The Presidential race just got personal

On Friday, January 3, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne rejected requests by the St. Regis Mohawks and the Stockbridge-Munsees to take land in Sullivan County into trust for the purpose of establishing gambling casinos. The reason cited was that the land sought was too distant from the tribes’ reservations.

This means that the future of casinos in Sullivan County rests on the identity of the next President, and his or her Secretary of the Interior.

We are no fans of the Bush administration, which seems to specialize in shortsighted, narrow-minded decisions that favor quick money for an elite few at the expense of larger and longer-term social, environmental and economic prospects. But in this case, we think Bush appointee Kempthorne got it right, while normally progressive representatives like Congressman Maurice Hinchey, Senators Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer and Governor Eliot Spitzer have championed a shortsighted, narrow-minded, regressive fix.

The preponderance of evidence suggests that the economic benefits of casinos are minimal for most of the surrounding community, while the costs in terms of rising crime, addiction and environmental degradation are real and deadly. Most of the jobs created can be expected to be low paying and dead end. Meanwhile, burdens on physical infrastructure, human services and the legal system will rise, while the payments in lieu of taxes that should help support these extra expenses, because not indexed to inflation, will dwindle to insignificance. And the environmental costs with respect to watershed, viewshed, air, light and noise pollution, which would be noxious in any location, are especially damaging to an area most of whose existing businesses trade on the region’s beauty.

Contrast this economic “solution” with others that have gained momentum over the past couple of years, like green industry or an agricultural park to leverage and enhance our existing farm resources. Those solutions take account of 21st-century conditions and trends—the need to arrest climate change and an increasingly stretched food supply—and aim to make the most of them, to create long-lasting, high-paying jobs that can keep pace with the progress of the century.

And yet, it seems that not only among our existing representatives, but among presidential candidates, the progressives are actually less likely to block casinos than their opponents.

Rudy Giuliani is the only viable Republican candidate who would most likely facilitate casinos in Sullivan: as mayor of New York City, he actually considered opening casinos in that city. John McCain has a long history of opposition to off-reservation gambling. Mike Huckabee told the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling that he would instruct his Secretary of the Interior to reject efforts by Indian tribes to build off-reservation casinos. And though Mitt Romney did some (typical) hemming and hawing on the issue as governor of Massachusetts, at the end of the day he rejected proposals to legalize gambling in the state, on the grounds that the costs would outweigh the benefits.

On the Democratic side, Clinton is on record as favoring gambling casinos to promote jobs and economic growth. Barack Obama fought the expansion of gambling in Illinois, but appears to have softened his stance as a presidential candidate, at least with regard to gambling in Nevada (which just happens to have one of the early primaries). He explains the difference by saying that he doesn’t mind gambling as long as it’s regulated properly. Maybe he’s willing to look Eliot Spitzer in the eye and tell him New York can’t regulate gaming properly, while Nevada can. But his position is murky at best. Calls to his campaign for elucidation were not returned. Calls to John Edwards’ campaign were also not returned, and we could not find any records of his position on the subject.

We don’t believe in one-issue voting on anything, including casinos. But there is no question that one of the outcomes directly at stake in this presidential election is whether or not casinos come to Sullivan County. Now, with a primary coming up in a couple of weeks, might be a good time to remind the progressives what they’re supposed to stand for. Pick up your pens, your keyboards and your phones and let them know what you think.

Also in this issue:

• FFMP: the devil’s in the details

Dr. Punnybone

Ballet High