Blue Mass Group

It turns out that Patrick administration Secretary of Housing & Economic Development Greg Bialecki is not the only big player in the push to bring casinos to MA whose financial portfolio includes interests that stand to benefit if the casino legislation becomes law. Stan Rosenberg, who touts to constituents his status as the gambling guru (p.2) of the State Senate also owns stock in a company that could benefit tremendously if three casinos and a slot parlor are allowed in the Bay State. While Bialecki owned stock in some casinos themselves, Rosenberg, according to his 2010 Statement of Financial Interests disclosure (p.3, courtesy of the excellent Commonwealth Magazine), owns stock in Harris Corp- a major casino vendor. No doubt, casino boosters will poo-poo this and Rosenberg himself believes that even mentioning the possibility of legislators having a conflict of interest is a threat to democracy. But, Harris Corp is not some random shmoe selling peanuts to casino bars- they are an officially licensed gaming vendor in Nevada- selling extremely sophisticated and specialized (expensive) information/signage technology that is intricate to both the actual gambling side of resort casinos, and the broader entertainment/information side of their operations. To get some idea what [...]

I think this editorial in the Globe by Citizens for a Stronger Massachusetts articulates one of the problems with Greg Bialecki, Deval Patrick’s Secretary of Housing and Economic Development: Now, in seeking to minimize his role in the gambling bill, Bialecki claimed in an interview that he was never Patrick’s “lead person’’ on casinos and instead describes himself as “the spokesperson for the administration’s position.’’ On the day that he testified, he said, he was handed “a three-page document’’ that was “prepared by others, without my input.’’ He paints a damning picture, both of his own lack of sensitivity to appearances, and of an administration that appears to be so committed to its gambling deal with legislative leaders that it would put words in the mouth of its own secretary of housing and economic development. If Bialecki doesn’t know what’s going on with his personal finances or what’s going into the public policy he promotes, maybe he isn’t the best person for the job of secretary of housing and economic development. Unless by “best person for the job” you mean “mouthpiece for the gambling industry”, and by “economic development” you mean “an unvetted economic policy that has never solved any [...]

Somehow, or maybe not, we are related. Distantly, if so. I don’t know her name. We just seem to show up at all the same wakes. This time she’s got a baby with her. He’s very well behaved, with a full head of hair and a sweet smile. “He’s got your eyes,” I tell her. “No.” She replies a little bit too firmly, “He’s got his father’s eyes.” I look around for the boy’s father but he must be in the other room with the throng of friends and relatives. We chat some more about mostly nothing, just passing the time until we can leave. And that’s when she mentions that she’s a single mom. Something connects, and I look closer at the little boy.

TIM CAHILL At least he’s honest. *Paid for by the Committee to Make Deval Patrick Look Conservative on Gambling

On an unusually hot summer night at Wonderland Greyhound Park in July of 2002, a greyhound named Die Cut raced for the last time.  While rounding the first turn, the three-year-old black dog was bumped by other greyhounds and collapsed, his back legs paralyzed.  In the final moments of his life, Die Cut was removed from the track and euthanized.

Last week, Wonderland Greyhound Park announced its permanent closure. There is no doubt that Wonderland – which was once the most popular dog track in the world – had a profound effect on its surrounding community over the past seventy-five years.  In the wake of its demise, however, we should take a moment to reflect on all of the dogs who competed , and sometimes died, at this fabled institution.

For those of us who have been working for years to oppose the expansion of predatory gambling in Massachusetts, the last few months and weeks have brought a strange combination of horror and satisfaction.   Horror, because we have seen so many otherwise reasonable — and progressive — legislators accept the misleading or downright false information that has been force-fed to them by lobbyists,  racetrack owners, and secretive billionaires.    Satisfaction, because the whole tawdry process — of closed meetings, illogical argumentation, self-delusion and unfettered greed — is finally being aired on television and the newspapers every day.  

The arguments about the damage slot machines will inflict on individuals, small businesses, and local communities are starting to sink in, so that even long-time Democrats who have tended to think of gambling as a question of personal choice are starting to feel a groaning sensation in their guts.   They are starting to remember that the Democratic Party officially voted at their June 2009 convention against slot machines in Massachusetts.   And no wonder: the numbers are horrific.    

In the first three postings of this series ( http://tiny.cc/BMG-Reason1, http://tiny.cc/BMG-Reason2), and http://tiny.cc/BMG-Reasons3and4), I focused on

• why expanded gambling is more appropriately described as economic cannibalism, and not as economic development;

• how a gas tax costing an average Mass. household $8-10/month — the amount you’d lose in just a few minutes at a slot machine — would create just about as many construction and ripple effect jobs as casinos … and without the delays and costly “side effects”;

• the dubious ethics of a state partnership with the gambling industry to promote the use of a product — predatory slot machines — that is designed to addict and exploit addicted customers; and

• the empty promise of “treatment” that proponents use to justify legalization and promotion of a product with a known 6-18% “casualty” rate.

In this final posting, I make the case that legalizing expanded gambling is more of a crap shoot with Massachusetts’ future than a proven strategy, especially when you take a serious, objective, and comprehensive look at the substantial costs associated with its introduction … something that the Legislature has been unwilling to do.  The full Five Reasons document is posted at http://tiny.cc/FiveReasons-NoO…  Other helpful reading is available at the excellent USS-Mass website at www.uss-mass.org.

Reason #5 – Hyped with unrealistic revenue projections and fraught with under-stated or ignored secondary costs, the introduction of casinos/slot machines is a risky gamble with Massachusetts’ future, not a solution to the State’s Budget or employment problems.  

Despite the promises of the industry and the fervent hopes of legislators, Class 3 gambling has failed to solve the budgetary problems of other states into which it has been invited:

• Casinos and slot machine gambling haven’t helped California ($19.1 billion – 22.6% deficit) or Connecticut ($5.1 billion – 29.2% deficit) or Delaware ($377 million – 11.7% deficit) or Illinois ($13.5 billion – 36.1% deficit) or Nevada ($1.8 billion – 56.6% deficit) or Pennsylvania ($4.1 billion – 16.3% deficit) or Rhode Island ($395 million – 13.2% deficit) avoid historic deficits. [www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711]

In the first two postings of this series (http://tiny.cc/BMG-Reason1 and http://tiny.cc/BMG-Reason2), I focused on why expanded gambling is more appropriately described as economic cannibalism, and not as economic development, and on how a gas tax costing an average Mass. household $8-10/month — the amount you’d lose in just a few minutes at a slot machine — would create just about as many construction and ripple effect jobs as casinos … and without the delays and costly “side effects.” In this post, I’ll excerpt from a longer piece about what’s ethically wrong about hitching Massachusetts’ financial engine to expanded gambling, and focus on the empty promise of “treatment” for compulsive gambling.  The full text of Reasons 3 & 4 is at http://tiny.cc/FiveReasons-NoO…   Reason # 3 – Government promotion of casino/slot-machine gambling to solve our economic and employment problems is as unethical and contrary to Mass. values as promoting smoking and binge drinking to increase sin tax revenues.   Even the legislators who are backing expanded legalized gambling acknowledge that it’s a path they wish the State didn’t have to go down.  ”We wouldn’t be considering this if the State weren’t in such desperate need of jobs,” they say.  (To be [...]

In the first post of this series (http://tiny.cc/BMG-Reason1) I suggested why expanded gambling is more appropriately described as economic cannibalism, and not economic development.  In this post I want to suggests at least one alternative — and faster — way of creating the jobs that Mass. residents desperately need.  The full list of reasons is at http://tiny.cc/FiveReasons-NoO…   Reason #2 – If the goal is to create and sustain decent jobs, there are more efficient mechanisms.   Thousands of out-of-work Massachusetts residents need and deserve jobs as fast as possible.  Casinos and slot machine warehouses are not the answer.  Even under the most optimistic scenarios, casino developers wouldn’t be ready to put shovels in the ground for 12 to 18 months.   The desperately needed construction jobs that casino development could create will disappear after two years.  And, as per Reason #1, the jobs operating the casinos come at the expense of jobs lost at existing retail, restaurant, and entertainment businesses. To make matters worse, predatory slot machine gambling is one of the most regressive taxes possible, given the socioeconomics of its customer base.  That is, the revenue to fund the creation of these jobs comes from those who can [...]

As Karyn Polito told Left Ahead! today, voters will have a very clear choice among treasurer candidates. She's the fiscal conservative with a strict view of the role of the office, and not the activist-treasurer candidate.

Click the player on the jump to hear her describe how she'd handle the office. Note that she joins us at 15:25 into the show.

Having been a state represenative for a decade, she says she also brings related slants. For one, she thinks far too much goes on behind closed doors and it is “virtually impossible” for a legislator to get a straight up or down vote on a bill. She wants the treasurer's office to operate in the open.

She also said that despite her early call for debates for the office, she's constrained by the pending Dem convention. When they choose one or two candidates and find out whether they'll have a primary, she'll debate.