Weird Headline for Cahill Story

The Boston Globe printed an article today titled "Cahill getting his message back on track" which seems to be about how Cahill isn't getting his message back on track and how his campaign 'jumped the shark.' These are all things I agreed with, which makes their choice of headlines odd. In any event, it's still a very amusing read... if you, like me, think Cahill's something of a bad, but still amusing, joke. Let's hope his tuned-out supporters don't catch on, either.

Note to Tim Cahill: Wind Brings Cost of Power Down

Maybe he should have read this blog before he decided to lambaste the nearly-done-deal that is Cape Wind?

Ryan's Take ridicules Tim Cahill project

Says his campaign is tilting at windmills.

Breaking at Ryan's Take is Tim Cahill's tour of the Cape Wind project.

Too Early to Tell

I honestly have no idea whether or not Tim Cahill running as an independent will hurt or help Deval Patrick. Some seem to think it helps him (assuming Baker's in), others seem to like Cahill's chances. Sab just seems to think everyone loses.

I could think of reasons why it could hurt and help -- this far out, it's honestly pure conjecture. We have no idea how Cahill will act as a candidate (I can't imagine competently), nor what his impact will be on the race. We don't know if continual chicken-candidate Charlie will actually grow a spine and run this time, or if he'll be a competent candidate should he decide to do so.

Here's what I know, though. The Democratic Party stands for something. It takes courage and ideas to win a primary. It's very easy to turn away from courage and ideas; it's very hard to win a General Election without the backing of the Democratic Party. We don't know if Cahill will help Deval win reelection or help get the Republican in office, but at the very least we'll have a new state Treasurer. Perhaps we'll have someone who knows what they're doing.

A Suffolk Poll is Worth [Expletive Deleted]

They've been consistently wrong on everything, especially all things Deval. Remember when they showed a close race just before the last gubernatorial primary? And then just before the general? They're worse than worthless. They give opponents hope when there is none!

BTW - if you want my semi-expert analysis (well, better than the guy at Suffolk), I dished it out to jconway.

Casinos Don't Make Sense

Here's one of the most amazing posts on casino gambling I've ever read.

First, though gambling is taking place in other states and the lottery, this would be a massive expansion of the most addictive form which would put as many as 5% of the Massachusetts population at risk of new compulsive behaviors. That's as many as 300,000 people - if not you, then potentially your parents, your neighbors, and your kids. In any case, the argument that "two wrongs DO make a right" -- i.e. that if something bad is happening somewhere else we might as well encourage more of it here -- is morally and politically confused.

Second, if the the neurological studies don't convince you that there is a problem, maybe the terms that slot machine manufacturers and casino use will give you some insight. They both work tirelessly to increase a person's "time on device" in order to get a person to "play to extinction" (i.e. exhaust their bank accounts). Some otherwise healthy adults wear adult diapers so they don't have to leave a "hot" machine.

BMass goes on to tackle the 'inevitability' argument, quite convincingly. He also asks people to take up this issue at Democratic Party Platform meetings, which can be found here.

I added an addendum to the post in the form of a comment, one that I think is important enough to include here.

Senator Tucker made an eloquent point at last year's slot hearing. It was one of the most passionate, moving speeches I've ever seen given at a hearing of any kind before. Senator Tucker said that there are four basic tests that we need to consider before passing any sort of tax. Slot machines fail all four:

1. They're volatile. You never know what you'll get in a year, which means your budget is at the constant mercy of the casino lobby.
2. They're unfair. They prey on those who can least afford to pay it.
3. They're expensive to collect. We'd need to build a whole new bureaucratic gambling authority to oversee this mammoth new project. Folks, if you like the Turnpike Authority, you'll love the Gambling one. (Not to mention the huge cost and toll this will take on services within the state, from police to addiction counseling.)
4. It doesn't create new revenue. A slot parlor or casino is largely just a redistribution of the local economy. It's money going from local businesses to the Casino Borg. Instead of having local money have a ripple effect, it becomes money your local community will never see again. This isn't just a tax on users, but on the very local businesses that are the foundation of our cities and towns.

We need to seek stable streams of revenue that are efficient and fair to collect, that don't leech off of other industries that we tax within this state. There are mature and responsible ways of doing that -- but slot machines aren't one of them.

Lynne Owns Cahill

She eats him for breakfast. Mmm.. Tastes like chicken.

Awesome Cahill Quote (Stick a Fork in Him)

Amazing.

In an interview yesterday, Cahill called his numbers preliminary. "They're absolutely an estimate," he said. "But I would rather err on the side of overestimating what they're worth and get more than underestimate them and be kicking ourselves later."

More amazing-ness.

Cahill did not mention the potential legal impediment during yesterday's breakfast speech, which captured widespread attention, but he said in an interview later that he and his staff knew about the legal problems with the plan. He said he hoped the Justice Department's position would be reversed by the administration of President Obama.

Looking at the blogosphere...

Mass Liberal's got it right: Cahill's not ready for prime time. I say stick a fork in him. Lots of details in his blog, but this was the most interesting tidbit:

And oh yeah, another oopsie:

Cahill also encountered problems on a second major proposal, a plan to privatize the state lottery... It is a move that has been contemplated by other states, but... would violate federal law.

If you want to challenge Patrick's ideas.... definitely limit yourself to legal solutions.

It's amateur hour over at the Treasurer's office.

Also, here's what I wrote earlier this morning. It was easy pickings, but consider Treasurer Cahill sufficiently pwnd.

Cahill: Not a Real Democrat

Did I not just last night say that Cahill was sounding an awful lot like a Republican, including the part where he was coming up with ideas that weren't only stupid concepts, but inept on the details to boot? Well, we learn this morning that Cahill's thinking of running for Governor -- as an Independent. Yeah, good luck with that one, Mr. Treasurer.

State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill is giving serious consideration to running for governor next year, either in a challenge to Deval Patrick for the Democratic nomination or possibly as an independent candidate, advisers to Cahill said recently.

My favorite part?

Others who are part of Cahill's inner circle said the treasurer does not want to appear to be abandoning the Democratic Party at this point, particularly as he continues to raise funds from Democratic sources and because of the possibility that Patrick would not seek a second term.

Kind of let the cat out of the bag on that one. Contemplating running against the Democrat, not-as-a-Democrat, isn't exactly going to endear you to "Democratic sources."

Gotta love two ineptly handled, PR-disasters coming out of Cahill's office in two days. That's impressive. Run, Cahill, Run!! Massachusetts needs a new State Treasurer.

Bonus points for the Globe editorial slamming Cahill today on his disaster of a slot plan. It was a stupid plan and he deserved the thrashing.

Cahill's Not Done: Wants to Privitize State Lotto

From today's State House News Service (sorry, can't link),

Following up on a plan he says would generate an immediate $2 billion to $3 billion through the licensing of private slot parlors, Treasurer Tim Cahill on Wednesday said the state could capture an additional $1 billion by leasing the state lottery to a private operator.

The fact of the matter is as much as I'd love to do anything to keep the lotto out of his hands, privatizing the lotto is just a bad idea. He's run the thing into the ground, eating up huge sums of money to revamp the HQ so newly minted millionaires can go watch flat screen TVs and get their checks in the lap of luxury, but that's preferable to a privately run lottery. Really, why else would we allow something to be privatized unless we a) wanted to slash employee benefits and b) wanted to allow the state lottery to do things we weren't comfortable with - like make the games more addictive and costly to those who are addicted.

It really gets worse, though. We need more quotes, so Cahill can hang himself:

Without privatization, he said, the added competition from the slot parlors he envisions could set up the lottery for a protracted decline in revenue.

So, buried in all his plans, he's finally recognizing that - yes - the slot parlors he proposes would eat the hell out of the state lottery. Duh. My question: why didn't he account for that in his $244 million number. The state lottery provides almost a billion dollars to cities and towns a year. The slot parlors would give up to $244 million to the entire state in a year - according to Cahill's inflated and bogus numbers. If that $244 million was redirected from the local economy and state lottery, it's not only not new money, but it's money that's sucked away from cities and towns and put into the coffers of state government. In other words, its money lost in the laundry that cities and towns should have but will never actually get back.

But he's sounding an awful lot like a Republican, the more he speaks.

We don’t run liquor. We don’t run the tobacco industry. We tax it and we regulate it,” he said. “We should consider that same model for the lottery.”

Just privatize it and everything will work out! Privatizing is always the answer. That's why we have such great health care in this country!

It gets worse:

Cahill said that without considering privatization, the Lottery could wind up like General Motors, “where you have a business model that you know doesn’t work.”

Call it GM and you know it should be privatized. Because GM isn't a private company, right? GM and the state lottery really are so much alike. For starters, the Massachusetts state lottery system does so poorly! I mean, it only sucks in more money per capita than any other state lottery in the entire country. What an unsuccessful piece of crap!

My question: if the State Lottery is doing so poorly, why doesn't Cahill resign? He oversees it, after all. It's his responsibility as Treasurer of this great Commonwealth. If bleeding dry more Massachusetts citizens, per capita, than any other state in this country isn't good enough for him, perhaps he should admit his failure and start drafting his letter of resignation.

Meanwhile, Cahill says the responsible tax - Governor Patrick's 19 cent gas tax - is too high, even if many communities are saying its too low. $2 a week for the average driver, a little over a hundred a year, is unaffordable - but taxing the poor extra thousands a year at the casino... no problem.

I hope he mounts a challenge against Deval Patrick in 2010 - and I hope he gets crushed. But the important part about that mounted challenge is he'll be out of State Government and Massachusetts will be a better state for it. Run, Cahill, Run!

Cahill's Bad Idea and his Website Specials!

I checked out Cahill's state website. There's some interesting stuff on there. I wonder if his slot machine is part of his Saving Makes Sense program, whereupon he teaches kids how to use basic monetary skills, such as opening a savings account -- and playing the cards right.

Then there's SMART Retirement & Beyond. In that program, there's a seminar that teaches state employees about getting ready for retirement. One of the available classes is "How to Get Free Watered Down Drinks (Just go to Mohegan Sun)."

What a lousy plan. For someone using state dollars to fund programs to teach kids how to manage their day-to-day finances, or people to save for retirement, this is just hypocritical. And stupid. We may as well light that money on fire, if this is the sort of teacher providing these lessons to kids. What good do those things do if we pass legislation that doubles the gambling addiction rate of this state - to the point that more than 5% of this state has a gambling problem? Do we really need that?

Governor Patrick's openly criticizing Cahill's plan, for good reason -not that the Gov's all that better on the subject. However, at the very least Governor Patrick is willing to admit the consequences of slot machines, something Cahill continually ignores. The fact remains that slot parlors have all the negative consequences of resort casinos - and none of the (rare) high points. They're just bad ideas - even worse ideas than resort casinos.

It's high time for some good ideas. Dump the slots - let's talk progressive income tax, at least for the top 1%. It may just bring in more revenue - and definitely with less downside. Why don't we have a single state-wide official talking about that in these disastrous times? Why not talk policy that will help the average citizen of the Commonwealth, instead of hurt them? It may take a while to pass such a measure, but this recession's only getting worse and will continue for the foreseeable future.

Cahill's Idea: Worst Ever?

In a word: Yes. Three slot parlors across the state makes no sense on any level.

State Treasurer Timothy Cahill plans to propose today that the state sell the rights to as many as three slot parlors across Massachusetts, a push far less ambitious than Governor Deval Patrick's bill for three casino resorts last year but one that Cahill will argue is the quickest way to boost state coffers.

Cahill says his plan would bring the state $244 million, to which I respond, so would raising the income tax by a small fraction of a percent. The kicker is the fact that it won't bring in $244 million, because slot parlors are merely a redistribution of the local economy and state lottery funds -- the very state lottery which Cahill has run to the ground. Why have people spending money at their local pubs, restaurants, bars, clubs and bowling allies, when up to 75% of that could be going to slot parlors, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston? Cahill's really got the interests of the people at his heart.

Furthermore, even assuming Cahill's numbers are accurate (they're not), what's $244 million? Does that balance our budget? Not even close. It invites a world of problems and starts the government addiction, which would be fed more down the road - through more parlors, real casinos, expanded gambling and reduced taxes on the industry.

Cahill's ties to the slot industry are well known and deep. He's taken in way too much in gambling lobby dollars - and he's run the state lottery to the ground. Hell, his slot parlor plan is merely an attempt to bail out the multi millionaires at the race tracks - who won't even allow the state to provide free retraining and employment services, because that would hurt the 'poor track worker' meme. His parlor "plan" is overly generous to boot - other states around the country tax these sorts of things at double the rate he'd plan. In other words, Cahill knows who his friends are -- and they're not the average, every day citizens of Massachusetts.

If this at all sounds a bit harsh - I apologize. I'm just sick of having this guy be our State Treasurer and continue his obsession with stale, insider ideas that not only don't solve any of our problems, but would only serve to create new ones, that cost more money to even think about solving. Don't we have enough problems already? Can't we use reasonable and fair methods of generating revenue to deal with those problems?

Cahill Swapped Campaign Cash for Contracts?

That's what a suit alleges, as reported in the State House News Service (sorry, can't link).

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, DEC. 29, 2008..... A bingo software firm issuing Treasurer Timothy Cahill and the state's Lottery chief for more than $20 million over the awarding of gaming contracts, claiming they engaged in a conspiracy to favor a Georgia company in exchange for money for Cahill's campaign.

In a federal suit filed Friday, Rhode Island-based Bingo Innovative Software alleged that Cahill and Lottery Executive Director Mark Cavanagh blocked implementation of a TV bingo game despite projected profits for the cash-strapped system, in part to further their own careers and open private-sector opportunities for themselves and others.

Cahill's office is firing back.

Treasury general counsel Grace Lee called the case "absolutely meritless and one of the most frivolous lawsuits I've ever seen filed."

Who knows what's going on? Certainly not this blogger. However, what can certainly be said - beyond a reasonable doubt - is that screwy things are going on over at the state lottery, under Cahill's watch.

Oops

I don't think this article was in Treasurer Cahill's master plan.

"I think the treasurer is running the lottery more for the benefit of its administrators and employees than the taxpayers of Massachusetts," said David Tuerck, an economist and executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, a nonpartisan think tank. "The state needs to put the lottery on the list of agencies that need a thorough investigation of how they are run, with a view toward vastly improving performance."

Most of the lottery's increased 'performance' got eated, as Atrios would say, by Cahill's excess. Real gubernatorial material, that one.

Also, let's just call this a funny coincidence for now...

The company that has received the multimillion-dollar contract to promote the lottery is Hill, Holliday, a large advertising firm whose executives have been major contributors to Cahill's campaign fund.

$46,000 to Cahill's campaign. No problem there, right?

No, Mr. Cahill

More about standardized school designs. I've already analyzed his plan and found it lacking (though, with some good ideas). For starters, only half of this state's construction sites would be suitable for a standardized design. Secondly, the Treasurer is a) deciding what towns can and can't afford [Note to Cahill: that's up the the towns and democracy, isn't it?] and b) mandating what towns can do with their facilities, completely violating centuries of the spirit of Massachusetts and local control.

One caveat: in terms of academics, the schools Cahill would use as models have plenty of science labs and facilities that could host lectures or be used in a number of different ways. The schools are academically sound, which would ensure that many or even most towns would want to use all or part of these designs to save costs. However, there are others that wouldn't want to use the designs at all - we shouldn't make them. Also, the idea that towns wouldn't be allowed to add to the designs is ludicrious - using any part of them would save on some of the costs, so let's try to get as many towns involved as possible.

Here's the most contemptible thing Cahill has to say:

Cahill hopes the program will eliminate one-upmanship, which at times has prompted a spate of field houses, swimming pools, and other expensive perks.

"It's not just what the state can afford for these projects but what the towns can afford," Cahill said in an interview last week. "Standardization will take the envy factor out of the process."

That just reeks of know-it-all-ism. People don't like that. Are these towns really trying to 'one up' each other? Is that the only motivating factor Cahill can possibly think of? Is it at least conceivable that a majority of people in certain communities would want a community building that would have a field house or a pool? Is it not conceivable that these facilities serve a role for the entire community - a place where kids can learn how to swim or skate?

These things are expensive - and certainly not necessary - but since when was America about doing the bare minimum? America is about Democracy - let the towns decide. It's not as if one town building a field house would cost the rest of the state anything - the state only helps to reimburse expenditures deemed necessary - academic. The extra frills aren't covered.

Furthermore, while not every town needs a pool, a field house and hockey rink, we need at least some schools in every region to have one of them. We can't ship off our kids in busses for an hour every day in the winter, just so they can get to hockey practice. Every region will need a couple of each, so if a town wants to build one or two of those "extra perks," as the Treasurer put it, it may be completely necessary for the student athletes in the school. Let's not forget that student athletes perform better in school - and many sports are what keep students active and interested in learning, or even keeps them from otherwise dropping out.

So, let's go full steam ahead with the model school plans, but for heaven's sake let towns modify them or do something else if they're willing to cough up the dough. Let's not prevent communities that are willing to expand community resources from doing so, by creating keep-everyone-down policies. That's not what America's about, that's not even what equality is about, that's more like something out of the CCCP. No thanks.

Digging Into Cahill's School Proposal

As I said earlier, Treasurer Cahill's proposal to create state-sponsored school designs, in order to save costs, is a great idea. He says it could cut costs up to 30% - which it may - but it would also be the state's way of reigning in some of these crazy-expensive schools that wealthy towns are building. As I said before, there are good ideas amongst his proposal and bad. I'm glad he's making the proposal so we can talk about them - and hopefully form some sort of concrete action using the good.

So, here's the good stuff:

• His proposal could save the state and local towns tens of millions every year.
• A state-sponsored design would set a base level of what's needed in schools, so at least we'll have all new schools complete with what should be standard.
• We'll be able to update these designs to make sure they're tested and work well.

Here's the bad stuff:

High schools aren't just schools, they're community buildings. By banning towns from adding parts to the project that benefit the entire community, he's

• Making it less likely schools will get through overrides,
• Reducing the ability of towns to provide what they think their kids need (and no town should be prevented from doting - or deciding things democratically),
  
• Ignoring the fact that schools need some of these things he'd like to ban. Field Houses have become necessary for sports like indoor track. Towns that have hockey rinks actually break even, if not outright profit, because other towns pay big bucks (tens of thousands a year) to pay for the rights to use rinks.
• Meanwhile, residents lose the ability to have public rinks or pools, where their kids can learn to skate or swim, etc. More importantly, he's removing the concept that these buildings are community builders. Case in point, Swampscott's high school and senior center are one in the same, and the field house is open to all in the community to use for working out. There would be no senior center or open field house in Swampscott under Cahill's plan.
  

If a town wants to add a pool, or a field house, or a hockey rink, or have a gigantic, beautiful theater that goes above and beyond the standard state plan - they shouldn't be prevented from doing so. All of those things, in the end, benefit the entire community. Heck, these are the kinds of things that make a community.

Furthermore, each community's needs are different. Marblehead, right next door, built an entirely unique theater that's 3/4 of a circle, with the seats rising high up in a dramatic stadium-seating setting. It's quite remarkable, smaller than a typical theater, but significantly more dramatic. It's where they perform serious drama, likely making them a school that's better at the art. They didn't need or want a standard theater, because Marblehead already has one of the nicest theaters for students in all of Massachusetts - it's just in their Middle School (which used to be their high school).

By being a little different, Marblehead was actually being smart. Each town knows their needs better than the state, so the state should be willing to work with towns - providing plans if they want them, but also letting towns modify them if needed - so we can save costs and build better projects in the process. Many towns will just need the standard plan, some towns may want to alter them, for some towns their landscape won't allow for a standard plan (up to 50% of projects, according to the article). Other towns may want something different or with more features than the standard plans. All should be encouraged. .

That said, I concede Treasurer Cahill's point that towns shouldn't be able to wrack up a huge bill with the intentions of passing off nearly half the costs to the state. Newton's $200 million-dollar project may have been something residents were more than happy to bestow upon their kids, but Massachusetts shouldn't have to pick up 40% of the price tag. Quite likely, the biggest savings (for the state) under Cahill's proposal would be by neutering these school plans - but, as I've already pointed out, that's not an answer that's any better than the status quo.

So what should the state do?

It should be obvious. Currently, the state will reimburse communities 40-80% of the costs of these buildings, irregardless of the costs of the project. Why not set up a hard cap, in addition to the state's soft cap? Why not, for example, say that the state won't contribute any more than $30-40 million to any project at the 40% rate? Newton could have its $200 million dollar school, but only if it were willing to pay $160 million instead of $120. The state could set a higher hard cap for the urban school systems that tend to get the higher percentage of state reimbursements, so the hard-cap system would work across the state.

Furthermore, the concept of having standard state school designs is a good concept, because they will save costs. So, let's not only create them, but encourage towns to use them. Why not, for example, give towns something like a 5% reimbursement bonus for choosing a state-sponsored design, if the town has a suitable site for one of those designs. A 5% bonus would be enough to encourage towns to use the state designs, while also not eating into the cost differential between the state and private plans. Many - likely most - cities and towns across Massachusetts will want to save costs, even just a couple million, so it's an option that will promise to be popular.

In any event, Treasurer Cahill's idea is interesting, fresh and appreciated. Maybe he does have some good ideas after all, in addition to his constant bickering with the Governor. However, Cahill needs to work better with the administration and Beacon Hill on state policy in the future, because it's clear that both camps are unwilling to work with each other. Solutions come when politicians and constituents work like a pack with a common goal, not when the political elite acts like cats with sharp claws, ready to thrust and hiss at any to come near. When that happens, good ideas go no where.

Treasurer Cahill's Political Philosphy vs. Patrick's

[Note: I updated this blog at the end to reflect a story published in today's Globe. It's an important update, which changes some of my opinions on this matter, so please look for the update in bold.]

Would anyone care to garner a guess at what Treasurer Cahill's doing? Obviously, he's playing at becoming Governor, but he's not exactly going about it in the best possible way. First off (and I hate to be blunt), by constantly sounding like a whiner and a complainer, the few people who are paying attention aren't exactly going to be inspired - and he'd definitely need the foundations of a movement to defeat Patrick, or pretty much anyone. Secondly, if he plans to run against Governor Patrick, Tim Murray in the distant future, or even a Republican in a General, opening himself up to these kinds of attacks is not a good way to get elected.

The recent dust up between Treasurer Tim Cahill (D-Quincy) and Gov. Deval Patrick (D-Milton) over the handling of the Bay State's finances has drawn strong words on both sides. "I think it's a reckless move by the administration and by the legislature," Cahill said on NECN Tuesday of the governor's plan to guarantee the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority's near $2.4 billion debt. Asked if he was consulted on the plan Cahill responded, "No, no we've had very minimal conversations with the administration."

Treasurer Tim Cahill (D-Quincy) Cahill's remarks prompted a quick and fierce response from Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray (D-Worcester) who said Cahill shouldn't criticize the governor when he doesn't have a plan of his own. "He's been informed about this since April," Murray told the Boston Globe Wednesday. "He had plenty of time to come forward with ideas, and we have not heard from him...What is reckless in this situation is to do nothing . . . because the turnpike could end up facing a $200 million payment that would fall on the backs of the toll payers."

Cahill's constant complaining about the Patrick administration - and near complete lack of offerring anything refreshing of his own - is the perfect storm in how to run a losing campaign, especially against an incumbent. A Cahill bid, based on what we've seen so far, doesn't look to be a strong one.

Patrick could be in a much better position, politically, if he had avoided some of his political blunders - media driven or not. However, there shouldn't be any doubt that people will take Patrick's ideas and optimism over Cahill's negativety eight days a week. Nor does Cahill have the accomplishments (or chomps) to defeat a sitting Governor of his own party, or his Luetenant. Come next election, or whenever Cahill wants to run, he'd be far better armed with fresh ideas and tangible policy success rather than attacking Governor Patrick's every proposal or decision.

Let's go over Cahill's major statements so far. He's for fixing bridges, but not for paying for them. He's for large-scale resort casinos, but against Deval Patrick's plan. He thinks we need more casinos, to get more revenue, so we can have more money to pay for gambling-related rehabilitation. (David paraphrases: "Right now, we don't have revenue that exists to solve the gambling addict problem. There may be more of them here if we add casinos, but... this is an opportunity to generate revenue to deal with the addiction problems.")

Cahill's basic MO - he's not willing to pay for things, or rock the boat, but he loves to criticize. In Mass society, we could do with less of the latter and more Mass poneying up. We need to rock that boat, heavy. Cahill's Pittsburg Pirates approach to running government - cut costs, keep things bare boned and be happy to break even - represents the failing status quo. We lose things one at a time, never giving a chance for momentum to build. What we need is the Sox approach - spend a little money to make a little money, which will not only foster a more solvent government in the end, but will deliver a product people can be proud of.

Isn't that what we all want, a government we can be proud of? A Government that helps make our lives better, doing the things we can't do alone? We the People should foster policies that improve our lives and make economic sense for everyone, not be afraid of big change or try to shift the costs to the least influential. We need to fix bridges, improve public transportation, make college and health care affordable. We need to streamline government to run smoother, be more transparent and give power to the people. We need to be willing to pay for those things, and make the tough calls to make businesses cough up. We've seen glimpses of that out of Patrick's administration, nothing so far from Cahill.

One of Patrick's greatest strengths is he's willing to look at new ways of creating revenue or saving money in unexpected places. He's willing to take risks and come up with big ideas. Some of his proposals are better than others, but he's fostering strong debate and a more democratic process. Many of his good ideas have passed, more will follow. None of them would have if not for the fact that he's been willing to be imaginative. Meanwhile, as is typical in a people-powered democracy, his bad ideas haven't gone anywhere. So if battling the Governor on casinos is the price to pay for cutting loopholes and adding hundreds of millions to the state budget, I'll take it.

Where are Cahill's ideas - what policies have they helped push? Cahill's few proposals have been bad ones. So, score this round to Lt. Governor Murray and the Patrick Administration. Murray, in this case, was a great vehicle to fight back against Cahill's continued criticisms - delivering the perfect message to Cahill: at least we're coming up with something, what do you have to offer? At the end of the Patrick Years - be they another 2, 4 or 6 - Tim Murray may end up being the biggest winner. His political skills abound. He's extremely likeable, gets the importance of the nuts and bolts in government, but also that we need to look at the big picture too. People still love him from his Worcester days and he's done nothing to hurt his image since. If the future battle of the party is ever between Tim Murray and Tim Cahill, my money (2 cents) is on Murray.

Update: Well, apparently he has a few ideas after all. Suffice it to say, he wants to limit schools that are built to particular models that towns could choose from, if they wanted partial state reinbursement, but they'd be more bare-bones in terms of community features. If communites wanted a pool, for example, it would have to be a seperate buildling with no state funding. That's not a good idea, but on the whole there's some good pieces. One thing, though: why not tie choosing state plans to more aid, as opposed to mandating designs? Etc. Or, better yet, offer the designs to reduce costs for towns, coupled with the fact that state reinbursements would have a hard cap, which would also eliminate massive reinbursements to the wealthiest towns. We shouldn't discourage a little freedom of thought, or our towns from building the best schools they can afford. Furthermore, for some towns, Cahill's plan would make things more expensive: my town combined the high school and senior center projects into one building to save costs, building a true community building. It's actually worked out surprisingly well, so far, with a beautiful school and community center. If the senior center wasn't included in the high school designs, the High School wouldn't have passed - as it only did so by a few dozen votes, the Senior Center definitely pushing the project over the edge. So, clearly, this proposal isn't fully thought out - but by bringing it to the table, Cahill's certainly fostering ideas that could soon be saving towns and the state tens of millions a year. So, kudos (but I still think he's crazy if he's planning to run against the Governor.)

Off Topic Note

The more Mass blogs, the better, but Politicker may want to read up on the most rudimentary of Mass common knowledge.

Putting aside whether Patrick's plan is reckless or not, the fiery exchange between Murray and Cahill (the Globe's Casey Ross called Murray's remarks "unusually heated") has not gone unnoticed by political analysts who believe both pols are eyeing the governor's mansion.

In the Commonwealth, there is no Governor's Mansion. Next time substitute mansion for the Corner Office.

More Casino Questions

A little redemption for Matt Viser? He and Andrea Estes pen a decent article in the Globe today on Patrick's casino plan, after his recent 6-page stink on Mayor Menino's casino position. All is not well for the pro-casino side in Boston, because Governor Patrick has run into a few roadblocks, according to the Globe. Namely,

• Speaker DiMasi's not impressed and promised to hold up the casino debate until at least 2009.
• He put off Treasurer Cahill by including the State's Treasurer as a member of the proposed oversight gaming commission without actually asking Cahill first. Sheesh, touchy.
• According to the Globe, Patrick's not widely promoting the plan. I'm not sure I see it the same way (apparently, radio gigs and mass emails aren't enough), but the Globe wonders why Patrick isn't visiting casinos in order to promote them.
• The Governor's rosy numbers and inconsistencies are being criticized by everyone, including casino supporters.

All of that equates to a weakened pro-casino side, that's fighting against each other instead of working together. Divide and conquer, folks. As I've said all along, there's nothing inevitable about casinos in Massachusetts. They can be blocked, we just have to work hard to make sure it happens.

Casino Proposal Leaves Gaping Holes

Finally, the Globe started to ask some serious questions about Governor Patrick's casino proposal. Chief among them was a discrepancy in the bill Patrick filed versus the promises he made in his initial announcement, though the Patrick Administration attributes the discrepancy to an error in filing. Yet, even then, plenty of questions remain. Here's the pertinent info from the Globe.

The bill as it was introduced in the Legislature on Thursday, however, uses a drastically different formula. It directs that the trust funds would each get 2.5 percent of the casinos' "operating license payments" made to the state. Operating license payments to the state are expected to be 27 percent of the gross revenue. Using that formula, state officials would have only $13.5 million available for mitigation and $13.5 million for public health programs.

Even if the bill is corrected to funnel the full $100 million to the mitigation and public health funds, a debate is simmering as to whether that would be enough to cover all the promises the governor made, especially his pledge to ensure that cities and towns do not lose money when their share of state lottery revenue is diminished because of casino competition.

Treasurer Cahill's office says that the State Lottery will see an initial 4% decline in lottery revenue if casinos are built - which means there's going to be a serious dent in the money being sent to cities and towns. Much of the state's lottery funds go to municipalities, while casino taxes wouldn't. Readers will note I suggested Patrick's proposal will lead to less money going to cities and towns, not more, about a week ago. Given Cahill's words on the matter, knowing how entrenched he is in the pro-casino camp, anyone care to disagree?

At the end of the article, Representative Dan Bosely sums up the truth about casinos in Massachusetts.

Bosley said the state's take of gambling revenue will be inadequate to pay for most of the programs and services the governor says he wants to fund.

"They're short in all of the accounts," he said. "There is not anywhere near enough for the lottery. There isn't enough for public infrastructure, mitigation, or all sorts of social ills. The only thing they don't require in this bill is for the casinos to give away a puppy when people leave. It's pie in the sky, and they're not going to do this."

Casinos: A Real Winning Idea

Of course, it's a winning idea if you want to sack a trio of Selectmen.

MIDDLEBOROUGH -- An effort to recall three Middleborough selectmen has taken off in recent days, fueled by outrage over plans to bring a casino to town and over other financial controversies.Jessie Powell, the organizer of the recall drive, said she has collected more than 1,200 voter signatures to force a recall election in September aimed at three selectmen -- Chairwoman Marsha Brunelle, and Selectmen Wayne Perkins and Steven Spataro.

The stated reason for the recall is "fiscal mismanagement," but Powell says voter anxiety over a casino proposed in the town by the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian tribe has increased support for her signature drive. A draft agreement between the town and the tribe calling for a $1 billion casino stunned many here when it became public this month. It would be the first casino in the state.

1,200 signatures in a town of less than 20,000! There have probably been elections in Middleborough with less voters. Let's hope politicians around the state take notice, too - that's a lot of angry constituents. Maybe all these casinos aren't quite the panacea they were cracked up to be, after all?

Here's the bottom line: If Massachusetts either accepts the Middleborough plan or allows Cahill's plan, we're in for a boat load of fun - and I'm not talking about Lynn's Horizon's Edge (trust me, you want to click on that link - and turn the volume up). So, if these things pass, be sure to have fun at the corny casino near you. Best of all, you won't have to drive very far.