MaineBusiness.com

I love casino referendums. They tend to foster great economic debate. There is talk about job creation. There are counter arguments about the way life should be. Throw in some crime statistics and tourism projections. Voila! You have a debate over how Maine should chart its future.

Too bad that's not so much the case with Question 2. Here's what's going to appear on the ballot:

"Do you want to allow a certain Maine company to have the only casino in Maine, to be located in Oxford County, if part of the revenue is used to fund specific state programs?"

This isn't about whether Maine should allow gambling. It's about "a certain company" that wants to run "the only casino in Maine." So if gambling is such a good thing, why doesn't the question propose to allow any casino? Because the proponents don't think Maine voters will allow gambling to be possible in their backyards, and they don't want the competition. Just to make sure, there's a 10-year moratorium on new casinos built into the proposed law.

By the way, the part I quoted is only the tip of the iceberg. The law gives the casino owner seats on the boards of organizations that would benefit from gambling revenues. But Dean Harrold of Olympia Gaming, the hopeful casino owner, says he wants those provisions taken out of the law. He also says he won't mind ignoring the part that would allow 19-year-olds into his casino.

Granted Harrold didn't write this law. And I believe him when he says he doesn't want these provisions. He doesn't need them. That means if Question 2 passes we have to rely on the Legislature to excise these onerous parts of the law. Let me restate part of that: We have to rely on the Legislature. Excuse me, isn't the reason we have a referendum process is that the people don't trust the lawmakers to make good laws? Do we really think they are going to get this right? If you're undecided, consider Question 1 on this ballot.

But back to gambling. Question 2 is a bad law. It needs to be rejected as such. Don't accuse me of being anti-business because I don't want to change the law to create a monopoly. I don't have a lot of faith that one casino will be a boon to Maine's economy. If you want to help the state with casinos, create a referendum that allows gambling and creates a regulatory structure. Create an industry, not a single business. Let us debate the merits of its economic impact. Let there be discussions of the morality of gambling.

But for now, let's reject codifying one company's business plan by voting NO.

And then there's Question 1

I know I'm doing this backwards but I'm going to vote YES on Question 1. Tax policy isn't the scalpel that many politicians think it is. The thought that tweaking an isolated tax to raise money for a separate cause is flawed.

If we raise taxes on beverages, that will mean we will have less money to spend on other things. Honestly. Those millions you want to use on Dirigo Health will come out of somebody's revenues. And in this economy, it's all needed.

Maybe the beverage tax will discourage us to drink less carbonated and alcoholic beverages. That would be a good thing. That would promote health. Good for us and not so good for the businesses that sell beverages. Hopefully this government-inspired, healthy trend will make up for the lost revenue to Dirigo - remember it depends on us guzzling lots of Coke and PBR (Maine microbrews are exempt).

This isn't a sign that I hate people who can't afford health insurance. It's true I don't like Dirigo. But this tax will make it harder for you to pay for anything. Again, let's reopen the debate on health care. I'm open to options that lower health costs - even if it involves a tax on beer and soda. But this isn't the solution.