Gambling bill should get greater scrutiny

The revered British statesman Benjamin Disraeli once said “there is no gambling like politics,” and some of our public servants in Harrisburg are rolling the dice on a gambling expansion as a way to fill in billion-dollar gaps in the state budget.
In a move that made eyebrows shoot skyward – kind of like when you roll the dice and get snake eyes, come to think of it – the Pennsylvania House of Representatives voted Wednesday night to expand gambling in the commonwealth. And, boy, what an expansion it would be. It would put casino-style gaming in bars, bowling alleys, fraternal clubs, airports and truck stops, and give casinos a piece of the internet-gambling action.
Lawmakers from both parties have long threatened to expand gambling, and a similar measure foundered in the House last year. It’s still far from a done deal, since the state Senate and Gov. Tom Wolf will also have to sign off on it. The bill itself is a mixed bag, but the fact that it was sprung on the public hours before the House vote with little debate should give everyone pause. For legislation this momentous, both lawmakers and their constituents should have had more time to parse it and offer their input.
For instance, state Rep. Scott Petri, a Bucks County Republican who chairs the House Gaming Oversight Committee, voted against it because the Pennsylvania State Police and the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board had not had the chance to say whether the bill’s plans for handling applicants for gambling licenses were workable.
Petri said, “We’re trying to jam something through quickly and we’re trying to get it in under cover of night.”
Then, there’s simply the question of whether putting gambling here, there and everywhere is the best way to solve Pennsylvania’s fiscal woes. Gambling can be a harmless lark if, say, you walk into a casino, limit yourself to spending $20 at a slot machine and walk away when that is depleted. On the other hand, it’s not much fun when you’re raiding your 401(k) or absconding with the company funds to feed your gambling habit. Will we be creating more of the latter by making gambling available on virtually every corner? And what about the casinos that have already been built? And the senior-assisting Pennsylvania Lottery? Will they lose customers?
That being said, the measure has some upsides. First, it bows to the inevitable when it comes to online gambling, which is already occurring, but with state coffers losing out on tax revenue. According to the bill, a fee to operate a gambling website would cost $8 million, with 16 percent of its gross revenue going to the state, 2 percent earmarked for economic development projects and 1 percent going to the host county. If it happens, Pennsylvania would become only the fourth state to approve online gambling, behind Nevada, New Jersey and Delaware.
Perhaps more important, it would also reinstate the millions of local-share tax dollars that flow to host communities of casinos. Last year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that, because some casinos were taxed at different rates, the state’s method of assessing tax payments was unfair. Fixing this is critical, as municipalities have been able to undertake important infrastructure and community improvements thanks to the local-share bounty. Under the proposed law, casinos would have to fork over 2 percent of their annual gross slot-machine take to their host county, and $10 million to the host community. However, the bill carves out an exception for Philadelphia’s SugarHouse Casino and smaller casinos at resorts.
It’s a common lament that government moves too slowly, but in this case we can be glad that the Senate and the governor will be acting as speed bumps. Before it becomes law, a gambling expansion needs to be probed much more slowly and much more carefully.