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