I have opposed opening casinos in Massachusetts, not on moral grounds (anyone who has the successful lottery that we do has no moral out on this issue), but on the question of whether or not it makes good economic policy. After studying this for eleven years, I am absolutely certain that it makes no sense at all and in fact, hurts our economy in quite a few ways.
First, the question of “everyone is doing it, so why can’t we recapture the money we lose to other states?” is a red herring. That was the reason given in Rhode Island when Rhode Island voted to place slots in Lincoln Park. Yet a University of Rhode Island study indicated that only a small percentage of gamblers came home to Rhode Island. Most of the money came from people who were already in the state, thereby merely shifting money already spent in the economy. Oh, and by the way, the slots have not saved the dog racing industry, but have made the owners much richer.
Second, our Lottery returned $952 million to cities and towns last year. The two best casinos in the US, in Connecticut returned about $400 million to Connecticut. How much more do people expect us to do? This is important for a couple of reasons. First, the lottery is extremely important to cities and towns and we should stick with the Lottery and not go on to casinos where commercial operators and native tribes will get a lion?s share of our net gaming revenues. And second, we get about $.24 of every dollar wagered in the lottery that goes back to cities and towns. Slot machines pay off at an average of 93%. That means that that they pay off at $.07 for every dollar wagered. If we were to tax at 50% (remember, Connecticut gets 25% of the net gaming revenues), that means that we would get 3.5 cents of every dollar in revenues. So for every dollar that the lottery loses to a casino, we must receive $6.80 in casino winnings. If the lottery loses 10%, or 95 million dollars from the introduction of casinos in Massachusetts, we have to lose $646 million in net revenues at casinos. And, if we consider that this is 7% of then total money wagered, that means that we need to gamble $9.2 billion just to run in place! That alone far exceeds anyone?s expectations. Will we lose 10% of the lottery revenues? We have studies suggesting we will lose up to 17%.
Third, if studies are right and Massachusetts’s residents are spending 1.1 billion dollars in Connecticut, we must remember that we only recapture the net gaming revenues to the state. That means that we would recapture a little over $100 million. To do this we have to fund a gaming commission at $75-80 million (comparable to what other states spend), have to fund increased law enforcement at around the same cost, and have to pay for the social costs that we incur from increased gambling activity. That is not a moral issue, but a dollar and cents issue because it increases our cost for social programs. There are other costs to concern us, but these alone far outweigh the recaptured revenue.
Fourth, we know that most of the customers for a casino come from a 50-mile radius. They are spending money that they are already spending on other goods and services. This impacts our tourism industry, our food and beverage industries and our entertainment industries at a minimum. This is not new money but money already spent in a much more diverse way in our economy. In 1977 there were over 225 bar, restaurants, and taverns in Atlantic City. Today there are less than 50 as the casinos have engulfed them. That happens everywhere. I would like to give you the statistics for Ledyard Connecticut, but for all intents and purposes, there is no longer a Ledyard. The local people will tell you how difficult this is, and in fact, if casinos are such a good deal, why is Connecticut trying desperately to deny a third Indian casino? The fact is that New Jersey was supposed to fatten their state coffers with casinos and they had to shut down their government this year in a fiscal crisis. They have 17 casinos. Connecticut, New Jersey and Rhode Island all have casino gambling and all have higher taxes than Massachusetts. Under the ruse of property tax relief, Pennsylvania passed a bill to legalize slots two years ago and today their Governor is calling for a major increase in the sales tax rate. These states pay higher taxes in part because they need to make up for the unmet revenue needs that were promised by the casinos. Paul Samuelson, the Nobel Prize winning Massachusetts economist has said that gambling is the worst form on economic activity that one can have. Money doesn’t churn through the economy.
Fifth, No state has been able to control gambling once it is started within their borders. The Treasurer’s vision of one casino is naïve. With one, you get at least two Indian casinos and then the race tracks will come looking for relief. Look at our lottery. What started out as a little green ticket once a week now fires off a keno game every four minutes! And with each expansion, the economy becomes more dependent on gambling revenues.
I don’t care if people want to play games and wager their money. But as a state legislator, my first responsibility is to make sure that we aren’t enacting policy that is detrimental to our state, or in my committee, our economy. We can do better than looking to gambling to balance our budget. This really is a sucker’s bet.
and thanks for the background data.
<
p>
BTW – I attended this years citizen’s legislative seminar and really appreciated the time you took out of your day to speak with the group.
In fact, the casinos in Atlantic City have sucked the life out of the historic town. The museum is a husk. Walk one block away from the glittering high rise casinos – and there is only withered blight that looks like urban slum. My husband and I visited Atlantic City last year – not for the Casinos as we do not gamble, but to see the historic boardwalk. I was awaiting surgery on a deteriorated hip from an auto accident and there are antique “rolling chairs” for two or more folk. We stuck our noses in one of the huge casino buildings just one time – to go to a free play. The town was dying around the casinos, at least in my opinion. I really appreciate Rep. Bosley’s analysis – it is eery how close Bosley’s description is to what I experienced in Atlantic City.
Indiana is, as most of you know, my home state, and during my 11 years in Cincinnati, OH Argosy opened a casino in Lawrenceburg, IN (22 miles from Cincinnati – I’d drive through Lawrenceburg on US 50 every time I went home).
<
p>
I won’t deny that there were suddenly many more things to do in Lawrenceburg, and the town got much bigger and substantially wealthier in a short amount of time (as did the towns near Louisville, KY). However, I’m not sure the town got any BETTER, and while the infrastructure improved, the subsequent issues of sprawl and social costs absorbed much of the gain in infrastructure improvement.
<
p>
Another side effect – the rapid growth led to a bunch of reflexively anti-tax types moving there, and school/operating levies (already challenging to pass) became even less likely to pass. Now a casino either has opened or will soon open in French Lick, which any good Massachusettsian knows is the hometown of Larry Bird – it will be interesting to see what happens to French Lick and Orange County.
<
p>
I still see some good things have come to Lawrenceburg because of Argosy, but I’m not sure if, long-term, it’s the best solution. Dan (whom I’m proud to say is my representative on Beacon Hill) has many valid points on this issue, and I lean strongly against casinos in Massachusetts because of what he has said.
<
p>
WF
Fourth, we know that most of the customers for a casino come from a 50-mile radius.
<
p>
You know this? How?
<
p>
So if I walk into Foxwoods, most (50%+ I presume) of the customers live within 50 miles of the place?
<
p>
Have you ever … you know … actually been there?
And is therefore what we call “anecdotal.”
<
p>
But even there, a lot of people probably live within 50 miles. Heck, NYC may be within 50 miles of it, or at least a lot of the people who live in NYC.
Foxwoods is a full [134 miles Though the original report said that among experts ”there is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud,” the final version of the report released to the public concluded in its executive summary that ”there is a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud.” …] from Foxwoods and the “wonder of it alltm”
<
p>
It is not anectdotal anymore than rep Bosley’s comments.
http://maps.google.c…
That I didn’t know the exact mileage of Foxwoods from NYC. I didn’t know Foxwoods was such an important historical landmark that I should know its exact location. Perhaps I don’t do as much gambling as you do? (I do none at all).
<
p>
Furthermore, you’ll notice I put in a qualifier there. I suppose English comprehension was never your best skill, though, huh?
<
p>
(Tit for tat isn’t a game I like to play, but if people are going to be so rude online – ie. you – then to hell with it.)
with a fact that wasn’t a fact. I called you on it. The 50 miles argument is bogus, especially when one looks at both Foxwoods, and Mohegan Sun, and Las Vegas, and Atlantic City.
…the distance of Foxwoods from NYC per se is not particularly relevant. Many people who live in NYC’s northern suburbs–Greenwich and Stamford CT–are considerably closer to Foxwoods than those in NYC proper. And more than a few of them will likely be employed by companies in NYC.
<
p>
People in NYC and its southern suburbs in NJ are more likely to go to Atlantic City. I’ll just point out, though, that I have read of bus companies that regularly transport people from CT to the Atlantic City casinos to allow the casinos to separate the people from their money. And back, of course.
but both Greenwich and Stamford are close to 100 miles away from Foxwoods still. It was the 50 mile radius argument I was trying to show is a fallacy.
My qualifier was that if it weren’t within 50 miles, people who worked there would be.
<
p>
Duh.
<
p>
So, yes, I was right – even in the very first post – because I never claimed to know exactly where Foxwoods was on the map. However, from seeing the sign on an exit on the highway and then driving to NY, I knew it wasn’t all that far. Thus, I knew that at the very least many people who work in NYC are probably within 50 miles.
<
p>
That’s where I was going with my argument, until childish rants brought it down a level.
<
p>
So sorry to any readers. Next time I’ll be sure to mapquest the empire state building and Foxwoods and measure the difference.
85 mile commutes. I’d hate to be them.
<
p>
How is pointing out a fact a childish rant. Oh I get it, if someone doesn’t agree with you their opinion is a childish rant, especially if they use facts and logic? Your main point is still suspect Ryan, unless you define many as a few percent.
<
p>
The fact remains that most of the people who visit Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are from the Boston Metro and New York Metro areas. Areas which are outside the 50 mile radius.
<
p>
I might have missed this, but if 23% of the people are coming from New York, that doesn’t dispute the 50 mile radius comment.
The 50 mile radius is pretty well accepted in the industry. I have been home since this post started, so I haven’t access to my documentation at the office. I mentioned Grinols because I remember that when he testified at the Pennsylvania hearings as they debated this issue, he used this figure. (BTW, his testimony also said that if they wanted to legalize gambling, they shouldn’t use economics as a reason. It is not an economic driver.) I know that our compulsive gaming people also use this benchmark.
I am not sure what your point is. This is an industry average and the numbers may be a little over or under any one destination resort casino. However, no one, except the Treasurer in his speech the other day, has stated that we hope to recreate either Foxwoods or the Mohegan Sun in Massachusetts. They were first to market here in New England and they are the number one and three grossing casinos in the world.
Since you have spent the time to post several times concerning the veracity of the 50-mile radius comment, I thought I should do a little work on this. Here is what a cursory check of the Internet gave me. Not only did it confirm the comments that I attributed to Dr. Grinols in Philadelphia, but also Professor William Thompson of UNLV used that same statistic. I should point out that Grinols is a world-renowned resource on the issue of gambling and Professor Thompson is used as an expert across the US, having studied this issue for years. The Thompson reference to the 50-mile radius was used in testimony in Milwaukee as they looked at casinos.
I also found studies by the Anderson Group in Michigan detailing problems with job loss in a 50-mile radius surrounding Michigan casinos. This corresponds to the study done by economist Ernie Gross at Creighton University who looked at personal bankruptcies in ?casino counties? and came to the conclusion that personal bankruptcies increased by 100% versus noncasino counties. He didn?t factor in bankruptcies outside of 50 miles. And no less than the National Gaming Impact Study Commission came to the conclusion that gambling addictions doubled within 50 miles of a casino. While these aren?t definitive studies of the percentage of gamblers that come from a 50-mile radius, I would think that someone must have been gambling if we have an increase in these problem areas.
However, you don?t have to take my word for this. In an interview with a newspaper in Philadelphia during the discussion of increased gambling in Pennsylvania, James Dougherty, the director of operations at Foxwoods, was quoted as saying that the ?typical gambler came from 25-50 miles tops.? And in an interview with Lincoln Park officials, in the Providence Journal in August of last year, the article states that most of their customers come from a 15-mile radius. In an effort to attract more gamblers, the article states that they are putting billboards up ?as far away as Fall River and Worcester.? Sounds like they are trying to maximize their 50-mile radius of likely gamblers.
Does any of this mean that people from Massachusetts aren?t an important part of the Connecticut gamblers? No. My objection came from the amount that we would make back if we were to legalize casinos, and what that would cost us.
There are studies on this subject. It is not a statistic that I made up but one that has been published in several studies including one I read recently by Dr. Earl Grinols, an economics professor from Baylor University. He has written extensively on casinos and is considered an expert. Most gamblers, the number of people who are in a casino, come from a fifty mile radius. And yes, I have been to casinos. I am not much of a gambler, but have been to them. In 1996, when I was first assigned a committee that looked into this, I went to Las Vegas and met with casino officials as well as state commission officials. I also went to Joliet, Illinois to look at the casino there. The situation of bringing a casino to replace the John Deere factory there was analogous to the siting of a casino in the New Bedford /Fall River area. I have been to the Greektown Casino in Detroit, as well as the Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods. I used to go to Atlantic City when I was a kid and have been there several times at casinos. I have been to a casino in Canada and for the record, have been to Suffolk Downs as well as Saratoga. Most times, this was to study the casinos, but a few times as entertainment. Again, I have no moral objection to casinos, but I have studied them extensively over the past eleven years.
You really lay this out in a clear, concise way. You need to write this as an OP ED in the Boston Globe and get this message out there! It’s not about what sounds good or morality, it’s about what works for Massachusetts! It’s a message that can win.
On several occasions you equate slots with a full casino. When making the argument against casinos please stick to casino related statistics.
<
p>
As such, can you please re-make your first argument without equating Rhode Island’s slots to full-fledged casinos?
<
p>
Also, your fourth point was riddled with either false or half truths and innuendo. For example, New Jersey’s government shut down was due to more than casinos. In Pennsylvania, the passage of slots — again, NOT casinos — was not the only factor leading to a proposed increase in the sales tax rate.
<
p>
Not everyone who supports casinos believes that casinos are any sort of silver bullet to Massachusetts’ starving cities and towns… we support them because they are likely to generate additional revenue that should be earmarked to relieve the property tax burden that people in your district and every other district is faced with.
<
p>
While there may be legitimate arguments against casinos, sticking to the facts of the issues will bolster your case… using innuendo and half-truths in addition to solid arguments doesn’t make your case any stronger.
<
p>
I’m curious to hear more about the Treasurer’s plan… I doubt it is naive and I think even the most ardent opponents like yourself should step back and take an objective look at all options. I say ante up and while casinos may not be pocket ace’s, so to speak, quite a few hands have been won with other cards if you know how to play them.
If you’re going to make an accusation like that, you need to back it up. Yet I see not a single link in your comment.
As I clearly stated, in his first and fourth points there is innuendo. Slots are not casinos… I thought that was a fairly simple concept David…
Splitting hairs aren’t we?
What this conversation is about is the economic impact of a casino in the Commonwealth. While gambling may be gambling, slots at race tracks or solely slots anywhere is very different from a full casino. The economic impact is, as Rep. Bosley allows, different between a slots at tracks plan and a full casino/resort.
“The economic impact is, as Rep. Bosley allows, different between a slots at tracks plan and a full casino/resort. “
<
p>
That is true, and there is a difference between urban type casinos, ubiquitous casinos and destination resorts. However, and it is a big however, once we authorize slots at the tracks, the native tribes get them and you have full-blown casinos. THen Katie bar the door, we are off to the races. In 1996, when Gov. Weld was talking to the Acquinnah Wampanoag tribe, he started with one tribal casino. By the time the proposition was fully debated, people were talking about four racetracks with slots, a casino in Western Massachusetts, a Salisbury casino and a tribal casino. Add to that that there were six other tribes in queue looking for federal recognition and that is a lot of economic shift in the Bay State. That is the problem. If we authorize slots, you get casinos and that just keeps expanding as we look for more revenue. The only way to win is not to play the game.
I’m actually someone who opposes slots at racetracks. Would there be a way (be it right or wrong) to have casinos (preferably casino/resort) without granting slots at racetracks?
“On several occasions you equate slots with a full casino. When making the argument against casinos please stick to casino related statistics.”
Actually, the reason that I equate slots to casinos is that slots are approximately 67% of the take in an average casino and therefore slots are the debate. That is the debate whether we are talking casinos, racinos or any other means of gambling. The massive numbers of machines are what makes or breaks the revenues for the investors. For example, you don’t hear of Lincoln Park or the Mohegan Sun expanding to put in a few more Black Jack tables. Casinos do not lobby to get into sports betting. These are not the moneymakers. Slots are the game.
“Also, your fourth point was riddled with either false or half truths and innuendo.”
I have no idea what you are referring to with this accusation. I am pointing out that everywhere gambling has been called a panacea for the economy of a state, it has turned out that those states have had the same economic woes as the rest of the states. Look up the old clips from New Jersey or Connecticut. Or better yet, go back to the beginning of the lottery in Massachusetts. This was supposed to pay for education in the state, yet, here we are years later, expansion after expansion, and we are appropriating record amounts of money into K-12 education. That is a fact and yet we have people who come into our state and use the same old arguments of why we need casinos here.
“We support them because they are likely to generate additional revenue that should be earmarked to relieve the property tax burden that people in your district and every other district is faced with…..sticking to the facts of the issues will bolster your case… using innuendo and half-truths in addition to solid arguments doesn’t make your case any stronger.”
This is the second time you have used innuendo without specifying where I have used it and you haven’t used a single fact to bolster your case. My point is that if you run the numbers, there is no additional revenue to pay for property tax relief. I have looked at these figures for years and the numbers, based on a cost/benefit analysis don’t add up. The problem is that we only see a benefit argument from casino operators. In other words, they will tell you that a casino in a state will bring in X dollars in new revenues. However, if you look at costs; e.g. economic transfer, hit to the lottery, increased public safety, increased bureacracy, etc. the new revenue is offset or spending that is occuring anyway. There is no money to be made here.
Finally, the Treasurer’s plan is flawed in a few ways. Even with the best of intentions, the Treasurer ignores the fact that once we go to market for a commercial casino, the Native Tribes get to open casinos. You will not have one casino, but a commercial casino prior to negotiations with the tribe preempts the need for a compact with the tribes. You are leaving a lot of money on the table. Second, it ignores the fact that no state has been able to place one commercial casino in their state without expansion. And that is the kicker in a casino argument. Once you have a casino, you will continually have more. It is also naive to think that your commercial casino will not try to renegotiate their bid once you have tribal casinos undercutting their profit margins because they are not paying taxes to the state.
As my sainted grandmother used to say, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
I went to vegas for a military reunion (NOT a gambling junket). I’ve never been so creeped out. No wonder the old folks don’t have the financial resources to pay for meds. They’re pissing away their SS checks on slot machines and fao tables.
<
p>
I stood and watched as people stared with expectant fascination as wheels turned, lights flashed, and machines made bizarre noises. (Tell be that neuro psychologists didn’t have a hand in designing this crap) Women screamed in orgasmic delight when they won six bucks, which cost them twenty. I have never seen anything like it and have never been back.
<
p>
If people want to piss their money away, they have that absolute right BUT: #1 Don’t come whining to the taxpayer for additional benefits when the rent is due, you’re cold,
or hungy and #2 the state has no right to be an accomplice, before or after the fact, or aid or abet, or be complicit in any form with this practice.
<
p>
Perhaps it is a poor analogy, but I equate gambling with illicit drugs. It may make you feel good for a few minutes, but it has no social redeeming value, and it has a very large societal cost in the end run.
Something I agree with you on. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day =)
…the problem is, you don’t know the time at which the stopped clock shows the correct time.
don’t you know i’m a know it all? =p
<
p>
No, I don’t know everything… but the evidence is pretty clear in this matter. Rep Dan Bosley has really bolstered that evidence, too.
Dear Representative, thank you for your very thoughtful and persuasive post. I personally am curious to hear the details of the Treasurer’s ideas, but I have always been somewhat skeptical of casinos. Your post provides many good reasons for us to remain skeptical.
<
p>
But here’s the key question. In concept, the casinos were supposed to create jobs, stimulate the economy, and provide tax revenues. To pay for the transportation infrastructure we need alone will cost $20 billion over the next 20 years, and we haven’t figured out where to get it from yet. What do you suggest?
That’s a good question. I believe that we have two opportunities as we look at our needs in Massachusetts. First, we need to change how we do business as a state. For example, the new health care bill enrolls everyone in a plan. Once we have everyone in a plan and don’t have uncontrolled costs from the uninsured, we can begin to move towards cost containment. An example of this is e-health care initiatives for better coordination and communication. Aside from this, we need to grow jobs. If we were to create 100,000 jobs as the Governor has stated as a goal, we would create a great deal of revenues. I enthusiastically agree with the Governor and also with his concentration in such areas as renewable energy and life sciences as areas where we can create such jobs, and I might add, at better wages than casinos would bring. I would add that we should also enhance our creative economy jobs including many sole proprietors who add a great deal of value and revenue to our state. I have filed a bill to do so.
Last year the legislature took the first step with a bill that came out of my committee. After listening to the business community across the state, my committee in conjunction with the committees on Labor and Workforce Development and Community Development and Small Business passed a stimulus bill. This $347 million bill created initiatives to take advantage of our natural strengths in many areas. Is it possible to stimulate the economy? I believe so. Many of us worked hard to bring Bristol Myers-Squibb to Massachusetts. Our $54 million investment leveraged not only a $750 million private investment by the firm, but positions us to bring in more of the same types of jobs. Additionally, in 1993, I wrote an economic stimulus bill that was dubbed the Weld Cellucci jobs package after then Gov. Weld signed the bill. As of 2005, it had been credited with creating over 50,000 jobs and retaining over 75,000 jobs. It has also lead to over $9 billion in private investment. It can be done.
This is what I meant when I said we can do better than merely relying on casinos to bring in money to the Commonwealth. We need to play to our natural strengths in Massachusetts of an educated workforce, our renowned research facilities, our capital markets, and our vast higher education complex. Massachusetts is known for its creativity and innovation. That makes us a leader in new technologies and sciences. We need to expand upon these.We can do better.
that a local option for meals tax would bring in revenue, as would taxing telephone poles. Given the choice between casinos or another $0.50 added to my restaurant tab, I’d take the meals tax easily.
Stomv is on target, as usual. While food is essential, dining out is not. And it takes a lot of burgers to add up to one trip to Boston’s all cap top tier restaurants. I’d be happy to pay it. It’s at the top of Mayor Menino’s agenda on Beacon Hill, and for good reason.
While food is essential, dining out is not.
<
p>
…meals taxation is not limited to restaurants. Grocery stores are also required to charge meals tax on items purchased from their “prepared foods” sections. I’m not sure about salad bars.
<
p>
If you aren’t aware of that, next time you go to a grocery store and purchase both non-food items (such as toilet paper) and goods from the “prepared foods” section, check your receipt. I don’t know about other stores, but Whole Foods has two tax categories, one for non-food items, and the other for purchases from the “prepared foods” section.
I’d like to see the state whittle down the Lottery. It just disgusts me.
<
p>
Go to a poor neighborhood and hang out in a convenience store. For me, it’s the Little Peach in Andrew Square, Southie. You’ve got a half dozen people with no prospects except a Keno machine. That’s just not good public policy my friend.
<
p>
Voluntary? I’m not so sure, given how well documented gambling addictions are. It’s certainly not rational, and you can spin the “buying the thrill of hope” all you want, but it’s a load.
<
p>
I’d like to see the state whittle down the Lottery. I’d start by slashing the budget for advertising. Then, I’d simply stop opening up new Lottery locations. No new convenience stores, etc. Then, I’d get rid of gambling [Keno]. Then, no Lottery services in any store that sells alcohol [packies et al]. Then, we start whittling away the high priced scratch-offs… nix the $20, then the $10+, etc.
<
p>
How to pay for it? Well, we’d expect to see a slightly decreased load on city and state social services, but that’d be hard to track. I think that local options, with the revenue sharing model [and a rejiggering of local aid formula to overcome the lost revenue for towns which have Lottery but little in the way of potential local options]. Local options I’d like to see: * restaurant 1-3% * gas tax 1-3 cents per gallon * Increased excise tax for fuel inefficient SUVs (purchased after local option established)
And while we’re at it, taxing telephone poles would help offset the squeeze on the citizens of the town.
aren’t those taxes we’re already proposing to raise revenue for other things (like transportation)?
is my suggestion. Yes, they’ve been proposed, and the lege is proposing other actions to make the budget work. There’s lots of possibilities, and drawing down the state lottery slowly would allow the state time to figure out from where the new money would be coming.
…a local option on gas taxes. Residents of one town uses streets of other towns. And business of other towns do, as well.
<
p>
I’m in favor of local option income taxes, and local option sales taxes–not just meals taxes. I’m not exactly sure how to apportion local option income taxes between the town of employment and the town of residence, but discussion of such taxes would be a start.
But it’s a good bet that most people put more miles in their own town than other towns. Furthermore, folks are driving to the gas pump, so they’re certainly putting on miles in the town the local option exists in. Furthermorestill, the local options plan involves some money staying locally and some money being split up statewide, thereby spreading money to towns that don’t have the local option [but do have streets].
<
p>
So, since many (most!) folks drive many miles in their own town, it’s not unreasonable for them to decide to tax themselves more for gas.
<
p>
Since folks drive to the gas station, it’s not unreasonable for towns to decide to tax folks driving on their roads to get to their gas stations [and elsewhere of course].
<
p>
Since towns do put forth some [not all] of the money for their roads, it’s not unreasonable to charge the folks who use the roads for the roads; erecting tolls is far less efficient than a gas tax for collection purposes, and it helps charge for the amount of air pollution too. Since weight correlates to mpg, and since pollution emitted correlates to mpg, charging a tax per gallon of gas is a reasonable way to charge for road damage and air pollution, located in any given town.
Do you agree with a state option on gas taxes? After all, residents of one state use streets of other states. And businesses of other states do, as well.
<
p>
In all due respect Representative Bosley if you don’t care if people want’ to play games and wager their money, why would you be against the right of a proprietor to open a gambling business?
<
p>
I don’t really care if it is good public policy or not, it is a fundemental right of those in a free society to do what they wish with their earnings. I am sick and tired of the nanny state. It is high time that all forms of gambling are made legal in Massachusetts. Slots, table games, and sports betting.
<
p>
Take your nanny state somewhere else.
<
p>
————————–
“A slot machine on every corner and a blackjack table in every bar!”
I’ve been trying to figure out why it is you’ve cast doubt on global climate change. I’ve been trying to see how you don’t see a difference between voter fraud on a small scale perpetuated by 1 person versus widespread voter disenfranchisement on racial/economic basis. And now I’ve been trying to see, given the thoughtful post, how you could support casino gambling.
<
p>
Well that’s it– you just don’t care about public policy at all, you only care whether something fits into your own personal view of what is a right and what isn’t. So, in other words, you just don’t care what happens to people or their society as a whole as long as long as they are free in the way you want them to be free.
as long as what I do doesn’t affect someone else directly.
<
p>
You’ve summed it up. The government is not here to solve life’s problems. It’s here to in a limited way play referee.
That is admittedly a throwaway line that any good debate will seize upon like a hungry leopard finding a lame antelope. That said, the Constitution doesn’t care if something is good public policy. If we are going to restrict personal freedom — in any sphere — we need a beeter reason that someone’s claim that it is “good public policy”.
I say in all sincerity that the same reasoning applies to marriage equality, frankly. Do we still agree?
You’re saying that even if SSM is bad public policy, we would still need to allow it because it’s a Constitutional right? That’s not true, according to Loving v Virginia, the Constitution allows that there are supportable basis to prohibit certain relationships from marrying. I think “supportable basis” and “good public policy” are fairly synonymous.
and that I don’t believe that the judiciary should be making laws, does not mean I wouldn’t vote for gay marriage.
I don’t believe that the judiciary should be making laws…
<
p>
Apparently you don’t understand the difference between deciding that a particular group of litigants have a right, and the remedy for infringement of the right–a remedy that would probably also apply to other groups of similarly situated potential litigants. It is the remedy issue that you interpret as “the judiciary..making laws.”
<
p>
The SJC in the Goodridge case (regarding same-sex marriage) could have merely struck down all of the Massachusetts marriage statutes as being unconstitutional. Would you have preferred that they have done that? That might very well have placed into question the validity of marriages of opposite sex couples in MA.
<
p>
The fact, that you apparently wish to overlook, is that the SJC stayed its decision for six months (thereby extending the Commonwealth’s unconstitutional behavior) to allow the legislature to address the issue. The legislature completely failed to do so. The end of the six month stay period is when the SJC’s remedy went into effect.
Because NO WHERE in the constitution are casinos protected. Or people’s right to go to them. Indeed, the opposite is quite true (commerce clause).
You never struck me as an originalist Ryan. It doesn’t jibe with most of what you say. It’s a heck of a lot easier to “read into” the Constitution the right to build and gamble at a casino (commercial enterprise) than it is to read in a right to privacy.
Because you stated your conclusion without regards to any understanding of the 14th amendment and its protections of liberty and property.
<
p>
The Court has accorded due process recognition to life, liberty, or property by reference to common law.
<
p>
To be clear, as probably as an aside, think about the farmer living in S.E. massachusetts, or the southern part of Worcester county with land worth millions if he were allowed to sell it to a casino.
<
p>
But because of the collective disapproval of the neighbors, it’s worth much, much, much less.
<
p>
If it’s so important for the casino business to not be in Massachusetts, then the Government of Massachusetts should pay these property owners not to sell to a casino.
<
p>
Individual liberty is so neglected in Mr. Bosley’s otherwise strongly drafted post.
<
p>
Do zoning laws violate the 14th amendment? According to your argument, they do. But, IANAL…
Unreasonable zoning laws are unconstitutional: Township of River Vale v. Town of Orangetown, 403 F.2d 684 (2nd Cir. 1968)
<
p>
This argument is raised all the time in zoning matters.
In your residential neighborhood is… reasonable?
<
p>
Pray tell, what exactly isn’t reasonable in your opinion? A broken nuclear power plant?
<
p>
I don’t want a casino, or a broken nuclear plant, or a fully functional power plant in my neighborhood.
<
p>
However, if the government, whether it’s local, state or federal prohibits me from building one on land I own, then the government should adequately compensate me for my loss.
<
p>
It’s very easy for Mr. Bosley, or you to seek to prohibit casinos in Massachusetts. I agree with that position.
<
p>
It’s unreasonable to deprive proponents of casinos of their right to build on their land, unless of course the government adequately compensate them.
<
p>
Here ya go: you don’t want casinos, then the government should pay the Indian tribe not to build one. You (the pluralistic you) should put your money where your mouth is.
That amendment doesn’t exist in the constitution either.
<
p>
You can make that the second amendment in Greedistan’s constitution.
Because that just makes no sense. Banning a casino isn’t exactly unreasonable zoning law, so you just made yourself a hypocrite in about one post later. Grats, that’s hard to accomplish.
<
p>
The Federal Government has the right, under the commerce clause, to regulate commerce. The Supreme Court has been very clear on the matter and there’s very little commerce that they can’t regulate. Casinos is one thing they can. It just so happens that the federal government has a number of laws related to casino gambling. I don’t claim to be an expert on them, but I do know this: if something is banned in a state – say slot machines – a Native American tribe can’t then insert them in their “casino” without either state approval or a change in state laws.
<
p>
Massachusetts, it just so happens, currently bans slot machines. Therefore, no casino – native american or otherwise – can build a casino with slots. In effect, that means there will be no casino in Massachusetts. If you don’t like that, because some farmer wants to sell his land for tens of millions more than it’s actually worth, that’s just too damn bad. You can always try to work against said casino bans, that’s your perogative, but your constitutional argument makes absolutely no sense.
<
p>
P.S. This reply was brought to you by Smack Down, for posts that refute other posts with devastatingly awesome authority.
interstate commerce. So they can stop internet gambling over telephony. They can’t stop an individual state from allowing gambling.
<
p>
The difference with Native American casino’s is not Commerce clause but deals with the relations of two sovereign nations by treaties and the such.
interstate commerce. So they can stop internet gambling over telephony. They can’t stop an individual state from allowing gambling.
<
p>
The difference with Native American casino’s is not Commerce clause but deals with the relations of two sovereign nations by treaties and the such.
effects commerce that happens outside of it, the Supreme Court has given large deference to its power.
<
p>
Furthermore, I wasn’t suggesting that native american casinos explicitly fall behind the commerce clause. My knowledge in that area doesn’t extend that far – and I doubt your’s does, either.
<
p>
Don’t twist my words. I was talking about the commerce clause because Gary was talking about how some farmer in S.E. Mass or the Worcester area should be able to sell their land to a casino builder. That is commerce – commerce that falls under the commerce clause.
<
p>
If you don’t think that falls under the purview of interstate commerce, that’s your right. However, according to the Supreme Court, it does – so take it up with them.
<
p>
Never said it was. If so, paste the quote. I said, that “unreasonable zoning” is protected by the Constitution by the 14th and maybe the 5th amendment . It may be unreasonable zoning to map out a ‘casino free zone’. I don’t know; it’s never been litigated that I’m aware.
<
p>
<
p>
Ok, well, that’s just strange.
or the state for the people? How far do you drag the public policy thing out?
<
p>
I have no idea where the line is, but I prefer less government than more. Left to their own devices people can screw things up pretty well, but it beats communism/fascism.
and never have.
<
p>
<
p>
Nonsense. You don’t have the right to bribe public officials. You don’t have the right to buy certain weapons. You don’t have the right to buy bootlegged movies. You don’t have the right to buy illegal drugs. You don’t have the right to pay someone to murder. You don’t have the right [in most places] to pay someone for sex. You don’t have the right to place a bet with a bookie at your local bar. You don’t have the right to buy homemade alcohol. You don’t have the right to buy a dozen boxes of Sudafed at CVS.
<
p>
Shall I go on?
Have a right to:
<
p>
buy certain weapons,
buy “illegal” drugs
pay someone for sex
place a bet with a bookie as long as we are both paying taxes
buy homemade alcohol
and buy a dozen boxes of sudafed at CVS.
<
p>
I agree not bribing, not buying a nuke (although the supreme court in the 1920s pretty much said I should be able to), and murder – because those affect someone other than myself. Gambling affects me and the casino. As soon as I commit a crime to get money then that is illegal and I should be prosecuted, but the act of gambling itself affects no-one but me and the bookie.
By your logic, let’s remove all laws. People should be allowed to do what they want, right? Why worry about harming others? Everyone can arm themselves for their own protection! Nothing like “certain weapons” to keep the criminals away.
<
p>
Imagine the money we could save on the entire public safety and judicial system. Get rid of cops, attorneys, judges… no need to worry about outlawing bribes, since there wouldn’t be anyone to bribe.
<
p>
Children would be protected by their parents from predators. It’d be like nature!
<
p>
And so what if the idiot downstairs starts a meth lab and burns the building down? If he survives then you can serve justice yourself!
<
p>
Utopia!
I agree with you that EaBo applies libertarian principles in a really overly faithful manner. The state should protect people from things that the people feel the state should protect people from. Including people that would be born from prostitution or cloning, etc. It’s called society.
I tend to espouse most of the philosophy of Ayn Rand and of Milton Friedman, I don’t think that makes me an idiot. I think that makes be an objectivist-libertarian.
<
p>
As long as what I do doesn’t directly affect another human being, I should be able to do it.
<
p>
Smoke pot – Yes(although I never have, and probably never would)
<
p>
Smoke pot then drive – No because the chance that I would hurt another person is increased.
<
p>
If you re-read what I wrote in this thread and elsewhere you would see that the things I listed in and of themselves don’t hurt anybody else but possibly myself.
The safety-net state.
<
p>
I want to live in a country (and state) where there are mechanisms to ensure that people are not homeless, destitute, hungry, ill, etc.
<
p>
I want to be part of a society that values helping those in need.
<
p>
You say everyone should be free to do whatever drugs they want, because it only effects themselves, but when the heroin addict can’t support himself he ends up falling into the safety net and it’s suddenly everyone’s responsibility to ensure that he’s taken care of.
<
p>
You might say this is an argument against the safety net, but when a family of four goes into massive debt and loses their home due to medical bills, I’d rather we found a way to help them out, and I’m not willing to sacrifice that just because some junkie is abusing the system.
<
p>
Therefore, let’s work to reduce the behaviors that get people into trouble in the first place.
That sounds an awful lot like Hillary Clinton’s newspeak name for socialism: shared prosperity.
<
p>
This has been tried before in places like France and look where it got them. A faltering economy. Socialism is not the answer.
<
p>
I know you are going to argue this isn’t socialism and I don’t really know what socialism is, and if I did I’d really like it. Save the argument, it’s socialism plain and simple, you can polish it up with a new fancy name but that is what it is.
…France’s economy is hardly faltering because of socialism (you might have a stronger argument if you used the Arab immigration issue, but not by much), let’s examine a few things.
<
p>
Socialism. Let me see.
<
p>
You would oppose the government(s)-run public health system. That is socialism. And that includes government(s) run sanitation systems. (I use “government(s) run” to refer to governments at all levels.) No more National Institutes of Health, no more state, or local sewage systems. All sewage sequestered in septic tanks until it can be removed by private companies for processing–at the subscribers’ expense, of course. And you never have any idea what those companies might do with the sewerage.
<
p>
You would oppose government(s)-run fire departments. I mention them alone, and not of police departments, since the government should have the final determination on use of domestic government force. That was actually tried in the 1700s. People would subscribe to fire protection from a number of offerors. It didn’t work out too well, and that’s why Ben Franklin set up a municipal fire department. But government(s)-run fire departments is an example of–tada!–socialism!.
<
p>
You would oppose government support for public education, both K-12 and university. That’s socialism, too. But it produced an educated citizenry that was pretty good. Not necessarily the best in all fields, but pretty good. BTW, my father got his BS ChemE from Virginia Tech in 1951 (yes, he was familiar with the building in which Mr. Cho did his shooting a few weeks ago), largely as a result of the GI Bill following WWII–more socialism. I would venture a guess that the parents or grandparents of more than a few people here also made use of the GI Bill.
<
p>
You would oppose government funding for road construction. In the olden days, while local streets were maintained by the municipalities, more than a few “long distance” roads were “turnpikes”–toll roads, built and maintained by private entrepreneurs. It was under Eisenhower that the Interstate Highway system was began. They rationalized it as being for national defense (Hitler did, too, with his Autobahnen), but that really was more lame excuse. But that is even more socialism.
<
p>
Taking a different tact, I’m sure that you would oppose agricultural subsidies. They are nothing other than socialism, and they have been supported by conservatives up one side of the hill and down the other. You know, the subsidies that induce production of huge surpluses that are dumped on the third world, driving the small farmers in the third world into penury, thereby inducing the huge mass migration that the US is seeing over its border with Mexico. (Lest anyone believe that I am America-bashing with this, I will point out that the EU is doing precisely the same thing with Africa, and Spain, France, and southern Italy are seeing precisely the same phenomenon.) Tom DeLay insisted on maintaining–get this–a subsidy on mohair production in the late 1990s to appease some of his clients–er, constituents.
<
p>
I’m also sure taht you would oppose wasteful “defense” spending. They are nothing more than socialism. The generals want their next new toy, even though they don’t know where it might be used. But it keeps at least some people in the US employed.
<
p>
This contention of yours is really stupid. Some of you people use “socialism! socialism!” in the same way that Chicken Little ran around screaming “the sky is falling! the sky is falling!.”
You know far more than I ever will (or will ever want to) about this subject. What I do know, through reading and experience, backs up your points completely, and I find your responses to the challengers to be quite persuasive.
<
p>
Gambling (slots/casinos/dogs/horses/whatever) should be viewed as an economic activity that is valuable (or not) in its own right, and not as a revenue source for the state, imho. Sure, if people are going to gamble anyway (how long has horseracing been around?), let’s tax the activity, but let’s not get into the business of promoting gambling because we want to raise taxes! That’s bass-ackwards.
<
p>
Another potential source of new revenue, which I know you support in the context of a complete review of corporate tax policy, is to remove some of the unintended tax benefits that corporations have located (my accountant calls them “planning opportunities” but they are popularly known as “loopholes”).
<
p>
For those who want to get more information on this campaign for tax fairness, I’ve made a recent post on this topic, including a link to my testimony before this week’s Tax Commission hearing.
<
p>
Yeah, my accountant calls them “tax increases” but they’re popularly known as “tax increases” or as my Grandfather used to call them: pissing down a rate hole. Gripes, would you apologists just call them tax increases rather than banter around this loophole crap?
<
p>
Patrick’s decision to call them ‘loopholes’ rather than offer up the notion of Corporate tax reform and enter into that discussion, cost him the chance to actually undertake changes to the Corporate tax code — a crucial error of judgement, IMHO.
We are talking about “unintended corporate tax benefits” — these are gimmicks that were invented by corporate lawyers and accountants, not by our legislature. Recovering these taxes does not amount to an “increase” but just collecting what was intended in the first place.
<
p>
And, if you’ve been paying attention, the Governor proposed and the House and Senate agreed, to form a Tax Commission to study the whole corporate tax system. I think that’s called entering into a discussion of corporate tax reform. Or, a rose, if you prefer.
This post shows off Blue Mass. Group at its best. Kudos to Rep. Bosley and all of the commenters.
I liked that the Rep made a good argument, then stopped back to respond to comments. That should be a model for those electeds who simply post their press release.
<
p>
This is probably one of the few BMG posts I can recall where I was actually persuaded….
I was unsure about casino gambling, but this post persuaded me.
I’m typically not persuaded on an issue until I’ve heard both sides. Thus far, I’ve seen two anti-casino posts and a wealth of anti-casino comments, excepting RCMD, gary, and migraine. I’m often surprised how quickly a viewpoint attains predominant status on this site. If we get to the point where we have a reasoned debate about casino gambling, I could likely come out of it convinced. (NB: At the moment, I count myself as a lean-against on casino gambling, and given that I live a 3-minute drive from the leading proposed casino site in the state, this isn’t a theoretical exercise to me.)
It is very cool of him to come back and follow up with replies to people’s comments and take part in the conversation.
<
p>
Hmmm, this gives me an idea…but not in this thread…
I applaud Rep. Bosley for this post and his follow-up comments. I have serious doubts that the revenue predicted will be realized, and wonder whether anyone can comment on the percentage of revenue at the CT casinos that comes from New Yorkers. I hear the 50-mile radius point, but if a large portion of the money flowing into Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun is coming from NY, does anyone seriously believe that revenue is going to transfer to Middleboro or Holyoke or New Bedford?
<
p>
Massachusetts has a lot of really great things going for it, including it’s lack of gambling meccas. Before we go down this road and start deciding it’s inevitable that slots or tables or dogs playing poker are our future, and wreck a few of our communities in the process, I sure as hell hope that good public policy has as good a lobby in the statehouse as the gaming interests.
…I’ve read a lot about casino gambling, seen the arguments written in newspapers, on blogs, on various websites, done a little research, had arguments with friends on the topic. Still I have struggled with where I come down on this issue, because the moral argument never did much for me, and it was a source of frustration to see what I thought was millions of dollars crossing our borders to R.I. and CT. But I had concerns about what gambling would do to those areas that built casinos. There is more than enough evidence that putting a casino in a city is often very damaging to the area.
<
p>
Rep. Bosley’s post here was far and away the best and most convincing I’ve read on the topic. And I really respect his willingness to take a hard stand, and come back and respond to some of the borderline-abusive and insulting posts — and do so with dignity and respect.
<
p>
What seemed most remarkable to me is after a few people tried to poke holes in his post (including a very bizarre attempt to make an entire case on the 50 miles issue) and were easily swatted away by the Representative, the best case anyone could actually come up with for gambling was ‘I really really want it so I can make money, and there should be nothing that stops me from making all the money I want.’ If that’s the only arguement left to resort to, I’d say it pretty much ‘Game, Set, Match’ on this topic.
What a ridiculous statement by a legislator who is supposed to be an economic expert. “I believe…” seems to be his most common refrain when citing his reasons for opposing casinos. Well, your “I believe” statements in the past, masquerading as empirical evidence, have gotten the state economy into a lot of trouble.
<
p>You believed deregulating energy companies would create more competition and lower our electric rates. Once your legislation passed, the big electric companies bought up the smaller electric companies, stifling competition. And, presto, our electric rates shot through the roof.
<
p>You believed that tax concessions for Fidelity and Raytheon would create economic growth, but once they got their tax breaks from you and the Legislature, they promptly moved operations and jobs out of Massachusetts — and enjoyed the tax breaks courtesy of the taxpayer.
<
p>When you “believe” something, Rep. Bosley, it always boomerangs on the state’s economy.
<
p>Now you “believe” casino gambling is bad for the state, but you don’t cite any empirical evidence to back up your contention. You simply mutter a bunch of personal opinions bathed in thinly-disguised diatribes, and it certainly reflects your inability to provide any substantive direction as co-chair of the Legislature’s Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies.
<
p>Everything you touch on the economic agenda ends up backfiring. I suggest you adapt George Costanza’s mantra of saying and doing everything opposite the way you truly think and feel, and perhaps you’ll inadvertently end up doing the right thing — for once!