Last modified: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:28 AM EDT NESI: Slots not worth gamble for state It's D-Day for the state's casino enthusiasts, as hearings get under way this morning that will likely decide the fate of Gov. Patrick's big gambling proposal. Of course, the real battle has been going on for weeks, with Patrick and his fellow Democrat, House Speaker Sal DiMasi, lobbying backbenchers while lobbing verbal grenades at each other. It's getting to the point where you expect to see the two men draw pistols and duel on the steps of the Statehouse. You see, this isn't about gambling anymore. This is all about Deval vs. Sal. It's South Side vs. North End, grassroots vs. backrooms, liberal vs. - er, liberal. (This is Massachusetts, after all.) As Joan Vennochi put it in The Globe, "From DiMasi's perspective, this is no longer a simple vote on casinos. This is personal. It's about DiMasi's honor, dignity, and integrity." The problem is, as happens all too often in politics, the Patrick-DiMasi sideshow is shifting the focus from policies to personalities. Forget Sal. Forget Deval. Plain and simple, this is about whether or not we turn Massachusetts into a gambling mecca. Casinos are different from, say, biotech. Lots of people say they want Massachusetts to be a leader in the biotech industry. Nobody says they want Massachusetts to be a leader in the casino industry. They just want the tax revenue that comes with it. Patrick is proposing that the casinos get taxed at 27 percent of their revenue, which would give Massachusetts one of the highest gambling tax rates in the country. But the casino industry's moguls haven't gotten rich by becoming ATMs for state treasuries - and you can bet they'll be looking to lower their tax bills as soon as possible. Indeed, the groundwork for doing so was already being laid last week, in the much-ballyhooed pro-casino report from the Boston Chamber of Commerce. "This higher gaming tax means that fewer funds will be available to the casino operator to support capital investment, marketing, and the requirements that the proposed legislation mandates," the report warns. "While a high gaming tax can enhance state revenues, it may conflict with other objectives of the proposal such as job creation and the sustainable economic health of the operators." Translation: The casinos are going to push for a tax cut faster than you can say Foxwoods. The easiest way to do that will be to play the states off each other. Connecticut's casino tax rate is only 17.5 percent, according to the report, while Rhode Island's is a whopping 60 percent. State legislators, desperate to hit the tax jackpot, will be pushed into a bidding war, with terms set by the lowest-taxing state - a bit like communities fighting for new box stores by offering ever-bigger tax breaks. And that's before New Hampshire opens its own doors to casinos, as lawmakers there are considering if we do. At the same time, there's evidence that the market for gambling in New England is cooling. Even before Patrick's three resort casinos are up and running, revenue is dropping at Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun, and Twin River. "We're getting an indication of market saturation," says casino expert Arthur Wright at the University of Connecticut. And, as The Globe's Steve Bailey points out, the windfall predicted by casino proponents depends on Massachusetts residents more than doubling their annual gambling losses, from a current average of $290 per adult to over $600. Where will that money come from? After all, people aren't hoarding cash for the day the casinos come to town. No, it will be money that would have been spent at businesses that are already here - local restaurants, pubs, and other destinations that vie for residents' entertainment dollars. Then there is the argument that we have to approve Patrick's casino plan because tribal casinos are "inevitable" now that the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe has federal status and an agreement with the town of Middleboro. But that ignores a basic fact: Even if the tribe did open a casino, it could only offer the types of gambling legal under state law - and Class III "Vegas-style" slot machines are illegal in Massachusetts. Since Class III slots make up 70 to 80 percent of a casino's revenues, developers aren't going to invest their money in a place that doesn't allow them. And, of course, all of this doesn't even touch on the social costs that would come with expanded gambling. Casinos are not the answer to the state's problems. The House will do us all a favor by putting that idea to rest once and for all. TED NESI is a Sun Chronicle staff writer. His column appears on Tuesdays. He can be reached at tnesi@thesunchronicle.com.