State Representative Jeffrey Davis Perry, Barnstable 5th District

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.

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.

As we approach the two-year anniversary of the Massachusetts health-care mandate law, we are learning that our poorest residents will have to pay even more for their insurance premiums and co-payments or face the ever-growing sanctions of state government.

If you have not been following this dangerous socialist-style transformation of our health care laws, let me take you back to April 4, 2006, when the Legislature passed a law requiring everyone in the commonwealth to purchase health insurance coverage. The legislation also required all businesses with 10 or more employees to provide health insurance coverage or face an assessment, otherwise known as a tax.

I was one of only two legislators to vote against that bill. I argued that it was the wrong approach to reform our overburdened system because it did nothing to address the real issue: the high cost of delivering health care services.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

Without question, one of the most important issues this legislative term is the issue of the continued homeowner’s insurance crisis. The entire Cape Cod legislative delegation is concerned and working together to halt the skyrocketing home insurance premiums and nonrenewals that forced thousands of residents into the State’s FAIR plan, which is the quasi state sponsored homeowner’s insurance program for those who lost private insurance coverage.

I am pleased to report good news on this subject. In the State Budget recently signed into law, there is a section that creates a study commission on the coastal home insurance crisis that began on the Cape and islands and is now impacting many other coastal regions. Also included is a provision that calls for a moratorium on premium increases by the FAIR Plan. The language was included in the final Budget proposal which passed the House and Senate, and was signed into law by Governor Patrick.

Furthermore, the State’s Insurance Commissioner Nonnie Burnes recently announced a decision consistent with former Governor Mitt Romney’s proposal to start to reform our auto insurance system. The plan adopts a managed competition scheme, where each insurer will be allowed to propose rates based on their true costs. The Commissioner stated she will soon introduce a regulatory framework to provide guidance to insurance companies and assurance to consumers. This regulatory framework will set forth the parameters within which insurance companies will be free to propose premiums, considering such factors as driving record, number and severity of at-fault accidents, and traffic violations.

Along with lower auto insurance rates, my hope is that 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.

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, or face untenable premiums.

Having said this, I have co-sponsored a bill titled, “Establishing the Massachusetts Catastrophic Event Fund.” This bill crafted by Senator O’Leary (D-Barnstable) creates a reinsurance fund similar to that in Florida, which was established in 1992 in response to hurricane Andrew. This provides a reinsurance method of protecting insurance agencies in Massachusetts in case of a catastrophic event and at the same time encourages insurers to continue covering coastal communities.

To ensure the proper protection in the event of a large scale loss, I have submitted a bill, “Increasing the amount to be paid by Insolvency Fund.” This proposal increases the amount of money that the Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund (MIIF) must pay when an insurance company becomes insolvent. Currently, the MIIF is only required to pay out a maximum of $300,000 per claim. This measure increases that amount to $500,000 and will help insure that adequate coverage is available when insurance companies can no longer provide coverage.

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. I am pleased with the recent successes on this issue and look forward to continuing to keep this issue a priority

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.”

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.

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 resources

I 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 generations

While 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.

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.

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.

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

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 history

Of 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.pdf

Of 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 Co

Jeff's Editorials: