With issue of slot machines remains unresolved, House Minority Leader H. William DeWeese and Minority Whip Mike Veon, who introduced a bill last week that would expand roulette and other table games, decided that even though the chances of passing are small, it is worth for the sake of promoting the debate on casino games.
It may be better though to keep roulette and other table games off the table for the meantime. The reason behind passing the 2004 gambling legislation was to get back those millions of dollars that the residents of Pennsylvania spend in other states. Another reason was the will to preserve the state’s horse-racing tracks by adding slots parlors. The argument for expanding roulette and other table games has nothing to do with this and is not as significant as this decision.
De Weese and Veon must reconsider their argument as they claim that competing with Atlantic City is in Pennsylvania’s best interest. Atlantic City is a major tourist destination and Pennsylvania wishes to remain a nice place to live in. Adding a few slots parlors does not mean that Pennsylvania’s citizens are getting ready to become the next Atlantic City.
The proposal for table and card games however may have some advantage. The games may attract a different audience than slot machines, leading to more attractive development around the casinos. It's also possible that in the future, particularly if an Indian tribe has its way in building a Las Vegas-style casino in Ohio near the Pennsylvania border, instituting table games might be a prudent move to compete with other states.
But introducing them in now, or even formally discussing the issue, is not right. It unnecessary incites the anger of gambling opponents and it diverts attention from the main issue, which is, getting slots up and property taxes down.
| 
