bigboydan
08-20-2003, 12:39 AM
Gambling -- For What?
Wednesday, August 20, 2003; Page A20
FROM THE GOVERNOR to certain legislators to special interests predicting pots of gold for one cause or another, those who would pepper Maryland with gambling operations see the legalization of slot machines as the answer to the state's budget prayers. But when it comes to important details -- the size, scope and ownership of the operations, reliable revenue estimates and earmarking of proceeds -- the sales pitches vary. Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. first urged legalization of slots as the way to save the state's horse racing industry. His administration then presented slots as a means to fund schools and close budget deficits without any tax increases. How many of these purposes does the governor believe could be served by slots, and in what balance? How much does the governor now think should go to racetrack owners?
A new analysis shows that the General Assembly was wise to resist the governor's efforts to rush through his proposal to legalize slots in the most recent session. Had supporters negotiated a better deal with racetrack owners, the analysis suggests, the state could have reaped $225 million a year more than the $1.2 billion projected by the administration once all machines were up and running. Authors of this private study, which was released last week by the Maryland Tax Education Foundation and the Maryland Public Policy Institute, claim that the state could take in $400 million more by auctioning gambling licenses for 12,000 slot machines at six locations across the state. The study estimates that the state could clear yet another $100 million a year if it built and owned slots operations and hired private companies to run them.
The analysis can't answer policy questions, such as whether the state would be wise to own or authorize gambling. But it points to the importance of at least being clear about goals. If the main purpose is to raise revenue, why should horse-racing interests have a special in -- why not let them compete for subsidies alongside public schools and everyone else with a claim?
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Wednesday, August 20, 2003; Page A20
FROM THE GOVERNOR to certain legislators to special interests predicting pots of gold for one cause or another, those who would pepper Maryland with gambling operations see the legalization of slot machines as the answer to the state's budget prayers. But when it comes to important details -- the size, scope and ownership of the operations, reliable revenue estimates and earmarking of proceeds -- the sales pitches vary. Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. first urged legalization of slots as the way to save the state's horse racing industry. His administration then presented slots as a means to fund schools and close budget deficits without any tax increases. How many of these purposes does the governor believe could be served by slots, and in what balance? How much does the governor now think should go to racetrack owners?
A new analysis shows that the General Assembly was wise to resist the governor's efforts to rush through his proposal to legalize slots in the most recent session. Had supporters negotiated a better deal with racetrack owners, the analysis suggests, the state could have reaped $225 million a year more than the $1.2 billion projected by the administration once all machines were up and running. Authors of this private study, which was released last week by the Maryland Tax Education Foundation and the Maryland Public Policy Institute, claim that the state could take in $400 million more by auctioning gambling licenses for 12,000 slot machines at six locations across the state. The study estimates that the state could clear yet another $100 million a year if it built and owned slots operations and hired private companies to run them.
The analysis can't answer policy questions, such as whether the state would be wise to own or authorize gambling. But it points to the importance of at least being clear about goals. If the main purpose is to raise revenue, why should horse-racing interests have a special in -- why not let them compete for subsidies alongside public schools and everyone else with a claim?
© 2003 The Washington Post Company