The last hand

Cross posted at Political Arguments.

I've enjoyed William Saffire's On Language reports more than his better known Op-Ed fare, but today's farewell columns are an enjoyable read. I especially liked Saffire's telltale on "How to Read a Column", and was surprised by my agreement with many of his "journalistic crusades".

But the reasons he gives for his adherence to many of causes does not appeal to me as much as the cause itself. And in a political climate obsessed with "results", justification is often underrated.

more...

Take Saffire's opposition to state-sponsored gambling:

Loser: State-sponsored gambling. For years I railed against the deceptive and regressive taxation and something-for-nothing morality perpetrated by state lotteries, as well as the state deals with sometimes phony Indian tribal leaders to victimize the gullible in glitzy casinos. But gambling, euphemized as "gaming," is booming, enriching the sleazy while preying on the addicted and corrupting slots-happy governors.

I have no moral opposition to many practices that I consider pointless and stupid, and doubt that prohibition will do much to quell compulsive or addicted gamblers. I also endorse the legalization—and subsequent taxation—of most, and perhaps all, controlled substances, and the decriminalization of prostitution.

But there are reasons to oppose state-sponsored gambling that don't rely on sanctimonious paternalism. Take, for instance, the "curse of oil" effect that state sponsored gambling can have on local government. Simply put, lotteries and casinos are too easy a source of revenue for the state, one that bears down too lightly on the shoulders of most taxpayers to have them demand oversight or accountability. I suppose that's what Saffire's reference to "corrupting slots-happy governors" means. But the problem of fiscal unaccountability applies even to "enlightened despots" of the best kind. If politicians don't need to convince constituents of the need for a new tax or the advisability of a state-financed project, they won't. And that is one more mark of sovereignty that they may exercise with impunity.

But private casinos are just a business, one to be zoned and taxed like all the others. Are many of them corrupt? Sure, but that's as much due to current regulations that inflate the worth of a gambling license and allow cartels to control the industry. As for state lotteries, has anyone bothered to ask if projected tax revenues from private lotteries would fall short of current state-lottery revenues?

As for those folks who want to get away from all the sin, there's always Boulder City.