tfp32

                           ALWAYS READ THE FINE PRINT
(Written under the psuedonym, "George Steinkrueger", and published 9 October 1996 in the Neighborhood Journal. Posted in toto with Preface and Epilogue 28 October 2001)

PREFACE -- Along with the periodic guest columnist, I was also known to republish excerpts from previous columns. As I was pretty confident that my readers in Arkansas had never read the columns I wrote in Missouri, I figured that it was important to demonstrate that certain feelings and opinions were not new, that I wasn’t just “blowing with the breeze.” Also, by excerpting, I saved myself the time and effort of basically paraphrasing myself to make the exact same point.
       In this column, I excerpted from my very first column, dealing with several ballot initiatives in the 1994 Missouri elections, in discussing ballot issues in the 1996 Arkansas elections. The excerpt is not a “stand-alone”-- bookending the excerpt is 1996 commentary explaining the excerpt and its relevance. I guess, then, the 2001 PREFACE and EPILOGUE are bookends to the 1996 bookends. “I told two friends, and they told two friends, and so on...”

INTRODUCTION--It seems that I have now come full circle. I started this column several Septembers ago in a newspaper in a small town in rural Missouri talking about politics; specifically, ballot initiatives. I now find myself once again addressing this same issue, except now this column is in a newspaper in a small town in rural Arkansas. Because of its applicability to some of the issues on the November ballot here in Arkansas in 1996, I am going to use an excerpt from that column in this week's column. (Part of this excerpt gave this column its name.)--GS
       "Throughout my formative years, my father always told not to make hasty decisions. 'Read the fine print,' he would say, and still does say. Sadly, though, many people I have talked to do not read the fine print when it comes to voting. Of all the decisions we are required to make, who and what we vote for can have long-lasting and sometimes costly repercussions.
       "First case in point. Last April's 'gambling referendum.' I must admit, I thought the issue was whether or not riverboat gambling should be allowed in Missouri. It turns out the real issue was whether or not games of chance should be allowed on the riverboats that we were going to get regardless of the outcome of the April vote. Had I known the real issued, I would have voted differently. 'Fool me once, shame on you.'
       "Second case in point. Proposition A. This bond issue was sold to the voters by the school boards, educators, et. al. as necessary for maintaining our schools, as the monies generated by the bonds would be used for capital improvements to our schools, and without these monies our schools will crumble around us. What the educators failed to mention was that these bond monies could also be used for capital improvements to prisons, and that if the state could not make the bond payments, the state can raise our property taxes without notice to prevent default. In other words, the state can raise our taxes and we can't do anything about it, as we gave them the power to do so. Many people I have talked to who voted for Proposition A would have voted against it had they known the whole truth about it. Alas, like most voters, they didn't read the fine print. 'Fool me twice, shame on me.'"
       As in the two cases in Missouri that I mentioned in that first column, misinformation abounds in the effort to legalize gambling in Arkansas. Those campaigning for the legalization of gambling argue that gambling has been a panacea for Missouri (all those jobs, all that tax money); what they fail to tell you is that the good voters of Missouri were duped into voting for the riverboats with a campaign of misinformation.
       What also has never been mentioned by the pro-gambling forces is that a casino is analogous to a Wal-Mart; it may create jobs in the short run, but in the long run it becomes a pariah that wipes out the competition. Many towns where a Wal-Mart (especially a supercenter) has been built have seen their downtowns vanish, as the small merchants cannot compete. Thus, while jobs are created by and for Wal-mart itself, many jobs are lost due to the closure of other businesses.
       A casino has the same effect. What restaurant or nightclub can compete with a casino that gives away free food and entertainment. Few. The experience in many cities with casinos has been the death of entertainment districts unable to compete with the casinos, and with it, the loss of jobs and tax revenue.
       I am not against gambling. Personally, I do not have any desire to go to a casino; I have a lot better things to do with my money, like pay for my children's education, pay the mortgage, and pay the utility bills. However, I do not believe that you, I, or the government have the right to tell those that do want to gamble that they cannot. Remember, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were the rights for which our founding fathers fought.
     Live and let live. If gambling makes a person happy, then they should have the liberty to pursue that happiness. However, he should not expect his fellow citizens to bail him out (i.e. welfare) when things go sour, as that is an infringement of everyone else's liberty.
     Remember, when you vote, read the fine print.   Understand what you are voting on; the consequences are too important not to. And, of course, always read "The Fine Print."


EPILOGUE -- The more things change, the more they stay the same. I am now in yet another forum and in yet another state, but the paradigm still holds true -- to be knowledgeable and informed, always read the fine print.