Election 2014 Recommendations (including 10 Reasons to Vote for Coakley from this Berwick supporter)

Sent from Fred Berman, a good friend from Early Anti-Casino Days,  whose informed perspective is respected:

Dear Friends,

The following (replicated in the pdf attachment) are my Election Day recommendations. The ballot initiative recommendations (NYYY) are the same as being disseminated by Don Berwick, Progressive Mass, Sen. Jehlen and Rep. Provost (whose flyer I liberally borrowed from), and other like-minded progressives.

It took this ardent Don Berwick supporter a long time, a lot of research, and no small amount of letting go of old and continuing frustrations to compile my Ten Reasons for Voting for Martha Coakley for Governor.

The endorsements of Maura Healey (AG) and the listed Somerville-area State Senator and Representative candidates were a piece of cake, by comparison. (I'm sharing this beyond Somerville, to my anti-casino colleagues, including a few Baker supporters, I suspect. I welcome your feedback.)

I hope the information is useful to you.

Hyperlinked Table of Contents

· Q1: NO - Don't repeal legislation indexing the gas tax to inflation

· Q2: YES - Expand the Bottle Bill to include water and sports drinks

· Q3: YES - Repeal legislation allowing expanded gambling in MA

· Q4: YES - Require employers to allow workers to earn sick time (paid/unpaid sick time depends on size of firm)

· Governor: Martha Coakley - Ten Reasons for Voting for Martha Coakley for Governor

· Attorney General: Maura Healey

· State Senator: Pat Jehlen (2^nd Middlesex Senate District)

· State Rep: Denise Provost (27^th Middlesex) and Christine Barber (34^th Middlesex)

========================================================

Q1: Would REPEAL that portion of the gasoline tax which links increases to the rate of inflation. In 2013, the legislature raised the gas tax for the first time since 1991, by 3 cents a gallon.

Recommendation: NO - Repeal of indexing would allow Massachusetts to fall further behind on road and bridge disrepair, leaving drivers vulnerable to gaping potholes and crumbling overpasses, like Somerville's McGrath Highway. Losing revenue from indexing could also cost Massachusetts future federal funding, like the “New Starts” grant that Somerville is counting on to pay half the cost of the Green Line Extension. Visit: http://www.massaflcio.org/VoteNoQuestion1

==============

Q2: Would EXPAND the 5 cent bottle deposit to cover such beverages as sports drinks and bottled water.

Recommendation: YES - Almost 80% of deposit containers are recycled –only 23% of non-deposit. Passage of Bottle Bill Expansion would mean less litter on city streets and state roadways, and taxpayers would save big on litter pickup and trash disposal costs. Our parks and beaches and rivers -- including the Mystic -- would be a lot cleaner, too. Visit: www.yeson2ma.org

==============

Q3: Would REPEAL the State’s Casino Law, which created a powerful, non-elected commission to site 3 “destination” casinos and 1 slots parlor in Massachusetts, and which also empowers federally recognized tribes to open casinos.

Recommendation: YES - Partnering with the casino industry and embracing its predatory business model of promoting and exploiting addictive gambling is as wrong as it would be to join with the tobacco industry to encourage smoking. The social and economic costs of both would far exceed the new tax revenues. People haven't been putting their pennies in piggybanks waiting for casinos; they have been spending their discretionary income at local stores, restaurants, and entertainment venues... and buying Lottery tickets. Casinos will redirect that spending, hurting local business and eroding Lottery revenues. Highly touted gains in employment will be offset by layoffs and closures of local businesses (just as a new mall cannibalizes spending at smaller local shops). Lost Lottery revenues will jeopardize Local Aid to Cities and Towns. Expanded gambling will contribute to a host of social ills -- substance abuse, drunk driving, domestic violence and other crime, defaults and bankruptcies, etc. -- and require new regulatory infrastructure, all requiring higher State expenditures that offset revenue gains. Locally, the Everett casino will generate huge amounts of traffic, substantially worsening congestion problems. Surrounding towns will experience rising public safety costs and declining home values. Gov. Patrick, Speaker DeLeo, Senate President Murray and Frank Fahrenkopf (American Gaming Association CEO) all say they wouldn't want a casino in their hometown. I agree. Visit: http://repealthecasinodeal.org/ or watch the animation I created http://yeson3tv.com/?video=42

Note: YES on 3 would also finish the job begun in 2008 when Mass. overwhelmingly voted to end Greyhound racing. Unfortunately, greyhound simulcasting still occurs, due to a provision snuck into the 2011 expanded gambling bill in a backroom deal by Beacon Hill politicians. By voting YES on 3, voters can end greyhound simulcasting in Mass., as well as keeping casinos and slot machines out of our state. Why does it matter? Because thousands of dogs endure lives of confinement and suffer serious injuries as a direct result of greyhound racing. In Florida, where 75 percent of the races bet on by Massachusetts residents originate, a dog dies every three days. The only losers with a YES vote will be the dog owners and the simulcasting industry; no Massachusetts jobs will be lost, because there are no separate dog racing simulcast workers.

=============

Q4: Employees who work for employers having 11 or more employees could earn and use up to 40 hours of paid sick time per calendar year, while employees working for smaller employers could earn and use up to 40 hours of unpaid sick time per calendar year. Sick time would be earned at the rate of 1 hour of leave for every 30 hours worked, and could be used once the worker had been employed for 90 days.

Recommendation: YES - Nearly one million Mass. workers can't earn paid sick time, including 38% of all employed men and women living in Somerville. Many of those workers can't even earn unpaid sick time, and face job loss if they stay home when they get sick or their children are too sick to attend school or child care. These workers tend to be concentrated in service industries, so when they come to work sick, they put both their co-workers and the public at risk. In fairness to these workers and their families, and to improve community health, our workforce needs earned sick time. Visit: www.yeson4ma.org

=============

Governor: Martha Coakley

I was a strong supporter of Don Berwick, and Martha Coakley was my last choice in the Democratic Primary. She is painfully vague on some important questions, and I never imagined myself sending an email strongly urging a vote for Martha Coakley, but I've found enough on her and Charlie Baker's website, in their answers to questionnaires, and in their responses to interview questions, to feel confident that voting for Martha Coakley is the right recommendation. Here, then, are Ten Reasons for Voting for Martha Coakley for Governor:

#1. Why Charlie Bake is Not My Candidate: Although Charlie Baker appears to have more specific proposals for addressing the Commonwealth's challenges, he has made a no-new-taxes pledge and picked a Tea Party Republican as his running mate. If there's one thing that anyone who's running on his record as a CEO should know, it's that implementing good ideas takes resources.

Charlie Baker talks about creating an annual fund of $100 million for infrastructure repair ... at the same time as he opposes indexing the gas tax. He commits to increasing Local Aid; he talks about increasing State Budget spending on environmental programs, including more land acquisition , working with coastal cities and towns to develop and implement strategies for addressing rising sea level and storm-related concerns; he promises increased resources for treatment for addiction; he talks about expanding rehabilitative services for incarcerated persons; he calls for more extensive supportive services for homeless families and families at risk of homelessness ... all without increasing taxes or adding to the burdens of cities and towns. We've had Republican presidents and governors who made those same kinds of "you-can-have-it-all-and-it-won't-cost-you-anything" promises, and we know that it just isn't possible.

Baker does have some good ideas, and makes commitments we would like to believe in. But good CEOs know that with limited resources you have to make choices. When Harvard Pilgrim faced huge budget deficits, Charlie Baker made the decision to withdraw from the Western Mass. Medicare market, and terminate coverage to 3,500 seniors. As the Boston Globe reported, the consequences of Harvard Pilgrim's fiscal belt-tightening were even harsher for Rhode Island subscribers: "In December 1999, an ailing Harvard Pilgrim Health Care pulled out of Rhode Island with two months’ notice, shuttering the company’s three health centers there and forcing 1,200 physicians and other employees to search for new jobs. Thousands of patients suddenly had to find new doctors, and about 128,000 subscribers scrambled for other health insurance. The Ocean State accounted for about 10 percent of Harvard Pilgrim’s customers but 45 percent of its losses, and to save the company, new chief executive Charles D. Baker essentially cut off its Rhode Island leg."

These are the kind of decisions you make as a steely-eyed business executive, when you have only one bottom line. As a jurisdictional or state leader, the people you take an oath of office to serve, the environment you are entrusted to protect, and the future you commit to ensuring on behalf of the generations too young to vote are your bottom lines... in addition to taxpayers, bondholders, and campaign donors.

Charlie Baker's good ideas are only campaign rhetoric ... unless there are resources to back them up. And by making a no new taxes commitment, he has boxed himself into a corner, from which he won't be able to implement them.

#2. Martha Coakley is Right on 3 out of 4 Questions; Charlie Baker Takes All the Wrong Positions

• On Question 1, Coakley supports gas tax indexing; Baker opposes it. While none of us think the gas tax is the most progressive alternative, it is some of the only funding consistently available for infrastructure repair and development. If the gas tax was based on the price of gas and not the number of gallons sold, revenues would have gone up over the past decades without any indexing. As it is, with cars getting better mileage -- which of course is a good thing -- gas tax revenue will go down without indexing. And anyone who expects Mass. Legislators to proactively raise other funds for infrastructure, just hasn't been paying attention. As it is, the legislatively enacted gas tax increase was only a fraction of what's needed to address a two decade backlog of infrastructure repair during the Weld, Cellucci, and Romney administrations.
• On Question 2, Coakley supports the expanded bottle bill; Baker opposes it. While 80% of bottles with deposits are redeemed and recycled, only 23% of water and sports drink containers are redeemed or recycled; the rest end up as litter or landfill material. At a recent forum, Martha Coakley was unambiguously supportive, while Charlie Baker was unable to provide a clear reason for voting NO. The bottling industry has been taken to task for its misleading advertisements. Charlie Baker is on their side; Martha Coakley is on ours.
• On Question 3, alas, both Coakley and Baker have been hoodwinked by the gambling industry. Do I wish that Don Berwick was on the November ballot? Next question.
• On Question 4, Coakley is strongly in support of earned sick time (YES on Question 4). Charlie Baker opposes Question 4, claiming that only companies with 50 or more employees should have to offer paid sick time. The ballot initiative requires companies with 11 or more employees to allow workers to accrue paid sick time, and smaller companies to allow workers to accrue unpaid sick time. For thousands of low wage workers who are a paycheck away from eviction or utility shutoff or hunger, Charlie Baker's proposal would continue to leave only one viable choice: coming to work sick, where they infect their co-workers and customers.

#3. Charlie Baker supports the Death Penalty; Martha Coakley opposes it. As noted in a Boston Globe article about Bakers support for capital punishment in his last campaign, in addition to everything else that's wrong with the death penalty, it costs significantly more to pursue and implement than a prison alternative.

#4. Martha Coakley's education policies are more in line with the realities of working people.

• Recognizing the increasing body of evidence of the importance of pre-school participation and educational preparedness in determining educational and professional outcomes, Martha Coakley has made universal access to early education a top priority, starting with Massachusetts Gateway Cities; Charlie Baker has not.
• With respect to higher education, Martha Coakley's platform calls for full-need financial aid for students attending the state's Community Colleges; Charlie Baker has instead called for on-line learning options and three-year degrees ... which might be great for high-performing students, but is completely unrealistic for average working class community college students who need to support themselves while they learn.
• Martha Coakley understands and has worked to expose and punish the exploitive practices of for-profit colleges that provide misleading advice to prospective students about the courseloads they can handle and about the employment outcomes they can count on ... and then grow rich on the educational loans their students can't afford to repay; Charlie Baker is silent on this issue.

#5. Martha Coakley more squarely addresses the need for corrections reform. Although she doesn't go as far in favor of sentencing reform and community corrections as many progressives would like, Martha Coakley is explicit in her opposition to the construction of new prisons, so that we can "shift funding from prison expansion to focus on crime prevention and prisoner rehabilitation, including diversion, education and job training programs for court-involved or incarcerated individuals, and an expanded network of supports for individuals transition back into society, including behavioral health counseling. This effort will bring down costs, reduce recidivism and improve public safety." Charlie Baker agrees about the potential benefit of alternatives to incarceration, including treatment, of non-violent offenders, but is silent on the question of more prisons. Both candidates favor elimination of mandatory minimums for drug-related non-violent crimes.

#6. Martha Coakley has the passion to lead on gender-related issues and improving access to behavioral health care. Martha Coakley is clearly committed to addressing gender inequities at the workplace, protecting access to reproductive health and choice, and better addressing domestic violence. And she is equally committed to improving access to behavioral health care. Charlie Baker may not be far behind her on these issues, but they are Martha Coakley's passion, and that means they will be high priorities, and not get lost in a sea of other agenda items.

#7. Charlie Baker is a health care demagogue. On health care, where you might hope he would excel, Charlie Baker offers the same tired -- and misleading -- rhetoric about controlling costs by giving consumers more and better cost information upon which to make their decisions. First of all, the Commonwealth is already pursuing that path with the implementation of http://www.getthedealoncare.org/ pursuant to the Massachusetts Health Care Cost Containment law, Chapter 224 of the Acts of 2012. But realistically, does anyone expect to control health care costs by asking consumers -- people like you or me who need medical care to resolve a health problem -- to put lower cost ahead of greater reliability or quality when we shop around for care? Do we as individual consumers have the leverage to bargain down providers? When we have an urgent need for care, are we really going to shop around? Are residents of less well-served regions of the state going to seek care halfway across the Commonwealth to save their insurers a few dollars? Or, is Charlie Baker suggesting that the best way to save money is to force consumers to pay more of the cost of their care out of pocket? Health care relationships are based on trust; Making a decision about where to access treatment is not like figuring out which outlet has the cheapest pair of name brand jeans. What we need is the kind of cost containment with incentives for quality that is part of the financing initiatives in Obamacare ... which Charlie Baker wants to make Massachusetts exempt from (although he puts the blame on the website). What we really need is single payer, but with Don Berwick off the ballot, there won't be anyone in the corner office championing the best option.

Did Martha Coakley hand Partners a win in her effort to demonstrate competence on the health care front during the battle for the Democratic nomination? Probably. Is she more likely to advocate for consumers than the industry, given her background and experience as the Attorney General. I believe so. I give the advantage to Coakley on this issue, because good intentions matter more than expertise put to use to protect the wrong interests.

#8. On Gun control, I give the nod to Martha Coakley, because she didn't choose a running mate with 100% ratings from the NRA and the Gun Owners' Action League. Both Martha Coakley and Charlie Baker have come out in favor of gun control (although in a nod to gun rights groups, Charlie Baker affirms his support for the Second Amendment; is he suggesting Martha Coakley opposes it?). On the other hand, Karyn Polito, Baker's running mate (a heartbeat away from the corner office) has a 100% rating from the NRA and the Gun Owners' Action League. (Baker has discredited a SuperPAC ad by Coakley supporters claiming he opposed an assault weapons ban. http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/10/republican_charlie_baker_defen.html)

#9. On the environment, Martha Coakley gets the nod, for her opposition to the Kinder Morgan natural gas pipeline in Western Mass., an issue on which Baker has failed to take a public stand on. Both candidates understand the need for action to address climate change, and both have stated commitment to pursuing alternative energy sources and lower emission technologies.

#10. On affordable housing and homelessness, I give the nod to Martha Coakley for showing up at the CHAPA Forum at Faneuil Hall in September, and for pledging to increase funding for State Public Housing and for the Mass. Rental Voucher Program (MRVP), which is currently funded at half of the 1990 level. Charlie Baker didn't show up. (Attending were Democrats Berwick, Coakley, and Grossman; Republican Fisher; and independents Falchuk and McCormick). Coakley's platform on housing and homelessness focuses primarily on her excellent work on addressing foreclosures, but pretty much ignores the shortage of affordable rental housing and homelessness. Charlie Baker has little to say about affordable housing, but has given considerable thought to the problem and costs to the Commonwealth of family homelessness, and he deserves credit for that. Given the historic failure of short-term fixes, and the demonstrated need among so many families for extended housing assistance, Charlie Baker's failure to include increased funding for MRVP subsidies is a glaring and serious omission from that otherwise thoughtful effort.

=============

Attorney General: Maura Healey

• Healey has seven years experience in the AG office, including leadership positions as a division and bureau chief; she has had leadership roles in taking on the banking industry (initiating fair housing lawsuits, taking on subprime lenders for their predatory practices, and overseeing the first-in-the-nation HomeCorps program to keep families in their homes and stop unwarranted foreclosures), supporting marriage equality (opposing DOMA), and defending access to women's health care. Miller has private practice experience and expertise in economic infrastructure, but none of the experience on public sector issues that Healey would bring to the job.
• Healey understands the predatory nature of the casino gambling industry, supports repeal of the expanded gambling law, and has promised strict enforcement if voters reject Question 3 and allow the casino industry to come into Mass. As detailed in her website, Maura Healey understands the role of the AG and is equipped to lead the office in advancing the public's interest, in matters related to civil rights, criminal justice reform, disability rights, clean energy, consumer protection, enforcing workers' rights and protections, strengthening and enforcing gun laws, protecting college students from the predatory practices of for-profit schools, ensuring continued access to reproductive rights, protecting the rights of LGBTQ residents, addressing the epidemic of domestic and sexual violence including human trafficking, and ensuring access by veterans to the benefits and services that they are owed for their service.
• For more information about Maura Healey, check out her responses to the Progressive Mass. questionnaire.

============

Pat Jehlen and Denise Provost have long been outstanding advocates for our community and for progressive causes: affordable housing, environmental protection, quality education, fair and responsible taxes, single payer health care, decent wages and earned sick time, the rights of workers to organize, better public transportation (including Green Line Expansion), opposing expanded gambling, etc. Pat and Denise stand with Progressive Mass. on the ballot questions: No on 1; Yes on 2, 3, and 4. They deeply deserve to be returned to the State House -- and we need their voices there.

============

Christine Barber is running to fill the seat held by former State Rep. Carl Sciortino, who stepped down earlier this year to lead AIDS Action. She is by far the most qualified candidate in the race. Christine is running against Nick Lanzilli, who grew up in Medford and a 2012 graduate of UMass Amherst, who is running as an independent.

Christine has crucial State House experience: she was a member of the staff of the Health Care Committee that drafted the pioneering Mass. law that implemented near-universal access to health care. For the past seven years, she has served as a Senior Policy Analyst at Community Catalyst, working to organize and sustain a powerful consumer voice in the shaping of local, state and national decisions related to health and health care.

Christine's multi-issue policy platform reflects her broad understanding of the diverse array of issues and topics -- education, criminal justice, transportation, health access and financing, housing, economic development, etc. -- that a State Rep needs to address, and the strong progressive values that she would bring to the job. Christine's position on the ballot initiatives lines up with mine (No on 1; Yes on 2, 3, and 4). Lanzilli's brief platform statement reflects his lack of experience with the issues; his website does not indicate his position on the ballot questions.

Both candidates have been endorsed by the Mayors and Aldermen/Councilors/School Committee members from their respective cities. Both candidates have union endorsements. Christine has been endorsed by a host of environmental organizations and progressive political organizations, including Progressive Democrats of Somerville, Progressive Massachusetts, Medford for Mass., and Cambridge-Somerville for Change, as well as by State Sen. Pat Jehlen, State Rep. Denise Provost, and Cong. Katherine Clark.

Christine has been actively involved in the Somerville community for as long as I have known her, advocating for the Green Line extension, active with the Somerville Community Corporation's efforts on behalf of affordable housing and responsible development, providing leadership with the Progressive Democrats of Somerville (PDS) on the campaigns of Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markety and on local campaigns and (including my run for Alderman at Large a number of years ago, and her own campaign to be the Ward 4 Alderman. Incidentally, Tony LaFuente, who won the Ward 4 election, is now among her supporters in this State Rep race, which speaks to the character of both.)

For more information, visit the two candidate's websites (Christine Barber, Nick Lanzilli), read Christine's response to questions from the Somerville Times, read the candidates' statements on the issues from the Medford Transcripts, read the Boston Globe write-up on the race, read Christine's response to a PDS questionnaire (no other candidates responded).

or access here: http://tinyurl.com/mbkzmtx