Aug 13
AndrewPolitics and Nation
Two weeks ago, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick cockblocked a bill that would have approved resort casino development in the state as well as slot machine licensing for non-casino properties. Patrick timed his rejection of the bill for the end of legislative session, effectively killing any chance for a compromise. The legislature would had to have convened a special session to either override Patrick’s objections or redraft the bill to meet his concessions. The special session did not happen, was never expected to, and casino gambling in the state was pushed off for at least another year.
Patrick’s emphatic contention that he would not award slot machine concessions to racetracks was political posturing. The question is why would he bother at all when he trumpeted the benefits of casino development in the first place, arguing that the increase in jobs and potential gaming revenue more than made up for any potential downside. Did he gain any ground with the anti-gambling crusaders looking to save the state from itself? As recently as the end of last month, he still seemed, if not enthusiastic, at least partial to bringing resort-style gambling to the state. Additionally, his decision to block the bill (particularly at the last second) surely pissed off the labor unions to whom he promised new job creation as a result of casino development. So who’s left to be impressed by his stalemate?
To voters, does the move to block the bill mark Patrick as a decisive politician? After all, he was at least consistent in his message that he would not support outfitting racetracks with slot machines. His actions certainly mirrored his rhetoric on that point. Or does Patrick come across as a political meanderer, wandering this way and that on thorny political issues in order to appease everyone just enough to stay on his side? It doesn’t help that other states are pushing forward voraciously with new gambling facilities. New York City approved the first slot machines in city limits at a racetrack in Queens, and after Ohio voters approved gambling in the state last fall, Harrah’s Entertainment has already committed $600 million to developing casino properties in downtown Cleveland and Cincinnati.
Two weeks later, it appears the answer is simply that Patrick was trying to lay the groundwork for his reelection in the fall. It’s certainly the most believable explanation for a turnabout that looks hypocritical and politically calamitous. And as there is no doubt that the move was deliberate, it was more than a little spiteful too. Remember, this is the second time that gambling has been on the legislative agenda. The legislature failed to pass a gambling bill two years ago, and constituents across the state have been begging for someone to throw some political clout behind the issue. Patrick was claiming to be that heavyweight fighter ready to go into the ring for gambling in Massachusetts.
The question now is who was victorious after this most recent bout? It’s hard to look at this as a complete victory for opponents of gambling. It appears to have delayed gambling in the state, not a buried the issue permanently. Patrick still has a fight ahead of him, with neither side of the issue completely in his corner. Voters have a stake too because they are faced with their own prickly decision. Does reelecting Patrick give them a better chance or a worse chance to see gambling approved in the state of Massachusetts? By rejecting the bill the way he did, it’s not just Patrick’s reelection at risk, more than ever, it’s an entire Commonwealth with someone to lose.
Andrew Marx is the author of On 21: The Philosophy of Blackjack, available from amazon.com and other retailers.
Jul 28
AndrewPolitics and Nation
In British Columbia, an intervention for problem gamblers called the Voluntary Self-Exclusion Program is under fire for allowing its participants to gamble. The program is designed to ban self-identified problem gamblers from playing in B.C. casinos by removing them from the premises before they can play. All it takes to ban yourself from casinos is to complete the VSE agreement, indicate the amount of time the ban should last (from 6 months to 3 years), and it will be put into effect.
But what in theory sounds like a simple idea -- the casino identifies your name as being on the VSE list and escorts you off the property -- is harder to put into practice. Putting yourself on the list doesn’t prevent you from going into the casinos, but instead puts the burden on the casino employees to identify you before you can play. Several participants, including Vancouver Island resident Mike Lee, claim they were allowed to gamble on multiple occasions without being barred from the casino -- that is, until they won substantial jackpots.
Lee filed a grievance with the B.C. Supreme Court in June claiming that the B.C. Lottery Corp (BCLC) failed their part of the agreement to keep him out of the casino. Only at the point where he won a $42,500 jackpot did the BCLC step in by refusing to pay out the winnings of his jackpot, claiming that he should have not been able to win in the first place under the VSE agreement. Lee is basing his claim on the fact that casino did not have the appropriate systems in place to enforce the program as described.
If the B.C. Supreme Court holds to the letter of the BCLC policy, Lee is going to lose. Specifically stated in the agreement is a clause that states that any jackpot winnings won while under the agreement will be forfeited and donated to gambling research. Furthermore, the policy clearly states Lee is responsible for his own behavior, notwithstanding the terms of the agreement, and that he could be fined $5,000 for violating the agreement himself.
The greater issue is whether this kind of voluntary self-exclusion works as a preventative measure at all. The United States has similar programs, but as is true in both countries, the agreements are largely regional in nature. In Canada, there are separate voluntary self-exclusion agreements in each province. (Voluntary self-exclusion in Nova Scotia, for instance, is for an indefinite amount of time. Gamblers have to reapply to be taken off the list). So depending where the gambler initially goes to request voluntary self-exclusion, it may only apply to participating gambling properties.
Then the very nature of a gambling addict is that they will compulsively seek out opportunities to gamble, making the burden on policing themselves all that more important and in many cases, equally unlikely. The programs, in large part, rely on the individual to also receive counseling in order to restrain the compulsive behavior. But like the program itself, counseling is a voluntary component. In most cases, the gambler isn’t required to agree to counseling in order to participate in the program.
It’s unlikely Lee will prevail to get his jackpot winnings back since, in British Columbia, the agreement is clear that all winnings are forfeit. That only leaves the question of how the BCLC can improve their controls to do a better job of monitoring participants on the VSE list. For its part, the BCLC is going to emphasize in its defense the individual’s responsibility to make the voluntary self-exclusion program work. And they would be right, even if the lack of self-discipline is what drives the individual to agree to the program in the first place.
Andrew Marx is the author of On 21: The Philosophy of Blackjack, available from amazon.com and other retailers.
Jul 22
AndrewPolitics and Nation
Anti-casino opposition is heating up in Massachusetts as the legislature argues over the details of the two bills passed in the House and Senate earlier this year. Numerous legislative hours have gone into merging the two bills into something to send before the Governor to sign when, according to the group United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts, those hours could be put to something more useful to the Commonwealth.
It is a sound argument even if, in the sum total of the group’s intentions, the entire bill would die before ever going before the Governor. What is the hold up? Does the exact number of resort-style casinos matter that much (two in the original House bill; three in the Senate version)? The House recently conceded to the Senate’s three casino-plan anyway. Slot machines at the racetracks have had a long embattled history but this is 2010, and gambling opportunities are more widespread than ever. Does Governor Patrick really want to make slots the sticking point that grinds to a halt all development of casino-style gambling in the Commonwealth? (Short answer: yes, as he has already made public statements against slot machines at the racetracks).
The quibbling is a strange thing, particularly as the intended bill has the support of many local communities hoping to bridge revenue shortfalls. The estimates of potential revenue generation vary wildly, but there is no doubt that many people would support the casinos by going there and spending money -- at least in the short term. Whether casinos can operate as long term revenue generators for the state seems besides the point at the moment, and yet a bill still hasn’t been hammered out.
Maybe, as suggested, the legislature does have other things to worry about? Among the concerns waiting in the queue are a health care debate over how to control costs for the providers, the state and the covered, and state economic stimulus. And the fact is, the legislative session ends in one week which means if the legislature can’t come to an agreement on this bill, a lot of other issues were shoved aside for no gain.
For opposition groups to argue that there are more important issues to consider is both correct and besides the point. The real point is if both the House and the Senate started out in agreement to bring casinos to Massachusetts (with the support of the Governor, no less), then what is stopping them from coming to agreement now?
Andrew Marx is the author of On 21: The Philosophy of Blackjack, available from amazon.com and other retailers.
Jul 02
AndrewPolitics and Nation
Paving the way for casinos in the State of Massachusetts, the state Senate voted yesterday 25-15 in favor of approving a bill to license three resort-style casinos in the state. The state House of Representatives had previously voted in favor of casino development back in April.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, which reviews applications for American Indians to develop gaming on tribal lands, was reportedly set to approve the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe for Class II gaming, electronic bingo machines. The state, wary of losing out on potential tax revenue from gaming, needed to move forward with a plan to license casinos in order to maintain state control over gaming development. In some states, tax on casino revenue is as high as 60%, providing a significant budget boost. The casino could also spur construction work and job creation, and give Massachusetts additional appeal as a tourist destination. The downside are potential social costs associated with drinking and gambling addiction, although those kind of intangible arguments are rarely persuasive when it comes to casino development which is a big ticket operation. With dollar signs in their eyes, approval was almost a guarantee in the Senate, particularly after the House had already passed its own legislation.
Jun 01
AndrewPolitics and Nation
To call me an environmentalist is deceiving, but recent comments BP CEO Tony Hayward almost make a convert. I won’t pretend I have all the facts when it comes to the environment nor the ongoing BP oil disaster after the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig sank two months ago. Giving a party line to the press, Hayward is attempting to downplay both the amount of oil spilling out into the Gulf of Mexico and its impact on the environment.
I can’t blame him. Admitting otherwise is tantamount to destruction of his company. It will weaken his corporation’s defense against already mounting liability troubles. No, I can’t expect any less from Hayward right now. And yet, I find myself inexplicably disappointed that BP seems either unwilling or unable to better control the situation. I think it’s fair to say that between 20 million up to 40 million gallons of oil drifting through open waters is going to have a substantial, long term environmental impact. It seems a little petty, not to mention depraved, to suggest otherwise. But Hayward’s, and BP’s, official stance is designed to protect the company. I may not like it, but I can understand it.
I also don’t blame BP for being in the business of oil. BP has the right to maximize their opportunities to make money. I drive 12 miles round trip to work each day. I fly in planes to visit my family 3,000 miles away. I barbecue on the weekends and heat my home in the winter. And I know that my reliance on oil is deeply ingrained in all facets of my lifestyle. BP is in the business of providing that kind of consumer product to people and I take full advantage of it.
One of the most interesting things that has not come out of this crisis is a message to consumers to change their habits. The media has fixated on the corporate irresponsibility on display. Where are the congruent messages about reducing oil use or adapting to other resources for our needs? Isn’t this a perfect example of why we should reduce on dependency on oil and oil-based products? Wholesale marine ecosystems are being destroyed, potentially 600,000 square miles of the Gulf could become uninhabitable. (For the record, BP is working on a reliable solution, bore holes, that could be in place by August and temporary measures are being attempted this week. Furthermore, at some point the oil reservoir will simply lose pressure and the oil will stop surfacing, although when this might occur is unpredictable.) It’s fair to say the problem started by the Deepwater Horizon rig is spiraling out of control, with no clear solution in sight.
But isn’t also fair to suggest that our dependence on oil is integral to the problem? BP won’t, but shouldn’t somebody being saying it? Isn’t that a story for the media, too? Aren’t we already looking into alternatives to oil? How’s that going? There’s something missing in this tale about BP and the oil crisis in the gulf, and I can’t help wondering what and why. So no, I’m not ready to declare myself a hardcore environmentalist, but for what’s it worth, I’m a lot closer than I ever was before.
–
Andrew Marx is the author of Whisper in the Walls, available to download free at www.whispernovella.com.
Mar 19
AndrewPolitics and Nation
I’m not the only person to think that it’s time to blow up the United States Postal Service and privatize mail delivery. If you google USPS for news stories, there are thousands of reports and reactions to the proposals being made by the Postmaster General to fix the Postal Service. It laudable that he is trying but it belies the fact that the postal system just doesn’t work.
The United States Postal Service is hemorrhaging taxpayer dollars and service sucks. That’s the bottom line. What new technology that could streamline service has been applied in a slipshod and ineffective manner. Post offices are miserable places to be for the employees and the customers. And by unit, the number of mailed items is expected to decrease by 1 billion units over the next ten years because of the increase of electronic communication.
It’s true that some of the USPS problem is mired in the politics of its control -- simply put, any changes would have to be approved by Congress. It prevents the Postal Service from acting like a private company by making smart business decisions in a timely manner. Instead, we have the legislature bickering over proposals ranging from cutting down service to 5 days a week to closing post office locations.
The simple fix is to blow it up and let mail delivery be a completely privatized system. It’s not that farfetched. Although UPS and FedEx (the market leaders) currently don’t offer services anywhere close to the price of first class mail, there is no doubt both companies would eagerly find a way to get into the market in an affordable way if they were invited. And both companies have a proven efficiency for package delivery that is seemingly beyond the United States Postal Service.
It’s not going to happen, at least not in the immediate future, no matter how much sense it might make or money it might save taxpayers. In the end, the reason the post office will persist is because of the romantic tradition of mail delivery.
But all you have to do is wait in a long line at the post office and you know something isn’t right. The employees are the undead. Their enthusiasm as been sucked out of them by poor business practices, layoffs, long hours and a litany of upsells they are required to mention (express mail, tracking, stamps, etc.) It is such a caustic environment, I can’t understand why we allow it to persist.
I, for one, would like to see the Postmaster General be able to carte blance implement all of his improvements and see if they work. How can you argue that service would be impacted negatively when it’s already gored to the point of death? If his suggestions save taxpayer dollars without diluting the intention of the Postal Service, I can’t see a downside.
Amazingly, no matter how much we all agree the system is broken, there is so much resistance to fixing it. The entire discussion leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and from what I’ve read, I’m not the only one.
--
Andrew Marx is a long time writer on SmartReMarxcom and recently published a new work of fiction Accidents Happen. You can contact him on twitter or leave a comment below.
Older Entries
RSS
