In the Name of Tax Revenue Saving Small Businesses; City May Allow Low-Wager Gambling

1) Ban smoking in bars and restaurants. 2) Allow state-sanctioned gambling in non-proft venues, i.e -- American Legions, but not in for-profit businesses, i.e. -- bars. 3) Watch as small, neighborhood bars collapse from a dwindling customer base.

In response, Indianapolis tries to fix #2:

INDIANAPOLIS – Lawmakers in both the House and Senate have filed legislation to allow bars and taverns to offer paper pull tabs and other small-stakes gambling opportunities.

“I think there’s a realization that bars and taverns, particularly in smaller communities, are struggling,” said Rep. Matt Bell, R-Avilla, a co-author of the bill.[...]

House Bill 1153, authored by Rep. Dennis Tyler, D-Muncie, specifically authorizes bars and taverns to conduct Type II gambling, which is highlighted by pull tabs.

This game is similar to one offered by the Hoosier Lottery and something already allowed in charitable fraternal organizations or clubs.

Pull-tab distributors describe them as small paper games of chance used for profit-making or fundraising. The front side of the pull tab shows winning combinations of symbols and prizes a player can win. The back side of the pull tab has windows to open. If the symbols underneath the pull-tab windows match the winning combinations on the front of the pull tab, the player wins.

Generally, the tickets cost $1 each, and the game pays back about 70 percent of the money with 30 percent retained by the owner or group running the game.

Full article here.

The Height of Hypocrisy

Gov Patrick of Massachusetts is ratcheting up his campaign to license three brick-and-mortar casinos in the state, selling gambling as part of the Commonwealth's culture.

Governor Deval Patrick launched a dramatic campaign yesterday for his plan to introduce three resort casinos in Massachusetts, telling a packed State House auditorium that gambling has long been part of the state's history and would not change the character of the Commonwealth.[...]

Patrick's choreographed display of force was clearly designed to put to rest criticism from some quarters that he had made only half-hearted attempts to sell his high-profile plan. The governor's aides said yesterday marked the beginning of an earnest political campaign to persuade lawmakers and the public of its merits.

"For a very long time now, gaming has been in practice in Massachusetts, and gaming revenues have been used to support public projects," Patrick said. "In 1762, John Hancock raised lottery money to rebuild Faneuil Hall after a fire. Lottery funds were used to finance the Revolution."

The dormitory at Harvard College where Patrick lived during his freshman year was built in the 1800s entirely with lottery funds, he added.

Yes, this is the same Deval Patrick who wants to criminalize online gaming in his state. From a Globe article last month:

Even as Governor Deval Patrick seeks to license three resort casinos in Massachusetts, he hopes to clamp down on the explosion in Internet gambling by making it illegal for state residents to place a bet on line. He has proposed jail terms of up to two years and $25,000 fines for violators.

The provision, buried deep in Patrick's bill to allow three casinos to the state, puts the governor at odds with a fellow Democrat: US Representative Barney Frank, the sponsor of federal legislation to license and regulate online gambling nationally. Yesterday Frank strongly criticized the governor's plan to punish online gamers while inviting casino operators to set up shop.

And I guess slot machines and horse racing fall in the same category as online gaming, and don't count as part of the "Commonwealth's gambling culture":

Meanwhile, the state's racetrack owners tried to make their case that the Legislature should return to a proposal to give them slot machines to keep the ailing racing industry alive, rather than approve casinos, a plan that has been defeated before and faces an uphill battle this year.

The governor has said he would veto any legislation that specifically included slot machines at racetracks.

Yesterday, his administration said that racetrack facilities would be less lucrative - about $200 a day for slots at tracks, compared with $350 at large-scale resort casinos - and would not create the amount of jobs and building activity that resort casinos would.

It's simple really. Which form or venue for gaming provides the state with the best cut on the action. The state then provides protection for highest producer and locks out the competition. Nothing more than an elected crime family. Articles here and here.

Washington Post, Slots, etc

God bless this introductory paragraph in a Washington Post piece today on the Secretary of Labor, etc (a few other areas fall under him).

Thomas E. Perez's liberal credentials couldn't be more solid: At the Justice Department, he prosecuted a Texas gang of white supremacists who targeted blacks in a deadly crime rampage. On Capitol Hill, he counseled Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) on civil rights and criminal justice issues. And on the Montgomery County Council, Perez annoyed business interests by crusading against predatory lending.

So only a good liberal would prosecute white supremacist who went on a "deadly crime rage"? A conservative, or libertarian for that matter, would what, just look the other way? Unbelievable.

BTW, the article is about Perez and his front-line support for O'Malley's slots machine proposal. It seems that everyone is shocked, shocked I say, that politicians are two-faced, hypocritical scumbags who lack conviction and change their positions on issues at the drop of an opportunistic hat. In this case it is gambling, or more specifically slots. When former Republican Gov. Bob Ehrlich tried to pass a bill allowing slots in Maryland he was met with fierce opposition from Democrats who controlled (and still do control) both houses of the legislature. This wasn't some time in the distant past, rather it was in the last 2 years. And no one seemed, or still seems to care how these gutless politicians have simply changed their mind because their guy is advocating slots now.

This is the money quote from the article on the Secretary:

"I certainly hear from many friends in the progressive community who say, 'Tom, how can you support slots?' " Perez said in a recent interview. "I give them a simple answer.

"I'm motivated in large part because I want to address the problems of the uninsured. I want to address the undereducated, and I want to address the challenges confronting people who are living in the shadows of our communities. The reality is we need a funding source to address these challenges."

Who exactly is that funding source? In the case of slots, it's much the same as state lottery's -- poor and elderly people. Don't mistake me, I have no qualms with gambling. None at all. But I do have problems with a state-run gambling monopolies that block out private casinos and limit choices for the player. Most of all I hate that the government supposedly bans gambling to protect the potentially exploited "victims" of the industry, but then turns around and does the exact same thing they said they were trying to prevent. Disgusting.

Full article here.

Quote of the Week

Rep. Barney Frank in response to Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick's bright idea to throw online bettors in jail for up to 2 years.

"I believe in personal liberty," Frank said. "Adults should be able to do what they want. I wish my fellow liberals would not be so inconsistent on this issue."

The punishment is included in a bill that would provide state licenses to three brick-and-mortar casinos. Full article here.

God Hates Blackjack

But He's comfortable with video poker. I know, I know -- He works in mysterious ways. [emphasis throughout mine]

CHARLES TOWN, W.Va. -- Voters yesterday defeated a proposal to allow blackjack, poker and roulette at Charles Town Races and Slots, a racetrack casino that attracts many customers from Maryland and Virginia.

About 56 percent of Jefferson County voters who cast ballots rejected the referendum to allow table gambling, county officials said. The vote was 5,626 to 4,429.

It should only be a matter of time until they get table games, but the sooner the better for this degenerate.

More.

But opponents argued that much of the financial gain would be offset by increased public safety costs and that higher traffic volume would overwhelm already-busy roads. One flier from an opposition group also warned of risks to gamblers: addiction and bankruptcy.

[...]

But Renny Smith, 67, a retired foreign service officer who owns a horse that once raced at the track, said she worries that the table games would bring too many visitors to her fast-growing community. She is part of a group that opposes the measure and said she would vote against it.

"Something in this is bothering my inner Baptist," she said. "It's not that I mind the racetrack, but I don't think our community is ready for table games. We just don't have the infrastructure."

[...]

The operation, which generated about $485 million in revenue last year, has about 5,000 slot machines, and the horse track runs about 220 days each year.

You have already whored yourself out Jackson County. Don't get all principled and not let gamblers bust their nut inside of you.

A slightly off-topic rant...Doesn't the increase in state-run, brick-and-mortar casinos just make the online gaming "ban" even more sickening? What state doesn't have casinos, or slots now? If the state can't figure out how to make money off the competition, their answer (with lots of help from brick-and-mortar gaming companies) is to smash the competition. And of course, social conservatives, and other moralizing nannys, are more than happy to be part of coalition that bans something fun and marginally dangerous. I just wish the hypocrisy wasn't so obvious.

Full article here.

P.S.: By state-run I really mean heavily regulated from the top down with the state taking a nice cut for themselves. In retrospect state-run is a bit of a hyperbole, but you can hardly open a casino wherever you want, with whatever rules you want. Everything is done and run by the blessings of the local gaming commissions, all the way down to silly rules like banning certain bets (i.e., no straddles allowed at a poker table in all of New Jersey). That's what scares the politicians so much about online gaming; it's the unregulated wild west of gambling. Control is the name of the game. They can't stand not to have it.

More Friday Links

In an effort to help sea turtles and hurt poor, inner-city residents, whom are already forced to buy costly groceries; certain Maryland cities are aiming to follow San Francisco and ban plastic bags.

In other news, in an effort to help poor, inner-city residents, and hurt sea turtles and the environment; the state of Maryland has donated $5mil of taxpayer's monies to a fund that will help residents keep their air conditioners running longer throughout the summer.

Poor inner city residents are said to be indifferent as they have more pressing concerns...i.e, dodging bullets on a nightly basis.

This quote from the guy who invented Microsoft Word, reminded me of Trump and his inability to keep his casino properties out of the red.

My friends, if you can’t figure out how to make money from people who only play games with a built-in house edge, you may as well give up on the casino business and close your doors.

He was remarking on the fact that certain high rollers, including him, had been 86ed from Harrah's properties (including Caesars, which was recently bought by Harrahs), not because he was counting cards, or cheating; but rather because he had been too lucky at video poker. Read his whole post, it's pretty interesting.

Levmore: Libertarians Love Lottery

Check out the rubbish flying under the banner, Don't privatize future by selling state lottery, an op-ed in today's Chicago Tribune.

There are some good arguments for a state-sponsored lottery, and indeed for one that does not have a thin profit margin. Even a good libertarian could say that inasmuch as the government is not coercing people to play the lottery, and there are many private alternatives for gamblers, a state lottery is not the worst of all evils. Some people might actually like playing it, and that must count for something. [Ed.: Emphasis mine.]

[Ellipsis]

Even if we have no single rule to go by in order to know when the government should own something, create a monopoly or compete in an industry, it seems unlikely that we want a government to lock in future governments. Strange as it may sound, privatization should probably be reversible, especially when there is grave doubt as to whether the government should have been in the business in the first place.

We the people, in order to form a more public future. Right on. I think this is the same rationale Hugo Chavez uses to nationalize oil. Good one.

What's more, here in DC, my alternatives to gambling via something other than the state-run lottery are... um... uh... Yeah. Exactly. Even more irritating than the piece itself is from whence the author, Saul Levmore, hails: He's the dean of the University of Chicago law school. More here.