But hey, the people wanted casinos and after their elected representatives talked about it the only way an agreement could be reached is if everyone got everything they wanted. Therefore they gave everyone what they wanted. The alternative was to let the bill die in conference committee or spit out a bill that would not pass.
When I say spit out a bill I mean they hucked a real looey at us. And they know it. “We tried our best,” they will say. And they did. It will get vetoed by the Governor. Nothing wrong with that. Many of the reps and senators that will vote for it tomorrow are quite happy Deval is vetoing it. It’s a bad bill.
Casinos/slots are like morphine and oxycontins when you start licensing them. Good in small and controlled doses but if you over do it you are fucked and fucked good. Unfortunately for the casino advocates this bill fills up the gambling syringe with too much of the good stuff forcing Dr. Deval to remember his Hippocratic Oath and do the right thing. Don’t let them scare you Governor, this veto will help you on November 2. The education thing is what may do you in.
The next session will start before we know it. And not too long after I suspect a new Senate Prez and soon after a new Speaker will take the gavels and cause the roulette wheel to get a couple of more spins. Whose chips will be where when it stops spinning the next time? This time it almost stopped on the one number everyone was playing. But c’mon, that never happens.
ryepower12 says
The bottom of the trash bin is the best place for this bill. It never addressed the costs and it not only took us out on the ledge, but went full-in plunge toward the bottom.
judy-meredith says
Especially this……….
<
p>
mark-bail says
If Mass gets the money, people will see dollar signs, not standards. The winners will be announced in August or September. Think of all those happy parents who won’t see their kids classes grow by leaps and bounds.
<
p>Deval should tell everyone the national standards are based on the Massachusetts standards. I’m sure they looked at them. And the 15% we don’t like we can make stricter.
steve-stein says
OK, the recap as I recall it is:
DeLeo wanted 3 casinos and 2 slot parlors
Murray wanted 3 casinos and 1 slot parlor
Patrick wanted 3 casinos and no slot parlors, but he decided he could live with one.
<
p>Do I have that right?
<
p>If all that is so, why is a bill with 3 casinos and 2 slot parlors labeled a “compromise bill” by the Boston media?
david says
DeLeo wanted 2 casinos and 4 slot parlors, one for each track.
Murray wanted 3 casinos and no slot parlors.
Patrick wanted 3 casinos and no slot parlors, but said he could live with one if competitively bid.
<
p>So the bill is sort of a compromise between the House and Senate/Patrick versions.
steve-stein says