Meetings & Information




*****************************
****************************************************
MUST READ:
GET THE FACTS!






Showing posts with label Grinols. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Grinols. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Center for Public Integrity reports on Internet Gambling



Center wins first Pulitzer!

Black lung investigation honored

Get more award-winning investigations:



For problem gamblers, a powerful online rush 'like any drug addict feels'

Critics worry that expansion of betting on the Internet will only cause more problems

By

As state lawmakers debate the prospect of legalizing Internet gambling, they’re focusing largely on whether the practice will help boost casino profits and tax revenue. Drawing less attention is the question of what more Internet gambling could mean for millions of gambling addicts like John.

A New Jersey resident, John was working at a financial firm within blocks of the World Trade Center when the planes hit the towers in September 2001, killing thousands of people, including several of his friends. In the weeks after the attack, John would spend hours at a time reading news online, trying to distract himself.

One day, as he was scrolling through headlines, a pop-up window appeared from an online casino called Bodog, offering an escape from anxiety. John had gambled in high school, betting on sports with the help of a friend’s father who was a bookie, but had dropped the habit in college and moved on.

But that day, the enticements from a new, electronic bookie seemed irresistible, and John started placing bets once again. He started small, betting five or ten dollars at a time on sports and blackjack. The stakes grew over the next several years until he was betting $1,000 on each game. Soon, he didn’t have money to fuel his habit, so he borrowed against the house he shares with his wife and three kids in northern New Jersey.

In June 2008, as he was falling deeper into debt, a client called looking for an investment. John told her about a certificate of deposit and asked her to write a check in his name, and rather than deposit it, he used the money to gamble. “I told her the CD was a five year CD, so I didn’t have to worry about this for five years,” he said. “In my twisted mind I thought of it as a loan.”

By the time the company caught him, in February 2010, John had taken nearly $2 million from a handful of clients and $75,000 from his grandparents. He eventually pleaded guilty to two counts of theft and was sentenced to six years in prison, though he was released on parole two years ago (his parole officer requested he keep a low profile, so John asked that his full name not be used).

“I knew it was wrong, but I still couldn’t wait to get that bet in,” he said. “The rush you feel is like any drug addict feels a high.”

The Internet proved to be the perfect forum for his addiction. It offered anonymity, protecting him from any shame he might feel if he were facing a dealer or other gamblers. And it was always there. “My wife used to work nights. She would go to work, the kids would go to bed, and I would gamble from eight at night till four in the morning,” he said. “I fell asleep in the chair a couple of times gambling. It was terrible.”

At the time, no state had legalized online gambling yet, but millions of Americans like John bet through Internet casinos based overseas.

Proponents of legalized gambling point to cases like John’s to say that online gambling is occurring anyway, and that regulating it can help protect addicts. New Jersey’s Internet gambling law, passed last year, requires that casinos operating betting sites contribute $250,000 annually to fund programs for gambling addicts. The law additionally requires these sites include ways for players to set limits for themselves on the amount they can bet or the length of time they can play.

Proponents also point out that billions of dollars in gambling taxes fund popular state programs like property tax relief and other financial assistance programs for seniors.

But some opponents warn that cases like John’s will become increasingly common if more states allow online betting. Last year, the American Psychiatric Association classified problem gambling, as it’s known, as an addictive disorder, and millions of Americans show signs of the disease. What’s more, gambling critics say, a body of research shows that even beyond the problems with addiction, state-sanctioned casino gambling is simply bad public policy.

In the 1990s, for example, Earl Grinols, an economist at the University of Illinois who now teaches at Baylor University, began comparing revenue brought in by casinos with societal costs, such as increased crime and shuttered small businesses, and found that the costs outweighed the benefits 3-to-1. Another troubling figure comes from a handful of studies conducted over the past twenty years in the U.S., Canada and Australia, which estimate that anywhere from a third to more than half of casino revenue comes from gambling addicts.

Relatively little research has focused on whether online betting presents unique problems for addicts, said Keith Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling, an advocacy group that pushes for responsible gambling policy but does not take a position on whether states should legalize gambling. While some studies suggest that people who gamble online tend to have higher rates of addiction, Whyte said, there’s no way to tell whether that’s caused by some trait unique to betting online, or whether gambling addicts are simply more likely to place wagers on the Internet than other people.

For John, online betting combined two addictive activities — gambling and surfing the Web — each of which offered a convenient escape from his stress. His settlement includes a restitution agreement that has him making monthly payments to his grandmother — his grandfather died last year — and he must reach an agreement with his former employer, which paid back the clients he had stolen from. He works two restaurant jobs, which don’t pay enough for him to settle the claims anytime soon, he said. “I’ll be paying restitution the rest of my life.”

 
 

More stories about




http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/04/14/14562/problem-gamblers-powerful-online-rush-any-drug-addict-feels
Key findings

  • States are moving to legalize online gambling, long barred by state and federal laws. New Jersey, Nevada and Delaware have begun licensing Internet casinos, and seven other states are debating the issue.
  • The moves follow lobbying campaigns offshore online gambling companies that have reached agreements with the Justice Department over allegations of operating illegal gambling in the U.S. Since 2005, the companies and their founders have funded a "grassroots" group called the Poker Players Alliance, which represents 1.2 million members and has spent millions of dollars lobbying to legalize Internet poker.
  • A colorful cast of characters — including Sheldon Adelson, the most prolific donor of the super PAC era — are now lobbying politicians in Washington D.C. and state capitals to either approve or ban Internet gambling.
  • Opponents of legalized gambling warn that allowing people to place wagers from their phones and laptops could lead to a jump in gambling addiction, which already afflicts millions of Americans.
  • Monday, May 27, 2013

    The Cost of Gambling Addiction




    "Earl Grinols, a Baylor University economist and a senior economist to the Council of Economic Advisers in the Reagan administration, says the social costs of gambling are far higher than the industry would have anyone believe. Grinols, the author of 'Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits', published [in 2004], says that each problem gambler accounts for $13,000 per year in social costs related to theft, absenteeism at work, and financial hardship faced by families. He says the costs to the economy from problem gambling could be as high as $54 billion per year, or roughly half the $110 billion that is attributed to drug abuse by the US General Accounting Office."

    Read more here:
    http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/News-and-Features/Features/2005/Spring/Hitting-the-Jackpot.aspx

    Saturday, May 4, 2013

    The case for a casino is waning



    The case for a casino is waning


    Saturday, May 4, 2013


    The financial soundness of casino gambling for New Hampshire got a big maybe this week, based on an impact study prepared by the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies. Meanwhile, Senate Bill 152 to legalize casinos got a big no in Skyped testimony before a House subcommittee by a Baylor University economist.

    The gist of the center’s report is that the benefit of casino gambling lies, in large part, beyond the control of New Hampshire. Rather, it depends a great deal on what casinos are built where in Massachusetts and how successful those facilities are in luring gamblers away from a Granite State facility

    With no competition, Steve Norton, the center’s director, said each video slot machine would generate approximately $229 a day, with the state and local communities getting 30 percent.

    Should a casino of similar size to one in New Hampshire be built at Suffolk Downs, near Logan Airport, revenue drops to $149 a day per machine. Taking the analysis one step further, a destination casino three times larger than the one proposed for New Hampshire would drop the per-machine take here to $126 a day.

    As reported by the Union Leader newspaper, Norton admitted to some softness in his numbers. He told the subcommittee much depends on exactly what is built in Massachusetts and where. These factors would determine to what extent a Bay State casino could draw business away from a competing New Hampshire facility.

    Also discussed was the notion of saturation. While the numbers here are also fluid, it would be fair to infer the market for the electronic version of the old one-armed bandit will eventually max out and in the process cut revenues for New Hampshire.

    At best Norton’s testimony can be seen as a speculative draw for casino advocates. Not so, however, was testimony from Earl Grinols, via Skype.

    Grinols supported the camel’s nose in the tent notion that a decision to allow a single casino would only be the beginning.

    “Once you introduce it into New Hampshire, you’re done,” he said via Skype. “You’re not going to ever reverse it and it will be a continual presence for expanded gambling,” according to the UL news report. “In New Hampshire it will become the largest lobbying presence in your state. The gambling industry will become the biggest lobbying presence very quickly.”

    But that wasn’t the half of Grinols testimony. For those still in denial, he offered numbers of the downside impact of casino gambling.

    Grinols said research shows that gambling brings to a community increases in crime, serious accidents, job loss, sickness, welfare recipients, divorce and bankruptcy. He said each problem gambler costs a society $3,700 annually, while a pathological gambler can cost a society $13,000 a year.

    “Out of every 100 people, it’s likely you’ll create one pathological gambler and one to two problem gamblers. In a group of 100, the group will have to come up with about $20,000 in social costs.”

    “There is,” he said, “a connection between gambling and crime.”

    Grinols facts and figures stand in sharp contrast to some in law enforcement — hoping for added jobs — who promise no more added crime than a new shopping center would bring.

    More bad news for casino interests came this week from state revenue reports. April revenues were up more than $48 million, a trend that if it continues may lessen some of the panic driving the casino movement.
    http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130504/GJOPINION_01/130509625/-1/FOSOPINION

    Saturday, April 6, 2013

    Weighing the Ill Effects of Gambling



    Indiana legislature should weigh ill effects of gambling
    Apr 5, 2013

    Think of legal gambling as snakes in a pit. You can enter the pit to play with the snakes, but you risk getting bit. In the case of gambling the snake bite is an addiction that can shred a family’s finances, destroy a marriage and leave more successful people destitute.

    Concerns about the ill effects of gambling have made Indiana legislators hesitant about further expansion of casinos and other gaming outlets during the General Assembly’s current session.

    Those ill effect can be seen in real-life tragedies across the country. Former San Diego Mayor Maureen O’Connor, for example, stole more than $2 million from a charity to feed her gambling habit. She’s wasted much more than that on her addiction over 10 years.

    In another case, Cecilia Chang looted St. John’s University endowment to feed a gambling habit at casinos. Sadly she committed suicide and St. John’s officials are unsure how much she stole or exactly how she did it.

    Of course, most gamblers don’t fall into problems on that scale. But legal gambling frequently opens the door for smaller versions of these tragedies, and the extent of the damage is hard to measure.

    Gambling addicts don’t advertise their problems. Stealth is part of the addiction. They embezzle money quietly and often are not criminals in any other respect, at least in the early stages of the habit.

    Researchers have tried to put a price tag on gambling addiction. In trying to measure the costs of problem gambling, Prof. Earl Grinols of Baylor University factors in bankruptcies, suicides and crime, along with the expense of family breakdown, divorce, child abuse and neglect. Grinols estimates the national cost of gambling addiction at about $62 billion.

    Earlier this year, the Indiana Senate passed a bill that would have expanded gambling options at some Indiana casinos. But Gov. Mike Pence and House Speaker Brian Bosma raised objections, and the legislation has been stripped own.

    Someday gambling will join the ranks of the tobacco industry in disgrace over the ill effects of its products. For now, Indiana doesn’t need more ways to play these games.


    http://www.indystar.com/article/20130405/OPINION07/304050013/Indiana-legislature-should-weigh-ill-effects-gambling

    Monday, January 28, 2013

    Costs of casinos outweigh benefits


    Costs of casinos outweigh benefits
    Thursday, January 24, 2013
    Letter to the Editor



    On Jan. 19, The Telegraph published a guest editorial from the Concord Monitor that gives a cogent argument that raising the gasoline tax, in the long run, will return far more to taxpayers than they will pay in (Jan. 19: “Raise the gas tax? Well, it’s about time”).
     
    Recently, The Telegraph printed an editorial supporting the introduction of casinos into New Hampshire that did not contain such an analysis of the impact of casinos.
    An in-depth analysis of the benefits versus the costs of casinos would reveal that the costs far outweigh the benefits. Such an analysis is presented in an article by Richard Florida in the New York Daily News of Nov. 25, 2012.
     
    In that article, he cites the work of Baylor University economist Earl Grinols, who wrote a book titled “Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits” in 2004.
    Grinols totaled the added costs that cities must pay in increased crime, bankruptcies, lost productivity and diminished social capital once they introduce casinos to their economic mix.
     
    He found that casino gambling generates roughly $166 in social costs for every $54 of economic benefit. Based on this, he estimates that the “costs of problem and pathological gambling are comparable to the value of the lost output of an additional recession in the economy every four years.”
     
    Bill Bonnice
    Nashua
     

    The article referenced is below:

    Gambling away our cities

    Why New Yorkers must fight the drive to legalize full-scale gaming

     
    Gamers play the slot machines at the Empire City Casino in Yonkers, New York June 23, 2009. The 5,300 slot machines of the casino are a source of revenue for the state of New York which also wants to turn Long Island's Aqueduct Racetrack into a "racino" by adding thousands of slots. A growing number of U.S. states are considering legalizing slots to try to generate revenue to plug budget gaps, even as the recession has hurt the country's gaming industry. Picture taken June 23.    REUTERS/Lucas Jackson (UNITED STATES BUSINESS SOCIETY)

    LUCAS JACKSON/REUTERS

    Gamers play the slot machines at the Empire City Casino in Yonkers.

    Early in September, Sheldon Adelson, the 79-year-old founder of The Sands (and a lavish political donor — he contributed more than $50 million to help Mitt Romney and other Republicans get elected), announced that Madrid will be home to a massive EuroVegas gambling and entertainment complex. When construction is completed in about 10 years, there will be six casinos with 18,000 slot machines and a dozen hotels with 36,000 rooms.

    Adelson would like to do something similar in New York City, on the site of the Jacob K. Javits Center on the West Side. As New York State begins the process of amending its constitution to allow up to seven new full-scale private casinos, eager gaming interests have flooded the state with lobbying money and campaign contributions, according to a report by Common Cause New York.

    In Miami, the Genting Group — the same Malaysian company that operates the casino at Aqueduct — has proposed a $3 billion plus city-within-a-city on the site of the Miami Herald building, which it has already purchased for $236 million. The project would include two condo towers, four luxury hotels, 50 restaurants, 60 luxury shops and a yacht marina.

    Casinos have either been built or proposed in Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Boston, Toronto and countless other cities across the United States and the world.

    This “casinoization” of just about everywhere has been going on for some time. Three decades ago, only three American cities — Las Vegas, Reno and Atlantic City — had casinos. Today, gambling is legal in more than 40 states, and roughly 2,000 gambling venues can be found across America.
    Gambling generates about $90 billion in revenues annually, a figure that is projected to expand to $115 billion by 2015. A third of this flows from casinos.

    For politicians, casino money is a powerful allure. Casinos offer a potent triple whammy of big ground-breakings; new jobs in construction, hospitality and gaming tables; and substantial new sources of public revenue. “[I]t’s important to look at other sources other than taxing people to death,” Florida City’s Mayor Otis Wallace (whose city just proposed a 25-acre horse racing, jai alai and casino complex), told the Miami Herald.

    While politicians and casino magnates seek to sell gambling complexes to the public as magic economic bullets, virtually every independent economic development expert disagrees — and they have the studies to back it up.

    More than a decade ago, the bipartisan National Gambling Impact Study Commission’s Final Report concluded that while the introduction of gambling to highly depressed areas may create an economic boost, it “has the negative consequence of placing the lure of gambling proximate to individuals with few financial resources.”

    When gambling is added in more prosperous places, “the benefits to other, more deserving places are diminished due to the new competition. And as competition for the gambling dollar intensifies, gambling spreads, bringing with it more and more of the social ills that led us to restrict gambling in the first place.”


    In his 2004 book “Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits,” Baylor University economist Earl Grinols totaled the added costs that cities must pay in increased crime, bankruptcies, lost productivity and diminished social capital once they introduce casinos to their economic mix. He found that casino gambling generates roughly $166 in social costs for every $54 of economic benefit. Based on this, he estimates that the “costs of problem and pathological gambling are comparable to the value of the lost output of an additional recession in the economy every four years.”

    Atlantic City’s first legal casino opened in 1978 amid expectations of economic spillover in the form of retail businesses, restaurants, rising property values and jobs. But a study conducted 13 years later found that any “anticipated multiplier effect has not moved much beyond the core industry . . . Half of the population still receives public assistance, and city services continue to be substandard. Social problems, including increased crime and prostitution, are worse than ever. Since most people holding the better casino jobs live in Atlantic City suburbs, they contribute little directly to the city.”
    Casino cities are “dual cities” defined by “two-tiered economies,” according to John Hannigan of the University of Toronto. “[C]rack cocaine-addled prostitutes struggle to survive in the underground economy that flourishes . . . in close proximity to the glittering casinos.”

    The typical customer of an urban casino is neither a tourist nor a deep-pocketed whale, but a local of modest means. Dave Jonas, president of Philadelphia’s Parx Casino, told the Pennsylvania Gaming Congress in 2010 that his typical customer spends $25 or $30 dollars a visit — and many of them return three, four and five times a week.

    Much of the tax revenue produced by gambling comes out of their pockets. A “tax on ignorance” is what Warren Buffett once called it.

    “I find it socially revolting when a government preys on the weakness of its citizenry rather than serving them,” he added.

    Even the profits from vice are subject to diminishing returns. According to a report from the University of Las Vegas’ Center for Gaming Research released in March 2012, Atlantic City’s gambling revenues have fallen by more than 36% since 2006, when the first casino in nearby Pennsylvania opened its doors.

    The city had been plowing $100 million into restoring its vaunted Steel Pier, upgrading its beach and boardwalk, making improvements to the Atlantic City Historical Museum and the Atlantic City Arts Center — efforts that suffered a devastating setback from superstorm Sandy last month.
    Competition from Bay Area tribal casinos has taken a devastating toll on Reno, which has seen its gambling revenues fall by a third since 2000. Its leaders hope that a $1 billion Apple data center and a 78-lane National Bowling Stadium will help revitalize the city.

    Meanwhile, Las Vegas is trying to reduce its dependence on casinos, transforming itself into part clubland, part Disneyfied family resort destination — and is emerging as the world’s leading destination for high-end business conferences. The city is working to create mixed-use urban living around the huge City Center complex on the Strip, while Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh has invested $350 million in a live-work-play district in the area surrounding the old city hall, where he has opened his new corporate headquarters.

    It’s ironic: Even as America’s original gambling resorts seek to remake themselves, countless struggling cities are looking to gamble their way out of these tough times.

    The late Susan Strange read the writing on the wall in her landmark 1986 book “Casino Capitalism,” in which she compared the whole economy to a giant game of Snake and Ladders: “This cannot but have grave consequences,” she wrote. “When sheer luck begins to take over . . . then inevitably faith and confidence in the social and political system quickly fades.”

    The recent surge in gaming across American cities is an outgrowth of this system of casino capitalism, which, as Daniel Denvir wrote in Salon last March, “feeds on America’s job insecurity; people, whether gambling or seeking employment, have fewer viable ways to make good money.”

    Indeed, casino capitalism has given way to casino fiscalism.

    While gamblers might fool themselves into thinking that they can get something for nothing, public officials and civic leaders should know better. “I don’t think the state should be in the position of selling the needle,” Buffett said.

    “When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino,” John Maynard Keynes famously wrote in “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money,” “the job is likely to be ill-done.”

    It could be the punch line of a joke, if it weren’t so tragic.

    Florida is director of the Martin Prosperity Institute at the University of Toronto, Global Research Professor at NYU and senior editor at The Atlantic, where he co-founded Atlantic Cities.


    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/gambling-cities-article-1.1206079?pgno=2#ixzz2JH1NjUGJ

    Tuesday, August 21, 2012

    The High Cost of Gambling




    I left my copy of this book in Senator Pacheco's Office. Pity he didn't read it!


    Social costs of gambling nearly half that of drug abuse, new book concludes



    Mark Reutter, Business & Law Editor CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Owing to the widespread expansion of casinos, the cost of pathological and problem gambling has soared to nearly half the annual cost of drug abuse in the United States, an expert at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign says in a new book.

     The social costs of gambling, such as increased crime, lost work time, bankruptcies and financial hardships faced by the families of gambling addicts, have reached epidemic proportions, costing the economy as much as $54 billion annually, Earl L. Grinols, an Illinois economist, has written in “Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits,” published this month by Cambridge University Press. This compares with the estimated annual $110 billion cost of drug abuse, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office.

    Casino gambling causes up to $289 in social costs for every $46 of economic benefit, according to Grinols. “In 2003 dollars, the cost to society of an additional pathological gambler is $10,330 based on studies performed in the mid-1990s, whereas the cost to society of an additional problem gambler is $2,945,” he wrote.

    “Accounting for the cost of raising tax dollars to cover some of these costs raises the totals to $11,304 and $3,222, respectively.” Put differently, Grinols said, “The costs of problem and pathological gambling are comparable to the value of the lost output of an additional recession in the economy every four years.”

    A former senior economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan, Grinols wrote the book because there is “a great unfulfilled need for an economist to study the costs and benefits of casinos in society and to identify which side of the ledger [is] predominant.”

    He pointed out that nearly all research on gambling consists of industry-sponsored studies ballyhooing new jobs and increased taxes.

    “Good policy requires that some party provide factual and accurate information,” he wrote. “Because a casino promoter, an Indian tribe or even local government places itself in the role of the house, thereby reaping benefits, does not mean that casinos are socially beneficial. Social benefits must take into account all stakeholders. There are benefits of casinos to players, to owners and to citizens, and there are costs as well. Identifying a winner or loser from the social perspective requires understanding the complete picture and knowing which components should be compared.”

    His book includes economic analyses that put price tags on the inflows and outflows of gambling money.

    On the positive side of the ledger, a casino may increase local employment and raise state and local tax revenues. In Las Vegas and Atlantic City, N.J., where casinos primarily serve tourists, gambling creates regional jobs and an inflow of revenues.

    However, in the Midwest and South, where casinos primarily attract a local clientele, gambling causes a net loss to the community. Not only do out-of-state casino operators remove gambling dollars from the local economy, but local employers and taxpayers must foot the bill of increased crime, personal bankruptcy, domestic violence, lost workdays, child abuse and other social costs from problem gamblers.

    According to evidence cited by Grinols, gambling causes addictive and destructive behavior much like alcohol and drugs. About 30 percent of the population does not gamble, and most people who gamble do so infrequently, such as on an occasional trip to Las Vegas. However, about 10 percent of the population gambles regularly and accounts for up to 80 percent of the wagers in casino enterprises.

    This means that the gaming industry’s profits are based on a relatively small number of addicted gamblers who run up huge costs to themselves, their families and society. While excessive gambling affects members of all social classes, its greatest social concern comes from its prevalence among poor economic groups.

    “If there were no social costs caused by gambling, there would be no reason to object to it,” the Illinois economist argued. “That is, when individuals understand risk and odds and want to gamble for enjoyment as they would for any other form of recreation, there is no argument.”

    However activities that create more social harm than good, according to Grinols, “need to be regulated, monitored and in some cases altered or banned to achieve greater social well-being … The need for public intervention occurs precisely when the costs are borne by one agent or group and the benefits by another.”

    Grinols has been on the Illinois faculty since 1984. He was a senior economist for the Council of Economic Advisers to President Reagan in 1987-88. He has testified before Congress and nearly two dozen state legislatures and legislative committees on the economics of gambling.

    His academic specialties include macroeconomics, international economics and public finance.

    http://news.illinois.edu/news/04/0308grinols.html

    Sunday, May 6, 2012

    What they don't want you to know!



    The casino debate’s Achilles’ heel
    "Problem gamblers" account for a disproportionate share of casino revenues
    BY: Michael Jonas
    September 15, 2011

    Richard McGowan, a professor at Boston College’s Carroll School of Management and a leading researcher on gambling, has called compulsive gambling the “Achilles’ heel” of the casino industry.

    He’s right, of course, so the industry and its allies in government -- which now include Beacon Hill’s three top powerbrokers -- do their best to keep that painful foot well wrapped and taped, at least long enough for a casino bill to hobble over the goal line and be signed into law.

    Problem gamblers, those who lose the mortgage money or the car keys or who leave their family otherwise strapped because they can’t put the brakes on their losses, are always treated by the industry and its army of lobbyists as more of an annoying distraction in the casino debate than the significant part of the gambling landscape they seem to represent. Gaming -- the sanitized term favored by the gambling companies and political allies -- is an entertainment industry, proponents insist, a place where the dashing men and shapely, party-dress adorned women seen in Foxwoods television ads enjoy an elegant night out, soaking in “the wonder of it all.”

    To support that view, proponents invariably point to studies suggesting that just 1 or 2 percent of the adult population suffers from some degree of compulsive gambling. Other research says the figure could be somewhat higher, as much as 4 or 5 percent. But regardless of the exact number, it’s not actually the figure that should be of concern.

    Whatever the prevalence of compulsive gamblers in the general population, they obviously account for a much larger share of those who actually visit casinos and a disproportionate share of casino revenues.

    Just how much of the revenue casinos bring in is from the losses of those with gambling problems?

    One of the most thorough studies of this issue was done in 2004 in Ontario, where researchers had a sample of residents maintain diaries logging their gambling expenditures. The study, prepared for the government-supported Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre, estimated that 35 percent of Ontario casino revenues were derived from moderate to severe problem gamblers. Such gamblers accounted for 30 percent of revenue from casino table games and a whopping 62 percent of revenue from slot machines.

    “It’s a huge cost borne by a small proportion of the population,” says Earl Grinols, a Baylor University economics professor who has done extensive research on the casino industry.

    The research suggests problem gamblers are an integral part of the industry’s revenue model, not an unfortunate byproduct of the intoxicating hold casinos have on some people. Understandably, that is a tough pill for casino proponents to swallow.

    Gov. Deval Patrick, when asked Wednesday morning following a speech to a Boston business convention whether the idea that such a large share of casino revenue comes from problem gamblers gives him pause, said, “Well, it’s given me some pause. Of course, we have $1.5 billion worth of Massachusetts gamblers today who spend that money just in Connecticut,” he said. “What we get from the casino bill is some dedicated funds, and more of those funds, to try to address the issue of problem gambling,” he said, referring to provisions in the legislation that would direct money from casinos to fund compulsive gambling assistance programs and research.

    But Patrick nonetheless seemed to reframe the issue in terms of the overall low prevalence of problem gambling, not the share of casino revenue it accounts for, saying most studies “point to the very small proportion of people for whom this is not just harmless entertainment.”

    Speaker Robert DeLeo, who is championing the casino bill that passed the House Wednesday night, scoffed at the idea that problem gamblers account for a sizable chunk of casino revenue when asked about it following a speech last year to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce.

    State Rep. Kathi-Anne Reinstein, whose Revere district shares with DeLeo’s Winthrop-based district the Suffolk Downs and Wonderland racetracks, has been impassioned in her call for expanded gambling as a job generator for desperate constituents who have been hit hard by the recession. “This is a jobs bill,” she says. “It is something that my district literally is praying for.”

    But when asked whether she is concerned about a third of casino revenue potentially coming from the pockets of problem gamblers, Reinstein simply refused to accept the premise. “I don’t agree with that research,” she said. “I don’t think that’s a reality.”

    Never let the FACTS get in the way of a BAD decision!

    It may be an uncomfortable reality, says Grinols, the Baylor economist, but it is a reliable estimate that’s been well established at this point. Grinols says the casino industry could probably still be profitable without money from problem gamblers. Of course that would throw off all the projections about jobs and revenue to state coffers, figures that are already pretty shaky. He says it would also require imposing limits on casino hours (the pending bill authorizes casinos to operate 24 hours a day), banning ATMs from gambling facilities, and other measures the industry is loath to accept.

    Without such aggressive steps, Grinols said in a 2005 CommonWealth story, states are turning the traditional role of government on its head. “This is an industry, like it or not, that is making its money off the sickness of its clients,” he said. “Government is supposed to be the protector and guardian of the community, not the predator.”


    http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/Voices/Back-Story/2011/Summer/010-The-casino-debates-Achilles-heel.aspx

    From: Stop Predatory Gambling

    Government needs to get out of the predatory gambling business because it is a failed policy. This excellent story by Michael Jonas goes to the very heart why the policy is such a major failure.

    The reason why predatory gambling supporters rarely stray from their scripted "jobs" message is because no one wants to discuss or defend the truth that casinos (and lotteries) are almost totally dependent on creating and exploiting addicts.

    To put the phony "jobs" narrative in context: there are presently more people in Illinois who have come forward to be banned from the casinos there because they are addicted - what the predatory gambling business calls the "self-exclusion list" - than there are people who work at the casinos in that state.

    The question that Jonas asked is one of the key questions every journalist needs to be asking until it is thoroughly answered: "What percentage of casino and lottery profits come from problem gamblers?"

    Perhaps then someone will ask the even bigger question which is how can government, in a nation founded on the ideal that everyone is equal, relentlessly promote a policy that renders the lives of hundreds of thousands of citizens to be virtually worthless? Who lobbies for the Lottery Class?  


        

    Sunday, March 18, 2012

    New York’s Bad Bet

    New York’s Bad Bet
    By PAUL DAVIES

    THE governor of New York, Andrew M. Cuomo, is sending his state down the same wrongheaded path as other states that are trying to gamble their way out of economic trouble by legalizing commercial casinos.

    The casinos might create jobs and generate revenue for state coffers, but those gains would come at a cost that casino supporters ignore or play down. Various studies, including research by the economist Earl L. Grinols at Baylor University, have shown that casinos produce little to no economic spinoff and in fact divert spending away from surrounding businesses like restaurants, movie theaters and live entertainment. In the worst cases, some problem gamblers spend money that is needed for groceries, rent or child support.

    More broadly, casinos are nothing more than a regressive tax that extracts wealth from the very citizens who can least afford it. The details of Governor Cuomo’s plan — which requires changing the State Constitution — remain largely under wraps but will likely follow the blueprints of other states that have allowed casinos at select locations.

    While those casinos are billed as “destination resorts,” they are really convenience casinos — typically the size of a big-box retailer — that rely mainly on repeat gamblers who live in the area. Many are located in rural and working-class towns and cities that cater mainly to low rollers, not James Bond-type jet-setters.

    A casino in downtown Cleveland is opening this year in a former department store. Steve Wynn wants to build a “low rise” casino in Foxborough, Mass., near a shopping center and the New England Patriots’ football stadium. The Sands opened a casino in Pennsylvania in 2009 on the site of a Bethlehem Steel plant.

    Florida, Illinois, Kentucky and Maine are among the states considering similar moves to raise revenue. It is all part of a broader gambling expansion that includes efforts to legalize Internet gambling at the federal level and in several states. New Jersey wants to legalize sports betting.

    Thirty years ago, Las Vegas and Atlantic City were the only legal casino destinations in the country. But over the last few decades there has been a steady increase in lottery offerings, riverboat casinos and gambling on Indian reservations. Today, 41 states have some form of casino gambling, and all but 7 have a lottery.

    Governor Cuomo is correct that New York — which has a state lottery, casinos on Indian reservations and video lottery terminals at the Aqueduct Racetrack — is already in the gambling business. Many New Yorkers also travel to Atlantic City, Pennsylvania and Connecticut to gamble. But making gambling even more convenient to residents is not the answer to the state’s budget or unemployment woes. Lawmakers are sworn to protect residents, not make it easier for them to lose money.

    The economist Paul A. Samuelson described gambling as the “sterile transfer of money or goods between individuals, creating no new money or goods.” Warren E. Buffett called gambling a “tax on ignorance.” Governor Cuomo’s father, Mario, himself a former governor, understood the negative impact. “There is a respectable body of economic thought that holds that casino gambling is actually economically regressive to a state and a community,” he wrote in a 1994 book, “The New York Idea.”

    Indeed, studies show that where casinos are established there is often an increase in crime, bankruptcy, divorce and suicide. A study last year by the University of Maryland, Baltimore County found that one in every 30 state residents had a gambling problem. Those most at risk for developing gambling addictions are single men between the ages of 18 and 29, either African-American or Latino, with less education and income than the overall population.

    For New Yorkers, opening casinos closer to home would create new gamblers and prompt many residents to gamble more often, especially low rollers who are more likely to get hooked on slot machines. That has been the case in Pennsylvania, which legalized slots in 2004.

    At the Parx Casino in Bensalem, Pa., many gamblers come in an average of three to four times a week — or roughly 150 to 200 times a year, David Jonas, the former president and the chief operating officer of the casino, said at a gambling conference in 2010.

    Over all, the number of calls to Pennsylvania’s problem gambling help line jumped by 26 percent in the first quarter of last year, according to the Pennsylvania Council on Compulsive Gambling.

    New York can expect the same payoff from its bad bet.


    Paul Davies, a journalist and a fellow at the Institute for American Values, edits an anti-gambling blog.

    Monday, March 12, 2012

    Casino capitalism

    Casino capitalism: As gambling spreads, metaphor becomes reality
    As more and more states turn to legal betting to fight the Great Recession, a metaphor becomes reality
    By Daniel Denvir

    Though Wall Street’s brand of “casino capitalism” crashed the American economy in 2008, American capitalists are making a growing profit from real-life casino gambling: commercial (or non-Indian) casinos have generated nearly $98 billion since 2008, including
    $34.6 billion in gross revenues in 2010 (the last year for which data is available), up from $20 billion in 1998.

    That’s more than three times the sum Americans spend on movie tickets. And only $5.7 billion was generated in Las Vegas. The fantastical upside-down world of American commerce long confined to Nevada and Atlantic City, N.J., is now ubiquitous.

    The billions of new dollars spent at casinos represent a net transfer of wealth to big business and to pay workers whose labor is not as productive as, say, repairing the nation’s crumbling infrastructure. Casino capitalism is an apt metaphor exactly because — whatever one might think about legalized gambling — it is not generally perceived as a sound operating principle for the entire economy. Yet the steady march of casino gambling now sketches an eerie facsimile of our political economy writ large. In fact, casinos thrive amid economic misery.

    Industry leaders tout casinos as a tool for creating jobs and increasing revenue, and recession-weary politicians are listening.

    “When you’re in recession, what that normally means is that state government suffers with regard to the revenue they have available to fund public services,” says Frank Fahrenkopf, CEO of the American Gaming Association, the industry trade group. “When the state legislature needs revenue, this has proven over the years to be a very successful way to bring in capital investment, economic development, jobs, and tax revenue.”

    The United States has since the early 1990s undergone a piecemeal but profound social and economic transformation: casinos, nearly prohibited nationwide in 1910, are now legal in some form in 40 states, including 24 with legalized commercial operations. The companies involved make a tidy profit: Of the $34.6 billion in revenue (and again, this figure is in addition to the $26.7 billion generated at the nation’s 448 tribal casinos), casinos paid just $7.59 billion in taxes and $13.3 billion in wages and benefits.

    With budgets tight, “the governor will get the bright idea that he can open casinos and then not have to raise taxes,” says Earl Grinols, a Baylor University economics professor and gambling critic. “We have a new round of expansion in New York, in Pennsylvania, in Massachusetts. The industry uses every recession as an opportunity for expansion.”

    In Illinois, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is pressing for a casino to make up for a budget shortfall. In Detroit, which continues its slide into oblivion, casinos grossed $1.378 billion in revenue. In Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley, a new Sands casino opened in 2009 at the site of the shuttered Bethlehem Steel mill. Though the casino won’t come close to replacing Bethlehem’s 31,523 unionized steel jobs, residents of the depressed city packed the casino on opening day to revel in the possibility of revival.

    “Even in this economy, people still want to challenge luck,” a pleased Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson told the New York Times.

    Many gamblers end up unlucky, and much of the casino debate has hinged on the question of social costs: whether casinos cause more crime and create more gambling addicts.

    “The social costs clearly outweigh the social benefits,” says professor Grinols. “The only people who benefit from casinos are the owners.”

    Pennsylvania’s I-95 corridor is now crowded with gambling houses: Parx casino in Bensalem, SugarHouse on Philadelphia’s Delaware River waterfront, and Harrah’s in Chester, where the school district is virtually bankrupt. Harrah’s general manager said the customers in its database visit the casino an average of 4.5 times a week, while the state’s news media have fixated on the troubling trend of parents leaving their children locked in parked cars when gambling in Bensalem.

    A significant portion of gambling revenues — one-third to one-half — is derived from problem gamblers, says Grinols, who, in a 2006 Review of Economics and Statistics article concluded that 8 percent of crime in casino counties can be attributed to the presence of legal gambling.

    But Fahrenkopf, a lawyer and former chairman of the Republican National Committee, says that Grinols and allied academics rely on flawed data. “They no longer argue the morality of gaming, because the American people are way past that. So they argue about social costs,” says Fahrenkopf. “As my old boss Ronald Reagan used to say with regard to the Russians: trust but verify.”

    Indeed, the literature is conflicted. Some academics, like Harvard Medical School’s Howard Schaffer [who is in bed with the Gambling Industry], say that the number of gambling addicts has not increased alongside casino expansion. Douglas Walker, a professor of economics at the College of Charleston, has criticized Grinol’s methodology in studying casino-related crime.

    But the larger problem is indisputable: The growth of the gambling industry feeds on America’s job insecurity; people, whether gambling or seeking employment, have fewer viable ways to make good money. As the country has deindustrialized since the 1980s, and unions have been marginalized, real wages stagnated and then declined. At the same time, a deregulated and ascendent financial sector offered easier-than-ever credit cards and home mortgages, leading Americans desperate to maintain their lifestyle deep into debt.

    Sociologists Kevin Leicht and Scott Fitzgerald have dubbed these people “postindustrial peasants,” tied to debt — from subprime mortgages to the high-on-student debt but low-on- job-prospects for-profit colleges — in the manner their agrarian forebears were tied to land. Meanwhile, the poor depend on an array of “alternative” and usurious financial services like pawn shops, payday lenders and check-cashing stores to stay afloat.

    “At the same time that work has become less secure, there has also been this massive move to privatize the financing system for the two traditional mechanisms of economic mobility: homeownership and education. All these industries have grown by trading on people’s efforts — sometimes concerted, sometimes desperate — to get ahead in a world where opportunities in the labor market are hard to come by,” says Adam Goldstein, a doctoral student at the University of California, Berkeley, who studies the financialization of the American economy (and a friend).

    Bad bet

    When it comes to the real economy, legal gambling has the same limitation as Wall Street speculation: It doesn’t make tangible things that we need or foster broad-based prosperity.

    In fact, the gaming economy may be reaching its outer limits, as new casinos cannibalize revenue from preexisting operations. In Atlantic City, casinos have experienced a $1.6 billion decline in revenue and hemorrhaged more than 96,000 jobs since Pennsylvania opened its first casino in 2006. The depressed business reduces the tax revenue generated for desperate state coffers and prompt government to take ever more desperate measures. The $2.4 billion Revel, Atlantic City’s newest resort and casino slated to open in May, was only completed after Gov. Chris Christie delivered a $261 million tax credit to the project.

    The American Gaming Association, says Fahrenkopf, does not get involved in statehouse debates because they so often pit his members against one another.

    In states that legalize gambling, casinos no doubt create jobs but they don’t necessarily stimulate the larger economy. A 1999 report by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission found that “few businesses can be found more than a few blocks from the Atlantic City boardwalk. Many of the ‘local’ businesses remaining are pawnshops, cash-for-gold stores and discount outlets. One witness noted that, ‘in 1978 [the year the first casino opened], there were 311 taverns and restaurants in Atlantic City. Nineteen years later, only 66 remained, despite the promise that gaming would be good for the city’s own.’”

    The destruction of Main Street America in the age of Wal-Mart cannot, of course, be blamed entirely on casinos.

    “You always get that sort of thing, and it’s not only in this industry,” says Fahrenkopf. “When a new mall is coming into a community, it’s going to have chain shoe stores, chain restaurants. The small town businesses are going to face the same — I don’t know if you want to call it capitalism — the same free market challenge.”

    Casino jobs are comparable to those created throughout the American service economy: They are no replacement for vanished manufacturing employment, and wages can be quite low if unions don’t fight their way into the picture. In Las Vegas, Culinary Workers Local 226 (part of UNITE HERE) has organized 60,000 casino and hospitality workers, boosting wages and benefits far above those that prevail in non-union Reno. But Atlantic City’s downward spiral shows the fragility of labor success in the service economy. Most of the 5,500 permanent employees at the Revel will, in a first for the heavily unionized boardwalk, have to reapply for their jobs every four to six years.

    Likewise, the prospect of casinos driving net job growth nationwide seems unlikely. While commercial casino revenues nationwide have increased by 73 percent since 1998, employment grew by just 5 percent, or 15,132 jobs, to 340,564. In New England, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine and Rhode Island are rushing to expand casino gambling and outcompete their neighbors.

    But as casinos expand, new profits are by-and-large net transfers to casino magnates who, flush with cash, leverage political muscle at the statehouse. In New York, Malaysian billionaire KT Lim, chairman of gambling empire Genting Berhad, has poured a large but undisclosed sum into a high-end lobbying operation to expand gambling in New York with the goal of remaking the “racino” at the Aqueduct Racetrack in Queens into a multibillion-dollar casino resort and conference center.

    In Florida, legislation to legalize casinos was last month defeated in large part because of Disney World’s behemoth opposition: Their lucrative version of tourism is based on a “family friendly” brand. The political viability of casino gambling may be determined less by popular will and more by the balance of power between moneyed interests in any given state. In New York, major business groups like the Partnership for New York City, the Committee to Save New York, the Business Council of New York State — and, now, decisively and after long-running opposition, magnate Mayor Michael Bloomberg — support the legislation. Meanwhile, racetrack owners in New York and other states are scrambling to obtain a monopoly on expanded gambling.

    The expansion of casino gambling can engender fierce opposition. And it can make for strange political bedfellows too, as progressive social justice advocates and Christian anti-gambling moralists join forces. In Philadelphia, activists organized a diverse, if ultimately unsuccessful, citywide movement against SugarHouse. But other neighbors welcome the casino and the largess they deliver via “community benefit agreements” through which casinos pay for school books, libraries and programs for senior citizens and veterans. Functions that in the past were expected from government are now delivered by corporations under a halo of philanthropic beneficence.

    The limits of casino capitalism are nowhere more evident than in the birthplace of legal gambling in America: Las Vegas. Wall Street investment fueled the rise of modern Las Vegas casinos. In the 1980s, Steve Wynn was the first casino magnate
    to fund the construction of a new casino through Wall Street-issued junk bonds, displacing the mafia as legalized gambling’s patron of first resort. Wall Street also funded Las Vegas’ meteoric housing boom, which has ended in one of the country’s largest busts: housing prices in the city more than doubled between 2000 and 2006.

    When the bubble burst, Las Vegas spent 22 months as the nation’s foreclosure capital.

    And so casino capitalism spreads relentlessly even after Las Vegas, the brightly lit neon dream of a post-industrial America, has come crashing down.

    Daniel Denvir is a staff writer at Philadelphia City Paper and a contributing writer for Salon.

    Sunday, February 26, 2012

    Casino Culture and the Collapse of Character

    Casino Culture and the Collapse of Character
    By R. Albert Mohler, Jr. , Christian Post Guest Columnist

    The casino stands as the great and most visible monument to the massive scale of the Gambling Industrial Complex in America. Just look across much of the American landscape, and you will see the glaring and garish lights of the casinos that serve to attract gamblers. It was not always so.


    Indeed, for all but the last decade of the twentieth century, casinos were basically non-existent, except for those found in the state of Nevada. All that changed when states began to license and draw revenue from casino gambling. As Earl L. Grinols of the University of Illinois has commented: "Most areas of America had no legal casino gambling before 1990."

    As a matter of fact, such establishments had been virtually eradicated in the previous century. Grinols explains that casino gambling is "the only available example of an industry that was criminalized and intentionally eradicated in one century and reintroduced from zero in the next."

    What happened? In the late 19th century, social reformers saw gambling as an insidious plague that wrecked families, promoted anti-social behavior, and threatened the moral character of the entire nation. Their efforts to remove or eradicate gambling gained momentum in the early decades of the 20th century.

    As Daniel G. Schwartz, an influential historian of gambling, explains, the reintroduction of gambling came as state governments sought to benefit financially from legalized gambling, and thus to rationalize its new role within the culture.

    Schwartz explains that "in the 1920s, but truly accelerating in the 1960s, state governments began to embrace gambling. At first looking merely to replace existing illegal gambling, states soon moved into the business of promoting betting and wagering."

    Casinos were generally not the first form of gambling to be legalized. Instead, gambling advocates turned first to horse racing. As Schwartz explains:

    "Raising, selling, and racing horses was a major economic activity that employed thousands and made millions. Legal betting, then, could be rationalized as a way to stimulate the growth of a racing industry that would return money to its investors, its employees, and the state."

    Then, as now, arguments for the legalization of casino gambling are often couched in terms of saving the horse industry or some similar sector of the economy. By the 1970s, various states had experimented with horse racing and lotteries, and at least some were eager to move into even more rewarding territory - casinos.

    Soon, New Jersey joined Nevada as a destination for casinos, and a new class of casinos was developed, looking more like family resorts than the casinos of previous eras. Nevertheless, the business is the same. The goal of the casino is to entice customers to part with their money and, in the end, the house always wins.

    Behind all this you will find insatiable appetites - the insatiable appetite on the part of some individuals determined to gamble, and the insatiable appetite of state governments for revenue. These appetites fed on each other. Casinos began to appear in the most unexpected places.

    States, increasingly hard-pressed for tax revenues, looked to expanded gambling as a way to solve budgetary impasses. But, again and again, the gambling expansions failed to deliver even the minimal projections of additional tax revenue.

    Political pressures on the states led to the fear that another state would "rob" that state of revenue, attracting citizens across its borders. Once a state expanded gambling, it quickly became dependent on whatever income might come through the games, the tracks, the lotteries, and, eventually, the casinos.

    As Schwartz comments, "Casinos, once considered dangerously seedy or, at best, comfortably tacky, turned into hip vacation spots."

    But all the glitz cannot hide the damage caused by casinos. Casinos attract and produce those described as problem and pathological gamblers, along with a host of others. In Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits, Grinols developed a sophisticated cost-benefit analysis in order to determine whether casinos are actually helping society, or causing harm.

    His verdict: "The evidence indicates that casino gambling fails a cost-benefit test by a wide margin."

    Grinols' research led him to estimate that the introduction of casinos in a community would produce about $34 per adult, per year. At the same time, gambling exacts a toll of far greater dimensions, estimated at between $180 and $289 per adult citizen, per year. The casinos do usually produce income, but this income is canceled out by social costs.

    As Grinols documented, other problems associated with casinos include marital breakup, the abandonment of children, psychological stress, loss of employment, and suicide.

    You can dress a casino up to look like a family resort. You can disguise a casino as a high-end hotel. Nevertheless, the casino remains what it is - an engine for capturing wealth from those who are enticed to enter. State governments that authorize casino gambling are also authorizing the fleecing of their own citizens.

    Most casinos, of course, are not dressed up at all. They stand as blights on the American landscape, with garish neon lights and huge parking lots. In truth, they look like what they are - destinations for the desperate or for those whose idea of the high life involves spending hours in the chaos and carnival atmosphere of the casino.

    Worst of all, the casino is a symbol of cultural decay and the death of character. A vain hope for a windfall draws those desperate for a jackpot. A government assigned the task of protecting its citizens willingly entices them to engage in games of risk. A culture that requires basic virtues such as industriousness and thrift and prudence preys on its own people by attracting them into the casino.

    In the final analysis, the greatest danger posed by the casino is not anything that can be determined by economic analysis, because the greatest injury caused by gambling is not financial - it is moral. The worst aspect of the casino culture is not just that the state has decided to prey on its own citizens, but that it has decided to do so with gusto. The rise of the casino goes hand in hand with the collapse of character.