Chris Cassidy, Hillary Chabot, and Matt Stout - 8/3/12 The Bay State's gold medalist Olympic darlings deserve glory, not the tax bills they stand to be whacked with by both the feds and state when they return from London later this month, Massachusetts pols told the Herald yesterday. "I never realized the IRS would be waiting for you with a bill when you get off the plane," said U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, who congratulated Kayla Harrison of Marblehead, who struck gold in judo yesterday. "A lot of these people are 15, 16 and 17 and are just starting their lives." "I don't think that's right," said state Rep. James R. Miceli (D-Wilmington). "These people are representing this country and they've brought honor upon this country. They shouldn't have to face a tax." U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida has introduced a bill in Congress that would exempt Olympic medalists -- who receive an honorarium of $25,000 for a gold -- from paying up to 35 percent in federal income tax on the prize money. Brown, who co-signed the legislation, said the exemption makes sense. Even Democrat Elizabeth Warren, who said her 7-year-old granddaughter Lavinia was inspired to turn cartwheels around the house by the U.S. women's gymnastics win Tuesday, said Rubio's proposed tax break is an easy call. "I support it," Warren told the Herald. "It seems like the least we can do for our Olympians who have trained so hard for so many years." State Rep. Alice K. Wolf (D-Cambridge) said she's open to exempting Olympic medalists' prizes in Massachusetts, but she added, "Aside from the fact that we love our Olympians, we also love our Nobel Prize winners." Department of Revenue officials confirmed Massachusetts will levy the usual 5.3 percent income tax on the $25,000 prize for a gold medal, $15,000 for silver and $10,000 for bronze. The National Conference of State Legislatures said most states follow the feds' lead in calculating taxable income, and a tax expert for the organization said she could find no indication any state has an Olympic exemption. 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey hero Mike Eruzione insisted athletes aren't thinking about the money when they compete every four years and certainly aren't thinking taxes. "Maybe it's a politician trying to get publicity," Eruzione told the Herald. "You try to keep politics out of the Olympic Games. Is it somebody trying to get some recognition?" But Mary Ellen Clark, a two-time bronze medalist in diving in 1992 and 1996 and now a coach at Amherst and Mount Holyoke colleges, said the money could go to good use -- like paying back for years of support. "It's a nice thought," Clark said. "Everybody does really work hard, and with the parents, there's a lot of sacrifice there. For the parents, you say, here for all the gas money, all the lessons. Or I'm going to give it to a cause that I really believe in."

5 Democrats vie for Meehan seat By April Simpson, Globe Staff | August 2, 2007 LAWRENCE -- Tense moments peppered the Fifth Congressional District debate last night, as five Democrats squared off on issues ranging from Iraq to education to reproductive rights and healthcare.Article Tools * PRINTER FRIENDLYPrinter friendly * E-MAILE-mail to a friend * RSS FEEDSLocal RSS feed * RSS FEEDSAvailable RSS feeds * MOST E-MAILEDMost e-mailed * REPRINTS & LICENSINGReprints & Licensing * Share on DiggShare on Digg * Share on Facebook * Tag with Del.icio.us Save this article * powered by Del.icio.us More: * Globe City/Region stories | * Latest local news | * Globe front page | * Boston.com * Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | * Breaking News Alerts Each of the candidates in the debate was given 90 seconds to answer questions from a three-member panel and then offer brief thoughts, mostly on existing legislation. The sometimes heated two-hour debate ended with candidates posing questions to each other. Mass Alliance, a coalition of 22 organizations, hosted the forum for some of those seeking the congressional seat vacated by Representative Martin T. Meehan, who resigned last month to lead the University of Massachusetts at Lowell. The debate was held in Weatherbee Middle School Auditorium and moderated by Emily Rooney, host of WGBH-TV's "Greater Boston." Although there was some agreement on issues -- they would all vote to repeal the Bush tax cuts and support the Nantucket Wind Farm Project if it were in their district -- the candidates differed on issues such as the war in Iraq. When asked what changes they would make to US policy there, they agreed the war is costing too much and America's presence has brought increased violence in Iraq. They disagreed on how they would bring troops home. State Representative Jamie Eldridge of Acton said he supported a timetable for withdrawal but said the United States will be expected to support Iraq with foreign aid for years. "We're an occupier army, and that's not going to change until our presence has left," Eldridge said. State Representative Barry Finegold of Andover, however, said he supports US Senator Joseph Biden's plan of finding a diplomatic solution. Lowell city councilor Eileen Donoghue said she would set a timetable to begin withdrawal immediately. "What we're doing right now is not working." Donoghue suggested a withdrawal could be accomplished in 12 to 18 months. Niki Tsongas, dean of external affairs at Middlesex Community College in Lowell, said she also supports a withdrawal strategy. But state Representative James R. Miceli of Wilmington said that would be impossible. "There is no way you're going to get the troops home in months. Impossible. And anyone sitting up here telling you that knows it's impossible," Miceli said. Leeann Albano, 39 of Haverhill, said she felt herself agreeing with Tsongas and Eldridge. "I'm not sure what the deciding factor would be, but I would like to see a woman in Congress," she said. April Simpson can be reached at asimpson@globe.com.

By By Gintautas Dumcius GateHouse News Service Grocery manufacturers and retailers on Monday opposed bills mandating expiration dates on perishable packaged foods and country of origin labels on fruit and vegetable food crates, saying the change would lead to higher costs and cause quality food to be discarded. The legislation is sponsored by Rep. James Miceli, a candidate for Congress and a Wilmington Democrat, who did not attend this week's hearing on the bills. The bills were instead pushed by one of his staffers. A similar version of the expiration date mandate (H 172) made it to Gov. William Weld's desk in 1997, according to Miceli, who dismissed the associations' concerns, saying the bills were "good consumer bills" and necessary for consumers' health and safety. "We've got these countries that use pesticides that we banned years ago, but they use them," he said in a phone interview, defending the country of origin labeling bill (H 173). Micel also pointed to reports of China exporting substandard food and drugs. "The public would get a break. They would know where it came from," he said. The business associations — the Grocery Manufacturers/Food Products Association and the Retailers Association of Massachusetts — called for the Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Business, which heard the bills, to hold off until deliberations end at the federal level. Congress passed country-of-origin legislation as part of a farm bill in 2002. Regulations aren't going into effect until September 2008, with the federal Department of Agriculture reopening their comment period on the regulations this summer. Regulations covering seafood went into effect in 2004. But the current regulations "exempt every industry from implementing it," according to a national consumer group. If the state passes the bill, "Massachusetts would be ahead in mandating that," said Caroline DeWaal, food safety director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The grocery manufacturers association, in written testimony from their director of state affairs, said a state expiration date requirement would lead to a "patchwork of [multiple] state labeling requirements," causing confusion amongst consumers, and would "further complicate interstate commerce." Costs would also rise due to the need to retool packaging, according to Lorin Alusic, director of state affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers/Food Products Association. "Once a product leaves a store the product's storage conditions are no longer controlled by the [manufacturer]," he wrote. "The expiration date of products in the custody of a consumer will vary dramatically depending on the storage conditions." Miceli staff director Elizabeth Sousa told committee members that many consumers "cannot estimate the shelf life of food." Separately, the country-of-origin labeling bill (H 173) exempts farm stands and roadside stands, a measure that Miceli said was added upon the recommendation of former Acting Gov. Jane Swift. Retailers also voiced opposition to the bills, saying suppliers - not retailers - should provide the information and be the ones held accountable for the expiration dates and country of origin. "We oppose these bills because retailers cannot tell by looking at bananas whether they were grown in Honduras or Costa Rica or when certain food may expire," Erin Trabucco, general counsel for the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, wrote. "Suppliers are the only ones who can determine a product's country of origin and expiration date accurately." Rep. Brian Dempsey, D-Haverhill, has also filed a bill (H 153) requiring an expiration date on food products. Sen. Harriette Chandler, D-Worcester, co-chairman of the committee, said she still had questions about the bills, specifically whether the expiration date should be different than the sell-by date that currently graces some food products. "We heard so few things today," she said of the brief hearing and the light testimony in favor of the bill. "We already have sell-by dates on perishables," she said. "You can still buy it and it could be that it's spoiled by the sell-by date."