are business judgments being made by companies across Massachusetts. It’s perfectly understandable that private sector employers would make difficult decisions to trim their budgets at a time like this, much like I’ve been urging the public sector to do. But it’s also safe to assume that the unfriendly business climate we have created for ourselves in Massachusetts is playing into such decisions, if only indirectly. Public policies like high tax rates translate into added costs for struggling businesses, and when these inescapable costs are factored in to the bottom line, they sometimes lead to other unfortunate results like job loss and factory closures.

There’s only so much we can do to help fix the global economy, and there’s no doubt that the best remedy for our job market here in Massachusetts would be a general economic turnaround. That will come, in time. But there is a lot that we can do to make Massachusetts a friendlier place for businesses to operate, like keeping taxes and fees low, maintaining a robust education system to train workers, and creating affordable housing to keep residents’ cost of living low. We’re not doing enough on that front, and if we want to avoid seeing more stories like the one involving Charles River Labs, we need to start acting now.

You can read more about Charles River Labs in this story in the Boston Business Journal. What do you think? Are you being affected by the Charles River Labs decision? What do you think the state should do to prevent stories like this in the future? Please post your thoughts below.

Thought of the Day - 01/11/2010

2010-01-11T09:09:00.000-05:00

For the second year in a row, I’ve notified the state treasurer that I will not be accepting the 5.5 percent legislative pay raise the governor certified in 2009.

The reason is very simple: with the Massachusetts economy still in bad shape and with our poor state fiscal situation, now is not the time for state legislators to be accepting a pay raise.

Our state needs leadership from its elected officials in order to get us out of this economic situation we’re facing. Leadership can take many forms, and in this case, I think it’s important for elected officials to lead by example. This is a time for frugality and for shared sacrifice, not a time for pay raises.

You can read about my decision and similar ones by other legislators in this story in today’s Worcester Telegram.

What do you think about legislative pay raises? Should more legislators be following suit and refusing the pay raise? Or, do you think it’s OK for legislators to accept the raise? Please post a comment below and get a conversation started.

Thought of the Day - 01/08/2010

2010-01-08T07:53:00.001-05:00

When you think about it, there have been a lot of disappointing failures on Beacon Hill recently. We've seen politicians behaving badly. Property tax relief was promised, but instead other taxes went up. Reforms take too long to get debated, and when they are, they get watered down to the point of being ineffective... or actually costing us money to implement.

My list goes on and on. But if you're interested in lists like this, check out Howie Carr's column in the Boston Herald today. He's got a great list of things that are frustrating about Massachusetts politics these days. He says they add up to reasons to support Scott Brown in his bid for the US Senate. But you don't even have to talk about the Senate race to know that Carr's list is a bunch of good reasons why Massachusetts voters should be frustrated with their political leaders, and why they should start demanding change.

What do you think? What's on your list of things that frustrate you about politics these days? Please post a comment below and let's get a conversation started.

Thought of the Day - 01/07/2010

2010-01-07T05:33:00.008-05:00

Last night, Massachusetts took steps to improve under-performing school districts by bolstering our support for charter schools. I support giving parents additional education options through the cultivation of charter schools, but I believe those opportunities should not come at the expense of students who remain within the traditional public school system.

I proposed an amendment to the education reform bill that would have helped to resolve this problem by creating a funding formula that would more fairly reimburse school districts when students who live there attend charter schools. It would have helped to level the playing field between public school districts and charter schools, which I believe is an important priority for our cities and towns. The amendment also had the support of the Massachusetts Superintendents Association, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, and Stand For Children.

I am disappointed that this amendment was not adopted as a way to improve upon the changes being made in the education reform package. Instead, the amendment was recommended for further study, as members refused to even discuss a way to ease the plight facing cities and towns. Unfortunately, last night, members preferred procedural tactics and politics to good policy.

The debate over the bill lasted late into the night, with a flurry of changes being made at the last minute, decisions happening behind closed doors, and numerous amendments being consolidated together into one. In the end, it was impossible to tell what was actually in the final legislation and because of this, I could not vote in favor of the bill.

Going forward, I will continue to try to find ways to improve our education system here in Massachusetts while holding cities and towns harmless for any changes.

TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT

AMENDMENT #49 Ms. Polito of Shrewsbury, Mr. Kaufman of Lexington, Ms. Garry of Dracut, Ms. Ehrlich of Marblehead, Ms. Benson of Lunenberg, Mr. Guyer of Dalton, Ms. Peake of Provincetown, Mr. DiNatale of Fitchburg, Ms. Callahan of Sutton, Ms. Provost of Somerville, Mr. Stanley of Waltham, and Mr. Miceli of Wilmington move that House Bill 4410 be amended by striking lines 909 to 915 of subsection gg of Section 2 and adding in the following new section:-

(gg). In a year during which a sending district‘s total district-sponsored charter school tuition amount is greater than the sending district‘s total district-sponsored charter tuition amount for the previous year, the sending district shall be reimbursed by the Commonwealth in accordance with this paragraph and subject to appropriation; provided, however, that no funds for the reimbursements shall be deducted from funds distributed under Chapter 70. The reimbursement amount shall be equal to 100 per cent of the increase in the year in which the increase occurs, 60 per cent in the second year, 40 per cent in the third year, and 35 per cent in the fourth, fifth, and sixth years following.

Thought of the Day - 01/06/2010

2010-01-06T08:05:00.001-05:00

Massachusetts residents have always taken great pride in the quality of the public school education we offer to our sons and daughters. Our public schools are some of the best in the world, and they do a great job providing skills that our young people need to compete for jobs in the complex workforce of the future.

But there are always ways we can improve our education system, particularly in certain chronically-underperforming school districts.

Massachusetts took decisive action to reform its public schools with passage of the Education Reform Act of 1993, which changed the way we support public schools with state aid, opened the door for charter schools, and established the MCAS exam for accountability. Changes soon followed on the federal level with passage of the No Child Left Behind Act during the Bush administration.

Now, President Obama is proposing a new federal education reform package aimed at tracking student performance, establishing nationwide standards and recruiting teachers. Part of this “Race to the Top” initiative involves dedication of $4.3 billion of federal economic stimulus funds to state grants for innovative programs to improve schools.

Massachusetts could potentially tap into about $250 million in Race to the Top funds over the next four years. But in order to do so, we need to comply with certain federal mandates, including a requirement that we lift a cap on charter school spending that exists under current state law. And we need to act quickly, since the deadline to apply for Race to the Top funding is January 19.

A bill that would do just that is the first order of business for the House of Representatives today as we commence formal legislative sessions for 2010.

I support the bill’s swift passage. Race to the Top funding is too important for us to forfeit.

But there’s also more at stake with this legislation, and I think that certain adjustments could be made. In particular, we need to be sure that this next step in education reform continues to safeguard municipal finance systems that form the backbone of our public schools.

Under current law, per-pupil tuition payments for charter school students are deducted from local aid payments to the cities and towns where charter school students live. However, the state phases-in those deductions with three years of graduated reimbursements totaling 200 percent.

The pending legislation would increase the overall amount of reimbursement cities and towns would receive, but it would reduce the payments municipalities see each year, making them wait almost twice as long to recoup the same amount of money. This would have a serious impact on the ability of cities and towns to meet local school budgets, especially in these difficult fiscal times, and it would thereby defeat the purpose of charter schools as a way to improve the overall quality of public education by offering competitive alternatives that inspire public schools to do better.

I have filed an amendment that would change the funding mechanism for charter school reimbursement, and I hope my colleagues will consider including it as part of the final bill. Under my plan, total reimbursement would be increased to a total of 305 percent over six years. This would give cities and towns better reimbursement, while at the same time preserving attributes of the current funding formula meant to provide initial assistance to sending districts for their loss of Chapter 70 dollars to charter schools and their inability to immediately realize savings as a result of the loss of those students.

We need to level the playing field so we don’t pit charter schools against traditional public schools, and so that we don’t diminish the dollars necessary for students within the traditional public school system. I also want to make sure that suburban communities like those I represent are not adversely impacted by changes in the funding formula.

Our state has no more noble or important mission than to educate our young people. I hope the Education Reform Act pending before the legislation will help us meet our obligations more successfully and make our schools something that we can be even more proud of in future years.

What do you think? I’d love to know your thoughts. Please post a comment below.

Thought of the Day - 01/05/2010

2010-01-05T07:29:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I sent a letter to Governor Patrick and legislative leaders urging passage of a bill I filed to require a dangerousness hearing prior to granting bail to defendants charged with a sexual offense.

You can read about the letter in this story in today's MetroWest Daily News, and you can see the letter itself here.

The bill, House Docket 4772, remains pending and awaits referral to a legislative committee for a hearing.

Please check out this Call to Action on my Web site for more information about the bill and to see what you can do to help make sure it passes.

Thought of the Day - 01/04/2010

2010-01-04T10:14:00.000-05:00

There’s a story in today’s Boston Globe that state officials are focusing lots of attention on this year’s state census to make sure we get an accurate count of people who live here.

The census count, which is required by the Constitution every 10 years, means a lot for our state.

According to the Globe article, Massachusetts could stand to lose billions of dollars in federal funding and perhaps even a congressional seat if the numbers fall far below the tallies from the last time the census was taken.

In fact, state officials and nonprofits are so concerned, they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on outreach efforts to make sure the count is right, particularly among inner-city and immigrant communities, which are typically difficult to count.

Of course, I support efforts to make sure we get an accurate census count this year. It’s important to know not just how many people are here but also what our demographics look like, because that information helps us run our state effectively.

But what’s ironic is that state officials are paying such close attention to the counting process itself after having paid scant attention to the factors driving the numbers in the first place. Our state wouldn’t have to be so worried about ferreting out every possible census response so as to bolster our numbers if we had better policies in place to grow jobs here.

Managing our census effectively is good. But making sure our state offers high-paying jobs, quality education, affordable housing, low taxes and exceptional education opportunities is the best way to make sure people want to call Massachusetts home, not just in 2010 but for years to come.

What do you think? Please post a comment below.

Happy New Year

2009-12-30T10:05:00.002-05:00

All told, 2009 was a difficult year on a personal level for many Massachusetts residents, and it was difficult for our state as a whole.

Over the past year, the economy continued a rapid descent and many Massachusetts residents found themselves struggling financially.

Jobs were lost as our state’s unemployment level reached its highest level since the 1970’s. And residents had to grapple with rising costs, including a higher sales tax and the threat of toll increases.

Those new costs were brought on amidst news that our state faced a multi-billion dollar budget deficit and that tax revenues were in steep decline. The legislature purported to try to address the situation with responsible budgeting and reforms in areas like transportation. However, budget plans fell short of finding the real savings we need to make our budget responsible. Too often, programs like local aid and services for the vulnerable fell victim to cuts while wasteful spending and duplication were permitted to remain. And bills passed in the name of reforming things like transportation, ethics and our state retirement system fell short of the full-blown change we need to make state government more efficient and accountable to the taxpayers.

In fact, getting anything done on Beacon Hill was difficult amidst news of ethical problems for politicians, and with too many legislators concerned about things like how they could accept a pay raise and fight back a proposal for term limits instead of thinking about problems facing everyday people across their districts.

As we look ahead to 2010, here’s hoping for a better, brighter year. A recent revenue hearing at the State House pointed to the possibility of economic growth over the next year, with hope that the job market and tax revenues could pick up by year’s end. That would be welcome news to everyone.

Legislatively, formal sessions will begin within a few short days. At the top of the list of bills to be addressed is an education reform bill that will let our state tap into federal Race to the Top funds, while at the same time helping some of our chronically-underperforming school districts succeed. There’s already talk that a debate on expanded gaming could follow. And in late January, Governor Patrick will release his budget plan for Fiscal Year 2011, which will start many months of budget deliberations for the coming year. I’m hoping there will also be a chance to address several bills I filed to establish better monitoring for sex offenders, dangerousness hearings for child rapists, and provisions for municipal relief, among others.

Let’s hope that the next twelve months will be a new beginning for our state and that we will emerge from 2009 stronger, more hopeful, and ready to prosper once again. I wish you and your family a safe, happy and successful New Year.

Thought of the Day - 12/29/2009

2009-12-29T07:40:00.000-05:00

For a change, there is actually good news to report from Beacon Hill regarding local aid.

Governor Patrick has reversed course and restored plans to cut $18 million in regional school transportation reimbursement as a way to balance the budget.

According to the Worcester Telegram, the reversal is the result of evidence that the decrease in funding would have an adverse impact on student learning in districts that would be unable to make mid-year adjustments to account for the cuts.

I give credit to the Patrick administration for restoring these funds, which are especially important to many school districts across the state.

But, of course, not every town is served by a regional school, so many communities will have to wait to see additional relief from the state.

With that in mind, I hope that the Patrick administration will be equally cognizant of the importance of local aid (especially Chapter 70 aid) when the governor releases his FY2011 budget plan next month. And I still hope that my colleagues in the legislature will take up proposals for municipal cost savings and reform when formal sessions resume in January. I’ve filed several proposals for municipal relief, and there are other bills that address the issue as well. They all deserve prompt consideration to save cities and towns money.

Do you have any ideas for municipal relief? I’d like to know what they are. Please post a comment below to get a discussion started.

Thought of the Day - 12/28/2009

2009-12-28T07:27:00.001-05:00

The week between Christmas and New Year’s is usually fairly quiet on Beacon Hill.

But this year, this typical vacation week will be punctuated with lots of work to advance a bill that represents our state’s first major attempt at education reform in two decades.

The flurry of activity surrounding this bill is appropriate, albeit overdue. There is a lot at stake with this legislation, particularly with regard to charter schools in Massachusetts.

This past summer, President Obama announced a $4.35 billion competitive grant program for states to improve under-performing schools. Applications for state grants to access these so-called “Race to the Top” funds are due by January 19, 2010. According to Governor Patrick, Massachusetts could be eligible to receive up to $250 million in grants under the program, but access to the funds would require our state to lift its cap on new charter school creation over the next few weeks, before grant applications are submitted.

The education reform bill would remove this cap. It also would change the funding formula that is used to reimburse cities and towns for the money they pay to fund charter schools based on the number of students they send there. Right now, cities and towns receive reimbursement for students over three years on a declining balance basis, with 100 percent reimbursement in the first year, 60 percent in the second year and 40 percent in the third year (for 200 percent total). A new funding proposal would send reimbursement directly to charter schools, and it would increase reimbursement to 225 percent total. However, it would stretch the reimbursement term out to six years, with 100 percent reimbursement in the first year and only 25 percent in following years. Many school districts are concerned that this funding formula could impact their local budgets substantially.

As of now, the education reform bill is scheduled to be debated and passed by the House on January 6, 2010, right after the beginning of formal sessions for the new year. I support lifting the cap on charter schools, and I hope the Legislature passes this bill quickly. However, I hope the funding formula will be fixed so that we can be sure the effects of education reform will be fair to suburban school districts, and so that their budgets will not suffer even greater strain as a result of our reform efforts. Now is the time for suburban districts to level the playing field.

What do you think about this education reform plan? Is it a good idea, or is it too much too soon? Please post a comment below.

Happy Holidays

2009-12-23T11:27:00.000-05:00

This holiday season, may we celebrate the hopes, dreams and values that unite us all: love for our family and friends, a wish for peace on earth, and a better, brighter future for ourselves and our children.

On behalf of my husband and our children, I wish you and your family a joyous holiday season.

Thought of the Day - 12/22/2009

2009-12-22T07:19:00.000-05:00

There’s a story in the Worcester Business Journal today about a very important issue facing the state’s business community.

The issue relates to our state’s “fair share” health insurance regulations, and it’s posing a significant threat to many small businesses across our state.

Massachusetts businesses are required to offer health insurance to their employees, and rightfully so. Until several years ago, state regulations required businesses to choose to meet one of two thresholds for providing that insurance. In order to comply, businesses could choose to fund at least 33 percent of the cost of health care benefits, or they could offer insurance to at least 25 percent of their employees.

But a couple of years ago, our state changed the rules as part of the sweeping health care reform bill that we passed. Under new state “fair share” health insurance regulations, businesses must comply with both the 33 percent funding and the 25 percent enrollment requirements, or they face a penalty of $295 per employee per year.

Many business owners are having difficulty meeting both of these requirements, particularly the 25 percent enrollment requirement. One reason is that many businesses have employees who receive health insurance from other sources, such as through a spouse’s employer. Those employees are counted as part of the pool of workers used to calculate the 25 percent enrollment guideline. So, it’s theoretically possible that a business might be taxed $295 per employee for failing to provide health insurance to more than a quarter of its workers, even though it actually provides insurance benefits in good faith to all of the workers who request it.

This situation isn’t fair, and it’s the sort of bad business policy that’s making our state uncompetitive and forcing jobs elsewhere. We can’t expect companies to open their doors in Massachusetts so long as we have regulations like this one on the books that make it cost prohibitive to do business here. Job growth here in Massachusetts depends on us having sound business policies in place first.

I support our state’s interest in making sure that businesses offer health insurance to their employees sufficiently, but I believe the fair share regulations need to be amended in several ways, starting with an amendment to exclude from the 25 percent enrollment calculation any workers who receive health insurance from other sources.

What do you think? Do you support the “fair share” regulations as they are now? Or, do you agree that they should be amended to make them more equitable? Please post your comments below to let me know what you think.

Thought of the Day - 12/21/2009

2009-12-21T11:33:00.000-05:00

Have you heard that plans are moving ahead for the state to take over the Southern New England School of Law and for the UMass-Dartmouth campus to assume its operations?

It’s true – and this “gift” could end up costing taxpayers a lot of money.

Here’s the problem.

It makes reasonable sense for our state to try to add to its higher education portfolio by creating a public law school, but Southern New England School of Law is not an accredited law school. Accreditation is necessary to make a law school work long-term, and it requires a large investment of resources.

Southern New England School of Law doesn’t have the money for that investment, and that’s the whole reason they are interested in being taken over by the state. Unfortunately, our state doesn’t have the money, either. But if we make the law school part of the UMass system, and if tuition doesn’t increase to the point that UMass could fund improvements on its own, taxpayers will be required to fund whatever money is needed for accreditation later on.

State Senator Stan Rosenberg has introduced legislation to block a bailout of the law school by taxpayers. As pointed out in an editorial in today’s Boston Herald, his idea is a good one. We need to be fiscally responsible, even when it comes to accepting “gifts” of private law schools. While creating a public law school might have its merits, it’s simply not a priority for our state right now, and it’s not something to which we should commit taxpayer money.

What do you think? Do you think it’s worth it for our state to create a public law school despite the cost? Or are you concerned that bills will add up later on? I’d like to know what you think. Please post a comment below.

Thought of the Day - 12/18/09

2009-12-18T07:18:00.000-05:00

On Wednesday, I filed legislation to require that criminals accused of sex offenses involving a child be subject to a dangerousness hearing before being released on bail.

I’d like to update you on the efforts to advance this legislation, and let you know more about what you can do to help if you support this idea.

But first, I think it’s worth noting that there’s a follow-up story in the Boston Herald today about John H. Gardner, the alleged child rapist from Kingston whose cases prompted me to file this bill. It now appears that Gardner was set free on $10,000 cash bail even though he had a had a two-page record dating back to 2000 (when he was only 17 years old) at the time of his arraignment. The record allegedly included nine cases, with three defaults for failure to appear in court.

This information makes it even more disturbing that Gardner was released on bail without consideration of his dangerousness, and it shows why passing the bill I filed is even more important.

Since I submitted the bill to the House Clerk, I’ve been working hard to spread the word and to encourage people to support it. So far, nine of my House and Senate colleagues have signed on to cosponsor the bill and others have expressed interest. I’ve also received many messages of support from everyday citizens who are alarmed by the case in Kingston and who join me in wanting to see our laws strengthened to deal with sex offenders.

Before the bill can be voted on by the House and Senate, the Rules Committee needs to refer it to another legislative committee for a public hearing and report. The more support the bill receives, the greater the chances are that it will advance through the process.

If you support the bill, I encourage you to call House Speaker Robert DeLeo’s office and ask that the bill be referred to a committee for a hearing. His number is (617) 722-2500.

I’d also like to hear from you if you support this bill. Please post a comment below and let me know what you think.

A Call to Action

2009-12-16T13:14:00.001-05:00

I am writing to ask for your assistance in pressing for passage of legislation to crack down on sex offenders here in Massachusetts.

This issue relates back to the recent tragic case involving Joseph H. Gardner of Kingston, which I was shocked and disgusted to learn about earlier this week.

Gardner is alleged to have raped a 3-year-old girl while her mother was asleep in the same house. The disgusting nature of this crime is made even more horrific by the fact that the rape allegedly occurred while Gardner was free on bail and awaiting trial for the alleged rape of a 5-year-old child this past summer. Gardner was set free in October after posting just $10,000 bail on the first case, and there was no dangerousness hearing held prior to his release.

Under current law, prosecutors have the ability to request a dangerousness hearing prior to bail being set in certain serious criminal cases. However, there is no guarantee that such a hearing will be requested or held.

The legislation I filed changes this situation by requiring the court to hold a dangerousness hearing in any case where there is an allegation of a sex offense involving a child, including child rape.

I believe we need to add an extra layer of protection and accountability in cases where there is an alleged sex crime against a child. This is a responsible measure to make sure that dangerous sex offenders don’t fall through the cracks and get set free while they await trial, as apparently happened in the Kingston case. At the same time, the bill respects judicial discretion in such cases.

The text of the legislation follows below. The bill is awaiting the assignment of a docket number by the House Clerk. I was on WTKK 96.9FM this morning with Jim Braude and Wendy Murphy to talk about the bill and why it's necessary. You can also read more about my plan and the reason behind it in a story and editorial in today's Boston Herald.

Unfortunately, many bills like this end up getting referred to the House Rules Committee and they sit there without further action being taken. I believe we need there to be action taken on this bill soon. If you support passage of this bill, I urge you to contact House Speaker Robert DeLeo's office at (617) 722-2500 to ask him to have the bill released from the Rules Committee and scheduled for a public hearing as soon as possible.

Thank you for your consideration.

Karyn

--------------------

Text of the Bill

--------------------

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows:

The first paragraph of subsection (4) of section 58A of chapter 276 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2008 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out the first sentence thereof and inserting in place thereof the following sentence:-

When a person is held under arrest for an offense listed in subsection (1) and upon a motion by the commonwealth, or whenever a person is held under arrest for a sex offense involving a child as defined in section 178C of chapter 6, the judge shall hold a hearing to determine whether conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of any other person or the community.

Thought of the Day - 12/16/2009

2009-12-16T06:39:00.010-05:00

I was on WTKK 96.9FM this morning with Jim Braude and Wendy Murphy to talk about a bill I'm filing to require a dangerousness hearing before courts grant bail for those accused of a sex offense involving a child.

You can read more about my plan and the reason behind it in a story and editorial in today's Boston Herald.

I will be filing this bill later today. Here is the text:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows:

The first paragraph of subsection (4) of section 58A of chapter 276 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2008 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out the first sentence thereof and inserting in place thereof the following sentence:-

When a person is held under arrest for an offense listed in subsection (1) and upon a motion by the commonwealth, or whenever a person is held under arrest for a sex offense involving a child as defined in section 178C of chapter 6, the judge shall hold a hearing to determine whether conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of any other person or the community.

Thought of the Day - 12/15/2009

2009-12-15T07:07:00.000-05:00

Do you think that someone who is accused of breaking into a home through a bathroom window in the middle of the night and raping a 6-year-old child should be set free on just $10,000 cash bail?

I think that’s plainly wrong, and as a story in today’s Boston Globe points out, there’s a very good reason why.

The facts above were precisely the allegations leveled against a criminal defendant in Kingston earlier this summer. The defendant eventually was released from custody on $10,000 bail, free to roam the streets unmonitored pending trial. What makes this case even more tragic is that the same defendant started dating another woman in the interim period and, this past Friday, allegedly raped her 3-year-old daughter while the woman was sleeping.

I find these allegations disgusting, and I think we have a responsibility to make sure cases like this one don’t happen again in the future.

In my opinion, dangerous sex offenders should not be permitted to roam around and prey on innocent victims. I’ve fought tirelessly throughout my time in the House of Representatives to push for tougher sentencing of sexual predators, and for stronger monitoring of convicted sex offenders who are released on probation and parole.

My view doesn’t change based on where a criminal defendant is at in the court system. I understand the constitutional rights of the accused. But if there are credible allegations that someone has committed a rape and that they present a danger to society, I believe that person has no business being set free on bail to prowl the streets pending trial.

That’s why I am filing legislation to require that judges hold a dangerousness hearing prior to setting bail for any defendant charged with a serious sexual offense. That hearing will require the judge to evaluate whether there is enough credible evidence to conclude that the defendant poses a risk to society and a likelihood of reoffense, not just whether the defendant poses a risk of flight pending trial.

By their very nature, sex offenders pose a serious danger to public safety whenever they’re free to roam the streets. The only responsible place for them is behind bars. And it’s time for our state to get more serious about putting them there.

Do you agree? Please let me know by posting a comment below.

Thought of the Day - 12/14/2009

2009-12-14T07:44:00.001-05:00

This week is shaping up to be the start of a lengthy discussion about revenue and spending on Beacon Hill. And if you ask me, it’s a discussion that’s long overdue.

It all comes down to one big question: how much money do we realistically expect our state to collect in the coming months, and how much of that money do we feel comfortable spending?

Lawmakers will hold a hearing on Wednesday to start trying to forecast revenue collections for next fiscal year, in preparation for crafting a responsible budget in spring. But at the same time, as this editorial in today’s Boston Herald points out, Beacon Hill leaders are still working behind closed doors to determine how much money the state is lacking in the current fiscal and what to do about the shortfall.

According to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, the state still faces a $300 million to $500 million shortfall in the Fiscal Year 2010 budget. The Patrick administration seems not to be fully prepared to address this shortfall by making further budget cuts. If anything, there seems to be a desire on Patrick’s part to fill the gap by spending money from our state’s Rainy Day Fund or from one-time federal payments. These monies might get us through our day-to-day problems, but these one-time fixes are unsustainable and they actually tend to get us into even deeper trouble down the road.

And according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, that’s exactly where we are heading. The group predicts a budget chasm of $3 billion next fiscal year, and addressing that structural deficit will require even deeper budget cuts than we’ve already seen.

These discussions are both necessary and appropriate for us to be able to balance our budget this year and beyond, and to make responsible decisions about spending money. I hope that Beacon Hill leaders will follow the advice of experts they hear from this week and start making the tough decisions that are required of us to address revenue shortfalls. The most important thing our state can do to get us through this current fiscal crisis is to bring our spending to within the limits of available revenues, and to prioritize those cuts so that administrative expenses and frivolous programs are eliminated while essential services are preserved.

What do you think? I’d like to hear from you. Please post a comment below.

Thought of the Day - 12/11/2009

2009-12-11T09:54:00.003-05:00

Yesterday was an historic day in Massachusetts, as Governor Patrick promoted Lt. Col. Marian J. McGovern to serve as superintendent of the state police.

I am proud to know Marian McGovern as someone who is universally respected by her colleagues in law enforcement.

She worked hard and earned her way to the top while at the same time never forgetting her roots.

I recently saw Marian and expressed my hope for this opportunity. I know she will proudly lead our state police and will help to champion issues that will make our communities, families and children safe. Leading the fight to implement an amber alert system in our state is just one example of Marian’s follow through and determination.

Marian McGovern is a woman to be celebrated and supported in her efforts, and I wish her the best of luck as superintendent of the state police.

Thought of the Day - 12/10/2009

2009-12-10T07:52:00.000-05:00

In a step to address our fiscal crisis – a step that’s long overdue – unpaid work furloughs are coming to the Legislature this month.

And I am pleased to say that I am part of the 90 percent of state representatives who are voluntarily participating in this five-day program.

Of course, it’s unfortunate to have to tell staffers that they will be expected to forfeit several days of salary, especially around the holidays. Furloughs are not something for our state to necessarily celebrate or be proud of.

But as experience in the private sector shows us, furloughs are a responsible way to save money on administrative costs without forcing layoffs or jeopardizing quality of service. I have called for furloughs of state workers for several months now as a way to save our state money, and I support the plan for legislative furloughs. Legislative leaders recently announced the layoff of 28 staff members to save money. Without furloughs, layoffs likely would be much more prevalent.

I also believe that while furloughs are not being required of legislators (whose pay can’t be altered under the Constitution), taking a voluntary furlough is the right thing to do. That’s why I am opting to participate in the program and to voluntarily work without pay for five days this month. It’s the same attitude I had earlier this year when I refused to accept a $3,200 pay raise being offered to legislators. Solving our state’s fiscal problems takes leadership, and leading by example is an important part of that process.

We need to look at more alternatives like furloughs to address budget shortfalls in state government. It’s important to get our administrative expenses under control before we talk about cutting back programs and services that people depend on. Furloughs are one way to do that, and I support them.

What do you think? Please post a comment below.

Thought of the Day - 12/ 09/2009

2009-12-09T07:29:00.002-05:00

Yesterday, Massachusetts voters selected Martha Coakley and Scott Brown to represent the Democratic and Republican Parties in the January 19 special election to fill Senator Kennedy’s vacant seat in the United States Senate.

This race is incredibly significant for our state.

The victor will spend the next two years filling out Senator Kennedy’s unexpired term and working on some of the most important issues facing our nation – and in the process, he or she also will be positioned to run for a full term as an incumbent in 2012.

That’s why I am disappointed that more voters did not seize the opportunity to vote in yesterday’s primary. Early numbers suggest that only about 600,000 voters in the state, or about 15 percent of the total electorate, bothered to show up at the polls.

I think there are several factors behind this. First, it’s always difficult to encourage people to vote in special elections, especially in ones like this that happen around the holidays. Second, this particular campaign was under a compressed time schedule, and its outcome seemed predictable to many. Third, I think many people found there to be little policy difference between candidates on the Democratic side, and therefore little compelling reason to go to the polls to support one over the other.

January 19 is the next opportunity for people to voice their opinion on not just the two competing candidates but also the direction in which our country is heading. People who think the country is heading in the right direction and who want a continuation of the same will probably vote for Coakley, while those who are frustrated by the status quo and who are seeking a change in direction will vote for Brown.

But whatever their preference, I hope that more people will get out and vote on January 19.

Did you vote yesterday? If so, what interested you in the race? If not, why not? Please post your thoughts below and let’s get a discussion started.

Thought of the Day - 12/08/2009

2009-12-08T07:05:00.000-05:00

It might not feel like it if you look at the snow blanketing most of Massachusetts today, but today is Election Day here in the Bay State.

Today is the date voters are choosing primary candidates for the January 19 special election to fill the late Edward M. Kennedy’s seat in the US Senate.

The choice of candidates today is especially important given what’s at stake. Massachusetts needs quality representation in the Senate to ensure we share an appropriate stake in policy decisions being made at the federal level. And the choice voters make could have consequences for years to come. Consider this: the person voters choose on January 19 will be only the 27th person ever to occupy the seat Senator Kennedy held for 47 years.

Whatever your party affiliation and your preference, I encourage you to take just a few minutes to exercise the greatest privilege our democracy has to offer by voting today.

Thought of the Day - 12/07/09

2009-12-07T10:39:00.002-05:00

What would you say to a proposal to increase our state’s 23.5 cent gas tax by between 10 and 50 cents a gallon to cover transportation expenses?

I say: no way.

But that’s exactly the question that will be before lawmakers today as a legislative committee hears testimony on several bills that seek to raise the gas tax.

Raising the gas tax would have harmful effects on our economy. Massachusetts families can’t afford to pay additional money to commute to work and school each day, let alone take their cars on trips or staycations. Businesses here also rely heavily on state roads to transport their goods and services, and an increased gas tax would have a serious impact on their bottom line.

If nothing else, I think it’s egregious for state government to propose tax increases at a time when we still haven’t made the tough decisions necessary to cut wasteful spending from our budget.

I also think it’s interesting that these proposals are receiving serious consideration just one month after a sweeping transportation reform bill took effect. That bill was supposed to achieve savings and efficiencies in our transportation system through restructuring.

It’s clear to me that any proposal to increase the gas tax now is a signal to taxpayers that either the transportation bill is a failure, or that Beacon Hill is looking for any excuse to ask people to pay more money for the same old services. Either way, increasing the gas tax is a bad idea.

What do you think? Please post a comment below.

Thought of the Day - 12/04/09

2009-12-04T07:45:00.000-05:00

The other night I had the opportunity to speak at the Shrewsbury School Committee meeting and to talk about municipal budget issues.

My purpose at the meeting was to present local officials with information about local aid, and to encourage them to work with me and other like-minded individuals to advocate for change.

Specifically, I encouraged them to consider four action items:

For Fiscal Year 2010, oppose granting Governor Patrick additional authority to cut school and local aid in Fiscal Year 2010.

For Fiscal Year 2011, oppose cuts to school and local aid. Allowing school and local aid to be “on the table” for reduction will remove the incentive to reform and streamline government to achieve needed state-level cost savings.

Relative to Education Reform to be debated in House of Representatives, push for a fair funding formula for Charter School Reimbursement to suburban school districts like Shrewsbury.

Support an Early School and Local Aid Resolution which will disclose the minimum state aid to cities and towns in order for municipalities to approve local budgets with a degree of certainty.

I think that, together, these action items would help us improve our ability to provide a quality education to Shrewsbury residents. You can view a copy of a letter I sent to local officials on these topics by clicking here.

What do you think of these action items? Please post a comment below. I’d love to hear your thoughts and how you think we can advocate for each of these items.

Thought of the Day - 12/03/09

2009-12-03T15:04:00.000-05:00

Today is a very somber day for those of us in the Worcester area, as we pause to honor the memory of six firefighters who perished while fighting a blaze at the Cold Storage and Warehouse on December 3, 1999.

Much has changed in the ten years since the inferno that claimed the lives of these brave men, but one thing remains the same – these men are heroes who live on in our memories and whose service and sacrifice will never be forgotten.

We owe a great debt of gratitude to the men and women who bravely answer the call of duty every time the fire bell rings or the police siren wails. Far too often we take for granted their selfless commitment to serving the public and keeping us safe. It’s on days like this that we should remind ourselves of the importance of their jobs and the exceptional nature of their noble devotion to the people they serve.

A memorial service will be held today at the site where the tragedy occurred, which now serves as the location of a newly-constructed fire station and a lasting memorial to the fallen firefighters. I will have a chance to spend time with another group of public safety officials today as I help them honor Brian Gerardi, who is a 30-year veteran police officer and a friend of mine being sworn in as the president of the Massachusetts Police Association.

No matter what you are doing today, I hope you will join with me in honoring the memory of the fallen heroes being remembered in Worcester today, and that you will pause to thank all of the men and women in uniform who keep us safe every day.

Thought of the Day - 12/02/09

2009-12-02T07:10:00.001-05:00

City and town officials received bad news from the state earlier this week.

It seems that Governor Patrick unilaterally cut Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (“PILOT”) distributions by about 40 percent as a way to trim the state budget.

PILOT payments are the state’s way of compensating cities and towns for the tax revenue they miss out on because they can’t tax property owned by the state. State officials look at everything from state parks right down to salt sheds, and they apportion a designated pot of money to municipalities based on the amount of tax-exempt state-owned property in each community. The payments do not necessarily make up for the whole amount the municipality could collect in taxes if the property were owned privately, but they’re certainly better than nothing.

More to the point, cities and towns have come to depend on PILOT money as an important component of local aid. That’s why the Governor’s $10 million cut to this account is so painful. It’s made even worse by the fact that it’s coming mid-fiscal year, at a time when municipal budgets already have been long since approved.

In my district, Shrewsbury received about $45,000 less PILOT money than it was expecting, and Westborough’s cut was about $55,000. It’s important to remember that these communities, like many others across the state, already have been trimming their municipal budgets to the core (or beyond) to deal with challenging fiscal times. This deeper reduction in state aid will have real consequences for municipal services, whether it means eliminating an important position or scaling back a program that helps people. And it’s also worth noting that this cut comes on the heels of other local aid reductions earlier this year that forced municipal officials to come up with new ways of dealing with challenging fiscal issues on their own.

I think the Patrick Administration is doing a great disservice to people across the Bay State by cutting local aid. Citizens depend on municipal government to provide some of the most important public services that government delivers, including education, public safety, road maintenance, health safety, environmental conservation and libraries. Even if those services are supplemented by other levels of government, municipal government often delivers them more directly and efficiently, thereby improving quality of service and reducing taxpayer cost. Cutting local aid that cities and towns depend on to deliver these services is simply the wrong approach to dealing with our state’s fiscal problems, especially when our state has failed to enact cost-saving reforms and efficiencies within its own administrative operations.

I hope the Legislature will find a way to supplement these payments when we return to legislative sessions in January. Cities and towns are depending upon us to do so.

Thought of the Day - 12/01/09

2009-12-01T09:04:00.000-05:00

It’s no secret that the Legislature is on a winter recess during which controversial business will not be debated or voted on in formal session.

But now there’s news that consideration of certain issues between now and the beginning of January might very well be shrouded in secrecy.

According to today’s Boston Globe, Governor Patrick met with House Speaker DeLeo and Senate President Murray yesterday and got an agreement that certain important legislative issues will be taken up by the Legislature early in January. Speaker DeLeo also reportedly promised to hold a House caucus session over the next few weeks to discuss a pending education reform bill.

I think it’s important that we take action on the education reform bill and other pending matters sooner rather than later, and I give credit to legislative leaders for wanting to move forward. There are millions of federal “Race to the Top” dollars on the line, and Massachusetts needs to act quickly to take advantage of them.

I also think it’s important that we oppose the Governor’s efforts to expand his so-called “9C Authority” to make budget cuts. The Governor is using the threat of deeper cuts in front-line social services to justify cutting local aid. But this isn’t a fair choice, because the Governor hasn’t cut back administrative bureaucracy first. Aside from the fact that cities and towns depend on local aid to survive, we should not be considering local aid cuts to save social services so long as waste and duplication at the administrative level are allowed to persist.

But these debates and others like them should take place in front of the public, not in a closed-door members-only caucus.

The very purpose for having a legislature in the first place is to provide a public forum for the thoughtful discussion of differing viewpoints on political issues. It’s a place for policy questions to be asked and answered, for proposals of change to be considered, and for positions to be taken by elected officials. It’s important for those discussions all to take place in full light of day for reasons of public accountability and for the sake of including citizens and their viewpoints in the process.

I still believe the best course of action would be for the Legislature to come back into session between now and the end of December to debate education reform, proposals to help balance our budget, criminal justice reforms, and other pending matters. There’s too much at stake for us to allow these issues to lie dormant until January, or to remain just the subject of closed-door policy meetings at the State House.

What do you think? Please post a comment below to join the discussion.

Thought of the Day - 11/30/09

2009-11-30T11:36:00.000-05:00

In Massachusetts, local property taxes pay for most municipal services. Usually, those taxes are calculated as a certain percentage of the assessed value of real property.

So, what happens when property values plummet because of a poor real estate market?

That’s exactly the question officials in Worcester are facing as they confront news that property values in the city have declined by almost 10 percent, or $1.2 billion, in the most recent review period. You can read more about the issue in today’s Worcester Telegram.

This scenario places heavy pressure on local leaders in these challenging economic times. If assessments are 10 percent below last year, that means tax rates will go up in order to collect the same amount of revenue as last year.

Unfortunately, the state does not seem to have a plan. At the very least we should reach consensus on an Early Aid Resolution in January to give cities and towns a funding number to rely on during municipal and school budgeting. One thing I know is that the amount of money cities and towns receive for local aid is a vital lifeline. Some people on Beacon Hill think that the state’s local aid accounts should be trimmed as a way for the state to solve its own fiscal problems. As a general matter it may be fair to say that everything should be on the table during budget talks, but I personally believe it’s more important than ever before that we protect local aid from cuts. Without local aid, and with problems like those facing Worcester, essential local services will be placed in unacceptable severe jeopardy.

I will continue to hold local and school aid as a priority.

What do you think? Please feel free to post a comment below.

Thought of the Day - 11/27/09

2009-11-27T09:14:00.002-05:00

I hope that you and your family enjoyed a wonderful Thanksgiving holiday.

There are several political issues related to the holiday weekend that are somewhat interesting.

At the beginning of November, the Mass. Turnpike Authority was eliminated and its responsibilities were transferred to a new state agency, under a transportation reform bill passed earlier this year. Wednesday’s pre-holiday commute gave us the first opportunity to measure improved efficiency under the new system. In particular, the Department of Transportation vowed to improve holiday traffic flow to avoid problems like those experienced during the Easter weekend earlier this year.

The result? Well… drivers on the Mass. Turnpike confronted a 45-mile traffic jam going westbound. I don’t know what you think, but if you were one of the drivers caught in that traffic jam, I’m guessing you don’t feel that state government “efficiency” is working to your benefit.

It looks like the same sort of problem existed over at MassPort yesterday. There was a six-hour flight delay for some passengers at Worcester Regional Airport (operated by MassPort). Travel delays around the holidays are common, of course, but passengers reportedly got most frustrated because airport officials did not inform them of the likely cause and duration of the delay, leaving them unable to make alternate arrangements.

Today, it’s back to work for some, including many retailers for whom this day has come to be known as “Black Friday.” Others who have the day off are looking to take advantage of some of the bargains available at local stores.

There’s an interesting editorial in today’s Boston Herald that talks about Black Friday. Specifically, the editorial notes efforts that New Hampshire is making to lure Massachusetts residents across the border for tax-free shopping with incentives to stay overnight and shop more. The editorial mentions that Massachusetts retailers have little they could offer in return, since it’s illegal for businesses here to waive the sales tax, and since hotel stays are getting more expensive due to higher taxes.

One thing the editorial doesn’t mention is the fact that Massachusetts residents’ desire to shop tax-free across the border (which Massachusetts law forbids, by the way) is being driven in part by the fact that our state increased the sales tax this past year to 6.25 percent.

This is a perfect example of the way higher taxes hurt not just consumers but also businesses. Because of the tax increase, more and more sales likely will find their way across the border this holiday season. Even if consumers follow the law and end up remitting the sales tax back to the state when they file their taxes in April, these sales are forever lost to Massachusetts businesses that are relying on them to survive. And ultimately, that will mean either higher prices here in the Bay State or fewer jobs – or both. Taxes have real-world consequences for those who have to pay them, and that always makes tax increases an even more costly decision.

Unfortunately, it seems like the Patrick administration is not getting this message. There was news on Thursday that the state is planning to double taxes that employers pay to cover health insurance costs for workers who are laid off. Michael Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation says the tax increase is “going to be a major blow to employers” in Massachusetts.

All of these stories point to a lack of coordinated leadership at the state level and to poor decisions being made by those in charge of policy. We need to start making better choices when it comes to our tax policy, and we need to start enacting real reforms that will actually improve the efficient operation of government – without asking people to pay more for the same old services.

What do you think? Please post a comment below.

Happy Thanksgiving

2009-11-26T10:46:00.007-05:00

I wish you and your family a safe and wonderful holiday.

Thought of the Day - 11/25/09

2009-11-25T11:04:00.001-05:00

Ever since the economy began to falter, people have started appreciating the simpler things in life more as they look for cheap and easy ways to escape the difficulties of everyday existence, if only for a while.

But that’s getting more difficult, thanks to state government.

There’s news in the Boston Herald today that the state is due to impose $10 fees to go saltwater fishing in Massachusetts. Ostensibly, the fee is a way to implement a federally-required program to monitor recreational fishing activity along the coast. But let’s face it, if you’re an angler, it’s just a new tax on something you love to do.

This reminds me of the way the state imposed taxes on candy and sweetened beverages earlier this year. These fees may be are small, but for many people the price is a lot to pay, especially for a simple pleasure like eating a candy bar or throwing in a fishing line.

What makes news like this especially frustrating is the fact that state government is imposing fees like these as we continue to cut back on state services and as we continue to waste taxpayer money.

One example of waste: there’s another story in the Boston Herald today reporting that the executive director of the Massachusetts Health and Educational Facilities Authority is being paid about $334,000 a year in salary and benefits. This is an agency that, as the Herald reports, is responsible for “making loans to nonprofits including hospitals and universities.” And, as the Herald points out, this salary is being paid at the same time other state workers are being asked to take furloughs to save money and jobs.

It begs the question: why are taxpayers being asked to pay more to run state government through things like additional fees, when there is abuse like the sky-high MHEFA salary still happening? The message to taxpayers from state government is clear: expect to pay more, but expect to get less in return. And that’s just not fair.

What do you think? Please post a comment below and join the conversation.

Thought of the Day - 11/24/09

2009-11-24T07:05:00.000-05:00

According to today’s Boston Globe, officials over at the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority are considering plans to expand the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center into a one million square-foot “tourism campus” along the waterfront.

The total price tag could reach a billion dollars, some of which might be paid through increased travel and tourism taxes.

I wonder, is this really a wise investment?

Convention centers basically act as a loss leader. Their purpose is to draw tourist business to the state by creating a destination. By investing in convention infrastructure, the state is essentially making a gamble that every dollar spent will be recouped several times over by the local economy through hotel stays, restaurant visits, plane and taxi service, and other services.

The problem with convention centers is that the initial public investment is huge, and business is uncertain and takes a long time to develop. There’s no guarantee that the state’s gamble will pay off, and there’s no telling how long it will take to break even.

It seems to me that with all the economic problems our state is facing right now, this is not the time to be exploring ambitious plans for expanding the BCEC. As the Boston Herald points out in an editorial today, we haven’t even finished paying for the original construction of the BCEC yet.

There are lots of ways our state could invest a billion dollars if we wanted to, and many of them would have more immediate and helpful effects on the economy. Why take a gamble on convention business when we could make other more direct investments to help put people back to work right now?

What do you think? Is expanding the BCEC worth the risk? Or is it just a costly gamble? Please post a comment below to let me know what you think.

Thought of the Day - 11/23/09

2009-11-23T06:55:00.003-05:00

There are three business days this week before Thanksgiving. That gives the Legislature three chances to come back into session and work on important legislation.

Sadly, that isn’t about to happen. The Legislature is out of formal sessions until January.

There are two interesting pieces in the papers today on this subject, and they’re both worth a look.

Kevin Cullen has a column in the Boston Globe that starts out as a priceless tongue-in-cheek satire of legislative work ethic. But the column ends on a sobering note, talking about the state’s failure to debate legislation about elder drivers.

Cullen’s column reminds us that Beacon Hill’s hiatus is more than just another example of politicians being politicians. It’s an avoidance of responsibility that has real costs for real people across Massachusetts.

Another editorial in the Worcester Telegram and Gazette talks about the importance of passing charter school legislation. As the paper mentions, uncapping charter schools in Massachusetts could free up as much as $250 million in federal funding, money our state could desperately use right now to support education. There’s no excuse for delay on this bill.

I believe it’s inexcusable for the Legislature to suspend its formal work for a whole month this year. We should come back into session after Thanksgiving to work more on these bills and others that need immediate attention. Massachusetts residents simply can’t afford to wait any longer.

What do you think? Should the Legislature come back into session. Please let me know your thoughts. Post a comment below and join the conversation.

Thought of the Day - 11/20/09

2009-11-20T12:15:00.001-05:00

One of the most important lessons my family taught me while I was growing up is that hard work is a virtue. When there’s a job to be done, you do it and you do it right.

But sadly, that just doesn’t seem to be a governing principle on Beacon Hill these days.

This past Wednesday, the House and Senate walked away from a pile of important unfinished legislative business. The Legislature adjourned its formal business for the holidays under the cover of arcane internal rules that suspend the consideration of formal business until January.

While the members of the General Court go back to their districts to celebrate the holiday season, most of their constituents don’t have that luxury. Whereas families across Massachusetts are normally accustomed to gathering around fireplaces or a Christmas tree to celebrate the season, this year those meetings are more likely to be sobering kitchen table conversations about the economy and its ill effects.

Now, more than ever, the General Court has a duty to take action on important bills that are designed to help our state government, cities and towns, businesses and families survive these economic times and emerge from the recession stronger than they were before. This is not the time for business as usual on Beacon Hill, because the times in which we live are truly unusual.

We should be enacting laws to create jobs in our state. We should be supporting education reform. We should be balancing our budget and putting cost-saving reforms into place to make future fiscal years better. We should be passing municipal relief legislation to help cities and towns preserve needed local services. We should be strengthening our public safety laws to protect our streets. We should be finding ways to promote alternative energy in Massachusetts. And lots more.

But we’re not doing any of these things right now. Instead, legislators abandoned their responsibilities and chose to go home for the holidays.

Massachusetts residents deserve better.

I believe the Legislature should call itself back into session to finish consideration of several pending matters over the next few weeks. The people of Massachusetts can’t afford to wait until January (or beyond) to see these matters debated by the House and Senate.

Do you agree? Please let me know. I’d be curious to know your thoughts. Please post a comment below.

Thought of the Day - 11/19/09

2009-11-19T11:11:00.001-05:00

I'm frustrated by the way the Legislature keeps missing an opportunity -- not to mention avoiding a responsibility -- to address policies that make a difference in the lives of everyday people across Massachusetts. Now, any hope of reversing this trend will have to wait until at least January because, under legislative rules, the time for formal consideration of controversial bills this year has expired.

By the end of last night's debate, major pieces of legislation remained unfinished, including a bill to help balance our budget for the rest of this year and a measure to lift a cap on charter schools and let Massachusetts tap into federal "Race to the Top" incentive dollars. You can read more about the specific back-and-forth process on the last day of debate in this article in today's Boston Globe.

But if you want to really get a feeling for why this process is a problem, I'd encourage you to read a column by Michael Graham in the Boston Herald today. Graham makes the point that state government has been focusing way too much on the wrong priorities and that it hasn't been paying enough attention to the right ones.

For example, Graham says that the Legislature has been focused on a new proposal to give preferred parking to environmentally-friendly vehicles and on giving in-state tuition and drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, instead of finding ways to make it easier for everyday people to earn a living in Massachusetts. As Graham puts it, "Advocating driver’s licenses and taxpayer-subsidized college tuition for illegal immigrants would be a lousy deal for working Bay Staters any time. But it’s almost a form of political abuse for Patrick to do it at a time when our unemployment is almost 10 percent, manufacturing jobs are fleeing the state and he’s already hit blue-collar families with $1 billion in higher sales and other taxes."

Graham is right. There are lots of things that our state should be doing to attract jobs here, to make our streets safer, to reform state government and to help struggling cities and towns. Instead, the Legislature keeps raising revenue to cover wasteful spending while at the same time passing bills that aren't priorities and reducing state services that people depend on. This trend must be reversed.

As we look ahead to 2010 and a new legislative session on Beacon Hill, there are lots of specific things I'd like the House and Senate to consider. But most of all, I hope the Legislature starts getting its priorities back in line and that it starts focusing on what really matters to people across the state.

What do you think? Are you disappointed by Beacon Hill's lack of progress this year? Please let me know by posting a comment.

Thought of the Day - 11/18/2009

2009-11-18T17:24:00.001-05:00

I’ve worked hard over the past few years to push for tighter sentencing and monitoring of sex offenders in this state. Our laws definitely need reform.

But sometimes, it’s necessary to balance the need for tougher restrictions against the potential for unintended consequences of new legislation.

That’s my thinking with a new bill that’s being proposed in the Senate regarding sex offenders.

The bill would prohibit Level 3 sex offenders (those who pose the most risk of harm) from staying in homeless shelters in the Bay State. Its purpose it to reduce the likelihood that those offenders could pose a security risk to other people staying at the shelter – a growing problem these days as shelter populations increase in this poor economy.

I think the bill makes an interesting statement, but I have questions about its effects. If passed, where would these sex offenders go? If they have no place to live, would they end up living on the streets? Would that pose an even greater risk to the general public?

As one person mentioned in this Boston Globe story, if our state were to limit where sex offenders can live, that would likely increase the need for social services, which we’re not prepared to deliver at this time, in part due to fiscal difficulties.

I think there are better ways of dealing with this problem. One way is to pass a bill I have proposed that would prohibit sex offenders from listing a homeless shelter as their primary address. Under my bill, they would have to list a more reliable primary address so they can be tracked more accurately. That, along with better GPS monitoring of sex offenders, would give us a better idea of where these dangerous predators are lurking and it would allow us to track their whereabouts.

But on a more general level, I think we need to take a comprehensive look at the issue of sentencing and post-release monitoring of sex offenders to come up with a better plan for dealing with them. Right now, too many offenders are being released back into the community after serving prison sentences that are too short. They’re reentering the community without any place to live, without a job, and without anyone tracking what they’re up to. That’s not just a poor way to rehabilitate people; when you’re talking about letting our most dangerous sex offenders loose on the streets, it’s a recipe for disaster. We need better sentencing laws that keep dangerous criminals in jail for longer periods of time. And we need a post-release supervision program that prepares these felons to re-enter society on a productive and less dangerous level and screens them accurately for dangerousness so they don’t just end up back on the streets to reoffend.

What do you think? Do you think prohibiting sex offenders from living in homeless shelters is a good idea? Do you favor other approaches like better sentencing, monitoring and post-release supervision? Or do you think we need to do something else? I’d love to hear your thoughts. Please post a comment below to join the discussion on this issue.

Thought of the Day - 11/17/09

2009-11-17T07:34:00.003-05:00

Legislative leaders are again considering a debate over whether to permit illegal immigrants to attend state schools at the same reduced tuition rates that Massachusetts citizens normally pay.

I’ve voted against so-called “in-state tuition” in the past and there’s nothing I’ve heard recently that would change my mind on this issue.

As I see it, the issue isn’t whether immigrants should get an education so that they can have an opportunity to better themselves in this country. Of course they should; that’s the American Dream. The issue is that our state should not be providing the privileged benefits of citizenship to people whose very presence in this state is illegal.

Letting illegal immigrants attend state schools at discounted rates sends a bad message in several ways. It tells Massachusetts taxpayers that their tax money is going to be used to reward people who break the law, and that’s wrong. It tells Massachusetts citizens that they must stand in line and compete with illegal residents to receive limited educational resources from our state schools, and that’s wrong. It tells legal immigrants that we don’t place any value on their extra effort to follow the rules in coming to this country, and that’s wrong too. And it tells illegal immigrants that our state is willing to look the other way if they break the law, and that’s very wrong.

There is an editorial in today’s Worcester Telegram that frames the issue nicely and raises many of the same points I believe. As they say, the issue basically demonstrates a failure on the federal level to deal with the persistent problem of illegal immigrants in this country. It’s a problem that needs to be solved, not just in terms of in-state tuition, but also in terms of health care and other benefits that our state is forced to provide to people who don’t reside here legally.

And, I have one more thought about this issue. I think it’s unfortunate that legislative leaders are putting a premium on debating the in-state tuition issue at a time when there are so many other pressing matters that remain unresolved by the Legislature. In my opinion, we shouldn’t even be thinking about this issue at a time when the citizens of Massachusetts are struggling to cope with a poor economy, a lack of jobs, and limited state resources. It’s time for Beacon Hill to get its priorities back in order.

That’s just my opinion. What do you think? Please post a comment below and join the conversation.

Thought of the Day - 11/16/2009

2009-11-16T07:26:00.002-05:00

When you think of good ways our state could spend taxpayer dollars in times like these, does creating a new law school in the UMass system come to mind as a priority?

Well, for some people, that’s exactly what’s on their mind.

There is a plan underway for the state to merge the privately-owned Southern New England School of Law (SNESL) into the UMass/Dartmouth campus. It’s an idea that first surfaced back in 2005, and which has been floating around ever since.

SNESL wants to merge because it is unable to make the large investment of money needed to bring its programs and facilities up to standards needed for accreditation by the American Bar Association. Without accreditation, SNESL is less competitive than many other law schools because its students are limited in the number of states in which they can be admitted to practice after graduation.

Massachusetts is one of only a few states that don’t include a law school in their public higher education offerings. There’s no question that a law school would enhance the variety of programs UMass could offer to its students. That would not only make the school more competitive and prestigious with other universities, but also would provide Massachusetts students with a quality and affordable option to attend law school.

Under the merger plan, SNESL would essentially give its assets to UMass for free. But, it would be up to UMass to make any changes and investments after that.

And that’s where this intriguing idea stops making good sense.

Massachusetts is in the middle of a fiscal crisis that’s forcing us to cut back the programs and services we’re already offering through the UMass system. In fact, later this week, the Legislature is poised to vote of about $277 million of budget cuts that are necessary to keep our budget in balance, and some of those cuts could affect core services the UMass system already offers. We can’t afford to make the changes necessary to make a public law school work at UMass right now, and there’s no guarantee we could devote proper resources to the school at any time in the near future. That would actually be a disservice to students, and it makes this a bad deal right now.

There’s an editorial in today’s Boston Herald on this subject, and they end it with the line that this plan is “the wrong deal at the wrong time in the wrong place.” I agree. We simply don’t have the resources necessary to make the plan work right now, and that would turn this “gift” into a long-term problem for our state.

What do you think? Would adding a law school to UMass be a good idea? Please let me know by posting your thoughts below.

Thought of the Day - 11/13/09

2009-11-13T10:17:00.005-05:00

There’s news in today’s papers that the Patrick administration is proposing to allow cities and towns across the state to put up cameras to catch people who run red lights at intersections.

This is an issue that has been circulating around the Legislature for a long time. Red light cameras would have obvious benefits for safety, and they would take some burden off direct enforcement.

But at the same time, there is evidence from other states that red light cameras are ineffective, harmful to privacy, or that they actually cause accidents in some cases. This story in today’s Boston Globe tells more about the pros and cons.

But the Globe story also suggests that Governor Patrick is making this proposal mainly as a way to allow cities and towns to raise money, and that worries me.

Even though I staunchly support cities and towns and want to find ways for them to improve their fiscal situation, I think it’s bad policy to enact laws that relate to public safety just as a way to increase revenue. It seems like the Governor wants to raise money with red light cameras, and if they happen to improve public safety at the same time, then that’s all the better. In my opinion, if we ultimately decide to allow red light cameras, then it should be based on a set of priorities that are the other way around. There are other ways to help cities and towns, like passing a municipal reform and relief bill that I filed that would give municipalities tools to cut costs like health care and pension costs.

What do you think? Do you think red light cameras would help or hurt public safety here in Massachusetts? Do you think they’re being proposed to make our roads safer, or just as another way to raise money? Please post your comments below. I’d love to hear from you.

Thought of the Day - 11/12/09

2009-11-12T07:52:00.001-05:00

So, it looks like convicted terrorist Raymond Luc Levasseur is not going to speak at UMass Amherst after all, thanks to a last-minute decision by his parole officer to detain him in Maine.

I am pleased by this outcome. Levasseur never should have been invited to appear in the first place, and his appearance should have been blocked by state officials.

I strongly support free speech rights, but allowing taxpayer funds to help promote the message and agenda of convicted terrorists is plainly wrong.

Thank you to all of those who joined the chorus of protest against Levasseur’s appearance. I believe calls from the police and the pressure from the public and people like those who answered the call to action I sent out were what convinced the parole people in Maine to say no.

What do you think about this case? Please post a comment below to let me know how you feel.

Happy Veterans Day

2009-11-11T07:00:00.003-05:00

Thank you to all of the men and women in uniform, whose service and sacrifice we pause to honor today.

There are so many examples of courage and valor to commemorate on a day such as this. One of those examples is Rockie Blunt of Shrewsbury, an 84-year-old veteran of WWII.

Rockie is the recipient of a Purple Heart and he has an amazing story to tell. His memories will be featured prominently as part of a 10-hour miniseries on The History Channel starting this Sunday. You can read more about Rockie and his story in this article from today's Boston Herald.

If you'd like to take part in local ceremonies to honor our veterans, you can visit Shrewsbury Town Hall or the Forbes Municipal Building in Westborough at 11 a.m. today. If you can't make it to either of those events, I encourage you to please do something today to honor our troops, whether it's taking a few moments to put together a care package, or just telling your kids about the importance of service to our country.

May the patriotic dedication of people like Rockie Blunt never be far from our hearts and minds, and may it inspire each of us to be better Americans every day.

Call to Action

2009-11-10T16:10:00.001-05:00

Have you heard about plans for convicted terrorist Raymond Luc Levasseur to speak at UMass Amherst?

Governor Patrick has asked university officials not to allow the event to take place, but a group of faculty members reportedly have extended the invitation nonetheless.

I'm planning to send a letter to Governor Patrick later this week opposing the appearance on campus, and also asking the Governor to block additional taxpayer funds from being spent.

You can read a copy of the letter below. What do you think about this issue? Please leave me a comment to let me know. Or, better yet, if you oppose Mr. Levasseur's appearance at UMass Amherst, I urge you to call the Governor's office to let him know how you feel. The number is 617-725-4005.

Thanks!

Karyn

-------------------------------------------------------

November 10, 2009

His Excellency Deval Patrick

Governor of the Commonwealth

The State House, Room 360

Boston, MA 02133

Dear Governor Patrick:

According to published reports, UMass Amherst is proceeding with plans to allow an on-campus speech by Raymond Luc Levasseur. Mr. Levasseur is the convicted leader of a radical group linked to courthouse bombings, the murder of a police officer and the attempted assassination of two Massachusetts State Police troopers.

We oppose Mr. Levasseur's appearance on state property, and we understand that you do as well. While you say you have directed UMass officials not to allow the speech to take place, they apparently are not abiding by your instructions.

We think it is an insult to Massachusetts residents to have this speech occur at a publicly-funded facility, and we still prefer that all possible means be used to block this event. But, if you are unable to stop it from occurring, we are asking that you at least spare taxpayers the gross indignity of having to foot the bill for the event. We are asking that no extraordinary efforts be made to accommodate Mr. Levasseur's appearance on campus, and that the state limit its commitment to such ordinary measures as would be taken to protect student safety on campus. And specifically, we are asking that all additional costs associated with the event (added security, venue fees, and any other expenses) either be assumed by private groups responsible for the appearance or that they not be incurred in the first place.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Karyn E. Polito

[Other signatures pending]

Thought of the Day - 11/10/09

2009-11-10T08:54:00.003-05:00

If you stop and think of all the important needs our state has these days, does construction of a $9 million footbridge near Gillette Stadium top your list of priorities?

Published reports indicate that the Patrick Administration is looking to spend $9 million in economic stimulus money for a footbridge connecting Patriots’ Place and Gillette Stadium.

These facilities are privately owned by Robert Kraft, who is reportedly one of the world’s top 500 richest people.

There’s no question that Mr. Kraft is a successful businessman who has invested a large amount of money in the commonwealth and in our favorite local football franchise. There is also no question that constructing the footbridge would further economic development potential and have a multiplier effect on the local economy, which is a good thing.

But there is a legitimate question whether this is a good use of limited stimulus money, especially when you consider that this construction project will likely edge-out many other necessary road and bridge projects in cities and towns across the state.

I noticed that one person wrote a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe today noting that our state is spending $9 million on the footbridge at the same time that we are cutting $2.7 million in funding for programs to help the homeless. The author calls this an “interesting juxtaposition” of stories, and wonders if it’s really a good use of the money.

I wonder the same thing.

I have argued consistently for our state to make a very targeted, calculated use of economic stimulus funds to make sure they are used in the most effective way possible. While constructing a footbridge in Foxborough might be a legitimate use of federal stimulus money to promote worthy economic development, I have serious doubts whether it is the best use of that money at this time.

What do you think? Feel free to post comments below.

Thought of the Day - 11/09/09

2009-11-09T11:38:00.000-05:00

When it comes to transportation reform in Massachusetts, it seems like for every step forward that we take, we end up taking two steps back.

The Legislature passed a transportation reform bill several months ago, which took effect this month.

It sounds like a great improvement, but there were several problems with it. First, the reform itself actually cost money to implement. True reform is usually geared toward savings and efficiencies. Second, although the reform bill eliminated the Mass. Turnpike Authority, it actually created new forms of bureaucracy that take us back to the same place. This larger bureaucratic system without any clear accountability and roadmap for reform were the major reasons I voted against the bill.

On Sunday, we learned that our current need for reform actually grew over the past two years under Governor Patrick. In other words, it looks like our already bloated and broken transportation system has grown in size over the past two years, making the need for reform even greater than we once thought. The Boston Globe reported on Sunday that, since Patrick became Governor, the state’s transportation agencies more than doubled the number of six-figure jobs, and there are double-digit surges in payrolls at some of the state’s top transportation agencies. It looks like most of the reform that we are going to implement will just undo some of the waste we’ve seen creep into the system over the past two years.

And it’s worth noting that, even with all of this restructuring, we still have problems with roads and bridges in Massachusetts.

What all this means to me is that we are probably going to need a whole new round of real reforms in the near future to help us address some of the real problems plaguing the transportation system. The reform needs to be more than just moving people around, we need a wholesale restructuring of agencies and possibly privatization of certain functions to get us moving in the right direction. And we need to turn attention back to customer service and quality of our infrastructure and not so much on internal, bureaucratic concerns.

Thought of the Day - 11/06/09

2009-11-06T08:41:00.005-05:00

Have you noticed that Massachusetts seems to be sending mixed messages when it comes to supporting alternative energy here in the Bay State?

I think it's time for us to get things straight and stand solidly behind alternative sources of energy for Massachusetts residents.

On Wednesday, we learned that poor economic conditions have led Evergreen Solar, a company the state once supported and touted as a harbinger of economic success, to relocate certain jobs from Massachusetts to China.

At the same time, the Patrick administration is receiving attention for a bill to make it easier to locate wind turbines here in Massachusetts. Essentially, the bill would streamline the state appeals process for the siting of turbines, which would make it faster and theoretically easier to build windmills across the state.

I think it’s good that our state is realizing the importance of cultivating alternative energy resources here in Massachusetts. It’s good for our environment, our economy, and also for our way of life. But at the same time, alternative energy has its drawbacks, and when it comes to wind power, the big one is always a siting concern.

I think Governor Patrick’s bill has some merit. As the Evergreen Solar decision shows, our state has a vested economic interest in making sure that we promote alternative energy projects here in Massachusetts. But I also think it’s important that communities have some input in the process. Allowing the state to single-handedly make decisions about where to locate these facilities is counterproductive.

I have filed a bill on the same topic that would keep communities involved in the decision-making process. Under my plan, cities and towns would remain the ones in charge of deciding where wind turbines could be erected at the local level, factoring in local concerns and input. But it also would prevent what some cities and towns have done to wholly exclude wind power options from their communities through draconian regulations. I think that’s a fair compromise in the name of better alternative energy choices for our residents.

What do you think? Do you support alternative energy, including the development of wind turbines in your community? I’d like to hear from you. Feel free to post a comment below. Thanks for your input.

Thought of the Day - 11/05/2009

2009-11-05T08:35:00.000-05:00

I've long believed that there is a concentrated and entrenched power structure on Beacon Hill that too often stands in the way of good policymaking. As a possible remedy, I've been advocating for twelve-year term limits for state legislators.

A column in today's Boston Globe reminds me of why this effort is so important.

The column, by Joan Vennochi, talks about the process that yielded passage of legislation regarding ticket scalping a few years ago. This is the same legislation that produced charges of corruption against former House Speaker Sal DiMasi and ultimately led to his resignation.

In the column, Vennochi writes about how members of the majority party blindly followed the directives of House leadership to vote for the bill, mainly as a way to earn favor and secure their chance for future advancement. This happened even though some members did not understand what the bill was about, or even worse, even though they thought it was a poor bill that was being rushed through the House for political purposes. And this process stood in the way of meaningful consideration of the legislation, which related to a gap in our laws that still needs to be addressed.

Vennochi's closing words are positively chilling for those who worry about good government:

"Voters send representatives to Beacon Hill. Once there, institutional leaders vie for their loyalty. That’s when the people’s lawmakers start turning into the leader’s sheep."

We can't expect real change on Beacon Hill or progress on the important issues of the day until we break the cycle Vennochi discusses in her column. The focus of our elected officials needs to be turned back to doing what's best for the people, not what's best for themselves or for their political leaders. One-party rule just isn't working. We need balance on Beacon Hill. Limiting the amount of time people can serve in the Legislature and accumulate power is one way to break the cycle and get us back to the citizen legislature we're supposed to have.

What do you think? I'd like to know. Please share your thoughts in the space below by posting a comment.

Patriotic Rally in Westborough Tonight

2009-11-05T07:16:00.001-05:00

There are countless reasons for us to be thankful for what we have as Americans and for the efforts of those who, in their own special ways, go above and beyond to make this country a better place in which to live.

Tonight, I'm hosting a Patriotic Rally to “Celebrate America” at Indian Meadows Country Club in Westborough.

The purpose is to celebrate the winners of my annual essay contest, which this year focused on the theme “Defining the American Dream”, and to honor several influential members of the community for their commanding presence and generosity.

Hosting this event is a great privilege for me. I enjoy bringing the community together in a spirit of patriotism and celebration of the good work that so many of our citizens are doing. We have had a lot of support for this year’s essay contest, and I love having the opportunity to give recognition where it is due, especially with all of the talented young writers and influential leaders in the area.

I hope you'll be able to join me. The rally will begin with dinner at 5 pm and a presentation to follow at 6 pm. The event also will feature a performance by the Shrewsbury Acapella Choir.

For further information or to RSVP, please contact Kaitlyn Sprague at my State House office at 617-722-2230 or 508-845-2300, or Kaitlyn.sprague@state.ma.us.

Thought of the Day - 11/04/2009

2009-11-04T06:12:00.001-05:00

Every month I send out an e-mail newsletter to people as a way of letting them know what is happening in my office.

One of my favorite parts of each newsletter is a survey where I ask people a poll question about current issues.

This month’s poll question is, “Do you feel Beacon Hill is doing enough to address the state’s fiscal crisis?”

So far, all but one of the people who have responded have answered, “no.” But, many people have included interesting comments along with their replies, and I wanted to share some of them with you.

Many people have complained about wasteful spending on Beacon Hill, and there were lots of ideas for how to deal with it. One of my favorites was a suggestion that we implement a state program similar to one on the federal level that would reward state employees for identifying wasteful spending and saving taxpayers money.

A number of respondents voiced dissatisfaction with Beacon Hill being out-of-touch. One person said, “In business, we’re forced to place people on leave to meet our fixed obligations. Yet, there is little action on the state or local level to face up to the reality of these dire economic circumstances except to suggest ways to increase taxes.” Another summed it all up by saying, “Just as all Americans are being forced to cut spending, so should the state.”

And many people seem to think that Beacon Hill is not serving the best interests of the people. Said one person, “The Legislature has been wringing their hands and doing business as usual, ie. continuing to pass new bills and mandates without having the decency to review past practices and relieve towns and cities of the burden of the many unfunded mandates.”

Some people complained that taxes are too high. One person disagreed and said we should increase the state income tax. Several people suggested that we allow casinos as a way to increase revenue. Others said that casinos could end up actually costing our state money. And, some people said it’s important to encourage more businesses to come to Massachusetts in order to turn around our economy.

Some of the more specific ideas people suggested include the following:

Set state building thermostats at 68 degrees and turn off lights at the end of each business day.
Eliminate personal cars for state employees.
Combine offices to decrease energy use.
Verify health care eligibility for workers as in private industry.

Another gentleman commented, “No red light cameras, please,” in response to a revenue-raising item the Governor included in his recent budget proposal.

And, then, there’s my personal favorite response:

When asked, “Do you feel Beacon Hill is doing enough to address the state’s fiscal crisis,” one person replied simply, “Hell no.”

Care to get in on the discussion? It’s easy. Please feel free to post your comment below.

Thought of the Day - 11/03/2009

2009-11-03T12:48:00.004-05:00

Ever since they were first introduced in Massachusetts as part of education reform in the early 1990’s, charter schools have been seen as part of the education system. They’ve helped to raise test scores in some under-performing districts. They help students enter careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), which is important to our overall economy. They support creativity and innovation. And they offer parents a choice in their child’s education.

At the same time, there has been a lot of resistance in our state to these schools, and it has resulted in an unwillingness to lift a restrictive cap on charter schools here.

Until recently, one of the people resisting lifting the cap on these schools was Governor Patrick. He changed his view abruptly this summer and announced legislation that would triple the number of charter school slots in our state. This happened not long after President Obama touted the importance of charter schools in what he calls a “race to the top.” President Obama has made $4 billion available to the top 10 or 15 states that are willing to lift their charter school caps. But as of today, states have only 2 weeks left to take advantage of this special opportunity.

Because it took state leaders here so long to come around to supporting charter schools, we now find ourselves scrambling, running out of time and with our backs to the wall. The Governor has filed a bill to lift the charter school cap, but it had a hearing before the Legislature only a month ago. And judging by the current work pace of the Legislature, it’s hard to believe that lawmakers will be able to pull together a debate and vote on this issue within the next 2 weeks, even though the taxpayers should be able to expect that.

State government’s procrastination on addressing the important issues of the day, including education, transportation and state finances, is starting to cost us real dollars, and unfortunately taxpayers are the ones who will ultimately lose out.

I hope there is still time for the Legislature to debate and consider charter schools in the next two weeks. But in the future, we need to stop trying to pull things together at the last minute to preserve important opportunities for our state. It doesn’t have to be this difficult to pass good policies.

What’s your view on charters schools? Do you support charter schools, and do you think the state should be one of the top ones to receive funding? I’d like to know your thoughts. Please feel free to post a comment below.

Thought of the Day - 11/02/2009

2009-11-02T06:17:00.001-05:00

As the economic crisis refuses to loosen its grip on us, it is likely that by now all of us have felt the effects in some way. Maybe your neighbor was laid off from his or her job. Maybe your boss has asked you to work fewer hours or accept a smaller paycheck. Maybe you’re cutting back on extras, such as cable TV, or even essential items such as groceries and medicine.

A report in yesterday’s Parade Magazine shows just how profoundly this recession has shaken us to our core, forcing people throughout the United States to rethink what’s important and to wonder whether the “American Dream” is still within reach.

This must-read article focuses on a poll the magazine conducted asking Americans whether and how they’ve been affected by the recession. The results are staggering. Sixty-nine percent of those polled has lost their job, had their pay reduced, or knew someone who had. Many people said they feel the government betrayed them, and only 52 percent of those polled still believe that if you “work hard and play by the rules” you can succeed.

The poll also found some positive effects from the recession, with many Americans saying they are now volunteering for charities, reconnecting with friends and forming stronger relationships with their families.

I think the part of this story that strikes me most is where the magazine asked people about the “American Dream.” While 69 percent said they feel the American Dream is “somewhat broken,” 68 percent still say they don’t believe the American Dream is out of reach.

I didn’t need the Parade story to tell me that the recession has not killed our sense of optimism. I see it all the time with people in my district who keep finding ways to hold the American Dream in their sights no matter how much they struggle to keep their families and communities healthy and strong during this tough time. This optimism is what our country is founded on, and I truly believe that this sense of hope, along with the ingenuity, hard work and persistence Americans are known for, will get us through this crisis.

Check out the Parade piece if you have a few minutes and let me know your thoughts. Or just leave me a post about your thoughts on the American Dream. Do you still believe in it? What does it mean to you? I want to hear what you think.

Thought of the Day - 10/30/2009

2009-10-30T10:24:00.000-04:00

There’s an interesting editorial in the Boston Herald today entitled, “State seeing double?”

The editorial talks about an economic development summit Governor Patrick sponsored earlier this week. One of the Governor’s plans is to create a new small-business loan program. But, as the Herald points out, there are already two other state programs doing the same thing.

The point of the editorial is that in these tough fiscal times, state government can’t afford to be duplicating its efforts. We need to take an inventory of existing state programs and overhaul them first before starting new initiatives.

I think that’s a good approach. Basically, we need to reset state government and take a fresh look at how we’re spending money, delivering services, etc. Having that sort of a master plan is critical if we’re going to come up with creative ways to get through this fiscal crisis.

What do you think? Please feel free to post a comment below to get the conversation started.

Statement of Representative Karyn Polito on Budget Cuts Announced by Governor Patrick Today

2009-10-29T16:33:00.000-04:00

With a budget gap that has now reached $600 million in Massachusetts, it appears that Governor Patrick has finally decided it is time do the necessary thing by making substantial cuts in state spending, while preserving local aid and protecting vulnerable citizens in our state.

These are not easy decisions to make, but the poor economy combined with years of overspending and overestimated revenues by state government is forcing our hand. And unfortunately, Massachusetts residents have already had to pay the price in increased taxes because we waited until now to make these spending reductions.

But now is not the time to place blame or point the finger. We should use the predicament in which we find ourselves now as a lesson for the future. Instead of being reactionary every time revenues go up or down, we need to reset the way Massachusetts government works and delivers core services. We need to have better foresight when it comes to our fiscal planning so we can set more reasonable benchmarks. We need to proactively work to streamline government operations, realize savings and efficiencies, and bring state employee benefits in line with the private sector. We need to be creative and inventive to identify innovative ways to better position our state for economic recovery and job creation.

Thought of the Day - 10/29/2009

2009-10-29T08:11:00.000-04:00

According to today’s papers (Globe story, Herald story), Governor Patrick is poised to announce a series of budget cuts this afternoon that are designed to bridge an estimated $600 million budget gap this year.

Published reports indicate that everything could be on the table when the Governor makes these cuts, including deep reductions in spending on social service programs and cutbacks in local aid.

The Governor appears to be saying that he has no other choice but to make these cuts because furloughs of executive branch managers will not save enough money, and because state unions have been unwilling to make concessions to cut costs.

I think it’s necessary to make cuts in our state budget; in fact, I think that spending reductions are long overdue. But I disagree that balancing our budget should require us to provide less support to local services or to the most vulnerable people in our communities who are most in need of assistance. Those are the last places we should look. Instead, we should be focused on finding additional savings and efficiencies within the budget through reform.

Even with the Governor’s cuts, Massachusetts taxpayers still will be spending more than $26 billion a year to run state government. Cuts in administrative functions have been modest at best. Reforms also have been sparse, and what few have been implemented have taken too long to be effective. State payroll has continued to increase and new programs have continued to find their way into our spending plans. And in order to support this spending, Massachusetts taxpayers have been asked to pay more taxes and expect to receive fewer core government services. We need to do better.

I will be watching Governor Patrick’s announcement very carefully to see what happens in this latest round of cuts. I’ll post an update here later this afternoon to let you know what he says and what I think about it.

"What do you expect Governor Patrick to say this afternoon? What do you HOPE he'll say?" Please feel free to post a comment below.

Thought of the Day - 10/28/2009

2009-10-28T14:08:00.000-04:00

An editorial in the Worcester Telegram today highlights a great example of how, in its haste to look as though it is “doing something,” the Legislature can sometimes pass laws that have unintended and negative consequences.

In response to a slew of ethical indisgressions by Beacon Hill leaders, the Legislature this year passed an ethics reform law that was supposed to restore integrity to the institution by banning public officials from accepting gifts, increasing the penalties for breaking ethics laws and other changes. These were positive steps forward.

However, the legislation also includes a requirement that cities and towns must subject every one of their full-time and part-time employees—including volunteers—to take a yearly online test that is supposed to teach them the state’s conflict-of-interest rules.

Since this law passed, I have heard from local town officials who are very concerned about the prospect of taking employees away from their jobs to complete this task. They are also concerned about the potential cost of meeting this requirement during a time when cities and towns barely have enough in their coffers to make ends meet.

Throughout Massachusetts, city and town officials are struggling to find places to cut and ways to streamline their operations so that they can continue providing very essential services to Massachusetts residents. It is in the state’s best interest to offer a helping hand in that endeavor, not make it more difficult by instituting unfunded mandates such as the new online ethics test requirement.

For too long, the state has called on local communities to bear the brunt of tough fiscal times, while at the same time increasing burdens on them in other areas. Local aid payments to cities and towns have decreased and could go even lower in the coming weeks. Legislation to provide financial relief to municipalities, including several bills I’ve filed myself, have remained in committee and have not seen action on the House and Senate floors. There has been no pension reform and no changes to onerous public bidding laws.

Sooner or later, state government will have to deal with the consequences of this behavior toward cities and towns. I hope that through the continued advocacy of city and town officials, myself, and like-minded legislators, we can turn this around.

Thank you to all those who posted comments on the blog yesterday. What do you think about this issue?

Thought of the Day - 10/27/2009

2009-10-27T10:40:00.000-04:00

According to today's Boston Globe, Middlesex County District Attorney Gerald Leone is going to encourage the Legislature to make it easier for sexually dangerous predators to be committed to prison.

Right now, offenders have the ability to unilaterally waive their right to a trial by jury when the court decides whether or not to commit them to custody on the basis of their dangerousness and likelihood to reoffend. Under Leone's proposal, prosecutors would have to agree to a jury-waived trial before sending the case to the judge. His rationale is that Middlesex County juries have been almost twice as likely as judges to find reason to commit sex offenders to custody over the past decade, so giving prosecutors the power to keep cases in the hands of the jury increases the odds that dangerous offenders will be committed.

I'm encouraged that there is renewed attention being paid to this issue, because I think we need better protections in place to deal with sexual predators. To start, I think we need better monitoring of convicted sex offenders, and we should require judges to make written findings relative to all sex crimes and GPS monitoring requirements. That would make the process more accountable and transparent to the general public. I also support Melissa's Bill, which is the subject of a compelling letter to the editor in today's Boston Herald. Additionally, we should have prison sentences for first offenses of rape of a child or sexual assault, which is something I have advocated for the past several years.

I find DA Leone's statistics alarming, especially in light of the recent case involving David Flavell and his alleged sexual assault at Mass. General Hospital. It's clear that we need better ways of dealing with sexually dangerous offenders. I look forward to hearing his arguments in favor of this bill and I hope it will be debated by the Legislature soon as part of a broader initiative.

We need to start taking decisive action against sex offenders to prevent them from reoffending. When people like David Flavell, Michael Gentile and Corey Saunders demonstrate an inability to function in society because of their strong likelihood to commit another violent sexual offense, I think we have a moral imperative to take them off the streets and put them behind bars so as to protect the public.

That's my opinion. What do you think? Feel free to post a comment below or to e-mail me at karyn@karynpolito.com.

Thought of the Day - 10/26/2009

2009-10-26T11:11:00.000-04:00

There's a front page story in the Boston Globe today that says the economy is forecast to grow by about 2 percent over the next year, but over the same time employers are expecting to cut about 37,000 more jobs in this state.

It's great news that the economy might be on the rebound, but that's cold comfort to people who have lost jobs or who are about to be laid off. Unemployment in this state is already at its highest level since the 1970's. Finding a job is difficult because, aside from the fact that many companies are still cutting back, many others lack enough confidence in the economy to start hiring again, even if their fiscal situation is improving.

An economic recovery in Massachusetts won’t mean much to average people until it results in jobs coming back to our state, and that's going to take some time and some effort. For its part, state government needs to do whatever it can to help the business community and boost confidence. We need a business policy that is smart and sustainable to lure companies back to the Bay State and to encourage them to stay and grow here.

Statement of Rep. Polito Regarding Sex Offenders and a Recent Attack at Mass. General Hospital

2009-10-23T15:52:00.000-04:00

It’s a story line that keeps repeating itself: a high-level sex offender is caught committing a sexual assault, and a look back at his past shows that he has a lengthy record of sexual violence.

In the most recent incident, the alleged attacker has been in and out of courtrooms since 1996, and was twice deemed by judges to not be a threat to the public.

We need to stop playing “catch-and-release” with sex offenders here in Massachusetts. That responsibility lies with our judicial system to exercise better discretion, and also with the Legislature to enact tougher laws to deal with these violent criminals.

Requiring a hearing and written findings of fact for judges relative to all sex crimes and GPS monitoring requirements would make the process more accountable and transparent to the general public. We also should have prison sentences for first offenses of rape of a child or sexual assault, which is something I have advocated for the past several years.