State Representative Jeffrey Davis Perry, Barnstable 5th District

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Although happening in small and seemingly innocuous increments, the growing size and scope of government at all levels, but especially the Federal level, is one of the greatest threats to the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. From issues to nationalized health care to a growing national debt, the Federal government seems completely out of touch with the Constitutional limitation prudently imposed by our Founding Fathers.

Too often politicians from both sides of the political aisle, and sometimes the public in general, are willing to allow small increases in government’s power in hopes that government will be able to solve some perceived problem we as a society are currently experiencing. However, this slow and steady erosion of our personal freedoms and personal responsibility is mounting a cumulative negative effect on the founding principles of the United States. In addition to the size and scope of the Federal government, the cost and building debt come with a huge price for future generations.

In an effort to reaffirm our right as a State to control and make our own decisions, I have filed a Bill (House Docket 4701) in the House of Representatives to protect the Founding Fathers’ intent and the Constitutional protections of the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The purpose of this Bill is to clearly inform our members of Congress and the President that we value our State’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. Furthermore, we as individual citizens and collective states demand that the Federal government halt the practice of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes which are not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States of America.

As a part-time professor at Cape Cod Community College and Bridgewater State College, teaching classes in Government and Constitutional Law, I see students often have a difficult time reconciling the text and purpose of the 10th Amendment with recent history of the Federal government acting far beyond their delegated powers. While I do my very best to explain the Supreme Court precedent, I must shake my head and admit the recent corporate bailouts, deficit spending and the debate on a nationally run health care system cannot be reconciled with the words or intended meaning contained in our founding documents.

Sadly, like so many other pieces of legislation on Beacon Hill, my Bill remains in Committee. As I write this column, the HD 4701 is currently in the Rules Committee. I will be encouraging this Committee to release the Bill for a hearing and ultimately a vote. Although I am often outnumbered on Beacon Hill, conservatives and liberals should be equally concerned about ignoring the limitation of powers our Founding Fathers wisely placed on the Federal government.

The overall purpose of this Bill is to clearly affirm to Congress and the President our State’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. Massachusetts was once a leader in protecting individual and states’ rights. Have too many years passed since we fought for our freedom? This is an ongoing story and the 2010 election will likely be at least, in part, a discussion about the growth and power of the Federal government. As always, I welcome your comments and opinions.

The 10th Amendment declares that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are "reserved" for the states or "the people." As with any piece of Federal legislation, including the Federal Health Care Mandate Bill working its way through Congress, the first question asked by those who serve in Congress should be; where is the delegated authority in the Constitution to act at all?

Article 1, Section 8 is the section of the Constitution known as the Delegated Powers of Congress and is where most of the powers of Congress emanate from. Nowhere in this Section does Congress have the power to mandate the purchase of any product or service. Some may argue that the “Commerce Clause” provides Congress with the power to regulate the insurance industry, however, in my view; the individual mandate provision in the Bill does not rise to the level of interstate commerce, which is the trigger for the Commerce power.

Some who believe Congress has such power will point to their ability to tax our income. This is a short-sighted example. Remember, before Congress was able to tax our income, it was necessary to pass the 16th Amendment to do so as the Constitution did not provide Congress the ability to tax our income. Others suggest the General Welfare Clause is sufficient; however, this Clause is widely considered simply as a preamble to the Article 1, Section 8 enumerated powers.

While many proponents will argue that the mandate is similar to laws requiring drivers to obtain auto insurance, there are several key differences. The auto insurance mandate leaves people with a choice as no one is required to own an automobile. Most importantly, auto insurance regulation occurs at the state level. This is clearly what the Founding Fathers would have preferred and is at the heart of the balance between Article 1, Section 8, and the 10th Amendment.

Although happening in small and seemingly innocuous increments, the growing size and scope of government at all levels is one of the greatest threats to the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. Often, politicians and the public in general are willing to allow small increases in government’s power in hopes that government will be able to solve some perceived problem we as a society are currently experiencing. However, this slow and steady erosion of our personal freedoms and personal responsibility is mounting a cumulative negative effect on the founding principles of the United States.

Do we really want to have a government that has the power to dictate, under the threat of oppressive sanctions that each and every person must purchase a certain product? If this can be done with a health insurance mandate, it is entirely reasonable to believe that in the near future the same logic will be applied to long term care insurance, disability insurance and why not life insurance. Where does this power and growth in government end? How much power are you willing to give to the Federal government over your life and personal choices?

“I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” In case you did not guess on your own, the above are the words of President Ronald Reagan and as with most things he said while serving as President, they are just as true today as they were when he said them. Perhaps with the passage of time and the ever increasing size of government, Ronald Reagan’s quote should be taken to heart even more today!

While the final version of the Health Care Mandate Bill has not been seen by the general public, any version that includes a legal requirement that individuals must purchase a private health insurance policy cannot be reconciled with our Constitution. No matter where one stands on health care reform, conservatives and liberals should be equally concerned about ignoring the limitation of powers our Founding Fathers wisely placed on the Federal government.

As this is my last column of 2009, I feel compelled to offer a few reflections regarding our state budget and the continued disappointing status of the political culture on Beacon Hill.

Simply stated, the current state budget harms local cities and towns and public safety, and increases taxes on sales, meals, telecommunications, alcohol, satellite television, hotel stays, nursing home residents and fees at the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Those who supported our current budget also broke the promise of lottery revenue being dedicated to education and withdraw another $199 million from the state’s stabilization account. The budget also borrows from the 2011 Federal Stimulus funds to put this year’s budget into balance. This is a very disappointing scenario and sets up another structural budget problem for next year.

It is no secret that families are struggling to make ends meet, and if the majority of my Democratic counterparts in the House and Senate think raising every tax under the sun is going to make the lives of those families better, they are sadly mistaken. If taxes are the answer to our slow economy, it should be to lower them and let the American people stimulate the economy. Government does not need or deserve any additional tax revenue.
The well publicized ethical and patronage problems within state government need to be corrected rather than additional taxation of the hard working people of Massachusetts. With the numerous media stories of the Governor hiring thousands of new employees and three consecutive House Speakers being charged with felonies by the Federal government, it is no wonder why the people of Massachusetts have little faith in their state government.

Sadly, it once again appears the solution to this year’s budget crisis will be to continue the spending with additional taxes to fund it. In addition to all of these new taxes and a lack of reform, I am deeply concerned that the political process itself is broken on Beacon Hill. Our political process has developed under this one-party control where only a few Legislative leaders meet behind closed doors and put out bills and budgets without hearings, debates or straight up or down votes by Legislators. It is not only disappointing that so many members of the House and Senate go along with such a corrupt political culture, but also where is the media reporting such procedural abuses? By going along with the current culture on Beacon Hill, we are eroding our system of a representative democracy and encouraging improper influences into the political process.

As we move into 2010, voters will not only have the option of replacing Governor Patrick, all the Constitutional Offices and the entire Legislature, but will also have a number of ballot questions to voice their opinion and send a clear message to the folks who control the agenda on Beacon Hill. Such measures include a sales tax rollback, the elimination of the new sales tax on alcohol, lifting the cap on charter schools and reforming the affordable housing law (known as 40B).

While I acknowledge that neither Beacon Hill nor Washington, D.C. are not going to change overnight, we must never become agreeable to increased taxation, allow procedural abuses of the political process or support the efforts for government’s power to expand. The alternatives of higher taxation or cutting core services are simply unacceptable. I pledge to continue the fight for a more responsible and accountable state government. It is my hope that the voters send a clear message in 2010 and that the culture of Beacon Hill politics will begin to make a real change for the better.

Over the past week, the media has been reporting that once again the Governor and many of the liberals who control Beacon Hill are talking about promoting benefits for illegal immigrants, including tax-payer subsidized college tuition discounts. These reports started when the Governor spoke to a crowd convened by the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. While standing in front of a friendly group, the Governor said he was instructing executive agencies to implement within three months an “action plan.”
While it may "feel good" for some to take such a position, such a policy violates the rule of law, promotes illegal behavior, is unfair to taxpayers, and puts law breakers ahead of those who follow the immigration procedures. By encouraging illegal behavior, what message does this send to immigrants who enter this country legally? The issue of immigration must be looked at from two different points of view.

The first dealing with those people who are in the United States legally and the second deals with those here illegally. While I believe it is the role of government to provide people with a helping hand, I do not support taxpayer dollars going to provide assistance to people of illegal status. The people who contact me regarding illegal immigration are overwhelming against any benefits. In fact, the most vocal and upset individuals are those legal immigrants who have followed our laws and are now living the American dream. They often tell me they feel cheated for following the rules if illegals will gain access to the same rights and privileges of living in America.

It may come to surprise you that some proposals floating around Beacon Hill would actually put illegal immigrants ahead of citizens from other states. As an extreme example, under the current proposal, if a solider just returning from Iraq who previously lived in Florida moved to Massachusetts to attend one of our public colleges, the service member would pay substantially more than an illegal immigrant who came to our Country illegally. Furthermore, some proposals do not limit the benefits to illegal immigrants from Massachusetts. If passed, this measure will create a wide open door for illegal immigrants from all over to compete for Massachusetts students.

As it is unclear if citizenship will be granted to these students in the future, it is likely that many will never be able to pay income taxes, thus we are paying for education without the likelihood of gaining taxes later. Furthermore, the proponents conveniently neglect to mention that there is currently a law suit filed in Federal Court which could hold that programs that benefit illegal immigrants over citizens from other states is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. If this lawsuit is successful, any state offering discounted tuition to illegal immigrants, would also have to offer it to citizens from other states. This could result in Massachusetts citizens losing the ability to have a discounted tuition all together.

Simply stated, "A nation without borders is not a nation." These simple words were spoken by Ronald Reagan and really say all that is needed to say regarding the problems of illegal immigration in America. From issues of national security, economic protectionism and even our nation’s own sovereignty, I believe the most important issue our country is currently facing is the ongoing and increasing threat of illegal immigration. To reward illegal immigrants who have violated our laws sends the wrong message to those immigrants who have spent many months and even years waiting in line to enter this Country legally and is grossly unfair to the taxpayers.

It is my view that the Commonwealth should be allocating our resources toward expanding health care, improving education, and ensuring public safety and not benefits to illegal immigrants! The State faces a structural budget deficit which may be several billions. For the Governor to be pushing for benefits for illegal immigrants at this time shows a serious lack of appreciation for our fiscal challenges and the Rule of Law.

In closing, I would like to wish everyone a safe, peaceful and enjoyable Holiday Season.

The subject of term limits often provokes a great deal of debate with passionate feelings on both sides of the issue. Representative Karyn Polito has filed a Constitutional Amendment proposal on Beacon Hill currently known as HD 4409, which has once again started the debate of whether term limits would help make our State Government more accountable and responsive to the voters of Massachusetts.

Certainly with all the ethical scandals emerging from Beacon Hill, including the last three Democratic Speakers being indicted for felony charges, one does have to question whether cleaning out the elected officials on a regular basis might bring about a more honest, ethical and productive political culture.

Massachusetts law does not currently impose term limits on our elected officials. This is not because of a lack of interest to do so. In 1994, you may recall that Massachusetts voters approved Question Four during that year’s general election, which set term limits on state political officials of eight years for Constitutional officers, such as Governor, Attorney General, Treasurer and Auditor. State Legislators and members of the Federal House would also have been limited to eight years and twelve years for United States Senators.

While the voters approved the term limits law, it soon was overturned by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 1997. The State’s highest court held the law to be unconstitutional, holding that the Legislature cannot pass a law that changes the qualifications for political offices that are found in the Constitution itself. While I appreciate and agree with the voter’s right to alter their system of government, I believe the Court made the correct decision under the language of our Constitution. Thus in order to enact term limits for state elected officials, we need a constitutional amendment. So, we are now back to HD 4409.

HD 4409 would amend the State Constitution to allow people to serve in the Massachusetts House or Senate for a total of 12 years, or six legislative terms, in their lifetime. It would not impose term limits on any other elected officials as Article 1, Section 3 of the United States Constitution controls on the qualifications of Federal members of Congress.

The term limit proposal is not retroactive as written. The amendment would apply only to time served in the General Court after the date of its passage by the voters. It also would not apply to any partial term a legislator serves for the purpose of filling a vacancy in office.

I believe term limits are a method to restore the concept of a “citizen legislature” in our Commonwealth; however, the concern remains that voters should have the right to keep a legislator who is doing a good job for their district. Perhaps the 12-year term limit strikes the appropriate balance between this need and the need to have some continuity and institutional knowledge in the Legislature.

Currently some fifteen other states impose term limits on state legislators. Another four states (including Massachusetts as discussed above) have ruled that term limit initiatives passed since 1990 are unconstitutional, and two states have repealed their term limit laws. California was one of the first states to pass a term limits bill in the early 1990s, allowing legislators to serve only six years in the State Assembly (two three-year terms) and eight years in the State Senate (two four-year terms). Once the fourteen-year limit is reached, legislators are banned from their respective branches for life.

Now, I would like to know what you think. Please e-mail your views to ElectJeffPerry@aol.com or telephone my office at 508-888-2158.

As recently reported in the Cape Cod Times, Governor Deval Patrick stated that some $600 million in emergency cuts to the Budget were immediately needed. Such measures he said could result in the elimination of 2,000 state jobs and unilateral budget cuts to public safety and other core services. The Governor will also soon be asking lawmakers to grant him authority to make additional cuts, which will likely include significant reductions to the court system and local aid to cities and towns.

As someone who voted against the State Budget, stating at the time that is was disappointing that the solution to the fiscal crisis was to increase taxes on sales, meals, telecommunications, alcohol, satellite television, hotel stays, nursing home residents and fees at the Registry, I continue to wonder when the Governor and Legislature will embrace reform over taxation and cuts. It is my view that when the Majority Party and the Governor passed our current Budget they failed to make many of the necessary difficult choices to reform State Government. They simply raised taxes and crossed their fingers and hoped things would get better.

Rather than giving the Governor additional power to cut education, public safety and human service spending even further, I would suggest the Legislature and Governor put aside the usual political rhetoric regarding reform and embrace some real cost savings. Below is a summary of over $1 billion in cost savings we should adopt now:

Implement a statewide wage and hiring freeze for non-essential government employees - Given the uncertainty of the economy and the reality of multi-billion dollar budget deficits, the Commonwealth is in no position to be hiring more people. We should imposes a one-year moratorium on new government employees.

Prohibit Benefits for Illegal Immigrants – Mirrored after legislation passed in both Colorado and Georgia, this measure would ensure that taxpayer funded benefits go only to those that are eligible to receive them. We should demand that anyone attempting to receive taxpayer funded public benefits must first be verified by the Federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlement program “SAVE.”

Repeal the Pacheco Law - Since this anti-privatization measure was approved during the Weld Administration, the State has lost out on the opportunity to save hundreds of millions of dollars through the outsourcing of certain government programs and services. The law has effectively stifled state privatization efforts by keeping most work in-house, even when a private company could potentially deliver the same services more efficiently and at a lesser cost.

Require Medicaid to enroll all participants in managed care plans - Currently, only 35 percent of MassHealth recipients are members of a Medicaid Managed Care Organization (MMCO), which provide incentives for managing illnesses before they become more acute or expensive to treat. The State should require all MassHealth participants to enroll in managed care plans, which have been proven to cost less while delivering superior health care.

Streamline the process for the sale of surplus land/allow private sponsorship of state facilities and assets - Streamlining the process for selling surplus state property by eliminating the need for legislative approval would ensure a faster, more efficient process for raising funds from unused and underutilized assets. In addition, allowing private sponsorship of state facilities and assets presents another potentially lucrative opportunity to raise additional funding to pay for essential state programs and services.

A few other ideas to get the State’s Budget back in line include, eliminating the Lottery advertising account , reducing prescription medication waste and requiring agency reports to be distributed electronically.

Perhaps the Governor and Legislative leaders may not agree with all of these ideas, so let’s hear some of theirs, or is the solution once again to threaten cuts to education and public safety, while generating support for yet another round of tax increase?

By Rep. Jeffrey Davis Perry

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

As any casual student of history knows full well, the above words are directly from the United States Declaration of Independence as adopted on July 4, 1776, which declared that the thirteen colonies were now "Free and Independent States." Quite unmistakably, from reading the text of this founding document and further studying the writings of our Founding Fathers, we know it was their obvious and unequivocal intent that the power of government reside with the people and not with the government itself.

So, how do people retain this power today in the context of our media and special interest driven political climate? I believe it is a bit simpler than one might think. Citizens still play an important role in our political process, but they must be engaged and speak out to their elected officials. Let your voice be heard. Below are a few suggestions which I hope will encourage you to speak out with your comments and concerns:

1) Call your elected official or make an appointment to personally see them during office hours. Face to face contact is the best way to lobby. Have information available, in writing, to give them about the legislation or issue concerning you.

2) Write your elected official. Next to speaking to someone in person, personal letters are the most effective way of communicating. Avoid form letters and pre-printed postcards whenever possible. A hand written or typed letter in your own words shows that you cared about the topic enough to take your valuable time to put it on paper and send it.

3) With e-mail, it is also important you include your name, address, and phone number. I receive hundreds of e-mails each week and there is no way of knowing if they come from an actual constituent. If senders don't identify themselves or don't give their addresses, the value of the email is diminished.

4) Feel free to speak with a Legislator's Legislative Aide. These staff people are skilled, knowledgeable professionals who will treat your call respectfully and confidentially. Of course, you can and should request to speak with your elected official if that is your desire.

5) Invite your Legislator to meet with you or your group. Invite them to tour your business or school or get to know your organization so that they have some knowledge and familiarity with you and your issue. I enjoyed such tours and visits very much and have found them to be extremely valuable when a related issues comes before the Legislature.

The political climate is dynamic and ever changing. Government is facing many difficult and important decisions in the near future. While I know many citizens feel some elected officials are not interested in their opinions, I ask each of you not to become cynical. Visit, call, write or e-mail your elected officials.

Your opinion is important to our political process and you should feel free to let it be heard. While we are all very busy, I encourage you to reach out and contact your elected officials. Your opinion does matter to most of us. As always, I welcome your comments about this column or anything happening in State government. You can reach me at 617-722-2800, ext 8743 or via e-mail at ElectJeffPerry@aol.com.

It has been more than three years since the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law mandating that everyone in the Commonwealth be required to purchase health insurance coverage and all businesses with ten or more employees must provide health insurance coverage or face an assessment (tax). I was one of only two Legislators to vote against the bill. Now the President and Democratic Members of Congress are pushing a quasi-universal health care measure in Washington, D.C.

In 2006, I argued universal mandated coverage was the wrong approach for Massachusetts and today it is still the wrong approach for America. The legislation being rushed through Congress is a dangerous step towards socialism and one that does not reflect real reform that is needed to our health care system. As it currently stands, the bill would severely ration health care benefits to our seniors and with the “public option,” likely start the process of eliminating access to private or employer sponsored health care plans. While the proponents deny this, how can any private insurance company compete with one that is subsidized by tax dollars?

A primary reason why our health care costs are so high in this state and will be even higher if the Federal proposal passes, is that it mandates that certain types of coverage be included in every policy. The new health program would do nothing to reduce or eliminate these mandates and furthermore it does not allow for real consumer choice of insurance products as such policies must meet government approved requirements. Government has also failed to reform the various administrative burdens on health care providers and makes no attempt to reform our medical and tort liability system.

In Massachusetts, all we did was mandate that everyone in the Commonwealth must purchase a heath insurance policy and impose a new tax on the business community. We did practically zero to reduce costs. While I fully understand and agree with the goal of expanding health care for all citizens, in my opinion, government should not mandate in law that each and every person, regardless of their personal financial situation, be required to purchase a specific health insurance product.

From my point of view, health insurance is a tool and benefit that employers use to attract the employees they wish to employ. Government programs for certain low income families is appropriate, but let us be clear, we are already doing so. The Massachusetts law provides that employers with ten or more employees must provide health care or be subject to a new tax. This is a disincentive for small companies seeking to locate or expand their business in Massachusetts. The same will be true for companies considering outsourcing their operations overseas.

During the debate on this issue in 2006, estimates on the cost of this program were unrealistic and I believe everyone knew so; however, it was politically correct to pass this mammoth social program without considering how much it will cost. My fear was then and is now that we have grossly underestimated the long term cost of this program and there will be many unintended consequences that will far outweigh any perceived benefits. It should also be expected that when the new tax on business is not enough to fund the program, the Legislature will be forced to raise taxes again to make up the difference as we just did with Governor Patrick’s $1 billion tax increase. Our Federal deficit is running in the tens of the trillions. How much more are we willing to place on the backs of future generations?

We have a real chance to do something meaningful and good regarding health care reform, but that will mean making tough decisions and taking tough votes to really reform the way we deliver health care services. Thus far, it looks like the solution from Beacon Hill and Capitol Hill is to simply spend more money and make government more intrusive into your personal choice. Both are indeed disappointing. The real lesson from the 2006 Massachusetts "universal" mandated coverage law is that without real (as opposed to political) reform, costs will continue to increase which is likely to lead to tax increases, followed by price controls and bureaucratic rationing.

On Friday, June 19th, I along with my 16 Republican colleagues in the House and 27 Democrats rejected a reckless budget, as it was light on reform and heavy on taxes. The Budget also harms local cities and towns, as well as public safety. Disappointing 110 Democrats followed their leadership and sent it to the Governor.

The misguided solution to the fiscal crisis was to increase taxes on sales, meals, telecommunications, alcohol, satellite television, hotel stays, nursing home residents and fees at the Registry. We also break the promise of lottery revenue being dedicated to education and consume another $199 million from the state’s stabilization account. The budget also borrows from the 2011 Federal Stimulus funds to put it into balance. This is very disappointing and sets up another structural budget problem for next year.

Families are struggling to make ends meet, and if the majority of my Democratic counterparts in the House and Senate think raising every tax under the sun is going to make the lives of those families better, they are sadly mistaken. If taxes are the answer to our slow economy, it should be to lower them and let the American people stimulate the economy. Government does not need or deserve any additional tax revenue. The well publicized ethical and patronage problems within state government need to be corrected rather than additional taxation of the hard working people of Massachusetts. Sadly, it once again appears the solution to this year’s budget crisis will be to continue the spending with additional taxes to fund it.

More than all of these new taxes and a lack of reform, I am deeply concerned that the political process itself is broken on Beacon Hill. Members of the House and Senate did not receive a copy of the Budget until after 10:00pm on Thursday night and we were required to vote on the Budget, which is hundreds of pages in length, the very next day. Included in the Budget were dozens of taxes and sections which were never part of the original budget debate. Such budget items never had a hearing, public input, debate or separate vote in the Legislature.

Our political process has developed under this one-party control where only a few Legislative leaders meet behind closed doors and put out bills and budgets without hearings, debates or straight up or down votes by Legislators. It is not only disappointing that so many members of the House and Senate go along with such a corrupt political culture, but also where is the media reporting such procedural abuses? By going along with the current culture on Beacon Hill, we are eroding our system of a representative democracy and encouraging improper influences into the political process.

Additionally, the approved Budget regrettably negated several Republican adopted amendments that would have actually provided cost savings including; further raising the threshold for the Pacheco Law, implementing a prescription drug waste program that would have saved millions, selling state owned land to help balance the budget and putting Mass Health recipients into managed care, which reportedly would have saved some $160 million.

I am disappointed to say the least with the substance and procedure of this Budget. Last year, my GOP colleagues and I voted against a budget that was bloated and unsustainable. We said that passing that budget would have long term damage and for the lack of better terms, we were right. Had we been more responsible in Fiscal Year 2009 and now 2010, we may not be in such a dire financial situation we are today. This is indeed a sad time for the finances and political process on Beacon Hill.

In Sunday’s “Viewpoints” cover story, the Cape Cod Times provided Richard Rubino of Marblehead with a great deal of ink attacking President Ronald Reagan’s conservative credentials. While I first laughed at the liberal “spin” Mr. Rubino put on his comments and dismissed it as partisan rhetoric, after second thought, I realized I needed to respond as many people unfamiliar with the legacy of Ronald Reagan might accept his mischaracterizations as true.

The major point that the author totally misses as to why conservatives and Republicans adore Ronald Reagan is not any single issue. It was Reagan’s honesty and leadership that caused the blue state of Massachusetts to vote for him twice. There has never been a political leader that we all agree with on every issue. Mr. Rubino’s careful selection of less than conservative actions ignore the character of the man, his successes and impact he has had on his Party and his Nation.

In Reagan’s eight years in office he increased defense spending by thirty-five percent, while improving relations with the Soviet Union. In dramatic and historic meetings with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, the two super-power leaders negotiated a treaty that would ultimately eliminate intermediate-range nuclear missiles. Reagan’s personal relationship with Gorbachev proved to be invaluable to averting a confrontation between these two nuclear powers.On the home front, Reagan was equally impressive with sweeping reforms to social entitlements, including reductions in welfare spending. This not only ended the vicious cycle of racial and cultural dependence on government, but it also helped fund the tax cuts Reagan was able to push through Congress.

Reagan’s economic policies became known as “Reaganomics” or “trickle down economics.” History has proven his policies were successful at creating an economic environment which led to much of America’s prosperity well after Ronald Reagan departed the White House.When President Ronald Reagan left office he had successfully reinvigorated the American people and changed the mindset that government was the default answer to many of our problems. Without a doubt, Reagan had fulfilled his campaign pledge of 1980 to restore "the great, confident roar of American progress and growth and optimism."

After eight years of Ronald Reagan in the White House, the Republican Party was once again the political party of the common man and the party that motivated Americans to believe in a positive future of our nation. Reagan inspired countless numbers of future Republicans, including yours truly to become politically active. His legacy is one which will live forever in our history by the way he conducted himself as President and the principles for which he stood without any reservations or apologies.Without Ronald Reagan winning the 1980 election, the Republican Party, and in fact this Country, would not be as strong, prosperous or as proud as we are today.

History has deservedly been good to Ronald Reagan. In most polls concerning who people believe has been our greatest President, Ronald Wilson Reagan is always first or second.Certainly not a perfect President, but this Reagan follower wished we had more leaders like Ronald Reagan. Contrary to Mr. Rubino’s opinion, the Republican Party should look to the fundamental principles of the great people who established the Republican Party and have fostered its principles, people such as Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and yes, Ronald Reagan.

Jeffrey Davis Perry
R-Sandwich

June 2009

Published in The Barnstable Patriot
Letter to the editor - June 13, 2009

In last Friday’s edition, Mr. Paul Duffy’s column “R.I.P. GOP” attempted to “spin” the current state of affairs and history of the Republican Party in a manner which I believe must be challenged as many people unfamiliar with the complete history of the GOP might accept his mischaracterizations as the whole truth.

The GOP is the party of many of the greatest of the great in America’s proud history, including presidents Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. Republicans have historically been the faithful believers and promoters of limited government, the rule of law, individual freedom and responsibility and a free market economy. These beliefs are the key elements which have made America the greatest nation to ever have blessed this planet.

The Republican Party has a long and proud tradition of protecting and expanding the rights of our citizens. Despite the fact that modern-day Democrats would have the voters believe otherwise, it was their party that fought against freedom for slaves and against the rights of women to vote. Today, the Democratic Party stands for benefits for illegal immigrants and an unsustainable growth in the size and scope of government. An honest view of history shows it has been the Republicans who have stood for the underlying principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

I fully acknowledge that the Republican Party has made many missteps, just as the Democratic Party has. That is not the point. Massachusetts and the Nation need at least two functioning political parties. The example of one Party in control has proven to be a complete failure. One has to look no further than the current political, fiscal and ethical state of affairs on Beacon Hill.

Jeffrey Davis Perry
R-5th Barnstable

Simply stated, "A nation without borders is not a nation." These eight simple words were spoken by Ronald Reagan and really say all that is needed to be said regarding the problems of illegal immigration in America. From issues of national security, economic protectionism and even our nation’s own sovereignty, I believe one of the most important issues our country is currently facing is the ongoing and increasing threat of illegal immigration.

Without employment opportunities and access to public services and benefits, illegal immigrants simply would not be risking their lives to enter our borders. It really is nothing more than the old theory of supply and demand. If businesses did not hire illegals and government refused to allow access to entitlement programs, immigrants of illegal status would have virtually no reason to come to the United States in the first place.There is no doubt that this is primarily a federal government issue; however, since our elected officials in Washington, D.C. have failed to successfully address this issue, states like Massachusetts have no other real choice but to attempt to deal with the increasing burden these illegal immigrants are placing on our health care providers, criminal justice system, educational facilities and employers who are following the rules.

In an effort to reduce the number of illegals coming to Massachusetts, I have joined a group of legislators and filed a comprehensive legislative proposal that would prohibit the Commonwealth from doing business with employers who willfully employ illegal immigrants. This bi-partisan measure is being pushed for passage in hopes of sending a convincing message that government will not condone the employment of illegal immigrants. One of those political disconnections that so many seem unable to understand is that for each illegal immigrant who is employed, an American citizen does not have access to that job. Furthermore, wages for every unskilled worker is devalued, as illegals are almost always willing to accept wages which are less than the market rate.

Currently, there are no state requirements beyond the basic regulations of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act for employers to verify the immigration status of someone seeking employment. Thus, employers are only required to comply with the current weak federal requirements, which provide little, if any verification of an employee’s status.

Our Bill on the state level entitled “An Act to Promote Fair Employment and Security in the Commonwealth” comes on the heels of disturbing widespread media reports of employers doing business with the state and the hiring of workers with questionable immigration status. The Bill requires the state and all businesses that contract with the Commonwealth to ascertain and verify the immigration or citizenship status of their employees through available federal mechanisms. Failure to verify will result in the suspension or loss of contracts with the state.Additionally, the proposal targets the problem of false identification and imposes severe penalties for those who use false identification or falsify identification documents. Persons who use false identification to obtain or maintain employment from a business that contracts with the state will be subject to a fine of not more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than five years in a jail or house of correction for not more than two years. Perhaps the threat of jail time will serve as a sufficient deterrent for employers to hire illegal immigrants. Without the demand for illegal labor, it is certain the supply would be reduced.]

I welcome your comments on this column or any issue. I can be reached at 508-888-2158 or via my website, www.electjeffperry.com.

The 2010 proposed House of Representatives Budget has been released and will soon come to the floor for amendments and debate. Unfortunately, despite the difficult economy, it appears many legislators are lining up for their share of earmarks and pork.

The Republicans in the House made a valiant but unsuccessful effort to eliminate this practice with a number of amendments during the Budget Order Debate on April 14th. If adopted the budget process would have been more responsible and transparent. Sadly, the Majority Party rejected our attempts and it appears to be business as usual on Beacon Hill.

The Republicans offered amendments to eliminate budget earmarks, requiring amendments to feature summaries and fiscal notes, banning the use of consolidated amendments and prohibiting amendments that increase revenue, either new taxes or additional fees. Disappointingly, it seems the list of tax proposals continues to grow. As of last count, the proposals offered by Governor Patrick include:Gas Tax - Increase by .19 cents to make it the highest in the nation. Meals tax - Increase the statewide meals tax by 1 percentage point, to 6 percent, which would raise $125 million for next fiscal year. Also give municipalities the option to raise the tax by an additional 1 percentage point, to 7 percent.

Hotel tax - Increase the statewide hotel tax by 1 percentage point, to 6.75 percent, which would raise $24 million next fiscal year. Also give municipalities the option to raise the tax by an additional 1 percentage point, to 7.75 percent.

Alcohol, soda, and candy tax - Eliminate a tax exemption on sales of alcohol, soda, and candy. Currently, food sold outside of restaurants is exempt from the state's 5 percent sales tax; the governor wants to eliminate that exemption for certain items. For next fiscal year, the move would raise $150 million, $121.5 million of which would go to state coffers and $28.5 million to a fund used to build public schools. The proposal would have raised $24 million this year if the Legislature had implemented it by April 1.

RMV fees - Increase a variety of fees that residents pay when they go to the Registry of Motor Vehicles. All told, $74.5 million would be raised during the next fiscal year. It would have raised $18 million this year, if the Legislature had implemented it by April 1.

Telecommunication tax - Eliminate a tax exemption for telecommunications companies which would raise about $52 million.Bottle deposit fees - The state's 5-cents -per-container charge on carbonated sodas, beer, and malt beverages would be expanded to also include noncarbonated beverages like sports drinks, water, and juices. It would raise $20 million in state revenue for next fiscal year. If taxes are the answer to our slow economy, it should be to lower them and let the American people stimulate the economy. Government does not need or deserve any additional tax revenue. The well publicized ethical and patronage problems within state government need to be corrected rather than additional taxation of the hard working people of Massachusetts. Sadly, it once again appears the solution to this year’s budget crisis will be to continue the earmarking and pork spending with additional taxes to fund them.I welcome your comments on this column or any issue. I can be reached at 508-888-2158 or via my website, www.electjeffperry.com

It is that time of year again. The Massachusetts Legislature is about to begin our annual budget debate on Beacon Hill. While Governor Patrick and several liberal legislators are suggesting that the only way to solve our current fiscal situation is via new or increased taxation, the fact remains that the State budget is full of earmarks and special interest spending and we have seen very little reform. Taxes aren’t the solution to this economic situation.

Rather than focus on additional taxes, in this recession, government should be lowering taxes. It is Economics 101 that when government collects fewer taxes from the citizens, the additional money is put into the stream of commerce. This will stimulate economic activity, which leads to higher sales and employment tax collections and less people dependent on government programs and services. This is exactly the logic of the federal government lowering interest rates or sending everyone a rebate check when the economy slows down.

The Majority Party on Beacon Hill does not agree with such a proven economic theory and has proposed more than a dozen new or increased taxes. The most widely discussed has been Governor Patrick’s proposed 27-cent increase in the state gas tax. This would give us the highest such tax in the nation, at a total 50.5 cents of taxes per gallon. An increased gas tax will hurt those who least can afford it. Many folks of low or modest income are high consumers of gasoline and would bear the brunt of this increase.

In a direct assault to the tourism industry, Governor Patrick has revived his proposal to raise the meals tax and the hotel taxes. While tourists would be paying a portion of such increases, we all go out to eat and the psychological impact on the restaurant and hotel businesses is potentially devastating. If the message to would be visitors is that Massachusetts is raising our gasoline, meals and hotel taxes, it is only logical many would consider other vacation destinations.Other ideas of our tax-happy Governor include increasing Registry of Motor Vehicles fees. Governor Patrick is proposing to "update and consolidate" fees at the Registry to raise over $75 million in new revenue (taxes). The Governor has also proposed the sales tax exemption be eliminated on all alcohol, candy and sweetened beverage purchases. This idea would raise over $121 million to fund the growing size and scope of state government.

Not to focus his ideas on just alcohol, Governor Patrick also wants to add a new 5-cent deposit on noncarbonated drinks, including water, flavored water, coffee-based drinks, juices and sports drinks. This tax would raise $20 million annually as the state gets to retain the money for uncollected bottle deposits. We have also heard talk about vacation home rental taxes, higher income and sales taxes, and let us not forgot about those toll increases.

Instead of increasing taxes, I believe by putting more money into the hands of the hardworking American people, history shows that we see more people saving for their future needs (thus less need for government entitlements) and investing or spending into the stream of commerce (to stimulate our businesses and create employment). It is perhaps an overly obvious point, but one always worth pointing out, every time we get someone off a government assistance program and into a job, we gain in three distinct ways. First, government no longer has to subsidize the unemployed worker with unemployment or welfare benefits. Secondly, that same person is now a taxpaying contributor to government via their payroll taxes, sales taxes and social security contributions. And thirdly, and perhaps most importantly for the long-term, this individual is now a productive member of society with a sense of self-worth and pride.

If taxes are the answer to our slow economy, it should be to lower them and let the American people stimulate the economy. Government does not need or deserve any additional tax revenue. The well publicized ethical and patronage problems within state government need to be corrected rather than additional taxation of the hard working people of Massachusetts.I welcome your comments on this column or any issue. I can be reached at 508-888-2158 or via my website, www.electjeffperry.com

Pension Reform – The Time is NOW!
By Representative Jeffrey D. Perry (R-Sandwich)

The news media is correct in calling for reform to the State pension system. Citizens have a right to be angry about the many abuses that are inherent in the current system. Through reform, we can repair the system while making sure it is still viable for the hard working state employees.

To start, pensions must be calculated on average lifetime salary. Currently, we use the three highest paying years as the basis for pension benefits. This often greatly and unfairly inflates pension benefits. We must also redefine “compensation” by limiting it to salary, and excluding overtime, bonuses and additional perks, such as housing allowances and mileage reimbursements. This will eliminate extremely exorbitant retirement packages that make front page news and drain our pension resources.

The many abuses of elected officials must be eliminated once and for all. Retirement allowances must be based on full years of work or prorated amounts worked. The “One Day-One Year” deal must no longer apply under this law. Finally, we must completely eliminate the extra pension payments for those officials who are voted out of office. The time for pension reform is now.

We as a state are certainly facing tough economic times, and no group of people is immune to the challenges we face due to the current financial situation, especially senior citizens. However, right now, seniors have an opportunity to obtain some much needed relief under a state property tax program, known as the “Senior Circuit Breaker Tax Credit.”

Over the seven years I have served in the Legislature, I have been proud to support and expand this great program. The program has the ability to help thousands of seniors not only stay in their homes, but limit their tax expenses.

This program allows residents who are 65 or older claim a credit of up to $930 on their income tax form for the property taxes they paid on their home in 2008. Seniors can apply for the tax credit if they meet certain income guidelines and if the assessed value of their home is $793,000 or less as of January 1, 2008. Single filers must not have an income of more than $49,000 a year and if filed jointly, the combined income must not exceed $74,000.Additionally, eligible taxpayers, who own their property may claim a credit equal to the amount of their property tax payments, including water and sewer debt charges exceeding 10% of their total income. Taxpayers who live in communities that do not include water and sewer debt service in their property tax assessments may claim 50% of the water and sewer charges actually paid during the tax year.I urge all residents age 65 and older to check out whether they are eligible for the senior circuit breaker tax credit. The credit is refundable, so even if you do not have any state tax liability, you may still qualify. The credit is also available to many renters.

More information about the current eligibility guidelines is available on the state’s Department of revenue website at www.dor.state.ma.us. Questions can also be directed to the Massachusetts Department of Revenue Customer Service Bureau at 617-887-MDOR or 800-392-6089. It is also advisable to contact your own tax preparer and discuss if you are eligible for the tax credit.If you have any ideas you’d like to share with us about making the Commonwealth more affordable for seniors, please feel free to call us at 508-888-2158 or via email. You can also e-mail me at electjeffperry@aol.com.

Over the decades since the Canal Power Plant was constructed, the issues of environmental protection, reliability of our power source, property taxes and others have been both emotional and difficult to reconcile. The Canal Plant consists of two power generation units capable of producing approximately 1,200 megawatts of electricity. That is enough electricity to power over 1 million homes. In comparison to many other plants, Canal is a large and important one. Each generation unit burns fuel oil to generate electricity into the energy grid. One of the units burns a low sulfur fuel oil and one can burn oil or natural gas, although due to the efficiencies involved, almost always burns low sulfur oil.

As has been widely reported, the price of oil has increased over the cost of natural gas recently and thus the Canal units are no longer competitive on an economic basis with others who are burning natural gas. In a purely free market energy system, this would result in the Canal units not operating. However, to ensure adequate reliability to Cape Cod and lower Southeastern Massachusetts, the regulatory agency known as “ISO,” requires one of the Canal units be operating for “reliability” purposes. Thus when a Canal unit is operating for “reliability,” the cost difference is passed on as “uplift” charge. The Canal Plant operating for reliability purposes only is an unacceptable situation for ratepayers, the environment and even the Mirant Corporation. There are no winners with the current state of the Canal Plant. I believe that ratepayers are entitled to the most cost effective solution and one that requires an evaluation of all available options.

To do so, I have cosponsored legislation that will require the Department of Public Utilities to complete a study of all technically feasible alternatives. Available options means new transmission lines, demand side resources, alternative peaking generation and new generation options, all of which need to be a part of the long term goals of reducing costs to the rate payers and reducing harmful emissions. I have also been encouraging Mirant to move towards repowering the existing Canal Plant with clean and efficient natural gas. In my discussions with them, Mirant has been cooperative and forthcoming with information, and I look forward to helping them pursue cleaner alternatives to the current oil burning facility. By supporting such a change to natural gas, I believe we all win.

On the issue of our high electric bills, by having a facility which is not required to operate when not needed, rate payers will avoid pass-along costs. Environmentally, natural gas is a significantly cleaner fuel than oil, and thus emissions would be drastically reduced. From a national security point of view, burning American natural gas would be a positive step in reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil. In addition, the Canal plant would be able to provide the Town of Sandwich with much needed tax revenue and the many employees who count on the plant to support their families would remain employed.Certainly there are those who want to shut down the plant in the name of environmental protection.This is shortsighted and I believe there is a better way. One that will save jobs, save tax revenue, maintains a stable source of electricity and is good for the environment. The solution for everyone is a conversion to clean natural gas.

The new legislative session has begun on Beacon Hill. It is expected that some 6,000 proposals will be filed this session, many of which are designed to expand the role of government. Regular readers of this column know that I am deeply concerned with the ever expanding size and scope of government. While most of the expansion of government’s power comes from legislative and executive branches, with increasing frequency, we need to be concerned about the judicial branch of government as well.

In what can only be described as one of the most significant reductions to property rights in America, in the case Kelo vs. New London, the United States Supreme Court ruled for the first time that taking private property by right of eminent domain for the purpose of economic development satisfies the "public use" requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. As a refresher for those who have not read the Bill of Rights recently, the 5th Amendment Takings Clause states, “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Respect for private property rights is a founding principle of our nation and serves an important role in our modern political economy. It is my strong belief that the policy set forth in the Court's majority opinion goes against the intent of our Founding Fathers and our Constitutional history.

Up until this decision, private property rights have been held to the highest esteem and we as a society have made sure eminent domain takings are limited to situations where there is clear necessity to seize property in the name of the public good, such as new public hospitals, schools and transportation improvements. This decision is a direct assault on the rights of all Americans and a significant step against freedom to own property. As pointed out in the dissenting opinion, the Court abandoned the long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be economically upgraded.

This decision and general mindset of the liberals of the Supreme Court should greatly disturb every American.In an effort to protect our citizens from abusive governmental takings and to make sure the Supreme Court's ruling does not adversely impact our laws here in Massachusetts, it is necessary to expand the existing protections offered by our laws at the state level. We must lead the charge to ensure the citizens of Massachusetts are not subject to an overactive Court with a liberal agenda, which increasingly seems to have a desire to be in the legislative business. All courts owe the principal of separation of powers deference to a legislature’s judgment concerning the public policy of whether the government owns, or the public has a legal right to use, the taken property.

In this next session, Republicans will support proactive changes to the statutory components and amend Chapters 121A, 121B, and 121C of the Massachusetts General Laws. This would clearly state that the taking of property for the sole purpose of economic development, except under a few very limited circumstances, shall not be permitted in the Commonwealth. For maximum protection for property owners and tax payers, a Constitutional Amendment to the first paragraph of Article X to the Massachusetts Constitution is needed.

I have cosponsored language for such an amendment, which would mirror the statutory changes and make permanently enshrined in our State Constitution the protections Americans already thought were provided by the Bill of Rights. Each and every elected official in office on the state or federal level should be talking about our efforts to protect private property rights.

This is not solely a Republican or a conservative issue. This decision strikes at the core of American founding freedoms as we know them. The potential abuses of ever growing governmental power must be trimmed back as they continue to step over into our freedoms.

Please feel free to view my entire legislative agenda on my website at www.electjeffperry.com.

This month’s column will be a little different than the usual discussion of a current issue on Beacon Hill. For my last column of 2008, I feel compelled to offer a few reflections on the culture of Massachusetts politics and the need for Republicans to focus on certain core principles.

Traditionally, it would be assumed that the Republican Party would be standing firmly against any and all attempts to expand government. Unfortunately as much as I wish this was our stance one-hundred percent of the time, it is not. This we have seen from the recent bailouts in Washington D.C. where Democrats and Republicans continue to spend, spend and spend.Whether it is because of the fear of being labeled as not being politically correct or intimidated by the numerous and powerful special interest groups that permeate our political system really matters not.

Republicans need to always base our votes and political efforts on principle and never allow the noise of the liberals or the lobbyists to get us off track. It must be a core principle of my Party to firmly stand up against government waste and corporate give-a-ways.Now, while it is relative easy for Republican elected officials to agree in theory, in practice things are often not that simple and straightforward. From my observations serving in the House of Representatives, at times people of principle sometimes do get side tracked and forget about their core values and beliefs. The reasons are many, but not the least which is culturally based. That’s right, cultural. I am referring to a political culture that exists within the walls of the Massachusetts State House and I would suspect in the halls of Congress as well.The longer one is in office and the more time you physically spend in the building, increases the potential you may suffer from what many call “drinking the Kool Aid.”

If you spend enough time “in the building” it can become rather easy to forget the very reason you ran for political office in the first place.This is not a Republican or Democrat phenomenon, even Deval Patrick when he was running for Governor spoke to the way things are on Beacon Hill. During a debate on September 7, 2006, he made the pitch to the voters that he could change the political culture if elected, “I have no obligations, no debts to the political establishment on Beacon Hill. If you want the same old same old, the politics of money and connections, I'm not your guy. But if what you want is the politics of hope and a change of culture on Beacon Hill, I am your guy, and I want your vote."From my observations, whether or not the Governor is fulfilling this promise, along with many other campaign promises is doubtful, but it cannot be denied that what occurs inside the State House and in the halls of Congress is quite different than what the good citizens of Massachusetts would like to see from their government.

Unfortunately, Republicans serving in state capitols and in Washington, D.C. sometimes also get swept away by the pomp and circumstance of elected office and in an effort to get along with the current power structure in government, they become an engrained piece of the existing culture. In most jobs it is totally normal when you start off in a new position that you want to be viewed as a team player and someone who is cooperative with the leadership. However, if you entered the political arena, especially in Massachusetts, with the sincere desire to change the culture of Beacon Hill, you have to be willing to stand up against it and believe me, this can be a lonely and uncomfortable place to be at times.

While I acknowledge that Beacon Hill or Washington, D.C. are not going to change overnight, Republicans need to remember that when we forget the very reason we entered office they end up getting in line for their share of pork barrel spending or vote for some bailout. We must never become agreeable to increased taxation, allow procedural abuses of the political process or support the efforts for government’s power to expand.2009 and 2010 will be difficult fiscal years for government. Such times call for leadership to truly reform government.

The alternatives of higher taxation or cutting core services are simply unacceptable. I pledge to continue the fight for a more responsible and accountable state government.

I wish everyone a safe and healthy New Year and thank you allowing me to serve in the legislative for this coming term.

As we close the 2007-2008 Legislative session at the State House in Boston, I am pleased to share some positive steps we have made in honoring our service members and veterans. While there are many hotly contested political battles on Beacon Hill, I am proud of the work Republicans and Democrats have done together for important issues related to our Veterans.

We provided over $18.5 million for Veterans Annuities and last year, tens of thousands of Massachusetts veterans, including all 100% service connected disabled veterans, received state annuity benefits. “The Welcome Home Bill” increased the annual amount of annuities benefits to $2000 and expanded eligibility to include Gold Star Spouses. This year, the Legislature approved more than $420,000 of new annuity funding over the FY08 level to ensure that these benefits will continue to be provided to an increasing population.The Legislature also passed Chapter 115 which increases veterans’ benefits by some $5.7million over last year’s level

The current budget includes $20,904,223 in funding for benefits for veterans in need. This is a one-of-a-kind program in the Nation establish by the Massachusetts Legislature. Massachusetts is once again on the forefront of providing new and additional state level benefits.For the second year in a row, the budget included language that ensures local veterans agents/services officers receive sufficient training from the state Department of Veterans’ Services to implement the Chapter 115 program mentioned above. The language also guarantees that such trainings will take place in several accessible locations across the Commonwealth, including at the Massachusetts Veterans’ Service Officers Association training conferences.

One of the most important programs funded this year is the Newly Created “Special Commission to Study the Hidden Wounds of War.” This 19-member special commission is charged with examining the establishment of a mandatory mental health treatment program for National Guard members, a state military family leave policy for primary caregivers of returning service members. In addition, a statewide education training program was established to assist law enforcement, corrections officers and other first responders in recognizing the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. More than 30,000 service members have returned home to the Commonwealth since September 11, 2001, many who face unique challenges.

We also provided $3.4 million for National Guard Tuition and Fee Waivers. The House of Representatives approved $3,424,492 for this program, which first went into effect in July 2006. This program waives tuition and fees for Massachusetts National Guard members who attend state and community colleges. As many Guardsmen are aware, a significant part of their education costs are fees and these additional funds are a great step to supporting the educational benefit they have earned. There are approximately 7,000 members of the Massachusetts Air and Army National Guard.

As I am sure all are aware, the Commonwealth is facing a difficult fiscal period, one which will likely last several years. There will certainly be cuts to state spending and future budgets, but hopefully none to the many worthy and needed programs and services to our service members and veterans.

If I can ever be of assistance to anyone who has proudly worn the uniform of the United States military, please feel free to contact me at 508-888-2158.

I was recently pleased to read of the Cape Cod Times endorsement of my reelection. I especially appreciate the recognition of my efforts against wasteful spending by State government. As from my perspective, Beacon Hill is crowded with too many folks who are more than willing to go along the culture of taxing and spending.

As clearly displayed from the recent economic news, too many elected officials are more than willing to say yes to each and every spending proposal before them. The culture of overspending needs to change and I am energized to continue my efforts at the state level. For the last six years, I, along with many other good government minded Republicans and Democrats have been trying to change the culture that is Massachusetts State politics. We have had many successes, but much more work is yet to be done.For example, during the debate on the annual state’s budget, I took the floor of the House of Representatives and said that in the face of a slowing economy and likely declining State revenue collections, the Commonwealth should not be increasing spending and taxation. I argued that our level of spending increase is unsustainable and I suspected that further tax increases may soon be proposed in order to support current spending levels or we would see drastic cuts to essential services.

Furthermore, I argued that the budget proposal process itself was flawed as it included a $310 million withdrawal from the State stabilization fund. At the end of the debate with a bloated State budget including more than $290 million in new taxes and with special interest and earmark spending pervading the entire budget process, I made the choice to vote against the budget. While I knew the overspending would ultimately catch up to us, the Governor and legislative leaders seemed not to be overly concerned as they put their respective rubber stamps on the $28.2 billion dollar budget, which is the largest in our history. Now less than three months later, the Governor has been forced to cut over $1 billion.

At a recent Ways & Means Committee, where I serve a Minority member, unfortunately the bulk of the discussion was on enhancing revenue (new taxes) and not on embracing reforms. While many are more than willing to push the “yes” button in favor of any taxing and spending proposal, I believe we as elected officials at all levels need to do a better job at thinking about those taxpayers who are struggling to make ends meet. Taxpayers need relief on their property taxes, gasoline taxes and income taxes, none of which are on the horizon as long as State government continues to increase the State budget year after year.

Voting “no” is politically difficult, but it is completely necessary as we simply cannot afford to enact new spending proposals without harming our ability to deliver core services. Until we see more fiscal restraint we are unlikely to have the financial resources to address the appropriate roles of government such as education, public safety, transportation and care for those who cannot care for themselves. The disconnection I see in State government is that each time we expend funds for a wasteful or unnecessary program or inappropriate earmark, it reduces our ability to deliver core services to those really in need. There is a direct connection that when government spends your tax dollars inappropriately, it either reduces spending to core services or raises taxes. Neither is an acceptable choice. We can do better, and yes, we need change. I ask for your support so I can continue to fight for positive change on Beacon Hill.

Back in July, during the State’s annual budget debate, I took the floor of the House of Representatives and said that in the face of a slowing economy and likely declining State revenue collections, the Commonwealth should not be increasing spending and taxation. I argued that our level of spending increase is unsustainable and I suspected that further tax increases may soon be proposed in order to support current spending levels or we would see drastic cuts to essential services.

I also argued that the budget proposal process was flawed as it included a $310 million withdrawal from the State stabilization fund. At the end of the debate with a bloated State budget including more than $290 million of new revenue coming from new corporate taxes and $174 million in increased taxes on cigarettes, and special interest and earmark spending pervading the entire budget process, I made the choice to vote against the budget. While many on Beacon Hill and in Washington, D.C. are more than willing to say yes to each and every spending proposal before them, I believe it is irresponsible to continue to allow your tax dollars being inappropriately spent on things that are not the core role of government. Many folks, including Senator McCain and Senator Obama are calling for change in Washington, D.C. I completely agree. The culture of our overspending needs to change. But before we lay all the blame in our Nation’s Capitol, we should also be working to put Beacon Hill back on the right track.

For the last six years, I, along with many other good government minded Republicans and Democrats have been trying to change the culture which is Massachusetts State politics. We have had many successes, but much more work is left to be done.While I knew the overspending would catch up to us, the Governor and legislative leaders seemed not to be overly concerned as they put their respective rubber stamps on the $28.2 billion dollar budget. Now less than two months after the final State Budget was enacted, the Governor is suggesting we are in a budget crisis. While he has not detailed the full extent of the fiscal problem, he has told all of the State agency administrators to look for ways to make cuts as estimates add up to $1 billion in potential problems.

As decisions about spending cuts will continue over the next few months, I suspect such cuts will not be to those who have connected friends on Beacon Hill. While many are more than willing to push the “yes” button in favor of any spending proposal, I believe we as elected officials need to do a better job at thinking about those who are struggling to make ends meet. Taxpayers need relief on their property taxes, gasoline taxes and income taxes, none of which are on the horizon as long as State government continues to increase the State budget year after year.Voting “no” is politically difficult, but it is completely necessary as we simply cannot afford to enact new spending proposals without harming our ability to deliver core services. Until we see more fiscal restraint in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., we are unlikely to have the financial resources to address the appropriate roles of government such as education, public safety, transportation and care for those who cannot care for themselves.

Each time we expend funds for a wasteful or unnecessary program or inappropriate earmark, it reduces our ability to deliver core services to those really in need. There is a direct connection that when government spends your tax dollars inappropriately, it either reduces spending to core services or raises taxes. Neither is an acceptable choice. We can do better, and yes, we need change. I ask for your support so I can continue to fight for positive change on Beacon Hill.

The formal Legislative Session ended at midnight on July 31st and although the House and Senate are still meeting a couple of times each week in informal meetings, the bulk of the work has been completed for this year. This past session brought some good news in several areas, including increases to local aid support to local communities and improved consumer choice for auto insurance. But there is also bad news in other areas such as the failure to successfully address the issues with the Fair Plan homeowners’ insurance rates and the double digit increases to our out of control health care system.

For this month’s column I am pleased to discuss the passage of several important environmental bills which I supported. These legislative initiatives are aimed to further protect the Commonwealth’s natural resources and implement proactive measures to help ensure continued environmental protections. Massachusetts’ ocean waters are under increasing pressure for various sources. A new law, known as the Oceans Act, creates a first-in-the-nation ocean planning process to safeguard our marine resources. The law establishes an ocean advisory commission and an ocean science advisory council to assist the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs with the ocean planning process. The law also ensures that existing uses of the ocean, like fishing and boating, are protected. Another important piece of legislation which passed is the Green Communities Act. This comprehensive energy reform package encourages energy efficiency and promotes the development of renewable energy resources.

Under the new law, the State will make energy efficiency programs compete in the market with traditional energy supply. Utility companies will offer rebates and other incentives for customers to upgrade lighting, appliances, air conditioning and industrial equipment to more efficient models whenever those incentives cost less than generating the electricity it would take to power their older, less-efficient equipment.

The "Green Jobs" Bill establishes the Massachusetts Clean Energy Technology Center to serve as the State's lead agency to promote and develop the clean energy sector. The Center will promote workforce training in the clean energy sector and provide support to existing clean energy companies in the Commonwealth through the establishment and administration of job growth grants. The Bill creates two types of job growth grants to be administered by the Center: Clean Energy Seed Grants and Green Jobs Initiative Grants. The $1.78 billion Environmental Bond Bill was also passed near the end of the session and will preserve and improve the Commonwealth's "green infrastructure" through targeted investments in open spaces, parks, beaches, and recreation facilities across Massachusetts. The Bill provides over $600 million in borrowing authority for infrastructure and park assets, $250 million for design and construction of DCR-maintained bridges and over $350 million for land conservation.

The Phosphorous Bill also passed and phases out the sale of dishwasher detergent containing phosphorous. As a prime contributor to nutrient-loads in freshwater ponds, lakes and rivers, excessive phosphorous can lead to fish kills, algae and poor clarity in freshwater sources. Alternatives to phosphorous exist and are available. This legislation allows for a sufficient period for retailers to clear out their inventory before selling only the cleaner detergents.The Land Conservation Tax Incentives legislation provides a State income tax credit to encourage landowners to donate property or to sell it for conservation land at below the assessed value.

This is a necessary tool for the State as we lose 40 acres of land every day to development. Undeveloped open-space land is important because it provides land for watershed protection, wildlife habitat, agriculture and forestry production, scenic and cultural value and archaeological and historical resources. While there is much more work to be done on many issues, this past session was very successful for the protection of our natural resources. As always, I welcome your comments on this column or in general.

Please feel free to telephone my District Office at 508-888-2158 or visit my website at www.electjeffperry.com

The Legislature has finally reached an agreement on the more than $28.3 billion Fiscal Year 2009 State budget. The State budget has grown each and every year in its size and scope. This year is no different. The fact is that the State budget has never been larger and is chalk full of earmarks and special interest spending. Unfortunately, even despite a slowing economy, the pace of unsustainable spending continues.

I am not suggesting that the entire State budget is bad news. The local aid distributions to our schools and towns continue to show improvement. During the six years I have served on Beacon Hill, the Upper Cape communities have seen an over thirty-percent increase in State aid. This is real progress for which many deserve credit. In this month’s column, I want to share with you some very positive steps the Commonwealth has taken in the area of Education.The 2009 Budget reflects educational aid amounts agreed to by Democrats and Republicans in the local aid resolution adopted on March 12th. This early resolution was adopted in order to assist cities, towns and regional school districts in their budget planning process. It includes an additional $223 million for Chapter 70 funding, providing a record level of $3.9 Billion. This reflects our continued commitment to address the long-standing concerns over the equity of the formula by phasing in the third year of an anticipated five year plan. As the Ranking Member on the Education Committee, Chapter 70 funding remains one of my primary focuses.

I am pleased to report that this Budget provides $2.9 million for continued support for Reading Recovery programs. I have been a strong supporter of early intervention literacy programs as they clearly improve the performance of children who are at-risk of failing to read by the end of first grade. By investing a relatively small amount of money during the early grades, we are better serving our students and saving a significant amount of funding which would likely be needed for remediation in later grades.

The entire Cape Delegation has been working together on regional school transportation. The FY09 budget presents $3 million more than the FY08 budget level. This addition brings such funding to $61.3 million. These funds are critically important to regional school districts for which transportation costs are often a significant portion of their overall operating budgets.For the fourth consecutive year, the Budget includes funding for the Statewide pilot program testing a model of delivery for special education transportation services. The cost of these services has considerably outpaced the rise in regular education transportation in recent years.

The goal of the pilot program is to demonstrate how a quality service with efficiency can be enhanced with more collaboration for out-of-district transportation. Over the next fiscal year, the pilot program will be expanded to ten collaborative districts which will serve the entire State. The Conference Committee budget provides full funding for the special education circuit breaker for FY09 estimated costs, funding the line at $230,043,700. This important program provides State financial assistance to local school districts for high-cost special education students.I am also very pleased that the Legislature has continued its commitment to funding programs for the Commonwealth’s highest achieving students, appropriating $750,000 for Gifted and Talented education.

While we have a long way to go to provide adequate programs and services to our brightest students, we are making progress in this area.In other education related areas, the approved Budget increases funding for school-to-work programs by $320,000 over last year’s funding level, providing a total of $3.12 million. This amount includes a $245,000 earmark for Junior Achievement, a provider of programs in K-12 classrooms in the subject areas of entrepreneurship, workforce readiness, and economic and financial literacy.While the overall State budget continues to be full of much wasteful spending and unnecessary earmarks, in the area of local aid and education the Legislature is doing a good job.

I am pleased to serve on the Education and Ways and Means Committees and support such laudable efforts to provide a proper education to our children.I welcome your comments on this column or in general. Please feel free to telephone my District Office at 508-888-2158 or visit my website at www.electjeffperry.com

State spending simply not sustainable

With little time left in the legislative session the House and Senate have finally reached an agreement on the $28.3 billion Fiscal Year 2009 budget. In my six years in office, the State budget has grown each and every year in its size and scope. This year is no different.

The fact is that the State budget has never been larger and is full of earmarks and special interest spending. Despite a slowing economy, the pace of unsustainable spending continues. Although it is politically easier to vote “yes” at the end of the annual budget debate, this year’s budget presents an irresponsible spending and taxation plan. A favorable vote would not have been responsible.This bloated State budget is a 5.3% increase from last year’s budget, with more than $290 million of revenue coming from new corporate taxes and $174 million in increased taxes on cigarettes. Corporate and tobacco tax increases are just the start of the fiscal problem.

The real potential crisis is that the Commonwealth is essentially spending money it does not have by counting on “projected” new tax revenues, as well as dipping into the State’s rainy day fund to make up the difference for their excess spending. In fact, when the money withdrawn from the State’s savings account is added to the interest not reinvested, the budget writers are spending some $508 million from the rainy day fund to balance this year’s budget. This includes a $310 million withdrawal from the state stabilization fund, $107 million that will be spent instead of being transferred into the fund, and $91 million in fund interest not reinvested.

While many are more than willing to push the “yes” button in favor of any spending proposal, I believe we as elected officials need to do a better job at thinking about those who are struggling to make ends meet. Taxpayers need relief on their property taxes, gasoline taxes and income taxes, none of which are on the horizon as long as State government continues to increase the State budget year after year.I am not suggesting that the entire State budget is bad news. The local aid distributions to our schools and towns continue to show improvement. Some additional and much needed funding for our judicial system and National Guard was also included. However, when all the appropriate spending items are added together with all the earmarks, new social welfare programs and the double digit increases in health care costs, something has to give sooner or later.

In the face of a slowing economy and likely declining State revenue collections, the Commonwealth is increasing spending and taxation at a rate of 5.3 percent increase over the $26.8 billion budget approved last July for fiscal 2008. This level of spending increase is unsustainable and I suspect that further tax increases may be soon proposed in order to support current spending levels. Rumors around the State House include increases to the meals tax, another cent on the sales tax and a new telecommunications tax to name just a few.

I do my very best to remain consistent and protect the taxpayers’ hard earned dollars. Massachusetts and our Nation need more people in office that refuse to go along with unsustainable spending proposals. Voting “no” is difficult, but necessary when we simply cannot afford to enact a new spending proposal. Until we see more fiscal restraint, we likely will not have the financial resources to address the appropriate roles of government, such as education, public safety, transportation and care for those who cannot care for themselves. For each time we expend funds for a wasteful or unnecessary program, it reduces our ability to deliver core services to those really in need. There is a direct connection that when government spends your tax dollars inappropriately, it either reduces spending to core services or raises taxes. Neither is an acceptable choice.

Representative Jeffrey Davis Perry

As the Commonwealth’s Fiscal Year 2009 budget process approaches its final stages, I am growing more and more concerned about the overspending in state government. While it is yet to be finalized, next year’s state budget will be the largest in history and full of wasteful spending and earmarks.

“Earmarking” is the custom of funding special projects without going through the usual public hearing and voting process. Not only does this process disengage the public and media from an open and honest process and encourage back room dealing, but it also often pressures legislators to vote for an overall budget bill, even when it is far too expensive. For example, if a legislator is successful at convincing the political leaders to include a specific local earmark in the budget, often times such a legislator is now committed to voting for the overall budget.

What if the legislator believes the overall budget is irresponsible or does not include adequate funding for areas of concern, such as education, transportation or public safety? This culture of political deal making is at the center of what is wrong with our government. While certainly a difficult question for some as to what the proper approach for an elected legislator should be, I firmly believe such a political culture fosters back room deals and excessive spending. If we are ever going to get our government spending under control, elected officials need to get off the gravy train of excessive spending and fund only the legitimate functions of government. I also believe that the entire political process should be within the view of the public. As you may or may not know, the Legislature is exempt from the state’s Open Meeting Law and conducts a significant part of its business behind closed doors. While it would be impossible for each and every discussion in a 160 person House of Representatives to be in the public’s view, over the years the political process has steadily been moving out of the view of the people. This trend needs to be reversed.

As a member of the minority political party, our role is often to serve as a watchdog of the process and defender of the taxpayer. In keeping with these tasks, every Republican in the House decided that the proposed State Budget was simply packed with too much wasteful spending (along with new taxes) and thus we voted against it. My fear is, as spending continues to rise each and every year and with revenues slowing, state government will soon be looking to increased taxes to off-set increased spending.On the Federal level, and as John McCain recently noted as part of his longstanding, principled, and often lonely battle against pork barrel spending and earmarks, "Earmarked dollars have doubled just since 2000, and more than tripled in the last 10 years. This explosion in earmarks led one lobbyist to deride the appropriations committees as favor factories. The time for us to fix this broken process is long overdue."For my part in the House of Representatives, I do my very best to remain consistent and protect the taxpayers’ hard earned dollars. Massachusetts and our Nation needs more people in office that refuse to go along with wasteful spending proposals. Until this happens, we likely will not have the financial resources to address the appropriate roles of government, such as our educational, public safety, and transportation needs. For each time we expend funds for a wasteful or unnecessary program, it reduces our ability to deliver core services to those really in need.

Thank you for reading my editorial. As always, I welcome your comments. I can be reached via e-mail at jeff@electjeffperry.com or at my District Office at 508-888-2158.

A recent Cape Cod Times editorial “Budget Realities” was right on target discussing budget pork and excessive earmarking. In case you are not familiar with “earmarking” it is the practice of funding certain “pet” or special projects without going through the usual public hearing and voting process. During the annual budget process, this issue often rears its ugly head.

For example, if a legislator is successful at convincing the political leaders to include a specific local earmark for the legislator, is such a legislator now committed to voting for the overall budget? What if the legislator believes the budget is irresponsible or does not include adequate funding for areas of concern, such as education, transportation or public safety? OK, I admit it, elected officials are in an extremely tough position on this issue.

If a legislator gets in the budget line too often for their special local or pet projects, they are often correctly criticized for wasting taxpayer money. On the other hand, if a legislator decides to take a principled position and say no to “bringing home the bacon,” it is entirely possible that a future political opponent will accuse them of being an ineffective elected official. While certainly a difficult question for some as to what the proper approach for an elected legislator should be, and one that has gone on in Washington, D.C. and state houses from sea to shining sea for a very long time, I firmly believe such a political culture has gone too far. Legislators need to get off the gravy train of excessive spending. Republicans especially must return to what the people expect and need us to be, the political party of fiscal restraint and only responsible government spending.

On the Federal level, and as John McCain recently noted as part of his longstanding, principled, and often lonely battle against pork barrel spending and earmarks, "Earmarked dollars have doubled just since 2000, and more than tripled in the last 10 years. This explosion in earmarks led one lobbyist to deride the appropriations committees as favor factories. The time for us to fix this broken process is long overdue."This year on Beacon Hill, every Republican in the House decided that the proposed State Budget was simply packed with too much wasteful spending (along with new taxes) and thus we voted against it. While it is difficult to avoid feeding at the pork barrel trough, I do my very best to stay consistent and protect the taxpayers’ money. If we had more Republicans (or Democrats who were willing to stand up to their party leaders) in office to refuse to go along with wasteful spending proposals, we as a Commonwealth would likely have the financial resources to address the appropriate roles of government, such as our educational, public safety, and transportation needs. Until we have a more balanced system of government in Massachusetts, the annual pork fest is likely to continue.

After nearly a year and a half of legislative wrangling, I am extremely pleased to report that we have made significant progress to better protect our children from sexual predators. As regular readers of this column will recall, I am a cosponsor of the Massachusetts versions of Jesscia’s Law, also known as House Bill 1688.

Jessica’s Law is named after Jessica Lunsford, a young Florida girl who was raped and murdered in February 2005 by John Couey, a previously convicted sex offender. Couey had been sentenced to ten years in prison but was paroled early. Public outrage over this case resulted in Florida officials passing this legislation and prompted many other states to propose and pass similar laws. While some forty plus other states have strengthened such laws, Massachusetts is lagging behind.The Bill was stuck in Committee with a few legislators apparently expressing concerns over minimum mandatory prison sentences. In my opinion such mandatory sentences greatly improve the safety of our children across the Commonwealth by mandating minimum sentencing for such crimes like rape of a child with the use of force as well as mandatory minimum sentences for other child victim crimes.

The good news is that because of pressure from those of us who are demanding action on this Bill, including thousands of calls from citizens and increased media attention, the Attorney General, the District Attorneys Association and several key legislative leaders announced last week that they support many of the provisions of Jessica’s Law.While the revised proposal still faces a debate and is subject to changing, currently the key highlights are under Chapter 265, §13B ½ which now define aggravated indecent assault and battery on a child under 14. This is a new offense in Massachusetts and clearly states that a child under 14 shall be deemed incapable of consenting to any sexual conduct of an adult defendant. The mandatory minimum sentence is 10 years.

The aggravating factors include; the act was committed when the defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon; the act was committed during the commission of certain crimes including armed robbery, unarmed robbery, breaking and entering, entering without breaking, breaking and entering into a dwelling house, kidnapping, armed robbery, unarmed robbery, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, assault with a dangerous weapon, home invasion, posing or exhibiting a child in a state of nudity.Also under Chapter 265, §13B ¾; Aggravated indecent assault and battery on a child under 14 – 2nd offense, (also a new offense). The introduction into evidence of a prior conviction or prior finding of sufficient fact shall be deemed prima facie (valid on it’s face) evidence of a prior conviction and shall be self-authenticating. The mandatory minimum sentence in 15 years. This is a great new tool to keep repeat offenders is prison.

These two new offenses are significant progress in protecting our children and society from repeat sex offenders. While the Bill as proposed is not perfect, it is significant progress. When the Bill reaches the House floor for a formal vote, I will be working to improve some of the language to add additional crimes and minimum sentences.I would like to close this month’s column by thanking all the citizens who took the time to call and write the State House and lobby for passage of this Bill. Without a doubt, absent the pressure from the people and media, I am confident the recent progress would not have been achieved.

This is yet another example that despite the special interest that often controls the political agenda, the people can, and do still have the inherent power to force their government to do the right thing.

Our Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court got it 100% correct last week when they held sexual predators can be convicted for simply “enticing” children, including via computer instant messages. While we have made a great deal of success in recent years with convicting, registering and tracking sex offenders, Massachusetts continues to lag behind the rest of the Country in regard to the imposition of tough minimum mandatory prison sentences for those who commit the most unspeakable crimes against children.

As the Ranking Member of the Public Safety Committee and to ensure appropriate punishment for repeat sex offenders who victimize our most vulnerable citizens, I am one of the co-sponsors of House Bill 1688 which is a Massachusetts version of “Jessica’s Law.” Jessica’s Law is named after Jessica Lunsford a young Florida girl who was raped and murdered in February 2005 by John Couey, who was a previously convicted sex offender. Couey had been sentenced to ten years in prison but was paroled early. Public outrage over this case resulted in Florida officials passing this legislation and prompted many other states to propose and pass similar laws. Unfortunately, not yet in Massachusetts as the Bill remains stuck in the legislative process.Just as was successfully done in Florida following the massive media coverage, as a proponent of Jessica’s Law in Massachusetts, we are attempting to engage the public’s interest to put political pressure on other legislators who may not appreciate the need of strengthening our laws regarding the protection of our children.

All too often, the Massachusetts Legislature and government in general is a reactionary institution, almost waiting for a horrific case to come forward before we take action. This My View is a call to action for the citizens to let their elected officials hear their voice.The time to act is now, before one more child is victimized, or before some convict who was released early from prison commits some terrible act on an innocent victim. The Bill we are promoting creates minimum sentencing for the worst crimes against our children, which is the best way to keep these dangerous predators away from our children.

From my point of view, some individuals in our society cannot be rehabilitated and need to be incarcerated for long periods of time. House Bill 1688 would greatly improve safety for our children across the Commonwealth by establishing mandatory minimum sentencing for rape of a child with the use of force as well as mandatory minimum sentences for other child victim crimes. It would also ensure more effective and accurate monitoring by requiring all sex offenders to register with the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) for life.

In additional, the Bill contains increased and well defined punishments for posing a child in a state of nudity. This is intended to ensure jail time by eliminating the option for a judge to charge a fine which is the status of the law today. Why Massachusetts has failed to move this legislation along is beyond me. While I understand the Legislature has many issues before it, the protection of our children should be a priority for prompt consideration.

If you care about this issue, let your voice be heard by calling our legislators before we are debating this Bill only after some terrible crime hits the front page of the newspaper. Jeffrey D. Perry
5th Barnstable State Representative

As a Republican Legislator in Massachusetts, many times my point of view does not prevail. Our efforts to increase local aid, strengthen our criminal justice system and keep taxes low are often overridden by the Majority Party. As a political party in this blue state, my GOP often complains about abuses of the legislative process, but it is not only conservative proposals that face the procedural abuses of the Beacon Hill political culture.

A proposed health care Constitutional Amendment which would guarantee “comprehensive, affordable, and equitably financed health insurance coverage” for all state residents was not allowed to continue through the process and reach the voters. Let me be clear, I oppose universal health care, but the underlying issue is not the point of this story. It is the integrity of the process itself that most concerns me.

Supporters of the proposed amendment followed the rules and collected enough signatures to put the question before their representatives and senators. During the first vote on the question, ninety-two members voted in favor. If allowed to come to the floor again, the amendment needed the approval of just one-quarter of the Legislature or fifty affirmative votes on a second vote to be placed on the ballot. Unfortunately, when the proposed amendment came back to the Constitutional Convention for the required second vote, there would be no vote at all, and the question died. Despite the fact the Constitution requires a formal “yes” or “no” vote those who control the process choose simply not to honor the plain meaning of our State Constitution.

The Committee for Health Care for Massachusetts who was the driving force behind the proposed amendment filed a lawsuit. The complaint asked the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to consider the ninety-two votes from the first vote as votes in favor of the amendment during the first required vote was adequate to place it on the ballot in November of 2008. While the Massachusetts high Court rejected the request, the Court noted that this was the second time in the past three years legislators failed to uphold their Constitutional duty to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment after citizens had obtained the required signatures.

This question was brought forward by the people of the Commonwealth under Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution, and just like other issues, the rights of the people of Massachusetts to redress their government had been denied and apparently there is no remedy. From my point of view and as declared by our Supreme Judicial Court, not casting a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment is not consistent with the intent and plain meaning of Article 48. The signers of these petitions have a right to have a vote, and once again this right has been denied.Article 48 also provides the necessary protections against potential abuses of special interest groups or corrupt individuals to invalidate the acts by their elected representatives in the Legislature.

From my perspective, Article 48 is a brilliant addition to the personal rights of the citizens as it reinforces other Constitutional protections established by our Founders, including the separation of powers between the branches of government, frequent elections of legislators and the ability to impeach a governor.Wherever you stand on this issue, you should be extremely concerned that the initiative petition process is being ignored by many of your elected officials. This is a dangerous precedent being set by your government, and I am fearful what abuse of the democratic process may be next.

I welcome your comments on this issue or any other matter dealing with your State Government. Please feel free to call my District Office at 508-888-2158 or e-mail me at electjeffperry@aol.com.

Governor Deval Patrick made some pretty big promises to the voters during his 2006 campaign by declaring that if elected he would make it a priority to ease the growing burden on homeowners. To date, his promise has remained unfulfilled, but this has not stopped another attempt to pander to yet another group of voters.

Recently, Democratic Representative Ruth Balser of Newton successfully pushed through the House of Representatives (Senate has yet to approve) a proposal which exempts senior citizens from the impacts of Proposition 2½ local property tax overrides. In case you are not familiar with Proposition 2½, it limits the amount of taxes a city or town may generate from local property taxes each year to fund municipal expenses.

Proposition 2½ was approved by Massachusetts voters in 1980, and first implemented in fiscal year 1982 after Massachusetts citizens grew tired of the constant increase in their property taxes. While the legislation does limit annual increases in a city or town’s budget to 2½ percent, voters can “override” the 2½ limitation by approving a ballot question. In the past, many seniors who are often the most knowledgeable and active segment of the electorate, would vote against most override attempts. While seniors, just like the rest of us are eagerly awaiting for the promised property tax reductions, this proposal does not lower property taxes at all. It simply shifts the burden of who pays them, and in theory makes it easier for cities and towns to raise property taxes by voting for overrides to the Proposition 2½ limitations.

The liberals’ logic suggests that senior citizens will not get involved in a vote on political issues if it does not impact them directly. From my point of view, seniors are better citizens than the liberals give them credit for. I believe seniors will continue to vote what is in the best interest of their communities and not be fooled into staying home when override votes occur.

A credible argument can be made that if anyone really needs a targeted property tax break, it is younger first time homeowners, many of whom are facing the foreclosure crisis while doing their best to pay for their children, including day care, saving for college, experiencing rising health insurance and fuel expenses. The issue of property tax relief should not be about pitting one segment of society against another. Property owners of all ages are facing the burdens of local property tax increases and the solution should provide relief to everyone. Unfortunately, too many politicians know full well that senior citizens tend to vote in larger percentages, while many younger people do not.

As I see it, the real goals of this bill are to pander to seniors and provide them with an incentive to stay home when a Proposition 2½ override is on the ballot, thus making it more likely an override will pass and government will have more of your money! While we lost the battle on this issue in the House, I am proud that all nineteen Republicans stood firm and voted “no.” We were also joined by fifteen good government minded Democrats, including Representatives Atsalis and Turner.

This bill was touted as “property tax relief for seniors,” but it really just ends up to be a property tax increase for a majority of Massachusetts homeowners and a way to get more local override votes passed.

A primary reason why our health care costs are so high is that the state mandates that certain types of coverage be included in every policy. The new health program does nothing to reduce or eliminate these mandates and it does not allow for real customer choice of insurance products.The state also failed to reform the various administrative burdens health care providers face, and made no attempt to reform our medical and tort liability system.The new Health Care Connector does little to force illegal immigrants to pay for health care, and provides medical providers with no real means of collection for services rendered.So, at the end of the day, all we really did was force everyone in the commonwealth to purchase a health insurance policy and impose a new tax on the business community.

We did practically zero to reduce costs. In fact, it is possible that we actually created new costs.While I fully understand and agree with the goal of expanding health care for all citizens, Beacon Hill should not require each and every Bay Stater, regardless of his or her personal financial situation, to buy a certain health insurance product. Health insurance is a tool and benefit that employers use to attract the employees they wish to employ.

Furthermore, the law is a disincentive for small companies seeking to locate or expand their business in Massachusetts.Some business owners may even attempt to avoid the new health insurance tax altogether by classifying their employees as “independent contractors.” This could result in lower state payroll tax collections, and these employees could miss out on unemployment and workers’ compensation benefits.This would be a significant unintended consequence that could result in a loss of revenue to the state and less worker protection, with no real increase in health insurance coverage.Although there were not many listening during the debate on this issue two years ago, the estimates on the cost of this program were challenged as unrealistic.

I believe many members knew that was true, and they voted to approve the plan anyway.My fear then and now is that we have grossly underestimated the long-term cost of this program and that there will be many unintended consequences that will far outweigh any perceived benefits.Bay Staters should brace themselves. When the high co-pays and taxes on businesses are not enough to fund the program, the Legislature will want to raise taxes again to make up the difference. We are already hearing about a proposed increase in the cigarette tax to raise a targeted $151 million in order to backfill the health care deficit.

If we want to do something positive regarding health care reform, elected officials need to make tough decisions and take tough votes to really reform the way we deliver health care services.Thus far, it looks like the solution from Beacon Hill is to simply spend more money, and that is truly disappointing.

Sometimes I just shake my head and wonder about our priorities in State Government. Take our foster children as a perfect example. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has the responsibility of thousands of children who find themselves by no fault of their own in the custody of the Department of Social Services “DSS” system. The DSS foster care programs attempt to provide a safe home and compassionate foster parents for children who are removed from their homes due to abuse, neglect, unsafe or dangerous conditions. Many times, these children will remain in a foster parent’s home for long periods of time and thankfully some are ultimately adopted by countless caring and loving people. Foster parents are a special breed of folks who are doing a tremendous service to the State and more importantly, to the children involved. Wouldn’t it make good common sense from both a public policy and economic point of view to encourage and provide complete educational assistance for these children to attend our public colleges? I doubt many folks from the left or right side of the political aisle would disagree. This appears to be a no brainer and should be done immediately in Massachusetts. In fact there is already a legislative proposal (Senate Bill 127) which would waive college tuition and fees at public colleges or universities for children who have either aged out of foster care, been adopted from foster care, or are in a legalized guardianship placement. These children are in the State’s care and custody and the Commonwealth must support these youths so that they can succeed and have a chance at becoming happy and productive taxpaying adults. Well, like so many other good ideas floating around the halls of government, the most common excuse for failing to act is that there simply is not enough money to fund such a program for our foster kids. This is the type of disconnection that I often speak about on Beacon Hill. While many of my Democratic friends are pushing for state subsidized college tuition breaks for illegal immigrants, our foster children virtually have little chance of attending college as so many of our foster families are also struggling financially. Government budgets and legislation are really nothing more than decisions about our society’s priorities. What I completely fail to understand is how some elected officials can put the interests of law breakers before those of our kids in foster care. As we in the Legislature are at the beginning stages of our annual budget process, I believe we need to realign our priorities regarding where we spend your $29 billion dollars of taxes we collected from you. The fact is that the State budget has never been larger and is full of earmarks and special interest spending, but somehow we cannot afford to provide higher education opportunities to our foster kids. The fact is that the State has never collected more revenue than in the current fiscal year, but it is still not enough. The fact is that the State has over $2.2 billion in our “Rainy Day” account, but the excuse for failing to act now for our most needy children is that we just can’t afford it at this time. Give me a break! Just like your household or business budget, the State’s budget is a matter of priorities. I am fearful that due to the political culture that is Beacon Hill politics, our foster kids voice is not quite loud enough to be heard over the lobbyists and special interests that roam the halls. For my part, I will continue to make this a priority and hopefully others will join me. It is worth the effort!

It is that time of year again. The Massachusetts Legislature is about to begin our annual budget debate on Beacon Hill. While Governor Patrick and several left- leaning legislators have attempted to allege that the State is facing a $1.3 billion deficit, just like all numbers and statistics, the devil is in the facts and details.The fact is that the State budget has never been larger and is full of earmarks and special interest spending. The fact is that the State has never collected more revenue than in the current fiscal year. The fact is that the State has over $2.2 billion in our “Rainy Day” account. The fact is that the State is sitting on $450 million that was withheld from local cities and towns via a cap on lottery revenue distributions.With all the cash floating around the State bank accounts and a record high level of revenue receipts, State budget leaders should be willing to let at least one year pass without talking about possible tax increases or spending cuts to social service programs. One could also believe it might just be time for my fellow legislators to honor the will of the voters and roll back the State’s income tax level to 5%. While we have a long way to go in this budget season, early indications are pointing to Governor Patrick and some legislators pushing for increased taxes on local businesses and another year without meaningful increases in local aid. The campaign promises made by Governor Patrick for local property tax relief, one-thousand more police officers on the streets and reforming State government have seemingly been forgotten. Before we get into the Fiscal Year ’09 budget debate, for my part, along with all the members of the Republican Caucus, we have filed a bill, known as HD4651. Our proposal would return over $450 million in local aid to Massachusetts cities and towns. If approved. Barnstable would receive $1,259,917; Bourne would receive $708, 379; Mashpee would get $220,375; and Sandwich would receive $632,575. This would be a one time payment to local communities that selectmen and councilors could use for capital projects or other needed projects.This money is due to cities and towns because the State diverted $450 million away from them over the past several years through a cap on Lottery aid, money that communities use to pay for police, schools, senior citizen centers and other essential local services. After all, the State made a promise to lottery players and local communities that 100% of the net lottery revenue would be sent back to cities and towns and that promise, like so many others in government today, was broken by the elected officials who are supposed to be the defenders of the people. From my point of view, it is pretty simple, the State wrongfully withheld $450 million from local communities and it is only fair to give it back as the State is flush with surplus revenue and continues to spend more and more each and every year.For my part, I will continue to make it my highest priority to increase local aid support from the State and decrease the growing burden on high property taxes. Perhaps one day soon, the Majority Party will be agreeable to using at least a portion of our $2.2 billion surplus funds towards these goals instead of retaining the money at the State for more ill conceived State spending. At the very least, my colleagues in the Legislature should honor their promise and return the $450 million to our local communities. I am 100% confident that it is needed and will be well spent.

On Tuesday, February 5 th, Massachusetts Republicans and Democrats have the opportunity to be heard regarding who we want our candidate to be President. With wins in Michigan, Wyoming, and Nevada, as well as fairing strongly in all other primaries thus far, Mitt Romney is well positioned for the Republican nomination. During my first two terms in the Legislature, I worked very closely with Governor Romney on many issues, including Melanie’s Bill, school funding, and government reforms. On a personal level, my family and I experienced the care and compassion of Mitt after our family suffered a loss of a loved on. Notwithstanding my personal relationship with Mitt Romney, I strongly support Mitt because of his extensive executive background and his ability to achieve results in a State that is dominated by members of the opposite party. He has been successful as a business owner, Olympic Chairman, and Governor and these experiences suit him well to serve as our next President.

As a Presidential candidate, Mitt supports free trade, favors tort reform, supports school choice, opposes illegal immigration and most importantly, Mitt vows to exercise his veto power if Congress doesn't embrace spending reductions. I hope you will join me in voting for Mitt Romney. Jeffrey Davis Perry
R- Sandwich

“The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated by their nation.” These are the words of our founding father and first President, George Washington, and they ring as true today as they did more than two-hundred and twenty years ago.The treatment of those actively serving in our military or those who have formerly worn the uniform of our nation’s military is of course the primary responsibility of the government; however, each of us as citizens also have an obligation to show our support and appreciation.In this spirit, after being contacted by a member of the Vietnam Veteran’s Association, I decided to organize a Christmas and holiday card drive for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who were recovering in our military hospitals, specifically Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital in Washington, D.C.As Walter Reed Hospital does not accept cards to unnamed service members, Dave Neal, Doug Dexter (both Vietnam veterans) my Chief of Staff, Taylor White, and I loaded up my GMC Envoy and headed South to make a personal visit to the recovering service members and deliver the over 10,000 greeting cards that were delivered to my office as the public learned of our effort.The purpose of this column is to share with you what we saw during our visit. While I am not sure what I expected during our visit, I was sincerely overwhelmed with the experience. After spending hours with individual recovering soldiers, their nurses, doctors, and hospital administrators, I have never been prouder to be an American. The hospital was clean, bright and the atmosphere was professional and compassionate. If one were to remove the military uniforms, it looked like any other modern American hospital.During our time at Walter Reed, we were allowed to visit any part of the facility that we wished. We started by speaking to injured Army and Air Force service members in a day-room setting. We also visited the physical and occupational therapy rooms, toured a mock apartment designed to assist in teaching injured soldiers to live on their own, and most importantly we visited soldiers in their private rooms. At each visit, we expressed our support for them as individuals and appreciation for their service and sacrifices on behalf of America.While it is not possible in the context of this column to share each and every personal story we heard, as an example I would like to share one, which I believe is emblematic of our visit. In the wards, we had the opportunity to speak to individual soldiers in their private rooms. One such visit was with an Army First Sergeant who we will call Tom. Tom’s shoulder had been blown apart by an improvised rocket propelled grenade while on a foot patrol in an Iraq province north of Bagdad. When asked about his injury, Tom briefly told us how it occurred, but quickly turned his comments to his desire, “to get back to the fight.” Tom told us how things were changing for the better in Iraq and he wanted to get back with his unit, “to finish the job we started.”During our visit, Tom was joined in the room by his wife. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the Army has living quarters for family members to stay at while their loved one undergoes treatment and rehabilitate services. Many of those visited shared how valuable having their family members close by was. While Tom’s injury will probably not keep him from returning to active duty, we did visit many soldiers who will not be able to return to military service. During our time at Walter Reed we spoke to dozens of service men and women who had lost limbs and suffered internal injuries which will require long-term rehabilitation. While these sacrifices can never be repaid, I was struck by how positive and thankful these disabled veterans were.I was literally at a loss for words when one young soldier I visited in the occupational therapy room said to me, “I am thankful for having the opportunity to sacrifice myself so others might live in a free country.” This young man of no more than twenty years old had lost his leg below his right knee and half of his right hand. He, like all of the others we visited had no sense of self-pity for their injuries. They were proud of their service and thankful to have survived their injuries.With each visit, we delivered a package of greeting cards, which were very well received and appreciated. Without question, I know our visits lifted the spirits of these brave American heroes. I am extremely grateful for having such an opportunity to have made this visit and for all who took the time to drop off your greeting cards to my office.We who live in freedom and peace in this the greatest nation on earth must continue to honor those who are serving and have served.

The CCT’s recent lead editorial “Divided we fall” neglects to appreciate the role of the minority party in our system of government. While the Democrats have the majority of Congress (and Beacon Hill), this should never equate to the voice of the minority being disregarded. Both at the State House and the U.S. Capitol each and every legislator has a duty to fight and advocate for their beliefs and the needs of their respective districts. The Times editorial suggests that the minority Republican Party is somehow responsible for the Democrats’ failure to achieve any meaningful success in Congress. From my observations, the Democratic Party seems to either lack the consensus of what their agenda is or more likely, they do not have the political courage to promote their own convictions.If the GOP members of Congress are able to stop Nancy Pelosi and her liberal counterparts from increasing taxes, providing amnesty for illegal immigrants, and taking further steps towards socialism with the threat of a filibuster, then I say, great job Republicans! Rep. Jeffrey Davis Perry

State Rep, 5^th Barnstable District

There have been many occasions during my tenure on Beacon Hill where I have seen good pieces of legislation languish and ultimately die in one of the dozens of legislative committees. Sometimes this is due to the influence of a given special interest group or perhaps a bill fails to move because of lack of attention to the subject matter. With over 8,000 bills floating around the State House, it is easy to see how even a good idea can get lost or sidetracked in the process. To ensure this does not happen on the issue of punishment for repeat sex offenders, I have joined an effort started by Representative Karyn Polito (R-Shrewsbury) to pass the Massachusetts version of “Jessica’s Law.” A version of Jessica's Law has also been introduced on the Federal level, known as the Jessica Lunsford Act. The Bill is named after Jessica Lunsford a young Florida girl who was raped and murdered in February 2005 by John Couey, who was a previously convicted sex offender. Couey had an extensive criminal record that included two dozen arrests for burglary, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, indecent exposure and fondling a child under age 16. Couey had been sentenced to ten years in prison but was paroled. Public outrage over this case resulted in Florida officials passing this legislation and prompted many other states to propose and pass similar laws. Just as was successfully done in Florida following the massive media coverage, as a proponent of Jessica’s Law in Massachusetts, we are attempting to engage the public’s interest to put political pressure on other legislators who may not appreciate the need of strengthening our laws regarding the protection of our children. All too often, the Massachusetts Legislature and government in general is a reactionary institution, almost waiting for a horrific case to come forward before we take action. The time to act is now, before one more child is victimized, or before some convict who was released early from prison commits some terrible act on an innocent victim. The Bill we are promoting creates minimum sentencing for the worst crimes against our children, which is the best way to keep these dangerous predators away from our children. From my point of view, some individuals in our society cannot be rehabilitated and need to be incarcerated for long periods of time. As a former police officer and now member of the Public Safety Committee, I have heard too many stories about our children becoming victims of repeat sex offenders who had allegedly been reformed. House Bill 1688 would greatly improve safety for our children across the Commonwealth by establishing mandatory minimum sentencing for rape of a child with the use of force as well as mandatory minimum sentences for other child victim crimes. It would also ensure more effective and accurate monitoring by requiring all sex offenders to register with the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) for life. In additional, the Bill contains increased and well defined punishments for posing a child in a state of nudity. This is intended to ensure jail time by eliminating the option for a judge to charge a fine which is the current status of the law today. The new proposed penalty created for posing a child under 14 in a state of nudity is 15-30 years in the state prison. The proposal would also financially punish those found guilty of disseminating material involving a child posed in a state of nudity with a fine of $50,000 or 10 times the monetary value of any economic gain derived. Why Massachusetts has failed to move this legislation along is beyond me. While I understand the Legislature has many issues before it, the protection of our children should be a priority for prompt consideration. If you care about this issue, let your voice be heard by calling our legislators before we are debating this Bill only after some terrible crime hits the front pages of the newspaper. As always, I welcome your comments on this column and please feel free to contact me should I ever be able to assist you. I can be reached at 508-888-2158, or via my website at www.electjeffperry.com

On Monday, the Cape Cod Times editorial "Subverting the process" was critical of the legislative process regarding a late night session and passage of an energy bill, which included a little known amendment. During my three terms serving in the House of Representatives, myself and a few others have been complaining about such back room deals, consolidation of amendments and other abuses of the legislative process, but so few in the media seem to care. Now that the Majority Party's tactics have impacted an issue the Times cares about, it is newsworthy. Every abuse of the legislative process should be front page news as each time this happens, democracy and the role of our elected legislators is diminished. From my point of view, the abuses of the process occurs because the media in general fails to hold political leaders responsible and also because of one party control of the process that is Massachusetts politics. If the media would more closely monitor the legislative sessions and report all of the abuse, it is likely there would be less occurring and when it did, perhaps the voters would ultimately have the necessary information to hold elected officials accountable.

Jeffrey Davis Perry
5th Barnstable District

It was about ten months ago when Governor Patrick was sworn into office. So, do you remember that billion-dollar deficit the Patrick administration was supposed to have inherited from the Romney administration?Well, despite the best efforts of Beacon Hill’s liberals to make that projection come true by overspending and denying all efforts to reduce taxes, the Legislature closed the books on Fiscal Year 2007 this month with a $520 million surplus. Add this to our existing “Rainy Day” account, and the State is sitting on over $2.2 billion dollars of excess taxes collected from citizens of the Commonwealth.

With all the cash floating around the State House, perhaps it is time for my fellow Legislators to honor the will of the voters (2002 ballot question) and roll back the State’s income tax level to 5%. While I wish this was likely, the Bill we filed to do so appears to be going no where and all of our efforts to reduce taxes during the recent budget debate were uniformly rejected by the Majority Party. So what are we to do with this surplus cash? During a recent Supplemental Budget debate, the House Republican Caucus fought hard to send more money back to local communities today, offering proposals to give $450 million to cities and towns both as local aid or property tax relief. We argued that the money is due to cities and towns because the State diverted $450 million away from them over the past several years through a cap on Lottery aid, money that communities use to pay for police, schools, senior citizen centers and other essential local services. After all, the State made a promise to lottery players and local communities that 100% of the net lottery revenue would be sent back to cities and towns and that promise, like so many others in government today, was broken by the elected officials who are supposed to be the defenders of the people. We made two attempts to return the surplus tax revenue to the taxpayers or our local communities. The first amendment we offered would have sent $450 million to cities and towns in the form of unrestricted local aid that communities could spend as they desired. The second amendment would have provided $450 million in direct property tax relief to every homeowner in the State. From my point of view, it is pretty simple, the State withheld $450 million from local communities and it is only fair to give it back as the State is flush with surplus revenue. It was very disappointing that the vote went almost along party lines and at the end of the day, local communities are still struggling to balance their budgets and the citizens are still waiting for that pledged property tax relief. The reasonable and straightforward efforts by our Republican Caucus emphasized that communities deserved compensation for the $450 million in lottery aid diverted into the State’s general fund over three fiscal years fell on deaf ears and the Majority Party simply decided to pass a Supplemental Budget, while containing some worthwhile spending, also included plenty of pork and a few selected pay raises for the Governor and others.
While we do have a year to go before the end of this Legislative session, the promises made in the last campaign of property tax relief, more police on the street, and a new and open legislative process have not yet appeared.For my part, I will continue to make it my highest priority to increase local aid support from the State and decrease the growing burden on high property taxes. Perhaps one day soon, the Majority Party will be agreeable to using at least a portion of our $2.2 billion surplus funds towards these goals instead of retaining the money at the State for more ill conceived social programs.

On Beacon Hill and in Washington, D.C. the focus of government seems to ebb and flow with the issue that the media is most concerned about at any given time. From my point of view, government in general and State government specifically is a reactionary institution. Unfortunately there is very little proactive thought or long term planning going on. Recently the headlines have been full of stories regarding our crumbling transportation infrastructure and the estimated $20 billion needed to keep up with our aging roadway system. State leaders are couching this issue like they were somehow surprised by it. Governor Patrick recently came out in favor of Casino Gambling with a dedicated portion of the revenue being targeted for maintenance and improvements to our roads and bridges. The Patrick Administration and Transportation Finance Commission have also identified major tax increases as their plan for the perceived transportation funding problem. They suggest that increasing the gas tax by 11.5 cents per gallon and then indexing it to inflation would generate $10.5 billion over 20 years. Also, the Commission recommended a 5 cent per mile user fee (tax), to be implemented through electronic tolling technology and phased in over the next 10 years, which reportedly would yield an additional $5.5 billion in new taxes by 2027. It is time for Legislators and voters to say enough is enough. State government needs to stop looking to commuters and taxpayers for its own failure to plan for future infrastructure needs and wasteful spending in general. Do I need to remind everyone about the waste and fraud of the Big Dig project? Also, don’t forget that we have been paying 23.5 cents per gallon in since 1991, and somehow all of a sudden, we are in such a crisis situation that the only solution is increased taxation. While I do not expect both of the above taxes to ultimately be approved, what I believe the pro-tax crowd on Beacon Hill is doing is setting you up for a smaller tax increase. If they announce an 11.5 cent tax increase and a new user fee and later they disregard the user fee plan and “only” raise the gas tax by 5 cents a gallon, they hope you will accept such increase and somehow feel good that it was not more. I say not so fast! Last week, the Republicans on Beacon Hill filed the “Commuter Bill of Rights” as a joint resolution in both the House and the Senate. If we can get the majority party to agree (this is a big “If”), the proposal grants commuters the right to travel on safe roadways and bridges; the right to expect State officials will exhaust all available sources of funding before increasing taxes and fees; and the right to hold public officials accountable for finding and fixing problems with infrastructure. It also grants taxpayers the right to expect that the money they pay to the State will be used wisely to fund maintenance and repair of roads and bridges. Seems like something we all should be able to agree on, but watch the liberals as they dismiss our reform efforts to go directly for a tax increase. In addition to the resolution, we are also filing cost-cutting legislation that could save the State over $100 million a year by merging the Turnpike Authority with MassHighway; putting MBTA workers into the Group Insurance Commission and reforming their pensions to end double-dipping; and stopping the practice of borrowing money to pay the salaries of MassHighway workers. If the Governor is really serious about finding efficiencies and savings within our bloated transportation bureaucracy, which is full of waste and patronage, he then should support our proposal to eliminate the Turnpike Authority altogether and hand its responsibilities over to the Massachusetts Highway Department. If readers will recall, this is not a new concept as Governor Romney proposed it several times during his tenure, but each time the Democrats on Beacon Hill voted it down and maintained the status quo. As I have written in this column in the past, as a member of the minority party, often the only way we can stop things like tax increases from happening is taking the message to the public and asking them to call their Representative and Senator and let their voice be heard. This is one of those times, we need your help or else I fear we will all being paying even more at the gas pump

During the month of August, things are customarily a bit slow on Beacon Hill. Typically the House of Representatives meets only twice each week in what is called “informal sessions.” These sessions are designed to keep the legislative process moving along on non-controversial bills, but sometimes efforts are made to pass legislation that does not share unanimous support of legislators.The Republican caucus closely monitors the action in these informal sessions to ensure any bill that we have an objection to is set aside and saved until a later date where a formal recorded vote can take place. This past month, House Republicans, including yours truly have been objecting to a piece of legislation which would drastically change how public unions are organized in Massachusetts.I think most citizens realize the benefits of the American tradition of the secret ballot. By voting in private, we have the opportunity of expressing our opinions without any undue influences. The right to a secret ballot not only provides for a fair vote, but most importantly it protects the voices of a minority point of view. The secret ballot protects a voter from something as simple as peer pressure to the extreme potential physical intimidation.Well if the AFL-CIO gets their way on Beacon Hill, this could all change when it comes to employees considering joining a public collective bargaining unit. House Bill 2465, “A Petition relative to written majority authorization cards, petitions and other written evidence of collective bargaining results” would no longer allow those considering forming a union to do so via a secret ballot.Instead of an employee expressing their honest and private opinion regarding the formation of a union by a secret ballot vote, the new law would substitute a process where public employees considering the formation of a union could do so by a majority of employees simply and publicly signing an authorization card.Can you imagine how this would play out? A union organizer, or perhaps a group of union officials come by your home or your work station and asks you to sign a card declaring to the world whether or not you wish to organize as a union shop. Or perhaps union organization cards would be passed out to a select group in private. You might never know or have an opportunity to voice your opinion if the union could obtain the signatures of fifty-one percent of your co-workers. The bill as written has no requirement of notice or for an opportunity to be heard by any employee or the employer.The current secret ballot process allows the union and the employer to present their reasons or arguments for or against the formation of a union. It also allows employees to speak to each other privately to weigh the pros and cons of making such a decision, and then a vote is taken by a secret ballot. Such an open process also provides an opportunity for a competing union to make a presentation to the employees.So, what’s the reason that we need to change the process that has worked well for a very long time? I for one see no justification for reducing the due process afforded employees and employers under the current system. From my point of view, this appears to be a move by union leaders to stem the tide of declining membership. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2006, 12.0 percent of employed wage and salary workers were union members, down from 12.5 percent a year earlier. The number of persons belonging to a union fell by 326,000 in 2006 to 15.4 million. The union membership rate has steadily declined from 20.1 percent in 1983, the first year for which comparable union data is available.I hope that readers do understand my opposition to this bill is not a vote against unions. In fact, my voting record is clear that I am more than willing support reasonable labor supported measures; however, the elimination of the secret ballot provision goes against all of the procedural due process principles of the American system of voting.

In their editorial “ideology vs. rate of return” the Cape Cod Times inferred that because I believe in smaller government and one that is closer to the people, that my recent vote against the State taking over local pension systems was flawed. The Times editorial takes the position that because the State system has outperformed the Barnstable system during an arbitrary period chosen by the Legislature, that the State’s rate of return is guaranteed and thus is justified to end the longstanding tradition of local control over the pension investments of town and county employees. The editorial neglected to mention that the State does not guarantee the level of return and the Bill as passed does not contain any provision for the State to supplement any shortfalls in the local pension fund it may experience in the future. Furthermore, the Times did not discuss the relative risk taking tolerance of the State versus the local pension boards. Yes, the State board’s return has been slightly higher than several of the local boards, but this fact alone is not a fair assessment of total performance. Many local pension boards have made deliberate decisions of reducing the risk in their equity/stock investments, which during a strong market results in a lower return when compared to the State board that has a history of being more aggressive in their investment choices. In the future, when we experience a stock market decline, it is likely boards such as Barnstable will experience a better rate of return than the more heavily invested boards, such as the State. Should this occur, the Bill the Times supported and I voted against still requires the local communities to make up any deficiency in the funding schedule. This certainly will not result in lower property taxes as the Times suggested. The Bill does not allow a local pension board that is taken over by the State to opt-out of the State system even if the State board’s rate of return is far below projections. In other words, the State takes control of the local employee’s pension dollars and the investment decisions, but provides no assurance of future returns or dollars to make up for unfunded pension liabilities. The risk stays locally and the power grows in the State. Along with my desire to limit the State’s power over local governments and the risks inherent in the Bill, I also voted against the proposal because the elected Barnstable County Commissioners clearly expressed their desire for the Cape Delegation to oppose the legislation and retain local decision making. As a Representative, I believe one of my primary responsibilities is to help town and county governments with their missions. My “no” vote was representing the interests of Barnstable County and not the special interest of the Beacon Hill investment community. The Times was correct with their comment that I “prefer local control over big government.” Whether or not our local newspaper has noticed, the State and Federal governments are getting bigger and more powerful with each passing year. Just in the recent past, State government has refused to listen to the people’s clear vote to roll back the income tax level to 5%, mandated that everyone purchase health insurance or face a penalty, refused to allow people to vote on the definition of marriage, increased education mandates on local school districts, and now has taken over local control of pension boards. And let us not forget, the State and Federal budgets are at an all time high level of spending.Under the logic of the Times editorial, if the State can do something at a lower cost than the local government, the State should do so. Does this mean we should end local control of police, fire, libraries, and public works? After all, the same logic applies to the takeover of the pension systems. While the Times may say of course not, if we do not draw a line in the sand and stop the growth of government, can we really predict what may be next to be ripped from local control?My political philosophy is certainly one that distrusts government and I will continue the fight to restrain its power. In the words of President Ronald Reagan, “I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.”Jeffrey Davis Perry
State Representative

While I understand part of a Governor’s role is to be a visionary, what has been coming from the Governor’s Office these last six months has been from my perspective, little more than creating unreasonable expectations from State Government. The fact is that when political leaders make promises they cannot keep, the public’s view of their government continues to be diminished. After getting off to a rough political start with the redecorating of his office, his lease of a new Cadillac at taxpayers’ expense, pushing the boundaries of ethical conflicts, and several questionable political appointments, Governor Patrick has been traveling around the State making statements and promises, that even under the best of fiscal circumstances, he would be unlikely to be able to deliver. In the context of a financial environment where the Governor says we cannot afford to reduce the State’s income tax back to the voter mandated level of 5%, the Governor has promised us 1,000 new police officers, free community college tuition for all high school graduates (including illegal immigrants), local property tax relief, a new rail line to the Southcoast, and a $1 billion investment in life bio-science. This is on top of $30 billion he says is needed quickly for repair of the State's collapsing highway and bridges infrastructure. And let us not forget about last year's State mandated health insurance law, which we all know will cost a lot more than predicted. The most unbelievable promise of Governor Patrick is his proposal to make Massachusetts' community colleges free to all high school graduates in the Commonwealth. The plan, which was outlined during commencement at the University of Massachusetts in Boston, would also provide preschool for all children, extend the school day and year, and guarantee two years of community college paid for by the State. The Governor’s ambitious plan does not include an estimate how much this would cost or how we might pay for it. The plan also does not provide any study or analysis if our community colleges could handle the increased enrollment. While the concept is worthy to explore, before making such an announcement and increasing expectations, it would have been appropriate and responsible to at least do some homework and prepare cost estimates and a method of paying for them. Regarding the expanded rail service to the Southcoast, an idea I fully support if it makes sense for a cost-benefit perspective, the Governor’s price tag of $1.4 billion contains no revenue plan to pay for it. While it might make a great headline for the citizens of New Bedford and Fall River, it will never get done without a detailed financial plan or commitment of Federal funds. From my own research, Federal assistance had dried up and the list of transportation projects and bonding is well over twenty years long. So how does the Governor plan to get this project off the ground? New taxes? The answer is, we simply do not know because the Governor did not tell us how we will pay for it. How about the campaign promise for 1,000 new police officers? Well, it has been six months since the Governor took office and to date, we have not yet seen any new officers funded or hired. The Governor has responded to questioning on this subject by pointing to the tough budget picture. I fully agree that the State budget for next year does not appear to have much flexibility, but that is not the point. The Governor made a commitment to hire 1,000 new police officers, along with all of the aforementioned ideas and all of these things require money. When political leaders make promises they cannot keep, the public’s view of their government and political figures is harmed and deservedly so. Even though I do not share the Governor’s view of the role of government in general, I do agree with several of his proposals. However, we will never get any of them accomplished unless we are realistic and get to work on the details. Headlines are great, but at the end of the day, what we need are real workable solutions and not just headlines.

The first five months in this Legislative session have been unusually quiet. With a new Governor taking office, and with him, hundreds of new staffers and agency heads, it has taken a little longer than expected to get this session into full swing. While the legislative calendar has been a bit quiet, the House of Representative did recently complete our annual budget “debate.” I put debate in quotes as there was very little debating and as usual, a lot of back room dealing. While the budget process remains mostly one that is completed behind closed doors, including a disturbing trend of less floor debate and more deal making, I am pleased that the four towns within my District (Bourne, Barnstable, Mashpee, and Sandwich) are scheduled to receive significant increases in State aid according to the House’s version of the budget. The House budget provides that Barnstable will be receiving $718,000 over last year, Bourne is in line for a $290,000 increase, Mashpee will receive $450,000 in additional State aid, and Sandwich is looking at a $513,000 increase in State aid. These numbers include increases in Chapter 70 funding, Additional Assistance, Lottery funding, PILOT money (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes), and several other revenue sources. These numbers are reported to the cities and towns via a proposed budget, known as a “Cherry Sheet.” Local aid continues to be my highest priority during the budget process. From my point of view, the real way the State can achieve the dual goals of providing adequate local services such as public safety and education, and reducing the growing burden of increasing property taxes is to deliver more local aid. In the recently drafted Fiscal Year 08 State Budget, I am pleased to report we have taken another strong step in a positive direction. In addition to the increased local aid, I was also successful in the passage of several budget amendments, including securing $75,000 for the design and construction of the Gerald F. DeConto Memorial Stadium in Sandwich. Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Cape Cod and the Islands is earmarked to receive $45,000 within the Department of Social Services line item to assist in out-reach and recruiting. The Sandwich Glass Museum and Spectacle of Lights event held every year at Heritage Museums & Gardens will be a benefit from earmarked funds under the Travel and Tourism line item. The House budget contains a $100,000 earmark for the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Center at Boston Medical Center. This important earmark will assist in extended operations for the center as well as continued research and data gathering. Also, the Barnstable County Sheriffs Office Re-Entry Program will receive $60,000 in a line-item designed to assist those transitioning from a correctional facility back into society. These amendments are now contained within the final version of the Fiscal Year 2008 House budget and await final stages of the budget process, which includes a Conference Committee with the Senate and presentation to Governor Patrick. Taxpayers should know that none of my budget earmarks increase the overall budget. All of my budget proposals simply dedicate specific State funding within existing budget line-items. This is the most effective way to ensure funds are spent on programs and services that are important. In other highlights, the House also included $1.5 million for the Enhanced Care Options Program which provides services to individuals who are clinically eligible for a nursing home. Additionally, the Legislature provided 250,000 additional dollars for Home Care Purchased Services. These programs are very important because they enable seniors to remain in their own homes and communities with the support they need. Also included in the House Ways and Means budget was a $250,000 increase for Councils on Aging. These funds will help to increase the amount of the formula grants received by Council’s on Aging. The House also provided an additional $250,000 for Protective Services, which pays for the elder abuse and self-neglect investigation, casework and crisis intervention. This is my fifth budget cycle and I have voted in favor of some and against others. While we have taken several positive steps as outlined above, I remain concerned with the overall spending of State Government. Should the remainder of the budget process result in a level of spending that I deem excessive, I stand ready to vote against the final budget proposal.

As I write this column, we in the House of Representatives are working hard to find ways to balance next year's State budget. Some people would have you believe that we can solve all of our fiscal problems by increasing taxes on our businesses. In fact, Governor Patrick has filed a number of complex pieces of legislation to increase the taxes on various businesses.At the same time that some folks are suggesting increasing business taxes, Massachusetts finds itself 49th in the nation in job growth and we are one of just a handful of states where our population is declining. Thus while it may seem simple to raise taxes to increase spending for social programs, I remain concerned about what the economic impact will be, especially as it relates to job creation and the long term stability of State revenue.In general, State government seems to be sending conflicting messages to the business community. Just last year, the Legislature passed an “Economic Stimulus” package spending hundreds of millions of dollars to create targeted tax incentives; some might call these tax loopholes.Simply stated, within a few months, we passed a bill creating tax incentives for certain businesses and now we are talking about talking raising taxes on some of the very same businesses. This sends a disturbing and uncertain message to businesses who may be thinking about coming to the Commonwealth.Boston Globe NewsArticle: "State tax loophole or smart policy?"One of the proposals by Governor Patrick, which I believe is extremely counterproductive would be to place a new tax on communications networks. While it may appear that this tax would create more income to the State, when asked in a committee hearing at the State House, the Governor’s staff admitted that there has not been a dynamic analysis on the long term net revenue to the State, nor what economic impact such a tax might have to the stability and growth of the industry.While no projection has been forthcoming from the corner office, according to some lobbyists at the State House, if the new tax passed, an estimated 2,200 jobs could be lost just in the telecommunications industry. I believe that our longstanding tax policy related to telecommunications encourages capital investment, and job growth in the communications industry has worked well.To demonstrate this, according to a recent Boston Globe piece, just last year, Verizon alone invested $600 million in Massachusetts to continue efforts to transform its network to a technologically advanced all-fiber network. At the same time, it generated $180 million in State and local taxes. Counting payroll for its 14,000 employees, pensions, healthcare costs, and almost $500 million spent with Massachusetts vendors, in 2006 Verizon alone poured over $2 billion into the State's economy.Together, the major carriers generated almost $500 million in State and local taxes last year, including $221 million in sales taxes that are not assessed on other companies. If we were to increase the taxes on such companies, what would happen to their ability to hire or retain employees as well as continue to invest to upgrade our technology? What would happen to the rates for consumers?While some want you to believe that we can lower our local property tax bills by increasing State taxes on businesses, I believe that view is shortsighted and often results in less revenue to the State and an overall negative business climate, which will result in the continued reliance on residential property tax payers.The bottom line is that when taxes are increased on businesses, they either choose to locate their operations elsewhere or consumers end up paying the price as businesses raise prices to cover the new taxes. Rather than simply viewing our businesses as a revenue source, we should do more to work with them, encouraging them to relocate and expand here in Massachusetts, which will create greater employment opportunities for our citizens and ultimately more revenue from the State. If we do not change our view, I am afraid we will continue to see more businesses leave Massachusetts and take good people with them.

Massachusetts has a rich and diverse system of State parks, a vast amount of open space and a long legacy of environmental leadership. In fact, approximately one-quarter, or 1.3 million acres, of Massachusetts is protected open space and 43 percent of that (606,650 acres) is State-owned. In my view, this greatly adds to the quality of life to our citizens and is one of the reasons many visitors decide to come to Massachusetts.The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) is the leading land manager for the Commonwealth and is responsible for managing 450,000 acres of the State’s open space. All of the Commonwealth’s 6.4 million residents are within a few minutes or a few hours drive of all of our forests and parks. The staff of DCR is a committed group of people who have done a great job trying to maintain our land and park system. We are fortunate to have several State parks right here on Cape Cod, including the award winning Shawme-Crowell State Forest in Sandwich.Despite campaign promises by Governor Patrick, his budget grossly under funds the DCR. Inadequate funding in the past has led to visible decay, safety issues and environmental damage in our parks, and has also taken a serious toll on communities across the Commonwealth, a number of which rely on DCR for parks, roads and other vital public services.Our parks and forests provide ample opportunities for healthy living and contribute to healthy communities. As violence continues to plague our youth, we should consider that well-maintained parks and outdoor recreation programs can reduce neighborhood crime by 10 to 40 percent. Our urban parks are part of a statewide network of safe havens to reduce crime, delinquency, and improve the health of our youth. In a Nation where our youth are more inclined to play video games, our outdoor recreations are more important than ever.Our State parks are more than places for us to exercise, relax and enjoy our historic and natural legacy. They are a crucial underutilized part of our economy generating $26 dollars of wages, taxes, and other services for every $1 dollar invested. If allowed to deteriorate further we will eventually feel the ripple effects in lost visitors, lost jobs and lost dollars. In our efforts to solve the ‘brain drain’ and attract new businesses to the Commonwealth, we cannot continue to ignore the natural and recreational resources in our backyards as part of the solution. Governor Patrick is short sighted to balance the State Budget by reducing the necessary funding to protect these natural resourcesI have joined forces with Representative Mike Rush (D-Boston) and other concerned Legislators to make sure our forests and parks remain a resource that is properly cared for in next year’s budget and in years to come. The upside to making a commitment to our open space and State parks will be improved quality of life, increased jobs, and private sector revenues associated to this sector, along with protecting these invaluable resources for generationsWhile it is too early in this budget cycle to determine whether we will able to overturn the devastating environmental budget cuts Governor Patrick has suggested in his first budget proposal, I remain committed to doing all that I can to ensure we allocate the necessary financial resources to protect our invaluable natural ones.

April 2007 In response to the April 1 st column, “Identify affiliation of letter writers,” I take exception that a member of my staff should be identified as such when offering a private letter to the editor. To suggest such, implies that when someone takes a position with my office or by extension any government position that their right to express their own independent opinion on an issue is effectively eliminated. Should a member of my staff offer his own views in the editorial pages and his association to my office be highlighhted, it is logical the public would assume that I also share the same point of view. This is not always a correct assumption. Not only does such a policy inhibit a government employee’s ability to exercise his First Amendment rights, but also it is quite possible that the employee’s view could be put in a false light. Under this logic, my family members should be labeled as such and thus their ability to express they own views diminished. It should come as no surprise that my staff members and my own family do not always agree with my political points of view. To label either would inhibit their right to offer their own opinions or give the potentially false suggestion that we share the same opinions. As a side note, I find it interesting that the daily editorials offered by the newspaper do not contain the name of the author. Are we to assume that everyone employed at the Times agrees with the daily editorial? I think that we all know better. It is my hope that the Cape Cod Times will allow people to continue to express their own views without attaching unnecessary labels. Jeffrey Davis Perry
State Representative, 5th Barnstable

I am sure you have all seen the television commercials from the large national companies, such as Allstate, Progressive, State Farm and Geico to name just a few, but for those who have called for one of the advertised free quotes, you know that none of these companies do business in Massachusetts. From what I have learned during the hearings on Beacon Hill, these large companies among others would like to do business in Massachusetts; however, our overly regulated auto insurance market is keeping them out. These same companies are not offering homeowner’s insurance either, leaving us with a diminishing number of options. A glaring example of how closed our market is that companies like Allstate are doing business in every state, expect Massachusetts. On Beacon Hill there is a great deal of effort and money being spent to maintain the status quo. According to a recent news story over $64 million was given to state elected officials, including our new Governor, from lobbyists in 2006. The influence of the insurance lobby at the State House is indeed disturbing, especially when the needs and best interests of the people are apparently taking a back seat to the desire of the insurance companies. Contrary to the auto insurance market, there is very little regulation in the homeowner’s insurance market, which has allowed companies to leave our coastal areas due to a perceived higher level of risk and the resulting high cost of reinsurance. The apparently continuous announcements of insurance companies leaving Cape Cod and not renewing homeowner's insurance policies have placed many homeowners in fear they will not be able to secure insurance to protect their homes. As you may be aware, thousands of homeowners, including myself, are not able to purchase commercial homeowner’s insurance and have been forced into the “Fair Plan.” The long-term solution to this problem can be found by opening our insurance markets and encouraging new companies to come to Massachusetts and compete for our business. By reforming the auto insurance market and encouraging new companies to come to Massachusetts, it is reasonable that these same companies will enter our homeowner’s insurance market and likely give residents on Cape Cod options for coverage and more stable rates. In a truly competitive market, the financial incentive will finally exist for those drivers to improve their driving. This is a good start and positive incentive to encourage good driving habits. Insurance rates should reflect the risk and while some risk sharing is appropriate, it is simply unfair for us in Barnstable County to share the risk on the auto insurance side, and receive virtually no real options on the homeowner’s insurance side. Massachusetts consumers deserve to have a free market system where companies can write different types of competitive home and auto insurance. Our system is broken and not benefiting consumers, especially here on Cape Cod. There are just a few large auto insurance companies who benefit under this current system and they are spending a great deal of time and money to maintain the status quo by generating fear and uncertainty. We need to put the peoples’ needs before the profits of a selected group of companies and open up our insurance market. As always, I welcome your comments on this column and please feel free to contact me should I ever be able to assist you. I can be reached at 508-888-2158, or via my website at www.electjeffperry.com

Dear Editor,In last week's edition, your resident anti-Republican liberal reporter, Joe Burns informed us all how be believed Deval Patrick was correct in not signing a Proclamation in honor of Ronald Reagan. In his article, Mr. Burns pointed out a few selected opinions to promote his revisionist view of historyOf course, Mr. Burns neglected to mentioned that Roanld Reagan signed legislation to stimulate economic growth, curb inflation, increase employment, and strengthen national defense. President Reagan also embarked us upon a course of cutting taxes and reforming Government expenditures.We saw a renewal of national self-confidence by 1984 which is why President Reagan won a second term with an unprecedented number of electoral votes. In his second term, President Reagan obtained an overhaul of the income tax code, which eliminated many deductions for the most wealthy and exempted millions of people with low incomes. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression. In foreign policy, Reagan sought to achieve "peace through strength." During his two terms he increased defense spending 35 percent (while cutting taxes), rebuilt our military and sought to improve relations with the Soviet Union, which ultimately led to the end of the Cold War and the oppression of one-half of Germany and numerous what we now call former Soviet states. President Reagan is a true American hero who we owe a debt of gratitude to, and certainly a simple Proclamation in his memory is not too much to ask our new Governor to sign. Governor Patrick ran on a promise of being nonpartisan and someone who will carefully watch over our taxdollars, thus far in my view, he has failed poorly in his first two months in office. For some reason, Reporter Joe Burns has failed to discuss in any of his columns Governor Patrick's use of the State Police helicopter, the lease of a brand-new Cadillac to drive around in at state taxpayer's expense, and the hiring of Amy Gorin of Wellesley, who co-chaired the Governor's fundraising committee as Governor Patrick's wife's scheduler, at a comfortable state salary of $72,000, plus pension and health benefits. I also do not seem to recall Mr. Bruns writing about Governor Patrick's proposal to increase our meals or hotel taxes. The Upper Cape Codder also seems to be lacking on any stories regarding our new Governor's proposal to restrict access to criminal records and sex offender information. Perhaps there was not enough space for any of these stories as it did take quite a bit of room to attempt to belittle the memory of Ronald Reagan, one of the greatest Presidents this Nation has ever had. Or perhaps, it was simply a double standard of attacking Republicans and giving the Democrats a pass. You decide...

In a front page story appearing January 23, 2007 titled, “Draft state health plan decried as unaffordable” we are starting to see results and unintended consequences of what I believe is an ill conceived universal style health care bill. Back on April 4, 2006, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law, which was signed by Governor Romney mandating that everyone in the Commonwealth be required to purchase health insurance coverage and all businesses with ten or more employees must provide health insurance coverage or face an assessment (tax). I was one of only two Legislators to vote against the bill. At that time I argued this was the wrong approach to reform our overburdened system and that without reforms, the plan would never be affordable. The aforementioned article indicated, “Local human services workers yesterday expressed shock that the state's new health plan could carry a monthly premium cost of as much as $380, and could carry deductibles for families as high as $7,500 a year.” While I am disappointed that in no way, shape, or form is this new mandated health plan affordable, but no one should really be surprised. A primary reason why our health care costs are so high is the State mandates that certain types of coverage must be included in every policy. The new health program does nothing to reduce or eliminate these mandates and furthermore it does not allow for real customer choice of insurance products. The State also failed to reform the various administrative burdens on health care providers and makes no attempt to reform our medical and tort liability system. At the end of the day, what we did was to mandate that everyone in the Commonwealth must purchase a heath insurance policy and impose a new tax on the business community. We did practically zero to reduce costs. While I fully understand and agree with the goal of expanding health care for all citizens, in my opinion, State Government should not mandate in law that each and every person of the Commonwealth, regardless of their personal financial situation, be required to purchase a certain health insurance product. From my point of view, health insurance is a tool and benefit that employers use to attract the employees they wish to employ. The bill as passed provides that employers with ten or more employees must provide health care or be subject to a new tax. This is a disincentive for small companies seeking to locate or expand their business in Massachusetts. It is also likely that some business owners will choose not to treat employees as such and will attempt to classify them as "independent contractors" in an effort to avoid the new health insurance tax. This will likely result in lower State payroll tax collections as well as no longer providing these "independent contractors" with unemployment and workers' compensation benefits. This will be a significant unintended consequence which may result in a loss of revenue to the Commonwealth and less worker protection, with no real increase in health insurance coverage. During the debate on this issue last year, estimates on the cost of this program were unrealistic and I believe everyone knew so; however, it was politically correct to pass this mammoth social program during an election year. My fear was then and is now that we have grossly underestimated the long term cost of this program and there will be many unintended consequences that will far outweigh any perceived benefits. It should also be expected that when the new tax on business is not enough to fund the program, the Legislature will be forced to raise taxes again to make up the difference. We have a real chance to do something special and good regarding health care reform, but that will mean making tough decisions and taking tough votes to really reform the way we deliver health care services. Thus far, it looks like the solution from Beacon Hill is to simply spend more money, which is indeed disappointing. I welcome your comments on this or any issue State government is dealing with. You can telephone me at 508-888-2158 or via my website at electjeffperry.com.

Let me set the current political stage for you. In the Massachusetts House of Representatives there are currently 141 Democrats and 19 Republicans. In the State Senate, there are 35 Democrats and 5 Republicans. So one might ask, why would I be optimistic? The reason is that the Republican Party is alive and well here on Cape Cod and despite the November Election results; my District and Cape Cod remain more conservative than most other parts of the Commonwealth.While the State and National election results were indeed frustrating, our region continues to be a stronghold for Republican candidates, including myself, Assembly of Delegates Member Dennis Fonseca, District Attorney Mike O’Keefe, Sheriff Jim Cummings, Superior Court Clerk Scott Nickerson, Registrar of Deeds Jack Meade, and County Commissioners Bill Doherty and Mary LeClair. Having set the current stage; let me give Republicans another reason to be optimistic. If you will recall, the last time that Massachusetts had a self-proclaimed “liberal” governor, i.e.: Michael Dukakis, what followed in 1990, was a wave of discontented voters due to increased unnecessary social and welfare programs, and substantially higher state income taxes. Based on recent statements of the new Governor, it appears likely we may be headed in the very same direction. After Governor Dukakis left office, the Republican Party’s legislative ranks rose to 16 Senators and 38 Representatives, which actually gave Governor Bill Weld the ability to sustain a veto, something Governor Romney surely would have used to his advantage. While I am not making any predictions at this point, I do believe that now that the Democratic Party has full control of your taxes and spending, the people of Massachusetts will have a solid opportunity to judge for themselves if they are satisfied with one-party rule. Over the past four years I have seen the blame for any and all problems being placed on Governor Romney. While I do not suggest our former Governor was perfect, for those who know that every budget item and legislative bill must be approved by the Legislature, many times the knee jerk reaction to blame the person in the corner office is unfair. This comment goes for our new Governor as well. The Democrat Governor and Democratically controlled Legislature have a real opportunity to show all of us what they truly care about and only time will tell how successful they are. They have before them complete political control to solve our homeowners’ insurance crisis, education funding formula inequities, unchecked health care cost increases, and other problems we face here in Massachusetts. As a Republican, my plan is to work with our new Governor on these and many other issues. The Republican Caucus may indeed be small, but we are engaged and ready to promote our own agenda, including some new ideas, such as extending the investment tax credit to the burgeoning biotechnology industry, letting small businesses form health insurance cooperatives and promote choice and cost constraints in the bipartisan health insurance law enacted last year. Other items include sending 40 percent of the State's new growth revenues to the cities and towns each year; requiring a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to dip into the state's rainy day reserves; and implementing a two-year budget cycle to better help local officials plan their budgets. The Republican Caucus is also focused on making the State more affordable by proposing assistance for first-time homebuyers, a working-families tax credit, an extended senior “circuit breaker” property tax credit and a tax incentive for employer-subsidized child care to same a few of our ideas. We also have several proposals which would promote alternative fuels, renewable energy and conservation. A green-buildings initiative would establish minimum efficiency standards for state facilities, and offer business tax breaks to encourage environmentally friendly practices. A proposed check-off on State tax forms would boost funding for maintaining and improving State parks. For a complete list of our ideas and agenda, please visit: http://www.electjeffperry.com/docs/rep_agenda.pdfOf course the Republican Party will continue to fight for lower taxes, responsible spending, and to have the rights of the voters honored at the ballot box. This next term will certainly be a challenging one and I do appreciate the continued honor to serve the people of the 5th Barnstable District. If I can ever be of assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me at 508-888-2158, or via my website at www.electjeffperry.com.

A new Governor and Legislature will be sworn into service during the first week of January and personally I eagerly look forward to starting my third term in the House of Representatives. I expect my role will change somewhat with the election of Deval Patrick to Governor; however, my goals and motivation remain the same. While legislative proposals are still being developed and I am certain many new and unexpected issues will emerge, I wanted to take this opportunity to outline some of the key areas I will focus on during the next two years. Homeowners and auto insurance reform are issues that continue to impact tens of thousands of Cape residents. In Barnstable County we appear to be on the losing end of both auto and homeowners insurance. As the auto insurance market is overly regulated, we who live in safe communities and have good driving records are subsidizing those drivers from more urban areas and high risk drivers. Thus we are paying higher rates than we would if the actual risks were truly calculated. It is my view that we should open up our auto insurance markets and allow a free market to set the rates. Regarding homeowners insurance and the Fair Plan, I am working with other Cape Legislatures and regulators to offer a variety of proposals to address the problem of a decreased number of insurance companies willing to write policies in Barnstable County. Everyone should know that the entire Cape Delegation is working tirelessly on this issue and we will continue to do our very best to find relief. Concerning education funding, I sincerely believe a fresh, simpler, and comprehensive new formula is appropriate. It is time to scrap the old formula. I have personally spoken to Governor Elect Patrick and the Chairperson of the Education Committee concerning my ideas. The bottom line is that there are a significant number of cities and towns that are receiving well over 90% of their local school budgets from the State, while most schools on Cape Cod are receiving 20% or less. While some may disagree with me, I believe this is wrong. While I am pleased we were able to increase school funding these last few years, I will continue to attempt to force the issue of a fairer formula until my school districts are fairly treated. On the subject of illegal immigration, I have written a Bill similar to legislation which recently passed in Colorado and Georgia. This comprehensive legislative proposal will target those over the age of eighteen years of age and establish strict requirements for anyone applying for state sponsored benefits. Some of the focal points include State benefits, such as welfare, disability, driver’s licenses, public housing, benefits for secondary education, fuel assistance, and unemployment compensation. A major goal of the legislation is to guarantee that the citizens of the Commonwealth are protected from those engaging in illegal activity, and ensuring their tax dollars are spent responsibly and for the legal citizens of Massachusetts. Welfare reform is an important issue that little is heard about as the Democrat-controlled Legislature and Governor Romney have strongly disagreed about how to address reform. It is apparent that lawmakers have been inclined to put off action on the issue until Mr. Patrick becomes Governor. Massachusetts will lose millions of dollars from the Federal government as we have failed to make changes to the work rules that apply to welfare recipients. From my point of view, welfare should offer a temporary helping hand to those in need and not create a lifelong dependency on government. For my part, I will continue to push for real reform to our current system of exemptions from the Federal rules.In closing, I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to continue to serve you on Beacon Hill.

If I can ever be of assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me at 508-888-2158, or via my website at www.electjeffperry.com. Best wishes to everyone for healthy and prosperous 2007.

Hope for a more productive next term from the Legislature

With Election Day fast approaching and as I am seeking my third term to the House of Representatives, I have been watching the local, state, and national races with great interest. While the issues of Republicans vs. Democrats, Conservatives vs. Liberals always take center stage, one of my concerns for the next term of the Legislature is the lack of ability of your State Government to address and solve real problems we are having. While the issues get a lot of media and political spin, very little has been accomplished to solve a number of real and important problems we face.For example, the time for political posturing on taxes is growing old. Despite what some politicians in the Democractic party will try to tell you, the State can afford to lower the income tax level and increase funding to our local communities. As the State has a surplus of revenue collected from the taxpayers of Massachusetts of over $1 billion, I believe a significant portion of this billion dollars should be distributed back to the local communities where it is needed the most for property tax reduction and increases in education and public safety spending. This can be done at the same time the income tax is reduced to 5%.The Legislature has a disappointing record of ignoring the vote of the citizens on this issue and it is my hope that people remind those running for election that voters have a Constitutional right to have their votes honored. It is my hope that finally in the next session of the Legislature that the majority party will agree and reduce the State’s income tax level back to 5% as the voters clearly mandated.In an effort to reduce the number of illegal immigrants coming to Massachusetts, I have joined a group of legislators and filed a comprehensive Bill that would prohibit the Commonwealth from doing business with employers who willfully employ illegal immigrants. This bi-partisan measure was pushed for passage before the end of the current legislative session; however, the legislative leadership did not bring to a vote. While enforcement is indeed a Federal issue, until the folks in Washington, D.C. get serious about this crisis, the Commonwealth and local communities will be forced to do what we can to protect our public services and legitimate business from the burdens that come with unchecked illegal immigration. Homeowners and auto insurance reform is something we hear a lot about in the Legislature, but to date we have seen very little substantive action. There is a great deal of effort and money being spent to either convince us that reform is needed or that we should maintain the status quo. From my point of view, in Barnstable County we are getting the “short end of the stick” on both auto and homeowners insurance. As the auto insurance market is overly regulated, we who live in safe communities and have good driving records are subsidizing those drivers from more urban areas and high risk drivers. Thus we are paying higher rates than we would if the actual risks were truly calculated. It is extremely disappointing to me that we completed our formal legislative sessions without one single substantive vote on either homeowners or auto insurance reform. The Band-aid approach to education funding we have seen in the past has left school districts unsure of what their funding will be and thus creating a failure of long-term planning. I sincerely believe a fresh, simpler, and comprehensive new formula is appropriate. It is time to scrap the old formula. There are a significant number of cities and towns that are receiving well over 90% of their local school budgets from the State, while most schools on Cape Cod are receiving 20% or less. While some may disagree with me, I believe this is wrong. While I am pleased we were able to increase school funding these last few years, I will continue to attempt to force the issue of a fairer formula for debate until my school districts are treated fairly.

Once again, the Massachusetts Legislature has ignored the rights of the citizens of the commonwealth as guaranteed by Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution. Whatever your position on the same-sex marriage issue is, you should be concerned and outraged at the abuses of the political process that are going on at the Statehouse. The facts are that on Nov. 7, the joint Legislative session, known as the Constitutional Convention (ConCon) gathered in the House Chamber for the purpose of voting on proposed amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, including a proposal to define the definition of marriage in Massachusetts. Supporters of the proposed amendment collected more than 170,000 signatures from registered voters to place the measure on the ballot in 2008. To get a spot on the ballot, the measure needed the backing of 50 legislators, but of course this can only happen if there is a vote on the issue. Unfortunately, the representatives and senators chose not to vote on the question and used procedural moves to avoid having to take what some legislators considered to be a difficult and controversial vote. In what I would describe as an abuse of democracy and a violation of Article 48 of our Constitution, the majority of legislators voted to recess until Jan. 2, which just happens to be one day before the end of the legislative session. This question was brought forward by the people of the commonwealth under Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution, which clearly states, ''Final legislative action in the joint session upon any amendment shall be taken only by call of the yeas and nays, which shall be entered upon the journals of the two houses; and an unfavorable vote at any stage preceding final action shall be verified by call of the yeas and nays, to be entered in like manner. At such joint session a legislative amendment receiving the affirmative votes of a majority of all the members elected, or an initiative amendment receiving the affirmative votes of not less than one-fourth of all the members elected, shall be referred to the next general court.'' From my point of view and as declared by our Supreme Judicial Court, not casting a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment is not consistent with the intent and plain meaning of Article 48. The signers of these petitions have a right to have a vote, and once again this right has been denied. Wherever you stand on this issue, you should be extremely concerned that the initiative petition process is being ignored by the majority of your elected officials. This is a dangerous precedent being set by your government, and I am fearful what abuse of the democratic process may be next. Regardless of emotion and feelings involved in this issue, I have taken an oath of office to uphold the Constitution and, as the clear meaning of Article 48 is that a proposed amendment ''shall be taken only by call of the yeas and nays,'' I will continue to vote against recessing the ConCon without holding myself and all legislators accountable to the people. On the substantive question, I believe the people of Massachusetts should have the right to speak directly to this question at the ballot box and I will continue to vote to do so. When the people speak at the ballot box, I pledge to support whatever their decision is. As the title of my position is ''representative,'' this is my duty and I take my oath of office very seriously. State Rep. Jeffrey D. Perry, R-Sandwich, represents the 5th Barnstable District in the Massachusetts Legislature.

The Primary elections are over and now the Election 2006 season is in full swing. As usual, in this year’s election, candidates for State and local office are talking about a myriad of issues, including the ever present matter of taxes. While the Legislature has let another term pass without honoring the will of the voters and roll back the income tax level to 5%, local property taxes have risen far beyond the increases in income of most people. All the while, the Commonwealth is enjoying over one-billion dollars in surplus revenue with all sorts of new spending programs awaiting the new legislative session set to begin in January of 2007. If you will recall, the voters Statewide approved a ballot question calling for the rate to be rolled back to 5 percent. In Barnstable County, the vote was 81,254 in favor of the tax reduction and 36,558 against. Some political candidates are suggesting that we should continue to ignore the citizen vote and dedicate these funds towards property tax relief in the future. This position is flawed and overly simplistic. Over the past few years as the income tax rate has been stalled, property taxes have escalated as discussed below. To assume that if we continue to hold the tax rate at 5.3% that local property taxes will magically decline has proven to be wholly false. While all revenue collections are indirectly related, there is no real evidence or history that suggests the more money the State collects in income taxes, the lower the property taxes imposed by the 351 cities and towns. As it currently stands, according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, the taxpayers of the Commonwealth allocate more money to state and local services than in most other states. In the most recent available statistics, we ranked eighth in the country in total revenue generated by state and local taxes and fees per capita, 11.2 percent above the national average and ahead of every New England state except Connecticut. In many cases, rising property taxes are forcing some seniors from their life long homes. As the values of residential properties have risen much more rapidly than those of commercial properties, tax bills for homeowners have been mounting despite the Proposition 2½ restrictions. According to the Municipal Finance Task Force, in cities and towns that lack residential exemptions, the average single-family tax bill rose from $2,679 to $3,589, or 36 percent, from 2000 to 2005. In most Cape Cod communities, the increases are even greater. There are solutions to reduce the burden of increasing property taxes and while some suggest we should override the will of voters and not reduce the State’s income tax, there is no reason we cannot and should not do both. As the state has a surplus of revenue collected from the taxpayers of Massachusetts, I believe a significant portion of this billion dollars should be distributed back to the local communities where it is needed the most for property tax reduction and increases in education and public safety spending. Anyone who tells you we cannot afford to do both simply has not looked carefully at the wasteful spending in the State budget and the record level of revenue collections. I can assure you that should the surplus continue to remain in the hands of the liberal minded folks on Beacon Hill, it will be spent sooner than later. I am also confident that more funds will be dedicated to programs and services for which the people of Cape Cod garner very little benefit. The time for political posturing on taxes is growing old. Despite what some politicians will try to tell you, the State can afford to lower the income tax level and increase funding to our local communities. The Legislature has a disappointing record of ignoring the vote of the citizens on this issue and it is my hope that people remind those running for election that voters have a Constitutional right to have their votes honored. As always, I welcome your comments on this column and please feel free to contact me should I ever be able to assist you. I can be reached at 508-888-2158, or via e-mail at electjeffperry@aol.com.

We have all probably seen the news stories concerning security breaches in government and private industry which have exposed the personal data of Americans to the general public or of criminals who have stolen the identity and credit of unsuspecting victims.A recent report estimated about 90 million such occurrences just in the past eighteen months. This estimate is from the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group Education Fund and is based on a review of 200 publicly disclosed security breaches over the past year and a half that involved sensitive personal data being lost or stolen. The cases involve well-publicized breaches at the Boston Globe and the Department of Veterans Affairs.Researchers at MASSPIRG estimate that “hundreds of thousands” of Massachusetts residents have had their personal information exposed 1.8 million times since 2005. “ Massachusetts is clearly lagging behind other states in protecting people from identity theft,” MASSPIRG consumer advocate Eric Bourassa said in a recent statement.As a legislator, I have heard from several of my constituents who have expressed their support for a bill which would have significantly addressed this growing problem. In March of this year the Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure approved identity theft legislation (House Bill 4775), but the Bill hasn’t moved since. I am hearing around the halls of the State House that this Bill was held in Committee due to a couple of powerful special interest groups fighting against it.
As our formal legislative session ended this year on July 31 st, the Legislature will now only be meeting in informal sessions, where one legislator can block the advance of this or any bill. Thus the effort to pass a bill to protect the citizens of the Commonwealth from identity theft is effectively dead for this session.Eliminating identity theft in this computer age appears practically impossible, but thirty six other states have passed laws targeted at prosecuting identity thieves and ensuring that consumers have the best chance to protect themselves if their personal information it inadvertently released. Other states also have strict notification requirements and “security freeze” laws.Since Massachusetts failed to pass a comprehensive identity theft bill, I would encourage everyone to be on guard for potential efforts to gain access to your personal information. Be especially careful when providing your social security number to others. While some requests are legitimate, many requests are not necessary.For example, your employer and financial institutions will need your Social Security number for wage and tax reporting purposes. Other businesses may ask you for your Social Security number to do a credit check if you are applying for a loan, renting an apartment, or signing up for utilities. Sometimes, however, they simply want your Social Security number for general record keeping. Never provide your social security number unless you are confident why the person asking needs it.Under Federal law, you’re also entitled to a free report if a company takes adverse action against you, such as denying your application for credit, insurance or employment, and you request your report within 60 days of receiving notice of the action. The notice will give you the name, address, and phone number of the consumer reporting company that supplied the information about you. You’re also entitled to one free report a year if you’re unemployed and plan to look for a job within 60 days; you’re on welfare; or your report is inaccurate because of fraud. In addition, Massachusetts residents are entitled to one free credit report each year. I would encourage all residents to check their credit reports to ensure no one has gained access to your identity or credit details.While I am very disappointed that the Legislature did not act promptly to pass effective legislation to deal with identity theft, I plan to continue to press this issue and will surely be supporting efforts to pass a comprehensive identity theft bill in the next session of the legislature.As always, I welcome your comments on this column and please feel free to contact me should I ever be able to assist you. I can be reached at 508-888-2158, or via e-mail at electjeffperry@aol.com

I was disappointed, but not surprised to the read the recent column “Lt. Gov. Healey missed a chance.” In the column a writer for the Massachusetts Teacher’s Association Union “ MTA” attempted to portray Republicans and Lt. Governor Healey as anti- education. While I fully agree that the MTA and the Republican Party do not see eye-to-eye on many issues, I would submit that it is not because of a lack of commitment to education by my Party.Our education professionals deserve our support and appreciation for their efforts to educate our children; however, from my point of view in the House of Representatives, the differences between the Governor’s Office and the MTA seem to be focused on labor issues, tenure and collective bargaining, and not on substantive matters of the education of our children. While a union should be interested in such issues, it appears to be a bit disingenuous to couch such disagreements under the simple umbrella of “education.”The fact is that Lt. Governor Healey has spent the last four years as the Administration’s lead person dealing with local elected officials as well as being the strongest possible advocate for local aid and measured reforms to education spending.The MTA representative who authored the article was highly critical of the Lt. Governor’s unwillingness to participate in a pre-primary debate with four of her opponents. Anyone experienced in politics would never advise someone to debate four opponents at once. It is customary when there is a contested primary to wait until the primary is over and then debate your selected opponent in a one on one setting. To criticize Lt. Governor for waiting until after the primary is simply unfair and political motivated. I also find it somewhat suspicious that the MTA appears to be attacking the Romney/Healey Administration on education the very same week the Democratic candidates have launched television ads with the same message.I do agree that the MTA and the Republican Party could be on better terms. As the Ranking Member on the Education Committee, I have the opportunity to work on education issues practically every day. During my first four years in the Legislature, I have seen the MTA’s total lack of interest with Republican proposals or endorsing Republican candidates for office. During elections, I see the huge amounts of money spent to elect more Democrats to office. For a review on what is really going on with MTA spending on political races, I would encourage everyone to read, ”Teachers union quietly aiding candidates, Sidesteps limits on campaign handouts” which was published in the December 11, 2005 edition of the Boston Globe.To set the record straight, of the last four years under the Romney/Healey team, the commitment the State has made to the education of our children is strong and our schools are receiving more funding since the cutbacks after the economic slowdown following September 11, 2001. In fact, since 1993, the Education Funding Formula, known as "Chapter 70" has distributed billons of dollars to local school districts in every city and town in our Commonwealth. In this year's budget alone, the State again allocates over $3 billion back to our cities and towns.This year’s budget includes an additional $217 million in funding over FY06 levels, an increase of 6.6%. Some communities, such as Sandwich are receiving over 10% more in the Budget the Romney/Healey team signed. This year’s Budget plan for Chapter 70 draws elements from the Governor’s proposal in House 2, the House plan, and the Senate plan. Additional elements included in the distribution approved by the Legislature is a $463 million increase in foundation budgets over FY06 amounts. This includes an uncapped inflation allowance of over 5.86% and increases of $50 per student for English language learners and $25 per student for low-income students.The Governor and Legislature worked as a team to also ensure that local school districts could take advantage of the special education circuit breaker. The FY07 budget provides full funding for the special education circuit breaker at $207 million, an increase from FY06.While I understand that the MTA is a union that has the best interest for the compensation of its members as a top priority, I remained disappointed with their continued mud-slinging of Republican candidates and rejection of our proposals. From my point of view, such efforts are not in the best interest of the children and adds to the negativity that is pervasive in our political system.I have had the privilege of working with many teachers and administrators over the last fours years and believe that our education professionals deserve our strong support and appreciation for their efforts. From my point of view, their union is doing them a tremendous disservice by their summary rejection of Republican proposals and candidates.

Rep. Jeffrey Davis Perry
Ranking Member – Education Committee
State Representative – 5th Barnstable District
R-Sandwich

It appears this year’s hottest political issue is illegal immigration and for good reason. From issues related to tax payer subsidies for college tuition, driver’s licenses, welfare benefits, and employment violations, the issue of immigration reform has reached the political boiling point in Washington, D.C., on Beacon Hill, and now in our local town halls. While it would be impossible to discuss all of the impacts of illegal immigration, from my view, the foundation of the problem is that some employers are violating the laws by hiring this inexpensive labor source and that the State is providing services to those of illegal status. Without employment opportunities and access to public services, illegal immigrants would not be risking their lives to enter our borders. There is no doubt that this is a Federal issue; however, since our elected officials in Washington, D.C. have failed to successfully address this issue, states like Massachusetts have no other real choice but to attempt to deal with the increasing burden these illegal immigrants are placing on our health care providers, criminal justice system, educational faculties and employers who are following the rules.In an effort to reduce the number of illegals coming to Massachusetts, I have joined a group of legislators and filed a comprehensive Bill that would prohibit the Commonwealth from doing business with employers who willfully employ illegal immigrants. This bi-partisan measure is being pushed for passage before the end of the current legislative session.Currently, there are no State requirements beyond the basic regulations of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act for employers to verify immigration status. Thus, employers are only required to comply with the Federal requirements, which provide little, if any verification of an employee’s status.Our Bill is titled “An Act to Promote Fair Employment and Security in the Commonwealth” comes on the heels of widespread media reports of employers doing business with the State hiring workers with questionable or illegal immigration status. The Bill requires the State and all businesses that contract with the State to ascertain and verify the immigration or citizenship status of their employees through available federal mechanisms. Failure to verify will result in the suspension or loss of contracts with the State.Additionally, the Bill targets the problem of false identification and imposes penalties for those who use false identification or falsify identification documents. Persons who use false identification to obtain or maintain employment from a business that contracts with the State will be subject to a fine of not more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, in a jail or house of correction for not more than two years.The Legislative proposal will also require the Attorney General to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the United States Attorney General to collaborate with regard to the investigation and enforcement of alleged violations of Federal immigration law. Importantly, the Bill also stipulates that the Attorney General establish a toll free telephone reporting system for confidential reporting of unlawful employment of unauthorized aliens and State fair wage laws.The old argument that illegal immigrants are only taking jobs that American citizens don’t want is at best partially true. Over the past few months I have spoken to countless Cape Cod contractors who provide such services as painting, roofing, landscaping, and masonry who have told me that they are losing business to groups of illegal immigrants who are under bidding them. The reasons they can do so are many, including that most illegal immigrants are not paying income taxes, workers compensation, unemployment insurance, or liability insurance. Often times, illegal immigrants are paid a wage below minimum wage, which makes it virtually impossible for legitimate contractors to compete.The bottom line is that illegal immigrants are hurting our businesses that are operating by the rules and it time for the State to make certain that it does not directly or indirectly employ illegal immigrants. It is simply unfair to our citizens and legitimate contractors that the Commonwealth is in essence subsidizing illegal activity by allowing tax dollars to be funneled to those who are working under the table and without proper documentation.As has been recently reported by this newspaper, due to the failure of the Federal government to address the varied problems of illegal immigration, local towns, like Sandwich feel they must individually address this problem. Unfortunately, until the folks in Washington, D.C. get serious about this crisis, the Commonwealth and local communities will be forced to do what we can to protect our public services and legitimate business from the burdens that come with unchecked illegal immigration.

Homeowners and auto insurance reform is something we hear a lot about in the Legislature and I am sure you have all seen the television commercials on both sides of this hot political issue, but to date we have seen very little substantive action. There is a great deal of effort and money being spent to either convince us that reform is needed or that we should maintain the status quo.

From my point of view, in Barnstable County we are getting the “short end of the stick” on both auto and homeowners insurance. As the auto insurance market is overly regulated, we who live in safe communities and have good driving records are subsidizing those drivers from more urban areas and high risk drivers. Thus we are paying higher rates than we would if the actual risks were truly calculated. Contrary to the auto insurance market, there is very little regulation in the homeowner’s insurance market, which has allowed companies to leave our coastal areas due to a perceived higher level of risk. The apparently continuous announcements of insurance companies leaving Cape Cod and not renewing homeowner's insurance policies have placed many homeowners in fear they will not be able to secure insurance to protect their homes. As I am sure you may be aware, thousands of homeowners, including myself, are not able to purchase commercial homeowner’s insurance and have been forced into the “Fair Plan.” I believe that the long-term solution to this problem can be found by opening our insurance markets and encouraging new companies to come to Massachusetts and compete for our business.

It should come as no surprise that Massachusetts has the most regulated insurance system in the Nation when it comes to auto insurance. Reforming auto insurance in Massachusetts requires a whole lot more than simply reducing rates. To increase consumer choice, lower insurance rates for good drivers, and infuse desperately needed capital, we need to move to a competitive marketplace. By reforming the auto insurance market and encouraging new companies to come to Massachusetts , it is reasonable that these same companies will enter our homeowner’s insurance market and likely give residents on Cape Cod options for coverage and more stable rates. Insurance reform will provide all drivers with greater choice in product and price, something that consumers expect and already have in most consumer markets and every other state in the nation. It will reduce the high costs of fraud that are annually passed on to policyholders by making insurers individually responsible for those costs. Personal responsibility is also key to any successful reform proposal. In a true competitive market, the financial incentive will finally exist for those drivers to improve their driving. This is a good start and positive incentive to encourage good driving habits. Insurance rates should reflect the risk and while some risk sharing is appropriate, it is simply unfair for us in Barnstable County to share the risk on the auto insurance side, and receive virtually no real options on the homeowner’s insurance side.

We in the Legislature need action now, before we adjourn in August. Just last month, another small auto insurer announced it was leaving Massachusetts , yet another victim of our current system's failings. Twenty-two thousand drivers will be forced to switch insurers next year into a small number of companies who operate in a price-fixed system. Massachusetts consumers deserve to have a free market system where companies can write different types of competitive home and auto insurance. Our system is broken and not benefiting consumers, especially here on Cape Cod . There are just a few large auto insurance companies who benefit under this current system and they are spending a great deal of time and money to maintain the status quo by generating fear and uncertainty. We need to put the people’s needs before the profits of a selected group of companies and open up our insurance market. As always, I welcome your comments on this column and please feel free to contact me should I ever be able to assist you. I can be reached at 508-888-2158, or via e-mail at electjeffperry@adelphia.net

Certainly the local, state, and national political environment has been quite negative and divisive in recent times. Nationally, we are dealing with the war against terrorism and issues of illegal immigration. On the state level, the struggle to provide expanded health care, reform school funding, and find solutions to the homeowner insurance crisis have been center stage. Locally, the budget debates seem to create an annual friction between schools and municipal government. We have even recent some seen battles between competing Chambers of Commerce locally. With the voices on the various sides of all these issues fighting for their own points of view, sometimes as a community we get wrapped up in the negativity of competing points of view and forget about all of the positive people serving quietly among us. As a State Representative, I have the duty and privilege of attending countless events thoughout my District. It is not unusual to be out each evening at some function learning about an issue, meeting with constituents regarding their specific concerns, or attending some political event. This past week has been no different. And rather than writing this column on one of the many problems we face or discuss my perspective on a given political issue, this month I want to share with you a positive message about a few good people who share our community. Last Monday at the State House, Les Perry, the dedicated supervisor at the Department of Conservation and Recreation's Shawme-Crowell State Forest in Sandwich , was honored as Ranger of the Year. He was selected among the staff at more than 3,000 state parks nationwide. Les is a true Cape Cod native who began working in the State park system 40 years ago as a fire tower operator. Each and every day, Les is working to ensure an enjoyable experience to those who visit Shawme-Crowell and is a tireless advocate for the preservation of our natural resources. Last Thursday, I had the sad experience of attending the funeral of another tremendous public servant, Owen Gaffney. While sitting in the packed Corpus Christi Church , I heard story after story of Owen’s dedication to his church and the community in general. His life was one full of personal successes and of helping others in numerous ways. In retirement, Owen spent countless hours volunteering his labor, corporate experience, and fundraising ability to enhance his community. Owen will be missed by not only his loved ones, but by the extended group of people that he touched and helped. The following day, I was asked to speak at a Housing Assistance Corporation event at the Daniel Webster Inn . This event was to announce a $1 million State grant for the construction of 16 affordable homes to be built in Sandwich . While I am pleased that a project that I fully supported received State funding, more importantly, this event was to honor Ben and Lucille Fleet who donated 16 acres of their own family’s land which is the primary reason this project is able to happen. The 16 families who will be able to own their own home and our entire community are blessed to have such generous neighbors, like the Fleets living among us. The Fleets have done more for affordable housing in Sandwich that anyone and they do so quietly and modestly. Later that same night, I was producing my cable television show at Sandwich Community Television. One of my guests was Dave Deconto, the brother of Captain Gerry Deconto who was killed at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. In a tremendous effort to honor Gerry, the Deconto family has personally donated $250,000 to the Stadium Complex Committee, which will be named after our fallen hero. Dave Deconto, his mother Patricia, and the entire Deconto family have suffered a loss of a beloved brother and son, and now they have generously decided to honor him by making our community a better place and providing a facility to all of our children to learn and play. The purpose of sharing a few of the recent events I have attended is to remind you that despite all the challenges, struggles and disagreements we may have as a nation, state, and community, we are truly blessed to have so many good and decent people doing their part to make this world a better place. Let us not take their work and sacrifices for granted. As always, I welcome your comments of this column and please feel free to contact me should I ever be able to assist you. I can be reached at 508-888-2158, or via e-mail @ electjeffperry@adelphia.net

In a vote on April 4th, the Massachusetts House of Representatives and Senate passed a Bill to mandate that every citizen in the Commonwealth be required to purchase health insurance coverage and all businesses with ten or more employees provide health insurance coverage or face an assessment (tax) of $295.00 per employee, per year. While I fully understand and agree with the goal of expanding health care for all citizens, in my opinion, State Government should not mandate that each and every citizen of the Commonwealth, regardless of their personal financial situation, be required to purchase a health insurance product. It makes one wonder when we face future problems, will government's response be to mandate that everyone in our State pay for yet another product or create yet another tax? From my point of view, health insurance is a tool and benefit that employers use to attract the employees they wish to employ. When did our society change from a free market economy to this new form of socialism? When did we reach the point where government can now require all businesses to provide certain fringe benefits to all employees or be subjected to a new tax? The bill as passed states that employers with ten or more employees must provide health care or be subject to assessment, which means a tax! I believe this is a disincentive for small companies seeking to locate or expand their business in Massachusetts. It is also likely that some business owners will choose not to treat employees as such and will attempt to classify them as "independent contractors" in an effort to avoid the new health insurance tax. This will likely result in lower State payroll tax collections as well as no longer providing these "independent contractors" with unemployment and workers' compensation benefits. This will be a significant unintended consequence which may result in a loss of revenue to the Commonwealth and less worker protection, with no real increase in health insurance coverage. As you may know, hospitals are required to provide services to everyone who walks through their doors. The cost to the Commonwealth to reimburse health care providers for these services is approximately $480 million. While one of the Bill's stated goals is to get these individuals off of this "free care pool," the funding of this program is actually projected to increase. As taxpayers, we will still continue to pay for the health care of illegal immigrants and non-residents. It is unclear what the State will do with those individuals who refuse to purchase this mandated health insurance product, but seek coverage in our emergency rooms. One reason why our health care costs are so high is that the Commonwealth already mandates that certain types of coverage are included in every policy. This Bill does nothing to reduce or eliminate these mandates and furthermore it does not allow for real customer choice of insurance products as Governor Romney suggested in his original proposal. We also failed to reform the various administrative burdens on health care providers. At the end of the day, what we did was to mandate that everyone in the Commonwealth must purchase a heath insurance policy and impose a new tax on the business community. While attending Chamber of Commerce events on the Cape, I have consistently heard from my local business community that they are opposed to the new health insurance tax and want the ability to purchase from a variety of lower cost health insurance plans. The Bill passed does just the opposite. While some have made estimates that the cost of this program will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, a real projection is not possible as Massachusetts is the first in the Nation to take this approach. My fear is that we have grossly underestimated the cost of this program and there will be many unintended consequences. It should also be expected that if the new tax on business is not enough to fund the program, the Legislature will be forced to raise taxes again to make up the difference. I welcome your comments on this or any issue State government is dealing with. You can telephone me at 508-888-2158 or via e-mail at electjeffperry@adelphia.net.

Cape Cod is fortunate to have hundreds of small and moderate sized businesses that provide the economic life blood of to residents and visitors alike. Prior to entering the Legislature, I owned several small businesses on Cape Cod and in Florida. The experiences of starting and operating a business were truly rewarding and provided me with a clear understanding of the benefits and burdens of being a business owner. As a State Legislator, I have heard the concerns and complaints from the local business community regarding the high cost of doing business in the Commonwealth as well as our often complex regulatory climate at the Federal, State, county, and municipal level. I am certain that anyone who has started or operated a business on Cape Cod will attest to the significant challenges of trying to comply with complex laws and the tax burden. So you may wonder how we in Massachusetts compare to other states when considering our tax structure and overall attractiveness of doing business. Unfortunately and despite the fact that we have some of the greatest universities and hospitals, a highly educated workforce, and several thriving industries, Massachusetts ranked 27th in a report released recently comparing us against other states. While this may seem like we are average, our ranking has been falling, from 25th in 2004 and 22nd in 2003. The study, conducted by the Tax Foundation, further concluded that the Bay State ranked 36th on the business tax index, 15th on the individual income tax index, and 9th in sales and gross receipt taxes. In the unemployment insurance tax index, the Commonwealth slotted 49th, and placed 41st in the wealth index. “A lot of the states you’re competing with were really backwater states, and now they’re attracting the businesses and we’re losing out” said Barbara Anderson, President of the Citizens for Limited Taxation. “You’ve always dealt with a Legislature that doesn’t have a clue about how business works, people with a business mindset think that Massachusetts is nuts, and that word spreads throughout the Country” Anderson also said the State’s total per capita tax burden is the Nation’s fourth highest. Wyoming, South Dakota, Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, Texas, Delaware, Montana and Oregon were named the states with the most “business-friendly” tax codes, while the bottom 10 included, in descending order from the bottom, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Ohio, Vermont, Maine, Kentucky, Nebraska, Iowa and Arkansas. On Beacon Hill, business competitiveness issues continue to drive many of the debates, including health care reform, economic stimulus, electrical rates, and the business permitting process. Governor Mitt Romney has also recently blasted the State’s unemployment insurance system, which ranks 49th on the Tax Foundation scale, as an impediment to companies relocating to Massachusetts. Having said all of this and being a former business owner myself for many years, I am now writing this column and asking you for your ideas and concerns about how we can do better at promoting and sustaining our business community. If you have an idea how your State Government can make it more attractive to do business in Massachusetts. I welcome your comments and ideas. Sometimes the folks on Beacon Hill get too disconnected from the people they are elected to serve. The halls of the State House are full of lobbyists and special interest groups who push their agendas. It is my belief that the best ideas how we can improve our Commonwealth come from the people who are doing the work everyday. In this light, I hope to hear your ideas how State Government can help create or get out of the way of our small business community. If there are ways that your State government can improve, I want to know. I encourage you to contact me at my Sandwich Office at (508) 888-2158, or in Boston at (617) 722-2800, extension 8743 should you have a problem related to your State government or if you have ideas about how we can be more effective or efficient. You are also welcome to contact me via E-mail at Rep.Jeffrey.Perry@hou.state.ma.us

As the campaign season for 2006 elections approaches, I want to take this opportunity to offer my thoughts on all of the negativity that continues to be prevalent in politics at the national, state, and even the local level. There seems to be a growing trend of divisiveness in politics today, which from my perspective is hampering resolution of many of the critical issues we face. While disagreement and debate on the varied issues we deal with as a society is a fundamental part of our political process and our system of government, it continues to be disappointing that so much time and energy is focused on attacking our people and not our problems. This is not a partisan statement; from my observation and experience all political parties are guilty. What compelled me to select this subject for my monthly column was while reading the editorial pages, I observed several letters to the editors concerning local town officials where out and out libelous statements where made as if they were based on facts. While our First Amendment certainly protects free speech, especially political speech, it does not allow someone to make false statements with the reckless intention to damage someone’s reputation. Speaking to many local officials, I am hearing more often that some well qualified individuals decide not to seek elected office due to their apprehension that their personal integrity will be under constant attack. Not only in the editorial pages do we see negative and personal approaches to our political process, but we especially see it more and more from candidates themselves. The negativity of campaigns is increasingly seen in advertisements and literature during the heat of political campaigns. Negative advertisements are seemingly becoming more important to each party’s race as time goes on. In a poll taken after the 2004 elections, the following question was asked to voters from all regions of the Country. "Compared to past presidential elections, would you say there was more mud-slinging or negative campaigning in this campaign or less mud-slinging or negative campaigning in this campaign?" Seventy-two percent stated the recent election included more mud-slinging and there was no statistical difference by political party. From my experience and perspective, I do not believe the voting public wants all this negativity, but in many races there isn’t an available alternative. Personally, I have refused to use attack or personal attack advertisements or strategy. There is strong evidence that positive advertising is more effective than negative. While there is a widespread belief that going negative invariably works, is it not supported by the record and I will never be a party to this tactic. If we really want things to become more positive, it will take the candidates, media, and the voters rejecting negative politicking. So, I have a challenge to all candidates seeking political office. Explain to the voters your experience, positions, and vision for the future. To the news media, investigate candidates and publish stories about matters related to credibility, but refuse to condone and foster one candidate attacking another. Also, the media needs to demand that candidates and editorial writers back up statements with facts. The First Amendment never was intended to defame the reputation of good people seeking public office and the media should understand its role of seeking the truth and not simply promoting an agenda or selling newspapers. To the voters, if you truly want the negative attacks to stop, tell candidates you refuse to support them if they go negative and be willing to carry this into the ballot box. The 2006 Election is an opportunity to have serious discussions on the many issues we face, I hope we can do so in a positive and productive manner. I welcome your comments on this or any issue State government is dealing with. You can telephone me at 508-888-2158 or via e-mail at electjeffperry@adelphia.net.

As we enter the final six months of this legislative session, there are a large number of critical issues that remain unresolved. Although it is not possible to discuss all of the important matters in the space allowed in this column, I want to briefly outline a number of the key issues I will be working on: Health Care Expansion There is a variety of proposals being discussed on Beacon Hill and it appears that the Legislature is on the verge of health insurance reform. My fear is that we could get the "reform" wrong and create a system that increases the burden on our business community and one that fails to truly provide expanded health care coverage. The House would impose an additional payroll tax on the business community. I stand strongly against any new taxation and believe our business community is already faced with an over burdened amount of taxes and regulation. If we want to stay competitive, more taxation and government mandates are certainly not the answer. I am supporting Governor Romney's proposal that would open the door to affordable health insurance products without any new taxes while allowing for health insurance plans costing approximately $200 a month for an individual. School Funding Reform The Band-aid approach we have seen in the past has left school districts unsure of what their funding will be and thus creating a failure of long-term planning. I sincerely believe a fresh, simpler, and comprehensive new formula is appropriate. It is time to scrap the old formula. I have filed House Bill 1080 to reconfigure how the State distributes education funding. My proposal does not contain a "hold-harmless" provision, which is politically controversial. Many communities which I believe have been receiving over-funding from the State would see a decrease. There are a significant number of cities and towns that are receiving well over 90% of their local school budgets from the State, while most schools on Cape Cod are receiving 20% or less. While some may disagree with me, I believe this is wrong. This proposal offers a different approach and represents a sincere effort to offer a comprehensive proposal that addresses a problem that has had serious financial implications to all who have children in our schools or pay property taxes. We do not need more taxes to solve the inequities in school funding; we simply need a new and fairer funding formula. State Income Tax Rollback As you probably remember, the voters approved a ballot question by a wide margin to roll back the State's income tax from 5.95% to 5.0%. The rollback was scheduled to be complete by 2003, but the Legislature has frozen the rate at 5.3% since 2002. I am extremely concerned that the citizen's right to speak at the ballot appears to be in serious jeopardy. The Legislature has a disappointing record of ignoring the vote of the citizens. For my part, I will continue to offer bills and amendments to at the very least, force the majority party to be accountable for their failure to reduce your taxes. Homeowners and Auto Insurance Reform The continuous announcements of insurance companies leaving Cape Cod and not renewing homeowner's insurance policies have placed many homeowners in fear they will not be able to secure insurance to protect their homes. The long-term solution to this problem can be found by opening our insurance markets. It should come as no surprise that Massachusetts has the most regulated insurance system in the Nation. The Commonwealth insurance business has been described as a closed market where only the politically connected are able to do business. The answer is simply because the Commonwealth makes it too difficult for businesses to enter our market and earn a profit. Currently, there are two bills in the legislative process to address a part of the problem, but more needs to be done. Over the coming months, I will continue to work toward opening up our insurance markets and encourage these and other commercial companies to come to our State. By doing so, consumers will have more choices, prices will stabilize due to more competition, and we will not have to rely on a quasi-governmental insurance company for protection. I welcome your comments on this or any issue State government is dealing with. You can telephone me at 508-888-2158 or via e-mail at Jeff@ElectJeffPerry.com.

On Sunday, January 8th, the CCT's editorial staff once again took the position that your tax dollars should be used to subsidize the college education of illegal immigrants. While it may "feel good" for the Times to take such a liberal point of view, from my point of view, such a policy violates the rule of law, promotes illegal behavior, is unfair to taxpayers, and puts law breakers ahead of those who follow the immigration rules. By encouraging illegal behavior, what message does this send to immigrants who enter this country legally? The issue of immigration must be looked at from two different points of view.

The first dealing with those people who are in the United States legally and the second deals with those here illegally. While I believe it is the role of government to provide people with a helping hand, I do not support taxpayer dollars going to provide assistance to people of illegal status. The Times cited that since Massachusetts is losing population and suggested we should embrace programs such as taxpayer funding for college for illegal immigrants in an effort to keep or encourage illegal immigrants to come to Massachusetts. This position is ridiculous for so many reasons.

Did the CCT's ever think that Massachusetts is losing population because of polices such as this, or perhaps it is our high cost of living and taxation that is causing people to leave the Commonwealth? It is also grossly unfair to force taxpayers to subsidize the college education of illegal immigrants when the Commonwealth has many and more pressing priorities. For example, some time ago, I had a disabled man, who served in the Army National Guard, in my office in desperate need of dental work, which is no longer provided by the Commonwealth. This veteran was extremely upset that the State was considering providing benefits to illegal immigrants while telling him they could not afford to repair his painful teeth. How can we as a Commonwealth tell this man who has served his Country "no", but say "yes" to creating entitlements to illegal immigrants?

The current proposal would put illegal immigrants ahead of citizens from other states. As an extreme example, under the current proposal, if a solider just returning from Iraq who previously lived in Florida moved to Massachusetts to attend one of our public colleges, he would pay substantially more than an illegal immigrant who came to our Country illegally. If the CCT's had read the actual Legislation, they would have discovered that the measure as currently worded does not limit the subsidy to those who have already applied for citizenship. Additional, the Bill does not limit the benefit to illegal immigrants from Massachusetts. If passed, this measure will create a wide open door for illegal immigrants from all over to compete for Massachusetts students.

As it is unclear if citizenship will be granted to these students in the future, it is likely that many will never be able to pay income taxes, thus we are paying for education without the likelihood of gaining taxes later. Furthermore, the Times editorial conveniently neglects to mention that there is currently a law suit filed in Federal Court which could hold that programs that benefit illegal immigrants over citizens from other states is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. If this lawsuit is successful, any state offering discounted tuition to illegal immigrants, would also have to offer it to citizens from other states. This could result in Massachusetts citizens losing the ability to have a discounted tuition all together. To reward illegal immigrants who have violated our laws sends the wrong message to those immigrants who have spent many months and even years waiting in line to enter this country legally and is grossly unfair to the taxpayers.

It is my view that the Commonwealth should be allocating our resources at expanding health care, improving education, and ensuring public safety and not benefits to illegal immigrants! Judging by the hundreds of calls and e-mails I received following my appearance on the Howie Carr radio show, I'd say that my constituents agree with me…and these are the people I have been elected to represent.

Recent statistics show that approximately half a million people in Massachusetts are without health insurance coverage. While some people can afford to purchase health insurance and simply choose not to, the large majority of uninsured are people who work for small employers who cannot afford to provide employer sponsored health insurance. The problem of the uninsured is everyone’s problem, costing government, providers and ultimately you the taxpayers more than a billion dollars every year. As a State Representative working on health care reform, I have been advocating for and supporting an effort to pass a true, free market-based healthcare program. Personally, I do not believe in a government-mandated universal coverage scheme or a single payer system, and under no circumstances should we ask the citizens or businesses of Massachusetts to pay higher taxes to fund any such reform effort. From my point of view reform means changing for the better the way we deliver health care, not simply spending more money on the current system. While there is a variety of proposals being discussed and it appears that the Legislature is on the verge of a significant health insurance reform, my fear is that despite some very good intentions, we could get the “reform” wrong and create a system that increases the burden on our business community and one that fails to truly provide expanded health care coverage. One of the proposals currently in Committee would impose a six to eight percent additional payroll tax of the business community. As regular readers of my column are aware, I stand firm against any new taxation and strongly believe that our business community is already faced with a vast array of taxes and regulations. If the Commonwealth wants to stay competitive, more taxation and government mandates are certainly not the answer. I am supporting Governor Romney’s proposal that would open the door to affordable health insurance products without any new taxes while allowing for health insurance plans costing approximately $200 a month for an individual, compared to the current $350 average in the small group market and $500 in the non-group market. A family plan will cost about $500 a month under Romney’s plan. Another important feature of Governor Romney’s plan is the creation of the Commonwealth Care Exchange, which allows the uninsured to use pre-tax dollars for the payment of premium costs. Depending on income, the exchange will allow families and individuals to save an additional 15 to 30 percent off their insurance bill. Using pre-tax dollars will enable working individuals to purchase the new plans for an effective cost of between $134 and $160 a month, or approximately $350 a month for a family plan. Often times, people who can afford insurance don’t buy it. In fact, over 100,000 of the uninsured have household incomes of over $75,000 a year. I suspect we all know people who say that they don’t buy health insurance for reasons ranging from; its expensive, they bet they won’t get sick, if they do get sick they won’t be refused healthcare to their employer doesn’t offer insurance. Our over regulated insurance industry in Massachusetts often prevents insurers from offering policies with only basic benefits. Costly options are mandated by the Legislature under the guise of protecting the consumer. However often have the effect of deterring people from choosing and being able to afford a reasonable health insurance product. We must also recognize that some of the largest costs in our system are non-medical and need to be addressed. They include administrative, malpractice, and defensive medicine costs. Fraud prevention must also be an integral part of health care reform in Massachusetts. If we do not restrain the growth in healthcare costs and change how we deliver healthcare for those who receive it, increasing health care costs will continue to outpace influence and continue to decimate our local, State, and Federal budgets, but the creation of new taxes on the business community is not the solution. While I am pleased that we are getting close to providing health care insurance to more residents of Massachusetts, we simply cannot do it with more spending and higher taxes. What is needed is real reform! As always, I would like to hear from you about any issue we are dealing with in your State Government. I can be reached at my District Office 508-888-2158 or via email Jeff@ElectJeffPerry.com.

Retroactive Taxation Is Wrong!
By Representative Jeffrey Davis Perry
5th Barnstable District

While I will agree that there are serious differences of opinion on what a fair tax system looks like, it is my firm belief that retroactive taxation is profoundly unfair and under no circumstances should be imposed on the citizens of the Commonwealth. This may appear to be an issue with which most people would have little trouble agreeing; however, that is exactly what, in all probability is about to happen to 40,000 Massachusetts taxpayers.

In 2002, when the State was experiencing an economic downturn, the Legislature changed the method of taxing capital gains from a sliding scale based on the length of time the capital asset was held to a flat rate of 5.3%. The effective date of this change was May 1, 2002. This mid-year change was deemed to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Judicial Court as Article 44 of Massachusetts Constitution requires that rates of taxation be uniform within the same calendar year.

To be clear, I agree with the logic of the Court’s decision. The Supreme Judicial Court informed the Legislature that it had a choice. Your elected Representatives and Senators could opt to make the effective date of the change January 1, 2003, which would result in a refund between $225 and $ 275 million that had been collected using the flat rate during the period between May 1 and December 31, 2002. The alternative choice available to the Legislature was to make the effective date of the change January 1, 2002, thus requiring a retroactive tax to be collected on assets sold between January 1st and April 30th 2002. This would require collecting $150 million from citizens who filed their tax returns by the rules as they knew them at the time and sold assets during the first part of 2002.

From my observations on Beacon Hill, the majority of your elected officials are much better at spending your money than reducing your taxes. In fact, with increasing tax revenues, our “rainy day fund” now has $1.7 billion in it and revenues are exceeding projections for the current fiscal year by $800 million, while the income tax rollback passed by the voters still has not been honored. On November 3rd, the Legislature effectively voted to impose the retroactive tax. This means three years after the fact, approximately 40,000 taxpayers of Massachusetts will be receiving a retroactive tax bill, including yours truly. While some may believe this tax will only impact the wealthy, my analysis of the figures from the Department of Revenue tells a different story. For example, there are 889 people with adjusted gross incomes between $25,000 and $30,000 who will owe $477,644. That is an average of $537.00. Who are these people? Many are probably retired individuals living on their small invested savings.

The vote in the House resulting in this retroactive tax was on a broader piece of legislation that contained the retroactive tax provision. The vote to pass this legislation was 95 to 56. The bipartisan vote against the measure included all twenty Republicans and thirty six Democrats. This is a sufficient number to sustain an imminent gubernatorial veto. Unfortunately, on November 9th this vote was reconsidered, which is a common Beacon Hill tactic. This time the vote was 118 to 31. The twenty Republicans still voted no, but we were joined this time by only eleven Democrats, far fewer than the number necessary to support the governor’s veto. When the Bill does reach the Governor’s desk, I fully expect Governor Romney to offer an amendment and eliminate the retroactive tax provision from the measure. We need 81 members of the House and 21 Senators to vote “yes” to adopt the amendment. Unless the public can convince a substantial number of my colleagues to change their minds and vote to adopt the Governor’s amendment or sustain the Governor’s veto when it comes before us, this unjust, retroactive tax will be imposed and 40,000 taxpayers will be receiving an unwanted Christmas present in the form of an additional tax bill for 2002.

It is simply wrong to impose a retroactive tax three years later! From my perspective, refunding the money is fiscally reasonable and the ethically correct thing to do. Mailing taxpayers a bill three years after the fact is plain wrong. It goes against the American principals of notice of the laws, and common sense fairness. I wonder what our Founding Fathers would think of this one?

According to the Department of Revenue, the Commonwealth collected nearly $2 billion from Massachusetts taxpayers in the month September, setting a new record high. Receipts exceeded last September's collections by 14.3 percent, or $242 million, and provided proof positive that sales and use taxes grew despite a two-day sales and use tax holiday in August, which was designed to boost consumer buying and the economy.

Once again we see clear and convincing evidence that a lower tax rate will lead to increased government tax collections, plus an increase in economic activity for our businesses. In fact, sales and use tax receipts were up 3.4 percent, despite the two-day sales tax holiday in August that was reflected in the September numbers. Income tax collections were up 12.9 percent for the month, withholding receipts rose 8.2 percent and corporate and business tax receipts shot up 35 percent. With the extra cash flowing into the State's coffers, thus far the Legislature has spent $178 million of the fiscal '05 surplus in supplemental appropriations to shore up accounts and fund union contracts. We have also transferred $827 million to the Rainy Day fund. For the first three months of this fiscal year, State tax collections are up 7.9 percent, and we are beating budget benchmarks by $194 million. It should also be noted that the Commonwealth collected $1.215 billion above what lawmakers budgeted in fiscal 2005. Meanwhile, the State's stabilization fund is nearing its highest level ever, just $5 million shy of its peak in 2002.

These financial facts beg the question, how much money does State government need before it honors the will of the voters and reduces the State's income tax rate back to 5%. Five years ago, the voters said enough and told the Legislature to reduce the income tax rate back to 5%. It was necessary for the citizens to stand up and redress their government as it has now been sixteen years since the Legislature and Governor Dukakis passed the "temporary" income tax hike to cover the 1989 fiscal crisis. From my personal and political point of view, the Legislature has an obligation to roll back the State's income level immediately. It is not only morally correct, but it makes good economic sense as lower taxes will lead to increased consumer spending, and ultimately higher sales and employment tax collections by the State.

The tax cuts in the Federal income taxes by President Reagan in the 80's and President Clinton in the 90's clearly demonstrate that lower personal income taxes results in higher total government revenue collections as there is money in our economy and less people dependent on government programs. The opponents to the income tax roll back state that if we roll back the taxes there will be less revenue to send back to local towns for education and public safety. This position is overly simplistic and ignores two important facts. First of all as stated above, we have seen once again that lower tax rates lead to higher government tax collections. It is Economics 101 that when government collects less taxes from the citizens, that the additional money is put into the stream of commerce, which will stimulate economic activity, which leads to higher sales and employment tax collections and less people dependent on government programs and services. The second incorrect position which some opponents take is that we should use the excess funds to create new social service programs. While this is certainly an option, I continue to be shocked how many elected officials easily disregard the results of the ballot question mandating the tax roll back. Voters statewide approved a ballot law calling for the rate to be rolled back to 5 percent. In Barnstable County, the vote was 81,254 in favor of the tax reduction and 36,558 against. If this vote is not a clear mandate from the voters, I would suggest the citizen referendum process is just about dead in Massachusetts.

I am extremely concerned that the citizen's right to speak at the ballot appears to be in serious jeopardy in Massachusetts. Whether it is the issue of charitable deductions or the State's income tax rate, the Legislature has a disappointing record of ignoring the vote of the citizens. As always, I would like to hear from you about any issue we are dealing with in your State Government. I can be reached at my District Office 508-888-2158 or via email @ jeff@electjeffperry.com.

Recently Governor Romney filed "Melanie's Bill: An Act to Protect the Citizens of the Commonwealth from Drunk Drivers." The bill is named for Melanie Powell of Marshfield, who was struck and killed by a repeat-offense drunk driver.

According to Melanie's family, who I recently met with at the State House, Melanie was a Girl Scout, a soccer player, a dancer, a cheerleader in the Marshfield Youth Football program and a doer of good deeds. She was beautiful, inside and out. On July 25th, 2003, Melanie and her friends were on their way back from the beach to a friend's house for cake and ice cream at a party for one of the girls celebrating her 13th birthday. They were crossing a busy beach street in Marshfield. It was four o'clock on a beautiful Friday afternoon when Melanie was struck down and killed by a repeat-offense drunk driver. On a day when a little girl should have been celebrating one of the joyous rites of passage in youth, a birthday party, she lost her life and destroyed a family.

As a former police sergeant myself someone who has worked with Mother's Against Drunk Driving, I know full well that drunk driving is a serious problem in our Commonwealth. Now as a member of the Massachusetts Legislature and Ranking Member of the Public Safety Committee, I regret to inform the readers of this column that many of your Senators and Representatives are failing to respond to this issue, due in my opinion in part to the influence of criminal defense attorneys on Beacon Hill. You may think that becoming a victim of a drunk driver will only happen to someone else. That is what the parents of Melanie Powell thought, but it did happen to them and your family could be next. In fact, it happened to 206 other families in the Commonwealth in 2003. The research that MADD and others have done on a national level proves that tougher drunk driving laws do save lives.

All too often in the history of Massachusetts, too much emphasis and too many resources have gone into protecting the rights of the accused and not enough into protecting the rights of the victims. It's time for that to change. The passage of "Melanie's Bill" will go a long way towards insuring that Melanie's little brother Spencer, who will know his wonderful older sister only through the remembrances of others, will grow up in a safer world. The bill would create a new crime of "manslaughter by motor vehicle," which would carry an automatic loss of license for life. The minimum jail sentence for those convicted of this crime would be five years in prison, instead of the current maximum of 2 ½ years. Under this Bill, drivers who refuse to take a Breathalyzer test or field sobriety test would have their licenses suspended immediately for one year, rather than the current 180-day suspension. Melanie's Bill would also create new penalties for those who drive drunk with a child under 16 in the vehicle and for those with a blood alcohol level of .20 or higher, which is more than twice the legal limit. This Bill would impose mandatory jail time to offenders who get behind the wheel while their license is suspended for drunken driving, and all repeat offenders would be required to install an ignition-interlocking device on their cars as a condition of getting their license back.

There is no single piece of legislation that could ever completely eliminate the possibility of another death at the hands of a drunken driver, but Melanie's Bill will be taking a huge step forward at making our roads and communities safer for all. I urge every citizen of the Commonwealth to call their legislators and urge them to pass Melanie's Bill. Without question, this measure shall have my vote.

SANDWICH – Representative Jeffrey Davis Perry (R-Sandwich) is encouraging citizens of Cape Cod to offer assistance to those who are arriving from the hurricane ravaged Gulf Coast at Camp Edwards/Otis Air Force Base. “The situation along the Gulf Coast is ongoing and very serious and we as citizens of America must all do our part. There will be a lot of difficult work ahead, but I believe that Americans will respond and take care of those who have been displaced. I am certain that our Nation has the character, the resources, and the resolve to overcome this disaster.

We on Cape Cod will do our part to comfort and care for the victims. This is one of those disasters that will test our soul and test our spirit of a Nation. I am fully confident that the people of Massachusetts are more than eager to do their part” Representative Perry said from his Sandwich Office today. In an effort to provide assistance to those who have arrived and will be arriving, Representative Perry is working with the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce to provide the needed materials and services to the displaced citizens. Below is a message from Wendy Northcross on how to help: Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce In concert with a group of community leaders, the Cape Cod Chamber is working to organize efforts around relief to victims of Hurricane Katrina. With the imminent arrival of approximately 2500 people from the Gulf Coast to Otis ANG Base, the Chamber has been specifically asked to coordinate a welcome effort. To that end, we are asking our members to please help by donating items or volunteer hours. First, we are seeking items for 2500 welcome buckets. (We have the buckets). A suggested list is: hats, sunglasses, flip flops lip balm, lipstick, nail polish, sunscreen lotion or skin cream maps of Cape Cod (we have some but need more!) small toys and stuffed animals books, magazines, reading materials pens, notebooks, stationery, postage stamps, tee-shirts (that say Cape Cod, of course!) candy, gum, snacks, any hospitality gift you may already use in your course of business. The goal here is to welcome these folks as new residents --- they are going to be receiving many of the necessities of life from the federal, state and local emergency relief organizations. This gift is meant to lift the spirits and to say WELCOME to Cape Cod. Any ideas are welcome! Second, we are collecting non-perishables In order to stock the pantries of the apartments at Otis. Again, this is to supplement the food service that will be on-going at the base. (Items like soda, cereal, snacks, peanut butter, etc.) COLLECTION POINT IS MASHPEE COMMONS: Please return this email to indicate what you might be able to donate and then take those items to Mocean on Steeple Street (across from Pottery Barn) at Mashpee Commons between the hours of 10 am and 6 pm. Volunteers Needed Third, we will need volunteers to assemble the welcome buckets and to coordinate delivery. Again, please return this email to volunteer, please give us your name & phone number. We will be in further communication over the coming days. We anticipate helping communicate the employment opportunities for those now residing on the Cape, and will be sending further information as it becomes available.

Representative Perry also suggests that people who wish to help will consider the following ways: Financial Contributions Cash donations help to avoid the labor and expense of sorting, packing, transporting and distributing donated goods. Voluntary relief agencies use cash to meet victims’ specific needs more quickly. Many voluntary disaster relief organizations have pre-existing relationships with major providers of disaster materials and supplies, and can leverage extremely good discounts, so donated dollars actually go further than if individuals purchase them. Donate Through Experienced Organizations. Be familiar with the organization that you are assisting. Work with voluntary disaster organizations with a known track record. Although relief agencies prefer the versatility of cash donations, some do have the infrastructure in place to store and distribute donated goods. To prevent waste, donated goods should be made only to agencies that have requested specific items. Confirm The Need Before Collecting. Donors should be wary of anyone who claims that “everything” is needed. Many people and groups have been disappointed that their efforts and the goods they collected were not appreciated. A community hit by disaster, however, does not have the time, manpower, or money to dispose of unneeded donations. Get precise information before collecting donated goods.

BEWARE OF FRAUD There have been reports of multiple websites that have attempted to trick users into donating funds to fraudulent foundations in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Some fraudulent emails may appear as requests from a charitable organization asking the users to click on a link that will then take them to a fraudulent site that appears to be a legitimate charity. The users are then asked to provide personal information that can further expose them to future compromises. Users are encouraged to take the following measures to protect themselves from this type of fraud: Do not follow unsolicited web links received in email messages. Contact your financial institution immediately if you believe your account/and or financial information has been compromised

Representative Perry strongly recommends that all users reference the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) website for a list of legitimate charities to donate to their charity of choice. Volunteer Wisely To Help Others. In a community struggling to respond to and recover from a disaster, an influx of unexpected or unneeded volunteers and donations can make the process more difficult. Before traveling to the disaster area to help, learn where and when your skills will be needed. Discuss with volunteer organizers how your needs for food, water, and shelter will be met while you are volunteering.

Donation Contacts
American Red Cross – 1-800-HELP NOW www.redcross.org
National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (NVOAD) – www.nvoad.org
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) – www.fema.gov

As you probably remember, there was a voter-approved ballot question in 2000, where voters approved by a wide margin an initiative petition to roll back the State’s income tax from 5.95% to 5.0%. The rollback was scheduled to be complete by 2003, but the Democrat controlled Legislature has frozen the rate at 5.3% since 2002. One of the reasons for my entry into politics in 2002, was the Legislature’s consistent failure to honor the will of the citizens of Massachusetts when they speak via the ballot questions.

The purpose of this column is not to discuss whether we still deserve the label of Taxachusetts, which in my opinion, we do, but I write to you this month regarding my concern for the Legislature’s continued failure to honor the will of the citizens. On Beacon Hill, I find it extremely disturbing that many liberal politicians seem to think that they know better than the voters and that somehow it is perfectly fine to disregard the clear results of a ballot question. Certainly an elected official cannot be expected to have the same opinion as the majority of the people they represent on every issue, but is there not a moral obligation to promote the will of the people of one’s District when they vote in an overwhelming manner at the ballot?

In an effort to get the Legislature to honor the will of the voters, both Governor Romney and I have on numerous occasions offered Legislative proposals and budget amendments to roll back the State’s income tax to the voter mandated rate of 5%; however, to date, these efforts have been rejected by the majority party on Beacon Hill. The primary excuse I have heard during the many debates on the income tax reduction was that we could not afford to honor the will of the voters as the Commonwealth was in a fiscal crisis. While this “excuse” may have been true following the terrorist attack of 9/11 as government tax collections declined, it no longer is true today.

At the end of the Fiscal Year 2005, the State enjoyed $1.2 billion above our revenue projections. In fact, in FY 2005, the State collected an all time record amount of tax revenue. Furthermore, in July, State revenues were up $62 million over our new estimates. So my question is how much money does the Commonwealth need before we have enough to listen to the will of the people and complete the roll back of the State’s income tax? From my personal and political point of view, the Legislature has an obligation to roll back the State’s income level immediately. It is not only morally correct, but it makes good economic sense as lower taxes will lead to increased consumer spending, and ultimately higher sales and employment tax collections by the State. The tax cuts in the Federal income taxes by President Reagan in the 80’s and President Clinton in the 90’s clearly demonstrate that lower personal income taxes results in higher total government revenue collections as there is money in our economy and less people dependent on government programs. I am extremely concerned that the citizen’s right to speak at the ballot appears to be in serious jeopardy in Massachusetts. Whether it is the issue of clean elections, charitable deductions, or the State’s income tax rate, the Legislature has a disappointing record of ignoring the vote of the citizens. John Adams and the founding fathers of our Commonwealth gave us the right to redress and direct our government via the citizen referendum; let us hope that soon this Legislature will honor it.

This issue of honoring the will of the voters should not be a partisan issue, but the facts speak for themselves. The Democratic Party holds 139 of the 160 seats in the House and until they decide that the voters’ will should be honored, your tax rate will remain at the 5.3% level. For my part, I will continue to offer bills and amendments to at the very least, force the majority party to be accountable for their failure to reduce your taxes. As always, I would like to hear from you about any issue we are dealing with in your State Government. I can be reached at my District Office 508-888-2158 or via email @ jeff@electjeffperry.com.

Statement on BRAC's decision to close Otis Air Force Base
by Rep. Jeffrey Davis Perry

Words cannot express my level of disappointment for the BRAC decision to close Otis. From my perspective, during the BRAC process, it was evident that the need for adequate fighter coverage for the greater Boston area, efficient training facilities for the Army and Air Guard, and the public safety mutual aid benefits of having staffed and trained personnel at MMR to supplement local departments in time of emergency were all compelling reasons to save Otis from closure. Certainly the chief advantage of the MMR has also been the jointness and cooperative attitude that various branches have displayed towards each other and the overall success of the MMR. It is truly unfortunate that our arguments were not successful. Even thought we were not successful in our efforts, I would like to thank the employees and service members from the 102nd along with General Dishner, Governor Romney, our Congressional Delegation, State Legislative Delegation, and all other local officials who did all that was possible to save the Otis Air National Guard base. I especially want to thank all of the citizens from the Upper Cape and beyond who provided their letters, financial contributions, and support towards this effort. It is truly a sad day on Cape Cod.

In a debate and vote in the House of Representatives last week, the State Legislature had two clear alternatives related to income taxes and once again made it less attractive to do business in Massachusetts. Faced with the option of returning money to the people who overpaid capital gains taxes in 2002, or creating a retroactive provision and taxing an entire new class of citizens, most of whom were small business owners, once again, the Legislature chose to tax more, and in my opinion took a step down the dangerous road of creating retroactive taxes, in this case, some three years after the taxable period occurred.

Instead of changing the tax laws well after the returns have been filed, Governor Mitt Romney filed legislation that would have required the State to pay back a debt owed to thousands of Massachusetts taxpayers. The Republican bill would have been the solution to two recent decisions issued by the Supreme Judicial Court declaring certain portions of our capital gains tax law unconstitutional. The Justices said it was wrong for the Legislature to shift halfway through the tax year from a graduated capital gains tax, based on the period of time a capital asset is held, to a flat rate tax of 5.3 percent. Under the State Constitution, taxes must be uniform throughout the entire year. I believe the Court was right. As with anything else in life, when it comes to the tax code, it is plainly wrong for us to change the rules in the middle of the game! The Court left it up to the Legislature to decide whether to make the tax rate changes take effect retroactively on January 1, 2002, or prospectively, on January 1, 2003. Unfortunately the majority of legislators chose to penalize hundreds of small business owners and thousands of individuals and create a retroactive tax!

After seeing Beacon Hill from the inside these last two terms, it takes a lot to surprise me, but I must admit, I left the State House on the day of this vote shaking my head and wondering what our Founding Fathers would have thought about changing the tax laws three years after the returns had been filed. This decision is more than academic. It has serious fiscal consequences to many, including myself as I am a former small business owner. With the effective date of January 1, 2002, the State will have to send bills to as many as 120,000 taxpayers for $159 million in retroactive tax payments. Remember these are people who already paid taxes under the old rules. Surely sounds like “taxation without representation” to me. Although I am very sensitive to the fiscal needs of our State and to those who favor raising additional revenue through the capital gains tax, I believe it is wrong for us to surprise people with an unexpected demand for more tax dollars 3 years after the fact. Acknowledging the fiscal implications of rebating money to certain taxpayers, I still believe the most equitable and reasonable approach is not to create a new retroactive tax. I also think we should give affected taxpayers a modest time extension to file paperwork with the Department of Revenue to settle their tax bills, if needed.

Fairness and equality are the underpinnings of any good tax code and are virtues to be respected. Despite the fact that approximately two dozen Democratic House members joined the Republican caucus against this increased tax, the retroactive tax easily passed the Legislature and now proceeds to Governor Romney for an expected veto; however, unless more Democrats change their minds and vote against the retroactive tax provision, the Massachusetts Legislature will override the veto and thus have created yet another reason why business owners choose not to do business in the Commonwealth.

The number of uninsured, especially on Cape Cod is far too large and growing. Private insurance premiums are increasing at double digits, and local, State, and Federal government spending is at an unsustainable rate. In fact, the latest statistics show that 460,000 people in Massachusetts are uninsured. To be clear, the problem of the uninsured is everyone’s problem, costing government, providers and ultimately you, the taxpayers more than a billion dollars every year. As a State Representative working in the Legislature, I am advocating and supporting an effort to pass a free market-based healthcare program. Personally, I do not believe in a government-mandated universal coverage scheme or a single payer system and under no circumstances should we ask the citizens of Massachusetts to pay higher taxes to fund any such reform effort. One effective method to do so is for our insurers and our State health programs to provide care at a lower cost is by directing patients towards the most effective and efficient care. For example, a sore throat can be diagnosed and treated by a physician in a clinic or at an emergency room, but the cost varies dramatically. Reform plans need to direct patients to providers so they receive high quality care at the lowest cost. Presidents Reagan and Clinton recognized that the health care system was rife with counter-incentives and abuse and took steps to improve it. I believe that the same is true of what Medicaid has now become. The goal of any health care government program is to provide people in need with an adequate level of assistance and to encourage people to make an effort to become a productive member of society by participating in the free market. The current Medicaid system does just the opposite by creating a dependency and many times punishing people who make a sincere effort to locate employment (by removing them from benefits). Often times, people who can afford insurance don’t buy it. Over 100,000 of the uninsured have household incomes of over $75,000 a year. I suspect we all know people who say that they don’t buy health insurance for reasons ranging from its expensive, they bet they won’t get sick, if they do get sick they won’t be refused healthcare to their employer doesn’t offer insurance. Our over regulated insurance industry in Massachusetts often prevents insurers from offering policies with only basic benefits. Costly options are mandated by the Legislature under the guise of protecting the consumer, but often have the effect of deterring people from choosing and being able to afford a reasonable health insurance product. Health insurers have informed us in the Legislature that they can develop plans costing less than half of today’s standard rate of $500 per month for an individual. These plans would not be the same as many people are accustomed to, but would still provide primary, preventative, specialty and catastrophic care. For example, New York they introduced a program in which private insurers offer rates as low as $140 a month. In an effort to insure those in need (Medicaid Eligible), it will also require the help of our hospitals. Approximately 106,000 of our uninsured actually qualify for Medicaid insurance, but do not know it or are put into an “Uncompensated Care Pool” which costs taxpayers even more. Hospitals and government need to be more aggressive at screening all uninsured patients. By identifying those Medicaid eligible individuals, we can save the taxpayers millions and provide the services they need. We must also recognize that some of the largest costs in our system are non-medical and need to be addressed. They include administrative, malpractice, and defensive medicine costs. Fraud prevention must also be an integral part of health care reform in Massachusetts. Furthermore, the Legislature should embrace Governor Romney’s request to create the first in the nation electronic records system, medical quality and cost reporting and a program to increase the supply of nurses. If we do not restrain the growth in healthcare costs and change how we deliver healthcare for those who receive it, increasing health care costs will continue to outpace influence and continue to decimate our local, State, and Federal budgets.

Welfare Reform. Two words that often provoke an emotional response both from social service advocates and taxpayer groups. To begin, we should all agree that government exists in part to provide a helping hand to those in distress. I further hope we can also agree that the Commonwealth has an obligation to protect our most vulnerable citizens, but what happens when some of our citizens become dependent on government programs? What should we do with citizens who choose not to work? Is it society's responsibility to support the unmotivated…and if so, does this mean indefinitely? You may be surprised to learn that Massachusetts is one of only five states in the Nation without a lifetime limit where recipients may collect benefits. In other words, assuming they qualify, a person can go on and off welfare throughout their entire lifetime. The annual cost to the Massachusetts taxpayers is $359 million dollars and despite the passage of the Federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which was signed into law by President Clinton, most Massachusetts welfare recipients are not required to comply with the intention of the Federal Act known as "Welfare to Work." Under the Federal Act, welfare recipients are further limited to a five-year lifetime benefit. Although it may "feel good" to provide lifelong benefits to welfare recipients without requiring work, it is my own belief that we as a State Government are not doing the recipient or the taxpayers any favors. The goal of government should be to provide citizens with a safety net until they can get back on their own feet and not create a lifetime free ride. To be clear, I am not referring to individuals with legitimate handicaps. I think we all have heard about someone abusing the welfare system. It should go without saying, but all should remember that each dollar provided to someone taking advantage of the welfare system is one less dollar we have to spend on those truly in need. So, how do we reform the welfare system in Massachusetts? Governor Romney has offered a few ideas which I believe have merit. First of all, it must be the goal of welfare to get people (who are able) back to work. At its foundation the welfare system must have a strong "welfare to work" requirement which should include educational opportunities, job training and subsidized child care. Reform should only include an initial benefit period where a qualified individual or family is provided with financial assistance; however, this period should be relatively short. Able bodied individuals should be required to seek employment without delay and the continuation of benefits must be contingent of proof that the recipient is actually seeking employment. Should someone not be able to locate employment, a welfare recipient should have the choice to enter a job training program or a public service program. There is absolutely no reason why an able bodied healthy person should be able to receive tax payer dollars without demonstrating a sincere effort to improve their situation or providing a community service. We have much to learn from President F.D. Roosevelt's work programs of the 1930's and 40's. President Roosevelt's work programs which centered on putting people to work on community service projects and not simply mailing a welfare check not only created countless community projects, but created a generation of productive and proud citizens. Whether we choose wage supplements, job training and advancement strategies, time limits, or participation mandates, successful reform approaches must creatively engage welfare clients with the goal of maximizing the total number who actually obtain employment. There is absolutely no reason why an able bodied welfare recipient should not be required to be an effort to become a productive members of society. Not only can we no longer afford lifetime welfare benefits, but philosophically we should not be creating citizens who are dependent on government.

It may be more than five months until the start of the next fiscal year, but the Commonwealth's budget season begins this week when Governor Romney offers his plan for the 2006 Fiscal Year. The first stop for the Romney budget is the House Ways and Means Committee. While the Committee is in existence, it technically has no members to start the work evaluating the approximately $23 billion spending plan. There are no members assigned to any of the committees yet as the House and Senate have yet to decide which committees will continue to exist during this new legislative session. Based on my experience during the last two years, I feel it is time for the Legislature to realign the committee structure as some committees no longer serve a valuable purpose and new areas have developed which are in need of specific attention. My support of new committees is guarded as history tells us that sometimes "restructure" is the term used to reward certain individuals with paid chairmanships of committees and withhold committee assignments from others who may not support the current power base. The rumors around the State House hallways suggest that some of the new committees might focus on emerging technologies and higher education. Both issues certainly deserve their own focus rather than being buried in overburdened committees attempting to handle other related matters. Generally speaking, not much has been happening in the public on Beacon Hill since we started the new session on the first Wednesday in January, but the Senate President Robert Travaglini, Republican Senator Brian Lees, House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, and Republican Leader Brad Jones have been working quietly behind the scenes on the new rules to be debated this week. The rules debate often ignored by the media is very complicated and I admit, not exciting news, but it is very important as it sets the procedures that the Legislature must follow over the next two years. Once the committee structure is formally established and the rules debate is concluded, the Senate President and House Speaker will announce their choices to lead and serve on each committee. As a Republican member, my Leader, Brad Jones will assign me to my Committee assignments. It is my hope that one of the very first budget issues we deal with after the completion of committee assignments is the issue of local aid to cities and towns. It has been reported that the Governor's budget will boost proposed State aid to cities and towns by 4.3%. This is great news! Governor Romney recently informed local leaders that "times are better now and the State is once again in a position to send more money back to cities and towns." The Romney budget will propose $4.42 billion in local aid to 351 cities and towns, a $183 million increase. During the budget process, I will also continue to do everything within my power to support the reduction of our State's income tax back to the 5% level. During the last session, the House unfortunately overwhelmingly rejected our proposal to reduce the State's income tax and the issue was never entertained in the Senate during the 2003-2004 session. As I am sure you will recall, the voters statewide approved a ballot law calling for the rate to be rolled back to 5%, but the majority party has refused to support the reduction to the 5% level. As we enter this next session, it is my hope that the trend of reform will continue. During the past two years, the Legislature and the Governor worked well together on many issues to make State spending more responsible, but we have a long way to go before I am willing to say that we are doing a good job at spending your tax dollars and providing services to the citizens of the Commonwealth. As always, I would like to hear from you about any issue we are dealing with in your State Government. I can be reached at my District Office at 508-888-2158 or via email @ jeff@electjeffperry.com.

The commitment the State has made to the education of our children is strong and with the additional funding from President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" Legislation, our schools are receiving more funding than ever before. In fact, since 1993, the Education Funding Formula, known as "Chapter 70" has distributed billons of dollars to local school districts in every city and town in our Commonwealth. In this year's budget alone, the State allocates over $3 billion via this formula. Even with billions of State and Federal taxpayer dollars dedicated to education spending, the funding formula has shortchanged many school districts, including all of those on Cape Cod, especially the fast growing communities of Sandwich, Mashpee, Bourne, Falmouth, and Barnstable. As a member of the Education Committee on Beacon Hill, I have observed that the only way to obtain real reform in education funding is to develop a comprehensive proposal to reform how our local communities receive Chapter 70 funding. The Band-aid approach we have seen in the past has left school districts unsure what the funding will be and thus creating a failure of long-term planning. While I understand the politics of this issue, I sincerely believe a fresh, simpler, and comprehensive new formula is appropriate. In light of a pending Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision rendered by Judge Botsford regarding the Commonwealth's Constitutional obligation to provide all students with an adequate education, I have developed a new legislative proposal to reform the way the State distributes education funding to the 351 cities and towns in our Commonwealth. My bill simplifies the Chapter 70 funding formula by offering a new three-step formula to determine what a local community would receive. To start, my formula proposal will provide each student with a "Base Aid" amount of $1,500. Next an adjustment factor known as "Median Income Adjustment" is calculated based upon the median family income per district. Finally, a factor known as "Local District's Ability to Pay Adjustment" is then calculated based upon the total taxable property per district. I believe that these three factors will ensure that all students in the Commonwealth receive appropriate education funding. The communities on Cape Cod do very well under my formula as compared to the current distribution method. The fact is we have been under-funded for far too long and it is my hope that this bill will stimulate a serious discussion on this issue. The bill does not contain a "hold-harmless" provision. If accepted as written, many communities which I believe have been receiving over-funding from the State would see a potential decrease. There are a significant number of cities and towns that are receiving well over 90% of their local school budgets from the State, while most schools on Cape Cod are receiving 20% or less. While some may disagree with me, I believe this is wrong. Each community should make a minimum effort to provide for the education of their children. The premise of my proposal is fairness and equity for all school districts and not simply spending more money into a formula that is fundamentally flawed. I also believe the Commonwealth needs to take a serious look into the unique funding issues related to regional and vocational schools. It is my belief that a separate formula may be required to address the uniqueness of vocational and regional schools and my bill puts the pressure on the Commissioner of Education to determine the necessary cost of providing students of regional and vocational public schools an adequate education. This proposal offers a different approach and represents a sincere effort to offer a comprehensive proposal that addresses a problem that has had serious financial implications to all who have children in our schools or pay property taxes. I hope that as we enter 2005, and in light of Judge Botsford's decision, that the Legislature has the political will to finally address this critical issue.

Was this past election the most important of our lifetime? I guess time will tell, but I must admit that I am very pleased that Election 2004 is now history. I am very humbled and pleased to have been returned to Beacon Hill to serve another two years representing the people of Sandwich, Barnstable, Bourne, and Mashpee. I take the responsibility of serving you very seriously and will continue to do my very best. In future monthly columns, I will continue to offer my perspective about what your State Government is doing, or not doing. I would like to take this opportunity as my first post-election monthly column to provide a little of my own election reflection. By determining peacefully who will govern us and by bestowing legitimacy on the decisions they make, elections are also an opportunity to provide answers to crucial questions faced by our various governmental bodies. We have many such questions before us for sure, but it does seem that with each passing election, our political and media organizations appear more interested in personalities and less in serious discussions about the varied and numerous issues we face as a Commonwealth. For my part, both in this election and two years ago, I refused to participate in what some deem “negative” politics. It’s just not my style, plus politically speaking I am convinced that it does not work. I cannot count the number of people who consistently tell me they are tired of personal attacks and insincere candidates. To set the record straight, both political parties freely participate in this style of campaigning. From distorting the truth, such as taking a quote out of context, to attempting those famous last minute mailings (October Surprises) and advertisements, our political process seems to be more and more focused on doing anything to win, rather than having a fair debate and leaving it up the voters. I am proud of the Sandwich Republican and Cape Cod Republican Committees for their efforts to offer quality candidates and promote a positive dialogue. More than ever, we are seeing special interest groups becoming involved in the election process and their messages are usually negative in tone and often include personal attacks. These messages not only deter good people from seeking elective office, but also dissuade voters from going to the polls. Since the birth of our Nation, our Constitution has guided us very well through considerable social upheaval, economic strife, and military conflict. But, the Country has undergone dimensional social, political, economic, military, and technological changes over the past two centuries that strain the revolutionary governmental system designed for wholly different times and conditions. Deficiencies are growing increasingly apparent in political representation, empowerment, and accountability, as well as attraction of the best political candidates. I believe that a direct correlation can be made with the negativity in our political system and the quality of the results our government achieves. One of my goals for my second term is to attempt to drive the debate and tone of political discussion towards positive resolutions of the issues. Hopefully I can also influence some others to join me and the next election season will be the beginning of a brighter day in Massachusetts politics. The Massachusetts Legislature will formally get back to business the first Wednesday in January. In the meantime we are busy preparing our legislative proposals. In the coming months, I will be offering my solutions to the many problems we have here on Cape Cod. If you would like to keep updated on my activities, please visit my website at www.electjeffperry.com. As always, if I can ever be of assistance, please do not hesitate to call my office at 508-888-2158. I wish everyone a happy, healthy, and safe holiday season.

We in the Legislature are at the end of our two-year session. As this is an election year, under our rules we are required to be finished with our formal business by July 31st; however, we are still meeting two days each week in informal sessions. I thought I would take this opportunity to offer a few reflections about my first term in the Massachusetts Legislature. I have enjoyed my first term serving the people of the 5th Barnstable District. I do admit I have been frustrated many times by the manner in which the Legislature conducts business, but the ability to participate in our republic form of government is an experience like none other. Generally speaking, I think that Massachusetts State Government is heading in the right direction, but we still have a long way to go before we are as responsible and accountable as the citizens of Massachusetts deserve. While there is an engrained culture of Beacon Hill politics which often gets in the way of good government, I believe that one can be an effective legislator without becoming a part of the problem. Both as a candidate and now serving in the House of Representatives, I have stood up and spoken out about what I thought was wrong with our State Government. I believe that in order to improve the institution of State Government, one must be willing to tell the institution itself what it is doing wrong. During my first term not only have I been critical of the Legislature, but also of the Executive side of State Government. For example, when the Sandwich Fish Hatchery and Marstons Mills Airfield faced closure due to the bureaucratic actions of an executive agency, I fought tirelessly to ensure that the relevant issues were resolved and the hatchery and airfield remained open. Sometimes those in the media or in the general public want to paint elected officials with a broad brush simply based on the letter (R, D, L, or G) they choose to put next to their name. I believe this is unfortunate and that we would be better informed if elected officials were judged based on their votes and record, and not only on what party they are a member of. It is my belief that a good Legislator is a thinking one and not someone who simply carries the party line. I make certain that I have the complete information regarding each item before I push my voting button. I wish I could say that this is the case with all of my colleagues, but I am afraid it is not. From my point of view, too many votes are cast solely in line with the leadership of a political party or with an eye on the next election, and not for what is truly in the best interest of the citizens of Massachusetts. I believe in putting the interests of my District and the State above party politics. While I do support the Governor’s efforts to reform State Government, this does not mean I agree 100% with his methods. To guide me, I have developed three questions I ask myself before taking each vote. 1) Is this a role of State Government? 2) Does it benefit my District or the Commonwealth in general? 3) Can we afford it? While it may be easy to vote “yes” for every spending program that comes my way, it is not responsible to the taxpayers. For each dollar we misallocate, we have one less dollar for appropriate programs, such as education, health care, public safety, and transportation improvements. I am proud of the many legislative accomplishments of my first term, but I am also equally proud of the level of constituent services my office has provided. While the politics do get frustrating at times, the ability to help the people of the District with their issues related to State benefits, programs, or regulations is truly an inspiring privilege, which I take very seriously. As always, I appreciate comments and suggestions from my constituents. Please visit my website at www.electjeffperry.com and feel free to contact me at (508) 888-2158 or e-mail me at jeff@electjeffperry.com.

The formal business of the Massachusetts Legislature ended on July 31st. Since the closing of the formal debate, the House and the Senate have been meeting twice a week in what is known as "Informal" sessions. These sessions do not include debate or rolls calls and generally include only non controversial matters. As you may be aware, I am a former police officer and member of the National Guard. With my previous professional background, I have a high level of interest in public safety matters and legislation. In this month's column, I have outlined several of the major pieces of legislation regarding public safety which I supported in this last term. Tougher Drunk Driving Law The bill aims to reduce the number of drunk-driving fatalities in Massachusetts while increasing the number of drunk-driving convictions. This new law deems drivers with a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher as legally impaired. The new law increases the license suspension period for refusing Breathalyzer from 120 days to 180 days and directs offenders into drug-treatment abuse programs. The Commonwealth now also qualifies the State for $2 million incentive grant from Federal Department of Transportation and it protects the Commonwealth's future federal highway funding. Expanding DNA Database This act now requires incarcerated as well as paroled criminals to submit DNA samples. It will help identify criminals sooner in their careers and prevent future serious crimes. With the passage of this bill, we triple the size of database. This legislation will not only assist in finding more dangerous criminals, but also serves to exonerate the innocent. New Committee on Homeland Security Combats Terrorism The Legislature created this new Committee to review all legislation relative to homeland security and prepare legislation to reduce vulnerabilities and prevent attacks. Hopefully this will assist the Commonwealth in keeping in contact with the Federal government on issues related to terrorism. Sex Offenders No other public safety issue has received more media attention that those related to the sex offender registry (SORB). Just in the House alone, there were 79 bills filed related to sex offenders, but most of the important developments have come from our Supreme Judicial Court. In the most recent decision, the Court held that the statute (G.L. c. 6, § 178D) that requires the Sex Offender Registry Board to publish sex offender information on the Internet regarding level three sex offenders does not violate Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Consequently, the Court upheld the constitutionality of G.L. c. 6, § 178D, due to the interest in protecting the public health and safety by notifying the public about dangerous offenders who live and work in the Commonwealth. This is good news for the public seeking information on dangerous individuals living on our communities. Improving Fire Safety in the Commonwealth This piece of legislation expands and reforms State's fire safety laws in the wake of tragic Rhode Island nightclub fire. This bill requires all nightclubs with occupancies greater than 100 to be equipped with automatic sprinklers within three years and creates stiffer penalties for code violations. Recognizing the financial costs to small business owners, the bill also provides a tax depreciation schedule and further investigation into lower insurance rates to reduce economic burdens on small business owners. In an effort to provide our firefighters with the tools and training needed to prevent another tragedy, the bill dedicates more than $11.5 million in new money to improve fire inspector training, fire fighter equipment, and fire safety education. I know that issues related to public safety are important to all of us. I believe that my experiences as a police officer served me well as I was working on related issues on Beacon Hill. As always, I encourage the readers of this column to contact me should they have any questions or comments, or if I can ever be of assistance to you.

On Sunday, Aug 1, the Cape Cod Times accurately quoted my words in their editorial "Nitrogen Gorilla," but took them totally out of context and completely failed to frame them under the topic I was speaking about. My comment regarding lack of proof of a Capewide problem was in response to the question of whether a new taxing authority for the entire County was justified verus seeking targeted solutions where the problems are known to exist. I agree that we do have nitrogen issues on Cape Cod, but since there are no testing sites in my District and my constituents are already under a tremendous property tax burden, I believe that it is my duty to ensure that yet another taxing authority is not created without absolute certainty it is the best solution to the problem.

Nowhere in the editorial is there a mention of the financial implication involved. The reason is simple, they have not yet been determined. Perhaps the Cape Cod Times is ready to create a Cape version of the "MWRA" and tax all the citizens of Barnstable County, but I am not. I need to have many questions answered before I am ready to send a bill to the residents of my District. The editorial spoke of the problem of nitrogen being akin to an "800-pound gorilla." One of my primary concerns is that a new taxing authority might just be the gorilla we fear driving more seniors and low-income resident from the Cape.

Yes, we have a nitrogen problem where a regional solution may be the best response, but I am not yet ready to sign onto a new taxing authority. I took the time to attend the Waste Water Implementation Committee presentation last week to learn more about this issue at hand. In the future, I would appreciate when the CCT chooses to report my comments or about the issues, that they report things in the proper context.

July 2004 We in the Legislature are at the end of our two-year Legislative session. As this is an election year, under our rules we are required to be completed with our formal business by July 31st. During the past few weeks, the State House has been extremely busy with last minute efforts to address the many issues we are facing in Massachusetts. I must admit that it is somewhat frustrating that we have left so much work to do until the very end of the session. This is not an efficient or effective way to operate, but it is engrained culture of Beacon Hill politics. The more rushed the process is, the greater control the majority party has over the debate.

One of the most important unresolved issues facing my District is education funding. As the only House member from Cape Cod serving on the Education Committee, I have spent countless hours fighting for a fairer Chapter 70 formula. I am very pleased to report that we are making progress. To reach the desired outcome of a new funding formula it will take the continued effort of the entire Cape Delegation. The ultimate solution to this long standing problem will take a bipartisan approach with lots of work to be done in the Education Committee, the House, Senate, and with Governor Romney. A significant part of the last minute business on Beacon Hill is dealing with the 2005 Budget vetoes.

By the time you read this column, both branches of the Legislature will have overridden dozens of the Governor’s vetoes. Governor Romney vetoed over 200 different line items and outside sections in the Fiscal Year 2005 budget passed by the House and Senate when he signed the document into law in June. Overriding some of those gubernatorial vetoes is truly, finally, the ultimate step in the marathon budget process we in Massachusetts undergo each year. To override a Governor’s veto, it takes two-thirds of the members of the House and the Senate. Of the nearly 86 vetoes the House has taken up as of the writing of this column, only one was sustained (not overridden) by the members. This sole veto sustained was a veto concerning the moratorium on new Charter Public Schools in the Commonwealth. All of the other vetoes offered by the Governor were rejected by the majority. Although many of the veto override votes are purely along the political party lines, many were not. Thus far I have voted to sustain nearly 71% of the vetoes; which means that I joined my Democrat colleagues in overriding Governor Romney’s vetoes 29% of the time. I am a Republican, as you know, but I believe in putting the interests of my District and the State above party politics.

I do support the Governor’s efforts to reform State Government, but this does not mean I agree 100% with his methods. It is my belief that a good Legislator is a thinking one and not someone who simply tows the party line. I make certain that I have the full information on each item before I push my voting button. I wish I could say that this is the case with all my colleagues, but I am afraid it is not. From my point of view, too many votes are cast solely in line with the leadership of a political party or with an eye on the next election, and not what is truly in the best interest of the citizens of Massachusetts. As we finish our session and take up the remaining veto overrides, I will continue to cast my votes for what I believe is in the best interest of my District.

As always, I appreciate comments and suggestions from my constituents. Please feel free to contact me at (508) 888-2158 or e-mail me at jeff@electjeffperry.com and let me know what you think about the issues we are dealing with or if I can ever be of assistance to you.

Believe it or not, Massachusetts State Government has over $500 million of excess revenues. Due to a stronger than expected economy, increased fees, and the closure of several corporate tax loopholes, the Commonwealth finds itself in the enviable position of having to decide what to do with a half of a billion dollars. Furthermore, as we are approximately thirty days from the end of the Legislative session, these decisions are likely to be made in the near future. Of course, any time State Government (in fact any level of government) has money which is not allocated, there are endless ideas floating around the State House regarding how it should be spent. Ever since figures were released, the lobbyists and special interest groups have started their efforts to get at a slice of this half a billion dollar pie. In my view, Governor Romney has offered a balanced and correct approach how these excess revenues should be allocated. The Governor's spending plan is outlined in the supplemental budget request he filed with the Legislature. First of all, the taxpayers of the Commonwealth deserve to have their State personal income tax reduced to 5%. As you probably remember, the citizens of Massachusetts instructed the Legislature to return the previously promised rate to 5% via a voter referendum, but under the excuse that State revenues were down, the Legislature stalled the tax at the current rate of 5.3%. Now that the State revenue is strongly above projections, the Legislature should honor the will of the voters and reduce our taxes. This is also good economics as consensus figures suggest that over 4,000 new jobs would be created in the Commonwealth by reducing the personal income tax. According to the figures from Administration and Finance, the tax reduction would use up approximately $250 million of the over $500 million surplus. This is $250 million that the taxpayers will use to stimulate our economy and save for the future of their families. With 4,000 new jobs and $250 million infused into the Massachusetts economy, it is likely that the State would enjoy an increase in payroll and sales taxes as a result of a reduction in the personal income tax rate. This is a lesson in basic economics that President Ronald Reagan taught this Country well in the early 1980's. I also support the distribution of $100 million of the surplus back to our local communities. During the recent years, State assistance to our cities and towns has decreased significantly. In Fiscal Year 2004, many communities on Cape Cod experienced reductions in State aid in excess of 20%. With the passage of the Fiscal Year 2005 State Budget comes the end of further reductions of State aid and offers communities small increases in certain areas such as reimbursement for State owned land and special education expenses, but more assistance is needed. By distributing $100 million back to local government now, local government jobs and services in jeopardy may be spared. The remaining $150 million plus should be used carefully to restore cuts in necessary State services and begin the process of rebuilding the State's "rainy day fund." The problem facing the Legislature is getting our priorities in line. With all of the influences around the State House, I hope we stay focused on honoring voters, helping our local schools and town governments, and only restoring State funded programs that are truly a proper role for State Government.

Education funding has been an issue for Cape Cod for as long as anyone can remember. It has been an issue in almost every political campaign and has numerous ancillary impacts on our entire society. As a member of the State Legislature and the Education Committee, I work on educational issues practically everyday. Although I believe that the funding component is only one of the many problems we have in our educational system, with the recent Court decision and opinion rendered by Judge Botsford and the general agreement that the school funding formula which was created in 1993 is inequitable, I am of the opinion that we in State government are on the verge of a significant improvement in the methods by which we fund our schools. The funding for our schools comes from a variety of sources including all levels of government. On the local level, each city and town raises money primarily through property taxes. In the case of the communities that I represent, a significant majority of the funding for our public schools comes from local homeowners. In many cases, over 70% of the local property tax dollars are spent on the education of our children. The State distributes funds to local school districts via Chapter 70 funds. School funding is a major part of the annual State budget and funds are distributed via the Cherry Sheet process. Provisions of Chapter 70 specified increases in State funding following enactment of the Educational Reform Act of 1993. The objective of State aid is for each community to reach what is referred to as “foundation spending”. In the current House State Budget, the Commonwealth distributes over $3.1 billion dollars to school districts. Despite a decrease in recent years, over the past 10 years State spending or education has increased dramatically. With the passage of President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" which is the principal Federal law affecting education from kindergarten through high school, State and local school districts are now receiving more federal funding than ever before in the history of our Nation. The total amount for all programs under "No Child Left Behind" programs is over $23.7 billion. This represents an increase of 59.8 percent from 2000. Surely money is not the only factor one should consider when speaking about the education we provide to our children, but politically it is the one issue that drives the discussion. In my first term as a State Representative my goal was to be assigned to the Education Committee. In fact, I am the only House member from Cape Cod who serves on the Education Committee. It was my strategy to work within this committee to make progress toward a more equitable State education funding formula. Unfortunately, I regret to report that despite a comprehensive reform proposal offered by Governor Romney, a working group assigned to rewrite the formula, and numerous bills proposed by legislators and citizen groups, the leadership has not yet embraced Chapter 70 reform. While I am disappointed with the lack of real progress on this issue, I am in no way deterred from my goal of bringing a reform proposal to a vote and ultimate approval by the legislature. Over the summer months, I will be working on two legislative concepts that I will be developing into legislative proposals to be filed in the next legislative session. As my proposals develop, I will post them on my website (www.electjeffperry.com) for public comments. One of the motivating factors of my decision to seek the office of State Representative two years ago was because of the unfair treatment of the communities of the 5th Barnstable District when it comes to Chapter 70 state funding. My experiences of the past 18 months serving on Beacon Hill and specifically on the Education Committee have left me more determined than ever that real Chapter 70 reform will continue to be a top priority for me. I welcome your comments on this or any issue State government is dealing with. You can telephone me at 508-888-2158 or via e-mail at jeff@electjeffperry.com.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has struggled for quite a long time with what information concerning someone’s criminal record should be made public. As a former police officer and now elected Representative, I continue to shake my head in disbelief over how our courts and regulatory agencies treat the records of those who have been duly convicted of a felony. There is a natural conflict that exists with the desire of the Government to disseminate information to the public and the so-called, right to privacy. What continues to frustrate me as a Legislator is that each time the Commonwealth makes an effort to provide the public with information about dangerous people in our society, such as a convicted level 3 sex offender, the courts seem more interested in protecting the privacy rights of the convicted felon over society at large. This is frustrating because this information is not private to begin with. Think about it, you as a citizen have the right to go into any courthouse where an adult is on trial, observe all the proceedings, including the verdict and sentence, but for some reason this information cannot be readily disclosed to the public via the Internet or local police department. Furthermore, the news media has a right to publish information about someone’s trial, including a photo, home address, place of employment, and all the details of the charges alleged against him, but according to a recent ruling of this State’s Supreme Judicial Court, a local police department cannot post information on a website of a convicted and classified sex offender who lives next to a day care center. In an effort to correct these gross inequities in the law, I am attempting to use the 2005 Budget Debate to offer a number of initiatives to improve the manner in which the Commonwealth deals with sex offenders and to allow greater access to records of convicted felons. In my opinion, the Commonwealth should respond immediately to the loopholes in the system to ensure that the public has access to necessary information to protect themselves and their community. While I understand the civil liberties argument, we as a society have a right to the information about those who have been convicted. I do not propose that information of those found not guilty or who are awaiting trial be disseminated. Only those who have had their day in court and their guaranteed due process rights would be subject to having their criminal records become public information. I have sponsored four legislative amendments to improve the access to information. Under the proposal municipal police departments would be allowed to post information about level 3 sex offenders on their Internet websites. A further measure would place all criminal offender record information on the Internet in a publicly searchable database. This database would include information of anyone who has been convicted of a felony in Massachusetts. The database would not include any information concerning juveniles or victims. In an effort to further protect our children and citizens from dangerous sex offenders, my proposal would provide for victim notification when a sex offender is released from prison or relocates their residence. I also have a proposal which would establish a program to track level 3 sex offenders. This amendment would require sex offenders to pay for the cost of the tracking. It makes no sense that our Commonwealth does not provide information to the general public regarding those people who have been convicted of certain crimes which make them a danger to our children and our community. After all, this information in not private information. If a newspaper can print it, a television station report it, there is absolutely no reason why the community should not have access to this information.

The recent announcement by Andover Insurance Company that they will not be renewing over 14,000 homeowner’s insurance policies in Barnstable County has placed many homeowners in fear they will not be able to locate insurance to protect their homes. Several other insurance companies who write homeowners polices on Cape Cod have stated they will not be able to pick up these polices due to the revised hurricane models which show that our region has an increased chance of having a significant storm within the next few years. The good news in the short-term is that everyone with a home insured for less than $1,000,000 will be able to obtain coverage under the FAIR PLAN. The Massachusetts Property Insurance Underwriting Association (MPIUA) also known as the FAIR PLAN was created by the Massachusetts Legislature in 1968. The purpose was to provide basic property insurance to applicants who have been unable to obtain insurance through the voluntary market. Applicants must meet reasonable underwriting standards, however coverage is provided without consideration of environmental conditions associated with the property’s location. This basically means that all homeowners are eligible for coverage. The Association secures its authority to operate from Massachusetts General Law, under Chapter 175 C, Urban Area Placement Facility. The purpose of the Association is to make basic property insurance more readily available. A secondary goal of the FAIR PLAN is the equitable application and distribution of expenses, profits and losses of the Association among insurers licensed to write basic property insurance in the Commonwealth. If necessary, your current insurance agent is able to submit your application directly to the FAIR PLAN. Additionally I have been advised by the Administrator of the Plan that the average approval period is 3 to 5 days after your agent has submitted the FAIR PLAN application. For more information, you can visit the FAIR PLAN website at www.mpiua.com. Now the bad news. It is likely that the premiums under the FAIR PLAN will be higher than those available from the commercial market. I have seen reports that many homeowners will see a 20% increase in annual homeowners insurance costs. Homeowners also need to be very careful when renewing their policies or obtaining coverage under the FAIR PLAN. Consumers should be certain they understand their coverage, exclusions, and deductibles. The long-term solution to this problem can be found by opening our insurance markets to more companies. It should come as no surprise that Massachusetts has the most regulated insurance system in the Nation. The Commonwealth insurance business has been described as a closed market where only the politically connected are able to do business. I am not talking about our agents, but the large underwriting companies. Such as why are the largest companies in the Nation, like Geico, All State, State Farm, and Progressive not doing business in Massachusetts? In fact, All State does business in ALL states, except Massachusetts. The answer is simply because the Commonwealth makes it too difficult for businesses to enter our market and earn a profit. This is not due to low premiums, but over regulation. Currently, there are two bills in the legislative process to address a part of the problem, but more needs to be done. Over the coming months, I will work toward opening up our insurance markets and encourage these and other commercial companies to come to our State. By doing so, consumers will have more choices, prices will stabilize due to more competition, and we will not have to rely on a quasi-governmental insurance company for protection. My office has a direct contact with the FAIR PLAN as well as with the Chairman of the Insurance Committee. If you have any problems obtaining homeowner’s insurance, please contact my office at 617-722-2090, or 508-888-2158.

For those who read my monthly column on a regular basis, I suspect you may have noticed that I do not hesitate to criticize the Massachusetts Legislature when it makes a mistake or fails to act in the best interest of the people of our Commonwealth. I sincerely believe that it is my duty as a Legislator to keep the public informed of the actions of their State government and to speak the truth of what happens both in the public arena of politics and behind the closed doors on Beacon Hill. I have found that many people are willing to criticize government from the outside looking in, but for some reason these very same people stop speaking out when they become a part of government themselves. I believe that one of the best methods of making the institution of government more responsive and accountable to the people it purports to represent is to be willing to speak out when it is failing. Having said this, I want to focus this month’s message on the pride I felt in the Legislature during the first two days of the Constitutional Convention. For two days, 159 Representatives and 39 Senators debated the issue of gay marriage, civil unions, and voter rights. The joint House and Senate session was entirely focused on the issue before us with members listening to the debate and attempting to find a solution to this complex issue. I am told this level of intensity has not been seen in many years. Although we have not yet reached a resolution to the question before us, I was impressed with the tone of the debate and the willingness of the legislators to sit and listen to all sides of this divisive issue. Those who spoke of the various amendments did so with respect to the opposing side and to the institution of the Massachusetts Legislature. I believe that the most positive thing to come from these first two days of debate was that the discussion was in the public (not behind closed doors), we took difficult votes, and most members were willing to open their hearts and minds to the opposing view points. While the debate likely did not change the position of many on the underlying issue, I sincerely believe that the debate did create a greater understanding of both sides of the question. This is the way government should operate all of the time. We in the Legislature have a very difficult question before us. The rights of the voters and citizens of the Commonwealth to redress their government are a critical component to our system of government. It is also the role of government to protect its citizens. After much reflection and consideration, it is my belief that a public debate on this issue and vote by the people in 2006 is our best approach. As John Adams, the principal author of our State Constitution said, “The legislative, executive and judicial power shall be placed in separate departments…that it might be a government of laws, and not of men.” In my opinion, our Constitution demands the separation and balance of powers, and the Legislature should not leave it’s duties to the judicial branch of government to perform. Although this issue is uncomfortable for many, it is our duty as Legislators to address it honestly and in a straightforward manner and to listen to constituents. I would also like to commend the people of my District for their willingness to contact my office and speak out about this issue. I have literally received thousands of e-mails, letters, faxes, and telephone calls from constituents expressing their opinion. I have also personally met with dozens of citizens during my office hours to discuss the definition of marriage in Massachusetts. It is my hope that both the willingness of the Legislature to handle this issue publically and thoughtfully and the willingness of citizens to contact their elected officials will continue far beyond the issue of gay marriage. Government functions best with the interaction and involvement of the citizens. All legislators, even the ones who have been on Beacon Hill for a long time, must be reminded in our system of a representative democracy, that their ultimate power remains with the citizens of our districts.

No matter how you feel about gay marriage, we should be able to agree that the citizens and their elected representatives must not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage. There are lessons from my state's experience that may help other states preserve the rightful participation of their legislatures and citizens, and avoid the confusion now facing Massachusetts. In a decision handed down in November, a divided Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts detected a previously unrecognized right in our 200-year-old state constitution that permits same-sex couples to wed. I believe that 4-3 decision was wrongly decided and is deeply mistaken. Contrary to the court's opinion, marriage is not "an evolving paradigm." It is deeply rooted in the history, culture and tradition of civil society. It predates our Constitution and our nation by millennia. The institution of marriage was not created by government and it should not be redefined by government. Marriage is a fundamental and universal social institution. It encompasses many obligations and benefits affecting husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter. It is the foundation of a harmonious family life. It is the basic building block of society: The development, productivity and happiness of new generations are bound inextricably to the family unit. As a result, marriage bears a real relation to the well-being, health and enduring strength of society. Because of marriage's pivotal role, nations and states have chosen to provide unique benefits and incentives to those who choose to be married. These benefits are not given to single citizens, groups of friends, or couples of the same sex. That benefits are given to married couples and not to singles or gay couples has nothing to do with discrimination; it has everything to do with building a stable new generation and nation. It is important that the defense of marriage not become an attack on gays, on singles or on nontraditional couples. We must recognize the right of every citizen to live in the manner of his or her own choosing. In fact, it makes sense to ensure that essential civil rights, protection from violence and appropriate societal benefits are afforded to all citizens, be they single or combined in nontraditional relationships. So, what to do?

People of differing views must remember that real lives and real people are deeply affected by this issue: traditional couples, gay couples and children. We should conduct our discourse with decency and respect for those with different opinions. The definition of marriage is not a matter of semantics; it will have lasting impact on society however it is ultimately resolved. This issue was seized by a one-vote majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. We must now act to preserve the voice of the people and the representatives they elect. Mr. Romney is governor of Massachusetts.

I have heard and seen many examples of backroom deals on Beacon Hill, but the latest example is simply unbelievable. What happened on the floor of the Massachusetts House of Representatives recently is both an insult to the institution of the Massachusetts Legislature as well as a direct assault on our democracy and rights to be represented by elected officials.

Just minutes after Governor Romney's State of the State Address, the Massachusetts House adjourned until the following day. This is pretty much a normal and usual procedure. At the close of business on any given day, there is an order read by the House Clerk informing the membership when the next session will be and what type (formal or informal) is scheduled. There was absolutely nothing unusual about this night, perhaps with the exception that it was the night the Governor made his annual speech.

But this night was indeed different. After almost all of the members of the Massachusetts House of Representatives had left the Chamber to head home, including myself, House Majority Leader Salvatore DiMasi (D-Boston) reopened the session, declaring he had received unanimous consent to do so. Unanimous consent from whom? There were just a handful of people remaining in the Chamber. It was approximately 8:30pm and we had ADJOURNED until Friday! The House Clerk Steven James said the sudden second meeting was allowable under House rules. The House may meet by unanimous consent at a time earlier than stipulated in an adjournment order, James said. He cited an instance in 1991, when the House did so. James said he did not have time to elaborate on the parliamentary principles involved, but would be willing to do so next week.

I do not claim to be an expert on parliamentary procedure, but I can say with total confidence that no one in good faith believes that a handful of Representatives has the right to reopen a session that had adjourned until the following day without some attempt to notify the members. There was no announcement over the intercom, no e-mail, no phone call. What is next? Can a few members show up on a Sunday afternoon and vote to open a session and vote on pending laws? So why would this happen? The answer is simple, the majority party wanted it to. The legislation allows cities and towns to pass higher property tax bills onto owners of commercial and industrial properties. Business groups strongly oppose the bill. I was also opposed to the bill, but that is not the point.

The point is once again, the Massachusetts House of Representatives ignored their own rules and in my opinion, ethical responsibility to have a fair and open debate and vote on an important issue. Boston Mayor Menino had been pushing hard for this bill to pass during the session prior to the Governor’s speech, but had been unsuccessful. Many members, including myself were against the bill and wanted another roll call to ensure that legislators who voted in favor of this tax increase were on record on the enactment vote, but as there was no roll call, there is no formal record of who did what when the session was reopened in the absence of most of the elected Representatives. I also believe that this happened as a media tactic, on the very same night that the Governor made his State of State address. The story of the late night actions would be buried in the newspapers, as the lead story would be the Governor’s comments on the State of the State.

I am very proud to be serving the people of the Commonwealth and my District, but when things like this happen on Beacon Hill, I literally feel sick to my stomach. The people of our Commonwealth deserve better. I may be only one voice, but I intend to use it and I shall continue to fight hard for reform. It is my hope that the voters will hold their elected officials accountable who choose to follow the instruction of their leadership, rather that what is in the best interest of the Commonwealth.

It has been a distinct pleasure to serve the people of Sandwich, Barnstable, Mashpee, and Bourne this past year. I am very pleased with my legislative accomplishments in my first year as your State Representative.

The signing of the lease extension at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, the saving of the Sandwich Fish Hatchery, increases in veteran’s benefits, and the implementation of several reforms to State Government are just a few of the highlights I take great pride in. Along with my legislative accomplishments, I believe that I increased the interaction and level of communication between the citizens of my District and State Government. “Reconnecting the people with their State Government” was one of my campaign pledges and I feel I have honored my promise.

During the past year, I have opened a District Office, produced a weekly cable television show, established an e-mail updating service, written this column, conducted issue polling, and brought Governor Romney, Lt. Governor Healey, and a variety of State officials to the District on several occasions. As long as I am in office, I will continue to be as accessible as possible. With the New Year, the Legislature will be beginning the fiscal year 2005 budget season. The Commonwealth is facing a very difficult fiscal challenge. We start the year with a structural budget deficit of approximately $1.5 billion and with expectedly large increases in pension liabilities and health care costs.

From my point of view, we have only three choices how to balance our $23 billion State budget. We can raise taxes, we can cut local aid and social service programs, or we can reform State government. I am sure that it comes as no surprise to anyone who follows my votes on Beacon Hill, I choose reform! My primary goal for 2005, will be to continue to push for reform to State spending and programs. We need to embrace measures such as merging Mass Highway and the Mass Turnpike Authority. We also need to continue to make our structure of government more efficient and customer friendly. Government is bloated with duplication and waste and although I am very pleased with a number of steps we successfully completed in the past year, we still have a long way to go.

Speaking of reform, the problem of Chapter 70 education funding continues to be ever present. In my first year on Beacon Hill, I attempted to work within the legislative system of committees and groups in hopes that a consensus could be reached before the 2005 budget season. At the time of the writing of this column, it appears that the latest working group assigned to rewrite the education funding formula has failed to offer a comprehensive proposal. While I am not surprised that another year has passed without significant progress, I am disappointed that we have not had the opportunity to debate and vote on a single proposal. It may be time for a new approach. Look for more developments in this area as we get into 2004.

Along with the budget matters, I expect the issues related to gay marriage, the Sex Offender Registry Board, and affordable housing will be ones that the Legislature will be dealing with in the coming months. I will also continue to fight for increased funding for the Department of Youth Services. I am very pleased that we were able to restore some funding to this department, but our Commonwealth needs to make a stronger commitment to our children in need of intervention. A legislator is most effective when he hears from the people he is elected to serve.

As always, I strongly encourage you to contact my office to express your opinion of any issue or to ask for my help with any issue related to Government. I would also like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a joyous holiday season and best wishes for a healthy and prosperous 2004.

Jeff's Editorials

Hope for a more productive next term from the Legislature