Lida Harkins for Senate Podcast

State Rep. Lida Harkins is aiming for the Norfolk/Bristol/Middlesex Senate seat Scott Brown vacated when he headed to D.C. She told us how she is at least as progressive as Dr. Peter Smulowitz, whom she faces in next month’s special election primary. She also discussed how she’ll beat the Republican in the race, Richard Ross, in May.

Harkins explained her qualified support for casinos, which she views as fait accompli and whose nature she wants to help construct. She ticks the list of the district’s concerns and said she’ll cover all 12 cities and towns in this truncated race. She talked a lot about the big issue for the district, jobs.

Listen in as she speaks of what has been accomplished in ethics reform and what needs to happen in terms of transparency and finances. Moreover, we covered a wide range of topics from getting our money’s worth from tax credits to corporations to her understandable pride in leading the charge in the House for same-sex marriage.

icon for podpress  Lida Harkins [49:56m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download


  1. Dave Sokolove Said,

    March 23, 2010 @ 6:29 pm

    Rep. Harkins is not progressive- she voted against closing corporate tax loopholes in the past, voted against a constitutional amendment that made health care a constitutional right under Finneran. And, she defended DiMasi after his scandal, saying in the Globe all of it “was just a distraction and the speaker doesn’t like it.” I guess 21 years in the State Legislature teaches you to speak out of both sides of your mouth, like on the casino issue. Did anyone actually hear an answer to that question?

  2. Dave Sokolove Said,

    March 23, 2010 @ 9:08 pm

    Also, actually Cheryl Jacques is a judge

    so either Cheryl Jacques broke the law or Rep. Harkins wasn’t altogether telling the truth, or didn’t check her endorsements

  3. Susan Said,

    March 27, 2010 @ 10:53 pm

    Why would you want to support casinos which only supports more gambling, more crime, more addition, increased financial issues for family’s, mental and physical health issues caused by excessive gambling. It is not o.k. to promote such a way to raise tax dollars, let everyone go to Mohegan and Foxwoods…we do not need to turn our state into a crime infested world of gambling. What does this teach our next generation of children…how is this helping the people of our commonwealth? of course, it is the money revenue…God forbid Massachusetts loses out on an opportunity…God Help you and the rest of you who really think a casino is the answer!!!

  4. Marianne McCarthy Said,

    March 30, 2010 @ 10:17 pm

    Resort casinos in Massachusetts will create over 11,000 permanent, well-paying, jobs that include health benefits. Resort casinos will also create 10,000 construction jobs, generate $400 million in new state and local tax revenues, and provide $1.3 billion in new, ongoing economic activity—while also preserving and enhancing over 7,000 acres of open space and protecting 2,300 existing jobs.

    Massachusetts residents in 2008 Spent nearly $1 billion at the Connecticut casinos and Rhode Island slot parlors…Generated $211 million in tax revenues to the Connecticut and Rhode Island state treasuries

  5. Ryan Said,

    April 1, 2010 @ 6:20 am


    I’m sorry, but the hype just doesn’t live up toe the reality. The “economic activity” that proponents like to boast about are based on flawed studies, directed by people who have been paid tens of thousands by the industry. People like Professor Kindt have done studies which show that there’s actually a net loss of jobs when casinos go in, because the Big Box casinos drive out more jobs than they actually create, and they kill local businesses which have very strong multiplier effects, whereas casinos actually have negative multiplier effects (because they’re designed so that everything exists within them — there’s no reason to go outside them to spend money).

    The fact of the matter is there’s been no comprehensive, independent cost-benefit analysis done on any single casino or slot proposal in this state. No vote should take place until there’s been ample time and funds set aside for such a study, with review period for legislators and their constituents. The fact of the matter is if the Speaker were so confidant a comprehensive, independent cost-benefits analysis would come out positive for slots, it would have been done a long time ago. Instead, we have a Speaker who’s looking for any possible way to funnel money to the racetracks — even, including his newest proposal (printed today in the Globe and yesterday in the SNHS), just *giving* them cash for nothing, if he can’t get non-competitive licensed slots at the race tracks.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment