Just one question: Who said this?

"Taxing the poor through casinos is cynical and cowardly"

A: The Massachusetts Council of Churches

B: The Amherst Democratic Town Committee

C: The Boston Business Journal

D: Some Lefty Blogger (like me.)

Correct answer at the bottom of this post!

If you guessed the correct answer -- you are the winner in the FrederickClarkson.com Sweepstakes! And unlike Governor Deval Patrick's casino gambling proposal, what you get is nothing but satisfaction. The FrederickClarkson.com Sweepstakes has no history of causing addictive behaviors; bankrupsies; divorses -- and has no known ties to organized crime!

The Boston Business Journal argues that we should all be responsible for fixing our roads and bridges rather than trying to scam the poor and the vulnerable. But beyond the social costs, the Journal also thinks it's bad business -- and bad for business.

As a matter of economic policy, expanded gambling is a non-starter. The commonwealth stands to skim $600 million off the top in licensing fees, one-time revenue that quickly becomes lost when it gets absorbed into $26.8 billion budget. Then it expects $400 million per year in additional tax revenue. But has anyone counted the taxes it won't take in when $1.5 billion -- the amount gamblers will need to spend in the state annually to raise the tax expected tax revenues -- is sucked out of the local economy?

One of the fundamental fallacies of the casino revenue scheme is that casinos generate new money that falls out of the sky. No, most of this money simply won't be spent elsewhere in Massachusetts. Perhaps $500 million will be redirected from Connecticut casinos. The rest is money Massachusetts residents will plunk into the pockets of casino operators and won't spend on other things: meals, clothes, vacations, toys. Lawmakers should ask for a reasonable estimate of what the impact of squeezing more from Massachusetts gamblers will have on the income and sales tax figures.

The correct answer is "C".