Crossposted at BlueMassGroup

There are two articles in the Boston Globe today, dealing with very different subjects but absolutely related, that we wanted to call your attention to.

First up: Budget Cuts will Imperil State’s Poor:

The state estimates that the children of 9,100 families with parents so severely disabled that they qualify for federal Supplemental Security Income benefits will lose their state cash assistance as a result of the $600 million in budget cuts that Governor Deval Patrick announced late last month.

And second, Disclose who benefits from special tax breaks:

A group of lawmakers wants to revive a proposed requirement under which state officials who administer so-called refundable tax breaks would have to identify the recipients, the number of jobs created, and the average salaries of those jobs. The rule is wise and well worth adopting.

Last summer, we wrote to update you on a measure in the budget that we, and a group of other legislators, have been pushing - a transparency provision which would require state agencies that administer refundable tax credits to report annually the names of recipients, the size of the credits, and the number of jobs produced, providing us with the information we need to effectively manage the public’s money and a measure of accountability as to the cost effectiveness of tax credits.

At a time of extreme budget cuts, this provision is even more important. Tens of millions of dollars go out in the form of refundable tax credits every year - and yet legislators, and the public, have no idea where the money is going or what effect it’s having.

How can we cut services, like those detailed in the first Globe article, to below the bone and still refuse to even look at the impact and effectiveness of the money we spend on tax credits?

During budget deliberations this year, we had many discussions on raising revenue. But it’s also important that we make sure we know how that revenue is being spent, particularly when it comes to tax breaks for corporations. These tax breaks might be effective; they might not. The truth is that right now, we simply don’t know.

We’ve spent the last few months talking to our colleagues, and we know there is support among many of them for tax credit transparency. But if this proposal isn’t brought up for a vote, then that support doesn’t matter. The Legislature’s last formal session of the year is tomorrow.

If you agree with us on this issue, we urge you to please contact your legislators and ask for their support. Then ask them to go a step further, and let House and Senate leadership know that this issue is important to them and they’d like to see it come up for a vote.

Sincerely,

Senator Jamie Eldridge & Representative Carl Sciortino

I’m happy to report I was discharged from Spaulding Rehabilitation Center on Tuesday, and am now recovering at home. Following are some thoughts I pulled together during my time at Spaulding:

After undergoing three surgeries at Mass. General Hospital, I was sent to my next ordeal: physical rehabilitation. In Massachusetts, patients are fortunate to have a number of excellent options of rehabilitation hospitals, including Spaulding, which is located right next to North Station in Boston. I was transferred to Spaulding almost two weeks ago.

Being in the Spinal Cord Injury Unit is an immediately sobering experience. About half of the patients here are permanently disabled, most of them young men who were either engaged in some reckless behavior or met their fate in a freak accident. While medical advances allow them to get around in hi-tech wheelchairs and the therapy they receive gives some of them a chance to someday be able to move their arms or more, their reality was incredibly depressing. It made me feel incredibly grateful my injuries are not permanent disabilities, and that I will recover from them within a few months.

To see the nurses, assistants, therapists, and other rehab team members work with the patients is incredibly inspiring. Their positive attitudes in working with patients who have such significant challenges is part of the reason, in my opinion, that patients do improve at Spaulding. The daily regimen is intense but fair, and it’s amazing to see how quickly the body can improve itself.

While the intensive therapy I received prevented me from really getting to know the other patients that well, the close living quarters and conversations with staff reveal very quickly that these dedicated men and women battle the U.S. health care system every day in trying to do the best for their patients.

One day I overheard a young, permanently disabled man outside my room inform a fellow patient that he was being discharged a week early from Spaulding. It wasn’t that his therapy team had decided he was ready to go to the next level - it was that his insurance company had determined that they would not pay for any further comprehensive therapy at Spaulding. He was headed home, and he really wasn’t sure what he would be able to do to improve his current physical limitations.

When I spoke with one of my nurses about this, she told me how things had changed in health care over the course of her twenty-three years at Spaulding. When she first started, a patient with such injuries could stay for 9 to 12 months. Today, insurance companies push for an early discharge, or simply include in their policies a cut-off date for paying for such services.

As an elected official, I hear stories like this often. But being there at the rehabilitation facility as a patient myself, and seeing these cruel policies implemented right before my eyes, really drove the point home. How is it that in the richest country in the world, this is how our health care system works? How exactly do the for-profit forces stop the rest of us from changing the system overnight, and ending this outrage?

There must be a way to provide for the full needs of every patient who is brought in on a wheelchair or gurney to this floor, and the thousands of other medical floors in this country where Americans are also suffering, and to improve their quality of life with enough attention and dedication from medical experts. I continue to believe that if we all came together on this national embarrassment, the changes that need to be made would sweep the country.

Yet clearly, as we have seen in the current debate on health care in Washington, D.C., change is an uphill battle. I do believe that the national health care reform that President Obama and the Democratic Congress are working on will improve the American health care system — yet I wonder if we, the people, will have the political will to make the changes in our system necessary to ensure that the patients at Spaulding can stay until they’re ready to go home.

On the morning of October 7th, 2009, I suffered a one-minute seizure that broke some of the bones in my back, strained my spine, and tore my right shoulder out of its socket. Given the seriousness of the injuries that I sustained, I was rushed to Mass. General Hospital.

I don’t remember any of the above — but I do remember being relieved that I was at MGH once I became aware of what was going on, because I knew that I’d be getting arguably the best medical care in the world to fix my injuries. Just taking in the scene of doctors and nurses looking after me, I felt extremely relieved to live in Massachusetts and have access to such excellent health care.

The reason I had access to this care was, of course, because I am lucky enough to have comprehensive health care through the state GIC, which would cover the three surgeries, extended care, and rehab necessary for me to recover from my injuries. It is impossible to overstate what peace of mind this gave me, my family and loved ones.

But what about those patients at MGH, and across the country, who don’t have health insurance as comprehensive as mine, or health insurance at all? What peace of mind is there for their families at an incredibly difficult time?

As a patient, I wanted to be sure I would receive the highest quality medical care possible, and that I would be able to enjoy the same basic quality of life I had before my injury. And of course my fellow patients at MGH, many of whom were less well-off than I was, had the same hopes and expectations.

But as I lay in bed, knowing that I was lucky enough to have excellent health insurance that would cover my treatment, I couldn’t help but thinking over and over about those who weren’t so lucky.

I’ve been a strong proponent of a “Medicare for All” health care system since first joining the Massachusetts Legislature seven years ago. I believe a single-payer system like this will best achieve the health care reform goals that many of us share, from providing health care coverage for the uninsured to improving coverage for current health insurance members, reducing health care costs, and simplifying the country’s health care delivery system.

But over the past month, as I have been focused on health care as a patient, rather than as an elected official, I’ve become more and more convinced that any health care reform we make - single payer or otherwise - must start with the agreement that access to quality health care should be a right in this country.

There is a basic quality of care we all deserve when we are sick or injured. Yet without establishing health care as a right, there is no guarantee that every other Massachusetts citizen would be treated like I have been. In fact, absence government intervention, there are strong market, financial, and societal incentives that make it highly likely that no basic standard of treatment will exist.

As a society, we all benefit when individual members have access to quality health care. In my case, had I not received the right treatment within a relatively short amount of time, my life would have been changed dramatically, limiting my ability to be the most productive citizen that I could possibly be, and my ability to contribute to society, .

It’s the same for anyone else in a similar situation: good health care improves productivity, and the lack of it worsens the quality of life for each of us.

In the United States, within the basic framework of positive and negative rights found in our U.S. or state constitutions, the establishment of a right ensures that regardless of a person’s background (economic circumstances, race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.), he or she is able to freely access certain services from the government. In Massachusetts, this ranges from the right to free speech and assembly to the right to public education, with guaranteed equal treatment of all people by the government.

The facts that I have excellent health insurance, live in a state that has long prioritized health care towards its citizens and that is home to the best doctors and nurses in the country, and have a job that provides paid sick leave to allow me the time to properly recover without falling into deep economic insecurity all but guarantees I will make the best recovery possible (in my case, a full recovery). However, not every Massachusetts resident - and certainly not every American - is as fortunate as I am.

Until we define health care as a right, there will continue to be Americans like those I have met over the past month, whose lives will be irreversibly thrown off-track by an accident or illness, whose financial insecurity will lead to greater physical problems, whose lives will be changed forever because they lacked access to quality health care.

I can think of few other instances of government assistance that would have as dramatic an impact on people’s lives as a right to health care, and that would make every community richer.

Dear friends, family, constituents and co-workers,

I have now been discharged from MGH for six days, after successfully undergoing three surgeries to repair the damage from the seizure I incurred on October 7^th.  Since being discharged, I have been in physical rehabilitation at the Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, next to North Station in Boston, and one of the best rehab facilities in the country.

Per the doctor’s orders, I spend about 3 hours a day on occupational and physical therapy, and the rest of the day resting from my injuries, making phone calls, responding to emails, and seeing visitors.

Since completing my three surgeries (a week ago from Friday), I’ve also been able to review State House mail, including cards and messages from constituents, co-workers, and family and friends.  I am absolutely overwhelmed by the kind, appreciative and thoughtful correspondence that I’ve received, from everyday citizens to the state’s highest political leadership.  I can’t thank everyone enough for your support and well wishes as I work to get back on my feet.

Your cards sustain me, keep me occupied when I’m not doing physical rehab, and get me excited to get back to work, and back to a normal life.

Until then, keep your messages coming, and please keep me in your thoughts and prayers.  I am making great progress at Spaulding, and I believe part of the reason for that is the positive thoughts people are directing my way.

In addition, I am doing my best to get back to people who call me, email or write me, but it is taking time.  If you haven’t heard back from me yet, my staff and family are helping me keep track of who has been in touch, and I look forward to re-connecting with you over the next couple of months.

Best wishes,

Jamie

Today I testified in front of the Joint Committee on Education for one of the bills I’ve filed this session: H486, An Act Relative to An Act Relative to Enhancing English Opportunities for All Students in the Commonwealth.

The goal of this bill is to improve our system so that ALL students in the Commonwealth who are learning English have the opportunity to become proficient and perform at the level of their native English speaking peers.

As the number of non-native English speakers increases in my district and across the Commonwealth, it’s vitally important - both for the well-being of these students, and for the success of our overall economy - that we make sure these kids are learning English in our schools.

In a state where 14% of residents are foreign-born, a failure by Massachusetts public schools to teach English to the children of immigrants will have a chilling effect on the quality of life of thousands of young adults.

But the research on the state of our current system of teaching Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students is clear: we’re doing abysmally, and failing thousands of students.

LEP students have higher dropout rates than any other group (10.4% for LEP students, compared to 3.6% for non-LEP), and the performance disparity between LEP students and their native English-speaking peers is rising disproportionately.

Quite simply, our system as it stands is horribly ineffective at reaching its goals: helping students become proficient in English.

The bill I’ve proposed would give school districts the choice of what English language programs to offer and holds them accountable for their implementation and effectiveness.

It would increase program flexibility for English Language Learners (ELLs), which research clearly shows is the single best way to make sure students learn English. After all, not everyone learns in the same way, and our instructional system should reflect that. School districts would have the flexibility to choose appropriate instruction, including transitional bilingual education, two-way bilingual education, structured English immersion, English as a second language, or other innovative programs.

The bill would also increase accountability, by requiring that school districts collect data on English language learners and file reports on the programs and curricula that have been implemented to educate them, and the outcomes of these programs

Finally, it would increase the role of parents, by requiring that schools notify parents and guardians of the availability of these programs.

We can’t afford not to reform this failing system. Increasing dropout rates for LEP students affect not only those students and their families, but have a negative impact on the economy of the Commonwealth - particularly if those students never become proficient in English.

The idea that we as Massachusetts residents can look the other way, ignoring reality, while thousands of children move through the public schools to a bleak future is not only deeply cynical, but will have a powerful negative effect on quality of life, state revenues, and reliance on state social services.  Massachusetts has always been a place of innovation, especially in the area of education, and it’s time for us to think more broadly, recognizing the diverse and complex makeup of school children in the Commonwealth.

It’s a broken system, and we need to fix it.

On Tuesday, September 15^th, I testified before the Joint Committee on Children and Families on two of my high priority bills.

These bills came out of the work and recommendations of the the Asset Development Commission, which I’ve chaired for the past two years.

S. 37, An Act Removing Barriers to Financial Stability and Asset Development for Low-to-Moderate Income Families proposes to raise asset limits for people receiving different public benefits, in order to allow low and moderate-income families to save money so they can pull themselves out of poverty by going to college, buying a house, or starting a business.  Too often, state policies serve to create more obstacles for poor families that prevent them from breaking the cycle of poverty, and S. 37 would serve to eliminate some of these financial barriers.

S. 38, An Act Relative to Worker’s Pathways for Self-Sufficiency, would allow these same families to better access Education Rewards grant that allow them to go to college or another educational institution, in order to gain the skills to get a better job and move out of poverty.

While I was pleased to testify on these bills, the most inspiring part of the hearing was all of the policymakers, activists, and residents of the Commonwealth who came to tell their stories.

Among the citizens testifying was a woman who had been able to attend Smith College through an Individual Development Account (IDA) program, allowing her to provide a better life for her family.

Another man, on the board of the Crittendon Women’s Union, talked about how his daughter, in part through the benefits of being raised in a middle-class family, has been able to move onto college and have a successful job while a young METCO student of the same age who the family had hosted ended up dropping out of college after graduating from high school because she couldn’t pay the tuition.  There were also dozens of anti-poverty practitioners who talked about how asset development programs have made such a difference in the lives of  their clients, and how increased flexibility in state asset limits could help even more families.

In my remarks to the committee, I made the observation that state government has passed legislation to invest in biotech companies, promote alternative energy, and attract film producers to Massachusetts, all in the name of economic development.  The state needs to be equally vigilant in promoting economic development for those who are less well off in Massachusetts, so that all citizens have a chance to provide a better life for themselves and their children.  I believe that removing asset limits from state policies is a critical part of encouraging this kind of economic development and self-sufficiency.

The recent passing of Senator Edward Kennedy is sad news for all of us who admired his unparalleled leadership, his tenacious advocacy for those in need, and his dedication to fairness and equality for all. He dedicated nearly all of his life to public service, and he played an instrumental role in crafting and passing major pieces of legislation throughout his career that had a real impact on families across the nation, including those in the Middlesex and Worcester district. This is a loss that will be felt deeply across the Commonwealth for years to come.

His passing, and the vacancy in the Senate that it creates, also raises many questions, and leaves our state with a serious problem to consider: should we leave the seat open - and Massachusetts underrepresented - for the next five months while we await the results of a special election, or should we modify existing law to allow for an interim appointment?

I believe that ultimately, a Senator should be elected by the people of the Commonwealth, and I would oppose any effort to take the right of the people to vote in a special election away.

However, a special election wouldn’t take place for five months, leaving Massachusetts underrepresented at a time when many important issues are being debated and resolved on the national level, including the issue so near and dear to Kennedy’s heart, healthcare reform. It was for this reason that, before his passing, Senator Kennedy requested that the Legislature revise current law to allow for an interim appointment - someone to represent Massachusetts in the Senate until the people could make their choice.

My personal feelings have not changed since the last time this issue was debated in 2004.  I have serious misgivings about giving any governor the power to appoint someone to a federal office without some kind of guarantee that they won’t be able to gain an artificial advantage in a subsequent election.  A proposal lacking such a guarantee was put forward in 2004, and I voted against it.

At the beginning of this year’s legislation session in January,  a bill was filed without much fanfare by Representative Robert Koczera, “An Act Relative to Filling a Temporary Vacancy in the United States Senate.”  The bill proposes to changes the laws for the filling a vacancy in the Senate by allowing the Governor to appoint an interim Senator but only after election papers have been filed by all the candidates wishing to participate in the special election to fill the seat, thereby preventing the interim appointee from running in the special election.

In my view, this is a reasonable proposal that maintains the spirit of the reforms passed in 2004, guaranteeing that the people get to choose their next Senator in an election while ensuring that Massachusetts is fully represented in the US Senate throughout the process.  I believe that this bill offers a wise, permanent solution to the problem of vacant statewide seats, and I will support the bill if it comes to a vote on the floor of the State Senate.

Some have suggested that any reconsideration of the laws regarding congressional vacancies would be inappropriate at this time.  I disagree.  Not only would this proposal be worth considering regardless of the unique political circumstances of the moment, but it is precisely because the issues being debated in Congress are such great significance that the legislature should move quickly to give this proposal its full consideration.

For decades Senator Kennedy has made the fight to make sure everyone has access to affordable, high-quality health care his signature issue.  The debate on national health care reform now stands at a critical juncture, and I believe that I have a responsibility to do what I can in order to ensure that the people of Massachusetts do not lose their voice in these deliberations.

Yesterday, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary heard several bills related to criminal records reform.

I’ve been a strong supporter of reform for our Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) system for many years, because I think these reforms are urgently needed to improve public safety, boost our economy, and ensure that our system is treating people fairly and in accordance with our basic notions of justice.

I’m proud to be a co-sponsor of  House Bill 3523/Senate Bill 1608, An Act to Reform CORI, Restore Economic Opportunity and Improve Public Safety. Here is the testimony I submitted to the committee yesterday, detailing the reasons I support the legislation:

Dear Chairwoman Creem and Chairman O’Flaherty,

I am writing in strong support of House Bill 3523/Senate Bill 1608, An Act to Reform CORI, Restore Economic Opportunity and Improve Public Safety.

Our current Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) system is broken, and every day constituents of ours across the Commonwealth are falling through the cracks. The Legislature has grappled with this issue for many years, but the problem is urgent, and the time to pass meaningful CORI reform is now.

Our current criminal records system is outdated, and needs to be changed to reflect the new ways it is being used. By simplifying the sealing process, ending the dissemination of irrelevant, outdated records, and providing employers with the tools they need to better evaluate the risks and benefits of hiring an individual with a CORI record, we can make the process better for employers, community groups, landlords, and law enforcement, as well as those individuals with a CORI record.

This is an issue I often hear about from my constituents. Just last week, a gentleman called our office looking for help finding a job. He had just finished probation, and was hitting dead end after dead end on the job market. Although he had been interviewed for jobs several times, he would never hear from an employer again after they checked his background.  This man was trying hard to get back on his feet and find a job, but the information on his CORI record was blocking him at every turn. It’s difficult in these situations when there is little, as a legislator, you can do to help the individual with a CORI record find work. It is on behalf of these constituents and their families that I write in support of this legislation.

Reforming our CORI system makes sense on three levels: first, as a public safety measure; second as an economic booster, and third (though just as important), as an issue of basic fairness.

Public Safety: Our current CORI system actually makes it more likely that an ex-offender will commit another crime, because of the way it prevents those with CORI records from reintegrating into our system.

The biggest predictor of whether an ex-offender will successfully re-integrate is whether or not they can find adequate housing and employment.  We should be encouraging those who have served their time to find a steady job and stay out of trouble, rather than placing additional barriers in their way. This legislation would remove some of these barriers to reintegration and lower recidivism rates in our communities.

Economic: Our current CORI system also poses difficulties for employers looking to hire the best people possible to fill positions. Because CORI reports are difficult to read and often filled with irrelevant or even inaccurate information (such as cases that were dismissed, or incorrectly entered information), employers often end up rejecting candidates who would otherwise be a good fit. Reforming our CORI system will help employers make better-informed decisions, reducing unnecessary barriers to people seeking employment and helping grow our economy.

Fairness: Finally, CORI reform is at its core about fairness - and the many cracks in our current system show the unfairness that many currently face:

o   Because the system is based on outdated technology, there are literally hundreds of thousands of records that legally should be sealed but aren’t - and those seeking to have their records sealed face a bureaucratic mess when trying to do so.

o   In this country, we believe that people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. And yet current CORI records often notes on cases that were dismissed, or cases where the defendant was found not guilty. As a result, many people who were never found guilty of a single crime have CORI records that often hurt their chances of finding employment.

o   Finally, someone who has paid their debts to society should not be punished forever.  It is true that many people with a CORI record have made a serious mistake, and we should never take those crimes lightly. But once someone has served their time, as a society we should try to help them make the best of their second chance and become a productive member of society.

The Legislature has had a proud record this session of reforming our outdated systems, from our transportation system to our ethics and pension systems. I encourage the committee to help us take the next step, in reforming our criminal records system, by reporting H3523/S1608 out favorably.

Thank you for the consideration of my remarks.

Very Truly Yours,

James B. Eldridge
State Senator
Middlesex and Worcester District

Yesterday, the Senate passed critical legislation to preserve the stock of affordable housing units in our state and protect the rights of tenants in publicly-assisted affordable housing projects.

Our state is currently in danger of losing tens of thousands of subsidized rental housing units at a time when more people than ever are in need of affordable housing due to the economic crisis.

The “expiring use” bill, as it has been referred to for years, targets the state’s estimated 90,000 government-assisted rental housing units, including so called “expiring use” units whose affordability restrictions can end if owners prepay their subsidized mortgages or not decide not to renew their rent assistance contracts upon expiration. Massachusetts is at risk of losing more than 23,000 units by the end of 2012, when many of these contracts are up. Many of the residents in “expiring use” buildings are seniors or people with disabilities.

The Senate legislation establishes provisions that will help preserve as many units as possible. It requires owners who want to sell affordable rental property to offer a purchasing right-of-first-refusal to the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) or the local municipality where the property is located.

I am a co-sponsor of the bill and have been a longtime supporter of this legislation, which was endorsed by the Massachusetts Asset Development Commission this spring.  The passage of this bill in the Senate marks a first win for the ADC, a step towards our larger goal of making sure all people in the Commonwealth are financially secure.

I believe our communities are stronger when all families have access to affordable housing options. Because housing prices are so expensive in Massachusetts, however, too many families are priced out of communities, and the amount of affordable housing available is often not enough to meet the demands. This legislation will take us one step closer to ensuring that families of all economic levels can live in safe, clean, housing across the district.

Read more about the legislation here. It will now go to the House of Representatives, where I hope it will be passed quickly.

This bill is just a first step, however. There are several other important housing bills that need to be passed this year, including bills to protect renters from being evicted if the house they live in is foreclosed upon and provide judicial review of foreclosures.

Today, the Massachusetts Senate debated and voted on the Mixed Martial Arts Bill, An Act Regulating the Sport of Mixed Martial Arts. The bill passed the Senate, 34-1 (I voted in favor of it). If it is passed by the House and signed by the Governor, Massachusetts will join 37 other states in issuing regulations for Mixed Martial Arts, a sport that has previously been unregulated in Massachusetts.

I supported this bill because I believe it will bring  much needed revenue to our Commonwealth at a time when we desperately need it. At the same time, the regulations we passed today will ensure the safety of participants in what could otherwise be a quite dangerous sport.

Much of the focus of the Legislature (and media) over the past six months has been on major reforms to our transportation, pension, and ethics systems - and rightly so. But in addition to these major bills, the Legislature works on smaller bills every day — many of which most people never hear of — that can end up having a significant impact on residents of the Commonwealth.

The Mixed Martial Arts Bill is just one example of a seemingly small matter that can have a big impact - to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue for the state, and still more money injected into the local economies of cities holding an Ultimate Fighting Match.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the sport of Mixed Martial Arts, also known as Ultimate Fighting, it is a fast growing full-contact sport that incorporates a variety of fighting techniques and martial arts. Although, as with boxing, going to an Ultimate Fighting match isn’t for everyone, it is a sport that is growing in popularity nationwide.

By regulating the sport, we’ll allow the Ultimate Fighting Champion to hold sanctioned events in the Commonwealth while ensuring the safety and well-being of competitors participating in the events. Safety measures, issued by the Department of Public Service, will help make an otherwise dangerous sport safer for participants.

Additionally, this bill will bring much-needed revenue to our currently struggling economy. Ultimate fighting, or Mixed Martial Arts, is one of the fastest growing sports in America. This sport sells out venues around the nation.  Allowing this sport to come to the Commonwealth will attract tourists who will spend money on tickets, hotel rooms, meals out, highway tolls, and souvenirs, adding revenue to the Massachusetts economy. At a time when we are both cutting services and raising taxes, supporting this economic growth measure was a no-brainer for me.