The incumbent State Representative whom I am challenging in the 4th Berkshire District, William “Smitty” Pignatelli (D) – joined five other members of the Economic Development Committee in not casting a vote either FOR or AGAINST the casino bill today, according to the State House News Service. The 12-2-5-1 vote advances the bill with a “favorable recommendation” from the committee.
I am against casinos. So is the Berkshire Eagle, according to an editorial today:
http://www.berkshireeagle.com/…
I would have voted against the bill. I look forward to hearing my opponent’s reason for being mum on this issue when votes were cast today.
Why was Pignatelli mum? Casinos are job-killers.
State House News reported on April 5, 2010 that Rep. William “Smitty” Pignatelli cast neither a YEA nor a NAY vote on a casino bill in the Economic Development Committee. He was joined by five other members who either did not vote at all or voted “Reserved Rights.” The bill now advances into legislative deliberations with a favorable committee recommendation.
As I posted on Green Mass Group* on the same evening, I am against casino gambling and would have voted NAY on this bill. I expect there are many voters in the 4th Berkshire District like me who desire to know why our representative voted the way he did.
Casinos are job-killers, the opposite of what the lobbyists claim, because the profits of these predatory businesses are pocketed outside of the community.
In order to be profitable casinos must cater to the addicts and to the people who can least afford the losses. From a public policy standpoint, relying on the tax revenue of casino profits is to further shift the tax burden in a regressive direction. Regressive tax policies need to be reversed, not enhanced. Yet casino development will only make this situation worse, not to mention the other social costs that are well-documented.
Voters in the 4th Berkshire District have a choice this year.
In the Governor’s race, Dr. Jill Stein joins me on the Green-Rainbow ticket in firmly opposing casino gambling. The Democratic incumbent, the two Republican challengers, and the Independent candidate will limit debate to what kind of casino should be allowed. Voters deserve a full debate on whether the Commonwealth should allow outside money to develop casinos at all. I believe most will ultimately agree with Dr. Stein and me that Massachusetts should not.
#
The Berkshire Eagle quoted parts of my statement in an article it published on April 7. Because of my position, the incumbent whom I’m challenging was questioned as to his apparent waffling position.
People have been thanking me all week for raising my voice. It is important and impactful to challenge established power.
Much has been said about Ellen Story, the Amherst Democrat who had been a casino opponent for 17 years until she voted in favor of the bill this week. She stated that a NO vote would have been symbolic and meaningless because it was going to pass. So she voted YES. She was worried about internal consequences for voting against the House Speaker. It is too bad that there is no Green-Rainbow challenger to her seat. She might have voted NO, as my incumbent eventually did.