Slots in MD

[RedHeadGal]

My Maryland ballot contained a question about legalizing more gambling in MD. It was packaged by proponents as a way to raise revenue that is already going to other states (WV, PA, etc.) for education. I wouldn't say it got a lot of local attention, and certainly not national attention. It has been hotly contested in the state legislature, however, which is why it ended up on the ballot.

My question here is, why wouldn't the church be interested in getting involved in an iissue like this one? I personally oppose gambling like this because I view it as a tax on the poor (and I want the rich to be taxed more :-D), so I voted against it. But the church also has a long history of opposing gambling for moral reasons. Is this just not sexy enough for the big push? Not high profile enough?

It was passed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110404031.html

[Solon]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

My Maryland ballot contained a question about legalizing more gambling in MD. It was packaged by proponents as a way to raise revenue that is already going to other states (WV, PA, etc.) for education. I wouldn't say it got a lot of local attention, and certainly not national attention. It has been hotly contested in the state legislature, however, which is why it ended up on the ballot.

My question here is, why wouldn't the church be interested in getting involved in an iissue like this one? I personally oppose gambling like this because I view it as a tax on the poor (and I want the rich to be taxed more :-D), so I voted against it. But the church also has a long history of opposing gambling for moral reasons. Is this just not sexy enough for the big push? Not high profile enough?

It was passed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110404031.html

Voters approved "slot parlors" here in PA about 4 years ago, and it's been pretty grim so far. Despite the promises before the referendum, there really aren't any tourist dollars coming into the state from slots, since anyone who likes to gamble takes the extra few minutes to drive to either Atlantic City or West Virginia, where casino gambling is legal. There has also been a lot of legal wrangling about licenses, administration, oversight, etc.

I personally have no moral qualms about gambling but, like you, consider it a tax on the poor (and people who struggle with math).

I guess the LDS church is choosing its battles, and it looks like it chose effectively in CA.

[RedHeadGal]

After I posted this, I tried to think of any time local church authorities said anything about local politics, and the only time I could think of was when they were speaking out about the school board sex ed curriculum.

So maybe slots just aren't sexy.

And Salon, what do you mean by "grim"?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

After I posted this, I tried to think of any time local church authorities said anything about local politics, and the only time I could think of was when they were speaking out about the school board sex ed curriculum.

So maybe slots just aren't sexy.

And Salon, what do you mean by "grim"?

By grim, I mean that they're not making the money that the proponents promised they would and there's been a lot of controversy over one of the licenses in Pittsburgh. Nor have the promised jobs materialized. The slots were intended to offer property tax relief, but aren't generating the revenue they need. So, slot parlors are looking to expand their operations. The way the law is written, the games have to be completely electronic with no human dealers or facilitators, so they're experimenting with virtual dealers so that the parlors can include board games. It's silly.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by Solon

Voters approved "slot parlors" here in PA about 4 years ago, and it's been pretty grim so far. Despite the promises before the referendum, there really aren't any tourist dollars coming into the state from slots, since anyone who likes to gamble takes the extra few minutes to drive to either Atlantic City or West Virginia, where casino gambling is legal. There has also been a lot of legal wrangling about licenses, administration, oversight, etc.

I personally have no moral qualms about gambling but, like you, consider it a tax on the poor (and people who struggle with math).

I guess the LDS church is choosing its battles, and it looks like it chose effectively in CA.

It is a tax on the poor, but at least it is a voluntary tax.