The Latest of 57 Reasons to Reject the Ohio Learn & Earn Initiative (102006)

From Jill at Writes Like She Talks (original entry relating to Jill’s effort is here) –

• Reason 22 — “Because the jobs promised and the life for the people in those jobs stink.”

Conservatives and libertarians may have a hard time with the Gambling Magazine article Jill refers to, because it carries a put-down of the values rugged individualism and the nobility of being an entrepreneur. I think that rugged individuals and entrpreneurs can be great people too, but I will suggest that they are great people when they add value to something. This does not occur in gambling, which is by definition a zero-sum gamed rigged in favor of the house.

The antagonism towards the Vegas culture exhibited by those involved in cleaning up the gambling culture’s messes will be off-putting to some as well. I would suggest opening your mind and trying to find (I tried, but couldn’t; e-mail me if you do) a mid-1990s column by conservative R. Emmett Tyrell, currently involved with the American Spectator and the New York Sun, before blithely assuming that being an economic conservative means anything-goes “capitalism.”

I expected Tyrell, whose weekly column appears at Jewish World Review (among many other places), to defend Vegas, but he instead he went after it. As I recall, among other things, he said that the town’s something-for-nothing culture is the very antithesis of individualism and enterpreneurship. He argued, with very good reason in hindsight, for not spreading the Vegas mentality throughout the rest of the country. Obviously, it has spread to a lot of other places since. That does not mean it has to become ubiquitous, and Ohio would be a good place to draw the line against its ultimate ubiquity.

• Reason 21 — “Because if Mohammad Yunus can turn microloans as small as $14, which he’s been making through his Grameen Bank, into literally millions of dollars worth of success stories, then why the $&#%&* can’t Forest City, Jeff Jacobs, the racetrack owners and everyone else claiming that gambling is the answer Ohio needs to get out of its economic distress also fund the same idea here in Ohio, with, you know, the multiple millions of dollars they’ve already spent lying to Ohio citizens about the crappy piece of legal writing called Issue 3?”

• Reason 20 — “Because if (Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist) Kevin O’Brien and I agree that it’s a bad idea, then you can be pretty damn sure, it’s a bad idea.”

Here is what O’Brien, whose opinions tend to run conservative, had to say on Wednesday:

Issue 3: This one would finally bring slot machine parlors, and maybe even casinos, to Ohio. Heck, we’d have some big winners even before the first one opened: Forest City Enterprises Inc., developer Jeff Jacobs and the owners of Ohio’s seven horse-racing tracks. I have no objection to Ohioans gambling, and I wish they didn’t have to take their money out of state to do it. I’m all for businesses making money and creating jobs. But even if I believed this scheme would make college more affordable - which I emphatically don’t - I detest the idea of the state picking economic winners and losers, and doing so in the Constitution. No.

By the way, this would probably represent the last O’Brien column Jill will read in print, as she has cancelled her Cleveland PD subscription over the paper’s endorsement of Issue 3. Good for her.

__________________________

OTHER VOICES –

Gloria Ferris:

I will vote “NO” on Issue 3 not because I am morally against gambling. I am not, but because there are too many unanswered questions. My mom and dad taught me years ago that when I asked questions and couldn’t get answers to walk away. I am walking away from this one because I don’t see how this baby can fly and NO ONE has been able to explain to me how it will.

Boring Made Dull –

Part 1:

Issue 3 is not a “college affordability” initiative; it’s a cost shifting initiative. Soon, we’ll be seeing every two bit state flunky, err, official, line up to support gambling. Because they recognize gambling for what it is – a tax on the poor that promises to generate large cash flows to the state.

Part 2:

Issue 3 will amend the Ohio Constitution to provide a subsidy paid to owners of existing racetracks, and the owners of two pieces of property in Cleveland. The revenue streams will be generated from the poor and mathematically challenged. The main rationale – reduction in the cost of college in Ohio – is unlikely to be impacted, since the subsidy doesn’t do anything to provide cost controls, encouragements to efficiency in higher education, or increase competition. It only increases the pool of money to pay for same. The second rationale – local economic development funds – will likely provide local pork projects for the relatives of county executives.

Part 3:

Until somebody pops up with more data addressing these points, the best that we can say about the proposition that “casino gamblers have higher incomes than average” is “not proven.” Given the a priori case that the more often and the more money they gamble, the greater their losses will be, even if they start out with higher incomes, they may not have them for long.