My position on Racino and the Vikings stadium

The Vote RacinoNow Committee has recently sent out postcards supporting my opponent and exaggerating poll numbers, stating that 70% of Minnesotans support the expansion of gambling. 

Yet, the latest KSTP / USA Today Poll (October 15, 2010) shows that when asked about expanding legal gambling in Minnesota, 55% of respondents said they supported the measure, 33% were opposed, while 12% were unsure.  When asked about a New Vikings Stadium, voters oppose using state money to fund a new Vikings stadium by 2:1

The following is my position statement on the issue of Racino, gambling and the Vikings stadium.

Economically, I believe that the gambling industry has a greater negative impact than positive on the state’s economy (see my rationale below).

However, if elected as your state representative I believe that I am a servant of the people and need to represent my constituents.  To me, that means if I received overwhelming support from the public to expand gambling (i.e. Racino), I would support legislation giving the public an opportunity to vote up or down on the issue.

On the Vikings stadium I am opposed to taxpayer dollars being used to build a new Vikings stadium, but again, I would support giving the public an opportunity to vote up or down whether to use their tax dollars or any public subsidy towards the construction of a new Vikings stadium.

Generally those supporting a Vikings stadium oppose a public vote knowing that the majority of the public will oppose taxpayer funding of a sports stadium, especially when the state is facing a $5 to $7 billion dollar deficit.

My Economic Rationale:
From an economic stand point, the gambling industry has a net negative impact on the state’s economic productivity.  For example, if 100 people from a community were to go to a Casino to gamble, the majority would lose money.  As a result they will spend less money in their local community and local businesses will have lower profits and hire fewer employees or more lay offs.  So when you hear that the gambling industry claims 10,000 new jobs the net effect will be a loss of 10,000 - 15,000 jobs in the private business sector.

The gambling industry always claims great economic benefits to communities but the results are just the opposite.  Remember, gambling concentrates wealth in the hands of the few at the expense of the many, without producing a useable product in exchange, which is why it is a poor economic model.

That is also, why historically, societies who want economically healthy families and communities have outlawed gambling as a vice. 

Legalized gambling has a huge social, criminal, and economic effect on society, families, and other businesses. The following are just a few negative economic consequences: bankruptcies and delinquencies to banks and other financial obligations rise dramatically in areas where gambling is legalized.  Crime increases significantly, mostly due to people gambling who cannot afford to lose the money.  Employees often steal from their employers and others to cover gambling losses (I have witnessed this first hand).

Gambling losses also produce severe family problems, often times leading to divorce or suicide. Treatment for gambling addiction in many cases needs to be paid for with state tax dollars. 

Finally, with the deficit we are facing in the State of Minnesota, I believe we need to concentrate on sound economic principles for true private sector job growth and not quick fixes or gimmicks to fund excessive state spending.

The DFL candidates may state that they support the expansion of gambling but the DFL party and leadership will work to oppose its passage because the current gambling industry donates huge sums of money to the DFL party. They will allow some of their members to vote for expansion as long as the majority vote against the expansion of gambling causing it to fail. These are the games that are played in today’s politics.

I understand that the horse racing industry is experiencing lower purses and is unable to attract the necessary competition at Canterbury.  My solution would be to reduce or eliminate government regulations and taxes that increase the cost of operation at Canterbury instead of expanding gambling.

I believe a thorough legal review of the Minnesota gambling pact with the tribes is in order.  There is some evidence put forth by the candidates running for Attorney General in MN that this pact can be modified or repealed. 

In addition, if elected to be your State Representative, I will support legislation eliminating tax exempt status for property
purchased by the gambling industry (which is reportedly happening in
MN).

The following documentation is provided through the Minnesota Family Council (www.mfc.org) and the Center for the American Experiment (CAE):

Just how does legalized gambling negatively impact a state? CAE’s Gambling in Minnesota report lists five major factors:

• Increase in Political Corruption. This was demonstrated at the State Capitol in April 2004 when, recounts Gambling in Minnesota, “eight legislators (most members of a gambling oversight committee) received envelopes stuffed with checks from individuals with ties to Caesar’s Entertainment of Las Vegas.” Caesar’s had come to town with a full-court publicity blitz of its plans for a mega-casino in the metro area. While legislators returned all the checks, there are numerous accounts throughout the nation in which elected officials fell to similar overtures. These accounts point out the cold hard reality: the gambling industry is a multi-billion-dollar business, and those reaping the profits appear to be all too willing to grease the skids of gambling expansion with what many would describe as the politically corrupting tool of bribery.

• Increase in Bankruptcies. “A national study has found that counties with gambling enterprises had an average of 18 percent more bankruptcies than those without. Counties with five or more gambling establishments were found to have 35 percent more bankruptcies,” notes Gambling in Minnesota.

• Increase in Crime. Dr. Earl Grinols, a Baylor University economist who has extensively studied the implications of gambling on society, found that with the introduction of gambling casinos in an area came an eventual increase of six serious crimes: aggravated assault, rape, robbery, larceny, burglary, and auto theft. Other national studies confirm Grinols’ findings. Gambling in Minnesota reports on one of those studies: “U.S. News and World Report compared the crime rates of communities with casinos to those without casinos. Communities with casinos had an average crime rate that was 84 percent higher than those areas without casinos.”

• Increase in Suicides. The undisputed gambling capital of the nation, Las Vegas, is also the nation’s undisputed leader in suicides. Las Vegas logs the most suicides in the nation for both residents and visitors. Likewise, as other states have introduced casino gambling, they too have seen an increase in suicide rates.

• Increase in Family Problems. A plethora of national studies confirms that gambling intensifies such family problems as divorce, domestic violence, and child abuse and neglect. Gambling in Minnesota cites the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, which noted that there is “abundant testimony and evidence that compulsive gambling introduces a greatly heightened level of stress and tension into marriages and families, often culminating in divorce and other manifestations of familial disharmony.”

Legislators who tout the expansion of state-sponsored gambling as a quick fix for Minnesota’s budget woes are turning a blind eye to the negative economic impact that gambling brings along with the social and political baggage. Economist Grinols conservatively estimates that on a national scale, for every $46 of benefit gambling brings, it dumps $219 in social costs on society (it may be as high as $289).