Abouhalkah Trying To Fear Missourians Into Voting Against Casino Limits Proposition

When anti-gambling forces begin their locomotive moving, they will slow down for nothing. No sensible argument can be made to these people. They only have their eyes on one vision, keeping gambling as limited as possible in their state.

Kansas City Star Editorial Page Columnist Yael T. Abouhalkah taken the position against Proposition A in Missouri. The Proposition would extend the current loss limits at casinos in the state in order to provide some financial relief to the state budget.

While most of the revenue money that states receive from casinos around the country is directed at education, other portions of the money goes to helping other ares of need within the state. The casino developers most of the time gear their arguments for a new casino towards giving money back to the states education system.

That is one of the reasons that casinos in the state of Missouri are trying to have their loss limits eliminated. $100 million can be generated for the state should Proposition A pass on November 4th.

Abouhalkah has latched on to the notion that all of the money generated might not go to education in the state of Missouri. Abouhalkah claims this "...is yet another reason to defeat this pro-gambling measure." This is not another reason to defeat the Proposition. This is another reason that Abouhalkah will use to scare voters into voting against this Proposition.

On Monday, Cole Circuit Judge Richard G. Callahan, in throwing out a lawsuit to stop Proposition A from being on the ballot, referenced the fact that the General assembly will get to appropriate the money generated from the lifting of the loss limits.

Whether the General assembly decides to use all $100 million to go towards education, or whether they use some of the money for other worthy causes that the state is currently lacking funds for, it still is a good bet.

Voters must know that the money that will be generated from the casinos will be put to use in a responsible way. Voting against $100 million extra in these economic times because all of the money MIGHT not go to education would be simply irresponsible.

Almost as irresponsible as scaring voters into voting for the side of an argument for self serving reasons. Surely every elected official is elected on the merits of what they might do, not what they will do. To not vote, or to vote because of fear, is exactly what these anti-gambling are pushing for with these diversion tactics.

October 21, 2008
Posted By Tom Jones
Staff Editor, CasinoGamblingWeb.com
Submit News!

No On 6 Misleading Voters With Inaccurate Ads In Ohio
Gambling Big In Upcoming Elections, And Not Only For President
$600 Million In Revenue Not Enough For Maryland Slot Detractors
Online Casino Advisory Calls For A Boycott of Kentucky Gambling
Publicly Traded Aces Wired Dealt Big Blow Involving Gambling Machines