Cross posted from CFO blog
Governor Patrick spoke at the Worcester Economic Club in defense of his ill-conceived Casino plan
“All I’ve heard is the emotional argument,” he said of the public debate about his casino proposal. Casinos, he said, will not “jeopardize the character of the commonwealth.”
Mr. Patrick, I submit that if the emotional argument is all you’ve heard, you have a serious hearing problem. Information about the downsides of casino gambling is everywhere.
He said he was neither morally nor practically opposed to gambling, noting that he used to take his mother to Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut.
“I get it,” he said of gambling. “It’s entertaining.”
As someone who has been intimately involved in this issue for many months, I must insist that you do not get it.
Questioned by club members after his speech about the social costs of addictive gambling, Gov. Patrick said only 5 to 6 percent of those who frequent casinos have a gambling problem, which he said is about half the percentage of bar patrons who have a drinking problem.
“We don’t tell them they can’t drink,” he said.
Mr. Patrick, I hate to be the one to break this to you – but we are not talking about an activity that is currently legal. We are talking about whether or not we want to legalize an activity that has known and serious socio-economic effects – and one which is currently illegal. And Mr. Patrick – 5 to 6 percent is not inconsequential. It is bordering on a public health disaster.
Under his proposal, he said the money set aside from gambling revenues to mitigate problems associated with gambling would be “four times greater” than any such set aside in any other casino gambling state. The money to fund the programs would come off the top of casino revenues, he said.
This of course is like promoting smoking so that we can tax the cigarettes in order to raise money for funding an anti-smoking campaign.
Sheesh!
I don’t necessarily disagree, but easy on the hyperbole.
<
p>Are you suggesting that 100% of the people will frequent (no patronize, but frequent) casinos? Otherwise, 5-10% of a small fraction of the population is pretty minor thing.
<
p>The potential for crappification of the area around the casino is a much better argument than moral objections to what people do with their money.
really, the thing that killed this for me is that we do NOT know if the numbers add up…the state will be out a lot of infrastructure and other ongoing costs for these things. I don’t know if we really make out ahead on this, and every indication (that is not bought and paid for by the casino industry) says that we just might not.
<
p>There are far less expensive ways to raise revenues. And to be honest, the quote about only hearing emotional arguments angers me. Most of the people who are against the casinos that I know are quite practical and looking at the revenue stream, and since the cost of helping addicts comes out of that revenue stream, it can hardly be said to be all emotional argument.
<
p>Looking at other states that rely on casinos, they have budget deficits up the yang. It doesn’t seem to be a good practical fix.
<
p>This is one where I am in total disagreement with the Governor on, and I hope the legislature does the right thing.
It’s the numbers and whether they are real. I hope that those who are arguing against the Gov’s plans are the unemotional financial types as opposed to the moral outrage people. It sounds like he has been bombarded by the latter.
Can I use that? I will give credit to CentralMassDad of course! Sometimes I do like the English language as it just so contortable.
Patrick is saying that 5-6% of the people who gamble at the casino will develop a problem with compulsive gambling. Some studies say that up to 5% of the population in the vicinity will have a problem. Let’s be conservative and say 2% of the population. That still ranks as a public health crisis in my book.
<
p>But your point is valid. I could have explained things more betterly. I as shooting for engaging brevity.
I went to Foxwoods once, so I “gamble at the casino.” I have never been back; I do not “frequent” the casino.
<
p>I think that “people who gamble at the casino” is probably a pretty small fraction of the population surrounding the casino, that people who “frequent” the casino are probably a small fraction of people who “gamble at the casino” and that the 5% figure is therefore pretty small.
<
p>In short, the argument based on gambling addiction is not a very convincing one, not least because it is little more than a warmed over argument based on the morality of gambling.
But most research shows that 2-5 percent of the population near a casino will develop a problem with compulsive gambling. I can appreciate that some would interpret this as a morality issue – but it’s not. It’s a socio-economic effect of an industry that adds nothing and introduces significant cost. And by the way – it’s mostly a problem with slots. While it is true that any form of gambling can result in compulsive behavior – it is far and away slot machines that are the major issue. The only windmill I am tilting at is slot machines.
nice opulent casinos to the executives of foreign biotech companies. It must be embarrassing for him to tell them that they have to drive to another state to play baccarat.
To call Palmer, Warren or Holyoke a destination resort! More likely the few biotech executives who want a night in a casino would enjoy a Boston setting. Unless of course they want a night with THE DONALD
That’s an attempt at rhetorical misdirection.
<
p>Many people, including Dan Bosley, have non-emotional, non-morality based arguments about how casinos will generate very little revenue when infrastructure costs are factored in. My own personal gripe is that these casinos will essentially be little regional monopolies on a particular type of entertainment, granted by the state, and the corporations who will be handed these little monopolies will then become another powerful special interest group with lots of money to lobby our government. And I really don’t think that those particular corporations will lobby in favor of things like more funding for higher ed or early ed. I can see the biotech corporations lobbying for that, but not some mini-foxwoods.
<
p>
why are several different Democratic governors pushing casinos around America?
<
p>If everybody else does this, doesn’t that decrease the likely revenue from the ones we could set up here?
That’s just one of the many flaws in Patrick’s plan. It is overly optimistic on revenue and doesn’t factor in things like regional competition nevermind the Indian casino factor.
I’m betting its more that the casinos’ popularity is outweighing their prospective revenue generation. It’s good politics, but, as you and I would argue, bad policy.
Not sure I buy the smoking analogy. It’s pretty much impossible to smoke without causing harm to yourself, and if you smoke long enough, you end up costing other people money through the health insurance system to deal with the illnesses you develop because of it.
<
p>Gambling can be harmful to you, but only if you take it too far. The alcohol analogy is much better. Many people gamble without having a negative effect on them or anyone else.
<
p>Just because it’s not currently legal doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be. The state already sanctions gambling through the lottery. If gambling addiction is so bad, why not stop the lottery?
<
p>I would argue that allowing casino gambling is giving people a freedom to do something they wish to do but cannot (well at least not in MA). Most things in life have risks and can be abused, however, we do the best we can to manage that, only outright banning something when we feel the risks are too high. I think most people would tell you that the risks of becoming a gambling addict are not high enough to warrant preventing everyone from doing it.
For most types of gambling that’s probably true. And I’m not tilting at the windmills of currently legal forms of gambling. Slot machines are particularly insidious and addicting. Most people who have studied their characteristics would want them banned completely. And Patrick himself admits that 5-6% of those who use slots will develop a problem. In my mind that is more than high enough of a percentage to keep them out of Dodge.
<
p>Let’s start by eliminating Keno on Jan 1, 2008. The year following, we’ll eliminate all scratch offs of $20 or more. 2010 will bring in the elimination of all scratch offs $10 or more. 2011: no scratch offs at all. 2012: no ticket lotteries [Pick 3, 4, 6, powerball, etc].
<
p>Oh, and no advertising, effective immediately. No billboards, no sponsoring college hockey, no radio ads. Corporate welfare for ClearChannel doesn’t help Massachusetts one bit.
Obviously he’s been reading me. Thanks, Governor! đŸ˜‰
…earlier this morning I tried to post something on one of your comments thread. As you know, I (raj) post as “anonymous” with the raj identifier. Blogger doesn’t seem to allow anonymous posts any more. What gives?
Honestly I feel like Patrick sold me an empty bag of hope and promises, and now his hope mongers have moved on to Obama’s team where they are launching a national version of the Patrick campaign.
The hopemongers had their eyes on a national campaign all along. Patrick was the trial run, and now that they’ve won the election, we’re on our own.
sitting in front of a slot machine “entertaining” himself is far less likely to be monitoring corruption in state government. Here, right now in my idyllic suburban town home invasions for the purpose of drug financing have now been added to the list of reasons to leave mAssachusetts.