新英格兰，几百年前由清教徒所建，现在却为赌博而狂热。一些州努力发展扩大赌博业，然后获取税收收入。
马萨诸塞州立法机关正在商讨一项提案的细节，打算引进两到三个度假式赌场来补充博彩业与赌马业场所的缺乏。在缅因州，开发商已经拿出一笔资金用于开发赌场，这也在十一月份获得议会通过。一份类似的提案却遭到了罗德岛州州长Donald Carcieri（R）的否决，这也促使该州进行了由立法机构主导的对话。
尽管赌博合法化的支持着认为它能带来更多的税收收入，提供数千个赌场就业岗位，但反对者反对赌博扩张，因为这在道德上站不住。他们引述了最近的证据，认为赌博业收入也许对于州政府财政赤字来说，既不是一个快速见效的措施，也不是一个长久之计。
赌博业如何为州政府赚钱？
对一个州来说，彩票收入，赌博业受益的税收和新赌博场所的许可证发放费构成了博彩业收入的绝大部分。税率趋向于定在20%到50%之间。
州政府将这些博彩业收入用在不同的地方，但是主要是投入教育、基础设施建设、当地政府建设和赌博业秩序的维护方面。
彩票、赌场、以及赛马场与赌场合二为一的场所是州博彩业收入的最大来源。传统的赌马和赌狗，以彩金下注方式进行，在40个州是合法的，但随着受欢迎程度的下降，这部分收入已经在减少。
博彩业收入有多重要？
据纽约智囊团洛克菲勒研究院的统计，赌博业，不包括联邦债券，平均占到州财政收入的2%到3%。内华达州依靠这笔收入最多，在2007年他们有13.6%的收入来源于博彩业。
马萨诸塞州议院博彩业提案的支持者说，这些新赌场每年能够创税3.5亿美元。相比之下，立法者今年春季消减的预算赤字大约是3亿美元。有一些钱也会很快到账，因为每个新赌场的运营将需即刻向州政府缴纳7500万美元的许可证发放费。
对马萨诸塞州参议员Joan Menard（D）和其他人来说，赌场提供的就业机会是比税收更重要的经济因素。她认为潜在的就业机会是由其刺激产生的效果，因为据其他州参议员的分析，三个单独的州立赌场可以提供15000个就业机会。“度假式赌场是就是发展经济”，参议员Menard告诉《波士顿环球报》记者。“我们解决了9.6万待业人员中1万人的工作。”
赌博合法化的对经济产生的劣势是什么？
对州政府来说，扩大博彩业还有其他原因吗？
自从赌博产生，反对赌博的道德讨论就已开始。但也有很多经济上的论据反对赌博，并反对将它当作收入来源。去年，一项洛克菲勒研究院的研究发现，随着时间的推移，赌博业的收入会比其他投资（如教育业）增长的更缓慢。这意味着对赌博业收入的依靠会使赤字更严重。
赌博业也有更多立刻产生的缺点，批评家说它会有输有赢会让一些人变穷。伊利诺伊大学金融学教授John Kindt说，一年有超过900亿美元的资金花在合法赌博上，若是合理利用也许可以扭转经济颓势，而这些钱相当于每年好莱坞票房收入的大约9倍之多。
Kindt教授说，“赌博会使购买食品、衣服、汽车、冰箱等等东西的消费活动消失。”Kindt称，因为经济乘数作用的存在，即在经济体制中消费者消费的流通效应，使得每在老虎机上赌掉10万美元意味着经济蒙受了30万美元的损失。
New England settled by Puritans centuries ago has gambling fever. Several states are grappling with efforts to expand gambling and harvest the resulting tax revenue.
The Massachusetts legislature is hammering out details of a bill to bring two or three resort-style casinos to the state to supplement its lottery and racetrack betting parlors. In Maine developers have already put down a deposit on a site for a casino which is subject to voter approval in November. A similar initiative was just vetoed by Gov. Donald Carcieri （R） in Rhode Island prompting talk of an override by the legislature.
While supporters of legalized gambling point to much-needed tax revenues and thousands of casino jobs opponents are lining up against gambling expansions and not just with moral arguments. They cite recent evidence that gambling revenues may be neither a quick fix nor a long-term solution for state budget gaps.
How does gambling generate money for states?
Lottery proceeds taxes on gambling profits and licensing fees for new facilities make up the bulk of gambling revenues for states. The tax rates tend to fall between 20 and 50 percent.
States allocate gambling proceeds in different ways but common targets for the money include education infrastructure local government and treatment of gambling disorders.
Lotteries casinos and combination racetrack-casinos （or “racinos”） are the biggest sources of gambling revenue for states. Traditional betting on horse and dog races – parimutuel wagering – is also legal in 40 states but its contribution to state revenues has fallen with its declining popularity.
How important is gambling revenue?
Gambling provides on average between 2 and 3 percent of states’ revenue excluding federal funding according to the Rockefeller Institute a New York think tank. Nevada relies on this revenue source the most with 13.6 percent of its own-source funds coming from gambling in 2007.
Supporters of Massachusetts’ gambling bill in the state Senate say the new casinos would generate as much as $355 million a year. By contrast the budget gap that lawmakers closed with cuts this spring was about $300 million. Some money would arrive fairly quickly too: Each new casino operation would pay a $75 million licensing fee to the state right away.
Besides money for states are there other reasons to expand gambling?
For Massachusetts state Sen. Joan Men?ard （D） and others casino jobs are a more important economic factor than tax revenue. She likens the potential influx of new jobs – as many as 15 000 for three Bay State casinos according to another state senator – to a stimulus effort. “A resort casino is economic development ” Sen?a?tor Menard told The Boston Globe. “I have 10 000 people in a city of 96 000 looking for work.”What are the economic drawbacks of legalized gambling?
The moral argument against gambling has been around since the first wager. But there are also economic arguments against states expanding the practice and using it as a revenue source. A Rockefeller Institute study last year found that over time gambling revenues grow more slowly than the expenditures of the programs （such as education） that they fund. That means reliance on gambling revenues can worsen deficits.
There are more immediate drawbacks to gambling which critics say disproportionately hurts the less-well-off. The vast sums spent on legalized gambling – more than $90 billion a year or about nine times Hollywood’s annual box office receipts – would galvanize the flagging economy if used more efficiently says John Kindt a business professor at the University of Illinois.
”That’s lost consumer activity that’s not buying food clothing cars refrigerators and so on ” Mr. Kindt says. Because of economic multipliers – the effects of consumer spending flowing through the economy – every $100 000 spent in slot machines results in $300 000 in economic losses Kindt claims.