Liberty Maven

On the ballot this November in Maryland, Question 2 is a referendum to amend the state Constitution authorizing slot machines.

First, some brief history on the issue.  Between 1949 and 1968, gaming (including slot machines) was legal.  Almost 5,000 slot machines were running around the clock in at least four counties.  Such was the glitz and glamor that some people referred to it as Little Vegas. But then in response to pressure from citizens groups and local politicians, all gaming was deemed illegal.

Fast forward to just a few years ago, when Governor Bob Ehrlich was elected in 2003 (and inherited a huge budget deficit from Governor Paris Glendenning).  To avoid raising taxes in a state considered to be in the top five most heavily taxed states, Ehrlich pushed hard for the legalization of slot machines to help alleviate the budget woes.  The idea, of course, was to use proceeds from slot machines to fill the state coffers.  The Maryland State Legislature has long been controlled by career Democrats, who vehemently opposed the idea on high moral grounds.  “It will cause massive gambling addiction”, they cried, among other things.  But just a few years later when Martin O’Malley became governor, he colluded with the Maryland General Assembly to institute the largest tax increases in state history, raising the income tax, sales tax, and property taxes simultaneously.  But the economic downturn failed to produce the expected tax revenue, and Maryland finds itself with nearly a billion dollar budget deficit.  So now O’Malley and other Maryland politicians have pulled a 180 and are pushing for the legalization of slot machines.   As usual, politicians opposed the measure for the wrong reasons, and then turned around to support it when it becomes politically expedient.

Personally, I have no use for slot machines….

Anyone with any mathematical knowledge whatsoever knows that you’re better off putting coins into a wishing well than a slot machine.  However, I still believe that it is not a legitimate function of state (or any) government to prohibit gaming or gambling in any fashion.  What people do with their time and money, no matter how stupid, is their own business, as long as they’re not actively treading on the rights of anyone else in the process.  If Joe puts a quarter in a slot machine, it doesn’t hurt Frank one iota.  (Even if Joe blows his whole paycheck, it’s nobody’s business).

And it’s definitely unethical for any government to “allow” owners of establishments to own and operate slot machines only if these proprietors agree to kick back a good portion of the generated revenue to the state.  But that’s exactly what’s being proposed in Question 2.

I have a good friend who is an aficionado of slot machines.  He regularly travels to Atlantic City, Dover (Delaware), and Charlestown, WV to sink nickels and quarters into slot machines.  Knowing he is probably in favor of the proposed legislation, I decided to offer him some reasons to instead vote NO for Question 2.  What follows is a transcript of our short conversation, edited only for clarity:

MIKE:
I suspect you may be tempted to vote YES, so I’m here to give you a few reasons not to.  I think we both agree with this statement: Government should have no involvement whatsoever with the private industry, so therefore slot machines should be inherently and naturally legal.

Problem is,  Question 2 is a referendum that legalizes a ton of government involvement.  It basically says that the government “authorizes” slots at five very specific locations (only) and that the proprietors of the equipment must fork over 67% of all profits to the state.

Here are five reasons to vote NO:

1. As government should have no involvement with private industry, there is no place in the Maryland Constitution for such issues.  Voting YES on Question 2 and placing such language into the state Constitution effectively legalizes and legitimizes government interference and control over private industry. This sets a terrible precedent and it can become a slippery slope, encouraging addition such intervention in the future.
2. The amendment only legalizes slots in five specific locations around the state.  Slots location in other areas would still be illegal.  Changing the Constitution is difficult, so anything spelled out in this amendment will come back to bite us when we find out it wasn’t a good idea.
3. The government will only “legalize” slots if the proprietors agree to allow the state to steal 67% of their profits.  Why would we want to legalize such larceny?  Again, it is another bad precedent and slippery slope.
4. The amendment states that it is “legalizing” slots in prescribed locations primarily for the purposes of raising revenue for education.  This is nothing more than pandering.  Put a happy face on it and the amendment will have a better chance of getting passed.   Revenue extorted from the slot machine proprietors simply goes into the general fund, and there’s no guarantee it will go toward education as described.  It’s a scam, just like money from toll roads that was promised to go back to maintain roads and other infrastructure ended up in the general funds and spent on other “high priority” projects instead.
5. Maryland government is too big.  It taxes too much, and it spends too much.  With the economic downturn (and ever-decreasing tax revenues), the state is at the point where it will need to trim the state budget and decrease spending on misguided social planning and pork projects.  Legalizing the looting of slot machine profits will provide extra revenue that will allow the state to continue spending like drunken sailors.  And it wouldn’t be the least bit surprising if the state authorizes spending based on “projected” slot revenues, and when slot revenues don’t live up to expectations, the state’s deficit will grow even larger.  This is exactly what happened when they spent based on “projected” tax revenue that didn’t pan out.

FRIEND:
But if I vote NO, then I have to keep driving to Dover or AC to play slots, and we just get taxed more to make up the revenue.  You don’t really think they will start cutting back on spending if we don’t get slots do you?

MIKE:
Two points:

1. You have to make a choice between what’s convenient for you personally and what’s right.  To vote YES for severely flawed legislation would be to sell out for personal “gain”.
2. Yes, budget cuts would absolutely be required.  Maryland just sustained the largest tax increase in state history.  And yet, the expected gain in revenue has not materialized due to the sagging economy.  Since Maryland law required that the budget be balanced, Governor O’Malley has been forced to slash the budget recently.  I love it.  The only thing to keep them from having to continue to do so is by looting slot machine proprietors.  They simply cannot and will not raise taxes again (during this administration at least) because the Democrats want to stay in office.  Not only have the recent tax increases been enormously unpopular, but they haven’t worked.  Increasing them more at this point wouldn’t give them what they want, anyway.

FRIEND:
So more sacrificing on my end for the good of the state?  Why is it always me that has to give in for the benefit of everyone else?  This is the one thing I have been wanting to pass for years.

MIKE:
Vote YES, then.  You’ll get what you want, good and hard.

I’d like to point out that the attitude you display about this is precisely why we have the bloated, overreaching government we do.  Someone wants something, and a bill comes by that “gives” it to them.  Regardless of the harm that it will cause, they support it, as long as they get what they want.

I’ll say no more about it.  I just wanted to offer you another way to think about it.

FRIEND:
I hear ya. I just think that if I vote NO and everyone else does too, then we don’t get slots, but the government will still find some other way to circumvent the constitution. It’s not like the government runs great now and this will change all that.

This vote hasn’t happened yet and look at all our rights being infringed upon. Unless voting NO guarantees it won’t happen anyway, I don’t see the point. It’s like putting a bandaid on a 6-inch hole in your leg. We still get a bad state government and we can’t have slots. At least with slots I get some fun out of them taking my money and not just taxed with no fun. What are we now, one of the last states to have them anyway?

MIKE:
Fear not.  The golden rule of government seems to be that it will grow, politicians will do the wrong things, and the public will be duped into supporting them (either out of ignorance or out of greed) just as you are.  All indications are that the amendment is likely to pass, and you will probably have slots in Laurel.

FRIEND:
Yep, so I may as well get something out of it since it’s all bad anyway.

So I’m sorry to say that my friend is a perfect example of the “it all sucks, so I need to get mine” mindset that is ruining us.  Faced with good reasons to oppose Question 2, all he could think was “I want slots”. Gimme, gimme, gimme.  It’s this lack of principle in the voting masses that contribute greatly to our downfall.