People mindlessly assume gambling is some sort of panacea when, in fact, it is a long term state budget negative:
Quote:
In the short-run, states indeed do raise additional revenues due to expansion of gambling activities and facilities. However, history shows that in the long-run the growth in state revenues from gambling activities slows or even reverses and declines. In short, the revenue returns deteriorateand often quickly. This pattern of deterioration may be due to competition with other states for a limited market (saturation), competition between different forms of gambling (substitution), or other factors. Despite the deterioration, the dynamic often continues, as states find new forms of gambling to authorize, open new facilities, and impose higher taxes on gambling. The results are short-run yields and longer-run deterioration.
https://rockinst.org/issue-area/state-revenues-gambling-short-term-relief-long-term-disappointment/If Texas were to implement gambling in pretty much any form, it would compete against Vegas, Oklahoma and Louisiana and, as market competition works, it is wholly unclear as to whether the resulting competition would actually generate enough meaningful revenue to offset the societal costs. Remember, the studies I'm quoting here don't even compute gambling in larger states such as Texas so if casinos were to pop up in, say, Houston, DFW, San Antonio, Austin (heaven forbid), El Paso, and on the coast in 2 or 3 places (or anywhere in Texas for that matter), that would force bordering states and even Vegas to adjust how they do business to keep Texas gamblers coming there. They're not going to say, "oh well," and waive the white flag.
Lower costs and house odds would lead to lower revenues and tax receipts, even over and above (or below, I should say) what the study I quote suggests.
THIS IS A BAD IDEA. 
