Maryland Slots Referendum

The following was prepared by the Lutheran Office of Public Policy – Maryland, Lee Hudson, Director.  The Maryland Legislature has put a slots referendum on November’s ballot.

———-

Slots Talk from LOPP/MD-the Policy

The ELCA social statement “Sufficient, Sustainable Livelihood For All” (1999) affirmed an historic commitment by this church and its predecessors to adequate and elastic public revenues, and against state-sponsored gambling.¹ To appreciate the ELCA position it is necessary to unpack the hyphenated adjectival “state-sponsored.”

When the state raises revenue from gambling it goes into the business of granting permits for wagering through its regulatory authority. The licenses are contracts between the state and gambling interests to conduct games of chance in return for defined shares of the profits. The state’s share is “revenue.” The gambling industry business model becomes state revenue policy. Revenue will be made dependent on the volume of wagering. That produces two unhappy outcomes.

First, it creates inefficiency-to use a favored economics term-in revenue policy. Rather than revenue being raised directly out of the productive economy an entire industry is created to encourage the wager transaction. In contrast, the sales tax (another levy that wears the label “regressive”) is efficient because it’s in each transaction to which it applies, 6% as revenue. The State’s share of the take in the Maryland gambling plan will be $870 million, but it will only keep $640, about half the plan’s expected $1.3 billion gross receipts. That’s inefficient.

Second, slots will meet the revenue projections if and only if many Marylanders lose a lot of money. It’s estimated that Marylanders now lose about $225 million a year gambling out of state. To achieve revenue estimates from state-sponsored gambling Marylanders will need to lose that $1.3 billion figure. Those losses provide revenue and make Maryland a stakeholder in the business. Maryland must encourage its citizens to frequent slots parlors and lose a lot of money to pay the public bills. That’s poor public policy.

How do slots work? The slots business plan requires customers to stay in the facilities for extended periods; they will be open long hours every day of the year. Slots are profitable because they don’t need attendants: they pay out on a random schedule. The machines no longer use coins. The industry likes credit and bankcards. Typically players stay long enough to win a few times, but over several hours they will lose some too. The business plan has the house make ten cents, on average, from each wagered dollar.

It doesn’t sound like much, but the business plan is about volume. Over the course of an evening you might wager $100. On average you’ll leave with $90. Of the $10 loss, $3.30 goes to the house, $6.70 to the State. If the State expects $870 million…well, you get the point.

Of the revenue raised, $110 million will go to the horse racing industry and about $230 million goes for administrative and public costs, and other subsidies. $640 million will be left as actual “revenue” for the State’s budget.

The slots business model gets married to the State’s public revenue policy, as the State promotes more losses so it can pay its bills. That’s the ELCA objection to state-sponsored gambling.

Snippits of Conversation

You never know what snippits of conversation you might overhear while walking near people engaged in conversation (face to face or on a cell phone).

“… then, after my parents broke up …”

“… That’s apples and oranges.  That was from the business, the loan was from family money …”

“… we are on a break now and I thought I’d just check in …”

“… then she said …”

“… you gotta be kidding! No way! …”

“… when my husband found out …”

A story in every one …

Pondering Pastor

John Hagee’s Inadequate Apology

Once again a very public apology fails to be an apology.

John Hagee employs some of the standard rhetorical devices often used to make a “non-apology” sound like an apology.

John Hagee wrote:

“Insofar as some of my past statements regarding the Roman Catholic Church have raised concerns in your community, I am writing in a spirit of mutual respect and reconciliation to clarify my views.  Out of a desire to advance greater unity  among Catholics and Evangelicals  in promoting the common good,  I want to express my  deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful.  After engaging in constructive dialogue with Catholic friends and leaders, I now have an improved understanding of the Catholic Church, its relation to the Jewish faith, and the history of Anti-Catholicism.”

There is so much “conditional” language and avoidance of responsibility in the opening of this letter it is hard to know where to start.

His first sentence notes that he wants to clarify his views.  He spends a good deal of the later paragraphs of this letter doing just that … demonstrating that he has never held anti-Catholic views.  Why, he even has friends that are Catholic and he once helped an order of nuns!

The standard non-apologetic “deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful” places the responsibility on the listener rather than on the offensive statements.  Where is the “I’ve made some very inappropriate and hurtful comments”?  Look for the verb in the sentence … it gives you a clue as to who makes the mistakes.  For John Hagee, the mistake is that some misunderstood his message.

Bill Donahue, the recipient of the letter wrote:

“After weeks of meeting with various Catholic leaders, and accessing scholarly literature on Catholic-Jewish relations, Pastor John Hagee has demonstrated an improved understanding of the Catholic Church and its history. In his letter to me, Hagee says, ‘I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful.’ He specifically cites his emphasis of ‘the darkest chapters in the history of Catholic and Protestant relations with the Jews,’ and has pledged to provide a more complete and balanced portrayal going forward that will not reinforce mischaracterizations of the Catholic Church. And while he stresses that his invocation of terms like ‘apostate church’ and the ‘great whore’ were never meant by him to describe the Catholic Church, he acknowledges that anti-Catholics have long employed such language.  The tone of Hagee’s letter is sincere. He wants reconciliation and he has achieved it. Indeed, the Catholic League welcomes his apology. What Hagee has done takes courage and quite frankly I never expected him to demonstrate such sensitivity to our concerns. But he has done just that. Now Catholics, along with Jews, can work with Pastor Hagee in making interfaith relations stronger than ever. Whatever problems we had before are now history. This case is closed.”

I think Bill Donahue is overly optimistic.

Just look at what John Hagee is saying on his own website.

I feel the need after days of media misrepresentation to respond to slanderous accusations about being a religious bigot. It is truly disappointing to me to see how quickly accusation and rumor crystallize into fact in the hands of media outlets, which do not seem interested in subjecting these claims to serious review in search of the truth.

He then continues to defend that he has done nothing wrong.

That’s not an apology Pastor Hagee … that’s defensive justification.  This apology doesn’t even use a variation of the word apology!

Pondering Pastor