A Sane Approach to March Madness

The road to March Madness that culminates in a champion being crowned in One Shining Moment is here. Brackets will be busted as the annual rumble between Cinderellas and Blue Bloods thrills fans nationwide. Yet, while all of that is familiar, recent years have brought a new wrinkle, as the legalization of online sports betting has enabled a new level of excitement for basketball fans to enjoy the tournament. Now, instead of hiding in the dark corners of shady offshore sites or working with underground bookies, many Americans can legally and safely make wagers while sitting on barstools and couches. Unfortunately, there are still too many puritanical politicians that want sports betting to be illegal, leaving many fans on the metaphorical bench.

Big government types appear to think they know best about how adults should spend their leisure time. Fortunately, they’re a shrinking minority. Only 11 states currently prohibit sports betting, and the legislatures of six more have introduced bills to legalize the practice. Nonetheless, even as online gaming prohibitions slip, some nanny state politicians are attempting to take a step backward toward legislating morality. The case against online sports betting rests on a foundational misconception. The scale of the average participant’s involvement is dramatically exaggerated and distorted by detractors. In fact, the average monthly outlay for two-thirds of sports betters’ is less than $100, while only one in ten spends more than $500 per month and the vast majority spend less than $2 per quarter. This means that for the supermajority of bettors — the “casuals” — a monthly gambling tab comes to less than a daily latte drinker’s monthly coffee bill. For further perspective, consider th
at the cost of subscription bundles — from streaming to gym memberships — paid for happily by the average American comes to $77 each month. Sports betting is not free — few pastimes are; but neither does it seem uncommonly expensive when considered alongside Americans’ other voluntary purchases. This points to the obvious fact that sports betting is a consumable recreational product, not a means of money-making. The $10 a bettor places on a basketball game is intended not to be remunerative but to increase the bettor’s gametime enjoyment. The money spent serves the same purpose as the $10 (or, likely more) the same person might spend on a beer at a stadium or arena. Other facially plausible objections to sports betting’s legalization are similarly overstated. Not withstanding a careful review, many fretful commentators — including the authors of this recent paper — seek to tar the proliferation of sports betting as a well-spring for gambling addiction. Unfortunately for anti-gambling
advocates, the paper’s methodology fails basic scrutiny.

Good data on the topic remains scarce, writes the Reason Foundation’s Guy Bentley, but the experience of New Jersey, which legalized sports betting in 2018, and whose data can be trusted, contravenes nanny-statist assumptions. “In 2021, the latest year for which we have data, problem gambling in New Jersey was 5.6 percent,” Bentley reports. “But in 2017, before sports betting was legal, New Jersey’s problem gambling rate was 6.3 percent.” Whatever the causes of this 0.7 percent decrease, it testifies against the notion that legalization precipitates an epidemic of addiction. Not to be missed is the fact that New Jersey’s numbers are higher than the national average of 1% according to the NCPG. Indeed, at a recent debate, even a critic of sports betting admitted that “problem gambling rates…are static.” At root, the American experiment presumes that, absent a compelling public interest to the contrary, the government has no right to impose its preferences on the citizenry. The composite
right to pursue happiness encompasses more than just political and economic rights. The right to choose one’s recreational pursuits — with all its consequences for one’s quality of life and character — lies well within the boundaries of the sphere of personal freedom governed rightfully by the individual, not the state. Virtue cannot be coerced. The fact that the presence and popularity of sports betting rankles the moral sensibilities of the kind of person who wants the government to excise his personal hobbyhorses from American culture does not constitute a just license for lawmakers to treat their constituents as parents do children.

Americans choose to spend their disposable income and free time in many ways — many questionable ways, even. Nobody justly can be forced to like, endorse, or refrain from decrying any given recreation. Likewise, nobody justly can be barred from partaking in his chosen leisure activities (unless those activities harm others). Drinking alcohol, eating food, scrolling social media, playing video games — all these activities ruin lives and livelihoods, when taken to excess. Yet only the most puritanical would favor their regulation or abolition. Besides the fact that no states ban these behaviors, little distinguishes their respective cases from that of sports betting. States should get out of the way and allow fans to enjoy March Madness, the NBA or any other sport they follow. Online gaming should not become the casualty of lawmakers’ personal tastes or preferences.

U.S. and Canada Taxpayers Unite Against Tariffs

The United States and Canada have long been the closest of allies. The free flow of commerce and goods is essential to building strong economies and strong relations between the two countries. Yet, President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canadian goods imported to America, although some were thereafter paused for thirty days. A shift towards protectionism would harm — not help — President Donald Trump’s efforts to strengthen the economy and keep prices low for American consumers. Tariffs on Canadian goods would also threaten Canadian manufacturing. American economic history — including from the first Trump administration — shows conclusively that the costs of tariffs far outweigh the narrow benefits they provide to protected industries

Lost in the shuffle of a tariff war is the most important group: the people. Governments want people to think they can make other countries pay for their services by imposing tariffs. But the reality is they can’t. It’s simple: a tariff imposed by the American government is a tax on American consumers. It will mean higher prices paid by Americans.
A tariff imposed by the Canadian government is a tax on Canadian consumers. It will mean higher prices paid by Canadians. The new tax will affect Americans who import Canadian oil and gas: “In 2022, Canada was the source of 52 percent of U.S. gross total petroleum imports and 60 percent of gross crude oil imports,” according to U.S. Energy Information Administration. With more than half of America’s imported oil coming from Canada, a tariff will mean American refineries pay more. In turn, that will increase prices at American gas stations. Either that, or American refineries will go out and buy more oil from Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Columbia — likely also with higher costs. To see how free trade reduces costs for all involved, consider the case of a hamburger. The bun is baked in California, with flour from Saskatchewan. The beef is from cattle born in Alberta, raised in Nebraska and processed in Colorado. The bacon is from pigs raised in Manitoba and processed in Iowa. The lettuce is from
Arizona, the tomatoes from Ontario and the ketchup from Ohio. If governments disrupt this free flow of goods between our two countries, businesses will pay more to make these burgers, and consumers will pay more to eat them.

Workers in the U.S. manufacturing industry were hit hard by the last round of tariffs. “Steel and aluminum tariffs…created a few metals-producers’ jobs — 1,000 in steel and 1,300 in aluminum,” wrote Phil Gramm and Donald J. Boudreaux, but “destroyed about 75,000 manufacturing jobs.” That’s more than 32 Americans losing their job for every new job created. The Tax Foundation also shows how import tariffs hurt everyday workers. It estimates that tariffs already imposed under Trump and President Joe Biden will reduce “employment by 142,000 full-time equivalent jobs” and mean an “average annual tax increase on U.S. households of $625.” These bleak numbers will only get worse as new tariffs go into effect. Those who want more government control in Washington and Ottawa will have a field day pushing for tariffs. They will want to shut down trade and use taxpayer money to subsidize industry and businesses that can’t stand on their own two feet. Lost in the crossfire are the ordinary Ameri
cans and Canadians who will be forced to pick up the tab through higher prices and bigger tax bills.


BLOGS:

Monday: Taxpayer Watchdog Slams DOJ’s Outlandish Google Proposal ([link removed])

Tuesday: TPA Submits Testimony on Colorado Age Verification Bill ([link removed])

Thursday: Willmar spurns Charter offer, narrowly votes to build GON ([link removed])

Friday: Amid Postal Chaos, Reform Direly Needed ([link removed])


Media:

February 28, 2025: UtahPolicy.com ([link removed]) quoted TPA in their article, "Lee introduces the Saving Privacy Act for 119th Congress."

February 28, 2025: WisPolitics.com ([link removed]) (Madison, Wisc.) mentioned TPA in their article, "U.S. Rep. Grothman: Protects taxpayers from rogue IRS agents."

March 1, 2025: Florida Daily (Fleming Island, Fla.) ran TPA's op-ed, "Why is USAID Funding Foreign Post Offices?"

March 1, 2025: States News Service mentioned TPA in their article, "In case you missed it: Carey bill to overturn burdensome crypto rule advances out of Ways and Means committee."

March 2, 2025: 7NewsDC/WJLA (Washington, D.C.) quoted me in their article, "Amid forecasted $1 billion deficit, new stadium at RFK site comes to focus."

March 3, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me for their segment on proposed tax increases in Maryland.

March 3, 2025: 7NewsDC/WJLA (Washington, D.C.) interviewed me for their segment on the costs of a new stadium in DC.

March 3, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me for their segment on the potential of Maryland raising property taxes.

March 4, 2025: RealClear Markets ran TPA's op-ed, "Taking Away Online Rights Won't Enhance Child Safety."

March 5, 2025: Eastern Herald (India) mentioned TPA in their article, "US exposes Its hypocrisy by abandoning Ukraine for political gain."

March 7, 2025: RealClear Markets ran TPA's op-ed, "Blowing Whistle On Cases Against Sports Betting."

March 10, 2025: The Baltimore Sun (Baltimore, Md.) ran TPA's op-ed, "RFK Jr. has it wrong — the FDA approves too few drugs."

March 11, 2025: Townhall ran TPA’s op-ed, "Tariff War Will Be Disastrous for Ordinary Americans and Canadians."

March 11, 2025: National Review ran TPA's op-ed, "What American Lawmakers Should Learn from Europe’s Newest Tech-Policy Blunders."

March 12, 2025: Detroit News (Detroit, Mich.) ran TPA's op-ed, "Parents, not the government, should raise their kids."

March 13, 2025: Inside Sources ran TPA's op-ed, "The FDA Is Unprepared for Tech-Driven Innovations."

March 13, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me for their piece on proposed 'business to business' taxes in Baltimore.

March 13, 2025: WBOB-AM (Jacksonville, FL) interviewed me on Trump's tariff wars.

March 14, 2025: Florida Daily ran TPA's op-ed, "Reintroducing Cost of Living Adjustments in FL Will Make Taxpayers Foot the Bill."

Have a great weekend!

Best,

David Williams
President
Taxpayers Protection Alliance
1101 14th Street, NW
Suite 500
Washington, D.C. xxxxxx

============================================================
** ([link removed])
** Like Us On Facebook ([link removed])
** ([link removed])
** Follow Us On Twitter ([link removed])
Our mailing address is:
1101 14th Street NW
Suite 1120
Washington, DC xxxxxx

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])