14

Page 14 THE SAUGUS ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, JULY 30, 2021 Beacon Hill Roll Call By Bob Katzen By Bob Katzen THE HOUSE AND SENATE: Beacon Hill Roll Call records the votes of local representatives and senators from the week of July 19-23. LEGALIZE SPORTS BETTING IN THE BAY STATE (H 3977) House 156-3, approved and sent to the Senate a bill that would legalize sports betting on professional and college sports for Massachusetts residents over 21 years old. The betting would be regulated by the Gaming Commission, the same commission that regulates the state’s casino gambling. The commission would award in-person licenses at casinos, racetracks and simulcast racing facilities as well as mobile licenses to allow companies to accept bets online. The measure includes a 12.5 percent tax on in-person wagering and a 15 percent tax on mobile wagering. The measure includes an amendment sponsored by Rep. Paul McMurtry (D-Dedham), House chair of the Committee on Veterans and Federal Aff airs that would permit the commission to grant licenses that would allow some veterans’ organizations to operate up to fi ve slot machines. Supporters said legalization will generate up to an estimated $60 million annually in tax revenue as well as up to $70 million to $80 million in initial licensing fees that are required to be renewed every fi ve years. They noted the revenue will be distributed to cities and towns, and used for economic, workforce, education and public health programs. “Massachusetts residents are passionate about their sports,” said Rep. Jerry Parisella (D-Beverly), the House chair of the Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies. “This bill will allow residents to bet on their favorite teams but do so in a regulated manner that promotes responsible gaming, while bringing in revenue to the commonwealth that is currently going to our neighboring states or to illegal online operators and bookies. This legislation was drafted after reviewing laws in other states, speaking with experts in the industry and takes the best practices and incorporates them into this legislation.” “I voted no on legalizing sports betting because this bill largely benefi ts near-monopolistic corporations that run online gambling platforms, such as Draft Kings, by further increasing their profi ts,” said Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven (D-Somerville). “This bill is another example of the state Legislature prioritizing the interest of corporate lobbyists over the needs of their constituents. With all the struggles the constituents of Massachusetts are facing 16 months into the pandemic; it’s absurd that this bill was a priority for the Legislature this summer.” “Massachusetts has the opportunity to generate job opportunities and bring millions of tax dollars annually by legalizing an industry that already exists, but in the black market and other states,” said Speaker of the House Ron Mariano (D-Quincy). “The House of Representatives has passed legislation that would make our state competitive in this industry in which dozens of states have already gotten a head start.” “I see the value in bringing sports wagering out of the shadows, but one of the goals of the bill before us is to drive customers to casinos like the one next door in Everett—and the Somerville and Cambridge district I represent voted to oppose casinos — so I think more needs to be done to address these impacts,” said Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge) who voted against the bill. “Moreover, this bill will generate billions in corporate revenues from gambling on college athletics—and this needs a closer examination given the ongoing exploitation of college athletes. Legalized sports betting is probably inevitable in Massachusetts, but as this bill moves to the Senate, I’m hoping more will be done to address these and other concerns.” Rep. Dan Cahill (D-Lynn) gave a simple reason why he supports the bill. “Most important, it’s just fun,” said Cahill. “People are allowed to have fun and sports betting is fun.” (A “Yes” vote is for legalized sports betting. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Jessica Giannino Yes Rep. Donald Wong Yes DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION (H 3977) House 159-0, approved an amendment to a section of the sports betting bill that provides for a study by the Gaming Commission into the feasibility of allowing retail locations in the state to operate sports wagering kiosks. The amendment requires the commission to include in the study the economic impact of authorizing this method of sports wagering on businesses owned by people of color; recommendations to ensure diversity, equity and inclusion are included in this method of sports wagering; and a requirement that the commission consult retailers, convenience stores, restaurants, women and minority-owned businesses and small business owners. “As we prepare to once again welcome a multi-billion-dollar industry into the commonwealth of Massachusetts, I humbly ask my fellow colleagues … to join me in supporting and prioritizing diversity, equity and inclusion, said Rep. Orlando Ramos (D-Springfield) on the House floor during debate. “Allowing for casinos and existing online gaming apps to monopolize yet another multi-billion-dollar industry will only help further widen the wealth and income gap because I’m certain that there are no Black and Brown-owned casinos in Massachusetts and to my knowledge there are no major Black and Brownowned sports apps.” “You may also be wondering what does a freshman rep from Springfi eld know about sports betting?” continued Ramos. “And I’ll be the fi rst one to admit that I am no expert in the fi eld of sports wagering but what I do know and what I am very intimately familiar with is what it’s like to be a person of color. And I know what it’s like to be shut out of an opportunity. I learned at an early age that there were certain places where I was welcome and there were other places where I was not welcome. I humbly ask you to join me in making sure that we tell every Black and Brown business owner … and entrepreneur everywhere that they are welcome in this new industry and that we will not shut them out from this opportunity. This amendment accomplishes exactly that and is a step in the right direction to help create new opportunities for businesses of color and opens the door for them to be successful in this new space.” (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment). Rep. Jessica Giannino Yes Rep. Donald Wong Yes $261.6 MILLION FISCAL 2021 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET (H 3973) Senate 40-0, approved and House, on a voice vote without a roll call, approved and sent to Gov. Charlie Baker a $261.6 million fi scal 2021 supplemental budget to begin to close out the books on the fi scal year that ended on June 30, 2021. A key provision extends until December 15, 2021, the practice of voting early by mail that was implemented during the 2020 election held in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Other provisions in the bill include $12.5 million to cover costs related to the implementation of last year’s law making major changes in the state’s policing system; $27.9 million for onetime payments, ranging from $525 to $580 per child, to families that receive Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefi ts; $13 million for National Guard activations, including COVID-19-related activations; $7.8 million for home health aide rate increases; $5.4 million for the Chelsea and Holyoke Soldiers’ Homes for pandemic-related expenses; and the establishment of a new MBTA Board of Directors which replaces the current Fiscal Management and Control Board. “This budget allows us to pay our bills and address time sensitive needs, while meeting the immediate challenges facing our commonwealth by investing in our early educator workforce, helping vulnerable families and fulfi lling our funding obligations to ensure timely implementation of the police reform law,” said Senate Ways and Means chair Sen. Mike Rodrigues (D-Westport). “The voting provisions put forward in the supplemental budget will allow cities and towns to off er safe, accessible election options this fall while we continue to work on their permanency,” said Rep. Dan Ryan, House Chair of the Committee on Election Laws (D-Charlestown). The measure was approved in the House during an informal session at which there can be no roll calls, but where it only takes one member to BHRC | SEE PAGE 17 S y Senior What to Ponder Before Sa e a Wh BY JIM MILLER Pd Bf Remarrying Later in Life Dear Savvy Senior, What types of fi nancial or legal snags should I be aware of when considering remarriage? I’m 62-years-old and have been seeing a nice man for about a year. We’ve been talking about getting married, but I want to make sure I understand all the possible consequences beforehand. Divorced Widow Dear Divorced, Getting remarried later in life can actually bring about a host of fi nancial and legal issues that are much more complicated than they are for younger couples just starting out. Here are some common problem areas you need to think about, and some tips that can help you solve them. Estate Plan: Getting remarried can have a big eff ect on your estate plan. Even if your will leaves everything to your kids, in most states spouses are automatically entitled to a share of your estate – usually one-third to one-half. If you don’t want to leave a third or more of your assets to your new partner, get a prenuptial agreement where you both agree not to take anything from the other’s estate. If you do want to leave something to your spouse and ensure your heirs receive their inheritance, a trust is the best option. Medical and Long-Term Care: As a married couple, you and your husband will be responsible for each other’s medical and long-term care bills. This is one of the main reasons many older couples choose to live together instead of marrying. Staying unmarried lets you and your partner qualify individually for public benefi ts, such as Medicaid (which pays nursing home costs), without draining the other one’s resources. But, if you remarry and can afford it, consider getting a long-term care insurance policy to protect your assets. See AALTCI. org to help you fi nd one. Home: If you’re planning on living in your house or vice versa, you also need to think about what will happen to the house when the owner dies. If, for example, you both decide to live in your home, but you want your kids to inherit the place after you die, putting the house in both names is not an option. But, you may also not want your heirs to evict him once you die. One solution is for you to give your surviving husband a life estate, which gives him the right to live in your property during his lifetime. Then once he dies, the house will pass to your heirs. Social Security: Getting remarried can also affect your Social Security benefi ts if you’re divorced, widowed or are receiving SSI. For instance, getting remarried makes you ineligible for divorced spouse’s benefi ts. And getting remarried before age 60 (50 if you’re disabled) will cause widows and widowers to lose their right to survivor’s benefits from their former spouse. For more information, see SSA.gov. Pension Benefits: Be aware that if you’re receiving a survivor’s annuity from a public employees pension, getting remarried may cause you to lose it. In addition, widows and widowers of military personnel killed in the line of duty may lose their benefi ts if they remarry before age 57, and survivors of federal civil servants that receive a pension will forfeit it if they remarry before 55. Alimony: If you are receiving alimony from an exspouse, it will almost certainly end if you remarry and might even be cut off if you live together. College Aid: If you have any children in college receiving financial aid, getting married and adding a new spouse’s income to the family could aff ect what he or she gets. To get help with these issues, consider hiring an estate planner who can draw up a plan to protect both you and your partner’s interests. Send your senior questions to: Savvy Senior, P.O. Box 5443, Norman, OK 73070, or visit SavvySenior.org. Jim Miller is a contributor to the NBC Today show and author of “The Savvy Senior” book. Senio nior nir ior

15 Publizr Home