Newton Rep. Balser speaks against gambling bill on House floor

Newton Rep. Balser speaks against gambling bill on House floor


Newton — State Rep. Ruth Balser, D-Newton, delivered these remarks on the House floor Sept. 14 during the expanded gambling bill debate:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to expanding gambling in the commonwealth. I have risen every session that I have served to oppose expanded gambling. With each year, my conviction becomes stronger. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong direction for Massachusetts.

Massachusetts has resisted the urge to expand gambling, even as states across this nation have embraced it as a solution to their problems. We have waited, until now, resisting following their lead. Before we leap into this, let’s look at the track record, and see what their experience has been. Mr. Speaker, if we look, we will see that this is a failed experiment.

Proponents tell us that gambling will provide us with revenue to close our gaping budget gaps. And that it will bring us jobs, and economic recovery. Let us look around and see if that case can be made. Let’s look at some of the big casino states: California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Nevada, and our neighbor Connecticut. All have enormous deficits. Where is the sign that casinos have helped??? There is talk here about Connecticut –that we have to compete with Connecticut.

The NY Times on June 29, 2011 writes of Connecticut “For the past two decades, the state has finished dead last nationally in creating new jobs….. Connecticut’s finances are among the most troubled in the nation.” This is the competition? This is a race to the bottom.

Where is the evidence, Mr. Speaker, that casinos will help our ailing economy? A 2005 study in Iowa concluded that taxable retail sales in Iowa cities without casinos grew more than five times faster than sales in cities with casinos. The researchers concluded that “the operation of a casino.., far from contributing to economic development, creates a measurable drain on the economy of the city” This is the model? This is a race to the bottom.

In May 2010, an independent New Hampshire Gambling Commission study found that bringing one casino to the state would take away seven existing local jobs for every 10 casino jobs created. The same report showed one casino would raise $219 million in state revenue but the total social cost would be $287.7 million: a net drain of $68.7 million. Mr. Speaker, this is a race to the bottom.

A 2006 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston found that patrons who frequent casinos catering to local markets do not bring in any new money to the local economy and are simply substituting gambling for other goods and services. Mr. Speaker, this is a race to the bottom.

The former mayor of Ledyard, Conn.,, Wesley Johnson, testified his town has not seen any positive economic impact since the Foxwoods Casino was built there. Mayor Johnson said, “there has been no economic development spin-off from the casino. Businesses do not come here.” Mr. Speaker, this is a race to the bottom.

In the fall of 2009, Ohio voters were faced with a referendum to allow casino gambling. In advance of the election, the Public Policy Analysis Group at Hiram College studied the social and economic costs of casinos and concluded that there would be a net loss of area jobs in the new casino locations. Mr. Speaker, this is a race to the bottom.

I don’t claim to be an expert on how to grow an economy. So, let’s turn to an expert. Recognized as one of the most successful investors in the world, here is what Warren Buffet has to say about expanded gambling initiatives. “There is nothing getting developed. It’s a transfer of money.”

What is this business, that we are about to invite to Massachusetts? Some say it is a form of entertainment, a legitimate business to grow our economy. I reject that. It is a predatory business, exploiting the hopes and dreams of vulnerable people, profiting from developing addiction and debt. Casino Owner Steve Wynn in a 2009 interview with Charlie Rose said, “the only way to win in a casino is to own one.”

Several years ago, I had the honor of serving as the house chair of the Joint Committee on Mental Health and Substance Abuse. In that role, I chaired a hearing on gambling addiction.

We received testimony from national experts on gambling addiction. That testimony had a profound impact on me, as I came to understand how high the stakes are in this gambling debate.

Gambling addiction is a serious disorder with profound consequences. Compulsive gamblers will gamble until they have nothing left. They will exhaust their savings, their family’s assets and their personal belongings. They will borrow from others, but they will rarely admit it is for gambling. Bankruptcy is a common outcome. Studies show that two out of three pathological gamblers commit crimes to continue gambling. Rates of domestic violence increase. Many become homeless or are incarcerated. The rate of suicide for gambling addicts is higher than for any other addiction. Gambling addiction is an illness that is devastating to individuals, their families, and their communities.

People can become addicted to any form of gambling, but there is one form of gambling that is particularly pernicious, one form of gambling known as the “crack cocaine of gambling.” That form of gambling is the slot machine. This debate is about legalizing slot machines in Massachusetts.

At the State House hearing, Dr. Natasha Schull of MIT, whose work has been showcased on TV’s "60 Minutes" and elsewhere, testified about the intrinsically addictive elements of the slot machine. She testified that “Every feature of gambling machines – mathematical structure, visual graphics, sound dynamics, seating and screen ergonomics – is geared to increase ‘time on device’ and encourage gamblers to ‘play to extinction’, as the industry jargon goes (in other words, until their funds are depleted.)”

Dr. Schull has testified that a slot machine is designed to be so effective at extracting money from people that it is “a product that, for all intents and purposes, approaches every player as a potential addict…”

Many will argue that most people don’t become addicted. That’s true. But what is also true is that the money comes from the addicts. Eighty percent of the profits from casinos come from the slots, and the majority of the profits from the slots come from the problem gamblers. So while it is true, most people don’t get addicted, the profits, the revenue we’re all counting on come from the addicted.

Ninety percent of the casino profits come from 10 percent of their customers. This is a predatory business, preying on the vulnerable, addicting the vulnerable, and profiting from them.

Not only is the technology highly addictive, but the casinos have developed to the level of an art form practices that entice people further into addictive behavior. Some of the predatory marketing practices used to incite out-of-control gambling include: aggressively targeting people who use casino ATMs; using “hosts” who are in constant contact with heavy gamblers away from the casino to lure them right back; enlisting “Luck Ambassadors”- casino employees who hand out small cash vouchers to gamblers who have been identified by the player tracking system as losing big money and keep them in front of the gambling machine, all of which happens in real time on the casino floor; providing gamblers free alcohol, free meals and free lodging; and using mail, phone and email solicitations to offer free slot machine play in a continuing effort to find more people to target.

There are those who would say, gambling is no different than alcohol. But when was the last time you saw a bartender enticing back someone who had obviously drank too much and urging them to stay on longer? When did you see free meals and lodging offered to keep them drinking? The business that is being offered as a basis for economic recovery creates addicts, and profits from their addictive behavior.

Returning to the interview with Warren Buffet, he said, “We’re going to have gambling addicts in this country, but I don’t think the state ought to become the sponsor of spreading that addiction.”

We have serious problems in this state. We have a struggling economy and there are many important government services that have been cut. Is the solution to tax poor and vulnerable people, welcoming a business that will profit from addiction and the resulting destruction of families? Is our economic recovery to be based on an industry that leads to indebtedness, bankruptcy and foreclosure, crime and suicide? Do not be fooled. If the legislation before us passes, it will ultimately benefit only the owners of the casinos. As the casino owner Steve Wynn put it, “the only way to win in a casino is to own one.”

I urge you to vote NO.