The Transportation Reform bill we passed in session provided one-time money to limit the costs to the public for the fare increase, but it is not going to solve the problem. Neither are the stricter fare-evasion penalties we've enacted, though we do anticipate better collection rates.

Moving the commuter ferry service to Massport is the first thing we need to do in the next session, as that agency has the ability to absorb the costs of that operation.

We also need to freeze MBTA line expansions unless a study can prove that the service will become profitable in a reasonable period.

Pension reform and health care cost-containment bills that we passed in this last session will also have an impact as they phase into the overhead for personnel.

Ideally, as the economy begins to rebound, demand will also return and we’ll see greater ridership, which will add to the revenue collected.

As a member of the House Ways & Means committee, I look forward to the hearings with the MBTA in March to see how these changes have helped the bottom line and to see what cost-cutting measures they are enacting to prevent the need for another major influx of cash.

The leadership has taken many steps to rein in the costs and expenses of the MBTA, including pension changes and reforms. Maybe having Massport assume some of the "Big Dig" debt would be appropriate since they have benefited by the work extending I-90 to the airport.

In speaking with general practitioners and hospitals in my district, there is agreement that an outcome-oriented plan for overall patient health is better, not only for the consumer, but also for the providers who, as of now, have to focus an inordinate amount of resources towards emergency room space, equipment, and staffing.

ERs are, for most hospitals, the "front door" and create the high demand because too many people are not pro-active with their health, and physicians are not incentivized to provide a "big picture" plan for their patients.

The cost of ER treatments for things like asthma and diabetes – which could be handled by general practitioners - is passed on to the consumers and businesses who pay the premiums and to the state, which subsidizes coverage for those who can’t afford it.

Estimates are that we may achieve a savings of more than $200B (billion!) over 15 years. That is something that, I believe, is worth trying through this legislation that I supported and which passed.

Right now, we have public schools, private schools, innovations schools, parochial schools, all operating under different models, and depending upon what town you live in and what they can afford to pay beyond the basic foundation budget, the coursework is not uniform, either.

We can see that with the reduced English Language Arts courses, waiting lists for vocational-technical schools, and foreign language course cuts that the recent recession has forced on the system. My vision is to take the best practices of charter and innovations schools and start implementing them into the public school system.

This is going to take a lot of cooperation from many participants – cities and towns, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the Department of Education, and the Legislature.

But it’s a goal worth achieving because, without a properly educated new generation of citizens, the Commonwealth will not enjoy the same competitive advantages we now have, nationally, thanks to the excellence we’ve garnered from past investment.

Men and women who work at these schools should be compensated accordingly.

I am sure that if you took on more responsibility or more tasks requiring longer hours, you would expect to be paid for it.

And we have to look historically to see that union membership in Massachusetts is on the decline, so this is a difficult period for a movement that, so many years ago, helped create and improve the lives of the middle class of America.

That said, I believe that our country was built on the premise of open competition to foster the best and most efficient form of services and products offered on the marketplace.

I don’t believe in tax loopholes or credits that benefit corporations unfairly, and I think that should apply to the labor force as well. I want to see workers at union halls get out on a job as quickly as possible, but I know that there are many non-union families dependent on a weekly paycheck, too.

I think government should stop intervening in the private sector and allow labor leaders and company representatives to work out deals on projects based on merit and pricing. The concept of a PLA is antiquated and, as we enter a 21st century global economy, is something I see as no longer necessary.

I believe PLAs require that a certain percentage of workers come from the immediate area and gives preference to veterans who could certainly use the work after sacrificing so much for our country.

I voted on a major piece of pension reform, which passed in the last session, that is set to save the state more than $6.4 billion in the next 30 years.

This was done through some pretty serious changes: moving the retirement age from 55 to 60, adjusting the pension from the highest three years to the highest FIVE years, and mandating that members who serve in more than one group must pro-rate benefits based on the total years of service rendered in each group.

These are significant adjustments, and I think we will find that the cost savings prove to be worthwhile, hopefully precluding any additional necessary action to the pension system.

However, you can not just throw the baby out with the bath water. A system in place for a hundred years must reflect the current realities of the times.