Other Columns by Doug Patton
Doug Patton Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

Greed is Alive and Well in America
By Doug Patton
September 23, 2002

"Greed is good... Greed is right... Greed works." - Gordon Gecko, "Wall Street"

When writer/director Oliver Stone put those words into the mouth of actor Michael Douglas in 1987, he was lashing out at what he considered the Reagan years to be: the decade of greed. Missing from that scenario, of course, was the incredible generosity of the American people, who after receiving the much-deserved Reagan tax cuts, responded by doubling their charitable giving.

Fifteen years later, greed is truly alive and well in America. It lives in the heart of Martha Stewart, whose greed drove her to risk her billion-dollar empire in order to add the paltry sum of a quarter-million to her mega-wealth.

It lives in the lives Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have set new records for unprecedented book deals and lecture fees.

It lives in their good friend, DNC Chairman Terry McCauliff, who bailed out of his Global Crossing stock just in time to salvage $18 million while other investors watched theirs go down the drain.

Greed lives at Enron and WorldCom, where the tide of red ink just keeps rising. Each day seems to bring more bleak financial news, followed by revelations of personal enrichment by those at the top and those in-the-know.

"Big Tobacco" was vilified for preying on the weaknesses of addicted people who said they just couldn't quit. The greedy judgments against this greedy industry went through the financial stratosphere, enriching even greedier lawyers beyond their wildest greedy dreams.

Yet, every one of these examples of corporate and personal greed pales in comparison to the avarice fostered by those who love to identify themselves by the euphemism of "the gaming industry."

"Gaming" sounds so innocent. We all love to play games. But it turns out that this "gaming" fosters greed, and it is taking a terrible toll on our nation. It is destroying marriages, homes, children, families.

Because, you see, "gaming" is really "gambling."

Gambling has become a giant parasite on the American landscape, as one state after another fights for that elusive "painless revenue stream."

Nebraska is a perfect example of a state that has been assaulted by big gambling interests year after year. A once-proud thoroughbred horseracing state that drew gamblers from across the Midwest, the Cornhusker State saw that industry die in the eighties and nineties, as addicts sought quicker fixes from cards and slots. Surrounded by states that now have embraced full-blown casinos, Nebraska has very nearly sacrificed the good life for the gambling life on a number of occasions.

The latest assault from Big Gambling came this year in the form of a ballot initiative to let Nebraskans vote on whether or not to put video slot machines in every business possessing a license to sell liquor by the drink - bars, restaurants, you name it. If the place sold booze, it could be turned into a mini-casino.

The promoters of this scheme took full advantage of the confusion caused by another petition drive to repeal a tax increase imposed this year by the Nebraska Legislature. Those collecting signatures even deceived voters by wearing t-shirts that read, "Lower your taxes." Many who signed said later that they thought they were signing the petition for tax repeal.

But in the end, the promoters overreached, their greed causing them to exceed the legal limits of Nebraska's petition process by addressing more than one issue in their petition.

Those of us who have opposed expanded gambling in Nebraska have been called "blue noses" and accused of trying to dictate our neighbors' morality. But that misses the point. There is no judgment on personal morality by anyone I know who opposes expanded gambling (although a something-for-nothing, get-rich-quick mentality does seem to have become the new American Dream).

There is, however, such a thing as public morality, and to all those greedy politicians who want to fund their pet projects on the backs of the poor, I would say this: no government, at any level, has the moral right to raise revenue by preying on the weaknesses of those in society who can least afford it.