Speaking against it
The people who thought the Democrat-controlled Legislature just might present a Democratic governor with a blank check clearly misjudged Sal DiMasi.
The House speaker has emerged as a major thorn in the side of Governor Deval Patrick, and as a man who, though he denies it, enjoys playing power politics every bit as much as his predecessor, Thomas M. Finneran.
The Patrick-DiMasi relationship figures to be defined by the fate of Patrick's cherished casino gambling proposal. Patrick sees it as the pot of gold that can fund his agenda; DiMasi thinks the idea is oversold, if not downright nuts.
That was certainly the impression left by a wide-ranging conversation earlier this week in the speaker's office. With a mere three weeks to go in the legislative session, DiMasi insisted that - all appearances to the contrary - the Legislature has accomplished a great deal this year. He voiced support, at least in theory, for the governor's proposed $1 billion life sciences initiative. And he made it clear that, whatever he might say about keeping an open mind, casinos will not be breaking ground in Massachusetts anytime soon.
"I think a lot of people are not opposed to gambling as entertainment, but don't see it as an industry that is going to create a great economy for us," DiMasi said.
"I think the jobs are overstated, I think the wages might be overstated, I think the cost-benefits are overstated," he added. "I also think it will have an immediate effect - of perhaps $100 million - on the Lottery that we will have to make up."
Those were only the beginnings of DiMasi's objections. He also ridiculed the idea that Massachusetts can create "destination casinos."
"If it's in Las Vegas or Miami, that's one thing," DiMasi said. "I don't see people coming here in February so they can go to the beach and go to a casino. I mean, what does a 'destination location' mean? He says [the casinos might include] golf courses. I say, it's a very short season here for golf."
In DiMasi's estimation, that means the primary patrons will probably be Massachusetts residents. "Are we only taxing our local residents? Are we taxing the lowest-income residents, at that?"
Of course, many in Massachusetts share all those reservations. DiMasi has never claimed to embrace the plan. But he has seldom, if ever, stated his objections so forcefully.
He said he would like to know more about the experiences of such locales as Detroit, which established casinos a few years ago. He also said that he and his leadership team will seek to consult economists and other specialists. But he is not starting from a point of neutrality.
Patrick has suggested recently that he was elected to shake up the status quo, and that the Legislature is resistant to change. He is not the first governor to levy such a charge - they all say they will reform Beacon Hill. DiMasi, the consummate State House veteran, brushed aside Patrick's criticism as the frustrations of a political novice.
"In the executive branch, or if you're a CEO, your advisers or Cabinet secretaries give you advice, and you make a decision," DiMasi said. "My decisions have to be made not only with the advice of my leadership and members, but with their approval."
He spoke warmly of Patrick personally, and praised his leadership ability.
"I think his ideas are good, his intentions are good, and he's been a force in dealing with issues he thinks are important," DiMasi said. "He's accomplished a lot in education, workforce development, he's finding efficiencies in transportation . . . . The governor should claim his victories, and celebrate those victories." It's clear, though, that gambling is not soon to join that list of triumphs.
DiMasi scoffed at the idea that he is the most powerful person in the State House. "I wouldn't characterize myself that way," he said. "I enjoy myself immensely. But the governor, House, and Senate are co-equal, and there's no reason to think any one would be more powerful than the others."
Adrian Walker is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at walker@globe.com. 