Senate President Therese Murray Stepping Down

Did you somehow not see the big blue letters titled “Read PDF”? Try this link:

http://americanvalues.org/catalog/pdfs/why-casinos-matter.pdf

Casinos are the worst form of regressive taxation, removing billions from the local economy while providing millions in tax revenue. Those “people you trust” have now placed themselves in the position of promoting a public harm in the form of gambling. Three points from the report specifically address the conflict of interest created by legalized casinos:

The Casino’s Political Impact

19. Casinos are the creation of state government and its public policies.

Casinos are often described as public-private partnerships between government and the gambling industry. (Kansas is an exception: its three casinos are owned solely by the state.) However, the new casinos cannot be viewed as just another kind of
public-private partnership. They are instituted by the states to create a source of revenue separate from direct taxation, the traditional way of financing government expenses for the common welfare. States typically legalize casino gambling by changing state constitutions. They create regional monopolies for the casinos. They regulate lightly and often in ways that discriminate against other legal businesses. They promote casino gambling through advertising and advocacy by public officials.

They tell the public that casinos provide funds for necessary government services without raising taxes. They rescue casinos from bankruptcy. In short, without the legal, administrative, regulatory, and promotional advantages provided by state governments, casinos would not be spreading into mainstream American life as they are today and would likely still exist only on the fringes of the society.

20. State regulation of casinos creates a conflict of interest, in which the state is charged with protecting the public from the very business practices that generate revenue for the state and which the state is co-sponsoring.

State governments are caught in a classic conflict of interest between their desire for more revenues and their responsibility to prevent harms to the public from unfair or exploitative practices. Many have resolved the conflict in favor of more revenues from casinos. This decision is a violation of the precautionary principle, which holds that government must engage in due diligence before introducing a policy that might harm its citizens, even when the evidence of harm is not definitive. Yet in the case of casino gambling, there is clear evidence of harm, and that fact alone is sufficient reason to require a moratorium on state-sponsored gambling expansion. In fact, a moratorium was the main recommendation of the 1999 federally-funded report from the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. But since that time, states have raced ahead to locate commercial casinos in struggling communities and to extract revenues from citizens in those communities.

21. States are typically failing to protect their citizens from the harms of state-sponsored casino gambling.

Since the late 1990s, federal and state commissions have recommended policies to protect citizens from the harms of state-sponsored casino gambling. These “best practices” policies are designed to hold the producers of gambling—the states and their partners in the gambling industry—responsible for its serious harms. However, few if any states have actually adopted or implemented these “best practices.” They include:

– Prohibiting gambling advertising, as is the case with cigarette advertising.
– Modifying the machine design to reduce speed and duration of play.
– Removing ATMs and credit facilities from the casinos.
– Requiring breaks/cooling-off periods in machine play.
– Prohibiting free alcohol on the casino floor.
– Displaying onscreen clocks on the machines.
– Prohibiting casino lending on credit.
– Establishing an independently funded National Institute on Problem
– Gambling to conduct research and public education.

I really can’t emphasize enough that you should read the whole thing, and then make up your mind about those “people you trust”.

To me, a casino is the same as a bar. A bar is a place where people drink together. A casino is a place where people gamble together. I don’t think that you can outlaw casinos any more than you can outlaw bars. Like bars, casinos are an established aspect of our culture. In my mind, it is better to handle them with taxes and regulations that to try to outlaw them.

But “enough people in the House” sounds like a cruel joke right now, and “another progressive Governor” is hardly guaranteed.

That phrase does not mean what you think it means.

Or else “a vote on the amendment” does not mean what I think it means.