One of the strongest arguments to expand gambling in Kentucky is that we are losing tax revenue to other states. The problem however, is that other states with casino revenue have larger budget deficits than those with no casinos. Consider:
Commercial Casinos
State Adjusted Gross Casino Rev (2012) Budget Deficit (2012)
NV $ 10,860,000,000 $ 1,200,000,000
PA $ 3,160,000,000 $ 3,700,000,000
NJ $ 3,050,000,000 $10,000,000,000
IN $ 2,610,000,000 $ 1,300 ,000,000
LA $ 2,400,000,000 $ 1,600,000,000
MS $ 2,250,000,000 $ 630,000,000
NY $ 1,800,000,000 $ 10,000,000,000
MO $ 1,770,000,000 $ 704,000,000
IL $ 1,640,000,000 $ 5,000,000,000
IA $ 1,470,000,000 $ 149,000,000
Isn't it interesting that the casino capital of the northeast, New Jersey, has a state budget deficit nearly three times the casino revenue?
Native American Casinos
CA $ 23,000,000,000
CT $ 2,900,000,000
MN $ 3,800,000,000
NY $ 10,000,000,000
OK $ 500,000,000
WI $ 1.600.000,000
States With No Casinos, No Lotteries
UT $ 390,000,000
HI $ 540,000,000
AK $ 0
AL $ 979,000,000
AR $ 0
WY $ 0
Is it just a coincidence that the presence of casinos impacts state budget deficits? Serious policy makers ought not to neglect the correlation. Anti-casino advocates have argued for years that when people are losing their money by gambling it away (see column B above) they have less to spend on other goods and services. Purchases of those other goods and services are an important revenue stream to state governments. It's a revenue stream that doesn't end up hurting large numbers of people who develop addictions. Which brings up another point. When individuals succumb to gambling addiction, they become a burden on the state. This is yet another explanation for massive budget deficits in states with casinos. There has yet to be a casino-expansion bill filed in Frankfort. Perhaps legislators are getting the memo.