Firstly, moving forward, we must not continue to saddle debt from other projects on any state agency. If we can't afford the project, the project is put on hold.

Having said that, we do have a fiscal problem at the T. Reasonable fare increases, alternative revenue sources (such as more advertisements on bus and rail vehicles), and cuts in expenses are all necessary to see us through these hard times.

T management also needs to streamline its operations to find any cost savings that are possible by renegotiating contracts and ending unnecessary employee perks or benefits, offering alternative routes, and streamlining purchasing or other internal operations.

However, decades of insufficient investment in our roads, bridges, and public transit has left us with a huge backlog of needed maintenance and capital projects.

We need to undertake another round of transportation reform that will focus on continued efforts to improve efficiency at the MBTA and other transportation agencies, and will also identify additional sources of revenue to fund these vital investments in infrastructure across the Commonwealth.

The solution for the MBTA will likely have to involve a combination of further cost cutting, debt relief, and some new revenue since the T's share of the sales tax has not achieved the projections underlying the Forward Funding plan enacted by the Legislature in 2000.

The important thing is that the decision-making remain between patient and doctor, and not controlled by a bureaucracy. This experiment needs time for testing and tweaking to see if, in fact, costs are contained.

I believe the bi-partisan approach to these reforms offer the chance for improved cost controls while maintaining high levels of service, but time will tell.

If the system does not work, we should re-visit the issue and perhaps look to open up competition in insurance providers in Massachusetts, and take a serious look at tort reform.

The goal of the 2012 healthcare reform law is in some ways even more ambitious and challenging: transforming our healthcare system from a focus on treating people when they are sick to a focus on keeping people healthy.

I believe we can achieve this goal and doing so will both improve the quality of care and reduce healthcare costs.

Under the new law, healthcare providers will be incentivized to practice the best possible care at a reasonable price, and consumers will be provided with the necessary information to actively participate in making personal healthcare decisions.

Over time, we will move away from the current "fee-for-service" healthcare system which rewards high-volume, expensive care that is not necessarily higher in quality.

I’m pleased that the new law includes my proposal for the establishment of a Massachusetts Prevention and Wellness Trust. This will help link public health and healthcare services into a comprehensive system to achieve a healthier population and reduce the incidence of preventable and costly chronic diseases.

A competitive grant program will enable municipalities, community hospitals, and other local organizations to implement proven strategies to address the most preventable and costly health conditions.

Massachusetts is once again leading the nation in providing a path forward for delivering high quality, affordable healthcare for all.

Charter schools serve as models of success that should be emulated, not rejected. It appears that the more charter schools there are, the higher the level of our young peoples' success.

I support lifting the cap on charter schools throughout the state.

This legislation is already showing significant positive results, and we should continue to assess its impact in order to determine further reforms that may be needed.

I do not consider myself anti-union, but all bidders for state jobs should be able to make a pitch. Non-union companies are also citizens of the Commonwealth and should be able to bid competitively for state jobs.

State employees with time in service deserve adequate and fair pensions, but the pensions must be sustainable, and equal across the board.

Favored individuals with political connections should not receive a golden parachute on the backs of taxpayers.

We have eliminated a number of egregious loopholes so that everyone in the system is treated fairly and nobody gets special treatment, including legislators.

We have ensured the solvency of the system over the long-term and generated savings to taxpayers of $5 billion over the next 30 years.

He apparently changed his tune when he voted to override Gov. Patrick's veto after hearing constituents' anger at his wrong stance.

For most of his public career, Rep. Lewis opposed Melanie's Law. He did, however, support it at the 11th hour when it became clear it was popular and was going to pass, taking credit, in part, for its passage.

This vote, more than others, is the height of his hypocrisy on his anti-public safety stances.

For example, a woman who wanted to put on lipstick for a job interview would be prohibited from using her cash assistance to purchase any cosmetic products.

I believe that restrictions like this are demeaning and will do nothing to save taxpayer dollars since neither the number of people receiving cash assistance nor the amount they receive will change.

While we may not like the poor choices that some people might make (and I suspect this is a very small percentage of all cash assistance recipients), creating a long list of banned products and services will create major headaches for small businesses that sell both acceptable and banned products and will actually increase costs for the Department of Transitional Assistance which has to implement such a system.

The final bill that emerged from the conference committee was significantly improved and I did support this version of the legislation.