The Washington Post says Tom Perez's new report on slots in Maryland "lacks horse sense". Perhaps most interesting is their critique of the idea that will capture revenue lost to gambling in other states by operating slots:
One suspects that the Post isn't going to change its mind on this one.At the heart of Mr. Perez's argument is the point that the state is "leaving money on the table" because tens of thousands of Marylanders are already going out of state to play slots. He estimates that Maryland residents are spending as much as $400 million a year on slots in neighboring Delaware and West Virginia, thereby contributing $150 million annually in budget revenue to those states' coffers.
On its face, that is a potent argument, particularly as Maryland faces the legal obligation of closing a budget deficit of $1.5 billion in the fiscal year starting next summer. On closer examination, the idea that the state could easily recapture $150 million in supposedly "lost" revenue is shaky. For one thing, it would take several years before a full-fledged slots program is up and running. For another, some people would continue to play slots out of state for reasons of personal preference or geographic convenience. Moreover, rather than representing new revenue, some or much of the money spent in Maryland slots parlors would inevitably be diverted from existing in-state businesses or pursuits, including restaurants, souvenir stands, movies or the state lottery. That explains why the chamber of commerce in Ocean City, to cite one example, is vehemently opposed to slots.
In his report, Mr. Perez gives short shrift to other valid concerns about the massive expansion of gambling that slots would represent -- that they act too often as a tax on the poor; that they foster corruption; and that while pumping money into the pockets of wealthy horse breeders and track owners, they in fact do little or nothing to keep bettors at the track or increase the public's interest in racing.
