Bennett's Good Works

The Washington Post ^ | Monday, May 26, 2003 | John DiIulio

[sitetest]

Recently William J. Bennett, best-selling "Book of Virtues" author, conservative commentator and Republican leader, admitted publicly that he has a vice: excessive gambling. According to published reports, over the past decade or so the former U.S. education secretary and drug czar bet several million dollars playing slot machines at Las Vegas and Atlantic City casinos. When the story broke, Bennett's critics called him a hypocrite, even though he had never spoken out against gambling or denied previous reports that he gambled. Some suggested that, because Bennett was so hard on President Bill Clinton and so outspoken on other controversial issues, he deserved harsh treatment and kicking while he was down. Now some prominent conservatives, both inside the Beltway and beyond, are suggesting that the gambling revelation will render Bennett's civic and media career kaput.

My reasons for hoping they are wrong about Bennett's future have nothing to do with partisan loyalties (I am a Democrat), little to do with policy preferences (though we often agree, we have also taken opposite positions on welfare reform, mandatory minimum drug penalties, government reform and other issues) and everything to do with personal knowledge about his character. Off and on for 15 years, I have joined the burly Irish Catholic on professional projects and witnessed the onetime philosophy professor and his wife, Elayne, contribute their time, energy and money to numerous charitable causes and civic good works. Yes, Bill Bennett was a soft touch for high-stakes slots, but let the record show he has also been a softie when it comes to helping others.

[sitetest]

Dear Ken H,

The authors of the smear pieces have told a few different versions of their stories in different settings, and gone on to repudiate some of the things they have said in other settings. One of the authors admitted that the $8 million was the "handle", not net losses, in a television interview, then repudiated his own interview only a short time later. They have been fuzzy in their presentation of the facts. If one didn't know better, one might think that they were deliberately twisting the facts to make the story more sensational.

But I, for one, know better. It is more likely that the two journalists involved are merely stupid. My own experience is that journalists and "communications majors" and similar twisted creatures often are innumerate. That is, they are mathematically-illiterate. I wouldn't rely on interpretations of liberal slime journalists, especially when it comes to things that require knowing how to add, subtract, multiply, or divide.

To lose $8 million via video slots would require gambling literally tens and tens of milliions of dollars. At $500 per throw, it would require a level of participation on the part of Dr. Bennett not acknowledged by Dr. Bennett, nor alleged by the criminals who wrote the articles. If he had been spending the time required to lose $8 million, that would have been the headline: "Bill Bennett in casinos 24/7/365".

As to coming close to break even, because the video slots are set up to return between 92 cents and 98.5 cents on the dollar, it is likely that the amount of money lost over the course of ten years is a fraction of $8 million. Net losses are almost certainly under $1 million, and more likely in the range of a few hundred thousand dollars. Which over ten years, winds up as some tens of thousands of dollars per year of losses. For a guy who gets $50K per speech.

But the evil-doers who smeared Dr. Bennett are relying on the fact that most people will be unable to decipher the facts from their shoddy accounts, and will assume the worst about Dr. Bennett. In this, they have proven largely correct.


sitetest

[Zevonismymuse]

Many believe that gambling in moderation is not at all harmful to anyone, including the gambler.

To that I say, "Many may be wrong."

Even moderate gambling helps support an industry that preys on the weakest among us.

I live in a rural community which has an Indian Casino. Many more families have been destroyed by this one casino than have ever been destroyed by marijuana.

Any vice can become destructive. I think we would all be better off to avoid both marijuana and gambling, but I think your assertion that marijuana is more destructive than gambling is incorrect.

[Zevonismymuse]

Except, for the fact, that pot smoking is illegal....

Thanks to sanctimonious phonies like Bennett.

[Ken H]

Net losses are almost certainly under $1 million, and more likely in the range of a few hundred thousand dollars.

Which is not exactly breaking even.

[sitetest]

Dear Zevonismymuse,

"Even moderate gambling helps support an industry that preys on the weakest among us."

You are entitled to your opinion.

So what? How is that relevant to the question?

"I think your assertion that marijuana is more destructive than gambling is incorrect."

Now, here, you really should re-read what I have read. That isn't what I said.

Get back to me when you understand it.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Ken H,

"Which is not exactly breaking even."

Dr. Bennett said that he had come close to breaking even over the years. In the context of betting $8 million, to lose a few hundred thousand dollars is, indeed, to come close to breaking even.


sitetest

[Zevonismymuse]

Get back to me when you understand it.

I wasn't attempting to get your defenses up; I was just disagreeing with what I thought was your assertion that moderate marijuna smoking is harmful to at least the user where as moderate gambling does not harm anyone.

Perhaps I did misunderstand your point.

[sitetest]

Dear Zevonismymuse,

You need to make up your mind as to what you're asserting:

"'I think your assertion that marijuana is more destructive than gambling is incorrect.'"

This doesn't reflect what I said.

"I thought was your assertion that moderate marijuna smoking is harmful to at least the user where as moderate gambling does not harm anyone."

This more clearly reflects what I said.

The two statements don't mean the same thing at all.

When you understand the difference, let me know.


sitetest

[Zevonismymuse]

When you understand the difference, let me know.

I see it as a difference without distinction. I also think splitting hairs is simply a defense used by folks losing a debate.

[Congressman Billybob]

The article you cite does NOT support the conclusion that Bennett LOST $8 million, rather than that he GAMBLED $8 million and lost less than that. In fact, it supports my conclusion rather than yours.

As for your conclusion about slot machines, I thoroughly agree. The payoff odds for those "one-armed bandits" are less than for any of the other forms of betting available at a casino. So they should be played only for recreation, and only using money one can well afford to lose. Anyone who expects to have a net gain at the slots is a statistical fool.

As for me, on my few trips to a casino, I stick to low-stakes blackjack. I play by the odds and the rules for betting. And I count myself lucky to enjoy the game, enjoy the free drinks, and stretch out my budgeted maximum loss longer than the time I set aside to play.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, now up FR, "The Knight of Draper's Liquor Store."

[B Knotts]

Yes, I thought I had pointed out that he had not lost that amount, but merely played that amount (allegedly).

[sitetest]

Dear Zevonismymuse,

"I see it as a difference without distinction."

Then you don't see it clearly.

"I also think splitting hairs is simply a defense used by folks losing a debate."

That you believe that I've split hairs indicates that you don't really understand the question.


sitetest

[SuziQ]

Mr. Bennett's heart was closed to the people he was locking away for marijuana use. Should he be surprised now that many people (including many who were on his side) are turning a cold shoulder to him in his time of difficulty?

You folks need to get a bid damn grip!!
Bill Bennett has NEVER 'put anyone away' for smoking marijuana or doing any other illicit drugs. The laws regarding illegal drug use were on the books years before Bill Bennett came on the scene. He simply went more public with the need for people in this country to avoid using illegal drugs because of the harm they do, to the user, the user's family, and this country, because of the loss of productivity because of the use of drugs. He also stressed the problems caused in the countries from where these drugs are imported. He rightly pointed out that if people in America decreased our use of illegal drugs, there would be fewer problems for the people in those countries with the murderous drug kingpins.

If you're going to bitch about him, make sure to at least get the story straight!

[Zevonismymuse]

Then you don't see it clearly.

Enlighten me.

[Ken H]

In the context of betting $8 million, to lose a few hundred thousand dollars is, indeed, to come close to breaking even.

Any public figure who tries to claim that losing several hundred thousand dollars is close to breaking even would be laughed off the stage.

That gets into defining what the meaning of 'even' is.

[sitetest]

Dear Zevonismymuse,

Certainly. But first, where do I send the bill for services rendered?


sitetest

[B Knotts]

Hey, all I'm saying is that he rejected the very same moral arguments when applied to pot that he attempted to use to defend his own gambling.

And that is why many people consider him a hypocrite.

[SuziQ]

"I view it as drinking," Bennett says. "If you can't handle it, don't do it."
Hypocrite thy name is Bennett.

Wrong again. The fact that he didn't lose his shirt, his house or his family, shows that he could obviously handle it.

You also called him a hypocrite because of Empower America's stance on the proliferation of casino gambling. What is hypocritical about him gambling in the places in which gambling is fully established and has been for over 50 yrs? EA knows that gambling can be a problem for those who don't have the extra income to waste, as Bennett obviously did, so they're asking states to be mindful of that.

[Zevonismymuse]

He simply went more public with the need for people in this country to avoid using illegal drugs because of the harm they do, to the user, the user's family, and this country, because of the loss of productivity because of the use of drugs.

As Drug Czar, Mr. Bennett was the person in charge of advising the President and Congress on how to devise and implement the drug policies. Mr. Bennett has been influential in his unwillingness to allow states to develope their own marijuana laws.

Gambling and drug use are related. Casinos are a great place to launder profits. Also, just like drinking and smoking, drug use is common practice in casinos.

[sitetest]

Dear Ken H,

Sorry you think that way. In my view, if I go to the track with $20, bet ten bucks in each race, and after nine races, walk out with $18, or even $16, I think that I've come near to breaking even. Especially since I "gambled" $90.

The proportions are the same, here, with Dr. Bennett.

The problem is the absolute size of the amounts involved. To most folks (like me, like you), $8 million is a whole lot of money, and even several hundred thou goes a really long way. If I were losing $50K per year gambling, or anywhere near it, my wife would likely shoot me.

But I don't get $50K per speech. And neither do you. So the size of the numbers shocks us. But if I did make $50K per year, I know what my wife would say if I lost that much in a year of gambling. She'd say, "Oh, well, go make another speech."


sitetest