Gambling on a budget plan
IF NOT casinos, then what?
House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi hopes he answered that question by showing the state can balance its budget and grow jobs without gambling on gambling.
After defying Governor Deval Patrick for much of his first year in office, DiMasi handed the governor two important victories to begin his second.
The speaker agreed to tighten corporate tax laws to make it harder for companies to avoid state taxes. That will bring in close to $300 million in new revenue. DiMasi also backed a plan to give $1 billion over 10 years to the state's life-sciences industry. That will create new jobs - as many as 250,000, according to the Patrick administration, although the prediction is under dispute.
DiMasi also proposed raising $152 million by increasing the state's cigarette tax by $1 a pack. The money would be spent on escalating costs that are part of the state's mandatory health insurance law.
The speaker's moves are intended to show that the man dubbed "King Sal" in February's Boston Magazine can be flexible. They also show that DiMasi recognizes the need for revenue, cares about healthcare - and has no plans to advance the cause of casino gambling in Massachusetts.
Presenting a budget balanced without gambling-related revenue "was very important," said DiMasi spokesman David Guarino. "Cities and towns deserve to plan on the basis of revenues that are predictable."
But DiMasi can't ignore the pressure to take up Patrick's proposal to grant three casino licenses in Massachusetts. The speaker is "keeping his word to the governor," said Guarino. As for the merits, DiMasi "remains skeptical," Guarino said.
After a year of Beacon Hill gridlock, any sign of cooperation between Patrick and DiMasi is welcome.
"This is a win-win situation," said Doug Rubin, the governor's chief of staff, after last week's achievements. "We are happy if the speaker can frame this as a victory, but this is not a competition. We are working together on these issues. That's a good thing for everyone."
DiMasi sketched out his budget plan in only the broadest strokes, with details promised later. He can expect pushback from Patrick and from Senate President Therese Murray, who has her own agenda. He can also expect pushback from his own members on casino gambling, which remains a major challenge to his leadership.
The Patrick administration is getting better at making its case publicly, effectively using union members to make the case that casinos mean jobs. Last December, union workers packed Gardner Auditorium and cheered gustily for Patrick and fellow casino supporter, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino. Behind the scenes, the administration is lobbying individual lawmakers. Administration sources have put out the word that they have a list of 15 House members who have switched positions and now support the governor's plan - identities to be revealed later, for maximum PR impact.
DiMasi was pushing for a quick hearing, as early as Feb. 21. He likely senses some vote-shifting is underway and wants to take up gambling before anymore takes place. The Senate, which is more supportive of gambling, rejected that date in order to give proponents more time. After considering testimony for and against the casino proposal, the legislative committee has three options: to report the bill out with a favorable recommendation; to report it out unfavorably; or to send it to a study committee.
Representative Daniel Boseley, the House chairman of the Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies, which will consider the testimony, is well-known as a gambling opponent. If the bill is reported out unfavorably, the full House would be voting only on that specific recommendation, not on the governor's bill. That would be a way for DiMasi to technically keep his word that casino gambling will come up for a vote on the House floor. A legislator could try to bring an actual bill to the House floor, but that would require colleagues willing to go up against the speaker.
Patrick's budget proposal includes $124 million in casino licensing revenues, that don't exist yet. Ultimately, the governor is promising millions more for programs legislators love, without the taint of new taxes. DiMasi's budget, on the other hand, calls for spending cuts and a tax increase.
If not casinos, then what? DiMasi's answer is the tougher sell, but that doesn't make it the wrong pitch.
Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com.
