Wagner banters on T, baker and pot arrests
State Rep. Joe Wagner, chairman of the House Economic Development Committee, joined Herald Radio’s “Morning Meeting” show yesterday to discuss cost savings at the MBTA, Gov. Charlie Baker’s re-election bid, fantasy sports and pot crimes. Here are excerpts from the Chicopee Democrat:
Q: What’s your position on the MBTA’s new approach to privatization?
A: I think anything happening at the T at this point is done to allow the T to get to a place in terms of a financial footing where we can deliver the service that is necessary and deserving of the capital city and places in a radius around it ... these things aren’t being done to pit labor against other people.
Q: What do you see in terms of Charlie Baker’s 2018 re-election bid?
A: I will say that based on what we know at this point in time, if Charlie Baker were to stand for re-election ... that he would certainly be formidable as a sitting governor. Most sitting governors have an advantage. He would enjoy that advantage and I don’t think he’s done anything to hurt his standing.
Q: Where are we on online gambling and fantasy sports?
A: Until the end of this session, the last day of this session, we have legalized but have sunsetted daily fantasy sports as a legal industry ... January 17th is the next meeting of the commission at the State House, and stay tuned and feel free to join us on that day.
Q: What are your thoughts in looking at people with criminal records or releasing people in jail due to a marijuana conviction?
A: I’m in sort of a waitand-see mode ... I’m talking about me on that, as a lawmaker. So the wait-and-see is to see what this independent commission moves forward with. They’re due to issue a report within a period of several weeks. I want to see what that report says. I don’t want to get too far out front.
Q: And what do you personally think about the idea of someone who is behind bars right now because of a pot arrest?
A: We craft legislation to be prospective. It is a forwardlooking type of thing. We don’t do a lot of look-back, typically. And if we were to do it in this instance, then wouldn’t we have some obligation to at any point at which we would enact a law that might supersede something that pre-existed it? Should we go back and begin peeling apart the layers of whatever had pre-existed it and try to rewrite history, if you will? So I think that’s a little (bit) of a slippery slope and I am less inclined to think that we should embrace that kind of thing.