Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Legalized gambling, including the state lottery,

By

On Nov 2, 2006, the Massachusetts Council on Compulsive Gambling praised Deval Patrick for saying on Sept 9th, 2006

I have some serious reservations about proposals to legalize slot machines and casino gambling in Massachusetts. I am not convinced that we have fully considered the social and other costs on local communities of more gambling in Massachusetts, as well as the effect new gambling may have on our very successful state lottery.

While the state lottery might be successful, it is still legalized gambling and it still produces the same kinds of social and economic problems that other forms of gambling create.

On Nov 17th, 2006, the Boston Herald

shows DP flip-flopping on this issue:

Gov.-elect Deval Patrick, who’s been known to pull the handle on a slot machine himself from time to time, is signaling he’s open to the possibility of casino gambling in the Bay State.
  Patrick’s decision to leave the door ajar to gambling proponents represents a major shift from Gov….

Let’s stand together in opposition of the state lottery and call on our governor-elect make a strong public statement on this issue.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. From where I’m standing, state lottery aid helps to pay teachers and cops.  If you make it illegal there’s a very good case that it would just go underground or to foxwoods anyways.  People have a right to spend their money in stupid ways, why not let the state (ultimately cities & towns) get the money instead of the mob?

    • According to the Massachusetts State Lottery website, lottery revenues are distributed to cities and towns without earmarks for specific purposes such as hiring teachers and cops.

      <

      p>
      Perhaps abolishing the lottery or modifying it in some other way (like making it really expensive) would redirect gamblers to illegal activity and casinos. But it is also reasonable to assume that eliminating or restricting legal numbers games would lead to a reduction in gambling. Rather than assuming that there is a stable demand for gambling activity, we should recognize that many people who play these games would not do so if it was illegal, prohibitively expensive, or inconvenient.

      <

      p>
      Certainly people have a right to spend their money on many legal, yet financial irresponsible products and services, but I challenge you to defend the state’s role in aggressively promoting these things. Shouldn’t our government warn people against such “stupid” games, or at the very least not encourage this behavior?

      <

      p>
      The NCALG website links to the Tax Foundation Publication on Lotteries.
      I encourage you to read this document which describes how lottery taxes are regressive (disproportionately impacing the poor), not economically neutral (distorts consumer spending), and not transparent (hard to understand).

      <

      p>
      I leave you with a quote of the conclusion of this report:

      Conclusion
      No state has abandoned the lottery in the past century and, unfortunately, none is likely to do so soon. Lotteries exemplify poor tax policy, and voters in Oklahoma and other states that do not yet have them would be wise to reject them at the ballot box.

      As for lotteries already in operation, given the rate at which they are expanding and raising tax revenue, it is unlikely that states will end them any time soon. If they did, however, they would improve their tax systems by increasing accountability, transparency and economic neutrality, as well as decreasing regressivity. Legislators would find that they do not truly need the tax revenue raised by lotteries; they would either get by without it or raise it through explicit taxation enacted legislatively. They could allow lotteries to continue in the private market or even ban them entirely, but, in either case, the cessation of state-run lotteries would result in more principled state tax systems.

Archives