Oh Lordy. This will solve all of our problems.
State Senate President Therese Murray said today that a bill allowing casinos in Massachusetts will be debated by both houses of the Legislature this fall as lawmakers intensify the push to expand gambling in the face of plunging tax revenues.
Murray pretended to pull the lever of a slot machine this morning when asked by a reporter about casinos, and even added an exclamatory “Ka-ching!”
No, this is not from the Onion.
Naturally, gambling revenues are also tanking. (And here.)
Good work everyone. Now that you've fixed everything else, you can go home.
Update: More from David Guarino and AmberPaw. Your legislature: Ignoring problems that exist; creating new ones; offering phony solutions in the process. Awesome.
johnk says
Nevermind that GIC thing with the MBTA, and what the hell let them retire at 45. We going to be rolling in money now.
jimc says
he asked, clinging to faint hope.
eury13 says
I’ve got a few more hand gestures and accompanying words for the esteemed Senator, but they are not appropriate for a public forum.
progressiveman says
Good one.
david says
One “destination” casino, probably in central MA.
<
p>Slots at the racetracks.
<
p>No Cahillian slot parlors.
<
p>A new regulatory bureaucracy.
<
p>A lot of very unhappy anti-gambling folks who supported Deval Patrick in 2006, but who will not actively do so in 2010 (they might vote for him, but only because he’s better than whatever sorry alternatives emerge).
sco says
My wager is 3-5 slot licenses, little oversight of bidding process other than “who wants it more?” and the end result is racinos, slots in Fall River, a resort of some kind out in or near Palmer or some combination thereof.
ryepower12 says
(but I think you’re right, should it pass – which is no gaurantee. Call your state reps!)
farnkoff says
Had a “change of heart”, as it were.
ryepower12 says
it may greatly expand his people-powered army for the upcoming election. I, for one, would get on board again — and I won’t unless he does go 180 on this issue.
ed-poon says
I can’t believe she dictates public policy for the state. A good-government “reform” project would be to crack the power of Ways/Means in both houses. These morons wield power over earmarks and eventually become in charge of the whole place.
lynne says
the chair of the W&M is my own esteemed Senator…
<
p>Then again, I’ve said some pretty harsh things about him a-times myself. Especially lately.
<
p>Yah, I don’t ingratiate myself well with our local pols…
jimc says
She’s believed from the beginning that casinos are inevitable and acted accordingly. Deval made an announcement, but never seemed convinced and certainly failed to convince his coalition.
amberpaw says
It pulls in a million a day, and it is sinking like a derelict row boat.
<
p>See: http://www.freep.com/article/2…
<
p>Casinos are not only no answer, but if there was a right time, it is past and gone.
<
p>Want more:
<
p>Nevada regulators gear up for casino bankruptcies:
<
p>http://www.google.com/hostedne…
<
p>Trump entertainment/casions file for bankruptcy:
<
p>http://www.casinogamblingweb.c…
<
p>HELLO! Anybody home?
dhammer says
The unemployment rate in the Detroit MSA is 13.6%, it’s a wonder all three aren’t in bankruptcy. The article you link to indicates that there will be no problem selling the property out of bankruptcy.
<
p>As far as Trump is concerned, he had trouble in Atlantic City when the rest of the city was going gang busters.
<
p>I’m sure there is substantial data out there that supports the notion that there is oversupply of casinos, but what you’re pointing to doesn’t.
progressiveman says
and the declining revenues everywhere else?
centralmassdad says
You’d think that this would be something that they would cause to be generally known. The Foxwoods song is an earworm every April to October, Rhody could stand to place an ad or two.
peter-porcupine says
And THEY have made enough money to expand thier facility from a dumpy wooden shack to a CEE-ment palace.
<
p>Perhaps a correlation between economic desperation and gambling profits (RI and CT vs. ME)?
<
p>Naaahhh….
dhammer says
There’s a massive recession happening, is that the cause? If so, planning for industrial growth following a recession makes good economic sense, if you can generate lump sum payments for licenses before it ends, even more so.
<
p>If you can point to declining revenues prior to December 2007 due to oversaturation, you’ve got a case. The report on how far off the jobs projections were was a HUGE blow to the governor’s plan because it was real. Your argument could be used to argue against the state funding biotech, software development, heck, anything besides education and health care.
<
p>Like I’ve said every time I enter this subject, I’m opposed to gambling, but the economic arguments need to be real, otherwise politicians will rightfully dismiss them.
stoppredatorygambling says
Predatory gambling – using gambling to prey on human weakness for profit– is government’s version of subprime lending. The key policy question in the debate is this: Why is government, especially during these severe economic times, trying to convince citizens to spend large sums on virtually worthless gambling products instead of urging them to save and invest in their future?
<
p>Imagine if Franklin Roosevelt, in the shadow of the Great Depression, had said he was going to legalize and promote slot machines to make up for “lost revenue” and to pay for the war effort. How easy it would have been. Instead, he challenged the country to act together and buy savings bonds, which ultimately led America to achieve the highest savings rate of the 20th century. It helped spur a massive economic boom in which everyone prospered. The gap between rich and poor was the smallest it has been in the last 80 years.
<
p>Leaders like Roosevelt led America through turbulent times by inspiring us to hope for the best and then challenging us to go work for it. They called on us to invest in a common purpose. It’s the same kind of spirit we need today. The era of phony prosperity is over.
<
p>Les Bernal
dhammer says
Which means he believed that consumer spending was the key to economic growth and national lotteries were proposed.
<
p>Nevada legalized gambling in 1931, and it’s important to not that the Continental Congress approved a national lottery to help fund the Revolutionary War. http://www.taxfoundation.org/b…
<
p>There’s plenty of evidence that gambling has negative impacts, but it’s been a source of income for governments for years.
<
p>
<
p>I’m sympathetic to the cause but dubious claims like the one below about $3 spent for every $1 in revenue and looking back at a false history don’t help you.
stoppredatorygambling says
The debate is not whether government “permits” gambling like church bingo – that’s a social form of gambling. The debate is about predatory gambling – using gambling to prey on human weakness for profit.
<
p>There are at least four major differences between social forms of gambling like church bingo, Friday night poker games, picking the Patriots in the office football pool (or even the Irish Sweepstakes game you reference which 87% of the population never even played once) versus predatory gambling products like slot machines and lottery scratch tickets: 1) The speed of the games; 2) the kind of “buzz” or high people get when they play; 3) the amount of money people lose; and 4) the predatory marketing used to promote it.
<
p>The handful of racetracks that were legalized in the 1930’s represent a near total opposite of the predatory gambling industrial complex we have today in Massachusetts and across the country. By promoting predatory gambling, we are turning millions of people who are small earners with the potential to be small savers into a new class of habitual bettors – the Lottery Class. They represent the more than 1 out of 5 Americans who, according to the Consumer Federation of America, think the best way to achieve long-term financial security is to use state-sponsored gambling products. The emergence of the Lottery Class reveals an unvarnished failure of the purpose and promise of America and it is why the time has come to rethink predatory gambling as public policy.
<
p>The Continental Congress used a lottery to help pay for the war because it had virtually no other taxing authority to raise money. That’s clearly not the case today. And, their lottery certainly looked nothing like ours…(not surprisingly, they bury the $20 scratch tickets at the bottom of the page.) How many of us are even aware how out-of-control it has become?
<
p>According to Christina Binkley of The Wall Street Journal, the predatory gambling trade makes 90% of its profits from 10% of the users. We are creating addicted, out-of-control gamblers in order to provide a small number of schemers an obscene level of unearned power and wealth, all in the name of getting someone else to pay our taxes. The question for each of us is whether that is the kind of society we want to live in. My answer is no.
<
p>Les Bernal
dhammer says
Was that gambling has been a source for governments throughout the history of this country. I felt your post “looked back” to some ideal of the past that didn’t ever exist. While FDR (thankfully) never asked the US to use gambling to support the country, plenty of states did.
<
p>Our political leaders are saying casinos are all but inevitable and are telling the public that they’re good for the state. Your follow up post was convincing, if its last paragraph had been your original post, plus the bit about lotteries being terrible, I would have rated it a 6 rather than responded.
stoppredatorygambling says
Les
liveandletlive says
…. like nearly every single money making corporation in the world…not to mention our very own government.
Similar to the taxes on alchohol, cigarettes, soda, and candy. The government exploiting human weakness for money. Imagine that.
michaelfma says
on what this will do to our state. For every $1.00 made in revenue we will have to spend $3.00 for increased security in these areas as crime increases, and for helping our newly addicted friends and neighbors. Also, how ironic that they are following an ethics bill with a casino bill.
frederick-clarkson says
what we seem to have in our governmental leadership might be best described as “casino ethics.”
<
p>Surely we can do better than this.
stomv says
about juxtaposing statements like
and
<
p>because it looks like you’re representing that second statement as fact when it sure seems to be hyperbolic conjecture. I share your instinct about the external costs, but here in our reality based community let’s try to make clear what is claimed as fact and what is opinion.
ryepower12 says
see more pwn and owned pictures
<
p>shoddy transportation reform effort – if you can call it that.
<
p>like the House, resisted stuff in Patrick’s ethics reform bill… watering down something that wasn’t a great solution to begin with.
<
p>and now this?
<
p>After all these years, what exactly has she done that any random person in the Senate couldn’t do? She’s certainly not solving problems. This blog proves she’s not even interested in trying. Time for a new Senate President. She is epic fail.
centralmassdad says
and burned an entire hour.
<
p>My favorite, courtesy of Andrew Sullivan:
<
p>The far right wing’s attempt to hit Obama, in metaphor:
<
p>
jeanne says
about the social costs of state-sponsored gambling and the impact a casino would have one whatever local community is unlucky enough to “win” it.
<
p>I’m also concerned about the state getting used to the revenue stream created by casinos. From what I’ve read, the economic downturn hit casinos across the nation pretty hard.
<
p>Let’s say we get through the current recession, put up a casino, and the state government gets used to the revenue stream from it. Yeah – everyone wins, right? Our current experience shows that the government won’t be socking the money away in the rainy day fund. They’ll spend it and get used to spending it. And then, when the next recession comes (there is always a next time), we’ll be right back here, only worse. In addition to revenue from sales and income taxes being down, there’s this whole other revenue stream (the casinos aren’t doing well!) that is way down. Cue the “raise taxes/cut spending” debate. The revenue from casinos will be cyclical, up in good times, down in bad times. In good economic times, do we really need them? In bad economic times, like the ones we are in, they’ll only make a bad situation worse.
somervilletom says
The lottery is bad enough.
<
p>Legalized gambling is regressive, exploitative, and terrible public policy. The folks standing in line to play Keno and buy lottery tickets are (1) the losers in this game and (2) the weakest, poorest, and most exploited segment of our culture.
<
p>There are very good and sound economic reasons why organized crime has always profited handsomely from gambling. Those are the same very good and very sound reasons why, until a few decades ago, it was always illegal. I’ll attempt to duck the obvious questions about church bingo game “fund-raisers”.
<
p>If the government of Massachusetts determines that exploiting the profit-potential of widely-shared and incredibly destructive vices is acceptable public policy, I would far prefer to see the state operate bordellos. If nothing else, it would at least capture some revenue from the rich white men at the top of the wealth and power pyramid, in addition to the far more diverse — and well-populated — spectrum of the bottom.
christopher says
If this is indeed where we are headed I propose the following to ameliorate the riskiest aspects of slots.
<
p>Machines must take tokens only – no cash, credit or debit cards.
<
p>Tokens must be purchased from a human teller who can cut you off just like a bartender can when you’ve had too much to drink. Since there are no immediate obvious effects of having “one too many” the limit just needs to be standardized at X number of tokens per person per day.
<
p>No ATMs or alcohol allowed anywhere on the casino grounds.
<
p>Odds of winning various amounts of money must be clearly posted.
<
p>Municipalities should have the right to veto any proposed casino establishment within their respective jurisdictions.
stoppredatorygambling says
The trade makes 90% of its gambling profits from 10% of the users. That’s their business model. They can’t make money (nor can state government make money) any other way.
<
p>If you eliminated casino ATMS: you would stop the way they target new addicted, out-of-control gamblers. The trade aggressively markets to people who use casino ATMs because these people have proven that they will chase their losses after they have been beaten.
<
p>If you eliminated alcohol: the trade would lose its ability to exploit people who are out-of-control. A casino will lend you a “marker” – a short-term loan – for as much as your credit will allow knowing full well you will wager and lose all of it inside their casino. The abundant amount of alcohol will certainly smooth over any potential anxiety. Can you imagine allowing a bank to let drunk customers sign financial documents?
<
p>If they posted the odds of winning: The machines would be significantly less profitable because it would publicly expose the machines as being “the technological equivalent of loaded dice” as they have been described before by MIT Professor Dr. Natasha Schull. Most people won’t use the machine if it’s clear they can’t beat the machine. It would be like intentionally putting money into a food vending machine after being informed it was broken.
<
p>Your idea of using “tokens” to create a loss limit is well-intentioned but the predatory gambling trade would spend every last dollar they had to overturn it. Missouri had a law where if a gambler lost more than $500 in two hours, he or she was required to leave the casino and then could walk back in immediately. Even though it seems almost pointless to the non-gambler because the losing gambler can walk right back in, it forced the gambler to interrupt “the zone” they had gotten themselves into. But this was still too much for the predatory gambling trade to stomach. They claimed they were losing tens of millions to neighboring states with out loss limits because the “high-rollers” were going there instead. So in 2008 the predatory gambling trade financed a statewide referendum to repeal the loss limit law. According to the St. Louis Business Journal, the trade spent $15 million to repeal it. If they spend that much on a campaign, how much do you think they spend on lobbying the regulatory process?
<
p>The trade can’t make money if they were regulated in the way they need to be. Nor can our government, “the regulator”, make money for the general fund if they aggressively regulated the trade.
<
p>I know you’ve been considering this issue carefully, Christopher. Thanks.
<
p>Les Bernal
<
p>
christopher says
If the industry feels that these regulations are too much for them to swallow they can go somewhere else. I would have thought from their perspective limited opportunity would be better than none at all.
christopher says
Are these proposed casinos public or private enterprises? You refer to the industry as if it is in this to make a profit, which certainly private casinos would be. However, I was under the impression that certain of our leaders were proposing this as a way for the state to generate revenue. Would these be like the lottery where all money collected by the slots goes to the state, or does slot money go to the business and the state is merely hoping to benefit from the job creation, sales, and meals taxes that are likely to come with it?
stoppredatorygambling says
For every $100 you wager in a potential slot machine in MA, about $4 will go to the predatory gambling trade and about $2 will go to the state.
<
p>The lottery is the most lucrative form of predatory gambling for the state: for every $100 in lottery tickets purchased, the state receives $25 in profit. About 70% of the profits come from instant scratch tickets which are being sold in your name and my name for as high as $20 a ticket.
<
p>Les Bernal
christopher says
Not to keep badgering you, but the lottery seems pretty benign to me, especially scratch tickets. Scratch tickets are actually the one form of gambling I have personally engaged in and even that is very rare. I occasionally have received tickets as a gift or buy a couple myself if I’m waiting for a prescription to be filled at the pharmacy. I only spend a couple bucks at a time and know I have no business spending alot, but I also know I don’t have to at all. I might even win $10 if I get lucky; I’ve never hit it big. I can tell you for sure that I don’t feel the least bit preyed upon.
somervilletom says
Looking at who buys scratch tickets and what the impact is on themselves and their families before you form an opinion on whether or not they are predatory.
<
p>They are certainly regressive, and that alone makes them questionable public policy in my opinion.
<
p>If the state must run a lottery, I’d prefer them to impose an involuntary 1% surtax on every individual’s personal income tax and then distribute a tax-free cash prize to handful of lucky taxpayers each year.
stoppredatorygambling says
You don’t feel preyed upon because lottery players like you are of little interest to our Lottery’s predatory gambling operation. The last serious review of state lotteries was done by the US Congress and here’s what they learned (See Pg. 12 to source all the facts below)
<
p>1) About half the population plays annually which also means half the population doesn’t play;
<
p>2) The top 5 % of players account for 54 % of total sales (nearly $4000 or more each);
<
p>3) The top 20 % account for fully 82 percent. ($1600 or more each)
<
p>That means 4 out of every 5 players are of little interest from a revenue perspective – these casual players spend about $75 a year. What would happen if all players spent the same as these casual players like you Christopher? The answer is that sales would fall by 76 percent.
<
p>It’s addicted, out-of-control lottery players who pay the bulk of state local aid to cities and towns across Massachusetts. That’s why the Lottery is now selling $20 scratch tickets…the casual player is unlikely to throw away so much money but the out-of-control lottery players certainly will buy them.
<
p>That’s also why the Lottery always uses per capita figures for lottery spending because it creates the perception that everyone is playing and spending that much.
<
p>Les Bernal
jimc says
I heard the audio of the “Ka-ching!” moment on WBUR on Sunday. I think she did it with an air of joyless resignation. She clearly did not run for office to enable casinos, but here (in her view, it seems) she is.
<
p>In my ideal world, she would lead the fight against them, but I can’t fault her consistent stance on this.
<
p>