Once again the Democratic governor and his allies in the state Legislature will attempt to push slot machines on the Pennsylvania public. Although the rallying cry is lower property taxes because of the money that will be generated, we shall see. I have some questions that I would like answered.
If the goal is to raise money for our public's schools, why are the licensing rights being sold for a relatively low flat fee? Slot machine rights are being sold for close to $500 million throughout the country, yet the proposed "no bid" process would sell them for less than one-tenth of this amount. If our schools are so desperate for revenue, why are we not having companies bid for the rights?
The horse-racing industry is said to be dying and slots are needed to save this "noble" industry. Why should the government save one industry over another? If the Pennsylvania public does not want to gamble on horse races, why should the state save it? What is the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' position on saving this industry? This organization was able to force Shippensburg University to cancel the donkey basketball fund-raiser by the student senate. Wouldn't PETA think it is cruelty to animals to have a 100-pound jockey beat a drug-laced horse with a whip, all for the pleasure of a few gamblers?
The gambling industry claims that slots will generate $1 billion in annual revenue with a job creation of "at least" 17,000 jobs. Of course, that is a lot of jobs just to collect money out of slot machines that are placed in already existing venues. If each job paid $25,000 per year, we would be paying out $425 million in salaries. Doesn't that lower our revenue projection to $500 million?
What will the legislature do to protect the public from supporting those who spend all their money on gambling? Just like we ban underage drinking and cigarette purchases, we need to ban subsidized gambling. I believe it is only responsible for anyone on public assistance to be banned from gambling away their taxpayer subsidies.
Anyone who would like to participate in pulling the slot arm or pushing the machine button should be required to obtain a gambling card. The card should be able to check that person's status with government records to ensure that the potential gambler is not receiving government benefits. The ban on subsidized gambling should also include those that are most vulnerable in our society, which are those individuals on a fixed income from the Social Security program. We simply can not afford for the gambling industry to prey upon the elderly of our state when they can not afford to purchase their medicine or food.
Also, shouldn't we limit the losses of an individual to $100 per week? This averages out to $5,200 per year which is more than enough for one person to lose in a year. If every gambler had a gambling card to activate the slot machine, once the person loses $100 for the week, they would be done until the following week. The card would also keep track of winning in order for the proper reporting of earnings for income tax purposes.
Finally, wouldn't it make sense to put the gambling parlors next to our neighborhood schools? This would allow students to see how their education is being funded. Also, each school district could operate their own gambling parlor. This would cut out a lot of middle men having control of the revenue and taking their slice of the pie. School districts could then put more money in their coffers and lower the property taxes based on what they collect from the machines.
These are some of my questions concerning the gambling proposals in Pennsylvania. I am sure if the gambling measure were to be passed, the revenue projections would be higher than actual, the jobs created would be lower than expected and the property tax relief would not be a real relief.
Ron Sisto II is a resident of Dover.
http://ydr.com/story/op-ed/23598/
If the goal is to raise money for our public's schools, why are the licensing rights being sold for a relatively low flat fee? Slot machine rights are being sold for close to $500 million throughout the country, yet the proposed "no bid" process would sell them for less than one-tenth of this amount. If our schools are so desperate for revenue, why are we not having companies bid for the rights?
The horse-racing industry is said to be dying and slots are needed to save this "noble" industry. Why should the government save one industry over another? If the Pennsylvania public does not want to gamble on horse races, why should the state save it? What is the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' position on saving this industry? This organization was able to force Shippensburg University to cancel the donkey basketball fund-raiser by the student senate. Wouldn't PETA think it is cruelty to animals to have a 100-pound jockey beat a drug-laced horse with a whip, all for the pleasure of a few gamblers?
The gambling industry claims that slots will generate $1 billion in annual revenue with a job creation of "at least" 17,000 jobs. Of course, that is a lot of jobs just to collect money out of slot machines that are placed in already existing venues. If each job paid $25,000 per year, we would be paying out $425 million in salaries. Doesn't that lower our revenue projection to $500 million?
What will the legislature do to protect the public from supporting those who spend all their money on gambling? Just like we ban underage drinking and cigarette purchases, we need to ban subsidized gambling. I believe it is only responsible for anyone on public assistance to be banned from gambling away their taxpayer subsidies.
Anyone who would like to participate in pulling the slot arm or pushing the machine button should be required to obtain a gambling card. The card should be able to check that person's status with government records to ensure that the potential gambler is not receiving government benefits. The ban on subsidized gambling should also include those that are most vulnerable in our society, which are those individuals on a fixed income from the Social Security program. We simply can not afford for the gambling industry to prey upon the elderly of our state when they can not afford to purchase their medicine or food.
Also, shouldn't we limit the losses of an individual to $100 per week? This averages out to $5,200 per year which is more than enough for one person to lose in a year. If every gambler had a gambling card to activate the slot machine, once the person loses $100 for the week, they would be done until the following week. The card would also keep track of winning in order for the proper reporting of earnings for income tax purposes.
Finally, wouldn't it make sense to put the gambling parlors next to our neighborhood schools? This would allow students to see how their education is being funded. Also, each school district could operate their own gambling parlor. This would cut out a lot of middle men having control of the revenue and taking their slice of the pie. School districts could then put more money in their coffers and lower the property taxes based on what they collect from the machines.
These are some of my questions concerning the gambling proposals in Pennsylvania. I am sure if the gambling measure were to be passed, the revenue projections would be higher than actual, the jobs created would be lower than expected and the property tax relief would not be a real relief.
Ron Sisto II is a resident of Dover.
http://ydr.com/story/op-ed/23598/
