Gov. Patrick Lies to the Public, Legislature

Excellent discussion in Commonwealth Magazine (0.00 / 0)

About the casinos issue. Click here to have a look. With respect to the legalities:

Under federal law, once casino-style gambling is approved here, federally recognized American Indian tribes in Massachusetts could also pursue casino plans independent of the state.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:32:20 PM CST

Do you really think that Deval Patrick was on the up and up? (0.00 / 0)

Look at the company he was employed by and his position therein.
After his election he attempts a strong arm for his previous employer.

I really wish folks would engage their grey matter and leave emotion out of things. I listened to what he had to say prior to the run up to the election and I formed the opinion that he was talking out of his hat and spent too much time watching West Wing. Much like another current political candidate.

Anyone that builds a small castle in western MA that he can ill afford is NOT on the level.

---

by: MCRD @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 19:34:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

DiMasi came out today... (0.00 / 0)

and said that Deval has not provided any credible numbers and relied on the Casino industry to provide his estimates.  Looks like the lines are being drawn.  I'm fine with casino's being built, but I think we need to know the actual numbers we'd be talking about before making a final decision.  Numbers that Deval promised that he's provide.  Haven't seen anything yet, which worries me a great deal.

Listening to Charlie Baker talk about fiscal responsibility is like getting lectured on abstinence from Paris Hilton - Tim Murray

---

by: johnk @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 15:03:44 PM CST

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the heads up.  

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)

---

by: Lynne @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 15:12:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

so sad (5.00 / 1)

I'm feeling so sad that Deval's theme of getting regular folks to "check back in" and "be involved again" has become quite the opposite now that we all worked so hard to get him elected.   And I worry Obama, considering he is running an identical campaign with the same team behind it, will do the same. I had concerns about Deval, but I was still very excited about the movement and became a delegate for him.   I'm still waiting for him to do something truly progressive.

We have got to stop trusting people who have such close ties to corporations.  And speaking of people who do not have close ties to corporations - please, please help Kucinich get reelected.  He has been completely left behind by the Democratic officials, who normally would support their candidates re-election campaigns after they are finished campaigning for president.  Kucinich.us is the site.

Mark Snyder, QueerToday

---

by: milo200 @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 15:42:19 PM CST

Casino's aren't "BIG BUSINESS" and "CORPORATIONS" (0.00 / 0)

What?

---

by: MCRD @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 20:03:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Is the Realpolitik Patrick (0.00 / 0)

another swing on the pendulum from clumsy, naive idealist to an eventual balanced, competent leader?

I hope there's a learning curve in there somewhere.

Mark

A rose by any other name is still a rose by another name.

---

by: Yellow Dog @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 16:10:26 PM CST

Governor Patrick versus the Luddites (4.00 / 1)

Is there any more telling example of a Legislature led by those who refuse to accept reality than by what Gov. Patrick faces with our group of legislative "statesmen?"

One member talks about fears of a "casino culture" invading our state, while its populace makes several million trips a year out-of-state to neighboring casinos and slot parlors.

Another member talks about "real" economic development, but all he's done while serving in a senior House position with economic purview is push through legislation giving tax breaks and concessions to big businesses, while deregulating an industry that's then brought about less competition and higher electric rates for us all.

And those are the two legislative "leaders" we should be taking economic advice from?

Maybe you want to drink their Kool-aid, but I don't and won't.  

While those two golfing stalwarts have been in office, our economy has been in freefall --- higher unemployment, spiraling utility rates, residents moving out of state, through-the-roof foreclosure #'s, decaying roads and bridges, and on and on and on.

IF casinos are to become a reality in the commonwealth, it'd be much better they be state-regulated and providing tax revenues, than a federally-approved Indian casino exempt from most state oversight.

Of course, if you want a Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun casino in Massachusetts --- paying no taxes whatsoever, exempt from state labor, tax and environmental laws --- then continue to applaud those golfing stalwarts in the Legislature who want to keep exporting more than $1 billion in Massachusetts spending, and the several thousand jobs it helps to create, to Connecticut and Rhode Island.

Oh yeah, and you'll be doing your part in helping our legislators keep the tourism industry healthy --- at least that part of the Bay State tourism industry that advertises the benefits of a Massachusetts vacation by touting how we're "so close to the Connecticut casinos."

Yeah, that's a winning combination for Massachusetts' economy!

 

---

by: proudlib @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 16:43:15 PM CST

Royalties (0.00 / 0)

Of course, if you want a Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun casino in Massachusetts --- paying no taxes whatsoever

Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun don't pay taxes, but they do pay a bit over $400M per year in royalties to the state of Connecticut.

---

by: Mr Weebles @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 16:50:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Of course (0.00 / 0)

opening class III could very well land us casinos that are under federal not state jurisdiction. Good intentions or not, it's obvious that any casino interest pushing this could be happy pushing it under the pretense they will go through the state process and hand us gobs of money, but then jump ship and go through the federal process to actually set up the casino.

There's also precedent that shows the casino lobby will spend a lot of money in pushing down the obligations to the state over time. We'll end up with 10% of revenues instead of 27%, or cheaper licensing fees, or both. We'll end up like all the other states that allow lots of Class III casinos but still have serious budget deficits and revenue problems.

And the costs associated with casinos - mitigating gambling addiction, crime rates, etc - will go up over time.

Of course, that'll take 5-10 years, meanwhile, Patrick is long gone from the Governorship and the damage is done.

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)

---

by: Lynne @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 17:19:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

FYI (6.00 / 1)

Casinos ARE NOT INEVITABLE in Mass.

Why do you think we've had none up til now?

Because they've been illegal. Class III gambling in Mass is ILLEGAL.

Now, there's one loophole that might allow it, according to the idiots at the federal level (that's a whole 'nother issue...). So...close the loophole! It's much easier and cheaper and better to do that than using it as a lame excuse for putting three big casinos, when we do NOT know the consequences to our state fiscally or socially.

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)

---

by: Lynne @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 17:25:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's a serious charge! (5.33 / 3)

Since the original diary was cross-posted, I'll cross-post my response as well:

Lying is a serious charge Lynne, and one that I never make unless I'm absolutely sure there is no other explanation. You say, "And secondarily, there is a threat that one tribe, the Mashpee Wampanoags, might use an existing law regarding charity 'casino nights' to force their way into the federal process and acquire a Class III casino, even under current law." If this is a true statement then it sounds to me like the Governor might be right after all. Do you know for sure that His Excellency does not have a good-faith understanding of the law and/or facts which is different from yours?

There's a difference between saying that a statement is false and that a statement is a lie. False simply means untrue on the merits only, whereas lie involves a moral judgement on the character of the person making the statement. In my book, in order to accuse someone of lying you have to prove that the person making the statement knew (not should have known, but truly knew) that the statement was false at the time the statement was made. Have you spoken to the Governor or any of his people and asked your questions/raised your concerns directly, or do you just cast aspersions on motives based on what you hear and read?  

---

by: Christopher @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 17:02:48 PM CST

Since this comment is cross posted, I'll post my response to (0.00 / 0)

Christopher, get a grip.

Let me quote myself, so I can explain to you how wrong you are:

Let's talk about the first part, that casinos are coming anyways. I suppose you could say that this phrase more resembles "weasel words" and not outright lying, as Class II casinos could be built. ... And secondarily, there is a threat that one tribe, the Mashpee Wampanoags, might use an existing law regarding charity "casino nights" to force their way into the federal process and acquire a Class III casino, even under current law. But the answer isn't to legalize Class III even further.

Because the second part of that statement, that the state will have control, is even more of a lie. You see, it's a binary situation - once Class III (slots) are legalized, there's more than one process available to Native American tribes who want to start a resort casino. One is to go through the state. The other is to go through the federal process, bypassing the state and its restrictions, and taxes, entirely.

Note how I take apart the statements and look at them separately. And note how the article and the comments from Gary Garrison of the Bureau of Indian Affairs basically proves that something as simple as a restrictive law that allows some Class III gambling for one-night-only charitable use can open up Class III for a casino, despite the law that restricts the circumstance. That's because the federal law trumps the state law - any opening for Class III is an opening, regardless of how many caveats you put in.

That means that any indication by this Governor that we the state can control the process if we allow Class III gambling is a lie. A lie, furthermore, intended to intimidate and scare the legislature into legalizing gambling.

As I said later on, maybe he's lying to himself. I don't know. I don't care. I know it's a lie.

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)

---

by: Lynne @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 17:20:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I can accept that the Governor might be wrong. (0.00 / 0)

It's your moral judgement I take exception to.  Unless somebody has split-personality disorder he cannot literally lie to himself.  He either believes what he is saying or he doesn't.  If he does believe it then its not a lie no matter how blatantly wrong he might be.  If he doesn't believe it then you still have to prove that he doesn't and I have yet to see that evidence.  For the record, I'm pretty sure I'm not the one who needs to "get a grip".

---

by: Christopher @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 21:37:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Per Seinfeld (6.00 / 1)

"It's not a lie if you believe it." The philosophers of our time. Just saying.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 23:07:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Is this Deval's WMD? (0.00 / 0)

Was the statement false or was it a lie?  Does anyone care to draw such a dichotomy when talking about Bush?  

---

by: JoeTS @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 18:56:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not even close (6.00 / 1)

The agencies in the government and in the UN that were supposed to provide this intellegence were wilfully ignored.  Dick Cheney has made visits to the CIA to pressure them to revise their intellegence to fit policy rather than the other way around.  POTUS was warned repeatedly not to claim in the State of the Union that uranium was obtained from Africa, but said it anyway.

---

by: Christopher @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 21:46:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So what about the mounds of evidence deval has at his disposal (0.00 / 0)

for which to use when making such statements?  

---

by: JoeTS @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 21:51:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The evidence suggests... (0.00 / 0)

...that Deval was hearing (and listening to) both sides, while the White House was actively pushing for manufactured "evidence".  The President never publicly said spoken to the effect of well, this evidence suggests there might be while this evidence raises doubts; he just said we know WMD exists based on intellegence that turned out not to simply be mistaken, but predetermined.  His Excellency has, on the other hand, communicated regarding what he looked at, indicated that he knows its not the last word, and expressed a willingness to keep options open.  Agreement on the merits of casinos or Iraq aside, it's clear to me that the difference in intellectual honesty between the two men is night and day.

---

by: Christopher @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:15:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Keeping the two options open? (0.00 / 0)

Telling us we better do the casino thing before it becomes federal and the state loses power to do anything doesn't sound like keeping in option open -- it sounds like fear mongering.

---

by: JoeTS @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 10:20:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

When Deval... (5.00 / 1)

...has 8 solid years of lying behind him and has cost thousands of American lives and trillions of American dollars on a bogus "War on Terror", I'll compare Patrick to Bush and his malfeasant and dishonest administration.  

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 23:36:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fair enough... (0.00 / 0)

This Governor is:

• a) lying
• b) ignorant
• c) a little bit country
• d) a little bit rock 'n roll

I lean towards equal parts a and b.

---

by: monorail @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 19:06:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Lynne knows it's a serious charge (4.00 / 1)

and it's pretty clear that the Governor is at the very least really exaggerating his numbers/arguments here. Lynne is the type of blogger who's very careful with what she says - a few months ago, before she really studied the issue, she was very open minded about casinos. Like me, she came to realize through study that there is very little to zero merit to build casinos in Massachusetts, especially under the almost nonexistent threat that 'they'll build casinos anyway,' because if that hasn't happened by now, it probably isn't going to happen anyway, or it'll be a lame, Class 2 casino that at the very least won't be a drag on our economy.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:31:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No Surprise Here! (0.00 / 0)

Deval's rhetoric should match his deeds.

---

by: peabody @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 17:22:49 PM CST

Yes. We. Can! (5.00 / 1)

Empty rhetoric begets empty policy.  

---

by: bostonshepherd @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 18:01:39 PM CST

Casino nights will not bring in class III (6.00 / 1)

See the Kickapoo case in Texas - so far the courts have upheld that states do NOT have to enter into a compact for class III gaming if they don't want to.  Texas also has charitable casino nights and they have successfully fought off Indian casinos.

Also see Carcieri v Kempthorne.  There is a good chance that the Mashpee will not even get their reservation land - at least not easily.

---

by: bumpkin @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 18:08:09 PM CST

Deval lied to my face (0.00 / 0)

He told me when I met him at an event at Jimmy Tingles in Davis Square that he would never consider using casino gambling as a revenue raising option. Furthermore he said this during the debate, in fact he really nailed Gabrielli as flip flopping on the issue while his resistance was steadfast. He called it a tax on the poor, something that would create crime, and something that Massachusetts didn't want nor more importantly need.

Apparently he is in the pocket of someone since he has completely made an about face on the issue and for once its the legislature that might actually fight the progressive cause by killing this proposal.

So far Deval doesn't have my vote in 2010 though I doubt any of the other candidates will do much better.  

---

by: jconway @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 19:11:50 PM CST

Link to the debate, please. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: David @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 19:57:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That wasn't a lie (0.00 / 0)

A lie must be known to be false at the time the statement was made.  For all we know, at the time he said that he had absolutely no intention of supporting casinos.  You can call it a flip-flop or a broken promise, but not a lie.  People do change their minds sometimes.  Unless of course you have mind-reading talents that the rest of us do not and know that Deval did not mean it at the time he said it.

---

by: Christopher @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 21:42:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I Am Sorry You Were Let Down. (0.00 / 0)

Your story bring out a sad truth.  

---

by: peabody @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:10:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't know why everyone is so suprised. (4.50 / 2)

I knew Deval was full of sh*t when he made the "just words" speech.  Big difference?  MLK and the founding fathers backed up their words with the bravest actions that this world will ever see -- a far cry from the bravery Deval showed by sitting on the board for Coke.  

Want some more actions?  Take a look at that shiny endorsement at the top of this page and take a look at some more brave actions.

He was just 35 when in 1996 he won his first bid for political office. Even many of his staunchest supporters, such as Black, still resent the strong-arm tactics Obama employed to win his seat in the Illinois Legislature.

Obama hired fellow Harvard Law alum and election law expert Thomas Johnson to challenge the nominating petitions of four other candidates, including the popular incumbent, Alice Palmer, a liberal activist who had held the seat for several years, according to an April 2007 Chicago Tribune report.

Obama found enough flaws in the petition sheets - to appear on the ballot, candidates needed 757 signatures from registered voters living within the district - to knock off all the other Democratic contenders. He won the seat unopposed.

source
and
backup

Moral of the story?  Ignore the words and focus on the actions.  Don't let yourselves get fleeced nationally like we did at the State level...actually, I don't need to tell you guys that -- you swung for Hillary.

---

by: JoeTS @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 19:52:59 PM CST

LOL! (0.00 / 0)

trying to smear one man with the mistakes or temperament of another.  now that's rich!

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 20:01:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

They're different people! thats right! (0.00 / 0)

Sometimes I forget.

---

by: JoeTS @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 20:22:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Where'd laurels snarky comment go? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: JoeTS @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 21:04:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You mean like answering a reference to Bush with a comment about Cheney? (5.00 / 1)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 23:42:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sometimes we forget they are different people. (0.00 / 0)

Or are they?

---

by: TheOpenSociety @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:45:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

One brain (6.00 / 1)

between the two of them and it ain't Bush's.

---

by: HeartlandDem @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:35:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't know what's more disappointing... (0.00 / 0)

This or the fact that Deval's "overestimated" a casino's construction jobs by... drum roll please... 25,000!! This is so thoroughly disappointing and, as much as I worked hard to elect the governor and appreciate much of what he's done, it's hard not to think of this casino issue as, at the very least, extremely sleazy on his part. He should be better than taking it on Suffolk's word that tens of thousands of jobs could be created, when all the evidence in the world pointed just just a couple thousand for brief spurts. He should have been open and honest about his possible conflict of interest, with his wife being a partner at one of the country's most influential casino-related law firms - but he wasn't. He could have been much more thorough in his 'research' of the casino issue at a whole, but his entire plan is seemingly based on the research of a largely discredited casino hack.

Lynne's frustrations are with merit. There are real, important issues going on that we could be focusing on, but all the administration's public efforts - for months now - have mostly been stuck on the casino issue, which won't solve any of our problems and will likely actually cause many problems of their own. We have revenue issues, we have cost-control issues and we have sectors of the economy that will be revenue-positive to grow. Not only are we not doing enough of that growing, but the one issue the administration has been stuck on - casinos - is actually slowing that whole process down. Massachusetts is a brand and casinos will absolutely do nothing to sell it; they'll even take away from the revenue and economies we rely on.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:44:07 AM CST

Where do you get your numbers?? (0.00 / 0)

I would be interested to see where you get the numbers that it will only take 5,000 construction workers to build three casinos.  The number of workers it takes to build one of the  $100-$200 million projects in downtown Boston utilizes in the range of 7,500 workers.  Do you really suspect that the resort style casinos the Governor proposed will use less workers?  

If these planned casinos expect to compete with the regional attractions like Foxwoods and Mohegan, you can expect the investment will be closer to $500 million and will utilize substantially more construction workers.  This does not account for the local improvements to roads, sewers and electrical that must occur to support developments of this magnitude in many of the suspected proposed regions.

Additionally, I would imagine that each casino will attempt to break ground simultaneously with the others so as to equally compete in developing brand loyalty.  So three $500 million projects built in conjunction with one another bodes well for the Massachusetts construction workforce; provided the builders keep the jobs in MA and aren't hiring a bunch of laborers from southern NH.

As for any imputed conflict of interest, that is a stretch beyond belief.  Mrs. Patrick works for Ropes & Grey, one of the largest firms in Boston, but that is where any connection ends.  Should the Governor have to state every time he proposes an issue that has legal ramifications that there is a conflict of interest because he might know a lawyer related to the deal?  This is an absurd and disparaging remark both to the Governor but more especially to Mrs. Patrick.

---

by: Silence_Dogood @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:56:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks for posting this. (0.00 / 0)

Although the word "lies" is a little strong, I had a similar reaction to the news story about the Governor's statement: he was either misrepresenting the issue or he did not understand it, both disappointing from someone who many of us supported. What I found also disturbing was his push to get this over with quickly before all the concerns and issues with his proposal have been aired and addressed.  

---

by: TheOpenSociety @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:52:09 AM CST

Administration's public efforts focus on casinos... (0.00 / 0)

I disagree that "all the administration's public efforts - for months now - have mostly been stuck on the casino issue." It may be where the Globe coverage has been, but the Governor is clearly trying to make his mark with a number of economic development and education initiatives---life science investments, longer school day grants, tax loopholes, the volunteer corps sworn in before the State of the State, etc.

In fact a local newspaper article covering a local vist by the Governor to endorse Lori Erlich noted that the day that his hair cut received a separate Globe story, he was making a life sciences announcement that was not covered by the Globe www.wickedlocal.com/marblehead/news/x1529762882

And he has discussed education initiatives in Chicopee http://blog.masslive.com/break...
and Westfield http://www.cbs3springfield.com...

and announced money for a Medical Device grant in Lowell
http://www.eagletribune.com/pu...

---

by: YDsRock @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 23:22:11 PM CST

An end to the vitriol (0.00 / 0)

That some voters oppose casinos is clear, but the language of lies is uncesscessary and counterproductive.  Disagreeing on economic esitates is not lying.

---

by: Historian @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:33:53 AM CST