Let’s take for example our good Governor. Despite the fact that even Lynne’s beginning to question if the Governor is getting too cozy with special interests and certain corporations (just listen in to our conversation on LeftAhead, we hit up casinos after 30 mins in – so skip ahead if you’d like), I’m going to take Governor Patrick’s word for it: he’s delivering what he believes as a well-thought-out casino proposal that can mitigate many of the community problems casinos inevitably lead to.
However, everyone and their mother must have realized that Governor Patrick’s proposal – as it stands – will never see the light of day. Governor Patrick’s proposal is less a serious proposal than it is a vehicle to deliver casinos into this state, whether the Governor knows it or not. There is absolutely, positively no stopping the House or Senate from altering any of Patrick’s proposed mitigation or anything of the like. Everyone on that hearing knew it, as well, including the invited guests (Mayor Menino was talking about how many summer jobs the additional state aid casinos would pay for – Governor Patrick’s proposal doesn’t call for any additional state aid to cities and towns).
Furthermore, even if Patrick were willing to veto his own inevitably bastardized bill (which will be tough to do, given his lack of results on revenue matters), there’s no stopping casino lobbyists from getting their greedy hands all over everything in the future. Can’t you just picture it now? Oh, New Hampshire’s adding casinos, wah, wah – we can’t afford to compete now! 27% taxes are just too high! . This thing isn’t going to end well.
It was a point I was only too ecstatic to hear State Senator Sue Tucker talk about, in what was clearly the most passionate, best testimony of the entire day. She called all of the Senators and Representatives on this BS in the closing statement of her presentation. Whether it’s before the first shovel is dug into the ground, or after Governor Patrick is long gone, casino lobbyists will be all over Beacon Hill dictating casino policy – if we let them.
But that wasn’t even the most poignant part of her testimony. The best two parts came in the form of talking about how slot gambling is different than any other kind, given the fact that slot machines are designed using top-notch psychological knowledge to be addictive. Even more important was her discussion of tax policy. She said that there were 4 things state legislators traditionally look at when discussing whether or not to create new forms of revenue:
Is it fair?
Is it stable?
Will it take from other revenue sources?
Is it expensive to collect the taxes?
On all four points, she said, casino revenue utterly fails the sniff tests. Casino revenue is one of the least regressive taxes possible, according to many studies which have shown that the poor gamble away are disproportionately high amount of their revenue. Furthermore, all we have to do is look at the ‘good years’ and ‘bad years’ of our state lottery to know that it’s not stable: cities and towns face enormous troubles if the state lottery fails to perform – now we want to add less stability to our budget? (Especially when so much of the state casino revenue will come from 1 time licensing fees.)
Furthermore, as was discussed frequently here and in other blogs (such as my own), up to 75% of a casino’s revenue is redistributed from other sectors of the economy – so it isn’t new revenue, in many cases, at all. Even one of the casino CEOs admitted that slot machines can lead to tremendous income redistribution.
Finally, I don’t think it’s going to be difficult to picture – after having lived through things like the Turnpike Authority – that a state “gaming commission” isn’t going to be cheap to operate. But not only will the infrastructure be costly, thus negating much of this reputed huge revenue, but Patrick’s plan also puts a huge chunk of the state’s take into mitigation and community policing for affected communities.
And that wasn’t even the half of her very awesome speech (but I’ll spare you all the details).
Given that this hearing was almost inclusively attended by casino supporters, I’d say it was an all around success – for people against Class 3 casinos in Massachusetts, such as myself. Flynn did no favors to himself. Between the Mohegan Sun representatives being grilled by Montigney on the fact that they’ve paid more profits toward their operators than their tribe – and the fact that at least one other casino CEO admitted that slot machines can in fact be a large drain on the local economy through income redistribution, we may not have learned a ton today, but at least we know that even casino execs have a difficult time arguing in favor of casinos.
Feel free to ask me in the comments about anything from today. There was so much I wanted to talk about (such as the unions being way too short sighted getting there early to grab almost all of the seats – favoring casinos), but I just don’t want this to go on forever.
Finally, I know I promised a Part 2 on my last casino piece on BMG – and I will deliver on it (it’s half done!) – I just haven’t finished it yet.
~Ryan
Supposing ALL other methods of raising additional revenue were off the table because of non-cooperation by the legislature, including
<
p>-increasing the income tax,
<
p>-creating a progressive, graduated income tax with income brackets like the federal one,
<
p>-increasing the sales tax
<
p>-setting up more tolls on state highways and increasing existing tolls
<
p>-increasing corporate taxes and closing loopholes
<
p>-allowing municipalities to levy their own taxes in addition to property taxes, as other states do
<
p>would you advocate that we, the MA progressive movement,
<
p>1) Fight like hell for a more progressive legislature, and accept that no increase in revenue will happen until we gain a progressive majority in the house, or
<
p>2)Gain additional revenues now by bringing casino gambling to MA
<
p>This one’s for everybody….I wanna hear your thoughts.
Because #2 probably isn’t going to happen, whether we allow casinos or not.
<
p>I really wish the state leg weren’t so dense & that the average elected official knew as much about casinos as I do… but sadly that’s just not the case.
<
p>Between income redistribution upwards of 75% of all casino revenue and the fact that casinos will both diminish sales in other sectors of the economy (even ones that may not seem related), as well as lead to some losses in jobs and businesses, I’m just not seeing where all of this new revenue is coming from.
<
p>At the very least, we need an independent, non-partisan, free-thinking commission to be created and given a good 6 months to a year to investigate and analyze all of the above concerns and more before we proceed with slot machines.
<
p>All that said, the most important thing we can do – as a movement – is get progressives elected to office. That means we need to replace retiring state reps/sens with progressives, unseat the worst offenders in primaries and even knock off some of the few-and-far-between Republicans. Until we can have a Speaker Eldridge or someone of the like, our job is not done. LOL.
<
p>It’s rather funny, Lynne from LeftinLowell asked me a similar question on today’s LeftAhead. People should listen in to that conversation, about 27-30 minutes into the podcast.
I am glad you had an LOL after that one…
of the state lottery as well?
<
p>Here’s where the disconnect is for me.
<
p>The state runs it’s own lottery system for the express purpose of gaining additional state revenue. That’s gambling for the sake of making the state money. So, why is it so different from the status quo if the state sells licenses to private gaming companies, and than taxes them, if this makes the state more money? It’s the same equation, gambling legal=state revenues. The new proposal just adds a middleman, who will doubtless do a better job of getting costumers than the state has, and who we can tax to make even more money.
<
p>Why is what the governor is proposing different from what we do now?
<
p>It seems to me that the only difference is physical, ie big casinos versus lottery tickets in convenience stores. I don’t want a casino in my neighborhood. But if another holds a referendum and a majority of voters do, why should we stop them?
<
p>It just seems totally hypocritical to me to say yes, I approve of the current status quo with the state lottery, but no, I ardently oppose legalizing casino gambling.
<
p>Also: The proposed indian casinos in Middleboro and elsewhere in Southeastern MA are a federal issue, over which the state has no veto power. So it’s well within the realm of possibility that we could have huge casinos operating in our state anyway, regardless of the decision made by the governor and the legislature.
legality of gambling.
<
p>The question is twofold:
<
p>Casinos?
<
p>Slots?
<
p>
<
p>Keeping in mind our two-fold question, what’d the difference?
<
p>1. The state lottery – as well as our race tracks and bingo nights – is vastly different than casinos, which can have a huge impact on the economy, on communities and on a whole assortment of issues. Want to drive small businesses out of business? Supporting a casino is a good way of doing it. Want to hurt the community? Casinos do that on a number of fronts.
<
p>2. Slot machines are also vastly different than current forms of gambling. They’re designed to mix technology and psychology to a vicious level of success for casinos – add to that free booze, 24 hour casinos and cheap everything (from food to hotel rooms) and it’s easy to see that people can become addicted, fast. That why, within 50 miles of any casino, 5% of the population becomes addicts.
<
p>Also – to put the nail in any argument you had – I’ve already indicated on this thread, blog and on others that casinos probably won’t result in increased revenue. As the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston concluded, upwards of 75% of casino revenue is redistributed from other sectors of the economy. The fact of the matter is this money casinos will be making will be stealing money from other sectors of the economy, sectors that are far superior in making a stronger economy.
<
p>
<
p>I hope I’ve adaquately explained the differences between slots and other forms of gambling, which are far less likely to addict people (and certainly don’t use technology and psychology to addict in nearly the same way, ie. they aren’t preditory). However, also keep this in mind: we, as a population, elect leaders to make sound policy for Massachusetts. If casinos aren’t going to lead to a stronger, better Massachusetts, we are under no obligation to risk our future for something that’s far from a sure bet. I don’t think one can claim to be a progressive if they’re actually for policies that would hurt the state and hurt the people living in it; that’s the very antithesis of what it means to be a progressive.
whether we oppose casino gambling no matter what, or whether we oppose it in light of the fact that there are so many better ways to raise revenue?
<
p>My answer is probably a mixture of both, leaning towards the latter.
<
p>Also, fwiw, I think we should be fighting for a more progressive legislature so it’d live up to its reputation as a progressive body.
I think we have one already…..They may not want to vote on rasing taxes but it is certainly a progressive body……Look at the issues they have passed or tackled since Finneran has left….DiMasi and Murray are certainly progressives….Maybe you want true fiscal progressive legislators – but I am not sure we can afford that at this time.
than Finneran, but they aren’t progressives, fiscal or otherwise.
Can I respond with one?
<
p>Stipulating “net” casino revenues of $1b+/year, do you support it if…
<
p>a) If the additional revenue is essentially going to fund 4% more of the status quo…ie, more Chapter 70, more Medicaid reimbursement to providers, etc.
<
p>b) Protected revenue for change.
<
p>I support “b.”
<
p>It’s hard to get excited about “a” but that seems to be what’s on the table, right? Casinos in exchange for 4% more status quo, dressed up with some bells and whistles.
financing much-needed maintenance for our public assets, including
<
p>-roads
-bridges
-tunnels
-parks
<
p>etc, that have languished for so long with inadequate funding, than yes, I’d support “a”.
<
p>Sometimes, I think, the best use for more money is to fix what you’ve got that’s broken (like the Longfellow bridge), rather than buy something new altogether.
1st – Beacon Hill isn’t going to allow Deval’s proposal to go through as is. You’re wishing upon a star, hoping for a magic fairy to arrive to expect casino money to be dedicated toward roads and bridges.
<
p>2nd – even if Patrick’s proposal got through relatively unscathed, by the time any of the casino money actually goes toward paying for infrastructure, there’ll be such a small peice of the pay that maybe, just maybe, it’ll pay for a few street lamps or something. It won’t pay for a train to New Bedford. It won’t pay for a subway extension to Lynn. It’s not going to pay for the Storrow Drive repair costs or anything of the like.
<
p>So, predicating this debate on ‘if it’ll actually pay for things’ is almost rediculous. We don’t know how the money will be spent, given Beacon Hill’s tendencies, and even if it were spent for good things, it’s a lot of debating for something that will reap almost no benefits.
<
p>Note I didn’t even tackle the fact that casino revenue robs from other sectors of this state’s economy by up to 75% of total casino revenue, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. So not only will there not be enough casino revenue to fix roads and bridges, but whatever money that does exist will come at the expense of local aid and the general fund losing almost an equal amount of money.
Or not, because casinos not a stable or just form of revenue, but anyway…
<
p>This my favorite argument:
<
p>
<
p>There are so many problems with this:
<
p>1. Weak rationale for casinos. Seriously, just because we did something in ye olden days doesn’t mean it’s a smart idea now.
<
p>2. The Lottery, both now and during the Revolution, is categorically different from slot machines. From the height of the chair, to the lights & sounds, these machines are designed, in casino industry lingo, to get players to play ‘to exhaustion.’ Add in 24 hour access, availability of atms, the option of taking a cash advance on your credit card, and alcohol, plus the new industry technology to tap your bank account without getting up from your slot machine. And we or the Legislature can’t find out how they really they work. Consumer Product Red Flags.
<
p>3. At the end of the day, and contrary to the way proponents want to caricature the folks who want to keep our state casinos free, this isn’t a debate about whether you like gambling or not- or even if the state should get into the gambling business. That debate is over. The question for me is do you think this is sound public policy, not just for today, but for the long haul? And given the questions around the truthiness of the numbers, I’m not convinced.
The real difference between the Colonial era and the present is this: In the Colonies and the early United States there was very little capital and there was no banking system to speak of. In 1795 the U.S. had only two banks. This made it very difficult to sell anything of substantial value. So people who wanted to sell, say, a substantial house would set up a lottery. The proceeds of the lottery amounted to a fair price for the house, and the people who bought tickets were taking a relatively small loss if they didn’t win. Not as good as a modern banking system, this stratagem nevertheless sort of worked some of the time. It was criticized as dubious and probably immoral by the Mathers (who had more chops and clout than our current religious leaders), but seeing few alternatives, they gave the system a pass. Raising money for Harvard dormitories did involve a lottery, but that’s no different from any institution using a silent auction or a lottery to raise charitable contributions. The Governor completely misinterpreted this history in his speech.
<
p>The real historical comparison to casinos would be tax farms. The Roman emperors and the later French kings, among others, would license private groups to raise revenue. These tax farmers had a monopoly (as will be granted he casino owners) and they had to come up with the required revenue, using methods of their choosing. So they went into their assigned territory and squeezed funds out of the peasants. Actually, tax farming was probably more efficient and effective, if no more attractive, than using casinos as a revenue source.
<
p>As to the state’s Lottery: Why would anyone think that this was a decent or reasonable way to raise public revenue? It is vastly more expensive to raise a dollar of revenue through the Lottery than it is through straight taxation; in is for practical purposes a “vulnerability tax” shifting a good deal of money from social security payments back into the states general fund; it has an incidence that is known to be highly regressive; and it is premised on a lie. The claim that Lottery money is dedicated to support of cities and towns is pure window dressing.
<
p>BTW: How many Lottery tickets do you think the Governor buys every year, out of a sense of civic obligation to help support the cities and towns of Massachusetts?
As in Bill Bennett, Hampden County DA? Hah, hah! It would be quite refreshing to have the DAs and Queen Martha speak to these issues from the perspective of law enforcement. The silence is deafening.
<
p>Additional personnel will be needed to manage the uptick in traffic, crime, domestic violence and bankruptcies. Anyone ever hear the real deal of the outcome of the Governor meeting with the DAs? What was promised to keep them quite? The separate assessment to the casinos to cover these costs after they are incurred? Has anyone in the Administration actually added up all of the items they claim will be paid in the bill? Gawd.
<
p>The fact that the Democratic Governor who campaigned to engage people in the civic process conducted one of the most blatantly untransparent processes with the development and submission of his bill really gives me pause….
<
p>The fact that the Democratic Governor endorses a plan and filed a bill to increase domestic abuse, bankruptcy, pollution and crime is sickening.
<
p>The fact that the Governor’s recent speech at this week’s cirque de Beacon Hill event (no clue about perception, whatsoever) was a flawed as the bill, with no substantive references to impartial studies in either matter, really gives me pause…. and wonder about his executive capacity and decision making capabilities.
<
p>It is rather repulsive to see the pandering of the Governor to the casino industry when he admits that there will be known negative collateral damage. It’s just gross.
<
p>Looking forward to a Globe expose on casino campaign contributions…Murphy? Viser?
You sat through 6 hours of a hearing and it’s not transparent process? What is a transaprent process? What did you expect?
<
p>BTW – this hearing had nothing to do with the Governor’s bill…that bill is before the Ecenomic Dev. Committee and they haven’t had their hearing on the bill yet…and frankly that is the one that matters because thats is the only committee that can vote on the bill favorably or NOT!
You apparently weren’t.
<
p>The topic of 95% of today’s hearing was the casino proposal put forth by the Governor. Did they talk about casinos in a broader sense? Of course. But don’t presuppose that you know more about a hearing that I went to when you probably weren’t even there, thank you very much.
<
p>
<
p>Obviously, I was making a greater point. Feel free to hackishly try to put words in my mouth or otherwise distort my point, but you’re wrong and other people will realize it.
<
p>The point I was making, so you can’t distort my words any further, is that everyone and their mother clearly realized Governor Patrick’s proposal wasn’t going to go through the House looking the way it does now, if at all. There’s no way in hell any of the revenue will end up going toward property tax relief, never mind approximately 50% of it. Each and every member of the house and senate who sat on the committee or made testimony, as well as Big Whigs like the mayor, talked about how this casino money was going to be used to do all sorts of things that a) probably won’t materialize and b) certainly wasn’t included in the Governor’s proposal.
<
p>Yet, none of them were willing to come on out and admit it.
<
p>Thus, they’re allowing Governor Patrick’s proposal to be used as a vehicle to help drive casinos through the state. His proposal seems reasonable to some of the media and others – and certainly anything that helps deliver on his promise for property tax relief will at least play well in the MSM and maybe even in the polls. Yet it’s dishonest (read: not transparent) for the state legislature to allow that farce to continue without catagorically admitting, up front, that the details in Governor Patrick’s proposals won’t ever get through. However, because they’re not being honest (read: transparent), they’re going be upfront over that inconvenient fact because then they won’t be able to benefit from aura of competency from Deval’s proposal & they won’t be able to get the support of people who may want this to lower their property taxes. What this all boils down to is that no casino would pass if it looked like typical Beacon Hill stink and the legislators who want casinos know that, so they’re going to allow the Governor’s proposal to continue to be the one that’s vetted, all the while in the background, at some point, most of the details will quietly change.
And that is different how, exactly, from every other bill that every Governor has ever filed in the history of MA?
<
p>/snark off
Different than most. It’s certainly not unique. However, what is different about this – in my view – is that the people who want casinos are very willing to continue to allow Deval’s proposal to seem like the one being vetted, and when it comes time to vet whatever the House does to the proposal (if the pro-casino people are able to get anything past Bosley’s committee), it’ll be on the backburner.
<
p>That is manifesty different than, say, the Municipal Partnership Act which the lege was quite upfront with saying no way, no how. Or a number of other Patrick proposals.
<
p>So it’s not different in treatment of the bill, but it is a different PR/messaging tactic… and a more dishonest one, in my view.
Stop over my blog today and read about the wampanoags, the Mohegan Sun developers and corruption. I did a bit of digging on the subject and found out a lot.
<
p>Senator Montigney’s chief concerns surrounded corruption and the recent Globe article on how the Mohegan Sun execs have earned more money than the entire 1700-member tribe combined. However, I bet Montigney didn’t know about some o fthe things that happened with the same developers, trying to build a Mega-Resort casino in Wisconsin.