BMG endorses these candidates for election in 2010! Help them win - fill in a donation amount and click "Contribute" to be directed to BMG's Act Blue page.
The decision we make to expand gaming in Massachusetts will impact our state for decades. We have to get it right. Destination resort casinos will bring thousands of new jobs and increased economic development. Slots parlors will not....
I believe that the bill before the Legislature provides for more licenses than the market can bear, and will therefore not produce the job creation and economic benefits that destination resort casinos would provide. In addition, the inclusion of two slots facilities for the tracks brings social costs without the benefits, and amounts to a "no-bid" contract for the track owners. I have been clear from the beginning that is not something I can accept....
If the Legislature insists on sending me their gaming bill in its current form without addressing these concerns, I will send it back for amendment. The amendment will largely be the full text of the destination resort casino bill passed by the Senate last month, which is similar to and based on the legislation I filed in 2008.
This amendment keeps faith with my convictions about the best long-term interests of the Commonwealth and with our shared interest in job creation. I hope the Legislature will see their way to enact the amendment. However, if the House and Senate choose to send back a bill with two slots facilities and without a truly open and competitive licensing process, I will veto that measure.
In case you are not familiar with MA's unusual "return for amendment" procedure: the Governor has (basically) three choices when a bill comes before him: sign it, veto it, or return it for amendment. The third, which is what Patrick is talking about here, means that he doesn't sign the bill but instead returns it to the legislature with a different proposal, saying, in effect, "I think this would be better." Unlike a veto, there is no override procedure whereby the legislature can make a law despite the Governor's objection. Rather, when a bill is returned for amendment, the legislature must enact another bill in the usual way; of course it is up to them whether to enact the same bill they enacted before, the one suggested by the Governor, or some other bill. That newly-enacted bill then goes to the Governor, who then has only two choices: sign or veto. (In other words, he can only "return for amendment" once.)
Under the present circumstances, though, unless the legislature decides to come back into formal session (which Terry Murray has already ruled out), returning for amendment has basically the same effect as a veto: it kills the bill. There is no way a casino bill can get through in informal session, since there are a lot of "no" votes on this bill and a single legislator can prevent it from passing.
Three cheers for Governor Patrick for standing firm against the lousy bill the legislature sent him. His entire statement is on the flip.
The first section of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - one of the most important statements of equality and human rights ever enacted anywhere on this planet - reads as follows.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I support those in Congress who are considering a constitutional amendment that would end the practice of granting automatic U.S. citizenship to immigrant children who are born in this country. The concept of birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration and removes incentives for people to pursue becoming an American citizen through legal means.
All due respect, Jeff, this is crazy talk. I know you're Mr. Tough On Illegals and all. But the right way to address the immigration issue is with sensible legislative reforms, not reactionary and drastic changes to one of the most important constitutional provisions that sits at the very heart of our liberty. Heck, this proposal is even a bridge too far for our differently-winged friend Rob Eno, the proprietor of RMG, who in most other respects toes a pretty hard line on illegal immigration.
Bluster all you want about illegal immigration or whatever, Jeff. But don't fuck with the Fourteenth.
(The view from ... wherever Ernie sits. - promoted by David)
The blame game will start and the easy accusations of incompetence by our governor and legislature will be thrown around like Snookie throws F-Bombs. (Ya like that? A Jersey Shore reference. Man, I am so fresh)
The fact is this piece of legislation that will be voted on tomorrow should the be the subject of some piondexter's doctorate dissertation at the JFK School. For it to get anywhere all the interests, which by the way have staked out their positions for the past 30 years(except Plainridge )had to be satisfied or there would not be enough votes to get it approved. The solons from the western part of the state wanted a casino, so did the southeastern/Bristol County boys. George Carney has a boatload of votes from members whose districts need/had jobs from/at the nearby track. Same too for East Boston/ Winthrop/ Revere/ and by the luck of the roulette wheel the Speaker of the House is from Winthrop.
So everyone is satisfied here. Charley Sarkis and Joe O'Donnell et al. will bid for a license as a joint venture and Carney and Plainridge will either join up or go head to head in bidding for that second license. Most likely join forces and they've probably already shaken hands. Without all these things happening a bill would not get the full support of the more finicky Senate.
(Bumped. Initial reports were accurate: three casinos, and two slot licenses for the tracks. Gov's statement:
"I respect the Speaker and the Senate President and the teams that have so ably and thoughtfully worked to compromise on an expanded gaming bill. Although we have not yet seen the details of the Conference Committee report, I am nonetheless disappointed that it includes more than one slot facility and that there is no provision for open, competitive bidding for the slot licenses. I cannot support this bill in its current form."
Excellent. Stand firm, Gov. - promoted by David)
The Globe reports that the House and Senate have tentatively reached a deal:
The deal would authorize three resort casinos and would allow the state's four racetracks to compete for two slot parlor licenses. The deal does not meet Governor Deval Patrick's demands. He said Thursday he would accept creation of one slot parlor as part of the expanded gambling bill, if legislators agreed to break a legislative logjam on Beacon Hill.
The governor reiterated today that he wants to authorize only a single slot facility.
Sounds like a loser to me. First, slot parlors are a bad idea. Second, if we are going to have them, restricting bidding on them to existing racetracks is a really bad idea. No-bid contracts (or, in this case, absurdly restricted-bid contracts) just generally suck - there's no way around that.
Governor Deval Patrick said yesterday that he would accept creation of one slot parlor as part of the expanded gambling bill, if legislators agreed to break a logjam that has halted other major business on Beacon Hill....
The governor attached one other condition to accepting a slots parlor: Bidding for that license must be open to facilities beyond the state's racetracks. House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo wants only the race tracks to be able to operate slot machines.
He reiterated in a campaign email that he was willing to accept "an open bidding process to build one slots-only facility." Obviously, one does not equal two, nor does restricting bidding to existing tracks equal "an open bidding process."
The Gov should stop this "deal" in its tracks (get it? tracks? oh I slay myself) before it gets to his desk.
"A lot of security at the wedding, a huge security detail, and that's just to keep Bill from the bridesmaids." -David Letterman
"Facebook now has more than 500 million users, which may help explain why unemployment is around 10 percent." -Jimmy Kimmel
"Whiny Tony Hayward - you know the cry-baby BP CEO guy - he says life's not fair and that sometimes you step off a curb and you get hit by a bus. You know, if life was fair, that bus would have been driven by an unemployed Louisiana shrimp boat operator." -Jay Leno
"BP CEO Tony Hayward complained that he was unfairly 'demonized' in the U.S. over his handling of the Gulf oil spill. In response, demons complained that they were unfairly compared to BP CEO Tony Hayward." -Jimmy Fallon
"An American named Bob Dudley is BP's new CEO. Nice to see an American taking a job from a foreigner for once." -Jay Leno
"Vice President Joe Biden has declared that the heavy lifting is over for the year, and it's time to begin campaigning and talking about the White House's accomplishments. The heavy lifting might be over, but it sounds like the heavy shoveling is just beginning." -Jay Leno
"There's a report that Kate Gosselin and Sarah Palin are taking their families camping together in Alaska. And it must be true, because Sarah Palin hasn't refudiated it yet." -Jimmy Fallon
The Massachusetts economy expanded at more than double the rate of the national economy during the second quarter of the year, boosted by federal stimulus programs, demand for technology products and the strongest job growth since the so-called miracle years of the 1980s, the University of Massachusetts reported today. The performance in the three-month period that ended June 30 was the fourth consecutive quarter that the state has outpaced national economic growth, UMass said in its quarterly journal, MassBenchmarks.
Or, for those who are graphically inclined (click for larger image):
Interesting that in every quarter since the economy started growing again, MA has outpaced the US. I wonder why that would be - I mean, Charlie Baker told me that Deval hates business and jobs and all, and loves taxes and stuff. Weird.
Bill Hudak Continues Fundraising Momentum with $141,656 in Second-Quarter Contributions...
Hudak Raises More Contributions from Individuals than Congressman John F. Tierney
John Tierney has raised less money from average individuals this quarter than our campaign
So let's look at those numbers, shall we? Our friends at the FEC helpfully supply the required documents.
Hudak
Tierney
Total contributions from individuals in 2010 Q2
$141,656
$132,546
Hey, maybe Hudak is right! But wait - he left out a critical piece of information, namely, how much of his own money he's including in those numbers. Let's expand the table just a bit.
Hudak
Tierney
Total contributions from individuals in 2010 Q2
$141,656
$132,546
Total contributions from the candidate in 2010 Q2
$57,249
$0
Total contributions from individuals other than the candidate in 2010 Q2
$84,407
$132,546
Ah.
Look, having raised over $84,000 from individuals in the second quarter is perfectly respectable. But it's awfully silly for Hudak to then go off and claim to have outraised Tierney from individuals without bothering to mention that one of those "individuals" was himself, to the tune of nearly $60,000. (By the way, the $57,249 last quarter brings the total amount of Hudak's personal wealth that he has donated to his campaign to $215,628, nearly half of the total amount he has raised. Tierney so far has not self-funded at all.)
I hope you'll be able to join us for our Boston Super-Canvass and Volunteer Thank You Party this Saturday. Click here to get the details and to sign-up if you can join us - it promises to be a fun time. Our team has really enjoyed canvassing door-to-door in the 9th Congressional district. We've decided to share with you a few of the more interesting stories. If you're able to come canvassing with us on Saturday, maybe you'll have a hilarious or heart-warming story of your own to share!
JACQUETTA
I was canvassing along a street in West Roxbury on a hot Thursday evening. People were just getting back from work, so I was starting to get a really high contact rate. One gentleman came to the door and became particularly animated when I mentioned Stephen Lynch's name. He told me that he'd known "Stevie" for a long time and worked tirelessly to get him elected in 2001. He said that he felt personally let down now that Lynch was "voting like a Republican." He believed that the hard working people who supported Lynch and even volunteered to help get him elected deserved better. He was happy to hear that someone was challenging the Congressman in the Democratic primary and, although I felt bad for this voter, I felt good when I marked him a solid "1" for Mac.
David Bernstein has an unusually strongly-worded post on his blog regarding the ongoing stalemate over slots at the tracks.
Beacon Hill is jammed up over the question of how to shove money into the state's four existing race tracks -- including its two dog tracks, which are in particular financial trouble. Speaker Bob DeLeo wants the state to give the tracks licenses to install slot machines; Governor Deval Patrick wants instead to dedicate a portion of casino revenues to the tracks, a position that Senate President Therese Murray agrees with, if I'm not mistaken.
Now, I don't mean to be rude, but what the f&$% is wrong with these people?
We've redacted the naughty word in keeping with BMG's family-friendly front-page policy. ;-)
Anyway, he goes on to recall that MA voters voted to ban dog racing by a vote of 56-44, and
they certainly understood, as they cast their vote, that people would lose their jobs as a consequence.
I don't imagine that many of those voters were thinking: I want to shut down these hellish businesses, but gosh, I hope that the state finds some way to shovel great loads of free money to the people who run them.
This can be very difficult to understand from the point of view of someone who doesn't see the owners of Raynham Park or Wonderland as ogres profiting off of a despicable business. But most voters -- I repeat, voters -- clearly do see them that way.
Doesn't this miss the point? Of course the voters don't want to send free money to the people who run the dog tracks. But I think Bernstein gives oddly short shrift to the concern voters may well have had for the jobs of the people who work at the tracks.
Basically, nobody wants to throw someone else out of work. So I think what voters did in deciding how to vote on that ballot question is they weighed two evils - dog racing vs. killing jobs - and concluded that dog racing, because of its inherent cruelty to animals who cannot defend themselves and other reasons, was the greater evil. But that surely does not mean that voters didn't feel bad about the jobs, and would try to save them if they could.
So, the argument might go, why not install slot machines? After all, casino gambling generally, and slot machines specifically, routinely poll well above 50% in this state, even though dog racing lost big at the ballot box. If slot machines can help track workers keep their jobs without bringing back the evil of dog racing, great! Win-win, right?
Wrong, some would say - but IMHO only those who see slot machines as nearly as bad, if not worse, than dog racing. For those who are either agnostic or pro-slots (and the polling suggests that's a majority of MA residents), slots at the tracks seems to offer a neat solution to a problem that their own vote to abolish dog racing in MA created. I'm not saying I agree. I'm just saying that's how I'd imagine a lot of people who voted to ban dog racing see it, and that's why I think Bernstein is wrong.
For those I have not met on the campaign trail, I would like to introduce myself and tell you why I'm running for Congress in Massachusetts 10th Congressional District.
I'm running for Congress because we need to make Washington work - the right way. I can't remember a time in my life when our biggest institutions, and that includes Congress, Wall Street, and corporations like BP, have failed us as much as they have during these years. People took their life savings and put them in 401K's for investments, people put money away for their children's tuition, and then saw their savings disappear because of the greed on Wall Street.
I have a track-record of taking on tough fights on behalf of Massachusetts' families--and winning them-- and I'll do the same in Washington.
I strongly believe that we need to elect people who will challenge the status quo in Washington. For some, that may sound like empty rhetoric, but as a State Senator I risked my political career by running against then Senate President Bulger, because Beacon Hill was broken.
As District Attorney, I've gained a view that very few people have. I have seen firsthand what happens when someone loses their job and families are torn apart. I've seen the consequences of inaction. I've worked hard to keep our communities safe and secure as DA, and also developed a number of innovative programs and authored legislation as a State Senator to protect the most vulnerable in society.
Now I want to go down to Washington and fight for the changes we need. I will fight to help small businesses create jobs again, stop the Wall Street abuses that got us into this mess and promote clean energy sources that will help break us free from our dependence on foreign oil and create jobs for American workers.
I will continue to champion marriage equality, protect a woman's right to choose, and fight to close the loophole that allows people on the FBI's terrorist watch list to buy guns -- regardless of what the gun lobbies want.
I will be a leader who fights to protect our environment, just the way I did in the State Senate where I crafted our state's safe water law, to protect our lakes, ponds and drinking water from pollution. I was named the Environmental Legislator of the Year as a result of my work championing environmental rights and I'll do the same in Washington. I am the only candidate in this race who supports the Cape Wind project, because it will strengthen our environmental security, enhance our economic security, and bolster our national security.
I'm committed to changing the way Washington does business. There's a lot at stake this November, but I am confident that by working together, we will be successful. If you would like to learn more about my campaign, please visit billkeating.org . I hope to see you on the campaign trail!
The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.
And the bottom line:
Each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the decade before. At the time, the 1980s was the hottest decade on record. In the 1990s, every year was warmer than the average of the previous decade. The 2000s were warmer still.
That said, there is little chance, in my opinion, that conservation and recycling are going to save civilization should warming continue or accelerate, as appears probable. Even if everyone in the US stopped driving SUVs, as it were, global economic growth will keep carbon levels rising and push us closer to potentially devastating environmental transformation. The only way out that I can see is national investment in renewable low-carbon energy sources. They have to become cheaper than fossil fuels on a real basis: then people will adopt them and carbon levels may stop increasing. Interestingly, this is an approach that the fraction of the G.O.P. that has not been captured by the oil and gas industry (does it exist?) may find appealing, since it will create a vast new energy industry.
(Young teachers fired to protect charter school funding? - promoted by Bob Neer)
Thanks to a 4% decrease in state aid, and tight restrictions on raising local revenue, thousands of much-needed teachers were laid off across Massachusetts at the end of June.
The recession had a major impact on state and local revenues across the nation, so legislation began to move through Congress to direct money back to local districts to bring back laid-off teachers. Here's a stimulus bill that has a direct impact on unemployment AND provides a better education for our nation's children. Unfortunately, the teacher funds were stripped out of the bill in the senate.
Here's the sad news from Kathleen Branch, Director, National Advocacy Services for the National School Boards Association:
The House is scheduled to vote on a stripped-down version of the FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations bill (H.R 4899) this afternoon that does not include the provision for the Education Jobs Fund.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) objected to the removal, stating that the Education Jobs Fund "had fallen by the wayside". Obey said he didn't understand why funding for Pell grants for college students and funding to prevent losing 100,000 teachers were not critical needs.
NSBA will continue to urge Congressional passage of the Education Jobs Fund to help our school districts prevent laying off teachers who provide education services that are vital to student achievement.
Please continue raising this issue with your Members of Congress, and note the severity of school district budgets and teacher/personnel layoffs in your states. Roughly two-thirds of the nation's school districts are facing budget crises that include teacher layoffs.
There was one very active Massachusetts education lobbyist pushing hard to kill the funding, and was celebrating the defeat all over the Internet. Guess who, then find the answer after the fold.
(Joel flags an inconsistency in the Obama administration's education policy. - promoted by Bob Neer)
A bedrock principle of the civil rights movement has been that America should bring greater equality to the education of its students. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan likes to say that education is the civil rights issue of our time, and he has motivated state legislatures to make big changes to get "Race To The Top" money that is supposed to bring the less-fortunate a better education. However, a number of civil rights groups including the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund have pointed out a logical inconsistency in President Obama's Race To The Top plan:
"If education is a civil right, children in 'winning' states should not be the only ones who have the opportunity to learn in high-quality environments. Such an approach reinstates the antiquated and highly politicized frame for distributing federal support to states that civil rights organizations fought to remove in 1965."
This is an extremely important point. For decades, American children who had the bad luck to be born in the wrong state or with the wrong skin color were forced into underfunded schools. Much was sacrificed to change our government so that those segregated and impoverished schools could integrate and improve. But only a few states are going to get this federal education money under Duncan's competition. It's not the belief of Americans that a fraction of the people have a First Amendment right to free speech. So why should only a fraction of the children get the the right to higher quality schools?
Our leaders have made an error in Race To The Top, and the sooner they change it, the better.
A federal judge has granted an injunction blocking enforcement of parts of a controversial immigration law in Arizona that is scheduled to go into effect Thursday.
So is a 21st Century Fort Sumter coming down the pike?
UPDATE: I took a quick read-through of the decision to find out the specific parts of the law which are blocked.
The judge's ruling preliminarily enjoins Arizona from enforcing four provisions of the law:
• A.R.S. § 11-1051(B) - Law enforcement determining immigration status of persons stopped, detained, or under arrest;
• A.R.S. § 13-1509- "creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers";
• A.R.S. § 13-2928(C)- "creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work";
• A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5) "authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States".
The constitutional option gets its name from Article I, Section V of the Constitution, which states that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." In order to fulfill this constitutional order, the Senate must be able to, well, determine its rules. A filibuster, technically, is a way to stop the Senate from determining something by refusing to allow it to move to a vote. Because stopping the Senate from considering its own rules would be unconstitutional, the chair can rule against the filibuster, and the Senate could then move to change its rules on a majority vote.
One caveat: Many people, including Udall himself, believe this has to happen at the beginning of a new Congress. If it doesn't happen at the beginning of a new Congress, then Congress is considered to have acquiesced to the previous Congress's rules, and a filibuster against further rule changes wouldn't interrupt the constitutional right to determine the rules.
This is not a radical theory, or a partisan one: Both Richard Nixon, then the vice president and thus the president of the Senate, and Robert Byrd, then majority leader and considered the greatest parliamentarian to ever walk the chamber, have argued in favor of the constitutional option.
The Obama administration, in my opinion, blundered badly by not eliminating this absurd anachronism in 2009. (They were elected to change things, dang it. If folks wanted four more years of the Democratic establishment, they would have elected Hillary Clinton. But I digress.) The constitution, of course, requires only a Senate majority to pass legislation, not 60 votes. The framers very sensibly realized a super-majority of this kind would concentrate far too much power in the hands of small states and minority factions, which is exactly what has happened. They blundered the same way, of course, by reducing the stimulus program and ditching the public option, among other things, all in the name of non-existent bipartisanship (or Chicago-style backscratching behind closed doors, or something). It will be interesting to see if they learn their lesson and develop the fortitude to grasp a few nettles, including this one, in 2011, assuming there is still a Democratic majority in the Senate.
(Stephen Lynch votes for more money for the war in Afghanistan, hastening the decline of the U.S. economy. - promoted by Bob Neer)
While teachers are being laid off in Brockton, storefronts are empty from Needham to Dorchester, and so many people are still struggling to find work, I am disappointed that Stephen Lynch yet again voted with Republicans to commit another $37 billion to the war in Afghanistan. This money would have been better invested here at home, in communities like those in the 9th district. Our troops in Afghanistan - and Iraq - have performed admirably and done all we have asked of them. We must honor them now by bringing them home as safely and as quickly as possible.
I emphatically echo the sentiments of Congressman Jim McGovern:
Representative James P. McGovern, a leading antiwar Democrat, has been strongly critical of the additional funding and spent much of yesterday lobbying colleagues to block the funding. Much of the debate was stoked by the discussion of newly disclosed documents that reveal previously unreported challenges facing US troops in Afghanistan, with divisions developing even among top Democrats.
"All of us are dedicated to defeating Al Qaeda wherever they are, but our current policy in Afghanistan is deeply flawed," the Worcester Democrat said yesterday. "It is a mistake to give this administration yet another blank check."
"What the hell are we doing?" he told reporters later. "How long is this going to go on?"
Unending, ramped-up military force isn't going to achieve our goals in Afghanistan. We need to bring about a stable government - one that isn't corrupt - and a stable economy. We can address the first part by rooting out corruption and assisting legitimate leaders to create a stable government based on free and fair elections. We can address the second part by shifting the focus of their natural resource development from narcotics to expanding other forms of agriculture and tapping Afghanistan's wealth of mineral deposits. These goals are accomplished through committed diplomacy and international aid, not through military force - through the State Department, not the Defense Department.
What we can't have are votes like Congressman Lynch's for a blank check to support a flawed policy and unending war.
(The Clean Air Act should be much stronger, not weaker. - promoted by Bob Neer)
Just when you thought the U.S. Senate couldn't do any less for clean energy and the environment than it's (not) done so far, we now face the real possibility of what would amount to a "stop-work order" on the 40-year-old, wildly successful (e.g., studies finding benefits outweighing costs at a 40:1 ratio), Clean Air Act.
That's right: believe it or not, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is moving ahead with a sequel to Sen. Lisa Murkowski's nefarious attempt, earlier this summer, to gut the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s power to protect the public health from dangerous pollutants, including harmful greenhouse gases. Just as bad, Rockefeller's proposal would keep America addicted to oil and other old, polluting energy technologies, while delaying or derailing our switch to a clean, prosperous energy economy.
Essentially, what Rockefeller is proposing would tell the EPA – at least for two years, although we know that justice delayed is often justice denied! - that it has to be asleep at the switch, that it must not hold polluters accountable, that it must look the other way whole Big Oil and Big Coal trash the environment. Is that the lesson the Senate learned from the Gulf of Mexico disaster? Really?
(Congressman McGovern is an excellent example of the benefits that might be obtained from an effective human cloning program. We could start with 435 to fill every seat in the House and move on from there. - promoted by Bob Neer)
Friends-
I wanted to share with you some of the national media attention Congressman McGovern has been getting over the past few days.
Once again, he has been providing inspired leadership in Congress, giving voice to concerns about money being spent and lives being lost in Afghanistan.
Here are just several examples of the attention Jim has received:
(One really has to wonder exactly what Senator Brown in particular and the GOP in general want to hide through their opposition to the DISCLOSE Act. - promoted by Bob Neer)
