Look to the Record not the Rhetoric

Did you read incumbent State Representative Jim Dwyer's answer to the Reading Advocate's Question of the Week? (http://www.wickedlocal.com/woburn/news/x790231066/Ask-the-candidates-Que...) If you did, please do not be fooled by his answer. When unopposed and unaccountable, the incumbent supported each and everything he said that he wants to cut. Now that the incumbent state representative is running for reelection against a candidate (http://www.karafratto.com) who wants to change Beacon Hill's culture and mentality of pay more, spend more and get less, he is hoping to catch you unaware of his votes. His actions speak much louder than his words.

I want to work towards changing the culture and priorities of Beacon Hill. The "pay more, spend more, get less" mentality needs to change and the only way we can change that mentality is to send new people to the State House. Not only have I pledged to fight against new taxes, I posted my signed pledge on the homepage of my website for all to see. I want to lower the taxes in the state, but we can only get lower taxes when we fix the state's spending. Right now services and local aid are being cut, yet Massachusetts keeps increasing the state spending and it just raised our taxes. Even with higher taxes and increased spending, Beacon Hill is still talking about more tax increases next year. This needs to change and the 30th Middlesex District can contribute to the change by electing a fresh face with a fresh voice.

I am taking this time to increase awareness of how Mr. Dwyer's record is vastly different than his new rhetoric. I hope you find this informative. Again, I signed a pledge not to raise taxes. I am also pledging to the voters that I will fight to lower your taxes as well.

The Sales Tax Increase from 5% to 6.25%
In his answer, Mr. Dwyer stated that he wants to lower the sales tax back to 5%. However, Mr. Dwyer has fought for the initial tax hike as well as to keep the tax hike in place. Here are all the ways that Mr. Dwyer voted against the will of the people by hiking the sales tax and rejecting the repeal of the increase:
On 4/14/2009, Mr. Dwyer against a budget amendment that would prohibit tax increases in the budget.
On 4/27/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted for the budget amendment that increased the tax from 5% to 6.25%.
On 6/19/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted for the final budget that raised the sales tax.
On 11/18/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to prohibit the House from voting on a bill that would reduce the sales tax back to 5%.
On April 27, 2010, Mr. Dwyer again voted to prohibit a vote to roll back the sales tax to 5%.
Also on April 27, 2010, Mr. Dwyer also voted on an amendment that prevented any consideration on changes to the sales tax.

Mr. Dwyer's actions speak louder than words. If Mr. Dwyer really wanted the sales tax to stay at 5% then he never should have voted for the tax increase nor should he be fighting the repeal of the increase. Either Mr. Dwyer wants the sales tax to stay at 6.25% or he is just blindly following the Beacon Hill Leadership. After all, while pushing for ethics reform Mr. Dwyer voted for Sal DiMasi for Speaker of the House. After the indictment of Sal DiMasi, Mr. Dwyer went on to vote with the current speaker 95% of the time.

The New Alcohol Tax In Addition To Alcohol Excise Tax
Last year, Mr. Dwyer, supported the new alcohol tax, which subjects alcohol to double taxation.
On November 18, 2009, Mr. Dwyer voted for a bill that rejected the repeal of the new alcohol tax.
In his January 2010 Legislative Update, Mr. Dwyer discuss the damage that the new alcohol tax caused to businesses, but never took responsibility for his support of this tax.
In January 2010, Mr. Dwyer tried to appeal to voters by saying that he supported the double tax on alcohol because it was in a "consolidated amendment" that was attached to the local aid amendment. Not only is this not true, but Mr. Dwyer voted to keep the practice of consolidated amendments alive in the budget process. There was not one consolidated amendment in the House budget that contained the alcohol tax. The State Senate added the alcohol tax, which was included in the final budget, which Mr. Dwyer supported.
Currently, Mr. Dwyer is acting as if he never voted to impose or keep the alcohol tax. His most recent statements try to catch you unaware because he now says that this double taxation on alcohol is unfair. Mr. Dwyer never takes responsibility for his support of the tax. I ask - why was the double taxation of alcohol not unfair and damaging last year when he supported the tax?
The only explanations for Mr. Dwyer's vote are: he supported adding a double tax to alcohol, he did not what he was voting on, or he was just voting the way he was told to by the Speaker of the House.

Lowering the Size of the State Government's Workforce
Mr. Dwyer is not serious about reducing the size of the state government's workforce.
On 11/18/2009, he voted to prohibit the House from voting on a bill that would reduce all state workers' salaries by 1% or cut the state workforce by an amount equal to 1% of salaries.
On 5/1/2009, he voted against imposing a hiring freeze on all but the most important vacancies in state government.
On 6/19/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted for a budget that funding The Patrick administration's hiring spree of more than 1,300 state jobs - including a librarian for cons, a painter for hospitals and a "game biologist."

If Mr. Dwyer was serious about cutting the state government's workforce, he would have actually voted for it. Again, the only explanations are: Mr. Dwyer does not really support reducing the state government workforce, he did not read what he was voting on, or he was just voting the way he was told to by the Speaker of the House.

Consolidate Bureaucracies
Not only has Mr. Dwyer not been serious about consolidating bureaucracies, but he voted to expand them.
On 4/8/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to allow the newly created Transportation & Infrastructure Authority to explore or collect tolls on any roadway that is currently not tolled without the express authorization of the legislature (this would ensure that no new tolls on currently non-tolled roads be constructed in the Commonwealth).
On 4/28/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to eliminate the Governor's Washington, D.C. office, saving the taxpayers $403K
On 5/1/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to add over $3 million to the bottom line of the budget, almost all of which are earmarks to the Office of Travel & Tourism
On 10/20/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to support over $70 million in additional spending, of which $18.7 million was for the legislature's operations & $100K for the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission which is infamous for being a dumping ground of Democratic patronage.

Instituting Cost Saving Reforms
Mr. Dwyer continuously votes to increase state spending and reject cost saving reforms.
On 4/14/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to prohibit any earmarks - otherwise known as pork - in the budget.
On 4/14/2009, Mr. Dwyer rejected a budget amendment that would require a proportional decrease in spending in one area of the budget if there is increased spending in another area.
On 4/28/2009, Mr. Dwyer rejected the elimination of the Governor's Washington, D.C. office, which would have saved the taxpayers $403,000.
On 4/28/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to add $1.5 million in additional spending to the House budget at a time that the Commonwealth cannot afford the increased financial burden.
On 4/29/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to add more than $104 million to the House budget even in light of evidence that the tax revenues were going to be significantly below earlier projections in FY10.
On 4/30/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted against increasing the threshold for the Pacheco Law from $200K to $5million, which would save the state $20million by allowing more privatization in the delivery of state services.
On 4/30/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted against allowing consumers to participate in prescription drug rebates;
On 4/30/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted against saving the Commonwealth nearly $125 million by requiring state employees to pay 30% of their health care premiums;
On 5/1/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to add over $3 million to the bottom line of the budget, almost all of which are earmarks to the Office of Travel & Tourism.
On 6/3/2009, Mr. Dwyer rejected eliminating the Suffolk County only holidays of Bunker Hill & Evacuation Days. Mr. Dwyer's vote against eliminating these holidays allowed the House's vote to end in a tie, thereby prohibiting this cost saving reform.
On 6/19/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted for:
o An increase in fees at the Registry of Motor Vehicles;
o An increase in the bed fee for private payers at nursing homes; and
o A budget that lacked the requirement to prove citizenship or legal alien status in order to receive state benefits.
On 7/28/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to override the Governor's veto, thereby requiring all correctional facilities, sheriffs' departments, and the two soldiers' homes to purchase prescription drugs through the state office for pharmacy services rather than contracting with other providers to save money. He voted against a competitive system when it is particularly impetrative for the state to consider all options to save the taxpayer money.
On 10/20/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to support over $70 million in additional state spending, of which $18.7 million was for the legislature's operations & $100,000 was for the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, which is infamous for being a dumping ground of Democratic patronage.
On 11/18/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to override the Governor's Veto allowing the legislature to retain $19 million of unspent cash that funds its own operations rather than re-appropriate that money.
On 4/27/10, Mr. Dwyer voted to prohibit a vote on switching MassHealth members from fee-for-service and PCC plans to managed care plans, which would save the Commonwealth millions and not compromise care for the patients.

It is unbelievable that after all these votes for additional spending and rejection of cost saving reforms, Mr. Dwyer is trying to pass himself off as somebody looking out for ways to save. He rejected measure after measure that would save the Commonwealth millions. He voted for spending increase after spending increase, costing the taxpayer millions. He even voted to prohibit earmarks in the budget.
Mr. Dwyer is either not serious about instituting cost saving reforms, or he did not read any of the bills he voted on, or he was just voting the way he was told to by the Speaker of the House.

Local Aid
Mr. Dwyer has not protected local aid, but instead he continuously votes to cut local aid.
On 1/14/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted against limiting cuts to local aid to only those payments that have not yet been made & not retroactively cut funding.
Also on 1/14/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted to grant the Governor expanded 9C powers to reduce local aid to cities & towns.
On 4/28/2009, Mr. Dwyer voted against providing supplemental local aid to cities and towns to make up for the lottery shortfall if the revenue became available.
On 4/29/10, Mr. Dwyer voted to prevent a debate and vote on allowing surplus revenue to be earmarked for cities & towns.
On 4/30/10, Mr. Dwyer voted House budget that rejected amendments to restore local aid and cut local aid by approximately 4%.

Local aid is the lifeblood of local budgets. The more it gets cut the more pressure local communities are under to either cut local services or raise local taxes. I believe that local aid is vital to protect. Mr. Dwyer's continuous votes to cut local aid do not match his statements that we need to protect it.
If Mr. Dwyer were serious about protecting local aid, he would not be continuously voting to cut it. Either Mr. Dwyer is not serious about protecting local aid, or he did not read any of the bills he voted on, or he was just voting the way he was told to by the Speaker of the House.