Two New eBooks at Amazon Kindle!

FacebookMySpaceTwitterDiggDeliciousStumbleuponRSS Feed

Americans still think they can get away with it. They still think they, unlike all civilizations that have gone before, can somehow take gambling into their bosom and not get burned. Not going to happen.

Since 1988 with the enactment of the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Americans have chased bad bets like the most obsessive of problem gamblers. We can’t get enough of it even though it drains local economies, sends families into bankruptcy, feeds graft, greed, and corruption, and results in higher costs for local governments responding to the social pathologies gambling encourages.

Gambling is as bad a bet as it’s ever been. No one ultimately wins in a casino except the House, the owners. And now the owners are in trouble.

A number of casino companies are wrestling with debt like so many cities and states, not to mention the Federal government. Bad times have combined with bad investments (bad bets?) to produce bad debt for casino owners. The casinos expanded when they should have contracted. They “let it ride” when they should have pulled in their money and gone home.

Let’s hope more than a few of these centers of debt-production go under from a taste of their own medicine.


© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2012

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at or follow him at

Rev Ryan, Thanks for the kind comment. I just discovered it today. Thanks, too, for the link. Blessings to you and yours in your ministry.
Thanks, Rex, for a great blog. Thanks in particular for your leadership on the subject of gambling's folly. Consumer Reports just posted something interesting and related on one of their blogs:

March Madness is a basketball fan’s fantasy: 68 of the best intercollegiate teams battling for supremacy. What more could a fan want?

Apparently for some it’s a chance to win money by gambling on the games. Sports betting is now a $100 billion per year “business,” and it’s getting bigger. March Madness offers the perfect opportunity, game after game, points and point spreads, quick results—some $12 billion bet in a matter of three weeks. It’s a multiple betting paradise, except for one thing: it’s mostly illegal, due to the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992.

Meanwhile, casinos offering legalized sports betting take in about $30 billion per year. But there’s pressure from legislatures and much of the public to legalize sports betting and tap its revenues for public coffers.

The problem, though, is that sports betting represents a significant threat to the integrity of sport. Reason being is that it’s not difficult to imagine people approaching players, coaches, and officials with monetary incentives to throw games. Think the 1919 Chicago “Black Sox” World Series scandal, Pete Rose accused of betting on games while managing the Cincinnati Reds, and most recently in 2007, NBA referee Tim Donaghy serving time for betting on games he officiated. Intercollegiate sports associations the NCAA and NAIA both oppose legalized sports betting, as do all the professional leagues, NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, etc.

Yet sports betting via local, noncommercial office bracket “pools” is increasing geometrically. College students are particularly susceptible, and golfers of all ages are by far the most inclined to gamble. With more than 2,000 gambling websites available and smart phone mobile gambling apps around the corner, gambling is a now pervasive opportunity of postmodern life.

Gambling seems harmless, a victimless crime if crime at all. But gambling’s history is replete with emotionally devastated individuals and bankrupt families. Sports betting is no different.

Because of its penchant for luring cheaters, legalized sports betting would do little but destroy the competitive purity of athletics. Eventually, sports betting would ruin the fun and fandom that makes athletics so enjoyable in the first place. Given that sports is already beset by drug challenges, legislators and the general public would do well to look for revenues somewhere other than sports.


© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at or follow him at


Grand Rapids was recently added to a list of cities targeted for casino development by a group wanting to put seven more privately held casinos in Michigan. Never mind that this would push Michigan’s total number of casinos to over thirty. Never mind that casinos have brought little but aggravation, traffic, social problems, and bankruptcies to almost every area in which they’ve been located.

Now Michigan Is Yours, the casino backers, need 320,000 signatures by July 7 to make a statewide ballot this November. It’s too early to project whether the group will be successful, but it doesn’t help that Grand Rapids’s otherwise good and decent Mayor George Heartwell has endorsed the idea for a casino in his city. He says he’s not a fan of casinos but believes Grand Rapids may have to develop one “from a defensive posture” because of all the other casinos in the state. Huh? Not a very compelling argument.

Now Michigan Is Yours consultants cited support for a casino’s economic development potential by University of Las Vegas Nevada professor Bill Thompson. Taking nothing away from Thompson’s credentials, his affirmation is nevertheless laughable because he hopes to work as a consultant for the Now Michigan Is Yours campaign. So of course he endorses the idea.

Unless they are located in an already attractive tourist or high traffic destination, casinos never bring to town what proponents claim they will: jobs, positive economic spinoffs, tourism. Casinos do bring to town negative impact upon local economies (Think about it: if tourists are not a casino’s primary patrons than locals are; the money casinos glean comes directly out of local families' and businesses' pockets), increased social pathologies (casinos and gambling don’t cause but certainly contribute to job absenteeism, debt, bankruptcies, divorce, and suicide), and decreases in land values near casinos.

For the past twenty years, casinos specifically and gambling generally have been looked upon by political leaders as potential pots of gold for local and state governments. But it’s rarely worked out that way. The problems gambling introduces to a community eventually far outstrip any potential benefits.

Grand Rapids would be ill-advised to introduce a casino to its economy. In addition to the economic problems noted, casinos contribute to a “seedier” atmosphere and general decrease in a locality's perceived reputation. Casinos are a losing bet.

CasiNo in Grand Rapids, Michigan.


© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at or follow him at


Congressional Democrats, led by Rep. Barney Frank (MA) and encouraged by Senate Majority Leader Harry M Reid (NV), are attempting to sneak through a bill legalizing online gambling. The bill, an amendment to a larger tax relief bill, would make online gambling revenues taxable, which is the ultimate interest of online gambling proponents.

Interestingly, they’re doing this despite repeated national polls that suggest some 67% of the American public oppose the legalization of online gambling. This lame duck move is, one would hope, doomed to failure.

Increased legalized gambling means increased indebtedness, bankruptcies, and addictiveness. In every culture the social cost of increased gambling always outpaces any increase in revenues that may land in public coffers. Consequently, while many solid moral arguments can be marshaled against gambling one of the best arguments against it is practical economics—gambling doesn’t work financially. No one wins but the gambling operation.

Legalization of online gambling has been a perennial goal of the gambling industry since the earliest days of the Internet. But so far, Congress has had enough concerns not to take the plunge.

If this new bill passed it would overturn the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. This legislation bans online gambling and makes it illegal for credit companies to process online gambling funds.

Still, and here’s the irony, since the Internet is the “worldwide” web and not a “national” or “domestic” web, people in the U.S. can and do regularly gamble online—as many as 7 million log on monthly to poker sites alone. They do this by accessing offshore sites. Liberals in Congress don’t like this because all they can see are potential-but-unreachable tax revenues.

Liberals, including Forbes magazine, love to argue four things:

--governments should not restrict gambling because it’s an adult decision,

-more gambling yields more jobs

-more gambling means more tax revenues,

-more gambling is good for economic growth.


Yet none of these arguments have been borne out historically. Gambling was, is, and always will be bad economics, bad policy, and bad politics. It’s a time bomb in a pretty package, a snake in the grass that’s waiting to bite. Barney Frank’s bill is a bad bet.



© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2010


*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at or follow Dr. Rogers at