On February 23rd, 2010, I testified in favor of LD 1685 An Act To Clarify the Enforcement Role of the Mixed Martial Arts Authority of Maine to the Joint Committee on Business, Research, and Economic Development. Below is my the testimony I presented:
Senator Schneider, Representative Smith and members on the Joint Standing Committee on Business, Research, and Economic Development, I am Matthew Peterson and I serve District 92 which includes the Oxford County towns of Andover, Byron, Roxbury, and Rumford, as well as the Franklin County communities of Weld and plantations of Rangeley and Sandy River plus the unorganized territories of West Central Franklin and Madrid Township. I am here today to present LD 1685, An Act To Clarify the Enforcement Role of the Mixed Martial Arts Authority of Maine.
Last session this Committee considered and passed LD 1089 An Act To Regulate Mixed Martial Arts Competitions, Exhibitions and Events, sending it to the floor of both Chambers where it was eventually passed into law and duly signed by the Governor. I am pleased to report that the Governor has appointed members to the Mixed Martial Arts Authority of Maine and that body has held its first meeting and is proceeding with the development of rules that will carry out the intent of that legislation. I anticipate that the first Mixed Martial Arts events will be held at some point later in this year -- although it is difficult to determine the exact schedule given the timeframes in the rulemaking process.
After the end of the session, I was in contact with the Maine Attorney General’s office regarding the formation of the Authority and the rulemaking process, and after a closer examination of the statute that we passed creating this Authority, the AG’s office expressed some concerns about language and provisions of the bill that they felt lacked enough specificity to insure the smooth enforcement of the duties delegated to the Authority.
The bill before you today makes a number of minor but important technical corrections that clarify the duties of board of this new Authority, specifically:
· Giving the board specific ability to enter into contracts for support of its operations;
· Establishes a certification process as the foundation for credentialing and enforcement;
· Requires the attendance of a physician at all sanctioned events;
· Provides the board with the authority to undertake inspections and investigations in relation to any events;
· Further clarifies the board’s general authority to take all necessary actions to insure that all events are conducted in accordance with the original act.
· Significantly enhances the language pertaining to the enforcement authority of the Board.
This last area is the most extensive language revision and it is intended to give specific authority to the Board, in statute, that can be the foundation for any enforcement actions taken against those who are certified participants in MMA events. I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it from my discussions with the Attorney General’s office, without this specific statutory authority, any enforcement actions taken by the board would have less demonstrable grounds should those actions be challenged in the courts.
These proposed changes in no way alter the original intent of the legislation we passed in the last session, but stand as a means to clarify and strengthen the statute we have already put in place.
I appreciate your consideration of these technical changes that will strengthen our law regulating mixed martial arts in Maine, and urge your support of this legislation. I am happy to answer any questions you may have now and will make myself available for the work session on this bill. Thank you for your consideration.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Update From Augusta -- February 23, 2010
With Legislative leadership committed to an early adjournment in order to save money, the pace of business in Augusta has quickened. The budget debate is the most important discussion currently underway, and given my place on the Health and Human Services Committee — which has to evaluate over $90 million in cuts proposed by the Administration — I’ve become very familiar with the road between Rumford and Augusta.
The budget discussion has been very difficult because of the impacts the proposed reductions could have on the lives of thousands of Maine citizens — including our most vulnerable neighbors. The debate has become even more complicated because of the numbers — projections and proposals are anything but static and change on an almost daily basis. Many ideas are coming forward, and I have been working with many different agencies to understand the impacts of the proposed cuts and explore alternative approaches.
For example, I have proposed and will continue to advocate for approaches in home based care for our seniors and people with a disability that will book the budget savings without cutting hours for the people receiving the services or reducing wages for direct care workers delivering the service. (To give you some perspective of the number of people these proposed cuts would impact, there are an estimated 22,000 direct care workers employed in Maine). Rather, I have been suggesting targeted cuts on external administrative contracts for the system, as well as consolidations of programs that will produce the same savings.
Specifically, I’m calling for a redesign of the home and community based services system that will reduce the external administrative costs from the current rate of over 10% to 7% of the total budget for home and community based services. This will be accomplished, in part, by combining some of the intake functions — financial eligibility, functional eligibility, and care management together with direct service provision. I have done the research and almost every state has consolidated some or all of these functions, but they are separate in Maine, each delivered through a separate entity or contract — that may duplicate administrative costs. In addition to this savings, I am proposing consolidating programs from 7 distinct ones down to just 3, with an accompanying consolidation of the provider network to create economies of operational scale. Taking this approach, we can book over $7 million of budget savings without reducing any of the hours of service that citizens receive or cutting worker wages.
As always, there is push back from some of the people who have the contracts now and are comfortable with how things are done — but I believe this is the right approach. Change is difficult and resistance to change is understandable. However, this resistance must be overcome if the Legislature is to discharge its responsibilities to Maine citizens. Budget reductions are, unfortunately, necessary. These cuts will be disruptive. Targeted cuts — aimed at administrative costs and promoting program consolidations — are preferable to across the board cuts that will likely have unintended consequences. Will this approach require that state officials and providers make adjustments and dig a little deeper or work a little harder? No doubt. But that is far preferable to creating a burden through these cuts that could disrupt the health and independence of Maine seniors and people with a disability.
We must balance the budget but we cannot do that on the backs of taxpayers or municipalities. The work will continue feverishly for the next few weeks into late March. For up-to-the-minute developments in Augusta as they unfold, please visit me online at Twitter at www.twitter.com/PetersonForMe. As the picture changes daily, I will be posting constant updates in a continued effort to keep people constantly informed of all the happenings in Augusta.
These are challenging times for our state, for our communities, and for our families – but I believe we can come through stronger by working together. I appreciate all the input I am hearing from citizens about this process. Please keep the ideas coming. I need your insights and suggestions for how collaboratively we can build a better Maine.
Please email me at petersonhouse08@gmail.com or give me a call at (207) 776-8051.
The budget discussion has been very difficult because of the impacts the proposed reductions could have on the lives of thousands of Maine citizens — including our most vulnerable neighbors. The debate has become even more complicated because of the numbers — projections and proposals are anything but static and change on an almost daily basis. Many ideas are coming forward, and I have been working with many different agencies to understand the impacts of the proposed cuts and explore alternative approaches.
For example, I have proposed and will continue to advocate for approaches in home based care for our seniors and people with a disability that will book the budget savings without cutting hours for the people receiving the services or reducing wages for direct care workers delivering the service. (To give you some perspective of the number of people these proposed cuts would impact, there are an estimated 22,000 direct care workers employed in Maine). Rather, I have been suggesting targeted cuts on external administrative contracts for the system, as well as consolidations of programs that will produce the same savings.
Specifically, I’m calling for a redesign of the home and community based services system that will reduce the external administrative costs from the current rate of over 10% to 7% of the total budget for home and community based services. This will be accomplished, in part, by combining some of the intake functions — financial eligibility, functional eligibility, and care management together with direct service provision. I have done the research and almost every state has consolidated some or all of these functions, but they are separate in Maine, each delivered through a separate entity or contract — that may duplicate administrative costs. In addition to this savings, I am proposing consolidating programs from 7 distinct ones down to just 3, with an accompanying consolidation of the provider network to create economies of operational scale. Taking this approach, we can book over $7 million of budget savings without reducing any of the hours of service that citizens receive or cutting worker wages.
As always, there is push back from some of the people who have the contracts now and are comfortable with how things are done — but I believe this is the right approach. Change is difficult and resistance to change is understandable. However, this resistance must be overcome if the Legislature is to discharge its responsibilities to Maine citizens. Budget reductions are, unfortunately, necessary. These cuts will be disruptive. Targeted cuts — aimed at administrative costs and promoting program consolidations — are preferable to across the board cuts that will likely have unintended consequences. Will this approach require that state officials and providers make adjustments and dig a little deeper or work a little harder? No doubt. But that is far preferable to creating a burden through these cuts that could disrupt the health and independence of Maine seniors and people with a disability.
We must balance the budget but we cannot do that on the backs of taxpayers or municipalities. The work will continue feverishly for the next few weeks into late March. For up-to-the-minute developments in Augusta as they unfold, please visit me online at Twitter at www.twitter.com/PetersonForMe. As the picture changes daily, I will be posting constant updates in a continued effort to keep people constantly informed of all the happenings in Augusta.
These are challenging times for our state, for our communities, and for our families – but I believe we can come through stronger by working together. I appreciate all the input I am hearing from citizens about this process. Please keep the ideas coming. I need your insights and suggestions for how collaboratively we can build a better Maine.
Please email me at petersonhouse08@gmail.com or give me a call at (207) 776-8051.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Poll Question: Tobacco Tax?
As the budget discussions have proceeded, one idea has been persistently proposed from a number of quarters. The suggestion has been made to raise the cigarette tax by $1.00 per pack, primarily as a matter of public health -- but also as a means of raising additional revenues for health related costs. Health advocates have pointed out that youth smoking, long a declining statistic in Maine, has started to reverse direction. Teenage smoking is once again on the rise in Maine, and public health advocates claim that a steep tax increase -- like $1.00 -- is one of the surest ways to discourage teen tobacco use.
Supporters also claim that the tax would raise over $25 million in the first year. That tax revenue may decrease over time, if it does have the desired effect of reducing smoking. While $25 million is only a small portion of what is needed to balance the budget -- supporters are calling it a good step.
What do you think? I've heard from people within our district with strong opinions from each perspective -- and both sides have good arguments. Right now, I am leaning in the direction that the Governor has pointed -- no new tax initiatives in this budget -- but I am more interested in what you think. Is raising the tobacco tax -- $1 a pack for cigarettes, for example -- a good way to decrease youth smoking and raise revenue? Please vote and let me know what you think.
Click here to vote in this week's poll.
Supporters also claim that the tax would raise over $25 million in the first year. That tax revenue may decrease over time, if it does have the desired effect of reducing smoking. While $25 million is only a small portion of what is needed to balance the budget -- supporters are calling it a good step.
What do you think? I've heard from people within our district with strong opinions from each perspective -- and both sides have good arguments. Right now, I am leaning in the direction that the Governor has pointed -- no new tax initiatives in this budget -- but I am more interested in what you think. Is raising the tobacco tax -- $1 a pack for cigarettes, for example -- a good way to decrease youth smoking and raise revenue? Please vote and let me know what you think.
Click here to vote in this week's poll.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Rep. Peterson backs resolution asking Congress to oppose low-level flights in western Maine
AUGUSTA – Rep. Matt Peterson, D-Rumford, backed a resolution passed on Feb. 11 by the Maine State Legislature, calling on Maine’s Congressional delegation to ask the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to delay any action relating to proposed changes in low-level training flights in western Maine.
Peterson represents the area that is in the heart of the section of Maine that will be most severely impacted by the changes proposed by the Massachusetts Air National Guard. He spoke at a hearing about this issue last fall at the University of Maine at Farmington.
“The need to provide adequate training for military pilots must be balanced with the rights of citizens and businesses in western Maine to enjoy the quality of life they expect without the disruption, intrusion, noise and other potential impacts of these low-level, high-speed flights,” said Peterson. “I hope that these two interests will be thoroughly analyzed and that all of the facts will be gathered as a part of a publicly accessible process to weigh the proposed benefits against the costs.”
The Massachusetts Air National Guard has proposed lowering its training altitude from 7,000 to 500 feet in the Condor Military Operations Area in western Maine and a small area in northern New Hampshire.
The proposal has met with opposition not only by the residents near the flight path, but by concerned citizens throughout Maine, due to the Massachusetts Air National Guard’s incomplete draft environmental impact statement and unresponsiveness in communicating with Maine residents throughout the notification and hearing process for low-level flights.
The environmental study has failed to meet minimum standards for adequate research, due to a lack of noise data for F-18, F-22 and F-35 aircraft, and information about environmental damage and the impact on wildlife, agriculture, and quality of life. This study is required by the FAA before they issue their final ruling.
The resolution passed the House and the Senate and will now be sent to Maine’s Congressional delegation.
Peterson represents the area that is in the heart of the section of Maine that will be most severely impacted by the changes proposed by the Massachusetts Air National Guard. He spoke at a hearing about this issue last fall at the University of Maine at Farmington.
“The need to provide adequate training for military pilots must be balanced with the rights of citizens and businesses in western Maine to enjoy the quality of life they expect without the disruption, intrusion, noise and other potential impacts of these low-level, high-speed flights,” said Peterson. “I hope that these two interests will be thoroughly analyzed and that all of the facts will be gathered as a part of a publicly accessible process to weigh the proposed benefits against the costs.”
The Massachusetts Air National Guard has proposed lowering its training altitude from 7,000 to 500 feet in the Condor Military Operations Area in western Maine and a small area in northern New Hampshire.
The proposal has met with opposition not only by the residents near the flight path, but by concerned citizens throughout Maine, due to the Massachusetts Air National Guard’s incomplete draft environmental impact statement and unresponsiveness in communicating with Maine residents throughout the notification and hearing process for low-level flights.
The environmental study has failed to meet minimum standards for adequate research, due to a lack of noise data for F-18, F-22 and F-35 aircraft, and information about environmental damage and the impact on wildlife, agriculture, and quality of life. This study is required by the FAA before they issue their final ruling.
The resolution passed the House and the Senate and will now be sent to Maine’s Congressional delegation.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Picking the Winners and Losers…
It hasn’t been much fun at the Legislature in Augusta since the session began at the beginning of January. The budget hearings have been filled with our fellow citizens, telling their stories and the stories of their families and loved ones who will feel the impact of these proposed budget cuts.
The thing that makes it particularly hard is that nobody wants to take the responsibility for picking winners and losers. Television audiences may delight in such choices on American Idol -- but most of the elected officials in Augusta are shying away from that process. These budget realities force such choices. Governor Baldacci has proposed what is essentially a flat budget -- almost identical in total dollars when compared to the budget that passed in the first year of his administration. During the intervening eight years the rate of inflation has been cumulatively 20%, with particular spikes in the cost of health insurance which is a relatively big item for state government.
Almost half of that virtual 20% budget cut is falling in just one year -- the new budget year that will start on July 1st. As a member of the Health and Human Services Committee we are struggling with budget cuts that are essentially 10% across the board for the biggest programs such as Medicaid or MaineCare. If these cuts go through as written they would impact our hospital and several providers of vital services for some of our most vulnerable neighbors. Because of the match with federal dollars, we get two or three additional dollars for every dollar of state money. Likewise, we lose that two or three dollars every time we reduce state spending on MaineCare.
The 10% across the board cuts are a symptom of that lack of appetite to pick winners and losers. Difficult as it is, it’s an easy way out on some level. In Augusta it’s called spreading the pain, but it can sometimes be dodging the hard choices. Some programs cannot sustain those cuts and still operate, so you have to decide to let it continue along, or eliminate it completely.
Given these circumstances, some of us are stepping up to propose major program revisions, restructuring and the elimination of entire programs. That’s picking winners -- but because the money is tight -- it will inevitably mean picking some losers, too.
For example, I have been working on proposals to make our long term care system -- especially our home and community based services -- work more effectively against the backdrop of this budget realignment. The basic principle is simple -- protect direct services and the wages of the home care workers that are the heart of the programs. Everything else, even if it is a nice feature, is expendable if it is not a core service people depend upon. In a stripped down system like that, there are winners and losers compared to what we have today -- but the winners have to be the citizens who depend upon the services, the workers who care for our neighbors, and the rest of us -- the taxpayers -- who will pay the bill.
When I talk to people in the River Valley -- I hear one message loud and clear -- “We want value for our money.” We hate to part with our hard-earned money, but we sure don’t want to do it if we think it’s being wasted. We are making hard choices in this session because we want to make sure every dollar goes as far as it can.
The budget cuts are being shared, too. Municipal revenue sharing, state aid to education, reimbursement for a portion of the homestead exemption, and general assistance funds are all being reduced, and that will mean either an increase in local property taxes, or a reduction in services. That will make this year’s town meetings a little more important, so I hope everyone will come out and be heard.
This is not the last tough budget year we’ll have -- probably far from it. Our economic recovery is slow, jobs are not growing -- so it will take a while for us to see any significant economic revival. Meanwhile the state will continue to struggle to keep a balanced budget, exactly like hundreds of families in the River Valley.
I urge you to get involved. Contact me if you have ideas or concerns. I’ve heard from many area residents and I always enjoy the opportunity to talk, even when we are looking to get our hands around the fiscal mess. Unfortunately, it is time in Augusta to step up and show leadership. Well intentioned but ineffective programs must be eliminated and at the end of the process we’ll have a leaner and stronger state. Please feel free to contact me. I need your ideas and your counsel. Please get involved.
The thing that makes it particularly hard is that nobody wants to take the responsibility for picking winners and losers. Television audiences may delight in such choices on American Idol -- but most of the elected officials in Augusta are shying away from that process. These budget realities force such choices. Governor Baldacci has proposed what is essentially a flat budget -- almost identical in total dollars when compared to the budget that passed in the first year of his administration. During the intervening eight years the rate of inflation has been cumulatively 20%, with particular spikes in the cost of health insurance which is a relatively big item for state government.
Almost half of that virtual 20% budget cut is falling in just one year -- the new budget year that will start on July 1st. As a member of the Health and Human Services Committee we are struggling with budget cuts that are essentially 10% across the board for the biggest programs such as Medicaid or MaineCare. If these cuts go through as written they would impact our hospital and several providers of vital services for some of our most vulnerable neighbors. Because of the match with federal dollars, we get two or three additional dollars for every dollar of state money. Likewise, we lose that two or three dollars every time we reduce state spending on MaineCare.
The 10% across the board cuts are a symptom of that lack of appetite to pick winners and losers. Difficult as it is, it’s an easy way out on some level. In Augusta it’s called spreading the pain, but it can sometimes be dodging the hard choices. Some programs cannot sustain those cuts and still operate, so you have to decide to let it continue along, or eliminate it completely.
Given these circumstances, some of us are stepping up to propose major program revisions, restructuring and the elimination of entire programs. That’s picking winners -- but because the money is tight -- it will inevitably mean picking some losers, too.
For example, I have been working on proposals to make our long term care system -- especially our home and community based services -- work more effectively against the backdrop of this budget realignment. The basic principle is simple -- protect direct services and the wages of the home care workers that are the heart of the programs. Everything else, even if it is a nice feature, is expendable if it is not a core service people depend upon. In a stripped down system like that, there are winners and losers compared to what we have today -- but the winners have to be the citizens who depend upon the services, the workers who care for our neighbors, and the rest of us -- the taxpayers -- who will pay the bill.
When I talk to people in the River Valley -- I hear one message loud and clear -- “We want value for our money.” We hate to part with our hard-earned money, but we sure don’t want to do it if we think it’s being wasted. We are making hard choices in this session because we want to make sure every dollar goes as far as it can.
The budget cuts are being shared, too. Municipal revenue sharing, state aid to education, reimbursement for a portion of the homestead exemption, and general assistance funds are all being reduced, and that will mean either an increase in local property taxes, or a reduction in services. That will make this year’s town meetings a little more important, so I hope everyone will come out and be heard.
This is not the last tough budget year we’ll have -- probably far from it. Our economic recovery is slow, jobs are not growing -- so it will take a while for us to see any significant economic revival. Meanwhile the state will continue to struggle to keep a balanced budget, exactly like hundreds of families in the River Valley.
I urge you to get involved. Contact me if you have ideas or concerns. I’ve heard from many area residents and I always enjoy the opportunity to talk, even when we are looking to get our hands around the fiscal mess. Unfortunately, it is time in Augusta to step up and show leadership. Well intentioned but ineffective programs must be eliminated and at the end of the process we’ll have a leaner and stronger state. Please feel free to contact me. I need your ideas and your counsel. Please get involved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)