Infrastructure, Transporation, Taxes and casinos

I would like to share a letter from Lt. Governor Tim Murray with you. We have difficult decisions and choices to make at a challenging time. I commend the Governor and Lt. Governor for discussing the facts of the failing infrastructure in the Commonwealth. I would rather pay a tax on fossil fuels to improve infrastructure than live with the costs of slots for eternity.
Here is what the LG has to say:

Dear Friends,

I wanted to write to you personally about the transportation reform package the governor announced last Friday, because I believe it is important that my friends and supporters consider the details of the plan and its potential impact on our economy.

We have some hard choices to make, and in that spirit I look to the example of one of my favorite presidents, Harry Truman, who was famous for “The Buck Stops Here” sign on his desk. One thing I hope never to do is pass the buck. The worst thing I could do would be to pretend the problems on our roads and bridges aren’t real. But the fact is, our transportation system is the backbone of our economy, and we can’t let it continue to degrade into ruins. For Massachusetts to get back on the road to recovery, we have to make sure our roads are passable, our bridges are safe, and that we can sustain that infrastructure over the long term.

Investing in our roads, rails and bridges will create jobs by stimulating construction, and it will help grow our economy in the long term, by making sure we have a safe and sustainable transportation network.

Many of the headlines and sound bites of recent days have focused on the 19 cents per gallon increase in the gas tax we proposed to help pay for this program, and I understand that. Taxes are newsworthy,but the plan is comprehensive, and includes major reforms that are sorely needed. It’s not just about the gas tax.

Our administration’s proposal would consolidate transportation management under one integrated executive office. We would abolish the Turnpike Authority and create a single department to handle all of the state’s highways, bridges and tunnels. We would eliminate the excessive pension loopholes that allow certain people to cash in at the taxpayers’ expense. We would create an Office of Performance Management to report to the public on the effectiveness of our transportation spending. And we would enact the reforms proposed by the Transportation Finance Commission, a bi-partisan group that took a hard look at our failing system and made many clear-minded suggestions. (Click here to read their report.)

This package of reforms will save billions of taxpayer dollars over time, and cut the state transportation payroll by about 300 jobs through efficiencies realized by consolidating overlapping functions. But even these reforms won’t free up enough money to make the desperately needed investments required in our infrastructure all across this state—to do that will require some new revenue and I believe that the gas tax is the fairest way to achieve that.

No one likes to pay more in taxes, and the governor and I would not ask people to pay more unless we thought it was necessary. I believe, however, that the people of Massachusetts are fundamentally fair-minded and will take the time to look past the headlines and think about the real issues at stake here.

That’s what civic engagement and informed democracy is all about. I believe that when government is honest with the people it serves, that’s the first step on the road to consensus and solution, even for very difficult issues.

Unfortunately, when it comes to our transportation system, the Big Dig, the MBTA and the Turnpike, honesty has not always been part of the debate. In fact, this Commonwealth has been left with a legacy of debt and denial by prior administrations unwilling to deal with the reality of crumbling roads and bridges, bloated and counterproductive bureaucracies, and the fiscal shell games they used to hide the problems.

That’s not how the governor and I do business. I believe that if we have the will to make these reforms and invest in our roads, bridges and public transportation systems, then we will position Massachusetts for long-term economic growth. But we can’t do it for free, or by running up more debt to burden future generations. We have to pay for it.

If you haven’t already done so, please take the time to learn all about our transportation proposal (click here to read all the details.) When you do, I hope you will agree that it makes the most sense, given the realties we face.

As always, I look forward to your thoughts and comments about this, so feel free to email me directly at LtGovOffice@state.ma.us with any ideas or concerns you have. By working together, I know we can make progress.

Thanks,

Tim

Mythbusters

The myth perpetuated by the casino industry that Indian casinos are inevitable in Massachusetts continues to not hold legal muster.

Supreme Court rules in big land-into-trust case
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Filed Under: Law | Trust

Tribes that weren't under federal jurisdiction in 1934 cannot follow the land-into-trust process of the Indian Reorganization Act, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices said the Interior Department can't acquire land for the Narragansett Tribe of Rhode Island because the tribe didn't gain federal recognition until 1983. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion. "Because the record in this case establishes that the Narragansett Tribe was not under federal jurisdiction when the IRA was enacted, the Secretary does not have the authority to take the parcel at issue into trust," Thomas wrote. Three justices dissented from the court's opinion. Justice David Souter agreed with the 1934 issue but said the Narragansetts should be given the opportunity to prove they were under federal jurisdiction at the time, an issue that wasn't argued when the case was accepted. "The very notion of jurisdiction as a distinct statutory condition was ignored in this litigation, and I know of no body of precedent or history of practice giving content to the condition sufficient for gauging the tribe’s chances of satisfying it," Souter wrote in an opinion that was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice John Paul Stevens disagreed with the 1934 issue altogether and said the Narragansetts are an Indian tribe as defined by the IRA. "That tribe has existed as a continuous political entity since the early 17th century," he wrote. Justice Stephen G. Breyer joined the majority opinion and authored a concurrence that said the Narragansetts have no way of proving they were under federal jurisdiction in 1934. "Because I see no realistic possibility that the Narragansett Tribe could prevail on the basis of a theory alternative to the theories argued here, I would not remand this case," he wrote. The decision blocks the Narragansetts from using a 31-acre parcel for a housing project. But it also affects every other tribe that wasn't federally recognized, or under federal jurisdiction, in 1934. Anticipating the outcome, the Narragansetts have sought support for a legislative fix to address the 1934 issue. But tribal leaders expect major opposition from the state's politicians and Congressional delegation. The National Congress of American Indians discussed the case earlier this year as tribal leaders gathered in Washington, D.C., for the inauguration of President Barack Obama. However, the "Carcieri fix" was left off the final list of priorities for the 111th Congress. The list of tribes who are affected by the 1934 issue runs in the dozens and includes some of the more financially successful in Indian Country. Many of them, however, may be able to overcome the date limitation by proving they were under federal jurisdiction at the time. The Department of Justice, in another land-into-trust case that was rejected by the high court last month, said Interior will have to take a look at treaties, statutes, executive orders and other sources of law to answer the federal jurisdiction issue. It's not clear how this process might be developed. And the decision doesn't appear to affect post-1934 tribes whose land is already in trust, as only Congress can take land out of trust. It would appear only to affect future acquisitions.

"You're Fired!"

Just when you think the bizarre world of casino owners, investors and politicians can't get any stranger (or corrupt) along comes the Donald who just fired himself.

My favorite little factoid in the article:

The Tropicana Casino and Resort has been run by a state-appointed trustee for 14 months after its former owners were stripped of their casino license. It is due to be sold soon at a bankruptcy auction, but creditors may try to block such a sale, fearing it wouldn't fetch enough of a price to pay them back much.