September 28, 2007
Holier Than Thou
Holier Than Thou
Regarding "the reports in Patrick's [casino] research packet." Reischel and
McMorrow ask "(Think the Department of Public Health deals much with
tobacco-funded research on cancer and nicotine addiction?)" (JULIA REISCHEL +
PAUL MCMORROW, "THE BIG BLIND," Weekly Dig, September 26, 2007, page 12) That is
what the FDA, state and US and legislatures do with psychiatric drug research.
Tobacco company sponsored research and casino industry sponsored research
is scrutinized by skeptics. But psychiatric and drug research gets approval from
industry experts and drug companies. Have the genes of psychiatrists and drug
company executives been cleansed of mendacity and greed?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
THE BIG BLIND
Why the argument for casinos in Massachusetts ain’t nothing but a mathquerade
By JULIA REISCHEL + PAUL MCMORROW
WeeklyDig
September 26, 2007
This past March, Dr. Clyde Barrow, the director of the Center for Policy
Analysis (CFPA) at UMass Dartmouth, authored a paper outlining his
recommendations for how to introduce casino gambling into Massachusetts. It
detailed a very specific set of guidelines for how to "maximize the economic
impacts of expanded gambling in Massachusetts."
Barrow's blueprint called for "three commercial resort casinos," to be situated
in Suffolk Downs, southeastern Massachusetts and western Massachusetts. It
promised that, collectively, the casinos would generate $1.5 billion in revenue
and create 20,000 jobs. It recommended a 27 percent tax rate on gaming revenue,
which would generate "over $400 million" in revenue for the state, half of which
would be spent on local aid. It suggested that the state charge $600 million in
casino licensing fees every 10 years. It also recommended that the casinos
allocate 2 percent of their gross revenues to offset the costs of communities
near the new casinos.
In August, just as Governor Deval Patrick was retiring to the Berkshires to
study the research gathered by his Gambling/Gaming Internal Study Group, C.
Stanley McGee, the Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning in the Executive
Office at Housing and Economic Development, added a copy of Barrow's report to
the governor's packet of gambling research materials. The report was preceded by
a rather unusual disclaimer:
"As most of you know, the work of Professor Barrow and The Center for Policy
Analysis at UMass Dartmouth is not without some controversy, and many opponents
of expanded gaming question the rigor of the economic analysis and the
independence of the organization given its pro-gaming recommendations. All that
being said, we wanted to circulate the report for your convenience since some of
you have seen mention of it in the news and had asked for a copy."
Despite the warnings from his staff, a little over a month after receiving a
copy of Barrow's blueprint, Patrick returned from his sojourn in the woods to
deliver a gambling plan remarkably similar to Barrow's proposal: He recommended
three casinos taxed at 27 percent, and said the state would reap $400 million in
new tax revenues, $600 million in 10-year licensing fees, 20,000 jobs and a 2.5
percent allocation of gross funds to local communities. The end result would be
$2 billion in instant economic development, Patrick said. Casinos would allow
Massachusetts to surmount a fiscal crunch, advance an expensive gubernatorial
agenda and close a $15-$19 billion transportation funding gap without raising
taxes.
Outside of Barrow's papers and studies that casinos have funded (some of which
rely on Barrow's research), hard numbers for casinos' economic benefits, by and
large, don't exist. And if it's problematic that Patrick built a major policy
decision on one man's research, it's doubly so that that research comes with a
warning from the governor's own staff.
Barrow, a highly public figure in the state's casino debate and local
journalists' go-to person for gambling quotes, pioneered a controversial
technique known as "patron origin" analysis. It consists of counting cars in
casinos' parking lots. Barrow estimates that the percentage of out-of-state
license plates equals the percentages of out-of-state residents gambling at the
casino, which, in turn, is equal to the percent of out-of-state money being
spent there. Barrow's research is the only apparent source for the
widely-repeated statistic that Massachusetts residents spent $1.1 billion at
out-of-state casinos last year, which is often used to point to more than a
billion dollars of "untapped demand" for gambling in Massachusetts.
[...]
Regarding "the reports in Patrick's [casino] research packet." Reischel and
McMorrow ask "(Think the Department of Public Health deals much with
tobacco-funded research on cancer and nicotine addiction?)" (JULIA REISCHEL +
PAUL MCMORROW, "THE BIG BLIND," Weekly Dig, September 26, 2007, page 12) That is
what the FDA, state and US and legislatures do with psychiatric drug research.
Tobacco company sponsored research and casino industry sponsored research
is scrutinized by skeptics. But psychiatric and drug research gets approval from
industry experts and drug companies. Have the genes of psychiatrists and drug
company executives been cleansed of mendacity and greed?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
THE BIG BLIND
Why the argument for casinos in Massachusetts ain’t nothing but a mathquerade
By JULIA REISCHEL + PAUL MCMORROW
WeeklyDig
September 26, 2007
This past March, Dr. Clyde Barrow, the director of the Center for Policy
Analysis (CFPA) at UMass Dartmouth, authored a paper outlining his
recommendations for how to introduce casino gambling into Massachusetts. It
detailed a very specific set of guidelines for how to "maximize the economic
impacts of expanded gambling in Massachusetts."
Barrow's blueprint called for "three commercial resort casinos," to be situated
in Suffolk Downs, southeastern Massachusetts and western Massachusetts. It
promised that, collectively, the casinos would generate $1.5 billion in revenue
and create 20,000 jobs. It recommended a 27 percent tax rate on gaming revenue,
which would generate "over $400 million" in revenue for the state, half of which
would be spent on local aid. It suggested that the state charge $600 million in
casino licensing fees every 10 years. It also recommended that the casinos
allocate 2 percent of their gross revenues to offset the costs of communities
near the new casinos.
In August, just as Governor Deval Patrick was retiring to the Berkshires to
study the research gathered by his Gambling/Gaming Internal Study Group, C.
Stanley McGee, the Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning in the Executive
Office at Housing and Economic Development, added a copy of Barrow's report to
the governor's packet of gambling research materials. The report was preceded by
a rather unusual disclaimer:
"As most of you know, the work of Professor Barrow and The Center for Policy
Analysis at UMass Dartmouth is not without some controversy, and many opponents
of expanded gaming question the rigor of the economic analysis and the
independence of the organization given its pro-gaming recommendations. All that
being said, we wanted to circulate the report for your convenience since some of
you have seen mention of it in the news and had asked for a copy."
Despite the warnings from his staff, a little over a month after receiving a
copy of Barrow's blueprint, Patrick returned from his sojourn in the woods to
deliver a gambling plan remarkably similar to Barrow's proposal: He recommended
three casinos taxed at 27 percent, and said the state would reap $400 million in
new tax revenues, $600 million in 10-year licensing fees, 20,000 jobs and a 2.5
percent allocation of gross funds to local communities. The end result would be
$2 billion in instant economic development, Patrick said. Casinos would allow
Massachusetts to surmount a fiscal crunch, advance an expensive gubernatorial
agenda and close a $15-$19 billion transportation funding gap without raising
taxes.
Outside of Barrow's papers and studies that casinos have funded (some of which
rely on Barrow's research), hard numbers for casinos' economic benefits, by and
large, don't exist. And if it's problematic that Patrick built a major policy
decision on one man's research, it's doubly so that that research comes with a
warning from the governor's own staff.
Barrow, a highly public figure in the state's casino debate and local
journalists' go-to person for gambling quotes, pioneered a controversial
technique known as "patron origin" analysis. It consists of counting cars in
casinos' parking lots. Barrow estimates that the percentage of out-of-state
license plates equals the percentages of out-of-state residents gambling at the
casino, which, in turn, is equal to the percent of out-of-state money being
spent there. Barrow's research is the only apparent source for the
widely-repeated statistic that Massachusetts residents spent $1.1 billion at
out-of-state casinos last year, which is often used to point to more than a
billion dollars of "untapped demand" for gambling in Massachusetts.
[...]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment