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.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/29/2009
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.
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.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/28/2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Happy Holidays
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.
On behalf of my husband and our children, I wish you and your family a joyous holiday season.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/22/2009
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.
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.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/21/2009
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.
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.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/18/09
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
A Call to Action
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
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.
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
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:
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.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/15/2009
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.
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.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/14/2009
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.
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.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/11/2009
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.
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.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/10/2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/ 09/2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/08/2009
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.
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.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/07/09
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.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/04/09
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:
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.
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.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/03/09
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.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/02/09
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/01/09
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.
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.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Thought of the Day - 11/30/09
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.
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.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Thought of the Day - 11/27/09
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.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Thought of the Day - 11/25/09
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Thought of the Day - 11/24/09
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.
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.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Thought of the Day - 11/23/09
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.
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.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Thought of the Day - 11/20/09
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.
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.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Thought of the Day - 11/19/09
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Thought of the Day - 11/18/2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Thought of the Day - 11/17/09
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.
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.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Thought of the Day - 11/16/2009
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.
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.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Thought of the Day - 11/13/09
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.
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.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Thought of the Day - 11/12/09
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Happy Veterans Day
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Call to Action
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
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.
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.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Thought of the Day - 11/09/09
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.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Thought of the Day - 11/06/09
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.
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.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Thought of the Day - 11/05/2009
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.
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Thought of the Day - 11/04/2009
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:
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.”
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Thought of the Day - 11/03/2009
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.
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.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Thought of the Day - 11/02/2009
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.
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.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thought of the Day - 10/30/2009
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.
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.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Statement of Representative Karyn Polito on Budget Cuts Announced by Governor Patrick Today
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.
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)