The Globe reports that the legislature may have to come back into session once Congress enacts the long-delayed FMAP extension/teachers bill that will infuse roughly $600 million into the state budget. (This, you may recall, is the state aid bill that Scott Brown voted against for no good reason, even though losing those funds meant deep cuts in services and thousands of jobs lost, including a lot of teachers, right here in MA. The bill doesn’t increase the deficit, and it doesn’t raise taxes, as Brown himself has acknowledged. He voted “no” anyway. But I digress.)
As you know, the legislature’s formal sessions ended on July 31, which appeared to be the death knell for the casino bill. However,
the Legislature, which does not meet in formal session again until January, could be forced to return to approve $655 million in anticipated federal funding, if, as threatened, Republicans on Beacon Hill try to block the new spending. Once lawmakers return to formal session to debate the federal money, gambling proponents say, they would have yet another shot at coming to an agreement with Governor Deval Patrick.
“Well, it’s certainly more of a life than it had previously,” said the Senate budget chief, Steven C. Panagiotakos, who has been fielding calls from legislators about a possible revival of gambling legislation.
Ironies abound in all this, don’t you think? State senator and Lt. Gov. wannabe Richard Tisei is one of the Republicans threatening to block action on the federal funding in informal sessions, which would force the legislature to return. If he does so, that meaningless gesture (of course the Republicans have no chance of actually stopping the spending if formal sessions resume) would result in a big opportunity for Speaker DeLeo, Senate President Murray, and Governor Patrick to see one of their major priorities enacted.
Furthermore, it’s far from clear that what the Republicans say they want is even legal.
“I’m not sure the governor or the Legislature should go on a spending spree right now, and I think the best approach would be to wait until January to do anything,” Tisei said. “Let’s give the new Legislature and whoever is elected governor the chance to use that money to help address a $2 billion shortfall that we all know we have.”
Jay Gonzalez, Patrick’s budget chief, said the money cannot, under law, be held in reserves because it is part of the federal stimulus program designed to provide an immediate boost for the economy.
“The purpose of the money is to provide fiscal relief . . . and critical state services until we get to full recovery and state tax revenues come back,” he said. “It’s supposed to be a bridge to recovery, protecting jobs and services for people who need them.”
Does Tisei really want to see a bunch of teachers laid off now, and then maybe rehired in January? What is the point of that, other than shifting political credit for saving those jobs from Governor Patrick to whoever is Governor in January? Ah, I guess that would be the point. Make Deval take the hit for layoffs now, hope that you get elected, and then play the hero by rehiring them with money that your spiritual leader, Scott Brown, voted against for no reason.
Could things get any stranger around here?
In their thirst for power, the Massachusetts Republicans seem intent on obstruction and silliness, when substantive issues are readily available.
<
p>The testimony offered by the Republican members on the Senate floor during the Casino debate were mostly childish babble, bordering on comedic.
<
p>Do you want substance? How about asking what the SLOT BARNS will cost?
<
p>(A federal study determined that for every $1 in gambling revenue, the cost to taxpayers was $3.)
<
p>What will the BLOATED REGULATORY BUREAUCRACY (a guaranteed Hack-O-Rama that will make the Probation Dept. look like child’s play) cost?
<
p>The same may be said of the costs of local public safety costs, additional State Police, additional Attorney General staff, more state vehicles, more office space, more crime=more judges, more courts, more incarceration, and so the list goes.
<
p>It would seem to me that a TRUE Republican would have the testicular fortitude to stand up and ask about expanding government and the costs.
<
p>A TRUE Republican, concerned about fiscal spending would stand up and insist on an INDEPENDENT COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS.
<
p>Otherwise, this is just grandstanding, easily dismissed.
…indicated that DeLeo and Murray didn’t seem all that inclined to act on casinos.
Granted, I don’t see myself EVER, EVER, EVER voting for a republican again, but every time they pull a stunt like this (putting jobs and education at risk for no reason), it repulses me even further.
<
p>I see no fiscal responsibility here. No principled stand. I only see petty, mean-spirited, chip-on-our-shoulder crap. And why would I want to vote for that?
Thank you! That’s the definition I was searching for.
They can “force” the legislature back into session but they can’t force the majority to pass anything they don’t want to pass.
It is my understanding that the legislature essentially passed 2 budgets – one based on spending “IF” that $$$ was received and the other based on spending “IF” the $$$ was NOT received.
<
p>So, other than a lot of silly chest-pounding, this would seem to be a non-issue.
If the Governor and the legislative leadership want to get together and revive the casino bill, they can do it. They don’t need the republicans to “force” them to call for formal sessions.
Why is always teachers, or policemen or fireman that will be laid off? Is it perhaps because they are the most visible face of government? Cut them and government has a terrific argument for raising taxes.
<
p>Just once I would love to see a headline that says “Loss of funding threatens the jobs of thousands of faceless bureaucrats.” Since 2000 there has been virtually no increase in our state’s population yet we have increased state government employment by 11,000 or 15%. 2,000 are attributable to health care and safety net programs. What are the other 9,000 doing.
<
p>As far as the money not being able to be held in reserve, that is a specious argument. Government dollars are almost entirely fungible. Sure. Spend that money but put the money that it replaces in reserve. We have been doing it for years. Just one example is the Worker’s Training Fund. It is a dedicated fund but the legislature regularly diverts the fund’s surplus to the General Fund.
<
p>I am a Republican who opposes expanded gambling.
<
p>If the Democrat legislature hadn’t spent us into the poor house we would not be discussing expanded gambling. If not for the legislative created deficit we would not have lowered our education standards to shoot for Race for the Cash money.
<
p>We have a spending problem not a revenue problem.
but the reason politicians refer to police, EMS personnel, and teachers is that we are the service providers who people actually come in contact with. (I am a teacher, just so you know).
<
p>If teachers are cut, and class sizes increase, parents are aware of it. If response time increases to emergencies, people are aware of it.
<
p>Faceless bureaucrats also carry out important functions, but voters can’t be bothered to understand them. Apparently, neither can you.
for which overwhelming arguments can be presented along the political spectrum.
<
p>The Democratic Convention approved this:
Massachusetts Democratic Party Resolution Opposing Predatory Gambling .
<
p>Arguments may be made about: family values, increased spousal/child abuse, increased crime, the detrimental impacts on cities and towns, increased DUIs, family degradation, gambling addiction, suicides, economic destruction of communities, the BLOATED BUREAUCRACY filled with patronage jobs, the excessive costs that outweigh the revenue, and so on.
<
p>There is little positive that can be said of SLOT BARNS.
<
p>Being enamored of statistics, your statement about job increases is interesting and I’d like to believe they all work at the Registry to process my renewals more quickly.
<
p>This was your comment —
<
p>It would seem to me that a more substantive post would carry more weight than a vague and meaningless accusation. Surely you’ve taken the time to establish where these 9,000 work and can share it.
Given the lack of transparency of our state government it is virtually impossible to determine specifically what our government is spending money on and how many people they employ in a particular department or agency.
<
p>Government is the ultimate service business. The private sector has increased service sector productivity by nearly 40% in the last 10 years. Massachusetts government has reduced it by 15%. Hardly vague or meaningless.
and that was my point.
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Number of State Employees and Full Time Equivalents is published each year by the state in its Statutory Basis Financial Report.
…but could you please provide links to the BLS statistics to which you referred?
I firmly believe links should be provided and not merely that the origin is BLS.
<
p>I’ve waded through BLS stats numerous times to document the low wage jobs of SLOT BARNS and much else and fully understand the overwhelming statistics available.
<
p>If I wanted to review the figures for myself, where is it?
That was my point.
You can go here http://www.bls.gov/data/ and then you have to go down to Employment and Monthly and create your own database search. Unfortunately every search creates its own unique URL. So even if I posted it, it wouldn’t provide you with a working link.
No, it’s because they are municipal employees. Most of the numbers you cite have to do with state employees, which as I’m sure you know are not paid from the same pools of money. Furthermore, the congressional bill under discussion sets aside money specifically for teachers. So … that’s why we’re talking about teachers.
I thought we were talking about casino gambling.
It just gives it to the states to use as they see best.
<
p>On Cape, one town is facing a $500,000 shortfall for the schools, and are laying off police. They will not see a penny of this money.
Are you for real?
The Democrat controlled legislature has spent us into oblivion.
Good luck running against Marty Walz. You’re going to need it with those Faux News talking points.
That I wrote Democrat instead of DemocratIC controlled legislature?
<
p>It isn’t Faux that we haven’t created a net new non-government job in this state since 1998.
<
p>It isn’t Faux that in 2000 we were taking in $300 million more in taxes than we were spending on core programs and that in 2010 we are taking in $8 billion less than we are spending on core programs. (Source: http://www.mass.gov/Aosc/docs/… That is simply unsustainable.
<
p>It isn’t Faux that if every one of the 500,000 people unemployed or underemployed in this state woke up tomorrow with a median wage job (~$56,000) it wouldn’t generate enough tax revenues to cover next years budget deficit.
<
p>It isn’t Faux that Representative Walz has the 3rd worst voting record of any representative on supporting small business and entrepreneurs who create the majority of jobs in this state. (Source: NFIB Legislative Reports 2005 – 2009)
<
p>Running against Representative Walz has turned out to be easier than I thought. People have been incredibly receptive to my ideas about stream-lining regulations to help small businesses to create jobs, cutting a bloated and dysfunctional government bureaucracy instead of government programs and creating a more open, responsive government.
<
p>I am also looking forward to the debates.
<
p>I will ask her how voting to cut $140 million in local aid to Boston and Cambridge improves the quality of life in the district. How does voting to cut library funding by 70%+ help the people of the district?
<
p>I will ask why she takes tax payer funded per diems for her commute to work when she lives only a few blocks from the state house. She took $2280 in 2008. http://www.thebostonchannel.co…
<
p>I will ask her if she would never endorse a candidate about whom she had concerns regarding his integrity, why did she vote for Sal DiMasi as speaker just weeks before he resigned in disgrace. Source: http://www.mysouthend.com/inde… (She also removed the picture of her and DiMasi from her campaign website after it had been up for 5 1/2 years).
<
p>I will ask her why if jobs and the economy are such important issues to her, neither were even listed on her campaign website until July of this year.
<
p>I will ask her if, as she says on her website, that she is for keeping taxes low, why has she voted in favor of every tax increase that has come to the floor. She even voted for a bill that would have raised taxes on condominium associations by nearly 500% and we have a few of those in Boston and Cambridge. (Sorry. I can’t give you the bill number. It’s at my office.)
<
p>I will ask her if, as she says on her website, that she is for sustainable spending, why has she voted to over-ride every budget veto issued by Governor Patrick.
<
p>I think the voters in the district will be very interested in hearing her answers.
http://www.mass.gov/Aosc/docs/…
<
p>It’s the 2009 Statutory Basis Financial Report Page 106.
Casinos does not mean real jobs it means the degradation of the society in a state I so want to leave behind in the coming years.
You might consider New Jersey that has property taxes +$20,000 per year and the state so hungry for revenue, they’re going to ‘take over’ the casino revenues. They’re bailing out race tracks.
<
p>Or maybe Nevada that is owned and controlled by the casinos, too cheap to pay for decent schools or services, with a foreclosure rate 5 times the national average, homelessness mushrooming.
<
p>Or maybe California that made a Devil’s Bargain with slots and much else.
<
p>How about New York State, salivating at the prospect of racinos, SLOT BARNS, already overwhelmed with OTBs in poor communities?
<
p>Maybe one of the neighboring New England states that the Gambling Vultures are busily convincing of the specious argument about revenue flowing across the borders?
<
p>Maybe the grass looks greener, but sometimes, it’s just Astro Turf.
<
p>
You moon bats never cease to amaze me. You’re going to drag this governor down on November 2 because you just can’t get over imposing your narrow and rigid moral beliefs on all the rest of us. When you look in the mirror, do you see your right-wing nut cake opposites staring back at you?