I’m continually amazed that a state economy long respected for its creativity, imagination and vision continues to be hamstrung by a House speaker and some members who are quite content with allowing our state’s gaming, entertainment and tourism economies to be cannibalized by bordering states — especially when our state is the economic engine of the entire New England region.
Consider the irony: the absolute worst odds in any form of gambling — and which depends mostly on purchases by lesser-educated poor, working poor and lower middle-class Bay Staters — are the lotto, keno and scratch tickets offered by the Mass State Lottery. But because the lottery helps fund city and town budgets, our legislators consider it sacrosanct.
At the same time, the absolute best odds in gaming — and which depends mostly on middle-class, upper middle-class and white collar patrons — are those offered by destination resort casinos, from video poker (a game of skill), to table games like blackjack, baccarat and craps.
But there’s more.
Unlike the state lottery, which does not create any priovate sector employment, does not generate any economic development, or induce tourism and hospitality growth, destination resort casinos create thousands of jobs, induce private sector economic development, and grow tourism and hospitality businesses in surrounding regions.
So, while southeastern Connecticut boasts New England’s lowest unemployment rate, has created more than 60,000 casino and casino-induced private sector jobs, and is recognized as New England’s premier tourism and hospitality and convention and meeting destination, our House of Representatives struggles along under a speaker who seems to be against everything — and advocates for nothing.
It is said that the best politicians NEVER vote for anything — that way they can’t ever be blamed for anything screwing up. But our House of Representatives has taken that belief to a new low.
While our state’s residents are spending over $1 billion a year at the Connecticut casinos and Rhode Island slot parlors, our House of Representatives prefers to combat a $1.5B budget deficit, rising unemployment, and anemic housing and real estate market, by telling us that they have a plan to help our economy.
God forbid it’s the same “plan” that Rep. Dan Bosley foisted on us for the past decade.
You remember? Bosley’s tax giveaways to Fidelity and Raytheon and other big businesses — which have resulted in both companies laying off Bay Staters and sending jobs out of state.
And, of course, Bosley’s energy dereg legislation — the one where he promised dereg would create competition and lower gas and electric rates.
My electric rates have gone through the roof under Bosley’s dereg plan. How about yours?
My point?
“Supposed liberals” need to understand that big business bailouts don’t create competitive economies, no matter how much those big business execs and their lobbyists contribute to your campaign account.
And those same “supposed liberals” also need to understand that balancing state budgets on the backs of lesser educated, lesser earning citizens by encouraging them to play the lottery, is a not-so-subtle form of Reagomics.
Instead, those “supposed liberals” ought to embrace a fairer, balanced and more competitive Massachusetts economy by lobbying our House to approve destination casinos — which appeal to more educvated, more affluent citizens, which will position Massachusetts to compete with Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, bringing millions in revenues, thousands of new jobs, and revitalized tourism and hospitality industries BACK to the commonwealth.
I’m tired of “supposed liberals” embracing the very policies that Ronald Reagan would have espoused. And so should you!
Proud Lib
justice4all says
Who are you? A shill for the Casinos?
<
p>This is a very complicated topic, one that deserves a full drill-down on the economics of the plan…not just a flag-waving, simplistic trot through the shallow waters of casino backer talking points.
<
p>So – give us the hard facts.
<
p>1. Total Anticipate Revenue and Total Jobs created
<
p>2. Cost of revenue raising
<
p> a. Public Safety – crime, prostitution, drugs, traffic
b. Public health
c. Infrastructure – street and road upkeep and repair, expansion, etc.
d. Diversion of lottery fund to casino; what’s the potential hit on local aid?
e. Human costs – chronic gambling addiction and safety net
<
p>3. Additional Concerns
<
p> a. The Commonwealth’s commitment to host communities – does it come in the form of additional assistance or other funding mechanism? Which towns/cities would be eligible – the host communities or abutters?
<
p> b. What can communities expect in term of a long term commitment from the Commonwealth?
<
p>4. Is this the wisest/best use of the Commonwealth’s resources?
<
p>
proudlib says
Like I said, navigate to the UMass and UConn websites and read those independent studies on the impacts.
<
p>At least avail yourself of some independent expertise before you start your diatribe on gambling.
<
p>It’s pretty disgusting that you appear content with Massachusetts sponsoring the absolute worst form of gambling — the state lottery — one that preys on the least educated and the least affluent.
<
p>At least the casinos spawn revs, jobs, tourism and econ development.
<
p>Can’t remember the last time I read about a private sector job, tourism growth or economic development initiative arising from someone buying a scratch ticket or playing keno.
<
p>If Bosleynomics is your cup of tea, and you like the status quo …
mr-lynne says
Make sure you know who and what has been funded by casino lobbyists before you say that…people like Dr. Clive Barrow have a long and storied past with being paid by the very people trying to get this passed.
<
p>Or, maybe this IS Clive Barrow?? Hmmm…inquiring minds want to know…
lynne says
This was actually me, not my husband. He’s far less snarky and generally more wordy than I am. đŸ™‚
proudlib says
Apparently, if you offer a dissenting opinion on casinos, you’re immediately accused of being a shill or lobbyist. I’m neither.
<
p>What’s fascinating is that I took the time to read the UMass and UConn studies — and that makes me suspect?
<
p>Maybe if you and all the other naysayers spent fewer minutes spewing what you THINK you know and, instead, spent a few minutes reviewing the data, then maybe you’d sound a bit more learned on the pros and cons.
<
p>I’ve always wondered how people who profess to be liberal can be so close-minded.
<
p>So, the Susan Tuckers and Dan Bosleys of the Massachusetts political world, who don’t seem to have a tangible grasp of the pros and cons on gambling, never mind energy deregulation and tax policy, are YOUR alleged experts on gambling?
<
p>Stop kidding yourselves.
<
p>proudlib