New York Post: No to Casinos

October 29, 2013 4:12 pm

It is rare the editorial boards at The New York Times and The New York Post agree on anything, let alone a major public policy issue. But within the past few days, both the Times and Post have come out against changing the state constitution to legalize casinos in New York.

The Post editorial board said the proposal to change the state constitution to allow casinos was a “bad bet for many reasons.” The Post pointed to the rigged language on the ballot that claims several dubious benefits without mentioning the costs. The Post rightly said casinos are a regressive tax on the poor and pointed to the lack of economic benefits from gambling.

“If the governor wants to revitalize New York, let’s not do it by taxing those who can least afford it. Let’s do it the old-fashioned way: by building an economy that encourages thrift, investment and enterprise,” The Post said. Read the full editorial here: http://nypost.com/2013/10/29/the-casino-cuomo/

Meanwhile, The Times also urged voters to reject the casino measure that is on the Nov. 5 ballot. The Times cited many of the same reasons as the Post. Read the full editorial here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/opinion/no-to-more-casinos-in-new-york-state.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1383098418-ux2qc7InbhAAjXsjrAeqMw

The fact that both papers – with such differing political views on many issues – agree that casinos are bad for New York speaks volumes about how misguided the effort is to change the constitution in order to enable more residents to gamble.

Comment Policy

Commenters: be rigorous, be powerful, be funny, but don't be mean. Inappropriate and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders of the policy will be banned from comments.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>