Posted on 07/22/2002 1:37:05 PM PDT by vannrox
States
Senator Paul Simon
Senate - July 31, 1995
From the Congressional Record for the 104th
Congress.
Mr. President, in November of last year, when I
announced I would retire from the Senate after
1996, President Clinton suggested that with the
freedom from political restraint I now have, and
with slightly more credibility because political
opportunism would not be the immediate cry of
critics, I should, from time to time, make
observations about our Nation, where we are going,
and where we should go.
One of the marks of our civilization, virtually
unnoticed as we discuss the Nation's problems, is
our fastest-growing industry: gambling.
Local governments, Indian tribes, and States --
all desperate for revenue -- increasingly are
turning to what appears to be a quick and easy
solution: legalized gambling. And, temporarily, it
often works. Poverty-stricken Indian tribes
suddenly have revenue. Cities like East St. Louis,
IL, with every possible urban malady, find
themselves with enough revenue to at least take
care of minimal services.
There are four basic questions:
to play, and should it play a role?
Gambling is not a new phenomenon. The Bible and
early historical records tell of its existence.
Gambling surfaced early in U.S. history, then
largely disappeared as a legal form of revenue for
State and local governments. It remained very much
alive, however, even though illegal, in the back
rooms of taverns and in not-so-hidden halls, often
with payoffs to public officials to `look the other
way' while it continued. I particularly remember
traveling overseas and back while in the U.S. Army.
The troop ship became one huge gambling operation
with dice or cards, activity slowed only by the
occasional walking tour of a conscientious officer
whose coming would be foretold by someone taking
the voluntary watch for his fellow enlisted men --
and they were then all men -- who gambled. After
the watchman's signal, suddenly that portion of the
ship's deck or hold could meet the highest
puritanical standards. Within seconds of the
disappearance of the dreaded officer, the games
would begin again. Participation had no appeal to
me, not primarily for moral reasons, but I have
always been too conservative with my money to enjoy
risking it that way. What I remember about those
shipboard activities was the enormity of the stakes
that could be built up -- enormous for enlisted men
on meager salaries in 1951-1953 -- and the ability
of some of my friends to continue their activity
with almost no sleep.
Gambling's appeal, particularly for the idle --
and a troop ship is loaded with them -- is clear.
Early in our Nation's history, almost all States
had some form of lottery, my State of Illinois
being no exception. When Abraham Lincoln served in
our State legislature from 1834 to 1842, lotteries
were authorized, and there apparently was no moral
question raised about having them. In 1839, for
example, the Illinois House of Representatives
voted unanimously to authorize a lottery to raise
funds `for the purpose of draining the ponds of the
American bottom' in the vicinity of what is now
East St. Louis, an area that to this day has a
severe drainage problem, and a city that today has
a significant gambling presence.
In Illinois and other States the loose money
quickly led to corruption, and the States banned
all forms of gambling. Illinois leaders felt so
strongly about it, they put the ban into the State
constitution. For many years, Louisiana had the
only lottery, and then in 1893--after a major
scandal there -- the Federal Government prohibited
all lottery sales. Even the results of tolerated
but illegal lotteries could not be sent through the
mail.
But the lottery crept back in, first in New
Hampshire in 1963, and then in 36 other States.
Last year States sold $34 billion in lottery
tickets. Forty-two States now have some form of
legalized gambling. Even States that technically
outlaw gambling frequently manage to have some form
of it. In one of the more peculiar decisions by
Illinois Supreme Court justices -- dependent for
reelection at that time on campaign contributions
-- they ruled that betting money on horses was not
gambling, because the ability of the horse and the
skill of the rider were involved. Gambling is when
everything is left to chance, they argued.
What we know as casino gambling was legal only
in Nevada, then in New Jersey and now in 23 states.
From a small enterprise in a few States, gambling
has matured. In 1974, $17 billion was legally
wagered in the Nation. By 1992, it reached $329
billion, and it is now over $500 billion.
Three-fourths of the Nation's citizens now live
within 300 miles of a casino. One article reports,
`Airlines are exploring the installation of
back-of-seat slot machines on some flights.' [`A
Full House,' by Rob Day, Hemisphere, October,
1994.] Other nations -- particularly poorer ones --
are expanding gambling operations. Within our
country, the magazine Gaming and Wagering Business
reports, `Old attitudes have been shattered.
Barriers are crumbling, and doors have been flung
open.' [Dec. 15, 1991-Jan. 15, 1992.]
At this point, let me digress to express my
gratitude to scholars who have studied legalized
gambling in the United States, with little
attention and little gratitude from the community
at large. Particularly helpful, as I prepared these
remarks, was a book manuscript I had the
opportunity to read by Robert Goodman, a professor
at Hampshire College in Massachusetts. In October,
the Free Press will publish his thoughtful and
well-crafted manuscript under the title, `The Luck
Business.' The subtitle is `The Devastating
Consequences and False Promises of America's
Gambling Explosion.' John Warren Kindt, a professor
at the University of Illinois at Urbana, wrote an
excellent article for the Drake Law Review last
year, `The Economic Impacts of Legalized Gambling
Activities,' and Henry Lesieur, who heads the
criminal justice division at Illinois State
University, edits a magazine in this field, Journal
of Gambling Studies. I am grateful to them and to
others who have pioneered research.
What are the advantages of legalized gambling?
It brings in new revenue, at least temporarily
and, in some cases, over a longer period of time.
One of the great weaknesses of American politics
today -- and one of the reasons for public cynicism
toward those of us in politics -- is our eagerness
to tell people only what they want to hear. Polling
is a huge business, and if a poll suggests some
stand is unpopular, too many find a convenient way
of changing course, even if the public good is
served by the unpopular action.
An area of high sensitivity is taxation. That
problem is compounded by the fact that at the
national level no other industrial nation -- with
the exception of Israel -- spends as much of its
taxation on defense and interest as does the United
States. These bring no direct benefit to people.
Citizens of Germany, France, Great Britain and
other nations pay much higher taxes, but they see
health care and other benefits that we do not have.
In addition, their parliamentary systems make it
easier to make tough decisions than our system
does.
So when someone comes along and says, `I have a
simple way to get more revenue for you, and you do
not have to raise anyone's taxes,' that has great
appeal to policymakers who must seek reelection.
Those same people say to the policy makers, `Not
only will I provide revenue for you without
taxation, I will be very generous to you when
campaign time comes.' And they are.
While the promises of what legalized gambling
will do for a community or State almost always are
greatly exaggerated, it is also true that many
communities who are desperate for revenue and feel
they have no alternative are helped. I have already
mentioned East St. Louis, IL. Bridgeport, CT, is
another example. Small communities like Metropolis,
IL, population 6,734, find that a riverboat casino
brings in significant additional municipal revenue.
And while other businesses in these communities
often do not benefit -- and some, like restaurants,
are hurt -- a poll by the Better Government
Association, a highly respected Illinois civic
group, shows that in some communities, the initial
reaction to the riverboat casinos is more positive
than negative: Rock Island/Moline, 83 percent
positive, though this has changed; Metropolis, 76
percent positive; East St. Louis, 47 percent
positive; and Peoria, 64 percent positive.
Some officials in Chicago, desperate for
revenue, wish to bring in a large casino operation
with a $2 billion price tag. They say it will bring
10,000 construction jobs. That alone is
significant. The initial press release said 37,000
construction jobs. And officials in Chicago, aware
there are long-term dangers to the city from such
an operation, also know that unless they solve
short-term problems -- and that takes revenue --
the long-term picture for the city is not good. The
State government has shown itself largely
insensitive to the needs of the city, dominated as
it is by suburban and rural leaders. Faced with a
choice of lectures from the State about long-term
problems and what appears to be easy, significant,
immediate revenue, it is not difficult to
understand Chicago's choice. On top of that, they
face editorial prodding. Under a heading, `Casino A
Great Bet For City,' the Chicago Sun-Times called a
casino `a cash cow' and noted: `The sooner state
law changes to allow land-based casino gambling,
the better. And the sooner Chicago finally gets in
on the action, the better.' [April 17, 1995.]
Almost unnoticed has been the report of the Chicago
Crime Commission in response to a request by the
Mayor: `Organized crime will infiltrate casino
operations and unions, and will be involved in
related loan-sharking, prostitution, drug
activities . . . and public corruption.' [Chicago
Crime Commission, 1990.]
State governments are no more loaded with
courageous leaders than is the Federal Government.
They need revenue to solve their problems. In
Illinois, for example, state support for public
higher education has dropped from 70 percent of the
costs in 1980, to 37 percent today, almost a
50-percent cut. [Here, I digress to observe that
States have been partially bailed out by Federal
aid to students. We hear a great deal from States
about unfounded mandates. We hear much less from
States about sizable grants from the Federal
Government.] Faced with needs in education at all
levels, with growing health care costs that afflict
both Federal and State governments, and with
decaying cities and decaying infrastructure, the
States have two options: Tell people the truth and
ask for the taxes to pay for these needs, or
combine the growing practice of issuing bonds,
states don't call them deficits and find some
`easy' source of revenue, like legalized gambling.
The courageous path is too infrequently taken.
Revenue from lotteries, race horse gambling, and
riverboat casinos brings Illinois government
approximately $820 million a year. That is State
government revenue alone. I have made no attempt to
calculate what revenue is lost because of money not
being spent in other enterprises in the State. Most
of those who wager in Illinois are from Illinois.
When they spend on gambling, that is money that
would otherwise go to clothing stores, groceries,
and other businesses. That means less revenue to
the State from those businesses. Also not
calculated in the $820 million State revenue is the
loss caused by the increased problem of gambling
addiction.
Early promises to use Illinois lottery money for
education have been technically complied with, but
State support for education has declined
substantially as a percentage of income for local
schools since the lottery became a reality.
Wisconsin, not a big gambling State, has 17
native American casinos. A study completed in April
concluded: `Overall, the state gains $326 million
in net revenue from the presence of the casinos.'
They added this caution: `However, this figure is
reduced substantially -- to $166.25 million -- when
even the lowest estimated social costs of
compulsive gambling are included in the
calculations. With mid-range estimated social
costs, the overall impact becomes negligible, while
with higher social-cost estimates, the impact
becomes clearly negative.' [The Economic Impact of
Native American Gaming in Wisconsin, by William
Thompson, Ricardo Gazel and Dan Rickman, published
by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.]
Indian reservations have misery as their
constant companion. Unemployment rates, alcoholism
rates, suicide rates, and poverty indexes all
combine to paint a grim picture that should be a
matter of shame for our Nation. Not only has the
Federal Government been weak in its response to
these needs, but State governments, sometimes
dominated by prejudice against native Americans,
often have been even worse. Listen to this
Department of Health and Human Services report,
given to a Senate committee this year: `In 15 of
the 24 states with the largest native American
populations, eligible Tribes received nothing in
1993 from the more than $3 billion in Federal funds
[Title XX and Title IV-E child welfare services and
protection programs] the States received. In the
other nine States, Indians received less than three
percent.' [George Grob, Deputy Inspector General,
HHS, April 5, 1995, Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs.]
It should not surprise anyone that tribal
leaders who want to produce for their people seize
what some view as a legal loophole that our courts
and laws have created to get revenue for their
citizens; 115 tribes now have some form of casino
gambling. The gross revenue for the 17 tribes in
Wisconsin is $655 million. And about one-fifth of
that revenue comes from people who live outside of
Wisconsin, higher than in most States, much lower
than Nevada or Atlantic City. Connecticut is the
prime example of a small tribe gaining big money. A
casino operated by the Manshantucket Pequot Tribe
in Ledyard, CT, brings in approximately $800
million in gross revenue annually. Native American
leaders who see long-term harm to their tribes from
the gambling enterprises are hard-pressed by those
who see immediate benefits, and not too much hope
for sizable revenue outside of gambling.
What are the disadvantages of legalized
gambling?
The distinguished Nobel Prize-winning economist,
Paul Samuelson, has warned us: `There is a
substantial economic case to be made against
gambling. It involves simply sterile transfers of
money or goods between individuals, creating no new
money or goods. Although it creates no output,
gambling does nevertheless absorb time and
resources. When pursued beyond the limits of
recreation . . . gambling subtracts from the
national income.' [Economics, McGraw-Hill, 1970.]
A high official in Nevada told me, `If we could
get rid of gambling in our State, it would be the
best thing that could happen to us. I cannot say
that publicly for political reasons. But major
corporations that might locate their principle
offices here or build plants here don't do it. They
know that gambling brings with it serious personnel
problems.'
Personnel problems are but one disadvantage, but
they are real. People can become addicted to
gambling, as they can to drugs or alcohol or
smoking.
My mother belongs to a church in Collinsville,
IL, that had a fine substitute teacher at its
Lutheran school. Unknown to the teacher's family,
she had been visiting a gambling boat. Money the
family thought had gone to pay the rent and family
bills had, instead, gone into wagers. One day, she
left a message for her family, drove her car to a
shopping center and killed herself.
In a relatively affluent Chicago suburb, a
41-year-old man committed suicide after using more
than $11,000 in credit card advances for gambling.
He shot himself after leaving a gambling boat.
Police found $13 in his pocket.
More typical is the experience of a friend, a
professional man, who attended a statewide meeting
of an association with which he is affiliated.
While he went to the meetings, his wife went to a
riverboat casino and `got hooked.' She spent all
the money she had and used all the available money
from her credit cards, close to $20,000. Her
husband knew nothing about it until he checked out
of the hotel and found his credit cards could not
be used because they had already reached their
maximum. In this family, the situation has worked
out, but that is not true for many.
A retired Air Force colonel has written me about
the problem of casino gambling near Keesler Air
Force Base that offers part-time work to personnel
stationed there, but also 24-hour-a-day gambling
availability and has brought serious problems of
addiction and the social and criminal problems that
go with it for the men and women stationed there.
Gambling addiction is a serious problem. We know
that men are more likely to become addicted than
women, that the appeal of gambling is greater for
low-income people than those of above average
income, that there are approximately 9 million
adults and 1.3 million teenagers with some form of
gambling behavior problem and that the availability
of gambling enterprises -- their closeness to where
a person lives -- causes a significant increase in
the addiction problem. Nationally, less than 1
percent 0.77 percent of the population are
compulsive gamblers, but when enterprises are
located near a population, that number increases
two to seven times.
The greatest growth is among teenagers.
University of Maryland football fans were stunned
recently to read that their all-American
quarterback had been suspended by the NCAA for four
games because of betting on college games. The
spread of gambling among teenagers has spilled over
onto college campuses, and Maryland's football
problem is evidencing itself on many campuses, a
highly publicized tip of a much more serious
iceberg.
Costs to society of the problem gambler vary
from the most conservative estimate of $13,200 to
$30,000 per year. I have no idea which figure may
be correct, but we know there are costs. Arnold
Wexler and his wife, Sheila Wexler, did a study for
Rutgers University and noted:
Compulsive gamblers will bet until nothing is
left: savings, family assets, personal belongings
-- anything of value that may be pawned, sold or
borrowed against. They will borrow from co-workers,
credit union, family and friends, but will rarely
admit it is for gambling. They may take personal
loans, write bad checks and ultimately reach and
pass the point of bankruptcy. . . . In desperation,
compulsive gamblers may panic and often will turn
to illegal activities to support their addiction.
(1992)
Prosecuting attorney Jeffrey Bloomberg of
Lawrence County, SD, testified before a U.S. House
committee on his experiences dealing with Deadwood,
SD, a small community that became the first place
outside of Atlantic City and Nevada to legalize
casino gambling. He said they were promised
`economic development, new jobs and lower taxes.'
Instead, casinos flourished, but other businesses
did not. Businesses that provide `the necessities
of life such as clothing are no longer available .
. . and customers of the town's only remaining
grocery store walk a gauntlet of slot- machines as
they exit with their purchases. For the most part,
the jobs which were created earn minimum wage or
slightly better and are without benefits. As for
the claim that gambling brings tax relief, this
simply has not proven true. Real property taxes for
both residential and commercial properties have
risen each and every year since gambling was
legalized. Crimes of theft, embezzlement, bad
checks and other forms of larceny have increased.
Our office has also seen an increase in the number
of child abuse and neglect cases as a result of
gambling. These run the spectrum from the children
left in their cars all night while their parents
gamble, to the children left at home alone while
their parents gamble, to the children left at home
alone while single mothers work the casino late
shift, to the household without utilities or
groceries because one or both parents have blown
their paycheck gambling. Government is hooked on
the money generated by gambling and in the long
term the ramifications of this governmental
addiction will be just as dire as for the
individual who becomes addicted to gambling.'
(Sept. 21, 1994--House Committee on Small
Business.)
One study conducted for insurance companies
suggests that 40 percent of white collar crime can
be traced to gambling. Usually those involved have
no prior criminal record.
The suicide rates for problem gamblers is
significantly higher than it is for the general
population. One out of five attempt suicide, a
higher rate than for alcoholism or drug addiction.
Pathological gamblers are much more likely to be
violent with their spouses and abuse their
children. Children of these gamblers generally do
worse in school and have a suicide rate twice that
of their classmates.
A survey of compulsive gamblers found 22 percent
divorced because of gambling, 40 percent had lost
or quit a job due to gambling, 49 percent stole
from work to pay gambling debts, 23 percent
alcoholic, 26 percent compulsive overeaters, 63
percent had contemplated suicide and 79 percent
said they wanted to die. (Henry Lesieur and
Christopher Anderson.)
Treatment for gambling compulsion is rarely
covered by health insurance policies, though
physicians often will simply list depression as the
cause for needed therapy, and that may be covered.
A national conference will be held in Puerto Rico
in September to discuss the growing problem of
gambling addiction.
State lotteries disproportionately receive money
from -- and target -- the poor. While it is true
that the purchases are voluntary and provide some
entertainment, as a society we should be providing
more substantial exits from poverty than the rare
lottery victory. A bill before the Illinois
legislature sponsored by Representative Jack Kubik
to prohibit cashing welfare checks at race tracks,
off-track betting parlors, and riverboat casinos
died a quiet death.
Compounding all of this, State and local
governments who receive revenue from legalized
gambling often are its promoters, both to bring
gambling in and to sustain it. Governments get
hooked. While States receive revenue from alcohol
and tobacco sales, no governmental unit -- to my
knowledge -- promotes alcohol and tobacco.
Generally governments appeal to our strengths, not
our weaknesses. But gambling is different.
Billboards are erected in poor areas to promote the
Illinois Lottery. `This could be your ticket out,'
one proclaimed. If the State of Illinois had
billboards promoting whiskey, beer or cigarettes,
there would be a public outcry. The Pennsylvania
lottery unashamedly advertises: `Don't forget to
play every day.' And of course the poor are the
ones who succumb to that lure.
Industries that want to bring in casinos are
generous with their promises. The poverty of
Atlantic City would be virtually eliminated, the
scenario read, but it did not happen. Poverty has
not diminished, and problems with gambling
addiction are up. Since the advent of the casinos,
40 percent of the restaurants not associated with
the gambling enterprises have closed, and one-third
of the city's retail business has closed.
Unemployment in Atlantic City is now the State's
highest. Crime is up significantly -- almost
tripled -- and the population has dropped by
one-fourth. Industrial consultant Nelson Rose told
U.S. News and World Report: `Atlantic City used to
be a slum by the sea. Now it's a slum by the sea
with casinos.' (March 14, 1994.)
But not only Atlantic City has been affected. A
study of crime patterns along non-toll roads
between Atlantic City and New York City and
Atlantic City and Philadelphia found a significant
increase in crime rates (Simon Hakim and Joseph
Friedman.)
The Better Government Association of Illinois
survey of 324 businesses in towns with riverboat
casinos found that 51 percent of the firms said
riverboats had either no effect or a negative
effect on their business. Of the 44 percent who
gave a positive response, half said the lift their
businesses got was minimal. Three percent said
their business has been `helped a lot.' (1994
survey.) A Chicago Tribune survey found a similar
result. An Aurora, IL riverboat casino gets all but
1 to 2 percent of its business from within the
State, and the Tribune reported:
`The casino is killing the small businesses in
this area, and they claimed it would help us,' said
Mario Marrero, former owner of the Porto Coeli Cafe
and Bakery, a block from the casino.
As soon as the casino opened a year ago, Marrero
saw his business drop by half, from about $4,000 a
month to $2,000 a month, he said.
In May, he was forced to close after nearly five
years in business. (June 28, 1994.)
Gambling's effect on government is more than
income from gamblers and expenditures for dealing
with problem gamblers and increased crime. Gambling
operators are major contributors to campaigns -- in
the millions -- and employ expensive lobbyists at
both the State and Federal level. A few gambling
enterprises have formed the American Gaming
Association and employed a former chairman of the
Republican National Committee as its chief
executive. Gaming is an influence to be reckoned
with in dozens of State capitals, and its influence
will grow markedly in Washington. In Illinois, the
lobbyists for gambling include a former Governor, a
former attorney general, two former U.S. attorneys,
a former director of the State police, a prominent
former judge, a former mayor of Chicago and at
least seven former State legislators. All of this
is legal.
But gambling in Illinois has also been
associated with the illegal. Back in 1964, as a
State legislator, I co-authored an article for
Harper's magazine titled, `The Illinois
Legislature: A Study in Corruption.' It did not
enhance my popularity in that body, but it did some
good, and I am pleased to report that today the
Illinois Legislature -- in ethics, and in quality
-- is a much improved body over that period. But
whenever there is easy money floating around, the
temptation for corruption is present. We have had
two Governors in our State's history go to prison,
one because of payoffs from legalized gambling. I
recall particularly the deal worked out in which --
on the same day -- the sales tax in our State was
increased from 2 cents to 3 cents, which then
included food and medicine, and the tax on two
politically well-connected racetracks was reduced
by one- third. Every State legislator knew what was
going on.
Organized crime has frequently been a problem
with gambling, whether legal or illegal. Big money
attracts them. And it is big money.
Last year, one riverboat casino in Illinois
netted -- not grossed--$203 million. The Chicago
Tribune (March 28, 1995) reported that two
politically well-connected Illinois men were
offered $20 million if they landed a casino in our
State for a Nevada firm. When contacted by the
Tribune, they said they had other offers that were
higher.
The gambling elite are not only generous
employers of lobbyists, they are multimillion
dollar donors to political campaigns, and the
combination makes them politically potent. The
unsavory and unhealthy influence of lobbyists and
legislators as a protector of this rapidly growing
industry means sensible restraint will not be
easily achieved.
But there is another side to that story. Public
opinion is not with the gambling gentry. Even after
well-financed campaigns, when there are referenda
on whether legalized gambling should be expanded in
a State or community, rarely do those initiatives
win. Every referendum on a gambling casino held
last year lost, and in the big one, Florida, it
lost decisively. Donald Trump may have helped when
he told the Miami Herald a few weeks before the
referendum: `As someone who lives in Palm Beach,
I'd prefer not to see casinos in Florida. But as
someone in the gambling business, I'm going to be
the first one to open if Floridians vote for them.'
Florida Commerce Secretary Charles Dusseau did an
economic analysis of gambling possibilities in
Florida and came to the conclusion it would hurt
the State.
Opposition to legalized gambling also brings
together an unlikely coalition. For example, Ralph
Reed, executive of the Christian Coalition, and the
liberal State Senator Tom Hayden of California,
agree on this issue.
To those who wish to go back to an earlier era
in our nation's history when legalized gambling was
abolished, my political assessment is that is not
possible. But restraint is possible.
I have introduced legislation, cosponsored by
Senator Lugar, to have a commission, of limited
duration and a small budget, look at this problem.
Congressmen Frank Wolf and John LaFalce have
introduced somewhat similar legislation in the
House. My reason for suggesting the limited
time--18 months -- and the small budget, $250,000,
is that commissions like that often are the most
productive. One of the finest commissions the
Nation has had, the Commission on Foreign Languages
and International Studies, produced its report in a
little more than 1 year on a small budget and had
significant influence.
Let a commission look at where we are and where
we should go. My instinct is that sensible limits
can be established.
For example, what if any new gambling enterprise
established after a specific date had to pay a tax
of 5 percent on its gross revenue. Those who are
already in the field who are not too greedy should
support it because it prevents the saturation of
the market. Financial wizard Bernard Baruch said of
those who invest in the stock market, `The bears
win and the bulls win, but the hogs lose.' Gambling
enterprises that are willing to limit their
expansion are more likely to be long-term winners.
And those who know the problems that gambling
causes should support this idea because of the
limitations.
Or suppose we were to move to some form of
supplement to local and State revenue again.
States, Indian tribes, and local governments that
do not have any form of legalized gambling would be
eligible for per capita revenue-sharing assistance.
It would require creating a source of revenue for
such funding, but would bring some relief to
non-Federal governments who do not want gambling
but are desperate for additional revenue. There is
no way -- let me underscore this -- of reducing the
gambling problem without facing the local revenue
problem.
Congressman Jim McCrery, a Republican from
Louisiana, has proposed that lotteries -- now
exempt from Federal Trade Commission
truth-in-advertising standards -- should be
covered. Why should the New York lottery be able to
advertise: `We won't stop until everyone's a
millionaire.'
These are just three possible ideas. The
commission could explore others. The commission can
look at how we deal with gambling opportunities
that will surface later this year on an
experimental basis on cable television and the
Internet. How significant could this become? None
of us knows.
We do know that two-thirds of problem gamblers
come from a home where at least one parent had a
problem with alcoholism. Should we be dealing more
seriously with alcoholism, in part to deal with the
gambling phenomenon?
These and other questions could be studied by a
commission.
What should not be ignored by Congress and the
American people is that we have a problem on our
hands. We need to find sensible and sensitive
answers.
:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.