Florida: Simple Math and Flawed Public Policy

Editorial: New Florida gambling is a bad bet-and it’s not even close
by JAMES A. SMITH SR.
Executive Editor
Florida Baptist Witness

As legislators consider gambling expansion to balance Florida’s budget in tough times, they ought to keep in mind a simple mathematical formula: 3-1.

That’s not the odds that lawmakers will approve or vote down gambling expansion. Three-to-one is the ratio of government spending needed to address the social ills created by every additional dollar of casino gambling revenue.

Even Tallahassee politicians who didn’t succeed at math during their school days should realize new gambling is not a solution to what ails the Sunshine State.

New gambling is a sucker’s bet, but seemingly easy money is luring legislators once again, including some with previously sterling anti-gambling reputations.

Rep. Ellyn Bodanoff, R-Fort Lauderdale, and Rep. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, have recently endorsed new casinos in light of the seemingly insurmountable fiscal realities and the losing battle with the Seminole Indian casinos.

Any legislator seriously contemplating more gambling in Florida should be asked if she or he has carefully considered the groundbreaking research of Earl Grinols. His book, Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits (Cambridge, 2004), evaluates casino gambling revenues and the social costs it produces.

His conclusion? The social costs to government resulting from casino gambling is three dollars for every dollar gained.

Grinols, distinguished professor of economics at Baylor University, assiduously asserts his research is independent, not funded by either side of the debate. Further, he notes, “I have no moral objections to gambling.”