Iowa Madness

Huckabee came out of no where to jump to a huge lead. Now, polls show Romney with a slight edge.

Edwards was falling a bit back, now it looks like he's a tad up - but everything's within the margin of error.

While I'm glad '08 will make for great political theater, I can't get past the fact that not only is this insanity, but it's a terrible way to do elections. About 10% of Iowa's population will decide the fate of the Presidential race - and it's a caucus, to make things worse, meaning that not only are votes not held in secret ballot, but the system actually encourages peer pressure and voter manipulation. Iowa madness, indeed.

Also: Be sure to tune into LeftAhead! on a holiday/Iowa/New Hampshire special, Wednesday at 2:30, featuring at least one very special guest.

Who Needs Civil Rights Anyway?

I honestly have no words of my own to describe how annoyed and angry I am.

After falling 116 valid signatures short of the needed amount to place the measure on the 2008 ballot for a statewide vote, gay rights foes asked U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman to intercede on their behalf, saying that the verification process for the signatures is flawed and that citizens who had signed the petitions had been disenfranchised.

Mosman halted the domestic partner law, which would have given same-sex couples in the state all the rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples (aside from the "marriage" label), pending a February 1st hearing that would challenge the verification process.

Jeana Frazzini, of Basic Rights Oregon, told the AP: "It's unfair our families once again are bearing the brunt of this ongoing struggle."

A lot of glbt people have been blocked from having at least a few more rights today in the state of Oregon, because a federal court has now blocked Oregon's Domestic Partnership law, which was to take effect tomorrow. So much for the Republican Party's complaints on Judicial Activism. Right wingers certainly love judicial activism when it works in their favor.

Tackle Both Healthcare Debates

Today's Globe editorialized about how access to health care saves lives, but ignored a problem that threatens to be even greater than health care access: costs. Private insurance is becoming exponentially more expensive every year and the nation just can't keep up. It's bankrupting our cities, towns and schools; it's forcing parents and people to take lesser quality insurance, even if the rates are actually more expensive than their old coverage. Finally, according to the Governor, health care costs already take up 45% of the state's budget. There's an opportunity cost to continuing on this path of madness: it's preventing us from expanding educational opportunity, from expanding policies that can create jobs and from expanding the money we put toward research, the infrastructure and whatever else the Commonwealth needs. Rising health care costs are an anchor dragging this country down with it - and almost no one is willing to do anything more than complain about it.

I hate to say this, because access to health care is exceptionally important, but it is the easier conversation. There's a lot more political will to challenge access since it's a question more people can relate to - and, more importantly, it's not something the powerful health care lobby will be against. Heck, HMOs must love this country's current plans to deal with health care access, such as the Massachusetts plan and SCHIP: it's more money in their pockets.

So, the fact remains that we're doing almost nothing to address health care costs. We're on a short road to financial bankruptcy at municipal, state and even federal levels. Yet, I don't hear hardly anything about controlling costs. Sure, some of Hillary's, Obama's and Edwards's plans include cost control measures, but they're both few and far between, as well as the fact that they're not the centerpiece of their plan. For example, having a public insurance option - as Hillary's plan includes - will probably be the first to go, if she's elected. HMOs will bitterly resist real competition, the kind which could actually help keep costs down. Republicans will invoke the communist boogie man and be done with it. The only way this country can build momentum to address health care costs, which almost inevitably will include a public insurance option, is if every time some group or organization brings health care up, they bring both aspects of the debate: costs and access. If everyone has access to health care, but almost no one can afford it, we're all screwed.

Ron Paul's Bigotry

Suddenly Mitt Romney seems like a civil rights champion, compared to Ron Paul. At least Mitt "witnessed" his father "marching" with MLK, Jr - "metaphorically," of course.

Ron Paul in '92:

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

Bigotry - irrational, creepy and absolutely unnacceptable for anyone holding a public position. Ron Paul doesn't deserve to be elected President, he deserves to be unseated from his position in the House.

Patrick's Casino Connection

One of the interesting things about Governor Patrick's decision to whole-heartedly support a sweeping casino proposal that would add not one, but three casinos to this state (before we even get to tribal casinos) is the fact that tons of Patrick's most ardent supporters were absolutely shocked by his decision. I can't say that I was, but I don't think I can count the amount of "how could he?" emails that I got.

Furthermore, even I've been surprised at the lengths to which he'd go to support his casino proposal, when he's left most of his other, better proposals to collect dust. He's packaged casinos as 'just another' revenue avenue to pursue, but it's obvious by the lengths to which he's gone to pass some kind of casino bill that his actions don't match his rhetoric: casinos have quickly become issue numero uno in the Patrick Administration, while the Municipal Partnership Act died a horrible - and almost uneventful - death.

It begs the question "why?"

Well, maybe I have an answer. It's the law firm Ropes and Gray. As the firm's site boasts,

Ropes & Gray is the only national law firm that is a member of the American Gaming Association, which also is a client of the firm on a number of matters.

It shouldn't be a shocker that such a firm would support the casino industry's quest to overturn the Commonwealth's Class 3 gambling ban - and thus, Mega-Resort, Class 3 casinos.

What just may surprise a few people, though, is the fact that Governor Patrick's wife, Diane Patrick, is a partner at Ropes and Gray (three woots for google!). While I hate to be cynical, I don't know if there's another explanation that exists that can so easily describe why the Governor is pulling out all the stops on this issue, one that's quickly turning his entire base against him and one that's no easier than the Municipal Partnership Act to get through the state legislature. Furthermore, why hasn't this glaring conflict of interest ever come up before?

Charley on the MTA on Patrick & Casinos

Charley really hits on a troubling concern re our governor and his gimmicky casino issue.

Holy Cow. Is the Governor about to submit a budget that includes casino revenues? Right about now I'd like to point out that no casinos have yet been built in Massachusetts. Just as Enron banked projected profits for projects that didn't yet exist, our Gov. is considering including revenues from a Mirage.

Then he goes on to point out that the projections on casino revenue, which has yet to be approved, are rather optimistic - even to the likes of the discredited (at least on this site), casino-supporting Clyde Barrow. Ouch. So, let's get this straight: the governor is including casino revenue in his budget, when this state has yet to legalize casinos - and they couldn't even bother reporting what the revenue really would be, if this state actually allows it to take place? We may as well throw all sorts of make-believe numbers in the budget and pretend we're fiscally sound. Whoopee!

It pains me to say this, but I'm starting to think I was duped by the Governor during the election. I hope I'm wrong, but so far the administration has lacked focus, vision and now, apparently, integrity. Governor Patrick is going to have to do a complete 180 and get back to the issues our state really needs to solve, like tackling health care affordability and helping our cities and towns maintain the nation's best school system, or even expand upon it. Casinos are just a gimmicky distraction to avoid the adult conversations our state must have if we want to continue to claim we're a Commonwealth. The Governor promised to be a helluva lot more than what he's become on the campaign trail. I'm still waiting to see it.

Update: Casey Ross has an article in the Herald about this whole thing. There's some relevant quotes.

“I think he has to put it in his budget,” said one lawmaker. “Otherwise, it looks like he’s giving up.”

A move to include casino money would spark immediate controversy because it essentially forces the Legislature into a corner. If it doesn’t approve casinos, then it has to scramble to plug the resulting financial hole by cutting services, increasing taxes or dipping into reserve funds.

Please note that, during the hearing I went to in which Governor Patrick and a whole host of his aides spoke on this very topic, the administration said licensing fees shouldn't be spent on the general budget, because it's a one time fix. Apparently, to put added pressure on the legislature to pass casinos before the House and Senate have properly vetted it, the Governor is willing to forgo that sage advice. Using the licensing fees to help balance this state's budget is even worse than dipping into reserve funds, because at least there's more reserve funds - we won't run out of them after using them next year. If we counted on licensing fees that money would be gone in a year.

Nat'l Constitutional Convention?

Last night, I was watching Bill Moyer's Journal on PBS On Demand. Of particular interest was Sanford Levinson's discussion on Constitutional issues. Basically, he was arguing that the Constitution as currently structured isn't working for America and it needs to be updated. One of his central points was that we need occasional Constitutional Conventions if we ever want to be able to enact important changes. Now, I'm not sure if I agreed with all of his specifics, but here was the general gist of what a Constitutional Convention would mean:

• ConCons could only recommend changes, not make them.
• They'd could only occur once every 20 years.
• Delegates would be given ample time and significant resources to craft any potential changes they viewed as necessary.
  

I've thought about the potential importance of Constitutional Conventions in the past - and was generally supportive. However, there was one reason I never seriously wrote on the subject: I was always rebuffed on the potential dangers - it a Pandora's Box of epic proportions. I didn't think it likely that huge sweeping changes would be made that could cripple civil rights and other important aspects of the Constitution. Yet, I couldn't be too sure on other aspects, such as citizens pushing for a clause that actually guarantees the right for people to have firearms, as opposed to a clause that only protects the right to state militias.

But after watching Bill Moyer's latest program, it's clear that a Constitutional Convention isn't ever going to become a Pandora's Box. After all, if all a Constitutional Convention could do was make suggestions, why would it be so dangerous? Even the original Constitutional Convention, which was exceptionally radical for the time, going well beyond its mandate, wasn't the final call. The Constitution still had to be ratified by a super-majority of the states, which was by no means an easy task. Several states almost defeated it. If not for the promise of the Bill of Rights being written just after the initial document was created, America would probably still be operating under the Articles of Confederation. Just like in 1787, We, the people, will have our final say in whether or not a Constitutional Convention's recommendations will ever be enacted.

All that said, a Constitutional Convention is the likeliest vehicle for any serious systematic reform. Consider the dual facts that the Legislative Branch is already too busy (and petty) to take up a cause as serious as this - as well as the fact that there'd be too many special interests to kill important reform in that body before it even came up for public debate. There just doesn't exist the political will to create serious changes on Capitol Hill. More importantly, a Constitutional Convention would be completely the opposite: delegates could create momentum for change and, given the fact that they'd only occur once every twenty years, there'd be lots of interest and drive in making sure we have the best Constitution possible. It would be an opportunity for both reflection and taking a national step into the future.

I don't agree with all of Levinson's proposals; he thought delegates should be chosen at random (like a jury) and there should be 700 of them meeting over two years. I think that's too many, for too long and comprised in a way that's anathema to American Democracy. While we agree that a Constitutional Convention should have well-compensated and dedicated delegates, solely working on analyzing the Constitution for a lengthy time, two years is too long to keep either public interest or momentum for change. A year would give ample time to research, take hearings, craft language, as well as present the conclusions to the public.

Furthermore, random selection would be entirely inappropriate - we need people on the job who would take it seriously and view the Constitution as exceptionally important. We need people who already have a working knowledge of the tome - and ideas for how it could be better. What better way to send delegates than to vote them in at the local levels? Given that a Constitutional Convention would only happen three or four times in an average lifetime, there'd be plenty of room for robust debate and lots of interest at the local level. Each congressional district should get one delegate, as well as two at-large, state-wide votes (the same number as each state's congressional delegation). I could also get behind a few delegates appointed by state delegations, governors and maybe even one for the President, but the number is quickly reaching Levinson's 700, which could make for a delegation that's too large to be effective. In any event, coming up with a specific number of delegates is far less important than agreeing that electing delegates makes far more sense than appointing 700 at random out of a hat with 300 million names.

There's little debate that the Constitution needs at least minor changes to be relevant today. Millions of people think the electoral college is not only outmoded, but offensive and elitist. Levinson brings up a more important point: the Electoral College also prevents issues that are important to the majority of Americans from ever being raised by candidates on the campaign trail. Why would a candidate for President care about gang violence, for example, when they don't have to worry about the cities where that violence is worst: few of this country's largest cities are in states traditionally competitive on election day. All that would change if Presidents were popularly elected - but how likely is that to happen without a Constitutional Convention? Whatever the constitutional concerns people have, there's no vehicle to drive important change. Be it changing the way either the Senate or Supreme Court work, or enacting more civil rights protections - the only way any of these things are likely to happen is if we have occasional Constitutional Conventions that could create a mandate for change, even without opening up any Pandora's Box. The question then becomes not "why should we have Constitutional Conventions," but "why not?"

So Much for States' Rights

Wow. Score one for the Republicans people who want the Earth to burn in flames.

For the first time ever, the EPA has turned down a request for a waiver so that California can set its own regulations on auto emissions, as it's authorized to do under the Clean Air Act.

Even more appalling is the reasoning.

In a hastily assembled after hours press conference, the EPA declared that the energy bill signed by Bush yesterday was much better than a "patchwork of state laws," even though the energy bill was much weaker than the California proposals and does not directly address greenhouse gases. Once again the Republicans demonstrate their absolute disdain for any authority being given to the states, and their love of centralizing all power under one man. State's rights? You have the right to go shove a tailpipe where the sun don't shine.

In turning down California's request, EPA administrator Stephen Johnson rolled out the next phase of the Republican Zeno's Paradox Plan for ignoring global warming. California, said Johnson, wasn't the right place to deal with this because it's really a national issue. Of course, the nation can't deal with this issue because it's really an international issue. And of course the other nations of the world aren't ready to do this exactly as we'd like so... California can't deal with this. No one can move until everyone does.

Sounds about right.

Casino Corruption: Mohegan Sun's Worse Than We Thought

At Tuesday's casino hearing on Beacon Hill, Senator Montigney, co-chair of the committee, kept grilling the Mohegan Sun representatives, as well as several others, on the fact that Connecticutt's Mohegan Sun, one of the largest and most successful casinos in the world, has paid out more money toward a few executives at the top than the entire 1,700-person tribe.

It is the kind of bonanza that was supposed to be prohibited by the federal
Indian Gaming Act when it was passed 20 years ago, say some US senators and federal regulators.

But the Mohegan Sun investors - led by Sol Kerzner and Len Wolman - found legal ways around provisions intended to make sure most casino benefits went primarily to tribes. And those loopholes remain open after a massive lobbying blitz by the $25 billion Indian gaming industry.

Worse yet, many of the Wampanoags in the tribe persuing the Middleborough location have raised concerns that Mohegan Sun's problems would only continue in Massachusetts.

And some Mashpee Wampanoag tribal members say they are suspicious about the deal their leaders have struck with the same investors in Middleborough - a deal they have not been shown. Documents filed with the tribe's pending federal application for reservation status at the site do not disclose financial terms.

"They don't let us see anything," said Michelle Fernandes, a member of the tribe. "It's a big secret."

Of course, this is only a new ingredient added to the corruption already brewing in Massachusetts over the Wampanoag casino - something the FBI has already been investigating, years before a shovel will ever hit the ground.

It also fits right in with Mohegan's efforts in Wisconsin, which have resulted in at least one top executive, Dennis Troha, being charged by the FBI for circumventing campaign finance law.

The former developer of Kenosha's proposed $808 million casino project was indicted Thursday on federal charges for allegedly funneling $100,000 in improper campaign contributions to Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, who has final approval over Indian gaming in the state.

Dennis Troha, 60, of Kenosha, Wis., was charged with one count of fraud and one count of making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Attorney's office in Milwaukee said.

If convicted, he could face up to 25 years in prison and a $500,000 fine. The indictment alleges Troha used family members and businesses he controlled to send money to Doyle's campaign during the 2002 and 2006 campaigns. Troha would lend money to the family members, who would then write checks to Doyle's campaign, allowing Troha to circumvent the $10,000 cap on political donations by individuals. The money was only repaid early this year after federal investigators began looking into the case, the indictment said. (Dan Gibbard, "U.S. Indicts Wisonsin Casino Figure, Chicago Tribune, 3/01/07.)

Transparency was Senator Montigney's chief concern and reason for skepticism over casinos. He wasn't interested in supporting any casino proposal if there's room for corruption. However, no matter how anyone slices it, there's absolutely, positively no way to regulate tribal casinos at the state level: we'd be dependent on the federal government to protect the Bay State's interests - and given the powerful casino lobby at D.C., the saying "fat chance," comes to mind.

Given that the only leverage this state has over the casino lobby is the fact that we ban all Class-Three types of gambling, Massachusetts lawmakers should be even more skeptical than Senator Montigney when it comes to casinos and preventing corruption. Simply put, this state will have no way of regulating a tribal casino if we allow the construction of a single, legal and traditional slot machine, as that would open up the process for the Wampanoags to put their Middleborough land in federal trust to garner approval for a Class Three, Mega-Resort facility.

As reported in the second link on this blog, at the Boston Globe, the Wampanoags have already came to an agreement with these very same Mohegan Sun developers, the slimiest of the slimeballs around. When it comes to casinos and corruption, the two, unfortunately, go hand in hand. The question posed to Massachusetts residents should be if these are the kinds of headlines people here want to read for the rest of their lives. Not only will casinos be bad for the economy and bad for communities, but they're going to set a terrible trend for corruption at Beacon Hill, the likes of which have never been seen before.

Extra Credit Reading Assignment: Casinos clearly haven't done anything to improve the efficacy of Atlantic City's government, where five of the last nine mayors have been indicted and the city is now hiring an "Integrity Officer." Anyone know if Governor Patrick is going to hire any of them as part of his mitigation plans?

Today's Casino Hearing Post - on BMG

As I said earlier in the day, I went to the casino hearing today.

I wrote about it at BlueMassGroup, as well as gave a live, on-the-air report on today's LeftAhead (fast forward about 27 minutes in).

I'm going to write a big-picture blog for Ryan's Take soon, but I just wanted to present what went on today at BMG, along with a little bit about what I learned so far. So read BMG to get the scoop. To sum up that knowledge, I'm confident that only 1 of 3 things can now happen regarding casinos:

1. The House, yet again, defeats an attempt to legalize slot machines.
2. The House legalizes casinos, but creates it's own bill to do it.
3. The House doesn't legalize casinos, but gives the state's race tracks the ability to become "racinos," but foolishly that opens the door for a mega-resort casino in Middleboro or elsewhere.

Personally, option number 1 is still what's probably going to happen: there are at least 12 people, out of 19, who have committed to being opposed to casinos on the committee that matters - the one that can recommend it to the entire house, or essentially kill it if it doesn't (unless a majority of house members vote to bring it up to a full vote - but is that seriously going to happen with a Speaker opposed to casinos?). That committee is also chaired by Representative Dan Bosley, the champion (along with Sen. Sue Tucker) on casino issues. Most importantly of all, the House hasn't supported casinos in the past and has a Speaker willing to whip people into shape to make sure it won't in the future.

All that said, I'd say option 3 is more likely than option 2, though still not very likely at all. I was almost shocked to see certain House members be more concerned about the Race Tracks than the owners of the Race Tracks. The distinguished gentlemen and women of our state house on that committee may have been generally receptive of casinos, but I don't think a single one of them would be if it meant the race tracks would close in favor of larger resort casinos, even if ownership stayed the same. It was a particularly hilarious line of thought too, considering that the Suffolk Downs people kept talking about how they're now the only thoroughbred horse track in New England - and home to the "legendary Seabiscuit." (Memo to Suffolk Downs peeps: Seabiscuit's been dead for decades - maybe that's not exactly the best marketing campaign to stay relevant nowadays, huh?).

So, more on my thoughts later - and less on Seabiscuit.

Heading Out for Today's Casino Hearing

Governor Patrick's speaking at 11. There's no public comment, unfortunately, otherwise I'd have prepared a blurb. The only group invited that's against casinos, that I'm aware of, is the League of Women Voters. I'm sure there's one or two more, but this hearing is mainly scheduling people, especially big names, that are heavily in favor of casinos without public comment. This is what I'll call the 'grand spectacle hearing' that really doesn't matter, but will probably receive way too much media attention. The hearing that really does matter, with the committee that actually has authority over casinos (chaired by Dan Bosley), won't occur till after the New Year.

In any event, I hope to see some of you all there. I'll be writing about the forum tonight, but if I get out in time, I'll be joining the LeftAhead podcast to give a live report from the field.

Huh?

This just doesn't make sense to me.

The tribe's Aug. 30 application, obtained this week by the Times through a Freedom of Information request, bolsters the argument of gambling supporters that a casino in Massachusetts may be inevitable.

Just what that casino will look like depends on whether Gov. Deval Patrick is willing to enter into a compact with the tribe. Class III gaming requires the tribe to negotiate an agreement with the governor, according to the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

The tribe already has the authority to open a Class II casino without such a compact because the state allows high-stakes bingo.

It "bolsters" the argument that a casino is inevitable? Then, in the next paragraph, the article explains how there's absolutely, positively nothing inevitable about Class 3 gaming in Massachusetts (it has to get through the legislature: the governor already said that he was deferring to them months and months ago). Sure, the Wampanoags could still build a Class 2 Bingo Hall, but as I've pointed out all along, such a building wouldn't even come close to the resort casino so many have been worrying about.

The article later went on to say that the tribe could use bingo slots, that have "the look and feel" of traditional slot machines. That's patently false. According to Representative Dan Bosley,

The difference between "bingo slots" and slot machines are that the bingo slots actually have to play game of bingo. In other words, they are still bingo games and as such are slower than slot machines. Second, you are playing against the rest of the players and not against the House, so the amount of players determines the size of payouts. Since they are less lucrative and slower than slot machines, I would question whether they will be as popular as other venues for those who have choices over where to gamble.

Does that "look and feel" like traditional slot machines? No. Furthermore, the article failed to highlight the fact that even these "bingo slots" may no longer exist: they're being challenged at the federal level and may very well be classified as slots soon, which wouldn't be allowed in Massachusetts.

The Wampanoags can kick and scream all they want; there's nothing inevitable about a Class 3 Casino in Massachusetts. Period. Of course, they benefit every time the Standard Times or Globe or any other paper repeats their casinos-are-inevitable meme, but it's just not an honest statement. There's nothing inevitable about Class 3 gambling in Massachusetts - in fact, given the House's record on slot machines in the past, Class 3 Casinos are anything but inevitable.

Did Someone Mention Casinos?

I know, I know - all I seem to talk about is the little mammoth casinos that could couldn't, but it's not my fault. We have important hearings coming up both before Christmas and after. So, of course, it's going to be on my mind.

I'm bringing up the dinging and the losing again, briefly, since there's a good Eisenthal report on it, as well as because Representative Bosley wrote a stellar comment the other day in reply to one of my own. Casinos, in fact, are not inevitable - a point he drives home. Some have been concerned that a Class 2 casino, one that isn't allowed slots, black jack, roulette and other games, would still be able to have "bingo slots," and figure that's basically the same thing as slots. Think again. Emphasis mine.

The difference between "bingo slots" and slot machines are that the bingo slots actually have to play game of bingo. In other words, they are still bingo games and as such are slower than slot machines. Second, you are playing against the rest of the players and not against the House, so the amount of players determines the size of payouts. Since they are less lucrative and slower than slot machines, I would question whether they will be as popular as other venues for those who have choices over where to gamble. Also, the National Indian Gaming Commission is actively considering changing the rules to ensure that these machines are only legal where slot machines are legal and that could change the outcome of this issue.

The issue of inevitability is, in my opinion, the fallback position of those who have run out of legitimate arguments on the economics of gaming in the Commonwealth. I also agree that Casino Gambling is not inevitable in the state. The Wampanoags do not have a reservation in Middleboro. The federal government will have to make a determination as to whether to give them land in trust in that area and that is not a slam-dunk. The state and surrounding towns will weigh in on this issue. Second, the tribe will still need backing if it is to construct a casino. If the state doesn't allow slot machines (which are between 67-70% of a casinos take on average), will a financial backer come forward on the hopes that the legislature will legalize these in the future given that they have not in the past and the market may be saturated in the near future? Third, the use of bingo slots would have to stay the same and not change as the National Indian Gaming Commission is deliberating. Fourth, the state has the option of challenging all aspects of this in court. That means that it will take many years just to get to any action by the tribe. If I were a betting man, I would bet that all these things will not go in the tribes favor.

So, repeat after me: casinos are not inevitable. Casinos are not inevitable. Not only is bingo-slots a "lame" game, according to my sister, but they're less profitable for casinos and, it appears, can't offer any flashy rewards like traditional bingo (since you're playing against other people, not the house). Most importantly, when it comes to bingo slots, their time may very well be numbered. Casinos are not inevitable, no matter what any developer would have Massachusetts think.

Yet, not only are casinos not inevitable, but Eisenthal makes the point that casinos actually face an uphill battle to be legalized in this state: 12 members of the committee that matters when it comes to casinos is already against Governor Patrick's plan, only 3 of them lean toward it (with 4 undecideds). Not only that, but it's chaired by the champion of sanity on this issue - Representative Dan Bosley. And Bosley has the Speaker's support, when it comes to this issue. Inevitable my arse.

Now lastly, go read my BMG post on casino numbers - or the lack thereof - and be sure to comment.

Let's Chat Casinos

I wrote the first part of a serious conversation about casinos over at BlueMassGroup. Mainly, a lot of people over there keep asking me for all these additional numbers on why casinos are bad for Massachusetts. Sadly, not only are there not a whole ton of numbers either way, but people tend to forget about the flip side of their question: where's all the numbers behind why casinos are so great for Massachusetts? The only thing casino-supporters have come up with yet was a deeply flawed UMASS Dartmouth study, done by someone with myriad casino connections in the past. All of Governor Patrick's numbers (and, indeed, his plan) are predicated on that deeply flawed study.

Yet, people buy it. They've been told all along, by casino developers or their pets friends, that casinos are fantastic and will raise so much money that they can fix property taxes and pay for all the state's roads and bridges. Quite frankly, I wouldn't be shocked if people thought casinos were as harmless to the economy and communities as a little church bingo fundraiser. These people are manipulated over and over and over again, by a rich and extensive lobbying effort - one that's been all too savvy working with the media.

I would think that the onus would be on casinos to prove why Massachusetts should risk its economy for revenue that may or may not be new, but instead of being a smarty-pants, I just want to have a conversation. It's time for a little leadership on this issue over at Beacon Hill, or any number of our colleges and universities, or the forth estate, but such leadership has been few and far between. Not a single group, state agency or organization has stepped up and been willing to closely examine the many changes casinos will mean for Massachusetts. Not a single thorough, reputable study has been commissioned.

Sadly, I can't be the one to do it. It would cost millions and take months. However, I can try to explain my main points - that casinos will have a negative impact on both the economy and communities - in ways that can make sense to more and more people. That's what Part 2 will be doing on Sunday! Check it out over at BlueMassGroup.

UMASS Boston Expansion Imperative

Today's news coming from the Boston Globe on the proposed UMASS Boston expansion rocks my socks. Here's the gist:

In the first phase of the blueprint, university officials are proposing to spend $750 million over the next decade to build three academic buildings along a central walkway bisecting the campus, two dormitories for 1,000 students, and a 1,000-space above-ground parking garage....

University officials said the overhaul would reorient the campus to create a close-knit and collegial atmosphere more akin to a traditional liberal arts college than an urban commuter school.

"It will change the whole culture of the campus," Chancellor J. Keith Motley said in a meeting this week with the Globe in which he detailed the school's plans. "It will create a much more open and vibrant community."

Let's examine just a few ways this plan is a great idea, in no particular order.

• It'll be great for UMASS Boston, able to expand its already very strong academic programs, going far beyond the ranks of just a commuter school.
• It'll become an even better school for commuters. Not only will the school get a new, functioning, large parking garage (which it currently lacks), it'll include a far more attractive campus, with new buildings, set for the new millennium. Academic quality will rise because of this plan - and ultimately, that's good for commuters.
• The young adults of this state, often just graduating from High School, deserve a more affordable option for college in Boston than the likes of BU, Northeastern and Suffolk - all upwards of $40 grand or beyond when living expenses are factored in. It shouldn't be a privilege to be able to afford college in this state's capital.
• It will bring a lot of income and new people into a community of Boston that needs it. For every dollar invested in a public college, the community creates $3-4.
• Having a full-scale, academically superior public university in the city of Boston will be the ultimate success in establishing the city as the Athens of America. It can never be that unless students are given the chance to have the full college experience at an affordable price, which currently doesn't exist in Boston.

The people of this state and the city of Boston deserve it. I can't possibly fathom one legitimate reason why UMASS Boston shouldn't be expanded to include residents, as well as more academic buildings and a far nicer campus. For too long, private colleges have dominated the landscape of all of Massachusetts, helping create the haves and have nots of the Bay State, all the while most graduates of this state's private schools move along to the 49 states in this country, while the majority of the state school grads stay home.

Of course, as we've seen with UMASS Dartmouth trying to expand to include a public law school, Boston's many universities are quite effective in resisting a stronger public university system. What's more dangerous to BU and Northeastern than a school that can compete with them - and cost half as much? They'll certainly lose tens of thousands of talented students from this state, especially if UMASS Boston expands beyond two dorms (and I'm sure, eventually, they will), but schools in Boston tend to have plenty of applicants and donors to keep them competitive even at higher costs. Furthermore, maybe a public college with dorms to compete with them could help keep down costs for everyone? Even if it doesn't, no Bay State student should have to decide between being around a hundred thousand dollars in debt - or missing out in the Boston college experience, if that's what they desire.

I Must be Gay

Apparently, the back-on-air Don Imus thinks anyone who doesn't like Mike Huckabee must be gay.

[Imus] yesterday stuck his foot back in his mouth calling WTKK afternoon drive guy Jay Severin “gay.”

During a political discussion, the I-Man inquired as to why Severin didn’t like GOP hopeful Mike Huckabee. “Why don’t you like Huckabee, because you’re gay or what?” Imus inquired.

So what does that make me? Oh, wait...

In any event, the Herald has more. Here's to Imus being fired again. When he's rehired after his second firing, maybe the third time will be the charm?

Another Idiot in Office?

Let's not elect Mike Huckabee.

On a recent New Hampshire campaign swing, Huckabee said that he would support the Bush administration's proposal to double funding for AIDS but said that he didn't want to shortchange other diseases that kill more people.

"I want to make sure that when we look at a disease, whether it is AIDS, diabetes, or cancer, we look at it from the macro perspective, and we don't just single out one thing that affects, in America, you know, about 5,000 people a year," Huckabee said.

Where does the idiocy come into play?

The Centers for Disease Control reported that there were 42,514 new AIDS cases and 13,064 deaths from the disease in 2004, the most recent year for which it provided data. About 1.5 million people in the United States have been infected with the AIDS virus since 1981, resulting in more than 500,000 deaths.

He ought to know better than to open his mouth on an issue he clearly knows nothing about. More importantly, AIDS is a serious threat to not only this country, but the entire world. A President must have a working knowledge and understanding about HIV/AIDS. Earlier in the career, Huckabee specifically refers to AIDS a "plague," when he was trying to "isolate" gays and lesbians, now it's not a big deal? We need a President who understands HIV/AIDS, who's willing to take measures against it and who understands that this is far more than a gay person's disease. Clearly, he doesn't get any of that. Even more clearly, he can't be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office.

The Globe's Patrick Administration Shocker!

Pardon me for not reading the Globe before 4pm today, but let's just say I wasn't missing much. Their piece on Patrick today was a real stretch. Let's break it down:

First, we have the picture on top, featuring a more-than-content Governor and Lt. Governor, linked together in happy embrace.

Then, continuing with that meme, the Globe wrote about how the administration was raising money from sources that supporters wouldn't exactly approve of, keeping the link well established.

Governor Deval Patrick and Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray have raised more than $1.4 million in combined campaign contributions since taking office, much of it by aggressively soliciting the same special interest groups that, as candidates last year, the Democrats denounced as wielding too much influence on Beacon Hill.

However, the Globe quickly went from questioning the entire administration into delving into how Lt. Governor Murray tapped Robert Platt, traditionally a Republican fundraiser, as one of his main fundraising gurus. Link severed:

Murray, Patrick's fellow Democrat, has been just as aggressive, raising $650,000 in the same span, an uncommonly large haul for a lieutenant governor. His fund-raising has come with an added twist: He has turned to Robert M. Platt, a State House lobbyist and Republican fund-raiser, for help building a campaign finance network. Platt worked against Patrick last year and supported his opponent, Republican Kerry Healey. And this year he is supporting Republican former governor Mitt Romney's presidential campaign.

That, in effect, was the story. This article wasn't really about the Patrick-Murray administration at all; it was grasping for straws about the Lt. Governor's relationship with Platt. Pardon me for perhaps sounding a bit like a conspiracy theorist here, but would this article merit front-page, above-the-fold treatment if the Globe stuck to the actual story?

No. Murray engaged in what Frank Phillips viewed as sleazy fundraising, but it was perfectly legal and legitimate. That's just not front-page news. Thus, we hear about how Patrick raised over a million dollars since taking office, "much of it" (a number never defined by the Globe) from "the same special interest groups that, as candidates last year, the Democrats denounced as wielding too much influence on Beacon Hill." Riiiight.

Uncareful readers may read how Governor Patrick raised 1.4 million since taking office and think it all from unsavory sources, but that's just not the case. The only number the Globe really does define is $60,000 - from a Murray fundraiser, some of which (though, again, the Globe doesn't give readers any answers) coming from Clear Channel. That's helpful. /sarcasm off

Maybe if Murray was somehow breaking the law, that story would sell. However, what he is doing is legal and, honestly, not exactly unexpected. There just isn't much of a story there. Hence, the Globe linked it to Patrick and turned it into an entire-administration thing, even though the bulk of their story - at least the bulk which readers would, you know, read - had almost nothing to do with Patrick.

In other words, this is pretty much a nothing story that the Globe went to great lengths to turn into something. It's not exactly awe-inspiring journalism. One of the biggest problems with today's journalism is if the story isn't there, papers and stations will do anything they can to package whatever scandal exists into front page news. Obviously, papers like scandals, but they also don't like to waste time and resources. However, in the long run, the costs against credibility with Frank-Phillips style journalism will hurt profit margins far more than some extra staff, or giving reporters either the time to craft their stories or the leeway to decide against printing something when there's nothing there.

In the end, today's report on the Patrick Administration was likely worthy of two back-page stories. The first being the Patrick Administration's take: of course, the Globe should examine who gave what and when and report it, even if there isn't much there. However, unless there's something glaring out at readers in the piece (such as breaking the law), that kind of article is never going to be an above-the-fold, front-page piece when it isn't campaign season. The second story was Platt's relationship with Murray, but since Murray hasn't actually done anything wrong, it's a tough sell to put it on the front page. Linking the two stories together and selling it as a front-page scandal, however, not only is an example of bad journalism, it also merits the Ryan's Take's "fake news" tag.

All About Huckabee on Air

Over at LeftAhead, Lynne, Mike and I talk up the Mike Huckabee campaign for POTUS. We explored many of his largely unearthed baggage, but questioned whether there is enough time for voters to catch on (I doubted it; Mike and Lynne didn't). Lynne came on to talk about the dynamics of the Republican Race - and thinks Willard Mitt Romney has a far greater chance of winning this than I'd give him credit for. Over all, this was one of our best shows we've done to date, so go listen in.

Pigs Grew Wings, Casino Opposition

I never, in a million years, would expect to read this in the Boston Globe - a front-page article about the growing movement rising up against casinos. Several weeks ago, I wrote an email to Matt Viser, after he wrote another one of the Globe's casinos-are-wonderful front page "news" articles, asking when he was going to write something that didn't cast casinos in anything but a positive light. Well, he did. Today. Go read it.

It's mainly about CasinoFreeMass, an organization I've become very ingrained in. Readers will note I was asked to be a featured speaker at their first community forum in New Bedford and have been helping them plan future events ever since. It's perhaps the most diverse group I've ever seen, representing some of the most progressive, liberal people out there - as well as people I've fiercely battled in other fights in the past. None of us seem to be willing to let our differences get in the way - it's all about blocking casinos.

So, to see some of our hard effort pay off - noticeably, in today's front-page news, is astounding. We've still yet to see serious investigative pieces examining the numbers on both sides, but today is such a step in the right direction that I'm positive we'll get there. It's important that everyone in this state have access to serious news and analysis on how casinos will actually impact Massachusetts, both economically and in our communities. Here's to reading about that in Viser's next casino article.

Casino Hearing Dec. 18

The first casino hearing on Governor Patrick's bill will be on December 18th, though it's not "intended to be the major forum for Patrick's bill," according to Speaker DiMasi. The Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets, chaired by Representative David Flynn, will host the hearing. Flynn's angry Governor Patrick's bill didn't include anything for the state's race tracks, boo hoo. All kidding aside, race-track complaints isn't exactly a unique form of complaining on Beacon Hill nowadays, including my own State Senator who (sadly) voted for slots at race tracks in the past, but isn't sure he'll vote for Governor Patrick's casino proposal as it stands.

However, I haven't even come to the good part about Flynn's hearing. Screw having honest brokers be invited to the hearing, he has specific people in mind to invite already.

The Legislature's Bonding Committee is inviting a number of gambling bigwigs, from Donald Trump to Harrah's CEO Gary Loveman to casino developer Richard Fields, who controls Suffolk Downs.

Others on the early invitation list include Gov. Deval Patrick's administration, district attorneys, major state unions who favor casinos, track owners and the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which has been skeptical of Patrick's casino numbers.

Wow. So far, the pro-casino to anti-casino count is 7:1, with one group of people unknown (the district attorneys). Notably missing from that list is any independent economic experts from our state's leading universities, any college professors who have spent years studying the economics of how casinos impact communities, especially economically, or any pro-and-con community leaders who have dealt with casinos entering their backyards in the past. For example, I'm curious to hear more from some Atlantic City small business experts, where restaurants, clubs and other similar establishments saw a the number of their establishments go from over 225 before casinos to under 60 after them.

The fact of the matter is we don't need the Don(ald) coming into town, making this a media circus. Furthermore, none of us should trust a damn thing the CEO of Hurrah would say. He's not exactly going to be an honest broker.

No one can deny that casinos raise a lot of revenue, what is in question is just how much of that revenue is new. The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston estimates that up to 75% of casino revenue is just redirected from other sectors of the economy, which would mean local businesses within at least a 50 mile radius of a casino would be anything from significantly hurt to crippled. Money in your pockets, after all, is a net sum game: if you spend it somewhere, you can't spend it anywhere else. Until we address the real issues here, how casinos will impact our communities both socially and especially economically, then we can't green light or push forward any slot machines or Class 3 gambling in this state. There just isn't enough information yet and, judging by the early list of guests, Representative David Flynn's hearing is going to do nothing to change that fact.

Oh, Geez. Huckawhat?

I don't think it's big news that the Republican Presidential field has expanded lately to include another top-tier candidate, largely replacing our former never-here, didn't-care Governor, but Mike Huckabee sure isn't bringing anything new to the table. Emphasis mine:

I don’t think the issue’s about being against gay marriage. It’s about being for traditional marriage and articulating the reason that’s important. You have to have a basic family structure. There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived. So there is a sense in which, you know, it’s one thing to say if people want to live a different way, that’s their business. But when you want to redefine what family means or what marriage means, then that’s an issue that should require some serious and significant debate in the public square.

Thankfully, the pillars of civilization seem to be holding in Massachusetts, despite all those new sets of two moms and two dads raising perfectly happy and healthy children of their own. Somehow, thankfully, I don't think anything would be different in Kansas.

Yet, Huckabee couldn't stop himself. He went on.

GQ: I just wonder what you’d say to the gay couple who says, “Well, we want to live this way, and my partner can’t come visit me in a nursing home.”
HUCKABEE: He can with a power of attorney. That’s the fallacy, that this requires some new definition of marriage. It’s simply not the case.

Did anyone ever bother to tell him how much that costs? After thousands of dollars, gay couples can have a tiny few of the same benefits of married couples, all the while "traditional" families merely need to pay for a marriage certificate. Furthermore, many states like Virginia have very onerous laws that prevent gay couples from creating legal agreements which could be construed, in any minute way, as being a couple. And let's not even get started on health care benefits!

So, in some states, for the wealthiest and most privileged of gay couples, they can maybe, sort of have the privilege of visiting their partner in the hospital, but not actually be the provider of insurance that could cover the surgery their partner needs. And that's supposed to be a good thing? Oh, that Mike Huckabee... what a swell guy!

Orignal Source: GQ.

Today's LeftAhead!

As Mike notes, we have Boston City Councilor John Tobin on today to talk about term limits, among other things. It should be a fun show, so hopefully lots of people will listen in at Leftahead.com. Listen live at 2:30 or go to the LeftAhead website and listen to it at anytime. Imagine a city of Boston without a Mayor for Life?

My Disclosure Post

Earlier today I talked about how I was joining Lori Ehrlich's campaign for State Rep from my hometown district of Swampscott, Marblehead and parts of Lynn. I'm doing it because I think she'll be awesome and we see eye-to-eye on most of the core issues, be it the environment or the way state funding works and how health care costs are effecting the big picture. I'm doing it on a volunteer basis, only my time and energy are going into the race.

All that said, this blog will continue to function independently of the campaign. My words are my own. None of what I say should be attributed to the campaign, or taken as Lori's views. When I cover the race on this blog in the future, it will certainly include full disclosure and may often link back to this standard disclosure announcement.

A Budding Movement and a Refreshing Candidate

Rare in Massachusetts is there an open seat for anything other than County Clerk or the local Library Board of Trustees. So, when a seat opens up for State Representative, the game of musical chairs begins. That's why it's important to make sure the best and brightest of us, progressives who understand the important issues and want to make things better, have a keen ear for the music.

We, as a progressive movement, need to win this political game that isn't a game at all. There aren't enough forward-thinking people on Beacon Hill as it stands, so now that there's an open seat in my home district of Swampscott, Marblehead and part of Lynn, it's important to make sure we have the most compelling, best candidate possible winning that seat of paramount importance, State Representative. Nothing but the future of our health care system, state budget, environment and educational system is at stake, so it's no surprise that a lot of people are interested in the race. Now is the time - campaign time - to weed through the candidates who want change for the better and the other candidates, wishing for more of the same - special interests getting special treatment, instead of the people of Massachusetts.

As it happens, one of BlogLeft Massachusetts's very own, Lori Ehrlich, has jumped into the race - and I've jumped to support her, taking the unenviable position of Field Director. She's earned her progressive bonafides by being a community leader on the environment for years - and lead she has done. As a leader of HealthLink, a local advocacy group pushing for a strong environment, she's helped clean a polluted reservoir that over 80,000 people now use. She's also built a successful small business as a CPA, which has given her insight into all sorts of things, from out-of-control health care costs to what it takes to build a vibrant local economy.

While she kicked off her campaign about two weeks ago, giving her first speech for supporters and the press on the Swampscott and Lynn line, last night served as the real beginning for me. About 40 of us gathered at her house in Marblehead, enjoying pizza and each others' company, discussing just how we're going to win this campaign so we can bring strong community leadership to Massachusetts for all to enjoy. I was amazed by the turnout, which ranged from local campaign volunteer veterans to my friend and fellow blogger John Hosty, who's so excited about the race that he came, despite the fact that he doesn't even live in the district.

It's clear that a lot of people get it: this is a race that will impact the entire state, a chance to put a true leader in office who's worked for years on the sideline trying to institute change. It's a chance to get that kind of community leader involved on Beacon Hill, changing the culture of how our government works. There's no other way to tackle our health care system, unsustainable budgets (largely because of health care costs) and obstacles in creating a strong and diverse economy than by electing true leaders we can count on.

Hopefully, many of you will do your part to create that change. After all, without the grassroots - your help - Lori Ehrlich will have no chance to hear the music, win the seat and create a strong ally for our entire budding movement seeking to change Massachusetts for the better.