If there's a budget gap, some combination of spending cuts and tax increases will take care of that. It is not up to those of us who oppose casino gambling and the crime, addiction, divorces and suicides they create to solve the state's fiscal problems. The state and local tax burden in Massachusetts is in the middle of the pack nationally, so the problem can't be so horrible that reasonable people shouldn't be able to solve it.
I also had to laugh when I read that Patrick proposes to use gambling revenues to offset an anticipated shortfall in state Lottery receipts. Casino gambling will almost certainly do considerable harm to the Lottery, making this nothing more than a shell game.
Mr. Speaker, just kill it now.
Please share widely!
He said “no,” on closing the corporate tax loopholes. He said “no,” on local meals taxes. He said “no,” on a host of municipal revenue plans. Casinos and their ills aren’t my cup of tea. But please name me a major revenue source Patrick has proposed to which Dimasi has said, “Yes.”
shouldn’t have any problems saying “no” again, should he?
This point has been made over and over again on this blog, in the Globe, and elsewhere. It’s all very well and good to write yet another anti-Casino post, and frankly I agree with much of what you write. But we’re at a place now where we’ve got to start seeing alternatives. You say,
I tend to agree. But it is up to Speaker DiMasi and others who have opposed Patrick’s other revenue plans to figure out how we’re going to pay for the state services. I’ve heard what anti-Casino people are against, I’d love to know what you’re for.
And so is the Globe. Casino gambling is a terrible idea, period. There is zero reason to talk about it in the context of whatever revenue problems the state may be having. Even just to entertain the discussion is to play into the hands of pro-casino forces, because then it becomes a discussion of whether the numbers do or don’t add up. Kill the casinos first, then deal with the budget deficit.
I am in favor of casino gambling. In fact, I said that I agree with much of what you write. You really think that it “play[s] into the hands of pro-casino forces,” to say that the casino idea is a bad one, and we’ve got to come up with real revenue sources? The only people being pro-casino are the people actually advocating for casinos.
<
p>Let me start again. I agree with you: we should kill the idea of casinos right off the bat. Done. They’re off the table. Gone. I’m not even thinking about them.
<
p>So, what revenue sources do you suggest to deal with the budget deficit?
You ask, “So, what revenue sources do you suggest to deal with the budget deficit?”
<
p>No ideas, no suggestions. Not my issue.
<
p>Now, let’s pretend for a moment that no one had ever even thought about casino gambling. OK, now I can talk. It strikes me that a substantial increase in the gas tax would accomplish a lot of good, not just in producing more revenue but in getting people to drive less and to buy cars that are more fuel-efficient. (I drive a lot, so I’m certainly not looking out for number one here.)
<
p>At some point, we also have to deal with the fact that very few people in the private sector get pensions these days. It’s a 401(k)/403(b) world. If public employees are receiving significantly better retirement benefits than the rest of us — and that’s my impression, though I could be wrong — then that’s a problem, and it needs to be dealt with.
<
p>We need to deal with the little things, too. The ongoing idiocy of having uniformed police officers working details that are covered by civilians in 49 other states may not be costing vast amounts of money, but it’s terrible symbolism and makes it so that the average citizen doesn’t want to pay another nickel. I heard a municipal official on Tom Finneran’s show say that it’s impossible to win local override votes as long as no one is willing to do something about this. I know Gov. Patrick has talked about this, but he’s talked about a lot of things, hasn’t he?
<
p>Notice that I’m not even talking about the programs on which our money is spent. Don’t get me started. I live in an affluent town with a school system that is considered to be pretty good and reasonably well-funded. In fact, it has been a disaster for both of our kids. We’re now paying private-school tuition for one, and we’re getting ready to shell out again for an alternative program for the other. And, of course, we keep paying taxes.
<
p>So I’d like to see some accountability, too.
Big talk how you love the nanny state.
<
p>Suddenly, say, this state government pension is kinda lame. And the Quinn bill with its incentives for private details, well the unintended consequences of that one! What a money vacuum. But, the State was just taking care of its men in blue!
<
p>Then you opt for private-school because public let you down, yet still pay property tax. You’re darn close to the V word. Vouchers? Oops, I said it.
<
p>Welcome to the dark side.
Why do you have to pretend the Governor never proposed casinos as a revenue source to say all that? It makes your case for why casinos aren’t the right way all the stronger. I get that you think casinos are a totally absurd way to balance the budget (I think so, too).
<
p>The fact is, the governor has made a lot of really good proposals but has also pushed one particularly bad one. In responding to the bad idea of casinos you say that raising revenue is somehow “not your issue” as long as casinos are even on the table? Huh?
<
p>FWIW, I happen to agree with pretty much everything you were talking about, I’m just really sick of this being a pro-casino/anti-casino debate. I want to be talking about how to raise the funds we need for the programs we want. Simply saying “no” to casinos doesn’t really cut it.
I thought you lived in middleboro. I must be mistaken. Middleboro is not affluent, unless you consider the 96 ford Taurus with “5-time superbowl champion Dallas cowboys” painted on the back parked next to a truck with a huge “git-r-done” decal at Mobil to be affluent.
<
p>Yee-haw!
I love people who care enough about this Commonwealth to oppose something but not enough to put forward ideas or solutions for what ails us. While I agree Dan that there is no obligation upon you to come up with ideas I think it is a little bit one-sided to only argue half the argument. I think that is why Di Masi is a pathetic politician. He can only say no, he isn’t intelligent enough to come up with counter-arguments. A little of the free rider problem if you ask me.
<
p>To date the anti-casino folk have utterly failed to disprove the benefits of casinos. I would say that many who are opposed to casinos have done a superb of pointing out the weaknesses of Patrick proposal and thank you to them. The bill isn’t perfect to be sure. However, the anti-casinos folks strongest, albeit still weak, argument is the morality of casinos.
<
p>The casino issue isn’t new to MA. Other states have gone through this and continue to have casinos. If casinos really drained the lottery, if casinos really took away small businesses, if casinos really were a revenue drain then why have so many states continued to maintain or expand their casino programs?
I oppose this bill, as does Rep. Tom Calter of Middleboro because it’s a bad idea. Deval didn’t promulgate a general policy on casinos, but rather this specific bill.
<
p>From crime statistics to strain on town services, the case has been made time and again. Even the head of the casino lobby admits he wouldn’t want a casino in his town.
<
p>I love this canard that if you don’t like Deval’s ideas, you should write your own budget. Let’s skip the tax cuts for Deval’s corporate friends and see how much money that makes, hm?
<
p>Finally, the “other states do it and don’t complain” argument is weak. On that basis, we should also allow concealed weapons and the death penalty.
I wasn’t saying that because they “don’t complain” we shouldn’t do it. What I am saying is that the doomsday projections that are offered by anti-casino folks seem to bear no truth. I am suggesting that if it were bankrupting state lotteries and drawing revenues DOWN then I would believe that others wouldn’t be rushing to build casinos. I also will agree that this isn’t airtight logic but, nonetheless, there is merit.
<
p>As for concealed weapons and the death penalty, well, that is just a bit of a stretch because you completely misinterpreted my premise.
<
p>Lastly, my point had NOTHING to do with supporting Deval. I take just as much issue at those whose knee-jerk response is to oppose Bush without having any idea on what to do instead. Opposition alone gets us nowhere. As you will also note, I agreed with Dan that there is no obligation to come up with ideas. I just will again point to DiMasi as an example of how stupid you look when your idea of “leadership” is simple opposition.
<
p>Deval Patrick isn’t a god to me. He CAN do wrong. Frankly, he pisses me off daily when he doesn’t fight the legislature more. I thought he would really take on the good old boy network. I don’t think that the casinos are the best he can do. That said, they are the plan on the table now, they will raise needed revenue and my thought is that if you cannot put up, shut up.
Deval has some good ideas, but casinos aren’t one of them. At the very least, we should all be able to agree it’s far from what we all had in mind when we actually got the guy in office.
<
p>He’s proposed to cut corporate tax loopholes. He’s proposed the municipal partnership act. Those are two very strong proposals. DiMasi may have bucked at them so far, but if we’re going to unite behind something, it should be behind them – not casinos, which are a such a divisive issue that they could kill our coalition.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the economy appears to be shitting a brick. Why are you so adamant about closing the loopholes and not cutting taxes for corporations? Wouldn’t it be a better move to increase the burden on them at a different time?
For an interesting comparison of the 50 states, see this in pdf
<
p>Some interesting highlights to its ranking of the states and the states’ tax climate: (1 is good; 50 is lousy)
<
p>Corporate tax: 47th
<
p>Individual tax: 15th (the taxfoundation considers flat broad tax with few exemptions to be the most fair)
<
p>Sales tax: 10th
<
p>Unemployment tax: 49th (Any lawyer who has ever represented an employer knows this)
<
p>Property tax: 43th
My memory isn’t what it used to be (or ever was) but as I recall MA passed tax cuts designed to specifically help Raytheon and Fidelity in an effort to keep big businesses here.
<
p>Again, if I recall correctly, the big companies gladly took the tax breaks and then moved several hundred if not several thousand of their jobs to other states. Lose/lose for us. (I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong here.)
You’re right. Raytheon bailed, and Fidelity has downsized, to Texas and NC.
<
p>The lesson learned from the Raytheon and Fidelity experiment is that the State shouldn’t be in the business of selecting stock-market winners: Raytheon, Fidelity, Evergreen Solar, Stem-Cell….
<
p>Who knows, maybe the investment work out. Maybe not, but regardless, politicians are gambling with our money, lavishing out Corporate welfare then disappointed when the welfare queens disappoint them.
<
p>So the ‘fix the loophole’ zombies are basically saying, let’s gouge some more Corporations when the real answer is to just fix the damn Massachusetts Corporate tax code: one broad low rate with very few deductions and exemptions, a low tax on invested PPE and no tax on gross sales, only net income.
<
p>Why is it so hard to figure this out?
<
p>The Verizons and Walmart, or Chamber of Commerce or MTF would have no grounds for objection to such Corporate tax reform, assuming the rate is first, low and second equally applied to all corporations sited in the state.
<
p>Having the 47th more hostile corporate tax climate and 49th most hostile unemployment rates should be downright embarrassing for state leaders. table 2
I’m not so sure about the methodology, as I am not an economist, but Elsewhere it seems that the overall business tax burden as a percentage of “economic activity” is not so bad.
or “good for business” side in this February 2007 study.
I don’t really know what to think of your link. And I’ve been thinking about it too.
<
p>One obvious point is that it ignores the business cost of unemployment, so my earlier point from the Taxpayer Foundation that Mass is 49th worse of 50 state in unemployment is not rebutted.
<
p>The significant point your link (i.e. taxes in Mass are about average when expressed as a function of Gross State Product), I don’t know what that tells me: Total business taxes divided by the sum of business output plus wages are average.
<
p>If I’m a business seeking to relocate somewhere and the planners come to me and say “Total business taxes divided by the sum of business output plus wages are average,” that’s damning by faint praise.
<
p>If I’m a politician debating tax policy in the state and the opposition says “Total business taxes divided by the sum of business output plus wages are average,” — not really a Reaganesque or FDResque moment, or a reason to not reform.
<
p>I think what your link tells me is that i) Mass collects a lot of business tax (see table 4 of your link–top 10 of the states) and ii) Mass has high GSP.
<
p>Does that mean that we shouldn’t reform the Mass Corporate Tax Code because total business taxes divided by the sum of business output plus wages is average. Isn’t that like saying let’s not improve education because, “Well Johnny reads well enough”?
<
p>
Now’s the time, so we can protect our education services, health services and other features that are imperative for the future of this state. Cutting the loopholes won’t result in job losses or rate hikes – just look at Verizon. The amount of money we’re talking about here represents less than 1% of their profits… and all these loopholes haven’t resulted in below-average rates for Massachusetts citizens.
<
p>In a time of economic recession, it’s most important to empower the people most effected by it. In this case, that means creating policies that can protect people foreclosure, keep our public school system intact and make sure people have access to training programs and public colleges, especially community schools.
This upward spiralling of tax and spend government must stop now. Why can’t you grasp the fact that IN FACT business and people, professional and otherwise, are leaving Massachusetts.
Pray tell how do you explain all the MA residents moving to NH and RI—better weather? You can sit there and expound until the cows come home with hypothetical pie in the sky solutions. Ed King is the man who cleaned up the pile of shit that Michael Dukakis left us with. We need an Ed King again—NOW.
<
p>Our entire tax code needs to be revamped—perhaps as gary suggested and then we need to strat cutting into social servise and aid to education. People need to bite the bullet for a while and to learn to do without. People adapt and survive. That is what people do best.
Like you said, let’s cut services and schools! Let’s take the people living on the street and kick ’em out,… to… well… let’s spit on ’em! And those damned kids wanting to get an edumication,… let’s turn off the heat during the winter!
<
p>Sorry, what is it you are suggesting again?
It’s up to the governor to introduce viable solutions to the present financial quagmire. The governor appears predisposed to these grandiose pronouncements of how he intends to remedy one social predicament after another: throw money at it—-the more the better. Many of these social ills have been with us since the beginning of mankind, yet Governor Patrick will solve them by the first year of his second term. Note that all these alleged remedies will manifest themselves four years hence. Am I the only person that sees that the emperor has no clothes?
The platitudes from the corner office are endless. Governor Patrick offers superficial solutions to complex problems, then dumps them in the lap of the Speaker. Does anyone believe that Speaker DiMasi intends on doing the governors job as well as his own? I would bet that DiMasi rues the day that Gabrielli of Healey were not elected governor. It appears now that we would be better off with anyone rather than the man we now enjoy.
Okay, so casinos are a bad idea (we agree there.) Many, however, would argue that he has introduced “viable solutions to the present financial quagmire” other than casinos such as closing loopholes, etc.
<
p>If casinos aren’t the answer, and closing loopholes isn’t the answer, what do you suggest?
to public employees who have worked for decades in public service by attacking pensions is better than allowing adults to make decisions about gambling. Wow. That is sad.
<
p>”If there’s a budget gap, some combination of spending cuts and tax increases will take care of that. It is not up to those of us who oppose casino gambling . . .”.
<
p>No answers, no suggestions, no policy offered. Just Say NO. Thank you Ronnie R.
<
p>Oppose gaming so much. Write your State Rep and demand that he or she eliminate any money to your city or town from the State Lottery. After all that is gambling. It’s tainted funds. To acept it for your local aid would be wrong.
that we should break our commitments to current employees? Reform doesn’t happen overnight. You’re trying to read my mind, and doing a really bad job of it.
<
p>The evidence is also pretty clear that casino gambling is unique in its perniciousness. I can oppose casinos and still play Megabucks. In fact, I do. No crime, no traffic.
And obviously that town is falling prey to sin and crime, so they were struck down in favor of the righteous (or self-righteous) New Yorkers.
<
p>Ah well, Mass has always had this Puritanical streak … wait til we reenact Prohibition!
<
p>On the other hand, after seeing a few more crazy cell phone drivers on the road this weekend, if the Legislature wants to regulate there, go right ahead!
When can people get it through their thick skulls? The resistance toward casinos isn’t only about social issues. In fact, I don’t know many people who are against legalized gambling in this state… something that’s been in existence in Massachusetts for far more than my entire life on this earth.
<
p>What many of us are against is casinos. Casinos represent more harm than just addictions and crime. They represent a huge hit to the local economy. Up to 70% of a casino’s revenue is just redistributed from other sectors of the economy – it’s bad tax policy to suddenly create new institutions which can destroy the ones that have kept this state solvent for its entirety.
<
p>100% of government’s revenue is redistributed from other sectors of the economy.
is Repub-speak 101. A fine example of the tidbits that rove around the minds of those who despise concepts like, “the common good” and “equitable distribution of resources”.
<
p>Beware, Gary’s here!
Let’s see, to rebut the argument that Government revenue is redistributive we have ad hominem, cliches, talking points…but not rebuttal. Ok. I win.
<
p>We are legion; we are many.
There seems to be quite a bit of bickering on BMG this evening (full moon comin’) and I was just funnin’.
<
p>Maybe it is actually work that is redistributed through a mechanism called government. The redistribution formulas are impacted through benevolence and greed. These competing factors allow some to have more than they contribute (either through privilege or disability) and others to receive less than their fair share.
<
p>Maybe we can think in terms of our work for the common good of humanity and decide how the redistribution should reflect that concept? I often see language describing government and corporations as human-like entities. Something that I personally reject. We are in charge and responsible for the redistribution of our work/resources. In that respect, I do not cleave to the Republican ideology that government is “bad”. It either functions or it doesn’t. When it where the redistribution is not functioning to our satisfaction we are responsible for making adjustments.
<
p>Moral, sprititual or economic, it is nonetheless a persistent dilemma. Cheers!
but I agree with gary. Perhaps I have to turn in my Volvo and Birks (I have both!). Government is redistributing revenue from other sectors of the economy. I can’t really see how one could attack that idea. Where gary and I surely disagree is whether this redistribution is a bad thing. I certainly think that the redistribution is what makes this country great; I happily pay my taxes knowing that they will go to programs and opportunities for those who don’t have as much as me. I like knowing that my government is going to keep me safe. Whew, I feel better, I TRUST government which surely must still keep me squarely in the moonbat column.
…I think we both believe that it is not a good or bad thing, just a true thing. Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.
<
p>That said, sometimes government forgets that it does not inherently have any money of its own, and begins to spend as if it were a producer instead of a consumer – of OPM. I think we both just want our pool of government money spent more wisely.
I was just pointing out the irony.
<
p>Ryan expresses opposition to Casinos because casinos allegedly redistribute over 70% of the revenue (according to his statistics). Isn’t it ironic that said liberal supports larger government which is far more redistributive than casinos?!
<
p>Oppose casinos because they prey on ignorance or create some expensive problems, or Not-in-my-back-yard, but to oppose them because they’re redistributive is rather naive.
We have structural deficits and many services and investments that we need in the state. It’s time for the legislature to be a part of solving the problem.
It’s funny you’re taking this line of thought when half of the governor’s casino proposal wouldn’t even go toward solving our budget problems… they’d be going toward more tax cuts! Whoopie!
<
p>Your unresearched, diehard loyalty to the Governor is almost cute, but not very helpful toward making sure Massachusetts is a great state to live in. I’ve worked harder than most to get Deval in office – and if he made a quick few policy changes and began to take on his already-released, good proposals as his main issues, then I could get behind him again. And I would in a heart beat. However, a bad proposal is a bad proposal is a bad proposal is a bad proposal. There are costs here that you haven’t considered. No state has balanced a budget on the backs of a casino, or three. Massachusetts won’t be the first.
At twice your age, I’ve seen enough political leaders not to vest all my hopes in any one of them, and I know enough not to lapse into bitter disappointment the minute someone I’ve supported fails to agree with me on one issue. My “diehard loyalty” to the governor is based on the fact that I’ve already gotten some of the things I wanted when I decided to support him in September 2005: the securing of marriage equality, the return of the state to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, attention to economic development and long range planning. I expect to see more out of this Governor before his term is done. My impatience with your exaggerated disillusionment is also influenced by a number of years of direct experience with the alternatives: Republicans oblivious or unconcerned with the long term effects of their policies and hack Democrats who couldn’t win the top job to save their lives. We finally manage to elect a Democrat and what does the progressive community do? It turns around and joins with the talk radio Republicans in kneecapping him. The result of undermining this Governor isn’t going to be a more progressive Democrat in office, you know. It will simply mean a Republican challenger will have a weaker mark.
<
p>I don’t give a fleep one way or the other on casinos – my comment above deliberately doesn’t mention them. I’m not interested in joining a religious crusade for or against them. They’re simply a potential funding source – directly via licensing fees and indirectly by creating jobs. The state has a structural budget deficit. The Governor has offered casino licensing fees as one among a variety of ideas to address that deficit. It’s time for Sal and the legislators to pick up some of those ideas, or bring forward others instead – it’s time for them to say ‘yes’ to something.
…as long as you people don’t hurt me!
<
p>One of the biggest reasons we HAVE the pension boondoggle is that Mass. is a non-contributory state. So, if you spend a career/life working for the state, you don’t qualify for social security, and are entirely dependent on that pension. You cannot overestimate the fear and loathing amid the lifers when ANY pension reform, no matter how benign and beneficial to the whole, is proposed as they have spent their adult lives twisting themselves into the pretzels laid out by the current rule system. Even when they leave state service, if they eventually qualify for social security, that will be reduced by the amount of their Mass. pension – usually with the result that they collect no social security at all.
<
p>Make Mass. a contributory state! I worked for the Feds when Reagan forced Federal employees into social security, and I well remember the keening and rending of garments – but today, Federal retirees can stack their Federal pension and Social Security, just like those in the private sector do. By ceasing the serf-like dependence on the Mass. pension system, state employees might allow needed reforms.
I haven’t seen a good pension discussion since Kerry Healey left the fray. She as well as Deval brought forth the pension reform plan espoused over at Pioneer Institute and developed by Salem State Prof. Ken Ardon want to give it a headline?
<
p>A plan whose time has come and all that?
The problem currently with ‘opting back in’ to the SS system is that both the SS system and the Mass current system are operating at current surpluses (but with actuarial deficits). So, a decision to opt back into the SS system would divert funds into SS that currently go into treasury–an immediate decrease in pension revenue.
<
p>i.e. current contributors are paying for future and current retirees. Reduce the current contributions and you’d have to fund the current deficit from other sources (i.e. casinos?)
All states and the Feds had a seperate system until 1983 (84?) when Reagan forced all employees except those within 5 years of retirement age to pay SS. Everybody began to pay double, and boy were they mad.
<
p>That could work here in Mass. as well – all employees under age 50 would pay both. Likewise, at the same time, change the calculation from the top 3 years to the to 5 or 10 (you need 10 to vest), which would eliminate huge payouts after many years of a $300 moderator or selectman stipend – with a commensurate pay-in – elevated to 30 years of service with 80% of highest salary – with commensurate pay-OUT.
<
p>But until SS is on the table, employee unions will reflexively fight ANY change.
I don’t disagree that you idea is a viable long term plan, but with short term pain.
<
p>If you impose SS on employees without reducing employee contribution rates, it’s a higher tax. If you give them a choice (SS or pension), who know what they’ll pick. But, if you ‘opt in’ there’s a current hit to the budget–long run it’s a good idea, but right now the revenue from pension contribution exceeds current outlay.
<
p>Here’s an article from 2005 on the proposal.
BTW – offering a choice would be a HUGE mistake. The Feds were told – this is happening. Live with it.
<
p>Don’t we have Democrats in all 3 top slots now? It’s sort of a Nixon-can-go-to-China thing….
is my father, as a teacher nearing retirement, has talked to me a few times about the fact that he wishes he could have SS too, even if it meant paying into it all this time.
All states and the Feds had a seperate system until 1983 (84?) when Reagan forced all employees except those within 5 years of retirement age to pay SS. Everybody began to pay double, and boy were they mad.
<
p>Is true of federal employees, but I have never read it as a requirement for employees of state or local governments. Federalism, you know: SS requires that half the SS tax, and it is probably that taxng a state government would be held to be unconstitional. For a reference, read the Seminole Tribe vs. State of Florida and the Alden vs. State of Maine line of cases. They do not involve taxation, but they do involve direct federal mandates on state tovernments.
<
p>Another datum, my spouse worked for the State of Massachusetts for a number of years, and his paycheck stub never indicated that his share of SS taxes was being withheld.
It is NOT true, however, in the majoirty of states. While the Feds could not compel, they COULD penalize, and did so.
<
p>In the early 1980’s, more then 40 states jumped on board with SS AND a pension, and they are reaping the benefits now. Mass. is one of the few hold outs, and will continue to feel the pain of no/reduced SS until they comply.
voluntary, not a fedral mandate, which I believe you were suggesting.
if the state didn’t join, the SS of its retirees was withheld
<
p>…if the state chose not to join the SS system and pay into that systems, its employees would not receive SS payments unless the employees had non-state governmental work experience in which they paid into SS. If they also worked the requisite number of quarters in private employment, they would receive SS payments
<
p>Quite frankly the portion of your comment It was not a mandate, but a powerful persuader. makes no sens in view of your earlier comment Everybody began to pay double, and boy were they mad. How is making everybody pay double a “powerful persuader” if it made them mad to have to do so?
Even if you earn that requisite SS payment – your SS is REDUCED by the amount of your Mass. pension, and you only receive the surplus. You do, of course, pay in the full amount to SS. THAT was the persuader – people paying into SS, and unable to collect anything back because the Mass. pension is more.
<
p>Your wife is a Mass retiree, you say? Let us say that her pension is $750/mo, and your social security is $1,000/mo. You have $1,750/mo to live on. When you die, she tries to collect the survivor benefit of $750/mo. She will actually get a check for $0, as that survivor benefit will be reduced by the amount of her Mass. pension. She will then have $750 total, instead of $1,750, to live on. NOW do you begin to get it?
<
p>This is THIRTY YEARS OLD….
I thought the offset only applied to her benefits; i.e., money she qualified for by her own work and contribution. So, say, she works 10 years in private industry, then joins State Agency X, where she works until retirement. She loses her own SS benefit. Does she also lose her spouse’s benefit, as a survivor? The spouse contributed to SS for 40+ years.
<
p>Otherwise, why hasn’t there been a hue and cry on this from state retirees? They aren’t a politically impotent bloc. Are they all single or married to other state employees?
But I have talked to many a weeping widow in my day. Most women depend on their spouses survivorship benefit, and when they find out it is wiped out by their teacher’s pension, they are messed.
<
p>I knew one woman who retired from the Board of Professional Licensure, only to have to go back 6 years later when her husband dies.
Providing pensions to long-time employees is not a boondoggle, but the reduction of social security payments to Massachusetts employees is certainly a factor that does reduce career flexibility, and the pension formulas and the lack of a social security component also encourage all kinds of odd decisions.
How many times can this be repeated???
<
p>There’s no such thing as only allowing one casino.
<
p>If you allow one, you open the doors to tribal casinos in this state.
<
p>I don’t know why you don’t get that, but I’ve explained it to you, personally, a few times. If you need another lesson in federal policy, I’ll be glad to oblige, but can we get off this ‘one casino’ nonsense?
What are you smoking, Ryan? I don’t think I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting you in person — if I have, I apologize, but I can’t remember the occasion — and you certainly haven’t personally explained anything to me about casinos, although I am sure I would have found the exposition entertaining.
<
p>In any event, when I want advice about the intricacies of federal, state and municipal laws related to native American nations and casino gambling, I’ll turn to my attorney friends who really know what they are talking about. In the meantime, one casino for Massachusetts, on an Indian reservation, on Beacon Hill, or on an artificial island in the middle of Nantucket Sound seems like a better place for MA than where we are now, in my personal opinion.
I directed personally toward you. I can look them up if you’d like. There’s always the chance that you didn’t notice them – I always assume people check who’s commented to their comments, but maybe you don’t do that. In any event, I smoketh the truth.
<
p>But if you aren’t going to take my word for it, then go and actually get the advice of all your uber cool friends who are “experts” when apparently I don’t know anything I’m talking about. I didn’t know that I needed the title of Esquire to actually understand basic federal policy, but apparently you think it a prerequisite. Fine.
<
p>Just know here’s what they’re going to tell you, if they actually do know their heads from their tails re casino law. If this state allows any form of Class 3 gambling, we lose the ability to control it. There will be more than one tribal casino that will build a casino, that much I can promise you (I can think of two tribes off the top of my head who said they’d build one, for starters). If your friends really do know what they are talking about, then they’ll at least know that much. If they don’t know that much, then they’re clearly not experts in Native/Federal Gambling law. Don’t blame them, though, because there probably aren’t a whole ton of those kinds of experts in Massachusetts, given that we don’t allow Class 3 gambling.
<
p>Finally, we have met personally – at the Murray/Silbert BMG forum in Cambridge. You were much more polite back then.