Column: Casinos will add to our problems, not solve them

I'm not out to stop people from gambling.

I think it is stupid. I don't even understand the claim that it is entertaining. The one time I was inside a casino, I saw people mostly 65 or older who didn't look like they were having anything close to fun. Their faces were masks, almost catatonic. All I could think was, "This is where a huge chunk of my Social Security payments are going."

Therefore, I also think it is a colossal waste of money and puts some people at serious risk of the kind of addiction that can destroy not only them but their families.

But I am enough of a libertarian to believe people have the right to choose how to spend their own money. I spend most of my discretionary income on music, sports and traveling. If somebody else wants to spend theirs playing bingo, poker, craps, blackjack, keno or even slots, that's their choice.

However — you knew there had to be a "however" coming — I do have a number of big problems with the coming onslaught of casinos and/or slots in Massachusetts.

I have a big problem with government not only allowing gambling, but promoting it. Yes, people have always gambled and always will, and I think banning it makes as much sense as banning drugs. It just drives the industry underground and lets organized crime take it over.

But it used to be called a vice, because most sane people realized it was a bad, corrosive habit. Political leaders used to encourage people to stay away from it. Then government discovered how much it could make if it became the main bookie. Then it not only became respectable, it practically became mandatory. Play the Lottery! Do it for the children!

I figure it's only a matter of time before prostitution and drugs get the sheen of respectability, too. You know, consenting adults and all that. And think of the tax revenue. More money for schools! For the children!

So it might have taken a conference committee of the Legislature more than 100 days to figure out how to pass a bill that should have taken five minutes — banning texting while driving. But they'll be turning the casino bill around in 10 days or less, so the governor can sign it before the end of the session.

Legislators do have their priorities, you know, and one of the most important is finding a way to seduce billions more dollars out of you and still claim they haven't raised your taxes.

I have a big problem with our legislators adjusting their halos and claiming this is all about providing more local aid and services to the public. It's not. The hundreds of millions of dollars they will collect won't expand or improve services. It will simply feed the beast — provide bigger raises and better benefits to their friends and family members on the public payroll.

I have a big problem with anyone who claims, or believes, that this is going to solve the state's budget crisis. The state Lottery didn't solve it, even though it rakes in billions. Casinos and slots won't solve it either. The states that already have casinos are among the states with the biggest budget deficits. The reason is obvious — politicians always spend more than they have available. It's in their DNA.

The state's "austerity" budget this year is just shy of $30 billion, although some economists say with off-budget spending it's really more like $50 billion. But if Bill Gates decided to give the state another $30 billion a year in perpetuity, it wouldn't be more than a couple of years before the state would be in trouble again. The wails about not enough money for the disabled, the poor, the elderly, the unemployed would be just as loud. We would hear about "unconscionable" cuts in public safety without higher taxes.

And my biggest problem is that those who choose to gamble to excess will be shielded from the consequences of their choices by those who had the prudence not to gamble away their earnings.

It used to be fundamental economics, taught by everybody from your parents to your teachers: If you spend your money on one thing, you can't spend it on something else.

But now, even before casinos or slots, I regularly hear from government leaders that I should be happy to pay more taxes because some people are faced with the agonizing choice of buying food or medicine, since they don't have enough for both. But ask if one of the reasons these folks don't have enough money is because they spent it on lottery tickets, and their "advocates" get angry. Even to ask the question is an affront to their "dignity."

So, government is sending the message: Not only are you allowed to make bad choices, you don't have to live with the consequences. We'll force other people to bail you out.

What kind of a society do you think incentives like that will create?

My favorite 19th Century English philosopher, Herbert Spencer, had a lot more common sense. "The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly," he said, "is to fill the world with fools."

We're already well on our way. And casinos will just accelerate it.

Taylor Armerding is associate editorial page editor of The Eagle-Tribune. He may be reached at 978-946-2213 or at tarmerding@eagletribune.com.

Opinion

Search Results

Discussion

Site Map

Contact Us