Our Say: A 'no' on Question 2 will save state from a new slots debacle

Here's an accurate translation of the bland wording of Question 2 on the Nov. 4 ballot:

Do you want Anne Arundel County to be the slot machine capital of Maryland?

Click "For the Constitutional Amendment" if the answer is yes, and "against" if the answer is no.

We urge you to answer no. Spending the first part of the 21st century revisiting slot machines - a corruption-inducing blight on this county in the middle 20th century - is a nightmarish prospect.

The constitutional amendment specifically authorizes 4,250 machines - more than at any other place in the state - in Anne Arundel, within two miles of Baltimore-Washington Parkway. In other words, they will be at Laurel Park racetrack, grinding away 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

There's an unfunny irony at sticking this in the same area where a massive base expansion at Fort Meade will be drawing defense and homeland security contractors and a new, highly educated workforce. An area with a wonderful chance to move forward is being asked to regress just to help desperate state politicians who think slot machines are a painless way to make up for their failure to get Maryland's finances in order.

There will be nothing painless about it, of course, for people who live near slots parlors. If you weren't around when this county had slot machines, you can check with people who live near them now about what slots contribute to an area's quality of life - starting with traffic and moving on to crime, gambling addiction, other social pathologies and the drain on other local businesses competing for limited recreational spending.

Slots are the ultimate regressive tax, drawing money from those who can least afford it. Yet some politicians who give lip service to the idea of progressive taxation have been pushing for them for many years, even in good times. That's because slots are easier for the politicians than doing the difficult work of balancing budgets and sorting through priorities.

Question 2 is being advanced by a well-funded propaganda effort promoting slots as just the thing to do for our schoolchildren. After all, the "for our kids" argument sold the Maryland Lottery. If Maryland voters believed once that politicians would use the revenue as promised - although there's really no way to force them to do so - maybe they'll believe it again. As the adage goes: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

An analysis released this month by the University of Maryland-Baltimore County's Maryland Institute for Policy Analysis and Research demolishes the argument that the state merely wants to "recapture" Maryland gamblers who drive across state lines. Don't believe it - the state is counting on a lot more gambling. Reaching state revenue estimates, the researchers report, "will require a significant increase in new gambler (current players playing more and new players) dollars spent in Maryland on slots, nearly 150 percent."

The researchers also reported that "lottery revenues may decline as much as $56.8 million and lost sales tax revenue could be over $34 million. In addition, social costs associated with increased problem and pathological gamblers … have the potential to be large, over $627 million."

The state estimates don't take into account that slots in Maryland will likely set off a competitive spiral - table games, anyone? - in neighboring states. They don't mention that they will let a gambling-lobbying juggernaut, doling out campaign contributions, become a permanent, dominant force in state politics.

Question 2 is a rotten deal for Marylanders. We strongly urge a vote against it.