Listen LIVE button

WBURHouse Speaker DeLeo Banks On Casinos, Slots

Published March 5, 2010  UPDATED 2:34 PM

BOSTON — It’s probably not by chance that Massachusetts House Speaker Robert DeLeo announced his plan for gaming on the same day that the state’s unemployment rate went up to 9.5 percent.

“I can tell you when I drove home one night last week I had a gentleman waiting for me with a résumé, when I drove up to my house at 9:30 at night, because he didn’t have a job,” DeLeo said. “He was concerned about his ability to pay for his bills and care for his family.”

DeLeo wants to give work to that blue-collar man and thousands of others by authorizing two resort-style casinos. And by letting up to four race tracks around the state add slot machines.

“I think people are crying out for jobs,” DeLeo said, “and this is a reasonable way for us to create more jobs in Massachusetts.”

Listen: State House News Service’s Craig Sandler On Gambling’s Odds

Not everyone agrees.

“Bringing casinos to Massachusetts is only going to hurt the very people they claim to try to help,” said Shrewsbury’s Kelly Marcimo, who is with the group, United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts.

She says people who are out of work or on the verge of losing their homes are only more vulnerable to the false promise of casino gambling.

“In order for the state to gain revenue, people have to lose money,” Marcimo said.

Other politicians take issue with certain aspects of DeLeo’s proposal. Gov. Deval Patrick says slots won’t create jobs. Senate President Therese Murray issued a similar statement.

“I don’t see the magic in all these slot machines,” state Sen. Susan Tucker said. “We have choices for how and what kind of jobs we bring in.”

There are also social costs to legalizing gaming. Speaker DeLeo admits that. He wants to set aside some of the revenue to address them. But he says there are also social costs to a shrinking state budget. If Massachusetts had more money, he says, it wouldn’t have to be slashing social programs.

“Right now as we stand right now in the commonwealth, all we can talk about is cuts, cuts, cuts,” DeLeo said.

After “cuts, cuts, cuts,” the words “jobs” and “revenue” sound great. It’s why DeLeo thinks his State House colleagues will vote to legalize gaming.

But Mike Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation says DeLeo is using today’s economy for political expediency. After all, Widmer says, the economic benefit of gaming won’t be realized for years.

“This is no trivial undertaking,” Widmer said. “Is this really such a burning issue that we need to address it in 2010?”

Widmer says the state is facing huge budget and unemployment problems. And they dwarf the 8,000 or so new jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in gaming revenue. Even if those benefits eventually do come, it might be too late for that blue collar worker waiting with his résumé on Speaker DeLeo’s doorstep.

WBUR Topics · Beacon Hill · Boston · Economy
Your Comments
Comments RSS
  • Casinos are a bad idea. The amount of casinos and legalized gambling has grown so much in the northeast over the past decade. Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticutt, New York, Pennsylavania. I actually heard there are more slots in Pennsylvania than Las Vegas. The market is flooded. Not to mention, Foxwoods is the largest casino in the U.S. Tax revenues earned from casinos is best when you attract people from outside your state, which is what Vegas and CT do. Is anyone going to drive from outside of New England to MA just to go to some crappy casino in the middle of nowhere when there is probably a closer option in their home state? Deleo and his colleagues should focus more on cutting taxes and budgets. Tough times call for tough measures. Casinos sound appealing, but are not saving grace people expect them to be. Like Scott Copley mentioned, why is CT facing worse budget crisis than MA?

    Posted by Steven T. Quinn on March 7, 2010, at 12:11 PM
  • Give me a break. No, there are not “untold riches” to be had by legalizing casinos, but any thinking person knows that they will generate some revenue for the state. The fate of CT and RI isn’t because casinos aren’t bringing in money, it’s because those states have relied too heavily on those funds rather than the existing tax base.

    There are plenty of social side effects from gambling, but those who claim that those problems will be greater because casinos are in MA rather than in CT or RI have never met an addict. At least with casinos here the state will be able to raise funds to help combat those social costs.

    Posted by D Aarensberg on March 5, 2010, at 2:37 PM
  • I found this story missed the mark on expanded gambling beyond just the reporter using the industry approved marketing of the business as gaming. What was missing from all of this discussion is where is the money coming from and how truthful are the studies showing untold riches just waiting to be had if only we’d pave the state with casinos. Focusing solely on the revenues and jobs a casino would create completely ignores how much jobs and revenue these facilities would take away from the state, as people only have so much discretionary income to spend. Mysteriously, this crucial financial data is never analyzed. Next, if both Connecticut and Rhode Island are essentially making free money from Mass residents to the tune of billions of dollars according to Clyde Barrow’s industry funded studies, why then do both of these states have worse budget deficits than Massachusetts? On the strength of gambling alone, they should both be in the black. Doesn’t that cast considerable doubt on just how much of a positive economic impact these facilities actually have, and why wasn’t this question explored in depth in the NPR piece.

    Posted by Scott Copley on March 5, 2010, at 11:16 AM
Have something to say?
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief. These comments are moderated by WBUR, but you are solely responsible for the content of your comments. By commenting, you agree to our Community Discussion Rules.

WBUR Topics
WBUR Program
Radio Boston
Most Popular
This site is best viewed with: Firefox | Explorer 8 | Chrome | Safari | Weather data provided by Yahoo!