Bellicose Bumpkin

They continue to ignore the elephant in the room, the fact that the SCOTUS has ruled that the BIA can’t put LIT. The only path is through federal legislation. Senate majority leader is from Nevada, whose casinos are in danger of losing revenue to new casinos nationwide. I would count a majority of states’ congressional delegations opposing LIT for gaming.

Cromwell’s “hybrid” idea is a joke. What is the motivation for the state to share? That ship has sailed.

The state is projecting yearly revenue of 450 million dollars. That is only one-sixty-seventh of the state’s 28 Billion dollar budget. Does it seem that casinos are worth so little in revenue that the COSTS outweigh the benefits?

Congress offered a bandaid on a severed artery when they offered gambling to Native Americans as ‘economic development.’

There is a great deal historically wrong beginning with the ‘Sovereign Rights’ issue that has allowed many Tribes to be cheated both by their own corrupt or incompetent leadership and by their own lack of expertise. In that case, I’m thinking of some of their lands that have been contaminated by hazardous waste dumps, mine tailings, polluting coal-burning plants, mineral rights and land sold, and so on.

Gambling was simply one more opportunity for Tribes to be exploited, cheapen their heritage, sacrifice their culture to wealthy masters and expose greed clearly.

Pity!

@Nancy
The most recent Innovation Report (hastily prepared for the Senate for $80,000) echos estimates of others that $1 billion is flowing out of the state and the state would ‘re-capture’ about 50% of that amount – or $500 million.

Taxed at 25%, state revenues would be $125 million.

The Spectrum Gaming Report prepared for the Governor that cost $189,000, determined that lottery losses would be $144 million.

Regardless of opinions regarding the lottery, it provides direct aid to cities and towns at a time when local aid is being cut.

When one calculates the cost of the bloated regulatory bureaucracy, where is there $450 million? That’s why no one wants to conduct a cost/benefit analysis.

The Senate bill is mandating an investment of $600 million.

Has anyone considered what you get for that price? A fancy slot parlor!

That’s what Sand provided in Bethlehem, PA after promising 1825 jobs, Sands created 780 JOBS with 3,000 Slots, Massachusetts would need 20 Slot Parlors to create 15,000 JOBS. (That’s almost 4 slot machines for each job.)
http://middlebororemembers.blogspot.com/2010/05/sands-promises-promises-promises.html

The jobs aren’t there. The few that are are low wage and hundreds of jobs, not thousands.

The revenue isn’t there. The costs are pretty steep.

I’m glad you wrote about this. The Senate is indeed pulling a Middleboro, and driving many of us who lived through it crazy (again). I mean, how many times do you have to bring back the broomstick of a dead witch before people start to actually believe she’s dead.

When we try to give Rosenberg information, he gives us the brush off. As if no one who’s lived this nightmare for over 3 years could possibly have a clue.

Now, Rosenberg is trying to sell the Senate the idea that the Tribe will resort to bingo.

He’s also assuring the Senate that the Mashpee were recognized before 1934 and that CvS is only a flesh wound. Behold

There is a great deal of work still being done to understand the full implication of Carcieri. It says that if a tribe did not have a relationship with the federal government prior to 1934, you are not entitled to land in trust. Let’s take it to this moment at this place. There is ample evidence based on people who study the ethnic background of tribes that there is a clear relationship between the Wampanoag and the federal government before 1934. The attorney with whom we have spoken, and Sen. Spilka of Framingham and I have had in-depth conversations on this, the tribe almost definitely will be able to demonstrate its relationship with the federal government. We’re trying to inform this debate as best we can. The unbiased information we’ve been able to collect indicates they had that relationship.

I mean, where do we even start with this?? Not that they’ll listen to us anyway since we’re just lowly peasants members of the public.

These hearings have been grotesque. Murray and Rosenberg milk the Senate’s ignorance. Cromwell milks Rosenberg and Murray’s ignorance. They all use each other to forward private agendas. Lawyers know all. The public is ignored.

Yup. Another Middleboro.

Bumpkin – the problem here is that shortly after the Carcieri decision the BIA sent letters to the tribes that had applications pending. The letters advised the tribes to consult their lawyers as to the legality of their applications. Since then, there has been little to no activity on the back log of applications.

Understandably, this has frustrated various Indian tribes who have been complaining that there are valid and legal applications which are being ignored. Carcieri has inadvertantly effected everyone.

So Salazar has sent a memo asking the BIA to evaluate the pending applications for applicable legal statute and to process those applications where there is authority for them to do so.

The only thing happening now is that he has taken the responsibility of evaluation out of the hands of the tribes and placing it within his agency.

But hey, don’t take my word for it. A few calls to DC by anyone willing to take the time to do so will net the same information.

No one can fault an American whether Native American or not, for desiring to escape all taxes and regulations. What a life!

The abuse of the system created both Carcieri and the Hawaii decision and the most recent changes intended to prevent “Reservation Shopping.”

The Mashpee Wampanoags’ historical ties to Middleboro have been challenged. The distance between the land they claimed in their application as being their home too great to fulfill the BIA’s requirements. The justification in the Fall River site even more questionable.

There seems nothing that reduces the issue more simply than the Hawaii decision —

Within weeks of the 8-1 Carcieri v Salazar decision, a second
strike on fee to trust was issued. This time it came from a case
originating in the state of Hawaii. In the 9-0 decision on Hawaii
v. the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Justice Alito wrote, “It would
raise grave constitutional concerns” Congress sought to “cloud
Hawaii’s title to its sovereign lands” after it had joined the
Union. “We have emphasized that Congress cannot, after
statehood reserve or convey….lands that have already been
bestowed upon a state”. How many readers of this paper could
be effected by issues concerning land that has been “bestowed
upon a state”; as an original colony, through disestablished
territory or when the territory entered into statehood?

Simplified versions may be found here –
Opinion Recap: Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs
SCOTUS WIKI

It’s easy to envision years and years of expensive litigation if the Senate passes this disaster with their flawed logic and provides preferential treatment.