LOGIC (n.) from Greek 'logikos': 1. Anything posted on this blog. 2. Anything that drives a liberal crazy

Monday, October 16, 2006

Crap! Craps!

Sometimes Bob Frantz is nuts. Most of the time, he's a pretty smart guy, preaching "CS, not BS." (Common Sense). This morning he made mincemeat of Senator Voinovich in an interview about Ohio Issue 3. (The link is the first hour podcast of the show. Scroll to the middle of the podcast for the start of the interview.)

One thing I found particularly laughable, was that Sen. Voinovich said that the casino operators would keep 61% of the money. He said it incredulously, too. Hello!! It's a BUSINESS. I'm surprised they're giving up 39%. Ask any other business owner about keeping only 61% of the money. They'll probably ask you if you used to live in the USSR, comrade. Aside from that, the main argument against this proposal is that it will create (supposedly) 109,000 new addicts in the State of Ohio. I'm gonna tell you why that's quite a specious argument. Let me first say that I personally will not vote in favor of Issue 3. I think it's poorly written, and the campaign was so shady, that I'm not sure people like that should be running casinos. Now, here's why the "addict" card doesn't play.

1)
109,000 new addicts are predicted. Assuming the normal governmental margin of error, this actually means anywhere from 10 addicts - 86 billion addicts. For simplicity's sake, let's use 109,000. This is just a shade under 1% of the population. It makes no sense to prevent something because it affects 1% of the population. Nationwide, 5.7% of the population 12 and older are considered alcoholics. So should we ban alcohol? No! Why not? Well, besides the fact that I'm UAC Lutheran, it's very simple. Alcohol, like almost anything else is something responsible people can enjoy in moderation. The same is true of gambling. If someone has disposable income, they're free to spend it how they want to. What's the difference between spending $600 for a new TV, and spending $600 in a casino on a day trip?

2)Addicts destroy families. That's true. So can dads who ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Or drive without a seatbelt. (See my post on that here, if you haven't already -- it's the second one down) Regardless, the government is NOT the head of the family. It's not their job. The same points I made regarding seatbelt laws generally apply here. I'm too lazy to retype them. :-)

3)
New addicts will be created with 'x' miles of the casino. This probably isn't even likely. If someone is addicted to gambling, they'll find a way to do it. If you don't put a casino in their backyard, they'll build one. Or they'll go on the internet. Or they'll drive 3 hours in (just about) any direction to get to one. If you have time, I highly recommend you listen to the podcast above. Bob Frantz does a good job tearing up the opposition. I'd also like it duly noted that I think Sen. Voinovich has generally done a pretty good job in the Senate. It's just this issue he's wrong on.

4 Comments:

Blogger chaplain7904 said...

When someone has to gamble to pay their bills, they're in trouble. This is what the government is doing.

Besides this, gambling opportunities encourage people's natural greed, this is always bad.

Gambling produces nothing.

It takes un-necessary risk, with limited resources, which could be more beneficially applied elsewhere. This is the definition of econcomis: wisely apportioning limited resources to where they can be most wisely used.

Where? Savings, start a business, make a wise investement, buy a new tool, take a class, buy a new gun, give to church, pay some bills in advance, save for a new car, go to a seminar, give to a deserving poor person, buy your wife some flowers and on and on and on.

9:51 PM

 
Blogger Barb the Evil Genius said...

Actually, Chaplain, this isn't even the government's bills. Technically, it's our bills, since this is supposed to pay for college tuitions. Basically, we will be making some casino owners rich by promising extravagant things for the future that will somehow fail to materialize.

10:51 PM

 
Blogger Rick said...

The Federal corporate tax rate, if I remember correctly, is around 34%, if not higher. I don't remember what the state corporate tax rate is, so let's say it is 6%.

So, all other business owners are already only keeping 60% of profits.

Why don't we have a corporate tax amnesty period for the next 8-12 years for the state of Ohio: no taxes or greatly reduced taxes. Ya think the state would have any trouble attracting business then? We wouldn't need the casinos.

10:42 PM

 
Blogger Barb the Evil Genius said...

By the way, I'm liking George Voinovich less and less. I personally think he is a national embarrassment to Ohio after the incident which inspired this brilliant website.

11:49 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home