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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

The 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.

The Corruption of Casinos is Pervasive

This is a devastating article coming out of the Globe today on the casino industry in Massachusetts.

The ultimatum reveals the administration’s dissatisfaction with Fall River officials, who over the past several years persuaded the state to invest more than $50 million in road improvements and other upgrades for a planned “BioPark’’ — only to see those city officials on Monday instead endorse construction of a casino on the site.

Patrick’s top economic aide, Gregory Bialecki, said his office was not briefed on the casino proposal before the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe unveiled it.

So, here's what we have here: Corrupt politicians in Fall River, who are deeply embedded with all sorts of parties who wants casinos in that area, including this particular tribe in question, took $50 million in state funding dedicated toward a "Bio Park" and instead, pulled the carpet right from under that state investment, and will try to use that Bio Park's land for a tribal casino, instead.

When the tribe was asked if it would pay the state back, as the administration is demanding, here's what they said:

When asked if the tribe would reimburse the state the $35 million for the highway ramp, a Wampanoag spokesman would say only that the ramp would benefit other property owners in Fall River, not just the casino.

So, that's a no.

This is bull shit. Why are we, as a state, allowing ourselves to get involved with these corrupt and greedy asshats? Not just tribal interests and their corporate backers, but also the race tracks and any other parties trying to bid for a Massachusetts casino. They're all the same. They're all a threat to this state.

And just so people don't think this isn't a matter of Fall River being worried about making sure this Bio Park is used, UMASS Dartmouth was already planning to invest tens of millions of dollars in the park. How is that looking, now, you ask? Well, here's Chancellor McCormack.

Meanwhile, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth chancellor Jean MacCormack released a letter in which the school indicated it would pull a proposed biotechnology research facility that was also slated for the BioPark site. The state had already committed to spending $15 million for the facility, as well as another $2 million in road upgrades to support it.

“The City’s decision to abandon development of a BioPark in favor of a resort casino profoundly affects the university’s decision-making about a suitable location for our facility,’’ the UMass letter said. “Any delay in starting the project triggers a risk that state funding might be rescinded, so timing is important.’’

UMASS Dartmouth has an absolutely wonderful science program -- my best friend went through it and for the past 3 years has been doing cutting-edge research at a Harvard Bio-Lab and is now going for her MD. The University just built a high-tech botchelism lab, funded through bio-terror federal funds. There's all sorts of good stuff going on there -- and this Bio Park would have been a great opportunity not for the University, but the entire region as well.

This is exactly the kind of investments the city of Fall River needs to get back on its feet and prosper. Instead, it's doing everything it can to throw the opportunity away and build something that will suck whatever life's left in the city and region. It's quite fitting that the city and tribe has just done this in about the most underhanded way possible, in complete secrecy, after the state has invested tens of millions, with plans for tens of millions more. The people of Fall River better get rid of their creep mayor, or the chances of them ever getting the kind of investment that was going toward this Bio Park will be gone. This sort of duplicity puts everything at risk for that region.

Finally, for the State of Massachusetts, we must remember that if there's even 1 single, legalized slot machine in Massachusetts, the tribal casinos will have a back door into this state sooner rather than later. Once we build a casino or racino, the game's over. Those six planned ventures by Speaker DeLeo could easily become twelve, with two of them from our current recognized tribes, and another four from unrecognized tribes in this state which are currently trying to gain federal recognition.

PS: I feel for the region and UMASS Dartmouth for what looks to be a massive loss of opportunity for all involved, but with the University's support of Clyde Barrow, who's in turn propped up casino interests in the South Coast like none other, the University was kind of asking for it. If you sleep with the dogs, you get up with their fleas, as the saying goes.

Update: At least there's four rational city councilors in Fall River, but they need to oust this idiot Flanagan.

DeLeo's bill will lead to many more casinos

It's not just the two casinos and four racinos, because it opens the doors to tribal casinos.

[DeLeo] says he knows how many jobs will materialize, and how much cash will flow to cities and towns. His guys have it all figured out. Except that they don’t. They have no idea how many gaming operations the state will eventually wind up hosting. These things can change quickly. And they’re completely beyond Beacon Hill’s reach.

The Truth is Out There

Boasting that Massachusetts building a casino in the South Coast would ruin Rhode Island's Twin Rivers, Clyde Barrow tells the Projo that the only solution, should we build one, is for Rhode Island is to go out of business, or build a bigger casino.

“Rhode Island’s only options are to exit the gambling business or move toward a full-scale casino that would buffer it against competition from Massachusetts and recapture some of the considerable revenues still leaving Rhode Island for Connecticut,” he said in an e-mail last Friday.

Oh, if only they had built a bigger casino! Twin Rivers, being one of the biggest in the world (literally), isn't quite big enough to stack up against Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. Truly, Barrow has never seen a casino he didn't like.

Of course, we know this is where Massachusetts slot proponents take their cues. Barrow's numbers to them are sacred, even if they're bullshit. (Apparently, Barrow missed the memo: Twin Rivers is going bankrupt, with Foxwoods not particularly far behind.)

Well, it pains me to read this, but that's not all the Speaker's looking at. There was, of course, the at-that-time roundly criticized Spectrum Gaming Report, which the Speaker, apparently, took as Holy Grail. You know, the report that covered Patrick's 3-casino plan, not the Speaker's 3,000 slots at the Race-Tracks and two-casino* plan. Of course, the Spectrum report barely covered the costs of a casino at all in its effort to study the 3-casino plan, never mind the Speaker's much bigger and different (and worse) plan.

*The Speaker leaves the option open for more casinos in his plan if they're tribal casinos (but don't worry, there's only two tribes in Massachusetts -- and another 6 pending -- for potential casino compacts /snark off).

So, let's get this straight. The Speaker bases his numbers off a report that studied a plan that wasn't his, that was much different than his, and even that report failed to take a comprehensive look at the costs. Will the legislature really travel down the rabbit-hole with the Speaker? Does the Speaker and Barrow even believe this stuff, or do they really just want to believe?

Tell the Truth About Casinos and Slots

The "super-secret" bill which DeLeo won't talk about in any detail, giving cover and time to those who switch their votes, so there's as little time as possible to move against him, is going to again be based on fake numbers, as I write about at Blue Mass Group. Each year, proponents of slot machines boast about all the money we lose to Connecticut and all the money we could reap should we legalize them in Massachusetts -- and each year, those numbers are based of Clyde Barrow's work at UMASS Dartmouth, on behalf of the Center for Policy Analysis. And each year those numbers have been crap. How so?

• The methodology is deeply flawed, with a study supposedly representative of the entire year, taking place on a 5-day holiday weekend (President's Day).
• The study counts license plates and uses the proportion of drivers as the proportion of income, without trying to figure out how drivers from different regions spend their money differently (ie if locals, addicted to slots, spend more, and if Massachusetts drivers are going there for the shows and other non-gambling entertainment, which have negligible profit margins at best).
  
• The annual report never, ever looks at the costs associated with casinos -- the hundreds of millions it would take to offset losses to the state lottery, create a new state bureaucracy that would need a 1,000-person staff (according to the Attorney General), cover the legal costs and potential jail time relating to the thousands of thefts, drunk drivers, embezzlements and other crimes related to costumers at the casinos, never mind local costs to regional communities.
  

There's little wonder why Speaker DeLeo won't allow a comprehensive, independent cost-benefit analysis. He's afraid the revenue projections he uses -- provided by Barrow's reports and his friends at the two tracks in his district -- won't live up to the hype. He's afraid people will notice that the benefits won't offset the costs. He's worried, in essence, that people will realize his ethically-questionable special district interest is not in the best interest of the Commonwealth.

No wonder now that, according to Jim O'Sullivan of the State House News Service, the Speaker is now considering a measure to skip out on his racino quest, if he can't get enough House and Senate members on board, and just go even more brazenly for the something-for-nothing scheme -- just giving a load of cash directly to the old tracks.

One theory cropping up among senior legislators and lobbyists is that DeLeo, if he cannot muster a veto-proof majority, could wait for Patrick to send back a slots veto – a move that could benefit Patrick among the progressive base that has frowned on “convenience gambling” even as it clamors for increased funds for state services. Or, if slots don’t clear the House-Senate compromise panel, DeLeo could be forced to act earlier.

The speaker could then propose, according to this scenario, a way to preserve jobs at the tracks without granting slot machines: by supplementing their existing live racing and simulcast betting purses with cuts from the new tax base created by casino revenues.

Free money for the race tracks. Can I get some?

That's what this is and always was about. DeLeo wants his bill to benefit his two tracks. That's all he cares about. Whether we do this by giving those two tracks a noncompetitive bid on slots, ruining the chances of getting a big licensing fee for any slot enterprise, or we just give those slots the pot 'o gold at the end of the rainbow matters not. This was never about doing good for Massachusetts, this was only ever about special interests in a lobby that's let the flood gates open. Will the citizens of Massachusetts stand for it any longer?

"Slots stumble at the gate."

That's the headline over at the Worcester Telegram and Gazette. Suffice it to say, DeLeo's drive to benefit the well-oiled interests in his district makes it a much more difficult sell for him to get his own bill passed across state government, not that I'm complaining.

How tough would this vote be? Well, at least 30 people would have to switch their votes on a major issue after voting the opposite way not so long ago. Then those thirty would have to somehow convince their constituents they didn't switch their vote strictly because of the Speaker's influence (a seemingly impossible task), an important issue given the anger at government corruption, especially in regards to the Speaker's office. It gets worse, though, because they'll have to do all this when the public knows just how much this bill would benefit DeLeo's key interest group in his district. They'd have to do all that in an election year, with more open and contested seats than in a long, long time.

Of course, the merits of his bill doesn't help DeLeo. Trying to marry 2 casinos and 4 slot parlors is no easy task. DeLeo has to work with the small, but fierce, faction of state reps who won't vote for anything that doesn't have slots at Raynham, all the while doing something to get at the huge swath of reps who've come out over and over against slots at the race track. Now, he'll have an additional problem -- his bill makes for poor policy, even for an industry that's poor policy by default. By proposing 4 racinos, which won't have competitive bids for licenses, it doesn't make it any easier to convince casinos to come on board and compete with them -- which will have a huge impact on the price casinos would be willing to pay for licenses. And the licensing fees is the big shot in the arm that's supposed to be the instant influx of casino money. Oops.

Add Patrick who's throwing subtle threats to veto anything with slot parlors or racinos (good for him), and Senate President Murray, who doesn't want the racinos, to the mix, and one can see how this will be a tough sell. However, it's not like DeLeo's going to be the one who breaks in this stalemate either, especially given the fact that Patrick could be very well be gone come 2011. Who wants to take a bet that if DeLeo can't get the full monty, he'll close up shop, sit back and watch what happens over the next year before he decides his next course of action. Then again, maybe I'm giving him too much credit.

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?

Shocker!

Speaker Robert DeLeo (Racinos are Amazing Party - Massachusetts) doesn't think we need to have an honest and comprehensive cost and benefits analysis done on slots.

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.

Has DeLeo Lost it Already?

From today's Patriot Ledger, the Speaker's plan for saving Massachusetts is gambling and the film tax credit. No, this is not a joke. The two biggest state gimmicks in town are what the Speaker views as the two most important aspects to combating our tough budget picture -- not small businesses, not our research industry and not our struggling cities and towns.

QUINCY —

The answer to the state’s budget woes is job creation through expanding the gambling and film production industries, House Speaker Robert DeLeo said Tuesday.

Defending the state’s push for gambling and its controversial film tax credit program, DeLeo told The Patriot Ledger editorial board that one of his priorities is job creation.

First, there isn't a single, solitary "tax incentive" on the books that's more useless or wasteful of our tax dollars than the film tax credit, especially if it's meant to be an "answer to the state's budget woes." For every three dollars we invest in the industry, we get a dollar back. We pay off 25% of a production's entire costs, including Tom Cruise's $20+ million paycheck, even if the movie company doesn't employ a single, solitary Massachusetts-based employee, paying Massachusetts income taxes. Not only that, but the film industry is excused from paying the same sales taxes that we all pay. The Film Tax Credit, if it's meant to help the state's budget, is literally as helpful as flushing tens of millions of dollars every year down the toilet.

Second, gambling has never, ever solved a state's budget problems. New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and New Jersey all have much more gambling than we do as a state, including slots, and yet all have higher taxes for residents. Slots does not solve budget woes. They in all likelihood cost a state money in the long run, due to lost small business, decreased use of the state lottery system and literally tens of millions more in costs that must be mitigated (but can never be prevented, so long as slots are legalized).

Speaker DeLeo must be honest. He doesn't support slots because of the state's budget situation, he supports them because of the importance of race tracks in his district and the powerful track lobby. Speaker DeLeo does not support the Film Tax Credit because of the budget picture, he supports them for nice headlines and, again, the film lobby. There was a widespread effort to cap the film tax credit on celebrity stars so that the state only paid its 25% on the first $2.5 million of an actor or director's salary -- and one Tom Cruise movie threatening to leave the state later, the effort at even that little bit of sanity was tossed aside. Can Speaker DeLeo at least be intellectually honest?

Update: in the article, it's made clear that the state's going to have to make about $600 million in cuts. The Film Tax Credit costs this state upwards of a 100 million a year. Cutting it would get us roughly 10% of the way there. And this is what Speaker DeLeo considers one of the two most important programs in the state right now in restoring our budget!

Not Quite Buying DeLeo on Casinos

The Globe and others are reporting on DeLeo's recent public statements, saying he's in favor of a bill legalizing casinos in Massachusetts. This differs from his past stance because he was previously in favor of allowing casinos only if slots were allowed at the tracks. Color me a skeptic.

DeLeo has not one, but two race tracks in his district - horse and dog. Is he suddenly going to backtrack on those two, powerful interests within his district? Don't bet on it.

This is mere speculation on my part, though an educated guess: DeLeo's recent statements are just to shape the debate and help get the ball rolling, adding pressure on the opposition, pushing the "inevitability" meme yet again. It's a psychological boost for the industry and those in the legislature that want to feed billions to that industry, but not much beyond that.

DeLeo will not willfully allow slots to be passed in Massachusetts, but not at the tracks. Either he thinks he can use his public statements as momentum to pass casinos and tack racinos on as an amendment, or he thinks he'll be able to pass them in a separate bill, using complaints across the state house over the 5 year waiting period before a casino could be built as a means to push racinos through after. After all, a racino could be ready before the trees next bud. Maybe he'll even use that very line (anyone in need of a writer?). Bottom line: the DeLeo/Pacheco/Flynn quest toward Racino, Massachusetts hasn't evaporated. So long as those tracks are open, it never will.

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.

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.

House Progressives & the Sales Tax

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

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

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

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

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

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

Punting Transportation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Veto it Anyway

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

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

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