Pitting States Against Each Other in Race to the Bottom

Our View: State needs to think long-term on casinos

Gov. Andrew Cuomo raised some eyebrows last week when he disclosed that his administration has been exploring the possibility of expanding legalized gambling so commercial, non-Indian casinos could operate within New York's borders.

Cuomo went as far as to suggest that allowing casinos might not require a constitutional amendment - which is a lengthy and costly process. He said the restriction in the state constitution on traditional casino games and slot machines may not apply to electronic versions of many games and video slot machines.

Cuomo's words were quickly seized upon by casino operators, who have been spending millions of dollars lobbying state governments around the country to legalize gambling.

The casino supporters have been quick to cite the revenues they could bring to state governments, most of which are struggling financially right now.

What they fail to address in this lobbying effort is the source of this revenue that goes to the states - taxpayers.

Casinos, first and foremost, are built to take people's money. A lot of it goes to the casino owners; some of it goes to the state.

"The more people that lose money, the worse off the economy is," said Tom Larkin who leads an anti-casino group in Massachusetts. "The worst thing you can do is say, ‘Look, we have an economic problem, let's have more people lose more money.'"

A similar casino push is happening in Massachusetts, where, not surprisingly, the casino operators last week began pitting both states against each other, saying one cannot afford to let the other go forward with legalized gambling.

We urge the governor and Legislature to be thorough in their analysis of this issue.

Don't allow a short-term desire for more money to play with in the state budget lead to long-term problems that can come with widescale legalized casino gambling.