Ryan's Take

The BMG Surprise

2009-12-01T15:23:00.002-05:00

I have to admit, the BMG endorsement of Alan Khazei surprised me. I thought David supported him, but I didn't actually think the three of them would be able to come together on it. Kudos, Team Editors, for joining me on the Khazei train.

Anyone else looking forward to a week from now?

People Forget, Coakley is a Progressive

2009-11-30T10:49:00.002-05:00

Alternatively, I could title this piece, "The Path to Senate Victory." It has become clear to me that people don't understand the dynamics of this race. With my endorsement of Khazei yesterday, some people have inevitably said, "Ryan, you're going to split the vote!" In most elections, I probably would have agreed with them. However, the dynamics of this election are not at all like the dynamics of, say, the election that first put Steven Lynch into power. There are no two progressives in this race, with a third conservative candidate hoping to be able to sneak by. That's just not happening.

What we have in this race are three progressive candidates and one corporate-gobbler who's come out as a lefty on social issues. While there isn't any liberal/conservative battle in play this election, no matter how much people try to manufacture one, there is certainly identity politics. It's identity politics, not a liberal/conservative divide, that has divided up the progressive camp -- and not into two, but at least three sides.

I'm going to paint in the broadest of brush strokes with the following comments, so let's all take a deep breath and understand it's just a generalization, and proceed. Who's supporting what candidates? Coakley's support is coming from a lot of civil rights activists, with organizations like MassEquality, NARAL and Planned Parenthood on board. I know a lot of glbt activists who have fiercely lined up behind Martha because, to her credit, she's pushed for our rights on a national level. Coakley took a firmer stance on the matter of choice than any single person in the House of Representatives did, including those so strongly in favor of a women's right to choose that they sit on the boards of some of these national civil rights organizations. There are certainly some unions on board her campaign, too, but that's not where the bulk of her support is coming from, at least not in my eyes. Feel free to argue otherwise in the comments.

Capuano's support is coming from a lot of the party base; the local activist bread-and-butter types have, at least in my opinion, lined up heavily behind him. I can't think of a single person on my Town Democratic Committee or the North Shore Young Democrats, both organizations I'm a part of, that supports Coakley (which isn't to say there aren't some, but they're certainly not being vocal about it, which is in huge contrast to Capuano supporters in both groups).

And why not? As anyone would notice who listened to my LeftAhead interview with Capuano, his local experience in Somerville as Mayor is key to why he understands constituent service and the big no-no of passing unfunded mandates. He's also been around for a longer time in many of these circles -- while the bulk of the state doesn't know who every Congressperson in Massachusetts is, party activists are a whole lot more likely to know them. Many union/blue collar types are lining up behind Capuano, as well, because he has a strong track record there. This is why, before I got to know Alan Khazei better, I was lining up behind Capuano, because these are among the most fundamentally important issues facing America -- and the one issue almost all Americans face together, because 97-99% of us aren't extraordinarily wealthy.

Pagluica's 14% or so of the electorate are not progressive activists. His strategy has seemingly changed from ad to ad, but he's certainly tried to paint himself a liberal. However, he has not been doing much of anything in this campaign beyond the ads and he hasn't done anything on the political scene before then, except give political donations -- and often to Republicans. The people who will vote for him in the Democratic Primary may be persuadable voters, but they're not the well informed ones, which probably means it'll be hard to actually reach these voters in a state-wide special election, least of all in the last week. For the other candidates, his votes are a black hole. There probably isn't enough time for them to escape, but they may not show up at all.

So where's Khazei's support coming from? Given that it's only recently that he had any sort of a political pulse in this campaign, coming in the form of the Rasmussen poll and Globe endorsement, it's a bit harder to tell. He has a natural connection to the progressive, college-educated, wonky types -- the people who are movement progressives, but may not specifically line up with any particular subgroup within more than any other. Like I said, harder to define. Polls have also suggested that instead of stealing votes from Capuano, he's been stealing some from Coakley. He's no doubt gained some traction on issues like health care, whilst more people have had the opportunity to learn more about him. People who learn more about his background are much more likely to vote for him; the only question is if there's enough time for him to cash in on this momentum he's gained over the past week.

The Globe poll that came out just before Rasmussen showed around a quarter of those polled were soft Coakley supporters, in addition to her strong supporters, which pushes her into the 40s in that poll. If any candidate is going to upset Coakley in this election, it's going to be because they ate significantly into that 26%, as well as the undecideds. That's the only path for victory for anyone not named Martha Coakley. What does that mean for the supposed liberal/conservadem divide? It means in this race, it's nearly nonexistent. One of the three progressives is going to win and if Khazei or Capuano are to pull off the upset, it won't be because their votes were pooled -- it'll be because they ~~stole~~ persuaded the bulk of Coakley's soft support to switch sides.

My Endorsement for the Senate: Alan Khazei

2009-11-29T14:52:00.009-05:00

When there's four candidates running to be the next Ted Kennedy, it's certainly understandable that the choice should be difficult. For the record, this is the first major race in which I have purposefully tried to stay uninvolved in a long time, wanting to glimpse this race like a regular voter -- instead of in a campaign role or as a volunteer. In that role, I've come to at least some final decisions.

As much as I expected to take a long time to make a decision in this race, two candidates helped me narrow down my choices. In Steve Pagliuca, we have a candidate who's tried to run as a liberal, but has a record that looks mighty similar to Mitt Romney. Additionally, at the Boston Herald Online and elsewhere, I've seen Pagliuca ads that say in giant letters, "Pags=Jobs." That naturally lead me to a question -- more jobs or less?

Pagliuca's company, Bain Capital, which is also Mitt Romney's company, has a history of buying up profitable businesses, slashing workforce, research and development, and making a giant profit off of those businesses regardless of whether they do well or not, because they sell those companies in the short term. Because of the short-term focus of Bain's business, there's actually a financial incentive for people like Pagliuca to set up these companies to fail. Many of those companies not only do decidedly worse after being accosted by Bain, with many fewer jobs, but they get saddled with the debt Bain used to buy them in the first place. That's right: Bain doesn't always pay for their takeovers, they make the companies they take over pay for it. Only in America.

Pagliuca's willingness to spend an enormous amount of his personal wealth in this race offers three possible movites in running: this is a vanity campaign, special interests or he's suddenly had a complete change of heart, after all these greedy years. Will anyone who knows about his business background be willing to take a bet on option number three?

Martha Coakley, on the other hand, has a fairly long record of service (though only two years as Attorney General), but not a particularly distinguished one. Routinely, she's sided against justice in order to appear more 'tough on crime.' In the Fells Acre case, she sided against a parole board's unanimous decision when the board itself consisted of three former prosecutors, two former state troopers and a former probation officer. She sided with a great deal of Southern States in arguing that the federal government shouldn't be able to force states to have new DNA evidence tested that could potentially prove prisoners innocent, even when they're on death row.

She also jumped when Senator Murray told her to, creating an expensive wire-tapping bill that would pave the way to purportedly clear the consciences of any state legislator who switches their vote on slots, without informing the Senate President that creating casinos will greatly increase crime and desperation, wire-tapping bill or not: This was not an example of an Attorney General deserving a profile in courage.

Finally, I fear her ability to transition from her duty to obey the law as a prosecutor to creating it in the Senate; her words and actions surrounding the Pitts-Stupak amendment only worsened those fears, showing a complete lack of understanding in legislative nuance. She said if she were in the House, she would have voted against the health care bill because it included the anti-choice amendment, even though that one vote would have killed health care reform and the anti-choice amendment wouldn't have passed in the Senate. Now she wants to get into the Senate to vote for the very bill which she would have killed, had she been in the House. She may one day be a good vote for Governor, but she's made it clear that's she's a bad vote for the Senate.

From this point forward, coming to decisions gets a lot harder. The choice between Michael Capuano and Alan Khazei is a difficult one. Both have worked tirelessly on behalf of causes that directly help those who have the least in life. Both have a great deal of national experience, one as a longtime member of the House and the other as someone who co-founded the national (and beyond) program City Year. Both would be strong progressives in the US Senate that Massachusetts could be proud of, though stylistically they would be different.

Capuano is very much a bread-and-butter liberal politician who's proven himself with years of service in the House. We need more of these kinds of people. The Globe, in their endorsement of Khazei, tried to come down on Capuano as a divisive career politician who was engaging in class warfare. As far as I see it, he was doing in the House the work that Ted Kennedy had done in the Senate for 47 years. Michael Capuano is far from divisive, he's just stood up for the kinds of people who have been attacked year after year since Ronald Reagan came into power in 1980. No one can replace Ted Kennedy and Michael Capuano is no Ted Kennedy, but stylistically, no one comes closer to him in this race.

Capuano is a bonafide constituent service guy who's willing to take the tough votes on issues that matter most. How can someone vote against that? Unfortunately, for Michael Capuano, Alan Khazei convinced me to do exactly that. Since no one can replace Ted Kennedy, it's important to vote for the person who has a special, unique talent that can't be learned or replicated and would be put to the service of the middle and working class. In that regard, Alan Khazei has proven himself.

At first, when I heard Khazei was running for Senate, I didn't know much about him or City Year. Among the things that I didn't know was the fact that if there weren't such a thing as City Year, there never would have been an Americorp. Not only was City Year a model for Americacorp, but if it weren't for Alan Khazei, there probably wouldn't be an Americorp after its creation, because Alan Khazei led the fight to save its funding (along with City Year's) when it came under a fierce attack by the the GOP while Bush was still in charge and the Senate belonged to the Republicans. Many Republicans hated Americorp and City Year, so sticking it to these programs was actually a surprisingly high priority at the time. Khazei showed an ability to rally people from across the country to save those programs, even reaching across the isle to get some quasi-moderate Republican Senators to come along, in true Ted Kennedy fashion.

Furthermore, Alan Khazei's willingness to get into issues on the stump that aren't directly related to the campaign show he's willing to stick up for what he thinks is right, regardless of the political consequences. In a country where politicians have become so vanilla and risk adverse, it's a particularly refreshing political trait. Alan Khazei's unique leadership and creativity, combined with his political courage, are at a drought on DC's Capitol Hill. It's important enough to get me past the few issues I disagree with Khazei on.

Either Michael Capuano or Alan Khazei is a good vote come election day, but Alan Khazei is the best choice, because voting for him isn't a choice at all. Should Alan Khazei win, we're still getting Michael Capuano, just in the House, where he'll not only continue to vote in the best interest of his voters, but continue to be an influential leader who's built up a lot of seniority in a day and age when Massachusetts is about to lose at least one of it's only ten remaining House seats. That may do little to console Michael Capuano should he lose and Alan Khazei win, but ultimately this election is about service -- and the people of Massachusetts are best served by having both in office, Alan Khazei being in the Senate.

What we "lose" to Connecticut

2009-11-23T18:36:00.004-05:00

Kathleen Conley Norbut, head of United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts, wrote the following as part of an open letter.

The recapture of the estimated $700 million dollars that goes out of state with people gambling plus an additional $200 million more that Massachusetts residents are projected to lose with convenience gambling is not what the state gains in revenues. The state realizes the NET gambling revenues after expenses, then taxes that amount at anywhere from 15-27% for a NET profit of less than $100 million. $80 million is estimated to be lost from the lottery that will have to be "held harmless". A new regulatory commission will cost tens of millions of dollars. What will be left for our region?

This is the clearest, most concise argument for why the State of Massachusetts isn't "losing" anything to Connecticut, without even factoring the money our local businesses would lose to casinos, or the social, environmental and governmental costs (to schools, transportation infrastructure, etc.) incurred because of casinos. Placing casinos in Massachusetts will be a loser for the state; the only one who wins in the end is the house.

Foxwood Defaults

2009-11-17T19:07:00.002-05:00

Senator Murray and Speaker DeLeo's biggest and best example of the industry that's quickly become their #1 priority just defaulted. If ever there was a time to take a step back and really study this issue before we rush out after fool's gold, now's the time. It's time to start looking at this issue like serious adults, the days of politicians sticking their hands in their ears and singing "lalalalala" should be over.

Musings: Stupak, Star Trek and Hulu

2009-11-16T19:37:00.003-05:00

The thing about Stupak: If it's okay to discriminate against women for one medical choice, why shouldn't it be okay to discriminate against men for ED? Or come up with other stupid ideas like "no tax credits for fat people." There are thousands of ways we could legislate morality into health care. What ever happened to coming up with legislation that lets doctors and patients decide what treatments are necessary together?
I hate the new Hulu trend where you have to wait up to a week for an episode to go up. I realize it's not profitable yet, but I don't think it will become so by trying to get fewer people to use it. Ads may not get them to the promised land yet, but will eventually -- and probably soon. When it comes to media, companies always take a hit when starting out. Even in the good times, it used to take any publication 5+ years to to turn a profit. Hulu will get there... if they don't drive away their users first. Hello, Amazon.com.
One of my hobbies is gaming -- yes, I am a geek -- so I was very excited today that the devs of an upcoming game I'm really excited about, Star Trek Online, took one of my questions - and actually gave an answer I found satisfactory.

Boston Herald Goes off the Deep End

2009-11-16T17:20:00.003-05:00

In what should be a shocker to no one, today's Herald editorial jumped off the deep end, coming out strong against a UMASS Dartmouth Law School, with the kind of hyperbole rarely out seen outside of tabloid "journalism." Saying the "skids are greased," they launch an attack at Chancellor of UMASS Dartmouth, Jean McCormick, the UMASS Board of Trustees, Romney-appointed UMASS Prez Jack Wilson and Governor Patrick. Notably missing is almost any reason why they think a UMASS Law School, focusing on public law at reasonable in-state tuition, would be such a bad idea.

A lot of the editorial doesn't even make sense. For example:

But when there are agendas at work - and make no mistake there are - you just can’t keep a bad idea down.

Please, Boston Herald, pray tell, what "agendas" are there at work? UMASS Dartmouth wanting to become a more prestigious public school? The UMASS system wanting a law school? The agendas here seem to be of the noble variety.

The Herald goes on to bash this idea as a bad one, because it failed in 2005. Of course, the only reason why the law school failed to earn the votes last time is because BU, Northeastern, Suffolk and several other high-priced law schools screamed bloody murder. Seems they think a neighbor on the block that costs half as much (literally) may just put a dent into their profits. That was the real hidden "agenda" last time -- the agenda to stop a public law school, led by the private ones.

It only gets more absurd from there.

And the only thing that has changed since 2005 is the state of the Massachusetts economy. In case President Wilson hasn’t read the papers lately, the economy has tanked and it’s not getting any better very soon.

And that's a reason to oppose an accessible, affordable law school?

From there, the Herald goes on to distort the truth. They say the law school "basically wants to give itself away to UMASS." However, that's misleading at best. The law school wants to become part of a major university system so it has the increased resources to become academically competitive. UMASS wants a law school so it can be a more competitive major university system in this country. Herald Board: That's why they call this thing a "merger," jackasses.

The Herald then decides swim deeper, saying the state can't afford this.

Wilson is singing the same old song about what a wonderful asset this will be and how it will eventually make money for the system. That, of course, is predicated on it enrolling nearly twice as many students as the school now serves and that wouldn’t happen unless it got American Bar Association accreditation.

Which the University says it would do in a matter of years.

What Wilson and his enabler UMass/Dartmouth Chancellor Jean MacCormack don’t like to talk about is the millions of dollars it will cost to get ABA accreditation by upgrading the school’s facilities, library and its faculty.

Really? They don't like talking about it? Have ya asked them? The fact of the matter is that while this would cost the school some money, it would cost the state diddley squat. The university has the access to the cash to make this happen. They've had that cash for a long time. Making it happen will make the University a more prestigious public school across the entire country, which in turn would make more people want to go to it.

There are a lot of people in this state, many of them who probably buy ads in the Boston Herald, who are terrified of the UMASS system becoming the type of University system that you find in North Carolina, California and elsewhere: elite, public colleges that are affordable and accessible to in-state students. UMASS has already made many leaps and bounds, getting a law school and making relatively small investments in it would go a long way toward reaching the finish line. The real agenda here is keeping UMASS down. Unfortunately, the same forces that have been successful in that quest for so long are losing the public fight, which is probably why this Herald article tries so hard in its own deranged way at grasping for straws.

Who's Blocking Transgender Rights?

2009-11-13T22:08:00.004-05:00

Next week is Transgendered Awareness Week. The Massachusetts Trans Political Coalition is hosting a whole bunch of different events, ranging from advocacy to education to fun. I'm hoping many people will attend. Given next week's events, it's a good time to take a look at where we're at in terms of Civil Rights in Massachusetts. We've gone a long way to improving civil rights for most minority groups in this state, but one group that's lagged far behind is the transgender community. Even in this day and age, it's still legal to fire someone or deny them housing for being transgender in many cities and towns across Massachusetts. This is something we must change.

The MTPC is a group of transgender people and their allies who have fought hard for years to change perception across Massachusetts. They've had a lot of political success, helping get anti-discrimination ordinances passed in many cities and towns in the Commonwealth, including Boston. They've been pushing a transgender-rights bill in Massachusetts for a long time now. It failed last year (buried in committee), when it looked for a while like it had a shot, and the group was told to go out and get more co-sponsors. That was after years of getting a great many co-sponsors for their bill in both chambers.

What did they do for this year, the year after they lost in a nail biter? They got a majority of legislators in each chambers to co-sponsor their bill. Well, where is it? Why hasn't the bill been passed yet? I get that legislators have to deal with a lot of uninformed, ignorant constituents (and bigots) who don't and will probably never get this issue. The Kris-Mineau types will always try to reduce the bill to doses of fear, backed up by no facts.

However, legislators should stand by their words. How many bills in Massachusetts ever get a majority of each chamber to co-sponsor them? How many of those bills get left in the dustbin? There is no reasonable excuse not to get this bill through, this year, before the MTPC has to start everything from scratch, yet again. These are volunteers, fighting for their rights -- who just want the most basic protections society can afford anyone. It's not asking for much, just a little courage. Does Beacon Hill have any of it?

Please call your state legislators and ask them to stand up for civil rights by getting leadership to put An Act Relative to Gender-Based Discrimination and Hate Crimes up for a vote. It's time for this bill to get a full vote, one that will almost certainly result in it being passed.

Tax and Spend Liberals

2009-11-13T03:38:00.003-05:00

Saw this graph and it was too awesome not to post. Click on the image to see it in full.

Hat tip goes to Math4Barack, over at dkos.

Town Democratic Websites

2009-11-11T00:06:00.004-05:00

I have to say, having spent an hour or so looking at the various town committee websites across Massachusetts, I'm most impressed at how our party's base activists have quickly taken to technology. I've been fairly involved with the development of my town dem committee's website (at least insofar as offering input, etc.), so I know it's a tremendous amount of work for any town committee to undertake. Few have the funds to hire out a professional website, but nevertheless, the websites really run the gambit. Several are quite good in terms of the content they offer and the way they're presented, even if they aren't professional sites.

I have to admit, especially given the fact that they have a cable access show to post there, my favorite town dem site -- from just the time I've spent now digging up what town dem sites I could find -- my favorite site is Acton's. I think they have a good layout, make a great case on why you should join, and I can't get over how much I enjoyed their "Local Impact" show (they get bonus points for linking to LeftAhead).

Here's a list of (a few) other town dem sites, in no particular order.

http://www.democratsoflexington.org/
http://www.framinghamdems.org/mainpage.html
http://www.arlingtondems.org/
http://www.attleborodemocrats.org/
http://www.southwickdems.org/
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeuueah/grotondems/
http://www.wdtc.us/
http://www.amherstdemocrats.org/
http://www.dracutdems.com/
http://www.plymouthdemocrats.org/towns/plymouth/

Which are your favorites? What do you think makes a good town democratic website? What features are you looking for? What features aren't you looking for? Why does it seem like small towns across Massachusetts are leading the way? (The Boston website is scary bad -- even some of the ward committees have better sites. The Springfield committee looked fantastic -- until I realized I was looking at Springfield, Virginia.) Most importantly, do these websites have any impact on you as a grassroots activist? I think Town Democratic Committees are one of the most important parts of grassroots governing, so it's important that tools are created which help them thrive.

Legislative Bigotry

2009-11-10T17:46:00.004-05:00

Thankfully, this video isn't from Massachusetts, but it still pains me to watch it (along with the news that marriage equality is again delayed in NY, though that's much better than defeated).

Here's a woman who speaks at length about how she can't get legally married in her state demonstratively hurts her everyday life, speaking openly and honestly about a very frank issue, and how is she answered? Her state legislator ignores everything she said, doesn't try to solve any of her problems, and just says he's only for marriage bigotry. It makes me so sad to be in a country where hatred and intolerance is so widespread. No one should have to deal with this crap.

Today's LeftAhead Podcast: MA-Sen, Health Care

2009-11-10T16:27:00.001-05:00

It was a lively one, today, especially after Lynne joined us (she was a bit late).

Expanding at the Worst Time?

2009-11-09T17:58:00.004-05:00

For any state elected leader who votes to allow an expansion to predatory gambling through slots, they're going to be doing it at the absolute worst time imaginable. Why? The state's authority to treat gambling addicts -- the Mass Council on Compulsive Gambling -- has just had it's budget cut by 50%, on top of the 12% they've had to cut due to a loss in funding, for a total loss of 62% of their funding. For the hundreds of thousands of gambling addicts who already live in Massachusetts, our state's sole agency that deals with problem gambling now receives only $500,000 in funding through the state lottery (roughly .05% of what the state lottery takes in).

The MCCG has never had the funds to deal with the magnitude of the problem that already exists in Massachusetts - and slots would double that problem. Why should anyone trust state lawmakers with an expansion to gambling, given their track record with "mitigation" to date?

It's no wonder that even Governor Patrick is starting to become lukewarm on casinos in Massachusetts. Today's SHNS/Jim O'Sullivan piece has more, for those with access, but here was a key quote:

“I don't want anybody in the Legislature to be thinking about expanded gaming as a quote fix unquote for the fiscal challenges facing the commonwealth. It's not. It's not," Patrick said during an appearance 96.9FM-WTKK.

Legislators have to start asking themselves just what Governor Patrick would sign into law.

Here's Kathy Scanlon at the recent state house hearing on predatory slot gambling.

The Hypocrisy of Republicans

2009-11-08T03:38:00.003-05:00

No group in America has fought against the "government take-over" of health care harder than Republicans. Though what they have to say has absolutely no merit, they spread the lie that this effort to reform the health insurance industry is nothing less than government deciding each and every individual's health care choices. Yes, what do Republicans decide to do in the new house health care bill? Allow government to decide what choices women will and won't have when it comes to their own personal health. This is nothing but hypocrisy.

People must stand up to the Senate and demand that their version of the health care bill does not include a provision banning a women's right to have an abortion - then demanding that any bill that goes through conference committee is free from such provisions, too. The House bill will ban the funding of the right to choose to any health insurance plan that accepts people who take any public subsidies. I ask readers: What health insurance company in Massachusetts doesn't accept any individuals who are subsidized? Doubtfully even one. The end result is millions of people who receive no health care subsidies at all will end up unable to afford their right to choose. Without that crucial ability to decide, they are not free and equal citizens of this country.

The Real Cha-Ching

2009-11-05T16:56:00.004-05:00

It is almost a travesty that there's a giant portion of our state without broadband or cable internet access. This is costing those regions jobs, keeping the kids in those schools in the digital stone age (dial-up). From Governor Patrick's daily briefing:

Governor's Briefing
November 5, 2009

Expanding Broadband

Wrapping up a two-day trip to Washington, DC, Governor Patrick meets with President Obama today after visiting with Massachusetts's congressional delegation to discuss jobs, the economy, and health-care reform. The Governor met with Commerce Secretary Gary Locke yesterday to secure stimulus funds that will help expand high-speed internet across the Commonwealth and spur economic development in every corner of the state. Learn more here.

Increased broadband availability, an important part of Governor Patrick's plan to position the state for long-term recovery, will lead to new jobs, better health care, and better public education services across Massachusetts.
Internet access is no longer a luxury--it is a necessity. The Governor expects that his move yesterday will help secure more grants to continue his plan to close the digital divide.
Specific proposals developed carefully by Governor Patrick's administration for Boston and Cape Cod will improve internet reliability, develop more public computing centers, and provide free high-speed internet access in public housing.
The largest plan for broadband expansion is for the Berkshires. The $107 million project is expected to create up to 3,000 new jobs and bring high-speed internet to 43 towns in Western Massachusetts that currently receive little or no broadband service.
Governor Patrick's close relationship with the Obama administration has already secured millions of dollars in federal recovery funds for education and emerging sectors like clean energy and biotechnology. Today, Massachusetts is making the long-term investments that will create jobs and lay the foundation for enduring economic growth.

Governor Patrick's relationship with Barack Obama has certainly helped in the stimulus funds department and one can easily see the fruits of the investments these projects are making, both the stimulus money and the money the state had already invested through the bond bills passed a few years ago. As bad as the "Great Recession" has been, Massachusetts, as a state, has fared better than most -- I have to think Governor Patrick's steady hand is part of the reason why, sparing our cities and towns as much as possible, while looking for future growth potential under every rock and pebble, even as we have to make bone-deep cuts.

SHNS: Casinos "not a done deal."

2009-11-02T16:53:00.002-05:00

From Friday's State House News Weekly Roundup ("The Citizen Advisers"), from Jim O'Sullivan. I'm just getting this now, otherwise I'd have posted it sooner.

Last time, December 2007, Gov. Deval Patrick walked into the capitol auditorium armed to the teeth with casino enthusiasm, and lots of people in red T-shirts stood up and clapped.

The casino hearing this time around, the governor was down the Pike a ways, talking about chopping $352 million from this fiscal year's budget, maybe laying off 2,000 state workers.

Casinos are not a done deal, one sensed Thursday....

Recall that the vote in April 2008 was 108-46, against, in the House. Recall that the speaker was a powerful fellow named Sal DiMasi, since deposed. And now consider that Patrick has cooled markedly on the casino front - seemingly, from economic development chief Gregory Bialecki's testimony on behalf of the administration, close to ambivalence. Casinos are not a done deal.

There is a marked difference in how the media is starting to treat news about casinos. The inevitability meme is gone; they're treating the the Barrows of the world with the criticism they deserve. The same stuff that sold last year and the year before just isn't passing the sniff test anymore. Whether people support or oppose casinos, this is a good thing: any major changes made to a state must be looked at with a great deal of skepticism, because those changes have to be for the better. Whenever there's a fair and open debate, casinos lose. I'm getting more and more confident they will this time, too.

Videos from the Casino Hearing

2009-11-01T07:10:00.003-05:00

Cross-posted at BMG.

As promised in Thursday's rundown of the casino hearing, I put together a video diary of the event, featuring a lot of the videos I took throughout the day. Take a look at the videos, pick a few and get a sense of what's going on.

Fair weather warning: the acoustics in the Gardner are lousy, not all the microphones worked and my camera was set up behind the people speaking. Keep the volume up. Also, this was an incredible amount of work -- I did not add all the videos and, if there's any mistakes, let me know.

I was thinking of one video to post above the fold, summing up all my thoughts, showing the kind of dangerous greed -- and blindness -- the slot industry leads states into and it was Senator Tucker speaking with the Mohegan Sun rep about just how hard Mohegan tries to "help" problem gamblers, with their "exclusionary lists" and "trained employees."

She got Mohegan Sun to admit the lists to ban people from gambling were self exclusionary and that there was no recourse for family or friends who had fallen pray to addicts, save getting them to come in and sign the exclusionary forms after the fact.

Mohegan Sun would take the initiative to ban problem gamblers -- if they were rowdy or violent. In other words, the company policy is to exclude others when they start to become a problem to the bottom line. So long as they keep bringing in the dough, whoever's dough that is, those addicts are given all the free booze and extra perks to keep them there as long as possible. Mohegan sings a nice song and a dance, but it's all a farce. So long as people ruin their lives and the lives of others quietly, Mohegan has no problem with it.

As Senator Tucker says, if casinos had to pay for all their costs, including social costs, they wouldn't be profitable. There would be no business model.

Click here and go below the fold to watch all my videos from the hearing (or just the one's you're interested in).

What Links Casino Proponents Together?

2009-10-29T23:45:00.005-04:00

In the fight for casinos, there's one thing that links all of the proponents – all the different partners in the effort to bring slots of some kind or another to Massachusetts. As little as any of the parties would like to admit it, several of the speakers seemed to own up to it at various points during yesterday's casino hearing, like Bob Haynes, when he said this is about the jobs, “Period.” Or, the lady from the state's Chamber of Commerce, when she lied through her teeth and tried to say that building casinos would actually help local businesses. No one bought it, but it didn't stop her from trying to make something up, something she thought some of her allies would want to hear.

It's The Unquenchable Thirst for More. Some call it greed. The definition I came up with for greed myself, when I first started thinking about what binded this Unholy Alliance, is an intense desire to acquire as many resources as possible, without regard to how they're acquired. It certainly fits the bill for casino proponents in Massachusetts.

Greed. Seem like a strong word? I agree. I don't begrudge anyone for wanting work. I've, at various points in my life, including recently, struggled to find employment. I don't begrudge a business for trying to be profitable; My father and stepmother owned a travel agency for decades and it was exceptionally important to my family's ability to survive. Business does drive the economy – and a good economy means more opportunity for all.

Similarly, I've fought for local candidates in probably dozens of races, all because I care about our state. The ability of our state to maintain its core services is critical – and at risk. I could hardly begrudge State Senators and Representatives for looking under rocks for more revenue.

To some end, all of that is fine. I root for businesses to be profitable. I root for more union jobs – or jobs of almost any kind. I certainly root for the state to find more revenue, to protect and expand all of our core services. However, none of these things happen in a vacuum. A great thirst to excel is a fine thing, but an unquenchable one, one where you'll do questionable things to succeed, is just dangerous.

When does greed become a bad thing? When it starts to blind. When prototypical allies become the opposition because they want something so badly that you can't go along with it, suspect greed. That's what we saw happening here, today. Unions are desperate to add to their numbers, because numbers make them more powerful, not to mention improve the quality of life for workers. I'm desperate for that to happen, too. But going after casinos, creating an unholy alliance with some of the most evil corporations in the world not named “Haliburton” or “Blackwater,” is just being greedy for jobs.

The same goes for the state. At the base, a state is supposed to help protect its citizens. Instead, we have the three leaders of this state trying to form an equal partnership in the profit off our state's vulnerable, addicts. Almost all the profits of the entire industry come from the most frequent players. At Harrah's, 90% of the profit comes from 10% of the players. At some other casinos, it's 80% from 20%. No matter how you slice it, though, casinos live and die off preying on the vulnerable. They prey off them through the use of machines that are psychologically designed by professionals; they're designed to put players into a “zone,” which is a form of a high, and make the games as fast as possible, keeping players playing as long as possible.

The state has not and will not, at least without major backlash, authorize and fund a major, nonpartisan study that looks at all the pros and cons, all the expenses, all the factors, to make sure this is a good idea. Is there any stronger proof that Massachusetts's top politicians have been so driven for revenue that they've become blind than the utter refusal to do this kind of a commission -- to see?

Even the casinos and “gaming” companies are allowing their drive for profits to become a blinding greed. The entire industry pursued a strategy of such rapid expansion that it forgot to be responsible and plan for the future, rationally.

The consequences? It over saturated the market, creating a system where there were rapidly diminishing returns, taking on debt loads that can only be described as gargantuan – all in the drive for more and more, all without care as to how the economy performed, because the industry viewed itself as recession proof. Like I said, blind greed. There is a fine line between seeking profits and greed – and because of the blindness greed can cause, businesses would do well not to be too greedy.

So, we now have a situation where each and every proponent of gambling is pursuing gambling not because it's good policy, but because it seemingly advances one, small part of their agenda. However, because no comprehensive, nonpartisan studies have ever been done by any of these parties, they're blind as to if this will actually help their immediate goals, or any kind of goal. Casinos very well may reduce, not add to, the state's budget – as many nonpartisan academics have found. Casinos may very well end up costing the state jobs, because of the hit to small businesses – and also the very large and real social problems that arise from the ashes of a casino. Finally, even the casino companies could lose out, taking on more massive debt to attempt the construction of a major project in Massachusetts, at the very same time casino revenue is down and over saturization is up. In the end, even if the proponents win, they may lose, because they were too blinded by their unquenchable thirst to see what was right in front of them: This is not a good idea for any of the proponents.

Thoughts, Announcements and Casino Stuff

2009-10-28T23:09:00.007-04:00

There was literally tons and tons of casino info that came out today, but I was too busy to get to any of it. Look forward to plenty of news on polls and other items in the days ahead.
I'm going to the casino forum at the State House tomorrow, covering it for United to Stop Slots Massachusetts (consider this my disclosure: I'm getting a very small stipend to help with costs - the first time I've ever done this and I'll always disclose if I do it again), so I'll have a lot to write about tomorrow night and the days ahead.
Joe Lieberman is the worst excuse for a human being alive. People need to remember that when Republicans were in the Senate, he rarely, if ever, filibustered. Now that Democrats are in charge, he's leading the charge against the public option. He is not a Democrat. Why do the Democrats allow him to caucus with them? He gets all of the benefits of being a Democrat, while being able to totally undermine the party at every possible pass. If he wants to be a member of the GOP, let him be a member of the GOP: Strip his gavel and throw him out of the caucus. It's long overdue.
Obama signed the Hate Crimes expansion bill today, which will cover GLBT people. This is one small step for glbt civil rights, but a giant leap forward in that it's the first time the federal government has done something to protect gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people as a community. More important things are yet to come (DADT, DOMA, ENDA, etc.), but this a good day for the movement.
LeftAhead! interviewed City Councilman John Connolly yesterday on our internet radio show. It was a fantastic show that was wonky, interesting and entertaining (IMO anyway).

In the Globe, Again

2009-10-27T20:30:00.002-04:00

They quoted me on their VoxOp for my comments on CLT. Welcome, Globe readers.

Health Insurance Reform: The Human Cost

2009-10-27T16:48:00.004-04:00

~~Big~~ Bad news today in the health insurance reform effort -- Joe Lieberman's threatening to be the one person in the Democratic Caucus to kill health care reform. As far as I'm concerned, I hold him complicit in the deaths of the 45,000 people in America who die every year for lack of quality, affordable health insurance.

Someone accused me over on Facebook of being too "emotional" about my argument. Damn straight. People forget the human cost. I have a second cousin, who I think more of as a niece, who's father died when she was around the age of 2. I remember that fateful day like it was yesterday. My mother and some of my family members, including my then-toddler cousin, were visiting the old Christmas house in Peabody -- a former local tourist destination in the holiday season.

I can't remember exactly how, but word came in that my much-older cousin's husband died, while we were walking back to the car. I think an aunt may have come to meet us there, to tell my aunt who was the mother of the at-that-point widow. He had died for something that would have been easily found if he had been given a test he had requested, but his insurance company denied.

It was a very tough period for the entire family. My older cousin was not the same for a very long time. My second cousin/niece had to grow up without a father. My older cousin took the insurance company to court, but it was fought and fought for so long, that my cousin couldn't take it anymore, so she just dropped it, to move on with her life.

On the other hand, my older brother, who had insurance through my dad, a teacher with a strong union, suffered through a heart valve transplant after battling strep in his heart for the better part of a year. It was in the early 90s, when the surgery he had was exceptionally expiramental. A lot of insurance companies at the time never would have covered it, but my dad had exceptional coverage.

Most people aren't in that situation, especially in this day in age, after decades of serious cost increases and benefit cuts. However, we easily have the resources to have affordable, universal coverage for every person in America. We spend 5% more of our GDP per capita than any other country in the world for our health care, yet have results for that great expense that are middling at best. There is absolutely no reason why we can't cover everyone with quality care and do so at a smaller cost, but that's not going to happen with the private insurance industry we have now.

The public option is key to getting there over the long haul -- and we should be arguing passionately for it, as well as other key aspects to insurance reform, with the exact furor we've felt when we lost a loved one who should have lived, if not for their lousy insurance, or the total lack of it; We must hold those who vote against a public option and health reform accountable, for they are then complicit in those 45,000 needless and inhumane deaths that happen every year.

Interesting Local Candidates From Around Massachusetts

2009-10-27T00:34:00.004-04:00

Elections will be popping up all around Massachusetts in the days ahead. At Ryan's Take, I don't normally make endorsements in elections I can't vote in -- and nothing will change this time around. However, I do find a few candidates particularly interesting and hope people will give a them a second look at if they're in right city.

Boston

The Flaherty/Yoon ticket is a much-needed fresh pick for the city of Boston. Menino has had 16 years to fix fundamental issues and failed. All three of these candidates were on LeftAhead.com and performed well, but I thought Flaherty performed best.
Three of the at-large city council seats seem to be decided, but Andrew Kennealley and Ayanna Pressley are battling it out for #4. Both were on LeftAhead and seemed interesting and thoughtful, but I was particularly impressed with Ayanna. Mike Ball was unimpressed with her earlier in the campaign, but even he thought she sharpened up in time for our podcast, though I suspect he'd be with Kenneally in the end.

Lynn

There are lots of good Young Dems in this race -- is there a changing of the guard? Over in Ward 5, I have a personal friend running from Senator McGee's office, Brendan Crighton, but I'm pretty confident he's getting in. Dan Cahill's another young dem -- and he's running as an incumbent at-large candidate who I'm pretty sure will win again, too. Running for the final at-large city council seat is Eugene Schneeberg, who I was thoroughly impressed with after having a 20-30 minute chat at a recent meeting. He has some geniunely good ideas on solving, or at least mitigating, youth violence in the city -- and has the credibility to back it up. That alone should get him elected, but he brings other factors to the table. If you're from Lynn, at least take a look at him.
The Lynn Mayoral race is a fascinating one. Major tragedy rocked the city when Mayor Chip Clancy's chief rival, Pat McManus, unexpectedly died. He was the former Mayor who had served for the longest stretch in Lynn ever -- tied with Chip Clancy. After Pat died, Judy Flanagan Kennedy jumped into the election out of no where and, despite only having 6 weeks to run and being outspent by 10:1, she won the preliminary election by a couple hundred votes. It was a shocker. Because I'm no fan of Clancy, I was even tempted to help out his new competitor -- until I found out she's Republican. Sorry, GOP, I won't work for your backbench. I have never apologized for my partisanship, but I won't bat a tear if she manages to defeat Chip.

Lowell

There are so many good blogs in Lowell, I don't want to comment on this election. But on the off-chance that someone from Lowell reads this blog who doesn't read LeftinLowel or Dick Howe's excellent site, etc., please, please, please vote for *anyone* but Michael Hayden, the incumbent school committee member of the Lowell Tech School Committee. I have little opinion on the other races, but he just spews bile and has irrational problems with racial issues (he actually wanted to remove all Spanish-language 'in case of fire, go this way' emergency signs, because they weren't in English!). The link I put down for you shows pictures of his old website, which is 100% about how he detests "illegals." Regardless of how people feel about the immigration issue, surely we can all agree that a school committee campaign shouldn't just be about illegal immigration, right?

Anyone else have some interesting candidates to look at from other cities or towns? Send me an email and I'll take a look at them. Describe to me in 100 words or less why they're worthy of an extra look and perhaps I'll give them one on this site for you.

Khazei Came Out Against Casinos -- Why it Matters

2009-10-26T19:27:00.002-04:00

A lot of people may not think being against casinos at the federal level really matters, including Representative Capuano, but I'd like to disagree. Here's two reasons why it matters:

1. The Supreme Court recently ruled against the ability of native tribes to have the wide latitude of opening casinos up, based off of having just one form of gambling in a state that are a part of broad, federal classes -- so if a state allowed poker, a tribe could create a casino with slots. However, it was one of those rare Supreme Court cases based on legislation, not Constitutional Law, and there have been efforts to reverse the Supreme Court's decision legislatively. Suddenly, a Senator's vote on the casino issue is actually quite important.

2. Internet Gambling is another a hotly contested issue on Capitol Hill -- and something potentially very dangerous, because suddenly everyone could gamble from their computer -- given that access and addiction are highly correlative, I'm sure many could see the potential danger there. If casinos and slot parlors offer negative overall economic growth in regions with their facilities and employees over the long run (and they do), imagine what kind of negative growth one would get with internet gambling -- with no jobs and no infrastructure.

Casino Addiction Can Ruin Any Life

2009-10-25T22:01:00.004-04:00

If Antoine Walker can blow through the $100+ million he's made in his career, imagine what can happen to someone who makes a far more modest salary? Casual observers wonder why opponents of casinos say that casinos don't 'help' the economy. This should make a good example.

That said, people should remember this: It's not the Antoine Walkers of the world who typically fall prey, or who the casino industry depends upon the most. It's the mostly middle and working class slot users who make up 80-90% of a casino's profits. The rate of gambling addiction literally doubles when there's a casino or slot parlor within 50 miles, because locals are the people who will be lured in -- the ones with opportunity to let that "harmless entertainment" addict them. Building a casino within 50 miles of your house could literally be a ticking time bomb for someone in your family, one of your friends or co-workers or even yourself. That's the way slot machines are designed.

Did you catch my podcast with Capuano?

2009-10-23T21:17:00.005-04:00

The first 20 minutes is a review of all the goings-on of the Special Election race. Capuano jumps on after that to talk about his candidacy and to talk about his record and positions (you can fast forward to Capuano, but I highly recommend listening to the whole thing). We hit a lot of great areas, so I hope people enjoy this. LeftAhead is a lot of work, but I think it's a great resource for Massachusetts residents (largely because of my tremendous co-hosts, Mike and Lynne!). I hope as many people enjoy it as possible.

Unrelated note: Due to spam in the comments, I decided to switch my blog's comment system to a moderated system, where I have to approve comments. I hope to change this in the future as, quite frankly, it's more work for me!