Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

FIRST PERSON REPORT: Tonight’s rally at Faneuil Hall

By

Second Panelist: Kitty Dukakis

She remembers her late father conducting orchestras in Faneuil Hall.

She came as a person in recovery.  She called gambling addiction a hidden addiction.  She considered it a duty to her children and grandchildren to work against the Commonwealth taking this step.

Third Panelist: Jim RubensGranite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling.  He is a Republican, and reminded us all that this is a non-partisan issue and that Casino gambling is a race to the bottom.  Casino gambling does not create jobs; it cannibalizes jobs from the local economy for a net loss.  With the proposed slot and casino bills, money that once stayed in your state from real, local jobs will all go out of your state as the profits go to Malaysia and Los Vegas.  

There is no local spinoff spending from those who travel to casinos.  They drive to the casino, spend their money in the casino, have no money left, turn around, and drive home.  They do not spend money outside the casino or help the local economy.  For more, see New Hampshire says NO to casinos  Even the mayor of Ledyard Connecticut, where Foxwoods is located says having Foxwoods there was a mistake, and gave no financial benefit.

Fourth Panelist: Former Governor Michael Dukakis

Alan Khazei told a great story as a lead in.  When he was an undergraduate at Harvard, he decided to have a 24 hour fundraising dance but could not get school support or a space for it.  He wrote Michael Dukakis, who was then the governor, asking him to be the speaker to conclude the event.  To Alan Khazei’s amazement, Governor Dukakis sent him a letter of acceptance.  When Alan Khazei showed that letter to the Harvard administration, he got his room and support and held his first major event; a successful 24 hour fundraising dance.  He never forgot Governor Dukakis’ willingness to support an unknown student, or how accessible he was.

Dukakis stated the issue is really an issue of public revenue, and our crumbling infrastructure and slashed services result from poor handling of our revenue.  He reminded us all that as governor, he dealt with three recessions in 12 years.

Sadly, today Massachusetts has either the first or second highest level of public debt in our nation of any state.  That is because when our revenues rose in good times, we did not pay down our debt and build reserves.  Instead, we indulged in tax cuts.  After I left office, he said, taxes were cut 40 times.

Though these cuts were “sold” as tax cuts, actually each of them were giveaways to special interests at the public’s expense; while sold as ‘job creation’ they created no jobs.  He said we threw away first 1.7 billion and then 2 billion in gifts to special interests that did not benefit our citizens and placed our infrastructure and services at risk as soon as there was a downturn.

We would have the resources to support foundation services and maintain infrastructure in good times and bad if we would claw back these unwise giveaways misleadingly sold as “tax cuts” to create jobs.

Further, if we embrace casino gambling, lottery revenue will inevitably go down.  As his grandfather would say, in Greek, “Things happen.  You are supposed to those things.”  Dukakis actually said this in Greek and translated for the rest of us.

Fifth Panelist: State Senator Susan Tucker

She thanked Alan Khazei for raising the issue in his campaign.  She said,

We cannot gamble our way our of budget problems because it doesn’t work – just look at Connecticut – this costs more than in brings in.

She went on to say that gambling is a social justice issue.  It transfers wealth from to poor to out of state, off shore wealthy billionaires.  She paraphrased Martin Luther King as saying that laws which lift the human spirit are just laws; laws which prey on human weakness are unjust laws.  Casino gambling violates every singe principle of honest revenue.

Even though Sen. Tucker represents Laurence, where the Bread and Roses strike began the union movement, she quoted the Samuel Gompers Monument and said she wished labor would return to Samuel Gomper’s principles.

Sen. Tucker said that the casino industry is trying to sell the message that casinos are inevitable, but that this is just not true.  What is true is that hundreds of millions of dollars are already at play, and all but two of the large Beacon Hill Lobbying firms have already been retained by gambling interests.  Senator Tucker made clear that she believes it is critical for all of us to contact our own legislators and make clear that we care about this issue.

Sixth Panelist: Kathleen Conley Norbut

She said she is an unlikely leader of a statewide movement.  She is a health teacher, her husband is a union carpenter.  He father is in the Chelsea Soldiers home.  She lives in a small community on the Connecticut line.  She has seen that out of state investors are interested in extracting our income for their profit.

Supporting expanded predatory gambling is a wrongheaded policy with horrific impacts.  The region where she lives cannot take another hit; even now the education her children experience is not as good as what she received in 1970 because of how poorly revenue has been handled on the state level.  We have sacrificed so much.

This issue is about who we are as a people.  70-80% of casino revenue comes from addicts.  30% of casino users are destroyed by this product.  The amount of drunken driving soars.

Australia brought in casinos to solve its economic problems.  Its economy is worse then ever and today, 80% of Australians wish they could rid their country of casinos but they cannot.  Casinos are like cockroaches.

Further, 90% of the jobs at casinos are in fact the result of the destruction of other businesses and the destruction of local economies. Gambling in Connecticut shows the high social costs to Connecticut of its casinos.  Further, this study shows casino jobs were cannibalized from local businesses “eaten” by casinos.  The profits from the local businesses stayed in Connecticut – casino profits flow over seas to foreign billionaires.

She met with several members of the administration, including Governor Patrick.  She felt touched and honored by the way he listened.  Kathleen Conley Norbut’s meeting with Gov Patrick led to a request for a truly neutral study by Governor Patrick

Audience membersThe discussion was opened up to the audience.  The comment that impressed me the most was from a woman from Louisiana.  She said that when casinos came to Louisiana, per capita food consumption went down, and the Governor who brought in casinos is in prison today.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. This state has nearly 2 billion in tax credits. How many of them do we really need? Are those tax credits for special interests more important than our basic public needs? Does the $120 million or so that this state spends every year on “Hollywood Tax Credits,” paying 1/4 of everything studios spend here, movies or commercials, including 1/4 of Tom Cruise’s $20 million + salary, really do anything for our state? These studios are even given a waiver on paying sales taxes on anything they purchase in the state — and don’t have to hire Massachusetts employees who pay Massachusetts income taxes. Why are we wasting this kind of money on useless, special interest tax credits, when we could be using it for basic needs and services?

    <

    p>I want more revenue for this state also, but the casinos are complete smoke and mirrors. They end up being a huge cost to the state. Combined with the loss to local businesses and the huge dent to the state lottery casinos would make, as well as the enormous social costs casinos would cause, there would be no new revenue at the end of the day from casinos and we’d almost certainly be in the whole. California loses a billion dollars a year from the costs of having their casino industry — and that’s only what their attorney general could count.

    • Here’s one of the recent articles, pretty balanced I think, in the Taunton Daily Gazette that show that the Governor’s office, Legislative Leadership, many rank and file legislators and outside think tanks are indeed looking hard at the cost and benefits of our state’s film credit.

      <

      p>

      DeLeo seems to be waiting until the revenue committee is done studying the issue before he makes up his mind. An ad hoc revenue subcommittee recently began the elaborate process of analyzing the state’s many tax credits, exemptions and incentives. Like her Beacon Hill boss, Rep. Alice Peisch says she is keeping an open mind on the issue. Peisch, a Democrat from Wellesley and the House vice chairwoman of the revenue committee, says the film industry’s tax incentive program is one small piece of her panel’s wide-ranging review.

      Peisch says it’s clear that the tax credits – which first took effect in 2006, and were sweetened in mid-2007 – bring plenty of film activity to the state. But Peisch says her committee still needs to assess whether the tax credits generate enough of an economic benefit to justify the costs. She hopes to have a report done by the end of the year or – at the very latest – in time for next spring’s annual budget debate……………

      <

      p>

      Nick Paleologos, executive director of the Massachusetts Film Office, says he’s less worried about the tax incentives’ fate now that they survived this year’s grueling budget season. Paleologos, who met with Peisch’s subcommittee on Sept. 15 to defend the credits, says he believes legislative leaders are reluctant to tamper with an economic stimulus program that’s actually working. He points out that the state’s 25 percent tax credit on local production spending is more moderate than what’s been adopted in several states – something that should help shield it from criticism………….

      <

      p>

      But the tax credits’ critics may enjoy a more receptive audience on Beacon Hill now that state officials are considering another round of budget cuts. Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, recognizes that the film tax credits spurred job growth. But Widmer says the film industry’s jobs remain just a tiny portion of the state’s overall work force.

      Widmer argues that the $100-million-plus a year that the state spends on these credits could be used more effectively in other corners of the economy – such as local aid to cash-strapped cities and towns. It doesn’t help the industry’s case, he says, that the tax credits only return 16 cents in tax revenue to the state’s coffers for every dollar that’s spent.

      You can bet that Rep. Steve D’Amico of Seekonk will continue his quest to drop much of the credits on the cutting room floor. D’Amico, who shares Widmer’s frustrations, says he’s pushing a bill that would revive a $7 million-per-picture cap on the credits – a cap that was lifted in 2007, opening the floodgates for production work here.

      <

      p>finally ……..

      We certainly aren’t alone in this debate. Politicians from Connecticut to California have reviewed the merits of their film tax credits, and some states have capped their film incentives to address their own budget shortfalls. After several years when lawmakers were clambering to outdo rival states with their incentives, many of them are now scrambling to undo the subsidies.

  3. HE also spoke in the AM at the Friday Morning Group, an informal monthly meeting of conservative activists, and he was well received there as well.

    <

    p>This may be an issue where many of us can find common ground.

    • This issue is certainly one where those interested in a government based on transparency and fiscal integrity should take interest.  When there are hundreds of millions of dollars being thrown around to try and influence government action, there are always risks, don’t you think?

  4. Further, if we embrace casino gambling, lottery revenue will inevitably go down.  

    <

    p>”If we have more gambling it will screw up the gambling we already have.”  Priceless.

    • The majority of casino revenue would go overseas to investors/owners based off shore such as in Malaysia – or in Las Vegas.

      <

      p>Lottery revenue goes to the MA Treasury and is earmarked for local aid and education.

      <

      p>Big difference!  Priceless, indeed.

      <

      p>The lottery is like a form of voluntary taxation.

      <

      p>Still regressive – but voluntary.

      • There is no reason the state couldn’t retain the revenue.  Where does it say it has to sell out to the big casino operators?  

        <

        p>For instance why couldn’t the state keep substantially all revenue related to slot machines.  They are no more than fancy parking meters, are they not?  Would you be in favor of casinos if the money stayed home?  

        • Tell you what – after you read the reports/links in my post let’s talk some more.

          <

          p>One, and one only, of the many problems with slots is that current research into brainwaves & etc. has led to a machine that is actually designed to be addictive.

          <

          p>And no, slots are not “fancy parking meters”.

          <

          p>And no, I would not be in favor of casinos EVEN if the 1 billion in development cost [depending on models, some of the proposals would cost more than that, some as ‘little” as 500-600 million] did not mean that the vast majority of profits did not leave the state,  Again, PB READ the report.  Your comment bears no relationship at all to the reality under discussion – better to be informed first before posting.

          <

          p>I did provide the links to resources that would mean you would be informed rather than ignorant of the equipment and issues as your post seems to indicate.

          • Your previous post rather clearly suggested that the problem with casinos vs. the lottery was related to who pockets the profits.  Had a feeling there was more to it (your opposition) than that.

            <

            p>So what was the point of your previous post?

            <

            p>Actually I’ve read quite a bit of the research that has been posted on BMG previously.  I’ll take a look at what you posted.  Hopefully it’s not the same tired old stuff that I’ve already seen.

      • I’m not so sure.

        <

        p>Let’s consider ways in which lottery revenue might not stay in MA:

        <

        p>1.  Advertising media.  Clear Channel isn’t a MA company, nor are most of the other billboard / radio companies.

        <

        p>2.  Advertising execs.  Are the advert companies located in MA, or on Madison Ave?  I have no idea.

        <

        p>3.  Printing.  Are the lottery tickets themselves printed in MA, or elsewhere?

        <

        p>4.  Equipment.  Are the lottery machines (quick pick, etc) manufactured and assembled in MA, or elsewhere?

        <

        p>5.  Sales profits.  While the store pays income taxes in MA for the lottery revenue profits from stores in MA, do the profits stay in MA or are they distributed to owners/stockholders out of state?

        <

        p>6.  Winnings.  Do major winners stay in MA, or do they move elsewhere?  They’ll pay income tax on their winnings to be sure, but will the rest of that money be spent in MA or in Florida?  Will it be spent on expensive goods manufactured elsewhere, or one goods and services which generate good jobs in MA?

        <

        p>

        <

        p>So sure, some of the lottery money stays in MA, but how much?  I have no idea — and I’d bet that Tim the Treasurer doesn’t either.

  5. I’ve never understood the argument that for every dollar in casino revenue there will be three dollars in costs. Why can’t you just triple the taxes on casinos? Raise taxes on casinos high enough, and you should be able to raise enough money to adequately cover the social costs of gambling, and have money left over for general government services.

    <

    p>It’s entirely possible that if you set the taxes high enough that it would cover social costs, that casinos wouldn’t be a profitable idea anymore and they wouldn’t be built. But it seems like it would be more efficient to force casinos to foot the bill and let them make the decision as to whether they want to pay than to simply debate whether to allow them or not. (It’s also possible I suppose that there are fiscal technicalities that make this sort of taxation scheme impossible, but I haven’t heard them mentioned before.)

    • the casinos couldn’t later change. The fact of the matter is the slot lobby is a powerful one indeed. Let them in and the ballgame’s over. The house always wins… if you let them build that house in the first place. Casinos will (somewhat rightly, I may add) say they couldn’t justify the investments in infrastructure if we taxed them at, say, 50% — which would still be much less than what we get back from the state lottery. It’s still going to eat into the state lottery and, combined with its other social and economic costs, be more expensive to the state than not allowing them over the long run. What two things do Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey all have in common? They all have more casino-styled gambling than Massachusetts and they all have higher state taxes. If this solved a state’s fiscal problems, there may not even be a debate. It just doesn’t.

Archives