Casino Gambling Forum

The following is passed along from Carl Offner:

.

On January 8, a number of us from the Sudbury Democratic Town Committee attended the forum on casino gambling at the Weston Middle School hosted by the Weston Democratic Town Committee and the 3d Middlesex Area Democrats.

.

There was a panel of four people:

.

*) two representatives of the Deval Patrick administration (one lawyer and one legislative director) -- they were of course in favor of the casino gambling proposal.

*) A person representing the League of Women Voters. She represented the League's position, which is against casino gambling. (She did not speak particularly forcefully, which was unfortunate, in my opinion.)

*) Tom Larkin, one of the co-chairs of the 3d MAD. Tom is a clinical psychologist specializing in problems of addiction. He spoke against the casino gambling proposal.

.

The two representatives of the administration spoke first. They actually said very little, as I remember it. They seemed to be leaning over backward to focus the issue on jobs and on the fact that there would be lots of good non-gambling entertainment involved -- principally, golf and restaurants.

.

The LWV person spoke next, and Tom spoke last.

.

Tom made a number of points which I found significant. Specifically, he mentioned that gambling money was"sterile" money in economic terms. I had been aware of this, and came back to it in what I said (below). He also pointed out something that I had not really been aware of -- that the only way casinos really make money is by exploiting people who have gambling problems. The person who occasionally goes and drops a few dollars at a casino is not profitable for them. They really depend for their income on mental illness. I hope Tom writes up what he said and publicizes it -- it would be a real public service.

.

After the panel had spoken, the floor was opened for general comments and"questions". It was pretty clear that if a vote had been taken at that meeting, casinos would have lost overwhelmingly -- it would not have been close.

.

One of the speakers who spoke before me, after giving all the reasons why she was opposed to casino gambling, said that she was "cynical" about casinos. I mention this only because I referred to it in what I said subsequently (I wrote this down from my notes afterward):

.

------------ ------

.

I'm Carl Offner, a member of the Sudbury Democratic Town Committee. Our Town Committee passed a resolution against casino gambling a couple of months ago. I won't read the whole thing here, but our chair Beverly Guild has copies of it, and there are also copies on the table outside, so you can get one if you don't have it already.

.

Let's first clear the air a little bit:

The administration spokespeople here have talked about casinos as a way of creating construction jobs. Well there are a lot better ways to do that. There are school buildings crumbling all over this state. Just fixing that problem would provide an enormous number of good jobs.

.

And we need to stop talking about these casinos as if the issue was entertainment. We've heard the administration spokespeople talk about golf and restaurants and such. Well, developers aren't drooling over this, and tripping over each other lining up because they want to build golf courses and restaurants. There are enormous profits in gambling---that's what's at stake, and let's not pretend otherwise.

.

Now Tom Larkin mentioned that gambling profits were "sterile" money from an economic point of view, and he's absolutely right. Another example is military spending. Economists have long known that probably the least efficient way to stimulate the economy is to pour money into the military. If you make a bomb, it can't be used for anything that will benefit anyone. Under the best circumstances it just sits there, and from a purely economic point of view, you've thrown money down the drain. And at worst, of course, there are really terrible consequences.

.

Gambling is similar. No goods exchange hands. Nothing of value is produced. The economy doesn't benefit in any real way. And most of the money leaves the state in any case. Look at Connecticut, which everyone talks about: Do you know how much money Connecticut takes in from their casinos? Less than we get here from the Lottery. That money isn't being used to benefit Connecticut.

.

So where is this proposal coming from? We had this guy who ran for Governor. I worked really hard for him. When he ran, he wasn't talking about casinos. He was talking about building up the things that really contribute to the economy and to the quality of life of people here---things like investing in renewable energy, biotechnology, and putting some significant money into education. All those things create real wealth---both intellectual and economic---and real jobs.

.

So he got elected, and to start funding some of these things he tried to close an ancient tax loophole that had been given to the telephone companies a hundred years ago. Maybe it made some sense at the time. It certainly hasn't made any sense for most of the last century. And he couldn't do it. I think he gave up awfully easily. But the point is that politicians have been spooked by the Republican assault on taxes. And so no one talks about where taxes come from, and where they are going. The fact that our Federal taxes,which should be used to build up this country, are being squandered and sent to Baghdad and Halliburton. The fact that large corporations and people of great wealth now pay taxes at much lower rates than they used to---none of this can be discussed. I want state legislators and a governor that make an issue of this. I'd like to see our governor go to Washington and make a Federal case out of it. I think we need to talk about these things on a national level.

.

But instead what we get is a proposal for casino gambling.

.

And I have to disagree slightly with one of the people who spoke before me. I don't think it's cynical to be opposed to casinos. I think it's cynical to *support* casinos. Because the whole casino proposal is predicated on the assumption that we can't have a discussion about where money comes from and where it goes. The whole proposal reflects the notion that we can't build a society that reflects our values, that brings us together and realizes our hopes. It's a tremendously cynical proposal. We deserve a lot better.[[At this point I spoke directly to the administration representatives.]]

.

I don't actually have a question for you. But I do have an answer.

.

The answer is no.

.

--Carl Offner