- And this blank page where my fingers move
- Pennsylvania Hunger Games Diet: Cash for Corporations, Cuts for Kids
- The Incredible Shrinking Mayor
- Multi-tasking with the 1% … killing the schools AND making the poor pay for their funeral.
- Council Can Give the SRC the Money to NOT Privatize the System
- Predatory Payday Lending Bill Flies Out of Cramped PA House Committee
- Let the Games Begin: PA Senate Announces Details of Budget Proposal
- Good News on PA Revenue But Don’t Count Your Blessings Just Yet
- Defeat Corbett
- Set off without a Paddle: Unpacking the School District’s Disaster Capitalism
When My Worlds Collide (Subtitle: Or maybe Jim Kenney's Conspiracy Theory is Right)
Submitted by HelenGym on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 10:28am.
(You can read a more straightforward version of this cross-posted in the brand new Philadelphia Public School Notebook blog which launched today on a new website delivering education news and comments by Philadelphia’s education activists.)
When I first read City Councilman James Kenney’s comments in the press blaming anti-casino activists for their Machiavellian tactics in hijacking the library campaign and seeking to upset the balance of power in city government, I initially thought "Huh? I entertain good conspiracy theories as much as the next person, but really . . . . "
But recent news about Pennsylvania’s efforts to link casinos and education has me wondering about how my different worlds as an education activist and at Asian Americans United are now colliding. So I'm now developing my own insane conspiracy theory – the Evil Plot To Use School Funding As The Basis To Justify Gambling and To Tie School Funding to Pennsylvania’s Ability to Generate Gambling Revenue Theory of the World.
Here’s the connections:
- First, Gov. Rendell appoints Rosemarie Greco to the School Reform Commission, possibly replacing long-time SRC Commissioner Sandra Dungee Glenn as chairwoman of the Commission.
- Greco, as the Governor knows, serves on the board of the Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust, landlord of the Gallery shopping mall, which is now in negotiations to lease to Foxwoods Casino.
- Then, Rendell announces a plan to legalize video poker machines to provide tuition relief for college.
Now I have nothing against Rosemarie Greco, who is by all accounts an august citizen of the city, but it’s a curious set of coincidences nonetheless. And hence my own Kenney-esque conspiracy theory: One could argue (as he did) that these are the same set of folks wanting to push gambling, and that like those pesky anti-casino activists manipulating the library issue (Kenney: "They're [anti-casino activists] using libraries because everybody likes libraries."), here we have casino proponents manipulating the education issue.
Could it be a plant to usurp educational goals with gambling ones?
It’s not like it hasn’t been tried before. Check out these comments by Nevada resident Ken McKenna:
"I think if the state of Nevada would lower the drinking age to 18, lower the gambling age to 18, we would have instant stimulus on our economy," McKenna says.
Hey someone put him on the state board of education. Wait, McKenna actually is on the state board of education. And he’s proposing this so that the state doesn’t have to cut funding to schools.
We’re not too far off the mark here. Just listen to state officials talk about the thought of funding education programs with video poker revenue:
- "manna from heaven," says Berks County Rep. Tom Caltagirone, who forgot to include kids when he sponsored a failed video poker bill last year; and
- an opportunity to "eliminate the gap between what families can afford to pay and what they are forced to pay," declares Education Secretary Gerald Zahorchak, in one of the more overreaching statements of the year.
Maybe those two need a visit to one of the bankrupt casinos in AC, or perhaps they missed out on the reflection of Louisiana State Sen. A.G. Crowe, who denounced gambling and video poker in his state as "a big sell job" in a December Associated Press story.
Or maybe they just need to read the Inquirer story which appeared in the paper right below the one they're in - "Funding Dropped for Gifted Program":
The state budget crisis may mean the end of a decades-old program that provided some of the state's most promising high school students intensive summer study in the arts and sciences, all free of charge.
Officials with the Rendell administration say next year's proposed state budget, to be presented in Harrisburg today, does not include funding for the Pennsylvania Governor's Schools of Excellence.
But in all seriousness, the move to use gambling as a revenue stream for core budget items like education and college funding is troubling to say the least. As we know (or should know), Pennsylvania ranks in the bottom quartile of the nation when it comes to state spending on education. The Commonwealth spends almost 10 times more per prisoner a year (about $30,000) than it does on a kid in public school (roughly $3,500). And although Gov. Rendell himself has made efforts to narrow that gap, the consequences of the funding gap remain devastating.
And as we also know (or should know), Pennsylvania is a bit of a dim bulb when it comes to pushing gambling – from a state gambling board that has twice granted licenses to felons (allegedly without the board’s knowledge) to midnight legislation sponsored by a now-indicted state legislator. Recent editorials have described Pennsylvania’s gambling fiasco as "the American casino industry’s Waterloo" (Wall Street Journal op-ed), a "haphazard rush to ram gaming down the throats of Philadelphia's residents" (Philadelphia Inquirer); and a "debacle" (Philadelphia Daily News).
There is no doubt that we face some of the most challenging times ahead of us, both as a Commonwealth and as a society. But after the encouraging efforts of the state legislature last year to institute a genuine funding formula, the news that the state may now be seeking gambling revenue to patchwork their way to fund our kids’ futures is beyond disappointing. This latest scheme – combining Pennsylvania’s poor governance of gambling along with its reluctance to adequately fund schools – can only magnify our problems, not alleviate them.
Well it comes down to addiction and obsessive behaviour
Basically our governor's obsessive addiction to what he perceives to be politically "free" tax revenue - even if many folks point out the "free taxes" often brings serious social and secondary financial costs (police and traffic costs, missed "smart development" opportunities). But he's mesmerized by the shiny lights and keeps wanting to pull the lever for a chance to win big and get a big "free tax" payout, never really calculating that the pay-outs he does get don't offset the costs he puts in to get there, the metaphorical quarters he keep inserting in the metaphorical machine.
Actually in the partial defense of poker machines, they spread the social costs of gambling revenue in a granular way all over the state of Pennsylvania so everybody, everywhere gets to feel the downside of gambling addiction, instead of cramming it down the throats of specific neighborhoods in a concentrated manner.
But yeah considering the number one problem in state and municipal government is that attaching funding for core services to tax bases that fluctuate up-and-down wildly with the economy, as non-addicted people feel they have less discretionary dollars for "entertainment" like gambling, you really have to wonder about the thought process of politicians wanting to hitch more, not less of their funding for core services to sources so adversely affected by changing conditions in the economy - right when demand is going into a down cycle of undertermined length.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Here's to equitable exploitation for all our neighborhoods
I can't wait to play video poker at the Ritz Carlton or the Four Seasons as well!
Old time mobsters complain
that with the rise of state lotteries, their core business - "the numbers game" - dried up in a big way, so they had to move more into drugs. You know I've read that illegal drug use typically goes up in economic hard times as people turn to chemical escapes to a worsening situation. Maybe Rendell should just have state government sell drugs instead of gambling to raise revenue because demand will go up rather than down as the economy tanks. State stores can sell smokable cocaine for urban school funding and oxycontin for rural school funding, for example.
I'm just trying to extend the logic.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
LOL Sean
That was really funny.
Chronic for the Chronically Underfunded!
Taxing the poor again
My biggest problem with using gambling to fund school programs is that you are taxing the poor in a way, to fun middle class children to go to college cheaper. This is not to say the notion that middle class citizens don't gamble and that poor kids don't go to colleges that will receive this funding. But in the macro scheme, in which this proposal was written, is that generally the poor are the ones who will overwhelmingly be the ones who are gambling this money, and middle class children will be the ones who will be receiving the aid. To me that is an obscure, loop hole tax.
I also agree that this is something that doesn't have a guaranteed percentage that will go to education. The market that will hypothetically play video poker will fluctuate with the economy, as people will or will not have money to actually engage in said activity. Government must not depend on this industry. This can only be a prediction, and not something concrete that will give aid to college students.
- Kennedy
Bingo
As has been demonstrated time and again, gambling functions as a regressive transfer tax. At best, it's a voluntary tax away from the poor to give money to... the poor. Not too bright.
-Z
But along the way
As an elected official, you get to knock very profitable exclusive licenses or contracts to a small number of players in an industry widely known for its deep pockets and effective but often shady lobbying efforts. And who doesn't like that?
So a volluntary tax on the (often) poor for the (sometimes) poor that routes the money first through an industry with a limited number of major players that are widely known for under-the-table deals and take their healthy share on the way to getting to its intended destination.
What can go wrong?
Look, if we are going to have this stuff, of course the government should get its share and of course college tuitions are a pretty good investment in building an educated workforce in PA. But there are problems and social costs that come along with gambling and gaming lobbyists are all too expert at underselling those. As a tax base, its very unstable and highly subject to fluctuations in the economy. Its probably not what you lock things you highly value a steady revenue source on to.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Why is Rendell obsessed with gambling?
Has there ever been a politician who seems as obsessed with gambling as Rendell? To me the support of gambling is at best a cop out and at worst shows just how lazy our elected officials are. Go get one of those tax abatement deals done with firms that are over in South Jersey. Get jobs from other areas of the country that are long-term and help to keep all of the students who are awarded degrees from our local universities stay in the Philadelphia area. I'm pretty sure Philadelphia has the whole "great place to visit" thing down pretty well. There is more than enough to do here. It's time to get people to live in and around the City. It's time to work on the "great place to live" thing and change people's perception about the City on both a regional and national level.
The problem with gambling is that Dems and some progressives
have adopted it as acceptable revenue generation, partly why I think a discussion about the economic impact of gambling - and particularly its targeting of the poor and elderly - needs to be an issue for progressives.
It's also important to note that the gambling lobby has become exceptionally influential and powerful as this Inquirer story shows:
Finally with minimal scrutiny and less oversight of gambling (partly because it's done now by states themselves who therefore regulate themselves), initially there's difficulty in getting access to information and studies that would allow people thoughtful reflection on its cost-benefits. As a result, in times like these, people jump at the offer presented to them: do you want to see your schools cut and taxes raised or do you want to get millions in "free revenue" from a bunch of suckers who ought not to be playing anyway but since this is a free country who are we to stop them?
Gambling and education
I am not sure I totally get the conspiracy theory. In 2003 when the Governor first took office, he specifically tied together education funding and gambling. He pledged to reduce property taxes on the campaign trail but also increase school funding. And gambling revenue was what he claimed would make it all possible.
In other words, there may have been a conspiracy, but it is one we were all complicit in.
For the record, over the past few years, there has been a lot of talk about the secret vote on the gaming bill. I worked in Harrisburg at that time, and I can say with certainty that the Governor and Democratic leader's plan to pass a gaming law in PA was no secret. In fact there were lobbyists in the capitol every day for months on end and the debate on gaming took up probably the most time of the legislature from January 2003 on. The only protesters who ever went to Harrisburg with any regularity to protest the gaming bill were mostly the religious right. Where were progressives or education advocates--especially those who voted for Rendell--protesting this before it all went down in the legislature? The truth is, many of the leading education advocates in Harrisburg supported or at least kept quiet about the gaming bill because they wanted to see the revenue come to schools.
I did agree, do agree and will agree that using gambling revenue is problematic. There will never be as much revenue as predicted and so we'll always be asked to allow more casinos to be built and more games to be played. And the revenue collection method is regressive--the poorest will pay the most. And there are additional costs to gambling in the form of addiction and crime. Not to mention that a casino in the Gallery will make Market Street East awful--double the check cashing shops and pawn shops.
That said though, as Helen says, the reason Democrats support gambling in PA is because they want revenue. Because unlike Republicans, their goal is not to drown government in a bathtub. But they are afraid to raise taxes or organize to restructure our revenue collection system. So they occupy a bizarre middle space where they know they need money to run programs but turn to awful ideas like gambling to raise it.
The only way to address it is to tell our elected officials that we will pay more in taxes, or support efforts to restructure taxes (via a restructuring like a graduated income tax, or uniform exemptions, or corporate tax loophole closing, or a state EITC, etc.). If we don't address taxes head on though--other than Obama saving us--I am not sure what will ever reverse this trend.
Why Dems are Painted into a Corner
We live in interesting times. I have had recent meetings with Republican State Reps and Senators over past 18 months. In their zealous pursuit of "killing the property tax," they will push for income taxes and an increase in state sales taxes, both of which are opposed by their base of business support.
The Republican mantra that higher taxes on capital are bad for business goes out the window in the attempt to keep or gain senior citizens' votes. The heavy lifting of simply introducing appropriate targeted protections from the property tax is seen as "doing something." Axes instead of scalpels are the order of the day.
Democrats go crazy in another way. They have been demonized - "tax and spend" - for generations and it shows. So, like the Republicans in the counties or rural areas, the Democrats are forced to betray their core values - like progressive taxation - by using gambling as a substitute for an official tax.
Of course, studies prove that the folks that gamble in any form are going to be likely elderly or poor. When I lived in Atlantic City the best days for business was "when the Eagle landed," the 1st or 2nd of the month. That's when SSDI, SS and other government checks arrived. Ergo, gambling keeps the "tax" bugaboo away from Dems, but it also collects revenue from those least able to afford, much like the tax systems that still exist in the South or Southwest.
As for the voluntary part of the regressive transfer tax, gambling is about as voluntary as drugs. A vulnerable cohort is targeted to provide revenue, using machines with flashing lights, ringing bells in rooms with no windows and no clocks.
As previous posters write, sometimes it goes to the Mob, sometimes to government.
This all reflects a need to raise revenue indirectly without political consequences, only personal tragedies. Choosing Market East for a gambling hall was done very carefully. Go to where the suckers are.
Joshua Vincent
www.urbantools.org
www.ourcommonwealth.org
Phree Philly
Who holds the brush?
Not to be a total pain in the ass, but if Democrats are painted into a corner, we need to acknowledge that we all had a role in putting them there.
Or to be more clear if we don't want solutions like gambling, we have to dispel the "tax and spend" myth and its power. There are two ways to do so: 1) agree to pay more in taxes. 2) hold electeds accountable to spend money on the right priorities.
now wait a sec
Market East only arose as an alternative after protests forced that casino to move away from the waterfront, right? Do you contend that the plan was secretly to move to the Gallery all along? Or that there are an equal number of suckers along Delaware Ave?
The Gallery move
Is a chance to move it from one piece of land a very politically connected developer owns to another piece of land they own, bribing them to put it a little closer to the Convention Center and transit, best case scenario. Shifting the negatives from one neighborhood to another, worst case scenario.
One of the problems is there is no single "plan" anymore. Rendell luvs the illusory "free taxes". Fumo liked having both Philly casinos in his district originally, particularly steering one to his then man-crush uber-attorney Dick Sprague. Then he came to hate the politics of having both in his district as much as he now hated Dick Sprague. Then he went on trial for corruption and lost crediblity while the rest of the state started to enjoy the tax revenue.
Basically Nutter, depending on your view, is trying to move it from being one neighborhood's problem to another one's with the small bonus of convenience to conventioneers and transit, though people differ wildly on how much business will come from conventioneers as opposed to regional locals and whether those regional locals will take transit to gamble or not.
Government has not had a coherent transparent overarching plan for gambling in PA. Just lots of conflicting little acts of political opportunism.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Sean
well put.
No Conspiracy
Yet, government sometimes has a tendency to blunder into things, and I think they blundered into a demographic jackpot at Market East, totally by accident.
Opposition to the waterfront location, including Councilman Nutter, had always been steadfast, and after the election; the waterfront option became untenable.
I think it very possible that the Market East location became a "light bulb going on" winner due to the fact it's easier to get people into a slots parlor with ready-made foot, bus and train traffic provided by Philadelphia citizens. A slovenly Del Ave location pales by comparison, no?
Was it kismet or just just turning lemons into lemonade? I dunno; but the Market East location is a much cheaper and smarter choice because they can choose from commuters as well as travelers with less discretionary income during a recession on a "shovel-ready" site.
The only losers in this are, well, the losers and the people of Philadelphia.
Joshua Vincent
www.urbantools.org
www.ourcommonwealth.org
Phree Philly
Conspiracy reference was tongue-in-cheek
But as Joshua pointed out the question is who the Market East location is cheapest and smartest for. Not for average Philadelphians who will be footing the cost of policing, traffic, and increasing burdens of economic and social fall-out from foisting gambling on the city's most vulnerable populations.
In case anyone comes back here
and reviews this thread (which otherwise seems to have expired on Friday), I'd be interested in hearing if anyone has thoughts about the idea that legalized slots in Pa. aren't introducing any new gambling, but are simply capturing revenue that otherwise would have gone to NJ or else to the mob. I'm sure legalized slots will, indeed, create some new problem gamblers, but how many? If the folks who show up at the new casinos will be 60% folks who wouldn't otherwise be gambling, that's one thing, but if it's 95% folks who would otherwise be playing with bookies or riding the bus to Atlantic City, that looks like a different set of issues. I once met a woman whose only income was Social Security disability, and she periodically gambled several hundred dollars in AC - keeping legal slots out of Philly isn't going to stop her from gambling - how many thousands more are like her? I could see an argument that we shouldn't do it anyway no matter how many people would just find some other outlet, because it's inherently bad and we shouldn't be involved in it or encourage it in any way, but I think we should at least be clear what kinds of social effects we're talking about.
By the way, the only people who aren't clear about gambling's
social effects are gambling proponents themselves, and that includes the City as well as the State on this one.
Gambling addicts aren't born; they're made
and location counts. A number of studies have pointed out that the closer a casino is to people the more likely they are to gamble.
You may not have read earlier posts where this information has been previously shared, but city officials are on the record talking about how they plan to work with SEPTA to drive traffic to Market East and how it was chosen precisely for its access to a broad pool of potential clients - "sustainable" development, according to one city official (in a twisted use of the term). The city has also hired architects and consultants to develop a plan for Market East around the casino idea. So I think the City has been clear that they both fully expect and want new clients to come play the slots.
The difference is that while studies show that anywhere from 27-55% of a casino's business relies on gambling addicts, the City continues to think that the people who will hit Market East will be those people who woulda coulda shopped at Nordstroms, or will hit a museum and fancy restaurant afterward.
Helen, do tell
What was this meeting like? Did you have any sense that the radical ideas you spoke of (mixing business, commercial and residential; public and green space; respecting the vibrancy of Chinatown and Old City; preserving affordable housing) will get any play at all in the plans being developed? Do you have any sense that the architecture firm will really go ahead with planning/design that includes contingencies should the casino not move to Market East?
Was there any sense of real community empowerment at the meeting? What is the structure going forward for community stakeholder/civic group input? What do you think about you, and members of the Washington West civic group, being invited to separate meetings?
Market East plans to be unveiled
I'll be writing a post about this later, but on Feb. 24th at 7 p.m. at Jefferson Univ., the consultants EEIK from NYC will be unveiling their plans for the Market East area in a public forum. There's a smaller meeting tomorrow with the stakeholders involved in the earlier dialogue.
You ask a lot of questions that might be best done offline - or offline until I get my act together to write something more cohesive, but my sense of the early discussion was that the consultant were there to listen and take notes. I felt they listened more than respectfully to what we had to say but it's hard to tell until the conclusions come forth - which we'll have some indication of tomorrow.