Topic: Politics -- State.
Your feedback:
posted by G.M.Heller at Friday, March 25, 2005
Friday, March 25, 2005
About Me
- Name: G.M.Heller
- Location: Berkshire County, Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., United States
Hailed by Berkshire cognoscenti as that "crank on the grassy knoll".
Previous Posts
- Topic: Politics -- Local.
- Topic: Child molestation and abuse in Berkshire Co...
- Topic: Violent street crime in The Berkshires.
- Topic: The Pittsfield drug scene.
- Topic: Domestic violence in The Berkshires.
- Topic: GE Plastics -- Local management.
- Topic: GE Plastics -- Innovations.
- Topic: General Electric Company -- Corporate.
- Topic: Berkshire County's Farms.
- Topic: PCB's and other chemical pollution.
49 Comments:
Hello I must say this is a very nice blog you have here and the comments are very interesting as well. Being an internet afficionado I am constantly seeking out new sources of information like this one. While I am currently doing some research, I would also like to intimate the readers of this blog about the ongoing drive to sell out the internet to the big communications companies. I am part of a pressure group that would appreciate it if readers would help spread the word about this so we can maintain the intergrity of the internet as a free resource for the world. Thanks for helping to spread the word and being a resource for my work. Cheers and keep up the good work.
Dear Honorable State Representative Daniel Bosley:
I am glad to hear that you are hosting a public forum for Berkshire area residents to voice their views on State House politics. As I am a former resident of North Adams and you were my top-down state Rep. back then, I would like to speak my piece:
(a) The State House has slashed state aid to cities, towns, and like political subdivisions and public entities of the commonwealth to such a dramatic extent that the Legislature gave more local aid in its FY2001 state budget than it will in its FY2008 state budget. So, 7 years ago the cities, et al, got more state financing dollars than they do now.
How do you justify this fact, Rep. Bosley?
(b) Last summer, a portion of the "Big Dig" concrete ceiling fell and killed a woman. The "Big Dig" is the most wasteful, costly single public works project in the history of the United States! The "Big Dig" leaks too much water and its maintenance is unconstrained.
How do you justify this fact, Rep. Bosley?
(c) Berkshire County is the number one region in the commonwealth for job losses! Moreover, Massachusetts loses population and jobs just about every year. You are supposed to be the wiz-kid on economic development on Beacon Hill.
What are your solutions for the Berkshire economy and economic development in Massachusetts, Rep. Bosley?
(d) Governor Deval Patrick proposed an equitable FY08 state budget that amounted to the same price tag as the State House of Representatives' state budget. Patrick's budget is equitable and wants to prevent young women from getting cervical cancer with a preventive cure. The State House slashed Patrick's funding for this important program that protects young women from contracting cancer.
How do you justify the State House politics as usual, and not fully funding preventive medicine for the young women of the commonwealth, Rep. Bosley?
(e) Pittsfield and North Adams have become the teen pregnancy capitals of the World! How come teen pregnancies and welfare caseloads are decreasing throught the commonwealth and nation, but they are increasing at ever rising numbers in Pittsfield and North Adams?
What are you going to do to prevent teen pregnancies in the Berkshires, Rep. Bosley?
(f) The Massachusetts Universal Healthcare Insurance Law has NO FUNDING MECHANISM! The FY08 state budget has a $1 Billion deficit! Next year, the costs of this program will compound, multiply and exponentially rise higher and higher. Moreover, healthcare insurance prices have increased at 18% per year compounding in cost every year since 2000.
Are you going to come up with a new revenue source (TAX) to fund Universal Healthcare Insurance for all of Massachusetts' 6 Million citizens, Rep. Bosley?
(g) Massachusetts is one of the top 3 debtor states in the nation. Since borrowing money became problematic for the commonwealth, the Legislature has cut deeply into state aid for municipalities, social service programs, and other socially just causes. The majority of funding for Western Massachusetts comes via state aid for roads, schools, police, fire, and other important services.
How much more funding are you going to cut out of Western Massachusetts to allow Beacon Hill to finance special interests, lobbyists, corporate executives, and the like, Rep. Bosley?
(h) Massachusetts, South Carolina and Arkansas are the top 3 states where incumbency is the highest cause. In 2003, you, Rep. Bosley, voted to end Clean Elections, which was a voluntary public financing of election to encourage challengers to legislative seats that otherwise never get seriously challenged.
Are you going to keep collecting so many thousands of special interest dollars to hold onto your "legislative" seat, Rep. Bosley?
Thank you for not bothering to ever respond to my points, questions, and writings. You, Rep. Bosley, are a real man of the special interests!
In Truth,
Jonathan A. Melle
------------
Legislative Public Forum at MCLA
North Adams - Those with questions or concerns about the issues facing the region's residents are asked to bring their voices to a public forum on April 20.
State Sen. Benjamin B. Downing D-Pittsfield and Rep. Daniel E. Bosley D-North Adams will host the event at the Sullivan Lounge at the Masasachusetts College of Liberal Arts. The hour-long forum is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m..
Downing has just completed his first 100 days in office after being elected to a first two-year term in November. Bosley has served the Northern Berkshires as an elected member of the state House of Representatives for over a decade.
MANDATORY HEALTH INSURANCE | THE FIRST YEAR
Progress and perils
Thousands more in state have coverage under ambitious program, but challenges lie ahead over funding and getting message out to all
By Alice Dembner, Globe Staff | April 22, 2007
Massachusetts has made a strong start toward ensuring that all state residents have health insurance, but it faces major obstacles as it seeks to achieve the full promise of landmark legislation signed into law a year ago, according to more than a dozen analysts, policy makers, and advocates.
More than 110,000 people -- one-fifth to one-quarter of the state's uninsured -- have been given free or heavily subsidized coverage in the past year. New insurance plans were designed to provide more affordable options for those who have to buy their own coverage. And the use of state money to pay for charity care at hospitals has begun to decline, offering hope that the funds can pay for insurance instead.
Still, the big tests of the universal health insurance law are yet to come. Will insurance be truly affordable? Will individuals revolt when the state starts fining those without coverage next year? Will employers maintain the insurance they now offer? Will there be enough federal and state funding to cover rising costs?
"The nation is watching," said Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based nonprofit foundation that sponsors research to improve healthcare. "It's inspiring other states to act. But nobody would yet say it was a success."
Policy makers this year laid the building blocks for success, many observers said, reaching compromises on the tough issues of how much people can be expected to pay for insurance, what constitutes real insurance, and who will be exempted from the requirement that everyone have coverage by July 1.
The compromises helped retain support from the alliance of businesses, medical providers, and advocates that formed to get the law passed.
Shaped by former Republican governor Mitt Romney and the Democratic -majority Legislature, the law also gained the full support of the new governor, Deval Patrick.
"It's a matter of quality of life, it's a matter of quality healthcare, and it's an economic matter," Patrick said.
That broad support may help this healthcare initiative succeed where a similar attempt failed nearly a decade ago after being torpedoed by business opposition.
Now, "Massachusetts really has a structure in place and the political support to deal with problems as they emerge," said John Holahan , director of health research at the Urban Institute , a think tank that provided a framework for the law.
The biggest strides so far have been in providing free coverage for the uninsured with low incomes. Nearly half of that group has been signed up for the state Medicaid program or for new fully subsidized plans that offer some of the most comprehensive benefits in the nation. Earlier this month, the state expanded subsidies to provide free insurance for tens of thousands more.
"The very poor are covered very well," said Brother Jack Rathschmidt of Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church in Jamaica Plain, a leader of the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization, a coalition of 80 congregations.
A few problems have cropped up in the new subsidized plans. Some individuals were assigned to plans that didn't include doctors they had been seeing or even providers near their homes. Others faced delays in getting appointments. But for the most part, the newly insured seem pleased with their healthcare and relieved to finally have the security of insurance. (See miniprofiles).
The next big question is whether low-income people who have to pay for insurance, even with a substantial subsidy, will sign up. Some advocates suggest that the costs are still too high, particularly for the young and healthy who don't see the need for insurance. So far, most of those enrolling in partially subsidized programs are older and sicker. Without the younger, healthier people, costs will rise rapidly and the plans could quickly become unaffordable for everyone.
In addition, there is widespread public confusion about the many subsidized and unsubsidized insurance plans now being offered. Aggressive recruitment and education through advertising is just beginning. And a broader campaign is about to kick off to alert uninsured middle- and upper-income individuals about the requirements of the new law and new insurance options on sale next month.
"If we don't get that going pretty darn quick, there's real trouble ahead," said John McDonough, executive director of the advocacy group Health Care for All.
The biggest challenge to ensuring insurance coverage for all under the plan is financing, observers said.
The state's plan relies largely on two sources: federal funds that are committed only through June 30, 2008, and the state's free-care pool, now used to pay for charity care at hospitals and health centers.
To guarantee continuation of the federal funds, which total nearly $400 million, the state must renegotiate an agreement with the Bush administration, an uncertain prospect.
Additional federal funds, to cover children, are dependent on Congress overriding President Bush's objections to a broad expansion of insurance for children.
And the state can shift the $605 million from the free-care pool only if many people currently seeking charity care get insurance coverage.
As the state presses forward, healthcare costs continue to rise. That will push up the cost of the insurance initiative, estimated at about $1.6 billion this year, and threaten the delicate balance that keeps it going.
"The legislation . . . is unsustainable tomorrow," said Alan Sager , a professor of health policy at the Boston University School of Public Health, who takes a gloomier position on the financial picture than some others.
"There are no cost controls in the state that has the most expensive healthcare in the world. Premiums are rising rapidly and . . . revenues are not adequate to cover the costs of healthcare."
Dear BERKSHIRE BLOGGERS, Dan "Bureaucrat" Bosley, Deval"-uator" Patrick, George W. "Tax-cutting but War-spending" Bush, Stan "The Insider's ONLY Man" Rosenberg, Smitty "Closed Door Governance/wheel & deal" Pignatelli, the "corporate controlled" News Media, the People, & "the despicable" Denis "Gold-digger" Guyer:
Re: "Jackson jackpot set: State's new game will cost $20 per ticket" (The Berkshire Eagle, 4/26/2007): The Massachusetts state Lottery keeps taxing the poor with new gimmicks! This newest of the myriad forms of fraud perpetrated against the manipulated poor by their state government, entitled: "Star Spangled Sweepstakes", is totally reprehensible, inequitable and WRONG!
The Eagle states: "The new game is an attempt to boost profits after an $86 million sales slump compared to last year. The profits go to help municipal budgets."
The following is what is wrong with these half-truth laden reported facts:
#1 - The Massachusetts Lottery is an inequitable multi-billion dollar public monopolistic industry designed only to raise state revenues from the people who can least afford to pay into "the system"! In other words, the state lottery is an inequitable form of REGRESSIVE TAXATION!
#2- Almost every recent year before 2006, the Massachusetts Lottery reported record sales. The one year of downward sales does not at all mean that the Lottery is in any kind of financial trouble. In fact, the money it collects for the state is nearly all pure profit!
#3 - The Lottery's revenues first go to the state and a percentage get redistributed to the municipalities. During the Massachusetts state budget crises of 3 consecutive years of state budget cuts to municipalities from FY2002 - FY2004, the percentage of redistributed lottery revenues to the municipalities was dramatically cut back. The state government took the difference to fund the state, not her political subdivisions (cities & towns).
Massachusetts State Treasurer Timothy Cahill is selling this newest form of public inequity to the people by stating that it will create a paltry $35 million in additional local aid. There are 351 municipalities in the commonwealth! Given the costs to the poor who are the primary consumers of the inequitable Lottery, the social benefits clearly do not exceed the costs.
Lastly, Bureaucrat Dan Bosley strongly opposes private gaming in the commonwealth in order to support and keep the state Lottery a monopoly. In the Eagle article, Bosley's name and comments went unethically omitted, along with the fact that more poor children will go to bed without a nutritious meal because $20 was displaced to benefit an inequitable "system" that demonstrably chooses to rob poor Peter to pay rich Paul.
I dissent! And, I will always speak my good conscience as long as I live!
In Truth,
Jonathan A. Melle
------------------------------
Jackson jackpot set
State's new game will cost $20 per ticket
By Hillary Chabot, Eagle Boston Bureau
Thursday, April 26, 2007
BOSTON — Bring on the millions.
State Lottery officials unveiled a patriotic $20 raffle-style sweepstakes game yesterday that will produce more millionaires in a single drawing than any other game in U.S. lottery history.
"Star Spangled Sweepstakes" will sell four million tickets starting on May 1 and offer one prize of $20 million, 10 prizes of $10 million, and 40 prizes of $250,000.
The game comes two weeks after a Berkshire Eagle story about the new sweepstakes game in the works at the Lottery. Those who purchase a ticket have a one-in-100,000 chance of winning $250,000.
The new game is an attempt to boost profits after an $86 million sales slump compared to last year. The profits go to help municipal budgets.
"Municipalities will also win big with this ticket. It is expected sales for this game alone will generate more than $35 million in local aid for the Commonwealth's 251 cities and towns in Fiscal Year 2007," said state Treasurer Timothy Cahill in a statement.
The game will operate like a traditional raffle. Vendors will sell only 4 million tickets between May 1 and June 30, and the winners will be selected on July 4.
Each of the tickets will have a seven-digit sweepstakes number, which players must match up to the winning numbers drawn by the Lottery. Officials will draw 51 tickets in total.
Players odds of winning the big $20 million prize are one-in-4 million, and the odds of winning a $1 million prize are one-in-400,000.
Dear Berkshire Bloggers:
State "Representatives" Dan "Bureaucrat" Bosley, Smitty "Let's make an unethical deal" Pignatelli, Denis "Marry only the richest lady in town" Guyer, et al, passed a proposed FY2008 state budget. The proposed state budget they passed excluded proposals by Governor Deval Patrick to find real revenue sources to fund state and local services. Instead of closing corporate tax loopholes and increasing revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars, the "representatives" are relying on one time revenue sources, including the taking of $500 million from the state's Health Care Security Trust account coupled with the "representatives" the fiscally irresponsible decision to not make any interest payments and a $100 million contribution to this fund.
Moreover, not in the proposed FY08 Massachusetts House Budget is any real funding source for the commonwealth's flawed mandatory health insurance plan. The Boston Globe reported that: "The commonwealth relies largely on two revenue sources: federal funds that are committed only through June 30, 2008, and the state's free-care pool, now used to pay for charity care at hospitals and health centers."
Now, remember the $500 million from the commonwealth's that Bureaucrat Bosley, Golddigger Guyer and Slimy Pignatelli proposed transferring from the state's Health Care Security Trust account to cover the $1 billion budget deficit? Well, now listen to this from the Boston Globe's news article: the federal funds to cover the cost of the state's mandatory health insurance program total nearly $400 million this year!
O.K. So now we have Bureaucrat Bosley, Golddigger Guyer & Slimy Pignatelli, et al, proposing a FY2008 state budget that robs the state's Health Care Security Trust account to the tune of $500 million, which the federal government contributed $400 million, in order to close the state's budget deficit gap instead of closing nearly $300 million in special interest dollars in the form of corporate tax loopholes that benefit only the wealth big businesses throughout the commonwealth, NOT THE PEOPLE the "representatives" are supposed to be, in theory, serving.
In conclusion, Bureaucrat Bosley, et al, passed a very special interest proposed FY2008 Massachusetts State Budget that trades off the healthcare and common interests of the people for the exclusive benefit of special interests that continue to fill his campaign coffers with blood money. THAT, MY FRIENDS AND POLITICAL OPPONENTS, IS CORRUPTION!
In Truth,
Jonathan A. Melle
P.S. I will always speak my good conscience as long as I live! I am NOT AFRAID of CLIFF NILAN's trivial alliances with Carmen C. Massimiano, Jr. & Luciforo, et al, nor Cliff Nilan's phone calls to my dad; Nor am I afraid of Denis Guyer's hypocritical criticisms and slanderous rumors against me. No matter the cost, I will always speak out on political matters! Give me Liberty or Give me Death!
----------
House passes county funds
The budget includes $200K for Tanglewood and Mahaiwe, among other earmarks for the Berkshires.
By Matt Murphy, Eagle Boston Bureau
The Berkshire Eagle
Friday, April 27, 2007
BOSTON — House lawmakers have forged ahead with about $171 million in new spending, padding the initial $26.7 billion House budget with new money for education, public safety and economic development programs.
The House wrapped up debate late last night on its budget for next year, shifting focus on Beacon Hill to the Senate, which plans to put out its version of the budget in late May.
The House, however, spent the past four days putting the final touches on its proposal with $26 million in new education spending, roughly $30.1 million for state and local economic development, and an additional $35 million in anti-gang and public safety programs.
Representatives restored $13.5 million to the popular Charles Shannon Community Safety Initiative, including $2.5 million for training new police officers, after money for the program had been cut by both the governor and the House in their budgets.
The funding for new police is a far cry from the $30.6 million Gov. Deval L. Patrick hoped to use to put 250 new police officers on the streets. The bill includes earmarks for a couple of prized art institutions. Tanglewood will receive $200,000 for repairs to its grounds, and the Mahaiwe Performing Arts Center in Great Barrington will also receive $200,000.
State Rep. William "Smitty" Pignatelli said the new earmark he requested of $75,000 for Shakespeare and Company in Lenox did not make the cut. Neither did several other new requests that weren't part of last year's budget.
The $200,000 for the Boston Symphony Orchestra was level-funded from last year, despite a request for $500,000.
"Overall, I'm very pleased. It's a tight budget and I think they did a good job of protecting the programs that have been part of previous budgets," Pignatelli said.
Not all of the earmarks, particularly those related to economic development, tourism and the environment were immediately available last night as House leadership was putting the final touches on the amendment.
Much of the budget debate this year, like last year, took place behind closed doors as representatives argued amongst themselves for earmarks to fund local projects in their home districts. The House then voted for consolidated amendments on the floor that reflected a consensus on how much the state could afford to spend.
Last month, the House and Senate passed a joint resolution guaranteeing $235.1 million in local aid next year, including $220.1 million in Chapter 70 money for local schools. The new education spending this week came in the form of an additional $6.25 million in early education and child care, $5.5 million in local aid for the "pothole" account, and $868,000 more for higher education.
Gov. Deval L. Patrick's administration, which saw many of its prized initiatives slashed in the House budget, said it was concerned how much the House was spending in a tight fiscal year. Patrick has threatened to veto the final budget if some of his priorities, such as putting 250 new police officers on the streets and expanding full-day kindergarten, are not restored.
"We're certainly pleased that the governor's priorities are finding their way back into budget, but we have some serious concerns about how much they're adding to the bottom line given the tight revenue picture we're facing next year," said Cyndi Roy, the governor's deputy press secretary.
House leadership, however, defended their decisions, and said they were hoping to see an increase in revenues over the next few months.
"We made a conscious policy decision to fill the budget gap without burdening businesses with increased taxes at a time when we're trying to grow jobs. We had to cut in this budget, limit our spending and borrow from the stabilization modestly," said David Guarino, spokesman for House speaker Salvatore DiMasi.
Guarino said it was unclear how much money would have to be drawn from the state's $2.2 billion stabilization account, though the initial budget called for using $150 million.
Some county earmarks
$75,000 for the Housing Services and Mediation Program, operated by the Berkshire County Regional Housing Authority in Pittsfield.
$150,000 for the Berkshire County Drug Task Force.
$200,000 for repairs to the Boston Symphony Orchestra grounds at Tanglewood.
$200,000 for the Mahaiwe Performing Arts Center in Great Barrington.
What's next
Senate will pass a budget in May.
Gov. Deval L. Patrick will veto or approve the budget.
----------
Bosley pleads for milk money
By Hillary Chabot, Eagle Boston Bureau
The Berkshire Eagle
Friday, April 27, 2007
BOSTON — Representatives from the Berkshires have asked Gov. Deval L. Patrick for $3.6 million in emergency funds for the 167 dairy farms left in Massachusetts.
Roberto Laurens, general manager at High Lawn Farm in Lee, said the money might not even be enough to save local dairy farms, which have been hit hard by rising production costs. The state has lost 20 dairy farms since January.
"We need a lot of help, and I don't know if ($3.6 million) is going to be enough," he said.
----------
Letter to Gov. Patrick on dairy relief
City
The Berkshire Eagle
Friday, April 27, 2007
Here is the text of the letter state Rep. Daniel E. Bosley, which is co-signed by state Reps. Denis Guyer and William "Smitty" Pignatelli, sent to Gov. Deval L. Patrick requesting state aid for dairy farmers:
April 24, 2007
His Excellency Deval Patrick Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
State House Room 360
Boston, MA 02133
Dear Governor Patrick:
We are writing to you in reference to the urgent need for action to address the dairy farm crisis in our Commonwealth. We are losing dairy farms at an exponential rate due to the declining farm price of milk and the growing price of production for these farms. We ask you to file a supplemental budget before May 1, 2007 in the amount of $3.6 million to give immediate relief to these long suffering farmers.
Milk prices are set by the federal government based on national supply and demand. Theoretically, that price is adjusted by regions and is sent to the farming community. Large dairy farms and huge agricultural corporations in the western states have skewed the price for years as they have flooded the market with supply. That has sent prices for farmers in the northeast spiraling downward year after year and is beginning to impact farms in the Midwest also. At the same time, we have witnessed record production costs for farms. Ever year, this means that more and more farms close and sell their lands. Just as an example of this, the average production price given to farmers for milk in 2006 was $1.14 per gallon. The price paid to farmers in 1981 was $1.18 per gallon. That means that farmers received less money for milk in 2006 than they did in 1981! Since milk reacts to the price set by the federal government rather than cost of production, farmers have been losing money year after year. The average dairy farmer in Massachusetts lost between $40,000 and $60,000 last year and costs have continued to skyrocket.
Last year farmers were paying between $1.25 and $1.50 per bushel for feedstock. This year the price is more than $4.00 per bushel as ethanol production has driven up cost. Farmers have also seen the price of fuel, heat, and electricity hit record prices.
Not only are our farms important as a source of local milk, but they are also approximately 20% of our open space. They provide us with water recharge areas, as well as recreational space. If we close these farms this land will be developed and we will lose it forever.
Our neighboring states are also working on aid the dairy farmers. New Hampshire is down to 134 farms and they are appropriating $3 million.
Vermont has budgeted over $18 million for their 1,100 farms over the past eighteen months. New York is looking to spend close to $30 million on a farm package and Connecticut has just appropriated several million. New York, Vermont and New Hampshire are all working on bills that will place shipping costs on the processors.
We need an immediate supplemental budget that provides assistance to our farmers until we can come up with a more permanent solution. The consensus figure for that appropriation is $3.6 million. This will allow us to provide price supports to our farmers to buy seed and keep them in business until we enact a longer term strategy.
It is extremely important that we act now. Our farmers will not last much longer given the discrepancy between price and cost. These remaining 167 farms are the best that we have. They have been able to survive this long while others have closed. We need to preserve them. We, as members of the House of Representatives are asking you to work with us on this emergency and file this supplemental budget.
Sincerely yours,
DANIEL E. BOSLEY, First Berkshire
ANN M. GOBI, Fifth Worcester
STEPHEN KULIK, First Franklin
SMITTY PIGNATELLI, Fourth Berkshire
DENIS E. GUYER, Second Berkshire
PETER V. KOCOT, First Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER J. DONELAN, Second Franklin
LEWIS G. EVANGELIDIS, First Worcester
ELLEN STORY, Third Hampden
ROSEMARY SANDLIN, Third Hampshire
JOHN W. SCIBAK, Second Hampshire
STEVEN J. D'AMICO, Fourth Bristol
----------
House defends budget
By Matt Murphy, Eagle Boston Bureau
The Berkshire Eagle
Saturday, April 28, 2007
BOSTON — House leadership yesterday defended its budget spending amid growing criticism that the proposal for next year will rely too heavily on state reserves to balance the budget.
The House put the final touches on its budget for fiscal 2008 yesterday afternoon, passing a final amendment with new spending initiatives on the environment and economic development.
"This has been a very tough budget process. With over a billion dollar deficit, many programs were cut or not included at all in this House budget," said Rep. Daniel E. Bosley, D-North Adams.
Overall, representatives added about $175 million to its initial budget of $26.7 billion, including $26 million in new education spending, about $37.5 million for state and local economic development, and an additional $35 million in anti-gang and public safety programs.
House Ways and Means Chairman Robert DeLeo, D-Winthrop, said only $25 million of the additional money is for pet projects in legislators' home districts.
"This budget isn't about pork. It's about doing good for the people in our districts and for the people of the commonwealth of Massachusetts," DeLeo said, in a defensive speech from the House floor.
Leslie Kirwan, Gov. Deval L. Patrick's secretary of administration and finance, said Thursday she was concerned that the House was using too many one-time revenue sources to pay for its budget, a move that will only exacerbate the structural deficit in 2009.
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation President Michael Widmer joined the chorus yesterday, arguing against a policy of draining the "rainy day" fund to pay for yearly expenses.
The House budget calls for $150 million of the state's $2.2 billion stabilization account to be used for the budget. House leaders also froze the annual 0.5 percent contribution to the "rainy day" fund for next year.
Widmer said that that results in a net $656 million withdrawal from stabilization.
Re: Open letter to State Senator Stan Rosenberg (against Bureaucrat Bosley)
April 28th, 2007
Dear Honorable State Senator Stan Rosenberg:
Re: "House defends budget" (The Berkshire Eagle Online, April 28, 2007): This news article quotes Bureaucrat Bosley: "This has been a very tough budget process. With over a billion dollar deficit, many programs were cut or not included at all in this House budget," said Rep. Daniel E. Bosley, D-North Adams.
THEN, this news article contradicts "the bureaucrat impostering a legislator" and states the following FACTS:
(a) Bureaucrat Bosley's, et al, FY2008 state budget proposal for next year will rely too heavily on state reserves to balance the budget.
(b) Bureaucrat Bosley, et al, passed a final amendment with new spending initiatives on the environment and economic development.
(c) Overall, "representatives" (bureaucrats impostering legislators) added about $175 million to its initial budget of $26.7 billion, including $26 million in new education spending, about $37.5 million for state and local economic development, and an additional $35 million in anti-gang and public safety programs. $25 million of the additional money is for pet projects in legislators' home districts.
(d) Bureaucrat Bosley, et al, are using too many one-time revenue sources to pay for its budget, a move that will only exacerbate the structural deficit in 2009.
(e) The House budget calls for $150 million of the state's $2.2 billion stabilization account to be used for the budget. House leaders also froze the annual 0.5 percent contribution to the "rainy day" fund for next year. That results in a net $656 million withdrawal from stabilization.
(f) NOTE: FROM: "House lawmakers toss Patrick's plans" (The North Adams Transcript Online, 4/12/2007): This recently past news article stated that Bureaucrat Bosley, et al, affirmed using $500 million from the Health Care Security Trust to make up part of the difference on the disputed figure for the budget deficit. Moreover, Bureaucrat Bosley, et al, affirms the fiscally irresponsible decision to not make any interest payments and a $100 million contribution to this fund.
TO SUMMARIZE the above FACTS: Bureaucrat Bosley, et al, are closing the state budget deficit by (a) transferring $500 million from the Health Care Security Trust account to the General Fund account and not making both any interest payments and a $100 million contribution to this fund --AND-- (b) withdrawing a net figure of $656 million from the commonwealth's "rainy day" fund. AFTER divesting over $1 Billion in the commonwealth's fiscal resources, Bureaucrat Bosley, et al, THEN added about $175 million in new spending to the FY2008 Massachusetts State Budget.
So, Stan Rosenberg, this fiscally irresponsible disaster of a state budget that Bureaucrat Bosley, et al, are handing off to you and your legislative hack colleagues in the State Senate gives you the opportunity to support or oppose the foolishness, special interests, closed door and secretive governance, and divestments in HEALTH CARE and other critical state and local government services.
QUESTIONS FOR STAN ROSENBERG:
Are you, STAN ROSENBERG (future candidate for John Olver's Congressional seat), going to go along with "the bureaucrat(s) impostering legislator(s)" in the state House of Representatives --OR-- are you going to find legitimate means to raise state revenues to a level that does not rely on robbing both current public services and the future fiscal resources of the commonwealth so that a few powerful state House leaders like BUREAUCRAT BOSLEY, et al, may continue to raise many thousands of lobbyists, corporate executives and other like special interests campaign dollars instead of meeting the needs and critical service of the people they are supposed to be representing?
I want to know what you think about all of this revolting CORRUPTION by Bureaucrat Bosley, et al, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' state government?
I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU, STAN ROSENBERG, ARE TRULY A LEADER WHO WILL STAND UP AGAINST BUREAUCRATS LIKE BOSLEY, et al, in the State House of Representatives who are selling out the common people for many thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the special interests?
So, what is going to be, STAN: THE COMMON PEOPLE --OR-- The Special Interests?
I want a reply from you, Stan Rosenberg!
In Truth, and In the strongest of my written power of Dissent,
Jonathan A. Melle
P.S. VOTE BUREAUCRAT BOSLEY, et al, OUT OF "ELECTED" OFFICE IN 2008! GIVE OUR GOVERNMENT BACK TO THE PEOPLE!
SPECIAL NOTE to Bureaucrat Bosley: I will always speak my good conscience as long as I live! You, Dan Bosley, will be remembered as a CORRUPT BUREAUCRAT! That will be my legacy. I will hold you and all other corrupt Pols (and the insidious business people who finance your kind) ACCOUNTABLE until the day I will die! If you, Dan Bosley, had any integrity, you would resign your "elected" office NOW and then spread the common people's messages demanding good governance! I hope you are held accountable like The Boston Globe held LUCIFORO accountable in their 1-16-2007 news article exposing his like corruption in state government!
NEWS ARTICLE:
Big Dig job may have used wrong epoxy
Total of bolts affected not clear; probers ask who knew
By Scott Allen and Sean P. Murphy, Globe Staff
May 3, 2007
Contractors apparently used the wrong adhesive to install at least some of the bolts in a Big Dig tunnel ceiling that partially collapsed last summer, project records show, prompting criminal investigators to focus on whether the mix-up was a significant factor in the accident that killed a Jamaica Plain woman.
Invoices from the 1999 ceiling construction job show that Modern Continental Construction Co. received and apparently used at least one case of a quick-drying epoxy to secure ceiling bolts to the tunnel roof rather than standard epoxy, which the ceiling designers had specified.
The distinction was crucial to the safety of the ceiling: The "fast-set" epoxy holds 25 percent less weight than standard epoxy and is not recommended for suspending heavy objects overhead.
It is unclear how widespread the use of fast-set epoxy was, since most sales records don't list the epoxy type, but state criminal investigators are looking seriously at the possibility that the weaker epoxy was used in the ceiling section that collapsed when 20 bolts popped out on the night of July 10, 2006, according to representatives of several firms under investigation.
The investigators also want to know why no one raised the possibility that the wrong epoxy had been used when ceiling bolts started coming loose during construction of the Interstate 90 connector tunnel.
"If [workers] used the wrong stuff, which appears to be the case, the issue is who knew about this or were they reckless about letting the project go forward with the wrong stuff?" said a consultant to one of the firms involved in the ceiling project, who asked not to be named so as not to anger prosecutors who are presenting their evidence in secret to a Suffolk County grand jury.
Paul F. Ware, the special prosecutor leading the state's criminal investigation, has sent investigators back into the tunnel over the last few days to collect more ceiling bolts for lab analysis, according to a letter from the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, which manages the Big Dig tunnel system, to the companies involved in the ceiling project. The tests could help investigators determine the strength and type of epoxy that was used.
Use of fast-set epoxy in the ceiling is one in a series of missteps that may have contributed to the accident and, at the least, point out oversight lapses in the $14.6 billion Big Dig project.
The Globe has previously reported that, to save time, Big Dig managers and designers eliminated half the ceiling bolts called for in the original ceiling design and that construction workers made numerous mistakes during installation of the bolts that could have weakened them. The newspaper has also reported that ceiling bolts in the area of the collapse were safety-tested with a weight now regarded as too low, potentially allowing defective bolts to pass.
If the bolts were held in place by fast-set epoxy, the ceiling would have had little, if any, margin of safety left. Bolts secured with fast-set epoxy could safely carry 4,285 pounds each, rather than the 6,350 pounds the designers had planned on, based on their final report to Big Dig managers on the ceiling. Two independent engineers who have reviewed the ceiling's specifications for the Globe estimated that the ceiling's weight was close to 5,000 pounds per bolt, which is more than bolts secured with fast-set epoxy were designed to bear over the long term.
After the accident, the tunnel ceiling was permanently removed in the area of the accident, and elsewhere in the connector the ceiling was reinforced with additional bolts and brackets.
Construction of the ceiling was supervised by engineers at the joint venture of Bechtel and Parsons Brinckerhoff, but responsibility for using the right epoxy is difficult to pin down. The Braintree office of Gannett Fleming designed the ceiling to be secured with standard epoxy, but that require ment is not highlighted in project documents. Modern Continental built the ceiling, but workers have said they weren't told there was an important difference between the epoxies. Powers Fasteners of New York had a contract to supply the epoxy and bolts, but only through a small distribution company that bought the products wholesale and then delivered them to the job.
As a result, each company has said it bears no responsibility for use of the wrong epoxy. In fact, Powers Fasteners officials have told investigators that they aren't even certain that the epoxy in the accident area was their product, even though, during construction, company officials visited the tunnel and provided technical advice to workers on how to install the ceiling bolts properly. Powers' distributor, Newman, Renner, Colony of Plymouth, declined to comment.
The investigation into what epoxy was used has been hampered by both the imprecise sales records and the difficulty of chemically identifying the epoxy used in the area of the accident. The National Transportation Safety Board reported four months after the crash that it could not identify the epoxy taken from the failed bolts even after comparing it with samples of standard and fast-set epoxy. And the sales records that show what Newman, Renner, Colony delivered to Modern Continental distinguish between standard and fast-set epoxy in only one invoice.
State investigators in recent months have intensified their interest in Powers, sending company officials a fresh subpoena in March asking for documents concerning its role in the ceiling project. In addition, witnesses from other companies called before the grand jury hearing evidence in the case say they are being questioned closely about the type of epoxy used to hold up the ceiling.
"All the discussion outside the jury room is about the question of which epoxy was used and was it fast-set epoxy?" said an official for one of the companies under investigation who asked not to be named.
The focus on epoxy comes as Ware and his boss, Attorney General Martha Coakley, strive to meet a self-imposed deadline of June to decide whether to ask the grand jury to return indictments against anyone for criminal negligence in the accident. Legal analysts say that winning a conviction would require Coakley to prove that people or companies knew they were building a dangerous ceiling or they were so reckless that they missed obvious warning signs.
Before taking office in January, Coakley had raised doubts that the evidence was strong enough to prove criminal negligence, but, since Ware's arrival on March 1, some in her office say they have become more optimistic that there could be enough evidence for criminal indictments.
But fixing responsibility for the epoxy remains challenging, in part because the design documents produced by Gannett Fleming and Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff say only in passing that contractors should use standard epoxy rather than fast-set for ceiling bolts. All of the safety calculations are based on bolts secured by standard epoxy, but the design specifications don't explicitly forbid fast-set, and the fact that fast-set can support less weight than standard epoxy is contained only in a footnote.
Adding to the confusion, although fast-set epoxy cartridges were clearly marked, the workers installing the ceiling may not have known there was a difference between fast-set and standard aside from drying time. Construction workers on the ceiling project have said they used Powers Fasteners epoxy and bolts, but they don't recall whether the label said fast-set.
Finally, the epoxy passed through many hands on its way to the tunnel. Sika Corp. manufactured the epoxy at a plant in Ohio, then shipped it to a warehouse in New Jersey in barrels marked with a prominent "FS" to denote fast-set epoxy, according to Sika officials. Powers then transported Sika's epoxy to its plant in New York where workers repackaged it into small cartridges, placing Powers's label on it. Then, Newman, Renner, Colony brought the cartridges and bolts to Modern Continental at the tunnel site.
Criminal investigators are focusing on a period in October 1999 when five ceiling bolts came loose shortly after the ceiling was hung from them, prompting Modern Continental officials to call in Powers Fasteners officials for advice. Over the next three months, officials from Powers, Modern and Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff discussed ways to install bolts more securely, but there is no evidence anyone asked: Did workers use the right epoxy?
As one lawyer with direct knowledge of the investigation put it, "Was the right advice given by the experts?"
THE BOSTON GLOBE
Big Dig's cost could near $15b, state officials say
By Scott Allen and Sean P. Murphy, Globe Staff
May 5, 2007
Massachusetts officials disclosed yesterday that the final price of the Big Dig could be close to $15 billion in the worst case scenario, $333 million more than previous estimates. But they emphasized that cost recovery from contractors and other expected income should keep the final cost below that figure.
State finance documents released yesterday show that, more than a year after the megaproject was declared "substantially completed," the price is still rising due to unexpectedly high construction costs, exten sive repairs after a fatal ceiling collapse, and the need for a $10 million reserve fund. The new estimate, approved by the Patrick administration as part of a report to bondholders, pegs the price of the Big Dig at $14.798 billion, an increase of $173 million, with the possibility of another $160 million if negotiations with Big Dig contractors go badly.
However, officials at the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, which manages the Big Dig tunnel system, said the estimate reflects increased openness about project costs, rather than out-of-control spending. In the past, authority officials avoided the appearance of cost increases by counting income they hoped to receive in the future as part of the estimate, but the new administration has urged them to abandon that practice.
"As we've worked with the administration to update the project's costs, the Turnpike [Authority] has been fully forthcoming," authority spokesman Jon Carlisle said in a statement.
Once the authority receives expected insurance payments, contractor repayments for poor quality work, and other income, he predicted, "we're going to get close to $14.625 billion," he said.
Aides to Governor Deval Patrick said they were concerned about the possibility of a $333 million increase in the cost of the Big Dig, but they pledged to work with Turnpike Authority officials to control costs. They also pledged to help cover an immediate $210 million cash shortfall in the authority's budget while they await repayment from contractors and other income.
"We will continue to closely monitor the management of this project and continue to insist on an open and transparent process," said John Lamontagne, spokesman for Bernard Cohen, the state secretary of transportation.
The Big Dig, expected to cost $2 billion when designed in the mid-1980s, has been plagued by cost overruns and reluctance by officials to acknowledge them.
But, following the collapse of a tunnel ceiling last July that killed a Jamaica Plain woman, Turnpike Authority chairman Matthew J . Amorello was replaced by John Cogliano, who pledged to make the authority more publicly accountable. Cohen is scheduled to replace Cogliano on July 1.
Patrick campaigned last year on a pledge to reform the Turnpike Authority, which is governed by its own board of directors.
Yesterday, Mary Z. Connaughton, an authority board member since 2005, said the Big Dig cost estimate is a "step in the right direction" toward more accountability, and that the report contains for the first time a full estimate of how much Big Dig contractors say they are owed for work already performed: $243 million.
The Turnpike Authority has estimated it will have to pay only $84 million of those claims, but acknowledged yesterday that, if the contractors successfully press all their claims, it would boost the cost of the Big Dig by another $160 million.
"The public needs to know," Connaughton said. "It's public money, not state money."
The finance documents, prepared for bondholders who finance the authority's ambitious construction program, show that construction costs have risen by $109 million since the last official cost estimate in 2004.
In addition, the authority spent $54 million on repairs after the ceiling collapse, costs that the agency expects to recover from the contractors found responsible for the accident.
The documents also include a litany of troubling financial information, all of it previously disclosed, such as a $67 million shortfall in Big Dig funding due to overly optimistic estimates of the resale value of the project headquarters building near South Station. Meanwhile, the Massachusetts Port Authority is holding back $50 million it is contracted to pay because the agency is unhappy with the condition of Big Dig tunnels leading to Logan Airport.
However, Carlisle said the turnpike expects to eventually collect millions from insurance policies and from Big Dig contractors who did substandard work. Attorney General Martha Coakley is suing the companies involved in the design and construction of the Interstate 90 connector tunnel ceiling, and her office is seeking cost recovery for other Big Dig contracts.
Dear Honorable Dan "Bureaucrat" Bosley:
YOU ARE A BUREAUCRAT IMPOSTERING AS A LEGISLATOR! In yesterday's Boston Globe, it states that you are "a gambling opponent who nevertheless wants to see the lottery stay healthy."
#1 - WHAT? You oppose gambling, but support the lottery! For this oxymoronic view, I call: "Bosley's Hypocrisy!"
Let us come up with some good ones:
#2 - George W. Bush: "War with Tax Cuts"!
Boy, Bureaucrat Bosley, that makes so much sense that there must be more from where that came from...
#3 - 2 + 2 = 5! The mathematical equation of totalitarian governance. If I say two plus two equals five, the goddamnit, two plus two equals five!
Boy, Bureaucrat Bosley, that one makes so much sense that there must be even more from where that came from...
#4 - The pathway to my wealth is through my state lottery! If the lottery really is a tax on the poor and uneducated, then if I pay my poor taxes then I will become rich someday.
Boy, Bureaucrat Bosley, what a WHOPPER! Boy, I am keeling over with laughter now.
#5 - MY FAVORITE: ALL animals are equal, but SOME animals are more equal than others! If I speak out on government matters, no one will retaliate against me because I am equal to my government officials. But the outcome will be that I won't have a job and I will become homeless and marginalized. I better recognize that my equality to the political or ruling class is not as equal to those who govern me.
Well, Bureaucrat Bosley, I just love reading about all of the BULLSHIT that corrupt, special interest, more equal than me, top-down Pols like you have to say in the news media. I just love feeling the power of a president or a state representative who makes no more sense than an insane man battling windmills, but without his heart. I hope that our nation's very costly war against Iraq nets the corporate and political elites a few more million dollars in earnings this year. I hope that the meek will inherit the Earth by state's having monopolies over gambling, and that the lottery makes the masses have financially secure retirements! I also hope that PIGS HAVE WINGS AND FLY!
In my long-standing essays on Bureaucrat Bosley's Orwellian and deficient public policy record! I WILL ALWAYS SPEAK MY GOOD CONSCIENCE AS LONG AS I LIVE!
In Truth,
Jonathan A. Melle
Source:
"The lottery's revenue problem: Under pressure from municipalities to generate ever more money, the state lottery says it may have maxed out revenue from conventional games. The next phase of wagering may involve a technological leap -- into cellphones" (The Boston Globe, by Bruce A. Mohl, May 6, 2007).
Representative Daniel E. Bosley of North Adams, the House chairman of the Legislature's Economic Development and Emerging Technologies Committee, is a gambling opponent who nevertheless wants to see the lottery stay healthy. He doubts, even with cellphone betting or other innovations, whether it will grow faster than the rate of inflation.
"How much more do you expect to squeeze out of a state our size?" he asked.
Mass. has yet to collect fees from firms for healthcare
Totals expected to fall far short of predictions
By Alice Dembner, [Boston] Globe Staff
May 10, 2007
Taxpayers are bearing a larger share of the cost of the expansion of healthcare coverage than expected because the state has not yet collected a penny from businesses that do not help insure their workers.
Penalties on those businesses were expected to bring in $95 million this fiscal year and $76 million next year, according to the Legislature's estimates when the bill was signed into law a year ago.
But the state now expects to collect nothing in the fiscal year that ends June 30, and only $24 million next year, according to budget officials in Governor Deval Patrick's administration and in the House of Representatives.
Even in future years, when the state is actively collecting the fees, the amount will be significantly less than originally anticipated because of changes made by the administration of Governor Mitt Romney and the Legislature after the law was passed.
In this start-up year, lower costs for some aspects of the nearly $1.7 billion health insurance initiative are expected to offset the money that would have been collected from businesses.
But in fiscal 2008, the drop in revenue and increases in costs mean taxpayers will pay nearly $125 million more than expected, according to a Globe analysis of proposed budgets for next year.
The added expense will be covered by shifting funds from other state accounts. Nonetheless, it raises doubt about whether the responsibility for insuring nearly all Massachusetts residents will be shared as planned among individuals, government, and businesses.
"We have always suggested that there are financing concerns going forward, in terms of holding this law together," said John McDonough, executive director of Health Care for All, an advocacy group that helped win passage of the law. "This gives us a first hint of what they look like. These numbers also give us a reason to question whether business is indeed paying its fair share."
As lawmakers shaped the law in 2005 and early 2006, one of the hardest-fought battles was over how much businesses should contribute. Business leaders adamantly opposed a proposed payroll tax on employers who did not provide insurance for workers.
The compromise was a fee of up to $295 per worker annually charged to companies that did not make a "fair and reasonable" contribution to their workers' insurance.
The legislative conference committee that hammered out the compromise estimated in March 2006 that this "fair share" fee would bring in about $45 million this year. Romney vetoed the fee, but the Legislature restored it.
The law also contained a second fee on businesses whose workers and their dependents regularly seek charity care funded by the state. The conference committee estimated that this "free rider" fee, based on how much charity care a business's employees used, would generate about $50 million this year.
Both fees apply only to companies with 11 or more full-time employees, and money from them was supposed to help provide state-subsidized insurance for low-income people.
But the Patrick administration does not expect to collect any free rider fees until fall 2008 because the Legislature has delayed the effective date, and the administration has yet to issue regulations detailing how the fee will be imposed. House officials say some money may be collected early in 2008, but they are so unsure of the amount that they are not counting on that revenue in next year's budget.
When the fee is collected, it will probably generate much less than the originally estimated $50 million, because the Legislature exempted any company that helps its workers secure a tax break for health insurance premiums. Most companies are expected to do that because it also cuts their payroll costs.
The fair-share fee went into effect last October, but the Romney administration did not begin collecting it, and the Patrick administration is still setting up the billing systems to do so.
Even when fair-share bills go out, the revenue is anticipated to be only $24 million, because of rules established by the Romney administration that reduced the number of firms facing the fee.
"The previous administration had no intention of collecting it, so the infrastructure was not put in place," said Representative Patricia Walrath, cochairwoman of the Legislature's Committee on Health Care Financing.
Romney's spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, said the Romney administration had not dragged its feet, despite initial opposition to the fee. He said that regulations were established "in a timely manner" and that the money could not have been collected any earlier.
To bring in more revenue from businesses, Walrath suggested, Patrick could revise the Romney regulations in line with the original intentions of the Legislature.
But Patrick's deputy press secretary, Cyndi Roy, said it is too early to consider that kind of change.
"We've got to wait and see how much we do collect from businesses," Roy said. "We have to let healthcare reform work."
Michael Widmer -- president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-funded fiscal watchdog -- said that businesses will eventually pay both fees, but that the total collected will be small. The estimates for free-rider collections, he said, were "really exaggerated."
"It's a major misunderstanding to focus on the fair-share assessment as a centerpiece of the business contribution" to health reform, he said.
The main business contribution, he added, will be the hundreds of millions of dollars employers spend to cover workers who buy insurance for the first time this year, as required by the new law.
Patrick delivers dairy aid to farms
By Hillary Chabot, Eagle Boston Bureau
The Berkshire Eagle
Friday, May 11, 2007
BOSTON — Gov. Deval L. Patrick unveiled a proposal yesterday to rush $3.6 million in emergency funding to dairy farmers across the state struggling to stay in business.
The plan also would put aside money to study the problem further and initiate long-term solutions.
"I have heard from many dairy farmers that they are hurting," Patrick said in a statement. "Last year, in particular, rising costs for energy and feed stocks combined with low prices to put these farmers in a financial hole. These funds will help them back on their feet while we work on permanent solutions."
State Rep. Daniel E. Bosley, D-North Adams, sent Patrick a letter last month requesting the emergency funding.
"We need to get this out to the farmers because they really need the help," Bosley said.
A total of 20 dairy farms have been lost since January as part of an ongoing crisis throughout the state. Only 167 farms remain, and they are having trouble keeping up with rising electricity and feeding costs.
The money is part of an $88.9 million supplemental budget filed by Patrick that also puts $15 million toward anti-crime initiatives and $35 million in unanticipated costs such as snow and ice removal and rising county corrections costs.
State Sen. Benjamin B. Downing, D-Pittsfield, said the dairy funding is money well spent.
"I think it's a good step by the governor. It reflects what has been a long negotiation between the administration, the local dairy farms and legislators throughout Massachusetts, but especially members of the western delegation," Downing said.
The cost of running the farms has gone up, including the price of feedstock, electricity and fuel. The $3.6 million would go directly to grain, whose cost rose dramatically because of the price of ethanol.
The federal government sets milk prices, which have been kept low because of a glut of milk production in the Midwest. Dairy farmers received $1.14 per gallon for production in 2006 and $1.18 per gallon in 1981.
The supplemental budget also puts $472,438 toward collective bargaining costs between the Berkshire County sheriff and the Berkshire County Sheriff's Office Employees' Association and the Berkshire County Sheriff's Office Communications Center.
NEWS ARTICLE:
Sour times for dairy farmers
Subsidy would help cover rising costs, but some seek long-term relief
By Joyce Pellino Crane, [The Boston] Globe Correspondent
May 13, 2007
CARLISLE -- So far, Mark Duffy is holding onto his 130 cows, but just this winter he saw two more friends sell their stock as economic shifts deepened the woes of the Massachusetts dairy farmer.
Duffy, 52, has been milking cows for 28 years, the last 20 at Great Brook State Farm, where he leases 100 acres. Some years, he ekes out a living. Other years, he amasses debt.
This is looking like another of the bad years.
Along with the state's other remaining dairy farmers, Duffy was relieved to hear last week that Governor Deval Patrick had filed a supplemental budget for this fiscal year, which will end June 30, that includes $3.6 million to subsidize local farms in the short term.
In the supplemental spending request, the governor also proposed creating a task force to develop strategies for strengthening the Massachusetts dairy industry. Farmers and some lawmakers say long-term legislation is needed if the state's dairy producers are to survive.
"Beyond the supplemental appropriation, we need to come up with long-term ways to stabilize the dairy industry," said Representative Stephen Kulik, a Democrat from Worthington. "Otherwise, they will suffer with costs that are higher than the cost of producing the milk."
Duffy and others say one way of helping the Massachusetts farmer for the long haul is to replicate a law passed in Maine in 2005 that adds a fee to the retail price of milk. If the market price of milk falls below a certain threshold, the fee still ensures an adequate return for the Maine dairy producer.
"That would go a long way toward solving the problem in Massachusetts, if some type of fee can go toward sustaining the dairy farmers," Kulik said.
The Massachusetts dairy farmer is becoming a rare breed. In 1980, there were nearly 830 dairy farmers in the Bay State. Today, there are 167, according to the state Department of Agricultural Resources .
Towns such as Dracut, Dunstable, Littleton, and Pepperell still have surviving farms, but many are barely hanging on as they face new economic realities.
One new challenge is the escalating price of corn, deluxe nutrition for cows, which increasingly is being converted into ethanol, the so-called clean alternative to petroleum.
The increased demand for corn, combined with lower production levels this seasonal year, has driven up the per-bushel price of the grain from about $2 in 2005-2006 to $3.20 in 2006-2007.
But there's no way to cut corners with feedstock. At Duffy's farm, the cows consume more than 2,000 pounds of grain a day. "The cows get taken care of, no matter what," he said.
The economics of the Massachusetts dairy farmer's dilemma is simple: Milk brings in less money than what it costs to produce it; last year, for example, a gallon of raw milk cost about $1.60 to produce, but yielded only $1.14 for the farmer.
The Massachusetts farmer's position in this highly regulated industry has to do with a complicated formula that sets the market prices for milk across the country.
The bottom line, Duffy and others say, is that a farmer in a Western state, where the climate does not require the animals to be sheltered, can more easily add stock and produce a greater volume of milk to compensate for falling prices.
But the increased volume depresses the price even more, and this vicious cycle hits the Massachusetts farmer harder because of the higher overhead, which includes the costs of energy, insurance, feed, and labor.
Market prices set by the federal government plummeted almost 90 cents per gallon between May 2004 and May 2006, putting farmers behind the eight-ball. Though prices are edging up, area farmers say they are playing catch-up on their bills.
"This is an extremely stressful time," Duffy said. "I've already told my landlord that in order to continue to operate Great Brook State Farm, I have to be economically viable."
Many Massachusetts dairy farmers have joined Agri-Mark, a dairy cooperative based in Methuen with about 1,300 Northeastern members. The farmers send their milk to plants in West Springfield, Vermont, and northern New York, where cheese, yogurt, and butter are manufactured.
The cooperative has helped, but dairy farmers are giving up at a rapid pace. Duffy said this winter a friend in Newbury sold all his milking cows, and another in Middleborough became ill and was forced to sell.
The short-term subsidy is supported by Kulik and state Representative Daniel E. Bosley of North Adams and Senator Stephen M. Brewer of Barre, both Democrats.
The farmers, who had hoped to get $12 million, have agreed to divide whatever money they get based on the quantities of milk they produce each year. Under the supplemental budget submitted by Patrick, Duffy would get about $20,000 -- not quite enough to ensure his survival in the long run, he said.
"We very much appreciate it," he said of the proposed appropriation, "and we view that as a short-term program to get us to a long-term solution."
Duffy and other farmers say they fear dairy farms in the West will continue to grow in number and size, while Massachusetts will lose more food producers.
Warren Shaw, who owns a dairy farm in Dracut and produces ice cream, said there are benefits to local farms beyond their supply of milk.
Centralizing agricultural production in large industrial farms out West, he said, leaves the nation's food supply vulnerable.
"The question remains: Do the people who are responsible for the character and quality of life in New England care enough about locally produced food to help it survive?"
Providing subsidies to local dairy farmers, though, is not an efficient way of propping up a declining industry, said Dan Lass, a professor in the Department of Resource Economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
"Subsidies keep farmers in business who might not otherwise survive in a perfectly competitive market," he said.
Nonetheless, Lass voiced support for maintaining farms in the state.
"We don't really have to have dairy farmers in this state," he said. But "they provide other benefits beyond just a fresh supply of milk."
Ask Duffy and other farmers, and they will list preservation of open space and water quality among the benefits.
But those don't help pay the bills.
Duffy estimated that he owes about $160,000 in short- and long-term debt. His capital expenses include farm equipment and maintenance costs for buildings, as well as corn silage and concentrated grain for feeding the cows.
Labor, too, is an overhead challenge. One recent Friday morning, two farmhands were milking cows and storing grass and feedstock in the trench silos. But missing was the herdsman, who left his job in January.
"There's no way to replace him," Duffy said. "It's springtime, and we're flat out."
So Duffy's wife, Tamma, puts in about 70 hours a week helping on the farm and running the ice cream stand in front of the farmhouse, and Duffy works around the clock. The couple has two teenage sons and a daughter in college, who all help out.
On this Friday, about 70 Holsteins were lined up in two rows inside Duffy's barn as machines emptied their swollen udders and channeled it through pipes to a glass tank in the next room.
The jar funneled it to a 2,000-gallon, stainless-steel cooling and storage tank, ready for delivery.
Five heifers and a bull calf were penned in separate hutches to keep them from nursing one another.
Yellow tags with numbers extended from the females' ears, but the male had no such appendage because he'll soon be sold.
The heifers are the farm's future, as are the 13 pregnant cows behind the barn and the two newborns inside.
Standing among the black-and-white animals around which half his life has centered, Duffy spoke his heart.
"I have no intention of giving up."
NEWS ARTICLE:
Health costs soar, squeeze localities
Groups lobby for legislation
By Matt Carroll, [The Boston] Globe Staff
May 13, 2007
Health care spending for Massachusetts communities has nearly doubled since 2001, squeezing town budgets and forcing cutbacks in public safety and government services and leading to calls for property tax increases.
Employee healthcare costs in cities and towns shot up about 85 percent , from an average $2.5 million to $4.7 million, from 2001 to 2006 , according to a Globe analysis of budgets from 324 communities , using data from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue .
In Weston, healthcare costs are up more than 120 percent, a major contributor to the town's decision to seek a $1.1 million general override from voters last year. In Amesbury, healthcare costs more than doubled, to $4.9 million, and the town has held off on filling five to 10 jobs. In Fall River, costs have nearly doubled, to $32.7 million, and the city has at least 10 percent fewer staff members than it had in 2002.
Meanwhile, Stoneham has seen health costs soar 130 percent , to about $6 million , since 2001, said Ronald J. Florino, the town accountant. The increases each year total between $500,000 and $1 million, "which pretty much wipes out all our new revenue each year," he said.
"That extra $500,000 we could have had would definitely save 10 positions a year," he said.
The town has eliminated about 12 jobs in the police and fire departments, cut hours for other employees, and chopped programs. The town no longer has an information technology director or a town planner. The treasurer gets a stipend to handle computer issues, said Florino.
"It is the biggest fiscal crisis facing every city and town in Massachusetts," said Samuel R. Tyler, president of the Boston Municipal Research Bureau, a government-funded watchdog organization.
"Escalating prices are absorbing a larger share of revenue growth, which means fewer resources for other services, which puts more pressure on property taxes."
On average, healthcare now eats up 9 percent of municipal budgets, up from 6 percent in 2001.
Tyler is part of a group of municipal officials, unions, and public retirees lobby ing for legislation to curb the skyrocketing healthcare costs. Governor Deval Patrick has also proposed legislation to curb costs.
"The governor believes we must give cities and town additional tools to help relieve the pressure on the property tax, and this is one way we believe makes sense," said Cyndi Roy, the governor's spokeswoman.
The coalition wants to give communities the option of joining the state's healthcare plan, called the Group Insurance Commission , a quasi-independent agency, as long as 70 percent of a community's unions agree.
State officials say municipalities like the plan because it has held costs to a relatively modest 54 percent increase over the past five years, compared with the average 85 percent hike in municipal costs .
The state health plan has a number of financial advantages over the communities' coverage. First, its massive size gives it far more clout when negotiating deals with insurance companies and physicians.
The state health plan has other advantages for local governments : State employees and their unions do not directly bargain for many aspects of their medical benefits, while municipal employees do.
For example, the state plan, through the Legislature, sets the percent of the premium paid by members, which ranges from 15 percent to 20 percent for most employees. The plan also sets the design, which means it can establish prices on items such as copayments for doctor visits.
By contrast, the cities and towns' plans are relatively generous, sometimes offering $5 copayments and 10 percent premiums. That is also better than private-sector policies in the state, where the average copayment is $15 for a visit to the doctor's office, and the employee share of premiums is usually 20 percent to 25 percent.
Some employees drop a spouse's private-sector plan for the municipal plan because it saves the family money.
In Plainville, costs have roughly quadrupled since 2001 -- from $340,000 to $1.4 million.
"We're looking at freezing wages and making budget cuts," said Town Administrator Joseph Fernandes. He said the town is "$750,000 in the hole" on a budget of about $23 million.
"Everything is on the table. . . . Other things are going up, too, but nothing like health insurance."
Across the country, health care costs have exploded in the past few years because of two trends, said Joseph Newhouse , a professor at Harvard University who specializes in healthcare economics.
Baby boomers need more medical care as they age. Plus, the medical field is constantly improving. But more capability -- in the form of new procedures, drugs, and devices -- means higher costs.
For some community officials, union members, and retirees, the solution lies in the legislative proposal that would steer municipal employees to the state plan. They have been working on the legislation for more than a year.
Currently, many municipalities have their own plan or join with other cities and towns to establish one. Medical benefits are a contentious issue during contract negotiations, and unions and the cities and towns battle over premiums and copayments.
The Massachusetts Teachers Association, which has 106,000 active and retired members, supports the measure, said its vice president, Paul Toner.
"Health care costs have been accelerating on a very rapid pace, and cities and towns are under stress," Toner said. "We see a win-win situation for municipalities on a case-by-case basis."
Other unions supporting the measure include the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 93 -- which represents 35,000 state and municipal workers across the state -- and the National Association of Government Employees, which is based in Quincy and represents 8,000 public workers statewide.
Mayor Thomas G. Ambrosino of Revere, who has worked with the 12-member Metropolitan Mayors Coalition on the bill, said the plan tries to give everyone something.
The best plan would allow municipalities to join the state plan without negotiating with unions, he said .
"The problem with that is that it has absolutely no chance of passing the Legislature," Ambrosino said. "There would be immense labor opposition."
Some municipalities doubt they will see savings. Other critics said the bill would not help cities and towns nearly enough. And some unions have declined to support the bill, saying it would not protect its members.
Firefighters are not enthusiastic about the plan. Bob McCarthy , president of the 12,000 -member Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts, said he is hoping for changes. For example, he is concerned that under the bill, unions would lose their ability to negotiate a plan's design, including copayments.
Michael J. Widmer , president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Association , a nonprofit watchdog organization, called the bill a weak response.
"While a good step, it is too tepid a response for a problem of this magnitude," he said. He would like to give towns the option of joining over union objections.
House Bill 2601, which has been co sponsored by more than 100 representatives and senators, would give communities the option of joining the state plan, but would not force them.
The decision to join would be made jointly by municipal leaders, unions, and retirees.
A vote to join would require a 70 percent vote by unions and retirees.
Matt Carroll can be reached at mcarroll@globe.com.
(Correction: Because of a reporting error, a Page One story Sunday about rising employee healthcare costs in cities and towns misstated the background of a local research group and its position on legislation aimed at curbing costs. The Boston Municipal Research Bureau is a business-funded watchdog organization. It is not part of a coalition pushing legislation to curb the costs because the bureau believes the proposal does not go far enough.)
Care plan gap seen for many workers
Low-wage earners who can't afford company benefit ineligible for aid
By Alice Dembner,
[The Boston] Globe Staff
May 19, 2007
As many as 30,000 low-wage workers face a Catch-22 that could leave them uninsured, despite the state's new healthcare initiative.
They can't afford the insurance offered by their employers, yet they aren't eligible for state subsidies because their employer offers coverage.
"It's totally and completely unfair," said Sandy O'Brien, 53, who hasn't had insurance for years.
After being out for two days last week with severe back spasms, O'Brien dragged herself back to her counter job at Dunkin' Donuts in Milford, where she is on her feet all day. Without insurance, she doesn't have the money to see a doctor for treatment or to get the doctor's note that Dunkin' Donuts requires for an absence of more than two days.
Dunkin' Donuts offers her insurance, but on a yearly income of about $15,000, she can't afford the monthly premium of $98. She sees other people with equally low wages signing up for the new state- subsidized insurance plans. But she's not eligible.
The state law requiring every adult to have coverage by July 1 is structured to encourage work-based insurance. Anyone who is offered coverage through work, no matter how expensive, is excluded from the state plans.
"For poor people in my situation, the new insurance law is really a joke," O'Brien said.
She is among the approximately 60,000 people who will be excluded from the state requirement to obtain insurance because coverage isn't affordable for them. But that brings O'Brien no relief, because she will remain uninsured.
Not having insurance, she says, "is a very, very bad problem. When my back went out months ago, I went to four different doctors' offices, and none of them would see me because I didn't have the money. I started crying. I'd been out of work for two weeks at that point, and I had no money."
The state needs to find a way to help insure people like O'Brien, said Celia Wcislo, a labor organizer who is on the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority , which oversees implementation of the new law.
"There are many working low-income people who have access to insurance but can't afford it," said Wcislo, assistant division director of labor union 1199 SEIU. "If we're trying to make it universal, it's our responsibility to figure out how to make insurance affordable for them."
The law provides a mechanism to do that. It permits the Connector Authority board to admit low-income workers like O'Brien into the subsidized program as long as their employers send the state the money that they would have paid toward those workers' premiums. But it leaves the decision up to the authority.
Based on her income, O'Brien would probably qualify for free coverage in Commonwealth Care, the new state program that offers subsidies on a sliding scale based on income. But even with her employer's contribution, the state cost for insurance would rise, because the state would be picking up her share of the cost. Growth in spending remains a big cloud over the long-term future of the healthcare initiative.
"We're looking at the financing" of including more people than the state has already budgeted for, said Jon Kingsdale, executive director of the authority's board. "There are lots of demands for additional spending. If we have any extra money, we could spend it. But it's premature."
In addition to the 30,000 people like O'Brien, there are more than 4,000 self-employed workers who are prohibited from joining the more affordable Commonwealth Care because of another quirk. They meet the income guidelines for the program, earning less than $30,636 a year, but are excluded because they have insurance through an older state program that provides smaller subsidies.
That program, the Insurance Partnership, pays a portion of the premium for private insurance, but leaves some low-income, self-employed people facing insurance bills of $300 or $400 a month. Under the new insurance law, to qualify for Commonwealth Care and its premiums of zero to $180 a month, they would have to go without insurance for six months.
"They're offering something that's more affordable, but they're telling me I can't have it unless I drop my insurance and stay off it for six months," said Margot Sharff, 39, a self-employed garden designer who makes about $17,000 a year. "That's a risk," she said, but one she is considering, even though it seems counter to the intent of the new law.
Sharff has benefited from the Insurance Partnership for six years. But with premiums rising, she said insurance is no longer afford able even with the state paying half. Getting into Commonwealth Care would cut her premiums drastically.
For the state, in addition to the increased cost, there is also the question of how employers would respond to a policy change that lets more low-wage workers into Commonwealth Care. Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economics professor who sits on the connector board, said some employers with many low-wage workers might try to shift more costs to the state by requiring workers to pay a higher share of premiums, thus making coverage unaffordable and pushing more employees into Commonwealth Care.
Others suggest that leaving the policy as it is, instead of allowing people like O'Brien in, could encourage some cash-strapped employers to drop insurance to make all their low-income employees eligible for the state plan.
Connector Authority board member Dolores Mitchell cautioned against quick changes.
"There are a lot of people for whom the connector insurance is less expensive than that from their employer," said Mitchell, who is also executive director of the Group Insurance Commission, which oversees health coverage for state workers. "This is a Pandora's box. Before we lift the lid, we should have an informed discussion about what the implications are."
Dear Rinaldo Del Gallo III, Bureaucrat Bosley, Berkshire Bloggers, News Media, Pols, & the People:
Re: "Expedited Permitting Program: New process pushes towns to be `quick, predictable'" (The Berkshire Eagle, May 22, 2007): It must be sweet for Rinaldo Del Gallo III to see one of his many insightful economic development proposals for Pittsfield going forward with financial assistance from the state. As a political supporter of Rinaldo, I find it disheartening to read that his initial ideas for expedited permitting for Pittsfield were not given their due credit by The Berkshire Eagle.
At the end of the news article, State Representative Impostering a Bureaucrat Dan Bosley contradicted one of Rinaldo's earlier claims for economic development for Pittsfield and Berkshire County. Bureaucrat Bosley said that precaution against gentrification for the Berkshires is a needed ingredient in this economic development public policy. For the public record, Bureaucrat Bosley stated that the "attractive housing costs" in Berkshire County could change "if the infrastructure changed."
First of all, Rinaldo has been claiming that housing costs in Berkshire County, especially Pittsfield, are not at all attractive in comparison to other "post-industrial wasteland areas" similar in nature to Pittsfield and North Adams. Rinaldo previously sent out emails comparing the lower costs of housing in other like areas of the nation with the very high housing prices in Pittsfield. Seeing how Rinaldo has been right on every aspect of economic development for Pittsfield and Berkshire County thus far, I believe that Bureaucrat Bosley is OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY!
Moreover, BERKSHIRE COUNTY IS THE NUMBER ONE REGION IN THE COMMONWEALTH FOR JOB LOSSES! Guess what, lousy Berkshire Pols, once JOBS LEAVE an area THEY AINT COMIN BACK! The Pols can tout their ineffective public policies on economic development all they want, but it is the OUTCOME of JOBS that really matters.
Similar to Rinaldo, I see every SPECIAL INTEREST project in Pittsfield and Berkshire County used in the name of economic development! The Colonial Theater and the Spice Restaurant are worthy investments, but THEY HAVE NOT CREATED REAL JOBS THAT PAY REAL WAGES!
WHERE ARE YOU RINALDO? The people of Pittsfield and Berkshire County need you to lead them on these crucial matters of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT! Please run for Mayor of Pittsfield, Massachusetts in 2007!
The only real OUTCOME by Dan Bosley, and his fellow corrupted SPECIAL INTEREST lousy Berkshire Pols, is that BERKSHIRE COUNTY IS THE NUMBER ONE REGION IN THE COMMONWEALTH FOR JOB LOSSES. Once jobs are lost, they are very hard to induce back to an area.
The sad reality is that SPECIAL INTEREST POLS THROUGHOUT THE USA HAVE SOLD OUT THE WORKING AND COMMON PERSON AND FAMILY! The corporate elite justifies a steadily recurring rate of job losses from our nation to foreign nations by indocrinating the masses about the benefits of globalisation: Namely that prices on consumer goods are cheaper through the new market efficiencies. By the way, Globalisation is NOT Capitalism. No one really knows the principles of Globalisation except maybe WAL MART, Inc.
In Truth,
Jonathan A. Melle
P.S. I understand that housing prices in Pittsfield and Southern Berkshire County are artificially high because greater NYC area investors and developers are buying them up at current prices on the assumption that the homes will increase in value over the next coming decade(s) like real estate shot up in price in New York City in the past several decades. That means that the Pittsfield Real Estate Market is not even being marketed to the exploited people of the Pittsfield area!
---------------------------------
Expedited Permitting Program
New process pushes towns to be 'quick, predictable'
By Jessica Willis, Berkshire Eagle Staff
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
NORTH ADAMS — The goals for the state's new expedited permitting program? To make it, in the words of Greg Bialecki, "as quick, predictable and consistent" as possible — without "lowering standards."
At yesterday's luncheon at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, Bialecki, the state's assistant secretary and general counsel of Housing and Economic Development, told his fellow diners — which included North Adams Mayor John Barrett III, MCLA President Mary Grant, state Rep. Daniel E. Bosley and Berkshire County business leaders — the communities that have "done their homework" will be the ones eligible to take part in the expedited permitting program.
"When the permitting process hits a bottleneck, it's because of inadequacies in the public infrastructure," Bialecki said, referring to a community's roads, water lines and sewer capacities — which must be adequate to encourage and maintain economic growth.
"Looking to private developers to supply the missing links is very difficult," he concluded. "If all conversations are about what the developer wants to do, we're really behind."
Instead, he advocated for municipalities to take a more proactive approach, and the state, he said, would "piggyback on what (communities) are doing."
Pittsfield is one of 10 communities in the state currently approved to take part in the program, as announced yesterday. Barrett said his city would "probably get on board with it."
The program, known as Chapter 43D, was revised last year to streamline the permitting process for municipalities by offering extended filing deadlines and eligibility for up to $150,000 in state funds.
Bosley, for his part, reminded the group of one of the key infrastructural pieces needed for Berkshire County's development — broadband access.
"One-third of Western Massachusetts doesn't have it," Bosley said. "We need to look at what will happen when we do have broadband access throughout the community."
He said more businesses and residents would come to the area — a good thing, to be sure — but that precaution against "gentrification" is needed.
The legislator noted that the "attractive housing costs" in Berkshire County could change "if the infrastructure changed."
NEWS ARTICLE:
[Deval-uator] Patrick dismisses Spence in overhaul of state agencies
5/23/2007, 2:55 p.m. ET
By KEN MAGUIRE
The Associated Press
ATTLEBORO, Mass. (AP) — Gov. Deval Patrick replaced the embattled head of the state's child welfare system Wednesday as part of an overhaul of state government aimed at strengthening his grip on state agencies after 16 years of Republican administrations.
The governor ousted Department of Social Services Commissioner Lewis "Harry" Spence along with Department of Conservation and Recreation Commissioner Stephen Burrington as he made 11 appointments, including two to newly created positions in the governor's office.
Patrick foreshadowed the moves earlier this month when dozens of commissioners and department heads left over from previous Republican administrations were told that they must reapply for their jobs or be replaced. A letter to about 50 agency chiefs asked them to forward "your resume, accomplishments, publications, personal statements and any other relevant information," to be considered for reappointment.
Patrick is replacing Spence with Angelo McClain, executive director for ValueOptions, a Virginia-based health care company. Burrington's replacement is Westfield Mayor Richard Sullivan.
"This is a great opportunity to work on something I care deeply about — the quality of life in Massachusetts," Sullivan said in a statement.
Former Department of Mental Retardation Commissioner Gerald Morrissey, who was fired in April, will be replaced by Elin Howe, a former commissioner of New York's Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities.
Patrick also created a Senior Appointments Director, who will oversee future appointments in the executive branch and on state boards and commissions, and a Development Cabinet Director to help implement policy in various departments, including transportation, labor, energy and housing.
Spence was fired following criticism of his agency's handling of two high-profile child abuse cases. He told a talk radio program Wednesday that his replacement should focus on strengthening ties between the DSS and school systems.
Spence also said he was concerned about his relatively short six-year tenure and noted that all but one DSS commissioner had left involuntarily.
"It's the nature of the work. It all catches up at some point," Spence said during a morning call into "Finneran's Forum" on WRKO-AM. The show is hosted by Tom Finneran, the former House speaker.
Spence said Dr. JudyAnn Bigby, who serves as secretary of the state Department of Health and Human Services and was his boss, assured him that high-profile cases were not the reason for his downfall. Spence has developed a reputation for undertaking challenging jobs, including running Chelsea after it declared bankruptcy and was under financial receivership.
Spence was criticized after the drug overdose death of 4-year-old Rebecca Riley late last year. He also was criticized for his handling of the 2005 case of Haleigh Poutre, a young girl was beaten into a coma, allegedly by her parents, and then nearly removed from life support by DSS just before her condition began to improve.
Spence, who was appointed head of DSS in late 2001 by Republican acting Gov. Jane Swift, had publicly lobbied to retain the job. He did not return a call to his cell phone Wednesday.
NEWS ARTICLE:
Treasurer looks to beat tribe with casino deal
Says plan could provide more money to state
By Andrea Estes, [The Boston] Globe Staff
May 24, 2007
State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill is to unveil a plan today to beat the Mashpee Wampanoags into the casino business by launching a state-sponsored search for a developer who would build a luxury gambling mecca sooner and with much greater financial benefit to the state's coffers, according to officials familiar with the plan.
Cahill has long expressed concern that an Indian-run casino would drain money from the state lottery, while providing the state only a limited amount of revenue, subject to negotiations with the tribe. By orchestrating its own deal to establish a casino in Massachusetts, Cahill will argue today, the state would gain far more from gambling than Connecticut has from its two Indian casinos.
The Mashpee Wampanoags, who today are celebrating their official recognition by the federal government, have announced plans to open a casino by 2010, but must first go through the time-consuming process of putting land into federal trust. The tribe must also negotiate a compact with the state, which would allow the tribe to open a casino with a level of gambling not now permitted elsewhere in Massachusetts. In other states, tribes have often agreed to pay a certain percentage of revenues in lieu of taxes.
Because any non-Indian casino would not be on sovereign land, it would be subject to all the taxes the Indian casino would be exempt from and therefore would generate more revenue for state and local government. In addition, the state could impose a gambling tax that would far exceed the 25 percent of slot revenues that the Indian casinos in Connecticut, for example, send the state.
Under Cahill's plan, which would have to be approved and implemented by the Legislature and Governor Deval Patrick, the state would issue a request for proposals for one or more casinos that would offer such amenities as five-star hotels, gourmet restaurants, shopping, and event pavilions.
The state would specify criteria for the casino, potentially including such provisions as the amount of land required for development, the level of capital investment, access to transportation, and number of parking spaces.
Developers whose proposals met all the state criteria would then bid for a license. According to gambling specialists, the going price for a 10-year casino license is $150 million.
Cahill, who will unveil his plan before the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce this morning, was unavailable for comment.
The Legislature has resisted efforts to expand gambling in the past, but could now be more open, given the Wampanoags' aggressive push for a casino and the expected impact on the state lottery.
Lawmakers, who are struggling to balance the state budget, have also expressed frustration that Massachusetts residents spend so much money each year at out-of-state gambling facilities, mainly in Connecticut.
Patrick has said he is open to the possibility of some type of casino gambling, as has Senate President Therese Murray, who reiterated yesterday that the state must explore new ways to raise revenue to help cities and towns and to support social services.
"The Wampanoags are poised to ratchet up the debate with their plans for economic development," Murray said. "We need to start thinking about the best ways to position the state's interests in an industry that is on the brink of expanding within our borders."
While Cahill is launching his proposal to compete with the Wampanoags, it would probably remove one of the key barriers the tribe is facing, according to casino experts. Under federal law, recognized Indian tribes with sovereign land are allowed to pursue any kind of gambling venture that is legal in the state.
In fact, a spokesman for the Mashpee tribe said it would welcome the state's foray into casino gambling.
"This would be fine with us," said spokesman Scott Ferson. "There are two things the Mashpees have needed to open a Class 3 gaming facility: recognition, which they have, and state approval for Class 3 gaming, which is what the treasurer would be calling for.
"It might take a few years, but the tribe would not have to share revenue with the state," he said. "The tribe would keep all the money."
According to the officials familiar with Cahill's plan, the treasurer will say in his speech that growth in the state lottery, the country's most successful, is expected to flatten in coming years. Last year the lottery sent $952 million to communities across the state. But sales so far this year are down a little more than 2 percent, trailing expectations by about $75 million
While the privately owned casino would siphon revenue from the lottery, Cahill plans to argue, cities and towns could ultimately end up receiving significantly more local aid. Under his proposal, all the revenue received by the state would be distributed to cities and towns, though the Legislature could decide that the state should retain some of the money.
There are non-Indian casinos in 11 states, including Nevada, New Jersey, Louisiana, Illinois, and Indiana. According to specialists, most states followed procedures similar to what Cahill will propose: They set up an entity that solicits proposals and regulators to oversee casino operations.
A recent survey by the American Gaming Association found that Connecticut's two casinos, Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods, generated $1.7 billion in revenue from slot machines in 2006. They contributed $427 million last year to the state.
"With commercial gaming, the state has regulatory jurisdiction, taxing authority, and licensing authority," said Clyde Barrow, director of the Center of Policy Analysis at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. "They are subject not just to gaming tax, but all the other taxes including property taxes to the host community."
Alan Meister, an economist with the California-based Analysis Group, said that Connecticut's two tribal casinos, which pay the state 25 percent of their slot revenues, pay more than any other Indian casinos in the country.
"These [casinos] are meant to provide a benefit to tribes because they haven't had good economic development," he said. "The federal government is protective of tribes and won't allow states to try to get an exorbitant amount of money from the tribes."
Dear Berkshire Bloggers, News Media, Pols, & the People:
Hillary Clinton is coming back to Manchester, NH next week (see below). I am supporting Hillary Clinton for President because she has common sense solutions to the socioeconomic problems facing our nation. Furthermore, we need to elect a woman president. I sent Dan Bosley two of Hillary's position papers on nationwide broadband access in the U.S. Mail today. I hope the information will help Rep. Bosley achieve his goal of providing broadband access to all of rural Berkshire County!
Re: "Treasurer looks to beat tribe with casino deal: Says plan could provide more money to state (The Boston Globe, 5/24/07): It is a SHAME that Massachusetts leads the nation in the growth of its state lottery, which is just another form of regressive taxation! A state authorised Casino is being used as a complement to the public lottery (currently monopoly) system instead of as a competitor. The commonwealth only wants to grow its systems of regressive taxation at the expense of the working poor person and/or families.
Which leads me to JOE LABARBERA's Letter to the Editor (see below). I concur with him that the Democratic Party no longer works on behalf of the working person and/or family. The bottom line is that the Corporate Elite run our country, including the big government Pols that take their SPECIAL INTEREST campaign donations. We have a 2-in-1 party system, which should be known as the Incumbent Party -- as the U.S. Congress has a 98% incumbency rating that rivals Communist China's "rubber stamp" parliament. Moreover, the Massachusetts Legislature is one of the top 3 states in the Union of 50 states for the highest rates of incumbency along with Arkansas and South Carolina. An Incumbent Massachusetts State Senator has NOT been voted out of his or her political seat in over a decade. The reality is that when a big government Pol serves his or her Corporate Masters, then he or she will have far too much money for the average working man or woman to effectively challenge their lousy public record. The system is rigged by blood money to serve the SPECIAL INTERESTS as the expense of the common person and/or family!
In Truth,
Jonathan A. Melle
---------------------
CAMPAIGN EVENT:
Hillary Clinton will be giving a major policy speech at the Manchester School of Technology on Tuesday, May 29th, 2007 at 9:30am. The school is located at 530 South Porter Street in Manchester, NH. Seating is very limited, so to RSVP, please call Hillary Clinton's campaign office at 1 (603) 634-4455. www dot hillaryclinton dot com
---------------------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE BERKSHIRE EAGLE:
Democrats are no better than GOP
Thursday, May 24, 2007
To the Editor of THE EAGLE:
I'm glad I'm not a Democrat anymore. I've been forced to leave my party because it's not my party anymore. This Democratic party doesn't even pretend to work for poor and working class people anymore.
I left the party for two major reasons: One, it was and still is pro-war and hyper-militaristic. Many Democrats are arm-chair quarterbacks now because of the Iraqi crime, but 90 percent of the Dems. were and are for the war, and an even higher percentage want to bomb Iran. The second reason I left the party is because of the "free trade" agreements, like NAFTA the party makes for banks and corporations at the expense of the American worker.
Bill Moyers did a piece aired on PBS last week on the secret deal between the Democrats and Bush to get a new "free trade" deal through congress. It's another boon for the rich and super-rich, and will cost America millions of jobs.
These Democrats should not be supported in the next election. I don't know from whom we will have to choose, but these tricksters should be sent packing to their lobby firms and think tanks, and tossed out of elected office.
JOE LABARBERA
Pittsfield, Massachusetts
May 21, 2007
NEWS ARTICLE & LETTER ON DEVAL-UATOR PATRICK:
Patrick makes imprint
In an expected move, the governor ousts GOP holdovers from a number of state agencies.
By Hillary Chabot, Eagle Boston Bureau
Thursday, May 24, 2007
BOSTON — A series of tragic missteps concerning the state's most vulnerable residents sealed the fate of state child welfare head Lewis "Harry" Spence, Berkshire lawmakers said yesterday.
Gov. Deval L. Patrick ousted the Department of Social Service commissioner along with other holdovers from former Gov. Mitt Romney's organization in a sweeping bid to tighten his control on Beacon Hill.
More will follow, Patrick said yesterday.
"This is about building our own team," Patrick said at a news conference before holding a meeting of his Cabinet at the Attleborough City Hall. "We are not done."
The freshman governor made a total of 11 new appointments, including a new head of mental retardation and director of work force development. Patrick will announce the rest of the appointments by next week.
State Rep. Daniel E. Bosley, D-North Adams, said becoming the DSS commissioner is often a thankless task.
"The position is a no-win situation. You're understaffed, caseloads are often ignored because there are not enough people to handle all the cases, and you're scrambling from one to the next," said Bosley. "Obviously, (Patrick) gets to appoint whoever he wants, that's his right. But you hope those changes are with qualified people."
Spence, who was appointed by former acting Gov. Jane Swift in 2001, came under fire following two child abuse cases: the drug overdose death of 4-year-old Rebecca Riley and the severe beating of Haleigh Poutre, who was almost taken off life support by DSS officials before her condition improved.
State Rep. William "Smitty" Pignatelli, D-Lenox, said voters demanded a change on Beacon Hill when Patrick was elected.
"This is the governor's prerogative and this is the issue with these political jobs," Pignatelli said.
Bosley, along with many other legislators, expected the reshuffle. Patrick had asked for roughly 50 Romney appointees to reapply for their jobs earlier this month.
Patrick selected Angelo McClain, an executive director at a health care company in New Jersey, to replace Spence. He also tapped Elin Howe, commissioner of the New York state Office of Mental Retardation, to take over for Gerald Morrissey.
Pignatelli was very disappointed when Morrissey left, and said he wished Patrick had chosen replacements from inside the state.
"I like homegrown people, but I certainly will give him the benefit of the doubt as to who the best qualified people are," Pignatelli said.
Patrick did make some local selections, picking Westfield Mayor Richard Sullivan to head the Department of Conservation and Recreation, and Mark Conrad, a patrolman at the Milton Police Department, as a nominee for the Parole Board.
Patrick also created two new appointments — a development cabinet director to help put new policy in place in various departments and a senior appointments director to review new appointments in the executive branch and on state boards.
Material from the Associated Press was used in the report.
» At a glance ...
The replacement of Lewis 'Harry' Spence in the post of Department of Social Service commissioner drew the most publicity yesterday, but Gov. Deval L. Patrick appointed people to a number of new positions, including:
Ron Marlow — Development cabinet director
Elin Howe — Department of Mental Retardation commissioner
Richard Sullivan — Department of Conservation commissioner
Lily Mendez-Morgan — Senior appointments director
Anthony 'Angelo' McClain — DSS commissioner
----------------
THE BOSTON GLOBE
LETTERS
Meet the new boss
May 26, 2007
GOVERNOR PATRICK states that his ouster of DSS Commissioner Harry Spence was not because of Spence's performance but because of Patrick's desire to build his own leadership team and leave his imprint on state government ("Patrick assumes control of agencies," City & Region, May 24) .
Great, politics as usual. What a refreshing change.
MARILYN MORRISSEY
Jamaica Plain
----------------
RE: Reps. Bosley & Pignatelli must be proud--for the public record
RE: I am ASHAMED of the Massachusetts Democratic Party Leaders!
Dear Bureaucrat Bosley, Slimy Pignatelli, Berkshire Bloggers, news media, Pols, & the People:
Re: "Lawmakers plan tribute for Finneran" (The Boston Globe, 6/6/07): State Representatives Daniel E. Bosley and William "Smitty" Pignatelli must be proud of the Massachusetts Democratic Party Leaders' terrible decision to host a tribute to the current Felon and Former-House Speaker Tom Finneran!
TOM FINNERAN MARGINALIZED MINORITIES BY GERRYMANDERING HIS and another LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT TO KEEP HIMSELF and another white state Legislator IN POLITICAL OFFICE ON BEACON HILL. Instead of owning up to his RACISM through the state government's most precious resource: DEMOCRACY!, Finneran committed PERJURY and then submitted a plea of OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE to avoid jail time!
SEPTEMBER 25th, 2007 WILL BE A DAY OF INFAMY FOR THE LEADERS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS DEMOCRATIC PARTY and other former leaders of the COMMONWEALTH of MASSACHUSETTS' Government:
1. Governor Deval Patrick
2. Former Governor Jane Swift
3. Former Governor Paul Cellucci
4. Former Governor Bill Weld
5. U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy
6. U.S. Senator John Kerry
DEVAL PATRICK IS PROVEN TO BE A HYPOCRITE ON RACE ISSUES! By honoring Tom Finneran, Deval Patrick is presenting a double standard on race issues in state government! Deval Patrick should boycott this tribute to the racist and politically corrupt Tom Finneran on the basis that Finneran used the state legislative process to try to marginalize thousands of minority voters in both Finneran's and a neighboring legislative district. THAT WAS RACISM -- something I thought Deval Patrick committed his career in public service to eliminating.
When I returned from my honorable service in the U.S. Army in the Summer of 2001 and moved back to my parent's then home in Becket, Massachusetts, the State Legislature under Speaker Finneran began to cut state aid to cities and towns for the next three consecutive state government fiscal years: FY2002 - FY2004! Watching my Town of Becket and surrounding Western Massachusetts communities' finances being gutted by the state Legislature and Governors Swift the Romney, I wanted to join the state Legislature to change the system and give back the money that state cut from the cities and towns in the rural legislative district that I lived in at the time. Although I was never able to complete a run for Berkshire State Senator, I never forgot the political corruption, top-down, closed door, bureaucratic, self-serving, special interest Beacon Hill Pols, especially Speaker Tom Finneran.
In closing, "Smitty" Pignatelli and Dan Bosley must be thrilled with the Massachusetts Democratic Party leaders and 3 former Massachusetts Governors for hosting a tribute to Tom Finneran on 9/25/2007. After all, Bureaucrat Bosley was a long-term, loyal Finneran lieutenant, and Slimy Pignatelli's first legislative vote was a vote for Finneran in early 2003 -- after two of the three straight aforementioned years of Speaker Tom Finneran gutting state government financing to Pignatelli's new rural southern Berkshire area legislative district.
What ashame!
In Truth,
Jonathan A. Melle
----------
Lawmakers plan tribute for Finneran
By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff | June 6, 2007
Former House speaker Thomas M. Finneran may have left office under the cloud of a federal investigation, but the Massachusetts political establishment remains loyal to him.
A group of old friends and colleagues, led by one of Beacon Hill's most influential lobbyists, Robert F. White, are holding a tribute dinner Sept. 25 at the Fairmont Copley where they hope to raise as much as a quarter of a million dollars to help Finneran launch a charitable foundation in his name to support some of his favorite local programs and educational scholarships.
White, a close friend to the former House leader, said the strong support for the event from top political, business, and community leaders -- including Governor Deval Patrick, three former Republican governors, and US Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry -- sends a strong message that Finneran's extensive State House record dwarfs the federal perjury charges that dogged him at the end of his public career.
"Whatever misconceptions the federal government had about this man's public life will be assuaged by the public demonstration for this event," White said. Tickets are priced from $2,500 to $10,000. "This is long overdue."
In October 2004, as a federal grand jury probed his testimony in a case challenging a House redistricting plan, he resigned as speaker to become the president of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council. In June 2005, he was indicted on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.
In an agreement with the US Attorney's office in early January, Finneran pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in exchange for federal prosecutors' dropping perjury charges. He was sentenced to 18 months unsupervised probation and fined $25,000. His plea prompted his resignation from his $500,000-a-year Mass Biotech job.
Patrick's plans raising doubt and enthusiasm
His big dreams may falter on funding issues
By Lisa Wangsness,
[The Boston] Globe Staff
June 6, 2007
Free community colleges, universal preschool, and full-day kindergarten. A new commuter rail to New Bedford. A $1 billion public investment in biotechnology.
Governor Deval Patrick is thinking big lately, churning out expansive and expensive proposals for long-term projects every few weeks, then basking in praise from students, local officials, life sciences leaders, and other key Massachusetts constituencies.
But he has said little about how he would pay for his plans, and financial analysts say the state probably cannot afford them without finding new revenue or cutting spending elsewhere in the budget. If his education plan is fully implemented for every student, it alone could add as much as $2 billion a year to the state budget by 2017, according to some analysts' estimates.
Patrick has brushed aside doubts about the feasibility of making big changes. Recently he likened skeptics who questioned his education proposals to those who challenged President Kennedy's mission to land a man on the moon.
But in his first five months in office, Patrick has already seen some of his campaign promises fall prey to the reality of governing within a tight budget. His pledge to put 1,000 more police officers on the street, for example, became a proposal to add just 250 this year, and the Legislature wants to cut that number further.
Some political observers say that even though Patrick's boldest ideas might be beyond the state's means, the political benefits of pitching popular, even visionary, proposals outweigh the risks for the freshman governor.
"I think it's an impressive and ambitious agenda," said Jeffrey Berry, a political scientist at Tufts University. ". . . Nobody expects that they're going to come to fruition anytime soon."
But some financial analysts, particularly conservatives, say the governor's proposals are as unrealistic as they are ambitious.
"I think politically he's putting himself in a box," said David Tuerck of the Beacon Hill Institute, a conservative think tank. "He won't get all this stuff through the Legislature, because the Legislature won't raise taxes."
Doug Rubin, Patrick's chief of staff, dismissed such criticism as premature. The governor, he said, is laying out a broad vision designed to address the state's most critical long-term economic challenges. Patrick plans to work closely with the Legislature and others to nail down the details in the coming months, he said, just as state leaders did with health reform.
"This takes time, and for critics and naysayers to shoot it down before you even get a chance to have that discussion doesn't do anybody any good," he said.
The Patrick administration also argues that the governor's plans are essential to maintaining the state's economic prosperity and therefore to state government, which depends on income and sales tax dollars to carry out its responsibilities.
Noah Berger, executive director of the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, said the feasibility of the governor's plans is "a question of priorities and values." He said that if the administration develops a thorough analysis justifying the spending, the state could choose to cut other programs, or identify new revenue to pay for Patrick's plans.
The governor's latest plans come in addition to campaign promises large and small, from a pledge to add $10 million to the state's parks budget, which he decided was too expensive to fit into his budget proposal this year, to his vow to reduce property taxes, a prominent plank in his campaign platform.
Administration officials point out that Patrick has already tried several routes to cut property taxes since taking office in January, including filing legislation that would allow cities and towns to raise more non-property-tax dollars and to save money on health insurance and pensions. He has also proposed granting up to $870 in tax abatements for low- and moderate-income homeowners, which he would fund by closing so-called loopholes in the corporate tax structure, a payment method the Legislature has not greeted warmly.
Meanwhile, the financial pressure on the state budget is growing. The costs of salaries, pensions, and healthcare are rising faster than tax revenue, which is expected to increase less next fiscal year than it did in years past. Billions of capital projects have accumulated, including $15 billion to $19 billion for transportation alone, and the state has a self-imposed bonding limit of $1.25 billion in new debt each year.
In this context, the cost of the governor's proposals seems daunting, particularly the education proposals, which could have the biggest impact on the operating budget. Patrick has said he will form a committee to study the proposals and how to pay for them. Education officials and advocates say the cost could easily come in much lower than $2 billion if the plans are not implemented universally.
"I think there's certainly a tremendous amount of vision in the education plan, but I approach the financing side of it with a great deal of trepidation," said Steve Poftak, research director for the Pioneer Institute, a conservative think tank. "I think it's going to be tremendously difficult to come up with the funds for each one of these initiatives."
The sheer scope of Patrick's plans, some budget analysts believe, will open the door to talk about the need for new sources of revenue.
Patrick is studying the possibility of legalizing expanded gambling. State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill has recently proposed a casino gambling plan he says would bring the state as much as $1 billion a year.
Administration officials, however, say the governor plans to implement his agenda over many years, which would soften the impact on the state budget. And those who admire his ideas say Patrick ought to think big, even a little too big.
"I think the governor understands he's not going to get everything he asked for," said Thomas M. Finneran, the former House speaker and now the host of a talk show on WRKO radio. "But it's part of his job to take that bully pulpit as governor and to point out the directions, plural, that the state needs to consider."
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Governor Deval Patrick’s agenda & estimated costs if programs are fully implemented.
POLICE: $85m – Add 1,000 new police officers
TAX BREAKS: $75m – Property tax breaks to low-to-moderate income homeowners
TRANSIT: $1.4b – Extend commuter rail line to New Bedford (Borrowing over time)
SCIENCES: $1b – Life sciences investment ($50m/year for 10 years and $500m in borrowing)
EDUCATION: $120m – All day kindergarten; $180m – Free community college tuition and fees; $600m – Universal preschool; $1.3b – Longer school day and year
SOURCES: Patrick Administration, State Officials, Education Advocates.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
The final say on casino is a matter of debate
POSITION # ONE of FOUR:
Indians’ position: Mashpee Wampanoag Indian tribe – The Governor can negotiate a binding deal with the tribe, even without an affirmative vote by the Legislature.
Governor Deval Patrick has broad authority to negotiate a binding agreement with the tribe, known as a compact, even without a vote of the Legislature, but the Legislature can vote to reject it.
The Mashpee Wampanoags won federal recognition as a tribe this year after a 30-year effort. The Indian tribe took control of 350 acres of land in Middleborough. While the process for an Indian tribe to open a casino is governed by the federal government, the tribe must also gain the approval of the state in which the tribal casino is to be located. If no compact is reached within 180 days of the tribe formally asking for one, the Department of Interior – a federal agency – may step in and impose terms of a compact. After the state loses its authority to the federal government, the gaming procedure terms may be less favorable to the state than those the state could have secured by negotiations.
Legal Opinion source: Professor Richard Primus’ 13 page legal brief. He is a University of Michigan law professor who was commissioned by the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian tribe.
POSITION # TWO of FOUR:
Attorney General’s position: Martha Coakley – “The issue of Indian gaming is uncharted territory in Massachusetts. With regard to the approval process for a tribal gaming compact, the A.G.’s office is currently reviewing the matter and has not yet reached an opinion.”
POSITION # THREE of FOUR:
Speaker Sal DiMasi: He is unsure if the Wampanoag Indian tribe has an absolute right to open some kind of casino in Massachusetts. He believes this claim has to be researched.
POSITION # FOUR of FOUR:
Representative Dan Bosley’s position: Chairman of the House Committee on Economic Development and a long time opponent of non-state lottery gambling proposals – Dan Bosley’s legal research says that an Indian gaming casino cannot open without the approval of the Legislature.
Notes on Dan Bosley’s legal research: He is NOT an Attorney and cited NO legal text or precedent to back up his legal position and claim. Moreover, Dan Bosley not only contradicts the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian tribe’s legal position and claims, but also, his legal position and claim conflicts with both those of Attorney General Martha Coakley and Speaker Sal DiMasi’s respective legal positions on the matter.
Dan Bosley cites a 1997 proposal by the Aquinnah Wampanoag Indian tribe to open a casino in Southeastern Massachusetts. Dan Bosley said then-Gov. Bill Weld made the same legal argument that he had the authority to negotiate a compact without Legislative approval with the same counterarguments made by the Legislature, and the issue was never resolved. The Legislature ended up rejecting the land deal back then.
RE: Dan Bosley's losing hypocrisy on gambling!
Dear Honorable Representative Daniel E. Bosley,
There is only one person in Berkshire County politics more intelligent on public policies than myself, and that person is Dan Bosley! You have an M.O. where you appear to follow the dictates of the corporate elite's influence over the power brokers, but beyond your phony exterior, you are a man of extreme intelligence on politics, government and business. You don't fool me, for sure, because I am envious of your knowledge in state and local governance.
Given your high level of intelligence, Dan Bosley, why do support the lottery, but oppose casino gambling when they are both a source of more regressive tax revenues for state governments -- in this case to the benefit of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts at the expense of the working poor?
The state Legislature lost its moral authority on the issue of privatized gambling because it has expanded the state lottery to record levels year after year after year... Now, the state Legislature lost its legal authority on the issue of privatized gambling because people like you only want the lottery without private competition, and avoided the issue with a lack of state laws and regulations on the subject of privatized gambling.
The bottom line is, Dan Bosley, that it is your own fault and making that Massachusetts is going to lose out by privatized casino gambling because of the policies of collecting state revenues from the have nots for the benefit of the haves. The more regressive revenues become for state governments, the more state Legislatures lose in their battles for social justice. As the old sang goes, "Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere!"
In Truth,
Jonathan A. Melle
-----
THE BOSTON GLOBE ONLINE
Monday, June 11, 2007
Middleborough selectmen agree to support Mashpee Wampanoag casino
By Sean P. Murphy, Globe Staff
The Middleborough Board of Selectmen has agreed to support a casino in the town in exchange for a promise from developers to pay the town $7 million a year for the wear-and-tear from millions of visitors, according to sources familiar with the deal.
The deal, if approved, would significantly advance the proposal of the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian tribe and their partners, Sol Kerzner and Len Wolman, the billionaire developers of Mohegan Sun in Connecticut.
The deal would also eliminate other possible locations for a casino, including New Bedford, where city officials had aggressively courted the tribe.
Under the terms of the Middleborough agreement, the selectmen would be required to throw their support behind the casino proposal in upcoming negotiations at federal and state levels, according to sources familiar with the deal.
On the federal level, that means the selectmen would join forces with the developers in urging the Department of Interior to accept Wampanoag land in Middleborough into trust status, a necessary step under federal law to open a casino.
The Department of Interior, in weighing whether to grant trust status, must consider whether it is locally supported, federal law says.
On the state level, the deal would require the selectmen to act in concert with the casino developers in seeking an agreement with the state. The compact would exempt the developers from the current state prohibition against slot machines in exchange for the developers agreeing to pay the state a certain share of revenues in lieu of taxes.
The deal calls for the developers to meet the cost of necessary improvements in water, sewer, and roadway infrastructure and to pay for any increases in police, fire, and other emergency services.
The Wampanoags have moved extremely fast in the last month to make the state's first casino a reality. On May 23, the 1,460-member tribe won federal recognition after a 30-year quest, a designation that included the conditional right to operate a casino.
On that date, tribal leaders inked a deal with Kerzner and Wolman, instantly giving them access to billions of dollars in capital and the kind of business know-how that has made Mohegan Sun one of the world's largest casinos.
Last Friday, the developers, known as Trading Cove Mashpee closed on the purchase of about 125 acres of land from the town for $1.8 million, after successfully bidding on it at an auction in March.
Meanwhile, the developers are pressing their legal interpretation that they can negotiate a compact with Governor Deval Patrick, without resorting to a vote from the state Legislature. A legal opinion to that effect has been circulated by the developers within the governor's office and the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development.
While the state Senate has voted for expanded gambling in Massachusetts, the State House has steadfastly opposed it, and its current speaker, Salvatore F. DiMasi, recently questioned the right of an Indian tribe to open a casino.
"The tribe has been clear that it wanted to settle the question of where a casino would go sooner rather than later, and the negotiations with Middleborough have been cordial and fruitful," said Scott Ferson, the tribe's spokesman. "The tribe expects to have an announcement soon."
Posted by the Boston Globe City & Region Desk at 02:11 PM
Dear Berkshire Bloggers, Pols, News Media, & the People:
I am NOT suprised by Deval Patrick's special interest agenda representing the Corporate Elite. Governor Patrick's highly reported ties to the corporate world were more evident during last year's campaign than his lip service to the common people who swept him into political office.
In Massachusetts, many Democrats are fiscally conservatives serving their Corporate Elite masters who finance their election to big government political offices. In the Berkshires, Luciforo exemplified special interest politics while serving a region that received less and less state aid and investments during his terribly deficient tenure as Berkshire State Senator.
In Political Science 101, one learns that in theory our government's modo is "We the People", but in reality, our government's perversely incentivized philosophies boil down to "We the Corporate Elite". That is why a good political scientist will spread the subverse message to, "Subvert your Corporate Elite Masters by participating in government and openly dissenting against your corrupted Pols!"
In Truth,
Jonathan A. Melle
-----
2 key CEOs give Patrick a fund-raiser
State policies could affect firms' profits
By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff | June 21, 2007
Governor Deval Patrick picked up about $25,000 in political donations this week at a fund-raiser thrown by the chief executive officers of two highly regulated companies whose financial standings and profits could be affected by decisions pending before the new administration.
Edmund F. "Ted" Kelly, the chief executive of the insurance giant Liberty Mutual Group, and Thomas J. May, his counterpart at NStar, cosponsored the breakfast event at the Sheraton Boston, which was attended by Patrick and about 50 executives from both firms.
While not uncommon during previous administrations, Patrick's use of two heavily regulated industry giants to raise political funds stands in sharp contrast to his campaign promise to change the way business is conducted on Beacon Hill and to free politics from special interests.
Both firms have stakes in sweeping policy issues that are before regulatory agencies controlled by Patrick. In the next few months, the Patrick administra tion will make decisions on proposals that could bring wholesale changes to the way the state auto insurance industry makes money. NStar, while always looking for rate increases, is also keenly interested in proposed safeguards to protect utilities' profits as energy conservation increases.
Asked whether the governor saw any conflict between Monday's fund-raiser and his campaign promise to change the state's political culture, his press secretary, Kyle Sullivan, said Patrick and his regulators would not be swayed by the donations.
"Policy and regulatory decisions in this administration are based solely on what is in the best interest of the citizens of the Commonwealth," Sullivan said in a statement released to the Globe. "We have some of the toughest campaign finance laws in the country, and we strictly adhere to them."
Jeffrey M. Berry, a professor of political science at Tufts University, said the fund-raiser is a clear indication that Patrick has succumbed to the realities of political life, which includes what he called the unsavory campaign finance system.
"It looks like he's been housebroken," Berry said. "Words are cheap, and his rhetoric now appears to have been empty slogans. His supporters are going to be a little disappointed. But it is rare for politicians to follow through on changing politics as usual. Politics as usual has a lot of attraction once you are in office. Governor Patrick is not immune from the temptation."
During his campaign, Patrick repeatedly denounced the "culture of Beacon Hill" and promised to restore citizens' faith in state government. As an example of the culture, he pointed to the coziness between public officials and Big Dig contractors, which he said undermined the state's oversight of the project. He particularly cited contractors' political donations to elected officials and their funding of awards to honor state officials who oversaw the construction. "It now all gets caught up in the political culture of Beacon Hill," he said in May 2006.
Patrick has a deep background in corporate America, as a former general counsel at Coca-Cola and Texaco and a former board member at Ameriquest, a controversial subprime lender.
The fund-raiser by May and Kelly reflects a growing relationship between Patrick and the state's business leaders. May, who also serves on Liberty Mutual's board of directors, and Kelly were part of a small group of business executives who last month met privately over lunch with Patrick to discuss a host of business issues.
None of the participants would comment about the meeting. But a source said the talk turned tense at one point as several took issue with his push to close so-called corporate tax loopholes. The session ended on a friendly note, with Patrick assuring the business leaders that his door was open to them, the source said. Others at the session included New England Patriots' owner Robert Kraft, former Bank of America chairman Charles K. Gifford, retired advertising executive Jack Connors, and former Fidelity Investments' chief operating officer Robert L. Reynolds.
During last year's campaign, Liberty Mutual gave generously to Patrick's Republican opponent, former lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey.
After the election, Liberty Mutual was one of several corporations that made a $50,000 donation to fund Patrick's inauguration -- another event that raised questions about the new governor's repeated promises to return state government to the people.
Kelly's Boston-based insurance firm, which has national and international operations, is lobbying heavily for Patrick's insurance commissioner, Nonnie Burnes, to adopt a competitive rate-setting system for auto insurance and to revamp the high-risk drivers pool. Both moves have divided the auto insurance industry and have drawn strong criticism from consumer advocates and urban lawmakers.
On Friday, just three days before the fund-raising event at the Sheraton Boston, Burnes wrapped up a hearing on auto insurance and is now trying to decide which changes -- if any -- the administration should adopt. NStar, the biggest combined electric and gas utility in the state with more than 1.3 million customers, regularly appears before the state Department of Public Utilities board to get rates approved.
In recent weeks, the Patrick administration has also begun to push for the most radical overhaul of state utility regulation in a century -- a policy called "rate decoupling" that is intended to ensure utilities' profits don't fall if they promote energy conservation -- that could have major ramifications for NStar's $3.5 billion in annual revenues and more than $200 million in net profits.
The utility is eager to make sure it maintains access to and good relations with Patrick, to ensure that NStar and its shareholders get the best possible outcome from rate decoupling.
Kelly and May declined to speak to the Globe about their political fund-raising for Patrick.
"It's not anything we're going to get into," said Caroline Allen, NStar's spokeswoman, when asked why May cosponsored the event. "We support Governor Patrick and his agenda."
Neither Allen nor John Cusolito, a Liberty Mutual spokesman, would provide the Globe with the exact amount that was raised, referring questions to Patrick's staff. "We encourage our employees to be politically active," Cusolito said. "So demonstrating support for the governor and other elected officials is not unusual for us." He said Kelly did not attend the fund-raiser because of a scheduling conflict.
Steve Crawford, a spokesman for the Patrick campaign committee, said the figure exceeded $25,000. That is a significant amount for Patrick's political committee, which has only $133,000 in its checking account, according to Crawford, a paltry sum for a sitting governor.
-----
CEOs raising funds for Patrick
Governor Deval Patrick picked up about $25,000 in political donations this week at a fund-raiser thrown by the chief executive officers of two highly regulated companies whose financial standings and profits could be affected by decisions pending before the new administration.
While not uncommon during previous administrations, Patrick's use of executives to raise political funds stands in sharp contrast to his campaign promise to change the way business is conducted on Beacon Hill.
Are you concerned that Patrick is veering away from the promises that got him elected?
ONLINE MESSAGE BOARD follows...
House OKs state plan to towns, cities
Part of Patrick's municipal plan now heads to Senate
By Hillary Chabot and Matt Murphy, Transcript Statehouse Bureau
North Adams Transcript
Article Launched: Friday, June 22, 2007
BOSTON — In a minor coup for Gov. Deval Patrick, the House passed a bill Thursday allowing cities and towns to join in the state's health insurance plan.
Patrick had promoted the bill, which could cut health insurance costs dramatically for many communities, as part of his Municipal Partnership Act. The House has considered similar insurance bills for the past three years.
Rep. Chris Speranzo, D-Pittsfield, who co-sponsored the bill, said the early vote of confidence doesn't mean Patrick's entire proposal is in the clear.
"Pittsfield strongly endorsed this bill and it has the potential to offer terrific savings to communities," Speranzo said. "I think the rest of the act will be a discussion that's a little ways off."
The bill allows municipalities to join the state health insurance plan, but all decisions about the percentage employees would pay toward their health insurance premiums would still be made at the local level. Communities must also have support from 70 percent of unionized municipal employees to join the Group Insurance Commission.
Patrick said the proposal makes sense because many communities have seen their health insurance rates climb twice as fast as the state's.
"We want to share our success with you, it's as simple as that," Patrick said, adding the bill could save communities $180 million statewide.
The GIC won't bring savings for everyone. The cost of health insurance coverage in Williamstown, for example, actually went down by half in the past five years, meaning its plan saved more than the state's.
Patrick held a rally with roughly 70 municipal leaders who support his Municipal Partnership Act down the hall as House members considered the GIC bill. Pittsfield Mayor James Ruberto and North Adams Mayor John Barrett III joined the rally.
The GIC also bill won't benefit North Adams, where health insurance costs rose by 47 percent while the GIC's rose by about 48. However, Barrett still felt it's a good option for communities.
"All we want the Legislature to do is give us some tools," Barrett said. "I think it's important to give communities the opportunity help ourselves rather than relying totally on the state."
Geoffrey Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, said legislators must pass the entire act to give residents a break from property tax relief.
"We need both sides of the equation. It's good to make progress on savings, but the lasting solutions also have to include ways to raise revenue for cities and towns."
Patrick's proposal also includes ending a 95-year-old tax exemption on telephone poles and allowing local meal taxes so communities can raise more revenue. (Barrett is amenable to the meals tax but opposes the rescinding the telecommunications tax emption.)
"People in Massachusetts are continually paying more and getting less," he said. "This bill provides cities and towns with various tools to reduce property taxes."
The bill now moves on to the Senate, which is expected to vote on the measure next week.
Report: Settlement talks to begin in Big Dig death lawsuit
June 24, 2007
BOSTON --Settlement talks are planned this week in the lawsuit brought by the family of a motorist killed nearly a year ago by falling ceiling panels in the Big Dig, according to a published report Sunday.
Lawyers for Milena Del Valle's family will discuss a possible settlement with lawyers representing the companies that designed and built the Big Dig, The Boston Sunday Globe reported, citing unidentified sources.
Del Valle's family filed a wrongful death lawsuit last August, naming the Turnpike Authority and companies associated with design and construction of the project. The lawsuit does not seek a specific amount in damages.
The 39-year-old was killed July 10 when several concrete ceiling panels fell from the Interstate 90 connector tunnel as she and her husband drove toward Logan Airport.
Inspectors believe bolts that held ceiling panels in place came loose because of failures in the epoxy resin designed to glue them in place. Repairs were made throughout the Big Dig tunnel system. Panels were reinforced with additional bolts and brackets.
Lawyers on both sides of the lawsuit would not publicly discuss the settlement talks, the newspaper reported.
In addition to the Turnpike Authority, which oversees the Big Dig project, defendants include: Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, the project manager; and Modern Continental Construction Co., the company that constructed the I-90 connector ceiling, and several other companies.
Meanwhile, both sides are watching Attorney General Martha Coakley, who has set a June 30 deadline to decide whether to bring criminal charges against those same companies.
The $14.798 billion Big Dig, the costliest public works project in U.S. history, replaced the aging above-ground Central Artery with a series of traffic tunnels.
Dear North Adams Transcript, Glenn Drohan, Pols, News Media, & the People:
Charles Joffe-Halpern states that "It is important to be aware that uninsured individuals are now eligible for Commonwealth Care, a richly subsidized health insurance program, if their incomes are under $30,636 a year ($61,956 for a family of four), and if their employer does not provide coverage and pay a portion of the premium."
As I understand the public policy issue, the commonwealth of Massachusetts does not have the guaranteed state revenues to subsidize any of these healthcare insurance plans. Ergo, I believe the letter is only half-true.
Sincerely,
Jonathan A. Melle
-----
Clarification on health-care change
Letters
North Adams Transcript
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
To the editor:
A clarification needs to be made in regard to the date that Massachusetts residents, who fall within the health insurance requirement guidelines, must have health insurance (Health Quarterly Summer 2007, a publication of New England Newspapers Inc. that recently was inserted into the Transcript and The Berkshire Eagle).
While the statute states that individuals must have health coverage as of July 1, there is no penalty as long as coverage is in place before Dec. 31. To have insurance in place by that date, it should be acquired before Dec. 1.
What individuals need now is information both about their responsibilities and about the unprecedented opportunities for health coverage that now exist in Massachusetts. Historically there are two primary reasons why individuals don't access health-coverage programs for which they are eligible: lack of awareness these programs exist or lack of belief they are eligible for these programs.
It is important to be aware that uninsured individuals are now eligible for Commonwealth Care, a richly subsidized health insurance program, if their incomes are under $30,636 a year ($61,956 for a family of four), and if their employer does not provide coverage and pay a portion of the premium. For individuals above those income guidelines, a range of options are available under the Commonwealth Choice program.
For guidance and assistance, contact one of the three area health-care access programs in Berkshire County: Advocacy for Access in Great Barrington, 528-5045; Advocacy for Access in Pittsfield, 445-9480; or Ecu-Health Care in North Adams, 663-8711.
Charles Joffe-Halpern
North Adams
June 24
The writer is director of Ecu-Health Care in North Adams.
Lawyers eye huge Big Dig settlement
Wrongful death case could be landmark
By Andrea Estes and Scott Allen, Globe Staff | June 27, 2007
Lawyers for Milena Del Valle's family are building a case for a landmark settlement of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars for what they describe as the outrageously egregious acts that led to her death in last summer's Big Dig ceiling collapse, according to a 15-page memo obtained by the Globe.
The lawyers did not specify a price for settling the family's lawsuit against an array of contracting firms and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, but said the case should be compared to those that have produced some of the largest jury awards in US history, including the $450 million in punitive damages awarded to the widow of a sheriff-elect in Georgia assassinated by his rival in 2000. If anything, the lawyers predicted, a Massachusetts jury would award the Del Valle family even more money.
"Once that jury has spoken, each defendant found responsible will bear a 'scarlet letter' likely to mark them permanently for reckless and grossly negligent conduct," warned the Del Valle lawyers Jeffrey A. Denner, Mario Garcia, and Leo V. Boyle in urging the defendants to settle the case before it goes to a jury.
The assertions are contained in a mediation report prepared by family's lawyers in preparation for this week's private settlement talks with the defendants. The document argues that the defendants deliberately and repeatedly cut corners to save money, then continued building the ceiling even when the bolts holding it up began to come loose. As a result, they wrote, "every user of the tunnel was placed at risk."
The parties to the lawsuit have promised not to speak publicly about the settlement talks, but the family's demands exceeded the expectations of some defendants who had predicted the Del Valle team would seek something closer to $75 million for actual and punitive damages combined. In wrongful death lawsuits, lawyers typically seek money for the emotional and financial loss to survivors, called compensatory or actual damages, but they can also seek additional money to punish the defendant, called punitive damages. These tend to be much higher.
Punitive damages in the hundreds of millions would be unprecedented in Massachusetts, where large jury awards are rare. In one of the biggest cases ever, a Suffolk County jury in 2000 awarded $27.5 million to the estate of a Russian immigrant who suffocated beneath a Green Line trolley as an MBTA rescue effort disintegrated into "a tragedy of errors." A judge later reduced the penalty to $1 million, arguing that the MBTA was only careless and did not intend to harm the man.
"There haven't been large punitive damage awards in Massachusetts," said Andrew C. Meyer Jr., a leading malpractice lawyer in Boston.
However, he said, that could change if a lawyer can make a convincing enough case. "In a wrongful death case, if one is capable of proving gross negligence, the jury is entitled to award punitive damages, which are measured by the amount of money necessary to cause harm [to] -- in fact, punish -- the defendants."
The defendants asked the Del Valle family to take part in settlement talks this week in hope of resolving the complex lawsuit before Attorney General Martha Coakley decides whether to pursue criminal charges in the July 10, 2006, accident. Coakley had been planning to complete her investigation by Saturday, but her office issued a statement yesterday saying that her investigators need "at least two weeks" more to decide whether to seek criminal indictments from a Suffolk County grand jury hearing evidence in the case.
Criminal charges could raise the price tag of settling for any company whose employees are indicted. On the other hand, if Coakley decides there is not enough evidence for a criminal conviction, it could weaken the Del Valle family's leverage. Another factor in the timing of the settlement talks is the final report from the National Transportation Safety Board, due by July 10.
In their report to the mediator overseeing this week's talks, the Del Valle lawyers divide their discussion of the case into two parts: the actual losses suffered by the Del Valle family in the accident and the much larger punitive damages.
The family lawyers say they cannot imagine that a jury would award anything less than $10 million in actual losses to Del Valle's husband, 51-year-old Angel Del Valle, and Milena Del Valle's three children in Costa Rica, who were receiving financial support from their mother at the time she died.
The lawyers say that Angel Del Valle was also nearly crushed in the accident and that he still suffers hearing and vision problems, as well as headaches and vertigo. "The emotional impact of the accident and the loss of Milena will certainly forever haunt Angel Del Valle," they wrote.
The lawyers argue that the punitive damages should be many times larger because the collective misconduct by the people who designed, built, and inspected the ceiling in the Interstate 90 connector tunnel was so "outrageously egregious."
For instance, documents show that Big Dig managers at Bechtel/ Parsons Brinckerhoff and designers from Gannett Fleming cut by half the number of bolts they originally planned to use to hold up the ceiling, while significantly increasing the ceiling's weight by making it out of concrete. These moves made the ceiling cheaper, the lawyers said, but less safe.
When construction began in June 1999, workers for Modern Continental Construction Co. made numerous mistakes installing the ceiling bolts, secured to the tunnel roof by epoxy, that weakened their strength, the lawyers wrote. In addition, crews may have used the wrong epoxy, a fast-setting type that has 25 percent less strength than specified for the job.
As a result of all these problems, the lawyers argue, some ceiling bolts began to come loose almost as soon as the ceiling was suspended from them.
"It is, however, the astonishing degree of actual knowledge on the part of the defendants that these epoxy bolts were failing -- even in the midst of installation in 1999 -- that makes the defendants' conduct so reprehensible and tragically egregious," the lawyers wrote, adding that work crews did not stop installing the ceiling despite unanswered questions about the performance of the bolts.
"The only questions they asked were how could they minimize their costs and maximize their profits," the lawyer wrote of the defendants.
The lawyers predicted juries would offer landmark punitive damages if the case is not settled, comparing the case to other lawsuits over wrongful deaths in which juries have awarded at least $98 million in recent years and as much as $450 million.
Outside lawyers said the Del Valle family may have a hard time persuading a jury or a judge to match those figures. They said that the US Supreme Court in recent years has tried to rein in large punitive damages cases by arguing that, in most cases, the punishment should not be more than nine times larger than the actual losses.
If the family gets $10 million for actual losses, that would suggest punitive damages of not more than $90 million.
However, the Del Valle lawyers argue that the limit on punitive damages is not strict and that the punishment has to be enormous for the companies involved to suffer significant pain: Bechtel Co., one of the world's largest privately held companies, reported revenue of $20.5 billion last year, its fourth straight record year. The joint venture of Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff estimates it made $140 million to $160 million in profit on the Big Dig.
"One can only imagine the potential future harm that can occur if we as a society do not send a clear unwavering message that corporate profit cannot come at the expense of human life," they wrote.
Issue Date: 6/28/2007,
Posted On: 6/27/2007
Boston and Beyond
Kevin John Sowyrda
kevinsow@aol.com
The media has shown a fancy of late for a staffing problem at Team Romney, where everybody is presumed to be as straight as they are straight shooters; with at least one exception that is. It appears that coatholder-in-chief Jay Garrity may have been a Mall Cop in another life; which is to say that he’s obsessed with pretending be to a real and bonafide member of the constabulary. To that end, Garrity has been caught with his badge off — or on — as various law enforcement officials investigate him for pretending to be them. Garrity is also charged with flashing in public — his blue lights, that is. Mr. Garrity is now on leave from Camp Romney, which translated from politic speak means his next job in the Byzantine world of campaigning will be licking envelopes for the Mississippi State Republican Party.
But there are bigger staffing skeletons in the multi-million dollar operation which is the presidential campaign of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Just as the media made quite the fuss about contender John Edwards hiring two staffers who in another life had written allegedly anti-Catholic commentaries as bloggers, the press should be quite interested in two of Romney’s top advisors who were the de facto managers of the Massachusetts state treasury when it suffered a $10 million embezzlement scandal, the worst in state history.
Eric Fehrnstrom and Beth Myers were hardly shrinking violets at Treasurer Joe Malone’s office when nearly $10 million was heisted from the taxpayers. Fehrnstrom, recently identified by the Washington Post as “always at Romney’s side,” was deputy state treasurer and Myers was chief of staff when the office they ran was pilfered of enough cash to buy a sweet pad near Romney’s grotesquely opulent manse at Lake Winnipesaukee.
Though the Edwards camp was excoriated in the mainstream media for retaining two bloggers who dared to differ with arcane Catholic dogma, there’s been no article I can find in the mainstream media, blogosphere or any other sphere regarding the fact that Romney’s two campaign chieftains had day-to-day control of a public agency where cash was quite literally carried out the front door by political loyalists appointed by them, and the elected treasurer, Joe Malone.
When it was revealed that the cronies of Malone, Myers and Fehrnstrom had been siphoning cash over an extended, six year period, the three quickly became objects of derision in the press. Although none were charged with any crimes, in the court of public opinion, they were seen as guilty of a comical level of mismanagement.
When asked by the Associated Press if he and his top managers were “guilty” of not keeping a proper eye on the store, Malone, a life long Republican, said that he did not have a preference for “micro managing” and that he trusted those working under his chain of command. So much for Reagan’s famous advice, “trust but verify.”
When all was said in done, prison sentences were handed out and the only thing we can say regarding Malone, Fehrnstrom and Myers is that their careers were suddenly in cryogenics. When you manage an office so well that a cool $10 million is slipped by your nose, it tends not to endear you to the employers browsing your Monster.Com resume posting.
But then came Mr. Ethics, Mitt Romney. His Excellency’s first move as governor was to resurrect Fehrnstrom and Myers to run the executive suite on . Myers would become an alter ego to Romney as his thoroughly loyal chief of staff. (It was Myers who was widely reported to have played an instrumental role in advising Romney to abolish the advisory commission on LGBT youth, which had been a meritorious invention of one of Romney’s Republican predecessors, William F. Weld.)
As for Fehrnstrom, he became the highest paid communications director in the history of the governor’s office, and was sometimes making news more than giving the governor’s reaction to it. On one occasion at the offices of New England Cable News, Fehrnstrom was accused by one of the station’s producers of attempting to assault another on-air guest, longtime North Adams Mayor John Barrett. Not much came of the incident, except to reinforce Fehrnstrom’s reputation as a petty, political scrapper.
But today, the petty political scrapper and the ultra conservative chief of staff to a state treasurer, and then a governor, are quite literally running the day-to-day operations of a presidential campaign. They do so with humble people like me still wondering if they were merely guilty of an abysmal level of managerial ignorance.
Either way, the press has a bigger story in Fehrnstrom and Myers than they’ll ever have in the coat holder who likes to play cop.
Dear BERKSHIRE BLOGGERS, Pols, News Media, & Pols:
I cannot believe what I have read this past entire Spring of 2007 up to this point: July 3rd, 2007--about the Governor and Legislature's passing of the FY2008 Massachusetts State Budget! All of the new spending proposals being codified into state law without the state revenues to pay for any of them, most especially the newly mandated healthcare insurance program, which was just robbed of its $500 million in FEDERAL DOLLARS (from the Health Care Security Trust account to the General Fund account), compounded with the fiscally irresponsible decision of not making both any interest payments and a $100 million contribution to this fund. The state is mandating its citizens have "subsidized" healthcare insurance and they just stole all of the money to "subsidize" their healthcare insurance mandatory program. WHAT A FARCE!
In Truth,
Jonathan A. Melle
-----
Patrick happy with budget
The governor stresses points of agreement in the $26.8 billion spending plan, keeping mum about whether or not he would veto items.
By Hillary Chabot, Eagle Boston Bureau
The Berkshire Eagle
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
BOSTON — The Mahaiwe Performing Arts Center in Great Barrington will get $200,000. Teen pregnancy prevention programs in North Adams and Pittsfield will get a $250,000 boost, and $20,000 will go to Berkshire Theatre Festival.
These are just a few of the goodies tucked into the $26.8 billion budget passed yesterday by lawmakers, a roughly 4 percent increase over last year's funds.
Local aid and education funding increased by $235 million, bringing about $33 million for Pittsfield schools and $14 million for North Adams schools.
Gov. Deval L. Patrick, who vowed to cut excess earmarks during the race for governor, said he would inspect the budget, but stopped short of saying whether he would whip out his veto pen.
"I'm going to do my homework. I'm going to study what is in this budget in detail ... and we'll see," said Patrick, who has until July 12 to make any vetoes. "My first impression is this is a positive budget in terms of substance and process."
Rep. William "Smitty" Pignatelli, D-Lenox, said he is proud of the budget. "There is a lot of cultural development this will fund that can inject job creation in the area. We're going to see a big influx of economic development, thanks to this."
Rep. Denis E. Guyer, D-Dalton, supports the increase in regional transportation reimbursement, which was bumped by $2 million.
Rep. Christopher N. Speranzo, D-Pittsfield, was just glad that communities in the Berkshires will be able to tap $6.8 million in state flood funding originally meant for Katrina victims.
"It's been a two-year saga for me and the people in these communities, and I'm just glad it can come to a close," Speranzo said.
He fought to let communities in the Berkshires dip into the funding after legislators in the Northeast tried to access the money after the flooding in the spring of 2006.
Budget creator Sen. Steven C. Panagiotakos, D-Lowell, was pleased that the communities will be reimbursed for the flood damage. He also defended the use of earmarks in the budget.
"It's an opportunity for legislators to say what their priorities are in their districts. If you just give the money to administration with no earmarks you're just giving them the ability to earmark," Panagiotakos said.
If Patrick does decide to cut any line items, most lawmakers believe that he will be overridden, even though he is from the same party.
"This has been a governor who has really been involved," said House Ways and Means Chairman Robert A. DeLeo, D-Winthrop. "Does that mean we're going to march lockstep with the governor because he's a Democrat? No, we're all individual branches here."
Missing from the budget was Patrick's initiatives to close corporate tax loopholes, but he did receive funding to hire police officers and expand kindergarten.
Despite tapping several reserve funds for a total of $609 million, DeLeo said that members worked hard to keep spending low during the difficult budget cycle.
Lawmakers also proposed to place up to $100 million into a new fund called the Bay State Competitiveness Investment Fund if the surplus from last fiscal year tops $150 million.
"We put money into that fund to make the economy grow," House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, D-Boston, said. Legislators will vote on exactly how the funds will be spent.
The $150 million will be put toward a broad job growth initiative outlined by Senate President Therese Murray, D-Plymouth, and the funding will be doled out over the next five years. Some of the money will go toward biotechnology industry and housing development.
"There's no earmarks in this, there are economic development pieces and housing," Murray said. She said she will know whether there is a surplus to fund the initiative by September, but added that she does expect one.
-----
Berkshire County area -
Local impact
Projects funded include:
$250,000 for the Berkshire Economic Corporation
$75,000 for the Berkshire Regional Housing Authority in Pittsfield
$100,000 for the Berkshire Museum
$75,000 for the Samuel Harrison House in Pittsfield
$100,000 for the local United Veterans of America
$150,000 for the Berkshire County Youth Development project
$250,000 for the Berkshire Economic Development Corporation, granted with matching funds
-----
THE BOSTON GLOBE -
Lawmakers agree on state budget
They'll take final vote on Monday
By Glen Johnson, Associated Press
June 30, 2007
Negotiators from the House and Senate yesterday reached agreement on a $26.8 billion state budget for the new fiscal year that starts tomorrow and carries through next June 30.
A conference committee composed of House and Senate negotiators filed its report with the House clerk late in the day, and lawmakers from both chambers were to give it an up-or-down vote Monday.
Separately, Governor Deval Patrick proposed doubling the staffing of the state's Washington, D.C., office to push more aggressively for federal funds. His $453,000 request to pay for the expansion is part of a $132 million spending bill filed yesterday.
Patrick filed the supplemental budget to close out spending for the current fiscal year. The funds for the Washington office would double staffing to six employees, Patrick spokesman Kyle Sullivan said.
"For too long, the Massachusetts governor's office has not had a strong presence in Washington, and in turn we have lost countless opportunities to access additional federal dollars," Sullivan said. "This investment will allow us to work more closely with our influential congressional delegation on critical funding areas, such as healthcare, education, and transportation."
The all-Democratic Massachusetts delegation in a Congress controlled by Democrats is already poised to bring additional dollars. But US Representative Michael Capuano, Democrat of Somerville, said expanding the governor's office in Washington is a great idea.
"It never hurts to have extra help," he said.
Also in the supplemental bill is $35.2 million for programs and services at MassHealth, which helps the needy obtain health coverage, and $22.3 million for the Committee For Public Counsel Services, which provides legal representation to indigent people in the state.
There is also $6.9 million for inmate suicide prevention at state prisons.
Patrick began the state budget process on Feb. 28, when he unveiled a $26.7 billion spending request that included a request to raise $500 million annually by closing so-called business tax loopholes. The business community greeted the request with hostility.
On April 11, House leaders unveiled their own version that rejected key initiatives floated by Patrick, including his call to pay for 250 new police officers. That $26.7 billion spending plan also rejected the loophole closing proposal.
The Senate took the final preliminary step on May 16, when it unveiled a spending plan that called for extra police, a loan forgiveness program for public college graduates, and a text message emergency warning system for the state's public campuses following the Virginia Tech shootings.
-----
THE BOSTON GLOBE
House and Senate OK $26.8b budget, a 4.2 percent rise
Governor gets number of wins
By Lisa Wangsness, Globe Staff | July 3, 2007
The House and Senate passed a $26.8 billion budget yesterday, restricting spending growth to just 4.2 percent over last year and embracing, at least in part, many of Governor Deval Patrick's budget priorities for education, public safety, and public health.
Patrick has up to 10 days to review the spending plan and decide which parts, if any, to veto or return with amendments. His initial reaction, however, signaled that he was largely satisfied with the Legislature's work.
"I think we have a working budget based on shared values, and built on collaboration, and I'm very pleased with what I know about it," he said in an interview yesterday.
The vote came two days after the start of the 2008 fiscal year, but the Legislature passed an interim budget last month to keep state agencies running two weeks.
The governor's warm reception of the budget reflects a budget season that, after a rocky start, became more harmonious as legislative leaders gradually resolved their differences with the new governor.
Earlier this spring, the initial House budget rejected many of the new governor's priorities in education, public safety, and health, frustrating Patrick's team.
But the Senate was more hospitable to Patrick's initiatives, and the compromise adopted yesterday meets the governor at least halfway on many of his proposals, with the noticeable exception of his effort to raise up to $500 million a year through closing so-called corporate tax loopholes.
In the end, it was a disagreement between House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi and Senate President Therese Murray that kept the budget from being delivered on time.
Murray wanted to dedicate portions of any year-end budget surplus to life science research, housing, and new technology projects, in hope of stimulating job creation in Massachusetts. DiMasi, sources said, felt that other priorities were equally important.
The two chambers eventually worked out an unusual compromise: The budget dedicates up to $100 million of the fiscal 2007 surplus to a new Bay State Competitiveness Investment Fund, but it does not spell out how the money would be used. A House legislative aide said the leaders agreed that the House and Senate would each use half of the money for its own priorities.
The budget depends on about $611 million in reserves and one-time revenue sources, more than double the amount the governor's budget used and nearly $140 million more than the Senate's did.
In doing so, the Legislature is betting that revenues will come in higher than the conservative estimate of 3 percent over last year.
Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said the legislative leaders would probably win the bet, as they have in the previous two fiscal years, and not have to draw too heavily on reserves.
Patrick, who earlier this year sharply criticized the House budget for its liberal use of reserves and one-time revenue, seemed unworried.
"I'm very positive about the outcome, because so many of our initiatives turn out to be shared initiatives with the Legislature, and I appreciate that," he said, adding that he would examine the reserves issue more closely in the coming days.
In his budget plan, Patrick was able to reduce his reliance on reserves and one-time revenue by closing the so-called loopholes in the corporate tax code.
The Legislature set aside that proposal after DiMasi sharply criticized it as destructive to the economy.
A tax commission is currently studying Patrick's proposals.
-----
FROM: "House lawmakers toss Patrick's plans" (The North Adams Transcript Online, 4/12/2007): This recently past news article stated that Bureaucrat Bosley, et al, affirmed using $500 million from the Health Care Security Trust to make up part of the difference on the disputed figure for the budget deficit. Moreover, Bureaucrat Bosley, et al, affirms the fiscally irresponsible decision to not make any interest payments and a $100 million contribution to this fund.
---
Re: "House defends budget" (The Berkshire Eagle Online, April 28, 2007):
The House budget calls for $150 million of the state's $2.2 billion stabilization account to be used for the budget. House leaders also froze the annual 0.5 percent contribution to the "rainy day" fund for next year. That results in a net $656 million withdrawal from stabilization.
-----
Big Dig collapse aftershocks still felt
Safety agency will issue findings today
By Lisa Wangsness and Andrea Estes, [The Boston] Globe Staff
July 10, 2007
One year after massive concrete slabs fell from the ceiling of the Interstate 90 connector tunnel, instantly killing a 38-year-old mother of three, the aftershocks of the tragedy continue to reverberate across state government, within a family touched by tragedy, and in the minds of commuters who pass through the tunnels each day.
Today at a hearing in Washington, the National Transportation Safety Board is scheduled to issue a long-awaited report of the agency's findings on the cause of the tunnel collapse. Attorney General Martha Coakley is expected to announce soon whether she will seek criminal indictments against anyone involved in the tunnel's construction.
Milena Del Valle's family continues to come to grips with her death. Her husband, Angel, will attend a memorial service in Jamaica Plain this evening, joined by her daughter, Raquel Ibarra Mora, 24, who will travel to Boston after spending the day at the hearing in Washington.
"It's almost incredible to have your mother or your spouse torn away from you, and it's dramatically exacerbated by the senselessness of her death," said Brad Henry, a lawyer for the Del Valle children. "It haunts people. It's hard enough to lose a mother or spouse, but to lose them through a purely avoidable tragedy makes it that much harder to cope with and to get over."
The Big Dig had been plagued for years by reports of corruption, leaks, and cost overruns, but Del Valle's death on July 10, 2006, took concerns about the megaproject to a new level, especially after reports emerged that shoddy construction and inadequate oversight might have contributed to the tragedy.
A year after the event shook the public's confidence in the tunnel, Turnpike officials say there is now no reason to doubt its safety.
"Is the tunnel safe to drive through? The answer is absolutely yes," said state Transportation Secretary Bernard Cohen, who recently became chairman of the Turnpike Authority. "There's no denying the fact that we had the kind of catastrophic event in that tunnel that is everyone's worst nightmare. We are continuing to look at problem areas within the tunnel structure, but those problem areas, at least in the opinion of all the experts who have looked at this, do not rise to an issue of fundamental safety."
Yet, the images of the piles of concrete rubble that rained down on Del Valle's car last summer still haunt some commuters, like Will Alvarez, 27, of Dorchester, who said he doesn't feel safe traveling through the tunnel.
"All that concrete can come down at any time," he said yesterday as he ate lunch on the Boston Common. "If it happened once, what makes you think it couldn't happen again?"
Inspections of the tunnel immediately after the tragedy concluded that the concrete panels that crushed Del Valle's car fell because large bolts secured to the tunnel roof with epoxy came loose. The Globe has since reported that federal and state criminal investigators are focusing on whether contractors used the wrong adhesive to install at least some of the bolts in the area where the ceiling collapsed.
It was not until June, nearly 11 months later, that the Turnpike Authority reopened the last lane of the connector tunnel after replacing all the bolts secured to the roof with epoxy. Over the past year, the Turnpike also conducted a review of the other structural systems in the Big Dig, pronouncing them fundamentally safe.
But Cohen said that some structural problems remain. Concrete in the Thomas P. O'Neill Tunnel, which replaced the Central Artery, has started to fragment, requiring considerable repairs. Roads in the same tunnel have also begun to deteriorate, he said.
This summer, the Authority will begin a yearlong inspection of the remaining pieces of the metropolitan highway system: the Sumner and Callahan Tunnels, as well as the Central Artery North tunnel in Charlestown.
The ceiling collapse led to dramatic changes in the leadership of the quasi-independent Turnpike Authority. Governor Mitt Romney, who had long sought the ouster of Matthew J. Amorello, then the Turnpike Authority chairman and chief executive, finally prevailed. Amorello was forced to resign and was replaced by Romney's transportation chief, John Cogliano, who was replaced by Cohen after Governor Deval Patrick took office.
As state and federal officials continue their review, lawyers for Del Valle's family are pressing a massive lawsuit against the Turnpike Authority and more than a dozen contractors, a claim that has spawned at least 172 counterclaims among the defendants and engaged the services of more than 100 lawyers. Recent efforts to settle the lawsuit, which plaintiffs argue is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, were unsuccessful.
Lawyers for Del Valle's family said their clients are eagerly awaiting today's report, which will provide investigators' findings on the cause of the accident and who is responsible, as well as safety recommendations.
"This is a very sad day, but we tend to look at it as the beginning of all the answers," said Jeffrey Denner, who represents Angel Del Valle. "Rather than dwell on that sadness, we're going to build on it. We're very hopeful we will now find out the truth underlying this horrible tragedy and be able to establish just accountability."
Coakley and US Attorney Michael J. Sullivan are pursuing their own investigations as to whether to press criminal charges against those involved with the connector's construction.
Patrick said he was not given an advance copy of the safety board's findings.
"I'm as anxious as anyone to see what the report has to say," he said.
David Luberoff, executive director of Harvard University's Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston, said the safety board report could shed some light on who was responsible, but that the tragedy brought with it larger lessons.
"What I hope we take away from it is the importance of vigilance on the stuff that really matters, even when that means sometimes having to cut against the grain," he said.
April Simpson of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
-----
Tunnel timeline
July 10, 2007
The National Transportation Safety Board today releases its investigation into a 2006 fatal accident in the Big Dig tunnel connecting the Massachusetts Turnpike to Logan Airport.
Jan. 17, 2003 The Turnpike Authority says the $6.5 billion tunnel has been inspected before opening. The ceiling panels, designed by Gannet Flemming in 1998 and built by Modern Continental, are not part of the inspection.
July 10, 2006 Milena Del Valle and her husband are driving in the eastbound lane of the tunnel to Logan Airport when 20 bolts come loose, releasing 10 ceiling panels. Several of the 4,500-pound panels fall onto the car, killing Del Valle.
July 14 Investigators focus on a possible cause of the collapse: the failure of the epoxy used to fasten the suspended ceiling to the tunnel roof. In 2000, Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, the company overseeing the Big Dig, had warned Modern Continental that its standard for testing bolts was not tough enough. Modern Continental countered that retesting would be expensive and time-consuming.
July 18 State inspectors conclude that 1,146 hangers suspended from the connector tunnel roof by bolts and epoxy are unreliable. A second support bolt is ordered to be installed beside each suspect one.
Sept. 1 The state reopens a single lane of traffic in the eastbound tunnel.
Dec 23 Westbound lanes open.
June 2 After $54 million in repairs, the final section of the repaired tunnel opens.
SOURCE: Globe Archives
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Public Meeting of July 10, 2007
(Information subject to editing)
Highway Accident Report
Ceiling Collapse in the Interstate 90 Connector Tunnel,
Boston, Massachusetts, July 10, 2006
NTSB/HAR-07/02
This is a synopsis from the Safety Board’s report and does not include the Board’s rationale for the conclusions, probable cause, and safety recommendations. Safety Board staff is currently making final revisions to the report from which the attached conclusions and safety recommendations have been extracted. The final report and pertinent safety recommendation letters will be distributed to recommendation recipients as soon as possible. The attached information is subject to further review and editing.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the July 10, 2006, ceiling collapse in the D Street portal of the Interstate 90 connector tunnel in Boston, Massachusetts, was the use of an epoxy anchor adhesive with poor creep resistance, that is, an epoxy formulation that was not capable of sustaining long-term loads. Over time, the epoxy deformed and fractured until several ceiling support anchors pulled free and allowed a portion of the ceiling to collapse. Use of an inappropriate epoxy formulation resulted from the failure of Gannett Fleming, Inc., and Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff to identify potential creep in the anchor adhesive as a critical long-term failure mode and to account for possible anchor creep in the design, specifications, and approval process for the epoxy anchors used in the tunnel. The use of an inappropriate epoxy formulation also resulted from a general lack of understanding and knowledge in the construction community about creep in adhesive anchoring systems. Powers Fasteners, Inc. failed to provide the Central Artery/Tunnel project with sufficiently complete, accurate, and detailed information about the suitability of the company’s Fast Set epoxy for sustaining long-term tensile loads. Contributing to the accident was the failure of Powers Fasteners, Inc., to determine that the anchor displacement that was found in the high‑occupancy vehicle tunnel in 1999 was a result of anchor creep due to the use of the company’s Power-Fast Fast Set epoxy, which was known by the company to have poor long-term load characteristics. Also contributing to the accident was the failure of Modern Continental Construction Company and Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, subsequent to the 1999 anchor displacement, to continue to monitor anchor performance in light of the uncertainty as to the cause of the failures. The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority also contributed to the accident by failing to implement a timely tunnel inspection program that would likely have revealed the ongoing anchor creep in time to correct the deficiencies before an accident occurred.
The safety issues identified during this investigation are as follows:
Insufficient understanding among designers and builders of the nature of adhesive anchoring systems;
Lack of standards for the testing of adhesive anchors in sustained tensile-load applications;
Inadequate regulatory requirements for tunnel inspections; and
Lack of national standards for the design of tunnel finishes.
As a result of its investigation of this accident, the National Transportation Safety Boar makes safety recommendations to the Federal Highway Administration; the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; the departments of transportation of the 50 States and the District of Columbia; the International Code Council; ICC Evaluation Service, Inc.; Powers Fasteners, Inc.; Sika Corporation; the American Concrete Institute; the American Society of Civil Engineers; and the Associated General Contractors of America.
CONCLUSIONS
By July 2006, a significant portion of the adhesive anchors used to support the D Street portal ceilings had displaced to the extent that, without corrective action, several of the ceiling modules in the three portal tunnels were at imminent risk of failure and collapse.
Although it is unlikely that all the D Street portal adhesive anchors were installed in a manner that would ensure maximum anchor performance, improper or deficient anchor installation procedures or practices alone would not account for all of the anchor failures that were observed before and after the accident.
The anchor loading calculations developed by Gannett Fleming, Inc., for the ceiling in the D Street portal tunnel were consistent with the actual maximum loads sustained in service.
Based on published anchor strength test data, the calculated anchor loading for the D Street portal ceiling system, and the limited number of available alternatives, Gannett Fleming, Inc.’s, specification of an adhesive anchoring system to support the ceiling system was not inappropriate.
Gannett Fleming, Inc., and Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff failed to account for the fact that polymer adhesives are susceptible to deformation (creep) under sustained load, with the result that they made no provision for ensuring the long-term, safe performance of the ceiling support anchoring system.
Modern Continental Construction Company was supplied with and used the Fast Set formulation of Power-Fast Epoxy Injection Gel when the company was installing the anchors in the D Street portal, including the anchors that failed in this accident.
The source of the anchor displacement that was found in the D Street portal tunnels and that precipitated the ceiling collapse was the poor creep resistance of the Power‑Fast Fast Set epoxy used to install the anchors.
Modern Continental Construction Company was not aware, when its employees installed the adhesive anchors in the D Street portal, that the epoxy being used was susceptible to creep and was therefore unsuitable for this application.
Had Gannett Fleming, Inc., in the construction contract for the D Street portal finishes, specified the use of adhesive anchors with adequate creep resistance, a different anchor adhesive could have been chosen, and the accident might have been prevented.
Gannett Fleming, Inc., approved the D Street portal anchors without identifying which epoxy formulation was being used, even though the company was provided with information indicating that one version of the Power-Fast epoxy should be used for short-term loading only.
The information that was provided by Powers Fasteners, Inc., regarding its Power-Fast epoxy was inadequate and misleading, with the result that Modern Continental Company used the Fast Set formulation of the epoxy for the adhesive anchors in the D Street portal even though that formulation had been shown through testing to be subject to creep under sustained tension loading.
As shown by the displaced anchors in the D Street portal, the maximum load capacity of an adhesive anchor, which relates to short-term loading, does not indicate that the anchor will be able to support even lighter loads over time, and thus a larger design safety factor cannot compensate for an adhesive material that is susceptible to creep.
After unexplained anchor displacement was found in the Interstate 90 connector tunnel in 1999 and 2001, Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff and Modern Continental Construction Company should have instituted a program to monitor anchor performance to ensure that the actions taken in response to the displacement were effective. Had these organizations taken such action, they likely would have found that anchor creep was occurring, and they might have taken measures that would have prevented this accident.
Powers Fasteners, Inc.’s, response to the anchor displacements that occurred in 1999 in the high-occupancy tunnel of the D Street portal was deficient in that the company did not identify the source of the failures as creep in the Fast Set epoxy adhesive and took no followup action to ascertain why its product had not performed in accordance with the users’ expectations.
Had the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, at regular intervals between November 2003 and July 2006, inspected the area above the suspended ceilings in the D Street portal tunnels, the anchor creep that led to this accident would likely have been detected, and action could have been taken that would have prevented this accident.
Because of the potential catastrophic effects of a failure of the D Street portal ceiling system, Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff and Gannett Fleming, Inc. should have required that ultimate load tests be conducted on the adhesive anchors used to support the ceiling before allowing any of the anchors to be installed.
Installing adhesive anchors in overhead applications appears, by the nature of the task, to introduce voids into the adhesive that can reduce the ultimate load capacity of the anchor and thus the overall reliability of the anchoring system.
The circumstances of this accident demonstrate a general lack of knowledge and understanding among design and construction engineers and builders of the complex nature of epoxies and similar polymer adhesives, and in particular, the potential for those materials to deform (creep) under sustained tension loads.
Protocols or standards for the testing of adhesive anchors in sustained tensile-load applications will provide designers and builders with test methods designed specifically to accurately assess the long-term safety of those anchors.
National standards for the design of tunnel finishes, including tunnel suspended ceilings, will provide government entities or other organizations with ready access to information that could be useful in designing tunnel finishes that minimize potential risks to public safety.
PROBABLE CAUSE
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the July 10, 2006, ceiling collapse in the D Street portal of the Interstate 90 connector tunnel in Boston, Massachusetts, was the use of an epoxy anchor adhesive with poor creep resistance, that is, an epoxy formulation that was not capable of sustaining long-term loads. Over time, the epoxy deformed and fractured until several ceiling support anchors pulled free and allowed a portion of the ceiling to collapse. Use of an inappropriate epoxy formulation resulted from the failure of Gannett Fleming, Inc., and Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff to identify potential creep in the anchor adhesive as a critical long-term failure mode and to account for possible anchor creep in the design, specifications, and approval process for the epoxy anchors used in the tunnel. The use of an inappropriate epoxy formulation also resulted from a general lack of understanding and knowledge in the construction community about creep in adhesive anchoring systems. In addition, Powers Fasteners, Inc. failed to provide the Central Artery/Tunnel project with sufficiently complete, accurate, and detailed information about the suitability of the company’s Fast Set epoxy for sustaining long-term tensile loads. Contributing to the accident was the failure of Powers Fasteners, Inc., to determine that the anchor displacement that was found in the high‑occupancy vehicle tunnel in 1999 was a result of anchor creep due to the use of the company’s Power-Fast Fast Set epoxy, which was known by the company to have poor long-term load characteristics. Also contributing to the accident was the failure of Modern Continental Construction Company and Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, subsequent to the 1999 anchor displacement, to continue to monitor anchor performance in light of the uncertainty as to the cause of the failures. The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority also contributed to the accident by failing to implement a timely tunnel inspection program that would likely have revealed the ongoing anchor creep in time to correct the deficiencies before an accident occurred.
SAFETY RECOMMENDATION
As a result of the July 10, 2006, investigation into the ceiling collapse in the I-90 connector tunnel in Boston, Massachusetts, the National Transportation Safety Board makes the following safety recommendations:
To the Federal Highway Administration:
In cooperation with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, develop standards and protocols for the testing of adhesive anchors to be used in sustained tensile-load overhead highway applications. These standards and protocols should consider site‑specific ultimate strength values as well as the creep characteristics of the adhesive over the expected life of the structure. (H-07-XX)
Prohibit the use of adhesive anchors in sustained tensile-load overhead highway applications where failure of the adhesive would result in a risk to the public until testing standards and protocols have been developed and implemented that ensure the safety of these applications. (H-07-XX)
Seek legislation authorizing the Federal Highway Administration to establish a mandatory tunnel inspection program similar to the National Bridge Inspection Program. (H-07-XX)
Once provided with legislative authority to establish a mandatory tunnel inspection program as indicated in Safety Recommendation [3], develop and implement a tunnel inspection program that will identity critical inspection elements and specify an appropriate inspection frequency. (H-07-XX)
In cooperation with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, develop specific design, construction, and inspection guidance for tunnel finishes and incorporate that guidance into a tunnel design manual. (H-07-XX)
To the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials:
Work with the Federal Highway Administration to develop standards and protocols for the testing of adhesive anchors to be used in sustained tensile-load overhead highway applications, and incorporate those standards and protocols into the AASHTO Construction Quality Assurance Guidelines. These standards and protocols should consider site‑specific ultimate strength values as well as the creep characteristics of the adhesive over the expected life of the structure. (H-07-XX)
Use the circumstances of the July 10, 2006, accident in Boston, Massachusetts to emphasize to your members through your publications, Web site, and conferences, as appropriate, the risks associated with using adhesive anchors in sustained tensile-load applications where failure of the adhesive would result in a risk to the public. (H-07-XX)
In cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, develop specific design, construction, and inspection guidance for tunnel finishes and incorporate that guidance into a tunnel design manual. (H‑07-XX)
To the Departments of Transportation of the 50 States and the District of Columbia:
Prohibit the use of adhesive anchors in sustained tensile-load overhead highway applications where failure of the adhesive would result in a risk to the public until testing standards and protocols have been developed and implemented that ensure the safety of these applications. (H-07-XX)
Review the use of adhesive anchors in highway construction within your jurisdiction and identify those sites where failure of the adhesive under sustained load could result in a risk to the public. Once those sites have been identified, implement an inspection and repair program to ensure that such failures do not occur. (H-07-XX)
To the International Code Council:
Require creep testing for the qualification of all anchor adhesives. (H‑07‑XX)
Disqualify for use in sustained tensile loading any adhesive that has not been tested for creep or that has failed such tests. (H‑07‑XX)
Revise your building codes, qualified materials listings, and product labeling guidelines to clearly address the possibility for creep in polymeric anchor adhesives and to make end users aware of the potential lack of correlation between short- and long-term performance of these adhesives. (H-07-XX)
Use your building codes, qualified materials listings, test criteria, or other mechanisms to make end users aware of the strong potential for creating voids in the adhesive during the overhead installation of adhesive anchors and of the need to account for the reduction in effective embedment depth associated with the use of seal plugs in such applications. (H-07-XX)
To the International Code Council:
Revise evaluation report ICC ESR-1531 to state explicitly in the text and in the bond strength tables that the Fast Set formulation of the epoxy is approved for short-term loads only. (H‑07‑XX)
To Powers Fasteners, Inc.:
Revise the packaging, for all distributors, of your Power-Fast Epoxy Injection Gel Fast Set formulation to state explicitly that this formulation is approved for short-term loads only. (H-07-XX)
To Sika Corporation:
Revise your product literature and packaging to state explicitly that Sikadur Injection Gel Anchor Fix-3 epoxy is approved for short-term loads only. (H-07-XX)
To the American Concrete Institute:
Use your building codes, forums, educational materials, and publications to inform design and construction agencies of the potential for gradual deformation (creep) in anchor adhesives and to make them aware of the possible risks associated with using adhesive anchors in concrete under sustained tensile-load applications. (H-07-XX)
To the American Society of Civil Engineers:
Use the circumstances of the July 10, 2006, accident in Boston, Massachusetts to emphasize to your members through your publications, Web site, and conferences, as appropriate, the need to assess the creep characteristics of adhesive anchors before those anchors are used in sustained tensile-load applications. (H-07-XX)
To the Associated General Contractors of America:
Use the circumstances of the July 10, 2006, accident in Boston, Massachusetts to emphasize to your members through your publications, Web site, and conferences, as appropriate, the need to assess the creep characteristics of adhesive anchors before those anchors are used in sustained tensile-load applications. (H-07-XX)
Wide risk, wide blame
US report finds further tunnel peril in '06, faults all parties
By Sean P. Murphy and Andrea Estes, Globe Staff | July 11, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Federal investigators blamed multiple Big Dig contractors and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority yesterday for last summer's fatal tunnel collapse, concluding that the wrong kind of glue was used to hold up part of the concrete ceiling and that project oversight was inadequate to detect the problem.
Because the glue was too weak to support the multiton ceiling panels, the investigators said, several other sections of the ceiling were "at imminent risk of failure" at the time of the accident.
In a four-hour hearing and a summary report that named those responsible, the National Transportation Safety Board spared no party.
Much of the blame rests with the ceiling designer, Gannett Fleming Inc., for not specifying the use of epoxy strong enough to keep bolts from gradually coming loose, the board said. But it also found substantial mistakes by the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and by other contractors. Their failure to catch the error and to aggressively investigate when bolts started coming loose during construction, contributed to the tragedy, the board found.
The board primarily faulted the use of a fast-drying form of epoxy that was unable to hold up the ceiling for a long period without the bolts creeping out. After the collapse, investigators found that a significant number of the bolts used to support the ceiling in the easternmost 200 feet of the Interstate 90 connector tunnel had partially slipped out.
"Over time, the epoxy deformed and fractured" until several ceiling supports pulled out, said the report.
The result was that late on the night of July 10, 2006, 26 tons of concrete and steel crashed down on a Buick headed for Logan International Airport, killing 38-year-old Milena Del Valle of Jamaica Plain and fundamentally shaking the city's trust in the safety of the Big Dig tunnels.
Del Valle's 24-year-old daugh ter, Raquel Ibarra Mora, traveled from Costa Rica to attend the meeting in Washington and a memorial service for her mother last night in Boston.
"I have mixed emotions," she said through a translator. "It was a very difficult day. I wished the report could have been released on a day other than the anniversary. I have to relive, through the findings, what actually happened. But I'm very pleased with the NTSB because the NTSB seemed to have done a thorough job and to have found the people responsible for this act."
Gannett Fleming and Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, the consultant hired to manage the overall design and construction of the $15 billion highway project, failed to recognize long-term bolt slippage as a potential problem that needed to be taken into account in the design and approval process for the tunnel ceiling, the board found. It said the supplier of the epoxy bolts, Powers Fasteners Inc., provided "inadequate and misleading" information about its epoxy and the company then failed to determine that the wrong glue had been used when bolts started coming loose during construction.
Subsequently, Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff and Modern Continental Construction Co., the tunnel builder, failed to monitor whether bolts continued to come loose, and the Turnpike Authority did not inspect the ceiling after the tunnel opened in 2003.
"There are plenty of issues to go around for everyone," Mark V. Rosenker, the safety board's chairman, said at the conclusion of the hearing.
The board called for a nationwide moratorium on the overhead use of epoxy bolts in highway construction if their failure would endanger the public. It recommended that the Federal Highway Administration develop national standards for testing epoxy bolts used in this way -- none now exist -- and urged all states to identify locations where overhead anchor bolts are used and inspect them.
Using epoxy bolts to hold up objects overhead "appears . . . to introduce voids into the adhesive that can reduce" the weight- bearing capacity and reliability of the bolts, the report said. The safety board also called for legislation to create a mandatory tunnel inspection program similar to the checks now required for bridges.
Senators John F. Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts immediately introduced a bill that would require the US Department of Transportation to develop tunnel inspection guidelines for states and authorize the use of independent engineers to review construction methods on major federal highway projects.
US Representative Michael Capuano, who filed legislation last year to set up a national tunnel inspection system, praised the safety board for advocating mandatory inspections. "Before this tragic accident I had no idea the tunnels were not inspected on a regular basis," he said. "I presumed they were. I was wrong."
The ceiling at the eastern end of the I-90 connector was removed after the accident, and epoxy bolts elsewhere in the tunnel were reinforced with braces and another type of bolt.
State officials inspected all tunnels and determined that epoxy used to hold up the ceiling in the Ted Williams Tunnel is safe.
Attorney General Martha Coakley is conducting a criminal investigation of the accident and is expected to decide shortly whether to seek indictments. She would not comment on the safety board's findings or her own probe.
Governor Deval Patrick, who expressed anger over the findings, urged the attorney general "to hold accountable all those who should be held accountable."
"As I understand the report, it confirms the utter disappointment I have, and I think we all should have with Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff," Patrick said. "Among the conclusions -- the wrong glue and the wrong leadership. The wrong oversight of the project has been confirmed by this report."
A lawyer for the Del Valle family said the board's findings suggest there was wrongdoing that warrants criminal prosecution.
"This report provides all manner of factual support for criminal indictments and no question about civil liability," said Brad Henry, one of the lawyers who has brought a multimillion-dollar lawsuit for the family against more than a dozen contractors and the Turnpike Authority.
But most contractors said the findings show their companies were not to blame, or they disputed the board's conclusions.
"We are still reviewing the findings of the NTSB report, but it seems to confirm our confidence in the integrity of our design and the accuracy of our calculations," Doug Bailey, spokesman for Gannett Fleming, said in a written statement.
He said the company "only approved the use of an epoxy that could have been the standard-set epoxy," not the quick-drying kind. "Only today did we learn that the wrong epoxy was used in the tunnel ceiling," he said.
In a strongly worded statement, Powers Fasteners insisted it supplied standard-set epoxy. "Powers did not know that Fast Set [quick-drying epoxy] was used for the ceiling in place of the Standard Set epoxy," it said. "It would be an absurd conclusion if the federal investigators were to consider Powers Fasteners in any way responsible."
Peter Mancusi, spokesman for Modern Continental, said in a written statement that the report makes clear that "Modern Continental fulfilled its obligations to install the suspended ceiling system in conformity with contract plans and specifications."
Andrew Paven, a spokesman for Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, said, "NTSB has performed a thorough and objective investigation of this tragic accident."
After a year of speculation over causes of the collapse, ranging from faulty installation by workers to cost-saving decisions to scale back the number of bolts used, the safety board determined one factor counted more than any other.
"Fundamentally, what we're talking about here is the wrong glue being used," said Kitty Higgins, one of the five board members.
The problem began with Gannett Fleming, ceiling designer. "They set a performance-based standard for the epoxy, that it had to be an epoxy of a certain strength," said Bruce Magladry, director of the board's Office of Highway Safety. "They did not specify an epoxy to use, but rather one that performs in a certain way."
Gannett Fleming failed to consider "creep," the fact that fast-set epoxy, due to its chemistry, breaks down and loses strength, while standard-set epoxy remains stable, the board's staff said.
"Should they have known?" asked Rosenker.
"They probably should have," said Magladry, adding "there was no malice" on the part of managers and engineers. "These were conscientious people trying to do their jobs. They didn't understand creep."
"Should they have known?" Rosenker asked again.
"It had been in the [engineering] literature," Magladry said. "I just don't think enough people understood it."
The contract specifications written by Gannett Fleming and reviewed by Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff omitted any consideration of creep. "The shortcoming is that the specifications did not address the issue of the long-term characteristics of the epoxy," said Mark Bagnard, an NTSB investigator.
Modern Continental followed those specifications and contracted with a distributor, which in turned contracted with a supplier. Modern Continental, however, was not aware the epoxy it used was susceptible to creep and unsuitable.
Powers Fasteners, meanwhile, had tested its products for creep and found in 1995 that fast-set failed under long-term stress, such as the pull of gravity in overhead applications, the NTSB found.
Yet Powers did not highlight the fact of the fast-set breakdown in its dealings with Big Dig contractors, the staff said. "It was difficult to find -- it was in the fine print," said Magladry. "But even if they did find it, I'm not sure they would have understood it."
Later, when managers discovered within weeks of installing the bolts that they were slipping out, it was Powers that was in the best position to have averted the collapse, said Carl Schultheisz, a NTSB material lab analyst.
Once bolts slipped, didn't Powers, the one entity involved that was aware of the phenomeon of creep, question whether the right epoxy was used, asked NTSB member Debbie Hersman.
"We don't know why it wasn't asked," Schultheisz said. "Powers had the best opportunity to prevent this accident by raising that question."
Instead, Modern Continental, Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff and other managers were convinced the cause of the slipped bolts was faulty installation, and indeed, the bolts examined after the accident had lost up to 40 percent of their strength because of voids, or air bubbles. But that alone would not have caused the collapse.
Dan Walsh, an NTSB engineer, said Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff in 2003 produced an inspection manual for the tunnels, but it was not implemented by the Turnpike Authority during the 43 months between its completion and the ceiling collapse. "The bureaucratic delays are enough to set your hair on fire," Hersman said.
-----
'We're still coming to terms that she's not here anymore'
Scores remember Milena Del Valle
By David Abel, Globe Staff | July 11, 2007
Her bright smile was everywhere, gilded in a gold frame, beside a bouquet of yellow roses, and on T-shirts worn by many of her friends and family.
Below the glowing image on the T-shirts, there was the message, "We'll always love you."
A year ago yesterday, as the 38-year-old mother of three and her husband drove in their Buick to Logan Airport, huge concrete slabs fell from the ceiling of the Interstate 90 connector tunnel and instantly killed Milena Del Valle.
Last night, scores of friends and family attended a service in her memory at her church in Jamaica Plain, Iglesia Hispana de la Comunidad.
"We all feel sad today," said Lizy del Valle, Milena's stepdaughter. "The year passed very quickly. We're still coming to terms that she's not here anymore."
The service was held as the National Transportation Safety Board released a long-awaited report in Washington that found Big Dig contractors used the wrong epoxy to secure the tunnel's heavy ceiling panels, allowing bolts to "creep " over time.
The agency said a fast-drying epoxy used throughout the Interstate 90 connector tunnel holds 25 percent less load than conventional epoxy. The fast-set epoxy had "exceptionally poor creep resistance" that allowed the bolts to slip, investigators said at a hearing.
The service included Del Valle's husband, Angel. Her daughter, Raquel Ibarra Mora, 24, was expected after spending the day at the hearing in Washington, but because of flight problems she did not arrive in time for the service.
The Big Dig has been plagued for years by reports of corruption, leaks, and cost overruns. But Del Valle's death on July 10, 2006, increased concerns about the project after reports of substandard construction and insufficient oversight.
In recent weeks, lawyers for Del Valle's family have pressed a lawsuit against the Turnpike Authority and more than a dozen contractors. Recent efforts to settle the lawsuit, which the plaintiffs argue is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, have been unsuccessful.
Before the service last night, lawyer Jeffrey Denner, who represents Angel Del Valle, said he expects the NTSB's report to help speed up a settlement.
The tragedy occurred about 10:45 on a Monday night last year when Angel Del Valle was driving with his wife through the I-90 connector. They were going to pick up his brother, Francisco, who was returning from a trip to Puerto Rico.
Milena -- an immigrant from San José, Costa Rica, who arrived in the United States about five years before her death -- worked in facility maintenance at Mississippi's Restaurant in Mission Hill. She also occasionally handed out copies of El Planeta, a Brookline-based Spanish weekly newspaper, at Forest Hills T-station in Jamaica Plain and Orient Heights station in East Boston.
Angel Del Valle worked as a full-time clerk behind the meat counter at Hi-Lo Foods on Centre Street, a supermarket popular with Latino shoppers. When he came home from work, she would take off his shoes and rub his feet. He did the cooking. The two were nearly always together.
The couple did not have children together, but Milena had three adult children living in Costa Rica. She had left her family to find a job that would help support her mother, two sons, and daughter.
Her goal was to help move her children to the States. Until then, she hoped to make enough money to help her daughter start an ice cream shop, Angel Del Valle has told the Globe.
At last night's service, those attending sang songs in Milena's honor and watched a slide show and videos of her and her family.
Speaking at the service, Lisa de Paz, the wife of the church's pastor, told those who packed the pews that Milena was a woman no one will forget.
"It's has been a hard year . . . of sadness and affliction," she said. "We miss her voice singing in our service, her phone calls when someone missed a service, and the coffee she made every Sunday . . .. We know that she's just sleeping, and one day, sooner or later, we'll see her again, in eternity."
After the service, well-wishers hugged Angel Del Valle and gave him a dozen white roses. He brushed back tears.
"Every day, every minute, every moment, I remember what happened," he said.
-----
GLOBE EDITORIAL
Responsibility all around
July 11, 2007
THE CASCADE of failures that led to the fatal ceiling collapse in the Big Dig connector tunnel one year ago was on stark display yesterday in Washington, where the National Transportation Safety Board issued its final report on the incident that killed 38-year old Milena Del Valle.
In a recitation of mismanagement that one panel member said "would make your hair stand on end," the NTSB staff described the numerous ways in which Big Dig designers and contractors didn't understand, and state authorities didn't investigate, why the anchors used to fasten the ceiling panels in the Interstate 90 connector tunnel were vulnerable to "epoxy creep." In reading the panel's findings, board chairman Mark Rosenker said repeatedly that, had the responsible parties done a better job of testing, monitoring, and inspecting the ceiling construction, the accident could have been prevented.
And who are the responsible parties? Dashing hopes for a quick resolution of the long-playing drama, the board's report revealed no single villain. Instead, the board flagged failures all along the way. There was the failure of contractors Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, design managers Gannett Fleming, and builders Modern Continental to thoroughly test and monitor the ceiling construction after they learned that some of the anchors were coming loose in 1999. The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority failed to do a single inspection of the tunnel from the day it opened to traffic in November 2003 to the day of the fatal incident more than 30 months later. And almost everyone failed to realize that the "fast set" epoxy used to anchor the bolts in the ceiling panels, made by the firm Powers Fasteners, was insufficient to bear long-term loads and wasn't holding.
Hanging over the findings was a pervasive sense of neglect and inaction from leaders on Beacon Hill -- until tragedy struck.
"I find it incredible," said panel member Kitty Higgins, "that the state played such a passive role."
The report won't draw a bright line for officials still picking their way through the thicket of pending lawsuits and financial claims. Attorney General Martha Coakley must still decide whether to pursue criminal charges in the death -- weighing the likelihood of a conviction against the need to maximize cost recovery for repairs and ongoing maintenance of the project. Transportation Secretary Bernard Cohen must still complete his promised "stem-to-stern" review of the project, necessary to restore the public confidence that surely took another hit yesterday.
Everyone knows that there are risks associated with driving in tunnels. But citizens have a right to believe that those risks are minimized by professionals doing their jobs and caring about them. And, that nearly $15 billion in taxpayers' money would have bought a decent measure of oversight.
Patrick signs $26.8B budget
Only $41 million in items vetoed
By Hillary Chabot, Eagle Boston Bureau
Berkshire Eagle
Article Last Updated:07/13/2007 06:14:10 AM EDT
Friday, July 13
BOSTON — Touting his cooperative role with legislative leadership, Gov. Deval L. Patrick slashed $41 million in earmarks before he approved the $26.8 billion budget yesterday.
The budget brings an additional $220 million for local schools and a total 5.8 percent increase in local aid. Although Patrick targeted $50,000 for additional environmental officers on the Deerfield River, the vetoes seemed light in comparison to his Republican predecessors.
"For the first time in a very long time, we have built a budget on real collaboration between the Legislature and the administration and based on shared goals," Patrick said.
Senate Ways and Means Chairman Steven C. Panagiotakos, D-Lowell, said that, although he is concerned about the Jackson/Appleton/Middlesex (JAM) Urban Revitalization Plan cut, he believes that Patrick worked well with lawmakers.
"It's certainly a small amount. Cutting only $41 million out of a $26.8 billion budget shows that we're pretty much on the same page in terms of priorities," Panagiotakos said.
The budget includes $4 million toward hiring an additional 100 police officers, part of Patrick's campaign promise to add 1,000 additional officers.
Rep. Daniel E. Bosley, D-North Adams, said he plans on trying to restore the funding for the officers, in addition to $200,000 meant for the Western Massachusetts enterprise fund.
"I would hope they would restore these. Some of this funding, like the money for the enterprise fund, they've counted on for the last 20 years," Bosley said.
Also cut was $50,000 for agricultural prizes.
'A reasonable spending plan'
Sen. Benjamin B. Downing, D-Pittsfield, said that, although he will work to get some funding restored, he believes that the budget is good overall for the Berkshires.
"I think the governor did a great job with the budget. It really shows we put forward a reasonable spending plan," he said.
Rep. Christopher N. Speranzo, D-Pittsfield, and Rep. William "Smitty" Pignatelli, D-Lenox, said that Patrick left in all their earmarks meant to spark development and tourism in the region.
"He's been a really good partner with the Legislature," said Speranzo, who served on the House Ways and Means Committee for the first time this year.
Michael Widmer, executive director for the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said Patrick cut a reasonable number of initiatives, considering the tight budget, which increased by only 4.2 percent.
The budget also used about $600 million in reserve spending, slightly more than Patrick's initial budget.
"I'm very concerned about the use of reserves," Patrick said after signing the budget. "I still believe we have work to do on both revenue and efficiency in terms of this budget."
Both Senate President Therese Murray, D-Plymouth, and House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, D-Boston, said they will pore over Patrick's vetoes next week before they consider overrides, which are not out of the question even though lawmakers from the Berkshire delegation are happy.
"I think there are a lot of projects which mean a lot to a lot of people's districts, so we'll take a look at the merits and go from there," Speranzo said.
Walking the line
Patrick, the first Democratic governor in 16 years, tried to walk the line between working with lawmakers and kowtowing to them, Widmer said.
"I'm not here to provoke members of the Legislature or to curry favor with them," Patrick said. "We're here to work together. There are some things they're disappointed about, and there are a couple of things I'm disappointed about."
---
Some of Gov. Deval L. Patrick's vetoes:
$200,000 meant for the Western Massachusetts enterprise fund.
An item to provide health insurance to the mother of former Bristol District Attorney Paul Walsh.
$2.2 million for the Boston Fire Department's training academy.
$175,000 for the Springfield Business Improvement District.
$11 million for the trial courts.
$50,000 for agricultural prizes.
---
Patrick Signs $26.8 Billion State Budget, Vetoes $41 Million
Web Editor: Rhonda Erskine, Online Content Producer
Last Updated: 7/12/2007
BOSTON (AP) -- Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has signed his first budget. He says the $26.8 billion spending plan for the new fiscal year was a collaboration between his office and the Democrat-controlled state Legislature.
The governor issued about $41 million in line-item vetoes. One item vetoed in the massive document would have provided health insurance to a single person in Massachusetts, the mother of former Bristol District Attorney Paul Walsh.
Patrick says the budget signed Thursday morning includes increased spending in a number of key areas, including local aid to cities and towns, public schools, affordable housing, expanded kindergarten and community policing.
He also says the budget includes $1.8 billion for the state's landmark health care reform effort.
-----
Dear Berkshire Bloggers:
Believe me, I have studied public administration or the inner workings of government for many years now. I can easily tell when a Pol is serving the People or if he is serving the Corporate Elite. Most of the time--99/100, Pols serve the interests of the Corporate Elite over those of the People they claim to be representing.
The two news articles, below, illustrate examples of the current Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts--the Deval-uator--using Perverse Incentives for the sole purpose of trying to increase federal funds to his state government coffers. The tradeoff of a politician who choses financial gain for his interests, which are usually not the People he is supposed to be representing, is that he leaves society a lot worse off than before he took the Oath of Office to serve the People.
Deval Patrick's smooth Operator M.O. and terribly unethical public record has proven him to be anything but a man of the People. While the state government may attract more federal funds for the Governor to administrate, he is leaving society a lot worse off in the end.
Please read the following news articles to understand how Deval Patrick uses Perverse Incentives and his end game is to serve his Corporate Elite Masters instead of the People he once promised to represent in state government.
In Truth and Dissent,
Jonathan A. Melle
-----
AmeriCorps loses state grant
By Patrick Cassidy
STAFF WRITER
July 17, 2007 6:00 AM
The future is uncertain for AmeriCorps and a handful of other Cape Cod programs after Gov. Deval Patrick's veto last week of $10.4 million in earmarks from the state's 2008 budget.
The move shocked AmeriCorps advocates, who viewed Patrick as an ally in light of his recent call for more volunteerism by his own staff and a focus on civic engagement in his campaign for governor.
"We were definitely surprised and a bit confused," said Mary Schumacher, regional supervisor for AmeriCorps Cape Cod. The Cape's chapter of the national volunteer program learned the news Friday afternoon from the Massachusetts Service Alliance, the commission responsible for funneling federal funds to 22 AmeriCorps programs in Massachusetts.
Almost $1 million of the money was meant for the alliance.
"This money is basically a commitment from the state that allows them to receive funding from the federal government," Schumacher said. "Without the $900,000 we are unable to leverage over $10 million in federal grants."
Although AmeriCorps Cape Cod received its 2007 funding directly through a competitive federal grant, the program is normally reliant on the money allocated through the alliance.
AmeriCorps programs are funded with a combination of federal, state and local money. Last year the Cape's program received $312,000 in federal funds, an amount Barnstable County is required to match, said Darlene Johnson-Morris, AmeriCorps Cape Cod's program director
If the alliance goes unfunded, AmeriCorps programs in Massachusetts "would just stop," Johnson-Morris said.
In the earmarks eliminated by Patrick under the state's Workforce Training Fund were several other Cape-based programs, including $250,000 for Outer Cape Health Services and $95,000 for a workforce development program for people over 55.
"Quite frankly, this program is a model for what the rest of the country is going to be needing in the next five years," said David Augustinho, executive director of the Cape and Islands Workforce Investment Board, citing the impending retirement of the baby boomer generation as a future drain on the workforce.
In the past two years, the over-55 program has placed more than 30 people in jobs, Augustinho said. An additional 25 to 30 individuals are receiving case management services, he said.
"They're all worthy programs," said Linnea Walsh, spokeswoman for the state's Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development. "This veto was not about the worthiness of any given program."
The statute that established the Workforce Training Fund includes specific criteria for a competitive application process to access the money, Walsh said.
The earmarks are an end around that process and would have pushed the fund further into deficit caused by spending in previous years, she said.
The governor's move was logical, especially considering employers who contribute to the fund must compete for the funds, said State Rep. Matthew Patrick, D-Falmouth. "If I was one of the employers who was paying money into this program I would be upset if my project got turned down," he said.
The state Legislature can override the governor's veto with a two-thirds vote, a move some members of the Cape's legislative delegation were already calling for yesterday.
"With Romney it was easy," said State Rep. Cleon Turner, D—Dennis. "There wasn't a single veto that was upheld."
But with a Democrat in the governor's office, things could be less clear-cut, Turner said.
"What kind of voting is going to take place?" he said. "Is the Democratic Party going to be split?"
State Rep. Jeffrey Perry, R-Sandwich, said the governor should have made it clear earlier that he intended to eliminate the funding.
"If it's not overridden it's gone," Perry said, adding that the imbalance of power in the Massachusetts Legislature made for a lot of closed-door backroom deals.
Turner and other Cape representatives said they would be contacting House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi to request the vetoes that affect local programs be placed before the Legislature for an override vote.
"I have really done my homework so that the budget requests that I've filed are not for pork," said State Rep. Sarah Peake, D-Provincetown, the sponsor of the earmark for the Outer Cape Health Services money.
The governor eliminated $31 million in addition to the Workforce Training Fund earmarks from the $26.8 billion budget.
Patrick Cassidy can be reached at pcassidy@capecodonline.com.
AmeriCorps Cape Cod
24 volunteers annually
Resident housing in Wellfleet and Bourne
1,700 hours required per volunteer annually
200 service projects since September
$900,000 estimated benefit to county annually
Programs in Natural Resource Management land and water; community education; and disaster relief and preparedness
Source: AmeriCorps Cape Codhttp://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070717/NEWS/707170314
-----
Free care may come at a cost to poor
State proposes copayments
By Alice Dembner, Globe Staff | July 13, 2007
For the first time, many low-income patients seeking free care at hospitals will face deductibles and copayments similar to those charged to insured patients, under proposed rules released yesterday that are designed to push more Massachusetts residents to get health insurance.
In addition, the state will no longer reimburse hospitals and community health centers for care they provide if the patients are eligible for insurance through the state Medicaid program, state-subsidized Commonwealth Care, or affordable coverage through their work. Hospital officials said that they would not turn away patients needing urgent care, but that they probably would be more aggressive in billing those patients.
The new provisions were required under the state law that mandates that all adults obtain insurance coverage this year, if the state deems it affordable for them. The state is drawing on funds previously used for free care to pay for insurance subsidies and is counting on weaning as many people as possible from free care.
The number of people using the pool already has dropped 20 percent this year compared with last year, according to state officials, in large part because 155,000 people now have insurance through the state's near-universal coverage initiative. But hundreds of thousands of patients are still using the pool.
The state allocated $605 million for free care this year, but the fiscal 2008 budget Governor Deval Patrick approved yesterday includes only $354 million for the pool's successor, the Health Safety Net Trust Fund.
"We did not want the trust fund to look more attractive to people than insurance," said Dr. JudyAnn Bigby , state secretary of Health and Human Services, as she explained the rules the administration issued yesterday .
Rather, she said, the rules are designed to make sure free care serves as a safety net for people without access to insurance, those whose insurance is inadequate, and those who face extraordinary medical expenses. The rules are subject to a public hearing, scheduled for Aug. 22, and may be revised before they are imposed on Oct. 1.
The proposals drew support from advocates and healthcare providers, but also concern that the new copayments would deter some people from seeking care and could leave hospitals with extra debt if patients get care but are unable to pay for it.
"We think the regulations are a great step forward and will ensure that most folks who can't find affordable coverage . . . will maintain access to critical life-saving services," said John McDonough, executive director of the advocacy group Health Care for All . "But we are concerned that for an individual making between $15,000 and $20,000, there will be a new deductible that accumulates on a monthly basis whether or not they actually use any medical services. That means that someone could get services in January, then go back in December and face a bill of about $385 before they could get served."
The proposed deductible is $35 a month for people earning between 150 percent and 200 percent of the federal poverty level -- roughly $15,000 to $20,000. Other copayments include $5 for office visits in a hospital and $50 for emergency room visits that don't result in an inpatient admission. These payments apply to patients between 100 percent and 200 percent of the poverty level. There are no copayments or deductibles for children or for care at community health centers, other than a $3 charge for each prescription filled.
Patients earning between 200 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level would face a larger deductible, based on their income.
State officials said they would try to ensure that the new rules do not cause major disruption. "We will be implementing this in a measured and phased way, so it doesn't create a hardship," said Sarah Iselin , state commissioner of healthcare finance and policy, whose office oversees free care.
Joe Kirkpatrick, vice president of the Massachusetts Hospital Association , said, "Patients should expect more rigorous collection and enforcement efforts" from hospitals if the new rules are imposed. Hospital officials also want the state to help medical facilities foot the bill, he said, if patients do not pay deductibles or if uninsured patients with access to insurance nonetheless seek emergency care at hospitals.
"We're not going to turn people away," said Ellen Murphy Meehan , a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Safety Net Hospitals . "But we believe there's a shared burden of responsibility."
Under the proposed rules, the state would pay for a broad range of medically-necessary care for the uninsured. In addition, the state would expand the amount it pays for people facing medical bills that pose an extreme hardship.
Jon Kingsdale , executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector , said the rules probably would drive more people to get insurance. "It's like the second shoe dropping on health reform," he said.
http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/other/articles/2007/07/13/free_care_may_come_at_a_cost_to_poor/
http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/other/articles/2007/07/13/free_care_may_come_at_a_cost_to_poor?mode=PF
-----
Associated Press
Mass.: Settlement for Big Dig Managers?
By STEVE LeBLANC 07.18.07, 1:29 PM ET
BOSTON - Gov. Deval Patrick said he could support a deal that would allow Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff to avoid criminal prosecution and future liability related to last year's Big Dig fatal tunnel accident in exchange for a large cash settlement.
Patrick didn't confirm that a deal was in the works, but when asked in a television interview Tuesday whether he could back such a deal in exchange for as much as a $1 billion payment by the Big Dig project manager, Patrick signaled tentative support.
"I could. I would have to see more of it," Patrick said in an interview on New England Cable News.
Attorney General Martha Coakley is weighing possible criminal charges against companies that worked on the project, including project manager Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, in connection with the collapse of ceiling panels last year that crushed a car, killing a Boston woman.
The Boston Globe reported on Saturday, citing four unnamed sources familiar with negotiations, that state and federal officials were demanding Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff pay as much as $1 billion to settle claims for shoddy work on the Big Dig, in exchange for a guarantee that the project managers would not face criminal charges in connection with the fatal tunnel collapse, and would be released from civil liability from state and federal governments.
The National Transportation Safety Board determined last week that the July 10, 2006, collapse that killed Milena Del Valle, 39, could have been avoided if designers and construction crews had considered that the epoxy holding support anchors for the panels could slowly pull away over time.
About 26 tons of the concrete panel and hardware fell on the car. Del Valle's husband Angel Del Valle crawled up from the rubble with minor injuries.
Coakley has twice delayed making public her final decision on whether she would file criminal charges.
A government civil settlement would not directly affect a separate wrongful death lawsuit that Del Valle's family has filed against Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, other Big Dig contractors and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority.
A spokesman for Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff reached late Tuesday declined to comment on Patrick's remarks.
Patrick said that while many might like to see a criminal trial for the project managers of the $14.798 billion project - the most expensive public works construction in U.S. history - throwing people in jail might not be the best thing for the state.
"I think we all ought to appreciate that as much as we'd love to have - some us by sort of emotional reasons want to see a criminal prosecution - actually the consequences of a criminal prosecution and the benefit long term to the commonwealth may not be as great as a significant civil sentence," Patrick said in the interview.
Patrick also said the state should consider banning Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff from doing business with the state - a process known as "debarment".
"We don't need the criminal conviction to pursue what's called debarment and frankly I do think that has to be on the table," he said in the interview.
A handful of state senators have been pushing the executive branch to take the step of debarring Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff.
The NTSB report, instead of singling out any one of the small army of corporations, consultants, engineers and state officials involved in the design, construction and oversight of the problem-plagued $14.798 billion Big Dig project, spread blame with a broad brush.
-----
Bill helps consumers cope with stolen ID
By Hillary Chabot, Eagle Boston Bureau
The Berkshire Eagle
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
BOSTON — State lawmakers agreed on a broad identity-theft bill yesterday meant to protect the public from the release of personal and financial information.
"I think the most important thing we did was to have security freezes included, so that if their identity is stolen your credit isn't impaired by that theft," said Sen. Benjamin B. Downing, D-Pittsfield, who worked on the bill as part of the committee on consumer protection and professional licensure.
The bill would also force companies to alert customers when their personal information is compromised, either electronically or in paper form. The legislation landed on Gov. Deval L. Patrick's desk yesterday and is under review, a spokeswoman said.
"The governor feels strongly that ID theft is an issue that demands prompt and serious attention," said Cyndi Roy. "He looks forward to reviewing the bill sent to him by the Legislature."
If the bill is passed, victims of identity theft can put a security freeze on their consumer credit reports, and others can request one for up to $5. The bill also asks state officials to delete the first three digits of Social Security numbers when handling documents if the full number isn't required by federal authorities and demands that business or government entities shred all documents with sensitive information before disposing of it.
Attorney General Martha Coakley applauded legislators for passing the law yesterday. Coakley found out her identity had been stolen earlier this year when a thief tried to buy a Dell computer with her credit card, which had been stolen.
Massachusetts reported 4,000 incidents of identity theft in the past year. The state was hit with a high-profile security gaffe when TJX Cos. of Framingham, which owns T.J. Maxx and Marshalls, disclosed Jan. 17 that its computer systems had been breached, potentially exposing 45 million credit-card holders to identify theft.
The TJX breach was discovered in mid-December, but it was not made public until January, after law enforcement officials requested it.
Massachusetts is one of only six states that doesn't already require immediate disclosure of security breaches and allow consumer credit freezes.
"This bill goes a long way to empowering and protecting customers with regards to disposal and transferal of sensitive information," said Senate Ways and Means Chairman Steve Panagiotakos, D-Lowell.
Dear State Senator Stan Rosenberg:
I enjoy reading your monthly legislative state government reports on Hampshire & Franklin Counties, Massachusetts. In regards to your lead initiative, "Franklin County Education Study Project", I find your following statement to be very top-down.
"What we have now are various stories of crisis from individual districts without any comprehensive framework to help policymakers judge the efficacy of any proposed solutions..."
I would like to know what the respective crises in public education are and why you need to synthesize all of them in a uniform manner in order for the state to be able to assist the school districts in finding public policy solutions. It seems to me that in order for the average common citizen to approach his or her power-broker state or federal Pol, he has to participate in a comprehensive study project or else be seen as part of the problem. This is a very top-down method of solving bottom-up social problems.
Stan, my firm view of state government--whether it be Massachusetts, New York or New Hampshire--is that the power-brokers only serve the interests of the powerful, meaning those elite groups of people with high social statuses and economic class. In serving the powerful, the state Pols wring their hands with pleasure when they are asked to respond to social problems. The reason why top-down Pols respond to social crises with glee is due to the economic theory of perverse incentives. The more critical needs of public school systems, and related social problems such as high welfare caseloads from high rates of teen pregnancies and unskilled workers, means that more federally funded, state administered social dollars are qualified to come into the Pols' legislative district that would otherwise never be invested in--Pittsfield, Massachusetts' myriad of social problems is a shining example of this socially unjust phenomenon. The state complements all federal dollars for social programs with its own tax base, thereby diminishing the social causes. The state then administers these dollars back to the cities and towns, who do the same exact thing. By the time the federal dollars are filtered through the state and then the local governments' administration of these funds, the money is greatly diluted through the complementing of these funds with the state and local tax bases, and always makes a minimal difference for society. Rather, the use of perverse incentives makes way for even more social problems, thereby leaving society even worse off than before the federal funds were received by the state and local Pols, and the top-down process begins again with blinders on the eyes of the common citizens wanting to live in a more promising World.
This is your public record: STAN ROSENBERG, DAN BOSLEY, et al:
From FY2002-FY2004, the state government balanced its books by making three consecutive years of state budget cuts to cities and town, including public education. During this same period of time, the state cut social service programs, but expanded the state lottery to record profits. The state lottery is not only a tax on the poor, but also, it is a prime example of perverse incentives. The state budget passed on FY2001, or July 01, 2000, included more public money adjusted for inflation than the recent state budget passed on FY2008, or July 01, 2007. BEACON HILL IS PART OF THE SOCIAL PROBLEMS!
In Truth,
Jonathan A. Melle
Pump plan for leaks to hike Big Dig cost by $3M
By Casey Ross
Boston Herald Reporter
Friday, July 20, 2007
The Big Dig’s never-ending repair bill could swell by another $3 million because officials have to install a new pumping system to remove huge volumes of water flowing through the downtown tunnels, state officials said.
The new system is needed because Big Dig officials apparently never made appropriate provisions to rid the tunnel system of millions of gallons of water from precipitation and leaks. The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority has been siphoning the water into its sewers, but the volume is more than the authority ever anticipated, officials said.
Meanwhile, the Patrick administrationhas tapped an independent engineering firm to review concerns about high water volumes in the tunnels, and whether the problem is attributable to leaks. “This is about veryifying that everything has been examined,” Gov. Deval Patrick said of the water troubles.
The Herald reported yesterday that the administration refused to accept the conclusions of a report by the project’s managing contractor Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff that indicated most of the water is not coming from leaks.
Instead, the administration, which has spent $1.2 million sealing tunnel leaks in three months, has tapped the firm Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates to review the water problems and determine whether the state faces an ongoing maintenance liabilities as a result of leaks.
Currently, a deluge of about 1.9 million gallons of water a month is flowing through the Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neil Tunnel. B/PB officials have presented data showing most of the water appears to be precipitation and runoff into uncovered tunnel sections.
Either way, it is far more than the 36,000 gallons per month the MWRA agreed to pump through its sewers, which is why a separate system is being designed to pump the water into Boston Harbor. That system would cost between $2 million and $3 million, Turnpike officials said. It is unclear whether contractors or taxpayers will be on the hook for the bill.
Patrick said he expects a hefty payout from contractors now facing possible criminal charges as a result of last summer’s fatal tunnel ceiling collapse. “These are serious damages that all of us feel. We have not been well-served,” he said.
August 01, 2007
RE: Beacon Hill's 560 lobbyists reported earning $34,020,888 so far this year--$60,751.59 each on average!
Dear State Representative Dan "Bureaucrat" Bosley:
According to a recent Boston Globe news article:
"..lobbying fees paid by gambling interests have reached $612,040.71 [so far] this year".
Given the increased incentives, I am surprised that you haven't yet changed your tune on this issue of gambling (or regressive taxation/profits) since "the blood money" from the gambling lobbyists must be very tempting for you. Maybe you will be the last hold-out on casino gambling, while all of the other Pols will enrich their campaign coffers at the expense of the poor residents and the working class communities they represent in theory, on paper, by law, but not really in practice--AS THE LOBBYISTS RULE BEACON HILL, not the People!
In Truth,
Jonathan A. Melle
--
Galvin measure seeks to toughen rules on lobbying
By April Simpson, Globe Staff | July 18, 2007
Secretary of State William Galvin is calling for heightened regulation of Beacon Hill lobbyists, who through the first half of this year have earned more than $33 million and are on track to match or break last year's spending level, according to reports filed this week.
Galvin has filed legislation that would require the state's 560 registered lobbyists to provide more detailed written reports of their expenses, payments, and hours with clients. The bill would permit the secretary's office to immediately revoke a lobbyist's license for late reports, as well as report the lobbyist to the attorney general's office for any matters requiring criminal action.
Lobbyists are required to submit their biannual reports by midnight Monday. With late filings trickling in, Galvin said yesterday, lobbyists reported earning $34,020,888 from their clients, roughly $687,000 more than this time last year. This year, the Legislature has approved 62 bills, according to Galvin.
"When you consider that that much money is being spent to influence the decisions of public policy makers, I think it's important that we determine what decisions they were trying to influence and who they are and what they represent," Galvin said.
Last year, lobbyists reported $65,103,053 in fees, a record, according to Galvin.
"We're on track to exceed that number," Galvin said.
Currently, lobbyists are required to register after working at least 50 hours within a six-month period. They are also required to submit biannual reports that include the name and dates of employment with each of their clients, their business interests, bills worked on, and the total amount incurred, paid or contributed during the reporting period.
Galvin said his legislation seeks to make lobbyists more accountable for their actions and their work more transparent. While the current system allows for vague and broad explanations, he said, his bill would require a detailed report from every executive and legislative agent that includes the number of hours the agent engaged in lobbyist services, a description of the subject, the name and title of the agency the lobbyist works for, and identifying information for any legislation or procurement contracts the lobbyist worked on.
"The Big Dig is the ultimate case that points to the fact that we have a problem," said Galvin, who said that the public works project lacked a thorough method of ensuring that "everybody who was trying to influence decisions were made were known to the public."
Jackson C. Hall, principal of Political Advantage LLC and a lobbyist for healthcare and education companies, said Galvin is typically even-handed in enforcing fines, but said he did not see any problems with the current system.
"I don't think that there's anything being hidden," Hall said. "I don't see a problem with our system the way it's working."
House minority leader Bradley Jones, a Republican from North Reading, has filed his own legislation that would require lobbyists to register after working 25 hours in a six-month period and submit a disclosure of expenditures even if they are not working on a specific bill. The bill would require lobbyists and political organizations to provide a list of expenditures three times a year, which would include office overhead, such as rent and utilities.
"I think it's important that we expect a higher level of awareness and scrutiny from those doing the lobbying," Jones said.
Galvin said that lobbying fees paid by gambling interests have reached $612,040.71 this year, compared with $464,376.00 this time last year. A task force convened by Governor Deval Patrick is reviewing whether the state should pursue an expansion of gambling. The Mashpee Wampanoag tribe is also in talks with town officials in Middleborough about a possible casino there.
"If large companies are paying large amounts of money to influence public policy, then the public should know," Galvin said.
-----
Patrick uses campaign funds for legal fees
Common practice draws criticism
By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff | July 30, 2007
Governor Deval Patrick will use $27,000 from his campaign fund to cover legal fees stemming from a recent ethics investigation, taking advantage of a controversial and longstanding Beacon Hill practice that passes legal muster but has raised concern among advocates of campaign finance reform.
Patrick has begun making the payments to Laredo & Smith, a firm specializing in white-collar crime and government investigations, which represented him this spring during a state Ethics Commission inquiry of a telephone call he made to the former US Treasury secretary, Robert Rubin, a top official at Citigroup, to vouch for a controversial subprime mortgage lender that was seeking financial help from Rubin's firm.
Patrick paid $15,000 to the law office in mid-June and will pay the balance shortly.
Liz Morningstar, executive director of Patrick's campaign committee, justified the payment on the grounds that the ethics investigation, sparked by the state Republican Party, was politically motivated. She noted that campaign finance laws allow political figures to use donations to promote and protect their careers.
"What is more political than a baseless complaint from the Republican Party against the governor?" Morningstar said. "It would be in my mind unacceptable for some other form of payment to occur. It was a political charge to begin with."
Patrick, in a statement to the Globe at the time of the inquiry, said he made the call as a private citizen and not in his position as governor. It was prompted, he said, by a personal request from a top official at ACC Capitol, the private holding firm that is owned by billionaire Roland E. Arnall. Its major entity is Ameriquest Mortgage, which has frequently been accused of predatory lending practices.
For several years before he was elected governor, Patrick served as a $360,000-a-year board member for ACC Capitol. Citigroup has a host of business interests in Massachusetts, many of which are regulated by the state or contract for lucrative bond work with quasipublic agencies and authorities that Patrick controls or will control during his tenure as governor. Ameriquest is licensed by the state banking commission.
The Ethics Commission dismissed the GOP complaint. But Patrick's legal costs are the first public indication of the extent of the probe. The governor would not comment on the investigation.
A host of political figures who have faced inquiries over the years have used their political accounts to pay their lawyers. Two former House speakers, Charles Flaherty and Thomas M. Finneran, drew on their campaign funds to pay huge legal bills stemming from federal investigations. Flaherty pleaded guilty to felony tax charges in 1996, Finneran to obstruction of justice earlier this year. Former mayor Raymond L. Flynn's campaign committee, fleeced out of $617,000 by a former campaign volunteer, spent more than $400,000 in legal and investigative fees in the 1990s seeking restitution of the funds and defending Flynn, who never faced charges.
Still, the use of the campaign donations for legal bills has come under criticism from advocates for campaign finance reform, who say the regulations should be tightened to ensure that donations are strictly limited to campaign work. They say the payment of legal fees is an example of loopholes in the law that allow elected officials to turn to their political accounts for expenses that should be paid from personal funds.
"The average citizen is donating to the candidate to get them elected or reelected," said Pamela Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause of Massachusetts, a citizens watchdog group. "They are not donating for other purposes. We believe the law should reflect that reality."
The final checks to the law firm are going out just as Patrick finishes a fund-raising spree, collecting over $300,000 in the past six weeks. On June 15, his campaign committee reported a $129,000 balance. Now after six weeks of heavy fund-raising, the account stands at $345,000, after expenses, with donations coming in from high-powered law offices that do business with the state, state-regulated industries, and other traditional Democratic funding sources such as labor organizations.
One campaign event took place earlier this month at the Venus de Milo Restaurant in Swansea, where civic, business, and political leaders in Southeastern Massachusetts raised close to $30,000 for the governor. One fund-raiser for the event was former state senator William Q. "Biff" MacLean, once a controversial Beacon Hill powerbroker who remains an influential political force in Southeastern Massachusetts.
MacLean retired from the Legislature in 1992, after spending more than 30 years in the House and Senate building a reputation for taking care of his constituency and catering to special interests, from beer wholesalers to racetrack owners. A year later, he pleaded guilty to a state indictment that he had received hidden commissions from state contracts. He was forced to repay the state $512,000. The Fairhaven Democrat used $130,000 from his campaign account to pay for his legal bills.
Robert Karam, a longtime politically active Democrat and business leader from Fall River who played a major role organizing the event, said the fund-raiser reflected "an extra-outpouring" for Patrick, whom he said appears, more than other governors, committed to helping the region.
"We in Southeastern Mass. know how the political system works," Karam said. "Nobody buys anything with these kinds of events, but we did get the governor's attention . . . There is a lot of good will down here. He keeps coming down, saying the right things. People are hoping he is the right guy."
Patrick also garnered $25,000 in political donations from an event that the chief executives of two highly regulated companies -- insurance giant Liberty Mutual Insurance and NStar -- put together in Boston in late June. The firms' financial standings and profits could be affected by decisions pending before the new administration.
The Patrick committee also collected more than $16,000 from a fund-raiser that the Boston law firm, Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo, threw in June. The law office, along with its lobbying division ML Strategies, does a good deal of business on Beacon Hill.
Morningstar said Patrick's fund-raising still relies on donations from the grass-roots and average citizens -- representing a broad professional background -- that were the core of his campaign for governor. It also includes $90,000 that was taken in over the Internet since January. She objected to any suggestion that his fund-raising activities as governor conflicts with the image he crafted as a candidate with promises of challenging the long-standing practices of politics.
"This is not a person who can be cast as someone who is influenced by donations," she said. "That doesn't make sense."
(Correction: Because of a reporting error, a story in yesterday's City & Region section about Governor Deval Patrick's use of his campaign funds to pay legal fees misspelled the name of ACC Capital Corp., on whose board Patrick once served.)
Dear Boston Globe Editorial Idiots!
The issue of casino gambling in Massachusetts is the issue of: REGRESSIVE TAXATION!
I really do not understand why your regional newspaper would slam Deval Patrick on failing to provide the news media preliminary documents on this inequitable issue under the state's public records laws when the real issue before the Governor of Massachusetts is raising more state revenues by continuing to taxing the poor, the "have-nots", the working class, and the like.
I cannot begin to understand how your newspaper cannot say it like it is. ...So I will:
The Government, or the ruling class, serves the state (not one of the 50 States), which is predominately influenced by big business, or otherwise known as "the Coporate Elite".
In the last Presidential Election, you had two Corporate Elite candidates representing special interest that had absolutely nothing to do with the commom citizens. John Forbes Kerry represented the New England and New York City regional wealthy financial institutions. George Walker Bush represented "the Connecticut Country Club's" Texas Oil Industry's economic interests. The people were left to make a choice between Kerry's "Wall Street" and Bush's "Big Oil".
The point of explaining the 2004 Presidential Election is that neither Kerry nor Bush were going to change the inequitable system from a regressive to a progressive system of government. Kerry would have given more power to the large "Bos-Wash" finanicial institutions, while Bush gave more power to the oil institutions.
Now, the demographics of our nation's regressive finanical governance is 1/10 citizens are part of the Corporate Elite class. 2/10 at its best get to work for the corporate elite businesses. That leaves 8/10 (at its best) Americans in either the middle class or some sort of poverty--dependence on the system. The odds are stacked against the average American Citizen to have finanical well-being. The two main means to wealth in our country is through Education and Marriage. Usually the Elites go to Ivy League Schools (Bush & Kerry), and marry into wealthy families. Working at a job is not a means to wealth, but to higher incomes over time. Of course, being wealthy gives one a networking apparatus to obtain high income professional jobs.
So for a politician like Deval Patrick, who grew up poor but made all of the smooth elitist moves, he has a choice to make. We already know what he will choose to do: Serve his Corporate Elite masters by making the system even more regressive than it already is. Deval Patrick will back casino gambling next month because it will provide the state with more regressive revenues to finance its pro-business, anti-worker operations.
Look, the whole point of a state lottery is to have another regressive taxation revenue source to complement the 20-30 other sources of state revenues. The more regressive taxation the state government gets to take in, the more they complement the tax revenues from poor people to offset them on rich people, making the tax liabilities for wealthy corporate businesses artificially lower and lower than before. The system becomes more about the Corporate Elite and less about the people the state is supposed to be serving.
The Politicians' incentive to back regressive taxation programs that include gambling is that by lowering the tax liabilities on big business, they will be rewarded with more and more campaign contributions from the Corporate Elite. By Pols doing the bidding of their Corporate Masters, the common man who cares about his community, family, house, schools, safety, and the like, will have less and less means to challenge the Incumbent ruling class or his Government.
This is a Government by the Corporate Elite, For Wall Street, of the Corrupted Pols!
Casino Gambling, like the state lottery, is NOT about designating more public monies to social programs! It is about complementing public funds to offset the rich's tax liabilities by administering programs of regressive taxation at the expense of the poor for the benefit of big businesses.
The issue of perverse incentives is that while special interests are rewarded with finanical benefits, the poor become poorer, and society becomes worse and worse off. But, the Corporate Elite have pulled the wool over the eyes of even The Boston Globe!
In Dissent,
Jonathan A. Melle
-----
[A Boston] GLOBE EDITORIAL
Tough questions on gambling
August 9, 2007
GOVERNOR PATRICK owes Massachusetts residents more than a simple "go" or "no go" on casino gambling by his self-imposed deadline of Labor Day. If Patrick nixes the idea, the public will want to know how else he expects to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in needed revenue for the state. If the governor gives thumbs up on casinos, then he must provide substantive information on how much the state stands to gain from its share of casino revenues, how that money should be used, what the regulatory and oversight structure is likely to be, and how best to minimize any social problems, such as crime or compulsive gambling.
This is a legacy decision for Patrick. That explains why he'll be dragging his briefing reports around on vacation.
Many lawmakers, reporters, and members of the public also deserve an opportunity to review the stack of studies that will inform the governor's decision. But Patrick has turned down the Globe's formal request to release the documents under the public records law. The administration is splitting hairs by arguing that the completed studies are exempt from public disclosure as part of the governor's "deliberative process." Transparency will be essential if casino gambling is to succeed in the Commonwealth.
This is an industry, after all, that is not far removed from the days when crime syndicates routinely skimmed casino profits. Faced with his first test to make the pros and cons of casino gambling clear to the public, Patrick failed.
Who regulates it?
The issues haven't changed much since 2002, when an expert committee, which included current Public Safety Secretary Kevin Burke, outlined potential impacts of casino gambling for Acting Governor Jane Swift. The bottom line for that committee was that "the expansion of legalized gambling has the potential to provide substantial new revenues to help fund vital state and local services."
Such an outcome requires scrupulously independent and effective regulatory and oversight bodies. The Patrick administration isn't ready to discuss such details. But it is inconceivable that the governor would support lifting the state ban on slot machines or creating destination casinos in Massachusetts without giving serious thought to the structure of a state gambling commission.
Gambling commissions come in two basic sizes: a single body that oversees both licensing and enforcement, such as the one in Colorado; and the split-agency model like that in New Jersey, where the independent Casino Control Commission handles licensing and inspections while leaving matters of investigation and enforcement to the Division of Gaming Enforcement in the attorney general's office.
Regardless of whether Massachusetts opts for commercial casinos, Indian casinos, or some combination, the public would need ironclad assurance that such ventures will be on the up-and-up. The best way to ensure that is to separate the licensing and enforcement functions.
New Jersey builds in checks and balances by giving the enforcement division responsibility for conducting background checks for license applications and ferreting out violations. But it is the quasi-judicial control commission that rules on the license applications and assesses penalties. Similarly, it is the control commission's responsibility to collect the roughly $417 million derived from the state's 8 percent tax on gross revenues at the 11 casinos in Atlantic City. But it is the enforcement arm that performs an array of auditing functions and financial reviews on the state's take.
Trust shouldn't enter into it. Dan Heneghan, public information officer for the New Jersey Casino Control Commission, says the agency's inspectors are present around the clock when casino cash is being counted. Boxes with uncounted cash are fitted with two separate locks. Casino employees have one key, and the control commission holds the other. And the Gaming Enforcement division provides another level of oversight.
If the Patrick administration embraces casino gambling, it must be prepared to fend off what economists call regulatory capture -- the process by which regulators come to be dominated over time by the industries they oversee. One essential ingredient of an effective ethics code for a casino commission, says Heneghan, is a strict post-employment policy. New Jersey bars commission employees from seeking jobs at casinos for a period of two to four years. The longer, the better.
Where does the money go?
If Patrick gives the green light to casinos, he also owes the public an explanation of how the increased revenue will be used. Such knowledge is essential for public support. In New Jersey, the funds are earmarked for elderly services and the disabled. In Massachusetts, some of the most acute needs are in the areas of transportation infrastructure, the new healthcare law, and aid to cities and towns. This is likely to be an integral part of any legislative debate to legalize casinos in Massachusetts. Patrick should also address questions about the value of placing casino gambling, the Lottery, and pari-mutuel betting under one regulatory roof. There are potential savings through efficiencies. But revenues could also slide if the agencies are stripped of their incentive to compete.
Patrick has indicated that he has no deep moral qualms about casino gambling. But compulsive gambling could become a public health problem if left unaddressed. Dr. JudyAnn Bigby, the state's secretary for health and human services, has been analyzing the problem since the spring. The least the governor could provide is some specific details on ways he would prevent, minimize, and treat gambling addiction.
By ruminating so long and keeping his casino gambling studies under wraps, Patrick has whetted the public's appetite. It won't be enough for him to serve up scraps on Labor Day.
-----
Dear Boston Globe Editorial Idiots!
The biggest victims of the state government's 3 consecutive fiscal years (FY02 - FY04) of budget cuts were the commonwealth's cities and towns! How could you possibly omit this fact? All that your "rag of a newspaper" only cares about is Boston, not the rest of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts! The irony of the state's economic downturn during our nation's "2nd worst bear market in U.S. History" was that the Corporate Elite's Boston area wealthy businesses never missed a beat on receiving tax breaks from their corrupted legislative hack leadership team--most of whom went off to the private sector, including my least favorite lobbyist Peter J. Larkin who, by the way, is singularly responsible for the City of Springfield's financial plight by being the sole objecting voice during the Legislature's informal session during the Summer of 2003.
If find it so very interesting, "BOSTON Globe Editorial Idiots!", how you are able and willing to point your finger at Argeo Paul Cellucci's commitment to tax cuts, but not at the State Legislature's never-ending commitment to tax breaks for wealthy businesses (mostly in and around the Boston area).
During this time of multiple state budget cuts to cities & towns, I lived in Western Massachusetts, which got screwed worse than any other region of the commonwealth. I remember the terrible Thanksgiving Budget of 2001/FY02, and then the following FY03 & FY04 state budgets. I remember that all of these state budgets all came after the Spring of 2000's $2 Billion Big Dig cost overrun, which is the real negative spot on the Cellucci Administration's deficient public record.
Of course, the worst Paul Cellucci decision was placing the worst Governor in U.S. History into appointed executive office: Jane Swift!
In Dissent,
Jonathan A. Melle
--
[The Boston] Globe Editorials
Short Fuse
August 24, 2007
Cellucci: A tax tale to tell
Former governor Paul Cellucci is getting into presidential politics at a policy forum in New Hampshire tomorrow. He will moderate a panel discussion for his favorite candidate, Rudy Giuliani, that will feature voters telling "personal stories" about taxes. Cellucci himself has an important story to tell: how, as governor of Massachusetts in 2000, he assured voters that rolling back the state income tax to 5 percent wouldn't harm essential services. With his strong support, voters approved a ballot question to do just that. Then the post-Sept. 11 economic downturn hit, the state faced a $1 billion deficit, and dozens of state education and health programs were decimated. By that time Cellucci had decamped to become ambassador to Canada. Cellucci's enthusiasm for tax cuts is an object lesson in fiscal responsibility -- just not his.
September 4th, 2007
Dear State Representative Daniel E. ("BUREAUCRAT!") Bosley, et al:
You, Bureaucrat Bosley, must be very pleased with the new $20 scratch ticket. More regressive taxation by Beacon Hill's corrupted Pols that will benefit the Special Interests that serve the Corporate Elite (10 to 20 percent of the population) . Well, Bureaucrat Bosley, I will always speak my good conscience for as long as I live, and this is what I have to say about top-down, bureaucratic Pols like yourself who screw the "have nots" (80 to 90 percent of the population) by design:
First of all, the lottery is nothing more than a system of regressive taxation. In theory only, the profits from the lottery benefit social causes, such as public education, but in reality, regressive tax revenues complement progressive ones, and thereby lower the tax liabilities on the wealthy (10 to 20 percent of the population), who are the Corporate Elite businesses ran by rich corporate elite "haves" (multi-millionaires) or owners.
Secondly, the lottery is supported by the top-down, bureaucratic Pols because they get to give more tax breaks to the Corporate Elite's wealthy businesses than they would be able to give if there were NOT multiple systems of regressive taxation. By giving the wealthy businesses tax breaks, the corrupted Pols each receive many thousands of dollars in special interest campaign contributions to keep them re-elected: Incumbents! (The Massachusetts' Legislature is the #3 out of 50 for having the highest rates of Incumbency. It is all done by design by screwing the "have nots" and keeping them from participating in government).
Thirdly, you, Daniel E. Bosley, are an IMPOSTERER! You pretend to represent rural Western Massachusetts, but you are really an INSIDER BOSTON POL! You pretend to represent the people, but your public record clearly proves that you only represent the Corporate Elite's Special Interests. You pretend to be stupid with a "North Adams' M.O.", but you are really one of the most intelligent State Legislators on Beacon Hill--you are even more intelligent in understanding public policies than myself. BUT YOU DO NOT FOOL ME! That is why, at least once every month, I have to send out an Anti-Bosley email letter! I see right through you, Bureaucrat Bosley, and my writings and blog postings on you and your public record all point out my thesis that YOU ARE A BUREAUCRAT IMPOSTERING AS A LEGISLATOR!
You know what is wrong with you, Bureaucrat Bosley? Well, I will tell you. Your loyalty to dictatorial state leaders (like former-Speaker Tom Finneran) trumps the great value you would otherwise be able to contribute to society. You are a good man, but you get caught up in idiotic politician's (like Denis E. Guyer's) trivial machines that prove only what morons these type of small, closed-minded, banal types of people really are. Instead of being who you are, you become a reflection of everything that is wrong with government!
Berkshire County is the #1 region in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in job losses! I know that my chances of getting a decent job in the Berkshires is much, much less than being stuck by lightening or winning a lot of money by playing the lottery. Do you know why? The answer is because I believe in living at my own level of dignity and treating others with humanity. Because I choose to be the opposite of you, Bureaucrat Bosley, I am blacklisted by strong-armed Pols like Luciforo, Mayors Barrett & Ruberto, Gold-Digger Guyer, et al. Because I am willing to stand up to guys like you, Bureaucrat Bosley, and tell you off about manipulating the poor into buying a $20 lottery ticket instead of food and shelter for themselves and their families, I am labelled as a "loose cannon" and the like, and I can never "play ball" with "the big boys."
Look around you, Bureaucrat Bosley: North Adams has very poorly performing public schools, very high welfare caseloads from high per capita teen pregnancy rates, high rates of poverty, homelessness and joblessness, and on and on. Pittsfield's teen pregnancy rates are growing higher and higher every forthcoming year, and now double the statewide average, its welfare caseloads are skyrocketing, businesses are fleeing because a rational parent doesn't want their kid to grow up with such kinds of social injustices. Look at the society you are producing, Bureaucrat Bosley. You are complicit in using perverse incentives in order to manipulate the poor into social injustices for the sole benefit of wealthy businesses that do not even exist anymore in the Berkshires.
In conclusion, another month has passed us by, and I am sitting here, once again, dissenting against one of the few politicians who gets it, but chooses to screw society anyways! At least I am not you, Daniel E. Bosley!
IN DISSENT!
Jonathan A. Melle
--
THE BOSTON GLOBE
State plans new game with big lottery ticket
By Michael Naughton, Globe Correspondent | September 4, 2007
After a year of declining sales and a sweepstakes that left the Massachusetts State Lottery with a $12 million loss, the agency plans to release its first-ever $20 instant ticket, which will reward winners with the largest total prize amount ever given out in the country.
Lottery officials tout the game - named "Billion Dollar Blockbuster" - as the first instant game in the country to pass the billion-dollar mark in terms of prizes.
"It's going to be the most exciting game the lottery's every produced," said Mark Cavanagh, executive director of the lottery. "We're the only New England state that doesn't have a $20 instant ticket. It's something that the players have been asking for."
The new ticket is not the first $20 game offered by the state lottery. Earlier this year, players had the chance to win up to $20 million by purchasing a Star Spangled Sweepstakes ticket at a cost of $20. The raffle wasn't as popular as lottery officials had hoped, and lackluster sales left the lottery with a $12 million loss on the game.
The state lottery has been one of the most successful in the county, but overall lottery sales have declined within the last year. Lottery officials had estimated that sales for the fiscal year ending in June were down 1.5 percent from the previous year's record take of $4.52 billion. Records filed with the state earlier this year showed that lottery revenues fell $71 million, or 3.8 percent, during the first five months of last fiscal year.
Despite its collapse, Cavanagh said, the Star Spangled Sweepstakes helped pave the way for the new ticket. He also said he was optimistic that cities and towns would benefit from the new game, because the lottery provides local aid to communities throughout the state.
Opponents of gaming said the new ticket could do more harm than good. "Any expansion of gambling is counterproductive to the welfare of the families of Massachusetts," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.
Although players have a better chance of being struck and killed by lightning than winning the top prize - the odds of winning that prize are 64 million to 1, according to Cavanagh - Tony, 48, a lottery player from South Boston, said he would still try his luck. "I'd try a few of those," he said, standing inside a convenience store in South Boston waiting for the next Keno game to start. "Luck is luck."
The new ticket will be available statewide starting Sept. 25 and offers players the chance to win dollar amounts including $20, $25,000, and $10 million.
9/6/2007
Dear Joan Vennochi, et al,
Your (Ms. Vennochi's) op-ed's (see web link below) on the Massachusetts debate over casino gambling is paradoxically MYOPIC. This surprises me because you get what this issue is really all about.
In democratic politics, the power to set the agenda is the trump card used by the real government: The Corporate Elite.
On Beacon Hill, there are 200 State Legislators, but there are also 560 lobbyists who earn far more than those they influence with tens of millions of special interest annually private dollars. Why is this reality so? The answer is that the real government (The Corporate Elite) trumps the elected government (The State Legislature) by SETTING THE AGENDA.
For example, by all mainstream presidential candidates being fixated on Iraq, the Corporate Elite is able to place more and more jobs in China, India, and the like, without a lot of notice. By the media fixating on a perverted, sexually-deviant Idaho U.S. Senator (Larry Craig), the agenda becomes about behavior instead of the loss of pensions, the increasing healthcare gap, affordable housing, the environment, public education, and other common man causes.
As Alan Chartock pointed out in his past columns and radio pontifications, the Corporate Elite used identity-politics in the early 1950's to drive a wedge through the progressive economic causes of 20-consecutive-years of Democratic Party control of The White House. The Corporate Elite set the agenda, but did not ever give a damn about (the common man, or) the issues (Abortion, Civil Rights, Sex Education, Evolution) that lead the masses to their regressive economic causes. The common man became co-opted by his social identity in order for him to serve the economic interests of the top 10% of American Society. It worked like a charm. I think Alan Chartock is a political genius because he is never fooled by the AGENDA.
The Agenda (casino gambling) on Beacon Hill is a diversion. The agenda on Beacon Hill, like Capitol Hill, has been and continues to be set by the Corporate Elite for the benefit of the top 10% of the population. THAT IS WHY THERE ARE SO MANY LOBBYISTS SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY! I cite real examples:
EXAMPLES (a): During 3 straight fiscal years (FY02-04) of state budget cuts to commonwealth cities and town that amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars of cuts to social programs each year from FY02 - FY04, the tax breaks, subsidies and credits for already wealthy big businesses NEVER missed a beat. While the Boston Pols did not shed a tear at the common man paying 33% more in his property taxes, they took care of the Corporate Elite (and thereby themselves).
(b) The Massachusetts State Lottery is the most profitable, ever-expanding, monopoly- ran public gambling operations in the nation. All the lottery really is is a form of regressive taxation, or a tax on the poor. In theory, the lottery money goes back to the cities and towns for such social causes as public education. But, in reality, the lottery serves as a complement to progressive business tax revenues so that already wealthy businesses' tax liabilities are able to remain artificially low thanks to placing more of the tax burden on the common man. During the aforementioned 3 straight years of state budget cuts to municipalities, Beacon Hill placed a cap on how much lottery revenues could go back to the theoretical-only social causes the lottery is supposed to serve, but doesn't. Beacon Hill then took the remaining money and placed it into the general fund. Once again, big businesses benefited!
The conflict that Beacon Hill Pols have about the AGENDA on casino gambling is that it may cut into its ever-expanding lottery system. If that happens, then the lottery will not be an effective subsidy for Boston's big businesses. If the lottery is unable to provide tax breaks to the Corporate Elite, then the commonwealth's cities and towns will suffer further socially unjust hardships by Beacon Hill via further cuts in state aid to cities and towns.
Now, you have to remember, that Beacon Hill (like its 49 counterparts) does not provide state aid to cities and towns because the Legislators are "nice guys." Rather, state aid is mandatory if the state is going to receive federal funds for its operations. Beacon Hill receives many billions of federal dollars to administer its state government and administer federal funds to its local government. When Beacon Hill slashed state aid to cities and towns during the earlier part of the decade, all the Legislators did was complement federal dollars to state dollars in order to fund the operations of state government and continue to be "nice guys" to the Corporate Elite. That is why Jane Swift's administration was deplorable, and Mitt Romney's real public record for Massachusetts is fraudulent.
The AGENDA on Beacon Hill as it pertains to gambling should be about both the State Lottery AND proposed casino gambling operations. The fact that Ms. Vennochi has been diverted by the actual AGENDA of debating the merits of casino gambling against those of social well-being is disheartening. There is minimal social differences between a common man who subsidizes the Corporate Elite by purchasing many lottery tickets versus rolling the dice one too many times. BOTH the state lottery and casino gambling, as Ms. Vennochi states it: "[is] just another way to take money from the poor and give it to the rich."
In terms of giving every individual the right to gamble away the future of Massachusetts, that has already been done many, many, many, many...times over on Beacon Hill. Maybe I am fortunate to have been able to listen to Alan Chartock and read his political columns throughout most of my life. I am disappointed that other political columnists do not understand his point that the AGENDA is not the truth in government.
I enjoy reading your columns, Ms. Vennochi, in The Boston Globe, and I urge you to see the AGENDA for what it truly is. You interest me because while you have been successfully diverted by the AGENDA, you still also get what it is all about: THE CORPORATE ELITE!
My very best regards,
Jonathan A. Melle
--
JOAN VENNOCHI
Place your bet, governor
By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist
September 6, 2007
IF GOVERNOR Deval Patrick is still unsure about casino gambling, he should follow that wise instinct and walk away from it now.
Why take two more weeks to ponder the issue? The arguments for and against aren't new. The governor had plenty of time to study them during his lengthy vacation in the Berkshires.
The push for expanded gambling in Massachusetts comes from racetrack operators, out-of-state promoters, and other gambling interests. If they haven't made their case yet, that should tell Patrick something important. It's a shaky case for everyone but them.
The governor's spokesman said no specific event changed Patrick's timetable for making up his mind. Unfortunately, the delay in executive decision-making makes it look like Patrick is weighing the politics, pro and con, instead of the policy, pro and con. It also looks like he is giving the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe time to get past the recent resignation of disgraced tribal chairman Glenn Marshall.
Marshall stepped down after the Cape Cod Times reported that he had been convicted of rape in 1981 and lied about his military record. The deposed tribal leader was key to negotiating the Wampanoag agreement to build a resort casino in Middleborough. That, too, should tell Patrick something about the ethics of gambling's biggest promoters.
Walking away now would show Patrick has the spine to resist the heat generated by the casino gambling crowd. For weeks, gambling proponents have been fanning the flames of inevitability. Now is a good time to douse them.
Walking away now would also give state policy leaders the chance to face fiscal reality and deal with it responsibly.
A package of revenue-raising proposals in Patrick's first budget made good economic sense. He proposed a plan to close corporate tax loopholes; doing so could bring in $100 million in new revenue. The governor also wanted to give cities and towns options to raise revenues by increasing meals and lodging taxes; just a 1 percent local option meals tax could raise as much as $120 million for Massachusetts cities and towns.
The business community balked and state legislators caved. But if Patrick says no to casino gambling, legislators might be forced to get serious about alternative revenue sources. With gambling off the table, other important matters will be on it.
Meanwhile, the intrigue continues to build in this gambling drama. Blogging for Cape Cod Today, Peter Kenney yesterday reported that one of Patrick's political advisers, Michael Morris, recently attended a private meeting between state Senator Dianne Wilkerson and two members of the Masphee Wampanoag tribe. Wilkerson has a long history of political problems, relating to missing campaign records, mortgage payments, and unpaid federal income taxes. Why would the governor want a top aide involved with Wilkerson and the Wampanoag tribe?
Wilkerson asked Morris to meet with her about constituent problems involving the Wampanoags, according to Kyle Sullivan, a Patrick spokesman. Morris did not know anyone from the tribe would be at the meeting, Sullivan said. He talked to them out of courtesy, and ultimately referred them to Secretary of Housing and Economic Affairs Dan O'Connell.
The one way to stop the rumor mill is to stop the gambling madness as soon as possible. Once he does, Patrick should go back to the business community and speak the truth. The state needs more revenue. Closing tax loopholes is a matter of tax fairness; it's not a tax increase. Giving cities and towns the option to raise meals and lodging taxes doesn't threaten economic development.
He should also do what he didn't do when he unveiled his budget plan: challenge the business community to put aside selfish interests for the greater good of the Commonwealth. There are business leaders out there willing to rise to that challenge.
Patrick said he would have something to say about gambling sometime after Labor Day. It's now sometime after Labor Day.
"The more I read, the more complicated it is," Patrick told reporters. But there really isn't much gray in the casino gambling debate.
Proponent or opponent, each side knows its lines. It's economic development vs. the social cost of addiction and crime. It's flooding state budget coffers with new revenue or chasing after the false promise of fool's gold. It's getting a piece of Connecticut's casino action or selling out Massachusetts. It rightly gives every individual the right to gamble away the future, or it's just another way to take money from the poor and give it to the rich.
Inquiring minds want to know what side Patrick is on - the sooner, the better.
--
JOAN VENNOCHI
DiMasi holds the cards
By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist
August 12, 2007
THE MAN most likely to decide whether Massachusetts gambles on casino gambling isn't Governor Deval Patrick.
It's Speaker of the House Salvatore F. DiMasi.
The governor must sign off on any deal that would allow the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe to build the state's first casino in Middleborough -- or, for that matter, on any casino deal.
But there's no casino without, first, an affirmative vote by the state Legislature. Senate President Therese Murray backs expanded gambling. DiMasi is a longstanding opponent. If DiMasi's not on board, what Patrick wants doesn't matter.
DiMasi isn't talking about his current thinking on the subject. However, David Guarino, his director of communications, is e-mailing.
On Aug. 2, the Globe published a powerful antigambling opinion piece by former attorney general Scott Harshbarger. Under the headline, "Casinos -- the new gold rush," Harshbarger argued that the Middleborough proposal "is all about money, special interests, and politics." He also questioned how much Massachusetts would benefit from the plethora of Bay State casinos that could be Middleborough's legacy.
That morning, Guarino sent this missive to Harshbarger: "I enjoyed your op ed today -- very well thought out. It is nice to have another voice besides the speaker and Chairman [Daniel] Bosley raising these concerns. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, particularly after the governor weighs in."
DiMasi always opposed casinos and slot machines on the grounds that the economic benefits would not be as grand as predicted, and not worth the social costs. From Guarino's e-mail, it sounds like the speaker is happy to have someone else buttress those arguments in a public forum.
But, will DiMasi impose this view yet again upon the House? Or, this time, will he leave it up to House members to decide casino gambling's fate? Can he withstand the argument of inevitability that gives this latest push by the casino lobby its potency and momentum? Not so long ago, state Auditor Joseph DeNucci suggested that DiMasi "is warming up to it."
There's a lot at stake -- the economic interests of the gaming industry, the public interest in balancing new revenue against social costs and the political interests of a new governor.
Casino owners are guaranteed a fortune and the public gets a tiny piece of it. If DiMasi blocks expanded gambling, he also blocks Patrick's ability to raise extra cash to underwrite an ambitious, first-term agenda. If Patrick can't deliver on campaign promises to cut property taxes and increase aid to education and public safety programs, he will be answering to some highly disillusioned voters.
DiMasi already said no to Patrick's proposals to increase state revenue by increasing the meals tax and closing corporate tax loopholes. The speaker's resistance made him the darling of the business community and denied the Patrick administration several hundred million dollars in new revenue.
Since Patrick took office, DiMasi is showing a willingness to thwart him. At the same, he is standing up less to the business community.
Back in 2005, when Beacon Hill took up healthcare reform, it was DiMasi who insisted business must chare the cost of expanded coverage to the uninsured. In 2007, it is DiMasi who became the business community's new best friend by declaring Patrick's modest tax proposals dead on arrival.
DiMasi recently asked Patrick to rescind a $10 million grant for a controversial development, saying it represented inappropriate corporate welfare. But it will take even more fortitude and spine to stand up to the business interests fanning the Bay State's gambling fever. Much of the state's political leadership already seems under its spell.
At the least, DiMasi should oversee a full and open debate on the merits of casino gambling. That packet of economic studies that is now in the governor's hands should be public. All the people have the right to know exactly what the state is betting on. DiMasi, the skeptic in the past when it comes to judging gambling's promised riches, should remain a skeptic. When it comes to gambling, the people deserve at least one in the State House.
The speaker holds the key to giving the casino industry what it wants. He also holds the key to a new governor's ability to deliver on some his campaign promises.
That's one powerful hand. How he plays it will be a test of DiMasi's personal principle and political loyalties.
9/11/2007
RE: The Pol receiving the most per diem $ is BUREAUCRAT! Bosley with $10,980 so far this year!
Dear Pols, Berkshire Bloggers, News Media, & the People:
Beacon Hill lawmakers are shaking down the taxpayers each and every way they can, and it is all for their own personal gain! Let them eat cake! Massachusetts State Politics in NOT a democracy!
Please read the news article, cut & pasted below.
In Dissent!
Jonathan A. Melle
-----
By Bob Katzen/ BOB at BEACONHILLROLLCALL dot COM
GateHouse News Service
Monday, September 10, 2007, BOSTON -
During the week of Sept. 3-7, the House met for a total of three hours and 35 minutes while the Senate met for a total of three hours and 47 minutes.There were no roll-call votes in the House or Senate during the week of Sept. 3-7. Both branches continue to meet in brief informal sessions at which little business is conducted.
The official list from the state treasurer's office of "per diems" collected by 159 state representatives in 2007 for "mileage, meals and lodging" expenses reveals that through Aug. 23 these lawmakers have collected a total of $290,852.
The state pays per diems to representatives "for each day for travel from his place of residence to the Statehouse and return therefrom, while in the performance of his official duties, upon certification to the state treasurer that he was present at the Statehouse."
Beacon Hill Roll Call reported last week that the state's 39 senators have collected $61,411 in per diems through Aug. 23. The combined total collected by representatives and senators is 352,263.
These per diems are paid to representatives above and beyond their annual salaries, which at the beginning of this year were raised 4.8 percent from $55,569.41 to $58,236.74. The $2667.33 hike was implemented by former Gov. Mitt Romney under the terms of a constitutional amendment approved by the voters in 1998. The amendment requires legislative salaries to be increased or decreased biennially at the same rate as the state's median household income for the preceding two-year period, as ascertained by the governor. Many representatives also receive additional stipends ranging from $7,500 to $25,000 if they serve as committee chairs or in other leadership positions.
The 2007 statistics indicate that representatives received annual per-diem payments ranging from $78 to $10,980 and that 42 representatives have so far chosen not to apply for any money.
State law does not establish a deadline that legislators must meet in order to collect the per diems. Critics say that some legislators will wait several months before they file for per diems in order to avoid having their full payments appear on the early list released by the state treasurer's office. .
The amount of the per diem varies and is based on the city or town in which a representative resides and its distance from the Statehouse. These payments are tax free and range from $10 per day for representatives who reside in the Greater Boston area to $90 for some western Massachusetts lawmakers and $100 for those in Nantucket. Representatives who are from areas that are a long distance from Boston's Statehouse often are the ones who collect the highest total of annual per diems.
The Legislature approved, as part of the state budget in 2000, a provision doubling these per diems to the current amounts. Supporters of the hikes said that the per diems had not been raised for many years despite the rising costs of travel, food and lodging.
Some opponents said that the hikes were excessive while others argued that the very idea of paying any per diem is outrageous. They noted that other state workers and most private workers are not paid additional money for commuting.
The House and Senate did not hold a separate roll-call vote directly on the doubling of the per diem. The hike was included as a small section of the comprehensive $21.5 billion fiscal 2001 state budget that was approved on roll-call votes by both branches.
The representative who received the most money is Rep. Daniel Bosley, D-North Adams, with $10,980. The other top 10 recipients include: Reps. Denis Guyer, D-Dalton, $9,266; William Pignatelli, D-Lenox, $8,640; Christopher Donelan, D-Orange, $6,000; John Scibak, D-South Hadley, $5,880; Christopher Speranzo, D-Pittsfield, $5,670; Benjamin Swan, D-Springfield, $5,580; Sarah Peake, D-Provincetown, $5,402; Demetrius Atsalis, D-Barnstable, $5,350 and Ellen Story, D-Amherst, $4,920.
Local representatives' per diems for 2007 - Here are the numbers of days that local representatives certified that they were at the Statehouse from Jan. 1 through Aug. 23, 2007. Also included is the total amount of per-diem money that the state has paid the representative in 2007. A total of 42 representatives did not list any days and did not request any per diems. This should not be construed to mean that these 42 representatives were never at the Statehouse in 2007. It simply means that as of Aug. 23, they chose not to list the number of days and not to request their per diems.
9/18/2007
RE: Dan Bosley is my new favorite Politician! He told it like it really is! AWESOME!
Dear Dan Bosley, et al:
You, Dan Bosley, are my new favorite Politician! You told it like it really is! That takes a lot of courage. Awesome job!
You are right that Deval Patrick overstated the benefits of casino gambling!
You are right that the state government will not be able to regulate or contain the casinos to three regions of the commonwealth!
You are right that casino gambling will proliferate like the state lottery has over the past 3+ decades!
I am impressed with you, Representative Bosley! Good job!
In Truth,
Jonathan A. Melle
---
Gov. Proposed 3 Casinos in Massachusetts
By KEN MAGUIRE – 9/17/2007
BOSTON (AP) — Gov. Deval Patrick proposed licensing three full-scale casinos in Massachusetts on Monday, a move he said would generate billions of dollars for the state and thousands of jobs.
The casinos would go in the state's western, southeastern and Boston regions, and Patrick said they would generate more than $2 billion annually in economic activity.
"With that kind of economic benefit, we cannot reject the gaming industry out of hand," the Democratic governor said.
The casinos also would generate $400 to $450 million in annual tax revenue that Patrick said he would spend on transportation upgrades and property tax relief.
Getting the casinos, however, will take the Legislature's approval, and support there is mixed. House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi said Monday he was not persuaded by Patrick's plan.
"So far, our concerns for ushering in casino gambling have not been eased," DiMasi said in a statement. "We in the House remain skeptical. But we will hear the governor out and we will be asking the governor to explain the rationale behind his conclusions.
Senate President Therese Murray has said she supported expanded gambling.
Massachusetts already has some legalized gambling in the form of a state lottery and four racetracks. If casinos are approved, the licenses would be put up for bid in a competitive process open to both Indian tribes and casino companies.
The governor said developing casino gambling in the state was part of his overall plan for long-term sustainable growth in the state. Patrick is under pressure to find new revenue. He has proposed a $1 billion life science project that would include the world's largest stem cell bank and a $1.4 billion commuter rail line from Boston to Fall River and New Bedford.
The state also is looking for extra money to close an estimated $15 to $19 billion gap in transportation spending over the next 20 years.
Gambling opponents already are mobilizing against the plan, arguing the casinos won't be the cash cow Patrick hopes and will end up costing the state money — primarily Lottery revenues — while destroying its character.
Consumers spent $32 billion in commercial casinos in 11 states last year — more than consumer spending on specialty coffee and books combined, according to the American Gaming Association.
---
Governor predicts a jackpot
Millions targeted for road, bridges, property tax relief
Proposal is hailed, faces turbulence on Beacon Hill
By Frank Phillips and Andrea Estes, Globe Staff
September 18, 2007
Governor Deval Patrick, ending months of private study and public speculation, invited the casino industry to come to Massachusetts yesterday in a watershed proposal that he said will create 20,000 jobs and generate $2 billion in economic activity from three resort-style casinos in various regions of the state.
In unveiling his proposal, Patrick said the financial windfall would outweigh the serious social ills associated with gambling. The hundreds of millions of dollars in additional state revenues, he said, would be directed toward rebuilding the state's crumbling roads and bridges and providing property tax relief for beleaguered homeowners.
"Casino gambling is neither a cure-all nor the end of civilization," Patrick said at a State House press conference. "Under certain conditions, I believe casinos can work well in and for the Commonwealth."
Patrick's plan immediately encountered turbulence in key places on Beacon Hill. House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, a longtime gambling opponent, responded coolly to the initiative, saying, "We in the House remain skeptical."
"So far, our concerns for ushering in casino gambling have not been eased," DiMasi said. "But we will hear the governor out, and we will be asking the governor to explain the rationale behind his conclusions."
Patrick, who must win the support of the Legislature for his plan to proceed, wants to license three casinos: in Southeastern Massachusetts, Western Massachusetts, and the Boston metropolitan area. His plan would encourage bidding by the Wampanoag Indian tribe, which has proposed a casino resort in Middleborough, by including a provision that would give special consideration to an Indian bid for one of the licenses.
The administration estimates that bidding for the 10-year licenses would produce between $600 million and $900 million in upfront fees for the state. The state would then receive 27 percent of gambling proceeds from all three casinos each year. That would amount to $400 million a year, after subtracting the costs of treating chronic gamblers, beefing up police enforcement, and creating a regulatory branch of government.
"With that potential economic generator, we cannot reject the casino industry out of hand," Patrick said. He presented the initiative as an alternative to raising taxes.
His long-awaited decision was praised by advocates for casino gambling, including the potential bidders for the licenses, the labor unions that represent hotel and resort workers, trade unions, some municipal officials, and the state's tourism officials.
"This is a way of helping Massachusetts' beleaguered cities and towns without raising revenues through taxation," said Mayor Thomas M. Menino, who supports a casino resort at Suffolk Downs race track in East Boston. He called the facility "the only feasible site in Boston."
But Patrick's proposal is also creating strong opposition that cuts across ideological lines. Some of his closest supporters denounced his decision, as did social conservatives, including the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston and the state's leading group opposing same-sex marriage.
Scott Harshbarger, the former attorney general and a liberal Democrat who was an early supporter of Patrick last year, said he was disappointed in the decision. "This is bad public policy, and it would be a huge mistake for Massachusetts to take this step in expanded gambling," he said. "His campaign was not about casinos but real economic development, on the merits and not on quick fixes."
The Massachusetts Family Institute, an anti-gambling group, called the proposal a "short-sighted, dangerous approach to economic growth." Kris Mineau, the group's president, said the institute and other opponents are considering taking the issue to the state ballot for voters to decide. The earliest it could appear before voters is 2010.
Under the governor's plans, the state's proceeds from the casinos would be evenly divided between paying for road and bridge repairs and bringing tax relief to an estimated 1 million property owners. He proposed a property tax credit that would range from $150 to $400 a year for qualified property owners and average about $215. Property owners who pay 2.5 percent or more of their income on property taxes would qualify for the credit. The average property tax bill in the state was $3,962 in the last fiscal year.
The governor's proposal calls for the state lottery, which provides about $950 million a year in aid to cities and towns, to receive additional funds from the casino money to make up for the expected loss because of the new gambling competition.
Patrick said 2.5 percent of gross casino proceeds would be placed in a public health trust fund to pay for increased problem gambling referrals. Another 2.5 percent would be set aside to help host towns and adjacent towns with increased police, fire, and transportation costs.
A special gaming commission, paid for by the casino operators, would be created to oversee the casinos. Patrick said the details of the commission membership and other details are still being worked out. A special unit would be created in the attorney general's office to enforce gaming laws.
"We will regulate casinos vigilantly, professionally, and independent of politics," Patrick said.
---
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Gambling debate flares after Patrick's proposal
(Wiqan Ang for The Boston Globe)
Representative Daniel Bosley (left), a longtime casino foe, squared off this morning against state Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, who supports the expansion of gambling. Rev. Richard McGowan, a gambling researcher at Boston College, sat between the two men during the panel discussion at the Omni Parker House.
By Michael Levenson and Andrew Ryan, Globe Staff
Passions flared on both sides of the gambling debate this morning as opponents and supporters of Governor Deval Patrick's plan to license three casinos in Massachusetts squared off at a forum in a hotel ballroom in downtown Boston.
About 100 lawyers, lobbyists, and lawmakers attended the panel discussion at the Omni Parker House, which included Representative Daniel Bosley and state Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill -- two Democrats on opposite sides of the issue -- and the Rev. Richard McGowan, a gambling researcher at Boston College.
The most passionate comments of the morning came from a lawmaker in the audience, state Senator Susan Tucker, who blasted the governor's plan in a sarcastic speech.
"The fact is that this is an industry that depends on addiction for its resources," said Tucker, a Democrat from Andover. "Why don't we just promote smoking so we can use the extra tax on cigarettes to pay for public health problems?"
The discussion, hosted by MassInc., a nonpartisan think tank, had been scheduled before Patrick unveiled his casino plan Monday. The timing made it one of the first vigorous debates of the proposal to expand gambling throughout the state.
Cahill called the governor's plan "brilliant," saying that casino gambling became a reality that needed to be addressed after the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe won federal recognition this spring. While state treasurers have historically been against casino gambling to protect Lottery revenues, Cahill said that young consumers tend to view Keno, scratch tickets, and other Lottery contests as "their father's game." That has allowed a large revenue stream to leave the state for casinos in Connecticut and beyond.
"We should start to capture that money," Cahill said. "If people want to spend their money on gambling, who are we to say they can't. We just want to make it an attractive setting."
Bosley, a North Adams representative and longtime critic of casinos, argued that the governor overstated the economic benefits of legalized gambling. He said it would be impossible to limit casinos to three regions in the state and warned it would mushroom like the Lottery, which started with one green ticket in the 1970s and has grown to nearly 40 types of scratch-off tickets, Keno with its drawings every four minutes, and a bevy of other games.
"That's a cautionary tale for us, because the same thing will happen that happened with the Lottery," Bosley said.
Opposition to expanded gambling has been growing since 1996, Bosley said, and he estimated that 101 of the 160 members in the state House of Representatives vote against casinos the last time the issue surfaced.
Cahill said that the way to build support was simple: make sure casino revenues will be spread to each of the state's 351 cities and towns, ensuring that each legislator gets a piece.
McGowan, the gambling researcher, agreed that the governor may have been too optimistic about the financial windfall and had a warning for lawmakers hoping to fill budget gaps with casino revenues. "Once you get on to the medicine, you can't get off it," he said.
Posted by the Boston Globe City & Region Desk
---
9/18/2007
RE: Deval Patrick is for the Corporate Elite!
Dear Deval Patrick:
Get real! The only real beneficiary of casino gambling in Massachusetts will be the Corporate Elite, which is the top 10% of American citizens organized around big businesses.
The problem with your reasoning on economic development for the working class stiffs of Massachusetts is that the jobs created will be low wage service positions that will not come close to cutting it. The profits from the casinos will go to Wall Street investment venture capitalist firms, while the social cost will be paid by those who are unable to ante up for the tab.
You, Deval Patrick, are Orwellian in your governance. First, you run a populist campaign, and now, you serve only your corporate elite masters through your inequitable public policies! You are a phony and you do NOT fool me.
The new revenue for the commonwealth is REGRESSIVE TAXATION! The revenue will not be used for progressive means, but rather, it will be complemented with progressive tax revenues to further lower the tax liability for the Corporate Elite. That is the crux of the problem with the state lottery's inequity, and that will happen with the casino's public revenues, too!
It is evidentially proven that DEVAL PATRICK is for the CORPORATE ELITE!
In Dissent,
Jonathan Alan Melle
---
Patrick to offer 3-casino plan
By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff | September 16, 2007
Governor Deval Patrick plans to propose as early as tomorrow that the state sell licenses for three full-scale resort casinos in Massachusetts, citing their potential to spur economic growth, create jobs, and generate new government revenue, according to State House officials who have been briefed on his plan.
Patrick will recommend that the casinos be licensed in three regions: Southeastern Massachusetts, Western Massachusetts, and an area that includes Boston and points north, the officials said. His announcement will mark the culmination of months of study and the end of a long stretch of public silence on the subject of legalized gaming.
All three licenses would be put up for competitive bid, in a process that is expected to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in immediate and direct state revenue, the officials said.
The Mashpee Wampanoag Indian tribe would have to outbid other competitors if it wishes to quickly proceed with its plans for a resort-style casino in Middleborough, the officials said. If the tribe decides against seeking a state license or fails to receive one in the bidding process, it could still proceed with a longer, more arduous federal approval process that could result in a fourth Massachusetts casino.
The governor will not recommend allowing slot machines at the state's financially struggling horse and dog tracks, the officials said, a decision which is sure to set off protests and a major lobbying push in the Legislature from the politically powerful track operators.
The officials agreed to talk only on the condition of anonymity because the governor had yet to make his announcement.
Only part of Patrick's proposal was outlined yesterday by the officials, and key details - including how much new cash the state could expect and how many jobs Patrick administration officials believe the three casinos will create - were withheld.
In other states with licensed casinos, initial license fees have generated hundreds of millions of dollars, and states garner hundreds of millions more each year in their share of gambling proceeds.
The officials who have been briefed on Patrick's plan said the governor will justify his decision to embrace casinos with the same arguments made by gambling proponents: that licensed casino gambling will create thousands of new jobs, spur growth in travel and tourism, and provide the state with a key stream of new revenue to augment income and sales taxes.
Patrick will argue that the casino resorts will be an important part of a larger economic development program, which includes a $1 billion life science initiative, an aggressive renewable energy program, and a $1.5 billion capital spending plan.
"The governor is saying that this is an important part of his overall economic strategy to ensure he meets his goal for economic activity and create 100,000 new jobs over the next four years," one of the officials said.
According to the officials, Patrick, in framing the arguments to back his endorsement of expanded gambling, will tout the potential economic benefits to the state more than the financial benefits to the fiscally strapped state government.
But the lure to state budgeters is clear: Patrick and other leaders are searching for billions of dollars needed to repair bridges and roads, improve education, and provide cities and towns with property tax relief.
When Patrick presents his plan, which is scheduled to be tomorrow, his announcement will be seen as a political watershed for his administration.
The announcement will also mark the beginning of a new stage of the casino debate, one that will focus increasingly on the Legislature, which will be required to approve the governor's plan if it is to move forward.
House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi is publicly opposed to casinos while Senate President Therese Murray is among gambling's key supporters.
A move into gambling could dramatically alter the market for gambling throughout the region and set off new competition. Proponents have contended that Massachusetts is in a good position to pick up casino revenue that is currently going to Connecticut, where there are two large casinos that attract legions of Massachusetts gamblers and others from throughout New England.
In making his decision to endorse casino resorts, Patrick will be going against many of his close political allies and a good chunk of his Democratic base, including liberals who see gambling as a regressive tax that takes money from those in the lower income brackets to ease the financial burdens of the more affluent.
Those critics, including House leaders, say the financial gains are illusory. They say expanded gambling would create social problems and will hook state political leaders and Beacon Hill budget writers on gambling revenues, while providing few long-term economic benefits. They also say that expanding gambling with Las Vegas-like resorts will change the historic and cultural character of Massachusetts forever.
But a recent study said that there is $1.5 billion in annual unmet market demand for gambling.
A line of pent-up casino proposals bears out the assertion that market forces favor gambling.
The Mashpee Wampanoags have proposed a $1 billion casino in Middleborough, estimating their facility alone could generate up to $200 million to $250 million a year in additional state revenue.
Other gambling interests, including another Wampanoag tribe from Martha's Vineyard, the owners of the Mohegan Sun casino in Connecticut, and Suffolk Downs race track in Boston, are also vying for casino licenses.
Billionaire casino developer Sheldon Adelson is talking with legislative leaders about a casino on Interstate 495 where it intersects with the turnpike.
Patrick faces a difficult task in persuading DiMasi, a longtime opponent of expanded gambling, to switch his position, according to senior Beacon Hill figures. The House has consistently, and by wide margins, defeated pro-casino and increased gaming plans over the last decade.
As Patrick studied the issue this summer, DiMasi made statements that have led many to suspect that he is softening his position. His press aide, David Guarino, said late last week that the speaker is keeping an open mind to any arguments that Patrick makes for casinos.
But those who have talked to DiMasi privately in recent weeks come away with the clear impression that his opposition to expanded gambling remains firm and that his comments were made in deference to Patrick.
"It will take a lot of convincing to bring the speaker around," said one senior legislative official.
On the other side, gambling has galvanized proponents who think it will give the state an important economic boost.
"At the end of the day, you would have $400 million to $450 million a year in new revenue," said Senate Ways and Means chairman Steven C. Panagiotakos, a Lowell Democrat, referring to the state's projected take from the three proposed casinos.
He said the money would go a long way toward helping the state pay to repair roads and crumbling bridges, and offer property tax relief to communities.
"It is not going to solve all our problems, but will go a long way in helping us deal with them," he said.
---
Post a Comment
<< Home