Expanding the Sin to Collect the $$$

Cincinnati television is saturated with ads regarding Issue No. 3.  Some favor establishing casinos in Cincinnati and Columbus; some oppose.  Regardless, lots of money is being spent!  In Kentucky, there are proposals to permit video gambling at the racetracks.  When the current House Speaker, Greg Stumbo, was Attorney General, he opined that the Kentucky Constitution permitted the Legislature to enact gambling legislation to help the thoroughbred industry and the racetracks.  The republican-controlled Senate has thus far refused to cooperate in passing such a law.  Now, Senate republicans are proposing a vote at the next general election amending the Constitution to permit such gambling, primarily because polls show that no such amendment would pass.

Much of the advertising in Ohio is deceptive.  One ad depicts a bus load of people taking a trip "out of state" to a casino destination and reasoning that, if casinos were allowed at  home, all that money would stay in Ohio.  Another ploy is the creation of jobs, while still another ad says that casinos actually kill jobs.  Who's right?  I don't really know.

What I do wonder is who is putting up the money for these very expensive ads.  I suspect most of it paying for the "pro" ads is coming from out of state;  I have no idea where it's coming from to pay for the "anti" ads.

In the 1960's, the United States had (and probably still has) a huge Airforce base in Guam.  Most of the B-52 bombing raids over Viet Nam were staged from there.  Guam is a U. S. possession.  When the commanding general decided to permit slot machines in the officer and enlisted clubs, during the first week, sales in the commissary (military term for grocery store) dropped $800,000.  That was (and is) a huge amount of money.  The Navy rules did permit slot machines in Navy O and enlisted clubs, but required that the machines return 96 cents of every dollar gambled.  The navy was the smallest service on Okinawa and the O club there was in a quonset hut.  Mixed drinks were $0.15 each and, during happy hour (everyday from 4 to 6:30) they were a nickle.   Steak dinners were $2.50 and lobster was slightly higher.  The slot machines, returning 96% to the gambler, paid the expenses and subsidized the food and drink costs.

The point is that there is phenomenal money involved with gambling.  Those huge hotels in Las Vegas didn't just drop out of the sky.  Casino profits paid for them in a very short time, and the rest is profit.

In Kentucky, any adult is free to gamble.  Poker games are legal if played by a group of friends, all taking the same risk.   The general rule is that gambling is illegal only when the "house" takes a cut.  Exceptions to that general rule are racetracks (pari-mutuel betting) and licensed charitable gaming (bingo games).  In both cases, the gambling is sponsored and the sponsor takes a cut.  The biggest exception is, of course, the "Lottery."

As a rule, I think people should be reasonably free to do what they want; to make the choices they want to make.  That said, both the federal and state governments have always taxed "sin."  There are taxes on cigarettes, liquor, beer, wine and, in Kentucky, gambling on the ponies.  The state of Nevada lives on its taxes derived from Las Vegas and Reno and is joined, more recently, by New Jersey.  These are traditions imbedded in the governmental philosophy of America. 

I guess gambling, smoking and drinking are characterized as "sins" because, as some believe, they are prohibited by the Bible.  More likely these days, it involves the social injury done to self and family from excessive practices involving those things.  Regardless of your viewpoint, there is no doubt that gambling can have a deleterious effect on a parent's ability to provide for his or her children, a husband for his wife, and a debtor for his creditor.  When grocery store sales drop $800,000 because, all of a sudden, slot machines are permitted, that has to say something about misplaced priorities.  And, these sins fall with disproportionate weight on people with limited means.  A wealthy person can afford to lose several hundred dollars a week without affecting lifestyle;  a poor person cannot and he, along with his dependents suffer for it.  Another trusim is, unfortunately, that there are many, many more poor people than rich.

I have a problem with the government, state or federal, initiating or expanding "sin" for the purpose of collecting more revenue.  Other than teen-agers, who do you suppose would favor dropping the legal drinking age in order to collect more money for the government?  What if we allowed children 12 and over to smoke?  These questions are absurd, of course, but the effects of gambling can be just as devasting and all of the effort to legalize casinos and add slots to racetracks clearly are aimed at starting or expanding gambling.

In the final analysis, government-permitted and sponsored gambling (the Lottery for schools) are just an exercise in the abdication of responsibility of legislators who will do anything to get re-elected and, thus, anything to avoid raising taxes.  Under our system, government operates no program, provides no benefit, nor spends any money unless approved by the legislators we elect.  It is their responsibility to raise the money to pay the cost; and, in my opinion, increasing the "sin" is a damned poor way of doing it.