Today's LeftAhead Podcast: Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz

Mike has the full write-up at LeftAhead, but here's the general gist of today's jam-packed show.

The ever-intense MA Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz joined us today, centering on redistricting, transgender rights, and education. Not only is she a progressive leader in LGBT issues, she chairs the Joint Committee on education and is vice-chair of the Special Joint Committee on Redistricting.

I was impressed with the Senator's ability to squeeze in a lot of details in such a short amount of time, never mind switching between three unrelated topics at the drop of a hat. Her intellect and energy is why she's quickly become one of the most effective senators out there, never mind one of the leaders in the Commonwealth's small-d movement of progressive politics.

Today's show ended up being more timely than I would have suspected, with Congressman Frank's retirement, but we managed to talk about redistricting at both the local and congressional levels, as well as talk about some of the meta that goes behind it -- such as the goals of the committee and the process behind it. We also have some frank discussion on the Transgender Rights bill, both the importance of getting this done and the fact that there's still a little unfinished business surrounding it, since public accommodation was left outside of the bill. On education, mainly focused on her bill tackling the state's drop out problem, in which 8,000 kids in Massachusetts are dropping out every year.

For people who want to skip to the parts of the show they're most interested in, redistricting was the first topic and then we got to the transgender rights bill at about 14:20. At 24:50, we finally got to education. We didn't have as much time as I would have liked to take on this issue, but even just the five minutes we had was enough to tackle some key aspects of her bill on how she thinks we could be better at getting kids to stay in school.

Wisconsin, Here We Come? The Pledge, the Turn and the Prestige

With the Washington Post and other papers starting to pick up on the story, the Speaker's bash-the-teachers bill is finally catching national attention. The bill attempts to mask something almost universally detested -- ending collective bargaining -- under the guise of moving everyone on over to the GIC. The two issues, collective bargaining and the GIC, are not the same, and it's important for people to note that distinction.

The Globe drew on that distinction in its front-page story when news of the House's passage first broke, but unfortunately it was buried deep within. Here's the real meat-and-bones of the House bill -- or should I say hack saw?

Under the legislation, mayors and other local officials would be given unfettered authority to set copayments and deductibles for their employees, after the 30-day discussion period with unions. Only the share of premiums paid by employees would remain on the health care bargaining table.

Under the House bill, if your city or town wanted to create a $10,000 health care deductible for families, it could. And all unions could do is stamp their feet and complain bitterly for a few days. 

The key thing here is to ask why the Speaker & Co. want to move in this direction. It's not as if the unions aren't willing to do their part; they recognize the need for health care savings and have a proposal of their own, which would allow them to retain collective bargaining.

Unions proposed their own plan to cut health-care costs that did not hurt collective bargaining rights. “We’re willing to give the savings,” Haynes has said. “All we wanted was an arbitrator, some kind of neutral process that would determine what’s fair, and what was appropriate.”

Let's look at the details -- because it's good stuff, perhaps even better stuff than the House bill. It would save upwards of $120 million a year.

The union proposal would establish health care cost benchmarks that both municipalities and unions would have to meet at the end of the bargaining process. If an agreement can't be reached both sides would enter an expedited dispute-resolution process. 

While there has been a push to force municipal workers into the state's Group Insurance Commission to help rein in health spending, the union proposal would let municipalities and workers bargain either to enter the commission or make changes to existing health plans to lower costs as long as they meet the benchmark.

Only allowing the GIC (as opposed to giving the unions choice between collaboratives, the GIC or other ways of saving money), as the Speaker is trying to do, is a clear mistake -- and the motives are pretty obvious. But first, let's answer the question of why it's a mistake: There are other regional GIC-like entities and collaboratives in the state that consistently outperform the GIC, and there are cities and towns in Massachusetts that, for myriad reasons, don't want to be a part of the GIC -- some with Republican Mayors. 

Kennedy said she has been meeting with union leaders in the hopes of coming to an agreement on concessions that would put the brakes on a possible 8.5 percent increase and keep the city out of the state's healthcare program, the Group Insurance Commission. Kennedy said the unions do not want to join the GIC and neither does she. 

"I'm in the minority of Massachusetts mayors," she said. "I'm trying to stay out of the program."

If there are other options to save money, why not let unions and municipalities come to the table and bargain about how best to do it? This drives straight at the Speaker's motives. On what level does this make sense? While stripping collective bargaining rights on deductibles and co-pays is pure travesty, the Speaker's forced march on GIC, not giving unions and municipalities time enough to at least look at other options is, more than anything, illuminating.

Perhaps there's a much more logical explanation to all this? Right now, while state employees are in the GIC, the vast majority of municipal employees aren't -- and there are far more of the latter than there are the former. Why's that important? Well, the GIC can be changed, without union or employee consent, at the whim of the state.

Get everyone on the state's program, and suddenly you can change everyone's health insurance right from within the doors of Beacon Hill (and those doors are usually the closed ones). The state needs to ax a billion this year? Suddenly, if everyone's all-in, there's a very easy and rather convenient place to do it. The Speaker's bill could ultimately serve to be one of the biggest power grabs we've ever seen in this state, and could have disastrous longterm consequences for cities and towns and their employees. Moreover, if this isn't the real explanation, then it's pure spite -- because the House bill is neither the best nor the fairest solution to the problem.

[Update: The other motive I forgot to mention is this plan will be able to lock in the maximum savings on health care away from the actual employees -- so the savings goes to the state and towns, and isn't shared with employees trying to pay for their health care.]

It's looking more and more likely that while money may be the motivation to do something about municpal health insurance, it's not the real motivation for this particular bill. At the end of the day, the budget shortfall is the bait, and all we have left to do is wait and see if the Senate will allow the House's switch to stand. Or, maybe we can all take a step back and ask ourselves what the hell we're doing here.

-

As a bonus, Christopher Nolan eloquently explained what's going on right now on Beacon Hilll years ago in The Prestige. 

Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called "The Pledge". The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man. He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course... it probably isn't. The second act is called "The Turn". The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because of course you're not really looking. You don't really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn't clap yet. Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call "The Prestige".

The State Auditor Race: A Definitive Look

There's a bunch of people running for State Auditor this year, and I think we should take a look. Full disclosure: I like Suzanne Bump. A lot. I dislike Guy Glodis. A lot.

The Democrats

Guy Glodis: The auditor candidate who has the most experience with the State Auditor office. After all, his Sheriff's office is being audited by the current State Auditor for oodles of wasteful spending and free lunches (literally!). As the hack candidate for office, he's got a long record of bigotry, sexism and homophobia. He's also got bags of money, but given his track record at the state convention, he's not smart enough to spend it wisely. His supporters seem to support him more out of fear of going against the Good 'ol Boy network than the fact that they think he'd do a good job, or even an okay one.

Can he win? The primary? Yes. The General's probably another story, but because Auditor is dooown ballot, he'd have a shot. Then again, voters wouldn't just have the chance to vote against Guy Glodis, they'd be able to vote against Dianne Wilkerson, Sal DiMasi and Big Dig politics, too, because Glodis is cut from the same, exact kind of cloth. To put matters into perspective, even I'd leave that oval blank, should Glodis be the Democratic Nominee.

Suzanne Bump: Sure, as a former Beacon Hill staffer, state rep and Secretary of Labor, she can't lay claim to outsider status, but not all 'insiders' are bad insiders. She's definitely the good, experienced, knows-how-to-get-stuff-done kind. As Labor Secretary, not only did she win a lot of praise, but she did a great job managing an office many times larger than the State Auditor's. She has a wonderful progressive record from her Beacon Hill days and has some great ideas for using the office to make sure the state's many offices and branches are not only managing themselves in a legal manner, but in an efficient one, too. She's already proven herself in being able to get at efficiencies that save money and improve the system, especially the 1991 landmark legislation she drove through that reformed the Worker's Comp system in a way that benefited both workers and businesses.

Can she win? With a distinguished record and a healthy base of support, she's easily the best candidate on paper. Having met her, she's also engaging, open and honest, and not at all bad at 'retail politics.' So I think paper can match reality.

Mike Lake: Worked in the Clinton and Bush White Houses and claims to have "effectively managed" it. Needless to say, that sounds like a Kirkian overstatement to me, but he's welcome to describe what exactly he did, beyond making a computer program, and how that amounts to running its day to day operations. That said, he's clearly a very bright person and a great up-and-coming talent in the state's Democratic Party, showing he has the ability to create around himself a nice cadre of dedicated volunteers, who can often make all the difference in the world.

Can he win? It's within the realm of possibility for him to win the primary, but it would get harder from there. His biggest issue in the race has thus far been the concept of Energy Audits. It's something the Patrick administration got through and is working on already. While there's some question of redundancy in the State Auditor's office picking that up as well, in addition to the notion that energy audits is outside the auditor's scope, it seems a legitimate way to save money and make the state even more efficient, so the idea certainly has some merit. It may just not play that way in a general election.

Given that, he could easily be pinned as naive and inexperienced, running for an office with a platform that's outside the purview of the role and redundant in state government. The fact that he looks even younger than he is wouldn't help him avoid that meme. Needless to say, winning the General could be an uphill climb and would require a lot of time and effort by party activists that may be better spent in the Governor's race and other important, competitive elections for Congress.

The Republicans
Kamal Jain: Kamal's the outsider Republican candidate, with a career inside the private sector. He's first generation Indian-American, which would likely be a Massachusetts-first for a statewide winner. He's also from the Libertarian Party, which would have made him a Massachusetts never. He's pushing transparency as his big issue, promising to make all state finance records easily available online. He's not the first and won't be the last to do so, even if he wins. Judging by this article in the Herald, I have to guess he's going to have a sizable ability to self-fund his campaign, but then again he may be trying to make some obscure point that I just don't get. Or is it just for headlines?

Can he win? He doesn't seem like a particularly strong candidate, but he shouldn't be taken lightly either. It's an anti-incumbent year, which may help him against the establishment Republican pick. Can he pick up teabagger momentum to get past his Republican opponent? Probably not, and if he did, it would only make it even more likely the Democrat could win. In fact, that's probably the easiest way either Lake or Glodis take this thing if they win the primary. Then again, maybe he'll make good on his $27 billion "max spending" threats...

Mary Cannaughton: The Big Dog Republican in the race, she'll probably win the primary with ease. She should also have enough money to compete and get her message across, even if she couldn't outspend a Democrat like Glodis. She's a CPA and says she's been trained as an auditor, so the only candidate with more experience for the position is Bump.

Can she win? Her slogan is "professional not political," which shows she's not running as a Republican, per say, but rather as a nonpartisan -- which would help her in Massachusetts. This is especially dangerous since even some of my progressive friends will say that this is the sort of seat they wouldn't mind a "fiscally conservative" Republican to hold. She could absolutely, positively win this race and shouldn't be taken for granted.

A key for Democratic opponents would be to show she isn't nonpartisan and would use the office to make a Tea Party crusade against government. Against Bump and probably even Glodis, she's a definite underdog, but with Glodis she'd have a clear path of attack ("Hack, Hack, Hack!") and with Lake, the media would be doing much of the attacking for her ("Moonbat!" "Young!" "Idealistic!") and a lot of it could gain traction.

The Green-Rainbow Party

Nat Fortune: Nat's running outside the traditional party circles, hoping to pull off the upsets of all upsets. His experience is as a Whately School Committee member and Physics Professor. His wife is on Whately's Board of Selectmen. He has some good ideas, but appears to be mostly a gadfly.

Can he win? Well, I spoke about that issue pretty strongly on this BMG diary, so I won't go to great lengths here. Like many other Greens, he has some good ideas, but finds the political parties so dirty that he makes himself irrelevant by refusing to participate in it, for all intents and purposes. That may make him feel better as a person, but if he ever wanted his ideas to be the winners, going G-R is not the way to do it. No, he can't win, but he may be able to steal enough progressive votes to keep the Democrat from being the winner. If the Democrat so happens to be Guy Glodis, that may not necessarily be a bad thing.

Grace Ross is a Democrat

When Grace Ross posted on BMG a few weeks back about contemplating a run for Governor, many people (including me) implored her to either run in the Democratic Primary or not run at all. We don't need to give Tim Cahill, Christy Mihos or Charley Baker any help in nudging Patrick from the Corner Office. So, that she decided to challenge Governor Patrick in the primary does not bother me. In fact, it's not only a good thing for Democracy, but ultimately a good thing for Governor Patrick.

All that said, she has a very, very steep hill to climb to even get on the ballot. With just days (literally) to convince longtime party members to mount a caucus effort (an almost impossible task given that she just became a Democrat and couldn't have a Democratic grassroots effort yet), she's going to need at least 15% of State Democratic Convention voters to endorse her candidacy at the convention to get her on the ballot. Caucuses take place in your local community between February 10-24 and any Democrat can run for it (check with your local paper, or contact your local ward/town/city chair, for specific times and locations).

Of course, Chris Gabrieli pulled off getting on the ballot way after that year's caucus meetings, but there was lots of backdoor dealings that few people without the pockets and clout of Chris Gabrieli could pull off -- and Patrick, despite having a masterful caucus strategy that won him a majority of supporters for the convention, was still a political newcomer that did not control the party apparatus at the time. So while Ross starts out a little sooner, she's actually much further behind than Gabrieli was to the 15% promised land.

I supported Governor Patrick in 2006 and will almost certainly do so again, enthusiastically. Given the economic realities of the past three years, he's done a remarkable job. From ending bad corporate loopholes, to passing the transportation bond bill in the nick of time (our state's own second stimulus), we've weathered the economic storm better than most and are poised to come out of it much stronger than most -- which runs counter to our history with economic recessions.

I could talk about a dozen other things -- marriage equality, environmental bills, pension and ethics reform -- but it's not going to change my mind: Grace Ross in the primary can't possibly hurt Governor Patrick's reelection efforts. In fact, it could help him. She was a breath of fresh air in 2006, very sharp in the debates, and will force Patrick to work that much harder for votes, that much sooner. Competitive primaries, more often than not, help candidates sharpen their message, grab lots of free media and build their ground efforts -- so when they get past the primary, they're best poised to win in the general. So, despite the fact that this blog will almost certainly oppose Grace Ross's candidacy, it certainly welcomes her heartily to the race.

Thoughts, Announcements and Casino Stuff

• There was literally tons and tons of casino info that came out today, but I was too busy to get to any of it. Look forward to plenty of news on polls and other items in the days ahead.
  
• I'm going to the casino forum at the State House tomorrow, covering it for United to Stop Slots Massachusetts (consider this my disclosure: I'm getting a very small stipend to help with costs - the first time I've ever done this and I'll always disclose if I do it again), so I'll have a lot to write about tomorrow night and the days ahead.
• Joe Lieberman is the worst excuse for a human being alive. People need to remember that when Republicans were in the Senate, he rarely, if ever, filibustered. Now that Democrats are in charge, he's leading the charge against the public option. He is not a Democrat. Why do the Democrats allow him to caucus with them? He gets all of the benefits of being a Democrat, while being able to totally undermine the party at every possible pass. If he wants to be a member of the GOP, let him be a member of the GOP: Strip his gavel and throw him out of the caucus. It's long overdue.
  
• Obama signed the Hate Crimes expansion bill today, which will cover GLBT people. This is one small step for glbt civil rights, but a giant leap forward in that it's the first time the federal government has done something to protect gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people as a community. More important things are yet to come (DADT, DOMA, ENDA, etc.), but this a good day for the movement.
• LeftAhead! interviewed City Councilman John Connolly yesterday on our internet radio show. It was a fantastic show that was wonky, interesting and entertaining (IMO anyway).
  

Murray and DeLeo Throwing State Under Bus for Casinos?

Anyone looking at the casino debate can sense a strategy that's glaringly bad for the state of Massachusetts, taken up by the Speaker and Senate President.

They're starving the beast to get casinos. From the SHNS (Jim O'Sullivan, Weekly Roundup, 10/9/09) -- an extremely friendly paper to the casino industry.

Coincidentally, or perhaps not, the panel in charge of gambling legislation on Friday scheduled a casinos and slot machines hearing for Oct. 29 – right around the time the governor will be announcing his spending cuts, and the roar of disapproval from those invested in governmental spending is added to the pressure coming from the gambling interests.

Proponents’ game plan: Wait until the full din has amassed around midyear budget cuts, some of which are due by the end of the month, then swoop in with gaudy revenue and jobs promises, and the suggestion that casinos are the only way out, they’re coming like it or not, might as well vote for ’em.

Instead of trying to create reasonable budget cuts and plans, the Speaker and Senate President are going to let the cuts amass until everyone and their mother is screaming "no more." Then they're going to wave their magic wands and say, "Don't worry, we have something to save you all, after all." This is nothing but a political con. The Speaker and Senate President should be ashamed -- they're playing Ocean's Fourteen with the very livelihood of this state.

Will Beacon Hill Make an Informed Decision on Casinos?

As important as preventing casinos in Massachusetts is to me, I could honestly be happy if whatever decision is made were made by a group of legislators making informed decisions. The fact is, though, most of the talking points and studies out there on casinos come from biased sources, even the studies that would appear to be unbiased.

Nothing is more illustrative of this fact than UMASS Dartmouth Professor of Public Policy, Dr. Clyde Barrow. He's written more studies on casinos in Massachusetts than possibly anyone and they've been very favorable to the industry, but here's the cold, hard facts.

• Clyde Barrow works privately for the industry. Clyde's home address in Fall River is the same address of Pyramid Associates. Pyramid Associates was paid a total of $15,000 for an "economic impact study" by Maine's Yes on 2 campaign in 2008, funded in large part through Olympia Gaming, the Las Vegas group that bankrolled Yes on 2. Barrow also, reportedly, appeared at a press conference and public meetings on behalf of the campaign. [Update: That link isn't working anymore, but this one does.]
  
• Barrows doesn't include his private, industry jobs on his extensive, public resume at his UMASS Dartmouth page, despite their relevance.
• Barrow's Center for Policy Analysis studies on gambling, which frequently appear on the industry's own website in Massachusetts, are also compromised financially. As recently as March of 2009, Barrows did a study through his center that was favorable of the industry. Included in that report, for those who actually bother to read it, is the fact that the funding comes from the Center's clients, read: lobbyists.
  

  "The University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Center for Policy Analysis is a multidisciplinary research unit that promotes economic, social, and political development by providing research and technical analysis in the areas of economic development, public management, program evaluation and polling research for government agencies, nonprofit organizations, private businesses and educational institutions.... The Center for Policy Analysis does not pursue a predetermined research agenda, but is a flexible research organization responding on a timely basis to the problems and issues identified by client agencies."

• For all of Clyde Barrow's UMASS Dartmouth resources, there's very little accountability. The Center for Policy Analysis's Advisory Board is comprised of a great deal of people who have a bone in this fight: Senators Murray and Pacheco, for example. Not only do these politicians not mind Barrows waging this war by using the University to make himself appear an unbiased observer, but they gain from it and use his studies as justification to support their political agendas. It's smart politics, but the Center is an organization that should exist separate from politics.
  

Barrows is not alone. The Labor Resource Center at UMASS Boston created a study asking "Can Casinos Bring 'Good Jobs' to the Commonwealth?" The results here, again, are mostly favorable. Yet, the results here, again, are also funded through the industry and biased sources.

• The study was funded by The Construction Institute and the The Future of Work in Massachusetts project, which is funded through the UMASS system's President's Office.
  
• While I'm sure The Construction Institute is a great organization, they have an obvious stake in this fight. It's an organization that wants to build really big things and expand union labor. Need I say more?
  
• The Future of Work in Massachusetts seems like a great arm of the UMASS Boston Labor Center, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum either. The funding comes from the (Romney-Appointed, often political) President's Office, which comes from the Commonwealth's coffers (to the tune of $1.2 million) -- which means we'll probably never know just who was responsible for that funding. Furthermore, the labor movement appears to be very involved in this project, a movement which is very biased when it comes to the question of casinos.
  

Governor Patrick made two attempts to "study" casinos in Massachusetts. The first was a retread of many the other studies done, bringing in "experts" and using their numbers - which led to the 30,000-person joke of a job claim. The second was his Spectrum Gaming Report, perhaps the closest thing to a comprehensive study done in Massachusetts, yet produced by a company that works for the industry. Useless. That was almost as bad as when Representative Flynn boasted at a casino hearing I attended that he had never even gone to the Connecticut casinos or racino in Rhode Island. He actually saw that as a plus in his argument to legalize them in Massachusetts.

Studies shouldn't be dismissed out of hand and there are many people on Beacon Hill who are doing their due diligence, some of which probably sit on the other side of this issue. However, it's clear that all too many don't have the important facts, in great part because we haven't commissioned a comprehensive, unbiased study to find them. Given that it's undeniable that casinos will have a huge and likely irreversible impact on the state, it's important for legislators to get this decision right. The question has to be if casinos are worth it. As of yet, there's no substantive, unbiased study to show that they are worth it. Without that evidence, legislators should vote no.

Gearing Up for the Casino Fight

We have about 60 days until the pro-slot legislators in the State House start ramping up their efforts to legalize slot machines in Massachusetts. Nothing is inevitable, but certainly this fight will be harder than it was just a year ago. Some good news -- the Speaker and Governor are at a stand-off, a fact not likely to change anytime soon.

So, I'll be spending some time in the next few days trying to get some of the information out there. Expect a few great guests to come on LeftAhead over the coming two months, as well as plenty of news to be posted on this site and at Blue Mass Group. We may even see the MSM getting in the action.

For now, I encourage readers to take a look at some of our previous guests on LeftAhead. This is by no means completely exhaustive, but a great start.

• November 27, 2007: Laura Everett, spokesperson of Mass Council of Churches and CasinoFreeMass, was the featured guest.
• December 18, 2007: Reporting live from a casino hearing at the state house (starting 30 mins in).
• February 26th, 2008: Mike, Lynne and Ryan reporting on casino news at the time, including Spectrum Report, unions as it applies to casinos and what makes for good revenue.
• March 18, 2008: Ryan's Take live from the State House at the biggest (circus) hearing of the year, when Rep. Flynn invited everyone from all the state's race track owners to casino owners across the country.
• March 25th, 2008: Lynne and Ryan reporting after we won last year's vote.
• June 3, 2008: Briefly covering the Common Cause Report that talks about the deep pockets of the casino lobby in Massachusetts (starting 27 minutes in).
• July 22, 2008: Middleboro Blogger extraordinaire Mary Tufts/Gladys Kravitz.
• April 7, 2009: Les Bernal, Executive Director of Stop Predatory Gambling and former Chief of Staff of Senator Susan Tucker's office.

Or, You Could Just Not Allow Casinos

Weird and perplexing argument coming from Senate President Murray in the SHNS (sorry, can't link to it) roundup today...

SENATE PRES. SUGGESTS WIRETAPPING COULD BE PRECURSOR TO GAMING
When Senate President Therese Murray explained why the Legislature declined to sanction wiretapping in an ethics, lobbying and campaign finance proposal unveiled Wednesday, she suggested the provision would be revisited when the state looks to create a “gaming commission.”

So, let's get this straight -- we can't have wiretapping allowed in our current reforms before gambling. Wonder why?

Asked about her comment Friday, a Senate spokesman said, “We need to establish oversight and enforcement before bringing gaming into the state. The enforcement establishment needs to have all the right tools. Wiretapping would be part of that, but it wouldn’t necessarily be limited to gaming. I think that’s what she was getting at.”

So, Senator Murray recognizes that it's so likely casinos will create the need to be able to wiretap public officials... but she's not going to support it until after slots are legalized? And why would the Senator for even a second think it should be limited to gambling? Does this make sense to anyone? It brings up so many more questions than answers.

Why is Senator Murray against wiretapping now? Why would she only support it, with potential caveats, after casino legislation is filed? Most importantly, why on Earth does she want to get Massachusetts mixed up in an industry in which even she recognizes is ripe with corruption, one that is notorious for getting public officials in prison? Seems like we've been having a little more of that than we'd want, already.

This is dirty politics, when we've been promised reform. This is less transparency, when we need more. It's certainly not inspiring confidence in the system. Why shouldn't we give these tools to our state agencies now, before there are more votes concerning slots. Numerous major Massachusetts politicians have already been caught on the take by the feds, but they can't catch everyone. The gambling industry has a very bad record here. We should be giving our state investigative agencies all the tools they need, not capping them off at their knees, until the damage is already done. Senator Murray, get this right, please.

Clyde Barrow: I Deal in "Pseudo Facts."

Note to readers: I write the following because Barrow is set to appear in a hearing on casinos at the State House on Monday -- a hearing that follows the lengthy pattern of drumming out almost all the opposition in favor of bringing in a carefully selected group of industry "experts," including six of the eight people invited to Sen. Spilka's hearing.

Even in all my fascination with the UMASS Dartmouth Casino Industry cheerleader Professor Clyde Barrow, I somehow missed this critical article, "The Persistence of Pseudo-Facts in the US Casino Debate: The Case of Massachusetts." First, a reminder for readers: Clyde Barrow is the Director of the Center for Public Analysis at UMASS Dartmouth, a somewhat new arm of the University in its quest to offer more grad classes, programs and original research. Barrow's work was the basis of Deval Patrick's plan for casinos -- one of the few things I can claim credit to "breaking" as a blogger. That's all well and good, except for the fact that Barrow has deep connections to the casino industry, connections he removed from his website when it started to get embarrassing for him. He's constantly called on by the Massachusetts media and politicians as the "leading expert" on gambling in Massachusetts, but he never owns up to the fact that he's been paid a great deal by the industry he claims to be an unbiased academic on.

What does this make him? Well, it's not the best example of academic integrity. Really, read at least the first page of the first link. Let's actually quote from it. Emphasis mine (with the exception of the italicized "one" - that's his).

It is widely recognized in the policy process literature that academic policy research is only one input into the policymaking process and, therefore, it is only one of the many sources of information that decision makers take into account when making public policy decisions. Social scientists, legal scholars, and policy analysts, however, are more likely to believe that their research findings and recommendations should command special attention from policymakers because of their scientific or empirical basis. While the findings of academic policy researchers are not infallible, they are generally something more than mere opinion, but in the policymaking arena, academic policy research often appears to the decision maker as simply one more opinion to be processed and weighed in the course of decision making. The public policy arena is always crowded with noisy ideas and chatter, including the views of constituents and clients, heart-rending anecdotes and testimonials, personal letters, testimony to committees and task forces, ant the minute-by-minute interpretations of "the chattering class," i.e., talk radio, headline television, newspaper editorials, and the Internet blogosphere.

Hear that, everyone? The man who's become media-quote numbah one, Mass pundit extraordinaire, is calling constituents, journalists and trained political scientists from his own university (me), "the chattering class." Sadly for Barrow, as the links above indicate, when it comes to issues surrounding slots, this blog deals only with the facts -- casting a critical eye, as all political scientists should, on an industry masked in deception and bias, lobby dollars and uncomfortable facts. Clyde Barrow, on the other hand, deals with flawed science in coming up with numbers that please the (casino) industry.

His "chattering class" is really just a way of belittling those who disagree with him. Note how he fails to include the academics who denounce casino profiteering at the expense of society, such as Bob Goodman, author of The Luck Business, or Dr. Hans Breiter of Harvard, who found that, "Monetary reward in a gambling-like experiment produces brain activation very similar to that observed in a cocaine addict receiving an infusion of cocaine." He's actually trying to create a medication to suppress that urge. Are they, too, a part of "the chattering class?" If not, why doesn't Barrow include a single reference to their work - as any good political scientist normally would?

The truth is Barrows is part and parcel of the industry, the personification of the flawed Spectrum Gaming "study" Patrick paid for as means for "independent" analysis - a report that issued exactly what you'd expect... coming from the industry. Although, given the facts, it takes a lot of audacity for him to label us skeptics as dealing with "psuedo facts." The base rule of "the chattering class" that Barrow mocks in page one of this report at the very least submits to the paramount of ethical standards -- report conflicts of interest. What does it say, then, of a very serious academic who's the Director for Policy Analysis at a major Massachusetts public university when he not only fails to divulge his conflicts of interest, but actually covers them up when they matter the most? It seems to me, once again, Barrow fails to be the skeptical scientist his profession is supposed to be all about.

Update: Is the fact that Clyde Barrow took $15,000, under the guise of "Pyramid Associates," from Maine's Yes on 2 Campaign -- a failed campaign for casinos in Maine - a conflict of interest? How does that befit a very serious academic? Will someone ask Clyde Barrow about these "chattering class" "psuedo facts" at Monday's hearing?

Awesome Show with Representative Benson

We had Jen Benson on LeftAhead yesterday -- and it was a great show. She was exceptionally open, honest, detailed and willing to discuss the most pressing issues of the day. Don't miss it.

Remember, anyone can become a subscriber and download LeftAhead on Itunes, so they can listen to it on their commutes and not have to be affixed to the computer.

Interesting Theory I Heard on Sales Tax

From someone in the State House:

There's a reason why the proposed sales tax hike didn't and doesn't even bridge the gap in what we pretended to think we had several months ago in coming revenue to what we know we don't have anymore. Now that there's still a big hole, guess what some leaders will try to sell as a means to close the gap? A hint: it's a tag on this post.

The Last Gasps of an Evil Industry

Despite the fact that the dog track industry in Massachusetts refused all help in worker retraining from the state and private sources, they're now begging lobbying intensively for an extension to the deadline in which they cease to exist - citing the jobs. From the State House News Service (sorry, can't link):

High-ranking state lawmakers are considering changes to another voter law, mulling strategies to provide both quick and lasting relief to the state's dog racing industry – including a two-year delay of the dog-racing ban voters mandated last November....

“Inasmuch as the voters went to the polls, I wonder if the election were held today, given the set of circumstances we face with regard to the economy, if the voters would have a different thought,” said Rep. Brian Dempsey, House chair of the Economic Development Committee, which oversees gambling legislation. Dempsey said no plan was currently in place to extend the implementation date.

When an industry refuses state help in retraining or shifting its workers to other industries, it's extremely disingenuous to then use a small number of jobs as an excuse to continue to kill and maim dogs. The very fact that those jobs are now at risk is actually a part of the public relations campaign of the track industry -- the people behind those jobs are at much greater risk precisely because the track industry is using them as pawns and refusing to help retrain them. If the workers were retrained and rehired elsewhere, there'd no longer be any Raynham and Wonderland jobs at stake.

But this is nothing new for any card-carrying members of the gambling lobbies. One of their frequent tactics is to continue to push for new rules and regulations that lead to a never-ending expansion of their interests. Whether its any number of the expansions to the state lottery or Rhode Island's racino begging for longer hours, less restrictions and smaller taxes, gambling industries always want more, more, more. Why would anyone ever think such tactics would stop at overturning the will of the voters from just a few months ago?

With the dog industry going bankrupt, though, one has to ask why these tracks are so desperate to stay open. Forcing these things closed, in terms of potential profits, is actually a thing of mercy. Companies that lose millions every year shut down -- but keeping the actual tracks open is not the modus operandi here. This is really all about slots. The day the tracks are sold, it's that much less likely there will ever be a racino in Massachusetts. The death of the dog track industry -- and their hopes to add slots -- can't come soon enough.

Interesting Question

From a friend:

Can anyone tell me how/why Mohegan Sun is on the state house schedule to announce the opening of an office in Palmer? Is this a hearing, official state business? Is this [standard operating procedure] for any business opening an office in the Commonwealth to have access to the state house calendar and facilities?

How does a commercial interest get on the state house calendar when the elected officials from the entire Quaboag region can not get an audience in the state house?

Of course, this is what that person is referring to (from the daily house SHNS calender):

11:00......Mohegan Sun Palmer and area business officials mark the opening of Mohegan's storefront office. Mohegan hopes to develop a casino resort in Palmer.......1426 Main St., Palmer

Wonderful State Senate Press Release

So glad the Globe's willing to print anything sent to them.

Just a summation: Some in the Senate, still throwing a temper tantrum over the Governor, decided to push a proposal that would limit contributions one can make to state parties, because (apparently) Patrick's done well with cross-fundraising.

The Globe tries to say this is all about some joint-fundraising effort called the Seventy-First Fund, but the Senate's proposal - as I understand it from the article - is far more wide sweeping than the fund itself. The 71st Fund is for people who max out both to the state party and Governor Patrick -- $500 for Patrick, $5000 for the state party. However, the Senate proposal limits all contributions to state parties in Massachusetts to $500.

Why would the Democratic Senators of Massachusetts want to do that? I suppose the fact that John Walsh, one of Patrick's closest allies, has nothing to do with it. He controls the state party and has brought quite a bit of change as a result - most for the good. He's also helped the Governor a great deal from within the State Party. Apparently, that means the State Party should be punished. That's a great idea, except for the fact that the state party's efforts are critical in electing democrats in the legislature too. It's nice to know Walsh isn't as petty as Senator Frederick Berry, the lead in pushing this proposal, because Walsh is actually out there trying to elect other Democrats - including in the legislature.

Loved John Walsh's quote, btw.

"If it applies to all parties, we support it, " said Democratic Party chairman John Walsh, who was Patrick's campaign manager.

Bluff called, Senator Berry?

--

Who wants to bet that this proposal goes no where? Makes for a great press release, but when legislators find out how many thousands it'll cost them in individual, competitive campaigns, bye-bye spiteful rule.

--

Finally, love the faux drama. This funding is controversial, dammit! Why? Because the Boston Globe said so! Question: if it's so dammed "controversial," why hasn't the paper been writing articles on it for years now? Current campaign limits are nothing new, after all. Instead, we get articles on pirates and how Craigslist is ebil. Peddling the current Beacon Hill fued - what a way for the Globe to try to prove its relevance!

Casinos Can't End Fiscal Mess

From today's Herald:

“I have been an opponent of casino gaming . . . but the territory we’re in right now is unprecedented in terms of the budget” said Rep. Peter Kocot (D-Northampton). “With the situation in such a great state of flux and the potential damage with my constituents, my mind is open.”

Let's remind Representative Kocot why we can't dig ourselves out of this mess with casinos -- and let's all be honest, legalizing casinos is digging.

• Casinos are largely a redistribution of money already flowing in the economy -- up to 75% of all casino revenue was small business revenue before the casino came in.
  
• Not only does that mean we're already taxing this mythical revenue casinos would bring in today, it means that the small businesses we already have in this state - the lifeblood of the entire economy - would be severely drained. Many businesses will cease to exist - as we've seen countless times in places like Detroit and Atlantic City, after casinos moved in.
• Small businesses have an economic multiplier effect - money spent at your local sub shop ends up being spent at the barber, who spends it at the local deli. Money spent at the local casino gets sucked into the void, like watering a CEO's 100 acre lawn in the desert somewhere in Arizona.
  
• If we legalize slots, the rate of gambling addiction will double -- and reach 5%. That means 1 in 4 families will be directly effected by problem gambling. If someone is an addict to gambling, they're a drain on the economy. Can 1 in 4 families afford to have that drain? Can our economy?
• Casinos place huge burdens on our resources. The obvious ones are police, fire and addiction counselors. However, the even-more-problematic ones would be burdens on local schools. What happens when hundreds of new students are added to a school system that doesn't have the infrastructure to support them? What happens when those students are coming from families earning wages at or just above poverty level, requiring special assistance in the schools? What happens when the casinos who are bringing those families here aren't paying for them? The school system goes kaput, the town goes to hell, those who can leave and those who can't get stuck with a diminished quality of life and lower property values.
• How many hundreds of millions of dollars will the Massachusetts "Gaming" Authority cost to staff and operate? How many more hack jobs will come into existence?
  
• How many politicians and lobbyists in this state will end up going to jail over casino-related corruption (several already in the Middleboro efforts).
  

So, if there's any legislators starting to waver and waffle on casinos now, because of our state's "dire straights," they need to remember two things: 1. No state has ever balanced a budget or solved their fiscal woes with casinos and 2. Casinos won't make the Massachusetts fiscal picture better -- it will almost certainly make it worse, for all the reasons described above. Want to improve fiscal outlook? Do it like an adult, don't resort to games and gimmicks and predatory practices.

House Progressives & the Sales Tax

House progressives have been largely flogged across the Mass blogosphere lately, complete with jokes about DeLeo-sponsored water boarding. Whatever happened behind the scenes, it's far more likely that progressives made a gut call on this, at least as the main reason behind their votes. I don't blame House progressives for voting for the sales tax - even if it's one I'm clearly not cheering for. A few points have been lost in the conversation:

1) This was the only tax on the table in the House so far - and it wasn't for lack of effort. The progressives didn't want the sales tax in particular, but the votes just weren't there for a gas tax -- never mind an income tax. Unfortunately, too many people view the gas tax as a Boston vs. the rest of state thing, even if a big chunk of that money would have gone to the other regions. A lot of others were just adverse to raising the gas tax, as if it were somehow more taxier than other taxes. So, progressives were left with the sales tax or $3 billion in cuts.

2) They have constituents to report back to, towns to fund. Many constituents will be angry about the tax, but that's a short term problem forgotten in a few months when it's not an election year. Cuts to town budgets is a recurring problem far more likely to spawn anger when it matters. Moreover, if it wasn't the sales tax, it would have meant additional cuts to state aid. Contrary to popular opinion, your state legislator probably cares a great deal about your town's finances, even if their strings are usually tied. It's hypocritical to rail against them on things like Chapter 70 and then criticize them when they actually try to do something about it.

3) This is partly my fault, but in the blogosphere's collective anger about the sales tax, we've often forgotten that there is no sales tax on food or clothes. That makes this sales tax option far less regressive than in other states. Would progressives have voted for this bill otherwise? Probably not.

What's clear is that movement progressives have our work cut out for us if we want real revenue reform. We need to expand these issues beyond reactionary news items and rallies - and really start to educate the public. We need to elect more progressives, so next time they have the votes on something like the gas tax. We need to get more involved, earlier (like now), in the battle for the next House Speakah.

Yet, all of that's in the future. The bottom line is that while this sales tax proposal passed by the House today does punt on transportation and lacks vision, it's still the best option House progressives had - so they voted for it. The Governor's still right on a lot of things -- I'm not trying to take away from my arguments yesterday - but we shouldn't be railing against elected progressives for this vote. Looking at it from their perspective, this was not a betrayal. If our state couldn't even pass a 10 cent gas tax, we shouldn't be so driven by ideological purity to castigate them for this vote when so much was at stake. I include myself in this critique -- and hope something better comes out of the Senate.

John Walsh Has a Message For You

From his daily update:

You know I love all Democratic elected officials don't you? I am perplexed when people ask me about the Governor "fighting with the legislature." I don't get it. The Governor is fighting FOR his values and priorities - period. Working together last session, the Governor and legislators delivered the most successful legislative results in thirty years. That included the job-creating life sciences and clean energy packages - and more. The Governor has good reason to work with the legislators on shared agendas and he's proven he knows how to do it. When there are differences on how to achieve goals, I know the Governor will be fighting for his priorities. That's why I voted for him.

It's important to take note of this because, while there are scuffles and obvious differences/priorities between the branches, I guarantee you the average state legislator likes the Gov a great deal and vis versa. Often times squabbles are blown out of proportion -- it doesn't mean that they don't exist, but they're usually localized to the specific issues. Right now, Patrick and DeLeo have a disagreement. Let's hope that, like DiMasi learned, DeLeo can eventually start to try to meet the Governor half way. When that happened, state government was at its best.

Punting Transportation

I'm not the only one who's realized this sales tax (should it get through the Senate veto-proof) fixes nothing in terms of our transportation woes, be it the MBTA, Pike or the actual infrastructure crisis.

The House plan to raise the state sales tax could create some short-term relief for commuters anxious about toll hikes and MBTA fare increases in the coming year, but it would do little to halt the larger crisis that has made transportation a top issue on Beacon Hill, advocates and observers say.

"If the public thinks that, 'Oh, this sales tax is going to solve all the problems,' it won't," said Eric Bourassa, a public transit advocate for the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group. "It might improve the short-term problems, but it might just push them off into the future."

Emphasis mine. We need a little less special teams work on Beacon Hill and a little more addressing of our fundamental problems. As I said yesterday,

DeLeo may claim to be trying to fix [our state's problems] through this sales tax hike, but what does it actually accomplish? Does it fix our transportation system? No. Does it pay to pave the roads and fix the bridges we need? No. Does it give cities and towns the tools they need to solve their own problems? No. This sales tax is a policy without a goal, never mind a vision. It doesn't seek to fix anything. It's just raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes -- throwing some money at our problems, without rolling up our sleeves and trying to fix them, then absolving ourselves from any of the responsibilities.

I guess whether or not state government acts like an adult crafts policy that actually seeks to fix our fundamental problems is now up to the State Senate - the very same chamber that screamed "reform before revenue" when this state was contemplating revenues that would actually fix our problems. Now that it's revenues that won't, we'll see if their actions match their rhetoric.

Call your legislators, especially your Senator. Demand that whatever passes includes the necessary reforms and funding to solve the MBTA's debt, prevent future toll hikes (if not get rid of tolls altogether) and begins to address our aging infrastructure, which will only become more costly and inconvenient to fix the longer we delay. Your calls will make a difference.

Veto it Anyway

DeLeo may be able to push through most of whatever he wants wielding the power of the gavel, but there's a battle for the heart and soul of Massachusetts right now -- and the Speaker's on the wrong side of it. No, it's not just the sales tax -- it's the notion that we can continue to pretend that we don't have problems. The problems are hitting us on the side of our heads and still we're ignoring them.

DeLeo may claim to be trying to fix them through this sales tax hike, but what does it actually accomplish? Does it fix our transportation system? No. Does it pay to pave the roads and fix the bridges we need? No. Does it give cities and towns the tools they need to solve their own problems? No. This sales tax is a policy without a goal, never mind a vision. It doesn't seek to fix anything. It's just raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes -- throwing some money at our problems, without rolling up our sleeves and trying to fix them, then absolving ourselves from any of the responsibilities. It's not responsible, adult behavior.

That's why Governor Patrick needs to veto this bill. It may be overridden, but it sends a clear message. It's a message that voters will hear -- and they're going to ask why their elected leaders failed to do right by the state today. Deval won't make many friends on Beacon Hill renewing his campaign against the Big Dig culture, but it's long since past worrying about such things now. The battle for the Commonwealth's soul is not lost yet, but it's going to take a vintage Deval Patrick to win it.