Mark: back up that $93 million figure you just stated, as to illegal aliens. Thanks

Mark, Tyler must live in a bubble or be one of the big D contributors.Look into the $93 million, it's true. So are all the other complete failures Patrick's administration has been in charge of.

I would give a thumbs up to Governor Patrick for pushing for flagmen in places to replace detail officers. I would like to give him two thumbs up when he expands it and allows for more flagmen to replace officers in a greater range of areas. GO DEVAL !!!

By Gary J. Remal
Boston Herald
The 58-year-old Andover Republican, JIm Lyons Jr, pried the shocking report from state officials. It showed that nearly 55,000 illegal immigrants received more than $93 million in MassHealth benefits for emergency medical services last year.
MassHealth is a third of the State Budget.
“This issue deserves further investigation. Simply put, the administration has failed to set up robust program integrity features, many of which were part of the health-care reform law passed five years ago,” Archambault said.
http://www.jimlyons.org/pres/

Besides fraud, waste and abuse at many state agencies(EBT, Medicare, Housing), Gov Patrick and the state Democrats continue to give Millions of our tax dollars to Illegal Aliens for health care, education, housing and food stamps.
This doesn't include the Millions of our tax dollars spent on police, fire, emt's, lawyers, the courts and prison system.
Instead of spending our tax dollars on our own children, seniors and veterans, Democrat Pols give it away to Illegals.
Instead of giving our tax dollars to our mentally challenged children, autistic, handicap and those truly in need our state Democrats funnel our tax dollars to Illegals.
These pols on Beacon Hill are thieves raping the taxpayers pocketbook all so they can stay in power and pad their own coffers.

"
The 58-year-old Andover Republican, JIm Lyons Jr, pried the shocking report from state officials. It showed that nearly 55,000 illegal immigrants received more than $93 million in MassHealth benefits for emergency medical services last year. "

What's so shocking about that? You want the ER staff to start asking about visa status? We have illegal aliens in MA. SOmetimes they get sick, and when they do, they go to the ER. So it goes.

With the 55,000 illegals who received the $93 million (I'd bet that number is conservative compared to the actual number, just a guess) in MassHealth benefits for emergency medical services last year, not to mention the tens of millions in payroll tax that was not collected, uninsured automobiles, etc. What's in it for them to become legal?

A better Drivers license?
Better Auto insurance
More Payroll tax
Healthcare costs
Tuition for higher education

If there is a legitimate threat to deport then why sign up to stay and pay more?

There is no way to look back. Deval's recently organized Department of Transitional Assistance has lost track of 47,087 households on welfare and most likely can't tell you of those households who is legal or who isn't. or

Nice job with taxpayers money.

Smart money says mini-me will take a run at the white house in 2016. But he'll be up against equally inept liars like Clinton, Kerry, Biden et al.

AHM: since you made your income an issue, what do you make and what do you do for a living? You do understand that the state income tax is a progressive tax. the lower your income , the lower your tax. what do you have for health insurance? Educational background? how many degrees? Your pay has gone down? Income tax in the State has not changed in the last 10 years . rates are still the same. Explain your statement about pay going down, lest you be classified as a typical whinner with bogus substance.

No name-calling or swears please.

Dental was a part of Mass Health 3 or 4 years ago. It still is to a limited degree (cleanings, X-rays & exams). I've been told this is where the State goes to cut Mass Health costs, then they restore it later. Sounds like they're on a restore kick. But a better way to go would, I agree, would be to stop the spending on illegal immigrants. Maybe the answer for us poor folk (of all income ranges) to surviving is to renounce our US citizenship and become illegal immigrants ourselves? I'm kidding, of course, but as far as the money going to the illegals, they're just a pass-thru conduit for the money "given" to them. It actually goes to the doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, supermarkets, landlords etc who ultimately receive the money the illegals spend it on. Be assured that Mitt Romney put in the healthcare reforms to help these "instutions", not to help the people. And Patrick keeps these things in force. Before WWI there was NO Fed Income Tax (not sure when State income tax began). We need to go back to those days. The Government didn't do much for us, but we didn't expect thenm to since we weren't giving them our money.

You know, I'm not thrilled about the taxes either, but If you earn less than when Deval Patrick took office, that's on you, assuming you're not a state employee. Or even if you are, really. Figure out a way to make more money. You seem to expect other people to.

Freezes on raises and major increases in health costs are not the employees fault.

you're right nate, they are the fault of the greedy job creators. One paying less, and the other charging more.

when people complain that people vote for someone with a D next to their name, it means they are too ignorant to fathom what is wrong with their party, and need to blame someone else for their deficiencies.

you are ignorant because you assume that everyone that votes D is doing so blindly, yet you are the one that votes against your best interest.

Hey, an R signed the Heahcare Bill into law and put in hefty increases on State fees (like the ones in the court system), not a D. But D or R doesn't matter - they BOTH raise taxes/fees. The only difference is where they raise them and who/what they spend this raised money on. It will continue from all parties until we can manage to go back to the days BEFORE taxes.

then why do you support a party that is trying it's hardest to redistribute the middle class wealth to the ultra rich?

when the rich job creators take more, employ fewer, and pay lower wages, while offshoring the money they take, and not paying taxes on it, it is a redistribution. Yet some people blindly do the heavy lifting for them, and have the audacity to call others morons!

Jon - nothing is preventing you from working for yourself. If you don't like your job, you can always leave and get another. If you don't have the skills to get another job, then you're lucky that someone woud hire you.

these transportation and education improvements aren't inner city things. Improving the transportation network of the whole state improves life for everyone. It's not just fixing the T, it about fixing everything. That is unless you prefer to see society crumble around us.

I would agree with "clean up their own house."

I think that an elected official should have no more "benefits" than the average of those he/she is elected to serve. E.g., if the average income of a Mass resident is $31,262 per year (I just made up that number), then that's Governor Patrick's salary. If the typical resident has to pay for his/her own transportation, so does everyone in government. Similarly for other typical benefits - health care, vacation/sick time, staff...if the majority of residents don't get a pension, neither does anyone elected to represent them.

You've just shown one of the major flaws of this and every tax increase plan. You drive less because gas costs more. You buy less gas. The revenues come in less than expected (because the increase projection was based on the old consumption rate) so we're still in the hole next year when it's announced that MORE increases are needed to make up for the "lost revenue". We all have only so much to spend - the answer is not to try to shake us down for more money (thank you AMAZON.com for VOLUNTARILY AGREEING to charge Mass sales tax beginning this November). The answer to the article's question is - "No we can't afford it right now!"

your right, we should hire some people to compile these lists into a form suitable for publication

California is on my horizon :)

El. You are right, but we have to start now. This years town election for Selectman is critical, you have two incumbents who have managed the finaces in very tough times and manged to protect the taxpayers. You have two members of the Beacon Hill gang running against them whose history is spending as much as they can get from you and are pushing a plan to position themselves to spend every cent of the new growth money about come in and bleed the taxpayers more. Just look at the campaign rerports due in March and see who is financing them. Your choice.

Exactly

Amen, Bob

you do realize that Senator Warren works at the federal level, and this is a state issue. So she isn't involved. understand how it works now? no, probably not.

and you know this how?

Because I have a brain. Lying about being a minority, making money off people's foreclosed homes and her and her husband's huge salaries from Harvard all the while complaining about tuition costs show what she is.

the fact that you parrot these reich wing talking points proves otherwise.. I guess in your world, you have to be a republican to earn a decent living, and it's bad when a democrat does it.

I am not a Republican and will never be a Deomcrat. Speak for yourself minion. Wipe the Kool Aid off your chin before bedtime.

why did ronald reagan appoint this extremist activist conservative judge. why is he costing us so much money.

Keep blaming everyone else like a good little D.

now your saying it my fault that this republican judge forced the state to provide a criminal with a sex change?

Explain something to me, if you LOWER the business tax rates to attract more businesses, then all you get are a bunch of businesses paying LESS than they did before - who makes up for that lost revernue? The working people that's who. Do NOT EVER cut taxes for businesses!!!

Arthur, If you lower the corp tax rate and you get more corps in Massachusetts, they hire more Massachusetts residence and attract others from all over the country. Those people then pay income taxes and sales taxes and buy houses etc.
When you increase corp taxes, they lay off or cut wages or move out of the state all together which means less income taxes, sales taxes etc. This is what is meant by trickle down economics.
BTW - There isn't a company in Massachusetts that pays the Massachusetts corp income tax. They all pass it on to their customers as a cost of doing business. When they start having to pay it, they fold or move!

Rev Dont look at me I dont got one of those thingys

Arthur,
When you LOWER tax RATES on businesses, not only do you atract more businesses, you also allow existing businesses to grow, which means the new businesses and the existing businesses need to hire more people, who then pay more taxes, and the state gets more revenue, which is what you want. The businesses do not pay less than they did before, they (and their additional employees) pay MORE into the system because they are making more money and expanding. This is more "low information voter syndrome".
Look back into history at JFK's economic speaches in the early 60's. He wouldn't be allowed in the Democrat party today. He understood, just as Arther Laffer, Ronald Reagan, and others, that when tax rates that are already too high go even higher, you wind up with less revenue because you kill growth and give people incentive to hide their money in tax havens like tax free municipal bonds, etc.
We need pro-growth tax policy based on economic theory, not mindless, emotional talk of 'fairness'.

John, you just proved my point with your reply "hire more people, who then pay more taxes, and the state gets more revenue, which is what you want" When business pays less taxes, people pay more taxes. This isn't what we the people want. We want business to pay more taxes. The corporations/rich move more & more of their money offshore and otherwise into tax shelters every year, regardless of whether their tax rates go up or down.
In the early 1900's (which is when the US Govt. began the federal income tax) the US got its money from tariffs on imports & exports. The tariff was high enough so that imports did NOT sell for less than US made goods; US companies could compete. In fact the Foreign companies found it cheaper to open factories in the US, hire US CITIZENS to make their goods & sell them here. It actually brought jobs INTO the Country. Now the jobs are going OUT of the country; not because of high taxes, but because of low (or no) import tariffs. (remember NAFTA?) US businesses didn't like the tariff arrangement so they lobbied Congress to remove some of those tariffs and create a federal income tax, shifting much of the burden of financing the US off of the companies and onto the backs of the people. If we go back to the old ways, the jobs will come back into the US. Of course with no fed tax, there'd be no entitlement programs, but people would have more money. Families would take care of their own instead of looking to the Govt to do it.

Ol' Bernie is an expert at creating class warfare to deflect our attention from the harm that out of control government causes to all. He is a big gummint socialist kind of guy who personally benefits from expansion of government power.

Sam, you don't know anything about me. And I know very little about you other than the snapshots of your personality that come through in your posts. So you don't have any idea whether I do the same thing. In my view, solutions that include deporting every illegal immigrant because they are what ills our society, labeling people as socialists, morons, etc. is not decent or even productive for debate. And time again, I see those that espouse views that even talk about centrist views are attacked, labeled, with little added productively to the discussion.

You have that part right. I do not know you and you certainly do not know me. But when you refer to your views as social decency, then anyone who disagrees in indecent. From know on why don't you refer to your cause as social reconstruction or something like that. That way your cause is not so high and mighty and others is not lowly.

My cause with my original post is to try and move to a discussion that doesn't have to resort to name calling, labeling and shouting down voices and opinions that may not be shared. I would not call that high and mighty, in my opinion that is decent.

I could not agree more. EBT cards can be used for anything - - it is just silly; if someone is on public assistance the funds need to go to food, housing, medical bills etc., not manicures or whatever else the individual wants.
Public pensions are way out of line with what most middle class working people get and should be eliminated.
In-state tuition for illegals. Kids from other part of the nation surely deserve that more than do illegals.
No, Deval's budget is completely out of line.

EBT cards are not meant to be spent on otehr than Food etc. Since they are cards, what they are spent on can be tracked. What is needed, I think is better enforcement. Make it clear beyond doubt to businesses what they can & cannot be spent on. Businesses (in the case of automated checkout stations) should be required to program the ACS to not accept the card for improper purchases. Any business caught cheating wshould have their business licence revoked. Yes, I know that would put innocent working employees out of a job. Point being, if the employees KNOW they will lose their jobs if anyone cheats, then tTHEY will police the store and make sure no one cheats. I think it's worth a try.

How about an EBT transaction fee. I agree that the transactions can be tracked but who is going to enforce it? Another "State Agency" that will be understaffed and mismanaged?

It might be easier determined what products are eligable for purchase within the EBT program and anything that is purchased outside of the program (tattoo's, manicure's, pedicure's, 32gb iPhone 5) would have a transaction fee associated to the purchase.

I think it would be easier for the EBT Program to manage the "necessary" products available within the system than try to have someone (Another Agency) police the purchases and enforce local business' to irritate customers.

Remember, Obama's claim in 2008 was transparancy in Government. Mini-Me and Obama think the same way so there should be no problems with a transparent EBT program. Let everyone know what is in the program up front.

The sales tax should be abolished altogether. ALL lower to middle income class people pay a greater percentage of their income on sales tax than the rich do because they spend a greater percent of their income than the rich do. Buying, Bonds, savings CDs, Stocks etc are not taxable sales. This is what the rich spend much of their money on. Drop the sales tax completely and raise the income tax instead; then you'll get so very much more of the rich money.

Yeah, A flat income tax isn't bad, but the myth that the rich pay a higher tax rate than the poor, is just that - a myth. The higher % for the rich is only for the portion of their earnings in excess of a certain amount. On the first $XXX dollars both the rich & poor pay the same. But having a flat tax, exempting the first $25K or so (and eliminating all deductions) would work too. Be warned though, it would put H&R Block and lots of CPA's out of work; to say nothing of a large number of IRS agents (not needed because tax returns would be so much easier to check). And I question that figure about 47% of Americans paying no income tax at all. Are children or teens part of that 47%? Are retirees part of that figure? If someone is living off their savings, then they already paid their taxes when they earned the money all those years ago. I'm currently living on a pension of $285 a month, so sure I'd go for your is $25K exempt and a flat tax on the rest. Even when I become eligible to get my SSI retirement checks, I'll still be under $25K.

John, I agree. There are several cases where the elected officials have been caught talking out of both sides of their mouths and they are as transparent as mud. There is too much money to be had for them.

And speaking of Benghazi, did anyone find it interesting that the Press Conference President, and rightly so addressed the Nation the day after the tragedy in Newtown; but three weeks after Benghazi the Obama Administration couldn’t muster the courage to get in front of the Nation, two months before the election to let people know what happened? In fact, Obama himself went on to defend the story and comments from his Administration before they “knew” the facts. I recall a few years back in another famous Press Conference the Dear Leader made the claim that the Cambridge Police “acted stupidly” before knowing the facts