Conroy: A bill we’ll later regret

Rep. Conroy prepared a report that considered only the costs of expanded gambling/slot machines in the Commonwealth that's available here:

United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts

Rep. Conroy was among the heroes who refused to vote in lock-step with House Speaker "Racino" DeLeo.

Here are his comments after the House vote:


Conroy: A bill we’ll later regret

By Tom Conroy/In The Arena

SUDBURY — Earlier this month my colleagues and I in the Massachusetts House of Representatives debated the issue of expanded gaming in our Commonwealth, and ultimately passed a bill that would usher in potentially as many as 15,000 slot machines located at four resort casinos and four racetracks. Mark my words today: if the Senate does likewise and the governor signs such a bill, we will regret this initiative and seek to unwind it at some point in the future.

The issue of expanding gaming in our Commonwealth is complicated, in part because it is being sold as a jobs proposal. Families are suffering and unemployment remains high. It is understandable for elected officials to try to create new jobs in such an environment; bringing a new industry into the state holds out that hope.

As a state, we also need revenues, because many folks around the state need support and services from their state government. Proponents of expanded gaming point toward bringing Massachusetts’ residents’ gambling dollars from surrounding states (e.g. Connecticut) back to Massachusetts. Certainly, by opening a casino in Massachusetts, we could recapture some of that spending from elsewhere.

Nevertheless, it is not clear to me that the benefits of expanded gaming outweigh the costs that would be imposed upon families and our Commonwealth. These costs are considerable, and entail:

· An increase in the number of gambling addicts in the state, and the destruction of families that would ensue;

· An increase in the educational, public safety, and infrastructure burdens placed upon municipalities that host or abut expanded gambling facilities;

· An increase in the number of families on public assistance, who cost taxpayers money;

· A loss of jobs in surrounding retail, hospitality, and entertainment businesses; and

· A decrease in the amount of state aid that flows to local communities through the lottery.

Do we want to place, in essence, a further tax on those who do not or will not acknowledge that slot machines are a losing proposition? Do we want to shutter small businesses in surrounding communities? Do we want to gamble with our local aid dollars?

Ultimately, I believe that we can help the private sector create more jobs in other, more productive industries that offer more middle-class jobs and opportunities for Massachusetts residents. If we focus our efforts, for example, on strengthening our sophisticated manufacturing sector, biotechnology, and alternative energy, we could create more jobs and wealth for families around the state.

My vote against the expanded gaming bill was part of a minority. The House-passed bill now shifts to the Senate, which will act upon the legislation in the next month or two. The governor will weigh in this summer, and may veto all or part of a bill that comes to his desk. Stay tuned.

***

The FY2011 state budget debate is in full swing this week, and unfortunately, the revenue news is still not good because of our weak economy. The state is expected to bring in about $19 billion in revenue from various sources for the period July 2010 to June 2011, which is about $2 billion less than pre-recession levels.

Like many private sector businesses that have experienced falling revenues in the past two years, the state government is tightening its belt and reducing spending. Last year, the final budget approved included over $1 billion in reductions to programs and services, primarily in the health and human services sectors. This year is no different, with the House Ways & Means budget proposal we are debating this week including $1.4 billion in spending cuts, including $745 million in reductions across nearly 300 line items, with 15 line items eliminated entirely. We estimate that over 1,500 jobs will be cut from the state government if this spending plan becomes law this summer. Such personnel cuts would be in addition to the 2,000 state employee reductions that have occurred in the past two years.

Over the past two weeks, many of you, along with lobbying and advocacy groups, have appealed to me via email or letter to increase funding for certain line items — from mental health funding, to assistance for seniors, to funding for summer jobs for inner-city youth, to state park maintenance, to local aid to our towns — all precious programs and services that help so many folks around our Commonwealth. I am keeping track of your appeals and would like to support line item increases for all of these programs. Many folks and families are struggling and I empathize with their situations, each as wrenching a story and as worthy of help as the next.

But we also need to be mindful of supporting a balanced budget, a constitutional obligation. With only a handful of my colleagues willing to increase taxes, there is little will in our representative democracy to increase revenues in order to pay for program and service funding increases. This is the unfortunate reality that we live in today. If there is a well-spring of support amongst the populace to raise taxes in order to pay for service increases, I have not heard it.

Once again, we will do our best on Beacon Hill to balance the needs of the many with the limited resources at our disposal. I remain optimistic that our economy is rebounding from recession, and that more employment opportunities and less pressure on funding for state services will be our narrative in the very near future.

Tom Conroy is state representative for Lincoln, Sudbury, and Wayland and can be reached at Thomas.Conroy@state.ma.us or 617-722-2460.