Attaching DOLLARS to the cost of Predatory Gambling is essential to the health of the future and to make an informed decision, something Massachusetts lawmakers refused.
The report below sheds light --
http://nocasinos.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/CasinosFloridaReport.pdf
Showing posts with label Senate President "Cha Ching" Murray. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate President "Cha Ching" Murray. Show all posts
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Murray gets it wrong again
Murray gives casinos rules of road
By Thor Jourgensen / The Daily Item
SALEM — Before they bring gambling to a Massachusetts city or town, casino owners must be ready to pay for roadway improvements and traffic reduction work in that community, Massachusetts State Senate President Therese Murray warned Thursday.
Addressing about 80 North Shore Alliance for Economic Development members at Salem State University, Murray said gambling legislation approved last year will create 10,000 to 15,000 "good-paying, long-term jobs" for Massachusetts and increase tourism.
"But with additional visitors will come additional traffic. Any gaming facilities must pay for transportation infrastructure improvements associated with a casino. They won't be allowed to open unless they do," Murray said.
The Plymouth Democrat also talked about burdensome health-insurance costs, job creation and her plan to significantly reform the state budget-making process.
She said the average health insurance premium hike for small businesses and individuals will be 4.8 percent this year, but Christine Sullivan, head of Salem State's Enterprise Center, told Murray small business owners are telling her they will pay 12 percent to 20 percent more for health coverage this year.
"It's killing employment by eroding revenue you can apply to hiring someone," Sullivan said.
Murray called those reported hikes "unacceptable" and said the Legislature will soon focus on health insurance payment reform in an effort to reduce consumer costs.
In response to a question following her speech, she said a court case assuring health insurance coverage for legal immigrants will cost the state $54 million to more than $100 million this year, depending on how the expense is budgeted.
"It's going to be significant," she said.
She noted that insurance for legal immigrants "will add to the $200 million Medicaid deficit."
Murray said she wants to initiate a major budget overall establishing "zero-based budgeting" by 2017.
Under her proposal, state department chiefs would use performance measurements and other guidelines to calculate spending needs instead of submitting their previous year budget and factoring in increases.
"It's going to make government more transparent," she said.
Murray drew applause from her Alliance audience when she announced a newly-released 6.8 percent unemployment rate for Massachusetts. She told Alliance members that community colleges and vocational training schools must combine forces to help fill highly-skilled jobs.
She said specialized welding and machinist positions are among 144,000 jobs in Massachusetts that employers have difficulty filling.
"They are well-paid jobs, but not many people are trained to do them," Murray said.
Murray predicted a nearly $1 billion investment in life sciences and research agreements with Ireland and Finland will bring additional jobs to Massachusetts.
She criticized Congress for not working together, and called on Republicans and Democrats to come together to boost employment.
"Congress can't get out of its own way. You can't get elected and then say, 'I won't compromise,'" she said.
Murray credited fellow legislators during her speech with passing proposals to crack down on financial mismanagement by quasi-public educational organizations and for protecting domestic violence victims' jobs while they seek medical and legal help.
She also praised state Sen. Frederick Berry, the Senate majority leader who is planning to retire from the Legislature this year. Murray said a cold kept Berry away from Thursday's Alliance meeting, but she credited him with helping Salem State make the transition from a state college to a university.
Berry and the late Walter Boverini before him ensured a North Shore presence in the state Senate's leadership, but Murray said substantive talk about a new leader will not take place for almost a year.
By Thor Jourgensen / The Daily Item
SALEM — Before they bring gambling to a Massachusetts city or town, casino owners must be ready to pay for roadway improvements and traffic reduction work in that community, Massachusetts State Senate President Therese Murray warned Thursday.
Addressing about 80 North Shore Alliance for Economic Development members at Salem State University, Murray said gambling legislation approved last year will create 10,000 to 15,000 "good-paying, long-term jobs" for Massachusetts and increase tourism.
[Senate President "Cha Ching" Murray is quoting outdated job creation figures and knows they are incorrect. She is also fully aware that the problem with Slot Barns is that they offer low wage jobs, many of which are part-time. Experience shows that workers tend to be transient. Tourism will be adversely effected, which studies have proven. It should be noted that Murray prided herself with never reading anything 'anti' Gambling.]
"But with additional visitors will come additional traffic. Any gaming facilities must pay for transportation infrastructure improvements associated with a casino. They won't be allowed to open unless they do," Murray said.
The Plymouth Democrat also talked about burdensome health-insurance costs, job creation and her plan to significantly reform the state budget-making process.
She said the average health insurance premium hike for small businesses and individuals will be 4.8 percent this year, but Christine Sullivan, head of Salem State's Enterprise Center, told Murray small business owners are telling her they will pay 12 percent to 20 percent more for health coverage this year.
"It's killing employment by eroding revenue you can apply to hiring someone," Sullivan said.
Murray called those reported hikes "unacceptable" and said the Legislature will soon focus on health insurance payment reform in an effort to reduce consumer costs.
In response to a question following her speech, she said a court case assuring health insurance coverage for legal immigrants will cost the state $54 million to more than $100 million this year, depending on how the expense is budgeted.
"It's going to be significant," she said.
She noted that insurance for legal immigrants "will add to the $200 million Medicaid deficit."
Murray said she wants to initiate a major budget overall establishing "zero-based budgeting" by 2017.
Under her proposal, state department chiefs would use performance measurements and other guidelines to calculate spending needs instead of submitting their previous year budget and factoring in increases.
"It's going to make government more transparent," she said.
Murray drew applause from her Alliance audience when she announced a newly-released 6.8 percent unemployment rate for Massachusetts. She told Alliance members that community colleges and vocational training schools must combine forces to help fill highly-skilled jobs.
She said specialized welding and machinist positions are among 144,000 jobs in Massachusetts that employers have difficulty filling.
"They are well-paid jobs, but not many people are trained to do them," Murray said.
Murray predicted a nearly $1 billion investment in life sciences and research agreements with Ireland and Finland will bring additional jobs to Massachusetts.
She criticized Congress for not working together, and called on Republicans and Democrats to come together to boost employment.
"Congress can't get out of its own way. You can't get elected and then say, 'I won't compromise,'" she said.
Murray credited fellow legislators during her speech with passing proposals to crack down on financial mismanagement by quasi-public educational organizations and for protecting domestic violence victims' jobs while they seek medical and legal help.
She also praised state Sen. Frederick Berry, the Senate majority leader who is planning to retire from the Legislature this year. Murray said a cold kept Berry away from Thursday's Alliance meeting, but she credited him with helping Salem State make the transition from a state college to a university.
Berry and the late Walter Boverini before him ensured a North Shore presence in the state Senate's leadership, but Murray said substantive talk about a new leader will not take place for almost a year.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Fix is in for gaming panel
Well.....Howie Carr at least noticed that change in labels from "Destination Resort" to "Destination...." whatever and the "Gaming Commission" instead of "Gambling Commission," but regrettably, little else.
Senator Tucker called them "Slots In A Box." I prefer Slot Barns which is what Beacon Hill is really promoting.
Not one for heavy lifting, Howie, maybe you could do some research instead of simply slinging well-deserved mud? Surely the Boston Globe has provided enough fodder without you stressing yourself with too much research.
Fix is in for gaming panel
By Howie Carr
U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz should be impaneling a new grand jury — on spec.
The Gaming Commission — the name itself is probable cause to suspect that a crime has been committed, or soon will be. Especially in Massachusetts, could any name be any ... gamier?
Why didn’t they just call it the Gambling Commission? Who did they think they were fooling? That wasn’t the only phony-baloney name they changed. They’ve stopped calling them “resort casinos” because really, is Milford a resort for anybody except drunken-driving illegal aliens from Brazil?
Now they are “destination casinos,” although after the game guys ’n’ gals on the Gaming Commission have made their picks, the more likely destination for all concerned is a federal pen. From jobs, jobs, jobs to jail, jail, jail.
There will, of course, be a stampede for the commission slots — $150,000 for the chairman, and $112,500 for each of the members. Nice way to round off an extinguished, I mean distinguished, career in the hackerama. Get those three highest years in and you’re looking at a $10G-a-month kiss in the mail for the chairman, and $90G a year for the members.
Commissioners should have a background in mathematics. They must be able to count to five, as in, “I’ll take the Fifth.”
For commissions like this, they always used to appoint a retired FBI agent. That’s no longer an option, obviously. And naturally we’ll need a minority hack — too bad Dick Arrington’s not around anymore, but maybe Skippy Gates is available.
But probably not. The reason the commissioners are going to make such big money is so they won’t need any outside income, above the table outside income, that is. The commissioners are supposed to remain, you’ll pardon the expression, virgins. This outbreak of virginity will make it even more imperative for every commissioner to have a bagman, er, aide.
When the investigations begin — triggered by the losers dropping a dime — the feds won’t even have to break a sweat. Start with Tuesday’s wonderful photo of the bill signing — Exhibit A, they’ll call it. Some day, everyone in it will fervently wish they’d been somewhere else that day. Just ask Mitt Romney about his 2006 Romneycare portrait in Faneuil Hall with Sal DiMasi and Ted Kennedy.
The luckiest hacks in the State House were state Senate President Terry Murray and state Sen. Stanley Rosenberg. They didn’t make it into the frame.
Then there were all those pens Deval used to sign the bill, like it was the Civil Rights Act of 1965 or something. If Deval handed you one of those pens, don’t lose it. If you do, in about three years you could be charged with destroying evidence. Opening question in the grand-jury chambers:
“Sir, on Nov. 22, 2011, did you happen to receive a pen, and if so, from whom, under what circumstances, and was it in return for something of value?”
Is it too early to make a bet? The over-under on politicians going to prison on this scam is five. I’ll take the over
Senator Tucker called them "Slots In A Box." I prefer Slot Barns which is what Beacon Hill is really promoting.
Not one for heavy lifting, Howie, maybe you could do some research instead of simply slinging well-deserved mud? Surely the Boston Globe has provided enough fodder without you stressing yourself with too much research.
Fix is in for gaming panel
By Howie Carr
U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz should be impaneling a new grand jury — on spec.
The Gaming Commission — the name itself is probable cause to suspect that a crime has been committed, or soon will be. Especially in Massachusetts, could any name be any ... gamier?
Why didn’t they just call it the Gambling Commission? Who did they think they were fooling? That wasn’t the only phony-baloney name they changed. They’ve stopped calling them “resort casinos” because really, is Milford a resort for anybody except drunken-driving illegal aliens from Brazil?
Now they are “destination casinos,” although after the game guys ’n’ gals on the Gaming Commission have made their picks, the more likely destination for all concerned is a federal pen. From jobs, jobs, jobs to jail, jail, jail.
There will, of course, be a stampede for the commission slots — $150,000 for the chairman, and $112,500 for each of the members. Nice way to round off an extinguished, I mean distinguished, career in the hackerama. Get those three highest years in and you’re looking at a $10G-a-month kiss in the mail for the chairman, and $90G a year for the members.
Commissioners should have a background in mathematics. They must be able to count to five, as in, “I’ll take the Fifth.”
For commissions like this, they always used to appoint a retired FBI agent. That’s no longer an option, obviously. And naturally we’ll need a minority hack — too bad Dick Arrington’s not around anymore, but maybe Skippy Gates is available.
But probably not. The reason the commissioners are going to make such big money is so they won’t need any outside income, above the table outside income, that is. The commissioners are supposed to remain, you’ll pardon the expression, virgins. This outbreak of virginity will make it even more imperative for every commissioner to have a bagman, er, aide.
When the investigations begin — triggered by the losers dropping a dime — the feds won’t even have to break a sweat. Start with Tuesday’s wonderful photo of the bill signing — Exhibit A, they’ll call it. Some day, everyone in it will fervently wish they’d been somewhere else that day. Just ask Mitt Romney about his 2006 Romneycare portrait in Faneuil Hall with Sal DiMasi and Ted Kennedy.
The luckiest hacks in the State House were state Senate President Terry Murray and state Sen. Stanley Rosenberg. They didn’t make it into the frame.
Then there were all those pens Deval used to sign the bill, like it was the Civil Rights Act of 1965 or something. If Deval handed you one of those pens, don’t lose it. If you do, in about three years you could be charged with destroying evidence. Opening question in the grand-jury chambers:
“Sir, on Nov. 22, 2011, did you happen to receive a pen, and if so, from whom, under what circumstances, and was it in return for something of value?”
Is it too early to make a bet? The over-under on politicians going to prison on this scam is five. I’ll take the over
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Massachusetts Failures
Beacon Hill, the peak of Massachusetts government, has allowed itself to become obsessed with a flawed Gambling Bill that overshadows all of the People's Business.
Maybe they might not be faulted if the legislation was truly thorough, but it's not. Claims of 'we'll get it right' fall short.
Eagerly promoting phony job creation figures and false revenue claims, glad handing Gambling Industry lobbyists while scandals, indictments, cronyism and Ethics issues abound, the citizens have been shortchanged on major issues.
Below is merely one more example:
Murder victim's Quincy dad fears casino bill overshadowing offender bill
By Steve Adams
The Patriot Ledger
A murder victim’s father who’s been fighting for more than a decade to keep violent offenders behind bars said he’s worried anti-crime legislation is being overshadowed by the Legislature’s focus on casinos.
“As long as we can get revenue and more fees, that’s more important than if a woman gets raped or a person gets murdered,” Leslie Gosule of Quincy said. “The casino bill is trumping the habitual offender bill, which is wrong.”
Gosule’s daughter Melissa Gosule, a schoolteacher, was kidnapped, raped and murdered in 1999 after she accepted a ride from a passer-by after her car broke down in Sagamore. Her killer, Michael Gentile of Halifax, had a record of 22 arrests.
Since Gosule’s death, her family has been lobbying for legislation that would make it more difficult to parole violent offenders. Melissa’s Bill would eliminate the possibility of parole for offenders with at least three felony convictions. Currently, offenders are eligible for parole after serving half of their sentences.
The Legislature’s joint public safety committee is considering several bills that would impose stricter penalties on repeat violent offenders.
After the Dec. 26 shooting death of Woburn police officer John Maguire, 11 legislators filed a bill that would eliminate the chance of parole for offenders serving more than one life sentence.
Maguire’s killer, Dominic Cinelli, had been paroled despite being convictions that led to three life sentences.
Gov. Deval Patrick has proposed a law that would require an offender convicted of three felonies to serve at least two-thirds of the third sentence before being eligible for parole. Another bill filed this session would eliminate parole for anyone serving more than one life sentence.
Many backers of sentencing reform who testified this past Wednesday at the State House said they would support Melissa’s Bill or legislation that combined elements of all of the bills.
“It could be a mix of the bills,” said state Sen. John Keenan, D-Quincy. “Some things in the governor’s bill will have to be looked at, as well as some things in Melissa’s Bill.”
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester, said some version should emerge from the committee this week.
“I think they will be pleased with the core elements of the bill,” Tarr said. “It should be ready for a floor vote next week. My philosophy about this is we can’t do it soon enough and it’s long overdue.”
Laura Schroeder, a spokeswoman for Senate President Therese Murray, said some version is expected to be released from the committee this week. It will likely contain various elements of the competing bills, she said.
Currently in Massachusetts, convicted felons are eligible for parole after serving half of their sentences, except for first-degree murderers, who are not eligible for parole. Those convicted of second-degree murder must serve 15 years of a life sentence before they are eligible for parole.
Opponents of mandatory sentencing have argued that the language in both Melissa’s Bill and the governor’s bill is too broad, and that the sentencing guidelines do not apply only to violent felons.
Representatives from groups including the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Massachusetts Families Against Mandatory Minimums have testified against Melissa’s Bill.
Leslie Gosule said the influence of defense attorneys in the Legislature has thwarted tougher crime legislation over the years.
“A criminal defense attorney gets paid every time a guy commits a crime,” he said. “It’s a great system. Money is more important than public safety.”
Maybe they might not be faulted if the legislation was truly thorough, but it's not. Claims of 'we'll get it right' fall short.
Eagerly promoting phony job creation figures and false revenue claims, glad handing Gambling Industry lobbyists while scandals, indictments, cronyism and Ethics issues abound, the citizens have been shortchanged on major issues.
Below is merely one more example:
Murder victim's Quincy dad fears casino bill overshadowing offender bill
By Steve Adams
The Patriot Ledger
A murder victim’s father who’s been fighting for more than a decade to keep violent offenders behind bars said he’s worried anti-crime legislation is being overshadowed by the Legislature’s focus on casinos.
“As long as we can get revenue and more fees, that’s more important than if a woman gets raped or a person gets murdered,” Leslie Gosule of Quincy said. “The casino bill is trumping the habitual offender bill, which is wrong.”
Gosule’s daughter Melissa Gosule, a schoolteacher, was kidnapped, raped and murdered in 1999 after she accepted a ride from a passer-by after her car broke down in Sagamore. Her killer, Michael Gentile of Halifax, had a record of 22 arrests.
Since Gosule’s death, her family has been lobbying for legislation that would make it more difficult to parole violent offenders. Melissa’s Bill would eliminate the possibility of parole for offenders with at least three felony convictions. Currently, offenders are eligible for parole after serving half of their sentences.
The Legislature’s joint public safety committee is considering several bills that would impose stricter penalties on repeat violent offenders.
After the Dec. 26 shooting death of Woburn police officer John Maguire, 11 legislators filed a bill that would eliminate the chance of parole for offenders serving more than one life sentence.
Maguire’s killer, Dominic Cinelli, had been paroled despite being convictions that led to three life sentences.
Gov. Deval Patrick has proposed a law that would require an offender convicted of three felonies to serve at least two-thirds of the third sentence before being eligible for parole. Another bill filed this session would eliminate parole for anyone serving more than one life sentence.
Many backers of sentencing reform who testified this past Wednesday at the State House said they would support Melissa’s Bill or legislation that combined elements of all of the bills.
“It could be a mix of the bills,” said state Sen. John Keenan, D-Quincy. “Some things in the governor’s bill will have to be looked at, as well as some things in Melissa’s Bill.”
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester, said some version should emerge from the committee this week.
“I think they will be pleased with the core elements of the bill,” Tarr said. “It should be ready for a floor vote next week. My philosophy about this is we can’t do it soon enough and it’s long overdue.”
Laura Schroeder, a spokeswoman for Senate President Therese Murray, said some version is expected to be released from the committee this week. It will likely contain various elements of the competing bills, she said.
Currently in Massachusetts, convicted felons are eligible for parole after serving half of their sentences, except for first-degree murderers, who are not eligible for parole. Those convicted of second-degree murder must serve 15 years of a life sentence before they are eligible for parole.
Opponents of mandatory sentencing have argued that the language in both Melissa’s Bill and the governor’s bill is too broad, and that the sentencing guidelines do not apply only to violent felons.
Representatives from groups including the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Massachusetts Families Against Mandatory Minimums have testified against Melissa’s Bill.
Leslie Gosule said the influence of defense attorneys in the Legislature has thwarted tougher crime legislation over the years.
“A criminal defense attorney gets paid every time a guy commits a crime,” he said. “It’s a great system. Money is more important than public safety.”
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Senate President Therese Murray: Wrong, in her own words
In Pennsylvania, less than 1,000 jobs were created in each of the Slot Barns. Many of those are part-time, no separate statistics are available, no wage statistics are available:
To date, with nine of a maximum fourteen casinos in operation, legalized gaming in the Commonwealth [of Pennsylvania] has created over 8,000 new living wage jobs
From: Phony Beacon Hill Numbers
Murray, meanwhile, told the Cape Cod Times over the weekend that she believed slot machines "suck all the economic environment from within 20 miles, and you really don't get any jobs from it."
From: "Cha Ching" Murray: SLOTS suck $$$ from economy
...Senate President Terry Murray admitted in a speech last week reported by the State House News Service, casinos pose a serious threat to existing businesses and cultural institutions.
From:
Casinos Will Also Destroy Jobs And Revenue
Below is a totally incorrect statement by the Senate President regarding Tribal Slot Barns. There is no trust land in any of the original 13 colonies. There can the no Tribal Slot Barn without Trust Land.
The Aquinnah have state owned land as a result of a Settlement Act.
The 1983 settlement agreement that led to federal recognition of the Wampanoags, was signed by the tribe, the Gay Head Taxpayers Association (since renamed the Aquinnah/Gay Head Community Association Inc.), the town, and the state. It specifically provides that the settlement lands shall be subject to all federal, state, and local laws, including town zoning laws, state and federal conservation laws, and the regulations of the Martha’s Vineyard Commission.
See: Gay Head, Aquinnah Tribe and Silly Season gets even sillier
Totally wrong and uninformed, in her own words:
Senate President Therese Murray said yesterday that a new directive from the federal government makes Native American gambling parlors all but inevitable in Massachusetts, whether or not state lawmakers authorize full-fledged casinos.
From: Dumb and Dumber
Costs are ignored:
Attorney General Martha Coakley recently -
...warned lawmakers that the cost of making it happen may be larger than anticipated. New regulations must be drawn up and new agencies created to enforce the regulation, she said.
From:
Massachusetts: Rushing Off A Cliff
VIDEO: Murray insists casinos will bring jobs
State House News Service
BOSTON — Before the Senate resumed its debate over expanded gambling for a fifth day Tuesday, Senate President Therese Murray took issue with new claims by opponents that casinos would not produce the jobs promised and would cripple the Lottery.
"You know what? If you don't have a job and there will be jobs created, I would think you would want the job and an opportunity to apply for one of those jobs. Whether its 10,000 or 15,000 jobs, it's a job and it's rather elitist to say these aren't good jobs. They're jobs with benefits and they're jobs that pay you a salary," Murray told reporters as she headed into the Senate chamber for the start of the debate Tuesday afternoon.
Murray also took issue with the suggestion by gambling opponents that the bill being debated has been driven by "special interests."
In a statement, former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger on Tuesday said, "The public is being sold a bill of goods and our new analysis should blow the rose-colored glasses off proponents and force them to rethink this poor excuse for economic development and local aid. Those lining up behind this bill must be doing it to support some other constituency because the numbers being thrown around by proponents simply don't add up."
Murray said the only special interest she is responding to are those residents still unemployed.
"Tell me where the special interest is. The people who don't have jobs? Are they special interests? I think so. And that's why we're doing this," Murray said. Citizens for a Stronger Massachusetts released a new analysis Tuesday morning done by gambling opponents that called House and Senate job estimates from gaming “wildly optimistic.”
The report suggested that expanded gambling would diverting between $700 million and $1.3 billion from household spending to casinos, killing between 5,700 and 10,600 Massachusetts jobs. The report also said that casinos would cannibalize the state Lottery, which provides a significant amount of local aid to cities and towns, leading to 5 percent to 10 percent decline in Lottery revenue.
To date, with nine of a maximum fourteen casinos in operation, legalized gaming in the Commonwealth [of Pennsylvania] has created over 8,000 new living wage jobs
From: Phony Beacon Hill Numbers
Murray, meanwhile, told the Cape Cod Times over the weekend that she believed slot machines "suck all the economic environment from within 20 miles, and you really don't get any jobs from it."
From: "Cha Ching" Murray: SLOTS suck $$$ from economy
...Senate President Terry Murray admitted in a speech last week reported by the State House News Service, casinos pose a serious threat to existing businesses and cultural institutions.
From:
Casinos Will Also Destroy Jobs And Revenue
Below is a totally incorrect statement by the Senate President regarding Tribal Slot Barns. There is no trust land in any of the original 13 colonies. There can the no Tribal Slot Barn without Trust Land.
The Aquinnah have state owned land as a result of a Settlement Act.
The 1983 settlement agreement that led to federal recognition of the Wampanoags, was signed by the tribe, the Gay Head Taxpayers Association (since renamed the Aquinnah/Gay Head Community Association Inc.), the town, and the state. It specifically provides that the settlement lands shall be subject to all federal, state, and local laws, including town zoning laws, state and federal conservation laws, and the regulations of the Martha’s Vineyard Commission.
See: Gay Head, Aquinnah Tribe and Silly Season gets even sillier
Totally wrong and uninformed, in her own words:
Senate President Therese Murray said yesterday that a new directive from the federal government makes Native American gambling parlors all but inevitable in Massachusetts, whether or not state lawmakers authorize full-fledged casinos.
From: Dumb and Dumber
Costs are ignored:
Attorney General Martha Coakley recently -
...warned lawmakers that the cost of making it happen may be larger than anticipated. New regulations must be drawn up and new agencies created to enforce the regulation, she said.
From:
Massachusetts: Rushing Off A Cliff
VIDEO: Murray insists casinos will bring jobs
State House News Service
BOSTON — Before the Senate resumed its debate over expanded gambling for a fifth day Tuesday, Senate President Therese Murray took issue with new claims by opponents that casinos would not produce the jobs promised and would cripple the Lottery.
"You know what? If you don't have a job and there will be jobs created, I would think you would want the job and an opportunity to apply for one of those jobs. Whether its 10,000 or 15,000 jobs, it's a job and it's rather elitist to say these aren't good jobs. They're jobs with benefits and they're jobs that pay you a salary," Murray told reporters as she headed into the Senate chamber for the start of the debate Tuesday afternoon.
Murray also took issue with the suggestion by gambling opponents that the bill being debated has been driven by "special interests."
In a statement, former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger on Tuesday said, "The public is being sold a bill of goods and our new analysis should blow the rose-colored glasses off proponents and force them to rethink this poor excuse for economic development and local aid. Those lining up behind this bill must be doing it to support some other constituency because the numbers being thrown around by proponents simply don't add up."
Murray said the only special interest she is responding to are those residents still unemployed.
"Tell me where the special interest is. The people who don't have jobs? Are they special interests? I think so. And that's why we're doing this," Murray said. Citizens for a Stronger Massachusetts released a new analysis Tuesday morning done by gambling opponents that called House and Senate job estimates from gaming “wildly optimistic.”
The report suggested that expanded gambling would diverting between $700 million and $1.3 billion from household spending to casinos, killing between 5,700 and 10,600 Massachusetts jobs. The report also said that casinos would cannibalize the state Lottery, which provides a significant amount of local aid to cities and towns, leading to 5 percent to 10 percent decline in Lottery revenue.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Massachusetts: Senate keeps slots in casino bill
Senate keeps slots in casino bill
By Kyle Cheney
State House News Service
BOSTON — The Senate on Thursday rejected an effort to strip a slot machine facility out of an expanded gambling bill, but the proposal garnered enough support to raise the prospect that the branch could sustain a potential veto of the slot machine provision.
While Gov. Deval Patrick has said he’d support a competitively bid slot parlor to achieve a long-thwarted deal to bring casino gambling to Massachusetts, he has long asserted that a slots-only gambling facility amounts to “convenience gambling” and previously argued that such facilities feature “more downside than upside, more human cost and impact than there is benefit on the jobs and revenue side.”
Twelve members of the Senate voted to strip the slot parlor, and although the effort was easily defeated, the absence of Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz, a gambling opponent, and the imminent departure of Sen. Steven Tolman (D-Boston), an expanded gambling proponent, raises the prospect that members against the slot parlor could muster the 13 votes necessary to uphold a veto, even though one appears unlikely right now.
Sen. Cynthia Creem (D-Newton), who sponsored the amendment to kill the slot parlor, reminded colleagues that only a year ago they had endorsed a gambling bill that included no slots-only facilities. She argued that those facilities devastate the poor and thrive on addiction, comparing them to tobacco companies.
“These people need our help, and instead we’re throwing them to the wolves,” she said. “What we are doing today is shifting money. We’re actually taking money from those that can least afford it and putting it in the hands of the wealthy. We’ve talked on this floor before about what’s happening in this country, about how the middle class isn’t going to be a middle class and how there may just be two classes and how we are continually taking from the poor to give to the rich. This is not economic development to have a slot parlor.”
Backers of a slot parlor argue that it can be up and running more rapidly than casinos, creating an instant infusion of jobs and revenue for the state.
“We’re going to see revenue that is now spent in Connecticut and Rhode Island and all the other states in and around our region where people make their own choice to go and play slots,” said Sen. Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton). “They will finally be able to come back here to Massachusetts and participate if they choose to do so with their recreational dollar. We’re going to create over 15,000 jobs with this bill. That’s positive economic development.”
[Where is that guarantee, Senator? That's an overzealous figure that's been repeatedly disproven by comparison with other states.]
Sen. Karen Spilka (D-Ashland), who co-chairs the committee that released the first version of expanded gambling legislation that included a slot machine parlor, voted to strike slots from the bill.
Asked why she hadn’t expressed her opposition to the slot parlor when the bill emerged from committee, Spilka said, “This is the time for me to be voting and taking a stand on certain issues. I figure that’s just the beginning of a process. There was consensus.”
Spilka did not rule out supporting a final bill that includes a slot facility, stating, “I need to look at the bill in its entirety to see.”
Sens. Creem, Spilka Kenneth Donnelly, Ben Downing, James Eldridge, Susan Fargo, Barry Finegold, Robert Hedlund, Patricia Jehlen, John Keenan, Mark Montigny and Daniel Wolf voted to eliminate the slots facilities.
During debate on the gambling bill, senators defeated an effort by Republicans to use gambling revenue to return the state sales tax to 5 percent, its level before an increase in 2009 to 6.25 percent.
Senate Ways and Means Committee Chairman Stephen Brewer ripped the proposal as a detriment to the state’s fiscal health, and he said it might cause Massachusetts to “catch up with Greece” in its bond rating. The amendment failed 9-27, with some Democrats, including Sens. Steven Baddour, Eileen Donoghue, Michael Moore and James Timilty, joining their GOP counterparts in support.
Another Republican amendment to require that the first five years worth of gambling revenue be placed in the state’s rainy day account was defeated 4-32, a strictly party-line vote.
Brewer argued that the state wanted to use the revenue to support priorities like transportation, education, local aid and economic development. Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr countered that the proposal would allow the state to continue to enjoy “natural growth” in the economy while shoring up savings for any future economic turmoil.
Senators also defeated an amendment to reduce the number of casinos in the bill from three to two, an effort that Keenan said would bring greater economic gain and less negative impact from the gambling industry. No one spoke against the amendment.
The session ended when Baddour moved to print the amendments in the Senate calendar, a procedural move that exhausted gaming opponents’ remaining delay options.
The Senate is due to resume its debate Tuesday. Senate President Therese Murray told reporters that it may still be a long slog to complete the bill.
“We still have a long way to go,” she said, estimating that debate would continue through next Thursday.
By Kyle Cheney
State House News Service
BOSTON — The Senate on Thursday rejected an effort to strip a slot machine facility out of an expanded gambling bill, but the proposal garnered enough support to raise the prospect that the branch could sustain a potential veto of the slot machine provision.
While Gov. Deval Patrick has said he’d support a competitively bid slot parlor to achieve a long-thwarted deal to bring casino gambling to Massachusetts, he has long asserted that a slots-only gambling facility amounts to “convenience gambling” and previously argued that such facilities feature “more downside than upside, more human cost and impact than there is benefit on the jobs and revenue side.”
Twelve members of the Senate voted to strip the slot parlor, and although the effort was easily defeated, the absence of Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz, a gambling opponent, and the imminent departure of Sen. Steven Tolman (D-Boston), an expanded gambling proponent, raises the prospect that members against the slot parlor could muster the 13 votes necessary to uphold a veto, even though one appears unlikely right now.
Sen. Cynthia Creem (D-Newton), who sponsored the amendment to kill the slot parlor, reminded colleagues that only a year ago they had endorsed a gambling bill that included no slots-only facilities. She argued that those facilities devastate the poor and thrive on addiction, comparing them to tobacco companies.
“These people need our help, and instead we’re throwing them to the wolves,” she said. “What we are doing today is shifting money. We’re actually taking money from those that can least afford it and putting it in the hands of the wealthy. We’ve talked on this floor before about what’s happening in this country, about how the middle class isn’t going to be a middle class and how there may just be two classes and how we are continually taking from the poor to give to the rich. This is not economic development to have a slot parlor.”
Backers of a slot parlor argue that it can be up and running more rapidly than casinos, creating an instant infusion of jobs and revenue for the state.
“We’re going to see revenue that is now spent in Connecticut and Rhode Island and all the other states in and around our region where people make their own choice to go and play slots,” said Sen. Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton). “They will finally be able to come back here to Massachusetts and participate if they choose to do so with their recreational dollar. We’re going to create over 15,000 jobs with this bill. That’s positive economic development.”
[Where is that guarantee, Senator? That's an overzealous figure that's been repeatedly disproven by comparison with other states.]
Sen. Karen Spilka (D-Ashland), who co-chairs the committee that released the first version of expanded gambling legislation that included a slot machine parlor, voted to strike slots from the bill.
Asked why she hadn’t expressed her opposition to the slot parlor when the bill emerged from committee, Spilka said, “This is the time for me to be voting and taking a stand on certain issues. I figure that’s just the beginning of a process. There was consensus.”
Spilka did not rule out supporting a final bill that includes a slot facility, stating, “I need to look at the bill in its entirety to see.”
Sens. Creem, Spilka Kenneth Donnelly, Ben Downing, James Eldridge, Susan Fargo, Barry Finegold, Robert Hedlund, Patricia Jehlen, John Keenan, Mark Montigny and Daniel Wolf voted to eliminate the slots facilities.
During debate on the gambling bill, senators defeated an effort by Republicans to use gambling revenue to return the state sales tax to 5 percent, its level before an increase in 2009 to 6.25 percent.
Senate Ways and Means Committee Chairman Stephen Brewer ripped the proposal as a detriment to the state’s fiscal health, and he said it might cause Massachusetts to “catch up with Greece” in its bond rating. The amendment failed 9-27, with some Democrats, including Sens. Steven Baddour, Eileen Donoghue, Michael Moore and James Timilty, joining their GOP counterparts in support.
Another Republican amendment to require that the first five years worth of gambling revenue be placed in the state’s rainy day account was defeated 4-32, a strictly party-line vote.
Brewer argued that the state wanted to use the revenue to support priorities like transportation, education, local aid and economic development. Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr countered that the proposal would allow the state to continue to enjoy “natural growth” in the economy while shoring up savings for any future economic turmoil.
Senators also defeated an amendment to reduce the number of casinos in the bill from three to two, an effort that Keenan said would bring greater economic gain and less negative impact from the gambling industry. No one spoke against the amendment.
The session ended when Baddour moved to print the amendments in the Senate calendar, a procedural move that exhausted gaming opponents’ remaining delay options.
The Senate is due to resume its debate Tuesday. Senate President Therese Murray told reporters that it may still be a long slog to complete the bill.
“We still have a long way to go,” she said, estimating that debate would continue through next Thursday.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Sen. Michael Rodrigues (D-Westport): Kudos!
Gladys in her customary fashion, described the latest Beacon Hill faux pas - Integrity
One sole state Senator, Sen. Michael Rodrigues (D-Westport), the only lawmaker not requiring a spinal transplant deserves Kudos for voting against a ONE YEAR EXCLUSION after a secret Democratic caucus.
The contentious proposal was to impose a FIVE YEAR EXCLUSION, reasonable under the circumstances.
This is not unemployment insurance for those who get tossed from office next November for supporting this flawed legislation.
One sole state Senator, Sen. Michael Rodrigues (D-Westport), the only lawmaker not requiring a spinal transplant deserves Kudos for voting against a ONE YEAR EXCLUSION after a secret Democratic caucus.
The contentious proposal was to impose a FIVE YEAR EXCLUSION, reasonable under the circumstances.
This is not unemployment insurance for those who get tossed from office next November for supporting this flawed legislation.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Massachusetts: More Back Room Deals
Amidst scandals and indictments, it's clear: Beacon Hill doesn't get "IT" !
The public perceives lawmakers, leadership and Governor "Slot Barns" as untrustworthy and corrupt.
Excluding the public and the media merely adds to that belief.
Public officals elsewhere have left elected office to work in lucrative positions with the Gambling Industry after supporting Gambling legislation. Why should we expect anything different from Beacon Hill?
Senate kills five-year ban on taking casino jobs
One-year prohibition OK’d for legislators
By Mark Arsenault
Globe Staff /
A state Senate proposal to impose a five-year ban on former lawmakers taking casino jobs triggered an uproar yesterday by Democratic senators who abruptly broke off a heated public debate to rewrite the measure in secret.
An hour later, and with no further discussion, the Senate approved a watered-down, one-year restriction.
Lawmakers’ rationale for weakening the bill may be hard to explain outside the marble corridors of the State House: They said that a strong prohibition would only feed the public’s perception that lawmakers cannot be trusted.
“We’re creating a presumption that the people in this body cannot operate with integrity,’’ complained Senator Gale Candaras, Democrat from Wilbraham. “It’s bad law. It’s bad precedent.’’ [Evidence proves to the contrary!]
But the Legislature has not been without its high-profile problems. The past three House speakers have been indicted; the most recent, Salvatore F. DiMasi, was sentenced this month to eight years in federal prison for political corruption.
The five-year ban was proposed by James Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, who argued in the public portion of the debate yesterday that the bill authorizing three casinos and one slot parlor should only be an economic development program for the state, “It should not be an economic bill for legislators.’’ He said a five-year ban would address any perception or public cynicism that legislators might be motivated by personal interest to support the casino bill.
Members of Senate leadership were already working the floor to urge a no vote on the amendment. But when they met unexpected pushback from legislators, they tried a different course, signaling that they would go along with the ban, even though they didn’t agree with it.
“We will support this amendment,’’ said Senator Stephen Brewer, a Barre Democrat and Ways and Means Committee chair, in angry remarks from the floor, “but I reject and resent its implications.’’ He said “98 percent’’ of all the people he has served with in the Senate have been hard workers who served honorably.
But as the debate continued to simmer and tempers flared, Senate President Therese Murray inexplicably slammed on the brakes and called for a recess, so Democrats could hash out their differences outside of public view.
When the closed caucus emerged, the five-year ban had been shaved to one year, though the change was not publicly announced before the vote. The Senate quickly passed the amendment 36 to 1. Debate on the entire casino bill continues next week.
“Most people don’t pay attention or understand the political process,’’ said Peter Ubertaccio, a Stonehill College political scientist who watched the debate yesterday. “But what people will understand is when a major political party goes into closed caucus and makes it easier for themselves to get jobs when they leave.’’
Legislators have tremendous power to influence private industry, Ubertaccio said, and the potential exists for them to profit personally from the decisions they make.
“People are going to perceive them as more corrupt because they have only put one year between themselves and jobs with the casino industry,’’ he said.
Senate Republicans, shut out of the private debate among Democrats, delighted in the inter-party dispute on the other side of the aisle.
“Nice to see a little passion here once in a while rather than a bunch of sheep,’’ said Senator Robert Hedlund, a Weymouth Republican, in comments to reporters. He said he favored the more severe five-year ban. “I sat next to Wilkerson for a while. I sat next to Marzilli.’’
He was referring to Dianne Wilkerson and James Marzilli who, along with Anthony Galluccio, left the Senate in disgrace amid a flurry of legal problems.
Republicans are outnumbered 36 to 4 in the Massachusetts Senate.
Brewer told reporters that a one-year ban is “the industry standard.’’ Five years, he said, was “an arbitrary number.’’ A casino bill passed by the House does not contain similar language; a conference committee would eventually have to reconcile the two bills.
After the vote, Murray defended her decision to usher her members into closed session to work out their differences. She said the same arguments the public heard on the floor were the arguments repeated in the private discussion.
Then why, she was asked, shouldn’t the public see that debate?
“I think they had a very hearty debate on the floor,’’ she said.
Following the vote, casino opponents were mum on what happened in the caucus. Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz, a Boston Democrat and casino critic, said that she and several other senators made themselves available for interviews to account for their votes. “I think it’s a stretch to say this was done in secret,’’ she said.
Eldridge, the senator who started the whole debate, called the one-year ban progress.
He declined to say how his colleagues persuaded him to give up on the tougher language. “That’s part of the caucus process that is private,’’ he said.
Noah Bierman of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
The public perceives lawmakers, leadership and Governor "Slot Barns" as untrustworthy and corrupt.
Excluding the public and the media merely adds to that belief.
Public officals elsewhere have left elected office to work in lucrative positions with the Gambling Industry after supporting Gambling legislation. Why should we expect anything different from Beacon Hill?
Senate kills five-year ban on taking casino jobs
One-year prohibition OK’d for legislators
By Mark Arsenault
Globe Staff /
A state Senate proposal to impose a five-year ban on former lawmakers taking casino jobs triggered an uproar yesterday by Democratic senators who abruptly broke off a heated public debate to rewrite the measure in secret.
An hour later, and with no further discussion, the Senate approved a watered-down, one-year restriction.
Lawmakers’ rationale for weakening the bill may be hard to explain outside the marble corridors of the State House: They said that a strong prohibition would only feed the public’s perception that lawmakers cannot be trusted.
“We’re creating a presumption that the people in this body cannot operate with integrity,’’ complained Senator Gale Candaras, Democrat from Wilbraham. “It’s bad law. It’s bad precedent.’’ [Evidence proves to the contrary!]
But the Legislature has not been without its high-profile problems. The past three House speakers have been indicted; the most recent, Salvatore F. DiMasi, was sentenced this month to eight years in federal prison for political corruption.
The five-year ban was proposed by James Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, who argued in the public portion of the debate yesterday that the bill authorizing three casinos and one slot parlor should only be an economic development program for the state, “It should not be an economic bill for legislators.’’ He said a five-year ban would address any perception or public cynicism that legislators might be motivated by personal interest to support the casino bill.
Members of Senate leadership were already working the floor to urge a no vote on the amendment. But when they met unexpected pushback from legislators, they tried a different course, signaling that they would go along with the ban, even though they didn’t agree with it.
“We will support this amendment,’’ said Senator Stephen Brewer, a Barre Democrat and Ways and Means Committee chair, in angry remarks from the floor, “but I reject and resent its implications.’’ He said “98 percent’’ of all the people he has served with in the Senate have been hard workers who served honorably.
But as the debate continued to simmer and tempers flared, Senate President Therese Murray inexplicably slammed on the brakes and called for a recess, so Democrats could hash out their differences outside of public view.
When the closed caucus emerged, the five-year ban had been shaved to one year, though the change was not publicly announced before the vote. The Senate quickly passed the amendment 36 to 1. Debate on the entire casino bill continues next week.
“Most people don’t pay attention or understand the political process,’’ said Peter Ubertaccio, a Stonehill College political scientist who watched the debate yesterday. “But what people will understand is when a major political party goes into closed caucus and makes it easier for themselves to get jobs when they leave.’’
Legislators have tremendous power to influence private industry, Ubertaccio said, and the potential exists for them to profit personally from the decisions they make.
“People are going to perceive them as more corrupt because they have only put one year between themselves and jobs with the casino industry,’’ he said.
Senate Republicans, shut out of the private debate among Democrats, delighted in the inter-party dispute on the other side of the aisle.
“Nice to see a little passion here once in a while rather than a bunch of sheep,’’ said Senator Robert Hedlund, a Weymouth Republican, in comments to reporters. He said he favored the more severe five-year ban. “I sat next to Wilkerson for a while. I sat next to Marzilli.’’
He was referring to Dianne Wilkerson and James Marzilli who, along with Anthony Galluccio, left the Senate in disgrace amid a flurry of legal problems.
Republicans are outnumbered 36 to 4 in the Massachusetts Senate.
Brewer told reporters that a one-year ban is “the industry standard.’’ Five years, he said, was “an arbitrary number.’’ A casino bill passed by the House does not contain similar language; a conference committee would eventually have to reconcile the two bills.
After the vote, Murray defended her decision to usher her members into closed session to work out their differences. She said the same arguments the public heard on the floor were the arguments repeated in the private discussion.
Then why, she was asked, shouldn’t the public see that debate?
“I think they had a very hearty debate on the floor,’’ she said.
Following the vote, casino opponents were mum on what happened in the caucus. Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz, a Boston Democrat and casino critic, said that she and several other senators made themselves available for interviews to account for their votes. “I think it’s a stretch to say this was done in secret,’’ she said.
Eldridge, the senator who started the whole debate, called the one-year ban progress.
He declined to say how his colleagues persuaded him to give up on the tougher language. “That’s part of the caucus process that is private,’’ he said.
Noah Bierman of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Massachusetts: Beacon Hill, A Caricature of Itself
Governor "Slot Barns," House Speaker "Racino," and Senate President "Ca-Ching" negotiated a back room deal for the proposed 'Slot Barn' Legislation.
(Folks, for $500 million, you get a "Slot Barn," not some elegant promised Destination Resort Slot Barn, or as Senator Tucker described it: "Slots in a Box.")
Governor "Slot Barns" agreed to support an INDEPENDENT COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS and developed amnesia after his re-election, betraying his own party because his sights are clearly on higher office.
Governor "Slot Barns" promised Native Americans he would support a Tribal Slot Barn in Freetown.
It is highly plausible that Governor "Slot Barns" made promises to Bob Kraft, which explains his devotion to that pedestrian bridge.
Few represent the arrogance of Beacon Hill better than Rep. Kathi-Anne Reinstein, as my favorite nosy neighbor Gladys represented her.
Beacon Hill has become nothing more than a caricature of its corrupt public personage so blinded and out of touch with public perception that they fail to recognize the ugly image.
(Folks, for $500 million, you get a "Slot Barn," not some elegant promised Destination Resort Slot Barn, or as Senator Tucker described it: "Slots in a Box.")
Governor "Slot Barns" agreed to support an INDEPENDENT COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS and developed amnesia after his re-election, betraying his own party because his sights are clearly on higher office.
Governor "Slot Barns" promised Native Americans he would support a Tribal Slot Barn in Freetown.
It is highly plausible that Governor "Slot Barns" made promises to Bob Kraft, which explains his devotion to that pedestrian bridge.
Few represent the arrogance of Beacon Hill better than Rep. Kathi-Anne Reinstein, as my favorite nosy neighbor Gladys represented her.
Beacon Hill has become nothing more than a caricature of its corrupt public personage so blinded and out of touch with public perception that they fail to recognize the ugly image.
To be sure, there are many fine lawmakers who conduct their research and represent their constituents - but not enough as reflected in the most recent House Slot Barn vote. So much for back room deals and arm twisting.
Representatives willingly caved to House Speaker "Racino" and his rewards to those who genuflected to the leader's commands, knowing additional pay, chairmanships, larger staff and larger offices were the reward for obedience. How pathetic to lack the courage of your convictions over personal rewards?
The 3 Musketeers of Vested Interests can't even pass the expanded Bottle Bill - simple enough because they're too busy having their egoes stroked by Lobbyists and preoccupied with another phony Gambling Bill. There's much else that have been ignored or negotiated in back room deals.
It's time to overcome the exclusion of Massachusetts voters and consider expanding the Open Meeting Law.
The Beacon Hill Rodents who flourish in the dark won't let this pass, but let's ask for its support. And remember their opposition in November.
Beacon Hill Committee Weighs Public Records Changes
BOSTON — A legislative committee is considering a number of changes to the state’s open meeting and public records laws.
If passed, several bills being filed will make it illegal to shut reporters and the public out of government and nonprofit corporate meetings.
Sen. James Eldridge says it will also require all government agencies to give people access to details on things such as their own criminal history.
“Right now it’s very easy for state agencies to deny this information when it’s requested by members of the public, and we want to make it as transparent and accessible as possible,” he said.
One bill mandates all government record-keeping become electronic to improve access while cutting cost and waste.
Dear Senator Donnelly and Representative Kocot, and committee members:
Reforming the Open Meeting laws, G.L.c. 30a Section 18 et. seq. to ensure that the Great and General Court and Constitutional Officers are also subject to the Open Meeting laws of the Commonwealth has become a critical matter to the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Every other governmental organ, whether it is the Boston City Council or the Arlington School Committee is subject to open meeting laws so as to protect the public against corruption, and protect those who govern from undue temptations behind closed doors.
Open meeting laws, crafted so as to protect but not unduly burden, are necessary to regain the public’s trust and confidence in government. There have been many scandals where money influences those who govern, those who spend tax payer dollars, and those who hire. A well crafted Open Meeting law would have prevented many, and perhaps all of these scandals.
The public is outraged, and rightly so. A Speaker convicted of taking money to influence contracts, a Probation Commissioner indicted for allegedly selling jobs, laundering of campaign funds, legislation drafted with no public hearings or cost benefit studies - all of these events could only happen because the legislature and Beacon Hill are 100% exempt from any and all open meeting laws and regulations.
To regain taxpayer and voter confidence, Beacon Hill must include itself in G.L.c. 30A, with the definition of "Public Body" being amended to insert the words "General Court and all constitutional officers" after the word "town".
Respectfully submitted:
Deborah Sirotkin Butler, Esquire
cc:
Sen. James T. Welch, Rep. James M. Murphy, Sen. Susan Fargo, Sen Michael J. Rodrigues, Sen. John F. Keenan, Sen. Bruce F. Tarr, Rep. David M. Nangle, Rep. Michael D. Brady, Rep. Jason M. Lewis, Rep. James J. Lyons, Jr., Rep. Kevin Aguilar, Rep. Kate Hogan, Rep. Edward F. Coppinger, Rep. Steven L. Levy
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Casinos Will Also Destroy Jobs And Revenue
Keller @ Large: Casinos Will Also Destroy Jobs And Revenue
BOSTON (CBS) – One more day to go until Beacon Hill begins the public part of a process that seems destined to finally put Massachusetts into the casino business, and today, the Democrats who call the shots in the House are meeting to hammer out the final details — behind closed doors, of course.
How else do you expect our elected officials to take care of messy business like this?
My goodness, if citizens were exposed to the full details of this too far in advance of this week’s vote, they’d never let it happen!
And that just won’t do, because, as Senate President Terry Murray admitted in a speech last week reported by the State House News Service, casinos pose a serious threat to existing businesses and cultural institutions.
They are so worried about entertainment venues at the new casinos putting our wealth of community performance centers out of business that they have written into the bill bureaucratic “protections” for local theaters, under which the casinos will peel off a few million to mollify the locals, and supposedly negotiate with them to make sure they don’t siphon off too much business.
“The Gaming Commission will ensure a level playing field,” Murray insists.
Madame President, with all due respect, whom do you think you’re kidding?
Non-gambling entertainment was supposed to be a cornerstone of these alleged “resort casinos,” and now you’re going to limit the size of their venues, force them to subsidize competitors, and slap their wrists if they try too hard to make money?
That’s music to the ears of the gang at Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun, Twin River, etc.
The head of the Hanover Theater in Worcester tells the News Service proposed mitigation payments “might keep me in a job, but it won’t keep people coming through the door.”
And that says it all.
Yes, the casinos will create jobs and tax revenue.
But in the end, when the jobs and revenue they destroy are counted, will this gamble come up snake eyes?
BOSTON (CBS) – One more day to go until Beacon Hill begins the public part of a process that seems destined to finally put Massachusetts into the casino business, and today, the Democrats who call the shots in the House are meeting to hammer out the final details — behind closed doors, of course.
How else do you expect our elected officials to take care of messy business like this?
My goodness, if citizens were exposed to the full details of this too far in advance of this week’s vote, they’d never let it happen!
And that just won’t do, because, as Senate President Terry Murray admitted in a speech last week reported by the State House News Service, casinos pose a serious threat to existing businesses and cultural institutions.
They are so worried about entertainment venues at the new casinos putting our wealth of community performance centers out of business that they have written into the bill bureaucratic “protections” for local theaters, under which the casinos will peel off a few million to mollify the locals, and supposedly negotiate with them to make sure they don’t siphon off too much business.
“The Gaming Commission will ensure a level playing field,” Murray insists.
Madame President, with all due respect, whom do you think you’re kidding?
Non-gambling entertainment was supposed to be a cornerstone of these alleged “resort casinos,” and now you’re going to limit the size of their venues, force them to subsidize competitors, and slap their wrists if they try too hard to make money?
That’s music to the ears of the gang at Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun, Twin River, etc.
The head of the Hanover Theater in Worcester tells the News Service proposed mitigation payments “might keep me in a job, but it won’t keep people coming through the door.”
And that says it all.
Yes, the casinos will create jobs and tax revenue.
But in the end, when the jobs and revenue they destroy are counted, will this gamble come up snake eyes?
The Fleecing of the Massachusetts Taxpayer
Opponents bash casino plan as insider deal
By Noah Bierman, Globe Staff
Former state Senator Susan Tucker speaks against casino gambling during a rally today outside the State House.
As Massachusetts House Democrats met privately in a windowless conference room to hash out details of a casino gambling bill this morning, opponents stood outside the State House complaining that it was an inside deal.
“I have a title for the bill,” said Susan Tucker, a recently retired state senator and leading anti-gambling crusader. “It’s called the fleecing of the Massachusetts taxpayers.”
Tucker said the bill takes from the poor and returns profits to out-of-state billionaires. She warned fellow lawmakers that voters who say in polls that they support gambling would immediately become opponents if a casino decides to locate near their homes.
“It can be a career-ending vote,” she said. “It’s easier to site a landfill than it is a casino.”
The press conference attracted dozens of opponents from church, civic, and professional groups and was one of the largest anti-gambling demonstrations since a casino bill was introduced last month.
In a twist, the casino opponents shared their platform with a group who believes the true cause of the 9/11 terrorist attack hasn’t been revealed. They had previously scheduled a protest for the same time.
The opponents said any promised economic benefit to the state from casinos would be outweighed by the costs of increased crime and addiction and that the state’s historic character would be transformed.
“People come from around the world to visit our great commonwealth,” said the Reverend Laura Everett, associate director of the Massachusetts Council of Churches. “They don’t come to sit in a windowless slot barn with no clocks and oxygen pumped in that could be anywhere in the world.”
The House is scheduled to debate the bill, authorizing three casinos and one slot machine parlor, tomorrow, and possibly Thursday. It has support form legislative leaders and Governor Deval Patrick, who say it will bring jobs and help the state’s budget with hundreds of millions of dollars in casino taxes.
House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, following the caucus of House Democrats, said he feels strongly about bringing casinos to the state because he has spoken with unemployed workers at union halls and wants to get them back to work.
“They want jobs,” he said. “People are really hurting out there, folks.”
Democrats discussed a host of issues during the closed-door caucus, including more than 150 amendments proposed last week, according to DeLeo and others in attendance.
And the majority of Democrats have continued to ignore the vote by their own party:
Massachusetts Democratic Party Resolution Opposing Predatory Gambling
DeLeo and other leading Democrats would not say whether they support a Republican amendment that would require casino operators to verify the immigration status of their employees using the federal E-Verify system, a contentious issue that has come up often in the Legislature, outside the context of the casino debate .
The provision in the bill that gives the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe an advantage in negotiating for the right to open a casino in Southeastern Massachusetts drew the most questions, DeLeo and others said. [Hopefully, you folks discussed Genting and that it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.]
Legislators also discussed numerous amendments that dealt with doling out money to help communities impacted directly by nearby casinos. [In other words, they were carefully scripting what will pass and what will satisfy the Gambling Industry.]
Several speakers at this morning’s press conference led groups formed in cities and towns near proposed casinos. They said the impacts on quality of life could not be fixed by money set aside in the bill.
“East Boston, Revere, and Winthrop, you have a target on your back,” said John Ribeiro, founder of Neighbors of Suffolk Downs. “This is just another back-room deal that represents the special interests and not the people’s interest.”
Democratic House members, who hold a large majority in the House and Senate, traditionally meet behind closed doors before public debates on major issues.
The casino bill was also drafted following closed negotiations among DeLeo, Senate President Therese Murray, and Governor Deval Patrick, all Democrats who support expanded gambling. DeLeo defended that process today, saying voters have had the opportunity to express their opinions during years of debate and that they also have representation through their legislators.
But opponents said many lawmakers’ arms have been twisted, pointing out that support for gambling in the House increased dramatically when DeLeo replaced Salvatore F. DiMasi, a gambling opponent, as speaker.
DeLeo suggested today that many lawmakers changed their positions on their own.
“I disagree with that very strongly. I think we’ve made the case over the years,” he said. “Maybe I didn’t have to convince as many people as people would like to think in terms of changing their votes.”
Tom Larkin, president of United to Stop Slots, said he believes casino backers have the votes to pass a bill, but “we’re not going to go gently. We’re going to fight it.”
He said he was hoping opponents could persuade Patrick to change his mind. He said Patrick, who wrote about social justice in his memoir, is showing inconsistency by supporting casinos and slots. “So we’re going to come down hard on him,” he said.
House Majority Leader Ronald Mariano said he had no idea how the House would vote on the casino bill.
“If I could predict that I’d be making money somewhere else,” he said.
At a casino?
“I wouldn’t do that,” he said. “I know the odds.”
By Noah Bierman, Globe Staff
Former state Senator Susan Tucker speaks against casino gambling during a rally today outside the State House.
As Massachusetts House Democrats met privately in a windowless conference room to hash out details of a casino gambling bill this morning, opponents stood outside the State House complaining that it was an inside deal.
“I have a title for the bill,” said Susan Tucker, a recently retired state senator and leading anti-gambling crusader. “It’s called the fleecing of the Massachusetts taxpayers.”
Tucker said the bill takes from the poor and returns profits to out-of-state billionaires. She warned fellow lawmakers that voters who say in polls that they support gambling would immediately become opponents if a casino decides to locate near their homes.
“It can be a career-ending vote,” she said. “It’s easier to site a landfill than it is a casino.”
The press conference attracted dozens of opponents from church, civic, and professional groups and was one of the largest anti-gambling demonstrations since a casino bill was introduced last month.
In a twist, the casino opponents shared their platform with a group who believes the true cause of the 9/11 terrorist attack hasn’t been revealed. They had previously scheduled a protest for the same time.
The opponents said any promised economic benefit to the state from casinos would be outweighed by the costs of increased crime and addiction and that the state’s historic character would be transformed.
“People come from around the world to visit our great commonwealth,” said the Reverend Laura Everett, associate director of the Massachusetts Council of Churches. “They don’t come to sit in a windowless slot barn with no clocks and oxygen pumped in that could be anywhere in the world.”
The House is scheduled to debate the bill, authorizing three casinos and one slot machine parlor, tomorrow, and possibly Thursday. It has support form legislative leaders and Governor Deval Patrick, who say it will bring jobs and help the state’s budget with hundreds of millions of dollars in casino taxes.
House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, following the caucus of House Democrats, said he feels strongly about bringing casinos to the state because he has spoken with unemployed workers at union halls and wants to get them back to work.
“They want jobs,” he said. “People are really hurting out there, folks.”
Democrats discussed a host of issues during the closed-door caucus, including more than 150 amendments proposed last week, according to DeLeo and others in attendance.
And the majority of Democrats have continued to ignore the vote by their own party:
Massachusetts Democratic Party Resolution Opposing Predatory Gambling
DeLeo and other leading Democrats would not say whether they support a Republican amendment that would require casino operators to verify the immigration status of their employees using the federal E-Verify system, a contentious issue that has come up often in the Legislature, outside the context of the casino debate .
The provision in the bill that gives the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe an advantage in negotiating for the right to open a casino in Southeastern Massachusetts drew the most questions, DeLeo and others said. [Hopefully, you folks discussed Genting and that it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.]
Legislators also discussed numerous amendments that dealt with doling out money to help communities impacted directly by nearby casinos. [In other words, they were carefully scripting what will pass and what will satisfy the Gambling Industry.]
Several speakers at this morning’s press conference led groups formed in cities and towns near proposed casinos. They said the impacts on quality of life could not be fixed by money set aside in the bill.
“East Boston, Revere, and Winthrop, you have a target on your back,” said John Ribeiro, founder of Neighbors of Suffolk Downs. “This is just another back-room deal that represents the special interests and not the people’s interest.”
Democratic House members, who hold a large majority in the House and Senate, traditionally meet behind closed doors before public debates on major issues.
The casino bill was also drafted following closed negotiations among DeLeo, Senate President Therese Murray, and Governor Deval Patrick, all Democrats who support expanded gambling. DeLeo defended that process today, saying voters have had the opportunity to express their opinions during years of debate and that they also have representation through their legislators.
But opponents said many lawmakers’ arms have been twisted, pointing out that support for gambling in the House increased dramatically when DeLeo replaced Salvatore F. DiMasi, a gambling opponent, as speaker.
DeLeo suggested today that many lawmakers changed their positions on their own.
“I disagree with that very strongly. I think we’ve made the case over the years,” he said. “Maybe I didn’t have to convince as many people as people would like to think in terms of changing their votes.”
Tom Larkin, president of United to Stop Slots, said he believes casino backers have the votes to pass a bill, but “we’re not going to go gently. We’re going to fight it.”
He said he was hoping opponents could persuade Patrick to change his mind. He said Patrick, who wrote about social justice in his memoir, is showing inconsistency by supporting casinos and slots. “So we’re going to come down hard on him,” he said.
House Majority Leader Ronald Mariano said he had no idea how the House would vote on the casino bill.
“If I could predict that I’d be making money somewhere else,” he said.
At a casino?
“I wouldn’t do that,” he said. “I know the odds.”
Monday, September 12, 2011
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Massachusetts: Governor "Slot Barn" and his back room deals
Everyone's talking about it...except the media......
Wampanoag financial backers a terror funding source?
Are Wampanoag casino financial backers funding terrorism? The progressive Florida Clarion is reporting that the financial backers behind the Mashpee Wampanoag casino development and lobbying interests in Massachusetts are funding and associating with Islamic extremists on U.S. terrorist lists.
It best the question - Will Governor Deval Patrick’s and Senator Therese Murray’s sweetheart deal creating a Mashpee Wampanoag-only casino zone in Southeastern Massachusetts be used to fund overseas terrorists with tax-free and unregulated gaming profits?
Read the full story here:
http://floridaclarion.com/2011/09/genting-connected-to-islamic-extremists/
Boston Globe calls Governor Patrick's casino bill deeply flawed
Boston Globe: Casino bill deeply flawed; rank & file should kill it
“Any casino legislation should also provide a level playing field for would-be operators. Instead, under the current proposal, Native American tribes would have a one-year head start for the license designated for Southeastern Massachusetts. It effectively amounts to a no-bid contract for the Mashpee Wampanoag… carving out a special process for a group with strong lobbying muscle remains problematic. Patrick opposed no-bid contracts in negotiations last year - and shouldn’t have shifted now.”
Read the full story here:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2011/09/08/casino_bill_is_deeply_flawed_rank_and_file_should_kill_it/
South Coast Today - Remove of preferential Indian gaming language!
South Coast Today editorial claims “Cards are stacked against Southeastern Massachusetts” with the Governor’s special interest gaming bill.
“While western and northern Massachusetts get to start clean in seeking the best option for casinos there, Southeastern Massachusetts will operate with a big handicap: a pledge to allow Indian tribes a year to work out their own deals with partners of their own choosing. And that means the interests of the region as a whole and of everyone who lives here come after the financial interests of the tribes.
“That’s not comforting, especially considering how badly Mashpee Wampanoag tribal leaders treated the town of Middleboro, which they wooed as a mate previously in a plan to land a resort casino, then spurned for another pretty face when Fall River came knocking with a dowry of ready-to-develop acreage that UMass Dartmouth had been promised for the new biotech park the region had been pushing for years..,.”
Read the full story here:
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110828/OPINION/108280358/-1/NEWS
Wampanoag financial backers a terror funding source?
Are Wampanoag casino financial backers funding terrorism? The progressive Florida Clarion is reporting that the financial backers behind the Mashpee Wampanoag casino development and lobbying interests in Massachusetts are funding and associating with Islamic extremists on U.S. terrorist lists.
It best the question - Will Governor Deval Patrick’s and Senator Therese Murray’s sweetheart deal creating a Mashpee Wampanoag-only casino zone in Southeastern Massachusetts be used to fund overseas terrorists with tax-free and unregulated gaming profits?
Read the full story here:
http://floridaclarion.com/2011/09/genting-connected-to-islamic-extremists/
Boston Globe calls Governor Patrick's casino bill deeply flawed
Boston Globe: Casino bill deeply flawed; rank & file should kill it
“Any casino legislation should also provide a level playing field for would-be operators. Instead, under the current proposal, Native American tribes would have a one-year head start for the license designated for Southeastern Massachusetts. It effectively amounts to a no-bid contract for the Mashpee Wampanoag… carving out a special process for a group with strong lobbying muscle remains problematic. Patrick opposed no-bid contracts in negotiations last year - and shouldn’t have shifted now.”
Read the full story here:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2011/09/08/casino_bill_is_deeply_flawed_rank_and_file_should_kill_it/
South Coast Today - Remove of preferential Indian gaming language!
South Coast Today editorial claims “Cards are stacked against Southeastern Massachusetts” with the Governor’s special interest gaming bill.
“While western and northern Massachusetts get to start clean in seeking the best option for casinos there, Southeastern Massachusetts will operate with a big handicap: a pledge to allow Indian tribes a year to work out their own deals with partners of their own choosing. And that means the interests of the region as a whole and of everyone who lives here come after the financial interests of the tribes.
“That’s not comforting, especially considering how badly Mashpee Wampanoag tribal leaders treated the town of Middleboro, which they wooed as a mate previously in a plan to land a resort casino, then spurned for another pretty face when Fall River came knocking with a dowry of ready-to-develop acreage that UMass Dartmouth had been promised for the new biotech park the region had been pushing for years..,.”
Read the full story here:
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110828/OPINION/108280358/-1/NEWS
Scott Harshbarger: A Character Sketch
Character sketch Dante Ramos
Scott Harshbarger
ONE BY one, the state’s loudest voices against casinos have fallen quiet. Former legislative stalwarts Daniel Bosley and Susan Tucker have left office. Former House Speaker Sal DiMasi is headed for prison. So as a gambling bill cooked up by Governor Patrick, current Speaker Robert DeLeo, and Senate President Therese Murray lumbers toward passage, the leadership of the opposition has fallen to someone who last held elected office 12 years ago - former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger.
Harshbarger, 69, frames the recent push on gambling as an attempt to ram through a far-reaching change in the state’s finances, economy, and political culture without a spirited public debate. Harshbarger often has had strained relations with his fellow Democratic politicians. Since losing his bid for governor in 1998, he’s served as head of the good-government group Common Cause and, as a private attorney, carved out a specialty in corporate and nonprofit governance. After a series of scandals, the activist group ACORN tapped him to assess its operations. More recently, he’s advised the state judiciary on reforms in the wake of the Probation Department patronage scandal. All of this is what one might expect from someone long cast as a “process liberal’’ - or from a minister’s son.
Harshbarger insists his stance against gambling isn’t a moral issue. Unlike other key casino foes - such as former John Hancock Financial Services chief David D’Alessandro, who’s written movingly about his gambling-addicted father - Harshbarger cites no personal brushes with the dark side of the industry. Instead, he traces his position back to a discussion in the early 1990s with Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore, who observed, Harshbarger recalls, that gambling had changed communities and taken over that state’s legislative agenda.
Harshbarger maintains that his goal now is for opponents to be heard out fully. Still, it’s clear that more public meetings won’t cure his objection. He laments the influx of money from gambling lobbyists and declares, “In Massachusetts we have so many strong economic engines . . . that we don’t need to go this route.’’
Despite $50,000 or so from D’Alessandro, though, Harshbarger says donors haven’t exactly been rushing in to help stop casinos. Like other gambling opponents, he sounds uncertain whether it’s best to try to thwart a bill blessed by Beacon Hill’s “big three’’ - or to focus on tougher regulation of the casino industry when it arrives. Gambling opponents like the idea of putting someone like Harshbarger on the oversight board, and he’s clearly open to the idea. In the meantime, he holds out hope that voters will grow more skeptical as they learn more about the gambling bill. “All we can do on the course we’re on, which may or may not be futile,’’ he says, “is keep trying to educate the public.’’
Scott Harshbarger
ONE BY one, the state’s loudest voices against casinos have fallen quiet. Former legislative stalwarts Daniel Bosley and Susan Tucker have left office. Former House Speaker Sal DiMasi is headed for prison. So as a gambling bill cooked up by Governor Patrick, current Speaker Robert DeLeo, and Senate President Therese Murray lumbers toward passage, the leadership of the opposition has fallen to someone who last held elected office 12 years ago - former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger.
Harshbarger, 69, frames the recent push on gambling as an attempt to ram through a far-reaching change in the state’s finances, economy, and political culture without a spirited public debate. Harshbarger often has had strained relations with his fellow Democratic politicians. Since losing his bid for governor in 1998, he’s served as head of the good-government group Common Cause and, as a private attorney, carved out a specialty in corporate and nonprofit governance. After a series of scandals, the activist group ACORN tapped him to assess its operations. More recently, he’s advised the state judiciary on reforms in the wake of the Probation Department patronage scandal. All of this is what one might expect from someone long cast as a “process liberal’’ - or from a minister’s son.
Harshbarger insists his stance against gambling isn’t a moral issue. Unlike other key casino foes - such as former John Hancock Financial Services chief David D’Alessandro, who’s written movingly about his gambling-addicted father - Harshbarger cites no personal brushes with the dark side of the industry. Instead, he traces his position back to a discussion in the early 1990s with Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore, who observed, Harshbarger recalls, that gambling had changed communities and taken over that state’s legislative agenda.
Harshbarger maintains that his goal now is for opponents to be heard out fully. Still, it’s clear that more public meetings won’t cure his objection. He laments the influx of money from gambling lobbyists and declares, “In Massachusetts we have so many strong economic engines . . . that we don’t need to go this route.’’
Despite $50,000 or so from D’Alessandro, though, Harshbarger says donors haven’t exactly been rushing in to help stop casinos. Like other gambling opponents, he sounds uncertain whether it’s best to try to thwart a bill blessed by Beacon Hill’s “big three’’ - or to focus on tougher regulation of the casino industry when it arrives. Gambling opponents like the idea of putting someone like Harshbarger on the oversight board, and he’s clearly open to the idea. In the meantime, he holds out hope that voters will grow more skeptical as they learn more about the gambling bill. “All we can do on the course we’re on, which may or may not be futile,’’ he says, “is keep trying to educate the public.’’
Thursday, September 8, 2011
The House Always Wins
Between the Lines: The House Always Wins
Has the casino industry finally hit the jackpot in Massachusetts?
By Tom Vannah
If I believe the news reports, Massachusetts officials will soon hammer out a deal to bring casino gambling to the Bay State.
Yes, I've been reading similar reports for more than 15 years, but that doesn't mean I doubt their veracity this time around.
In the 1990s, after the state Legislature voted down a proposed casino bill, a local political consultant and casino proponent told me the gaming industry would pursue Massachusetts relentlessly and would eventually prevail, most likely at a time when the state economic picture was bleak enough to make its political resolve weak. Today, that consultant is part of a Valley-based LLC hoping to win one of three resort casino licenses state officials intend to put out to bid. My best information indicates that, he, like the industry he represents, has never wavered in his effort to make casino gaming a reality in Massachusetts.
Taking the consultant's word for it that pro-casino forces never sleep, I view their public opponents as underdogs, facing the same difficulties as many other political activists who challenge the efficacy of government deregulation or question various "private-public partnerships" undertaken for the ostensible benefit of the public. People who raise concerns about the risks of casino gambling—addiction and its attending human costs; the impact on small business, cultural institutions and art venues when casinos begin to suck up hundreds of millions annually in local discretionary income—are easy to marginalize as hand-wringing moralists and killjoys, standing not only in the way of free enterprise but of a rockin' good time.
Of course, it is not free-market ideologues from the state's libertarian-leaning Republican party who stand ready to legalize casinos in Massachusetts. It's not some faction of Rush Limbaugh acolytes, popping pills and smoking big cigars while admonishing casino opponents to stop being so dour, so precious, so puritanical.
Rather, it is a bunch of Democrats—in this case, Democrats who've spent years perfecting the triangulation strategies of Bill Clinton, playing to corporate America with one hand and labor unions with the other, often at the expense of those caught in the middle.
Fact is, though most of the earlier efforts to legalize casino gaming had the support of Republican governors, there would be no casino issue alive today in Massachusetts without significant support for gambling from Democrats over the last two decades. To keep that support alive and vibrant, the industry has done a good job seeding support for gambling at the local as well as state and national level, working with municipal officials, often Democrats, to create a sense of local public support for casinos and the economic benefits they might bring.
The earlier casino battle saw great tension between pro-casino and anti-casino Democrats, exposing deeper disagreements about the party's core philosophy and the role of government in economic and regulatory matters. Casino proponents viewed opponents as anti-business or would-be architects of a nanny state. Opponents saw casino supporters as shortsighted and willfully ignorant of the true impact of casinos on the Democrats' traditional constituency: working people.
At least there was some kind of debate back then. Today, it appears that that tension among Democrats has been tamed to the point that pro-casino forces will finally prevail without much of a fight. If that is so, it reflects a deeper problem than the issue of casino gaming itself poses.
This is Gov. Deval Patrick's third try at legalizing gaming; though he seemed briefly restrained by his second failure, his enthusiasm is clearly restored. With a recent concession from House Speaker Robert DeLeo on the major sticking point from the last round—how to license a slot parlor in addition to three resort casinos—as well as the continued support of Senate President Therese Murray, Patrick appears to have his rubber stamps all lined up. Whatever debate ensues will come from opponents who already know that top Democrats have the votes to pass their bill. Such a debate will be mainly for show.
If victorious, Deval Patrick will likely be long gone from the corner office by the time the full impact of casinos is known. But the victors will likely justify their efforts as a necessary response to high unemployment and declining state revenue, generating more than $250 million in one-time revenue from a round of bidding that starts at a minimum of $85 million per license, plus a big cut of the action and thousands of jobs going forward.
Sadly, such a justification shows absolutely no progress in the thinking coming out of Beacon Hill since the casino issue first came up in the 1990s. It shows instead a calcified and unimaginative impulse to take easy money from an historically sordid industry that is happy to pay for a monopoly position in an untapped market. Patrick and his fellow Democrats haven't won the debate; they've sidestepped it by using their parliamentary advantages, ignoring the warnings of other states' experiences with gaming, and turning a deaf ear to the plight of gambling's many victims
Has the casino industry finally hit the jackpot in Massachusetts?
By Tom Vannah
If I believe the news reports, Massachusetts officials will soon hammer out a deal to bring casino gambling to the Bay State.
Yes, I've been reading similar reports for more than 15 years, but that doesn't mean I doubt their veracity this time around.
In the 1990s, after the state Legislature voted down a proposed casino bill, a local political consultant and casino proponent told me the gaming industry would pursue Massachusetts relentlessly and would eventually prevail, most likely at a time when the state economic picture was bleak enough to make its political resolve weak. Today, that consultant is part of a Valley-based LLC hoping to win one of three resort casino licenses state officials intend to put out to bid. My best information indicates that, he, like the industry he represents, has never wavered in his effort to make casino gaming a reality in Massachusetts.
Taking the consultant's word for it that pro-casino forces never sleep, I view their public opponents as underdogs, facing the same difficulties as many other political activists who challenge the efficacy of government deregulation or question various "private-public partnerships" undertaken for the ostensible benefit of the public. People who raise concerns about the risks of casino gambling—addiction and its attending human costs; the impact on small business, cultural institutions and art venues when casinos begin to suck up hundreds of millions annually in local discretionary income—are easy to marginalize as hand-wringing moralists and killjoys, standing not only in the way of free enterprise but of a rockin' good time.
Of course, it is not free-market ideologues from the state's libertarian-leaning Republican party who stand ready to legalize casinos in Massachusetts. It's not some faction of Rush Limbaugh acolytes, popping pills and smoking big cigars while admonishing casino opponents to stop being so dour, so precious, so puritanical.
Rather, it is a bunch of Democrats—in this case, Democrats who've spent years perfecting the triangulation strategies of Bill Clinton, playing to corporate America with one hand and labor unions with the other, often at the expense of those caught in the middle.
Fact is, though most of the earlier efforts to legalize casino gaming had the support of Republican governors, there would be no casino issue alive today in Massachusetts without significant support for gambling from Democrats over the last two decades. To keep that support alive and vibrant, the industry has done a good job seeding support for gambling at the local as well as state and national level, working with municipal officials, often Democrats, to create a sense of local public support for casinos and the economic benefits they might bring.
The earlier casino battle saw great tension between pro-casino and anti-casino Democrats, exposing deeper disagreements about the party's core philosophy and the role of government in economic and regulatory matters. Casino proponents viewed opponents as anti-business or would-be architects of a nanny state. Opponents saw casino supporters as shortsighted and willfully ignorant of the true impact of casinos on the Democrats' traditional constituency: working people.
At least there was some kind of debate back then. Today, it appears that that tension among Democrats has been tamed to the point that pro-casino forces will finally prevail without much of a fight. If that is so, it reflects a deeper problem than the issue of casino gaming itself poses.
This is Gov. Deval Patrick's third try at legalizing gaming; though he seemed briefly restrained by his second failure, his enthusiasm is clearly restored. With a recent concession from House Speaker Robert DeLeo on the major sticking point from the last round—how to license a slot parlor in addition to three resort casinos—as well as the continued support of Senate President Therese Murray, Patrick appears to have his rubber stamps all lined up. Whatever debate ensues will come from opponents who already know that top Democrats have the votes to pass their bill. Such a debate will be mainly for show.
If victorious, Deval Patrick will likely be long gone from the corner office by the time the full impact of casinos is known. But the victors will likely justify their efforts as a necessary response to high unemployment and declining state revenue, generating more than $250 million in one-time revenue from a round of bidding that starts at a minimum of $85 million per license, plus a big cut of the action and thousands of jobs going forward.
Sadly, such a justification shows absolutely no progress in the thinking coming out of Beacon Hill since the casino issue first came up in the 1990s. It shows instead a calcified and unimaginative impulse to take easy money from an historically sordid industry that is happy to pay for a monopoly position in an untapped market. Patrick and his fellow Democrats haven't won the debate; they've sidestepped it by using their parliamentary advantages, ignoring the warnings of other states' experiences with gaming, and turning a deaf ear to the plight of gambling's many victims
Casino bill is deeply flawed
Like most Massachusetts newspapers, the Boston Globe has been a perennial cheerleader for Expanded Gambling, costs and impacts be damned.
Perhaps their endorsement is based on visions of future ad revenues or their failures to conduct the due diligence we would expect from a news outlet, yet even now the Editorial Board has come to recognize a few of the significant flaws in the current Behind Closed Doors Legislation.
There are many more flaws the Globe failed to address, like the can of worms of Tribal Slot Barns legalization of Slots will create.
We already know that Governor "Slot Barns" made other promises behind closed doors. What else has been promised?
Casino bill is deeply flawed; rank and file should kill it
AFTER YEARS of false starts, legislative leaders and Governor Patrick hammered out a new agreement behind closed doors last month to bring casino gambling to Massachusetts. It’s a deeply disappointing bill, full of just the kind of inside deals and special-interest giveaways that Patrick once vowed to fight. Now it’s up to rank-and-file lawmakers to reject the plan.
The proposal concocted by Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray, and House Speaker Robert DeLeo would license three resort-style casinos in different regions of the state, along with a single slots parlor. The Commonwealth would pocket 25 percent of the revenues from the casinos, and 40 percent of revenues from slots.
Under the right circumstances, carefully regulated casino gambling should have a place in Massachusetts, providing jobs and stemming the outflow of revenue to casinos in neighboring states. But this proposal falls far short of meeting that standard.
The proposal’s greatest flaw is the inclusion of the slots parlor, which has long been a sticking point in negotiations. Slots would be lucrative for the state, but they create relatively few jobs and are one of the most addictive forms of gambling - which is why Patrick was right to oppose including slots in earlier gambling plans, and why he is wrong to give in now.
The bill also directs 9 percent of revenues from the slots parlor to subsidize purses at horse tracks, satisfying one of DeLeo’s demands. The speaker has been an unusually strong advocate for Suffolk Downs. It’s understandable that he would want to help an ailing business in his district, but such a set-aside is unwarranted.
The horse-racing subsidy is not the only way the bill seems rigged to help Suffolk Downs, which spent $191,000 lobbying in the first six months of this year and hopes to host one of the three casinos. The track would be relieved of part of the approval process that applies elsewhere in the state. At the insistence of the governor and others, the bill gives towns where casinos want to operate the right to hold a referendum. But the legislation exempts communities with a population over 125,000; in those cities, only the ward where the casino is to be located will be allowed to vote. Only Boston, Worcester, and Springfield fit that definition. The effect of the provision would be to prevent the city from voting on gambling at Suffolk Downs. Boston residents need to make clear to their representatives that a vote for the casino bill is a vote against their own constituents. And Patrick needs to explain why his past support for giving residents a say apparently doesn’t extend to most people in Boston.
Any casino legislation should also provide a level playing field for would-be operators. Instead, under the current proposal, Native American tribes would have a one-year head start for the license designated for Southeastern Massachusetts. It effectively amounts to a no-bid contract for the Mashpee Wampanoag, the only tribe likely to complete a proposal in that timeframe. Given the longstanding desire of the tribe to build a casino on its ancestral lands, the provision holds understandable appeal; better that some of the benefits from a casino go to a tribe with a long history in Massachusetts rather than out-of-state gambling operators. But carving out a special process for a group with strong lobbying muscle remains problematic. Patrick opposed no-bid contracts in negotiations last year - and shouldn’t have shifted now.
If Massachusetts is going to embrace an industry with a history of sparking public corruption and attracting organized crime, the state’s legal framework must be above reproach. It’s widely assumed that the Legislature will bow to the leadership and support the deal. But lawmakers need to stand up for the greater good.
Perhaps their endorsement is based on visions of future ad revenues or their failures to conduct the due diligence we would expect from a news outlet, yet even now the Editorial Board has come to recognize a few of the significant flaws in the current Behind Closed Doors Legislation.
There are many more flaws the Globe failed to address, like the can of worms of Tribal Slot Barns legalization of Slots will create.
We already know that Governor "Slot Barns" made other promises behind closed doors. What else has been promised?
Casino bill is deeply flawed; rank and file should kill it
AFTER YEARS of false starts, legislative leaders and Governor Patrick hammered out a new agreement behind closed doors last month to bring casino gambling to Massachusetts. It’s a deeply disappointing bill, full of just the kind of inside deals and special-interest giveaways that Patrick once vowed to fight. Now it’s up to rank-and-file lawmakers to reject the plan.
The proposal concocted by Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray, and House Speaker Robert DeLeo would license three resort-style casinos in different regions of the state, along with a single slots parlor. The Commonwealth would pocket 25 percent of the revenues from the casinos, and 40 percent of revenues from slots.
Under the right circumstances, carefully regulated casino gambling should have a place in Massachusetts, providing jobs and stemming the outflow of revenue to casinos in neighboring states. But this proposal falls far short of meeting that standard.
The proposal’s greatest flaw is the inclusion of the slots parlor, which has long been a sticking point in negotiations. Slots would be lucrative for the state, but they create relatively few jobs and are one of the most addictive forms of gambling - which is why Patrick was right to oppose including slots in earlier gambling plans, and why he is wrong to give in now.
The bill also directs 9 percent of revenues from the slots parlor to subsidize purses at horse tracks, satisfying one of DeLeo’s demands. The speaker has been an unusually strong advocate for Suffolk Downs. It’s understandable that he would want to help an ailing business in his district, but such a set-aside is unwarranted.
The horse-racing subsidy is not the only way the bill seems rigged to help Suffolk Downs, which spent $191,000 lobbying in the first six months of this year and hopes to host one of the three casinos. The track would be relieved of part of the approval process that applies elsewhere in the state. At the insistence of the governor and others, the bill gives towns where casinos want to operate the right to hold a referendum. But the legislation exempts communities with a population over 125,000; in those cities, only the ward where the casino is to be located will be allowed to vote. Only Boston, Worcester, and Springfield fit that definition. The effect of the provision would be to prevent the city from voting on gambling at Suffolk Downs. Boston residents need to make clear to their representatives that a vote for the casino bill is a vote against their own constituents. And Patrick needs to explain why his past support for giving residents a say apparently doesn’t extend to most people in Boston.
Any casino legislation should also provide a level playing field for would-be operators. Instead, under the current proposal, Native American tribes would have a one-year head start for the license designated for Southeastern Massachusetts. It effectively amounts to a no-bid contract for the Mashpee Wampanoag, the only tribe likely to complete a proposal in that timeframe. Given the longstanding desire of the tribe to build a casino on its ancestral lands, the provision holds understandable appeal; better that some of the benefits from a casino go to a tribe with a long history in Massachusetts rather than out-of-state gambling operators. But carving out a special process for a group with strong lobbying muscle remains problematic. Patrick opposed no-bid contracts in negotiations last year - and shouldn’t have shifted now.
If Massachusetts is going to embrace an industry with a history of sparking public corruption and attracting organized crime, the state’s legal framework must be above reproach. It’s widely assumed that the Legislature will bow to the leadership and support the deal. But lawmakers need to stand up for the greater good.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Massachusetts: PAG Sufferers
A peculiar kind of addiction afflicts lawmakers
ADDICTION CAN be defined as a persistent pattern of long-term self-defeating behaviors driven by delusional thinking about short-term benefits. A condition I would call “political addiction to gambling,’’ or PAG, fits that criterion.
Governor Deval Patrick, House Speaker Robert DeLeo, Senate President Therese Murray, and their political supporters seem to believe irrationally that more people losing more money is good economic and social public policy. The enabling gambling industry has spent millions of dollars on political donations, friendly researchers, lobbyists, and media consultants for the purpose of reinforcing this delusion.
PAG sufferers are in denial, incapable of thinking long term. Politically, they have been spun. Many think it’s OK to take money from gambling special interests (“National interests spending big on Beacon Hill to try to get edge,’’ Page A1, Aug. 25).
Ironically, many politicians advocate for programs designed to reduce alcoholism, smoking, recidivism, criminal behavior, youth gambling, domestic violence, bankruptcy, and individual debt while simultaneously promoting gambling, which would increase those problems. Psychologists call this cognitive dissonance.
I commend the Globe for its recent articles on the economic, social, and political consequences of expanded gambling. It may bring some PAG sufferers to acknowledge their addiction. However, to really change their delusionary thinking they must conduct an independent cost-benefit analysis, which they have consistently refused to do.
Tom Larkin
Bedford
The writer is a licensed psychologist.
ADDICTION CAN be defined as a persistent pattern of long-term self-defeating behaviors driven by delusional thinking about short-term benefits. A condition I would call “political addiction to gambling,’’ or PAG, fits that criterion.
Governor Deval Patrick, House Speaker Robert DeLeo, Senate President Therese Murray, and their political supporters seem to believe irrationally that more people losing more money is good economic and social public policy. The enabling gambling industry has spent millions of dollars on political donations, friendly researchers, lobbyists, and media consultants for the purpose of reinforcing this delusion.
PAG sufferers are in denial, incapable of thinking long term. Politically, they have been spun. Many think it’s OK to take money from gambling special interests (“National interests spending big on Beacon Hill to try to get edge,’’ Page A1, Aug. 25).
Ironically, many politicians advocate for programs designed to reduce alcoholism, smoking, recidivism, criminal behavior, youth gambling, domestic violence, bankruptcy, and individual debt while simultaneously promoting gambling, which would increase those problems. Psychologists call this cognitive dissonance.
I commend the Globe for its recent articles on the economic, social, and political consequences of expanded gambling. It may bring some PAG sufferers to acknowledge their addiction. However, to really change their delusionary thinking they must conduct an independent cost-benefit analysis, which they have consistently refused to do.
Tom Larkin
Bedford
The writer is a licensed psychologist.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Beacon Hill business as usual
Beacon Hill business as usual
The casino legislation unveiled this week on Beacon Hill came together in the usual fashion that invites cynicism from Massachusetts voters. Follow the money to see how it goes from here.
The bill authorizing three Las Vegas-style casinos in three regions and a fourth gambling hall with slot machines that can be located anywhere in the state was evidently crafted by House Speaker Robert DeLeo, Senate President Therese Murray, Governor Deval Patrick, the staffs of the three political heavyweights and a couple of key legislators. It has been dumped in the laps of the rank-and-file as a fait accompli. Legislative leaders were admirably frank this week in saying the intent was to avoid the debate that surrounded gambling legislation a year ago, but debate is a part of democracy, and the crafting of legislation behind closed doors Beacon Hill-style is the antithesis of democracy.
To his credit, Governor Patrick rejects donations from gambling lobbyists, and when some have gotten through the money has been returned. Speaker DeLeo and President Murray don't feel compelled to do so, and as the Boston Globe reported Thursday, both have received a portion of the $1 million in donations spent by gambling lobbyists in Boston already this year. President Murray told the newspaper that lobbying donations "will have no bearing on how we approach gaming legislation" and she may sincerely believe that, but why would any resident of Massachusetts given the success lobbyists have enjoyed in pushing special interest legislation over the years?
Ideally, lawmakers will rise up against this bill because of the many negatives associated with gambling and because of the way the bill was crafted and presented, but that may be too much to hope for. Failing that, as many provisions as possible must be included to protect communities. Unfortunately, there are no safeguards in place for the weeks and months ahead when the big casino interests will be descending upon the state.
Gambling interests in Holyoke and Palmer are competing for the western casino and the chosen site will have an impact on Berkshire County, particularly its entertainment venues, should the bill become law. Damage will be done, but the Berkshire delegation must step up to help minimize it as much as possible.
The casino legislation unveiled this week on Beacon Hill came together in the usual fashion that invites cynicism from Massachusetts voters. Follow the money to see how it goes from here.
The bill authorizing three Las Vegas-style casinos in three regions and a fourth gambling hall with slot machines that can be located anywhere in the state was evidently crafted by House Speaker Robert DeLeo, Senate President Therese Murray, Governor Deval Patrick, the staffs of the three political heavyweights and a couple of key legislators. It has been dumped in the laps of the rank-and-file as a fait accompli. Legislative leaders were admirably frank this week in saying the intent was to avoid the debate that surrounded gambling legislation a year ago, but debate is a part of democracy, and the crafting of legislation behind closed doors Beacon Hill-style is the antithesis of democracy.
To his credit, Governor Patrick rejects donations from gambling lobbyists, and when some have gotten through the money has been returned. Speaker DeLeo and President Murray don't feel compelled to do so, and as the Boston Globe reported Thursday, both have received a portion of the $1 million in donations spent by gambling lobbyists in Boston already this year. President Murray told the newspaper that lobbying donations "will have no bearing on how we approach gaming legislation" and she may sincerely believe that, but why would any resident of Massachusetts given the success lobbyists have enjoyed in pushing special interest legislation over the years?
Ideally, lawmakers will rise up against this bill because of the many negatives associated with gambling and because of the way the bill was crafted and presented, but that may be too much to hope for. Failing that, as many provisions as possible must be included to protect communities. Unfortunately, there are no safeguards in place for the weeks and months ahead when the big casino interests will be descending upon the state.
Gambling interests in Holyoke and Palmer are competing for the western casino and the chosen site will have an impact on Berkshire County, particularly its entertainment venues, should the bill become law. Damage will be done, but the Berkshire delegation must step up to help minimize it as much as possible.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Governor Deval Patrick's Legacy
Governor Patrick NEVER discussed Predatory Gambling while campaigning and pretending a new false image of 'transparency.'
Yet, once in office, he genuflected to the Gambling Industry and now pretends 'Destination Resort Slot Barns' make fiscal sense, while he negotiates behind closed doors.
While he focuses on the 'pretense' of numbers, included in the 2010 legislation that passed both houses (without having been read), was FREE ALCOHOL, a Give-Me to the Gambling Industry.
Drunks continue to gamble, wager more, are more likely to sign on the dotted lines for those loans to continue to feed cash sucking machines. And they're more likely to leave the Slot Barn drunk, making each of us an innocent target - any hour, any day, 24/7/365.
So, once out of office, moved on to greener pastures, Governor Deval Patrick will leave a legacy of DRUNK DRIVERS behind, along with the casualties of those drunks.
"Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over" campaign begins today
CAPE COD - Several Cape Cod police departments, including the Falmouth and Dennis Police Departments, are participating in the drunk driving crackdown "Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over". The campaign begins today and continues through Labor Day Weekend. Around 200 Massachusetts police departments will be participating this year.
Patrol officers will be searching for impaired drivers on Cape Cod roads. According to participating departments, all drivers found to be driving impaired will be arrested.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 2009, 108 people died in Massachusetts in crashes involving a drunk driver.
Not only is drunk driving dangerous, it can be costly. First offenders may face loss of license and jail time. Offenders are impacted financially as well, by insurance rate increases, attorney fees, court costs and loss of time at work.
More information is available on the state highway safety division website here.
Source: Falmouth Police Department; Dennis Police Department.
Yet, once in office, he genuflected to the Gambling Industry and now pretends 'Destination Resort Slot Barns' make fiscal sense, while he negotiates behind closed doors.
While he focuses on the 'pretense' of numbers, included in the 2010 legislation that passed both houses (without having been read), was FREE ALCOHOL, a Give-Me to the Gambling Industry.
Drunks continue to gamble, wager more, are more likely to sign on the dotted lines for those loans to continue to feed cash sucking machines. And they're more likely to leave the Slot Barn drunk, making each of us an innocent target - any hour, any day, 24/7/365.
So, once out of office, moved on to greener pastures, Governor Deval Patrick will leave a legacy of DRUNK DRIVERS behind, along with the casualties of those drunks.
"Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over" campaign begins today
CAPE COD - Several Cape Cod police departments, including the Falmouth and Dennis Police Departments, are participating in the drunk driving crackdown "Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over". The campaign begins today and continues through Labor Day Weekend. Around 200 Massachusetts police departments will be participating this year.
Patrol officers will be searching for impaired drivers on Cape Cod roads. According to participating departments, all drivers found to be driving impaired will be arrested.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 2009, 108 people died in Massachusetts in crashes involving a drunk driver.
Not only is drunk driving dangerous, it can be costly. First offenders may face loss of license and jail time. Offenders are impacted financially as well, by insurance rate increases, attorney fees, court costs and loss of time at work.
More information is available on the state highway safety division website here.
Source: Falmouth Police Department; Dennis Police Department.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
When will Beacon Hill do its job?
Massachusetts 'leadership' (if we can call it that!) is again negligent and the cost is the lives of disabled individuals.
The focus for far too long had been on back room deals and secret meetings to address "Slot Barn Gambling."
The Gambling Industry has held the Commonwealth of Massachusetts hostage, stroking egos, providing undisclosed promises revealed during those secret discussions, monopolizing the media and providing campaign contributions.
Obsessed with the blinding lights of Slot Barn Glitter, leadership has ignored the rest of their responsibilities. The Governor, following the path set by his Republican predecessors has jeopardized the lives of those 'least among us.'
The system supposed to protect those unable to protect themselves has been sacrificed on the altar of "Slot Barn Gambling" by a Governor obsessed.
When will Beacon Hill do its job?
Lawmakers: Group-home deaths merit 'harder look'
By Joyce Tsai
Several of the area's state legislators are questioning the Patrick administration's plan to close four of the state's six institutions for people with developmental disabilities in the wake of a report over the weekend that two developmentally disabled men died in state-run group homes in Tyngsboro and Tewksbury.
The deaths, said state Sen. Eileen Donoghue, raise important questions about the men's quality of care and whether they received adequate supervision at those facilities.
"In my estimation, that certainly bears investigation," the Lowell Democrat said.
Although some argue that the cost of keeping open such state-run institutions for the severely developmentally disabled, such as the Fernald Development Center in Waltham, is astronomical, "it's not a dollar-and-cents issue," Donoghue said.
It's a complicated question, she acknowledged, adding, "Let's look at how the state can best care for people who are the most vulnerable in our society."
State Rep. Jim Miceli also said that the deaths -- especially that of a man who died after eating a plastic bag in Tyngsboro this summer -- simply should not happen.
"It's horrific," the Wilmington Democrat said, "and obviously we hold these agencies to the proper care of the citizens that are entrusted to them.
"Certainly, I want to see an investigation of the manning of those homes and what happened," he added.
The deaths have raised concern that the governor's plan could cause a lot of problems of a similar nature in the future, he said.
"Everyone likes to talk about our most vulnerable citizens, and these are our most vulnerable citizens," he said. "We should take a harder look."
According to reports from the state's Disabled Persons Protection Commission, obtained Friday by the Associated Press, a man living in a state-run group home in Tyngsboro died July 6 after he was taken to Lowell General Hospital on June 19 after swallowing a plastic shopping bag. No one at the facility saw him swallow the bag, even though the man required total care and had been flagged as someone who suffered from pica, a desire to eat inedible items.
Weeks later, on July 24, a man at a state-run home in Tewksbury died of a sudden undetermined illness that is still being determined by an autopsy. Although staff called 911 and tended to the man, who required minimal assistance, after he collapsed in a bedroom, he could not be revived.
Both had been transferred from state-run institutions that the Patrick administration plans to close. The man at the Tyngsboro home had been there for about a year after being transferred from the Fernald Center, and the man at the Tewksbury home had been there for four days, after moving from the Templeton Developmental Center in Baldwinville.
The state Department of Developmental Services, which runs the homes, said the deaths are under investigation.
But state Sen. Susan Fargo said it is crucial "to determine their causes, so they can be avoided next time."
The Lincoln Democrat, who represents Carlisle, Chelmsford and Concord, was saddened by the deaths and said she has been "very, very concerned about plans to close the Fernald center," which is in her district.
She believes commercial and residential interests have influenced the desire to shut the center.
Former Gov. Mitt Romney was among the first to push for closing the center because he wanted that land to be developed, she said.
"It's on an almost 200-acre plot of a prime real estate in Waltham, inside of Route 128, so it's a very desirable location," she said.
Although those reasons are "not stated" by advocates of the center's closure, Fargo said they have played a role in the debate.
"And in the meantime, those who don't have a voice were kind of shoved and moved around," she said, adding that keeping the center open "hasn't been a winning cause."
Fernald, which was the first center scheduled to close, on June 30, 2010, still has 14 residents in the facility.
A judge in a federal court case involving Fernald ruled that patients "cannot be forced to move against their will, unless they are getting equal or better care," Fargo said.
She added that although she supports community-based programs and has a sister with Down syndrome who has thrived in one of those programs, she is concerned that there have been other deaths for which the causes are unclear, and said that may indicate that those with developmental disabilities do not like a change in surroundings and don't thrive after such a move.
Many have lived in those facilities their whole lives, and such a move is "traumatic," said David Kassel, spokesman for the Massachusetts Coalition of Families and Advocates, an advocacy group for people with developmental disabilities and their families, who has argued against the plan.
Fargo agreed, noting that it's especially hard for people with complex medical conditions.
"To be picked up and moved at 50, 60, 70 or 80 years old is very hard on them," she said. "And we are concerned it's not just these two people, but others, that may not be getting equal or better care."
The focus for far too long had been on back room deals and secret meetings to address "Slot Barn Gambling."
The Gambling Industry has held the Commonwealth of Massachusetts hostage, stroking egos, providing undisclosed promises revealed during those secret discussions, monopolizing the media and providing campaign contributions.
Obsessed with the blinding lights of Slot Barn Glitter, leadership has ignored the rest of their responsibilities. The Governor, following the path set by his Republican predecessors has jeopardized the lives of those 'least among us.'
The system supposed to protect those unable to protect themselves has been sacrificed on the altar of "Slot Barn Gambling" by a Governor obsessed.
When will Beacon Hill do its job?
Lawmakers: Group-home deaths merit 'harder look'
By Joyce Tsai
Several of the area's state legislators are questioning the Patrick administration's plan to close four of the state's six institutions for people with developmental disabilities in the wake of a report over the weekend that two developmentally disabled men died in state-run group homes in Tyngsboro and Tewksbury.
The deaths, said state Sen. Eileen Donoghue, raise important questions about the men's quality of care and whether they received adequate supervision at those facilities.
"In my estimation, that certainly bears investigation," the Lowell Democrat said.
Although some argue that the cost of keeping open such state-run institutions for the severely developmentally disabled, such as the Fernald Development Center in Waltham, is astronomical, "it's not a dollar-and-cents issue," Donoghue said.
It's a complicated question, she acknowledged, adding, "Let's look at how the state can best care for people who are the most vulnerable in our society."
State Rep. Jim Miceli also said that the deaths -- especially that of a man who died after eating a plastic bag in Tyngsboro this summer -- simply should not happen.
"It's horrific," the Wilmington Democrat said, "and obviously we hold these agencies to the proper care of the citizens that are entrusted to them.
"Certainly, I want to see an investigation of the manning of those homes and what happened," he added.
The deaths have raised concern that the governor's plan could cause a lot of problems of a similar nature in the future, he said.
"Everyone likes to talk about our most vulnerable citizens, and these are our most vulnerable citizens," he said. "We should take a harder look."
According to reports from the state's Disabled Persons Protection Commission, obtained Friday by the Associated Press, a man living in a state-run group home in Tyngsboro died July 6 after he was taken to Lowell General Hospital on June 19 after swallowing a plastic shopping bag. No one at the facility saw him swallow the bag, even though the man required total care and had been flagged as someone who suffered from pica, a desire to eat inedible items.
Weeks later, on July 24, a man at a state-run home in Tewksbury died of a sudden undetermined illness that is still being determined by an autopsy. Although staff called 911 and tended to the man, who required minimal assistance, after he collapsed in a bedroom, he could not be revived.
Both had been transferred from state-run institutions that the Patrick administration plans to close. The man at the Tyngsboro home had been there for about a year after being transferred from the Fernald Center, and the man at the Tewksbury home had been there for four days, after moving from the Templeton Developmental Center in Baldwinville.
The state Department of Developmental Services, which runs the homes, said the deaths are under investigation.
But state Sen. Susan Fargo said it is crucial "to determine their causes, so they can be avoided next time."
The Lincoln Democrat, who represents Carlisle, Chelmsford and Concord, was saddened by the deaths and said she has been "very, very concerned about plans to close the Fernald center," which is in her district.
She believes commercial and residential interests have influenced the desire to shut the center.
Former Gov. Mitt Romney was among the first to push for closing the center because he wanted that land to be developed, she said.
"It's on an almost 200-acre plot of a prime real estate in Waltham, inside of Route 128, so it's a very desirable location," she said.
Although those reasons are "not stated" by advocates of the center's closure, Fargo said they have played a role in the debate.
"And in the meantime, those who don't have a voice were kind of shoved and moved around," she said, adding that keeping the center open "hasn't been a winning cause."
Fernald, which was the first center scheduled to close, on June 30, 2010, still has 14 residents in the facility.
A judge in a federal court case involving Fernald ruled that patients "cannot be forced to move against their will, unless they are getting equal or better care," Fargo said.
She added that although she supports community-based programs and has a sister with Down syndrome who has thrived in one of those programs, she is concerned that there have been other deaths for which the causes are unclear, and said that may indicate that those with developmental disabilities do not like a change in surroundings and don't thrive after such a move.
Many have lived in those facilities their whole lives, and such a move is "traumatic," said David Kassel, spokesman for the Massachusetts Coalition of Families and Advocates, an advocacy group for people with developmental disabilities and their families, who has argued against the plan.
Fargo agreed, noting that it's especially hard for people with complex medical conditions.
"To be picked up and moved at 50, 60, 70 or 80 years old is very hard on them," she said. "And we are concerned it's not just these two people, but others, that may not be getting equal or better care."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
