Casino gambling costs outweigh benefits

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

The Legislature cut spending enough to erase a $1 billion budget deficit last year without raising taxes.

Things are looking better this year, thanks to strong farm income and relatively low unemployment, but as usual, lawmakers are looking for ways to bring in more money in relatively painless ways.

One example is State Sen. Paul Schumacher, who is thinking about sponsoring a constitutional amendment to allow casino gambling so Nebraska won't lose revenue to neighboring states.

He has a point; he estimates that Nebraskans provided about $70 million of the $284 million gambling tax revenue that Iowa and South Dakota brought in last year. He said Nebraskans lose about $300 million annually in out-of-state casinos each year.

But the key word there, is "lost." In other words, Nebraska should take advantage of losers so that other states can't.

"Gambling is a tax on ignorance," said one observer. "I find it socially revolting when the government preys on the ignorance of its citizenry. When the government makes it easy for people to take their Social Security checks and pull [slot machine] handles ... it is not government at its best."

The speaker knows a thing or two about gambling; Warren Buffett has played the odds for decades and made himself and other key investors billionaires in the process.

As another financial whiz puts it, gambling is a tax on the poor and people who can't do math -- studies show that people in lower-income ZIP codes spend four times as much as anyone else on lottery tickets.

And, even if they win, the price is high. Lotto winners have a divorce rate four times the national average; and 65 percent of Lotto winners are bankrupt within 15 years.

The fact that Nebraska's lottery system includes funding for treatment of problem gamblers -- provide the cure with the disease -- is an illustration of the immorality of state-sponsored gambling.

While Schumacher's possible constitutional amendment might help recover some of the $70 million in tax revenues now going to other states, expanded casino gambling would cost far more than it was worth in social problems, not to mention expanding them statewide, to places like Southwest Nebraska, relatively free of gambling fallout.

While supporters point out the good that gambling revenues do -- educational innovation and environmental projects as examples -- gambling is not a reliable source of income for vital services.

For example, Powerball lottery organizers plan to double ticket prices to $2 on Jan. 15, increasing the odds of winning by an infinitesimal amount while maneuvering for position with rival Mega Millions, which is staying at $1 for now.

While Nebraska does allow keno, horse racing and a lottery, voters turned down video keno in 2006 and two casino gambling proposals in 2004.

If casino gambling makes it to the ballot this time, they should turn it down again.

View 4 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • I agree that gambling most often hurts those that can least afford it. I wish McCook did not even have Keno gambling.

    -- Posted by dennis on Wed, Jan 4, 2012, at 2:50 PM
  • The blame can't be placed on the system. The people who can "least afford" to gamble make that decision on their own, they are not forced to risk their money. If the choice they made is to take the risk why am I supposed to be sympathetic towards them when they can't cover their basic needs? That's not my fault or the system's fault.

    -- Posted by I'mAQuack on Thu, Jan 5, 2012, at 10:31 AM
  • Quack, I understand your position however the money they gamble just might be the money you gave them through the variety of welfare programs. The people that really suffer are the children of the adults who gamble away the food, clothing, medical dollars for the family. Las Vegas was not built because people were winning.

    -- Posted by dennis on Thu, Jan 5, 2012, at 10:56 AM
  • The thing is people are going to gamble if they want to. Not having it availible isn't going to stop them. The point is if these people are going to gamble anyway why not keep the money in state.

    As far as people using SS to gamble with who cares. They paid into it. They can do what they want with their returns.

    The arguement for not having gambling availible because people spend money they don't have on it is rather weak. People spend money on alcohol, tobacco, junk food, ect that many would see as things that aren't needed. But, you don't see any states outlawing these things.

    When it comes to things that have the potential to do harm to the user, or possibly their children if they have any, you can't pick and choose where you draw the line and have a solid argument to back it. Stuff like this is pretty black and white. You either allow people to decide for themselves or you don't.

    Personally I would rather children be exposed to a parent with a gambling problem then an alcohol problem.

    -- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Jan 5, 2012, at 1:02 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: