D'Amico's response to the Gambling Bill

From the news wire

Rep. D'Amico of Seekonk said, I appreciate the community you represent and how much this means to you. And I respect your leadership and the way we have conducted this debate over the last two days. Seems like two years. Nonetheless, I rise in opposition to the bill.

We've heard a lot about jobs. But there's little evidence that casinos will spur long term economic development. And the gentleman from North Adams explained why. Whatever modest economic benefits that gambling brought to these communities, they were diminished and they went away. Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun have laid off well over 1,000 people during this recession, many of those skilled workers. Many of those will be knocking on our doors to take some of the best jobs.

Studies estimate for every 1,000 in gambling spending there is a reduction in spending in other businesses nearby. The gambling industry is predatory. It preys on the vulnerable. Like Big Tobacco, it addicts people to its products. By inviting the predatory gambling industry into Massachusetts, we will double the number of families destroyed by this predatory industry.

There are those who argue we need to recapture revenue lost. But we can't recapture it without a high cost. Massachusetts gamblers visit casinos four times a year. Connecticut residents visit eight times a year. We will create 140,297 new problem gamblers in our communities. That is three and a half times larger than the districts each of us represents.

Shattered lives. Broken families. We're told not to worry though. The bill includes $5 million to make the problem go away. Addiction is never cured. It's a lifetime struggle. The children of newly recruited pathological gamblers, they will carry the scars with them their entire lives. I ask each of you to look into your hearts, is this the best we can do for our people? Mr. Speaker, I hope the bill does not pass.

HOUSE BUDGET RAISES SPENDING 3.2 PERCENT, CUTS LOCAL AID $234 MILLION

The House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday morning approved a $27.8 billion fiscal 2011 state budget bill that increases overall state spending by 3.2 percent while cutting local aid to cities and towns by $234 million.

Immediately after the committee vote, Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation President Michael Widmer said he expected most of the local aid cut to come from education allocations under the Chapter 70 program and agreed with the assessment that the cut represents the biggest cut in state school aid of the recession cycle.

While targeting school aid that was insulated from cuts this fiscal year and in the last one, the House committee budget sustains existing state funding levels in other smaller local aid programs, including payments in lieu of taxes, regional school transportation, and funding for local public libraries.

The budget includes $1.4 billion in spending cuts and savings, including $300 million derived from a debt restructuring proposal endorsed separately by the committee. The panel also voted for a six-point bill aimed at easing pressure on municipal spending, in part by allowing local systems to defer rising pension system liabilities, authorizing a municipal early retirement incentive program, and promoting shared public safety resources.

With health care cost increases at the forefront of public debate, the committee budget allocated nearly $9 billion for Medicaid health insurance coverage to 1.2 million enrollees, a $601 million increase to fund a projected 3 percent increase in enrollment. Separately, the bill includes $838 million for Commonwealth Care, the subsidized insurance program that serves 170,000 individuals and was at the core of the state’s 2006 health care reform law.

Murphy said the bill includes $111 million in state savings under the MassHealth program – the bill reduces rates for providers and “restructures” health services, for instance - and reduces spending on an immigrant health insurance program by $15 million, to $60 million, while capping enrollment in that program. The budget spends $160 million in one-time federal funds in connection with a recent announcement regarding prescription drugs.

Murphy called the budget “reasonable and balanced.”

The bill reduces spending in certain line items by $750 million, Murphy said, and includes no draws from the state's dwindling rainy day fund and no tax increases - Gov. Deval Patrick had proposed increases in taxes on candy and soda as well as a reduction in tax breaks enjoyed by the film industry.

Murphy said the bill includes $1.5 billion in one-time federal stimulus funds that the state may not be able to rely on in fiscal 2012. The budget also does not eliminate any tax exemptions, or tax breaks and credits, Murphy said.

"From a fiscal point of view, this is an improvement over the governor's budget," said Widmer, focusing his praise on the committee's decision to stop spending state reserve funds that he said will be needed in fiscal 2012.

"The cuts are going to be difficult but they're absolutely essential," Widmer said. Asked about the local aid cut, Widmer said, "They need to share in the pain, given our fiscal realities. Human services has borne the brunt of cuts to date."

Widmer said the debt restructuring plan was a "legitimate" attempt to take advantage of lower interest rates but said he would have preferred that the savings be socked away in the rainy day fund rather than spent.

Rep. Viriato deMacedo (R-Plymouth), the committee's ranking Republican member, said the committee budget cuts spending by $400 million more than Patrick's budget. He said he was pleased that the committee budget didn't include tax increases or spending from reserves.
"How they spend the 27.8 billion dollars, that's something that we're going to take a look at," deMacedo said. "Frankly, this isn't going to be the worst year. Next year is going to be the worst year. We're still operating off of $1.5 billion dollars of stimulus dollars that aren't going to be there next year."

Republicans will look at ways to address the local aid cut. "We didn't write the budget," deMacedo said. "We'll take a look and see if we have any different ideas to help address the local aid cut issue." When the budget hits the House floor for debate the last week in April, deMacedo said, observers will see "a lot of amendments." But he added, "There's not a lot of resources. You can only do what you can do."

The Plymouth Republican said he was more optimistic that Democrats will not add taxes to the committee budget, as they did last year, because, he said, people are hurting more this year than last year.

"Every day I run into a new person who tells me, 'Hey, I just got laid off.' . . . If they do go back to work, they're going back to work at far less money than they previously made."
Last year's major sales tax increase, he said, caused Massachusetts to lose business, and associated tax revenues, to New Hampshire retailers who are seeing more customers file in from Massachusetts.

"Everybody is watching every dime," he said. "The Dunkin’ Donuts, which used to be the place to go, is not seeing the business that it used to see because people are now making coffee at home."

After the committee vote on the budget, House members headed into a closed caucus to discuss the bill. Murphy plans a 1 p.m. press conference to discuss the spending plan.

What's Next?

In Today's Story in the Sun Chronicle Rep. D'Amico says he is finally giving up his quest to end the state's tax credit program for the film industry. Saying, "Once you start giving out money and build a constituency for that money, it's tough to take it away." OK...if he knew this all along, why did he waste our time and taxpayer money fighting for this?
When Mr. D'Amico became our Representative, he said "growing the state's economy is one of his priorities this year." He would also work on bills that would create more State revenue.

Well, we all know he worked to raise taxes to bring in more revenue...but as his web site states; he is not working for the district he represents.

Rep. D’Amico’s 2009-2010 Legislation:
Transparency and Accountability in Economic Development Spending (H333)
An Act establishing seventeen year-old primary voting (H568)
Dark Skies (H3064)
An Act to promote small plot farming in the Commonwealth (H715)
An Act relative to towing storage (H234)
An Act relative to optometrists (H2036)
An Act providing for distinctive registration plate for firefighters (H3191)

Do these look like bills that will bring back jobs to our community? Are these growing our economy? I do not think so...As the article states, "he has often been a lonely voice against the tax credit,D’Amico said he will now move on to other causes such as demanding more transparency in the Legislature's budget." The lonely voice continues on...

A History of Violence.

House Majority leader Steny Hoyer is speaking out against alleged threats of violence being made against at least 10 house Democrats as they get ready to go back to their districts before Easter. He has demanded, of course, that the Republican leaders openly condemn this violence, as if the people committing such acts wouldn't see through the political chivalry.

Minority Leader John Boehner has condemned the acts and added that threats of violence are not the American way. He said instead we need to make our voices heard and register people to vote, call our congressmen or volunteer on a political campaign in order to get our voices heard.

With all due respect to Mr. Boehner; violence is the American way. Does he not remember the Boston Tea Party? Does he not remember the American Revolution? It was through violence that we won our independence against the tyrannical government of the King of England. It was through violence that the North and South sought to have their political views upheld over the others. It was America that invented the most destructive device in human history, and it was America that used it on Hiroshima and Nagasaki effectively committing one of the most violent acts in human history.

We are a nation of violence. Our technological and industrial dominance over the last century has not changed that, the opposite, it has simply given us bigger and better and more sophisticated ways of which to commit violence.

And again, with all due respect to Mr. Boehner the Americans have been trying to make their voices heard and the government refuses to listen. Tell the residents of New Jersey that their voices are being heard. Tell the residents of Massachusetts that their voices are being heard. Tell the protesters outside of the Capital that their voices are being heard. Tell the Town Hall attendees that their voices are being heard. Tell the Americans who called the capital last week to the tune of 100 thousand calls per hour that their voices are being heard.

The American people are screaming at the top of their lungs at their government and they are being ignored!

While I too do not promote violence against a fellow human being, let's not be so naive into thinking that this government may be pushing it's citizens a bit to hard, and let's not be fooled into thinking that given the right circumstances the government could be creating it's very own recipe for disaster.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

D'Amico is running out of gas!

Now Mr. Representative, time to give up this fight and work for the district you represent!

The film industry easily survived a challenge in the House Wednesday to tax breaks that opponents say are giveaways but which supporters claim are necessary inducements for industry jobs in Massachusetts.
Efforts to pass a pair of proposals scaling back industry tax breaks, an idea that Gov. Deval Patrick supports as part of overall budget-balancing plans, won only 10 and 15 votes in the House after lengthy debate. Patrick had proposed capping the tax credits to $50 million in fiscal 2011. Critics of the film tax credits had proposed limiting them to $7 million, the same level they were capped at in
2006 before lawmakers voted to expand the program. One of those critics, Rep. Matthew Patrick, came to the verge of tears as he slammed his colleagues for supporting the credits. "What message are we sending to the 400 mental health workers we laid off? That Hollywood is better than they are? That those people who dedicate their lives to this commonwealth aren't as good?" he shouted. "Think about it." But Patrick found himself outnumber by members like Rep.
Paul McMurtry, who, in his first-ever speech on the House floor, said "thousands of people" in Massachusetts depend on the movie industry to provide for their families. "Do not bring Massachusetts back to the days of silent films," he said. McMurtry, who owns a Dedham cinema, said some constituents offered their support to him on the condition that he keep his theater open. Proponents claimed the film tax credit has generated half a billion dollars of economic activity, drawing tourism, filling hotels and providing free marketing of Massachusetts in the films shot here. Rep. Ronald Mariano described actress Sandra Bullock telling a morning TV audience about spending a summer on Gloucester. But critics said much of the economic activity simply subsidizes rich actors' salaries and fails to generate enough revenue to pay for itself. The debate, which lasted just shy of three hours, also featured comments from Reps. Carl Sciortino, Steven D'Amico, Jay Barrows, Brian Wallace, Jay Kaufman and John Keenan. Defending the tax breaks, Keenan said film star Leonardo DiCaprio will probably pay more in income taxes in Massachusetts than the Salem rep will pay in his life.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

Rep. D'Amico keeps up the fight for the Fourth Bristol District. Check is coming in the mail. JUST STAY HOME FOLKS!!!

FROM THE SUN CHRONICLE

State Rep. Steve D'Amico made another stab at limiting or ending state subsidies for the film industry Thursday, but was accused by the industry of trying to send business out of state.

D'Amico, D-Seekonk, held a briefing for the media and fellow legislators at the Statehouse in support of Gov. Deval Patrick's proposal to limit tax credits for films made in Massachusetts to $50 million a year.

A longtime opponent of the credits, D'Amico said Patrick's plan would save an estimated $75 million a year, money that otherwise would have to be cut out of aid to cities and towns or other important programs.

D'Amico said he would go further than the governor and end the program, but would settle for the $50 million cap for now.

He said tax credits are not like tax deductions. The credits are cash payments to the film industry that are wasteful ways of creating jobs. The state Department of Revenue found that the state spends $89,000 in tax credits for every $67,000 job that is created.

"It would be cheaper to pay people to stay home," he said.

He also said the state study found that the $118 million the state spent in film tax credits in 2008 generated only $17.5 million in revenue from other taxes.

But, Mary Fifield, who represents a Massachusetts film group called The Production Coalition, said D'Amico misunderstands the purpose of a tax credit.

She said credits are intended to spur economic activity, not tax revenue.

Over the past four years, the tax credits have encouraged $1 billion in economic activity in Massachusetts.

She said only one major film was made in Massachusetts in 2006, while 38 were filmed here over the past four years.

"The tax credit has worked exactly the way tax credits are suppose to work," she said.

Fifield also took issue with D'Amico using consultant Ned Rightor to support his case.

She said Rightor has worked for the New York film industry and has an interest in movies being made there, rather than in Massachusetts. D'Amico disputed her claim. He said Rightor has done some consulting for New York, but his study conducted with a Cornell University professor was not funded by the film industry.

In fact, he said, the New York film industry did not like the report by Rightor because it criticized the tax credits New York gives out.

D'Amico has been campaigning against film tax credits for several years, and said Thursday he believes he is making progress convincing his colleagues they are a bad idea.

FILM INDUSTRY ADDING CONSTRUCTION JOBS

Another fight that Rep. D'Amico and now Governor Patrick find themselves against their union supporters. Support from the base is dwindling FAST!

From the House News Wire:

While most of the nation’s film and television production still takes place in New York and California, Massachusetts ranks high among the fastest growing locations, according to a UMass-Boston study released Thursday.

The film and television industry has also aided local job growth in the construction and transportation sectors and generated new career paths for Bay State college graduates, the report added.

“Employment in film and television production has increased in Massachusetts during a period when total state employment has been on the decline,” the report said. “There is also evidence that some of this job growth has helped to offset job losses in particularly hard hit trades like construction and transportation, as workers from these sectors have found work in film and television production.”

The 72-page study comes as Gov. Deval Patrick has proposed cutting back on a tax credit program for the film industry – capping a $125 million incentive program at $50 million – as one of several ways to close a $2.7 billion structural deficit in the fiscal 2011 budget. The tax credit program was created in 2005 by the Legislature.

According to data the study uses from the Motion Picture Association of America and others, the state grabbed slightly over 1 percent of total national spending on motion pictures and television productions in 2007.

“While Massachusetts does not currently capture a large percentage of the national film and television production spending, it seems to be growing more rapidly than other states (some of which have more generous tax programs) and capturing work that might otherwise be taking place elsewhere,” the report said.

Chris O’Donnell, a film industry union official and founding member of the Massachusetts Production Coalition, cited the report in urging Patrick not to cut the tax credit.

“While we empathize with the Governor’s need to identify revenue to help fill the budget gap, we are concerned that the proposed $50 million cap on the credit will drive the film and television industry to another state. The benefits of the credit – jobs creation and building the industry’s infrastructure – far outweigh its cost.”

The study, funded through a “creative economy initiatives” fund at UMass-Boston, was primarily authored by Pacey Foster, a management and marketing professor, and David Terkla, an economics professor. The study employed federal and local economic data, interviews with industry participants, and employment and spending data provided by local unions.