Why is OUR Lottery Money Staying at the State House???
When the MA State Lottery was established, it was done so with the intent that all proceeds after administrative costs would be returned to the cities and towns of the Commonwealth in the form of local aid.  This became a regular and reliable source of revenue that cities and towns could count on in their annual struggle to balance their budgets.

However, in late 2001 that all changed.  The legislature decided to divert a portion of the state lottery money to the state's "rainy day" stabilization fund to make up for the anticipated drag on the economy as a result of the 9/11 attacks.  For three years, this money accumulated in the state's rainy day fund to the tune of $450 Million.

Since that time, municipality after municipality across the state has been forced to choose between voting in property tax overrides or cutting government services, like police, fire, school nurses and teachers.  An analysis of the stabilization funds of the cities and towns across the state shows that our aggregate stabilization funds (OUR town by town "rainy day" funds) declined by $451 Million dollars over the same period of time as the state's stabilization fund increased by $450 Million.  Coincidence???

Last fall, Paul Kujawski and the rest of our state legislators were presented with two opportunities to provide us with significant relief through proposals to send $450 Million back to our cities and towns.  The first came in the form of a onetime, unrestricted local aid payment; the second would have provided much needed property tax relief.

Both were struck down in purely partisan votes, leaving Massachusetts residents to continue their battle with no help from the Legislature.  Here is what Paul Kujawaski's vote not to return the lottery money cost YOUR TOWN last year:

   

Town	Amount
Douglas	$437,115
Dudley	$924,562
Oxford	$1,231,661
Uxbridge	$824,185
Webster	$1,453,220
TOTAL:	$4,870,743

Ask yourself this question:

Would you rather have this money kept locally, where your local elected officials - your friends and neighbors - can determine how best to use it?  Or do you want this money sitting in an account on Beacon Hill? 

To me, the answer is obvious.  To Paul Kujawski and his colleagues, it's yet another example of how they feel they are better stewards with your money than your local leaders are.  This mentality needs to change and it needs to change NOW.

For more information on this issue, please see http://450million.org/index.htm.