To borrow a phrase from Emeril Lagasse, Governor Patrick is "kicking it up a notch."
The debate over the governor's proposed expansion of casino gambling has become increasingly heated over the last few months, and Patrick has chosen a tough strategy. In his proposed budget for the coming fiscal year, he has included $300 million that would be generated from casino licensing fees. $124 million would be used to cover a projected shortfall in the State Lottery. $88 million would fund property tax relief, and another $88 million would fund transportation construction projects in cities and towns. There's just one little catch...
The legislature has not approved his plan.
Here in what some call the "People's Republic of Massachusetts," it seems a bit strange that a Democratic Governor is locking horns with a Democratic Legislature just one year into his term. And yet, that's just what is going on. The Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Democrat Robert A. DeLeo of Winthrop, had this response:
"Forget the cart - this is putting the entire wagon train before the horse...Moreover, even if this money did become available this year, which is a big 'if,' it may not be there the next year. Then we would have done nothing to really help . . . cities, towns, and property owners..."
To be fair, the Governor claims his budget will be balanced without the $300 million he seeks. However, he argues that it is in the state's interest to implement his proposal, because it will fund initiatives in the short term, and provide job growth and revenue for the long term.
Sounds pretty good. So why are the lawmakers on Beacon Hill not jumping on the wagon?
Perhaps it's because the long term benefits of casinos in Massachusetts are unclear. Both advocates and opponents of casino gambling frame their arguments in terms of extremes. The undecided tax payer is told he or she has two options - prosperity or ruin. However, a recent study from Harvard University suggests both sides have this one wrong.
They examined the impacts of casinos on a county level. Their goal was to test the statistical realities behind arguments for and against legalized gambling. Let's take a second and list the arguments people generally make in this debate.
ADVOCATES FOR CASINOS TEND TO ARGUE THAT...
1) Casinos provide a solid source of job growth.
2) They can stem a decline in regional populations
3) They can provide a readily available source of revenues when a government faces fiscal problems.
OPPONENTS OF CASINOS TEND TO ARGUE THAT...
1) Gambling sucks money out of local people's pockets, which hurts local businesses.
2) Casinos take money away from the state lottery
3) Casinos lead to increased crime, bankruptcy due to addiction, and therefore, actually don't improve the lives of locals.
What they found is that neither the feast nor famine arguments are true.
-Casinos can create jobs, but they are dispersed among more people, so unemployment rates really don't change.
-Property values in urban areas don't change too much, in rural areas they increase by about $6000 - not a lot.
-There is only a slight increase in bankruptcies.
-Revenues and expenditures in towns don't change drastically.
- A decrease in per capita crime.
In short, they found that casinos do some good things for counties, and some bad things. The overall impact was not dramatic, but rather, extremely modest. You can learn more by going to their report and reading it for yourself, at
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/rappaport/downloads/gambling/casino.pdf
Well, from this Massachusetts voter's perspective, there really is only one conclusion to be reached.
Governor Patrick, casinos do not represent the road to the promised land.
I suspect his response would be that the short term revenue from licensing will help us make some long term investments in the state's future, and like many investments, it takes time for them to pay off. Maybe he's right. However, his approach to enacting this proposal has run directly against the kind of politics his campaign was based on.
His campaign motto was simple, yet beautiful.
Together, we can.
His grassroots operation portrayed him as a political outsider, a leader who would bring an end to political bickering, and usher in an era of progressive reforms. In his inaugural address, he claimed that we could find a new kind of politics, i.e., that wonderful word EVERY politician uses today - "CHANGE." Consider the following passages from his inaugural address:
"I will ask municipalities to enter into a new partnership with state government, so that we can work together to reduce their operating costs, to better plan across regions, and to rebuild city and town centers into stronger economic cores. My point is that we will be doing some things differently. Moving today’s rituals within reach of you is symbolic of that. Change is not always comfortable or convenient or welcome. But it is what we hoped for, what we have worked for, what you voted for, and what you shall have."
However, in his dogged pursuit of bringing change to Massachusetts, Governor Patrick has not yet changed the way government conducts business. He isn't doing things differently. He's playing the same old political games. Special interest groups and lobbyists are still on the hill, and he is embracing them. Massachusetts Lobbyists representing gambling interests reported a $1.2 million increase in fees during 2007. Forty lobbyists from 25 firms registered to lobby on casinos last year. Developer Sheldon Addelson (#3 on the Forbes 400 list) has campaigned on Patrick's behalf to implement the casino legislation. Sun Chronicle columnist and fellow Wheaton College graduate Ted Nesi said it best
"The Democratic governor ran as a liberal reformer who was going to blow open Beacon Hill backrooms and spend big money investing in the state's infrastructure and social services.
That's quite a contrast with Adelson, a Republican donor who spreads his money around.
In Las Vegas, Adelson is known for fighting legal battles against the powerful Culinary Workers Union, the Vegas tourist authority, and even the electric company, according to The New York Times. His suit against John L. Smith, a top columnist for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, drove Smith into bankruptcy."
The governor who campaigned on a platform of change is hanging out with special interest groups, lobbyists, and white men with deep pockets.
But perhaps the most telling statement about his style of governing came from one of his supporters, State Senator Steven Panagiotakos, a Democrat from Lowell. When asked about Governor Patrick's budgetary move, he stated
He is being as responsible as many of the other governors who used this sort of tactic in the past. A governor's budget is as much a fiscal document as it is a political document. The politics here is that he is trying to drive this issue further down the field in order to get it to a legislative debate.
In other words, the Governor is playing the same games as his predecessors.
So what exactly has changed, anyway?
The answer is simple. Nothing.
Governor Patrick was right when he said change was hard. It takes a lot more than vocal eloquence to be a true agent of change.
It's time for him to start making good on his promises.
