April 18, 2024

Massachusetts Senate Approves Casinos

Past attempts to legalize casino gambling failed, but the idea gained popularity recently as the recession tempered the state’s economic growth.

The Senate bill passed 24 to 14 after days of debate. Last month, the state’s House passed a bill allowing the same number of gambling establishments. Some differences remain, but they are expected to be resolved in a conference committee of the Democratic-controlled Legislature, and Gov. Deval Patrick has indicated he will sign the final legislation.

Last year, a gambling measure failed when Mr. Patrick and the House speaker, Robert A. DeLeo, disagreed on the number of slots parlors. The new legislation emerged after months of closed-door negotiations involving Mr. Patrick, Mr. DeLeo and Senate President Therese Murray.

Scott Harshbarger, a former state attorney general who is now president of the anticasino group Citizens for a Stronger Massachusetts, criticized what he said was too much secrecy.

“This was just a classic, Massachusetts, behind-closed-doors power play by the special interests and lobbyists and casino owners,” Mr. Harshbarger said. “Only the public interest lost.”

Supporters promote casino gambling as a major job creator, saying it will drive industry growth in construction, service and tourism.

“It has potential to bring home $1.2 billion that’s being spent by Massachusetts residents in neighboring states’ casinos,” said Senator Stanley C. Rosenberg, a Democratic supporter, “and, at the same time, create more than 10,000 jobs and provides hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue.”

But opponents say gambling is a false carrot that increases crime and encourages addiction.

“It is tantamount to a tax on the poor; though we do have a grave budget that we need to cover, covering it on the backs of poor and working-class families is not the right thing to do,” said State Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz, a Democrat who represents parts of Boston.

Nearby states that have legalized gambling are watching the development in Massachusetts warily. Connecticut has two resort-style casinos that could lose business to Massachusetts casinos. Rhode Island has expressed concerns that its two slots parlors could also suffer; a study by the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, found Massachusetts residents made up 56 percent of visitors to the Rhode Island establishments in 2010.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=3aeea40f83bb01b70a85c163a41edb1d

Tensions Escalate as Stakes Grow in Fiscal Clash

And the latest bipartisan negotiating session on Wednesday evening ended in heightened tension, if not outright discord. Republicans said Mr. Obama had abruptly walked out in an agitated state; Democrats described the president as having summed up with an impassioned case for action before bringing the meeting to a close and leaving.

Across Washington, officials were weighed down with a sense that they were hurtling toward a crisis. Grim-faced lawmakers spent the day shuttling from meeting to meeting in search of a way out of the fix.

The stakes are high, for the economy, the financial markets and both parties. But the pressure was particularly intense on Republican leaders, who only weeks ago seemed to be on the offensive and in a strong position to extract major concessions from Mr. Obama and the Democrats.

For months, the Republican leaders have emphatically pledged that there will be no increase in the federal debt ceiling absent huge cuts in government spending and fundamental changes in popular social programs, all without the whiff of a tax increase.

Now, with negotiations stalled and a potential default by the United States government just over the horizon, they are being held to those promises by their own rank-and-file, leaving them in a bind that is defying easy resolution and putting them at risk of being blamed if things end badly.

Behind closed doors and by phone, they groped for a solution and struggled to assert some kind of control over the situation as rank-and-file Republican members, especially in the House, grew more confrontational.

Panic had not yet set in, but the worry and tension were evident as seasoned lawmakers of both parties whose experience told them that Congress always finds a white-knuckle way to avert disaster wondered if this was going to be the time when it did not.

“Our problem is, we made a big deal about this for three months,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

“How many Republicans have been on TV saying, ‘I am not going to raise the debt limit,’ ” said Mr. Graham, including himself in the mix of those who did so. “We have no one to blame but ourselves.”

Potential last-minute options were being gamed out around Capitol Hill. Senate Republicans were pushing their counterparts in the House to deliver some legislation, which could take the form of a balanced budget plan due on the House floor next week. A bipartisan group that had been working on a major deficit-cutting plan in the Senate was trying again to produce a proposal.

And Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader and procedural maestro, was pushing his plan that would allow a debt limit increase to clear Congress without Republican fingerprints — and without the guaranteed cuts many in his party are demanding. He would establish an elaborate process where Congress would vote to disapprove instead of approve a debt limit request. That would allow the president to raise the debt ceiling via a successful veto of the disapproval if it came to that.

Despite resistance from conservatives and the initial unease many lawmakers expressed at such a slippery approach, the McConnell gambit was gaining credence as the best escape hatch. Senate Democrats went virtually silent on the idea for fear of jinxing it. While the White House said it was not the preferable option, it was viewed inside the West Wing as a real option nonetheless, even if it would transfer to Mr. Obama and his party all the political responsibility for a debt limit increase.

Some of Mr. McConnell’s colleagues were coming around to it as the reality of a possible default began to sink in.

Jackie Calmes, Robert Pear and Binyamin Appelbaum contributed reporting.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=a1210af03a23bfd711186410b350a686

Political Memo: After Snips to Budget, a Thicket Looms

With time growing short before an Aug. 2 deadline to raise the federal debt limit, Republican and Democratic lawmakers meeting with Mr. Biden behind closed doors are just beginning to weigh the big fiscal trade-offs necessary for a compromise that could clear the way for a Congressional vote.

An accelerated schedule of meetings for next week will test whether the six members of the House and Senate talking with the White House are willing to entertain the serious political concessions and to make the hard choices needed to cut a deal in time.

In the colorful phrasing of Mr. Biden, the moment has arrived to find out who is willing to trade their side’s bicycle for the other side’s golf clubs.

“The really tough stuff that is left are the big-ticket items,” Mr. Biden said Thursday at the conclusion of the week’s third bargaining session, meetings that took lawmakers and administration officials to every corner of the federal budget in a search for consensus on ways to save federal dollars.

Lawmakers and aides say the negotiators quickly gobbled up low-hanging fruit like trimming agriculture subsidies and selling more of the telecommunications spectrum to generate revenue. There is a general consensus that federal workers are going to have to contribute more to their pensions, though the details are still to be determined. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation will collect higher fees from stable companies, and some idle federal property could be up for sale.

But those actions are not going to produce anywhere near the $2 trillion or more in savings that both sides agree is the level required to win a debt limit increase while putting the government on course to save $4 trillion over the next decade — a goal set by Mr. Biden.

To get there, negotiators are going to have to make some excruciating choices about federal health care and safety-net programs, as well as the tax structure. At the same time, they need to reach a deal that not only can be sold to a bipartisan majority in the House and Senate, but also is credible enough to assure investors worldwide that Washington is getting serious about taking care of its financial health.

Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the Budget Committee and a participant in the talks, said one reason for setting three-hour meetings four times next week is to gauge whether he and his fellow budget bargainers can ever come to terms.

“We are picking up the pace in a big way, recognizing that we’ve got to determine whether we can reach agreement in principle or recognize that we are not able to bridge our differences,” he said.

Watching the clock, Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and majority leader, on Friday called on the negotiators to keep working through the Fourth of July recess if necessary.

To Democrats, a major impediment is the Republican position against relying on any significant new revenues as part of the deal, insisting that most of the $2 trillion or more come from cuts in federal spending — although not from Pentagon spending, a major potential source of savings.

Democrats say they will never be able to sell a compromise without some new revenue to their colleagues in the House and Senate. They say the most affluent Americans should contribute to the debt limit deal through new taxes on hedge fund operators or by phasing out tax deductions for those at the highest levels of earnings.

But Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the majority leader who is representing House Republicans in the talks, on Thursday reiterated the deep Republican opposition to higher taxes.

“Our side will not support any attempt to raise the debt ceiling that is not accompanied by the kinds of cuts necessary or reforms necessary,” he said. “Nor will we support an attempt to raise the debt limit that raises people’s taxes. That, we don’t want to do.”

Republicans want to see Democrats embrace more changes in Medicare and Medicaid, the federal health programs for older Americans and the poor.

Democrats have so far pushed for modest changes like allowing the government to negotiate prescription prices with drug companies and to require drug industry rebates for people eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid — a proposal that could potentially generate tens of billions of dollars. But Democrats will not support any major Medicare overhaul, saying they believe that they have the political high ground on the issue at the moment.

To get a deal, lawmakers on both sides are going to have to bend considerably and back unpopular positions. They are then going to have to sell the plan to their rank and file on the grounds that they need to avert the economic disarray that could result from a failure to raise the debt ceiling.

Both sides say that all those in the talks want to reach a compromise. “There is no principal in that room that doesn’t want to get agreement,” Mr. Biden said.

Yet that is no guarantee that the deal will be done.

“I’m confident,” said Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, another top Democrat in the talks. “But I’ve been confident before and come up short.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=c5a1a9c52f2f7a075b359f8fc8d08edd