FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                        CONTACT: Rev. Jack Johnson

March 18, 2008                                                                                              (office) 617-523-2771

            (evening) 617-332-1677

Below is a statement made today, March 18, 2008, by the Reverend Jack Johnson, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Council of Churches to the House Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies.

Mr. Chairman, members of the House Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies:

            My name is The Reverend Jack Johnson, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Council of Churches.

            The Massachusetts Council of Churches represents 17 denominations consisting of more than 1700 affiliated Orthodox and Protestant congregations and parishes across the Commonwealth.  The member denominations of the Massachusetts Council of Churches consistently have opposed gambling expansion in our state.

            Now I would not pretend that there is complete unanimity regarding the proposal for Casino gambling here in the Commonwealth by individual church members, no more than there is unanimity by individual legislators.  Yet, there appears to be one critical factor that there is a consensus by congregants, legislators, our Governor, Casino advocates, and Casino opponents regarding the proposal to bring Casino gambling to Massachusetts.  That factor is that the expansion of gambling, in this case Casino gambling, will in fact have a cost which we call “Social human cost”.  A cost that will be placed upon the most vulnerable, a cost that we believe is not what good government should implement in order to provide services for the common good of the citizenry of our Commonwealth.  Today you will listen with interest to the different perspectives and points of view regarding this proposal.  You sit here today seeking to discern the facts, facts which are disputed by the proponents and the opposition, yet of all those facts there is a consensus by both proponents and opponents that the one fact that is indisputable,  is a cost that will hurt people.

            Our Governor recognized this in his proposal that acknowledges the social cost, by incorporating a comprehensive, what he calls a “best in class” public health and safety strategies into his plan.  The Governor’s plan calls for a new public health trust fund to be created and funded in an amount equal to 2.5% of each casino’s gross revenue.  “The Fund will support gambling prevention and addiction services, as well as cover the costs for services to address other problems such as domestic violence and child welfare services.”  This is a quote from the Governor’s office, a factual admission that persons, human beings, children, will be hurt by this proposal.

            The Massachusetts Council on Compulsive Gambling, while failing to take a position on this proposal, underscore this fact, and I quote, “evidence has shown that bringing in a new casino will increase the cases of problem gambling.  With the Governor’s proposal for three, and possibly four, casinos in Massachusetts, the Council challenges the Commonwealth to invest as fully in minimizing the harm that will occur…beginning with a strong commitment from the Commonwealth to deliver a full array of services that include a continuum of prevention, intervention, and treatment strategies that protect those vulnerable to gambling problems.”

            Well, who are those that are vulnerable, and what are those costs?  The National Gambling Impact Study Commission, created and funded by Congress in 1999, found that the social cost of gambling addiction doubles within a 50 mile radius of a gambling facility.  At risk, if the proposal being considered is passed, is virtually all of the states population which could be within 50 miles of a Casino.

            Massachusetts has reportedly about 4% or nearly 250,000 residents already having a gambling problem, the Governor’s office places that figure at 300,000.  Every gambling addict, in addition to their

own gambling loses, can cost $13,000 a year or more to others in bad checks, embezzlement, lost work time, and damage to family, whose emotional costs are immeasurable.  I do not believe the real dollar costs put forth in the Governor’s proposal are accurate, surely not in terms of the dollar cost ultimately impacted upon the family of a problem gambler.

            The other facts we do know, again concurred by both proponents and opposition is that one’s social status will tell us who will be the most vulnerable in terms of addictive and problematic gamblers impacted by this proposal.

            First, the poor.  Again the National Gambling Impact Study Commission found that those with incomes of less than $10,000 spend more on lottery tickets than any other income group.  Disadvantaged neighborhoods show much higher rates of pathological or problem gambling.  A June 2007 study released by the National Policy Analysis said that the lowest earning households spend 10.8 % of their income on gambling compared with 0.7% of the highest earning households.  A 1999 study by the University of Chicago found that African Americans and poor people are more than twice as likely to become problem or pathological gamblers.  Those who are most economically challenged become prey and vulnerable to an industry that promotes economic prosperity.

            Our second group of most vulnerable is older adults.  A 2005 study from the University of Pennsylvania and the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry reported more than 1 in 10 over the age of 65 are at risk of having financial problems because of gambling, but older gamblers often are reluctant to admit that they have a problem and need help.  Older gamblers are the age group increasing at the fastest rate.

            A third category is youth and children.  You cannot confine the impact of gambling simply to adults.  The National Gambling Impact Study Commission concluded that young people may have an addiction rate as much as two to three times as high as adults.  College students also have a higher rate of problem gambling than the general adult population.  This reality is not incidental to the debate in Massachusetts.

            Members of the Committee, these are facts that all whom you hear from today would not dispute.  There are social costs, dollar costs, that I maintain, are not fully known in terms of real dollar expenditures.

            The Question that I raise on behalf of persons of faith, whose lives seek to be governed by an understanding of a concern for the well being of one another, is this proposal to raise revenue through casino gambling, revenue to provide services for the common good, good government?  This is a moral question that I believe is the defining question for all of our citizens, but today one that you must answer.  I would hope that you will cast a vote in opposition to the proposal to bring casino gambling to our Commonwealth.

            Thank you for your consideration of this critical matter in making your decision.

#     #     #     #     #     #     #