DC snub could be Bay State gain

President Obama today announced his nomination to head-up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau -- and it isn't, unfortunately, the woman who had the original idea for the agency and has been overseeing its set-up. Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor, is smart and tough, with unquestionable integrity, and you would think that these qualities would make her a no-brainer for the top spot in the CFPB, which is supposed to provide information to consumers and to keep an eye on banks, credit-card companies and other financial institutions -- all with the goal of protecting all of us from lies, schemes and predatory practices.

The Republican Party, of course, has a problem with any tactic that prevents their friends, and themselves, from getting richer. GOP senators made clear that Warren would not pass confirmation, so the president nominated an underling, Richard Cordray (whose nomination, it appears, will also be held up). While, again, I wish that Obama would fight back against the morons in Congress, there may be a bright side to this for those of us who live in Massachusetts. Warren's name has been tossed around as a possible Democratic challenger to Senator Scott Brown in the 2012 election. Warren said today that, with her work in DC done, she is returning to Massachusetts "to do more thinking" about a possible Senate run.

Warren would be an excellent candidate, and she would immediately have my support. I'm hoping she throws her hat in the ring.

Legislature looks to sacrifice health for profit

State Rep. James Miceli, Democrat of Wilmington, came off as an idiot moments ago on the radio when he discussed the House vote, earlier this week, to repeal medical ethics law that went into effect less than two years ago. The Massachusetts Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Manufacturer Code of Conduct outlawed free meals and gifts that salesman and lobbyists for Big Pharma and medical-equipment makers were showering on doctors. Rep. Miceli voted for the law, but earlier this week he voted to repeal the law, one of the nation's toughest in this area. His rationale? The restaurant industry was hurting from the ban.

Now, the first thing that comes to mind is that this segment of the restaurant business cannot be more than tiny, and the drop-off that the industry is feeling must be do to the economic slowdown. However, even if it were true, how can we change a law designed to ensure more honest medical care for our citizens because of some rinky-dink dollars-and-sense byproduct? Rep. Miceli, speaking on WBUR's Radio Boston program, went on to explain the rationale for his original vote, but again talked about the impact on the restaurant industry.

Now maybe there are more legitimate reasons for adjusting, not repealing, the law (and some of them are listed in this article) but Rep. Miceli's comments -- in tandem with other recent actions by our state legislature -- leave me feeling like ignorant fools are running the show on Beacon Hill.

Caesars crosses the Rubicon

Suffolk Downs is partnering with the world's largest gaming company to bring a $600 million casino to the East Boston/Revere racetrack. Suffolk lead owner Richard Fields announced today a "strategic alliance" with Caesars Entertainment, which "owns or manages casino resorts on four continents."

Of course, the state legislature has yet to legalize casinos in the Bay State, and right now a bill filed by East Boston state Sen. Anthony Petruccelli that would authorize three resort casinos is sitting idly, but speculation is that the legislature will take up the matter this summer.

Those opposed to bringing casinos to Massachusetts are looking for a comprehensive, independent study of the effects, positive and negative, that such a move will bring to our state. So far, no such study has been authorized, and some feel that this is an attempt to downplay or hide the actual consequences of expanded gaming.

Neighbors of Suffolk Downs will be hosting "A Forum on Expanded Gambling" at the Winthrop Middle School on Wednesday, May 4.

Demanding the truth

There's a bill in the state legislature that calls for an independent and comprehensive cost/benefit analysis of expanded gambling in Massachusetts, and John Ribeiro is leading the charge locally for passage of the bill. S.150 was filed by Sen. Stephen Brewer, a Democrat from Barre, back in January. It's currently before the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies, as is a bill that would authorize three casinos in the state.

It's inconceivable that a proposal with the impact of legalized casino gambling would go forward without the public -- and the elected officials who are voting on it -- knowing exactly what the pros and cons would be, but that is what the pro-gambling forces tried last year, and it's what they will try again. Of course, the gambling lobby and their supporters on Beacon Hill understand that a truly honest study will include much to be concerned about, and that don't want you and me to see that.

East Boston will be negatively impacted by a casino at Suffolk Downs. We demand a legitimate study in order to fully understand exactly what we're getting ourselves into.

The big chill

I have a sweater -- an  LL Bean Norwegian fisherman's sweater -- that is so warm I only wear it on days that are below zero (or quick trips outside in blizzards). I think I'll bust it out today.

It's currently -1 in Boston (wind chill -22) and may drop another degree or two before the sun rises enough to pull us toward 10 or 12 degrees -- the day's forecast high in Boston. Out in Orange, a town on Route 2 that is often the coldest spot in the state, the air temperature is -20 right now.

I remember Christmas Day, 1980, as being the coldest day in Boston in my lifetime. It was -7, and when I walked the short distance from my apartment to my aunt's house, carrying some dish my mother made for dinner later that day, I inhaled and felt the chill in my lungs. A half-dozen years ago I was out in central Massachusetts when the forecast called for extreme cold. It was -13 that morning, and I went outside to feel what that was like.

There is something I find intriguing about the cold, something alluring, spellbinding. Of course, that's only the case when one has somewhere warm to retreat to. Otherwise, the cold can be painful and dangerous pretty quickly. When I was growing up on Chelsea Street in East Boston I remember crowding up against the side of our kitchen stove, the main heat source in our apartment, on cold winter mornings. Do they still make stoves that are also heaters?

Our cold snap won't last long, but there's an icy mix forecast for midweek. The weather always has the power to get our attention.

Fun with maps

Illustration courtesy of The Daily Kos.

It seems likely that Massachusetts will lose yet another Congressional district based on the numbers from this year's census. The state's population is somewhere around 6.5 million, which is a jump of about 4% from the 2000 census; however, the nation grew at around 9%. The trend of people moving from the population centers of the Northeast and Midwest to the South and Far West, though slowed a little, continues. (The housing crisis has been worst in Florida, Arizona, Nevada and California, which has lessened growth there recently.)

The latest official census figures will be released Tuesday and those numbers will determine if the Bay State keeps 10 seats in the House of Representatives or slides down to nine. From 1913 to 1933 Massachusetts had 16 members in the House and since then we've lost one every one or two decades. Whenever such adjustments happen it usually leaves two sitting House members running against each other.

One web site surmises that this time the 1st and 2nd Congressional districts will be combined, pitting John Olver against Richard Neal, and it'd be likely that Olver, who will be 76 at the time of the 2012 election, would just retire. Whatever the revised map looks like, we can be sure it will be a contorted mess of districts, drawn to protect constituencies. The US should depoliticize redistricting by removing it from state legislatures (as a few states have done) and turning it over to independent boards that use software to draw cohesive districts.

Taking advantage of generosity

Charitable giving is important, but one should always be aware of where his or her money is actually going. AG Martha Coakley released a report today on charitable giving campaigns conducted in Massachusetts in 2009, and the numbers show that just 43% of the money collected goes to the causes represented. The rest goes to companies that carry out the campaigns.

These are most often, I believe, the mail or phone solicitations that ask for contributions in the name of the cause -- frequently police or firefighter associations -- without ever mentioning that the caller works for a firm or that most of the money will not benefit those the contributor would like to support. I think it's good advice to never commit any cash to such callers; instead, give directly if you can.

Following the links on the report reveals how much charities actually receive and how much goes to the fund-raising company.

'...we entertained and feasted...'

From 1622's Journal of the Beginning and Proceeding of the English Plantation settled at Plymouth in New England, by Edward Winslow, who journeyed to the New World on the Mayflower and was later the three-time governor of Plymouth Colony:

...our harvest being gotten in, our governour sent foure men on fowling, that so we might after a speciall manner rejoyce together, after we had gathered the fruits of our labours ; they foure in one day killed as much fowle, as with a little helpe beside, served the Company almost a weeke, at which time amongst other Recreations, we exercised our Armes, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest king Massasoyt, with some ninetie men, whom for three dayes we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five Deere, which they brought to the Plantation and bestowed on our Governour, and upon the Captaine and others. And although it be not always so plentifull, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so farre from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plentie.

Election Day 2010

***Boston.com has a nice feature where you can type in your address and see information on every race and question that will appear on your ballot. It's on the right side of their election coverage page here.

***The Globe's endorsement of Deval Patrick. The Herald's endorsement of Charlie Baker.

***Most signs indicate that Republicans will take control of the House, while it appears Democrats will keep control of the Senate. The New York Times has cool interactive graphics in its national political coverage section.

***The only House race that is tightly contested is the 10th District, where William Delahunt is retiring. Democrat William Keating leads Republican Jeff Perry by a small margin in the latest polls. It would be a disgrace if Perry, who watched and did nothing as two teenage girls were improperly strip-searched by a police officer under his command when he was on the Wareham force AND THEN lied about it to investigators, were to win the seat.

***It would also be a travesty if Tea Party nut job Sharron Angle were to beat Majority Leader Harry Reid in the battle for his Nevada Senate seat.

Election nears

Election day is about a week and a half away, and nationally the story is that Republicans have a good chance of taking control of the House. Just two years ago the big question was, How can the GOP ever recover? Well, it's the economy, stupid. Plus, Republicans have always been better at crafting their message for public consumption because -- let's face it -- they'll say anything, no matter how far removed from reality it might be. (Death panels, anyone?)

Locally, it's shocking to see Jeff Perry in a close race with William Keating in the 10th Congressional District. Perry, a former Wareham police officer and current state rep., was on the scene in two separate incidents in the early 1990s when a fellow cop illegally strip searched teenage girls. Perry did nothing at the time and later lied about the cases. The other officer eventually pleaded guilty to civil rights violations and indecent assault of a child.

As for my ballot, no candidate who backs bringing casino gambling to Suffolk Downs will be getting my vote.

Let Stein debate

I think it's disgraceful that Jill Stein is being kept out of some of the gubernatorial debates because she fails to meet rules created by a small group of media outlets. Stein, the Green-Rainbow candidate who has run for governor and other offices in the past, my be polling in the single digits, but she is a legitimate candidate -- smart, articulate and serious. A number of people felt that she was the only candidate who exceeded expectations in one of the earlier debates.

The media consortium sponsoring the debates is not a civic group, but is made up of The Boston Globe and several TV and radio stations. Yesterday Stein was kept out of a debate held on WBZ radio. The bias against third-party candidates in this country is what allows Democrats and Republicans to keep a lock on political power. Stein is a physician and an activist who lives in Lexington, and many of us would like her voice to be part of the discussion.

Just when you thought it was safe...

It appears that gambling may not be dead after all. Like Jason in the Friday the 13th movies, the Globe is reporting that the bill could be brought back to life because the legislature may need to return to formal session for other business. Hopefully, wiser heads will prevail. Stay tuned.

Not with a bang, but with a whimper?

Both sides are saying that any chance for a gambling bill to emerge from this legislative session is over. Gov. Patrick sent the bill back to the House and Senate with an amendment that strips out slot machines (and such an amended bill would, apparently, need a two-thirds majority, which I hadn't realized), and Speaker DeLeo is saying publicly that any such compromise is "doubtful." There is still time, but neither side looks like it's willing to budge.

While those of us against the idea are edging ever closer to victory, it seems like an unsatisfying win. Most of the state's elected officials were willing to dispense with even the simple step of commissioning an independent study of casino gambling and the benefits and negative consequences of bringing it to Massachusetts. Our own local officials were not interested in a real discussion of what slots or a casino at Suffolk Downs would mean to the people and business owners of East Boston.

Politicians are, too often, willing to go along with something because of the way it appears rather than because it is actually something good. The tax-free weekend (Aug 14-15) that the legislature recently passed is a case in point. It doesn't really help anyone. While consumers may save a few bucks here and there, those dollars are already spent in the state budget, so we're all going to have to fork them over sooner or later. As for businesses, studies show that almost all of the money spent on those weekends is for purchases that would have been made anyway. At best, it's a wash for businesses because they need to pay extra money to have more employees working during the busy weekend, but they are still paying for the regular shifts on other weekends when those customers aren't coming in.

Like the idea of bringing casinos and slot machines to this state, it's all glitter and no substance. Unfortunately, our legislators are like infants who get easily sidetracked by shiny things.

Squaring off over final bill

The Governor and the Speaker have squared off in a steel-cage match of sorts, with last night's legislative-session deadline of midnight passing and neither backing down. Both the House (120-37) and Senate (25-15) passed the final compromise bill -- which would allow for three casinos and two slot parlors in the state -- but Gov. Deval Patrick has said all along that he was leery of slots. He did grudgingly agree to accept one and only if there were a bidding process for the license.

What now? You have to believe that Patrick gamed this out with some plan for victory. He's been pushing expanded gambling -- and courting the blue-collar vote that goes with it -- for three years. He can't allow himself to be seen as the obstructionist when the goal is so close. So he sends back the bill with an amendment that strips one or both of the slot parlors from the proposal, tossing the proverbial ball back into the legislature's court.

House Speaker Bob DeLeo and Senate President Therese Murray have both said they would not bring their bodies back in session, but neither of them wants to be the obstacle to passage. They'll make sure it gets done and still be able to say, "Hey, I fought for slots, but it wasn't in the cards." All three leaders will then claim victory.

Casino compromise reached, but governor not on board

Boston.com is reporting that House and Senate negotiators have reached an agreement that would bring three casinos and two slot parlors to Massachusetts, but moments later Gov. Deval Patrick released a statement that said, "I cannot support this bill in its current form."

The governor has said all along that he's not in favor of bringing slots to the state; however, he agreed last week to accept the machines in one location, provided there is a competitive bidding process for them. He has implied that he will veto a bill that isn't in line with those provisions.

The two-year legislative session ends tomorrow, and both House Speaker Bob DeLeo and Senate President Therese Murray say they have no plans to bring legislators back after that. Even if they did, it remains to be seen if both houses could override a gubernatorial veto.

Uncompromising

More negotiations, but no agreement on a casino bill. The three principals -- Gov. Patrick, House Speaker DeLeo, Senate Pres. Murray -- have made statements regarding their desire to reach a compromise, but each has also said that the legislative session may end Saturday without one.

Just throwing this out there: Could any (all?) of the three have their own reservations about bringing expanded gambling to the state and so will ensure that no law gets signed while appearing to certain constituent groups -- union voters, developer donors -- to be on their side?

Clock ticks on gambling bill

It's been two weeks since members of a House/Senate conference committee first sat down to create a compromise bill that would expand gambling in Massachusetts, but -- with just 10 days remaining in the legislative session -- there is no indication that the two sides have been able to reach a consensus. As I understand it, failure to get a bill approved by both bodies on the governor's desk by July 31 means that the process would have to start from scratch when the legislature convenes again in the fall.

To give the process a bump forward, a dozen small-city mayors backed House Speaker Bob DeLeo's plan for for slots at tracks in a letter yesterday. Their motivation is some quick cash to close municipal budget shortfalls. However, mayors of the state's larger cities, including Boston's Tom Menino, are not on board with the request. The Globe story says that one sticking point for Menino is that he wants Boston cops in charge of law enforcement at any casino within city limits, while DeLeo's bill calls for the state police to have jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, The New York Times reports that New Jersey's governor is proposing that a state authority "take over the troubled Atlantic City gambling district." Yeah, that sounds like something we want to invite into our own backyard.

Image from Internet blog

Gambling round-up

***As expanded gambling comes closer to a reality in Massachusetts, those who stand to walk away with massive amounts of our money have turned up the lobbying heat on Beacon Hill. The Associated Press reports that $1.8 million was spent on lobbyists in the first half of this year, mostly by out-of-state companies. Suffolk Downs spent more than a half-million dollars. In 2009, $2 million was spent on gambling lobbyists. Some of that money went directly to elected officials' campaign funds: last year lobbyists contributed $8,000 to House Speaker Bob DeLeo, $7,800 to Senate President Therese Murray and $4,900 to Gov. Deval Patrick.

***Mayor Menino has decided that the developer who failed to go forward with a project at Downtown Crossing should not profit from any casino that might be built at Suffolk Downs. Vornado Realty Trust, a New York City company worth some $20 billion, owns 20% of the racetrack, but the developer has angered the mayor and that is a no-no in this city. (See Yoon, Sam) Menino is right on this issue, but he is inviting gambling interests into Boston and in the future he can expect to be partners with much more unsavory characters than this.

***Brian McGrory's column from earlier this week discusses the positions state leaders have staked out on casino legislation and his suggestion to solve the impasse.

***Dan Rea's radio program Nightside was scheduled to have guests for and against casino gambling last night. I wasn't able to listen, but I'd be interested in what people thought of it. Thanks to Neighbors of Suffolk Downs for keeping us updated on such things.

'A false jackpot'

A few excerpts from an editorial in yesterday's New York Times on the "delusions" that some have about casino gambling:

Gamblers aren’t the only ones prone to jackpot delusions. Politicians all over see casinos as magic revenue chests that will help them avoid painful spending cuts, escape the trap of no-tax pledges and make budget gaps vanish.
...
Casinos are a magnet for tainted money and promote addiction, crime and other ills.
...
The state’s politicians should also stop chasing gamblers. At a time when casino revenue is slumping across the country, it doesn’t even make economic sense. They need to make hard decisions on taxes and spending, and focus on developing stable industries, improving education and working their way to growth. If they keep holding out for a false jackpot, everyone will lose.

Senate casino plan unveiled

The leadership of the state Senate today announced their plan to legalize casino gambling in Massachusetts, and the proposal differs in one key way from the plan approved by the House: no slot parlors at the state's four racetracks.

Speaker Bob DeLeo has been the biggest proponent of bringing the flashing, ringing gambling machines to Suffolk Downs, Wonderland, Raynham and Plainridge, but Senate President Therese Murray and Gov. Deval Patrick have been vocal in their distaste for slots.

Unlike DeLeo's blatant disregard for the citizenry, the Senate will hold a public hearing on its proposal on Tuesday. Of course, one hearing announced six days prior is not a very open process, but big money has co-opted this issue and it appears to many a foregone conclusion.

The anti-casino battle is led by Kathleen Conley Norbut, the leader of United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts.