search
top

Act 71

Let me just clarify my position on Act 71. The way it stands now, I don’t think it’s acceptable, but I don’t want to go back to just making gambling flat out illegal, nor do I like the folks who are fighting it. The folks coming out against Act 71 are doing it because they think gambling is bad and immoral, at the root. I’m doing it, because I don’t appreciate Ed Rendell using legalized gambling to help line the pockets of his political cronies, and I’d like to see it being done differently so that’s there’s less government and less politics involved in the process.

I’ve never bought Ed Rendell’s justification for passing Act 71; that it’ll bring in enough revenue to offset other taxes. I have no problem with the state taxing gambling, or licensing establishments for gambling, provided the licensing requirements are objective and free from political influence of powerful people. But it was was about revenue for me. I would have been happy with a “because we’re not your fucking parents” justification for liberalizing the commonwealth’s gambling laws.

One Response to “Act 71”

  1. Zeron says:

    Agreed, although I have always thought it was about the revenue. My biggest gripe is that revenue is being used for additional spending instead of filling up the gaps in the current budget. And the Act creates casino centers, which assume they are going to have exclusive rights in certain areas. That is just going to create more corruption and political sleaze than legalizing it everywhere and having to just obtain a valid permit. The amount of permits is just bogus. Either limit it and have true casino centers (ala Atlantic City), or open it up and just allow people to have slots and games in there establishments and license regulate them.

    I just don’t see the way things are layed out in the current act to have any real benefit besides lining Rendells pockets.

top