Your Arlington, your views

Rep. Will Brownsberger, Democrat of Belmont, also representing Arlington, wrote the following opinion column. It is posted her with his permission.

The House voted today [July 23] on a pair of gender-related bills that generated a debate full of passion, confusion and irony. I was in the majority on all three of major votes, but split from some of my friends on two of them.

One of the bills, which passed, will require gender-blended pricing of annuity contracts. In a simple annuity contract, a person (usually a retiree), pays a substantial lump sum to an insurance company. The company, in return, pays them back with an income for life. Since women live longer than men, insurance companies charge them more than men for the same annuity. The bill will require companies to blend pricing for men and women, so that both pay the same prices. Although results will vary for individuals, on average, men will subsidize women, lowering rates for women.

The other bill, which also passed, would also lower rates for women, by relieving the Massachusetts Savings Bank Life Insurance company of an unique statutory requirement for them to use gender-blended rates for term life insurance. Since women live longer than men, other life insurance companies charge them less than men — this will allow SBLI to do the same, lowering their rates for women. Women will stop subsidizing men.

For some, the debate was about equality for women and they spoke in passionate historical terms about the progress of civil rights. Members who saw the issues primarily through this lens voted for the annuity bill and against the life insurance bill, even though both bills lower rates for women.

As passionate as I am about the principle of equality, I felt the equality principle was misused in the debate. To me, equality means charging men and women based on the same actuarial principles. Actuarial pricing favors women buying life insurance and favors men buying annuities. There is nothing unequal or unfair about that — both genders are receiving the same treatment, even though the resulting prices are different.

I chose to support the annuities bill because we generally do not differentiate based on gender or other immutable personal characteristics, in our bedrock financial systems — compensation, pensions, social security, health insurance, auto insurance. We keep things simple and view ourselves as all in the same system together.

Noone would suggest that women should receive lower social security payments than men with the same contribution history, even though they are likely to live longer and so take more out of the system. Nor would anyone suggest that we make different social security payments based on race or religion, even though smart actuaries might be able to compute survival differences based on these criteria. We keep things simple and avoid divisive hairsplitting and by doing so, we increase social coherence.

Annuities are a class of financial instrument that may play an increasing role for retirees as more and more people work for companies that lack a defined benefit pension plan. At 65, hard working people may have a good financial nest egg in a 401(k) or other savings vehicle and they may choose to convert that nest-egg into an annual income resembling a pension by purchasing an annuity.

So, I felt comfortable voting for the gender-neutral annuity bill on the keep-things-simple-we-are-all-in-it-together principle. Yet, I voted against an amendment to the life insurance bill which would have extended gender-neutrality to term life insurance contracts. Arguably term life insurance is a bedrock financial product that should be gender neutral and I might vote for this concept in the future, but I felt that was out of order in the current debate.

A complete restructuring of the life insurance market deserves some hearing and discussion. Insurance rates would go up for women and down for men. Is that what we want? What would the consequences be for Massachusetts companies competing nationally? We would be the only the state other than Montana to adopt this approach. It is probably the right approach, but deserves a political process where all voices are heard before we move on it.

I also voted for the bill which would relieve the Massachusetts SBLI from the requirement of gender-blended rates for life insurance. Until after due deliberation, we are prepared to subject all Massachusetts companies to these rules, their seems to be no good reason to subject only this company to the rule.

So, it was a difficult day, but one that I felt prepared for after considerable input and reflection. Thank you to those among you who communicated with me on these issues.

As always, I appreciate feedback. My e-mail is willbrownsberger@gmail.com. My cell phone is 617-771-8274. My website — where past posts can be viewed is www.willbrownsberger.com.

Rep. Will Brownsberger, Democrat of Belmont and Arlington, explains why he voted to oppose the National Popular Vote (NPV). His comments are published with his permission.

I write to explain my recent vote today [July 9] against the proposal for an NPV.

I voted in the losing minority in a lopsided 116 to 37 vote. The NPV had the support of Common Cause, the Speaker, many other leading Democrats and all of the constituents who wrote to me about the issue. In fact, at one point, it had my support: I signed on as a co-sponsor to the proposal.

I developed doubts after hearing the first day of debate about it last week. During a one week postponement of the vote, I consulted experts in favor of the proposal. My consultations clarified the issues, but did not relieve my doubts.

In the end, I concluded that, whatever its merits in principle, the proposal creates unacceptable down-side risks for our country, risks that are not outweighed by its alleged benefits.

What is the NPV proposal? The proposal would change the way we select the President of the United States — a technical issue, but one of great importance.

In November, we will each cast a vote for president of the United States. The votes will be counted in each state. In each state, a winner will be identified and the state will send electors to the electoral college to vote for that winner. In order to be elected president, a candidate must achieve a majority of votes in the electoral college (270 of 538).

Each state gets a number of electors equal to the number of senators that it has (two) plus the number of representatives in Congress (proportional to population). In effect, this formula places the small-state to large-state balance of power in choosing a President mathematically mid-way between the balance in the House and the balance in the Senate.

The requirement of winning with an absolute majority in the electoral college forces presidential candidates to assure themselves a geographically broad victory.

If no candidate achieves an absolute majority, the election is decided in the House of Representatives in a special vote in which each state delegation gets one vote. This one-vote rule further advantages smaller states. An absolute majority must be achieved. Only the top three vote getters in the Electoral College may be considered.

Under the NPV proposal, states would enter an interstate compact to the effect that they would instruct their electors in the electoral college to vote for whomever gets the most popular votes nationwide. This does not require a constitutional amendment because the constitution does not control how the states choose electors.

If states controlling a majority of the electors in the electoral college enter the compact, then the compact would take effect. The members of the compact would in the next election instruct their electors to vote for the candidate who won the national popular vote, regardless of whether that candidate won a majority among those states. Since the members are a majority of the electoral college votes, the national popular vote winner would receive the constitutionally required majority in the electoral college.

By its terms, states could withdraw from the compact at any time except during the six months preceding the inauguration date for the president — between July 20 and January 20 every four years.

The NPV increases two kinds of serious risk.

I am frightened by the possibility of a deviant regional candidate – a George Wallace – under the NPV. The NPV lacks the requirement of geographic distribution that the electoral college enforces. In a three way race, a George Wallace, could, for example, win 35% of the vote by winning huge majorities in one region. If the major party candidates split the balance of the vote in other regions, the George Wallace would win. Whereas in the electoral college system, the George Wallace would win only the electoral votes from that region and lack sufficient votes to become president.

The NPV lacks even a runoff mechanism, a requirement that if no candidate wins an absolute majority the top two candidates compete in a runoff election. Few major democracies that elect a President nationally do so without a runoff mechanism. But a runoff is not part of the NPV compact. The compact is designed to be implemented without the necessity of a constitutional amendment and a creating runoff election would require a constitutional amendment.

Which brings me to my second concern: An interstate compact just is not a robust way to build a system as important as the presidential election system. If a state didn’t like the way the NPV system seemed to be headed, they could withdraw even in June of the election year. That’s awfully late in our long cycle and could throw the whole race into confusion. Moreover, if a state decided to withdraw even closer to the election or after the election, the election would end up in the courts. It is not a settled question how and whether the Supreme Court would enforce an interstate compact of this nature, although interstate compacts have been enforced for more mundane issues.

Once I understood these risks, I reexamined the arguments in favor of the NPV. There are three common arguments made in favor of the National Popular Vote.

First, some are offended by the possibility that a candidate who did not actually obtain a majority of the national popular vote could win the presidency in the Electoral College. George Bush did this in 2000 and John Kerry, if he had won Ohio, would have done it in 2004.

In closely divided elections this is a possibility in our system for two reasons: It could sometimes happen that by winning smaller states who carry a slightly disproportionate number of delegates a candidate could gain an advantage in the electoral college. More importantly, lop-side majorities in some states swell the national popular vote of a candidate, but a razor thin margin is enough to win all of a state’s delegates. So, a candidate who won many states by razor thin margins but lost a few states very big could win a majority in the electoral college while losing the popular vote.

These possibilities follow from our identity as a union of states. It is the states that elect the president. Generally, this basic idea checks the power of the federal government and helps to protect local liberty and freedom to experiment. A president who claimed to be elected by the people, as opposed to the states, might be more likely (even than our current overreaching President) to expand presidential power.

Second, because many states are predictable in how they vote, candidates pay much of their attention to “swing states.” Some have gone so far as to suggest that this is the cause for apathy and low voter turnout across the country. However, if low turnout were caused by the electoral college system, then in true blue Massachusetts, the presidential election would be a relatively low turnout election. But the opposite is true, people turnout in droves to cast their vote for the presidency even if the outcome in Massachusetts is a foregone conclusion – it is the local elections that have the lowest turnout.

Third, some suggest that the electoral college system creates incentives for fraud and abuse in the swing states – alleged cases in point, Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004. This is true, but arguably, in a national popular vote, we could see fraud (or allegations of fraud) anywhere. Political scientists feel that fraud is less likely in larger jurisdictions – the sheer size of the margins makes it harder to successfully commit fraud. However, that still leaves the possibility in an NPV system of greater confusion about a close election’s outcome as allegations and real incidents occur in multiple states.

I gave careful consideration to voting for the NPV just to keep the conversation alive about reform of the electoral college, but all-in-all I really feel that — lacking a runoff mechanism — the NPV proposal is not sound enough to make a positive statement for change.

Nor, honestly, am I clear in my mind that the electoral college – which embodies our national history as a union of states – is the root of political evil. Certainly the concept of sending electors to a college is anachronistic, but the formula for the college embodies a balance of power between large and small states.

I am less interested in changing the mechanics and more interested in developing and supporting national candidates who combine truthful vision with the skills to engage to a broad range of people across the nation.

As always, I appreciate feedback. My e-mail is willbrownsberger@gmail.com and my cell phone is 617-771-8274. My website is www.willbrownsberger.com.

Will Brownsberger
State Representative, (617) 771-8274 (cell)
Visit www.willbrownsberger.com for news.

By Bob Sprague

I got a haircut today from an Arlington barber I have known for a number of years. Call him Joe (not his real name). I told Joe that Senator Jim Marzilli’s lawyer had confirmed that his client has a “fairly serious mental illness.” Joe made a noise in his nose that signals disbelief.

Joe said he knows Jim and always thought him odd. Then he said, basically, that someone in Jim’s position can get a doctor to say anything, to declare the diagnosis that the patient wants.

As Joe snipped, he said, “Am I right, Bob?”

I remained silent in the chair.

“Bob?”

After a bit, I told him I had some knowledge of mental illness from a case in my family, and I was not so quick to draw the conclusion he did.

In my view, the public should not either.

While serious charges have been lodged against the senator — and an Arlington woman is pressing a further case — I think that, for the sake of balance, the public should also recall the good Marzilli has done.

To that end, Cindy Friedman, his chief aide, has provided the following list of Marzilli’s legislative accomplishments:

• As one of his first initiatives in office, Jim led the effort to provide tax relief to seniors living on fixed incomes who pay high property taxes. The senior “circuit breaker” legislation became law in 1998.

• Jim led two successful efforts to increase the minimum wage in Massachusetts, including the most recent increase to $8 an hour in 2008.

• In 1997, Jim wrote the law that created a state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a refundable tax credit for low wage workers that can reduce taxes and also led effort to restore the capital gains tax in 2002.

• During his last three terms in the House, Jim initiated efforts to close corporate tax loopholes, filing the legislation and leading the floor fights on these issues. He was the original author of combined reporting legislation that was recently adopted in tax packages by both the House and Senate.

• Three separate times, Jim led successful efforts to increase the pay for the lowest paid human service workers.

• He was named “Legislator of the Year” in 2004 by the Massachusetts Human Services Providers Council and in 2007 by the Association of Developmental Disabilities Provides for his work on behalf of low-wage workers and people with developmental disabilities.

• In his efforts to eliminate government waste, Jim passed legislation that abolished the archaic Middlesex County government and the Emergency Finance Board that lied local government in red tape.

• Jim was named “Environmental Legislator of the Year” by the Environmental League of Massachusetts in 2001 for his work linking environmental protection and tax policy. He is the author of the Energy, Climate and Economic Security Act, a comprehensive bill that emphasizes the use of energy efficiency programs and renewable technologies to reduce the environmental impact and cost of our current energy systems.

• Jim has led the successful effort to ban the sale of mercury thermometers make sure we are safe in our homes and daily lives.

• As vice chair of the House Healthcare Finance Committee, Jim played an important role in the creation of the Healthcare Reform Act of 2006, which mandated that all Massachusetts residents have health insurance.

• During the 2007-2008 legislative session, Jim has filed comprehensive cost-control healthcare legislation. In fact, Senate President Murray’s comprehensive health reform bill includes some of the items Jim has worked on, including an academic detailing program, a ban on gifts to physicians, and incentives to increase the number of primary care practitioners in the state.

By Joyce Fienman and Rebecca Weiss

On Tuesday, May 27, 2008, the Walden Woods Project sponsored a reading featuring award-winning author E. L. Doctorow. Held at the Trinitarian Church in Concord, Mass., Doctorow sampled the story “Walter John Harmon” from his collection Sweet Land Stories. “Walter John Harmon” is the story of the tragedy that befalls a Kansas cult. After the reading, Doctorow took questions from the audience and concluded with a book signing.

In his talk, Doctorow explained how a book can literally come from nothing. He finally overcame a year of writer’s block before writing Ragtime by creating the story of his New Rochelle home and the fictional family who lived after its construction in 1906. Despite some hearing difficulties due to wartime injuries, Doctorow was dynamic and engaging, infusing his talk with understated bits of humor.

Even in his late 70s, Doctorow maintained great vigor and expression throughout the hourlong reading and was incredibly charming in personal interaction.

E.L. Doctorow, famous for his political novel Ragtime, which deals with racism at the turn of the 20th century, is also the author of numerous critically acclaimed works. Among the most well-known are The March, detailing General Sherman’s march to the sea and the destruction he left in his wake during the American Civil War, and Loon Lake, the story of personal discovery during the Great Depression.

Recipient and multiple nominee of the National Book Award and finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, Doctorow is one of the greatest writers of contemporary American fiction. Though unwilling to give details on his next novel, we can be sure that it will live up the high standards of his previous works.

As Arlington High School seniors, we first became of Doctorow and his work when we studied Ragtime in our AP English class taught by English Department Head Mrs. Elise Frangos. Ragtime tells the story of three disparate but converging groups: Jewish immigrants, African-Americans, and a WASP family. Though read as part of our contemporary literature unit, this novel will be integrated into the summer reading program for next year’s AP English students.

Arlington resident Mary Trvalik answers the questions with a decided “yes” in a lovely essay reposted from the Arlington e-mail list with her permission:

Rebecca Woodward asks:

> Do I love my street? Do I love my neighborhood?

Well, I have thought about your question for a few days now. At firstI was hesitant to reply. I was worried. Will this start a thread pitting one neighborhood against another? MY STREET IS BETTER THAN YOUR STREET. It’s only a few steps from there to the “newbie vs. townie” heart breakers that spin out of control on the larger Arlington list.

But so far the replies seem so civilized. I think I’ll chime in.

I live over here on Fairview Avenue, one of several streets off of Mystic Street, near the Bishop School. Fairview almost dead-ends at the lower Mystic Lake, save for a tiny private way, Mystic Bank, that connects Fairview, Draper, and Davis Avenues, making for a convenient way in and out of the neighborhood. Still, there isn’t much traffic.

There are many children of all ages on those three Avenues and the connecting private way. On Fairview, a street with eighteen houses, there are twenty-five children under the age of 18 - with the youngest being a set of twins just reaching their three-week birthday. There are several college-age siblings, as well. Good baby-sitting material, if you can get any of their time.

I don’t know if the numbers are as high on Draper or Davis, but I imagine they are close.

The school-age children mostly go to Bishop, but there are kids at St. Agnes and other private schools as well. The kids don’t seem to throw up any walls about this, and they all cross paths at Church or Temple or Hockey or Soccer or Baseball or you get the idea.

It’s nice in the morning on a school day, because the Bishop kids walk to school, and there is a steady stream of children and Moms and Dads headed to the crosswalk. In a pinch, you can shoo yours out the door, and they can catch up with friends. Mine and my neighbor’s kids form a gang and make a great hullabaloo along the way. The crossing guard knows each and every child by name, and worries if someone is missing. She never fails to ask after the one who is at home sick for the day.

Every year in the fall, Fairview has a Block Party, and we invite a few interlopers from the other two streets. The parents all grumble about how much WORK it is, and how BUSY we all are, and then we proceed to make delicious foods to share, and have a grand old time visiting with one another for hours into the cool of the evening. The kids do Arts and Crafts and have a Bike Parade and jump themselves silly in a moonbounce and drink too much soda while no one is looking. We are a pretty social group.

Once, long ago, we thought about moving. We thought about moving to one of those towns with BETTER SCHOOLS. We thought about moving to a house with MORE THAN ONE BATHROOM. We thought about moving to a place with a BIGGER YARD. But we didn’t move, thank the Heavenly Lord.

Instead we voted for an override and volunteered in the schools and walked to the parks and, now, even as we speak, there is a giant twelve-foot-deep hole in my backyard where the addition will go that will hold TWO NEW BATHROOMS. One of them will only be for Mom and Dad. I can hardly wait.

And we will continue to live in this wondrous neighborhood, in this magical town that feels so much like a throwback to a 1950’s place that maybe never existed. We can walk or ride a bike to most anywhere. We haul a dozen books to and from the library every three weeks - a library that is jaw-dropping beautiful inside and out. We play basketball, softball, and baseball. We sled down the hills and skate at the rink and run from the mean old geese at spy pond. We have our favorite Chinese, our favorite Pizza, our favorite salon, our favorite five-and-dime, our favorite ice cream, our favorite STEEP HILL TO DRIVE UP AND DOWN IN THE CAR, our favorite view, our favorite shortcuts, our favorite spot to view the parade, and our favorite spot to view the fireworks and NO YOU CAN’T HAVE A GLOW IN THE DARK NECKLACE THIS YEAR EITHER.

We have all made friends that will last a lifetime, friends that we laugh with, cry with, even the kind of friend one can call at 4:30 a.m. when something goes awry in the middle of the night. You can’t pay money for this. It’s a gift, and I am thankful every single day that somehow I was fortunate enough to receive it.

We are certified newbies - have only lived in this place for fifteen years. But we have planted our roots, and the family tree, so far, is thriving. We are staying for the long haul.

Wish I could tell you of a house for sale nearby. But here is the really nice thing - I don’t think we have a GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD MONOPOLY. If you find a home that will work, I would bet a dollar to a doughnut (as my Dad always says) that you will find a neighborhood that will work too. My only suggestion is to invest of yourselves in your neighborhood and your town as though it were treasure, and treasure it will indeed become.

Best of luck to you!

Mary T.