Governor Deval Patrick's proposal to allow the construction of three casinos in Massachusetts is seen by many, including the Daily editorial staff, as an important means of raising additional revenue for the commonwealth. Although the introduction of casino gambling faces several obstacles, including opposition from a number of well-organized and well-financed interest groups, the plan also shares significant support among citizens of Massachusetts.
As attractive as the casinos and the subsequent tax revenue may be, however, it is important for Massachusetts not to follow the lead of numerous other states down a path which offers limited short-term gains without providing for sustainable economic growth, all the while placing the largest burden on those who can least afford it.
It is undeniable that revenue from gambling sources can be put towards worthwhile, often essential, services. The commonwealth has demonstrated as much with the use of lottery revenue for public education.
In fact, the uses of gambling revenues for public works and property tax relief are often so beneficial that it is impossible for politicians to reasonably oppose increased access to gambling venues when the source and use of the revenue is tied together in legislation.
The problem is that, in the rush to provide for these services, legislators often overlook or choose to ignore the effect of gambling upon the citizens providing casino revenues. Studies examining the incidence of casino gambling taxation have noted repeatedly that the burden is highly discriminatory, with revenue raised from poorer citizens representing a larger proportion of those citizens' income than from higher-income citizens.
In addition, lower-income citizens have been shown to constitute a disproportionate percentage of the gambling population. The result is that while people of all economic backgrounds contribute to additional state revenue from gambling, those from low- and middle-income brackets are hit hardest by legalized gambling.
In this respect, allowing casinos to open in the commonwealth does not, as the Daily suggests, represent a bold means of raising needed revenue. Rather, it should be seen merely as an extension of existing policies, such as the state lottery and legalized Keno games, which raise revenue by redistributing the money of low- and middle-income citizens among the general population.
By the logic of the Daily editorial, this pattern is already in effect, except that it is the government of Connecticut that benefits from such regressive means of raising revenue. While this may be true, it is also undeniable that the opening of three casinos in Massachusetts would significantly increase the amount our citizens spend on gambling.
Beyond raising tax revenue, the economic benefits of casino gambling are rather unclear. Yes, jobs are provided; to what extent this employment is simply transferred from other industries, however, is a still very much a matter of debate.
Moreover, gambling undoubtedly has high social costs, and there is no evidence that the 2.5 percent of revenue earmarked for the Governor's Public Health Trust Fund will be sufficient to alleviate these problems.
For the record, I hold no moral objection to gambling, nor do I have any interest in seeing the government of Massachusetts babysit its citizens. My concerns rest solely with the economic burden of casino gambling; given the distribution of the costs involved and the unclear nature of the benefits, the further legalization of gambling in this instance does not represent smart public policy.
In seeking to fund road maintenance and provide property tax relief, there are numerous sources of revenue the commonwealth could employ which are both more equitable and more responsible than the further promotion of legalized gambling (including the closure of several corporate tax loopholes, a policy proposed by Governor Patrick earlier this year).
At present, Massachusetts already relies on a flat income tax and a high cigarette tax, two highly regressive revenue sources, as well as the aforementioned gambling revenues. Given this situation, the first priority for the commonwealth in seeking additional funds should be ensuring that the burden is, at the very least, evenly distributed across all economic classes.
