Print This Post Print This Post

Jan

9

The Seduction of Governor Ted Strickland


Read it and weep, well, depending on your position on gambling:

“I can tell you if our economy was robust and growing and we were seeing job development occur without having expanded gambling in Ohio, that would be my preference,” [Ohio Governor and Democrat and minister and mental health professional, Ted] Strickland said.

“But I am trying to be a realist and understand that the circumstances that we are facing I believe are unprecedented.”

He might be calling himself a realist, but it’s Republican Senate President Bill Harris who is going to make this issue and change in Strickland’s position play political:

Another influential state leader and gambling opponent, Republican Senate President Bill Harris of Ashland, also softened his stance Thursday. Harris and Strickland both said in interviews that they still frown on the idea of casinos in Ohio but would consider legalizing more gambling here to bring in new revenue to deal with an expected $7 billion hole in the state budget over the next two years.

…

But Harris said if Strickland wants a conversation about expanded gambling, the governor’s office, not the Senate, will have to take the lead.

“It is not going to come from our chamber,” Harris said. “But I want to be clear that I have some members who have supported passing gambling legislation in the past, and so we would listen to anything the governor proposes.”

But, Harris said, “It is his call.” [emphasis mine above]

You betcha – can you imagine what the conservatives in Ohio would do if Harris outright proposed and pushed a gambling initiative as a way to save the economy?

Strickland’s movement should not surprise anyone. He made his feelings about supporting or not supporting gambling clear (as mud, but clear nonetheless), three years ago.

Here is the exact transcript of what he said during his March 19, 2006 Democratic primary debate with opponent Bryan Flannery, hosted by Meet the Bloggers:

[the context of my one word question, "Casinos," is that we were doing a free association/lightening round kind of thing to elicit answers]:

Jill Miller Zimon: Ok. Casinos.

Ted Strickland: Do you want me to go first, Bryan?

Bryan Flannery: I can go, if you want.

Tim Russo: Nobody wants to touch that one!

Ted Strickland: It is a question that I get frequently. I don’t believe that casino gambling represents the future economic… Ohio’s economic future. I approach this matter, not from a moralistic point of view. You know some people see gambling as sinful or not sinful. I am fairly libertarian in the way adults can choose to spend their recreational dollars, but I am also aware of the detrimental effects that casino gambling brings to a community or to a state. So I am not a candidate for Governor who is enthusiastic about casino gambling.

Tim Russo: Would you support legalized casino gambling in this state in any way?

Ted Strickland: I would not be an advocate for it. If it appeared on the ballot and the people voted for it, I wouldn’t have the capacity to veto that. So I believe that’s the only way that casino gambling could become a reality in Ohio, if I were Governor, for the people to say we want it through an initiative.

Now, that stance has gotten massaged plenty since then, but Strickland’s position has mostly stayed the same.

Until today’s article, quoted at the top of this blog post.

Strickland has some strong backing: Chancellor of Higher Education, Eric Fingerhut, supported Issue 3, the Ohio Learn and Earn initiative.  Put that next to the fact that, this week, we heard that, despite the Ohio budget crunch, higher education is not getting a bum rap.  How can that be? I don’t know precisely, but you can bet that if Strickland is going along with the “need it for the economics” argument for casinos, it’s got a lot to do with a tie-in to education.

We’ve been down this road before – you, me and Ohio.  Ed Morrison extensively covered the blue smoke and mirrors of perceived economic benefits of gambling – you can read all of it here.

I’ll conclude with this short anecdote:

When I was pregnant with my third child and telecommuting as an independent contractor with Bellefaire JCB, doing in-service training, contract review, case triage and other legal work, the folks there were trying to figure out how to replace me – that is, how to cover the work that I did.  And we talked about still retaining me on a case by case hourly basis as issues came up and they wanted to consult with me, particularly on cases that I’d already worked on or was in the middle of working on.

And, knowing what my colleagues in the legal profession were, by then, earning, and knowing that I had a second professional degree and license, and knowing that I was pretty much the only person anywhere doing what I was doing for a place that did what Bellefaire does, and that I now had two school-aged kids and was about to have a newborn, I knew that the value of my time had increased exponentially.

And so, when I told them what I would cost, per hour, I told them honestly, but knew it would sound exorbitant.  The actual number is irrelevant because this is almost ten years ago.  But regardless, my number was of course met with silence and in fact it turned out to be the deterrent I really had intended it to be: for me to work, given the life circumstances I was facing, whomever wanted my services was going to have to pay for them, dearly, because my time had become that valuable a commodity.  So, to get me – and my time, I had to get a helluvah lot in return.

My advice to Governor Ted Strickland, and all the individuals who think they are going to get some kind of casino legislation passed, especially with newly installed Democratic House Speaker Armond Budish also coming out on the record today as being in a position to approve gambling:

Armond Budish, the speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, weighed in by telling the paper, “I have no inherent opposition to gambling by any means. And we’re sending the money out of state anyway.”

is to:

1. Figure out how you, Gov. Strickland, are going to present and persuade that fungible middle, the Ohio independent and conservative voters who trusted you and put you in office, to accept the equation, whatever it turns out to be, that you are going to settling for – and take that into account first as you figure out what the equation actually should look like; so, for example:

2. make sure the equation includes the state getting every G-damn last effing PENNY POSSIBLE upfront, in cash, now and for the state to invest, NOW (did I say, NOW!?)…

3. In legislation and NOT a constitutional amendment…

4. AND NOT in the form of some amorphous accounts based on birth in Ohio to Ohioans etc.

5. Go read and print out the %&# 57 Reasons to Vote No on Issue 3 (the link to all the reasons is at the end of that post) and get the %&$^% thing done RIGHT, BY LEGISLATION, and

6. Do NOT NOT NOT make this deal even one single solitary Sweet and Low grain sweeter than it has to be for the for-profit money making already wealthy gambling-powered corporations and associated special interests than it has to be.

7. You get money committed UPFRONT for mental health services related to gambling addiction (here’s a fun story about a person committing suicide at a Detroit casino in 2000).

8. You place any and all restrictions necessary to keep the people who’ve already lost everything through subprime mortgages and foreclosure and payday lending from further descending into hell and taxing the state for more losses they incur.

9. Read about Detroit’s casinos going into bankruptcy in 2008 – you know, not to mention the residents of Detroit and Michigan.

10. Read about Nevada casinos rolling snake eyes in bad economy: Governor Strickland, you have a choice here to make about who you want to help and how you want to help them. From the article:

It appears that weathering the tough economy is enough of a gamble for most Americans. Casinos, lottery agencies and racetracks are losing tons of money as gamblers play it safe, laying to rest once and for all the old nostrum that gambling is a recession-proof industry.

The Nevada Gaming Control Board reported last week that revenue at the state’s casinos fell by 22 percent in October, compared with the same month last year. It was the 10th straight monthly decline — and the biggest ever. The story was even worse on the Las Vegas Strip, where the October take was down by 26 percent. The steep downturn has sparked a movement to lower the legal gambling age to 18.

“The steep downturn has sparked a movement to lower the legal gambling age to 18.”

That idea alone should be viewed as backward and vile to a governor who keeps pointing his state’s residents in the direction of education and employment as the way to better economic times for Ohio.

11. Remember what happened when Atlantic City had to shutdown in 2006.

I’m sure I’m going to think of more promises and guarantees and sweeteners that I’d DEMAND before I’d even consider, as a governor who is on the record as being opposed to gambling pretty much his entire career, giving one nano-millimeter of ground to the casino industry.  But for now, I’ll let the libertarians come in and talk about their perceived right to spend their money and life anyway they want and how so few people really abuse gambling and how all the states around us get to do it, why should we keep watching the money walk and bla bla bla.  Go – go – go have at it. We’ve been through this before and again, I can’t imagine what kind of deal it would take for me to ever be able to agree to a casino deal for Ohio, but you know, if we’re talking, I want it all.

And remember: When you make a deal with the devil, you don’t get to pick the dance.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:44 am January 9th, 2009 in Politics 

Comments

11 Responses to “The Seduction of Governor Ted Strickland”

  1. 1 Cheri on January 9th, 2009 12:02 pm

    Sigh. Ted, please, please do not drive down this road. Please. Nothing is worth it.

    For cripes’ sake, our neighboring states (MI, PA, NY) who have these aren’t finding the proverbial pot o’ gold – stats not at fingers, but I’ve seen them. Short-term gain (and that’s a big maybe),long-term pain.

    Very, very well said, Jill.

  2. 2 Jill Miller Zimon on January 9th, 2009 12:10 pm

    Thanks, Cheri. I know that, among many Democrats and people who consider themselves left of center, this is a very unpopular position – mine, that is. Likewise, Libertarians LOVE to promote gambling. And I did always love how former Republican Ohio SOS and now RNC chair wannebee Ken Blackwell had casino industry stock in his portfolio when he was running for governor in 2006.

    But I mean every word of what I said. It will be interesting to watch this develop.

  3. 3 Cheri on January 9th, 2009 12:53 pm

    Jill, your position is mine too – and I suspect that we are not as much of a minority as you might think. Many in the UCC (my former church) feel the same way – and the general political positions in that church span the moderate to very liberal range.

    Yes, it will be interesting to watch, although I am getting more than a little tired of this show.

    If Voinovich does retire from his Senate seat, it might be interesting to see how this would affect the possible new push toward casinos

  4. 4 Daniel Jack Williamson on January 9th, 2009 2:24 pm

    Thanks, Jill, for airing this dirty laundry. The voters have said no to every gambling proposal, and yet the politicians have absolutely no discipline. We have such short-sighted leaders in Washington, in Columbus, and in our various county seats and municipalities that want to be in positions of power to call the shots, yet have no sense of economic principles whatsoever. The Columbus politicians who are striking this tone are only concerned about revenue flows to the state government. They are not concerned at about the overall economy and what gambling does to it. They just want more $$$$ to flow into the government coffers. They’d probably legalize cocaine if the Medellin cartels would let Columbus skim some cash off the top of every single transaction. The government has dipped their hands into almost everything it can dip its hands into in an effort to obtain revenue, but after a such a lengthy sustained shakedown of virtually all economic activity, our state’s economy is so stagnant (predictably so) that these politicians are discarding any potential scruples they once pretended to have in their desperate search to grab more cash from somewhere. Pathetic, pitiful, disgusting, wretched . . . I run out of adjectives to describe the weasels in our state capitol.

  5. 5 Anastasia P on January 9th, 2009 3:59 pm

    What’s saddest to me about this new mating dance with gambling is that it shows a desperation born of lack of imagination about what Ohio COULD be and how. Gambling is another glittering-bauble quick fix frequently offered by those who don’t want to do the hard work of fixing the structural problems in the state economy, starting with things like education, college affordablity, too many people in prison, lack of health care etc. It’s a throwing up of the hands and saying “You know, we really don’t have any good ideas,” or “The good ideas are too much work.”

    Look, unlike you, Jill, I’m a gambling agnostic. I just don’t care. It doesn’t interest me. What I DO object to is gambling being presented as some sort of economic panacea. I was repulsed by the commercials run by the MyOhioNow casino folks this last election with the young woman desperately pleading with voters to vote for it because she could get a (probably) minimum-wage, no-future, unskilled job out of it and it was her only hope for the future. !!!! Every time I saw that ad, my jaw dropped. THAT was her only vision of her future? Not an education for something besides being a casino waitress? I found selling the project that way to be repellently cynical.

    The other main objection I’ve had to the two recent casino initiatives is one you mentioned; trying to embed business deals, written by the gambling casino promoters and structured to benefit primarily themselves, into our constitution. I have no moral objection to repealing the constitutional ban on gambling although the voters of Ohio have repeatedly said they’re not interested. And that’s fine by me too. I’m just tired of these dreadful schemes that attempt to circumvent Ohioans’ queasiness about gambling.

    I hope that Ted doesn’t pursue this too vigorously or it would fill me with dread that he had decided that Ohio’s economy is beyond real, lasting fixes.

    Hope things are going well with you and your family, Jill, and have a good New Year!

  6. 6 Jill Miller Zimon on January 9th, 2009 4:02 pm

    Daniel – I don’t interpret or feel precisely the same way you do re: the motivations etc.

    For example, I don’t take issue as much for wanting to produce revenue for the state as I do with the concern over the power of the gambling industry lobby. I want complete transparency on the part of the legislature and Strickland as far as what such a deal would look like. The provision for oversight in OLE was pretty much nonexistent – that’s obviously unacceptable.

    Anyway – I oppose the gambling for reasons that have little to do with not wanting the state to increase its receipts – that’s fine with me. My issue is that gambling is an industry I oppose, per se. So there in lies the problem for me.

  7. 7 Jill Miller Zimon on January 9th, 2009 4:10 pm

    Anastasia –
    You really stated the objections perfectly – really perfectly. And, as you point out, I would only add on that, for myself – not something you share – that also just don’t like gambling with money – it’s not entertainment or pleasurable to me so I don’t care that it’s not available and I don’t see it as a “right” the way free speech is viewed as a right.

    But I absolutely share all the other things you say about the problems, the dealmaking, the appeals that are false etc. AND…the significance that, if Strickland is supportive of using gambling in this way, he’s basically giving up and giving in.

    And where in the world can the state possibly go from there? Blech.

    I’m good, thank you!! :) I hope you are too.

  8. 8 peter on January 9th, 2009 6:01 pm

    The thing I hate most about gambling is that it’s a regressive tax. Who pays the money that Ohio casinos would generate for the state? It sure isn’t the people most able to bear the burden of providing that revenue.

    It’s a great deal for the Casinos, though. They CAN’T lose. Wherever they operate, the game is by its very definition rigged so they take no risk of losing money.

  9. 9 Daniel Jack Williamson on January 10th, 2009 9:41 am

    Oh, yes, you do agree with me, Jill. It says so right in the title of your post: “The Seduction of Governor Ted Strickland.”

    You’ve said he’s being seduced. What’s he being seduced by? What’s so seductive?

    Those lobbying the governor are whispering in his ear that allowing casinos generate an instant infusion of cash so that he can balance the state budget. Never mind that it’s short-sighted. Never mind that it doesn’t help the economy in the long run. Governor Strickland is potentially facing deep budget cuts unless he gets a windfall from somewhere. He knows the rainy day fund, if tapped, could be exhausted in no time, while the end of the economic downturn is nowhere in sight. The quick infusion of cash into state coffers is the siren song that’s seducing him.

    He’s being seduced by Libertarian persuasion? No. That’s just a smokescreen. There’ve been no truly Libertarian gambling proposals ever put before Ohio voters, and none are on the drawing board, even now. Truly Libertarian proposals would be free-market proposals that don’t artificially limit competition or limit casino ownership to a well-connected few. There’s not enough Libertarian appeal in any of these proposals to seduce Strickland on that basis. So though he claims to be fairly libertarian, that’s just Ted Strickland trying to give himself more political cover for being squishy on the issue. It wouldn’t be very appealing to voters who’ve quashed casino initiative after casino initiative for Strickland to forthrightly say, “I want to legalize casinos so the state government can get a quick infusion of cash.” That just wouldn’t fly.

    Being seduced by the jobs casinos would create? That’s a smokescreen, too. We both know the fallacy propagated by the gambling industry in this regard. There’s just no truth to it. That’s not what’s seducing Ted Strickland. I don’t think he’s dumb enough to actually believe such a claim. I think, again, he repeats this hogwash to give himself political cover. Portraying himself as being pro-jobs is a great way to massage the message, from a PR standpoint.

    Casinos would stimulate the Ohio economy? That’s just a mirage. The wolves of the casino industry would prey upon the Ohio economy, thinning out a herd that’s already struggling to sustain itself. That’s not the siren song Ted Strickland is hearing.

    Frankly, I’m so dead set against gambling, that if I were given a forced choice between raising taxes and legalizing casinos because the state was dead set on increasing its revenues, I’d raise taxes. Ohio voters want neither of those choices, but many of our politicians would like to do both. So the politicians are looking for some way to spin their unpopular positions in a way that makes them more palatable to voters so that they can do what they want to do, yet still get re-elected.

    Besides the quick infusion of cash into state coffers, helping Strickland balance his budget, the only other seduction I can think of that’s powerful enough to seduce Strickland is if he’s going to get a hefty PAC donation to his re-election campaign fund by switching his stance on gambling. There isn’t any evidence of that, yet, and it’s not implied anywhere in your blog entry, either.

    The instant revenue (even though it’s unlikely that it could be sustained for long) that the state government could potentially receive from gambling expansion, though, lies beneath the surface of everything you’ve written in your blog entry, and ties it all together. Point number two is even printed in bold-face type. I think you really do agree with me.

  10. 10 Jason Sonenshein on January 10th, 2009 4:45 pm

    “That idea alone [an 18-year minimum gaming age] should be viewed as backward and vile…”

    I don’t see why. The minimum age to bet on horse races or the lottery in Ohio is already 18 years. If an 18-year-old is old enough to lose 18% of his or her total wagers on a horse race or 50% of his or her total wagers on the lottery, then it would seem that an 18-year-old is old enough to lose less than 1% of his or her total wagers on a game of cards or dice.

  11. 11 Ohio House Speaker Budish: “I’m for sale!” « Buckeye RINO on January 11th, 2009 12:15 pm

    [...] If you want to read more on Strickland and gambling, check out Writes Like She Talks, with this article, this one, and also this [...]

Leave a Reply




"));