Editorial views from across the state

State shouldn't take a cut

Many political observers make the assumption that it would be a good and wise and enriching thing for the state of Washington to collect a share of profits from the state's many tribal casinos, which are now raking it in. They euphemistically call it "revenue sharing." Tribal casinos pull in about $1.3 billion a year in this state, so there is much revenue to share.

The newsworthiness of gambling revenue is politically seasonal. Interest was piqued again by a story June 12 in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer accurately pointing out that in 2005 Gov. Chris Gregoire thwarted a lucrative pact negotiated by the state Gambling Commission with the Spokane Tribe. It would have allowed a near tenfold expansion of slot-machine-like gambling and given the state a substantial pile of "revenue sharing" — nearly $140 million a year. The story then pointed out that Gregoire and the state Democratic Party, which of course is a major financial backer of Gregoire's re-election campaign, have enjoyed about $650,000 in political contributions from the tribes, which thanks to the governor need not share their gambling profits with the state's general fund. There were immediate suggestions of payoffs and quid pro quos, and Republican calls for an investigation.

Politicians who accept political contributions from the casino operators they regulate should expect scrutiny and suspicion. That's only natural, when politics and gambling combine. For the same reason, the rest of us should be grateful that Gregoire shunned the opportunity offered by the Spokane Tribe for the state to become its gambling partner. States may call it "revenue sharing" or a tax, if that helps ease consciences, but it is gambling money, a cut, a piece of the action. The more gambling, the greater the profit, the higher the stakes, the greater the state's revenue.

It is true that all other states with tribal casinos, some 22 of them, have negotiated profit-sharing deals. Washington stands alone. If there is any desire left in this state to limit the expansion of gambling, that is a good and desirable position. Give the state a share of gambling profits and instantly there is an incentive to allow more. With part of every losing bet going into state coffers, government gains a certain desire to see there are more losing bets, and more, and more.

The 2005 compact with the Spokane Tribe would have given the state revenue, but blown the lid off gambling limits. The tribe would have been allowed to run 7,500 slot machines, build casinos off the reservation and operate 24 hours a day. Each of the 27 other tribes in Washington would have been entitled to the same deal. The state would enable, and then share in a gambling explosion.

The renegotiated tribal gambling pact of 2007 limits tribes to 675 slot machines each. Gambling expanded, but within limits. The state gets no cut, and it should stay that way. The 2005 Spokane deal was "Pandora's Box," said Gambling Commission member Sen. Margarita Prentice, D-Renton, in a P-I op-ed. "It would be very difficult for the state to regulate the gambling activities of the tribes when it's also their financial partner."

Accepting campaign contributions from tribes and all their gambling interests is another matter. It is legal, and common, but when you negotiate gambling compacts there is a price to pay in justifiable suspicion and accusation if you accept them. Gregoire would be better off without that money, just as the state is better off without gambling profits.

— The Wenatchee World, June 21

End shameful treatment for veterans on the mend

The jump from combat to poverty is a short one for America's military.

Get shot-up bad enough, or disabled instead of killed by a roadside bomb, and after whatever level of medical care required, these young men and women find the Veterans Administration ready to deal with them.

Badly.

According to The Associated Press, nearly 20,000 disabled soldiers were discharged in the past two fiscal years, and lawmakers, veterans advocates and others say thousands could be facing financial ruin while they wait for their benefits to come through.

How could this be?

As usual, blame the VA. It has it coming.

Although most permanently disabled veterans qualify for payments from VA and Social Security, it takes a while for the bureaucrats to do the paperwork.

The AP reported it's not unusual for veterans and their families to see monthly income drop from $3,400 a month to $970 while all the paperwork is completed.

For six to nine months. Half to most of a year.

That's described as extreme hardship.

"The anecdotal evidence is depressing," Rep. John Hall, D-N.Y., who heads a subcommittee on veterans disability benefits, told AP.

The Army, we're told, is doing what it can, allowing wounded soldiers to continue to draw their full Army paychecks for up to 90 days after discharge.

That doesn't close the financial gap but it narrows it.

It does seem, however, that a country that expects so much of its troops could make sure none of them has to live under a bridge.

— The Tri-City Herald, June 24