Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Thought the MassPike Was Bad?

Per one of the comments on my site, AG Martha Coakley estimated that a thousand -- yes, a thousand -- new state employees would be necessary to regulate the slot industry in Massachusetts. That's not going to be ripe for waste, greed and corruption, is it?

All this reform effort can be thrown out the window if we allow the slot industry in. The industry lobbyists must be having themselves a ripe, little chuckle over this. The joke is on us.

Update: Got my hands on the transcript. Coakley was referencing NJ. She said that there were 1,000 members of their AG's office -- and 500 of them were dedicated to Gaming Regulation. For the math inept among us, that's half of the entire AG's office - and doesn't account for other state employees in NJ that deal with the industry, which is probably many, many thousands, especially if one includes police, fire and health officials. It's pretty scary that NJ requires 500 people just to regulate that industry - and still there's tons of corruption. Also, bear in mind that Patrick's original proposal was calling for three Connecticut-like casinos in Massachusetts -- and the Connecticut casinos are actually the two largest in the world. It could very well be that if such a plan passed, we'd have more to regulate and attempt to mitigate than New Jersey.


Middleboro Review said...


This is not the first time I have heard AG Coakley speak publicly and each time I have been impressed with her solid research of complex issues.

That wiretap 'amendment' was apparently included in the Ethics bills and was intended to address changing technology, i.e. cell phones.

The legislators, in their ever infinite wisdom, removed the provision.

There was a laundry list of necessary changes to the laws that require addressing and careful consideration BEFORE expanded gambling should even be considered that I'll blog about as time permits.

Senator Pacheco's "racino" legislation included an oversight provision lacking details and credible solutions in his haste to maintain dying tracks and create slot parlors.

A careful listen to legislators is reminiscent of adolescents who see only limited revenue and are ignoring the expenses and the hard work required to carefully create a foundation that will instill confidence and trust in any potential operation.

In fairness, the only ones on the committee asking reasonable questions were Senators Spilka and Tucker. The rest had formed their opinions without facts and were merely looking for confirmation.

Big Dig, anyone?

Ross said...

I am certain that the Commonwealth already has the State Racing Commission & Massachusetts State Lottery Commission which serve to regulate the gaming industry. The approval of casino or slot does not require another commission just expansions of existing commissions to assume additional roles. With the ban on dog racing the impact would likely be even lower.

About Ryan's Take