Sunday, June 7, 2009
Slot Resolution at Democratic Convention
Congratulations to all the people who worked hard to get an anti-slot resolution adopted during the Democratic Issues Convention this weekend. Getting this adopted was impressive and makes me feel that we still can beat this when it comes up for a vote later this year. Good job!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
The convention was far more entertaining than I ever expected. I was thrilled to finally have a tiny say on the predatory slots issue.
Thanks on the slots thing. I am wondering about John Walsh's remarks afterwards. He said that the anti-slots vote wouldn't hurt the governor and he said that,"
“It’s not a position of the party, in the sense that it’s not in the platform."
This coupled with his remarks about being fair if Cahill ran as a democrat against Patrick, but he would vote and strongly campaign for Patrick seems to indicate that this is the Patrick party and not the Democratic party. THis is exactly the kind of chicanery that we are constantly being accused of in the legislature.
We've had our conversations about this, but I want to chime in with the result of about 10 minutes of research about poll after poll showing opposition to gambling in MA runs in the lower 30 percentage:
Boston Globe, 53+, 34-, Sep 07
http://is.gd/UNj4
UMass-Dartmouth Center for Policy Analysis: 57+, 31-, April 09
http://is.gd/UNkb
State House News, 57+, 38-, Feb 09
http://is.gd/UNl0
Suffolk Univ, 61+, 34-, Mar 09
http://is.gd/UNlF
This isn't a civil rights issue, like the gay marriage debate. This one boils down to numbers, numbers, numbers.
Some revenue is better than no revenue. We're already "addicted" to having money in the state budget, Dan. Downturns are downturns for everyone, and even if revenues are down at Foxwoods, it's unlikely they're paying absolutely nothing to the state of CT.
I've heard the research you've quoted about social costs, and I'm convinced of neither its neutrality nor its methodology. You want to tell me that UMD, Suffolk, the Globe, or the State House News has a dog in the gambling fight?
Anyway, just sayin: I respectfully disagree with your position and so do many of my other fellow citizens; our voices should be taken into account.
The research you mention all cite the same UMD study and it is flawed. If you keep running the same numbers over again in the same manner, you will get the same results. This doesn't make them right. And yes, the professor at UMD had contracts with gambling supporters in the past and I believe he is a big gambling supporter. The Globe has always been against gambling until the Times took over and after years of railing against gambling, they are looking, I believe at the ad revenue from resorts.
This isn't about social costs, this is about whether the state should rely on this for revenues...increased revenues. i have never said that casinos would not be productive or profitable to their owners. If we take into account the number of gamblers from Massachusetts that would go to them and add in the incremental amount that we would recapture from other state, then deduct the increased costs of enforcement and infrastructure, our ability to attract tourists already, the transfer loss from existing businesses and the hit to the lottery, we end up with nothing. That has always been my argument.
As for social costs, if I stood on the floor of the House and said I wanted to raise taxes by a few billion dollars (raw gross) and I wanted to take a disproportionate share from the poorest people in the state, I would either be laughed at or booed out of the chamber. Yet that is exactly what some of the most progressive politicians in the state are arguing.
When I started looking at this in 1996, there was little in the way of studies being done. Today, except for Massachusetts studies that all look at the same flawed hypotheticals, there is a lot of data to suggest that I may be right on this. I didn't start off as an opponent. I don't have a moral objection to someone gambling if they want, but it does come down to numbers.
Gov. Patrick has been killing the Legislature lately saying we need to change and need long term solutions, yet his big proposal is one that will leave us in worse shape, spending money that is not new and abandoning the most vulnerable in the state. We all have seen the pattern around the US. Given the reliance on gambling in states that do this, as soon as their projected revenues are not realized, they cut back on programs for those addicted to this.
If this is such a great idea, then why do Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey all have increased gambling far greater than ours and yet still have higher income, sales, and property taxes than we do? We should learn from this.
I respect your opinion but very much disagree.
I don't want to drag this out into a big thing--we both know how each other feels--but I want to say three things before I finish.
1) Those are four very distinct separate opinion polls, not studies, and only one was conducted by the UMDCPA, and it's not showing much different data from the other three cited. Let's put it this way, Dan: a majority of your constituents want to gamble inside Massachusetts. You cannot dispute that. Your position is in direct contrast with that of your constituency.
2) You've never provided factual support for your claim that "we end up with nothing" from state-sponsored gambling. The state of Connecticut received 700 million dollars in gaming money (inc lottery) in 2008. You think it costs them $700m to have this stuff up and running? Frankly, I don't.
3) The analogy about gambling being a "tax" on the poor is spurious; not a single person in this state is required under penalty of law to pull a slot handle. People gamble cuz they want to, man; they already are. Legally or otherwise.
Let me close with a quote from this article from the Hudson Valley Times Record (http://archive.recordonline.com/archive/2005/01/16/sixicmon.htm):
" Yes, six months after 1,800 slot machines started ringing, Mighty M Gaming at Monticello Raceway has not been Sullivan County's savior. But it has not been the devil that gambling critics feared it would be.
Sure, local calls to the state's problem gambling hot line have doubled [RJ: from 50 to 100], but crime has not soared. Roads have not jammed.
Fact is, outside the $27 million room of beeping, flashing video lottery terminals, most folks in Sullivan County have barely felt an impact."
Always good talking politics with you.
I'm sorry. I was talking about the studies done by UMD and several others. I didn't realize that you were talking polls.I have never voted based on a poll or the next days headlines. You deserve more than that from me Ross. I work hard to study these issues. And my beliefs are based on that. When I first entered the legislature, the death penalty was very popular. My district was polled 2-1 in favor. My research lead me to believe that it was unfair and costly. Should I have voted in favor because of the polls?
Would your logic also have us legalize marijuana or prostitution because people are going to do this anyway or some people want it?
I have released several factual studies on this, but my job has always been to cycle these through the Legislature. Perhaps I should publish one of these.
The state of Connecticut made over $700 million in taxes last year. We returned approximately $850 million (I don't have that figure right here now, but our high mark was over $925 million)in lottery funds alone to the cities and towns in the commonwealth. This will suffer as casinos are introduced. And as we impact the lottery, we need to gamble disproportionately more in casinos to make up the difference before we see one new dollar in revenue.
As for Monticello, I don't know the situation, but I have seen politicians talk of expansion as soon as they don't get the revenues they are relying on. Look at more mature casinos or racinos and you will see a different and costly picture.
To me it is very clear, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Again, thanks for the discourse on this issue. I hope to join you one of these months for DL, although can you finds somewhere other than Moca?
Really? Why? Cafe Latino has been a very good host to us. What's the matter with MoCA?
Nothing with Moca but just not crazy about Cafe Latino. Long story...not very interesting
Ross,
I disagree.
This isn't a civil rights issue, like the gay marriage debate. This one boils down to numbers, numbers, numbers.
Some revenue is better than no revenue.
The folks in the legislature aren't there to be bean counters or rainmakers. If they were expected to be I could certainly think of many better people to fill some of their seats - especially on the South Shore where I live.
Alternatively, if numbers and revenue were the only thing that mattered, we could hire bean counters and rainmakers on salary and give them bonuses for work well done.
But no, they aren't there to be bean counters or rainmakers - but to be leaders.
And in this capacity, they should care more for the regions represent than to reduce them to a set of numbers.
It is public service after all.
Because being a leader ultimately means weighing factors like revenue against where that revenue needs to be spent. It means factoring in the health and future of our commonwealth. And it means educating oneself about an issue before judging it.
For example, how many people realize that the absolute cash cow of casino revenue (hence the revenue-engine) is the modern slot machine? And yet, this device has been engineered over time to physiologically compel players to "play to extinction" (industry term not mine). These machines are much more likely to cause addiction and other problems.
Is it right for the State to sponsor addiction? Is it right for the State to collect revenue using devices designed to physiologically empty the pockets of the user? And then to sell it? To market this product to the citizenry, whether it's housed within a resort destination casino or a slot parlor at dog track?
These are the decisions leaders must struggle with. Not bean counters. Not rainmakers.
And thankfully, a majority of democratic party decision makers at this week's convention understood that.
As for the convention and it's resolution, Dan - as you and I both know - things are only inevitable if you let them be.
Why, it was only last year we were still hearing about a certain "done deal" Tribal casino in Middleboro or elsewhere...
Gladys: what is "it means educating oneself about an issue before judging it" supposed to mean? Do you think I haven't educated myself on this issue because I don't support the same position you do?
And yes, legislators lead, but their absolute, it's-in-the-brochure responsibility is to reflect the opinions of their constitutents in the legislature.
You can raise the specter of the "tyranny of the majority" all you want, but it is my (educated) opinion that you and Dan are overstating the costs and negative effects of state-sponsored gambling in order to justify your positions, which are in conflict with the majority of your fellow citizens.
That's fine--you do what you can to get what you want. But I believe in the true and imperfect nature of representative democracy, which says that legislators in this case ought to be finding a way to make gambling happen while minimizing the ill effects it may cause rather than just stand on factually and logically dubious bullet points in order to oppose any move towards giving a majority of the people what they want.
Oh--and, by the way, Dan:
Would your logic also have us legalize marijuana or prostitution because people are going to do this anyway or some people want it?
Maybe so, yes, sure.
Talk about "unfair and costly" like your death penalty analogy: why not have the state regulate it and reap its benefits rather than spend all kindsa time and money trying to fight an unwinnable battle?
I'd think about it, at least, rather than just dismiss it out of hand. Or again--try to find a way to get what you want out of it while at least minimizing the ill effects.
There is almost always a middle way, yet partisanship and electoral politics conspire to eliminate it. Will we ever be able to rise above that?
Ross, I don’t know how to answer you. If I try to justify my position, you say that I am trying to get my way. If I use statistics and, people throw other studies up to confuse the issue. Quite frankly, given your position, I don’t think you need me. Let’s just run government by polls and eliminate the middle men.
You bristled at Gladys when she accused you of not being educated on this issue, yet I have seen nothing but polling references from you. I, knowing you, will refrain from the same kind of accusations because I think you are very thoughtful. If you have studied this, you know that there is no middle ground that other states have been able to hold once gambling is introduced. As more money goes towards the casinos, other businesses suffer and the state becomes reliant on the casinos. Economic 101 would suggest that we stay diversified, but states have been unable to resist the lure of easy money. When revenues are not as much as the casinos initially suggested, the answer is………more gambling and the cycle continues.
Look at New York where this is happening and when the state came in and asked where the promised revenues were, the gambling interests said more slots means more revenues. Look at Illinois where they started with riverboats that would depart dock so that the amount of gambling could be managed. No ATM’s, gambling limits, and strict control over gaming time. First went the gambling limits, then they introduced ATM’s, and then the river boats said that if that was going to happen, let’s just dock permanently. That is where they are today. Look at how many times Connecticut has upped the number of slots at the casinos. Or just look at Massachusetts where one little green ticket with a six day a week numbers game has turned into three biweekly games, a big game drawing, up to thirty five scratch tickets at one time, a seventh day on the daily number and keno every four minutes for most of the day. Could we set up a scenario where we had a few resort casinos in Massachusetts with strict controls? Yes. Could we manage to keep this from expanding? No, we couldn’t stop Indian casinos on their land for starts and no other state has been able to control this process.
It seems to me that the only way to win is not to play the game. That is hard. I believe that if we throw up our hands and put out economic development plans into the casino basket, it is an admission that we have no real plans and that we’ve given up. Casinos are far beyond entertainment. They are today’s equivalent of Bread and Circuses.
Progressive Legislators who wail against giving tax breaks to corporations are willing to let some of the richest men in America take a lion’s share of money out of these casinos profits. I am amazed at this.
OY, I shouldn't venture into this thing while sick, at home, on pain meds, but.....
Dan, Indeed, Walsh seemed to be saying that somehow the Dem platform has no role in advising the guv. It was weird because he spent much time earlier in the day talking about how "inclusive" the new watered down platform is. But when amendments that narrowed down specific issues were approved, all of a sudden the plat form was no longer representative.
Ross- You and I will disagree forever on this, but the social costs of widespread gambling are just too darn high, both in monetary terms and in practical aspects. While I have no desire to find studies to back up what I am saying, just go to places that have legalized gambling (Minnesota, Detroit, Washington State are my personal reference points) and observe who patronizes the casinos, what the effects on the immediate neighboring businesses are, and just how "improved" the areas around the casinos are.
Yes, slots provide revenue, but the bigger costs are simply hidden within the social fabric.
Greg, I too am at home sick. It is not the swine flu, but I still feel like crap and hate being home sick. I probably shouldn't be posting either. It seems that, on this and so many issues that personal disposition on the issue prevails and it is hard to argue. Facts or ideology doesn't seem to play into these issues. Mostly they are moral issues, but gambling seems to fit this. It is interesting. I respect Ross' opinion on this, as with everyone. I guess I will just disagree.
I disagree on my role as a Legislator also. But that is ok.
Get well.
See, my point all along! Politicians only muck up the works with their personal biases, they aren't objective and DON'T do what the majority of the people want...Bring the voting back to the people!
Jack, good to hear from you even if it is what it is. Where have you been? Are you ok?
Dan, thank you for your concern concerning (love this English language) my health status. Mother Nature and Father Time are having a tiff and I am caught in the middle of it.
Oh the regrets of having wasted my youth on the trivial matters of life.
Whether it is the Readsboro, Vermont portion of my gene pool or the French Canadian influence, from both parents, I have become more cynical as time ticks away. I see what we could be as a people compared to what we have become and frankly it frustrates the hell out of me. Instead of striving and working for the betterment of everyones condition the political arena has turned into a farcical game of fence sitting, brass ring grabbing, more concerned with maintaining "The System" as is than actually making the hard decisions and actually doing something good. Oh well, as Rome went so will we from the same ailments.
Although I begrudgingly must side with Ross on the issue of legalization, I just want to point out how fantastic it is to be able to be part of a (civilized) debate with my elected representative.
While none of us will probably change our minds, we all have something to learn about the other sides' views.
I do however agree with you, Dan, in that you shouldn't vote based on polls. We elect you to make decisions based on your knowledge, and your gut... if the electorate is not happy with those decisions, they are free to vote for someone else in the next election.
I know I am jumping the thread---but since this was your last post-- Dan I would like you to file legislation to take North Adams' Main St. by eminent domin--- for public use- and put some damn benches on it---hope you're feeling better--- so you can Think About It----chbpod
I agree with all of this..
thanks or this great link
___________________
victor
The only Satellite Television Delivers the Best Value in Entertainment
Post a Comment