Tax on Suckers

Gambling, by any name, is a tax on suckers
By Tom Cosgrove

WE’VE BECOME all too familiar, of late, with political doublespeak.


During the Bush years, congressional Republicans attempted to gut the Clean Air Act with the “Clear Skies Act.’’ Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken to calling earmarks “legislatively directed spending.’’ And we all know the true meaning of “enhanced interrogation techniques.’’

Now, with talk of casinos again in the air, Massachusetts is facing another troubling bit of rebranding. “Gambling,’’ it seems, has become “gaming.’’ The slot machine, in this conception, is something akin to checkers. Roulette is a game of marbles. And blackjack? Well, that’s just Go Fish for grown-ups!

It’s a particularly insidious bit of word play given the impacts of these “games.’’ In Iowa, the legalization of casino gambling nearly tripled the number of problem gamblers. In Minnesota, the rise of Indian casinos pushed the number of Gamblers Anonymous chapters from one to 49.

Casinos mean sharp increases in bankruptcies and domestic violence. Addiction leads to higher crime and suicide rates. The children of gambling addicts are more likely to suffer from physical abuse and more likely to turn to tobacco, drugs, and alcohol.

Still, advocates argue, whatever the downside, “gaming’’ means gleaming “new revenue’’ for the state.

“New revenue,’’ though, is just casino-speak for a new tax: a sucker tax on those willing to plunk down cash on tables tilted sharply toward the pit bosses. A sucker tax on those willing to sit at slot machines ergonomically designed to keep players in thrall of the lights and levers for hours at a time - complex algorithms creating the illusion of near-victory as wallets empty.

Surely, though, “gaming’’ means “jobs’’ and “economic development’’ for host states. Right? Well, not so much.

Decades of research finds minimal job growth in the communities hosting casinos - and often none at all. The economic benefits, moreover, are more than offset by the costs of problem gambling, divorce, and bankruptcy.

Indeed, the money the casinos pour into any given state seems to benefit state legislators more than anyone else - flooding political systems with a steady stream of cash that, inevitably, has a corrupting influence.

Two former West Virginia Senate presidents were sentenced to prison for taking money from gambling interests. Nineteen politicians and lobbyists in Arizona were caught on tape engaged in gambling-related bribery. A long-time speaker of the House in Missouri resigned amid charges that he demanded a casino company direct $16 million to friends and associates in order to get a license to operate.

And it’s not just the pols accepting cash. Don’t forget about the public relations consultants and lobbyists, who get paid handsome sums to turn “gambling’’ into “gaming.’’ To transform a sucker tax into “new revenue.’’ To overhype the “jobs’’ and “economic development’’ promised by the out-of-state casino operators.

Money, our politics has taught us, can distort language. Can change the frame of a debate. And with Beacon Hill taking up gambling again, we can’t let that happen here. Because “gaming,’’ for too many, is just a pretty word for ruin.

Tom Cosgrove is president of The Cosgrove Group, a Cambridge-based strategic communications firm.