BCT Editorial – 12/3/06

This page was last updated on December 3, 2006.

More, please; Editorial; Beaver County Times; December 3, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“If gambling in Pennsylvania is expanded, revenues should be used on infrastructure

“Legalized slots aren’t up and running full steam, yet a high-ranking state official already is pulling an Oliver Twist.

“State Rep. H. William DeWeese, who is expected to become speaker of the House in January, wants more gambling revenue. That’s why he is drafting a bill to legalize poker, blackjack and other table games at Pennsylvania’s gambling halls.”

[RWC] The Times is nearly two years behind in reporting this. You see, Messrs. DeWeese and Mike Veon issued a press release on February 1, 2005, saying they planned “to introduce legislation allowing expanded gam[bl]ing opportunities in Pennsylvania.” I don’t know if the DeWeese/Veon bill was ever introduced.

To the Times credit, the editorial referred to “gambling,” not “gaming.” Gambling proponents have themselves convinced people don’t understand “gaming” really means gambling.

“Considering that Pennsylvania is just starting to receive revenues from the first of the slots parlors, DeWeese seems to be premature in his push to expand gambling.

“Even Gov. Ed Rendell, a major slots proponent, isn’t ready to plunge in after DeWeese. According to The Associated Press, a spokeswoman for the governor said he believes ‘there is not an appetite’ to expand gambling beyond slots.

“In addition to that, the Democratic caucus, which can be characterized as pro-gambling, isn’t united on the ways in which gambling might be expanded.”

[RWC] Wow, another “atta boy” for the Times. Democrats won’t be happy they’ve been labeled “pro-gambling.” After all, everyone knows Democrats are pro-gaming. <g>

“Don’t count DeWeese out, though. He has a point in arguing that the time for Pennsylvania to expand is now, before slots competitors like Delaware and West Virginia extend legalized gambling to include poker, blackjack and other tables games.

“So don’t be surprised if some form of expanded gambling doesn’t receive serious consideration down the line.

“But the proposal will come with a serious flaw. DeWeese wants to expand gambling to generate more money for property tax relief.

“Wasting revenue in this way would be a huge mistake.

“To start with, property taxes in Pennsylvania are not onerous. The only reason they draw the attention they do from lawmakers is that they often are the only taxes that many senior citizens pay. Pennsylvania’s 3.07 percent income tax is not levied against Social Security or pensions. The same holds for the 1 percent earned income tax that municipalities and school districts can impose. The 6 percent sales tax (7 percent in Allegheny County) is relatively insignificant because it does not include food, clothing and drugs.

“In addition to the property tax relief from slots revenue, many senior citizens also benefit enormously from the state lottery via PACE and PACENET, which make prescription drugs affordable for millions of low- and moderate-income seniors; or through rent or property tax rebates and subsidized public transportation.

“We’re not endorsing expansion. However, instead of trying to buy votes for the next election, lawmakers should use whatever revenues come from table games (if approved) to address the state’s massive infrastructure needs.”

[RWC] As a reminder, the November 20^th editorial “Misplaced” lobbied for slots tax revenue to be used for this purpose.

“Roads, bridges and mass transit surely need the help. A transportation commission study issued in mid-November said the state needs to spend $1.7 billion to improve its highways and bridges and to fund mass-transit systems. The state also must spend billions more in the very near future to upgrade and expand water and wastewater systems.

“No one wants to raise taxes to pay for these things. If gambling is expanded, let’s use its revenues to address these urgent needs instead of wasting them on a politically expedient one.”

[RWC] Why not just cut extraconstitutional spending and require “mass-transit systems” to be funded solely by rider fares? In addition, many of the infrastructure responsibilities are local, not state. State taxpayers should not be forced to pay for local responsibilities.