Rep. Dwyer's Legislative Update

FY 2014 House budget recap

Last week, the House debated its proposal for the Fiscal Year 2014 budget. During the budget debate, a wide range of issues were discussed from local aid and education funding to public safety and public health. I’d like to share with you a few topics that were brought up during budget debate.

Revenue

I am pleased that there were no new taxes included in the House budget. During the debate, I also supported roll backs in the income and sales tax to 5%. More than a decade ago, the people of the Commonwealth voted on a ballot measure to roll back the income tax to 5%. I believe it’s well overdue that the wishes of the voters are answered. We need to make sure that we are living more within our means just like the hard working taxpayers of the Commonwealth. With regards to the sales tax, it was raised with the intent to stop the bleeding when it came to local aid, education funding, and public safety funding, etc. so that cities and towns could prevent massive layoffs of teachers, fire fighters, police officers, and public works. Now that revenue numbers are exceeding what we expected under our current budget, I believe it is the time to lessen the burden on taxpayers. This isn’t a political ideology, its common sense. It is important to note that this tax debate was separate from the debate regarding the increase of the gas tax for transportation, during which I voted against any tax increases as well.

Social Services

I joined with many of my colleagues in support of measures that would reform the Electronic Benefit Transfer or EBT card system. Amendments that were filed would have required ID photos on EBT cards, lessen the amount of cash that would be available through public assistance, and require more stringent eligibility checks rather than allowing self-declarations. Unfortunately, these amendments were voted down. However, both sides of the aisle had members supportive of making sure we held the Department of Transitional Assistance and those who access benefits accountable.

No sooner did the debate on EBT reform start when the Boston Herald released a report that showed that the terrorists of the Boston Marathon bombings had accessed state assistance benefits during their stay here in the United States, starting in 2002 and ending in 2012. After reading the report, I became outraged like many of you that have communicated with me since the story broke. I can’t describe the disappointment, horror and outrage that I feel in that people who killed and maimed the innocent, in the cause of furthering their radical beliefs on our society, took advantage of the system. I am appalled that the Patrick administration has chosen to prevent information from being released regarding the terrorists’ public assistance benefits by invoking privacy protections. To me, the terrorists waived their privacy rights when they took the innocence of our society away two weeks ago. The public has a right to know what their tax dollars are being spent on.

The House Post Audit and Oversight Committee has launched hearings into the Department of Transitional Assistance’s knowledge of the benefits and whether there were any eligibility questions. Also, another common sense question is whether or not the state cross references those who apply for benefits with any federal background check or watch list databases. I look forward to more information coming forward and it is my hope that collectively our efforts yield the information the public, and their representatives, rightly deserve.

The Death Penalty

Each budget debate that I have taken part in since being elected, my colleague from Wilmington, Rep. Jim Miceli, has filed an amendment to the budget that would reinstitute the death penalty in Massachusetts for those who murder children and those who are members of law enforcement. I have consistently supported the reinstitution of the death penalty. I understand that there are moral objections and that there are those who believe the state should not be sponsoring such a practice as the death penalty. I respect those opinions. However, my moral obligation is to do anything in my power to protect the most vulnerable and our law enforcement officials who keep us safe.  It’s not a simple decision, but a measured one. The proposal that Rep. Miceli introduced is a balanced, reasonable, and measured approach. It contains only specific reasons for the death penalty to be an eligible sentence, and it also has a very definitive approach to judicial review in order to make sure that there is no doubt that the convicted has been rightly convicted of said crimes.