During the Ehrlich administration, I vigorously opposed slots. It seemed to me that Gov. Ehrlich and his allies were trying to avoid asking our state’s residents - especially the wealthiest ones - to responsibly pay for our societal needs.
Had any of my District 18 representatives voted for slots, it could have cost them my vote in the next election. But none did.
Now that the governor who’s pushing slots is a Democrat, has my opinion of the idea changed? No, I still think it’s a terrible way to finance a government. And all other things being equal, I’d still react quite negatively to a pro-slots vote by someone from the District 18 delegation.
But all other things are not equal. They’re not even close.
This time around, slots are being offered as part of a large, complex, and long-overdue package designed to address our state’s budget problems for the long term - a package that includes substantial tax increases of the type that previous administrations recklessly avoided. This time, slots aren’t simply a dodge or a gimmick.
And when all of the individual bills comprising this large budget package have to be agreed upon by a majority of 141 delegates and 47 senators, that means compromise is called for. You have to take the bad with the good. There are those who are now supporting the types of necessary tax increases that they avoided talking about before. I can see where slots opponents would have to give some in order to negotiate a workable agreement.
That's the art of compromise. And it's part of responsible governing.
