From today’s SHNS:
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, JAN. 28, 2014…State Lottery officials asked lawmakers Tuesday to pass legislation enabling the agency to experiment with online gaming operations….
The “officials” insist it isn’t to get ready for online gambling — it’s just purely academic!
Riiiight…
Please share widely!
Really bad idea.
that people would have to go to a convenience store to buy cards to use online, not just to plug in a credit card and go.
oh right.
out there on it. Here’s the report of the Treasurer Online Services Task Force. I’m at lunch, no time to read it. It looks like it would put the state into managing and taxing interstate gambling as well.
One thing that disturbs me about the Treasurer’s Office is that the online lottery issue has been looked at rather bloodlessly, as if it were just a business maximizing profits, rather than a government program meant to accumulate revenue.
There’s no way that an online lottery cuts out the middleman of stores that sell lottery tickets. The 4,700 stores won’t take that sitting down.
I get that Mr. Grossman is just doing his job. Nevertheless, after reading this document, there is *no chance* that I’ll vote for him. None. He thus joins the current front-runner (Martha Coakley) in being candidates who will cause me to write in “Donald Duck” on my ballot, given the choice between a “Democratic” nominee and Charlie Baker.
If you, the reader, are a progressive who believes that society has a responsibility to avoid intentionally exploiting its most vulnerable citizens, then you should keep a bucket handy while you read this — and read it you should.
Some gems…
– We should hurry up before the feds close the window
– Online poker is really really cool
– We gotta be sure we don’t screw our casino owners, they don’t like competition
I *must* ask again — doesn’t it make more sense to find a reasonable way to fund local aid that doesn’t depend on plundering our poor?
this in the next couple of days. I read it last night and was upset with the analysis and the tone. The Commonwealth supports capitalism, but it is not a capitalist enterprise.
I encourage you to actually read the cited document — and then correct me if I’ve mis-characterized it.
are you? I don’t think I downrated you.
The down-rate is from Christopher.
“nauseating” and the suggestion you won’t vote for a fine upstanding Democrat (even if he is the nominee?) because you don’t agree on this one issue. The current Gov. constantly reminds us that we don’t have to agree on everything to work together on anything. The race will likely be close and we can’t afford any votes for Donald Duck.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain your downrate.
I encourage you to read Mark Bail’s excellent post on the document I’m reacting to.
I stand by my characterization (“nauseating”).
It appears that Mr. Bail comes to the same conclusion I come to regarding the attitude and posture reflected by that document. In my view, it is fair, reasonable and appropriate for me to assume that Mr. Grossman brings that attitude — both towards the lottery and casinos — with him into the gubernatorial campaign.
You see, in my view this attitude is NOT about the lottery or casinos. In my view, this attitude is about how we treat our most desperately poor fellow residents. By now, the BMG community knows my feelings about this and I won’t bore our readers by repeating them.
A close race where “we can’t afford any votes for Donald Duck” is, in my view, a compelling reason why this issue ought to be front-and-center. I get that you don’t care about either the lottery or casinos. I do. I suspect that I am not the only progressive Democrat who feels like me.
I care, and frankly I am not the slightest bit reluctant to do my best to sway the direction of this race. I think this is precisely the role of BMG, and this is precisely the right time to do it.
I hope that my party is listening to me.
I have read his post. I just don’t like the reaction and I call just about everything “one issue”. I have little patience for single issue voting whatever that one issue may be.
Here’s what I care about in the gubernatorial race (in approximately their order of priority for me):
1. Addressing our wealth concentration problem
2. Re-establishing sufficient tax revenues to fund a twenty-first century first-world society, collecting more from those with the most ability to pay and less from those with the least ability to pay.
3. Funding an immediate and effective solution to our public rail transportation crisis
4. Re-establishing the constitutional right to privacy for every Massachusetts resident
5. Making high-quality public education, pre-K through college, available to every Massachusetts resident
These are the issues I care about. These are the issues that will influence my vote. There is more than one. In my view, the *attitude* exemplified by the document we are discussing implies to me that a Steve Grossman administration, if it happens, would lose ground on (1) and (2). I see no evidence that Mr. Grossman cares about my (3) or (4). I don’t remember his stance towards (5).
I tend to vote based on issues rather than individuals. I work hard to influence EVERY candidate to lean my way on issues I care about (such as the above five). My principal difference with Mr. Grossman is that it appears to me that the vision and values he brings to his career (where by “vision” I mean “his picture of the world he wants to create” and by “values” I mean “the priorities that shape his decisions”) lead him towards a stance on issues that is significantly different from my own. I have the same problem, in spades, with Martha Coakley.
I therefore most respectfully disagree with the premise of your headline (“Then pick a primary candidate and have at it”). In my view, the job of the Democratic Party and its candidates is to select first several and then one candidate that fits specifications closely enough to get my vote, even if not my enthusiasm.
The Massachusetts Democratic Party has a long history of success at this. Michael Dukakis was a spectacularly great candidate (and Governor). Deval Patrick was an even more impressive candidate — even if perhaps not as effective once elected. John Silbur was a disaster. Ed King was a disaster.
When my party nominates a Michael Dukakis or a Deval Patrick, I’m going to work and vote for that candidate. When my party nominates an Ed King or a John Silbur, I’m going to vote for Donald Duck.
Right now, ALL the candidates appear to be someplace in the middle. In my view, it is the job of the candidates to define themselves for me. Mr. Grossman and his campaign is doing just that in this and related threads.
For better or for worse.
Like you I am intrigued by Berwick and haven’t picked a candidate. But Grossman has made solid commitments to organized labor , an amendment for a progressive income case, a raised minimum wage, paid family leave, and a commitment to find transit. Is he your best candidate? Obviously gambling is a deal breaker for you in the primary, I view Berwick’s stance as a deal maker for me rather than a deal breaker for the others, but we can disagree there. To argue Baker would have a similar commitment on any of those non-gambling issues is a farce. Nader always begets Bush-never forget.
But for sure the primary should go to your first choice.
I think Francis Hatch would have probably been a better governor than Ed King in 1978. I think William Weld was a better governor than John Silber would have been. Donald Duck got my vote in both general elections, and I don’t regret it (I have never knowingly voted for a Republican for high office).
I certainly make no argument that Charlie Baker would be a better Governor on these issues. I’ll wait until the primary process unfolds to face the question of how the Democratic nominee (whoever it is) stacks up against him.
They were old school Rockefeller Republicans running against Reagan’s favorite Democrat and the most homophobic and misogynistic candidate our party nominated for a statewide office, respectively. I would argue its a reach to call Baker a Rockefeller Republican considering his far right economic stances or to compare Grossman to those DFW Democrats.
I did not mean to suggest that I view Mr. Baker as a “Rockefeller Republican”, nor did I mean to imply that Mr. Grossman was comparable to Mr. King or Mr. Silber.
I meant, instead, that in my view the Democratic Party primary system usually works. When, in my view, it doesn’t, then I prefer “Donald Duck” to pretty much any Republican I can remember.
I am curious about Mr. Berwick — I like what I see so far. I prefer Mr. Grossman over Ms. Coakley, but that is a low threshold for me. I am, so far, unimpressed by the remaining candidates.
I won’t vote for Charlie Baker. Ever.
That’s all I was trying to say. I hope Berwick can go far in this primary as either the nominee or someone who impresses a lot of ideas upon the nominee/state party. At the end of the day a vote for Grossman is significantly preferable to a vote for Baker, and this one will be close and any non-Democratic vote is a vote for Baker. I am not Coakley’s biggest fan, but can proudly cast my vote for her, or Kayyem, or Avellone over Baker.
I fear what will happen if other dems stay home or blank, or if the undecides think the Republican is different from a teabagger.
Math tells us quite clearly that it isn’t.
A vote for Dem is a vote against Baker (+1)
A vote for Baker is a vote for Baker (-1)
A vote for DDuck is neither (0).
It’s a potential, and regular, Dem vote that doesn’t materialize, so it gets Baker one vote closer to victory, which is tantamount to a vote for Baker.
Mathematical proof: The difference between
and
is 1 vote. In relative terms, one fewer in the Dem column is the same as one more in the GOP column.
Suppose I’m a Democrat who contemplates a vote for Baker *instead of* the Dem, because I don’t like the Dem. Then the change is:
Baker: +1
Dem: -1
Delta: 2
Suppose I just don’t vote (or vote for Donald Duck):
Baker: 0
Dem: -1
Delta: 1
My refusal to add to the vote count of a Democratic nominee I consider unsuitable is my only, and therefore best, way to signal my party that I think they’ve screwed up. If the Democratic nominee is popular enough among other voters to win despite my vote, then I will accept my status as outlier. It has happened before, I’ll survive.
If the race is close enough that my signal matters to the outcome, then it confirms that the Party screwed up — and is the best way to minimize the chances they’ll screw up the next time. In a state as blue as Massachusetts, a “Democratic” nominee who loses — especially by a narrow margin — is a clear symptom of a failed nomination process.
I’ll wait until after the primary to see who the nominee is before deciding what I’ll do in November. I will say, because I’ve said it before, that Martha Coakley will NEVER get my vote for ANY office. The other candidates are all, for me, still in the mix. I like Mr. Berwick. Mr. Grossman’s stance towards gaming revenues (both lottery and, by implication, casino) makes me like him less. There is still plenty of time for both Mr. Berwick and Mr. Grossman to adjust their positions — especially on wealth concentration and revenue generation — and by doing so secure my vote.
If the Democratic nominee presents a credible approach that will substantively address our need for more tax revenue and will address the wealth concentration issue, then I will almost surely vote for him or her (except Ms. Coakley, who I wouldn’t believe anyway).
Time will tell.
…I’ve heard him speak on your number 3 and I have asked him more about it. From what I gather he knows this has to be a priority.
You say you disagree with my headline, but in the same paragraph go on to describe exactly what I was suggesting so sorry if I were not clear.
The smell of regressive gambling revenues stinks all over Beacon Hill. Grossman is up to his knickers in it and Patrick is too.
Our current Governor has flipped from including prohibition of on-line gambling in his legacy of three casinos and a slots parlor (which he folded on that, too) legislation to recently leading a delegation to Canada to explore amongst other “innovative” (- choke) trade mission topics, “digital gaming.”
Did folks notice how last night’s SOTC regaled as, “the lame duck” and “legacy” speech included exactly nothing about changing the Commonwealth forever by proposing casinos?
Now that’s a legacy to duck……lame.
These “policies” suck. The whole thing sucks and these dumpster policies have been created by “Democrat” leaders.
Enough of the hyperbole. I’m not any more patient with sky-is-falling rhetoric over casinos from progressives as I am over marriage equality from conservatives.
I’ve been spanked by you and others here for suggesting that we should do away with the regressive Lottery because we’ve grown accustomed to spending the ill-gotten revenue it generates. Once a revenue source like this kicks in, you and others are quick to defend it.
I suggest that its disingenuous for you to characterize the comment of heartlanddem as “hyperbole” and “sky-is-falling rhetoric” while simultaneously defending lottery revenues aggressively.
In fact, if casinos DO happen, we WILL become dependent on their revenue — just as we now are from lottery revenue — and the Commonwealth WILL be changed forever.
That’s not “hyperbole”, that’s the simple, plain, and unvarnished truth.
I’m concerned about making up the revenue, but other than that they could disappear tomorrow and it would be fine. Just as I would wake up in the same Commonwealth and life would go on if we lost the lottery, likewise if we got casinos.
I guess a disconnect between us is your phrase “I’m concerned about making up the revenue, but other than that …” In my view, the negative impact of casinos is far worse than your comment suggests.
The need to make up the “lost” revenue is, in my view, what will bind us to both the lottery and casinos (if they happen) in perpetuity. In my view, that will, in fact, “change the Commonwealth forever”.
Maybe not to the same extent as losing most of our coastal communities to rising sea level, or losing our public transportation system altogether, but still very significant.
I agree, though, that in the other threads it was not you who was “spanking” me. Please let me walk that back a bit.
Since you were getting emotional and were making assertions not backed up by statistics. Mainly the idea that we could afford to lose 45% of out meager local aid and the loss would affect “rich kid art programs”. That said, you get a progressive revenue program going and then we can put it on the table.
Casinos, which I also oppose, do lasting damage you failed to prove the lottery does. I also agree with Christopher on single issue voting and attacking Grossman here. Like Brownsberger before him, we can disagree with him without calling him a conservative, a regressive, a bad Democrat or getting personal. Whether it’s the AIPAC connection or this I see a lot if
Mud and little meat to back up these attacks.
This approach to the lottery is lamentable though, but again, one any Treasurer would take.
I would argue that there is ample evidence that the lottery does do actual lasting damage to the addicted players, their families and friends. There’s also too little attention paid to the peripheral economic costs (our time waiting in line at the convenience store to buy milk isn’t valuable?).
But that’s not the point. The question at issue is whether state government should aggressively promote the lottery – through TV advertising, the creation of games like $20 scratch tickets, ties to X-mas and/or popular local sports teams, etc.
I’m against prohibition. But I think it’s simply immoral, unethical and bad public policy for government to be in the business of encouraging people to gamble.
The fact that our government so aggressively promotes the lottery that Massachusetts residents, per capita, spend nearly twice as money much as the residents of any other state on lottery tickets is shameful and should be shocking. The corresponding fact that our government choses to promote Massachusetts’ “highest payout in the nation” as a reason to play the lottery even more is appalling. Our government is using the fact that they take “only” about thirty cents for every dollar spent on the lottery to entice Massachusetts resident to gamble.
We simply must find an alternative revenue source.
Simply not true. Grossman said he would expand lottery advertising, Polito said she would not.
Joe Weinert, VP Spectrum Gaming.
Massachusetts Democrats include a lot of those who would be Republicans in another state.