Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Senate President Therese Murray Stepping Down

By

Senate President Therese Murray has announced that she will not seek re-election and will step down at the end of her term.

Another big but not unexpected change on Beacon Hill opens the doors for new vision and progress.  What will her legacy be?  Steady hand on the budget?  Casinos? Breaking the golden ceiling and being a strong if not stoic woman leader in Massachusetts politics?

State Senator Stanley Rosenberg (D-Amherst) has been identified as the next in line after winning an informal caucus vote over recently announced retiring state Senator Stephen M. Brewer (D-Barre.)  Rosenberg, considered a reliable Progressive by most has continued to baffle not only his constituents but his fellow Progressives and peers with his grasping the baton and taking casinos and predatory gambling to the legislative finish line in 2011 at the bequest of Ms. Murray.

Is this change we can believe in?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. …is not the only reliable progressive to also be pro-casino. Each person I read about who fits that description adds to my sense that just maybe casinos will not cause the sky to fall quite as hard as some people seem to suggest.

      • Regardless, the point is that people I trust are fine with it and the sky won’t fall. I also don’t care if we don’t have them and I believe would have voted against final passage a couple of times because I didn’t like enough of the specifics. However, it is I think inappropriate to cry “traitor to progressivism” in the finest tea party fashion regarding elected officials who are otherwise some of our best friends in politics.

        • Did you somehow not see the big blue letters titled “Read PDF”? Try this link:

          http://americanvalues.org/catalog/pdfs/why-casinos-matter.pdf

          Casinos are the worst form of regressive taxation, removing billions from the local economy while providing millions in tax revenue. Those “people you trust” have now placed themselves in the position of promoting a public harm in the form of gambling. Three points from the report specifically address the conflict of interest created by legalized casinos:

          The Casino’s Political Impact

          19. Casinos are the creation of state government and its public policies.

          Casinos are often described as public-private partnerships between government and the gambling industry. (Kansas is an exception: its three casinos are owned solely by the state.) However, the new casinos cannot be viewed as just another kind of
          public-private partnership. They are instituted by the states to create a source of revenue separate from direct taxation, the traditional way of financing government expenses for the common welfare. States typically legalize casino gambling by changing state constitutions. They create regional monopolies for the casinos. They regulate lightly and often in ways that discriminate against other legal businesses. They promote casino gambling through advertising and advocacy by public officials.

          They tell the public that casinos provide funds for necessary government services without raising taxes. They rescue casinos from bankruptcy. In short, without the legal, administrative, regulatory, and promotional advantages provided by state governments, casinos would not be spreading into mainstream American life as they are today and would likely still exist only on the fringes of the society.

          20. State regulation of casinos creates a conflict of interest, in which the state is charged with protecting the public from the very business practices that generate revenue for the state and which the state is co-sponsoring.

          State governments are caught in a classic conflict of interest between their desire for more revenues and their responsibility to prevent harms to the public from unfair or exploitative practices. Many have resolved the conflict in favor of more revenues from casinos. This decision is a violation of the precautionary principle, which holds that government must engage in due diligence before introducing a policy that might harm its citizens, even when the evidence of harm is not definitive. Yet in the case of casino gambling, there is clear evidence of harm, and that fact alone is sufficient reason to require a moratorium on state-sponsored gambling expansion. In fact, a moratorium was the main recommendation of the 1999 federally-funded report from the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. But since that time, states have raced ahead to locate commercial casinos in struggling communities and to extract revenues from citizens in those communities.

          21. States are typically failing to protect their citizens from the harms of state-sponsored casino gambling.

          Since the late 1990s, federal and state commissions have recommended policies to protect citizens from the harms of state-sponsored casino gambling. These “best practices” policies are designed to hold the producers of gambling—the states and their partners in the gambling industry—responsible for its serious harms. However, few if any states have actually adopted or implemented these “best practices.” They include:

          – Prohibiting gambling advertising, as is the case with cigarette advertising.
          – Modifying the machine design to reduce speed and duration of play.
          – Removing ATMs and credit facilities from the casinos.
          – Requiring breaks/cooling-off periods in machine play.
          – Prohibiting free alcohol on the casino floor.
          – Displaying onscreen clocks on the machines.
          – Prohibiting casino lending on credit.
          – Establishing an independently funded National Institute on Problem
          – Gambling to conduct research and public education.

          I really can’t emphasize enough that you should read the whole thing, and then make up your mind about those “people you trust”.

          • I guess I did miss the PDF link the first time and it took me a few seconds to find it the second time. I have suggested some of the best practices myself, but I didn’t come to this thread to argue the merits. My point is in classic Burkean fashion I elect people I trust to make decisions. If several people who I find generally credible take a certain position, I will not necessarily agree with them, but I am inclined to give them a huge benefit of the doubt.

    • As a progressive, I believe in legalization of Marijuana and all other drugs. In my opinion, drug prohibition does not reduce use or addiction. Drug prohibition simply increases crime and injustice. I consider alcohol to be an example of a legalized drug. The use and abuse of alcohol places a horrible toll on our society. But, we already saw that prohibiting alcohol doesn’t work.

      I view casinos in the same fashion. Of course, like alcohol, casino gambling is evil. But, gambling, alcohol, and drugs are best handled through regulation, taxes, and education, not prohibition.

      • being against casinos. Banning gambling, like prohibition in general, requires prosecution of those who engage in a prohibited activity. It’s an active societal and political choice.

        Being against casinos is not banning anything; it’s simply a refusal to support the introduction of a questionable activity with a track record of societal problems. I don’t see how someone can be considered a progressive who has made the active choice of introducing casino gambling to the state. I thought the progressive bar was set higher than that.

        • To me, a casino is the same as a bar. A bar is a place where people drink together. A casino is a place where people gamble together. I don’t think that you can outlaw casinos any more than you can outlaw bars. Like bars, casinos are an established aspect of our culture. In my mind, it is better to handle them with taxes and regulations that to try to outlaw them.

          • Casinos have not been an established aspect of our culture in Massachusetts. We seem to have gotten along fine without them. It has taken an active political and legislative effort to introduce casinos to this state, which seems different to me than simply letting bars continue to operate.

            And what are we really getting in return for allowing casinos in? Will we really be expanding opportunities for high-paying jobs, or will we be providing a new opening for organized crime, addiction, and other societal problems to take root and grow here?

            • I don’t know the answers to your questions, and you make good points about jobs.

              I have an observation about your statement that we’ve gotten along fine without casinos. While we haven’t had Casinos in Massachusetts, it’s been pretty easy for our citizens to drive to Connecticut, New Jersey, and many other places that have them. Furthermore, we’ve had other forms of group betting, like Suffolk Downs. So, betting and casinos are part of Massachusetts citizens culture.

                • For the purposes of BMG that is where you lose me. I don’t come here for policy seminars measured in hours, only a few minutes at a time to bat ideas around. Besides, from the skimming of it I have done there’s nothing there I haven’t seen before.

                • Comments like this leave me with the impression that you really DO refuse to inform yourself about the facts regarding an issue like this that you’ve already made up your mind about.

                  I find it arrogant and insulting that you flatly REFUSE to inform yourself about facts that lie at your fingertips while you repeatedly offer “the benefit of the doubt” to figures who, like Mr. DeLeo, have demonstrated over and over again that they have already abused such latitude.

                  I remind you of “the Barbi Principle”. Barbie says to Ken, after math class, “I hate math. MATH IS HARD.” Ken says “yes, it is”.

                  Some things in life are HARD. Important things tend to be HARD. Your “Burkean” stance suggests to me that you choose to remain ignorant about our most important issues. I invite you to rethink that posture.

                • …but I likewise find it offputting that some suggest that if only I had all the facts, as if people presume I had not already been exposed to them, I couldn’t possibly disagree with them. Sorry, but it is possible to look at the same information and draw different conclusions. Not sure what Barbie has to do with this. As I recall that attitude was called out for promoting gender stereotypes which I don’t see how apply here.

                • but Christopher, in this case, you’re publicly refusing to look at the information in question.

                  I don’t come here for policy seminars measured in hours, only a few minutes at a time to bat ideas around. Besides, from the skimming of it I have done there’s nothing there I haven’t seen before.

                  That’s fine and dandy, but I don’t really see how you’ve got an off to put when somebody calls you out on taking a position on an issue for which you refuse to read about for more than a few minutes at a time.

              • and that our citizens drive to other states that have casinos. And that’s my point. I’m not suggesting that we should get rid of Suffolk Downs or otherwise crack down on the betting that currently goes on in the state. I’m just saying that adding casinos takes us to a new level; not doing that is therefore not a form of prohibition.

  2. It’s the pill he had to swallow to get progressive income taxation to the finish line? I was colored skeptical by his selection as well for this reason, but his moves on progressive taxing, the people he has chosen to associate with and donate to, and the potential he has working with Steve Grossman are all positives in my book. If it’s not Grossman or his moves are more symbolic we will see if he adapts or fails. Tom Birmingham he’s not, but he ain’t Tom Finneran either.

      • In the Senate and presumably can pass it there, if we have another progressive Governor and enough people in the House it should pass.

        • But “enough people in the House” sounds like a cruel joke right now, and “another progressive Governor” is hardly guaranteed.

        • That phrase does not mean what you think it means.

          Or else “a vote on the amendment” does not mean what I think it means.

          • in a joint session, i.e., 40 Senators + 160 Reps. So a majority in the Senate would be nice, but doesn’t get us where we need to be. And, of course, progressive income tax would still have to succeed at the ballot where it has failed before.

  3. One Democratic state representative, Tom Calter, is in much of Senator Murray’s district, and it’s not confirmed that he will run for the promotion. Republican state Rep. Vinny DeMacedo likely will though, putting this seat atop Republicans’ target list.

    • And Senator Murray has had some close re-election contests that reveal a right leaning Independent district. I agree that this is a very vulnerable seat.

  4. A solid leader. I disagreed with her on casinos, but her position was one of the more logical ones (among the pro-casino positions), that they were inevitable and we just had to manage them. So she tried to do that.

    Best of luck Madam President!

Archives