Local Representatives Target Young for Gambling

This page was last updated on February 3, 2005.

Expanded gaming focus of DeWeese/Veon bill; Commonwealth Reps. H. William DeWeese (D-50) and Mike Veon (D-14); February 1, 2005.

This “news release” reads a lot more like a marketing brochure for the American Gam(bl)ing Association (AGA) than a news release intended to present a balanced view to voters. You’ll learn why below.

In the interest of disclosure, I don’t oppose gambling though I rarely gamble myself. I purchase lottery tickets a lot less often than once in a blue moon and I believe I’ve been to a racetrack no more than five times during my entire life. I’ve never been in a casino and I’ve never played a slot machine.

Despite my critique of the ~~marketing brochure~~ news release, I support legalized gambling and believe it should be treated as any other legal business. In general, I believe a person should be able to spend his money on whatever he wants without government interference.

Here is where I get “wound up” with politicians who support gambling. Do they believe gambling is morally and/or socially “good” or “bad?” If good, why limit casino and slot machine locations and numbers and place usury-level taxes on their revenue? Are you aware the slot machine license fee is $50 million. Are you aware the tax is 38% of the difference between what was wagered and what was distributed as winnings (“gross terminal revenue”). That’s nearly four times the rate of the corporate net income tax. Actually, it is probably even more because the gambling tax is really a revenue tax, not a “net income” tax. In other words, even if a slot machine licensee manages to lose money, it still owes tons of taxes. Are these burdens you place on businesses you feel good about? If gambling is bad, why make it legal? Does something many people considered “bad” become “good” as long as government gets a huge cut?

If you doubt folks like Messrs. DeWeese and Veon are a tad less than objective on this subject, consider the following. Most of the figures cited in the ~~marketing brochure~~ news release are directly from a survey paid for and published by the American Gam(bl)ing Association entitled 2004 State of the States: The AGA Survey of Casino Entertainment. Nowhere in the ~~marketing brochure~~ news release do Messrs. DeWeese and Veon make this disclosure.

“HARRISBURG, Feb. 1 – Realizing the potential impact of millions of dollars in additional revenue to lower school property taxes and create tens of thousands of jobs, House Democratic Leader H. William DeWeese and Whip Mike Veon plan to introduce legislation allowing expanded gaming opportunities in Pennsylvania.”

[RWC] In true liberalspeak tradition, these representatives referred to “gambling” as “gaming.” Contradicting Shakespeare who wrote in Romeo and Juliet, “That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” gambling proponents appear to believe a name change will sweeten this “rose’s” smell.

“‘The estimated $1 billion in school property tax reductions available through slot machines is just the tip of the iceberg for what we could be providing to taxpayers. The addition of poker tables and roulette wheels will create an even larger revenue source for the highly anticipated property tax cuts. We started with slot machines and now we should complete the job because there is no practical difference between putting $10 in a slot machine and putting $10 on a blackjack or poker table,’ DeWeese said.”

[RWC] Mr. DeWeese could also have stated slot machines were only “the camel’s nose in the tent” or “the first step on a slippery slope.” Oh wait, the commonwealth-run numbers game (a.k.a. the Pennsylvania Lottery) holds that distinction.

“The proposal would permit table games such as poker, blackjack and roulette at the state’s yet-to-be-licensed 14 slots gaming facilities authorized by Act 71 of 2004.

“‘Expanding gaming means more revenue to lower property taxes, more well-paying jobs at casinos and surrounding businesses and more tourism and related economic development dollars. By introducing this legislation, we are looking to start the debate,’ Veon said. ‘We want the appropriate committees -- Tourism and Recreational Development, Finance -- to take a long, hard look at this plan during the 2005-06 session and we think it will be clear that this is a smart investment in Pennsylvania’s future.’”

[RWC] Note that Mr. Veon didn’t cite the source for his economic claims. These specific claims are not in the aforementioned AGA survey, though I would not be surprised to learn they came from another gambling industry source.

Increased gambling “is a smart investment?” For whom other than casino owners and free-spending politicians? I don’t know about you, but my parents never told me gambling would be “a smart investment.” I wonder what Mr. Veon thinks of true smart investments like right-to-work laws, tort reform, eliminating so-called “business taxes,” and eliminating spending on socialist programs.

“Consumer spending at casinos across the country steadily increased every year during the last decade. Since 1993, annual spending rose from $11.2 billion to $27 billion. In fact, Americans spent more in commercial casinos in 2003 than they did on going to amusement parks and the movies combined.

“In Nevada and New Jersey -- the only two states that specifically track poker revenue -- poker players spent $105 million in 2003.

“DeWeese added that poker and other table games attract a different type of customer than slot machines. He said those younger than 40 are the largest segment of poker players.”

[RWC] Translation: “Slot machines won’t extract enough wages from younger working families so we need to find a way to get our hands deeper into their pockets. Why should they save their money for retirement when we can spend it?”

Mr. DeWeese was being modest if you believe the AGA survey. According to the survey, players 21-39 make up 49% of all poker players.

“‘The astounding recent popularity of poker by ESPN, celebrity tournaments, and local fund-raisers is making table games a much more popular form of gaming. Pennsylvania also must stay competitive with our neighboring states because if we don’t, consumers’ gaming dollars will go elsewhere,’ he said.”

[RWC] Translation: “Those damn local charities are taking OUR money. We need to get that money so we can spend more.”

“Delaware approved poker games in 2004 and West Virginia is considering adding them, while 33 states total have some form of table gaming.”

[RWC] This reminds me of something my parents said when I used the “but my friends did it too” excuse. They would say something like, “If your friends jumped off a bridge would you jump too?”

“‘Table games attract upwardly mobile adults between 24 and 44 and international tourists with high disposable income. Table gaming would position Pennsylvania to compete with New Jersey in attracting international tourists’ dollars,’ Veon said.”

[RWC] Note that once again Mr. Veon didn’t cite the source for his claims. These specific claims are not in the aforementioned AGA survey, though I would not be surprised to learn they came from another gambling industry source.

“DeWeese and Veon said a 2004 survey by the Hart-Luntz polling firm showed an overwhelming majority of people (87%) believe gaming is a question of personal choice and freedom and that the government should not tell American adults what they should or should not be doing with their money.”

[RWC] As noted above, the ~~marketing brochure~~ news release failed to note the American Gam(bl)ing Association funded the referenced survey. Why didn’t Messrs. DeWeese and Veon make this disclosure?

Given the positions regularly taken by Messrs. DeWeese and Veon regarding spending and taxes, does anyone accept that these men believe “the government should not tell American adults what they should or should not be doing with their money?” Though a federal issue, does anyone believe these gentlemen will support personal accounts in Socialist Security?