Act 2: Undo it
State legislators surely know where roads paved with good intentions lead. Yet this year, they passed Act 2 — which is sending veterans clubs and volunteer fire companies straight to a government-created hell that threatens their very existence.
Lawmakers thought Act 2 would help such groups by increasing prize limits for the small games of chance they rely on financially and by letting them keep 30 percent of proceeds. But it's dramatically cutting the take for groups that had been keeping all such proceeds all along — though state law since 1998 had said it all had to go to charity.
And facing onerous reporting requirements effective in February, many of these groups say they'll close rather than do hours of weekly paperwork.
That's why state Rep. Peter J. Daley, D-California, and other Southwestern Pennsylvania lawmakers want the governor to place a moratorium on Act 2 until the Legislature can address it.
Their Act 2 repeal effort is bipartisan. That's as it should be, because Act 2's flaws affect so many communities — especially its particularly pernicious prospect of effectively forcing local-level tax hikes to make up for the small-games revenue it's costing volunteer firefighters.
A state that sanctions lottery, slots and casino gambling shouldn't hogtie community groups that depend on small games of chance to survive as community assets. Lawmakers and the governor must undo Act 2's harm — posthaste.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.