Readers' advice for the governor
IN THE Mass. Appeals series, state civic leaders and policy experts offered their advice to Governor Deval Patrick on healthcare, immigration, crime, and other issues confronting Massachusetts. Readers also had an opportunity to offer their views on these issues in postings on boston.com message boards. Here is a sample of those postings.
In a Dec. 22 op-ed column, Rocia Saenz said employers need to make sure immigrants receive the same opportunities as previous generations of newcomers. We asked what the state should do to ensure immigrants are getting those opportunities and what the state should not do.
emme8819 posted: I think all legal immigrants should have the opportunity and responsibility to learn the language. I think the state's printing of signs and ballots and the like in multiple languages encourages people to not learn English. Hard for people to move ahead in this society if they can't speak the language. Also hard for kids to get a decent education if they can't speak English or don't want to learn it.
In a Dec. 18 op-ed column, Peter Gagliardi argues that some state housing programs are holding back the revitalization of troubled neighborhoods across the state. We asked what the state should be doing to revive older industrial cities.
J_Doton posted: True high-speed rail service between Springfield and Boston with a streetcar/light rail feeder system at the Springfield end could make commuting to metro Boston much more feasible. At TGV speeds of 200+ miles per hour the trip between Springfield and Boston could be reduced to 30-40 minutes and the trip from Worcester to Boston would be less than 15 minutes.
In their Dec. 7 op-ed piece, state Representative Kathi-Ann Reinstein and Revere Mayor Thomas Ambrosino argue that the state should legalize slot machines at race tracks to raise money for his policy agenda. We asked whether Massachusetts should expand gambling as a way to raise revenue and, if so, whether slot machines at race tracks would be the best way to do so.
ljpbaseball posted: Yes, slot machines should be legal in Massachusetts. They are not casinos. Slot machines are an accepted trend in the United States as a way to raise revenue. People are voting with their feet, i.e., Conn., R.I., Maine, Fla., Pa., etc. There's not much difference between the lottery, the daily number, bingo, Las Vegas nights, and the slots -- what's the problem?
Matt656 posted: Usually I rail against anything Blue Law-ish, but the reality of too much legalized gambling isn't pretty; it's solid vice straight up. It does cause social problems and a seedy aura, and not in a fun Las Vegas way, and slots won't exactly capture that Monte Carlo set; I've been to a lot of places with lots of legalized gambling; it's usually more of a seedy Silver City or AC effect. At least horse racing has a specter of class to it. Look at R.I. -- that revenue never lived up to expectations and a large amount goes right into antigambling programs. It's not worth it.
In his Dec. 30 op-ed, David Tebaldi suggested ways in which Patrick's administration can encourage public participation in Massachusetts. We asked what the state should be doing to engage residents .
mcharp posted: There is no better way to encourage and support civic engagement than through time banks. An excellent example is the Lynn Time Bank, which has been in operation for two years. The Lynn Time Bank has a membership of around 250 community members. Members earn time dollars by providing services to other members. One time dollar equals one hour of service. There is no exchange of cash. Transportation, child care, simple home repairs, yard work are examples of the services that have been provided and received by Lynn Time Bank members in the past two years. More important are the relationships that are formed and the extension of supportive networks for all members.
In a Dec. 4 op ed, Charles D. Baker addressed the healthcare issues facing the state. We asked which steps Patrick should take to improve healthcare in Massachusetts.
ahaettenschwiller posted: Baker makes a good case . Among other things he says, "Therefore, every debate on healthcare issues must seriously consider whether a particular policy call makes costs rise, fall, or stay the same." Having followed healthcare reform for over 30 years I can say confidently that almost all discussions of costs relate only to those costs being incurred by the supplier -- in this case, the state. While these "costs" may be reduced, the loss of dollars by the healthcare industry will simply show up in some other area. Until government and funders are willing to research and publicize the actual costs of various treatments there will never be any reduction in the overall costs of healthcare. We have made healthcare a profitmaking industry and will continue to reap market-driven problems until we return it to a service-oriented business.
