Let’s talk about the first part, that casinos are coming anyways. I suppose you could say that this phrase more resembles “weasel words” and not outright lying, as Class II casinos could be built. But if they haven’t been already, it’s highly unlikely. Why? Because we have not legalized Class III gambling in Massachusetts. Without Class III (slots, in particular), no one would build a resort-style casino. Slots are the king of resort casinos, the big money maker (or money sinker, if you’re a casino-goer). We don’t see Bingo Resort Casinos because that would be a bad business decision. Bingo doesn’t suck in enough money. And secondarily, there is a threat that one tribe, the Mashpee Wampanoags, might use an existing law regarding charity “casino nights” to force their way into the federal process and acquire a Class III casino, even under current law. But the answer isn’t to legalize Class III even further.
Because the second part of that statement, that the state will have control, is even more of a lie. You see, it’s a binary situation – once Class III (slots) are legalized, there’s more than one process available to Native American tribes who want to start a resort casino. One is to go through the state. The other is to go through the federal process, bypassing the state and its restrictions, and taxes, entirely.
Once Class III is legalized, all bets – so to speak – are off. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if all the parties interested in state-licensed casinos who are promising all this good tax revenue to the state jump ship from that process and start going through the federal one instead, once they get the law changed. For one, the Governor’s current proposal is for a 27% tax on profits from the casinos that are licensed by it. Would you, a business person, opt for a 27% tax rate on your profits when you could shed that and go through the federal process? Patrick claims to be able to control that, but there’s no evidence that the federal process can be denied once Class III slots are legal.
Patrick is using pressure regarding the Wampanoag situation to put his casino proposal forward. According to this article, the Mashpee Wampanoags are trying to weasel in a Class III casino using that existing charity law (bold mine).
Tribes are limited to operating gambling that is currently legal in the state. Since casino gambling is not allowed in Massachusetts, it was believed that the Mashpee Wampanoags would be limited to so-called “class II” gambling, which is a step below a full-fledged casino.
But the tribe in its application asserts that it has the right to build a full casino, with “class III” gambling, including slot machines. The argument is that because the state allows “casino nights” for charitable purposes, that opens the door for a casino.
And the federal government agrees.
“If it’s allowed within the state, the tribes would be allowed to offer similar games, but they wouldn’t be subject to the length of time, such as a one-night only,” said Gary Garrison, spokesman for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Wouldn’t the best way to stop a tribe from doing this be to pass a law making Class III illegal even for charitable purposes? And by extension, if a law specifically allowing only charities to have casino nights opens up the federal process for tribes to gain Class III casinos, doesn’t it stand to reason no amount of restriction in the state laws will limit the federal options for future casinos? It appears that no law that Patrick could propose specifying that all casinos be licensed through the state ever takes the federal casino license process off the table. So, in the second part of his statement, about how the state can control the process…he’s lying to us. Or maybe he’s lying to himself.
I know that being disappointed in your leaders is par for the course in politics. I just thought this time might be a little different. Patrick has decided to hang his hat on bringing casinos to Massachusetts, ignoring large swaths of objective information, and using fear and lies to accomplish it. But it’s this last part that I may not be able to forgive.
About the casinos issue. Click here to have a look. With respect to the legalities:
<
p>
Look at the company he was employed by and his position therein.
After his election he attempts a strong arm for his previous employer.
<
p>I really wish folks would engage their grey matter and leave emotion out of things. I listened to what he had to say prior to the run up to the election and I formed the opinion that he was talking out of his hat and spent too much time watching West Wing. Much like another current political candidate.
<
p>Anyone that builds a small castle in western MA that he can ill afford is NOT on the level.
and said that Deval has not provided any credible numbers and relied on the Casino industry to provide his estimates. Looks like the lines are being drawn. I’m fine with casino’s being built, but I think we need to know the actual numbers we’d be talking about before making a final decision. Numbers that Deval promised that he’s provide. Haven’t seen anything yet, which worries me a great deal.
Thanks for the heads up.
I’m feeling so sad that Deval’s theme of getting regular folks to “check back in” and “be involved again” has become quite the opposite now that we all worked so hard to get him elected. And I worry Obama, considering he is running an identical campaign with the same team behind it, will do the same. I had concerns about Deval, but I was still very excited about the movement and became a delegate for him. I’m still waiting for him to do something truly progressive.
<
p>We have got to stop trusting people who have such close ties to corporations. And speaking of people who do not have close ties to corporations – please, please help Kucinich get reelected. He has been completely left behind by the Democratic officials, who normally would support their candidates re-election campaigns after they are finished campaigning for president. Kucinich.us is the site.
What?
another swing on the pendulum from clumsy, naive idealist to an eventual balanced, competent leader?
<
p>I hope there’s a learning curve in there somewhere.
<
p>Mark
<
p>
Is there any more telling example of a Legislature led by those who refuse to accept reality than by what Gov. Patrick faces with our group of legislative “statesmen?”
<
p>One member talks about fears of a “casino culture” invading our state, while its populace makes several million trips a year out-of-state to neighboring casinos and slot parlors.
<
p>Another member talks about “real” economic development, but all he’s done while serving in a senior House position with economic purview is push through legislation giving tax breaks and concessions to big businesses, while deregulating an industry that’s then brought about less competition and higher electric rates for us all.
<
p>And those are the two legislative “leaders” we should be taking economic advice from?
<
p>Maybe you want to drink their Kool-aid, but I don’t and won’t.
<
p>While those two golfing stalwarts have been in office, our economy has been in freefall — higher unemployment, spiraling utility rates, residents moving out of state, through-the-roof foreclosure #’s, decaying roads and bridges, and on and on and on.
<
p>IF casinos are to become a reality in the commonwealth, it’d be much better they be state-regulated and providing tax revenues, than a federally-approved Indian casino exempt from most state oversight.
<
p>Of course, if you want a Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun casino in Massachusetts — paying no taxes whatsoever, exempt from state labor, tax and environmental laws — then continue to applaud those golfing stalwarts in the Legislature who want to keep exporting more than $1 billion in Massachusetts spending, and the several thousand jobs it helps to create, to Connecticut and Rhode Island.
<
p>Oh yeah, and you’ll be doing your part in helping our legislators keep the tourism industry healthy — at least that part of the Bay State tourism industry that advertises the benefits of a Massachusetts vacation by touting how we’re “so close to the Connecticut casinos.”
<
p>Yeah, that’s a winning combination for Massachusetts’ economy!
<
p>
<
p>Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun don’t pay taxes, but they do pay a bit over $400M per year in royalties to the state of Connecticut.
opening class III could very well land us casinos that are under federal not state jurisdiction. Good intentions or not, it’s obvious that any casino interest pushing this could be happy pushing it under the pretense they will go through the state process and hand us gobs of money, but then jump ship and go through the federal process to actually set up the casino.
<
p>There’s also precedent that shows the casino lobby will spend a lot of money in pushing down the obligations to the state over time. We’ll end up with 10% of revenues instead of 27%, or cheaper licensing fees, or both. We’ll end up like all the other states that allow lots of Class III casinos but still have serious budget deficits and revenue problems.
<
p>And the costs associated with casinos – mitigating gambling addiction, crime rates, etc – will go up over time.
<
p>Of course, that’ll take 5-10 years, meanwhile, Patrick is long gone from the Governorship and the damage is done.
Casinos ARE NOT INEVITABLE in Mass.
<
p>Why do you think we’ve had none up til now?
<
p>Because they’ve been illegal. Class III gambling in Mass is ILLEGAL.
<
p>Now, there’s one loophole that might allow it, according to the idiots at the federal level (that’s a whole ‘nother issue…). So…close the loophole! It’s much easier and cheaper and better to do that than using it as a lame excuse for putting three big casinos, when we do NOT know the consequences to our state fiscally or socially.
Since the original diary was cross-posted, I’ll cross-post my response as well:
<
p>Lying is a serious charge Lynne, and one that I never make unless I’m absolutely sure there is no other explanation. You say, “And secondarily, there is a threat that one tribe, the Mashpee Wampanoags, might use an existing law regarding charity ‘casino nights’ to force their way into the federal process and acquire a Class III casino, even under current law.” If this is a true statement then it sounds to me like the Governor might be right after all. Do you know for sure that His Excellency does not have a good-faith understanding of the law and/or facts which is different from yours?
<
p>There’s a difference between saying that a statement is false and that a statement is a lie. False simply means untrue on the merits only, whereas lie involves a moral judgement on the character of the person making the statement. In my book, in order to accuse someone of lying you have to prove that the person making the statement knew (not should have known, but truly knew) that the statement was false at the time the statement was made. Have you spoken to the Governor or any of his people and asked your questions/raised your concerns directly, or do you just cast aspersions on motives based on what you hear and read?
Christopher, get a grip.
<
p>Let me quote myself, so I can explain to you how wrong you are:
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>Note how I take apart the statements and look at them separately. And note how the article and the comments from Gary Garrison of the Bureau of Indian Affairs basically proves that something as simple as a restrictive law that allows some Class III gambling for one-night-only charitable use can open up Class III for a casino, despite the law that restricts the circumstance. That’s because the federal law trumps the state law – any opening for Class III is an opening, regardless of how many caveats you put in.
<
p>That means that any indication by this Governor that we the state can control the process if we allow Class III gambling is a lie. A lie, furthermore, intended to intimidate and scare the legislature into legalizing gambling.
<
p>As I said later on, maybe he’s lying to himself. I don’t know. I don’t care. I know it’s a lie.
It’s your moral judgement I take exception to. Unless somebody has split-personality disorder he cannot literally lie to himself. He either believes what he is saying or he doesn’t. If he does believe it then its not a lie no matter how blatantly wrong he might be. If he doesn’t believe it then you still have to prove that he doesn’t and I have yet to see that evidence. For the record, I’m pretty sure I’m not the one who needs to “get a grip”.
“It’s not a lie if you believe it.” The philosophers of our time. Just saying.
Was the statement false or was it a lie? Does anyone care to draw such a dichotomy when talking about Bush?
The agencies in the government and in the UN that were supposed to provide this intellegence were wilfully ignored. Dick Cheney has made visits to the CIA to pressure them to revise their intellegence to fit policy rather than the other way around. POTUS was warned repeatedly not to claim in the State of the Union that uranium was obtained from Africa, but said it anyway.
for which to use when making such statements?
…that Deval was hearing (and listening to) both sides, while the White House was actively pushing for manufactured “evidence”. The President never publicly said spoken to the effect of well, this evidence suggests there might be while this evidence raises doubts; he just said we know WMD exists based on intellegence that turned out not to simply be mistaken, but predetermined. His Excellency has, on the other hand, communicated regarding what he looked at, indicated that he knows its not the last word, and expressed a willingness to keep options open. Agreement on the merits of casinos or Iraq aside, it’s clear to me that the difference in intellectual honesty between the two men is night and day.
Telling us we better do the casino thing before it becomes federal and the state loses power to do anything doesn’t sound like keeping in option open — it sounds like fear mongering.
…has 8 solid years of lying behind him and has cost thousands of American lives and trillions of American dollars on a bogus “War on Terror”, I’ll compare Patrick to Bush and his malfeasant and dishonest administration.
This Governor is:
I lean towards equal parts a and b.
and it’s pretty clear that the Governor is at the very least really exaggerating his numbers/arguments here. Lynne is the type of blogger who’s very careful with what she says – a few months ago, before she really studied the issue, she was very open minded about casinos. Like me, she came to realize through study that there is very little to zero merit to build casinos in Massachusetts, especially under the almost nonexistent threat that ‘they’ll build casinos anyway,’ because if that hasn’t happened by now, it probably isn’t going to happen anyway, or it’ll be a lame, Class 2 casino that at the very least won’t be a drag on our economy.
Deval’s rhetoric should match his deeds.
Empty rhetoric begets empty policy.
See the Kickapoo case in Texas – so far the courts have upheld that states do NOT have to enter into a compact for class III gaming if they don’t want to. Texas also has charitable casino nights and they have successfully fought off Indian casinos.
<
p>Also see Carcieri v Kempthorne. There is a good chance that the Mashpee will not even get their reservation land – at least not easily.
He told me when I met him at an event at Jimmy Tingles in Davis Square that he would never consider using casino gambling as a revenue raising option. Furthermore he said this during the debate, in fact he really nailed Gabrielli as flip flopping on the issue while his resistance was steadfast. He called it a tax on the poor, something that would create crime, and something that Massachusetts didn’t want nor more importantly need.
<
p>Apparently he is in the pocket of someone since he has completely made an about face on the issue and for once its the legislature that might actually fight the progressive cause by killing this proposal.
<
p>So far Deval doesn’t have my vote in 2010 though I doubt any of the other candidates will do much better.
A lie must be known to be false at the time the statement was made. For all we know, at the time he said that he had absolutely no intention of supporting casinos. You can call it a flip-flop or a broken promise, but not a lie. People do change their minds sometimes. Unless of course you have mind-reading talents that the rest of us do not and know that Deval did not mean it at the time he said it.
Your story bring out a sad truth.
I knew Deval was full of sh*t when he made the “just words” speech. Big difference? MLK and the founding fathers backed up their words with the bravest actions that this world will ever see — a far cry from the bravery Deval showed by sitting on the board for Coke.
<
p>Want some more actions? Take a look at that shiny endorsement at the top of this page and take a look at some more brave actions.
<
p>
<
p>source
and
backup
<
p>Moral of the story? Ignore the words and focus on the actions. Don’t let yourselves get fleeced nationally like we did at the State level…actually, I don’t need to tell you guys that — you swung for Hillary.
trying to smear one man with the mistakes or temperament of another. now that’s rich!
Sometimes I forget.
Or are they?
between the two of them and it ain’t Bush’s.
This or the fact that Deval’s “overestimated” a casino’s construction jobs by… drum roll please… 25,000!! This is so thoroughly disappointing and, as much as I worked hard to elect the governor and appreciate much of what he’s done, it’s hard not to think of this casino issue as, at the very least, extremely sleazy on his part. He should be better than taking it on Suffolk’s word that tens of thousands of jobs could be created, when all the evidence in the world pointed just just a couple thousand for brief spurts. He should have been open and honest about his possible conflict of interest, with his wife being a partner at one of the country’s most influential casino-related law firms – but he wasn’t. He could have been much more thorough in his ‘research’ of the casino issue at a whole, but his entire plan is seemingly based on the research of a largely discredited casino hack.
<
p>Lynne’s frustrations are with merit. There are real, important issues going on that we could be focusing on, but all the administration’s public efforts – for months now – have mostly been stuck on the casino issue, which won’t solve any of our problems and will likely actually cause many problems of their own. We have revenue issues, we have cost-control issues and we have sectors of the economy that will be revenue-positive to grow. Not only are we not doing enough of that growing, but the one issue the administration has been stuck on – casinos – is actually slowing that whole process down. Massachusetts is a brand and casinos will absolutely do nothing to sell it; they’ll even take away from the revenue and economies we rely on.
I would be interested to see where you get the numbers that it will only take 5,000 construction workers to build three casinos. The number of workers it takes to build one of the $100-$200 million projects in downtown Boston utilizes in the range of 7,500 workers. Do you really suspect that the resort style casinos the Governor proposed will use less workers?
<
p>If these planned casinos expect to compete with the regional attractions like Foxwoods and Mohegan, you can expect the investment will be closer to $500 million and will utilize substantially more construction workers. This does not account for the local improvements to roads, sewers and electrical that must occur to support developments of this magnitude in many of the suspected proposed regions.
<
p>Additionally, I would imagine that each casino will attempt to break ground simultaneously with the others so as to equally compete in developing brand loyalty. So three $500 million projects built in conjunction with one another bodes well for the Massachusetts construction workforce; provided the builders keep the jobs in MA and aren’t hiring a bunch of laborers from southern NH.
<
p>As for any imputed conflict of interest, that is a stretch beyond belief. Mrs. Patrick works for Ropes & Grey, one of the largest firms in Boston, but that is where any connection ends. Should the Governor have to state every time he proposes an issue that has legal ramifications that there is a conflict of interest because he might know a lawyer related to the deal? This is an absurd and disparaging remark both to the Governor but more especially to Mrs. Patrick.
Although the word “lies” is a little strong, I had a similar reaction to the news story about the Governor’s statement: he was either misrepresenting the issue or he did not understand it, both disappointing from someone who many of us supported. What I found also disturbing was his push to get this over with quickly before all the concerns and issues with his proposal have been aired and addressed.
I disagree that “all the administration’s public efforts – for months now – have mostly been stuck on the casino issue.” It may be where the Globe coverage has been, but the Governor is clearly trying to make his mark with a number of economic development and education initiatives—life science investments, longer school day grants, tax loopholes, the volunteer corps sworn in before the State of the State, etc.
<
p>In fact a local newspaper article covering a local vist by the Governor to endorse Lori Erlich noted that the day that his hair cut received a separate Globe story, he was making a life sciences announcement that was not covered by the Globe http://www.wickedlocal.com/marblehead/news/x1529762882
<
p>And he has discussed education initiatives in Chicopee http://blog.masslive.com/break…
and Westfield http://www.cbs3springfield.com…
<
p>and announced money for a Medical Device grant in Lowell
http://www.eagletribune.com/pu…
<
p>
That some voters oppose casinos is clear, but the language of lies is uncesscessary and counterproductive. Disagreeing on economic esitates is not lying.