"Dear Mr. Martin:
I just finished reading the article in your paper, "Weighing the Pros and Cons of Expanded Casino Gambling," written by Dr. Jonathan D. Whitaker and found it to be not just opinionated when he is attempting to present an objective view of both sides of the debate, but also poorly researched, and it makes assumptions that are just downright wrong.
First, under "Pro #1," it appears that Dr. Whitaker doesn't have a basic understanding of how casinos work when he states that "having expanding gambling in Kentucky would keep the money lost here instead of Kentuckians losing money in other states." It is certainly true that people lose money in casinos, but it is also true they win it. While casinos certainly profit from losers, their primary source of revenue comes from the house take, which is a percentage of the money wagered and varies depending upon the game. If I lose $1 on a slot machine, then someone wins that dollar, less the house take, which in most cases varies from as low as two percent to around eight percent. Therefore, I lose $1, someone makes $.92 and the casino keeps $.08.
Secondly, under "Con #1," Dr. Whitaker states expanded gambling has a poor track record and cites failed expanded gambling in Atlantic City, Detroit and New Orleans. My response is "Sez who?" Expanded gambling certainly has not been the panacea it was expected to be in Atlantic City, but it certainly has brought jobs and revenue to this area as it has in New Orleans. When expanded gambling entered Atlantic City, the city had shut down its boardwalk area and was on the verge of bankruptcy. While it has not restored Atlantic City to the city of old, it certainly has not pushed the city toward further deterioration.
Dr. Whitaker cites these three cities. Did he contact the mayors of Metropolis, Illinois; Cross Lanes, West Virginia; Biloxi and Tunica Mississippi; Des Moines, Iowa; or the several small cities along the Indiana border between Louisville and Cincinnati to learn about the new schools and improved infrastructure these cities have experienced as a result of the increased tax base directly resulting from expanded gambling? Apparently not, or if he did, he did not like the answer.
"Con #3" states gambling is a vice. I think many people would disagree with this. Excessive gambling is a vice. Casual gambling or gambling within your economic means is not a vice any more than moderate alcohol consumption and desserts are vices.
"Con #4" and "Con #5" really go together when they say gambling is not a long-term differentiator and creates no new wealth. The fallacy behind both of these statements is that by offering expanded gambling in Kentucky, we keep the losers here — stopping the bleeding, if you will. Dr. Whitaker never considers that we may draw gambling residents from other states in addition to keeping our residents home. With the quality of horse racing in Kentucky, can one not envision out-of-state people coming to Lexington, Louisville (Indiana is across the river), and Florence (Ohio is across the river) for a day at the races and a night of casino gambling? While they are here, they will eat at our restaurants, stay in our hotels, and shop in our stores, which are certainly differentiators and create new wealth.
"Con #6" stated gambling teaches the wrong lesson. Dr. Whitaker states that "wealth is most often acquired over time through hard work ... and that (gambling) is an easy way to get rich without working hard or making sacrifices." Dr. Whitaker assumes that everyone who enters a casino is there to get rich. They are not. Most people are there because they enjoy the challenge and for recreation. They work, raise children, and support the community. They certainly are not valueless and do not consider casino gambling as a way to get rich quick. They also teach their children the value of hard work and developing skills.
Expanded gambling certainly has its pros and cons. However, expanded gambling that approaches this enormous source of revenue in a responsible manner would be a benefit to Kentucky taxpayers and help limit the underlying social problems many associate with it.
Dr. Whitaker's article was a pretty poorly disguised condemnation of expanded gambling and does a disservice to your readers who may try and use its contents to make a decision when and if a vote on expanded gambling is ever offered to the public.
Sincerely,
Marc E. Craft, CPA
Lexington, Ky.
"