Left In Lowell

Panagiotakos Is Completely Gullible

14 Responses to “Panagiotakos Is Completely Gullible”

1. Peter Says:
   March 17th, 2008 at 6:52 pm

   So, are you for or against the Casinos?

2. Lowellian Says:
   March 17th, 2008 at 6:58 pm

   The answer to your question is very simple. If you recall the seatbelt fiasco, the gay marraige vote or the many midnight pay raises, they’re going do what they want regardless of what the public thinks or wants. After all this is Massachusetts. As far as my opinion goes I’d like to go out once a month and play some blackjack close to home.

3. Lynne Says:
   March 17th, 2008 at 7:59 pm

   Lowellian: at the expense of the state, its revenues, and good governance?

4. kpem Says:
   March 17th, 2008 at 8:21 pm

   Lynne,
   I s Connecticut losing revenues with the casinos?

5. Anonymous Says:
   March 17th, 2008 at 9:33 pm

   I am not a fan of the casino proposal. However, I don’t think our Senator is “completely gullible”. He’s been around the block a few times. Rather, I don’t think that Lynne know as much as she thinks she does - and probably not a fraction of what the Chair of Ways and Means knows about the substance of the proposal and the realities of the legislative process. As far as the ballot question, I think you need to study the Mass. State Constitution to determine why such a procedure is in place and why it may (or may not) be fair.

6. Ryan Says:
   March 17th, 2008 at 9:40 pm

   Well, the state is terrified of actually analyzing the effects of casinos, so at best it’s created so many new problems that the vast majority of their politicians don’t even want to open up that debate. At worst, the answer to your question is an outright yes. The estimates of jobs and revenue, which almost always are bloated to pie-in-the-sky proportions, make for such great headlines that it makes it difficult for many politicians to even be willing to look at the longterm effects: how the social costs mount up and actually effect the economy, how small businesses and other sectors of the economy can go belly up, how traffic can become, overnight, quite murderous and how crime and embezzlement skyrocket. Ledyard Connecticut, the town that houses both casinos in that state, infamously saw one of their town employees steal huge dollars from that town through embezzlement, which caused a whole host of problems. One of the big supporters of casinos in this state, the Mass Teachers Association, was itself the victim of embezzlement due to one of their employees who had a gambling addiction problem. Insurance to cover those problems, by the way, gets quite expensive, to boot.

   These are all problems we don’t have. There are better options out there than casinos, which ought not to be an option at all. I say this, by the way, as someone who - about a year ago - was actually in favor of casinos, before I actually did the research. I’m glad I actually educated myself on this issue, because I’ve been able to stand in opposition to what could have been a steamroll force… if not for the few who have come together to stand in opposition.

7. Peter Says:
   March 18th, 2008 at 6:13 am

   Can we stop wasting time talking about Casinos?? It took this state 350 years before I could get a simple bottle of hooch on a Sunday! There’s no way these prudes will let us have Casinos before the next ice-age!!! I do see they’re going to have a way to let us play Keno from our homes!!! Yeah, and you thought a casino with nice restauramts and an event venu was bad. Enjoy!

8. Shawn Says:
   March 18th, 2008 at 6:23 am

   Lynne, have you spoken to Pangiatakos about this?

   I also don’t think that casinos are a good idea, but when I spoke with him he has obviously studied the issue much more than your are implying.

   He was able to speak to the Connecticut and Chicago tax, licensing and social issues with great detail.

   He is not easily swayed by one lobbyist. I don’t think he’s “gullible,” but just has a different opinion.

   He has an office right down off of Steven’s street, why don’t you stop in and discuss it with him.

   I think it would give your argument much more validity if it showed that you had at least heard his point of view.

   Again, I think relying on gambling as a revenue source is a mistake (the lottery is nothing more than voluntary taxation on people who mostly cannot afford it) and cannot be relied upon. We need to look at cutting spending rather than increased revenue.

9. K-R-S Says:
   March 18th, 2008 at 7:42 am

   From where I stand, the question is where will we derive additional revenue, if gaming is not legalized in MA?
   While everyone decries property taxes and the income taxes, there are very few ideas outside of job and industry growth that will derive revenue, that have been successfully implemented.
   In truth, expenditure can only be reigned in when our government operates more efficiently.
   Health Care Reform is one of our largest expenses. I was opposed to Health care Reform, for a variety of reasons. The main one, how to pay for it and sustain it over the long term?
   And having spoken with the Senator about this issue a few times over the past year and assuming he has a good eye on the state’s checkbook, I will presume he has done his homework.

10. Peter Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 8:14 am

    How about some beefy toll booths on roads in from New Hampshire. all these “immigrants” come down here every single day and take “our jobs” and hence “our money” back up to N.H. Yet every time I want to go more than 10 miles into the “Live Free or Die” State I run into a freaking toll booth. Stop taxing the Massachusetts “citizens” who live off of I-90 and start making these “immigrants” pay their way. I actually heard one of them ask Governor Patrick if the income tax they pay to Mass isn’t “taxation without representation” the effing nerve of these people!!!!! They come into “our” state daily, take “our” jobs and have the nerve to resent the income tax! Just imagine if they were people from Mexico trying to say THAT!!!!! See how many of you can make a living making maple syrup.

11. waittilnextyr Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 8:57 am

    Ryan, please explain.

    “These are all problems we don’t have. There are better options out there than casinos, which ought not to be an option at all.”

    The first statement you made succeeds a statement that the MA Teachers Assoc had an embezzlement problem. Who is the “we” that you say don’t have these problems?

    In the second statement you cite “better options”, but don’t continue to say what they are. Can you list a few for discussion?

    I do not thing Casinos are an economic stimulus, although they could be somewhat positive in that money not lost to Connecticut and money from visitors to the State may offset the costs to mitigate some problems and the profits that the casinos owners take out of our economy. But neither do I think they are the disaster that many are predicting. Most people that I know that do gamble (in Connecticut)do so as a form of entertainment, and I think Peter for one would like to have that option closer to home. And while he is having fun, he will be paying some of our bills. What is wrong with that?

12. Lynne Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 11:09 am

    There’s the long term, like biotech and green jobs initiatives. The return on that takes longer, but is more likely a robust and active return, rather than the stale and likely diminishing return of casinos.

    CT is having plenty of problems, and casinos have NOT solved their budget issues. NJ is constantly in budget crisis. And no, I don’t think Panagiotakos is an idiot, rather, I wonder what information he’s getting that I’m not? I see two sets of info: one from the casino profiteers, and one from groups like the League of Women Voters who do not take positions lightly, but who have studied the longterm consequences and see resort/slot casinos as an eventual drain on society and revenues. Which group do you believe? Well, you have to question where the facts and figures come from with the casinos. Their scenarios prove overly rosy once in practice, and if you THINK that Big Casino will not be lobbying, probably successfully, to reduce their tax burden over time or that they will not use the same methods as other big industries to buy our politicians than you are nuts.

    I like Panagiotakos. On many issues (gay marriage being one big exception) I think he’s been great. But, one of the things I’ve always disliked about our Senator is that he always acts just a little too much a part of the GOB for my comfort. One aspect of being GOB is often siding with lobbyists when making decisions.

    If he thinks that the long term revenue health of the Commonwealth will benefit from casinos, than yes, he IS gullible. Because the only people saying that are the casino industry and its surrogates. To ignore all the other evidence that shows the often-hidden, creeping, insidious longterm cost that may or does outweigh the often-dwindling revenue stream that the government gets with casinos is to our peril.

    Look at Detroit, casinos didn’t solve anything there. It didn’t solve revenue problems in NJ, and it’s not solving problems in CT. In all those cases, problems that did not exist are being CREATED and costing those states money. CT, the youngest of the casino cases, is faring the best, but wait ten years and it will likely go the way of all the rest. The law of diminishing returns means that you are less likely to get much “entertainment destination” revenue as a vacation spot the way Las Vegas gets, which means you are relying on new customers from within your borders, creating new addicts that didn’t exist, that cost the state money, and even with non-addicts, stretching the limited disposable income dollar that our residents have into casinos means they spend less on other things. Do you think money is infinite? Other businesses suffer when casinos come to town, restaurants and other entertainment venues will receive less of that disposable income because casinos take it.

    I’d rather look at the long term revenue prospects, like becoming a leader in producing green technologies, which will eventually bear revenues in the form of jobs (income tax), commercial profit (commercial tax), commercial property tax, etc. Plus the jobs are better in those sectors. Do you think white collar jobs will be prevalent in casinos? Give me a break. There are largely low-wage jobs, maids and service sector jobs, in casinos.

    In promoting green/nano/biotech companies, for every scientist or engineer you hire, you also have HR, sales, marketing, and other office jobs. If we have more startups coming from our universities (a resource we have in abundance here) they will produce the trickle-down jobs that will help the middle class and the working class to succeed.

    CT casinos have imported a lot of immigrants to take its low wage jobs. Those immigrants in turn cost the state money in support (nonEnglish speaking children in schools, etc). I am not against immigration and to do not support demonizing immigrants, but why begin a brand new industry that has NOT existed here before if it will merely be producing large numbers of low wage jobs that will require more cheap labor? It would be better to promote sectors of the economy with better jobs and more opportunities.

    Though Norwich does not host either of the two Indian-owned casinos, the city of 37,000 has experienced an enormous impact from them.

    More than 20,000 people work at the casinos, many on wages that can pay for housing only in the “affordable” range. Of the five towns surrounding the casinos, Norwich rents are the least expensive.

    Even at that, “hot-bunking” has been an issue, as several tenants squeeze into crowded homes to save money.

    Thousands of immigrants were lured to the area to work in the casinos.
    […]

    Ten percent of Norwich Public School District students — 400 in total — participate in English language programs. That’s up from 100 students six years ago, said program coordinator Beth Brunet.

    “The rate that it changes is the bigger factor,” she said. “It’s not about who and why people are coming, it’s about how fast.”
    […]
    Because of the No Child Left Behind laws, Norwich has been labeled a district in need, said Joseph Stefon, curriculum director. The testing requirements are not fair for non-English speakers, he said.

    And the Norwich schools are educating not only children, but adults as well, putting an additional financial strain on the school budget.

    Half the students who study at an adult education center are there to learn the English language and American customs.
    […]
    Norwich receives no direct financial assistance from either tribe and get only about $2 million from the state’s Pequot/Mohegan Fund. Connecticut last year pulled in about $427.5 million from the tribes, representing 25 percent of slot machine profits, but the state sent only about $84 million back to cities and towns across the state.

    The concept of embracing a new industry that does not produce a product, nor a decent amount of good, middle class jobs, but merely sucks wealth from people is astounding. With green or biotech jobs, there’s a product produced, and our lives are improved by those advances. What does a casino do other than destroy families of those new addicts that did not exist in the community to begin with? A casino produces nothing. It’s like eating empty calories.

    And then, to boot, over time especially, once the costs kick in, it’s not even probably a net revenue stream for the state. How again is this a good idea?

13. Peter Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 11:51 am

    “What does a casino do other than destroy families of those new addicts that did not exist in the community to begin with? A casino produces nothing.”

    Kind of like going to a movie, a show, a dinner? You have no product, nothing in your hands when you leave those. It’s a form of entertainment!

    It’s not some big hairy monster coming in a gobbling up every family in it’s path and leaving a path of death and destruction wherever it passes.

    I don’t want to lump you in with anybody but let me just say that, to me, the nut jobs like Jay Savage lend themselves a little (granted a real little) credibility by surprising you once in a while and not being so polar as those like Rush Limbaugh, who you can predict will come down on every single issue before he opens his mouth. I guess I’m saying that recognizing that there is some good to be seen in both sides lends credibility to a conclusion more than tirades do.

    I lived in CT for 3 years and believe me, they’re not hurting.

14. Lynne Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    “I lived in CT for 3 years and believe me, they’re not hurting.”

    But they still have budget woes. In other words this didn’t really solve any inherent revenue woes. And the costs of casinos will only increase, while the downward pressure from Big Casino spending wads of cash on lobbyists can only result in the same or less revenue taken from the profits. There’s no way to go “up” from there. No growth.

    As for many entertainment venues and empty calories, at least they are (more often) locally owned (restaurants, some theatres, arts venues, etc). And again, a LIMITED entertainment dollar is what I’m talking about, Peter. People will stop spending their money on THOSE venues when they spend that same, finite amount of money on casino gambling. So there is a drain from one source of revenue (meals taxes, taxes on incomes from those workers as those venues lay off, etc) as you increase revenues from casinos. Casinos is not GAINING new revenues, it’s stealing them from other sources, therefore how can you say there’s “new” monies for the state when old monies are being reduced? It’s about the NET gain, not the GROSS gain, from casinos, that we have to worry about. And the casinos lobbyists DO NOT talk about the NET gain, only the GROSS gain.

    The NET gain is that casino revenue, MINUS the loss of revenue from the reduction in spending on the lottery, restaurant meals tax, income tax from other entertainment workers, AND the cost of educating immigrant workers if indeed we attract more (we likely will), the cost of infrastructure, creating a new governmental regulatory body, the cost of additional police and to the court system to deal with the increase in crimes related to gambling additions, among other costs (like the ripple affect what happens to communities of bankrupt families of gamblers, etc). That NET GAIN is what I’m concerned about - with all those factors, MANY of them like crime increasing over time, taking as much as a decade to “settle in,” doesn’t look all that promising when you put it into that perspective. It’s that perspective I think Panagiotakos and Patrick are completely ignoring. They don’t even question the numbers from the casino, nevermind the fact that the casino projections do NOT take any of that into account, not really, and certainly the casinos do not want to talk about the long term buildup of costs to the state.

    CT isn’t “hurting” for a lot of factors than the casinos. They have a high median income for one. What I am saying is that casinos are NOT a solution for economic development, whether that’s in busted Detroit, NJ which has had them for decades, OR CT who has just gotten them.

    Sorry for the caps, I just don’t feel like typing the bold HTML characters over and over. They are for emphasis.

Leave a Reply