Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
In all the disagreements with our Governor about casinos, while questioning the Governor’s rigor in studying them, I have never had to question his politics on the matter.
Until now.
Governor Patrick has crossed a line he told us he would never cross. First, cherry-picking facts to support a conclusion. Second, playing to the politics of fear to push his agenda.
Last Friday, I was driving and listening to WBUR. So I heard a news item at the top of the hour that chilled me. Governor Patrick had made some statements about the legislature needing to move forward on his casino proposal. The reasons that he gave? That the casinos were going to come anyway, and the state might as well have control over the process.
Both are downright stretching the real facts, if not complete fabrications. And they play to a politics of fear and threat, something I never thought this Governor would do. I was shocked to hear these quotes attributed to him. I meant to write about it on Friday, but with friends coming for the weekend, and the fact that blog traffic is better at the beginning of the week, I held off until today. But I am no less angry or disappointed than I was when I heard the words coming out of my car radio.
Let’s talk about the first part, that casinos are coming anyways. I suppose you could say that this phrase more resembles “weasel words” and not outright lying, as Class II casinos could be built. But if they haven’t been already, it’s highly unlikely. Why? Because we have not legalized Class III gambling in Massachusetts. Without Class III (slots, in particular), no one would build a resort-style casino. Slots are the king of resort casinos, the big money maker (or money sinker, if you’re a casino-goer). We don’t see Bingo Resort Casinos because that would be a bad business decision. Bingo doesn’t suck in enough money. And secondarily, there is a threat that one tribe, the Mashpee Wampanoags, might use an existing law regarding charity “casino nights” to force their way into the federal process and acquire a Class III casino, even under current law. But the answer isn’t to legalize Class III even further.
Because the second part of that statement, that the state will have control, is even more of a lie. You see, it’s a binary situation - once Class III (slots) are legalized, there’s more than one process available to Native American tribes who want to start a resort casino. One is to go through the state. The other is to go through the federal process, bypassing the state and its restrictions, and taxes, entirely.
Once Class III is legalized, all bets - so to speak - are off. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if all the parties interested in state-licensed casinos who are promising all this good tax revenue to the state jump ship from that process and start going through the federal one instead, once they get the law changed. For one, the Governor’s current proposal is for a 27% tax on profits from the casinos that are licensed by it. Would you, a business person, opt for a 27% tax rate on your profits when you could shed that and go through the federal process? Patrick claims to be able to control that, but there’s no evidence that the federal process can be denied once Class III slots are legal.
Patrick is using pressure regarding the Wampanoag situation to put his casino proposal forward. According to this article, the Mashpee Wampanoags are trying to weasel in a Class III casino using that existing charity law (bold mine).
Tribes are limited to operating gambling that is currently legal in the state. Since casino gambling is not allowed in Massachusetts, it was believed that the Mashpee Wampanoags would be limited to so-called “class II” gambling, which is a step below a full-fledged casino.
But the tribe in its application asserts that it has the right to build a full casino, with “class III” gambling, including slot machines. The argument is that because the state allows “casino nights” for charitable purposes, that opens the door for a casino.
And the federal government agrees.
“If it’s allowed within the state, the tribes would be allowed to offer similar games, but they wouldn’t be subject to the length of time, such as a one-night only,” said Gary Garrison, spokesman for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Wouldn’t the best way to stop a tribe from doing this be to pass a law making Class III illegal even for charitable purposes? And by extension, if a law specifically allowing only charities to have casino nights opens up the federal process for tribes to gain Class III casinos, doesn’t it stand to reason no amount of restriction in the state laws will limit the federal options for future casinos? It appears that no law that Patrick could propose specifying that all casinos be licensed through the state ever takes the federal casino license process off the table. So, in the second part of his statement, about how the state can control the process…he’s lying to us. Or maybe he’s lying to himself.
I know that being disappointed in your leaders is par for the course in politics. I just thought this time might be a little different. Patrick has decided to hang his hat on bringing casinos to Massachusetts, ignoring large swaths of objective information, and using fear and lies to accomplish it. But it’s this last part that I may not be able to forgive.
[powered by WordPress.]
43 queries. 0.683 seconds
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Lying is a serious charge Lynne, and one that I never make unless I’m absolutely sure there is no other explanation. You say, “And secondarily, there is a threat that one tribe, the Mashpee Wampanoags, might use an existing law regarding charity ‘casino nights’ to force their way into the federal process and acquire a Class III casino, even under current law.” If this is a true statement then it sounds to me like the Governor might be right after all. Do you know for sure that His Excellency does not have a good-faith understanding of the law and/or facts which is different from yours? There’s a difference between saying that a statement is false and that a statement is a lie. False simply means untrue on the merits only, whereas lie involves a moral judgement on the character of the person making the statement. In my book, in order to accuse someone of lying you have to prove that the person making the statement knew (not should have known, but truly knew) that the statement was false at the time the statement was made. Have you spoken to the Governor or any of his people and asked your questions/raised your concerns directly, or do you just cast aspersions on motives based on what you hear and read?
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Christopher, get a grip.
Let me quote myself, so I can explain to you how wrong you are:
Note how I take apart the statements and look at them separately. And note how the article and the comments from Gary Garrison of the Bureau of Indian Affairs basically proves that something as simple as a restrictive law that allows some Class III gambling for one-night-only charitable use can open up Class III for a casino, despite the law that restricts the circumstance. That’s because the federal law trumps the state law - any opening for Class III is an opening, regardless of how many caveats you put in.
That means that any indication by this Governor that we the state can control the process if we allow Class III gambling is a lie. A lie, furthermore, intended to intimidate and scare the legislature into legalizing gambling.
As I said later on, maybe he’s lying to himself. I don’t know. I don’t care. I know it’s a lie.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:04 pm
This is what happens when we elect a guy who stands for nothing more than vague notions about “Hope” and “Change” and “Together We Can!”
March 4th, 2008 at 8:35 am
The Governor is not lying, if the state signs a compact with the Wampanog tribe they will have some control (based on the terms and condition in the compact) and the state will definitly have cash flow. The tribe is obligated to negotiate in good faith with the state.
March 4th, 2008 at 9:31 am
I’m disappointed in the over-the-top commentary about the Governor’s attempts to “sell” the casinos. To me casinos are a minor issue, not really much in terms of economic development, nor destructive as some are indicating. But when the arguments become personal the result will be the undoing of a lot of good things that are happening in the State. It seems that the individualism of the Democratic party, which is one of its strengths, eventually becomes self-defeating. That is probably why we elect so many Republican governors, and too many regressive presidents.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Re: the Boston Chamber of Commerce report released yesterday as Dan Kennedy there is no doubt that casinos will bring some income to the Commonwealth. But that is not the only issue. There are the social costs of gambling addiction, necessary infrastructure improvements, addition town/city services in towns/cities *not* receiving direct income from the casino taxes. My reading has convinced me that the benefits do not outweigh the costs. There may be a “lot to like” about this report but there’s also a lot not discussed!