Here in Massachusetts, we have had a tradition of strong, progressive leaders from Barney Frank and Ed Markey to Elizabeth Warren and Deval Patrick. But not too long ago, bold, progressive action was met with resistance from party leaders and political insiders. When faced with that kind of resistance, some individuals may shy away, going along to get along. As a lawmaker, Warren Tolman didn’t just go along to get along because he knew he was elected to fight for his constituents, not serve party leadership. That willingness to buck the normal and carve out his own path is exactly the reason I’m proud to endorse Warren Tolman to be our next Attorney General.
During his time in the legislature, Warren never backed down from a fight when he knew it was the right thing to do. Warren took on Big Tobacco at their height because companies were preying on young children. After plenty of pushback from the industry and fringe right-wingers (Rush Limbaugh called him “an anti-smoking Nazi” on national radio), Warren scored some big victories, divesting state pension funds from Big Tobacco, banning the sale of single cigarettes, and requiring the disclosure of accurate nicotine yield ratings, additives and ingredients. As a result there are far fewer people smoking today in Massachusetts.
Warren was also instrumental in banning smoking from the State House. It’s important to remember that this was a time when smoking indoors was still the norm and most people enjoyed a cigarette at their desk, particularly some party leaders. This didn’t stop Warren. His persistence to rid the State House of smoking eventually led to the leadership backing down.
Massachusetts has been a leader in the progressive movement because of people who push back against the idea that “this is how it is and we can’t change anything.” It is the people who have made bold choices, knowing that it could mean their political demise, because they understand that change can move our society forward. Warren Tolman has exemplified those bold choices — as the architect of campaign finance and ethics reform, as an advocate for HIV and AIDS education in our schools, and as a gubernatorial candidate running under Clean Elections.
As a decision-maker, Warren doesn’t look to see what’s popular or what will make sense politically. Warren comes to a decision after asking himself one question, “How can we improve the lives of people and ensure that everyone has a voice?” Leaders are the ones who take on the tough fights, even in the face of growing pressure, because they do not back down from their principles. In the race for Attorney General, Warren Tolman is that leader.
Don’t have link to taping, but here is Patriot Ledger article on today’s debate:
http://goo.gl/sz8R3z
Supporting Casinos does not equal progressive thinking in 2014.
Supporting jobs does equal progressive thinking in 2014
You mean the police jobs to deal with the increased crime that come from casinos, or possibly the increased construction jobs to expand the prisons as a result of the higher crime rates?
Are you familiar with the Broken Window Fallacy?
@ johntmay: There is an old myth that a casino will increase crime. Like so many other casino myths, that is not really the case. Did you know that since CT’s two casinos opened, crime rates have actually fallen in surrounding communities. The mayor of Mohegan Sun’s host community said “I’d say those fears [of more crime] have not come to pass.” There is so much misinformation about this ballot question and old inaccurate myths die hard. If you google, you can find facts of the matter. Check out: “Crime fell around Connecticut casinos since openings,” Associated Press, 2/26/2012
I disagree with striker and hlpeary on casinos, but they are both progressives. Let’s not apply purity tests and engage in name calling like the GOP.
I strongly feel that they will not create the jobs or revenue that are promised. I have shown time and time again that our neighbors are laying off people or closing casinos.
As for the AG, whether Tolman or Healey wins, the decision is out of their hands and in the hands of the voters. I am backing Tolman due to his decades of experience and advocacy on behalf of clean elections, civil liberties, consumer protection, and gun control. I haven’t been convinced by Healey that those issues are her priorities, and find her opposition to casinos to be a position purely of political posturing and opportunistic optics. Where was she when her boss, the current AG, was pushing casinos? How come she gets a pass? Voting on a single issue is an exercise in ignorance, particularly this issue in this race.
I clearly remember Governor Patrick coming to the final conclusion that expanding gaming had a place as a part of the Commonwealth’s economy. And I remember AG Coakley filing legislation to address legal concerns and issues that might come from the passage of expanded gaming. However, I am drawing a blank on the AG pushing casinos.
And I don’t remember Dr. Berwick’s voice or actions at all during the almost 20 years that expanded gaming was debated and finally approved in the House and Senate and signed by our progressive Governor.
We agre entirely that applying purity tests around gaming and voting on a single issue are exercises in ignorance. I support the current law but also support Deb Goldberg for Treasurer (who will vote to repeal) and I support Leland Cheung (who will vote to repeal) for LG over Steve Kerrigan who is pro-casino.
We all have priority issues and I respect a voter’s right to draw a line in the voting booth. However don’t tell me my political stripe isn’t valid if I disagree with your issue.
She went out of her way to do the industry’s bidding by keeping the repeal question off the ballot-even the judge in question called her legal reasoning spurious for this case. Now the voters can weigh the supposed benefits your members have been promised by known union busters like Steve Wynn with the record that this is an industry already going into a steep decline, ale already laying off hundreds of unionized workers at Foxwoods and Mohegan, closing three of the largest casinos in Atlantic City with a state arranged bailout for the workers affected, and that Vegas has seen a 20-30% decline in occupancy since the recession.
I get that times are tough for the trades, unlike others here, I don’t dismiss your concerns or those of your members. Public policy papers won’t sway them from making a decision they feel will put food on their family’s tables and or health insurance cards in their wallets. But this is a short term solution to a long term revenue problem we can no longer afford to ignore. Killing this proposal will force the lefislarure to finally raise the revenue needed to rebuild our highways, the T, and connect our gateway cities to the information economy. This will create jobs, as would Cape Wind. I hope regardless of the vote on casinos, your members and those of us in the progressive community can work together on that revenue.
“lefislarure” as perhaps the finest typo ever to appear on BMG. 😀
Definitely one the stranger autocorrects on my phone in quite some time.
Just want to make sure that is what I’m seeing here. The AG and her office made a legal determination on the ballot question – as is required (not something done outside of the process or extraordinary). Depending on your position on the repeal she made a correct or incorrect decision. The Court decided to place the question on the ballot countering the AG’s decision. Since then she has consistently said casinos are not a solution to economic problems but in absense of concrete proposals she will vote against repeal. Hardly pushing.
Yes it is about work, jobs, hours to earn health care, pension and annuity credit, opening new opportunities for young people in apprenticeship programs and – YES – it is short term. Every new construction job is short term unlt you get the next one. That’s the nature of the industry and the reason it’s important to always be creating more jobs.
It’s also long term jobs for maintenance and staffing. Wynn, Mohegan, MGM. and Penn National have all signed agreements with Organized Labor. We know what the jobs created will look like because we know what the contracts at their other facilities include.
Layoffs- you have to have jobs in the first place to have a layoff. Atlantic City had 11 casinos at its height, Massachusetts is talking about licensing 2 right now. AC’s casino were walking distance from each other. Massachusetts are half a turnpike away. Can you over sell a market? Of course. Ask Boston Chicken. Overgrew. Closing. Layoffs. And then stabilized. And jobs remain today.
Let’s say that Massachusetts casinos provide only half the jobs and half the revenue to the state and surrounding communities. Can you show me one other funded development proposal that creates even that?
It’s not a short term solution when the mortgage is due, the kids need dental work and school costs are going up – it’s a JOB. I’m not voting to take a single job away from any worker.
These jobs don’t exist yet, casinos have been known to depress property values and close restaurants and small businesses nearby-they may be net job destroyers rather than creators. And the jobs they will create are based on the promises and projections of an industry that is in severe and significant decline. On the economics alone, this will result in future bailouts and high social costs. Problem gamblers cost the state about 40,000 a year. That is money that won’t be going to schools, housing, roads, or healthcare and costs that will depress job creation. By passing casinos, the legislature failed to fix our long term revenue problem that, were it solved, would create the kind of shovel ready stimulus you and you’re members need constructing roads, schools, hospitals, and new train tracks that benefit society and are investments that improve the economy in the long run. I don’t recall the New Deal building casinos-I do recall it building sports stadiums, highways, dams, and other vital projects for the benefit of all.
At the end of the day casinos will lift the boats of a few while sinking the boats of the addicts, the towns they are located in, and the rest of us who will be footing the bill. All means all, and a real progressive taxation plan, single payer, and true investments in public education, public transit, and public works can ensure everyone benefits from our economy-not just the app and drug designers. We share the same goals-but your means will cause more harms than benefits for the entire commonwealth-even if they provide short term benefits to your members. But I’ll agree we gotta put an alternative program on the table.
” I don’t recall the New Deal building casinos-I do recall it building sports stadiums, highways, dams, and other vital projects for the benefit of all.”
http://wwlp.com/2014/03/10/slots-parlor-construction-starts-this-week/
jconway -we don’t disagree on what the Leg failed to do and we don’t disagree on what priorities should be. And hell I’m all for a new New Deal – when’s it’s going to pass the US House and overcome the US Senate filibuster?
Reality is a harsh thing. There is no New Deal coming. Hell the Tea Party won’r even fund the transportation bill.
I keep hearing what should be and I keep being told to wait. Waiting doesn’t pay the bills. Should be doesn’t buy kids clothes or pay a mortgage.
You can say we gotta put an alternative on the table but until there is a funded alternative I’ll take the reality of jobs against the forecast gloom and doom -which BTW doesn’t exist yet either.
EVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Two of the earliest and best studies on gambling and crime are by
Albanese (1985) and Curran and Scarpitti (1991). Each of these studies dealt
with casinos and crime in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
Albanese (1985) noted that several early studies simply used data from the
Uniform Crime Reports, which indicated a great increase in index offenses
when comparing the pre- and postcasino crime numbers for Atlantic City.
Casinos opened in Atlantic City in 1978. In 1977, there were 4,391 index
offenses reported to the police in Atlantic City. By 1980, the number of index
offenses had increased to 11,899.
and from the geographic area hlpeary is qouting the Mayor about?
I mean the construction jobs that will be created building a casino, hotels and associated businesses. And then the long term maintenance jobs that come with repairing, rehabing and updating hotel rooms on a regular schedule. And I mean the staffing jobs that pay more than the current and coming minimum wage, with pensions and health insurance (MGM Grand, Mohegan and Wynn have agreements with hospitality unions that will allow them to represent and bargain for employees)
Perhaps you’ve read the stories about the current construction jobs in Plainville building a slots facility. That’s real jobs unlike the dreamed about industries that have yet to make any proposal, much less a financial commitment, to Massachusetts.
Not universities, biotech, historical tourism, mountain resorts, beach vacations, high tech manufacturing and engineering companies (my son now works for one), world class hospitals (one saved the life of my dear wife) and so much more that differentiates us from other areas of the nation.
Does anyone honestly expect Massachusetts to become a “destination spot” for gamblers?
In case you were not reading the news: Casinos in Atlantic City are CLOSING. Spare me the rosy hopes that casinos will work here when they are failing in Connecticut, Atlantic City, the Gulf Coast and so many other locations.
Casinos are not my first choice. On that, Martha Coakley and are are 100% simpatico. We’re two peas in a pod.
However, I am not willing to settle for second best and I have this odd notion that people in construction can do more than build casinos. For reasons unexplained, Martha Coakley is willing to settle for second best (or worse) and had the odd notion that construction workers can only build casinos. Are the construction workers in Massachusetts unable to build high tech manufacturing facilities, bio-tech facilities, hospitals, schools?
Can you explain the reasoning behind this?
Construction workers in MA can build anything (and have) if the funding for the project exists. Can you tell me where the funding to build high tech manufacturing facilities, bio-tech facilities, hospitals, schools is going to come from today to put people to work?
There are new gaming facilities being built in Las Vegas today. The industry is far from dead and when combined with the other attractions our state has to offer we do become a destination. LV has a cultural center, education, industry and more. That why casinos work there and a limited number will work here.
Has a 20-30% vacancy rate since the recession. It’s closing hotels and looking to diversify it’s economy. The article I cited that described Reno ended with their Chamber president basically saying he wanted the economy Massachusetts already has.
From raising revenue via the hard work of passing a progressive income tax, closing loopholes , and raising corporate tax rates (which are some of the lowest in the region). The legislature opted to avoid this hard work by adopting the quick fix of casinos, quick fixes that are dragging NJ into an industry bailout thirty years on and resulting in massive lay offs to in CT twenty years on. Maine is already looking twice at proposals for additional casinos after the ones it approved failed to revitalize the communities they were located in due to the sluggish growth and capacity saturation of an industry in decline.
Not when we already have ones closeby in CT, ME, NY, and NJ and flights to Vegas are less than $99 on Southwest right now. Let’s focus on what we do well, rather than copy what other states are doing poorly.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/08/a-good-way-to-wreck-a-local-economy-build-casinos/375691/
here’s what I saw:
Mass is talking two casinos geographically apart. No one expects casino revenue to save the city or state. Just be a part of the economy.