Podcast Central: Marriage Equality, John Walsh, the State Senate and More!

I've been seriously negligent on my LeftAhead promos here on RyansTake, so here's a batch of our last few.

• Interview with Boston City Councilor Steve Murphy. We chatted lots of Boston topics, but also focused in on the proposed Suffolk Downs casino. Here's your chance to see what the President of the Boston City Council thinks about that, including whether or not the entirety of Boston should be able to vote on it, or just East Boston. I'll spare folks my thoughts on that matter, because if you're here, you probably know it already.
• State Democratic Party Chairman John Walsh. We love having John Walsh on and it always makes for a great show. He went over the strategy for this year's elections and I loved his thoughts, toward the end of the show, on the brewing Tierney-Tisei congressional race, which promises to be a doozy. Let's just say Tisei, the 'moderate' got behind the Blunt amendment... 
• Mike and I on the Republican Reality TV Primary, especially Santorum and Romney. Mike's always amazed that our pundit-like shows often do as well as shows with good guests, but I'm not as surprised. We had a lot of fun with this one, and people like fun. Plus, we're totally better pundits than most of the bobble-heads from CNN and Fox News.
• Freedom to Marry Board Member, Rev John Buehrens. Buehrens brings a national perspective as a 9-year member of Freedom to Marry, one of the chief national organizations fighting for marriage equality across the country. He's also a local UU minister, who just so happened to chair the national organization for a while.
  
  He brought even more insight into the state-by-state battles going on in Maine, Washington, Maryland and elsewhere than I expected -- so if these are on your radar, definitely check it out. He also brought in a fascinating understanding of where marriage equality, partisan politics and religion intersect, and how that influences the battle. This show shouldn't be missed.
• State Senate Candidate Mara Dolan. Our show with Dolan today was great. She is clearly a very credible candidate, with a wide policy background, as well. I was very pleased to hear that she understands the fact that the "MBTA issue" is a Beacon Hill issue as much as anything else.
  
  If you're from the 3rd Middlesex District, this is a can't-miss show, and even if not, you should still check it out, because these races have impacts that are far more wide-sweeping than their own borders. 

Well, Gov, you own this

Patrick signs casino bill into law.

With two high ranking members of government, a senator and cabinet secretary, already caught with their hands in the cookie jar, buying stocks in casino companies before pushing through legislation legalizing it, we'll see how long it will be before politicians are going to jail over this stuff.

We'll see how much worse this deal makes our situation in this state when people go broke because of it and the goverment's forced to intervene, while hundreds of local businesses go under and promised revenue never materializes. Governor Patrick - this is your legacy now, good luck with that.

The Casino Bill's So Bad, even the Globe is Against it

Bear in mind that the Globe's been in favor of casinos for several years now, so that they're bashing this bill speaks that much more. Even for a slots bill (!!), it's a crappy, special interest bill.

Don't Blame Me, I'm from USS-Mass

That's my latest slogan. 10 years from now, casinos and slot barns will look like a very, very bad idea, if all goes according to the holy trinity's plan and the special interests finally win out. Renee Loth gets it and I hope people will read her column.

It's really not difficult to understand what casinos mean to Massachusetts, if we allow them to come here, if people have any kind of imagination or look at it in any detail at all.

Here's a nice mantra to repeat from Loth's piece:

Gambling is “a tax on people who are bad at math.’’

Casinos don’t so much create jobs as replace them, cannibalizing other local businesses to benefit some corporate giant in Vegas or Malaysia. 

Gamblers losing their money in our new casinos will be mostly locals.

The surrender to casinos signals the limits to our exceptionalism. Apparently, when it comes to the lure of easy money, we’re just like all the rest.

Those are four fundamental truths to consider, if you know nothing else. Remember, we've never done a cost study on casinos, ever.

It's also important to realize just what's going into this bill. It's loaded with special interest giveaways, like 9% of all revenue going toward corporate welfare for special interest horse farms and racers. Some Beacon Hill pols who vote for this bill will directly benefit from it; while the bill includes language barring state workers from becoming lobbyists for the industry, state lawmakers are conveniently excluded from that language.

So, long after the Department of Justice starts throwing people in jail, and long after hundreds or thousands of local businesses go under or face dramatic cuts, costing the state hundreds of millions in revenue, and after this state has created numerous institutions, both private and public, to pocket their favorite pals with cushy jobs, all we'll be left with is a vampire industry that does nothing but suck, suck, suck from the local community.

The fat lady hasn't sung and all that, so it's time to call your state legislators and let them know they should at least have the human decency to clean up the bill and demand a cost analysis before we go through with it.

*USS-Mass stands for "United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts," a group of mostly middle and working class Bay Staters who've fought the good fight for many years now.

The Casino Bill as Discussed on LeftAhead

Mike and I tackled the casino bill today on LeftAhead. We went through the bill, what it does and some of the particularly egregious things in it. 

Believe me when I say this, we could have gone on -- but the new format keeps us a little shorter and sweeter. It was a good show. 

As always, you can listen on the blog talk radio player on the column to your right, at LeftAhead.com, BlogTalkRadio.com/lefties, itunes or the new-fangled aggregator apps for your phones, like Pocket Casts (which I highly recommend for you podcast-listening types out there). 

She Knows What She's Talking About

I offer without comment.

A Question for the Speaker, Re: Casinos and Suffolk Downs

The three licensed casinos in your proposal would require any bidder to agree to spend at least $500 million dollars on the facility to win the bid, which is the exact same amount that Suffolk Downs said it would like to invest in its proposed facility.

If Suffolk's proposed plan was to invest $400 or $450 million, instead of $500 million, would we the bill have a different minimum agreement for investment in the bid?

9% of Gambling Revenue to go to Horses

You know, instead of the kids.

The problem with government today isn't that these kinds of bills could conceivably pass, but that they are seriously considered in the first place.

The Pay for 2 Get 1 Deal

I've heard of Buy 1, Get 1 Free. I've even heard of Buy 2, Get 1 Free. But would anyone ever seriously consider paying for 2, and only getting half of what you paid for? That's what any prospective slots deal in Massachusetts is looking to become.

For the Mashantuckets, the effect will be higher rates for any further borrowings, he said, probably crimping Foxwoods' ability to expand anytime in the near future. 

"We probably won't see them in our lifetimes return to the status where they'd be considered any kind of prime asset," Lanza said. 

For Mohegan Sun, which also has been looking to refinance some of its $1.6 billion in debt, there may be an opposite effect, he said, as the Mohegans point to the low rates given to the Mashantuckets in an attempt to gain favorable financing terms. 

And for the proposed expansion of casino gambling in other states, the effect of the restructuring may be to scare investors away, he said, thereby eliminating some of the potential competition that both Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods might otherwise have expected. 

"The pots are getting smaller in the poker game, and it's costing more for a seat at the table," Lanza said.

First we were going to get "world class" resort casinos, now? Not so much. Remember when Mohegan Sun bought land in Palmer, saying they were going to build a mega resort casino, the Mohegan of the West(ern Mass)? Well, that nice 5,000 seat theater just got swapped out for a 39x39 multipurpose room in the most recent plans, perfect for your next high school reunion. WINNING!

The Governor said he'd agree with the Speaker on a single, competitively bid racino or slot parlor to get a "deal" done, but it's looking more and more likely the slot barn variety of gambling is all he has left. Trying to field three "resort" casinos in this economy, with this much saturation of the market and with the enemic condition of the actual resorts in Connecticut would be a big joke, were it not for the fact that the joke would be on us.

Slot parlors are the only thing with a low enough cost margin to be viable here -- with little to no investment, economic multiplier or net job growth for the region, and that stay in business purely by preying off the poor. It's not clear that any bigger casino effort could even get the financing to build here. In fact, given what's going on in nearby Connecticut, it's pretty clear that it couldn't.

Even the well-funded lobbyist machine up at Suffolk Downs are only looking to build a glorified slot barn for their race track, geared toward shuttling in the easy prey all along the Blue Line. With a no-frills facility, they'll make money -- at the cost of our small business community, college students who are at greater risk of falling prey and what little the working poor in the area have left -- and Massachusetts will get less than half of what we were promised, and not nearly enough to cover all the costs associated problem gambling, traffic or what our local small businesses will lose out in the net-sum game that is our wallets.

With the Speaker trying to reward his district friends at Suffolk and Wonderland, he's not going to listen to that kind of sanity. So, what we get is all or nothing. If a deal is passed, we'll be sold a bill of goods and get half of what we paid for. Maybe enough people on Beacon Hill have realized that, and that's why I'm not hearing as much about it anymore?

------

Anyway, for a bloggy bonus, here's a great clip from the wonderful movie Contact that this 2:1 "deal" reminded me about.

Because it worked so good for New Jersey

Five Indian casinos and nine racinos isn't enough for New York's Governor Cuomo. The race to the bottom moves on apace.

This blog has been brought to you by "Oooo, Shiny" Policies, Inc.

The Speaker's Slots Hypocrisy?

In the Speaker's anger over cyber cafes, that have used what seem to be loopholes to allow gambling in their establishments in Massachusetts, he said something mighty interesting.

“Owners of these establishments are taking advantage of their patrons and scamming them out of money,” DeLeo said in a statement. “This is unacceptable and I look forward to seeing this legislation passed into law.”

Apparently, offering games that employ gambling on computers at cyber cafes is somehow different than offering games that employ gambling on computers at slot parlors. In fact, the former is "scamming" people, while the latter is "job creation." 

Mr. Speaker, your logic is flawed. You are right about the cyber cafes being a scam, wrong about wanting to let your friends at Suffolk Downs own a proposed super cyber cafe.

Mohegan's Net Income Down to $9.7 Million Annual

Remember when people thought bringing casinos into Massachusetts was a good idea? Well, the company with well over a billion in debt is absolutely tanking... and this is the Connecticut 'model' of success, compared to Foxwoods.

The Mohegans listed declining revenue — net income dropped from $149 million in fiscal year 2008 to $9.7 million in fiscal year 2010 — and increasing competition from other gaming operations as key areas of concern.

Remember, this is net income, not net profits. If Mohegan's only bringing in $9.7 million annually, there's no where close to any profits.

Wonderland's Doors Will Finally Shut

In a move that should surprise no one, the state accepted Wonderland's request to transfer its license to simulcast dog races to Suffolk Downs. It should be noted that the group that owns Suffolk also owns Wonderland, which makes it likely that they're consolidating the operations at Suffolk Downs, so it would no longer make sense to keep Wonderland.

Given the fact that there's a major redevelopment effort being made just across the street -- both at the Wonderland T stop on the Blue Line and surrounding it -- it just makes sense for Suffolk Downs to sell the property now. Given a few years, the potential development that could be built on what's currently Wonderland, as well as what's going on across the street, Revere and the surrounding area could be poised for a real economic boon.

On the other hand, from a no-slots perspective, this cements Suffolk's position as the regional gambling powerhouse, helping their balance sheets by being able to divest in Wonderland, which helps them keep Suffolk open. I wouldn't care about any of that, save for the fact that it strengthens their ability to fight for slots. Suffolk is the #1 force behind the yearly quest for casinos and racinos in Massachusetts, so it would have been nice to see that fly finally swatted.

The Compromise is a No Bid Contract

You'll hear the media report this casino compromise as a situation where four tracks will bid for two licenses, but that's not true.

Patrick said that since two of the state's racetracks - Wonderland Greyhound Park in Revere and Suffolk Downs racetrack in East Boston - are pursuing a casino license, the two slot parlor licenses would automatically go to the state's two remaining tracks.

This thing is still a no-bid, free-money kind of deal. Buyer Beware.

Bernstein is THE MAN

He has my eternal respect for this column:

Just 20 months ago, the citizenry of the Commonwealth voted -- in a solid, convincing 56-44 vote, in the highest-turnout election in many years -- to ban greyhound racing. You, or I, or Bobby D might disagree with that decision. We might feel bad for the affected employees, dozens of whom lobbied at the state house yesterday.

But the solid majority of voters clearly believe that dog racing is so venal, cruel, and degrading that it should be among that small category of atrocities we won't allow in our state. And they certainly understood, as they cast their vote, that people would lose their jobs as a consequence.

Read the whole piece, it's not that long and needs to be said. The Race Tracks should be closed, shuttered and gone now -- no last vestiges, folks. This was never about the dogs for the tracks, though, it was always about $$$ (and the dogs haven't made $$$ in a decade or more).... they only keep those doors open for the pretenses, in hopes of getting slots. We decided, as a state, to close those doors -- and the politicians here are bucking us.

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?

Enough Already

This casino stuff is ridiculous. Every passing day, it becomes even more patently obvious that the House and Senate just haven't done their homework, and more and more people are catching on. This is not about what's best for the state, that's for sure.

Even if I weren't dead set against this thing, my patience would be wearing thin. The right thing to do is for the Senate and House to take a step back and actually study this thing, especially the costs, as doing so would solve a lot of problems one way or the other. Quite frankly, I'm tired of this issue sucking up all the air on Beacon Hill and preventing the good work that needs to be done on a whole bunch of other, important work from getting done -- work that is in many ways more important than the grand spectacle that is the casino lobby's reverse Robin Hood. Don't we have more important things to be doing?

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.

Getting ahead of yourself, there, Boston Globe?

This is, well, stunning... from the cross-tabs of the Globe's latest poll (page 13).

"As you may know, the Massachusetts House and Senate have passed slightly different bills that would legalize casino gambling..."

Note: It's 6 days after the poll was finished being conducted (the 17th-23rd) and the Senate still hasn't passed a casino gambling bill. Who wants to make a bet that this sort of misleading blatantly false statement could color the poll?

Fail.

Coakley Criticizes Casino Crime Bill

It doesn't go far enough. From the SHNS:

COAKLEY SAYS GAMBLING BILL’S CRIME PROTECTION NOT ENOUGH: In an unusual break with ally Senate President Therese Murray, Attorney General Martha Coakley on Monday told senators that leadership’s casino bill would “significantly limit law enforcement’s ability to protect the public” and urged them to strengthen the measure with House-backed language she had proposed last year. The bill headed to the floor Wednesday is too narrow, Coakley said, because language restricting prosecution to activities directly affecting gaming creates a loophole “that would allow many significant criminal players … to avoid prosecution and continue to threaten public safety.” In a letter delivered to senators Monday and obtained by the News Service, Coakley used the example of a prostitution ring in a town neighboring a casino. She said the ring’s leader could escape prosecution because the activity could be considered not directly affecting gaming. “The Senate gaming proposal limits the tools that law enforcement needs to get these bad actors off the streets so that legitimate business opportunities can flourish,” Coakley wrote. She asked senators to adopt the “enterprise crime amendment” filed by Sen. Steven Baddour. 2:41 P.M.