Cross-posted from Media Nation.
Whether it was 106-48, as Casey Ross reports in the Herald, or 108-46, as Matt Viser and Andrew Ryan write in the Globe, the House defeated Gov. Deval Patrick’s three-casino proposal by an overwhelming margin today. Technically, the bill was sent to a study committee, but we all know what that means.
Ross’ is by far the more colorful of the two accounts, as he describes angry losers jeering and booing as the proposal went down to defeat. It is true that the casino opponents, led by House Speaker Sal DiMasi, had an unfair advantage – they had the facts on their side, as well as the moral high ground. All that and arm-twisting, too.
In retrospect, it seems clear that DiMasi knew he was going to win all along, and that whatever pressure he put on lawmakers was designed to run up the score in order to make sure that Patrick doesn’t try this again. Patrick can still be a successful governor. But he’s got to walk away from this terrible mistake.
Auto insurance “reform” under Romney “was dead”. But then the industry funded Deval’s five day party and sure enough we now have auto insurance “reform”.
<
p>There are always bills with noble titles yet detailed Satanically inspired destructiveness in their “comprehensiveness”.
My insurance premium went up $1000/yr when I moved to Massachusetts and I had a perfect driving record at the time. I have friends who kept their out of state registrations, even though it meant being eternally on the run from the Somerville parking police, because they could not afford to do otherwise. The old system was insanely expensive, for good drivers anyway. Perhaps now that there’s some competition premiums will go down.
Or they might go up …
Time will tell, but experience leads me to expect one particular outcome.
Then again, I’m a pretty bad driver.
Rep. Tom Calter of Kingston has been saying loud and wide that he opposes this bill for months, yet he didn’t vote to kill it. Disappointing if true…
…Tom Calter has opposed a Mashpee Wampanoag Middleboro casino, but absolutely loved the Governor’s bill. Apparently the Governor came over to his house for dinner one night, and that was that. He’s been very outspoken about how bad a casino would be for Middleboro.
<
p>A lot of folks from CasinoFacts.org and from Middleboro sent the guy a check for his opposition to a Middleboro casino, only to get a knife in the back when Calter proclaimed, in his corker of a maiden speech yesterday that a tribal casino is “inevitable” and that somehow we are deluded to think it’s not.
<
p>If he wanted to promote the Governor’s plan for whatever reason, that’s politics, but to wipe his feet on the very people who’ve been singing his praises, supporting him when the casino crazed in Middleboro booed him and turned their backs on him – and provided him with AMPLE evidence that a tribal casino is NOT inevitable – well that’s quite another.
I’ll grant you that a tribal casino is not inevitable, but I’ve never seen a probability attached to it. If the choice was pass the Governor’s bill and there’s a 100% chance to get a regulated casino, or don’t pass it and there’s an X% chance to get an unregulated tribal casino. X is certainly not 0%, as Florida and Connecticut can attest to, but neither is it the 100% that casino proponants claim — as evidenced by the Texas experience.
<
p>This is a casino bill after all, it would have been helpful to know the odds.
but I know that opening any commercial casino, racino or otherwise would not stop a tribal casino. Legalizing level III slots would open the door and the Tribe wouldn’t care about competition at this point because they wouldn’t have to spring for licenses or pay the taxes like commerical casinos – they’d still come out ahead. This is why the Tribe was forging ahead with it’s plans despite Patrick’s bill.
Maybe if the plan had one or two casinos, but I think keeping an extra competitor out of the state would have been worth the licensing fees to the Wampanoags, particularly if that third casino would have opened up in Southeastern Mass.
<
p>Now it might have happened the other way, of course. The Wampanoags could have forged ahead, making a second state-licensed casino in that area less valueable, but I think they still would have gotten bids, particularly since the New Bedford mayor was salivating over a casino.
<
p>Anyway, I’m sure the tribe’s backers did that cost/benefit analysis, and I suppose it doesn’t really matter anymore since the state license plan is dead.
the wampanoags have made almost every sign, since Patrick proposed his bill, that they’d use the federal process instead of the state compact process. They didn’t show up to hearings, they haven’t been overly supportive of Patrick’s bill, they certainly didn’t react to the great news that they could be ‘one of the three’ if they had the highest bid – kind of a slap in the face, wouldn’t you agree?
<
p>No. If we allow Class 3 gambling, the Wampanoags will use the federal process. They’re probably going to try to use the federal process anyway, though nothing would make it gauranteed: as far as I’m aware (there was a globe article about this a few days ago), it’ll be the first time any tribe’s used the fed process to approve a casino on grounds they bought solely for the casino, 25 entire miles away from their actual tribal lands. Furthermore, I don’t think the process has ever been used to approve a Class 2 casino. So, both of those reasons combine to cast lots of doubt that the Wampanoags can do anything now that we killed Patrick’s bill, and that’s saying a lot since there’s very little chance any serious investors will come on board for anything less than a full-scale resort, class 3 casino. The bottom line is this: if casinos have been so gosh-darn inevitable, why haven’t they been built yet? The Wampanoags have had well over a decade to do it, so it seems to me as though their hand isn’t as strong as they thought it was – and they’re completely bluffing. As is everyone who’s pushing the “casinos are inevitable meme.”
Maybe because they just got Federal recognition last year?
<
p>Anyway, it’s likely that the Wapanoags weren’t involved in this debate because they didn’t want it to pass. They think they can do this on their own and they’d rather not have the competition. Had it passed, it would have raised their costs and lowered their profits whether or not they submitted a bid.
<
p>Look, it’s silly to argue about this now that the casino proposal is defeated. The focus now should be stopping racinos, which are terrible, and making sure the Wampanoags don’t get to build their casino anyway. The first should be fairly straightforward — I doubt there’s much support in the lege for racinos, though probably more than for resort style casinos for some reason. The second is trickier and relies more on things we can’t control — Federal buearacracy, outcomes of inevitable court cases, the willingness of casino backers to take on risks or borrow money in a down economy, etc.
because I really enjoyed his perspective…
We’ll probably be seeing more of him.
I am waiting for the speaker to propose eliminating the lottery, catholic bingo parlors and all other forms of “sanctioned” “moral?” gambling in Massachusetts. (By the way, how many of you out there are currently placing bets on your favorite basketball teams.) While we are at it why don’t we bring back prohibition and outlaw cigarettes as well?
<
p>Don’t tell me this is about the facts or DiMasi’s moral purity. This is strictly about his EGO. He has chosen to take the opposite corner from the governor on almost every issue, proposal, endorsement I can think of. He wants to show the governor who is boss.
<
p>It’s over for now but it will be back in the form of unregulated indian casinoes in the not to distant future. You can bet on it.
he is not on opposite sides of everything…..He aggredd on Gay Marriage, Life Sciences, Energy reform, Education, GIC, Pensions, and now tax loopholes….did u think of those?
I couldn’t agree more with Camb02139’s take on the Speaker’s role in this. He approached a difficult subject as though it were a childhood game of “King of the Hill.” His strongarm tactics fit neatly into his strategem to embarass the Governor and take him down a notch. I think the Globe editorial today nails the Speaker for playing the bully boy. Let’s hope his days really are numbered, or we’re back to Republican rule after 2010.
Deval is like the only child of well to-do family. Spoiled rotten and constantly told how great he is. Now Deval, I mean the child, goes to his grandmother’s birthday party where his cousins are all present. They are from big families. Deval, I mean the kid, doesn’t understand why everyone isn’t telling him and only him how great he is and doing exactly as he wants. He whines and his cousins laugh at him. So Deval, I mean the kid, figures the best think to do is to start insulting all his cousins. That will make them do what he wants. Instead the cousins get pissed. And the kid doesn’t stop. He gets worse. And, because he keeps pushing it, rather than ignore him or give him a little dope slap they beat the living crap out of him.
<
p>Even kids know about self-respect and not letting someone shit all over you. In politics it is an absolute.
DiMasi opposes legalizing cocaine even though he doesn’t have any problem with alcohol. I suppose that makes him a hypocrite, too?
consider, please, the fact that casinos are very, very different from the state lottery. Casinos kill the economy by wreaking economic havoc on small businesses, etc.; if anything, the state lottery offers incentives for people to go to their local mom and pop shop, or restaurant. There are certainly some people who don’t like gambling period, but that’s never been the crux of my argument: gambling is here in Massachusetts in a number of ways, which only bolsters the fact that we don’t need casinos. It’s not as if we’re truly making moral decision for people, they’re already free to gamble in a number of legal ways. We’re just saying that casinos are bad policy for Massachusetts, which is precisely why Governor Patrick’s bill was demolished.
<
p>Casinos won’t be here anytime soon. As long as Class 3 casinos are illegal, we’re not going to see any major, class 3 casino in Massachusetts. Period. That’s the way the law works, sorry to inform you. Could the Wampanoags try to build a Class 2 casino? Sure, but they have steep hurdles to face at the federal level, because the federal process has NEVER approved anything like their request: to build a casino so far away from their actual tribal land. It would set a new precedent. That, sir, is not inevitable. Furthermore, if they were so damn inevitable, why hasn’t one been built yet? The fact remains that there aren’t any big investors for a class 2 casino: they’re as lame as it gets and won’t make a huge return on investment. That’s why we’re very unlikely to see any casino in Massachusetts, period. If I were a betting man, I’d take your bet, because the fact of the matter is the Wampanoags and all pro-casino folks in this state have severely overplayed their hand: they got called on their bluff and went down in smoke.
Way to go:
<
p>Your post articulates exactly why casinos don’t belong here in the Bay State.
…this finally puts to rest any fear that having a Democratic Governor and Democratic General Court would automatically mean steamrolling legislation with no checkes and balances.
…that we’re able to stop the Wampanoags from building a casino now. I’d hate to have gone through all this only to end up with an unregulated casino anyway.
Ban “casino charity nights.” There. Problem solved. There’s no chance a casino can get approved if Class III is in no way, shape, or form allowed here. That’s the crux of the federal law.
<
p>And racinos will die a quick death like they always do.
<
p>Even if the charity nights laws is kept, in TX, the courts ruled it wasn’t enough to allow Class III casinos. Plus there’s the fact they bought land 25 miles away from their tribal lands specifically for a casino, as others have mention, which has never been approved before. So, I really think the Wampanoags are pretty much cooked.
Even if one opposes casino gamlbing, how much of this vote was really based on principle?
The final vote was nothing but show-boating.
If Speakers of the House are going to try to run the state maybe we should put up the position for a statewide vote.
that ballot initiative!..Who wants to get the signature campaign started.
Micromanaging the government is always a bad idea. This is a complex issue and voters will not, as evidenced by previous ballot inits, think things through or have the time to understand what they are voting for. Thank goodness in MA this usually means that the ballot init goes down (like wine in grocery stores, which at first blush seems a simple issue, but then there were arguments for and against that were pretty compelling).
<
p>Hell, I’ve immersed myself for hours in this issue to come to my conclusions. I can’t expect my neighbors to be as obsessive as me. People don’t have the time to govern. That’s why they send representatives to the Hill.
<
p>We should get rid of ballot initiatives, except in cases dealing with the voting process (how can one expect incumbent legislators to be impartial regarding the fairness to their potential challengers?) or MAYBE with nonbinding resolutions, as a sort of poll. But there’s a cheaper way to do that – it’s called polling.
Casinos should never be sold as tools of economic development, for many of the reasons so often stated here. However, I am disturbed at some of the events of the past few days, where the Globe reports a revived effort to get slots into racetracks. (Apparently a DiMasi promise to be “open-minded” on this helped sway the deciding vote out of committee).
<
p>From today’s Globe:
“As the House went through the motions of killing Patrick’s landmark bill, racetrack owners were strategizing over ways to put momentum behind a bill that the speaker has vowed to bring to the House floor for discussion. Representative David Flynn, a Bridgewater Democrat, is spearheading a proposal that would allow each of the state’s four racetracks to install 2,500 slot machines. Each track would have to agree to pay a $50 million licensing fee and give the state 50 percent of the slot revenues, which would generate an estimated $400 million annually.”
<
p>Let’s hope this is just an empty promise by DiMasi, although that would be an indictment of his character. At least the Governor’s proposal would have a significant number (debatable, I know, but significant) of construction jobs, and would likely attract outside income into the State, maybe even from outside the US as a destination for vacationers to take advantage of George Bush’s declining dollar.
DiMasi has reportedly promised to let the racino bill come to the floor, even though he opposes it – exactly was he did with the casino bill.
to be allied with someone who will “let” something come to the floor. Yummmm, delicious democracy at work. Sorry Dan, I have “negatively” responded to you twice in this post…it isn’t you, I promise. My contempt is mainly aimed at DiMasi and his bulls**t tactics.
Andy: What on earth are you complaining about? It came to the floor. DiMasi always said it would come to the floor. Under the rules of parliamentary procedure, legislative leaders can prevent legislation from coming up for a vote. That’s part of democracy, too, even though DiMasi didn’t try to do that. Finally, House members can vote DiMasi out as speaker any time they like.
<
p>And, oh, I suppose Bobby Haynes’ lobbying was limited to dropping off boxes of candy at each member’s office.
And he can go a lot farther than just merely prevent stuff from coming up, the whole shebang is built for dictatorial rule there. He has too much power. That said, he did right in this case, there was a vote, and the promises he made seem relatively honest ones – letting another bill, even if it’s something he disagrees with, come up for debate.
<
p>There’s reasons to complain about DiMasi’s conduct, a lot of the time, but this instance ain’t it.
I maintain that both sides have been abysmal when it comes to presenting independent facts. Dan Bosley’s “white papers” on casinos are as reliable as Gov. Patrick’s. Both sides were interested parties. I was never able to really make a thoughtful decision about casinos because no one was really interested in having a real debate. All both sides could offer was hyperbole. It was either how many thousands and thousands of jobs were going to be created or how casinos would turn us all to brothels and addicts. I sort of have to believe that, in fact, there was more true middle somewhere.
<
p>I sort of marvel at how so many people who would otherwise raise hell about procedurally killing a bill instead of really analyzing the issue on its mertis are now the same people in DiMasi’s camp. Politics does, indeed, make for strange bedfellows.
<
p>Sadly, the facts were on no one’s side, as neither side was particularly interested in finding the facts.
You know, and I never saw any discussion whatsoever about the possibility of having a state-owned casino here in Massachusetts … Would that have upset the Ron Paul supporters in this state? Yup. But that also would have taken one argument away from the DiMasi-ites – that big business casino corporations would have reaped the lion’s share of the gambling dollars. Hell, the most libertarian state in New England, New Hampshire, is in the alcohol distribution business. Why not even talk about Massachusetts going into the casino business?
<
p>I wasn’t a strong supporters of Casino’s anyway, but this thing could have been talked out better, I think, and in such a way that our leaders make it clear to the public that the whole reason why we’re talking about casinos here is that they are a means to an end – closing a budget gap without raising taxes. Looks like we’ll have to keep on swipin’ that State Credit Card to pay for stuff.
The problem with state-owned casinos is that it would have freed up the Wampanoags to run their own tribal casino with no regulation. Now, many believe that they would have done that anyway, but having state operators would have guaranteed it.
Andy, I want to correct one thing. I am not an interested party. I have no interest except what the correct economic policy is for the state. Do I have an opinion on this issue? Sure. But then again, Senators, like Mike Morrissey has an opinion he has been expounding on for the past few months. How can that be? We hadn’t had a hearing and he has an opinion? He has a right to his opinion as he and I have been looking at this for years. What the Governor has called prejudging, I would call an opinion based on my years of experience and research.
<
p>One duty I have as Chair of this Committee was to hold a full fair hearing where everyone could present their facts and we would ask questions to elicit information. We did that. My opinion didn’t change. Quite frankly, the Governor didn’t do a good job at presenting their case. The administration couldn’t answer questions about lottery proceeds. They asked the gentlemen who wrote the Boston Chamber to talk to us about their study. When asked where they received their info on Massachusetts’s residents gambling in Connecticut, they answered that there was a study done by Dr. Barrow at UMass Dartmouth. This is the same study the Governor used, and as a matter of fact, Dr. Barrow pointed to the chamber study as an independent confirmation of his numbers. They all used his numbers!!!
<
p>I don’t know why my numbers are being called hyperbole. I list studies and research that we have done over the years that challenge the accuracy of the Governor’s assertions. As example, I challenged the Governor’s numbers and claim that this is all new revenue that is created by casinos. The Governor said that this is all money attracted from elsewhere. However, in two different studies from two different Federal Reserve Banks, they differ with the Governor. We also have a study done by two economists in Missouri that show, in a comprehensive way, that over 50% of the taxes taken in by ten casinos in Missouri was already being spent in the Missouri economy for goods, services, and savings. This is information we have heard time and again. There was a study that was done by Doug Walker from, I believe, the University of Georgia, an economist with a general “free market” bent. He conducted a granger causality test over a five-year period and concluded that casinos aren’t good economic policy over a long period. This is backed up by testimony from Dr. Grinols (formerly of the University of Illinois and I think he is now at Baylor) and William Thompson (UNLV) in their testimony on gambling in Pennsylvania. I believe we also have a piece by William Eddington from UNLV also on how gambling is not good economic development.
<
p>And the list goes on. The Administration sent a Judith Shapiro to testify on inevitability of Native casinos in Massachusetts. She was the lawyer for the Seminole tribe. Try as we might, she would not say that it was inevitable. The Governor’s point man on the crime and social costs was a gentleman who wrote about not being able to connect increases in crime to the Casinos in Connecticut. He said that there was no crime increase attributable to the casinos in Connecticut in his study. He was asked where he received these stats and he said they were FBI crime reports. My staff counsel used to work with these reports, so I asked him if such things as drug crimes or prostitution are listed in these reports. He said he didn’t know. They are not. He also said that property values in Ledyard and surrounding communities increased by more than the state average during the nineties. I read his article. The state average increased by 1.5% in the nineties. Around the casinos, they forecast a decrease of 20% and only saw a decrease of 8%, so they said that the averages rose because they hadn’t decreased as much as they forecast in his modeling!! I don’t know about other studies, but we had testimony a few years ago from the town officials from Ledyard, N. Stonington, and Preston. They laid out in great detail the increases in crime and increases in their budgets. We went to the source. The Governor has said we can rely on this source of funding once it is in place over the ten years of their bid. I know from experience that casino operators immediately try to change the terms of their operation as soon as they start. That has happened in many other states and is well documented. Even here, both Sheldon Adelson and Gary Loveman, two prominent and well respect casino operators/developers have stated that the Governor’s plan is ambitious and have suggested it needs to be changed.
<
p>When I was first asked to look at this issue in 1996, I thought to myself, “Why not? Connecticut seems to have made casinos work. I had no moral bias one way or the other. However, after looking at all aspects of these issues, I became very skeptical and more so over the years. There is much about these costs that are very complicated and much we don’t know. But what I do know gives me great concern over using casinos as an economic development strategy for Massachusetts.
I think it’s great you’re here responding.
<
p>The other thing people forget about big casinos is that the costs increase over the years. Sure, you start out with X number of addicts and crime, maybe people already addicted or a few new ones. But we have to ask, what happens over 5 years? 10? 20? The degradation (increased crime to support gambling habits, prostitution, drugs, etc) happens over time, and eats into the revenue you think you’ve gotten (which as Dan says, is shown to be mostly taken from the same pool of spending money our residents put elsewhere anyway).
<
p>There’s no such thing as a free lunch. That’s true of casinos as of anything. It looks like new revenue free and clear, but in reality, it’s taking away from other revenues, the jobs you create take away from other jobs, and the costs eat into the revenue you might be making out ahead on. Now, it may not be a 1 to 1 comparison – maybe you create more jobs than you destroy, or make more revenue than you eat up in costs and lost revenues from the lottery, or the meals tax, or whatever, but the fact is, that no matter what the numbers really are (and “our” side doesn’t claim to know, which is why we call for a truly independent long term study BEFORE we even consider this), it’s no where near good enough to justify the very real problems that will be created. It’s not in our best social interest, it’s not in the best economic interests.
<
p>As I’ve said in the past, I’d rather take the long view. The biotech and green initiatives and other investments are going to yield much better results…making us the leader in new technologies, creating jobs on every level, producing products that will improve our lives. We just won’t see them for a little while. You know what? That’s fine with me. It takes time to build up a strong economy, and our previous governors have set us back. We can’t expect to recover overnight. But with the industry-encouraging initiatives, we WILL gain new revenues for the state – new revenue streams, to boot, as other states, countries buy the great products and services we produce. A casino produces nothing but profits for big casino, and addicts.
I appreciate your incredibly thoughtful response. Frankly, even an “unthoughtful” response would have been amazing. I cannot think of many examples where I have had such an engaging and honest response from someone in elected office. I am impressed.
<
p>Despite your amazing response I must still admit that I am sticking to my original sentiment — but with some clarification. I certainly was implying that you were an interested party because you were in any way benefiting from your opposition. However, you clearly were against casinos and their implementation and that is why in many ways I felt your papers and your public statements began to lack “independence.” You were an “interested party” in that you were seeking a specific outcome. Your opinion certainly still matters and your superb understanding of the facts are still commendable but the fact remains, because you wanted to see an outcome I felt that I would rather rely on someone who was not interested in a specific outcome. Out of fairness, I also felt Governor Patrick was also an “unreliable” resource. You both are certainly credible, you both are certainly capable but you both clearly wanted a particularly result which I felt made each of you, at least to some degree, biased.
<
p>Another clarification I would like to make is the impression that I made that all parties on either side were engaged in hyperbole. Certainly there were outliers of people who were tremendously interested in turning out facts. But as someone who truly didn’t have a “side,” I was interested in finding real facts. I did not find the task to be an easy one and hence my belief that for the most part, the argument was really quite fact-less and much more about the hyperbole. I think most of the anti-casino websites I was directed to were an abomination. They were riddled with nonsense and out of context quotations and studies. It was a shame. Most of the newspaper articles focused on the battle between Gov. Patrick and Rep. DiMasi rather than true investigative work. Perhaps from your perspective and your position you had ample and specific evidence. Let me tell you, as an “outsider” who was forced to rely on newspapers, the internet, and blogs, there was very little fact.
<
p>At the end of the day I believe that the people are the biggest losers. I do not at all believe casinos were a panacea. I also never thought they were the evil that they were painted as. The people lose because the debate never happened, it was always about the power struggle on Beacon Hill; it was about a horse race of sorts rather than a substantive debate on how the heck we could do more for the Commonwealth.
<
p>I cannot thank you enough for your response; it was refreshing and clearly thoughtful. I guess I would like to pose a question. You clearly are knowledgeable and interested in the economy of Massachusetts, now that casinos are gone and the other revenue ideas Gov. Patrick has proposed are stalled, what do we do next?
No No thank you. I appreciate that we can discuss this issue. I have thought a lot about responding to people on blogs such as this and even more so in creating a blog myself. As a public official, it is hard to respond when I know that some people will parse every word and I run the chance of being quoted out of context. I also had someone recently respond to something I wrote here at home and got some of the figures wrong (although the underlying point remained the same).
<
p>All that aside, I think it is important that we communicate on issues. Most of these issues are complex and not everyone sees them from the same side. That diversity of opinion helps shape public policy. I think it’s important for people to know that we do think about issues also.
<
p>As for casinos, you are absolutely right that I had a view on this going into the discussion. Since we had been dealing with this for over 12 years, there was a lot on the table that we already had heard or had been testified to in the past. The Governor needed to make the case that he had information as to why this year was different or he had to supply new information that would lead us to conclude that our previous votes were wrong or that times had changed. The administration failed to do so, in my opinion.
<
p>Thanks again and I hope you are enjoying a happy Easter.
Representative, you’ve been pontificating on this issue for the 13 years beginning when you chaired gov’t regs and now econ dev & emerging tech. In 13 years neither your committee nor the House EVER commissioned an impartial cost-benefit econ analysis on gambling.
<
p>You keep saying you’ve thoroughly investigated the issue, but you don’t even know how many casinos there are in AC? First you said 17, then 13, then 15. There are 11. And you’re an expert?
<
p>You said law enforcement and regulatory costs for three casinos would be between $80-$100M, but even NJ, with 11 casinos, only spends $68M. Most of the other states spend less than $20M. I googled state gaming regulatory costs and came up with the info in less then 5 minutes. In 13 years you couldn;t even check to see whether you knew what you were talking about? And you’re an expert?
<
p>You did some ridiculous addition and subtraction in a Globe story last year and confused “handle,” which is the amount of $ you put into a slot machine, with the “win,” which is the amount of money the machine keeps, minus paybacks. I googled the two terms and learned the differences in less than a minute. You’ve been yapping for 13 years and you didn’t even know the difference? And the reason it is important is that the gaming tax is predicated on the amount the house wins — not the amount bet. Again, you’re an expert?
<
p>Here’s what you’re an expert on…
<
p>You pledged that the energy dereg law you championed in your committee would increase competition and lower our utility rates. The reverse happened. The bigger companies bought the smaller ones and our electric rates are now 4th highest in the nation. Yeah, you’re an economic expert alright.
<
p>You championed the so-called “economic stimulus” bill for Fidelity and Raytheon. They pledged to create jobs for tax concessions. So you steered through the House a tax giveaway for those big companies. Yeah, they created jobs — telemarketing jobs. But they moved operations and high paying jobs to Texas AFTER the legislation was approved. Yeah, you’re an economic expert.
<
p>Since 2001, and your so-called role as the House “economic guru,” Massachusetts is 48th in the nation in job creation and we’re the only state to actually lose residents.
<
p>Your economic stewardship has been a disaster. Your personal bias against the governor is well known. Everyone knows you weren’t qualified for the chief econ dev job. People throughout the Dukakis administration warned the governor that you were all bluster and no substance and that your coziness with industry execs and lobbyists would boomerang on the administration. Sort of like what we’re seeing now with Speaker DiMasi pushing thru legislation for friends and campaign contributors.
<
p>The governor did you a favor. Stay in the House and keep accepting campaign $ from the energy industry execs and their lobbyists. Keep pushing legislation that benefits big biz at the expense of taxpayer dollars. I certainly don;t believe you’re an economic guru, but you sure are an expertt on the “pay to play” aspect of politics.
<
p>This is one lib who has never bought your con game!
Rep. Bosley, we’ve heard your argument time after time. We’re sick of hearing it! Can you please stop saying that your opinion of casinos doesn’t influence your decision. You would rather personally attack the purveyors of information than provide taxpayers with true economic analysis. Your flawed research and anecdotal information is based on innacurate information and your personal opinions have no place in the policymaking process. Why does every discussion have to become a referendum on your overblown ego? You purposely tried to mislead the Legislature but the truth is out http://www.umassd.edu/cfpa/doc… I want everyone to see you for what you really are, a shill for the utility companies and CT casinos. Your slipshod and sloppy thinking is costing MA jobs and money and all you can show after a decade of studying casinos is that you’re still against them? Surprise, surprise.
“This is the same study the Governor used, and as a matter of fact, Dr. Barrow pointed to the chamber study as an independent confirmation of his numbers. They all used his numbers!!!”
<
p>Isn’t independent verification and peer review the essence of scientific research? If other experts can arrive at the same conclusion then maybe it’s the truth. The New England Casino Gaming Update was validated by UConn, economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, SAGE, and the Patron Origin Analysis is widely used by experts in the travel and tourism industry. What’s the issue then?
What, facts, specifically are you alluding to in your post?
<
p>Specifics, please? Not the usual “addiction, prostitution and crime” blather, but a specific rendering of studies that point to increases in crime, prostitution and addicition. And don;t give me those studies from Earl Grinols, the anti-casino evangelical economist who headed up Evangelical Economists for Bush in 200 and 2004. Cite some studies from academic experts who present the facts based on empirical evidence and not religious or moral biases.
<
p>And as far as the moral high ground…
<
p>When you reference Speaker Sal DiMasi having the moral high ground on the casino legislation, are you referring to when Sal represented Vinny “The Animal” Ferraro, the Mafia wiseguy? You know, the hoodlum who got nabbed by the feds attending the Mafia induction ceremony in Medford. You know, that paragon of virtue “the Animal,” who dabbled in prostitution, arson, loansharking, headbreaking and assorted other pleasantries?
<
p>Or are you speaking of Sal and his moral high ground with Jay Cashman and bulling through legislation that benefitted his friend at the cost of millions of taxpayer dollars?
<
p>Come on, lecture me on the “moral high ground” and the “facts.”