State House Column

All in a Day's Work. Last week, I got a call from a constituent who wanted to voice his opinion about how all of us on Beacon Hill were working for everyone but the taxpayer.

After 30 minutes on the phone, we agreed to disagree.  But then several things happened that really made the point.  So, here's some of what I wrote back:

It's so easy to sound off about the waste and corruption in state government.  It's easy to be focused in 2010 on two stupid decisions that the Governor made (drapes and Cadillacs) in 2007.  It's much harder to keep focused on the things that need to be done now and damned hard to stand your ground on little decisions that actually protect the taxpayer.  Especially when so few are watching.

Part of the problem is that no one knows about the little stuff.  It won't be the subject of a Boston Globe story tomorrow morning.

Take last Wednesday for example:

Arrving in Boston for an 8:30 a.m. breakfast, I got into a discussion with small business representatives.  After a couple of hours at my conference table, we started drafting new health care legislation.

Then I took a call from a hosptial CEO and we discussed payment reform efforts, including the lack of legislative progress.  District staff told me that I had 14 telephone calls and about 60 emails already.

Health Care research staff came in with an analysis of the Governor's small business legislation.  We went over it together and decided to fold it into what had been discussed earlier.

I talked briefly with kids from both Beverly and Malden who came to my office as part of the "Stand for Children" group.  This group advocates what they call "sensible reforms" in health care so that communities can spend scarce dollars on education.  I agree with them, and had previously made supporting comments publicly.  The Haverhill Education Association retaliated by bombarding my office with critical e-mails.  That probably means that I'm not totally behold to the teachers unions.

A follow-up call came in from another union on their budget requests.  (I didn't support their agenda, either.)  Meanwhile, two different legislators approached me for a favorable committee report on a massive mental health and substance abuse bill.

I placed a call to a Merrimac School Committee member about Pentucket's budget situation and researched an issue for a School Superintendent.  (He wasn't wild about what I found.)  All the while, I was casting multiple roll call votes on a Supplemental Budget for FY-10 and missed a Quorum Call because I was on the phone.

When the session ended at 6:50 p.m., I still had another hour's worth of phone calls to return.  Hopefully, a few District families were better off from my day at the office.

The Wrap Tour.  A couple week ago, I announced that the 2010 campaign would be my last.  I would like to get at least one project done in each of my towns.  What project would you like to see done in your community?

Bully for Us.  The much ballyhooed bullying bill that the legislature just passed is okay, but not great.  Neither teachers nor parents should need legislation prescribing what to do about bullying.

Casinos, Slots or Both?  Yesterday, House Speaker Bob DeLeo rolled out his long-anticipated gambling bill, which would bring both casinos and slots to the Bay State.  The bill is 172 pages long.  Printers were humming at the State House as aides printed copies for their bosses (and killed trees). Receptionists were also busy taking messages from pro-gambling groups.

The bill's sweetener is that—for a while—all profits from slots will go toward local aid.  My guess is that gambling is on its way here.  But since neither the Governor nor the Senate President like slot machines, the backroom will be busy. Really busy.

State House Column

We’re Back! You are reading the first edition of the State House Column in blog format. This column was originally written for and published in the West Newbury News. It ran for nearly a dozen years. Recently, Ron and Lee Ann Delp closed the paper for the foreseeable future. The Delps gave the State House Column its beginning, and social media will provide its future.

A Hand Up or a Hand Out? A lot has been written about the $35 million dollar bond authorization bill for the city of Lawrence. My comments on the issue can be found in the Eagle-Tribune story here.

Basically, the intent of the Lawrence legislation is to allow the city to borrow upwards of $35 million, with the state being the guarantor for what Lawrence borrows. This means that all Massachusetts taxpayers would be liable for the debt in the event the city defaults. Because the possibility of a default exists, I think that the entire Commonwealth – not just the residents of Lawrence – has a stake in this legislation. That is why I argued for strong outside fiscal oversight.

There was also a personal angle. About 25 years ago, as an investment banker, I worked on a “special” financing for Lawrence. (It was “special” because the city had so many financial issues that no one would buy their bonds.) The Commonwealth had to get involved then, too, and not much has changed. Giving Lawrence another hand-out is not really the answer.

Casinos Back “On the Table.” It’s true. With the exit of former Speaker Sal DiMasi – long a gambling opponent –Massachusetts may become a casino destination. Honestly, It’s a proposal I’ve been on both sides of but every bill is different.

Win, lose or draw on this proposition, the Commonwealth still needs to consider how to spur the growth of innovative long-term (and good paying) jobs. Casinos offer more of those jobs than slots, but the Commonwealth needs every job it can get right now.

The 2011 Budget. The House is coming out with its own version of the state budget in mid-April. The Governor’s budget proposal sought to level fund local aid. But, as I emailed constituents, the Governor’s level-funding was based on projected revenue growth during the coming fiscal year, (very) high estimates of federal stimulus aid and additional taxes. While the Commonwealth may luck out on one of these, all three are unlikely to occur. After a controversial sales tax hike last year, the House won’t pursue increased taxes this year. (Which is good, because I wouldn’t support them.)

Latest estimate? A 4% cut in both local aid and Chapter #70 educational funding. Why? Not because legislators want to cut either account. Because the state’s tax revenues aren’t enough to level fund.

Holding The Line on Health Care. As the House Chair of the Health Care Financing Committee, I’ve spent a lot of time looking for ways to bring the annual (exponential) growth in health care costs under control. The emerging Massachusetts plan to rein in costs is a lot different than what is currently under consideration in Washington D.C.

This week, there were major hearings on the Massachusetts version of the issue and two factors emerged as culprits: medical price-inflation and the fee-for-service (FFS) system. Medical price inflation is about 3X regular inflation, and the FFS system often times drives over-testing and greater costs. What is currently being discussed on Beacon Hill is the potential for “global payments.” Global payments are a kinder and gentler form of capitation. You can read about the ongoing debate, as well as the differences between fee-for-service and global payments, here.