Issue 3 -- Time to ask the hard questions

[AngryOldDem]

There has been much written here about Issue 3. In order for us to consider all sides of this controversy, I'd like to expand the conversation to include the following. I present the following position paper, written by a fiscal policy board in Illinois in 2004. Illnois at the time was also considering expanding its gaming industry to fund education.

This post is long, and I apologize for that. But substantive discussion cannot be done in one-liners. I think we can all agree that these points are critical, and should be considered now rather than later, especially if Issue 3 passes.

The whole report can be found here. Note that you will need Acrobat to access it.

http://www.voices4kids.org/casino.pdf

These points need to be addressed:

1) Does Issue 3 measure up to the goals of "equity, adequacy, and stability" that this report says are vital to ANY sound revenue policy? Does Issue 3 promote the goals of a state to provide basic services to its citizens, without in turn causing undue harm?

2) Gaming only has an impact near the area where it is located. This impact is, on the whole, mainly bad. Documented proof shows that problem (pathological) gambling doubles within 50 miles where casinos, etc., are located.

The above cannot be easily dismissed as a "morality play." A Wisconsin study (also cited in this report) showed that half the gamblers there had incomes of less than $30,000; moreover, in 2003, Illinois's gamblers lost $1.657 BILLION dollars, while total state revenue from gambling was $1.2 BILLION. While this $1.2 billion provided more revenue than public utility taxes, the position paper notes that in the end, relying on gaming revenues is ultimately regressive. The study aptly calls gaming a "back-door tax," paid by those who really can't afford it -- in more ways than one.

Related issues to this point include:

What if the economy takes a downturn and people stop spending their cash at the slots?
What if the state puts most of its eggs in one volatile basket? Shouldn't other, more stable forms of revenue supplement gaming to fund education?
Will funding to law enforcement and other social-service agencies meet the increased needs that are sure to ensue from more-available gaming? Or will that create its own financial drain on the state? (Note well: Social-service agencies are grossly underfunded and/or nonfunded as it is.)

Most important: How much money will these casinos need to generate on a YEARLY basis in order to keep Issue 3 viable over the long term, especially if the true "benefits" won't be realized until several years hence?

3) What will be the effects on existing businesses and tourism? In other words, since most of these places will be in Cleveland/Cuyahoga County, how will it affect places/things such as the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Indians, Browns, etc.? Will any potential loss of revenue to those venues -- and by extension Cleveland -- be offset?

How viable will these casinos be? How will they be run? Who will run them, and what is their track record?

4) How will the state oversee/regulate these places? How much money will it take to do so, and how much manpower?

5) As I have been saying here all week, it's time we begin to hold Columbus responsible to come up with a fair and workable plan to fund education at all levels. Legislators and courts have danced around this issue for years, and we all see what the results have been. The report makes some pretty common-sense suggestions, but most of them directly concern public, K-12 education. But colleges could benefit from raising state income taxes and broadening service sales taxes. I know that is a third-rail solution that all of us -- especially lawmakers -- jump back from. But the fact of the matter is, you get what you pay for. No truer words were ever spoken, especially when you're talking about education.

Issue 3, to me, still stands as a quick fix that will only create more, serious problems in the future. I think Ohio can do better to help its kids get the higher education that they all deserve.

I await your thoughts.

[johnnie]

1. A few quick thoughts from me

As I have pointed out, even 20 bucks going to a college fund from this will be 20 dollars more than we have now.

Blaming gambling casinos for gambling addiction is like blaming bars for alcoholism.
I'm one of those people who think people should be responsible for their actions.

As for number 3, people don't go to see the Browns, the Indians or the Rock Hall anyway. Downtown Cleveland is dead.

The education funding is just an added benefit for passing this issue. Yes, they are using it to push the issue, but the truth is, too much money is being taken away from Ohio and going to the other states around us because people like to enjoy some gambling.

This is not about higher education, it is about letting people who can, bring slots to Ohio. I personally don't mind if rich people make more money, that's just what they do.


I am voting yes, and i know a lot of other people who are and it isn't because they have been bamboozled into thinking they are doing it for higher education. We are voting for it because we would like to be able to sit at a slot machine for a few hours without driving out of the state.

[AngryOldDem]

2. Do some research and get back with me

...and, frankly, I find your post insulting to all Ohioans who will most likely be stuck with a big economic and social mess years down the road from this shortsighted and selfish issue.

Of course we all know that the proponents of Issue 3 couldn't care less about kids and education. The campaign for Issue 3 has been one of the more galling I have seen anywhere. But I'm most saddened by the fact that many voters will most likely be taken in by the deception because they are that worried and that scared about not being able to send their children to college. To play on that fear -- well, there aren't the words to express my anger over that.

Can you refute -- with facts, please -- ANY of the points I listed above?

To the rest of you who read Johnnie's post -- how does it feel as a voter to be taken for and played as a fool? This is just a microcosm of how the whole push for this issue has treated Ohio voters.

(By the way, compulsive gambling -- like alcoholism -- IS considered a disease, and the facts I cited from the Illinois report are well known and documented in both the medical and psychological communities.)

[johnnie]

3. The people being played a fool are the ones who don't read the whole issue

If you really count on television ads to help you decide any important issues, then I would have to say that you are the fool, not the people trying to sell you on something.


And I am sorry if I insulted you and all Ohioans. That's pretty wild on how powerful I am. :woohoo:


And I have a little news for you, Ohio is already "stuck with a big economic and social mess". And one main reason is because people watched Taft's commercials and believed the crap he was selling without investigating it further and re-elected the idiot. People fell for the same thing you are falling for, and that is going by exactly what they are saying on TV and expecting it to be the truth.

[AngryOldDem]

4. Still waiting

I am asking for imput on the questions I asked in my post.

To repeat:

Is this not a back-door tax?
How much money will need to be generated to keep this program running?
Does this fairly balance the need for revenue and concerns for the social good?
What will happen if the economic downturn worsens?
Will social services be in place to offset the downsides of increased availability of gambling?

[johnnie]

5. Keep waiting

After what you pulled in the other thread, I am done discussing this with you.

[AngryOldDem]

6. Fine n/t

[truth2power]

10. Don't know about anyone else, but I read the whole issue...

that is, I keyed in: LEARN EARN AMENDMENT OHIO in Google and downloaded the entire amendment. I'm still opposed.

Oh, and I consider all the political ads a worthless waste of money that could be used to feed the homeless, for one thing.

P.S. I realize you were replying to AngryOldDem. Just thought I'd horn in here. :shrug:

[Kolesar]

7. Downtown Cleveland is *NOT* dead

There are a lot of people who work downtown, and those streets are hopping, especially on a summer evening. There is a lot to do there. There are a lot of people who go to the shows at Playhouse Square. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has had a good amount of visitors everytime I have seen it. The Indians don't sell out Jacobs Field all the time, but they did well in 2005. For that matter, no team sells out all season. The football games have been on TV, which tells me the Browns have been selling out. There's also that big draw at the Q. Ever hear of Lebron James?

The attraction that has collapsed is the bars of the Flats, but I really don't think it all that bad that people aren't drinking as much as they used to. Baby boomers gotta grow up someday.

Like they sang in the musical Spamalot--I'm not dead yet!

[johnnie]

8. I went downtown not too long ago and the streets were empty

When I was a teen, we used to go down there during the day and place was happening. I went there recently and I only saw a few people walking around and even the traffic was lighter than I ever remember it.

Half of the buildings are closed up and I found a parking space right off. Maybe it is hoppin' but not when I was down there.

[truth2power]

9. I agree with much of what you say, Dem...

See my post, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=172&topic_id=20596&mesg_id=20710

I think your #5 is especially important. Columbus certainly should be held responsible to come up with a plan to fund education at all levels. There is a case - DeRolph - that has been before the Ohio Supreme Court 4 times, I believe. You can look it up - DeRolph I,II,III,& IV, wherein the court told the legislature to find a better way to fund education in Ohio. But nothing's been done. Why??