 Welcome to this edition of Vantage Point. I'm privileged to have as my guest today Bob Steele. Welcome, Bob. Glad to be here. Bob Steele is chairman of Connecticut-based NLC Mutual Insurance Company and has been a director of numerous other companies, including the American Stock Exchange. A graduate of Amherst College and Columbia University, he served in the CIA and Congress and was a nominee for governor of Connecticut. He comes to us today, however, as an author to speak about Connecticut's casino experience in the background to his novel, which is titled The Curse, Big Time Gambling Seduction of a Small New England Town. Bob and his wife Betsy are members of the first congregational church in Essex, so we welcome you, Bob, today. Glad to be here. So, Bob, I have some questions for you about the interest in the news these days about the casinos here in Connecticut. We, as a conference, have been opposed to gambling and the building of casinos for well over 20 years, so I thought it would be good for us to start with the basics. And so I'd like to ask you, how does casino gambling, from your opinion, impact our churches, our neighborhoods? Well, it affects our society in multiple ways. You know, when the casino advocates launch a campaign to try to bring a casino into an area, they always talk about the jobs and they talk about the revenue that is going to go to the state or the municipality. And there's no question there are jobs and there is revenue. They never want to talk about the other side of the picture because there are also costs and those costs actually greatly outweigh any benefits. All of the jobs and all of the revenue that are generated by the casinos are paid for by the losses of gamblers who lose their money. So basically, and economists have spoken to this issue for many, many years, basically what you have is a sterile transfer of money that is lost by customers going to the casinos. The state then takes part of that money. Now you have to look at what exactly what those costs are. They include debt, addiction, broken families, crime, a whole series of problems which are all very costly to our society. In fact, the leading expert on this subject, Professor Earl Grinnells, who is a former senior economist for the Council of Economic Advisers, says that when you factor in all of the costs and all of the benefits, the cost to benefit ratio is over three to one. That is the cost of all these things. Economic costs, social costs, public health costs, outweigh the benefits, the money that is generated by over three to one. That's pretty devastating finding. Certainly is. So for those who may not be following the news as closely as you and I might be following it, what is the current plan for the expansion of casinos in the state of Connecticut? What's the status of that plan? What we have is, as you know, and I think as everybody knows, two of the biggest casinos in the world here in Connecticut now, in southeastern Connecticut. Those casinos are not doing very well lately. And the reason is, is because the Northeast is becoming saturated, indeed oversaturated with casinos. When Foxwood's opened back in 1992, there were only, there were only 12 casinos in the entire Northeast. Today, there are over 57 casinos. And the country is, the whole country, and especially the Northeast, is becoming saturated with casinos. There's a casino glut. And as a result, it's harder and harder for casinos to make money. And that means they've got less money to send to the state. That means they've got fewer jobs. And that's exactly what's happening here. So Connecticut legislators have said, well, since our casino industry is going downhill, we ought to try to prop it up. And one way the casinos want to prop it up is by building still another casino in Connecticut. This would be a so-called convenience casino. That is, it would be meant for basically local people who find it a lot easier to go to the convenience casino than to go down to Foxwood's or Mohegan's son or to go out of state. Especially to go out of state up to Springfield, where of course MGM is in the process of building a new mega casino, a $950 million casino. So to answer your question, the hope by the casinos is that if they build a casino in Hartford or East Windsor or let's say Windsor-Lox, that many people, Connecticut people who want to gamble and who might otherwise go up to Springfield would go to this convenience casino. It would have, and many experts have already opined on this, it would have no impact whatsoever on helping our local economy. But it would, but it would create the same social problems that any casino creates when it attracts customers. And these customers for the most part would be local people. They would be current Connecticut gamblers who are already, as I say, currently gambling, but they would be attracted to gamble much more frequently because it would be much more convenient. Then you would attract all kinds of new people who aren't current gamblers. You would expand the gambling market. So the bottom line would be that it would do nothing for Connecticut's economy. It would create some jobs. It would help the casinos for a year or two, but it would do nothing for the Connecticut economy. And it would further significantly expand casino gambling in Connecticut. So there are, I believe, four communities that the casinos are looking at. And can you tell us what on the ground, Hartford is one of the obviously communities that would be greatly impacted. This convenience casino location, I believe there are four communities that they're considering. Are those going to local referendums where the residents of the community could have a say in whether, you know, that happens in other things that happen in our towns and communities here in Connecticut. Would they be able to have a say in the casino and tell us a little bit more about the details of the process as you see it? Well, that's a critical question and certainly with a development like a casino coming into a community, at the very least local residents should have an opportunity to vote on it and say whether we want a casino in our community. Now, you're right, there are four towns that have expressed an interest. East Hartford, East Windsor, Windsor Locks, plus the airport authority at Windsor Locks and Hartford. We don't know where it's going to go at the present time, but the legislation that has been passed by the legislature has called for, as called for the tribes inviting proposals from interested towns. Those four towns have expressed an interest. In East Hartford, East Hartford has said it will not have a referendum. It says that it's a town charter allows the town council to deal with an issue like this, which of course is ridiculous because people should have, whatever the town charter says, people should have a chance to vote. This is a enormous subject, enormous impact on the community. In East Windsor, what has happened is that the selectmen have said that they will hold a referendum. In Windsor Locks, it's uncertain, but the indications are that they would hold a referendum. In Hartford, Hartford has come into this whole picture so late that that subject has not been discussed yet, but hopefully there would be a referendum in Hartford as well. So there are really two places to deal with whether this happens. One is in the legislature. The legislature is still going to have to vote after the tribes pick a community based on the community's proposal. The legislature is still going to have to vote on whether to actually legalize off-reservation gambling in Connecticut. So that's one place for battle. That's a big issue, that the two casinos are on reservation properties. This would be a precedent setter to build a casino in Connecticut off-site, not in reservation land. That's exactly right, and these would not be Indian casinos per se. They would be corporate entities, the corporation being owned by the tribes, but they would not be Indian casinos. The legislature still has to vote on whether to legalize off-reservation commercial casinos for Connecticut. Then the second step is the legislature has to then actually approve the proposal that the tribe has chosen, and then finally the referendum would have to take place. So there are multiple places to intervene in this process. So you've been an elected official and you have named what are some of the strong negatives for this movement to build another casino. Why do you think politicians are so quick to support this gambling initiative that's going on in the news these days? It's the money. It's the immediate prospect of money. Look, we know the state is in trouble. We know it's in financial trouble. It needs money. It needs a new budget process. It needs to deal, get its financial house in order. So legislators look at this, well, here's an easy way to bring in money, a casino. And they do not look at the other side. They don't take the time. And we now have an enormous amount of research that documents the seriousness of a casino's impact on a society. For example, there are now multiple studies that show that the typical casino gets anywhere between 35 and 50% of its profits from addicted people. That is people who are either pathological gamblers or so-called problem gamblers. I'll just take that another step. So here's where the casino is getting their money. So that means the state government is getting up to 50% of its money from casinos from some of its most vulnerable people in our society, addicted people. They may be addicted when they come into the casino or the casino's playing at the casino may get them addicted. And it's an enormous question and I'll say it's an ethical question. Whether it's appropriate for government to try to squeeze revenue out of vulnerable people who have an addiction, legislators don't think about that. They don't want to think about it. If they start thinking about it, it's impossible to support this. Not only that, but they don't do their research on what is happening now across the country. This is not the end. Just because they build a convenience casino in Hartford or East Windsor, does anybody really think that that's going to lessen the pressure for still more gambling expansion? Let me just tell you quickly about what's happening around the country. Casinos today are basically slot spoilers. 75% of the revenue, 80% of the revenue is coming from slot machines. These have become enormously addictive devices. These are modern computers that are designed and the industry itself will tell you they're designed to, what they call it, is maximize time on device. And there's a brilliant MIT professor by the name of Natasha Scholl who has recently written a book called Addiction by Design who documents this. This is what is being put in these casinos. Now, what is happening is increasingly these machines are moving even off casino premises into neighborhoods, into communities. For example, in Oregon today there are 12,000 video slot machines, the most modern version of slot machines in what are called video delis, slots delis. Illinois has over 21,000 of these machines now outside of casinos. Restaurants, bars, taverns, fraternal clubs. They've got them in something called, oh it's a new business, gaming cafes. They even have them in two flower shops now. They've started to go into flower shops. This is what is happening to our society. And the legislators don't, they don't want to think about it. They don't want to know about it. They don't want to think about it or they haven't had the time to look at it. All they know is what the casinos say, the casinos say they're going to bring in jobs, the casinos are going to bring in revenue. And the casinos are now a $70 billion industry across the United States. They have enormous economic power. They have the ability to deliver and tell their message over and over and over. What we're trying to do here is say, look, here are a lot of groups who don't think that they're very good idea. How do we combat that? How do we educate people? How do we tell the story of what really happens to a community when a casino comes in? So that's a great segue into my question. We've got people who have, as I said, for 20 years we have been anti-casino, anti-gambling. As a denomination we've made statements about that. We've worked hard to fight casinos being built in the state of Connecticut. So we have a long track record around the economic, social injustice questions that this would raise. What can our members, you're a member of the Essex Church. You just spoke at your church this past Sunday. What can church folks do to have an impact here? What is it that you would encourage us to go out and to do? Well, this is now a raw political fight. I mean, it's just come down to politics. What is going to happen is either in this abbreviated session of the legislature or in the next session of the legislature, it's not clear at this moment. There is going to be a vote in the legislature as to whether or not to legalize commercial casino gambling in Connecticut, just as we discussed. That is a vote that we can have a major impact on. The vote was particularly close in the Senate. In the Senate the vote was only 20 to 16 in favor of setting this whole process in motion. Our goal now has to be to talk to those legislatures, both in the Senate and in the House, about the upcoming vote and try to educate them in any way we possibly can about what they would really be doing at this point. This is going to have no positive impact, economic impact on Connecticut, but it's going to have plenty of negative economic, social, and public health negative impacts. So we've got to talk to these legislators and we've got to sit down and have an honest, open conversation. Say, look, we understand the pressures you're up against. We understand why you may have voted this for this the first time around. But look, you're a smart guy. You're a smart gal. We urge you to read some of this research and to understand the impact. And we think if you do, we think you will not vote to further expand gambling in Connecticut. I think reading our members involved in the process, becoming educated themselves, reading your book, reading your book. Well, I'd love to have them read my book. Why are you so passionate about this issue, Bob? You've written a book on this topic, a really intriguing title. Why are you so passionate about what's driving you for this issue? We all have passions in life. We all have issues that we care about. What's driving you for this one? I represented Eastern Connecticut in Congress. So I knew Eastern Connecticut very well and I knew South Eastern Connecticut very well. I have a real empathy for that area. And after I left Congress, I left Congress to run for governor. I was unsuccessful in my race for governor. And I left politics and my family, my four kids and my wife Betsy and I moved from Vernon where we had lived down to Ledger. And we lived there for the next 21 years, literally on the edge of the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation. And those two experiences, knowing the politics of Connecticut as well as I did and then living in the midst of this subsequent casino explosion really gave me a front row seat for seeing not only all the political machinations that led to the casinos, but seeing firsthand their impact. I wanted to tell this story again, but I wanted to tell it in a way that I hoped would allow me to get to a much larger audience. And I thought that if I could write an exciting story, everybody loves a story, a good story. If I could write an exciting story, a riveting story that was set against the factual background of what happened. So this is a novel. In the end it's really a Faustian tale about a small quintessential New England town faced with a Faustian dilemma whether or not to accept this enormously seductive offer. And it is. It's enormous. All this money, et cetera, jobs, money, et cetera. Or, on the other hand, try to preserve their character and their values, both personal and social values. And it was that story I wanted to tell. And fortunately the book is now going into its second printing. It's getting reviews from all over the country. I am speaking all over New York and New England. As a matter of fact, I just spoke, as you said, at my congregational church in Essex. I hope I'll have an opportunity to speak at other congregational churches. I'm speaking at churches of other denominations as well. And to me, I think that people understand what this is all about. That we can at least slow and then maybe begin to reverse this inundation of casinos across the country. Well, I want to thank you, Bob, for this wonderful opportunity to be in conversation with you, for your offer to talk to other congregational churches, and for the work that we're going to be doing here in the Connecticut Conference to work to defeat this initiative. Michelle Mewdrick, who is our policy advocate, legislative advocate, is trying to find people who are interested in the topic. I know you're a great resource for that and would love an opportunity for further conversation. I want to say one thing about Michelle. Michelle is a real dynamite. She is. She is terrific. She is devoting way beyond her duty or her job to this issue. And I hope that when she calls, people will respond. Great, great. So thank you again for your time. We're really grateful for your work and for your passion for this topic. And let's hope we can be of influence in the midst of this conversation. Well, thanks to the UCC. Thank you. So I'm grateful for Bob Steele for his book, The Curse, Big Time Gambling Seduction of a Small New England Town. Go out and buy it. He didn't tell me to plug it, but I'm plugging it now. And invite him. You may want to get a group of churches together to have a conversation with Bob and for you as members of the United Church of Christ here in Connecticut to become educated about the issues for this proposal to add yet another casino to our state. Again, we have for over two decades been opposed to this move and we hope you'll join us in that opposition. Godspeed and God Blessing from this edition of Vantage Point.