|
||||||||||||||||||||||
1. To propose cutting $700,000 from the state’s current funding for Problem Gambling Services, while at the same time proposing a major expansion of gambling, reflects a serious lack of awareness or concern for the plight of current and future individuals and families that suffer from the effects of pathological gambling. If there is a major funding cut of one-third of the Problem Gambling Services’ budget and if electronic keno is introduced in Connecticut at the same time, the state’s Problem Gambling Services will have a smaller staff and fewer resources to deal with the overwhelming dual task of trying to meet its commitment to the problem gamblers and family members the program is currently serving, while also trying to cope with an increased need for problem gambling services created by keno! If the Governor does not withdraw the keno proposal or if the legislature does not reject it, one or both branches of government will have proven themselves to be insensitive and callous to the harm that these two actions will have. 2. The state has a basic responsibility to protect its citizens and not to exploit them. Implicit in both of these actions by the Governor (cutting services and proposing keno) is the belief that the goal of a relatively small economic gain is more important than the devastation to a small percentage of individuals and their families. The fact is that problem gambling creates a large ripple effect beyond the family, with serious negative consequences for the workplace and the larger community due to the increase in debt, family disruption and divorce, bankruptcy, crime, and suicide. A disproportionately high percentage of state gambling revenue is derived from the most severe gambling addicts. The nonprofit and nonpartisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) has addressed this issue: “Relying on compulsive gamblers to fund public services amounts to taking advantage of these gamblers’ addictions.” 3. State Funding for Problem and Underage Gambling Services Should be One of the State’s Highest Funding Priorities While problem and underage gambling are not intrinsically more important than any of the other human service needs, the state has a greater ethical and moral responsibility to amply fund problem and underage gambling programs and protect these programs from reductions in funding. The reason is that gambling is the only behavior which the state promotes and profits from which without doubt also causes harm to a portion of Connecticut citizens. Some of the individuals who had not bought lottery tickets are influenced by lottery advertisements to gamble and are vulnerable to developing a gambling problem. Others who have had a gambling problem and are trying not to return to gambling, may relapse due to the ubiquitous lottery advertisements. Also, many young people are attracted to lottery advertisements which contribute to underage gambling despite the fact that the advertisements do not target minors. The state law that gives permission to adults to give lottery tickets as gifts to minors is an even greater contributor to underage gambling. 4. Funding for the state’s Problem Gambling Services is unplanned, sporadic and insufficient The state’s Problem Gambling Services is funded almost exclusively from lottery revenue. However, there has never been a systematic assessment of how much money is needed for this program. Until this careful analysis occurs in Connecticut, the state should adopt the reasonable approach implemented in some other states: dedication of a percentage of all gambling revenue received by the state. A rationale for this regulation is that since problem and underage gambling are intrinsically tied to the extent of gambling in the state, funding for the prevention and treatment of problem gambling should be tied to the level of the state’s gambling revenue from all sources. 5. “Quick fixes” through new gambling revenue are short lived and counterproductive The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, under the heading “Uncertain Benefits, Hidden Costs”, draws the conclusion that “…there is growing evidence that state-sponsored gambling is both inequitable and inadequate as a long-term revenue source—and that the associated social costs of encouraging destructive gambling behavior may offset much of the revenue gains enjoyed by states in the short run. States that use gambling revenues as a ‘quick fix’ to avoid politically difficult structural tax reforms in the short run will likely be forced to confront the same difficult tax policy decisions in the future.” 6. It is ironic that the planned cut on July 1, 2009 of $700,000 from Problem Gambling Services’ budget is equal to the $700,000 the state recently spent on the study “The Effects of Legalized Gambling on the Citizens of the State of Connecticut” The long delay by the legislature in appropriating funds to conduct the study and the inability of the state to release the findings of this study in the 2009 legislative session (as committed to by the state), demonstrates how low a priority the study is for the state. The most blatant current evidence for this statement is Governor Rell’s unwillingness to wait for the results of this study (paid for by tax payer dollars) before proposing the expansion of gambling! There appears to be little hope that the state will respond to any of the recommendations in the study once the results are known, as has been the case in the past when the results of similar studies were released. Unless the findings of the current study are utilized for short and long term planning, the $700,000 would have been better used to bolster Problem Gambling Services’ programs. 7. Need for a planning process related to the current state study The CCPG offers a logical and responsible sequence of events that should occur regarding the state study: a) The results of the study should have been released before the end of the legislative session. b) A broad based Commission of stakeholders and experts should be appointed to thoroughly review the study and gather additional information if appropriate, e.g., by holding a hearing. c) The Commission should be charged with providing a report containing recommendations to be delivered on a specific date prior to the next legislative session. d) Gambling related bills proposed in the 2010 legislative session should be guided by the Commission’s Report. It is not too late for the legislature to reject the Governor’s keno proposal and to adopt steps b, c and d. It is also not too late to restore the $700,000 reduction in the budget of Problem Gambling Services in order to avoid a major disruption in treatment services for problem gamblers and their families and in programs for the prevention of problem gambling and underage gambling. © Copyright by ConnecticutPlus.com. Some articles and pictures posted on our website, as indicated by their bylines, were submitted as press releases and do not necessarily reflect the position and opinion of ConnecticutPlus.com, Canaiden LLC or any of its associated entities. Articles may have been edited for brevity and grammar. CURRENT HEADLINES:
Top of Page
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
