Friday, 16 Dec 2011,
Boston, Mass. (WWLP) – A grassroots movement is simmering in State Houses across the nation – Beckoning Congress to pass a constitutional amendment that affirms freedom of speech rights to people, not corporations.
“People, not corporations, govern in America. And it’s we the people, not we the corporations,” said Maram Abdelhamid, the national field director at Free Speech for People. “We hope that Massachusetts will be one of the first state’s to pass a resolution instructing Congress that corporations are not people.”
Senator Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) has filed a resolution in Massachusetts to support a constitutional amendment. He has also filed bills that require corporations to disclose and get internal approval for their political spending.
“Next year with the presidential election, with the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts, you’re going to see more and more corporations that can spend millions of dollars to take out ads with absolutely no disclosure on where that money’s coming from and that could really drown out the voices or ordinary citizens,” said Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton).
In November, Congressman James McGovern proposed the constitutional amendment to Congress. It effectively trumps a Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. FEC, from allowing corporations to spend unlimited corporate money on political campaigns.
But some Republican lawmakers are on the fence — “It’s a slippery slope if we start to try to restrain first amendment rights under any legal entity in the United States,” said Sen. Robert Hedlund (R-Hingham), who is conflicted between balancing free speech rights with what he perceives to be the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics. “I don’t like the influence of money in politics, it’s horrible, especially in the national level. It’s a corrupting influence.”
December 15, 2011
By Andy Metzger STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, DEC. 15, 2011….Five years after redrawing the lines in the national health care debate, Beacon Hill is looking at new reforms, closely studying payment system plans to lower costs and examining a government controlled single-payer model.
“We will end up with a government option at some point. We will end up with a single-payer at some point, and wouldn’t it be wonderful if that point was now, and the place was Massachusetts?” said Sen. Dan Wolf (D-Harwich) at a Thursday afternoon legislative hearing.
Everyone who spoke at the nearly three-hour hearing was in favor of An Act Establishing Medicare for All in Massachusetts, but it has its detractors including the Pioneer Institute, which submitted written testimony arguing it would cause regulatory problems at the federal level and could create a “two-tiered medical system.”
Massachusetts made history in the 2006 health care reform signed by Gov. Mitt Romney, but single-payer advocates say that law fell short and blame it for a new host of problems.
“Ironically the growing intrusion of insurance companies was sort of kicked off by the passage of health care reform, which kind of emboldened them,” said Dr. Carroll Eastman, who said she left an administrative position in health care because the job was increasingly concerned with billing, rather than treating patients.
The cause for a single-payer health care system is not new, but it has some burgeoning support among doctors and nurses who are fed up with the demands of private insurance companies.
Dr. Leo Stollbach, a member of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said a recent survey showed that 41 percent of members support a single-payer system, up 7 percentage points since 2010. Another 23 percent support a broadly available public health insurance option, Stollbach said.
“At what point are we going to decide that we’re going to stop living in a Charles Dickens novel,” said Marisa DeFranco, a U.S. Senate Democratic candidate, at the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing Committee hearing. “Please do not play defense to Republicans on this.”
Single-payer health care has been a perennial issue on Beacon Hill. Despite some support over the years in the higher echelons of legislative leaders, the idea has never advanced.
The chief focus among legislative leaders and Gov. Deval Patrick is on the governor’s health reform bill and competing plans aimed at controlling escalating costs by altering the payment system to make it focus on the health of patients rather than how many services are provided. Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton), who sponsored the single-payer legislation, asked the committee to pass a bill that “has elements of a single-payer” system.
Single-payer would be like MediCare for everyone, said supporters, creating a baseline of coverage that people could add to with private plans. Another option proposed by reformers is adding a public option, a government-run system that anyone could sign up for.
During the recent national debate on expanded health care, critics lambasted the idea of a public option, until it was eventually scrapped from the bill signed by President Barack Obama.
But supporters of single-payer said it would free up business by removing the requirement for business owners to provide healthcare to employees.
“The biggest single inhibitor, the biggest ball and chain around small business growth… is the cost and the complexity of health care,” said Wolf, who founded Cape Air about 24 years ago, a company that now employs more than 1,000 people.
On a macro level, the United States spends almost twice as much per capita on health care as Canada, which has a single-payer system, but Canada has a longer life expectancy, said Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at UMass Amherst.
“We spend more to receive worse health care than virtually every other country,” Friedman said. “It’s just getting worse and worse.”
Meanwhile, Vermont has already reportedly passed a single-payer bill last March, though Sen. Richard Moore (D-Uxbridge) quipped that Vermont is also “the only state without a constitutional regulation to balance the budget.”
Moore, the committee co-chairman, gave few other clues about what the committee might be considering in its own legislation.
By Kendall Hatch December 16, 2011
MARLBOROUGH —Area residents peppered National Grid officials with questions last night on the time it took to restore power to the region after two recent storms.
Four representatives from National Grid, which provides power to Marlborough and other area towns, attended the community forum called by state Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton.
The Department of Public Utilities has been holding its own public hearings to address customer frustrations over lengthy power failures following Tropical Storm Irene in late August and the late October nor’easter. Some places, like Northborough, lost power for several days.
“We obviously do recognize the frustration,” said Joseph Newman, National Grid’s vice president of government affairs in Massachusetts.
He said the utility is working on a second report for the state on its response to Irene and a first report on its response to the October snowstorm.
Newman said the company is also preparing a list of action items with ways the utility can improve operations in future power failures.
One of the measures National Grid undertook in the two recent storms was establish liaisons in affected towns and cities as a way to improve communication.
He said the company also wants to equip contractors brought in from outside the state with GPS units so the company can track and deploy crews more effectively.
Newman said a major component will be getting municipal employees more involved, both by instituting a web-based system that will allow local officials to track progress, and also by meeting with them to provide a better understanding of the grid system and how repairs are addressed.
Newman also said the company needs to improve its ability to accurately predict when customers’ power will be restored, as well as work on the capabilities of damage assessment teams that hit the streets right after a storm.
Some attendees last night, including City Councilor Ed Clancy, criticized the company for not being more proactive in its tree pruning as a way to prevent power failures.
Kathy Lyford, National Grid’s New England vice president of operations, said the company tries to prune trees as much as possible, but often finds its hands tied when trees hanging over lines are on private property.
Westborough Town Manager Jim Malloy said National Grid’s pruning activities have declined over the last 10 years and, given electricity rates in the Northeast, the company should be doing more.
Eldridge, joined at the forum by state Rep. Steven Levy, R-Marlborough, said the Legislature may draft a bill to try to improve utility response time during future power failures.
Marlborough residents are receiving two early Christmas gifts from the state in terms of positive economic data.
Officials from the Department of Revenue are announcing that that income tax rate will be lowered on Jan. 1, 2012. The rate, currently at 5.3 percent, will fall to 5.25 because state tax collections rose at a sufficient rate to trigger the reduction.
“This is great news for the taxpayers of Massachusetts,” said state Sen. Barry Finegold. “Growing revenues have allowed the state to give taxpayers a break, something that is much valued in these tough economic times. Being that this is the first tax cut in 10 years, I think that says a lot about the stability of the Commonwealth at this time.”
The second piece of good news comes from the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development, which announced Massachusetts businesses added 5,000 new jobs in the month of November, helping to slice the unemployment rate in the Bay State to 7.0 percent. That’s down from 7.3 percent in October, 8.3 percent in December 2010.
Locally, lawmakers are seeing positive signs of a recovering economy.
“Metrowest is a region that is still attracting companies and employees, and I’ve attended a number of ribbon-cuttings for new businesses in Marlborough recently,” said State Senator Jamie Eldridge. “When I’ve attended Chamber of Commerce events, some small business people express cautious optimism about their businesses growing. These are all good signs that the local economy is on the mend.”
These numbers indicate the lowest the Massachusetts unemployment rate has been since December 2008, but there are still many without jobs who desperately need them.
“On the other hand, I do talk almost every day to someone who is unemployed, or underemployed,” continued Eldridge.” Just the other day, I met with the Littleton Job Seekers, a group of local unemployed workers, about their lives and concerns. Some of these people have been searching for a job for over two years; others have just recently been laid off.”
Though the recent news is encouraging, Eldridge said the economy has a ways to go.
“So although I think we’re moving in the right direction here in the Metrowest, there’s still cause for concern and work to be done to grow our economy when this many people are unemployed,” he said.
Gambling is on a roll. Faced with mounting budget deficits, more states are expanding gambling options and loosening restrictions in a grab for revenue. Critics warn that the winnings are fool’s gold, not worth the potential social and financial ills. But that’s not stopping many states from getting a piece of the action.
Even once-reluctant Massachusetts recently approved the construction of three casinos and a slots parlor after 20 years of debate. Clyde Barrow, director of the Center for Policy Analysis at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, predicts the casinos will collect $1.5 billion to $2 billion a year. Legislators said they anticipate receiving $300 to $400 million in tax revenue to chip away at the state’s projected $1.8 billion 2012 deficit.
Casinos and lotteries make up at least 2 percent of revenue in states that have them, the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government recently reported, and have provided steady returns after a brief recession dip. That revenue has proven irresistible at a time when 46 cash-strapped states have made cuts in programs for health care, the elderly, the disabled, or in education since 2008, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Massachusetts trimmed all of the above.
Massachusetts State Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D) fears the gambling push will come up snake eyes in the long run. He worries that patrons’ discretionary income would go to casinos instead of local businesses, bleeding communities dry.
“It’s a very flawed economic model,” Eldridge said. “This is one of the worst decisions when the economy is bad.”
Gambling usually provokes passionate debate on both sides, but few could dispute that the industry is on a winning streak. In 2009 and 2010 alone, 37 states pushed for increased gambling outlets, according to Sam Skolnik, the author of “High Stakes: The Rising Cost of America’s Gambling Addiction.” Meanwhile, casinos have stepped up their promotions to attract groups that tend to gamble more.
“One of the tragedies is that many of the gamblers enticed by this marketing … can ill-afford to lose the money,” Skolnik said.
Gambling advocates have marshaled their lobbying power and the promise of jobs and a quick profit stream to make giant inroads. In a wheezing economy, the conditions are ripe. While the federal government chokes on $972 billion of debt, states face a combined $95 billion deficit for 2012.
Revenue from Nevada’s brick-and-mortar casinos has not stopped the state from sinking into 13 percent unemployment and a debt of $1.2 billion that is 37.4 percent of its operating budget. Still, the state’s looking to beef up gaming, recently accepting applications from five firms to implement online poker for state residents. Nevada’s move comes with supporters’ hope that a federal ban against interstate gambling on the Internet will eventually be lifted. Jon Porter, a three-term former Republican congressman from Nevada, said tight regulations to weed out the under-aged and addicted can make Internet play work.
“I don’t think gaming targets anyone,” said Porter, an adviser for the Poker Players Alliance. “Whether you’re gambling in a casino online or on Wall Street, certainly there are people who have a weakness and we try to prevent that from happening.”
Many states are rolling the dice: New Jersey is mounting a constitutional challenge to a near-total federal ban on sports-betting. On the lottery front, Minnesota is allowing patrons to play online.
Missouri last week rolled out the welcome mat again for admitted problem gamblers. Gamblers who had voluntarily asked to be expelled from the state’s casinos — previously a life-long ban — now may return after five years. Compulsive gamblers cost the country $6.7 billion a year, according to The National Council on Problem Gambling.
Yet, it’s not as if gambling suddenly appeared. Forty-one states have casinos, according to the “American Casino Guide,” and 43 have lotteries. But the urgency created by joblessness and foreclosure has made consumers more susceptible. Lotteries dangle the carrot of instant riches. Casinos offer the potential of a quick buck on the pull of a slot machine. Skolnik estimated that in 2007 alone, at the start of the recession, Americans gambled away $92 billion.
At the manufacturing end of the gambling industry, companies such as Bally Technologies and IGT are creating more slot attractions to entice patrons. Bally paid an undisclosed amount for the rights to create a Michael Jackson slot machine that is expected to draw huge lines when it debuts next summer. But the biggest potential moneymaker is the server-based slot machine. If a machine loses patrons at a certain time of day, casinos can change the machine’s theme, value and payout at the push of a button. IGT operates server-driven slots in 50 casinos. Through anecdotal information, IGT estimated that the casinos are seeing an 18 percent increase in daily take after making the switch. Older casinos will have a tough time retrofitting the technology, but most of the new casinos will be buying in, said Steve Bourie, author of the “American Casino Guide.”
All the bells and whistles aside, Barrow, the UMass-Dartmouth researcher, sees a lasting future for a casino-enhanced Massachusetts. The lottery will suffer temporarily but will bounce back, he predicted. Gambling-related crime will be less of an issue because theft and other crimes tend to happen on casino grounds and not in the surrounding neighborhoods, he said. As for assertions that casinos take money from the disadvantaged, Barrow answered that the lottery was already doing that at the state’s 11,000 convenience stores. Casinos draw more customers above the median income, he said.
Barrow, who has been criticized for being a paid consultant for a New Hampshire golf course’s casino study, said Massachusetts’ plan will include hotel and entertainment venues to attract non-gamblers as well. He said that 20 percent of New Englanders who visit casinos do not place any bets.
But Eldridge isn’t buying into the feel-good forecast. Since Gov. Deval Patrick (D) signed the casino construction bill on Nov. 22, promising that the commonwealth would not be compromised, Eldridge said he has refocused his efforts on ensuring that the legislation is not weakened to where it could further endanger community commerce and public safety.
A few states have bet against the gambling wave — at least for the time being. Maine residents scrapped two casino-expansion referendums in November. The Illinois House also voted down an expansion bill, and New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D) vowed last month to veto any measure aimed at adding casinos.
Eldridge has seen a different outcome in his own state of Masachussetts, however. He said fellow lawmakers wanted to be able to say they’re creating jobs and income for the state. Eldridge’s office pointed to a 2000 study covering 19 years that concluded casinos create crime instead of merely relocating it. It also reported that 8 percent of crimes in a casino county can be directly linked to the casino.
The legislator fears Massachusetts has struck a Faustian bargain that isn’t worth the risk. Eldridge said, “We’ve living in desperate times.”
BOSTON – Touting dramatic reductions in health care costs, improved access to health care for all residents, and a boost to local businesses, State Senator Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) and State Representative Jason Lewis (D-Winchester), along with health care advocates, providers, employers, and employee union leaders, came out in support of S501, “An Act Establishing Medicare for All in Massachusetts,” at a legislative hearing at the State House this afternoon.
The bill, heard by the Joint Committee on Health Care Finance, would create a single payer health care system for Massachusetts: a universal public insurance plan covering all medically necessary care. This plan would function for residents under 65 much the way Medicare does for residents 65 and older, but without premiums or copayments.
A similar plan is currently used successfully by many countries around the world and is in the process of being implemented in Vermont.
“If Massachusetts is serious about reducing health care costs for families, businesses and state and local governments, we need to stop tinkering at the edges of a broken system and enact a single-payer healthcare system. It’s the only reform that would truly reduce costs in a substantial way, eliminating medical debt and bankruptcies while guaranteeing access to quality, affordable health care as a right for all residents of the Commonwealth,” said Senator Eldridge.
“I believe that healthcare is a basic human right, and we must do everything we can to ensure that every Massachusetts resident has access to quality, affordable care,” added Representative Lewis. “We can alleviate the burden of escalating healthcare costs on families and small businesses by instituting a robust single payer plan here in the Commonwealth.”
Economist Gerald Friedman, from UMass-Amherst, noted at the hearing that a single-payer system could reduce health care costs by nearly $13 billion a year (or 19%) in Massachusetts. Even after expanding coverage to all Massachusetts residents, this would leave savings of over 17.6% of current expenditures. Municipalities in particular would benefit; according to Friedman’s calculations, local governments would save over $350 million a year.
Friedman also noted that, when added to significant administrative savings within companies, a single-payer system would dramatically enhance the competiveness of Massachusetts companies, adding nearly 100,000 additional jobs to the economy.
“Single payer health care saves lives, saves money and prevents suffering. Every other country in the world that has achieved universal coverage and controlled costs has relied on a single-payer system to get there. A single-payer system will best achieve the health care reform goals that many of us share: improving coverage for families that already have coverage, reducing health care costs, and simplifying the health care delivery system,” added Benjamin Day, Executive Director of Mass-Care, the Massachusetts Campaign for Single Payer Health Care.
The bill filed by Eldridge and Lewis would create a plan that covered all medically necessary care for all residents of Massachusetts, replacing current employer and employee premium payments with an employer and employee payroll tax. The total payroll tax would be 10% – the same as current average spending on health insurance – and would default to 7.5% for employers and 2.5% for employees, although employers could choose to pay for part or all of employees’ portion of the payroll tax, and collective bargaining agreements would be recognized.
Because payroll taxes primarily impact low- and medium-income wage earners, a 12.5% tax on unearned income would be imposed, reversing large cuts to state taxes on dividends and interest passed between 1998 and 2002. Lastly, all current state spending on health care would be consolidated, and the state would seek to have federal funds – such as those paid for Medicaid and Medicare recipients – paid directly to the state’s single payer fund by applying for federal waivers.
The net result would be billions of dollars in annual savings from eliminating provider-level and private insurance administration. Eliminating insurance premiums would create significant after-tax savings for over 80% of Massachusetts residents.
###
December 8, 2011 By Mary Wagner While the issue of unemployment surges in the national debate, one local politician recently addressed how it affects local towns during a question-and-answer period.
State Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, attended a Town Hall session run by the Littleton Job Seekers on Nov. 29 to discuss unemployment in the state.
Eldridge listened as residents brought up their frustrations with job searching and the effect unemployment has had on their families during the two-and-a-half-hour session at the Reuben Hoar Library. Hot topics included the state’s handling of unemployment, health care, inadequacies of the interview process and more.
Lee Davy, the former owner of a child development center that closed in 2006, expressed his aggravation with the state’s standards for receiving benefits. Since he was self-employed when his business closed, he did not qualify for unemployment benefits. He and his wife have paid bills by tapping into savings and retirement accounts and working six jobs, but they are growing increasingly concerned with their health care costs, which according to Davy now exceed their monthly mortgage payment.
“If we worked the equivalent of one less job, we would probably qualify [for MassHealth] all the way up to dental and everything because we probably earn about $10 an hour over the limit,” Davy said. “Where do you go when you earn too much to be on MassHealth but don’t earn enough to live on? It’s like they’re saying we’re not unemployed enough.”
Jill Beech, who works in information technology, regularly attends networking meetings to gain support from others in similar situations. She noted that a lot of attendees are “in the same boat … everybody wants to help everybody else.”
Beech reminded Eldridge that unemployment can come on suddenly and unexpectedly for anyone.
“It’s unbelievable how fast you can slip over that edge,” Beech said. “It makes you understand how these highly-educated homeless people end up where they are.”
Beech asked Eldridge what he thought unemployment “looked” like, and if his expectations differed from the people who participated in the session. Eldridge said he was not surprised to see highly educated professionals in the crowd.
“The communities I represent are mostly middle class, and there are a lot of middle class who are out of work,” Eldridge said. “Sometimes I think that people think that those who are unemployed are those that have dropped out of high school or something and it’s their fault. But, I think it’s mostly, especially in this area, middle class professionals.”
Eldridge also described the political roadblocks that exist when trying to address the state’s unemployment issue. Eldridge, who said he prefers public sector solutions to unemployment issues over investing taxpayer money to attract businesses, believes many unemployment benefits need to be revisited so that these programs can provide the best assistance for job seekers.
“I think what’s frustrating to me is there is not a sense of urgency at the State House to take action,” Eldridge said. “I think too often there’s a sense that there are already generous benefits or we already have workforce training programs so therefore we’ve done that. But the point is that many of those laws and programs are from the New Deal or the benefits haven’t been updated properly in decades. Trying to communicate that to everyone from the governor to the leadership in the House and Senate so we would actually pass this legislation is what I focus my energies on.”
The Littleton Job Seekers meet every Thursday from 2 to 4 p.m. in the Couper Room at the Reuben Hoar Library. Beginning Jan. 4, the group will run a six-week Job Search Boot Camp every Wednesday evening from 5:30 to 8 p.m. For information, contact Job Seekers Facilitator Cindy Filipe at 978-540-2602 or log on to littletonlibrary.org.
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.
Beacon Hill appears ready to roll the dice.
A Statehouse committee working on a final casino bill is hammering out a deal.
Lawmakers go home for the year on Wednesday. Now, both sides are working to beat the clock.
There’s a lot they agree about, but there’s one hot-button issue that’s still dividing lawmakers.
Among the unresolved issues:
One State Senator is pushing for a five-year waiting period before former legislators can work for a casino, and he touched off a nasty spat on the senate floor six weeks ago.
The Senate approved a one-year waiting period, but the House wouldn’t bite.
“Is it something that one way or another makes it a better bill or less good than it could be? I don’t think so,” said Rep. Joe Wagner of Chicopee.
“It would be almost political malpractice not to include this because there is so much support for this provision,” said Sen. James Eldridge of Acton.
New Hampshire will not get casinos or racinos anytime soon. On Monday, Gov. John Lynch issued a statement declaring he will veto any legislation that expands gaming in the granite state.
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 #
