Patrick opens the door to casinos

If this becomes THE issue, we are off-track (0.00 / 0)

I just don't think the issue of casinos ranks up there with healthcare, more police for the streets, restoring local aid, providing better transportation, and cleaning up the Big Dig.  Tabloids like the Herald are often accused of hyping crime stories that affect a handful of individuals, depriving broader issues of public attention.  I think that's what they are doing here.

---

by: joeltpatterson @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 11:23:20 AM CST

This is a BIG money issue, though. (0.00 / 0)

It's huge for the tribes, one of which either has or is about to get all the federal recognition it needs to start working toward building a casino; it's huge for the racetracks, who desperately want slots; and it's huge for national gambling interests which stand to make millions of dollars.

---

by: David @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 11:36:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

None of whom deserve any support or consideration whatsoever (0.00 / 0)

so I hope this idea quickly gets shot down.

---

by: Ron Newman @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 12:43:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good luck with that. (0.00 / 0)

After all, it's pretty rare that money has any influence in politics or policy.  ;-)

---

by: David @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 13:57:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not if we're talking about revenue streams (0.00 / 0)

He talked about this before (during the election).  Cape Code Times had something to the same effect.  He stated that we wan't opposed to gambling but want to research the economic impact.  Does it effect the lottery sales, where more direct money goes to the state, etc.  You know what, why not?

Listening to Charlie Baker talk about fiscal responsibility is like getting lectured on abstinence from Paris Hilton - Tim Murray

---

by: johnk @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 11:40:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

maybe because the revenue (6.00 / 2)

is functionally the most regressive tax imaginable.

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 12:45:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Keno .. (0.00 / 0)

scratch tickets, etc. who are the buyers?

Listening to Charlie Baker talk about fiscal responsibility is like getting lectured on abstinence from Paris Hilton - Tim Murray

---

by: johnk @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 12:56:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Have you read me advocating for the lottery? (0.00 / 0)

The lottery is even more offensive because it is the govt that makes profit off the scam.  Ugh.

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 12:59:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In my mind, (0.00 / 0)

that makes it less offensive.  The gov't gets money from the poor via Keno, and gives it right back via subsidies.  In a very simplistic sense, there's no net change.

However, when the money goes to Bally's, it doesn't come back to the poor, and as a result, they're poorer.

Personally, I'd like for MA to keep the slot machine ban, and I'd also like to see the lottery be reduced.  I'd start by slashing the advertising budget, and maybe get rid of a handful of the 16+ different scratch-offs.  But, it's not the most important issue out there... hopefully we can work on some of the big stuff in the next few months too.

---

by: stomv @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 14:34:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fewer scratch-offs (0.00 / 0)

I'm in favor of any measure that potentially reduces the number of used scratch-off tickets that end up in my front yard and driveway.

.08 Acres
.0000016% of Massachusetts Political Commentary

---

by: sco @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 14:47:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

On the other hand, (0.00 / 0)

the gov't actively promotes the lottery, knowing full well who it's marketing to, whereas with casinos etc. it (presumably) wouldn't be pushing them, it would just allow them to exist, regulate them, and collect some sort of tax revenues.

---

by: David @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 15:23:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I understand (0.00 / 0)

I understand your point here.  But gambling happens, I don't think the point here is debating if gambling is good or not (not that this is was your point).  There is a population of seniors or low income as well as every other demographic that will gamble.

My question would be what is the breakdown of fixed income and other demographics that will go to a casino.  I don't know the economic impact or pretend to know, but I think we need to find out. 

There are two Peter Pan buses I see ready to go to Foxwoods every morning on my ride to work.  I see it as lost income for our state.

Probably not a popular point of view.

Listening to Charlie Baker talk about fiscal responsibility is like getting lectured on abstinence from Paris Hilton - Tim Murray

---

by: johnk @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 15:33:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree with you. (0.00 / 0)

The amount of money Massachusetts residents drop at Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun is tremendous.  They will continue to drive to Connecticut unless there's a casino in Massachusetts.  I say build the casino in Massachusetts and keep the revenue and jobs in the state. 

---

by: lightiris @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 15:47:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Lots of cocktail waitress in Conneticutt (0.00 / 0)

have gotten tips from me.  I'd be just as happy to give them to girls in Massachusetts.  This is not to mention the gas taxes lost to MA when I fill up to drive home, and the meals tax for when I have lunch, and the room tax for when I spend the night, and the sales tax the non gambling members of my family spend shopping.

I've been to Foxwoods every day after Thanksgiving since I was 17, and plenty of other times besides.  I usually take the money from the Indians, but pay a lot of it right back to the CT government.

somewhere over the rainbow

---

by: Kai @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 16:50:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

LOTTERY PROCEEDS GO TO MUNICIPALITIES (0.00 / 0)

Actually cities & towns get ALL of the revenue from the Lottery - nearly $1 Billion this year!

---

by: Capital D @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 19:51:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's like Robin Hood (0.00 / 0)

Except, the lottery takes from the poor, takes a cut, gives back to the towns, which take a cut, then give to the poor, or not.

Other than that, it's just like Robin Hood, only not.

---

by: gary @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 20:04:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

ALL of the revenue, after their cut! (0.00 / 0)

Which is a deeply shrouded secret, pertaining to the jobs there.

And of course, the lottery money is dispensed according to the flawed Ed formula (did you know we voted the Lottery in because THEN there would be an unending stream of money to education, and we would never have school aid prblems again?) which only insures that the rich (towns) get richer, and the towns that get stiffed on the Ed formula still get crumbs.

For instance, there are towns in Mass. like Dighton without a single lottery agent or license - too, too low class - which get Lottery funds!  For what?  While a resort town like Yarmouth, which sells MILLION of tickets to tourists gets bupkis - you can tell by comparing the commission on prizes vs. the lottery aid to see that once again, we are an exporter of cash to the truly disadvantaged.  While we get to cope with the litter.  /snark.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 13:05:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Absolutely false (0.00 / 0)

And of course, the lottery money is dispensed according to the flawed Ed formula

This is false. The lottery aid is dispensed according to this formula, taken from the MA lottery website:

Local Aid Formula:

The Town's Equalized Valuation
Divided By
The Town's Population
Equals
The Town's Equalized Valuation per Capita

The State's Equalized Valuation Per Capita
Divided By
The Town's Equalized Valuation Per Capita
Times
$10.00
Times
The Town's Population
Equals
The Town's Entitlement

Every town gets a percentage of the entitlement based on the total amount distributed

It is strictly based on property values, not demographics (which is what Chapter 70 aid uses).

Why should state aid just go to the communities in which it was collected? That completely ignores the concept that some communities need the aid while others don't. The current formula tries to balance the differing property values between communities -- it needs to go a lot further, to address needs in addition to ability to pay.

---

by: NoPolitician @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 23:27:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No - EQV now IS the basis of the Ed formula! (0.00 / 0)

Since 1993!  It was supposed to be revisited in 2000, and hasn't been done yet.  PROPERTY VALUES are now the bigest controlling factor in Ch. 70, which is why you have some area getting 10% or more from the state as their ed budget.  And please note, median income, i.e., ABILITY TO PAY, is missing from this in favor of property values.  Tell that to somebody who bought their Cape house in 1947, and are now living on Social Security - unless you think them 'overhoused'?

The formula you outline IS the ed formula, minus the per pupil base.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 17:48:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So, so wrong on this. (0.00 / 0)

Peter, you're so wrong on this one that it hurts.

Have you ever heard of the "foundation budget"? Do you know how it is determined? It is drawn up based on the types of students that you have in your schools.

Here's a link to some details on the Foundation Budget. I quote:

A district's foundation budget is derived by multiplying the number of pupils in fourteen enrollment categories by cost rates in eleven functional areas. Any district's FY07 calculations can be seen on the "foundation budget" link available in the FY07 Chapter 70 formula spreadsheet MS Excel file. Here we use Brockton's calculations as an example.

The categories are:

1.  regular education or special education pre-kindergarten
2. regular or special education half-day kindergarten
3.  regular or special education full-day kindergarten
4. regular or special education elementary (grades 1-5)
5. regular or special education junior high/middle (grades 6-8)
6. regular or special education senior high (grades 9-13)
7. limited English pre-kindergarten
8. limited English half-day kindergarten
9. limited English (grades 1-12)
10. vocational education (grades 9-12) ( 3) 

These headcounts are used to compute total foundation enrollment at the far right. Note that for the purpose of computing this total, pre-school and half-day kindergarten categories count as .5 full-time equivalent pupils because they typically attend for half the school day. For example, Brockton's total foundation enrollment of 16,029 (shown in the last column on the right) counts 159 of its 318 pre-schoolers in column 1, 185 of its 369 half-day kindergartners in column 2, and 67 of its 133 ELL half-day kindergartners in column 8.

In columns 11 through 14 there are four cost increment categories that are intended to reflect the additional resources needed to educate special education and low-income students. These students have already been counted in columns 1 through 10, and are therefore not added to total enrollment.

• Assumed in-district special education enrollment (column 11) is set at 3.75 percent of foundation enrollment (not including pre-kindergarten and vocational pupils) and 4.75 percent of vocational enrollment. These headcounts are "assumed" rather than actual counts of pupils, which is emerging as a common practice in state aid formulas around the country.
• Assumed out-of-district special education enrollment (column 12) is set at one percent of total foundation enrollment (again not including pre-kindergarten and vocational pupils).
• Low-income status is reported on the basis of eligibility for free and reduced lunch programs. The FY07 increment for grade 1 to 8 low income students (column 13) is $2,831 per pupil. The FY07 increment for grade 9 to 12 low income students is $2,285 (column 14). Massachusetts has been ranked as having the highest such poverty factors in the nation.

It gets a lot more complicated after this. I'm not 100% sure on how this exactly works, but they figure out a town's ability to pay and if their ability lies below the foundation, the budget is brought up to foundation level with Chapter 70 money.

There's a wage adjustment factor in there too -- Boston gets more money because the salaries are higher than the Berkshires.

I think there are some major flaws here. For one, most successful school systems spend way above their foundation budgets. That might be due to the foundation numbers being calcluated in 1994 and increased for inflation. But if twice foundation is what Cambridge spends, then why is foundation "good enough" for Holyoke or Springfield?

There is also the "additional assistance" category of aid, which is left over from pre-Chapter 70 days. Some communities get a lot of this -- look at Somerville, or Cambridge, or even Boston. It was somehow related to education, but now it's a slush fund for certain towns that had strong representation when other towns had this category eliminated.

I would also say that the demographic piece is understated. Sure, a couple of additional low-income students in your class might mean that you need an extra $2,200 per student in assistance. But what happens when your school is 90% low-income, like several in Springfield? Concentrations of poverty bring very unique problems, the additional monies needed are not at all linear.

---

by: NoPolitician @ Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 20:37:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good (0.00 / 0)

Casinos are likely a economic winner for Massachusetts, so it's good to hear that Deval is open to this. (Figuring out how to deal with traffic if the casino was on the Cape is a problem, but not fatal).

The general gambling debate is one of the more interesting ones, IMO. It's one of the places where many partisans on the left and right agree -- the right for religious, "moral" reasons and the left because of supposed ill social effects. We'll see where this goes, but hopefully MA residents will someday have the chance to gamble in a licenced and regulated casino if they so choose.

---

by: Hoyapaul @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 12:25:06 PM CST

Hoya - we have zero desire for a casino, but don't mind if Fall River/New Bedford want one. (0.00 / 0)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 13:06:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Surprising (5.00 / 1)

I'm a little surprised about this, because Patrick seemed to be against casinos in the primary debate held in Agawam. Gabrielli was pushing for this, and Patrick said something to the effect that the people in the casinos usually couldn't afford to be there.

The big problem with casino ventures that have been pushed in the past is that they are proposed for depressed cities like Springfield -- often pushed by strong interests who have bought up a lot of cheap land that could house such a venture.

That would be absolutely foolish policy to put casinos where they are most convenient to the poor. The poor already pay a disproportionate amount of the general government aid that comes back to cities and towns ("Lottery, beano, and charity games" is what the cherry sheets are funded from).

I would say to the people that believe that taxes stifle an economy that the casino does so even more. It "redistributes" monies -- based on luck, not need -- and takes a piece of the pie and ships it to some out-of-state gaming conglomerate. No value added there.

---

by: NoPolitician @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 12:43:30 PM CST

Not only that.... (0.00 / 0)

it doesn't have a positive effect on the money multiplier in an area, meaning that a dollar spent there recirculates less around the community...mostly because it disappears into a black hole. Also, the jobs created are mostly low wage service gigs...the Bushies have grown those jobs substantially in their six years in office to the detriment of our nation.

How about investments in alternative energy? Now, there's a starter for me for both economic development and national security.

---

by: Danno11 @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 18:10:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

When it comes down to it (0.00 / 0)

I cn't very well be against something I would go to if it were open.

---

by: Ed Prisby @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 15:40:35 PM CST

Sure you can! (0.00 / 0)

To quote Groucho, "I'd never belong to a club that would have someone like me for a member."  Seems similar, somehow.

---

by: David @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 16:36:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

I like gambling too, which is why I'm glad I have to drive three hours to the nearest casino. 

And I say this as someone who's always made money every time he's gambled (small sample size).

That said, I might actually prefer casinos to just having slots - slots are the most rigged of all gambling games (except for state lotteries).

---

by: Stealth @ Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 16:44:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ch. 70 is the money ABOVE the foundation budget, and it goes to cities based on outdated census and needs estimates. (0.00 / 0)

I will never forget the year Menino misunderstimated the Boston schools, got what he asked for from the state, and then USED THE 'SURPLUS' TO GIVE THE BOSTON CITY COUNCIL A RAISE!

And again - find me median INCOME as an indicator of ability to pay, rather than VALUE of property.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:35:41 AM CST