Between the Lines: We've Heard It All Before

The latest push for casinos is hardly new and improved.

Comments (1)
Thursday, July 16, 2009

A year and half into a staggering recession, Massachusetts is like a traveler stranded in a desert without food or water, hoping against hope to make it out of the wasteland to an oasis on the distant horizon.

Through eyes bleary with heat exhaustion and dehydration, we feel a sudden relief from the sun's brutal rays: a shadow that briefly envelops us, then disappears. We pay no heed to the menacing cries coming from the shadow. We don't even notice its razor-sharp talons. We wish only for the shade it provides to return.

OK, so maybe my metaphor is a tad over the top. After all, the effort to legalize casino gambling in Massachusetts has gone on uninterrupted for nearly two decades. It may seem that the casino issue looms larger—casts a bigger shadow, if you will—when the economy is in tatters, when unemployment is high and the state is low on cash, but the truth is, the issue never really goes away. In good times and in bad, there are always politicians who are willing to second-guess the legislative decisions made only a few years before to forego casino gaming as a means of economic development.

Of course, you'd think that the pols who keep bringing it up—say, Gov. Deval Patrick or Boston mayor Tom Menino—would need to demonstrate that something significant has changed since we considered and rejected casinos the last time. You'd think that the folks at the Massachusetts Coalition for Jobs and Growth, which is aggressively pushing for the licensing of three resort casinos hard on the heels of the Legislature's rejecting a similar plan hatched by Gov. Patrick in 2007, would have to show how this year's casino plan is substantially different and better than those we've seen and scuttled in the past.

Alas, the plan hasn't changed so much as the economic circumstance into which it is being launched and by which it is being rationalized. In other words, since Deval Patrick's failed casino gambit, the economy has only gotten worse. The bad economy merely reenergizes the pro-casino forces, merely makes them more incredulous that we don't accept gambling as our fiscal salvation.

No doubt, the casino plans launched this year, last year, five years ago, a decade ago, all promised tax revenue and jobs. In every case, proponents point to places around the globe where legal gambling provides tax revenue and jobs.

So why haven't we taken the leap? Is our opposition merely the vestigial impulse of our native Puritanism? Or do we see that casino gambling, for all its potential benefits, has a big downside to the overall economy, to communities, to families? Do we reject casino gambling because we're abstemious and pure, or because we are hesitant to profit from other people's misery—at least any more than we already do?

The plans for casinos in Massachusetts don't change much. The economy changes—in recent years, it's changed for the worse—and so does the casino industry's economy, which has also been in decline recently, whether in Las Vegas or in a state like neighboring Rhode Island, which recently saw the Twin River slots-and-racing parlor, one of the state's top revenue producers, file for bankruptcy.

What also changes is the rhetoric in favor of gaming.

In the last serious but failed push for casinos, Stan Rosenberg, state senator from Amherst and a longtime casino opponent, began pushing the argument that given Massachusetts' acceptance of a lottery, no moral argument against casino gambling could prevail. This weekend, I read a similar argument being offered by Larry Shaffer, the town manager in Amherst: "Personally, I think we've crossed the moral rubicon when we've been accepting lottery money."

In other words, our acceptance of a lottery disqualifies us from arguing against the additional social harm that casinos might bring.

The argument is ridiculous and fatuous, though it has the single advantage of being fairly novel. In 1995, casino proponents accused opposition church groups of trying to protect their bingo games from competition, but I can't remember anyone, including Senator Rosenberg, arguing that accepting lottery money paved a moral pathway to a corporately owned and operated, out-of-town casino operation. Booze and cigarettes are legal and produce lots of tax revenue, too. Can I assume that Shaffer, Rosenberg and other such ethicists are ready to legalize cocaine and heroin?

The case for casino gambling hasn't changed, nor has the case against it. What may have changed, unfortunately, is the resolve of our leaders in the face of crisis."

Comments (1)
Post a Comment
Vannah's gambling-rated dissertation on morals and ethics proves once again that there's very little difference in tone between those far-left and those far-right. Having worked for years with substance-abuse groups, equating the legalization of cocaine and heroin, as Vannah does, with legalizing casinos, is ridiculous and irresponsible. I have no issue with the state legalizing casinos. In fact, if Vannah was a purist, he'd seek for the state to outlaw the lottery and keno, which are the most insidious forms of gambling in existence. And, instead, he'd advocate for resort casinos --- not slot parlors --- since they are both gambling and non-gambling venues. In fact, studies show that 40% or more of resort casino patrons don't go there to gamble. And resort casino patrons are, by and large, better educated, earn more money, and much less likely to gamble than a slot parlor patron. Seriously, walk into any convenience store and you'll see tables set up for people to sit and gamble mindlessly playing scratch tickets or keno. Vannah forgets also to mention that it is the poorer communities in the state --- the Chelseas and North Adamses ---whose residents spend more money on lottery products, but it's towns like Wellessley and Amherst that receive a larger share of local aid emanating from those lottery purchases. That's hardly a fair and equitable distribution formula, now is it? Having the poor subsidize those better-off than they are? But we won't hear Ellen Story and some of the other legislators who support the lottery tell the truth on that, now will we? No, instead, they'll wring their hands at the thought of resort casinos --- dismissing and discrediting the tax revenues, jobs and tourism those facilities will create ---- in favor of a lottery that produces revenues, but few private sector jobs, and absolutely no tourism growth. Vannah, you're helping to perpetuate an incredible fraud on working poor and lower middle-class residents by dismissing resort casinos in favor of the status quo. And you're denying a whole class of people who don't have what we have --- a B.A., a Masters, a Ph.D., --- a chance to work in an industry that pays very well and offers health care. Oh yeah, we need "real" economic development the gambling critics say all the time. But they don't offer a single tangible piece of legislation that will create those revenues and jobs. They just talk about it as a ruse to keep resort casinos from becoming a reality. People who don;t have what we have --- B.A.'s and M.A.'s --- deserve an opportunity to make a living wage and to provide affordable health care for their families. If you want to take a few thousand people off of state assistance and turn them into taxpaying citizens with health care, then legalize resort casinos and hire them. But if you enjoy the status quo, and the cocktail party sniffing that laments resort casinos and all the other blarney that helps prevent working poor from earning a living wage, then adopt the Vannah view.
Posted by matty2 on 7.15.09 at 3:20



New User/Guest?

Find it Here:
search type:
search in:

« Previous   |   Next »
Print Email RSS feed

In Satoshi We Trust?
Outside the Cage
How solid is the case for organic and cage-free egg production?
Between the Lines: Practically Organic
Does the organic farming movement make perfect the enemy of good?
Scene Here: The Kitchen Garden Farm
From Our Readers
Profiles in Survival
Young business owners in retail-rich Northampton get along by getting along.
The Burning Question
Neighbors of a proposed wood-burning plant in Springfield cry foul air