CLT UPDATE
Friday, December 30, 2011
Out with the old, in with . . . ?
|
Beacon Hill has bet the house on casinos
providing an economic boom, but in other states, the gleaming gaming
palaces have brought political corruption, drugs, prostitution and
other social vices — including some scandals involving gambling
goliaths seeking to do business in the Bay State.
“You want to have a pool on when the first
indictment comes down?” asked Barbara Anderson of Citizens
for Limited Taxation, which took a neutral stance on legalized
gambling. “There’s no doubt in my mind it’s going to cost us a lot
more money than it brings in, and in the long run, the state’s going
to regret having done this.”
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
If you build it, corruption may come
Review of out-of-state casinos finds...
Not long after state lawmakers ended their formal
work for 2011 with a near-midnight November session, they began
congratulating themselves for an exemplary season of legislating.
Among those accomplishments: casinos with the
promise of new jobs and tax revenue, a law allowing municipalities
to negotiate health insurance for public workers, balancing a budget
in tough economic times, and stabilizing the state's pension plan.
"I would say this was one of the most impressive
sessions over the past 30 years in terms of legislation passed,"
said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers
Association....
But behind the issue of legislative productivity
looms a larger question about the process that moved various bills
down the road, or left them on the roadside. A survey by the Boston
University Statehouse Program of 19 major legislative committees
that shape and move legislation found this process increasingly
takes place outside the public view....
Kyle Cheney, a reporter for the State House News
Service, which covers a majority of committee hearings, said his
organization has begun to include attendance as part of its
coverage.
"On balance, maybe most committees are 17 people,
and four, five, six members show. That's predominately the norm," he
said.
Other Statehouse observers, such as Pam Wilmot of
Common Cause Massachusetts, which advocates open government, says
the switch from real to virtual participation hurts the legislative
process when citizens express their opinion to empty chairs.
"That is actually getting to be an
embarrassment," Wilmot said. "This is the public's opportunity to
come out and say what they think."
The public is supposed to be able to follow the
actions of their representatives, including their votes. The use of
the Internet to debate and vote limits this ability to monitor
lawmakers' actions.
"They have these email polls that they don't
announce publicly," Cheney said. "It's hard to tell how members
voted. You might find out weeks later that a bill's been released."
...
Another long-term complaint about openness within
the Legislature was raised again this session: the charge that the
Beacon Hill leadership often stifles debate and individual member
initiative....
When Senate Democrats fell into angry floor
debate over an amendment to the casino bill that would require a
five-year cooling-off period before former legislators could work in
the gambling industry, Murray quickly shuffled members off to a
Democratic caucus.
When the senators returned to the floor, they
quickly passed a compromise without further debate that reduced
five-year restriction to one year.
Murray's spokesman, David Falcone, said debate
was not stifled.
"It was originally offered as five years, and the
body ultimately decided on one year," he said. "But, remember, it
was zero years in the original bill. We added it, and the conference
committee kept it."
The Salem News
Friday, December 30, 2011
Legislative session featured big bills and less public view
A local lawmaker’s push to create a cooling-off
period before legislators can be employed by the casino industry led
to a heated argument on the Senate floor Tuesday.
In the second day of Senate debate on a bill that
would legalize casino gambling in Massachusetts, Sen. Jamie Eldridge
proposed an amendment that would have prohibited legislators from
getting a job with any gambling business for five years after
leaving office....
Eldridge said a cooling-off period would keep the
public from thinking legislators sought to profit from the
legalization of casinos.
“This is an economic development bill for the
people of the commonwealth,” he said. “This is not an economic
development bill for legislators.” ...
After about 20 minutes of passionate debate,
Senate President Therese Murray called for a closed Democratic
caucus, in which the limit on legislators taking gambling-industry
jobs was reduced to one year from the original five years.
The Sentinel & Enterprise
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Eldridge amendment sparks contentious casino debate
The plodding pace of debate in the Senate
over expanded gambling had been forewarned, but Senate President
Therese Murray's pledge not to "stifle" that Democratic
back-and-forth was put to the test this week in a rare public
display of familial acrimony.
By Tuesday afternoon, Murray had heard enough
when she gaveled her Democratic flock into a private caucus in
her office to allow for some not-so-public venting, opening the
steam valve on what some have suggested was bubbling for months.
On the surface, some Democrats took great
exception to Sen. Jamie Eldridge's amendment prohibiting
lawmakers from going to work for a casino operator for five
years after leaving the Legislature. The reaction elicited by
Eldridge's proposal, however, begged the question of whether
lawmakers were finally being forced to confront the
ghost-of-speakers-past.
"We're creating a presumption here that the
people in this body cannot operate with integrity and I find it
alarming in a number of important respects," said Sen. Gale
Candaras, calling the Eldridge amendment an "attack" on his
colleagues....
Senate Democrats emerged from Murray's
conclave - one she later explained she called not because debate
had grown contentious, but because it turned personal - with a
"compromise" amendment allowing for a one-year cooling-off
period....
Senate Ways and Means Chairman Stephen Brewer
did little to hide his disdain for the not-so-subtle subtext of
Eldridge's amendment, and it did not go unmentioned that
lawmakers routinely spin through the revolving door to the
private sector without similar prohibitions on joining the
health care, bio-tech, or clean energy sectors....
"We're one big happy family - an Irish
family," mused one veteran Senate aide after the testy debate.
State House News Service
Friday, September 30, 2011
Weekly Roundup
Cooling off period
Under the compromise bill - negotiated by a
six-member panel of lawmakers charged by legislative leaders
with forging consensus between House and Senate versions -
lawmakers, municipal officials and county workers who vote on or
administer gambling policy would be barred from working in the
casino industry for a year after they leave office.
That plan, endorsed by the Senate, had
initially been cast aside by the House, and the House and
Senate's lead negotiators, Wagner (D-Chicopee) and Sen. Stanley
Rosenberg (D-Amherst), have expressed reservations about the
policy. Wagner, however, said last night that the one-year
"cooling-off" period was a "reasonable solution" to an issue
that, in his opinion, could have little impact.
"I understand symbolically how important that
appeared to some," [Rep. Joseph] Wagner told the News Service.
"That said, these facilities aren't going to come online for a
period of four years, give or take, so as a practical matter a
one-year cooling off period I don't think means a great deal."
State House News Service
Monday, November 14, 2011
Gambling compromise filed setting stage for final Tuesday vote
By Kyle Cheney and Matt Murphy
[Excerpt]
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Since casino gambling has become legal in
Massachusetts this year, The Lottery should launch a new game.
Wouldn't you like to bet on when the first federal grand jury
indictment for corruption is handed down? This is
Massachusetts of course. The Lottery could double the prize if you
correctly name which Bacon Hill pol is the first charged and tried.
Of the one-year "compromise" restriction imposed
to limit a revolving door policy for connected politicians, Rep.
Wagner comfortably noted: "That said, these facilities aren't going
to come online for a period of four years, give or take, so as a
practical matter a one-year cooling off period I don't think means a
great deal." This should give The Lottery plenty of time to ramp up
for the inevitable pay-out.
There was some good news from Beacon Hill in
2011:
The 22-year old "temporary" income tax hike
will see a 0.05 percentage point reduction beginning on Sunday,
down to 5.25 percent. The State House News Service reported
today:
"The reduction in the income tax, estimated
to mean about $40 in savings for the average taxpayer, is the
first since 2002, when lawmakers froze the rate at 5.3 percent
and pegged further reductions to revenue growth benchmarks. The
rate initially was 5.95 percent, but voters in 2000 approved a
ballot measure to bring the rate down to 5 percent in phases.
Lawmakers allowed the rate to decline for two straight years
before preventing the final phase from taking effect in 2003."
* * *
*
In July, the Springfield Republican reported
that tax collections for the recent fiscal year rose $723
million more than projected and nearly $2 billion more than the
prior year.
The state collected $20.5 billion in taxes for the fiscal year
that ended June 30, an increase of more than $1.9 billion or
10.6 percent from the prior year and $723 million more than
projections.
"The total was close to the $20.8 billion received for the
fiscal year that ended in June 2008, the most-ever taxes
collected by the state, said a spokesman for the revenue
department."
* * *
*
After negotiations between a tougher House
version, a watered down Senate version, then the governor's
further dilution, a good first step toward reform of government
employee union benefits was accomplished. The Telegram & Gazette
reported on July 12:
"In communities that use the new municipal
reform provisions to cut worker insurance costs outside of
traditional collective bargaining rules, employees could see an
increase in co-payments and deductibles as well as reduced
coverage. A final change in the legislation approved by
lawmakers will allow workers to get up to a 25 percent share of
the municipal savings from insurance changes.
"Those final provisions also would allow
communities to transfer workers to the state Group Insurance
Commission plans if they save more than five percent compared to
locally available worker insurance plans."
* * *
*
Under legislative rules, formal sessions at
the State House next year will terminate on July 31, when
legislators abandon Beacon Hill early during the biennial
election season. Our "full-time" legislators will as usual find
the ability to shutter the House and Senate chambers for three
uninterrupted months of campaigning for re-election while
collecting their taxpayer-funded salaries. Then they'll take the
remaining two months of 2012 to rest, recover, and relax.
* * *
*
Legislators' pay has risen between $2,189 and
$3,713 every two years since 2001. Their base salary in 2010 was
$61,440, but under the automatic salary increase/decrease
formula, for the first time in history legislators'
salaries were reduced. In January, after adjusting for
the state's median household income, base legislative salaries
were dropped by 0.5 percent, a $307-a-year reduction for the 200
members of the House and Senate.
(In addition to their base pay, dozens of
lawmakers receive additional pay ranging from $7,500 for some
committee chairs and vice chairs to $35,000 for the House
speaker and Senate president.)
* * *
*
In October, freshman Rep. James J. Lyons Jr.
(R-Andover) almost singlehandedly held the Legislature hostage
"until the Patrick administration came clean on how much
taxpayers coughed up last year for free health care to illegal
aliens finally got his answer yesterday: a whopping $93
million," the Boston Herald noted. “I didn’t think it would take
as much work as it did to answer such a simple question about
how our tax dollars are spent,” he told the Herald.
"It showed that nearly 55,000 illegal
immigrants received more than $93 million in MassHealth benefits
for emergency medical services last year."
Next, let's find out how many millions more of our tax
money is being paid for other "social services" for
illegals.
* * *
*
The Lynn Item reported last week on another
huge scam recently exposed with EBT cards.
Calling it a "huge problem," state Rep. Shaunna O'Connell,
R-Taunton, pointed out that the direct cash assistance that
needy families receive from state and federal taxpayers comes on
the same EBT card that gives families federal Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or food stamp benefits but,
unlike that program, there are no controls on the money used.
Rep. O'Connell called it a "huge problem . . . The people who
receive these benefits can go to an ATM and take the cash out of
the ATM and spend it anyway they want. There's really no
oversight as to where people spend it and how they spend it."
She said the state will spend $329 million for cash aid to
families with dependent children in Fiscal Year 2012.
"Unfortunately I think it's a bigger problem than we're aware
of," she added. "I think we're going to be pretty shocked when
we look into it."
* * *
*
Does anything really shock us Bay State taxpayers
anymore?
Stay tuned – we
start a fresh new year on Sunday, no doubt filled with future
shocks!
Happy New Year!
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
|
|
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
If you build it, corruption may come
Review of out-of-state casinos finds...
By Dave Wedge And Chris Cassidy
Beacon Hill has bet the house on casinos providing an economic boom,
but in other states, the gleaming gaming palaces have brought
political corruption, drugs, prostitution and other social vices —
including some scandals involving gambling goliaths seeking to do
business in the Bay State.
“You want to have a pool on when the first indictment comes down?”
asked Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation,
which took a neutral stance on legalized gambling. “There’s no doubt
in my mind it’s going to cost us a lot more money than it brings in,
and in the long run, the state’s going to regret having done this.”
Scandals have wracked states that have recently expanded or approved
gaming, among them:
● In Alabama, 11 people, including four state lawmakers, two
casino owners and two lobbyists, were indicted last year for
bribery, extortion, fraud and other charges in a scheme to buy
pro-gaming votes;
● In Pennsylvania, a grand jury issued a report in May hammering
the new state’s gambling control panel as a secretive patronage
haven that failed to properly screen casino investors because of
political pressure;
● In Iowa, four people, including two casino investors, were
charged last year with making illegal campaign contributions to the
state’s former Democratic governor to influence a gaming license;
and
● In Florida, the feds launched a probe in July into a Republican
congressman and a $1 million consulting contract between a casino
and a company owned by his mother.
With billions on the table since the Bay State OK’d casino gambling,
national gaming companies are lining up for lucrative licenses,
including some with issues in other states.
Caesars, which has partnered with Suffolk Downs to bring a casino to
East Boston, was fined $250,000 in September 2010 for gaming
violations in Las Vegas. A Caesars’ spokesman could not be reached,
but Suffolk Downs spokesman Chip Tuttle called Caesars “the most
highly regulated gaming company in the United States” and said the
track and Caesars “intend to have best practices ... as we work to
earn a license.”
The Las Vegas Sands, owned by Sheldon Adelson, is under federal
investigation for bribery of public officials in Macau. Adelson, who
is eyeing a Massachusetts casino, has denied his company violated
any laws and blamed the probe on a disgruntled fired employee.
A Sands spokesman declined comment and referred to comments Adelson
made in September, in which he said: “I and the company are fully
cooperating with (the) investigation and will continue to do so. ...
I am 100 percent — no 1,000 percent — certain that neither I nor any
senior executive of this company has ever asked any employee ... to
do anything improper.”
Penn National, a gaming company considering a Springfield casino,
was hit with an $800,000 fine in Illinois in 2008 for sending
discounts and free play coupons to problem gamblers who asked to be
removed from mailing lists.
The company did not respond to calls seeking comment, but a
spokesman was quoted at the time saying the incident was inadvertent
and isolated and the firm had taken steps to prevent a similar
occurrence.
Ameristar Casinos, which recently acquired land in Springfield for a
possible casino, was hit with $167,000 in fines for gaming
violations in 2010. Spokesman Troy Stremming said: “Team members
understand that our gaming license is our lifeblood and everything
we do has to be done in a fashion to protect that license.”
Street crime also has become a problem in many casino cities,
including drugs, prostitution and theft. A recent University of
Nevada at Las Vegas study found that 60 percent of gambling addicts
admitted kiting bad checks while 30 percent copped to stealing from
their workplace.
In December 2010, the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas was hit
with a $650,000 fine — the largest in Nevada history — after eight
people, including several employees, were busted for selling pot,
cocaine and Ecstasy at nightclubs.
Stephen Crosby, tapped by Gov. Deval Patrick to head the state’s new
gaming commission, pledged vigilant enforcement and rigorous
screening of casino applicants. “(The) highest priority is to assure
the people of Massachusetts that this process will be transparent
and evenhanded, and will conform with the highest possible standards
of ethics and the law,” Crosby said.
The Salem News
Friday, December 30, 2011
Legislative session featured big bills and less public view
Boston University State House Program
Not long after state lawmakers ended their formal work for 2011 with
a near-midnight November session, they began congratulating
themselves for an exemplary season of legislating.
Among those accomplishments: casinos with the promise of new jobs
and tax revenue, a law allowing municipalities to negotiate health
insurance for public workers, balancing a budget in tough economic
times, and stabilizing the state's pension plan.
"I would say this was one of the most impressive sessions over the
past 30 years in terms of legislation passed," said Michael Widmer,
president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Association.
But how much really got done this year, and, more importantly, how
much of the legislative process that moved these bills to law took
place in public?
Numbers can be interpreted in different ways. Of the 206 bills
passed in 2011, 39 — or 19 percent — affect the entire state, many
in significant ways. Another 25 percent of the bills signed by Gov.
Deval Patrick established sick-leave banks for public employees. The
rest were administrative laws pertaining to individual cities and
towns, such as alcohol licenses and land transfers.
But behind the issue of legislative productivity looms a larger
question about the process that moved various bills down the road,
or left them on the roadside. A survey by the Boston University
Statehouse Program of 19 major legislative committees that shape and
move legislation found this process increasingly takes place outside
the public view.
Among the findings:
● The staff for 15 of the committees polled said some voting is done
through emails rather than in open executive sessions. The staff of
10 committees said the votes were not available to the public. State
law requires that roll-call votes in executive sessions be recorded
and made public. But committee rules do not address email voting.
● Minutes and other details of committee meetings were not available
from 18 of the committees, according to their staff. State law does
not require such documentation of legislative committees, although
it is required by other Massachusetts panels.
● Among the lack of documentation are records of attendance by
committee members. Observers say fewer committee members now show up
for public hearings, as the work of the committees takes place
through phone discussion or email polls.
Kyle Cheney, a reporter for the State House News Service, which
covers a majority of committee hearings, said his organization has
begun to include attendance as part of its coverage.
"On balance, maybe most committees are 17 people, and four, five,
six members show. That's predominately the norm," he said.
Other Statehouse observers, such as Pam Wilmot of Common Cause
Massachusetts, which advocates open government, says the switch from
real to virtual participation hurts the legislative process when
citizens express their opinion to empty chairs.
"That is actually getting to be an embarrassment," Wilmot said.
"This is the public's opportunity to come out and say what they
think."
The public is supposed to be able to follow the actions of their
representatives, including their votes. The use of the Internet to
debate and vote limits this ability to monitor lawmakers' actions.
"They have these email polls that they don't announce publicly,"
Cheney said. "It's hard to tell how members voted. You might find
out weeks later that a bill's been released."
Representatives for House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President
Therese Murray referred questions about committee procedures to
Senate Majority Leader Fred Berry of Peabody, who serves as chairman
for the Joint Committee on Rules and the Senate Committee on Ethics
and Rules.
Berry, who is not running for re-election, was not available for
comment, but his chief of staff, Colleen McGlynn, said each
committee sets its own rules about access and process.
"It is important to allow individual committees to adopt their own
procedures as they know best the size and scope of the legislation
before them," she said. "Chairpeople are given a certain amount of
autonomy to conduct proper review while soliciting public input."
The Boston University State House Program sought comment from six
committee chairmen; five did not respond to requests for interviews.
Rep. Theodore Speliotis, D-Danvers, House chairman of the Joint
Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure,
declined to comment on other committees' procedures, but he said his
committee provides records of committee testimony and votes to
anyone who requests the information.
"It strengthens the positions of the Legislature to know what
everyone's thinking," he said. "How can someone debate something if
they don't know what the other side is saying?"
Another long-term complaint about openness within the Legislature
was raised again this session: the charge that the Beacon Hill
leadership often stifles debate and individual member initiative.
Former Democratic Whip Charles Murphy, D-Burlington, went public
with this criticism in early December when he complained that
politics on Beacon Hill "all too often results in a top-down
leadership model where dissent is discouraged, debate is limited,
decisions are made by a select few and formal sessions are rare."
This was after Murphy had been pushed out of office by DeLeo.
But even neutral observers such as Widmer note a trend toward more
control emanating from the House speaker and Senate president's
office.
"I wouldn't say that this session has had less debate than recent
years, but part of the trend toward more power in the leadership has
been less floor debate, particularly in the House," Widmer said. "A
lot of the debates are taking place in the legislative caucuses
behind closed doors."
The movement of debate to private Democratic caucuses results in a
lackluster discussion on the floor of the Legislature, according to
Republican Minority Leader Rep. Bradley Jones.
"Sometimes when you go up to the floor now, all the questions have
been asked and answered," said Jones, whose district includes part
of Middleton. "Sometimes, it would be better if those questions were
asked in the public view because it would better inform the public
and the media."
Some argue this leadership style has its benefits. This year's
Legislature was able to pass legalized gambling, pension reform and
protection for transgender people — three issues that sat on Beacon
Hill for years.
But such result arguably comes at the cost of open debate,
especially in the rush at the end of the session. When Republicans
attempted to change the transgender rights bill with additional
amendments that would need to be debated individually, DeLeo and the
House leadership quickly limited debate on the bill, forcing it
through by dropping the extra amendments.
Such tactics were not limited to partisan politics. When Senate
Democrats fell into angry floor debate over an amendment to the
casino bill that would require a five-year cooling-off period before
former legislators could work in the gambling industry, Murray
quickly shuffled members off to a Democratic caucus.
When the senators returned to the floor, they quickly passed a
compromise without further debate that reduced five-year restriction
to one year.
Murray's spokesman, David Falcone, said debate was not stifled.
"It was originally offered as five years, and the body ultimately
decided on one year," he said. "But, remember, it was zero years in
the original bill. We added it, and the conference committee kept
it."
This story was written by Lester Black and Andrea Aldana based on
the reporting of Black, Aldana, Krista Kano, Katie Lannan, Alyssa
Moni, Marjorie Nesin and Adam Tamburin.
The Sentinel & Enterprise
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Eldridge amendment sparks contentious casino debate
By Katie Lannan
A local lawmaker’s push to create a cooling-off period before
legislators can be employed by the casino industry led to a heated
argument on the Senate floor Tuesday.
In the second day of Senate debate on a bill that would legalize
casino gambling in Massachusetts, Sen. Jamie Eldridge proposed an
amendment that would have prohibited legislators from getting a job
with any gambling business for five years after leaving office.
Eldridge, the Acton Democrat, who represents Shirley, said this
measure is crucial to prevent any appearance of conflict of
interest, but some senators argued that lawmakers would take
advantage of their position if no restrictions were in place,
leading to increased cynicism among voters.
“One of the problems we have as legislators is to improve the
perception of us without throwing ourselves and our colleagues and
the government and democracy under the bus,” said Sen. Stanley
Rosenberg, D-Amherst.
Eldridge said a cooling-off period would keep the public from
thinking legislators sought to profit from the legalization of
casinos.
“This is an economic development bill for the people of the
commonwealth,” he said. “This is not an economic development bill
for legislators.”
Some senators said that although they support the idea of a
cooling-off period, they took offense at Eldridge’s reasoning.
“To have an implication that we are not people of intelligence,
integrity and commitment troubles me deeply,” said Sen. Stephen
Brewer, D-Barre, chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
Sen. Gale Candaras, D-Wilbraham, dismissed Eldridge’s amendment as
“just plain wrong-thinking,” though she later voted in favor of a
modified version of the amendment.
Eldridge said the problem he was looking to solve was not a lack of
integrity within the Legislature, but a lack of public faith.
“I know that each of us works hard each and every day, but the
problem is the perception,” he said.
After about 20 minutes of passionate debate, Senate President
Therese Murray called for a closed Democratic caucus, in which the
limit on legislators taking gambling-industry jobs was reduced to
one year from the original five years.
The redrafted amendment passed on a roll-call vote of 36-1, with
Sen. Michael Rodrigues, D-Westport, voting against it. Changes to
the amendment were not read before the vote.
The Senate rejected three other Eldridge amendments, including one
that would have created a similar cooling-off period for
gaming-commission members and one that would have required casinos
to provide their employees with health-care benefits.
State House News Service
Friday, September 30, 2011
Weekly Roundup
Cooling off period
By Matt Murphy
The plodding pace of debate in the Senate over expanded gambling had
been forewarned, but Senate President Therese Murray's pledge not to
"stifle" that Democratic back-and-forth was put to the test this
week in a rare public display of familial acrimony.
By Tuesday afternoon, Murray had heard enough when she gaveled her
Democratic flock into a private caucus in her office to allow for
some not-so-public venting, opening the steam valve on what some
have suggested was bubbling for months.
On the surface, some Democrats took great exception to Sen. Jamie
Eldridge's amendment prohibiting lawmakers from going to work for a
casino operator for five years after leaving the Legislature. The
reaction elicited by Eldridge's proposal, however, begged the
question of whether lawmakers were finally being forced to confront
the ghost-of-speakers-past.
"We're creating a presumption here that the people in this body
cannot operate with integrity and I find it alarming in a number of
important respects," said Sen. Gale Candaras, calling the Eldridge
amendment an "attack" on his colleagues.
In the wake of Salvatore DiMasi's conviction, many lawmakers were
eager to lump the former speaker in with other notable black marks
on the body. With the exception of maybe Dianne Wilkerson, it was
easy to brush off the transgressions of Anthony Galluccio or James
Marzilli as isolated cases of a senator's personal life gone awry.
But DiMasi's case cast a much larger shadow on the institution,
whether Democrats wanted to admit it or not. A poll conducted by
MassINC in August found that 39 percent of voters believe corruption
is widespread in state government, and 40 percent said the cause is
the system and culture on Beacon Hill, not just a few bad seeds.
"This is an economic development bill for the people of the
commonwealth of Massachusetts. It should not be an economic
development bill for legislators," Eldridge said.
Senate Ways and Means Chairman Stephen Brewer did little to hide his
disdain for the not-so-subtle subtext of Eldridge's amendment, and
it did not go unmentioned that lawmakers routinely spin through the
revolving door to the private sector without similar prohibitions on
joining the health care, bio-tech, or clean energy sectors.
"To have an implication that we are not people of intelligence and
compassion and commitment troubles me dearly and ought to trouble
each and every one of you. We will support this amendment but I
reject and I resent the implications of the gentleman who just
spoke," Brewer said.
Senate Democrats emerged from Murray's conclave - one she later
explained she called not because debate had grown contentious, but
because it turned personal - with a "compromise" amendment allowing
for a one-year cooling-off period.
Embraced by the Senate without further debate, the provision
instantly leaped to the top of the list of concessions to gambling
opponents ripe for the squashing when the bill inevitably heads to
conference committee with the House.
"We're one big happy family - an Irish family," mused one veteran
Senate aide after the testy debate.
|
| |
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ 508-915-3665
|
