Casino debate was fair fight

In poker, you have to know when to hold them and when to fold them.

Apparently, Gov. Deval Patrick failed to heed that advice, even as it became clear his proposal to bring three resort-style casinos to Massachusetts was headed for defeat.

On March 20, the House of Representatives dealt the governor a convincing setback when it voted, 108-46, to place his casino gambling bill in a study order, effectively killing the legislation for this session. Less than 24 hours earlier, a legislative committee had voted, 10-8, against passing the bill after one House lawmaker switched his vote to break a 9-9 deadlock.

Some may be wondering how a plan that once enjoyed strong public support could go down in flames so quickly.

Last fall, Patrick announced plans to establish a competitive auction process to license up to three regional, destination resort-style casinos in the state by 2012. With casinos in western Massachusetts, southeastern Massachusetts, and the metropolitan Boston area, the governor pledged to use the revenues for property tax relief and infrastructure repairs.

Patrick estimated that each casino license would bring in $200-$300 million in up-front fees, with the state collecting an additional $400 million a year as its share of the gross gambling revenues. He also promised millions of dollars more a year in income, sales, meals, hotel and other taxes.

The governor presented his plan as a win-win proposition for the Commonwealth. With a UMass-Dartmouth study showing that Massachusetts residents spend an estimated $900 million a year at Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun in Connecticut, in-state casinos promised to keep some of that money from flowing across the border.

In addition to revenues, one of the biggest selling points of the casino plan was how many jobs it would bring. The governor claimed 30,000 construction jobs would be created, and over 20,000 permanent jobs once the casinos opened.

A September 2007 poll conducted by The Survey Center at the University of New Hampshire found broad-based support for casinos, with 53 percent in favor and 34 percent opposed. A State House News Service (SHNS) poll conducted around the same time found 49.9 percent supported the plan and 38.6 percent opposed it.

Despite public support, it was clear the casino proposal was facing an uphill battle. From the outset, the House speaker expressed skepticism and Representative Dan Bosley, chairman of the committee that would hear the bill, criticized the plan, saying it would do more harm than good.

As recently as January, in a follow-up SHNS poll, casino supporters still enjoyed a 49-44 percent advantage. So, what went wrong?

For starters, the governor used questionable numbers when he claimed casinos would create 30,000 new construction jobs, a figure the Boston Globe characterized as excessively optimistic. Just weeks before the casino vote, the Globe disclosed that the governor had based his estimates on a study conducted by Suffolk Downs, a gambling proponent expected to bid on a casino license.

According to the Globe, only 2,600 construction jobs have been created as part of the ongoing expansion of Connecticut s two casinos. An independent analysis conducted by Gus Faucher, director of macroeconomics for Moody s Economy.com, concluded that only 4,000-5,000 jobs would be created under Patrick s casino proposal.

The governor also failed to reach out to legislators to sell his plan. Many were on the fence, trying to weigh the benefits of new jobs and revenues against the increased crime and addiction opponents warned would surely follow. Rather than address these concerns, the governor let the speaker set the tone of the debate and failed to respond as he continued to cast doubts on the casino plan.

The governor tried to up the ante in his Fiscal Year 2009 budget, which sought to make lottery aid for cities and towns partially contingent on the passage of the casino bill. The plan backfired when municipal officials came out strongly against it.

It also didn t help the governor s cause that he appeared unwilling to compromise. Although he testified at a March 19 hearing that he was open to changes, by then it was too late. Even the governor seemed to realize this, as he did not even bother to do any last-minute lobbying for the bill, and instead chose to travel to New York to negotiate a book deal the day of the vote.

Because this was a revenue-raising bill, it had to go to the House first. As a result, the Senate never had an opportunity to vote on casinos. If the bill had reached the Senate, I suspect the vote would have been overwhelmingly in favor.

Much has been made about whether or not the speaker used strong-arm tactics on House members to kill the bill. While the speaker made his opposition clear from the outset, the governor enjoyed the strong and vocal support of the state s labor unions, led by the AFL-CIO. The governor, the speaker and their allies aggressively lobbied for their respective positions. As far as I m concerned, it was a fair fight.

With the defeat of the casino bill, some have suggested the state pursue a smaller scale plan to allow slot machines at the state s racetracks. I am not convinced this is the best alternative because slots alone will not create jobs or generate revenues on the same scale as a casino, but I am willing to consider this option.

Although the casino bill is dead for this session, the debate certainly is not. The governor is pressing ahead with a $189,000 casino study he commissioned, and the Mashpee Wampanoags are moving forward in their quest to obtain federal approval to open a casino in Middleborough.

By following the federal approval process, the Wampanoags may soon be able to build a casino with or without the state s blessing. If that happens, the state will not be able to regulate the casino or get any revenue from it.

Given this scenario, it s a safe bet that casino gambling will come before the Legislature again. Next time around, the governor may want to consider trying to negotiate a deal with the Wampanoags for one license instead of three, which would limit the impact of casino gambling in Massachusetts but guarantee the state shares in the financial benefits. Perhaps the speaker would approve of such a plan.

Sen. Richard Tisei, R-Wakefield, represents Malden, wards 1 to 5 of Melrose, Reading, Stoneham, Wakefield and Lynnfield.

Mud pigeon target: Wall Street higher financial instruments

Frank Partnoy (Frank Partnoy) in contemporary China Publishing House in July 2004 publication of the English version Description: FIASCO: The Inside Story of a Wall Street Trader

Publisher: Penguin Books (February, 1999)

ISBN: 0140278796

Recommended for: as a global financial institutions and investment banks the main source of operating income, financial derivative transactions to always give people the feeling mysterious. Mud pigeon target is an investment bank trading internal growth record, but also an 20 on the law of the jungle in the 1990s the financial activities of the Higher stunning textbooks, recorded a Morgan Stanley broker Fledglings Learning the history of the rules of the game. From New York to Tokyo, from South America to Asia, this complex and brutal network creating and trading those securities bizarre and unfathomable varieties - almost no one really understand these securities varieties, especially those without no effort for that, buyers. Billions of dollars in wealth this loss completely, which may include a part of you, regardless of whether you informed.

In order to temper the killer instinct, the author Motenuoyi colleagues in the Morgan Stanley organizations annual shooting competition - Fixed Income Department s annual mud pigeon target shooting