Gambling at the Greenbrier

I believe the Senate had a knee jerk reaction to the Greenbrier's impending Bankruptcy.
We are selling out good values for the potential of promised revenues. This may be a result of the other Golden Rule. Those that own the gold, RULE!

I oppose ALL forms of state gambling on several grounds. (there will be some redundancy) This includes lotteries (maybe especially lotteries since their major customers are moderate to low income people...but that for later).

1. The state represents the common good, and should strive to set a high standard. The state has a responsibility to protect its citizens and to draw out from them a high standard of citizenship. Gambling legislation is primarily to raise tax revenue (and in the case of the Greenbrier, to also stimulate income for a particular business entity).
2. When the state develops a vested interest in gambling income in lieu of normal tax sources, then it develops a corresponding interest in spurring increased gambling. That is, the more folks gamble, the more revenue. So rather than protecting citizens by protecting them from unwise spending choices (for the odds are always strongly against gamblers in these things), the state promotes, advertises, and tempts its citizens to gamble. (I'm speaking here of lotteries)
3. Our society values people by how much money they have. Money is power, prestige, and self-worth. I believe this is a counterfeit value system, but nonetheless this is what our society pushes. So some poor schmuck stuck in a low end job dreams of being "a somebody." He or she fantasizes, "Oh, if only I had a million dollars, this is what I would do, and be." So the lottery or other gambling seems to be the only way to this dream. Holding a ticket (or a gob of tickets) makes their day manageable, their situation bearable, for that night the winning numbers will be announced...
4. But countless low income people waste money on gambling. Some become addicted and get egregiously in debt, even contributing to family and marriage ruin, and in some cases, resorting to theft. This addiction includes casino gambling. One of the major customers of many casinos (such as the offshore boats) are elderly people on fixed incomes. Sometimes they are bussed in.
5. The counter argument arises, "But people are going to gamble anyway. Might as well let the state regulate it and profit from it." I still have to counter that the state should not be making money off vice, for it then becomes tempting to the state to induce folks to gamble rather than protecting them from overindulgence. I will go further to say that I feel the same way with alcohol (Manchin is trying to get Sunday sales and more outlets in WV), and would say the same thing with harmful drugs and prostitution (which maybe should be decriminalized but certainly not have the state start profiting from them).
6. The state uses gambling revenue to supplant increased taxation. As many have observed, gambling might be a luxury for the rich but it is a tax upon the poor. So then should the state supplant gambling revenue with increased taxation? My answer is "absolutely yes." First, the state should tax equal to its expenditures. Deficit spending for the purpose of keeping taxes low is intergenerational theft, actually a form of a Ponzi scam, for the folks who get on board last (future generations) will lose.
7. But one last point on taxes. I believe in lowering or abolishing taxes on productive work and maybe even spending (income and sales taxes), and "tax shifting" this to pollution and non-renewable resources, all of which tend to get tax breaks as well as their true costs being externalized on the public. So maybe gasoline should cost $10 a gallon, that is, a high carbon tax. Electricity should be much much higher since coal is such an egregious polluter from the time it's mined to its burning. But such high taxes would spur a major societal shift toward renewable energy and conservation of resources, a good thing. And with lowered or abolished taxes on income and spending, many citizens might not see much difference in their total tax bill. (I realize I have given an incomplete analysis in such a short space).
8. Anyway, I oppose gambling on the above grounds. I could add further, such as religious reasons, but in a pluralistic society it is important to state reasons that fit the pluralism for the common good.

-Allen Johnson

I agree Allen. Ultimately these issues boil down to several human frailties: the desire to get something for nothing and failure to count one's blessings.

So is the innuendo of your remark to the effect that if only the rich gamble it can't hurt? What about the climate it will create in the surrounding community and the smaller gambling establishments that will follow to ensnare the "not so rich and famous".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating gambling. Far from it. It's for chumps. I remember Atlantic City before the casinos moved in. By the late 60's it was really a slummy place. Now it's a slummy place with casinos. I'm sure the casinos are generating tax revenue. But it didn't come to Atlantic City. On the other hand, gambling at The Greenbrier will never approach the scale of Atlantic City. Still, there will probably be a few additional jobs and that's a good thing.

Commissioner, what will be your answer when and if the question becomes "Gambling at Snowshoe"?

If our tax revenue depends on gambling, then I say government has not done its job.

Bill, it can be if a community decides that is what it wants. The idea that someone other than ourselves has the power to plunk down in our midst things we don't want is nonsense. We citizens can have as much power over our destiny as we give ourselves. It takes work and communication and the fostering of a common vision; but divided we fall.