Image provided by: Clackamas Community College; Oregon City, OR
About The Clackamas print. (Oregon City, Oregon) 1989-2019 | View Entire Issue (June 7, 2006)
The 4 Commentary Wednesday, June 7, 2006 Clackamas Prin Face off: the casino question Welcome off-reservation casinos Frank Jordan The Clackamas Print The state of Oregon is still in crisis mode when it comes to financing public education. The Oregon Legislature is having a special ses sion to consider adding another 45 million dol lars in excess lottery money to school budgets to help shore up K-12 education for the next year. But I may have a reasonable short-term sol ution that the state could take advantage of, and it wouldn’t hurt the local economy either. Indian tribal casinos are a big business, not only in Oregon, but nationwide as well. These cash cows rake in hundreds of millions of dol lars annually, but none of that money goes to the state in taxes. Indian casinos on tribal lands are technically on federal property, so the state sees no direct benefit from their use. But what if the state of Oregon were to go into the casino business or at least let a private entrepreneur build and run a casino operation off tribal land? If one (or more) is built in the Portland Metro Area, the state of Oregon could stand to make upwards of five hundred million dollars in the form of property taxes and corpo rate income taxes each year. If this money gained is dedicated solely to education, the state will have solved a huge problem on how to fund this drain on state resources. Oregon could go a little farther and revamp its entire taxation system, but that is a subject for another day. In the meantime, our children could reap the benefits for a long time to come. The only hang-up in this scenario is the obvious drain on the Oregon Lottery. The state introduced line games on its video poker terminals over the past winter and revenues are higher than expected. A casino (or casinos) would take away dollars from the lottery, but maybe the lottery could go in on the action that casinos would bring, maybe by allowing Nevada realizes unbelievable income from - gaming operations. With the proliferation of gambling in our country these days, why , should the state of Oregon hold onto the moral high ground and not allow casinos to be built, not only in the Portland area, but throughout the state? Oregon lessened its morals with the introduction of the lottery in 1984, and its hold on the citizens who like to gamble continues to this day. Let the casinos become_a reality, Oregon. Until our governing body gets off its ass and solvesourreal problems with school funding, this is an idea whose time has come. Let the games begin! Don't sacrifice families for funds Laura Cameron Commentary Editor Do we really want our schools funded by someone’s life-destroying addiction? That, to me, is the question at the heart of the debate over Native American casinos being built off tribal lands. It is the main question because requests to build off tribal lands are always framed the same way: “We’ll generate tax money for schools!” Call me crazy, but I just don’t like the idea of funding Oregon schools with gambling money. Even when I was in high school and watching program after program get slashed from the budget, I did not support the idea of opening casinos to pay for schools. Casino money is tainted money. Consider these figures: according to a study by the National Oregon Lottery games to be played at off-tribal casino properties throughout the state. I love this state and I really don’t want it to become another Nevada, but the state of No government without censors ■ Laura Cameron 11 Commentary Editor Stupid people make my brain sad. If brains could cry, mine would be curled up in a comer, weeping like an emo kid writing poetry. Let me explain why. There is a faction in America, small but vocal, that has been gain ing steam in the last year or two. They are the ones who will brook absolutely no criticizing of the gov ernment; the ones who question the patriotism of every peace activist and blame every negative news story on the supposed “liberal media.” I call these people “patriotoids.” Lately, the patriotoids have been focusing their ire on the press. With the civil war in Iraq, the Valerie Plame leak investigation, warrant less wiretaps, the continued bungling of the Hurricane Katrina response, and Bush’s plummeting popularity dominating the newswaves, they see the press’s actions as unfairly, even maliciously attacking Bush and his buddies. They want them to lay off. “Stop being so critical!” they say. “The government’s trying to protect us. They know what’s best! Let them do their job!” This is where my sad-brain syn drome comes in. Since the founding of this coun try, the press has been the watch dog of the government. That’s how toe Founding Fathers intended it; it’s why they included freedom of the press in the First Amendment. Thomas Jefferson (remember him? The guy who wrote toe Declaration of Independence?) put it this way: “No Government ought to be with out censors, and where toe press is free, no one ever will.” Yet there are toe patriotoids, rising up in indignation and telling us that toe White House and Capitol Hill should be considered untouchable. Talk about irony: in their “patri otic” fervor, they’re proposing toe exact opposite of what toe Founding Fathers wanted! Governments need watchdogs, because positions of power will always attract toe greedy and cor rupt Remember Joe McCarthy! Should Edward R Murrow have shut his trap and left McCarthy alone because he was trying to keep us safe? Remember Watergate! Should Bob Woodward and Leonard Bernstein have dropped toe issue because it involved White House officials? How is it “patriotic” to look toe other way as corruption and crony ism destroy a government? Why this anathema to making sure our elected officials stay on toe straight and narrow? Wa< not this country founded on toe notion of holding toe government responsible for its actions? This is supposed to be toe gov ernment of, by and for toe people. In order to continue to be that govern ment, toe people have to know what toe government is doing. To say otherwise is not disloyal; to inform toe public is not unpatriotic. Indeed, I see it as toe most patriotic thing a person cando. I believe Murrow said it best: “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When toe loyal opposition dies, I think toe soul of America dies with it” Photo illustration by Jeff Sorensen Clackamas Print Institute of Mental Health, 4.2 nJ lion Americans are addicted to gj bling. Of those 4.2 million, jj percent have a yearly income of lei than $25,000. Combine that fin® along with Dr. Rachel Vohlbel study in Iowa that showed a doubln of problem gamblers within 50 n® of new casinos, and it becomes obvj ous that the burden of this “fix” i the school funding crisis would! unfairly shouldered by the poor. M even by all the poor; mostly by th« within easy driving distance of i casino. Consider also that the America Insurance Institute estimates tha® percent of white-collar crime liafl roots in gambling. Their findings ■ indicate that insurance fraud alona related to gambling could exceed $|| billion every year. This is a fix?! Gambling is, for most people,! social activity. Most gamblers]|q responsible. But the four to five pa cent of gamblers who become adffl ed create problems, not just for tha] selves, but for everyone involve! single problem gambler can ruil entire family. Area rates of divoij and bankruptcy increase wherevel casino is opened. It is estimatedH 12 percent of compulsive gambll become physically abusive, and ma spouses admit to becoming verbal abusive to the-gambler - and >ojj times to their children - to cope wa the stress brought on by their low one’s addiction. Most Oregonians would new dream of regulating and taxing hl oin or methamphetamine to pay schools. We should not now fill I budget holes with money garni from another debilitating addiction We should not help schools b hurting families. Staff Editorial I Say “no" to gay marriage amendment: Constitution is no place for discrimination Editors Note: The following is an edito rial written on the behalf of and represent the majority opinion o/The Clackamas Print’s editorial staff. In a time of his lowest approval ratings on record, President Bush has evoked the hot but ton issue of the 2004 election: gay marriage. Whether or not this is merely a political move to arouse the Christian Right is still unknown, but what is known is that it’s sure to start the mud slinging on both sides of the debate, and rightfully so. What is being talked about is the first time in history - with the exception of the 18 Amendment (prohibition), which became the only Amendment to be repealed - that the U.S. Constitution would be used to restrict the rights of citizens. The moral dilemma of homosexuality can almost be separated from this issue, and argu ing this point remains fruitless on both sides. What is to be debated though is the ethi cal problem sparked by talking of using the Constitution to discriminate against a specific minority. Polls conducted recently have shown that approval for a constitutional amendment such as the one suggested is waning. In 1996 only about a quarter of Americans (27 percent) believed that same-sex marriage should be allowed. Now that number is closer to 39 percent. This still indicates that a majority of Americans are not for same sex marriage. This would be nothing new for America however. The majority of citizens also did not support ending segregation, which is now hailed as a great human rights victory. This is why the argument is being made th! this is a place where the government needs ■ prevent a tyranny of the majority. Allow J such to take place would be confirming tfl fears of our fathers when they founded oil republic, and would be a step backwards fil our society. The most famous passage in the Declaratil of Independence states that all men (which hl now been expanded to include both gender! are given by their creator “certain unalienabl Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, al the pursuit of Happiness.” The amendments made to the U.S. Constitution have reflect! this, providing no restrictions (other than tin aforementioned) which would infringe on these rights granted to all people. This passage was used in the 1967 U.S.] Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia to successfully end restrictions against people] of different races marrying, and overturned Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The chance of this sort of amendment pass-] ing at the federal level is small - a yes vole] by two thirds of both chambers of Congrel would be required, then three quarters of all] States must ratify it for it to take affect - but it is important that even talk of such a radical] move is discussed early on to prevent a snot! ball of support. If this is merely a political flash-bomb however, we must be careful not to play intojtl and lose track of other issues. A healthy dos® of skepticism is needed when observing any | act of government, and this is no different. 11
