Voting against the leadership on Boston’s Beacon Hill is never easy, and you always pay a price. For that reason, I am publishing the honor roll of those courageous State Senators who stood against the rape of the poor and the bad bet enshrined in the Senates Casino gambling bill – they are:
1. Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz
2. Sen. Cynthia Creem
3. Sen. Ken Donnelly
4. Sen. Benjamin Downing
5. Sen. James Eldridge
6. Sen. Susan Fargo
7. Sen. Barry Finegold
8. Sen. Patricia Jehlen
9. Sen. Jon Keenan
10. Sen. Mark Montigny
11. Sen. Richard Moore
12. Sen. Michael Rodrigues
13. Karen Spilka
14. Sen. Dan Wolf.
Especially of note, Sen. Spilka co-chairs the Economic Development Committee that recommended the bill.
According to State House News Service:
Sen. Robert Hedlund, who was active in the debate, did not vote, nor did Sen. Michael Rush, who is serving overseas in the military. Hedlund, who voted against expanded gambling legislation last session, said of the bill earlier this week, “I’m not comfortable with a lot that’s in this bill.” One of the bill’s most vocal opponents, former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, president of Citizens for a Stronger Massachusetts, released a statement after the vote. “We are, of course, disappointed with the Senate’s vote to follow the House in approving a bill which, if it becomes law, will irreparably and undeniably hurt the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. After weeks of so-called ‘debate,’ the process now goes back behind closed doors where key differences in this bill will be hammered out the same way the bill was written – in secret, with no transparency or public voice.”
Deb Adds:
Sadly, the bill’s supporters continue to tout “thousands of jobs” and a “new revenue stream”, ignoring that trainloads of money will leave our state to further engorge absentee billionaires, and further impoverish those with no hope, fixed incomes, and young children.
Here is my bet: In ten years, it will be clear to all that there were more living wage jobs before casinos entered out state, more restaurants and theaters, and that in fact, the total income of our state, and revenue in our states coffers went down, not up as a result of voting in casino gambling and slot parlors. In my opinion, that is like all three pigs inviting the Wolf to come to dinner.
They stuffed an apple in the most vulnerable pig’s mouth and fired up the oven…
I’ve always felt that any variation of “tax on the poor” is among the weakest anti-casino arguments because it implies people are required to gamble. I certainly don’t approve of calling it rape and I tend to doubt that actual rape victims would appreciate that either.
Whether they are required to gamble or not is immaterial. Casinos make most of their money from the low end stuff that poor people like to think they can “afford”. Here’s a breakdown on 23 casinos from Examiner.com:
Source: http://www.examiner.com/las-vegas-in-national/2010-gaming-revenue-for-largest-vegas-strip-casinos
Casinos usually have credit rooms where you can get cash for things like the title to your car, your house, or other valuables. People too poor to do so will gamble everything away and ruin themselves, so in that respect you can easily call it a “tax on the poor”.
You could also call it a tax on people who are bad at statistics – but at least there was an amendment on the bill to require a label outlining your odds of winning on the slot machines, does anyone know if that survived today’s passage of the bill?
…the financial equivalent of date rape, especially with unlimited booze. So once more, we will just have to agree to disagree. Do I use strong language at times? Yes. Strong language is for strong feelings.
You invite someone to an “entertainment destination”, ply them with free booze, and then strip them of all their money while they are drunk and dis inhibited. Isn’t that a lot like date rape?
Strong language should be used to express strong feelings. But just because language is strong does not make it appropriate. Rape is almost never an appropriate analogy in public policy discussions. It certainly should not be used here.
Casino gambling, whatever its deleterious effects in the aggregate, can be an enjoyable and harmless activity for individuals under certain circumstances regardless of the individuals’ wealth. Even opponents of casinos (I dislike them myself) need to acknowledge that. Call the casino bill cynical, disastrous, or a terrible mistake. Please don’t call it rape.
While this, no doubt, is a fair point it is incumbent on me to point out that between the weakest arguments and the strongest language lies a sparse and fallow field: we have no language to describe what is being done here and the magnitude of both the change to the CommonWealth (hollowing out the title, if nothing else…) and the inception of predation lies beyond our ability to adequately and forcefully articulate.
This inability to articulate, interestingly enough, emboldens the casino lobby and weakens any opposition: you can resort to the weakest arguments or you can engage in hyperbole, either one of which makes the casino lobby look like the reasonable ones… As others have pointed out, banality serves evil extraordinarily well.
among the sheep and opposed this Folly.
It is always easiest to follow the crowd, not make waves and accept the largesse of leadership.
Thank you for standing for the future of the Commonwealth and for what’s right.
Tom Larkin summed it up on facebook with a sign:
Casinos = Corporate Greed
It’s a pathetic commentary on the willingness of lawmakers who should be leaders that they genuflect to the Gambling Industry.
Would these same Senators lead the charge to END the Mass. State lottery? The Lottery is no less detrimental to the poor and middle class. It’s worse in many ways because it has turned thousands of corner stores into mini-Keno parlors and scratch ticket cities…so convenient and in your face, hard to escape…to go to a Casino you have to make an effort and a decision to get there…to go to your local gambling establishment, you just have to go out to get bread and milk…to be against a destination casino and for the Lottery is the height of hypocrisy. Personally, I think gambling, like smoking and drinking is a choice…all three can be addictive and lead people to ruin…BUT, it is a choice. No one will be required to gamble or go to a casino. Chances are the majority of people in Massachusetts will never go to a casino, never be tempted there…but the will have to go out for bread and milk.
Nobody forces any of those three on anybody. Each can be addictive and lead people to ruin. The chances are that a majority of people in Massachusetts will never buy heroin, cocaine, or sexual services and will never be tempted. Each of the three is immensely profitable.
According to your argument, shouldn’t we legalize and tax each of these?
I do agree with you about the lottery. It was a bad idea and has had horrible consequences. If we want to make paying taxes more “fun”, we should raise the (compulsory) tax rates. Then we should pick a few lucky taxpayers each year and — in a highly-publicized promotional video — award a state-funded annuity to each one.
I have been watching Ken Burns latest documentary on “Prohibition”…you can’t escape the overriding message of that era: when you try to legislate morals there are unintended consequences…organized crime and a drug trafficking underworld. Legalize all three and regulate…just the way we do with other addictives like smoking and alcoholic beverages. Choice.
Thank the Brave 14 + 1! Unfortunately not all are accepting donations through Act Blue, but if you can spare a few dollars to thank them, please do.
What’s next? Would it be possible to put enough pressure on the governor to get him to veto this bill? If so, that could stop it due to not enough votes to override in the State Senate. Barring that it looks like our only option is to fight at the local level. It’s going to be an uphill struggle, because the casino lobbyists have tons of money to spend.
You can do better than the “rape” analogy, amberpaw.
You invite someone on a date, pay for their alcholic drinks, and then against their will you attack them, force yourself upon them, and enagage in unwanted sexual intercourse, while they are drunk and disinhibited.
Isn’t that a lot like allowing someone to gamble at your casino?
Or isn’t it not at all the same thing?
These were previously posted on BMG:
Casino gambling and drinking alcohol ARE fundamentally different
Government-created gambling addicts are not equal citizens
However, I still think that the addictive slot machines, and false hope sold leading to the inability to buy food, buy medicine, or pay rent is not only seduction and robbery by stealth and undue influence of the poor, easily influenced, and simple-minded, but a kind of financial rape via fraud and false advertising. Also, the title is now ridiculously long in order to be politically correct!!! I could have left it, but feel like in this fashion, I am actually proving the point – you are fine with seducing – and just when seduction by lies and undue influence becomes “a kind of rape” is, I argue, not an easy call.
and although there’s no comparison because of the rapidity of play and the design created to addict, please consider
this:
U.S. lotteries and the state taxman
If you’re opposed to the Massachusetts Lottery that provides direct aid to cities and towns, would you support an income tax increase or a corporate tax increase?
Absolutely. Unequivocally. No doubt.
The lottery, by holding out the lure of riches, is geared directly and precisely to those who are not rich. By making lottery returns direct aid to cities and towns we are making deliberately regressive funding decisions.
If there is a need for aid to cities and towns what other way than the direct, comprehensive, taxation to pay for it??
who would agree, petr.
I’ve always felt that a surcharge on income tax to reduce real estate taxes (which are regressive) and fund education made sense.
There’s an interesting chart contained in the article by David Cay Johnston that’s worth considering. In graphic form, it indicates how state corporate taxes have declined.
I said so above.
I think it’s TERRIBLE public policy and governance for the state to be in the gambling business.