Tomorrow marks the two-year anniversary of the misguided, destructive Supreme Court decision, Citizens United vs FEC, which allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts to influence elections at all levels of government, and to set the political agenda through multi-million dollar advertising campaigns.
As a public servant and representative of the people, I hold the following truth to be self-evident: that democracy should not be bought or sold. As the only Clean Elections candidate elected to public office in Massachusetts history in November 2002, I understand the critical need to reduce the influence of special interest money on elections, and in my time as a legislator, I have continued to fight the influence of money in our political system because it breeds corruption and drowns out the voices of ordinary citizens.
Earlier this week, I was joined by a courageous group of state legislators and advocacy groups in support of a resolution – S722: A Resolution Restoring Free Speech — I’ve filed calling upon the U.S. Congress to send to the states a constitutional amendment that would overturn the decision reached in Citizens United and restore our ability to regulate corporate political spending.
You can watch video of the press conference here:
We are already seeing the effects of the Citizens United decision on our elections. Just a few days ago, Las Vegas casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson cut a $5 million check to support Newt Gingrich’s presidential bid. Super PACs have already spent $28.5 million on advertising in the Republican presidential campaign—and we are nearly a year away from the election!
If we are to live up to our ideal of a democracy of the people, for the people, and by the people, we must end the system of politics-to–the-highest-bidder.
In the short-term, I have proposed S304: An Act Relative to Disclosure of Political Spending, which would require corporations to disclose their political spending and to identify themselves in advertisements that they fund. Additionally, I have filed S305: An Act Relative to Accountability for Corporate Political Spending, which would require corporations to receive prior approval from the board of directors before committing funds for political purposes, and to notify shareholders of those expenditures.
The only long-term solution, however, is to pass a constitutional amendment overturning the decision.
Massachusetts has been a pioneer in progressive causes, from universal health care to gay marriage. Let’s make Massachusetts a first again—this time in calling upon Congress to pass this critical amendment.
If you support these bills and want to see them become law, please be sure to contact your representatives and let them know. You can look up your State Representative and State Senators and find contact information here.
The bill will be heard by the Judiciary Committee on February 28th at 1pm.
By enacting these reforms we can ensure that elections are truly decided by “we the people,” and not corporate special interests
Growing up in Acton, Massachusetts (home of one of the W.R. Grace-created toxic sites on the Superfund cleanup list), I’ve long been aware of the problem of cancer-causing chemicals in our water and soil. In my time in the Legislature, filing and passing bills to keep these toxic chemicals out of our environment has been one of my top priorities.
I’m particularly pleased to note, then, that two top-priority environmental bills – An Act Relative to Information Technology Producer Responsibility and An Act for a Competitive Economy Through Safer Alternatives to Toxic Chemicals — received a favorable report from the Joint Committee on the Environment & Natural Resources a few weeks ago. Receiving a favorable committee report is the first big step in the legislative process, and it’s good news that both bills were reported out in the first year of the two-year legislative session.
An Act Relative to Information Technology Producer Responsibility, commonly referred to as the E-waste Bill, is based in part on a bill I filed earlier this session, An Act to Require Producer Responsibility for Collection, Reuse and Recycling of Discarded Electronic Products. The bill requires producers of electronic waste, such as computers, televisions and printers, to be financially responsible for the proper disposal of their products.
E-waste makes up the fastest growing portion of trash collected by cities and towns in the Commonwealth, with Massachusetts residents discarding over 8 million pounds of e-waste in 2006. These products contain significant amounts of toxic substances, including lead, mercury, cadmium and beryllium, which are both harmful to the environment and cause various health problems, including brain damage and kidney problems. Currently, when disposed of, these products often go into landfills, where toxic chemicals can leach into our water and soil, or are exported to developing countries, contributing to high levels of pollution and serious health risks.
Sixteen other states and New York City already have similar legislation in place to regulate the disposal of electronic waste. I believe passing this legislation will both boost recycling industry in Massachusetts and help to ensure that Massachusetts does not contribute to the pollution problems of other countries.
An Act for a Competitive Economy through Safer Alternatives to Toxic Chemicals, known as the Safer Alternatives Bill, is a bill I’ve proudly cosponsored for several sessions now. This bill will create a pragmatic and flexible program in Massachusetts to replace toxic chemicals with safer alternatives wherever feasible.
There is growing evidence that the use of toxic chemicals contributes to the development of chronic diseases and disorders, including asthma, birth defects, cancers, developmental disabilities, diabetes, endometriosis, infertility, Parkinson’s disease, and others. Reducing our reliance on toxic chemicals will help us protect our health. This legislation will help protect our health by establishing a unique program to promote non-toxic alternatives to chemicals currently in use.
Passing these two bills would make a big difference in the fight to keep toxic chemicals out of our soil and drinking water, and I’ll continue working to see them brought to the floor of the Senate and passed into law this year.
Want to know how your taxpayer dollars are being spent, down to the last dime? Thanks to a new website launched yesterday, now you can.
The Open Checkbook Project – www.mass.gov/opencheckbook — is an easy-to-use, comprehensive state spending website that includes “checkbook level” detail about spending at all levels of state government: executive, legislative and judiciary.
Increasing transparency in government has been a top priority of mine during my time in office. At a time when we are making massive cuts in every area of our budget, it’s more important than ever that we examine where every single public dollar is going, and what impact it is having. This new transparency tool will promote efficiency, discourage waste, provide a check on corruption, and give us all valuable insight into how our dollars are being spent.
The project is the result of years of work from the Legislature, the Patrick-Murray Administration, Treasurer Steve Grossman, and advocacy groups such as Common Cause and MassPIRG.
Last year, the Legislature passed new transparency and accountability reforms as part of our FY2011 budget. I was proud to be a co-sponsor of the original bill – SB1410, An Act Relative to Transparency in State Revenues and Expenditures – and worked with a team of fellow legislators to see the reforms incorporated into the budget last year. The launch of the Open Checkbook website is a great reminder that it is possible to create change with the actions of just a few individuals — you just have to be persistent, collaborative, and know what you want to change.
In particular, I worked to make sure that information about refundable tax expenditures would be included in this public website. At a time when yet another state budget has made serious cuts to core essential services, it is outrageous that corporate subsidies continue to flow to corporations unexamined and we don’t have the public information or data to determine if this is the best investment of taxpayer dollars.
Although that information is not yet posted on the website, the details will be included — as required by the initial statute we passed — in the second phase of the website, along with more spending information by quasi public agencies and municipalities.
The website currently includes detailed spending information for:
I hope you’ll check out this new website, and let me know your thoughts!
Even as we celebrate this step forward, there’s always more to do. Just today, we learned that former Governor Romney spent $100,000 in state funds to hide his administration’s records from the public, an outrageous but apparently legal loophole that the Legislature should act quickly to close.
You can learn more about the bills I’ve filed to increase government transparency here in the Commonwealth. Whether it’s increasing public access to information about state spending, promoting transparency and accountability for corporate tax subsidies, or strengthening our public records laws, I’m committed to the work of making our government more transparent and more responsive to the people, as it was meant to be.
Over the past few years, frustration with the increasing power that corporations have on our political system has been growing across the country.
Whether it has been the debate over healthcare reform, financial reform and consumer protection, or clean air and water regulations, we’ve seen time and time again the very real impact corporate lobbyists and corporate political spending have on our policymaking process, with corporate profits trumping the needs of average people over and over.
We’ve seen some of that frustration coming to a head at the Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Boston, and other political protests happening across the country, with the influence of corporate dollars on our democracy becoming one of the main concerns of protestors.
But you don’t have to be a protestor or “occupy” anything other than your own living room to agree that we’ve got a real and growing problem with corporate political spending in America, and that something needs to be done about it.
This problem was made worse in January 2010, when, on a 5-4 vote, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court struck down bipartisan legislation that had limited corporations from spending their general treasury funds on political advertisements during the months preceding an election.
Now, for-profit corporations may spend unlimited amounts of their general treasury funds to influence elections at all levels of government.
The danger is real: if Exxon Mobil had spent just 2 percent of its 2008 profits in the last presidential election, it would have outspent McCain and Obama combined.
And the danger of undue corporate influence isn’t only for national elections. Indeed, the biggest danger to our democracy might be at the local level. A large developer seeking a change in a local zoning law, for example, could spend tens of thousands of dollars to influence a board of selectman race – small peanuts to the company, perhaps, but a substantial amount of money for that small local race. A selectman who opposed the company could never compete financially with the flood of advertising.
Corporate lobbyists and other powerful special interests will be able to threaten public officials at all levels with the possibility of unending negative campaign ads if their agendas are not supported — and the voices of ordinary citizens could be drowned out of the electoral process.
Over the past several years, with the help of Common Cause, Mass Vote, the League of Women Voters, Mass PIRG and Free Speech for People, I’ve worked on legislation to blunt the impact of this reckless decision.
I introduced this legislation at the end of last session and filed these bills again this year. These bills were heard today by the Joint Committee on Elections:
An Act relative to disclosure of political spending
This bill will address the problems created by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC by requiring new levels of disclosure and transparency for corporate political spending and prohibiting foreign corporations from influencing elections in Massachusetts.
An Act relative to accountability for corporate political spending
This bill would require corporations spending general treasury funds on political advertisements to notify their shareholders of those expenditures in quarterly reports. Additionally, this bill would require corporate managers to get approval from their board of directors prior to spending general treasury funds on political ads.
I also filed a Resolution restoring free speech, which requests the Congress of the United States to send to the states an amendment to the Constitution to correct the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. This resolution would clarify that Freedom of Speech is a right of citizens, not corporations. That bill is currently before the Judiciary committee.
By enacting these reforms we can ensure that elections are truly decided by “we the people,” and not corporate special interests.
The Joint Committee on Higher Education held a hearing today on a bill I’ve co-sponsored and proudly support: S566, An Act Regarding Higher Education Opportunities for High School Graduates in the Commonwealth.
This bill would allow students who have attended high school in the Commonwealth for three or more years, have graduated or attained the equivalent thereof in the Commonwealth, have a Taxpayer Identification Number, and who have registered for the Selective Service where required to be eligible to pay in-state tuition rates and fees at Massachusetts state colleges, universities, or community colleges
The American dream has always been that the generation that succeeds us should have a better standard of living than we do. I believe we should be making sure that young men and women have the ability to make a better life for themselves and their future families than their parents had – but unless they have the opportunity to gain a college education, that isn’t likely to happen.
I understand that many people have concerns about extending this opportunity to students who are undocumented. I think it’s important to note that the students we are talking about came to this country when they were very young, brought here by their parents through no choice of their own. Most have lived here as long as they can remember, and consider America to be their home. These are students who have attended school alongside your own children for years, who worked hard to achieve good grades, who are tax-paying members of our state and country, and in many cases who are serving our country in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I became passionate about this issue after meeting a young man in Acton. For the purpose of this blog, let’s call him Emilio. Emilio came to Massachusetts from Brazil with his mother when he was very young. She cannot afford to pay the out-of-state tuition rate for a state school, so he has been going to school credit by credit, semester by semester, for about eight years to earn his degree. In the meantime, he works at a supermarket to make ends meet. Emilio is a bright, capable young man, and he feels like he can be so much more and do so much more, but he is held back by not being able to earn a degree. He pays taxes, did well in school, and has never been in a lick of trouble with the law. He is a fine, upstanding citizen in all senses of the word but one. There is a basic unfairness to this – and a loss to the Commonwealth – because this young man is being prevented from reaching his full potential.
Because of the moral implications of this law, I would support it even if it cost the state money. But in fact, it will generate revenue for the state – not a small consideration in these difficult fiscal times. According to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, it would generate between $1.8 million and $2.1 million in the first year of implementation, and between $6.4 million and $7.4 million by the fourth year. How, you ask? According to the MTF, the tuition and fee payments, even at in-state rates, would represent net revenues to the state, since public colleges would incur little or no added costs in accommodating the small number of students we’re talking about – a few hundred students per year.
The Commonwealth would also see a long-term gain, as it helps create a more educated, more productive, and more stable workforce. We’re all better off as more people gain degrees, and the education and skills they need to contribute to our growing economy.
Although in recent years immigration has become an incredibly polarizing issue, in many states this isn’t seen as a conservative issue or a liberal one – just a matter of common sense. At least 11 other states have recognized the benefits of this law and passed similar legislation—states that are hardly bastions of liberalism, including Texas, Utah, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Kansas. These have been bipartisan bills in these other states, having been signed into law by Republican Governors in Texas and Utah.
Whether you approach this issue as a matter of fairness, a matter of economics, or a matter of revenue, passing this bill is the right thing to do,
If you ever find yourself looking for a great example of how corporate concerns (read: profits) can come to trump the health and safety concerns of consumers, I’d suggest stopping by a legislative hearing on toxic chemicals.
The Joint Committee on the Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture, of which I am Senate Vice Chair, held a hearing today on several bills, including S397, An Act for a Competitive Economy through Safer Alternatives to Toxic Chemicals (typically referred to as the “Safer Alternatives” bill). This bill, which was filed by Senator Tolman and Representative Kaufman, will reduce exposure to toxic chemicals that are linked to many serious health problems by setting up new approaches to identify the worst chemicals in widespread use and identifying and encouraging safe alternatives to those chemical ingredients.
As we heard at today’s hearing, there is strong evidence that exposure to toxic chemicals contribute significantly to the rise in many chronic diseases – cancers, childhood leukemia, learning disabilities, reproductive disorders, and many other chronic health problems. Recent reports also suggest a connection between toxics in our environment and the rise of autism rates.
And yet we know that it is often possible to manufacture products in ways that are safer and that reduce exposure to these toxic, cancer-causing chemicals.
Under this bill, if an economically feasible safer alternative to the toxic chemical is found for a particular use, and the chemical presents a high hazard to Massachusetts residents and workers, a state-run program will assist businesses, technically and at times financially, in making a transition to the safer alternative.
Unfortunately, the bill is still opposed by large corporations and their lobbying associations, whose concerns for profits trumps any concerns they may have about the health and safety of Massachusetts consumers, particularly children.
The Retailers Association of Massachusetts noted in their testimony before the committee today that the “preservation and protection of the public health is and always has been a priority for [their membership].” The Toy Industry of American told us that “protecting the safety of our young consumers is our top priority.”
Somehow I find it difficult to take these statements at face value, given how strongly they have opposed measures to promote safer alternatives to toxic chemicals over the years. Indeed, it is the opposition from groups like these that has stalled the Safer Alternatives bill in the legislature for several sessions, despite strong support from many members.
Not every business leader opposes the bill, however. I listened with interest to the testimony of Ted Saunders, the owner of the Saunders Hotel Group and a member of the Progressive Business Leaders Network, who talked about the steps he had taken, in his own businesses, to reduce the use of toxic chemicals, resulting in fewer health problems for his employees and consumers. Mr. Saunders also noted that these decisions ultimately improved his company’s bottom line, by attracting more hotel customers.
The fact is, it’s possible to reduce exposure to toxic chemicals in a way that also supports economic growth – a win-win situation for everyone.
But most importantly, reducing everyone’s exposure to toxic chemicals is the right thing to do, and we should do it as soon as possible. By passing this bill, we can improve the quality and length of life for millions of Massachusetts residents.
It’s time to put consumer interests over corporate interests, and pass the Safer Alternatives bill this session.
Today’s youth are bombarded with a multitude of financial options and responsibilities at an increasingly young age. One out of every three teenagers has a credit card, and even more have an ATM card. Yet many are ill-equipped to make informed decisions about financial matters.
They don’t understand fundamental principles of money management and the larger economy. As a result, teenagers are at a disadvantage when making important first financial decisions: buying a car, taking part or full-time employment, and using credit cards.
This is why I’ve filed legislation this year, An Act Relative to Financial Literacy in Schools (S2014), that would require that personal financial literacy be integrated into existing Math frameworks for all schools in the Commonwealth.
The curriculum would include information on loans, borrowing money, interest, credit card debt, online commerce, rights and responsibilities of renting or buying a home, saving, investing and planning for retirement, and banking and financial services.
That bill was heard by the Joint Committee on Education earlier today, and I testified today to ask the committee to give the bill a favorable report. This bill, which was originally sponsored by State Senator Susan Tucker, was passed – unanimously – by the Senate last session. Our hope this year is to pass it in both the Senate and the House, and get it to the Governor’s desk for his signature.
Financial education bills have the support of Treasurer Steven Grossman. Treasurer Grossman has done an excellent job articulating the vision that financial literacy for all citizens is important because we should all be savers and safe investors and responsible financial citizens are a benefit to the Commonwealth.
Financial literacy isn’t just a matter of education policy, however – it’s also an important anti-poverty tool to help low- and moderate-income families move up the economic ladder.
In June of 2009 the Asset Development Commission released a report to examine what it meant to be low-to-moderate income in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, what help the state provides families in achieving economic stability, and what barriers are standing in their way. I was proud to serve as Co-Chair of that commission.
The commission found that financial education is particularly important for low and moderate-income families, for whom the challenge of navigating the increasingly complex financial services world is even more difficult than for other families. Ultimately, the commission recommended that the Commonwealth implement financial education in schools to better prepare youth, particularly those who are low-income, for the financial decisions of the future.
By teaching children the financial education basics in school, we will help them make educated financial decisions in the future, preventing future bankruptcies, foreclosures, and unmanageable debt.
This is a result that’s good for society as well as for individuals. Over the long term, the investment we make in teaching children financial literacy now will help strengthen our economy and prevent future economic crises.
Health care cost control is a hot topic on Beacon Hill these days, as the Legislature begins to consider various proposals by Governor Patrick and others to reform our health care system in various ways to reduce health care costs.
I’m proud that Massachusetts has been an innovator in universal health care reform, which in recent years has expanded health insurance coverage to nearly 98% of Massachusetts residents.
But as we all know all too well, for many Massachusetts families, having health insurance coverage is different from having access to quality, affordable health care –and rising costs threaten to undo much of the work that we have accomplished.
It’s clear the Legislature needs to do something to stem the tide of rising health care costs. I testified this morning at the Health Care Finance committee hearing on some of my proposals for reducing health care costs while improving access to care. (Read my testimony here.)
I’ve believed for a long time that the most effective way of controlling health care costs in Massachusetts while improving access to and quality of care would be a measured transition to a single payer “Medicare for All” health care system.
I’ve filed legislation this session that would do just that. “An Act Establishing Medicare for All” would create a single-payer health care system for Massachusetts, guaranteeing first rate health care coverage for every resident of the state, while saving money for state and local government, businesses, and residents.
Massachusetts can and should also look to Vermont, which looks like it will be starting the process of establishing a single-payer system for its residents later this year.
Given the current political climate, building the support necessary to pass a single-payer bill is a longer term goal. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t solid steps we can take to expand access to affordable health care.
This morning, I encouraged the Health Care Finance Committee to consider the inclusion of a public health insurance option – such as the one President Obama and Congressional Democrats have championed – in any cost-control healthcare reform presented this session.
A public option will help expand access to quality and affordable healthcare for all residents of the Commonwealth in two key ways.
First, a public plan could operate without excessive administrative and marketing costs, high executive salaries or a need to generate profits. Medicare, for example, uses about 2% of its funding for overhead and administration, compared to nearly 10% for most private insurance companies. A strong public option would allow citizens in both the public and the private sector to choose an insurance plan, run like Medicare, which preserves comprehensive coverage while maintaining lower premiums.
In addition, having a meaningful number of options available to Massachusetts families is a necessary component of a health care system that strives to control costs. In Massachusetts, three insurance companies have a combined market share of nearly 70% of the health insurance market. Having a public option would give Massachusetts families more choices and thereby increase competition and innovation to reduce costs.
As a result, a public option could provide a good deal for consumers and keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers well by acting as a benchmark for affordability and quality of care.
Over the long term, I believe the only way to truly guarantee affordable, universal high quality health care is to implement a Medicare for All system. In the short term, however, giving Massachusetts residents a public insurance option would be a great way to help reduce skyrocketing health care costs.
Cross-posted on Health Care for All’s A Healthy Blog
In this tight budget environment, lawmakers are always looking for those magic bullets: ways we can improve services AND save money. I joined Health Care for All, state Health and Human Services Secretary Judy Bigby, and Christie Hager, US Department of Health and Human Services Regional Director of Region 1 at the State House yesterday to talk about one of those rare policy solutions: a bill I’ve filed with Representative Ellen Story to establish 12-month continuous eligibility for children and their parents under MassHealth.
Thanks to our health care reform law, Massachusetts has done a very good job providing health coverage for children – but we’ve done less of a good job keeping children continuously insured. As the Boston Globe pointed out yesterday, thousands of Massachusetts children remain without coverage, often because they fall through cracks in the system.
Health Care for All has launched an Enrollment Challenge, with 65 organizations across the state pledging to help connect at least 500 kids to coverage during the month of May. To compliment this great effort, Massachusetts should do what it can to address problems in the system by eliminating those bureaucratic cracks so kids on MassHealth don’t encounter coverage gaps in the first place.
By allowing eligible families to maintain their MassHealth coverage for a full year without having to reapply, we can help eliminate health care coverage gaps for children – and save the state money by reducing the administrative costs associated with reviewing multiple applications and reapplications from eligible families. Whether you care about health care for children or reducing unnecessary bureaucracy (or both), it’s a win-win situation.
Children lose their MassHealth coverage – despite remaining eligible for the program – for a variety of reasons. Household income can fluctuate, a family may be unable to pay the required premium contribution, or a family can change their address and forget to notify MassHealth. As noted in the Globe, paperwork glitches on either end – government or family – can also cause coverage to be dropped.
Too often, parents have to delay preventative care for their children because they don’t have health insurance, or are in a “coverage gap,” and can’t afford the medical bills. By passing continuous-eligibility legislation, we can help improve this situation for many children.
Massachusetts is still a leader in health care in many areas, but when it comes to continuous eligibility, we’re behind. Thirty-two other states have already adopted changes to their health care programs in order to ensure 12 month continuous eligibility for children and their families. I look forward to the Commonwealth joining with those other parts of the country by passing this legislation into law later this session.
Before a bill can be passed by the Legislature, it must get a public hearing by the appropriate legislative committee — and every bill that is “timely filed” (i.e., by the mid-January deadline at the beginning of session) is guaranteed a hearing.
That means that May and June of the first year of session tend to be jam-packed with legislative hearings, with sometimes 10 (or more!) hearings happening each week on a wide variety of bills.
Last week was one of those particularly busy, hearing-filled weeks for our office. I chaired and/or attended several hearings, testified at hearings in support of legislation I’ve filed or others have filed, and testified in opposition to bills being heard at yet another hearing.
Before I tell you about those hearings, however, I’d like to give you a little back ground on the public hearing and committee process.
About Public Hearings
A public hearing is a chance for supporters and opponents of the bill — be they legislators, lobbyists and advocates for various causes and organizations, or citizens who would be affected — to come and make their case before the committee.
Jamie testifying at a Public Hearing
Why should the committee support the bill, or why should they oppose it? Who would be affected by this legislation, and what do they think of it? Are there changes that should be made to the bill to make it more effective, or unexpected problems certain parts of the bill would cause?
The Role of the Committee
It’s the job of the committee — and in particular, the House and Senate chairs — to listen to the testimony, ask clarifying questions, and, ultimately, make a recommendation as to what should be done with the bill.
Often bills are redrafted or combined with other bills, taking the testimony from the public hearing into account.
If a committee believes a bill is good public policy, they will “report the bill out favorably” (otherwise known as saying the bill “ought to pass”). From there, it will go onto another committee — either an additional policy committee, or to the Committee on Ways & Means if it deals with finances and spending, or to the Committee on Steering & Policy, which decides when bills come to the floor.
If a committee believes a bill is bad public policy, they will report it out unfavorably (“ought not to pass”), which is generally the end of the line for a bill.
Large crowd turns out for hearing on Act to Invest in Our Communities
Finally, if the committee believes it isn’t the right time to pass the bill, or that it needs more consideration, they’ll “send the bill to study.” Although it is possible to report a bill that has been sent to study out favorably later in the session, this typically means the bill is dead for that legislative session.
Housing Committee
As the Senate Chair of the Housing Committee, it’s my job, working with my counterpart in the House and the other Housing Committee members, to scrutinize and make a recommendation on what should be done with each bill regarding housing that’s filed this session. Topics our committee handles include affordable housing and the 40B law, homelessness, housing production, housing safety, condo association laws, and (typically in conjunction with the Judiciary Committee) foreclosure.
The Housing Committee held its first hearing this past Tuesday, focusing on legislation dealing with public housing. We’ll have another hearing next Tuesday, this time focusing on bills dealing with homelessness.
Other Legislative Hearings this Week
In addition to helping chair the Housing Committee meeting, I’ve given testimony at numerous hearings last week on a wide variety of bills:
As the Vice Chair of the Environment Committee, which heard the bill, I also had the pleasure of listening to testimony from lobbyists and citizens who supported and opposed the measure. I might be a bit partial, but I have to admit I found the concise, professional, well-reasoned testimony prepared by students from Brookline High in support of the bill to be far more convincing than the arguments from the corporate lobbyists opposing it!
Press Conference in Support of An Act to Invest in Our Communities
This bill takes a balanced approach to the fiscal crisis facing us by raising revenue to maintain the services we need and value. By asking more from high income households and investors who received large windfalls from the Bush tax cuts, while raising the personal exemption as a way to hold down the tax increase for middle-class families, the bill raises needed revenue primarily from those who can best afford to pay. With that revenue, we can keep the quality schools and services that make our state a good place to live and do business.
You can learn more about the bill here.
Campaign Constituent
I met with 2 constituents today in Marlborough, disgusted w/ influence of corp power in state & fed govt; we need campaign fin reforms NOW #
