I’m still stunned after reading Rep, Dan Bosley’s almost infantile statement regarding his opposition to resort casinos.
If you want to know why our state is in such a sad, miserable economic descent, just imagine Mitt Romney and Dan Bosley being the architects of this economic implosion.
Romney bought up companies, deconstructed them, sold off the assets, fired employees, cut health benefits, and got rich.
Bosley helped write the tax giveaways to Fidelity and Raytheon, companies that then laid off Massachusetts employees and moved jobs out of state.
Then, as if that wasn’t enough, Bosley pushed through his energy dereg bill, promising it would create competition and decrease utility rates. Instead, the big companies bought up the smaller ones, and the utility rates went through the roof.
Now, Bosley, who is 0-2 when it comes to economic initiatives, is lecturing us that he’s against casinos because he “thinks” they won;t help Massachusetts’ economy.
Frankly, I’m scared to death over what Bosley “thinks> Every time he “thinks,” Massachusetts’ economy gets hurt.
Do us all a favor Dan, stay in the Berkshires and do your “thinking” there, please?
We need new tax revenues, new jobs, new tourism and hospitality growth, and a new vision of how Massachusetts should compete. That kind of “new thinking” is clearly well beyond your scope.
So do us a favor. Stop “thinking!” A stronger and more competitive Massachusetts can’t compete if burdened with your kind of “thinking.”
so we can just whether Dan Bosley’s statement is infantile or you are just throwing out insulting words at someone who disagrees with you?
<
p>Or a quote.
<
p> I saw Bosley interviewed about this on NECN back in the first week of August, and he made very cogent arguments & criticisms against casino gambling in Massachusetts.
<
p>Now, there are other issues where I disagree with Bosley, such as closing tax loopholes, but I don’t think he was infantile at all.
I’m inclined to side with Mr. Patterson on this one. I listened to Rep. Bosley’s opinion on casino gambling, and I happen to think he’s right. Casino gambling is no panacea for lagging revenues. At first blush – casinos seem like a real good deal. Think of all that money that’s bleeding into Conn.? But once you factor in the costs – the expected net revenue isn’t there. And then there’s the collateral damage; Rep. Bosley rightly points out the “costs” of providing those revenues – and guess who will likely bear the burdens of those costs – more police, public safety, public health, better infrastructure, etc.? The cities and towns that host them. Mr. Bosley also notes the redistribution of discretionary spending from the State Lottery to the casino…which is akin to “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.” If the state plans on taking the casino revenue for itself – then there’s even less revenue for local aid via the Lottery.
<
p>You seen, proudlib, the Commonwealth has a really long history of funding state burdens to cities and towns through additional assistance; it was part of the compact that the state came up with to help cities and towns cope with Prop. 2 1/2 and to offset the burdens of driving the state’s economic engines. It is one of a very few unrestricted local aid options provided by the state. The only problem is that the state capped it about fifteen years ago…while the costs didn’t cap. Oh no; the costs keep climbing and climbing…
<
p>So, while there will be all kinds of promises made to support the host communities – I urge caution. The state very rarely lives up to its obligation over the long term. To wit: The Lottery, which is another piece of work, in which the revenue is restricted to 3 items: the administration of the lottery, the payout of prizes and Local Aid. This revenue source was also capped and tapped – by the state. Even when you get it in writing (MGL), the state will still take its slice. Don’t even get me started about how “fair” the distribution of those funds are.
<
p>Personally, I think this is a sucker’s game…and we’d be suckers to play it, too.
Since when did Bosley become an economist? He’s a hack who screwed MA with his utility deregulation debacle and tax loopholes. He’s had the same argument for years. Where are these supposed studies that demonstrate the negative effects of casinos? Let me guess, it’s a Grinols special. Well, actually, UConn and UMass have been studying the casino debate for years. They conclude that thousands of MA residents visit CT and RI casinos and racinos annually. Do you think that people with gambling issues leave those problems at the border? Who bears the burden of these social costs? We do. Patrick’s proposal is a multi-step approach to dealing with the delicate balance between economic stimulus, corporate takeover and gambling addiction and treatment. He’s even proposing a higher tax rate than the national average to deal with existing problem gamblers. Before you listen to Bosley, first consider the source and second consider the data.
I’m still waiting to hear someone — anyone — cite the empirical evidence that destination casinos like Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun hurt rather than help the economy.
<
p>I know what Bosley “thinks” about gambling. But that’s it. I only know what he “thinks,” but he never cites any specific studies to back up his beliefs.
<
p>Hey, if Bosley said he “thinks” the world is flat, would you agree with him? Or would you ask him to “prove that assertion?” I’d hope — no matter where you stand on gambling or the shape of the earth — that you’d be intellectually honest enough to require him to provide you the empirical evidence to back up his claim.
<
p>Instead, all I read on postings regarding Bosley is that he’s some kind of gambling expert and economic guru.
<
p>Like I said, I don’t believe any of us needs an “expert” or “guru” like Dan Bosley involved in any manner in charting the state’s economic strategy. He’s consistently been wrong on major economic issues — tax bailouts for big business and energy deregulation. I’m not comfortable with following him any further over the cliff as he expounds on why casinos are bad for the economy.
<
p>My sense is that he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know, and he’s too insecure to admit that he doesn’t really have a grasp of economics, economic development, tourism, and all the nuances involved in making those sectors more vibrant and competitive.
<
p>Follow him over the cliff if you must, but Massachusetts has already suffered terribly from his economic incompetence. He says he’s a liberal, but no true liberal adopts a public policy that depends on encouraging the poor, working poor and the lesser educated to gamble their money on lotto, keno and scratch tickets.
<
p>But that’s going to continue to be the result of how our state funds critical programs if Bosley has his way in keeping the status quo. When he says “no” to casinos, he’s really making sure that those least financially able to gamble are gambling the most and paying the freight.
<
p>And if you think I’m wrong, just look at the facts.
<
p>Chelsea, Everett and Revere residents spend more per capita on the lottery than do Wellesley, Weston and Dover residents. But those wealthy communities receive more lottery money, per capita. That’s what Bosley’s defending when he preaches that we need to “protect” the lottery and opposes destination casinos.
<
p>No liberal would embrace a tax policy that robs from the poor and gives to the rich — except those trafficking in Reaganomics.
<
p>So remember that the next time you praise Bosleynomics, because you’re indirectly saluting the Gipper!
<
p>ProudLib
You’re reframing this for a cheap fix – so challenge my assertions about the “cost” of doing business the casino way. Any hard evidence, or just more BS about Reaganomics?
<
p>Are you really suggesting that destination casinos keep out the poor/less wealthy, and offer the antidote to the current, regressive tax on the working poor known as the lottery? Ever been to Atlantic City or Vegas? Please – this is BS. The working poor gamble, whether it’s Keno, scratch tickets, bingo or Casinos.
<
p>And while you’re correct about the per capita stats on the working class/upper class vis-a-vis their lottery aid – how does that get any better with casinos? A reduction in lottery spending will cut aid across the board? And there is NO appetite to change the distribution – I learned that the hard way. The legislature prefers to “hold harmless,” no matter what happens. So how do casinos change that?
<
p>I’d like to see the data that suggests that casinos are actually worth the money and aggravation they cause. The Michigan example suggests that they’re not worth it. Pony up, friend.
I never said destination casinos don’t attract people on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum. I SAID that destination casinos attract more people on the higher end of the socio-economic spectrum. That’s the group that’s spending the $1.1 billion at FW and MS; a higher percentage of the lesser educated, lower-earning MA gambling patrons are spending their $ at Twin River and Newport Grand, the RI slot parlors.
<
p>Unlike you, I take my time and read the studies — both pro and con. I read the guv’s proposal; I read all the UMass studies; I read the UConn analyses; I read several other studies, all pro and con.
<
p>I wouldn’t make a decision to support destination casinos without feeling comfortable that I made a vigorous inquiry into those pros and cons, any more than I would vote for Barack Obama without first accessing his Illinois State Senate voting record, Chicago Trib & Sun Times archives, and his U.S. Senate voting record. I still feel that Chris Dodd was the class of our Democratic field, but that’s another story for another day.
<
p>As far as answering your many questions, perhaps rather than spouting a lot of BS, maybe you should access the UMass and UConn websites and read the actual studies — you know, the studies that academia has done, but which Bosley’s never commissioned in all his years as a supposed “economic expert and gambling guru.”
<
p>And then take down that stupid Adali Stevenson quote.
<
p>Remember, Adlai was anti-Catholic and anti-Jew. JFK put him in the ambassador’s seat to the UN partly as a joke. He wanted Adlai to see how the other half lived. If you read some of the books on JFK’s administration, you’ll find that he was an insufferable bore — a prissy, upper-crust curmudgeon who had an anachronistic view of the world. If Adlai’s your idea of a great American statesman, you’re seriously ill-informed.
I knew that was you David! I haven’t heard of anyone else supporting Dodd…