More than 100 people crowded into a function room at the Omni Parker House for the nearly two-hour event, with television cameras lined up in the back of the room. With the governor making his unfortunate announcement yesterday, casino gambling has become the top issue on Beacon Hill.
Nothing particularly surprising was said. Joining Bosley on stage were state Treasurer Tim Cahill, who repeated his well-known support for casino gambling, which he explained most recently in an op-ed piece for the Boston Globe today. The third speaker, the Rev. Richard McGowan, a Boston College economist and casino expert, offered analysis.
It was an in-depth, civil discussion of an issue that has often become obscured by the vehemence with which many of the combatants express their views. (I am definitely not excluding myself.)
Another challenge was raised by state Sen. Susan Tucker, D-Andover. After offering some numbers on the state's already-high dependence on gambling revenues from the lottery (numbers that were disputed with surprising vehemence by Father McGowan), Tucker noted that there are two racetracks in New Hampshire just over the border from her district.
According to Tucker, New Hampshire legislators have told her that they currently have no interest in building casinos — but that they would seek to transform those racetracks into casinos if gambling venues in Massachusetts began eating into their business. Worse, she observed, New Hampshire might tax its casinos at a lower rate than Massachusetts, which could then force Massachusetts to do the same.
“The fact is that this is an industry that depends on addiction for its revenues,” Tucker said, expressing puzzlement over the argument put forth by Patrick, Cahill and others that money from casino gambling would be set aside to help chronic gamblers with their addiction. “If a medication harms three people, we take it off the shelves,” she said.
At one point, Cahill offered a familiar argument — that Native American tribes such as the Mashpee Wampanoags, who propose building an enormous casino in Middleborough — have a right under federal law to operate casinos, and that the state should get ahead of the issue in order to protect its own interests.
“Even if we're saying no, we've got two Indian tribes that are pushing very hard,” he said.
But Bosley said he “disagree[d] strongly with that,” explaining that federal decision-makers must, under the law, take into consideration where the state stands on casino gambling. Bosley added that the state's leverage to stop tribal casinos from coming to Massachusetts was undermined considerably by Patrick's announcement. “We've just blown that,” he said.
Of course, in order to become law, Patrick's proposal must pass muster with the Legislature. And though it seems likely to win approval in the Senate, there's a good chance it will die in the House. Speaker Sal DiMasi is a longtime opponent of casino gambling, and Bosley is one of his lieutenants.
Bosley said the House would give Patrick's bill — not yet filed — serious consideration. But his remarks suggested that he can't wait to kill it, and that he's confident he's got the votes. “There's nothing new in the governor's proposal,” Bosley said, noting that previous gambling plans have also come with promises of endless wealth for the state, and that the House has defeated every one of them — and by increasing margins over the years.
No doubt the pressure to approve gambling will be greater this time, especially with proposals for steep transportation taxes (Globe; Herald) looming. But there are plenty of people and institutions who've come out against gambling, too. At the moment, there's no reason to think that House members won't stick to their principles.
Still standing: The Herald's Dave Wedge reports that Mashpee Wampanoag tribal-council president Shawn Hendricks wants to discuss the troubled Middleborough proposal with Patrick. This past Saturday, I linked to an item by Cape Cod Today blogger/reporter Peter Kenney claiming that Hendricks and two other tribal leaders would resign later that day.
Obviously that didn't happen. That's the problem with predictions. In fact, on Saturday a newspaper reporter asked me to predict what Patrick would say. I declined the invitation; but if I had taken her up on it, I would have said that Patrick would probably say “no.” I'm glad I kept my counsel.
Disclosure #1: I write the “Mass.Media” feature for MassINC's quarterly magazine, CommonWealth.
Disclosure #2: Just click here.
Original photo online at state Treasurer Tim Cahill's Web site. From left, Bosley, McGowan, Cahill and CommonWealth acting editor Michael Jonas, the moderator.
The Boston Herald's front page gives the impression that there is an either/or choice between toll/gas increases and casinos. Is this part of the strategy?
Let's assume a majority of the legislature oppose and will continue to oppose casinos. Can they use the proposed toll/gas hikes as a rational for continuing this opposition (because there would be another revenue stream)?
If the casino proposal wasn't there, would the toll/gas hikes stand a chance? I'm assuming that there needs to be some legislative action before we're spied on as we travel Route 93.
Or could it be the reverse? Will people find the steep increase in the gas tax and the cameras more offensive than casinos? That is, will the blantant money grab of the transportation proposal make the casino proposal seem more palatable?
I don't like either of these plans, but I imagine having to fight both simultaneously is going to be tiring and will take away from energy that could be put into better solutions.
So, when can we expect to see the casino study documents?
at the Statehouse.” That's what I wrote down as Cahill saying in regards to the timing of the transportation report and the Gov's announcement. Anyone else think it was providentially timed? The Boston Herald certainly didn't think it was a coincidence. I agree, dweir, it’s a false choice to set this up between slots or tolls.
The moderator, Michael Jonas, characterized the transportation report as the policy equivalent of reminding us to “eat our peas.” I think Bosley got off one of the best one-liners, by responding “I like peas.”
My recollection from past forums is that Mass Inc puts out a transcript of these events, but nothing's up yet.
but i haven't seen it come in from them yet, either.
Clearly there are people who enjoy going to casinos who currently take their business out of state. Massachusetts would retain some of those dollars under the proposed casino plan. We'd like also attract people from out of state who would not previously have come and spent their money here. There would be a temporary boost to construction and trades to construct the new resorts, also not a transfer from other economic activity. Finally, the new resorts would create additional permanent jobs, with the attendant economic benefit.
I wouldn't consider myself either a booster or detractor of the plan, but in general, I'd rather err on the side of more social freedoms than less. People clearly enjoy going to these resorts – I don't personally get the attraction, but I also don't really get the hysteria against them either.
He cites studies showing that 30 percent to 70 percent is “rearrangement.” Obviously it's not 100 percent. But clearly a lot of the money spent at casinos would have been spent someplace else in Massachusetts.
We'd still be looking at economic development from these resorts – new jobs, new tax revenue. I'm just not getting the hysteria against them –
A new Wal-Mart Supercenter in your small town is development. And it's about as healthy and sustainable as a casino.
Since we're making Wal-Mart analogies, you've got to check out the latest from “Gladys Kravitz” (no relation to David).
30-70% is a huge swing. I'm not sure I'd use that kind of variety of studies to bolster either side of the argument. Too much margin of error to give real guidance, isn't it?
I would never imagine that a new casino–or any new business–is creating 100% new revenue. But a casino is going to bring in a lot of out of state money. And even if some of that out of state money is already coming here, casinos would increase the amount of out of state money coming in.
And wouldn't there be people once in a while who decide to spend a weekend at the casino rather than go to Vermont to ski or drive to Freeport to see LL Bean? That wouldn't be new money coming from out of state OR Massachusetts gambling dollars staying within the borders. I'm not saying it would be a huge amount, but it would be between 0 and 100% of casino revenues.
Whether 30% or 70% or 3% of casino reveneue is “new” it's still an increase.
Finally, I don't think casinos shut everything else down. One of the impressions I took away from Las Vegas was how many people weren't sitting at a table at any given time. People walk around the streets. They go to shows. They walk through the hotels. They walk through the malls. People go to see art collections housed there. Not every nongambling attraction has to be inside the casino.
New Bedford is the perfect place to build non casino attractions and revenue. The cobblestone streets are already there. The storefronts are waiting to be filled. The whale watches are waiting to depart. The malasadas, sweet bread and chourico, peppers and onions are waiting to be eaten. The Z is waiting to sell tickets to shows. That aquarium could come back to life.
I know some gamblers and none of them spend ALL their time and money at the tables. They do other stuff. A casino can kickstart an area like New Bedford. And the gaming industry would be better for the area than the drug trade.
because the casino will have all the hotels, stores and entertainment that it'll ever need. Sure, some other places in NB will benefit (whale watches, musuems), but probably not even the Z, because a casino will have their own shows. That's why resort casinos are dangerous. They have everything; there's no need to take part in the local economy. Just look at the Atlanta scenario for how a casino in NB could be like.
(And, btw, I used to support the idea of a casino in NB… before I really studied the issue).
I think Bosley’s points are well-taken.
<
p>
The way I see it, bringing casinos in-state would be comparable to a town bringing in a Wal-Mart. Sure it looks good at first, creating lots of jobs, revenue from taxing the sales, property tax, etc.
<
p>
But the people spending money there aren’t growing greenbacks on trees. It’s coming from somewhere, or more accurately, it’s not being spent somewhere. In the case of the Wal-Mart, it’s not being spent at local mom-and-pops; with a casino, it’s not being spent at local restaurants, bars, movie theaters… almost anything entertainment-related would take a hit, and even non-entertainment businesses would feel the effect.
<
p>
People like to point out the number of folks who go to the Connecticut casinos, and how that’s a drain of money out of the state. And this may be right; I don’t know. I don’t know how much Mass money is gambled away in CT… any studies on this?
<
p>
Keep in mind, though, who’s going to be running the casinos. Probably operations like Harrah’s… and where will the profits from these new casinos go? Much will probably still go out of state. We’ll probably lose more money this way than currently goes to CT.
<
p>
As for arguments that we should err on the side of social freedoms, and that people should be allowed to do with their money as they please… This is a tough argument to deal with, but we have decided many times in the past to limit various social freedoms in the interest of society. Sometimes these restrictions seem absurd, and they’re certainly not always right, but the precedent does exist.
<
p>
Is this right? I don’t know, but I do think casinos would be bad for this state, and I think it’s worth the price to keep them out.
You'd have to envision a Wal-Mart already existing in a neighboring state, and the comparable products and services not being available in Massachusetts. It's not like the mom and pop establishments envisioned in this analogy offer the same services as the casino resorts in Connecticut or the proposed Massachusetts resorts.
Here's what I found on the web about Massachusetts' residents spending on casinos and related resort expenditures since they opened:
This is from a UMass website, author is Clyde Barrow, a professor who has studied the issue and appears to be a casino proponent.
The Boston Globe has reported a figure of $1 billion annually spent by Massachusetts residents at the casinos in Connecticut.
If people are already shopping at the “Wal-Mart” in Connecticut, why not build one in Massachusetts, so that some of that money stays here in the form of taxes and jobs?
Clyde Barrow is an idiot.
OK you've called him a name. Back it up?
a casino that man doesn't support. I backed it up below the thread, but feel free to search my website for more. Idiot is perhaps harsh, though, maybe “everything that's wrong with academia and nothing that's good about it” works better? Don't forget, I went to UMASS Dartmouth.
I was wondering if you would care to postulate on why Clyde does not seem to discuss his own research on the negative impacts of casino gambling? [http://www.umassd.ed…]
I've also been musing about why the Administration has not submitted legislation to prohibit political contributions by gambling entities prior to moving forward in the direction of advocating for expanded gambling? You know, the anti-“politics as usual” platform.
Frontline was looking at this years ago. [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gamble/procon/kindt.html]
Furthermore, as a matter of good public policy, state officials and legislators in Illinois have proposed legislation to prohibit contributions by legalized gambling interests to politicians and political campaigns. In the case of casinos, New Jersey already has such prohibitions, but other states have neglected to enact similar prohibitions.
Every conservative argues that taxes dampen the economy by taking money out of it, even though the taxes often go to improve things like infrastructure which makes private economic activity easier.
<
p>
How is taking a billion or so in profits from the state’s economy and shipping it out-of-state (to the backers of the casinos) much different? Why isn’t this too going to dampen the economic activity in our state?
<
p>
Although you can argue that surrendering this money is “voluntary”, the money will come from somewhere, and the profits most certainly will flow out-of-state. And I question how truly voluntary it is, given the psychological effects of gambling.
<
p>
These casinos are not being geared toward the casual gamblers who go to Connecticut now. They are being designed to entice a whole lot more people in this state to spend their money in them, so that profits can be shipped elsewhere.
<
p>
I think the Wal*Mart analogy is good too. Money will flow from local entertainment to national entertainment. It will leave this region.
<
p>
This isn’t economic activity — this is money-siphon. Imagine that you wanted to destroy the economy of a small island. Wouldn’t putting a money-siphoning casino there do the trick pretty efficiently?
I'm just not sold. The money-siphon argurment doesn't consider the fact that baystaters are already spending their money on gambling in other states, without the return in jobs and taxes we'd see if the resorts were local. The national entertainment vs. local entertainment argument would seem to apply in general to the many many businesses that employ people in Massachusetts but have out-of-state ownership. We don't say “we don't need your stinking jobs – you're just a money siphon” to national restaurant chains, to Proctor & Gamble, to airlines, to Manulife etc. We're glad to have the jobs, associated income taxes and economic benefits from having our residents employed. I don't see the difference with the casino, except for disapproval of gambling.
But most people who go to Casinos live within a small area of them, like 50 miles. The majority of the money generated in casinos is going to come from people who aren't spending their cash at Connecticutt on a frequent basis.
If you want the advice of an intelligent, *non hack* professor from UMASS Dartmouth, I recommend the advice of the former head of the Political Science Department, John Carrol. He thought we should threaten casinos in Massachusetts and collect from Conn (and RI) in return for a promise to not allow them. That way, we'd get some of the lost revenue, without any of the worry (not to mention the fact that with more regional casinos in smaller and smaller regions, each casino will profit less and less… so this rush to build in the quest for a panacea will only return diluted amounts of cash, that would have been spent anyway, in other business locals).
I've seen and heard enough from Barrow in my stay at UMASS Dartmouth to know he's not one of its brigher minds. There isn't a casino he doesn't support.
He's clearly a proponent, but that doesn't in and of itself invalidate his arguments. Nor does calling him a hack or calling his intelligence into question.
Milford right now, and the scratch card things seems out of hand to me out here. It's very sad. I mean, I go to this store near my house and often there are several people at a time sitting in their cars scratching lottery tickets. i'm from Newton, and I've never seen this much lottery participation before. And, this is just anecdotal, but it seems like people are having really hard times here, so I worry about any expansion of gambling to pay for government services.
On the other hand, I like what Patrick had to say about how this wasn't going to be our primary focus and we would have these casino's in tourist areas. That made alot of sense to me.
On a side note, after listening to some of the things Keller had to say(though I immensely disagree with him in a number of ways)I do wonder why this state doesn't do more to improve the lives in a meaningful way of working people. Like why not some kind of living wage? Or, what about passing an Employee Free Choice Act in Massachusetts. I think Governor Patrick should do something to bring about the economic justice in the way he talked about on the campaign trail, aside from closing taxloop holes(though that is very important) and opening new streams of revenue. I also was thinking he's a civil rights expert, and the way he lobbied for marriage equality was significant, so I'm wondering if there are other areas of civil rights he will address in this state.
The problem with the “rearranging money” argument is that just about EVERY new business opening in an area “rearranges” money. Clearly Wal-Mart has been mentioned by others in this thread, but how about Target? Stop & Shop? Burger King? Whole Foods? And so on. They all “rearrange” money when they are opened. So does that mean that none of them should be opened?
So what makes casinos different? It's certainly appearing as though the main difference is that the people opposed to the casino simply don't approve of gambling as some sort of a moral matter. That's perfectly fine, but I wish that this would simply be stated instead of relying on flawed financial arguments such as this one.
I agree with you, any economic activity just ultimately rearranges money. It’s generally called “trade”, and the money being “in play” is a good thing.
<
p>
I think the difference here is that:
<
p>
1) Gambling psychologically causes normally rational people to do irrational things. People will spend money on gambling instead of on things that will generate more economic activity.
<
p>
2) A lot of the money is being rearranged away from local business and out-of-state.
<
p>
The former worries me, but the latter worries me a lot. If every dollar stayed in this state, I think the economic impact of a casino would still be negative because it would tend to skim money to a single corporation.
<
p>
But since that corporation will likely be in Las Vegas, those profits just go away, and will not likely return here in trade. The way I see it, the further the money goes, the less likely it will come back.
<
p>
I’d personally rather see 100 little businesses earning small profits than one large out-of-state business earning a large profit. I think that’s better for the local economy.
You mentioned your concern is that a lot of the money is being “rearranged out of state”, but certainly Wal-Mart is from Arkansas, Target from Minnesota, and to my knowledge Burger King, Pier 1, etc. are all from outside of MA. So, again, I don't see why the casino should be treated any differently than any other major corporations (of which only a shrinking number are based in MA).
As for your first point, it should be noted that gambling causes some normal people to do irrational things, not all. And if the state is able to cut a deal with a casino(s) to ensure a very healthy cut of the profits (as it should), then perhaps every dollar spent in the casino will be better for the state revenue than every dollar spent on, say, diamonds at Kay's Jewelers, or whatever.
<
p>
I think that this state needs to start realizing that it has to view itself in economic and trade terms. We would not be able to survive for long if no one puts money into our state yet we send money out of our state. We depend on trade flowing in many directions, among all of our residents.
<
p>
Three or four casinos have the potential to instantaneously take a lot more out of the economy of our state than a Wal*Mart or a Burger King, which tend to pop up gradually. We’re talking about $2 billion all at once. I’m particularly worried about the areas where the casinos will be located, because most of that money will come from a small radius. We will see local businesses close because of these casinos, particularly those that depend on discretionary dollars.
<
p>
When WalMart opens up, you can argue that people are acting rationally by purchasing their goods at a store that saves them money. Although it’s sad that small businesses closed because of WalMart, although I ultimately think that without those small businesses there are fewer economic ladders for people, although if I could I would snap my fingers and eliminate all big-box stores like Wal*Mart, the tangible benefit of people getting cheaper goods still exists.
<
p>
In fact, WalMart and their ilk probably decreases the amount of money that many people spend on basic goods. This is made possible by cutting out the people who, without WalMart, would be founding, operating, and working at smaller shops. But it is just shifting around the destination of money out of the same consumer budgetary pockets — the presence of Wal*Mart doesn’t make people want to double their clothing or “cheap crap” budgets.
<
p>
What worries me most is that because of the psychological effects of gambling, people will not be acting in their own self-interests. The casino will not just take dollars from their discretionary pockets — dollars that are spent after food, housing, clothing, education, and health-care are provided for. People will shift money from their “necessity” pockets so they can gamble. They will not make necessary repairs on their houses. They will put off purchasing their next car by a couple of years. They will less choose to purchase local goods and services in lieu of foreign-made goods or products from trans-national corporations. More profits will leave this state.
<
p>
Everyone talks about the small percentage of “problem” gamblers, gamblers who turn everything off so they can fuel a serious addiction. But what of the people who shave a little bit here, a little bit there, to fuel a smaller addiction? While some of that billion will be money that is currently spent in Connecticut, a lot more will come from new Massachusetts gamblers.
<
p>
And in the end, what will we have to show for it? Nothing. No new infrastructure, nobody who has been trained in new skills, no new products or innovations, not even new room in someone’s budget due to lower prices.
<
p>
We will simply have money funneled out-of-state by people who are are so poor that they need their taxes lowered, but who are all-too-happy to spend a couple thousand over the course of the year on a quick-fix psychological drug.
<
p>
I’d rather us focus our efforts on things which would make the entire world our customers.
Spending the same money twice
<
p>
…what economists refer to as “acceleration” of money?
<
p>
I’m being facetious, of course. I have mentioned my disdain for economists here more than once.
<
p>
As regards the Wal-Mart analogy, it seems to me that it doesn’t apply in regards the casinos. Wal-Mart is another of the corporate welfare queens. I suspect that casino operators would be glad to pay taxes at the usual rates for the privilege of fleecing their customers.
<
p>
I just wonder whether they will provide space for pawn shops, like they do in Monte Carlo.
How do we generate NEW revenue that’s not going to take money away from something equally (or more) desirable? Reducing dependence on oil and coal would be NEW money since we don’t produce these commodities in the state or region. Couldn’t we rearrange the excise tax on vehicles to penalize SUV drivers? Would a higher gas tax offer a little more incentive to move toward biodiesel or all electric vehicles? Could we offer tax incentives for better insulation and solar panels and pay for it by higher overall utility taxes? Less money would then be spent on outside energy sources and more to local trademen who do the installation.
<
p>
I agree that much of the money spent at casinos is money not spent on the lottery or at local restaurants, etc. Also, the more we try to compete with other states for gambling money the less profit there will be in it, and the more we’ll be seeing adds to entice us into potentially harmful addictions.
<
p>