And once again, the gambling industry rears its head

You know, the libertarian in me is perfectly willing to accept an expansion of legalized gambling in Texas. As with many other potentially pleasurable but not really good for you things, it's hard to make a case for banning or constraining it beyond "it's not good for you". That's a road I try to avoid, though I admit I'm not always successful.

Where I object to gambling in Texas is not the idea of foolish people throwing their money into slot machines, but of the industry itself - its naked greed, its sleazy dishonesty, and the persistent belief that somehow, more legalized gambling will help solve our state's budgetary conundrums. The latter is, to be perfectly blunt, a load of crap that's amazingly resistant to any historical data.

Gambling opponent Suzii Paynter, with the Christian Life Commission, is not impressed. She said gambling proponents have not kept the promises they made when selling officials on the lottery and pari-mutuel gambling, approved by voters in 1987, at horse and dog tracks.

"The lottery was supposed to fix education," she said. "And the horse owners promised $200 million a year" to the state.

She cited a comptroller's report showing that the tracks, which never lived up to the hype of the mid-1980s, had falling attendance from 2000 through 2004 and were contributing only about $4 million a year in state taxes.

In fact, track owners are pursuing the legalization of video lottery terminals - a type of slot machines - as a means to shore up their industry in Texas.

I think Eye on Williamson nails this perfectly. If there's money to be had via more gambling in Texas, it'll be the gambling industry that benefits from it. The state and the taxpayers will be lucky to get a few crumbs. My distaste for the baloney involved in this debate makes it really hard for me to feel good about the libertarian case for gambling. Blech.

Oh, and speaking of libertarianism and pleasurable things that aren't good for you, here's a little thought experiment:

In his pitch to lawmakers, [Austin lobbyist Chris] Shields argues that [marijuana] in Texas is already pervasive: "The concept that you can limit [narcotics] to a footprint like [alcohol and tobacco] ignores reality."

That's not what he said, of course, but it's what I was thinking as I read it and the paragraphs that followed. Just some food for conversation.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on December 20, 2006 to Budget ballyhoo | TrackBack