Slots should be dead now...

Quoted in the SHNS this morning, Senate President Murray said that if no deal was reached by 8pm tonight, slots were dead for the year. Well, Madame President, it's 11:03pm right now. Is it dead?

The Speaker and the Senate in a Game of Suffolk Downs Hold'em?

I'm not really sure what's going on in the Speaker's head -- a check, a fold, a bluff, anyone's guess. Quotes below from today's O'Sullivan SHNS column, which unfortunately can't be linked, leave a very clouded answer.

On the one hand.....

Speaker Robert DeLeo left the door ajar Tuesday to ceding ground on a key provision of the House’s expanded gambling package, telling reporters he was willing to entertain compromises on a guarantee of up to 750 slot machines at the state’s four racetracks, an assurance the Senate and Gov. Deval Patrick oppose.

On the other...

“I’ve learned very well, you never can bet on anything in this place, in terms of what will be in, what won’t be in or whatever,” DeLeo said. “But I will tell you that in terms of myself – not only myself, but the members of the House who overwhelmingly supported it – that’ll be of major importance to us, keeping it.”

Emphasis mine. The Speaker, in that last quote, is talking about slots at the race track. Of course, I don't really buy that the racinos are "of major importance" to anyone who's not in a track district or near one -- but unfortunately that includes the all important Speaker, hence the "us." My point in bringing up that distinction is solely out of bitterness (so much for half the progressive caucus holding to their principals).

That said, we have a Senate Chamber that voted down the racino amendment in their bill, with 5 voting for it and 20 voting against it. The House, of course, passed DeLeo's racino-and-then-some bill by a 120-37 vote. Those are some pretty tall mountains to be scaled to get to any "compromise."

Is the Speaker really willing to listen about a comprise if it doesn't include slots at the race tracks? That's the big question. The smaller question is if the Senate is willing to see this die if he isn't. Perhaps, another question to ask is if the Governor would really stick to his long-ago-made promise to veto racinos, or his tough talk about slots at the race tracks from a few months back, as that decision could be huge in determining just how earnest the Speaker is about his real openness to comprise that veer far off from the House bill.

The Governor's reluctance to come out and say he'd veto racinos, at present, makes me very pessimistic that he'd still veto a bill that has them, but maybe he'll realize racinos would be particularly toxic in the Democratic base this coming election. He does want to win, right? His decision here will definitely impact how hard I'm willing to fight for him this fall.

There will be no answers on this blog today, though, on any of those questions. All I ask is that people who oppose slots or racinos call their state legislator, either for the first time or again. You can find a link to sort your legislators by town on the right.

State Senate to take up casinos in June

Senator Murray says the State Senate will take up slots in June, also saying she's only in favor of resort casinos.

I ask readers to remind her -- and their own state legislators -- that we just grew over 19,000 jobs last month and not a single one of them came from a slot machine. We don't need casinos in this state to grow jobs; they're a gimmick that sucks money right out of the local economy, depositing it to the executives and shareholders of massive casino corporations the world over, never to be seen in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts again. Instead of creating permanent jobs, they swap the local, home-grown jobs for the Big Box jobs, and there's usually less of them. Everything from local theaters to restaurants, bars and clubs get smashed by the casinos, while the local businesses that did business with and provided services for those companies get hurt, too.

This is not a jobs grower for Massachusetts. It's just politicians looking for headlines, glitz and the big bucks of slot-machine political donations.

Murray should stay in State Senate

Representative Delahunt is talking about retiring -- and there's been some BMG discussion about Senator Therese Murray running, leader of the State Senate. Let's all hope she doesn't -- because that decision could be disastrous. She'd almost certainly win the primary if she ran (her very presence would scare away many competitors), but that's where her advantages run out.

Because of Murray's position as one of the two most powerful legislators (and figures) in this state, any Republican challenger could run against everything that's wrong with Beacon Hill. It wouldn't matter whether she should be held accountable for those problems or not, she could easily be scapegoated and blamed. After all, she's the boss.

Furthermore, this would undoubtedly be the first challenging race she's had in a very, very long time. It's difficult for powerful politicians who have held safe seats for a very long time to suddenly mount strong campaigns. Campaigning is ugly, tough work. Coakley's loss would almost certainly make Murray realize just how important it would be to really get out there and stay sharp, but there's a big difference between knowing you should do something and actually doing it. At the very least, Murray would need a strong primary challenge.

Democrats should plead with Delahunt to stay on. Not only is he a widely-respected politician with lots of seniority, but he's the best bet to hold the seat and would keep the Democrats from having to spread themselves that much thinner in this difficult election year. If he absolutely doesn't want to serve another term, primary voters should go for a sharp, active outsider candidate, who can't be pinned for Beacon Hill's problems, like Andrea Silbert.

Ra, Ra, Ra! Shish, Koom, Bah! Let's Go Casinos!

Well, the Globe's casino cheer leading again, this time featuring Representative Brian Dempsey. Nothing like a nice Dempsey press release to get the story moving -- and nudge the Commonwealth a little further to casinos, a fantastic potential ad revenue source for enterprising Globe sales reps. Whee!

I'm not even going to block quote any of the story. Suffice it to say, there's some interesting competing stories going on. The Globe and Dempsey suggest that "jobs" are leading some reps to rethink their position, while the Boston Phoenix and Herald make other allusions.

From the second Herald story:

With a proposal to expand gambling expected to hit the House floor within weeks, nearly two dozen casino developers, slot machine makers and gaming proponents spent a staggering $2.2 million to pay lobbyists and related expenses in 2009.

The Phoenix also notes that Suffolk, that lovely little horsey track sitting in Speaker Deleo's district (that wants slots way more than horseys), paid out over $780,000 in lobbying this past year -- second most of any organization in the state. No wonder DeLeo took in $5,000 in lobbyist cash from "about" two dozen industry peeps this past year (his Committee for a Democratic House took in another 10k). Murray - and her Committee for a Democratic Senate - actually matches those numbers. Oh, yeah, it's just about the jobs. And I just spotted a winged-pig in my backyard.

If politicians in this state want to be taken credibly, it's well past time that they joined with the Governor in supporting a comprehensive study to analyze all the pros and cons of casinos in this state -- what jobs they'll create, what jobs they'll destroy, what revenue they'll generate and what revenue they'll force us to spend and, perhaps most importantly of all, how they'd impact our communities near and far from potential casinos. If the Speaker and Senate President, not to mention Representative Dempsey, are so confident casinos will lead to a net increase of jobs, why won't they agree to this full-scale, comprehensive, non-partisan study?

Maybe, it's because they're not so confident in their job predictions -- given that history suggests casinos and slot parlors lead to a net loss of regional jobs.

The fact that state constitutional provisions were utilized to make it as difficult as possible for future generations to legalize gambling activities (and thereby experiment once again with a classic "boom and bust" economic cycle) lends substantial credence to arguments that both historically and currently, the legalization of gambling activities eventually causes: (1) increased taxes, (2) a loss of jobs from the overall region, (3) economic disruption of other businesses, (4) increased crime and (5) large social-welfare costs for society in general and government agencies in particular. For example, two studies of the riverboat casinos in Illinois concluded that for every one job created by the riverboats, most of the surrounding communities probably lost one or more jobs from pre-existing businesses (Grinols 1994; Grinols and Omorov 1995).

In recent economic history, legalized gambling activities have been directly and indirectly subsidized by the taxpayers. The field research throughout the nation indicates that for every dollar the legalized gambling interests indicate is being contributed in taxes, it usually costs the taxpayers at least 3 dollars-- and higher numbers have been calculated.

So, will Speaker Deleo, Senator Murray and Representative Dempsey put their money where their mouth is and have the state fund the study to see if they're right about something that would so drastically change this state -- or will they continue to allow voters of this state to question the honesty and integrity of its elected leadership?

Mass Pols "Cash in with Casino Bill"

As the saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. From today's Herald:

Lobbyists have placed their biggest wagers on the State House’s very own pit bosses - Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Robert DeLeo - who each got roughly $5,000 in 2009 from about two dozen lobbyists representing casinos.

Their political action committees cashed in even bigger, with DeLeo’s Committee for a Democratic House and Murray’s Committee for a Democratic Senate raking in nearly $10,000 each from pro-gambling lobbyists and a handful of proponents of racinos.

Is it any wonder these two politicians have pushed so hard for slots?

What does it all amount to? In 2009, industry lobbyists spent $2.2 million in Massachusetts to push for slots.

Still, there's no comprehensive study of all the cons and benefits on the casino issue. Should anyone be surprised?

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.

DeLeo on Slots

Can't say I don't understand the dynamic. From the State House News Service (sorry, can't link):

DeLEO CALLS RACETRACK SLOTS ‘THE INITIAL THRESHOLD’
An expanded gambling package bringing resort casinos to Massachusetts must include slot machines at the state’s racetracks, House Speaker Robert DeLeo said Friday. “That’s going to be the initial threshold,” DeLeo said during an interview on WBUR, according to the station's transcript. DeLeo has long supported racetrack slots, his district including Revere, home of Wonderland, and abutting East Boston, home of Suffolk Downs. DeLeo, unlike Senate President Therese Murray who issued a supportive statement Wednesday for GOP candidate Charles Baker, also neared the line of endorsing Gov. Deval Patrick, telling WBUR, "I will support the Democratic nominee, which I expect will be Gov. Patrick."

Now, we just have to see if at least 25% of the House will switch their votes this year from last, and if the Governor will violate a long-standing promise to veto any racino bill, because if any slot deal gets through the House, it won't come without racinos. Complete with minimal, noncompetitive licenses that make it impossible to get big ticket licenses on any other casinos or slot parlors allowed in this state. And how many people would vote for such a bottom-dollar, worst-case-for-Massachusetts scenario? It's a long shot.

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.

Swift Action

A joint statement from Murray, DeLeo and Patrick:

“The news of yesterday’s indictments and the nature of the charges are deeply disturbing. All three of us have put forth serious proposals dealing with ethics, lobbying and campaign finance reform, the details of which are currently being negotiated in conference committee. In light of the recent developments, we believe it is critical that we stand united in our shared commitment to restoring the public trust. Therefore, we have agreed that ethics reform legislation will be passed and signed into law swiftly that includes the best provisions from all three of our proposals. We owe the people of Massachusetts nothing less.”

Well, if there's some good to come out of this whole DiMasi mess, there's that. At least now we're likely to get the strongest reform out of the three. Maybe this will even reflexively push the strongest, cost-saving reforms on issues surrounding the Pike and MBTA.

Revenue Week Working?

It's Virtual Rally Week for those sane enough to realize Massachusetts has to do something about the revenue situation -- well, the distinct lack of it. It looks like DeLeo got the message. Unfortunately, the income tax is off the table. It's the tax that's the fairest and probably most efficient in terms of raising revenue, but what can you do? If everything else is at least open for discussion, that's not so bad.

Would the Speaker like Ryan's Risk-Adverse Advice for Raising Good Revenue Streams? People are demanding answers to municipal budget collapses and the transportation system, so here goes.

• Solving the multi-faceted transportation mess: Pass a 20-25 cent gas tax, which would do enormous good and only cost the average car-driving taxpayer about $100 a year. Include money in that to get rid of most tolls (8-11 cents, with 10 or 11 cents getting rid of *all* of them) as well as public transportation (8 cents = $200 million). Make sure revenue from the gas tax is spread fairly throughout the state, whether it's closing tolls, paving roads or keeping the buses going.
• Helping cities and towns: 1. Close telecom corporate tax loopholes by allowing towns to tax Verizon for all its telephone polls, as they already do cable companies. 2. Get rid of most of the home-rule stuff, so towns aren't handcuffed. 3. Give munis the option to pass modest local sales taxes on hotels and restaurants (and maybe even more) at no more than 2%.
• Helping the State Budget: We can't just cut ourselves out of this current hole. We've made too many cuts already. At the very least, pass Patrick's candy and liquor tax proposals. Those seem like no brainers. They're also completely discretionary spending and thus a much fairer tax than a general sales tax. This is real low-hanging fruit stuff, but it would raise real revenue. Plus, why should cigarettes have a huge tax rate while alcohol isn't even hit with the state sales tax? Seems bizarre.
  
• Reasonable efficiencies to state government: Pass the Governor's harder-hitting pension reform proposals. Moreover, get major public-employee unions to the table with the Gov, Senate President and Speaker to talk fair ways to save money and jobs by switching to GIC or other regional plans in every single city and town where that makes sense. There's hundreds of millions to be saved there - and plenty of common ground to be had. Do it. It's the duty of our elected leaders to act like adults and get these unions to the table, so we can access these savings throughout the state.
  

Aside from perhaps the gas tax, Ryan's Risk-Adverse Advice for Raising Good Revenue Streams won't piss off any serious group of citizens. Carla Howell may blow a gasket, but her minions won't be on the march because suddenly Verizon has to pay property taxes on its property. Hence why this plan is so risk-adverse -- these taxes aren't going to be noticed. They're not large and most can't be blamed on the State House, as they'd now be local issues.
Even the gas tax, combined with pension reform at our state's transportation authorities, would be tolerated by the general public with even the smallest of public awareness campaigns. Plus, even a 20 or 25 cent gas tax won't be noticed or thought of at length after a few months. Phase it in over a year or two and maybe no one notices at all?

Sen. Murray's Out of Her Depth

From the SHNS,

Asked about her view on the future of gambling in Massachusetts, Murray smiled and said, "My staff is going to hate me for doing this, but - cha-ching!"

Really? That's the level she's thinking at? Reducing a huge issue for the commonwealth, with very large and complicated implications, to a sophomoric catchphrase?

There were times when I thought very highly of Senator Murray. Between this and her stance stonewalling on transportation reform, it's clear that she currently lacks the thoughtfulness and maturity to be Senate President of the Commonwealth. Next.

Party Politics at its Best

Here's the latest press release from Sonia Chang-Diaz's campaign, photo included.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADERSHIP ENDORSE CHANG-DÍAZ FOR STATE SENATE

Governor Patrick: Chang-Díaz a "Great Choice for the Democratic Party"

BOSTON -- Before a standing room only crowd of supporters and community activists at the Harriet Tubman House (United South End Settlements), Governor Deval Patrick, Speaker Sal DiMasi, Majority Leader Byron Rushing and Democratic Party Chairman John Walsh unequivocally endorsed Sonia Chang-Díaz as the Democratic Nominee for State Senate in the Second Suffolk. Chang-Díaz won the Democratic Primary on September 16th.

"To be absolutely clear and unambiguous: As your governor and as a Democrat, I endorse Sonia Chang-Díaz ," said Governor Patrick. "Sonia comes to this role and to this challenge as a teacher at a time when the schools need us…and as an experienced politician, frankly – at a time when we need all the wisdom we can get up on Beacon Hill. Ladies and gentlemen, this a great choice for the Democratic Party and a great choice for the 2nd Suffolk."

Patrick also gave a nod to the hard work of the Chang-Díaz campaign. "I saw a sign just outside that said 'This District is Not for Sale,'" he said. "And by the way, that sign is right. This district is for not for sale…this nomination was earned."
Speaker DiMasi also threw his strong support behind Chang-Díaz : "I am here to wholeheartedly and completely endorse the campaign of Sonia Chang-Díaz …She is a hard worker….She has a great ability to lead in this district. She is absolutely right on every single one of the issues that this district faces…[and] I will do everything I can to help her get her elected in November."

Majority Leader Byron Rushing, who emceed the event and offered his own strong endorsement of Chang-Díaz, read out the names of the elected officials and State Party Committee members who had endorsed. The list included State Senate President Therese Murray (who was traveling outside the country), Representatives Jeff Sanchez, Marie St. Fleur, and Marty Walz, City Councilors Bill Linehan and John Tobin, as well as Sheriff Andrea Cabral.

Chang-Díaz spoke at the end to rousing applause. "Over the next four weeks," she said, "with the help of the Mass Democratic Party and those here today, we will again reach out to the voters of the Second Suffolk District. We will again go door to door and talk to people about their real problems and their real concerns and about what we can do together through State Government to build real solutions. And we will again ask them to join us in this campaign for new leadership."

When a candidate wins a primary, it's of paramount importance that the party unite behind that person. Sonia Chang-Diaz won a hard fought, hotly contested battle - which has left some bitter and angry and acting like a bunch of toddlers throwing a tantrum. Thankfully, this party's leaders have a firm grasp of the situation. This is how people who consider themselves a part of a political party should act. I'll always encourage primary battles, but if you want to be a member of a party, you shouldn't work against the person who wins that primary. Enough said.

Don't Know How I Missed This: Biotech Fued

Lisa Wangsness doesn't disappoint today with a great article detailing why the biotech bill isn't going to pass this legislative session; Speaker DiMasi isn't willing to give up the purse strings.

In an interview yesterday afternoon, as Patrick was listening to DiMasi's pitch, Patrick's economic secretary said the governor did not want to use the political process to hand out economic development money for biotech companies. Instead, he said, a special panel of scientists and other specialists should award incentives, as Patrick's biotech bill proposes.

DiMasi said he asked the governor and Senate President Therese Murray during their weekly meeting yesterday to consider offering as much as $40 million in tax breaks and infrastructure investments to a half-dozen life science companies that are now deciding whether to expand in the state.

So, let's get this straight. Governor Patrick and Senate President Therese Murray want to create a program that rewards good science, providing a means to make sure that the most innovative and ultimately best companies grow and expand in the state. Speaker DiMasi wants to bribe his friends dish out 40 million to his hand-picked companies. Ignoring the ethical problems with that - as well as the fact that it's a policy that holds our state hostage to any company that threatens to leave - shouldn't we be spending our money wisely and efficiently? Shouldn't we be making sure we not only get the most bang for our buck, but that we also support research that will, you know, cure people?

Sadly, the only way we're going to change Beacon Hill is through electoral change. If you're progressive, care about the direction this state is heading in and can work hard to win office, think about running. Call me up and I'll help out. Primaries seem to be the only thing Beacon Hill's House cares about.

Governor Patrick's Frustrations

The Globe has an interesting article on Governor Patrick today, about how he's frustrated by the slow pace of the state legislature.

"I'm frustrated by the pace; I don't make any secret of that," Patrick said in an interview yesterday. "I don't think it's simply because I'm from the private sector or, as they say in the South, 'not from around here.' It's because I got elected to make change. People are hungry for it, and I think a lot of people see the reasons for the delays as excuses for inaction. And sometimes I do, too."

The biotech package is one of a series of blockbuster proposals the Democratic governor has rolled out since taking office: ending corporate tax breaks, repealing the telecommunications tax, allowing local communities to raise modest rooms and meals taxes, and getting tougher on gun crime.

When things like the biotech bill aren't getting through, which enjoys widespread support, it's understandable to see the Governor frustrated. In part, his frustrations likely led to the casino proposal: he's doing whatever he can to raise funds for his initiatives. However, dealing with the legislature - and especially Speaker DiMasi - is a different sort of beast. Being creative and coming up with new proposals aren't going to make the Speaker budge.

The Governor is going to have to play Carrot and Stick. If Speaker DiMasi isn't going to pass meal tax local options, restrictions on corporate tax loopholes, a balanced budget that doesn't rely on rainy-day funds and some of the more important educational initiatives the Governor proposes, beat the Speaker with a stick. Publicly wield the veto pen, if only to give the Speaker a taste of his own medicine. Privately, let the Speaker know it'll all stop when two or three of the Governor's most important proposals pass, especially those that will bring the state to a place of fiscal sanity. Of course, the House can put their finger prints on the bill, too - compromise is fine - but things have to pass that will actually help the people of this Commonwealth.

Then, there's the Carrot: according to at least one of Patrick's early legislative endorsers during the primary, the Governor isn't doing enough to reach out to house reps to gain support for his bills, or to help them with their priorities. The Governor needs to reach out to House and Senate members and nibble away at Murray and DiMasi's control over those bodies. We don't need an all-powerful Governor, but we can't afford to have an all-powerful Speaker DiMasi either.

Legislative Failure on Budget

The Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center released its preliminary report yesterday and it doesn't look good - for the Massachusetts State Legislative Branch.

The budget released by the Conference Committee today appears to spend more, counting appropriations and transfers, than the amounts recommended by the House, the Senate, and Governor Patrick. While much of this spending is to finance vitally needed public services - additional police officers to protect public safety, investments in K-12 and higher education that restore funding which had been cut to pay for the state tax cuts of the 1990s, and funding for new immunizations for children - the budget fails to identify ongoing revenue sources to support this spending.

Following the budgets proposed by the House and the Senate, the Conference Committee draws heavily on reserves and one-time solutions to balance the budget - $609 million in one-time solutions in total. In addition, the budget appears to rely on significantly more Federal and other non-tax revenue than were identified in previous versions of the budget.

While the governor had proposed several reforms to the state corporate tax laws to reduce tax avoidance, these reforms were not adopted in the House or Senate version of the budget and therefore were not available to the Conference Committee.

The MBPC gets it - you don't spend money you don't have, at least in a year where we can afford to solve the budget. Governor Patrick laid out a completely balanced budget, without using one-time money, in a tough year. Next year promises to be even more difficult, as the housing market gets worse, while mortgage rates continue to climb and people continue to lose their homes from taking bad mortgages they couldn't afford. Those variable rates are going to have variable consequences: let's hope there aren't too many unlucky families in Massachusetts.
But, sadly, there are going to be a lot of them. And that's going to cost this state untold millions, all the while health insurance rates will continue to climb. Cities and towns are slowly going bankrupt, closing schools, libraries and laying off teachers just to get out of the red this year. Next year will be even worse, even for some of the towns that have already closed schools.

Now, we have a Speaker of the House, Sal DiMasi, and a Senate President, Therese Murray, who are willing to use more band-aids to slow a gaping wound. It isn't even going to solve this coming year's problems, never mind the future's. No, we need to address the real costs: rising health care, no diversity of raising revenue, and secret formulas no one can understand. Governor Patrick has started to address those issues, but he's being thwarted every day by the fine folks from Beacon Hill. It's time those fine folks listen to the advice of the MBPC and cut the unfair and illogical corporate tax loopholes.

Senator Murray: Do the Right Thing!

It may be preposterous to say the Massachusetts State House is the center of the universe, but it’s something a great many people do all the time. When people call Boston the “Hub,” that’s exactly what they’re doing - whether they know it or not. Oliver Wendell Homes coined the term and Bostonians, ever so humble, have embraced it ever since. Fanning our ego, history has had a way of making Beacon Hill integral to revolutionary movements in America over and over again - such as now, when Senate President Therese Murray presides over a Constitutional Convention, on Thursday, June 14th, that will help decide if marriage equality ought to exist.

Unfortunately, according to several sources of mine on Beacon Hill, equality does not have the support it should: enough to make sure we win this upcoming Constitutional Convention. Whether she likes it or not, as Senate President, Therese Murray is now the Hub of the Universe: her actions on June 14th will decide if she is to become the heroine we all hoped for when she became Senate President - or MassResistance’s favorite new senator, one who will allow equality to go on the ballot unobstructed. Her fate is in her hands.

The reason I say this is simple: it’s true. The vast majority of state legislators support equality. There’s enough support to kill this amendment like they killed a similar one last year, on health care. Tens of thousands of supporters signed a bill to make health care a constitutional right in Massachusetts. A majority of state legislators supported the amendment, but not the leadership. The leadership, especially Senator Travaglini, was willing to kill it at all costs - the very same year the same people said a ban on marriage equality deserved an up-or-down vote. Hypocrisy, it appears, is often a politician’s favorite hobby.

This year, state legislators are a few votes shy from having a full 75% of the legislature supporting marriage equality. Senator Murray claims to support equality, yet has declared there will be a vote on it. She will even vote against a marriage ban, but that doesn’t change the fact that by allowing a vote her place in history will forever be sealed. She’ll become the Senate President who was known for allowing the rights of a minority to be decided by the majority - a vote that the editor-in-chief of Bay Windows, New England's largest GLBT newspaper, thinks is likely the glbt community could lose. Former Senate President Travaglini fled the State House before he had to suffer that fate; Murray ought to think twice before she puts basic human rights at risk.

Unfortunately for her, Senator Murray owns this marriage amendment. When she accepted the position as leader of the Senate, she accepted all the responsibility that comes with it. With a simple motion, she could make this all go away. Yet, Murray has refused to use her position to defend the rights of gay people. She’s allowing a vote even though she, as with almost 75% of the legislature, claims to support marriage equality. It doesn’t have to be this way.

Years from now, when all is said and done, Senator Murray will be remembered for being the first female President of the Massachusetts State Senate. However, that memory will pale in comparison to how people will view her on gay rights. In her grand moment at the center of the universe on marriage equality, she’ll be remembered either as a hero, who stood up for the minority, or the villain who allowed basic human rights to potentially be stripped away forever. Nearly omnipotent on this one issue, the decision of how she will be remembered is in her hands - because that’s how it works when you’re the hub of the universe.

The ConCon, Healthy MA-05 and All Sorts of Good Stuff

All sorts of good stuff on yesterday's LeftAhead. Lynne Lupien, of LeftinLowell, makes an endorsement. We all talk ConCon, Pride Week, health care forum, etc. Mike and I think it's high time for Senate President Therese Murray to do the noble thing, and courageously defend marriage equality and we do it all in under an hour!

Listen in now!

Profile in Cowardice: Senate President Therese Murray

Senator Murray became the first Senate President to much fanfare: she was the first female Senate President ever and she is a so-called equality supporter, replacing someone who voted against marriage equality just a few months ago.

When someone accepts a position of leadership, they accept all the rights, privileges - and responsibilities - that come with it. Senator Murray claims to support marriage equality. She has the support of almost 75% the entire legislature on that one issue. However, she isn't willing to do what the House and Senate did last Constitutional Convention and kill an amendment at all cost. Of course, last time around, they weren't willing to do that for minorities - they were only willing to do that for the health care amendment; the one that would have guaranteed health care for the tens of thousands who are being left behind from this "universal" law in Massachusetts. But that's another issue.

Murray has a duty to kill this mean-spirited, hateful, homophobic amendment that would quite possibly destroy marriage equality. Almost 75% of the legislature would back her on it. History would applaud her courage. Instead, she's being a coward. She's too afraid to follow her peers and stand up for the right thing. She's too afraid of doing what people have done during Constitutional Conventions since as long as I'm aware of: killing amendments procedurally to just make them go away. It's a little too late to cry foul on procedural deaths and if people were to do that, they should have been crying foul about the health care amendment long ago.

They weren't. MassResistance types don't care about that stuff. They just care about their own goals. They cry about procedure because, guess what, it helps their cause. If things were reversed, they'd have no problem with the legislature using procedure to kill this thing. They will do whatever it takes to win, something our side - sadly - doesn't get. Isn't it cheaters who are never supposed to prosper?

So, I say this to Senator Murray: You own this amendment. It became yours when you became Senate President. Word on the street is we don't have the votes to kill this with a yes-or-no vote(coming from a number of sources, including high-ranking Representatives on Beacon Hill) . They also say the only thing blocking us from winning is Senator Murray, the so-called equality supporter. She's such an equality supporter, she's willing to let it be absolutely destroyed because she'd have to stick her neck out and make a courageous call.

Senator Murray: you have a duty to both your constituents and the people of Massachusetts. That duty is to do whatever you can to protect the equality of everyone in this state. That duty is to protect marriage equality. If you want to be remembered fondly by the homophobic people at MassResistance, keep your current course. Mind you, there aren't even enough of those people to keep a radio program going one hour a week - so you may just want to think carefully here.

If you want to do the right thing - and be remembered as a hero for all time - don't let this amendment pass. The ball is in your hands, though you don't have much time: June 14th is the day you can make a difference. You have all the power here. If you were wise, you wouldn't turn yourself into a Profile in Cowardice. If you were wise, you would protect the equality of marriage for all in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Let's Do It, Senator Murray!

From today's Globe:

The newly elected president of the state Senate said she favors repealing a law that prevents most same-sex couples from other states from getting married here, saying she did not share former governor Mitt Romney's fear that Massachusetts would become a gay marriage mecca.

Come on, Senator, let's do it! Sadly, it looks as though some pro-equality organizations may be advocating against it for some crazy reason. Here's what Lisa Wangsness had to say about that,

Proponents of gay marriage are not currently lobbying for repeal because they fear it could stir up antigay sentiment and hurt their chances of defeating the amendment.

What crap. However, I'd like to remind Ms. Wangsness that "propents" extend far beyond the political mastery of Marc Solomon; every glbt-friendly person I know thinks out-of-state marriage is a really big deal. I've advocated many times that repealing that bill would be tremendously helpful to our side. With the recent news that the Governor made on this issue - and now Senator Murray's public stance, it's time to get the job done.

Lastly, Senator Murray alerted Globe readers to some of the key information.

Murray said the Constitutional Convention, scheduled for May 9, will probably be postponed because the Senate will be focused on the budget then. She said she planned to meet with people on both sides of the gay marriage question this week, but her personal position on gay marriage is firm.

Thankfully, it looks like there won't be a ConCon in May. Also, we learn from the article that Senator Barrios got a repeal to 1913 passed through the Senate, but that - shocker of all shockers - Finneran's House blocked it. If anyone wants our elected leaders to continue to think that marriage equality supporters don't want a repeal of 1913, do nothing. Otherwise, it's time to call your rep and make sure they have the right facts: we want marriage equality and we want it now.