New gambling revenue not worth the cost

State Sen. Russ Karpisek of Wilber wants Nebraska voters to again decide whether the state should allow casino gambling.

His proposal would use 50 percent of any gambling-tax revenue to reduce property taxes. Another 25 percent would go to public schools, 12 percent to the Game and Parks Commission, 12 percent to state water projects and 1 percent to a state program for problem gamblers.

Supporters argue that Nebraska is losing revenue to Iowa and South Dakota casinos.

We offered several points in our argument against expanded gambling two years ago (read here), including a quote from Warren Buffett that "gambling is a tax on ignorance" and it is immoral for the government to make it easier for people to use their Social Security checks in slot machines.

We also cited studies that showed people in lower-income ZIP codes spend four times as much on lottery tickets as those in more affluent areas. We noted that lotto winners have a divorce rate four times the national average, and 65 percent of Lotto winners are bankrupt within 15 years.

Gambling of all types, we've argued, carries more social costs than the benefits are worth.

The latest proposal reminds us of another aspect, however, the idea that half of the revenue would go to reduce property taxes, and a quarter of it to public schools -- already the largest consumer of property taxes.

If education is important, and it is, it's worth supporting through conventional taxes, not a system as unreliable as gambling revenue.

We urged voters to turn down the casino gambling proposal when it came up two years ago. Our opinion hasn't changed.