"Senate to take it slow on casinos; Plans no debate or vote till June" by Michael Levenson, Globe Staff | April 16, 2010
Massachusetts Senate leaders are putting the brakes on House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo’s determined push for gambling legislation, sending clear signals yesterday that they would take their time and give the issue a fresh look.
A day after DeLeo’s bill cleared the House by a decisive margin, senators said they would hold “roundtable discussions’’ on gambling later this month, then craft their own bill and hold a public hearing. They have no plans to debate or vote on a plan until June.
See: Against All Odds: The Story of How the House Passed Casinos
Stanley Rosenberg, an Amherst Democrat who is the Senate’s point person on gambling, said senators want to draw up their own legislation rather than take up the House plan....
The tempo advocated by Senate leaders stood in stark contrast to the giddy excitement of casino supporters after their victory in the House Wednesday night. For years, they have tried unsuccessfully to get a bill past the House, and now it is the Senate slowing things down.
Senators said they will face pressure to act. Casino lobbyists and union officials were already working the Senate hallways yesterday, pulling members into private conversations.
“The temperature has gone up,’’ Rosenberg said after being buttonholed by two lobbyists. “There’s just that much more intensity to the conversations, and every word and every utterance is being weighed and measured.’’
--more--"Related: Senate to propose licensing 3 casinos
"Emotions high in casino debate; State senators hear passionate testimony on bills" by Michael Levenson, Globe Staff | June 9, 2010
State senators got an earful from both sides of the heated casino debate yesterday as they held an hours-long hearing on the merits and perils of expanded gambling before they vote later this month on a bill to legalize three casinos in Massachusetts.
Robert J. Haynes, the tough-talking president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, urged lawmakers to ignore all those “well-meaning, sophisticated, educated people’’ who produce “statistic after statistic’’ to make casinos “look like a bad idea’’ for the state.
“I represent regular folks,’’ he said, and, for them, “You can’t trump a job.’’
No, senators also have to consider the social costs of casinos, said Matthew C. Patrick, a state representative from Falmouth whose father was addicted to gambling.
“We’re destroying families,’’ Patrick said, his voice breaking with emotion. “Don’t forget that.’’
The hearing came at a pivotal juncture in the long-running casino debate on Beacon Hill....
Many on both sides of the issue say the momentum has shifted, after years of debate, in favor of expanding gambling this summer. Many lawmakers, hoping to shore up budgets battered by the recession, have said they believe legalizing casinos in Massachusetts would help them recapture some of the estimated $1 billion that the state’s gamblers spend every year in casinos in other states.
Yesterday’s hearing was a chance for both sides to voice their arguments for what could be one final time before the Senate votes and the issue is settled behind closed doors by House and Senate negotiators....
Related:
"the Legislation was actually drafted by lobbyists and sent to the State House by courier for passage"
Opponents of casinos, vastly outnumbered, warned that casinos would drive up crime, cannibalize small businesses, and prey on vulnerable gamblers.
Casinos are “a fancy way of putting a tax on the poor,’’ said Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz, a Jamaica Plain Democrat. “I just don’t believe that’s the way we should be going as a state.’’
Natasha Dow Schüll, a cultural anthropologist at MIT, told the panel that slot machines are designed to maximize profits by getting people to gamble quickly, up to 1,200 times an hour, so they enter “the zone’’ in which they care not about winning but about continuing to gamble.
Casinos are based “on problem machines and problem business practices,’’ she said.
Brain scans of slot machine users “look like they’re high on cocaine,’’ said Hans C. Breiter, a psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and a specialist in brain imaging.
Casinos rely on compulsive gamblers for most of their profits, said Senator Susan C. Tucker, an Andover Democrat and a staunch gambling opponent.
The hearing stretched over more than six hours as witness after witness testified. It is not clear, however, if anyone succeeded in persuading the senators to change their minds.
Indeed, Senator Stanley Rosenberg, an Amherst Democrat who helped write the Senate’s casino legislation, opened the hearing by telling those in attendance that the issue had “been debated literally for decades’’ and that “every point of view, every study, has been heard, vetted, and considered.’’
What a LIAR!
Oh, yeah, here is the kind of study they do:
"Senate leaders promote the benefits of casinos; Study forecasts 14,000 new jobs" by Michael Levenson, Globe Staff | June 19, 2010
State Senate leaders, bracing for a charged debate next week on their plan to legalize three casinos in Massachusetts, argued yesterday that the casinos will generate $1.8 billion in annual economic activity and create 14,000 permanent jobs.
The senators cited a study they commissioned by The Innovation Group, a consulting firm whose clients include other states that have considered expanded gambling, as well some of the country’s largest casino developers, including Harrah’s Entertainment Inc.,
And look who owns Harrah's, Bay-Staters.
Yup, ANOTHER $ELF-$ERVING $URVEY!
Senate President Therese Murray’s deputies said the findings confirmed their belief that, by allowing casinos to be built in Eastern, Southeastern, and Western Massachusetts, the state will generate economic activity and recapture the estimated $1 billion that Bay State gamblers spend annually at casinos in other states.
“If we do it right and do not chop up the market, then we can grow large casinos,’’ said Stanley C. Rosenberg, an Amherst Democrat who is Murray’s point man on casinos. “If we grow large casinos, then we can maximize our competitive ability within the region, and that leads to even more jobs and revenue.’’
What a scum.
Casino opponents faulted the findings, saying The Innovation Group was too closely tied to the gambling industry and failed to take into account the many costs associated with compulsive gambling, such as foreclosures, bankruptcy, and crime.
The president of Plainridge racetrack sees addition of slot machines as key to the harness track’s success. B5
“It is not a credible report,’’ said Kathleen Conley Norbut, president of the group United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts. “This is a phony, propped-up report to justify the Senate leadership’s mania for casinos.’’
Rosenberg acknowledged that The Innovation Group has industry ties but said Senate leaders chose the firm because it is “very well known and very reputable’’
He's making me sick.
--more--"
"Downside of gambling raises worry; Opponents voice concerns over toll" by Casey Ross, Globe Staff | June 23, 2010
Don't worry, it won't for long.
Now hit me (pun intended)!
As they push to have Massachusetts expand legal gambling, state lawmakers have produced hundreds of pages of economic studies estimating the new jobs and tax revenue that would be created by opening multiple casinos.
But lawmakers have generated little data to estimate the downside of casinos....
Can't see 'em with all that lobbyist loot floating around.
Related: Senators offering flood of amendments
"Senators at odds as casino debate opens; Gambling’s costs, benefits assessed" by Michael Levenson, Globe Staff | June 24, 2010
State senators opened debate yesterday on a bill to license three casinos in Massachusetts, exposing deep divisions over the economic benefits and social costs of gambling.
Over three hours of debate, senators voiced divergent opinions about the plan, and the fissures did not fall along simple ideological lines. The back-and-forth underscored how difficult it could be for the House, Senate, and governor to come to agreement as the end of this year’s legislative session nears....
Yeah, whatever, Globe. I'm tired of the deceptive games and bulls*** posing as news analysis.
Several senators said yesterday that they oppose casinos outright, contending that casinos will destroy small businesses and arts organizations and disproportionately harm low-income residents who can ill afford to lose the money.
“We should not be balancing our state’s books on the backs of the poor,’’ said Sonia Chang-Diaz, a Jamaican Plain Democrat, reiterating her argument that casinos are a “tax on the poor.’’
Oh, they love doing that in this here state and then turning that money over to banks, Hollywood, or whatever other special interest is well-connected.
Related: Mass. State Budget: Balanced on the Backs of Workers
How Massachusetts Balances Its Budget
That's Democratic "liberalism?"
Supporters argued that....
You know, they already get plenty of print.
Jennifer L. Flanagan, a Leominster Democrat who supports casinos, said it makes no sense to oppose casinos out of concern about compulsive gambling.
“If you’re an addict, whether you’re a gambling addict or a shopping addict . . . you seek out that action,’’ she said. “And that’s what’s going to happen.’’ Why not, she asked, close down bars to prevent drinking or fast-food restaurants to prevent over-eating?
Okay, so WHERE are you on POT, lady?
Hello?
Also see: Massachusetts Meals Tax
Maybe that will get them to stop overeating; it has gotten me to stop going out to eat in restaurants around here.
Senators did not take any votes or consider any of the 164 amendments that have been offered. Some would direct the state’s casino revenue to various causes, such as property tax relief, preservation of historic buildings, and the study of gambling by a research institute. Others would ban smoking in casinos; the current bill would allow it, despite a state ban on smoking in bars, restaurants, and other workplaces....
Yeah, after you guys jam it through get back to me.
"Senate amends gambling bill to ban smoking throughout casinos; Measure may face a final vote today" by Michael Levenson, Globe Staff | June 25, 2010
Debate on casinos continued into the night. The bill, which could reach a final vote today, would need to be reconciled with the House version....
An attempt to raise the tax on casinos from 25 percent to 30 percent also failed. Backers said the higher tax would bring in as much as $100 million annually to shore up state services.
But Senate leaders, reiterating an argument they used throughout the debate, argued that a higher tax would put the state’s casinos at a competitive disadvantage.
But they SURE CAN PILE them on YOU, Massachusetts taxpayers!
And then they wonder why tax revenues are down as people cross into New Hampshire to buy goods and services.
Of course, LEGALIZING THEM is an ADVANTAGE in and of itself, but when you are shoveling s*** who notices the smell, huh?
Related: Casino debate halted for day
"Senators block bids to vote on casino bill" by Noah Bierman, Globe Staff | June 29, 2010
Disagreements over smoking and drinking have prevented state senators from finishing what they really came to debate: gambling.
For the third time in a row yesterday, lawmakers dug deep into the parliamentary rule book to cut off debate on a bill to license three casinos in Massachusetts.
Though debate is now headed into a sixth day, even those who halted Senate business say they believe the chamber will pass a casino bill soon, most probably this week; the House passed its version of expanded gambling legislation in April.
But Senate leaders are showing signs of frustration, especially as more time-sensitive matters are put off.
“In the Senate, you have some unique rules,’’ said Senator Steven C. Panagiotakos, a Lowell Democrat and a casino proponent who heads the Ways and Means Committee.
Panagiotakos said senators have to take an unrelated vote to restructure state debt before the new budget year begins Thursday or they risk cutting another $300 million from the local aid fund that supports services in cities and towns....
Also see: Memory Hole: Massachusetts' State Budget
How Massachusetts Balances Its Budget
Increased taxes for slashed services and corporate welfare, Massachusetts?--more--"
Related: Murray warns of state loss on casinos
What, sky falling?
Got her what she wanted:
"Senate votes for casino licensing; Calls for 3 resorts; deadline looms for accord with House" by Noah Bierman and Travis Andersen, Globe Staff | July 2, 2010
The Massachusetts Senate voted 25 to 15 last night for legislation licensing three resort-style casinos, bringing a Commonwealth once settled by Puritans closer than ever to Vegas-style gambling.
On their eighth day of debate, senators waded through a final list of proposed amendments, clearing one hurdle for a possible casino in Fall River and requiring all casino developers and operators to ensure that they do not hire illegal immigrants....
In this sanctuary state?
See who is going to be getting the jobs, citizens of Massachusetts -- again!
Negotiators do not have much time to work out the differences, with the legislative session scheduled to end July 31....
Yeah, but somehow they will get it down -- and did!
--more--"