Fiscal Restraint Marks Perry’s Voting Record For Three Terms

State Representative Jeffrey D. Perry (R - Sandwich) is the first to admit he has not always cast popular votes in the State House.
When the state enacted its landmark healthcare reform law in 2006, Mr. Perry was one of two legislators who voted against it, faulting the bill for failing to truly reform the system, while also unjustly penalizing individuals and businesses that failed to adhere to the law’s many mandates. This year he voted against a $1 billion life sciences investment bill, which he said insufficiently detailed the true cost to taxpayers; and the Fiscal Year 2009 budget, believing that the state was over-spending.
In light of the continuing rising costs of healthcare, and in the recent announcement that revenues were down and the state may have to make emergency cuts to the budget, Mr. Perry said he felt vindicated in his actions.
 

State Representative Jeffrey Perry (R - Sandwich) is running for his fourth term.

“I am proud of my record of saying no when I think something is wrong,” he said, adding that in light of the looming fiscal crisis, “I’m not pleased to be right.”
Healthcare and state finances are just two of the issues Mr. Perry hopes to tackle in a fourth two-year term, though he was quick to point out that he did not automatically decide to run for re-election as his current term came to a close.
“I don’t think anyone in elected office should be there for their career…I reflected on it a lot, and I asked myself two questions,” he said. “I asked if I am doing the job I wanted to do, and two, do I have more that I want to get done?”
The former Wareham police officer and small businessman said he was pleased with what the Legislature accomplished in several areas over the past session, but felt that many initiatives did not go as far as they should have, and he wanted to finish those pieces of unfinished business.
He first cited the passage of “Jessica’s Law” and “Melanie’s Law” which toughened laws against, respectively, sex offenders and drunk drivers. In each case Mr. Perry, who sits on the Joint Committee on Public Safety, said the Legislature did not go far enough in implementing these national models in Massachusetts. He specifically stated his intention to revisit Jessica’s Law to enact the stiff minimum mandatory sentencing guidelines the House and Senate rejected.
Mr. Perry also hoped to keep working on the reform aspects of the healthcare law, which he dubbed “the healthcare mandate law, not the healthcare reform law…it didn’t reform anything.
“We took some really small steps this year with (Senate President Therese) Murray’s bill,” he said, referring to Ms. Murray’s “Act to Promote Cost Containment, Transparency and Efficiency in the Delivery of Quality Health Care.” That bill, which seeks to streamline medical recordkeeping and keep tabs on the causes of soaring healthcare costs, was signed into law in August.
According to Mr. Perry, the next steps in healthcare reform should include tort reform and revisiting the mandates requiring individuals to have insurance and certain businesses to provide healthcare. “We should be lowering costs and giving people real choice in healthcare,” he said. “Healthcare costs are going to be a primary issue next year.”
Mr. Perry, who sits on the House Committee on Ways and Means, expected local aid will also be a point of concern in the coming session as municipalities struggle to stay afloat in rough financial waters, and he hoped to duplicate his success in bringing more aid to the Fifth Barnstable District.
Between Fiscal Year 2004, which began in the second year of Mr. Perry’s first term, and FY09, Sandwich’s total local aid allotment increased by $2.3 million, or more than 35 percent. This, Mr. Perry said, included Chapter 70 state education aid, Lottery aid, and PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) money Sandwich receives for hosting state-owned property (the Massachusetts Military Reservation).
“That was a big accomplishment…I get my share of the credit for that, and Terry Murray gets her share, which is probably bigger than my share,” he said, “but if someone thinks that’s not good enough, I guess I will take my share of the blame.”
Mr. Perry, a member of the Joint Committee on Education, noted that a Chapter 70 reform proposal he filed in 2005 did not pass, but forcing the bill through the legislative process “brought attention to the plight of suburban towns” that are under-funded by the current Chapter 70 formula.
Bringing issues into the public eye has been a priority area for Mr. Perry since his first term. “Our legislative process is not one to be proud of,” he said, and he has openly criticized colleagues for striking “back-room” deals, rushing bills through to a vote, and using procedural processes to avoid roll call votes.
“I feel I’ve been true to the principles of open government,” he said, “and standing up to the corrupt culture on Beacon Hill.”
According to Mr. Perry, the roll call vote issue was a regular sticking point during budget discussions as earmarks for local projects were typically bundled together and voted on as a bloc. “It gets the paperwork done more efficiently,” he said, “but there’s less accountability, less debate, less amending, and fewer votes.”
“The Legislature is controlled by people who want to go along to get along, and just get their piece of the pie,” he said, adding that he was particularly disappointed that Governor Deval L. Patrick has not lived up to his campaign promises of “bring the issues to the people…I was hopeful that that meant our processes would become more transparent.”
Mr. Perry, who filed only one earmark in FY09 for the Massachusetts Sudden Infant Death Center at Boston Medical Center, said earmarks should be among the first items on the chopping block should cuts become necessary to balance the budget.
He said he would oppose any tax increases and granting the governor expanded “9C” authority, which would allow the governor to make across-the-board cuts to every line item. “That doesn’t make any sense with so much wasteful spending in the budget,” he said of the latter option.
Mr. Perry would instead push for getting the Legislature to make “strategic cuts after really careful analysis,” and would avoid touching Chapter 70 and local aid if possible.
Although he recognized that healthy tax revenue streams were a necessary part of making the budget work, Mr. Perry said he planned to again push his colleagues to unfreeze the voter-approved income tax rollback.
Voters overwhelmingly approved in 2000, via a binding referendum question on the ballot, decreasing the income tax rate from 5.95 percent to five percent over a three-year period. The rollback was frozen at 5.3 percent in 2002 to help the state deal with a financial crisis, and legislators have yet to allow the final reduction.
“I feel very strongly that our job as legislators, when it comes to ballot questions, when the public speaks at the ballot box, that point of view should be represented at the State House,” Mr. Perry said, “and getting tax money back in the voters’ hands is good public policy.”
He added, “It’s exactly what we should do during an economic slowdown. You could argue that an economic slowdown is the best time to cut taxes.”
Mr. Perry may have an unexpected ally in his fight in the form of Question 1, a binding referendum question that would eliminate the state income tax entirely. “I think Question 1 is more about the failure of the Legislature to go to five percent than about responsible, substantive policy,” he said. “I think the Legislature will respond to the rollback based on the outcome of question one.”
“I am proud of my record, and my vision has been consistent with the needs of my district,” Mr. Perry said. “I love my job, constituent services are still rewarding, and I look forward to continuing that.”
For more information, visit Mr. Perry’s official website at www.electjeffperry.com