Like most liberals, I don't like the idea of giving in to the lure of casino gambling to solve the state's fiscal problems. However, we do have a siginficant fiscal problem and there is no reasonable solution in sight. For starters, we may be at the end of a period of economic growth that began with a climb out of the recession that began in 2001. Today the Federal Reserve made a larger than expected cut in interest rates in order to stave off a possible recession. Yet during a time of economic growth, and increasing tax revenues, our state budget has consistently been balanced by digging into the state's rainy day fund. This year's budget was balanced by using about $500 million from the rainy day fund. So, just to maintain state services at the present level, our spending is outstripping our revenue growth. That is to say nothing of our aspirations. Health care costs arising out of health care reform will continue to grow by hundreds of millions of dollars annually. That takes away almost any money we might have for other new initiatives. Perhaps the most important initiative would be the implementation of early childhood education for all children in Massachustts. According to the advocates fo early childhood education, that would cost the state another $600 million dollars annually at full implementation. Don't forget transportation infrustructure at $1 billion a year. More local aide and property tax relief, many legislators ar incredulous that local officials can even ask. So we need revenue. And even if casino gambling were to provide the state with an additional $400 million a year, that is really not enough to match our needs, let alone our ambitions. So the logical strategy is to try to leverage the casino issue to include unpopular tax increases as well. There is no possibility that the legislature will take up any significant tax initiatives until the casino issue has been put to rest. If casinos fail, it is very unlikely that the legislature will turn around and raise income taxes, sales taxes, corporate taxes, or anything else. Liberals have a powerful leader in the casino debate in Speaker DiMasi. Through the Speaker, they may have enough leverage to pare down the casion proposal and rasie other revenues. Wisely, the Speaker has sought to avoid binging a series of smaller tax votes before his members, prefering to have one large tax package. And while the Governor has mad good proposals to raise corporate taxes and teal estate taxes on telecommunications companies, he seems unwilling to endorse any kind of a large broad based tax. That makes casinos the best vehicle liberals have to raise the taxes we need.
Liberals, time for strategic thinking.
Please share widely!
joets says
They should just highlight the (R)'s on the next ballot to make it easier for people to find. That should be the second part of this epic strategery.
ryepower12 says
I tend to think people who use those kinds of statements online aren't liberal at all.
Cutting the corporate tax loopholes alone would have balanced this year's budget. Deval Patrick had a balanced budget. The legislature chose to move as far away from it as possible. No one said this was easy, but casinos aren't the panacea they claim to be. Most of the revenue generated from casinos would have been generated elsewhere: people's pocketbooks are a net-sum game and they can only spend it in so many places. We aren't going to generate a whole ton of additional revenue – and whatever revenue we get from it won't be worth either the economic or the social costs.
ed-prisby says
…as to why being anit-casino is particularly “liberal.” We want the government out of our lives when it comes to abortions and who we can marry, but I can't put $20 on the Pats this weekend? What?
joets says
jimc says
… and I am a liberal, but Edprisby's comment made me laugh.
kbusch says
I could imagine Republicans being for it for free market reasons. Casinos don't undermine the wonderful institutions of our western heritage. Casino as vice dispenser?
joets says
Small Businesses are the base that large business thrives on. Whereas a large business has capacity, its the small businesses you find innovation. Casinos do have a place in our society, but the middle of middleboro is not the place. Boats, for example, are great places for Casinos, if you ask me.
sabutai says
The difference in crime statistics for land casinos, and the riverboat facilities, is notable.
joets says
I think we can all agree that Boat casinos have a pretty good triple play, right there.
jack says
Weather I am a really a liberal or not isn't important. But what is importnat is that liberal legislators already form the base of opposition at the state house. Ie, Susan Tucker, Dan Bosley, and Sal DiMasi. I have yet to read the comments of Republican legislators in the press. I imagine they will be split. Being a small group to begin with, they hold less clout. What is important politically is how liberal legislators approach the issue. I am suggesting they leverage this issue for something most liberals want and the state desperately needs, even with revenue from casinos. That is tax increases. I don't think there any Republicans who want that.
You are correct that Patrick's corporate tax increases would have balanced this year's budget. Patrick deserves credit fot that. But those increases are not enough to sustain our health care expansion and the investments we need to make in education.
Jack
sabutai says
If your third sentence starts off with a lie, then why would anyone read the fourth sentence — or anything after that?
jack says
I am sure you only meant to suggest that my point is incorrect. But exactly what is it that you think is incorrect? That Susan Tucker, Dan Bosely, and Sal DiMasi are liberals? My third sentance. Or are you referring to my original post?
Jack
joets says
jack says
sabutai