Stepping out of hyper-partisan mode for a moment, there are some questions I think would be of general interest in tomorrow’s debate. No hotbuttons, no press-release-fed crap. Let’s talk about the real headaches that are going to face the next governor:
- Health care costs are already crushing municipal budgets and may well endanger the new health care law: How do you rein them in?
- How will you enforce the new mandate for all people to have health insurance? Should adults be mandated to insure their kids?
- The Massachusetts Taxpayers Association says that the next governor and legislature will face significant budget restraints: How will that effect your plans to:
- lengthen the school day?/provide merit pay/etc?
- roll back taxes to 5.0%?
- lower property taxes?
- etc.?
- What are your plans to deal with the increased energy demand on the New England grid? What plans for alternative energy do you have (even beyond Cape Wind)?
- Do you support the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, scotched by Governor Romney? (I honestly don’t know how Healey feels about this — it’s a good opportunity to put some daylight between her and the governor, with the cover of Republican Gov. Pataki of NY.)
- Should the MBTA, particularly commuter rail, be expanded, or is maintenance a higher priority? How do you pay for one or the other? How exactly will public transit improve under your administration?
- What about pension reform? Are we — like the federal government and countless corporations — heading for an iceberg of unfunded liabilities?
- Are you prepared to deal with a burst housing bubble, and the reverse-wealth effect on the economy?
etc. etc.
What do you want them to answer?
Please share widely!
What are your plans to deal with the increased energy demand on the New England grid? What plans for alternative energy do you have (even beyond Cape Wind)?
<
p>
My question…
<
p>
Massachusetts has pending proposals for 322 MW in gas/oil multi-fuel power plants and a 237 MW oil fueled power plant — all within 50 miles of Boston. Given oil’s negative impacts on clean air and global warming, as well as its negative impacts on foreign policy and balance of trade, is it appropriate for these power plants to be built in Massachusetts? Is there a way for Massachusetts and the rest of New England to balance electricity supply and demand without building new oil or coal fueled power plants? Should we pursue that avenue?
<
p>
source: Boston Globe, sometime in the past month, City & Region page B1 and B4.
OK…here’s a hardball that’s got to be answered and addressed sooner or later.
—
As the burden of high property taxes on the middle class becomes more severe across the state, a Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation report cites the skyrocketing cost of state-mandated health insurance for town and municipal employees as a “mounting crisis” in local budgets. CommonWealth magazine has just confirmed in an article that there is growing outrage at the lavish state-mandated benefits provided for public retirees, especially when such excesses must be paid for by taxpayers who do not enjoy such perks…and when important public services will have to be cut back just to keep giving these perks to retirees.
<
p>
This is shaping up as THE problem of the coming decade.
<
p>
To the candidates:
<
p>
Would you support proposals to change the laws to eliminate or reduce these state-mandated benefits, thus allowing the state, towns, and cities to require public retirees (yes, including those already retired…)to pay more out of their own pockets and especially to eliminate the egregious abuses?
<
p>
If so, what would you say to the public employee unions, retiree special interest groups, and lobbyists who are sure to protest such changes in order to hang on to these perks?
<
p>
It not, what would you say to property owners and citizens who are increasingly outraged at paying for lavish perks and retiree benefits enjoyed by few if any outside the public sector?
<
p>
<
p>
Will they answer this? I doubt it. But the one who takes it on will get MY attention…and, I believe, will tap into a major base of support.
Even though it’s a thoroughly bipartisan creation (four republican governors and four democratic governors) Healey has supported Mitt in his opposition to the program and has herself made negative statements about RGGI in statehouse news.
<
p>
She’s sticking to the republican playbook for this election and that includes opposing sane global warming policy.