This morning’s roundup is brought to you by the letter “C.”
- After what, by some accounts, was a surprisingly weak performance on an obvious question in Tuesday’s debate — are you or are you not with Gov. Spitzer on his plan to give NY’s undocumented immigrants limited driver’s licenses — Hillary Clinton has now come out in favor of the Spitzer plan. I missed the debate and haven’t had a chance to watch the video yet, but it doesn’t sound like Hillary did herself any favors with her peculiar dodging of the issue. It’s her own state, for heaven’s sake. She should’ve seen that one coming a mile away. Seems to me she’s unlikely to suffer heavy long-term damage from this one, but the aura of inevitability may have been pierced. (Ouch — mixed metaphor alert!)
- So Suffolk DA Dan Conley and BPD Commissioner Ed Davis “have been talking on the phone and meeting occasionally over coffee” in an effort to patch things up after their schoolyard spat escalated into a full-blown turf war a few weeks ago. Are we supposed to be impressed? Are we supposed to admire the maturity of these two grown men, who finally seem able to carry out a civil conversation about how they might work together to protect the people of Boston? Or should we, instead, shake our heads in wonderment that this kind of thing is still going on while the homicide rate creeps ever upward?
- Yesterday the House engaged in some theatrics around the casino debate: the Joint Committees on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies, and on Mental Health and Substance Abuse, held a hearing — not on the casino bill — but on the question of compulsive gambling. And they expressed dismay when state officials declined to engage in a guessing game of how many new compulsive gamblers would be created by opening casinos in Massachusetts.
“It’s impossible to extrapolate a number at this time,” said Michael Botticelli, director of the Substance Abuse and Addiction Bureau of the Department of Public Health.
But lawmakers were dissatisfied with the answer. They argued that the administration shouldn’t commit to the gambling proposal until they have a better grasp of the problem.
“I raise the question about whether we want Massachusetts to be the testing ground to figure out what those statistics are,” said Representative Ruth Balser of Newton ….
Obviously, though, this is a charade — it’s classic “heads I win, tails you lose.” If state officials offer an estimate of how many new gambling addicts we’ll have, casino opponents — and this hearing was co-chaired by Ruth Balser and Dan Bosley, both on the record as staunch opponents — get to trumpet the administration’s own estimates of how many more lives will be ruined by gambling. “How can they countenance the destruction of x more Massachusetts families that they themselves predict will be sucked into compulsive gambling?” they will cry. And if they don’t offer such an estimate, the opponents get to say that the administration is unprepared and hasn’t thought the problem through. Nice.
Apparently, the most recent study on this stuff is ten years old. Also, there are apparently no studies of the impact of, in Secretary JudyAnn Bigby’s words, “some of the most aggressive funding and regulatory structures of any state in the country to make sure that we are able to prevent and mitigate the potential negative impact of gambling in Massachusetts.” So any estimate based on a ten-year-old study that didn’t take into account aggressive mitigation measures like those proposed in Patrick’s bill could well overstate the problem.
Here’s the most telling fact about this. Although this hearing was convened by Joint Committees — i.e., committees consisting of both House and Senate members,
Senators, many of whom back the governor’s plan, did not attend the hearing. Some said they thought it was unfair to the governor to debate the potential negative consequences of casinos before the bill itself has a public hearing. Those hearings won’t be held until next year.
Maybe the House should cut the theatrics and just do its job.
When she was elected, she was the ONLY psychologist in legislative office in the nation (and she may still hold that title). She is not a hack talking about this issue, I presume she knows something about it and its symptoms. If she doesn’t, then, well, she’s a hack. But there are other House members with less credibility on abuse and dependence issues than her. In fact, she could probably HELP some of her fellow members in this area…
David,
<
p>
The research on gambling is meager, old, and some of it suspect. The latest Massachusetts demographic study I could find was 1994, pertaining to lotteries. More here.
…the joint campaign appearances that are laughingly referred to as debates, but is strikes me as insane for states not to offer drivers’ licenses to undocumented/illegal (whatever you want to call them) aliens.
<
p>
It isn’t beyond the realm of likelihood that they will drive even without a license. Just as it also isn’t also beyond the ream of likelihood that citizens or resident aliens will drive with suspended licenses.
<
p>
At least if an undocumented/illegal has passed the tests required for a driver’s license, he or she has showed at least a minimum level of knowledge of rules of the road. I, for one, would prefer that, than having them just climb behind the wheel and go off gallivanting.
Since it is inevitable that “people will do it anyway” we just as well should throw in the towel no, and just say it is OK.
<
p>
We can give them drivers licenses, but we should also waive the rquirement that their cars be registered, inspected and insured, because they are going to drive them anyway whether they are are registered, inspected and insured, they have already proven that already.
<
p>
This is absolutely insane—an individual that is in USA
then will be given status as what—-an New York State illegal alien operator? Subject to immediate deportation when ICE gets the license info. How many will use accurate addresses. Would you—essentially a criminal, announce to God and everyone, who you are and where you are? Since the stste of NY is legitimizing them, what onus of responsibility is on NY if one of the “individuals” kills someone in an auto accident in Connecticut while they are drunk? This is absolute insanity!
If the primary function of a driver’s license is to ensure that bad drivers don’t drive, they are dismal failures.
<
p>
I think the primary function of the driver’s license is to serve as a form of ID signifying that one is a legitimate resident of the issuing state.
<
p>
They also serve the secondary function of keeping track of drivers for the purpose of keeping track of speeding tickets and collisions.
<
p>
If undoucmented residents are going to drive anyway, then I see no reason to provide a government issued ID.
If undoucmented residents are going to drive anyway, then I see no reason to provide a government issued ID.
<
p>
You don’t give a tinker’s damn whether undocumented/illegal aliens have showed themselves to have a minimim knowledge of the rules of the road, before they can legally drive on the roadways. That they will likely be driving on anyway.
<
p>
Um, ok. If that’s what you and MCRD want to believe, feel free to believe it. But sounds pretty dumb to me.
<
p>
As to your other points They also serve the secondary function of keeping track of drivers for the purpose of keeping track of speeding tickets and collisions and serve as a form of ID signifying that one is a legitimate resident of the issuing state., the second is false (I had a CT driver’s license for a year after I moved to MA), and the first is preposterous–the issue is the auto registration. Regarding the first, if an illegal/undocumented alien doesn’t have a driver’s license, how is the state supposed to keep track of his or her speeding tickets or collisions?
<
p>
Thimk.
Licensing is irrelevant to the driving ability of this population, as they will be driving in any event. Licensing of natural citizens doesn’t weed out bad drivers, why should it do so for the “undocumented resident.”
<
p>
As for using an auto registration to prove (i) that you are who you say you are, and (ii) are legally resident at the indicated address, I guess I will have to disagree with your forcefully stated, but nevertheless wrong statements.
<
p>
Until recently, I could cross the border at Niagra with a driver’s license, because it was acknowledged by border guards on both sides as sufficient indication that I was a legal resident of the USA. If sanity prevails, it may again. Nobody ever asked for the registration, which relates to the car, and not to me, the person.
<
p>
As for what law enforcement officials are to do in the vent that an “undocumented resident” gets a ticket or is involved in acollision, I don’t find it to be beyond the purview of law enforcment to enforce the law. In other words, in that situation the individual should be detained.
“Bah”? Are you calling in your black sheep to see if they have any wool*?
<
p>
Re Licensing is irrelevant to the driving ability of this population, as they will be driving in any event. I’m sorry, but this is silly. If you are admitting that licensing doesn’t provide that drivers have at least a minimum knowledge of the rules of the road, why bother having licensing at all? To give jobs to the DMV people who handle the licensing process?
<
p>
Re As for using an auto registration perhaps it escaped your notice, but I wrote nothing about auto registration. It should be clear beyond peradventure that a driver does not have to own a registered auto in order to get a driver’s license or even to drive. He (or she) can merely borrow a duly registered auto.
<
p>
On the other hand, let’s examine this in a bit more detail. Registration requires proof of at least a minimum level of insurance. It strikes me that it would be preferable to ensure that the registrant (who may not be the licensed driver) have that level of insurance, before he (or she) can register the car. And that is true whether or not the registrant is legal.
<
p>
Re Until recently, I could cross the border at Niagra with a driver’s license, because it was acknowledged by border guards on both sides as sufficient indication that I was a legal resident of the USA., oh, please, give me a break. The changes in practices of the border guards along the US/Canadian border did not come because of illegal immigration from the south. They came because of 9/11. The problem that you have with your obviously intended argument is that the 9/11 terrorists, who entered through Canada, did so legally.
<
p>
Re As for what law enforcement officials are to do in the vent that an “undocumented resident” gets a ticket or is involved in acollision, I don’t find it to be beyond the purview of law enforcment to enforce the law I’ll merely note that this is completely orthogonal to the issue of whether the state should grant drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens. If an illegal alien never gets a ticket or is involved in a collision, law enforcement won’t even have any reason to be alerted to the fact that the person who is driving was an illegal alien, would it? Now, would you prefer that the drivers show at least some minimum knowledge of rules of the road (drivers’ licenses) or some minimum financial responsibility (registration), or not?
<
p>
As far as I’m concerned, your complaint completely nonsensical.
<
p>
*Lest anyone wonder, the poem goes as follows
<
p>
Bah bah black sheep
Have you any wool?
Yes sir, yes sir
Three bags full.
<
p>
I mean, I can see why you might think that. And you might be right about their motives. But that doesn’t make it a ‘charade’. heads — to much pain and suffering: or tails — you haven’t done your homework…
<
p>
… might both be true, no?
<
p>
While I generally find opportunism distasteful, I don’t really gripe until it stretches into un-ethical (i.e. lying or otherwise manipulating the truth…)
<
p>
BTW, love the ajax commenting…
They didn’t run away as far as I had hoped.
Even diehard casino proponents will admit that proximity to casinos will increase the incidence of compulsive gambling. It’s completely valid to ask questions to determine the scope of the problem and the costs associated with it. Patrick can’t have it both ways – trumpeting the benefits($$$) and ignoring the costs.
<
p>
And there is nothing “potential” about the negative impacts – they’re for real. Less glossing over and more substance please.
I think Clinton made a strategic mistake with this license issue — not because of her debate performance on that question (not great, but by no means a disaster), but because of the fact that she’s actually come out in favor of the proposal. Given that she’s already running a general election-style campaign, I’m quite surprised. She will get absolutely pounded on this soon enough, and it will cost her some support in the general election.
<
p>
And I say this as someone in favor of Spitzer’s plan (and also in favor of far more liberalized immigration in general…many people don’t realize how screwed this country would be without strong immigration).
<
p>
I just don’t think it made sense for Clinton to support it. After all, she’s running for President, not for Governor. What difference does it make whether she supports this policy or not — it’s a state policy anyway! Why not just state that you’re in favor of state-by-state experimenting with immigration policy in the failed Bush era of doing anything about it on the national level. Then shift the focus to national immigration policy and don’t get caught up in this (wildly unpopular) licensing scheme. It just doesn’t make sense.
I think you’re being incredibly niave if you think all these services Deval proposes will have a significant impact in reducing addiction problems. Even in the best rehabilitation programs, more people fail than succeed (by a lot). What makes addiction to gambling any different? Even if these programs are successful, what good does that do people if they already ruined their family’s life?
<
p>
There was a congressional report on this subject a while ago, as reported in the Globe and at the very least blogged on my site (if not BMG itself), that showed casinos within close proximity literally double the rate of gambling addiction from 2.5% of the population to around 5%. Now, I’m not sure if that study was done in 1990 or 2005, but it was a congressional, nonpartisan report and I’m sure is at least a still a good reference for today. 5% of the population is 1 in 20. That’s hundreds of thousands of people in just this state.
<
p>
So, to say that the house could be going overboard or that this is just a matter of theatrics, I think, is way overstated. It’s at least no different than the Patrick Administration saying they want to build casinos for the profits, but have all sorts of special programs that will make sure no one actually gets hurt by them. Well, there is one difference: Bosley and Basler are looking out for the best interests of everyone in this state, which means they’re avoiding the cheap and easy fixes that aren’t actually fixes at all.
Suppose three casinos in Massachusetts will lead to 20,000 cases of gambling addiction that would otherwise not manifest. But also suppose the casinos would yield a chunk of money to treat the addictions.
<
p>
Which would you rather have, an addiction and a way to pay for therapy and counseling, or no addiction?
<
p>
I realize that there are other costs and benefits at stake beside this one. My point is only that the revenue stream for treatment (good to have if you need it) doesn’t cancel out the costs of the addictions. At best it mitigates them.