Sen. Sue Tucker
—
An open letter to voters of the 2nd Essex and Middlesex Senate District:
On Sept. 14, you will choose candidates for the state senate in the Democratic and Republican primaries. I made an early decision not to endorse an individual candidate, but I am paying close attention to where they stand on many issues which have been important to me through the years.
Whether to bring casinos/slot parlors to Massachusetts is one such issue. The casino industry has promoted a myth that playing predatory slot machines is a harmless activity which is good for state and local budgets.
The reality is very different. The states with the most casinos - Nevada, New Jersey, and New York - are in the worst financial shape. Casinos along the East Coast have laid off thousands of workers. More than a few are in bankruptcy.
Casino lobbyists talk up the money we are missing out on, but they never talk about the costs. Start subtracting. A 10-percent hit to the Lottery from gambling competition would equal a $90 million loss to local aid. (The only good thing that can be said about the Lottery is that the money stays in Massachusetts, whereas casino profits get shipped to wealthy out-of-state investors). Subtract $30 million for the huge new bureaucracy filled with hundreds of new state employees to audit, oversee and regulate this notoriously corrupt industry. Then, subtract the huge social costs of addiction: crime, bankruptcy, family disintegration, foreclosure, and subsidized health care. California's Attorney General stated that out-of-control gambling cost California taxpayers $1 billion per year. You pay even if you don't play.
Casual players who walk away after a win mean nothing to the casino's business model. MIT Professor Dr. Natasha Schull, who has studied the casino industry for years, concluded that "every aspect of slot machines is designed to make customers play to extinction... until every dollar is gone." A vote for casinos is a vote for state government to make money off addiction. Taxpayers pay the bill for healthcare, food, housing, and treatment of gambling addicts. What kind of vision is that for a sustainable economic future? It is a vision of broken values and broken government.
It is naive to think Massachusetts will simply add a few glamorous casinos and rake in revenue. Once slot machines are legalized, the two recognized Native American tribes in Massachusetts will have the right, under federal law, to build casinos. New Hampshire, which has vigorously resisted slots, will succumb if Massachusetts approves casinos. The casinos win by playing neighboring states off one another. We will be left with an oversaturated market and the casinos, just as they do throughout the country, will beg for tax breaks to compete with other casinos.
How can it be good for the Merrimack Valley to have slots at Rockingham Park or even in Boston? Disposable income, currently spent in local restaurants like Sal's or car dealerships like Commonwealth Motors, and other businesses will, instead, be dumped down slot machines. Many existing jobs will be lost.
This is not about government allowing people to gamble. We settled that question years ago. It is about how many forms of gambling in how many places are good for the economic and social fabric of our state. It's about making a few wealthy people even wealthier off the backs of our lower income families.
As you meet candidates, ask them about the real costs of casinos. Their answer will speak volumes about their understanding of how to build a sustainable economic future for Massachusetts.
