Today at the Forum: You wanna bet?

Thursday, January 31, 2008

You wanna bet?

Why is it every time there is a budget crunch, states always want to gamble?

Real gamblers – the people who make a living at it – never try to “get well” by making a big score. That’s a sucker’s bet.

But more and more states seem to be betting on betting. Kentucky’s Steve Beshear wants to bring in casinos, which he insists will fill the state’s coffers to the tune of $500 million a year.

Now Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland says one way he’s going to tackle a possible $1.9 billion shortfall is to count on another $73 million from expanded state lottery games.

Maybe he’s counting on all those extra lottery tickets being bought by some of the up to 2,700 state workers whose jobs might be eliminated as part of the deficit fight. People who are out of work are just the kind of suckers the lottery goes after with its get-rich-quick ads.

Strickland also proposes limiting travel, new contracts and equipment purchases. But why does he insist on counting on something as chancy as lottery winnings to balance things out?

15 Comments:

at 7:28 PM, January 31, 2008

Anonymous said...

Mr Wells asks:

"Why is it every time there is a budget crunch, states always want to gamble?"

Gee, I dunno... Maybe it's because the anti-tax zealots in the Republican party have demagogued tax increases of any kind.

Congratulations, right-wingers! We now live in a country where leaders are labeled unfit for office if they actually attempt to raise essential revenue. It's now only a matter of time until the country collapses upon itself. The levee in New Orleans and the bridge in Minneapolis are only the first signs of things to come.

at 11:41 AM, February 01, 2008

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:28pm is typical lib without the facts and off point.
Money was appropriated for New Orleans levee maintenance/upgrade and the Minneapolis bridge. Local Politicians decided to spend the money specifically targeted for the levees and bridge on other budget items and political corruption (probably more lib social programs that are ineffectual and kickbacks).

But back to Well's point. Gambling is human nature. Socialists/Libs/Progressives want to control human nature. If citizens in Ohio want to bet, why should they have to travel to Indiana or Kentucky to bet?

I know the argument that gambling zones draw crime. Really? And is Nevada's crime rate any different than the rest of the country?

I bet that if you opened controlled gambling on the Ohio River River bank or in OTR crime would actually decrease in those districts. Gaming officials like a safe environment to draw customers. Security Guards and more police patrols fully funded with jail space would result from taxes on Gambling.

But this makes too much sense for the liberal idealists who want to be your master for your own good.

at 3:24 PM, February 01, 2008

Anonymous said...

Anti-tax right winger? You better believe it. If anyone can show me that all of the waste and corruption has been eliminated from whatever beauracracy is needing more money, I'll support a tax. But don't be reaching into my pocket again and again and again just so gazillions can be squandered without accountability.

I just don't know why this is such heresy to liberals.

at 6:54 PM, February 01, 2008

Anonymous said...

"If anyone can show me that all of the waste and corruption has been eliminated from whatever beauracracy is needing more money, I'll support a tax."

Here's the thing -- it's impossible to prove that "all of the waste and corruption has been eliminated" from any organization.

What you're really saying is, "I'll never support a tax."

at 8:16 AM, February 02, 2008

Anonymous said...

Bingo ! 99% of the time.

at 12:12 PM, February 03, 2008

Anonymous said...

OK, I will NEVER support a tax.

Do you really believe that any government needs more of our money?

at 7:25 AM, February 04, 2008

Anonymous said...

as a liberal i find the wingnut comments a unique blend of idiocy because they miss the whole point.

government exists for the common good of all. period. end of discussion. taxes are used to fund government. taxes need to be allocated in a reasonably fair manner with some regard to individuals ability to pay for them.

using gambling to pay for a shortfall targets a single group, usually with the rationalization that "i don't do that" or something silly like "its a sin". its really no different than targeting smokers or drinkers. why not target people who give to churches?

the real answer is to raise taxes across the board and take us back to a pay as you go.

at 9:43 AM, February 05, 2008

Anonymous said...

Government is for serving the basic common needs of all citizens, law enforcement, national security, etc.

Libs think government is for serving their every whining demand for socialist mediocrity in every facet of their lives, including religion, education, health, guaranteed employment, wealth redistribution, lowering performance standards to the lowest capable amongst us, what ever the loudest Progressive needy want, etc.

at 10:14 AM, February 05, 2008

Anonymous said...

Pay as you go is the answer? Really?
Try telling the millions of senior citizens currently on and baby boomers joining social security, that they are only allowed to withdrawl what they put into the system plus interest.

They would quickly learn they underfunded social security with their personal contributions and their monthly SS checks would shrink.

Good luck with "Pay as you Go"!

at 8:41 AM, February 06, 2008

Anonymous said...

Tax ix the price we pay for civilization. Care of the indigent, bridges, roads, plumbing. Corrupt use of those funds is just that; but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm wealthy and my SS contributions will probably cover my benefit and MORE. That's the way it should be. There will be some who were not as fortunate or capable as I during their lives, but they are my fellow citizens and countrymen and I want their needs met with dignity.

So, as always, it's ideology. I have NEVER witnessed one example of the much discussed compassionate conservatism. Never.

at 8:05 PM, February 10, 2008

Anonymous said...

congratulations 8:41am on your responsible action and initiative to be self reliant with your retirement planning. This is a conservative value. Your lib progressive friends do not agree with you. They expect to be fed cradle to grave, by the government and others' working hard to pay taxes to support their free ride. Your NEVER comment shows your true biases and unrealistic views. Compassionate Conservatism is a phrase from moderate republicans, like George Bush Sr and Jr. Conservatives from the original Reagan revolution (first 2 years) do not identify with the current republican party. McCain is not a conservative. The best spokesman for conservatism today is your demonized Newt Gingrich.

A true caring person would teach the less fortunate but capable to earn their dignity and self pride by taking care of themselves and not being a slave to your Master Lib progressives shoving meager scraps off the table onto the floor for them to be eternaly grateful to you for your "kindness".

Teach your buddies to be fishermen to feed their own family and not ungrateful whining beggars.

at 2:03 PM, February 11, 2008

Anonymous said...

8:05 PM:

Thanks for a good discussion. It's me, 8:41.
I believe that most people do want to take care of themselves and you believe the opposite. I don't think either of us can see into each of their complexities. So, I deliberately choose a philosophy which will definitely mandate a safety net for ANYONE and EVERYONE who may need it. Then we can argue over how, when, why, but not who. We make benefits hard to access as a method of preventing abuse. That's nonsense.

I will withhold comment on Ronald Reagan until I have the opportunity to read "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)" by David Cay Johnston (Republican BTW).

I don't assume that my "conservative" planning (perhaps I was wildly speculative - you don't know) will amount to anything as I watch a paper shuffling oligarchy which collects enormous fees, form on Wall Street. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (Clinton) is a good example of this slow slide toward unregulated markets (add a devalued $ just for some spice). So perhaps I'll be in that soup line too since I won't be in my kingly counting house.

I was an independent for years and years so that I could examine each issue in our less than robust democracy, but was finally forced into a party in order to vote in a primary in NY state (by the old Tammany machine).
So, I have my philosophy which is, for lack of a better one right now, closer to the New Deal than anything else since we WILL go full circle, make no mistake. At least the middle class, being destroyed right now, might emerge again.

at 7:48 PM, February 11, 2008

Anonymous said...

As we fall off the Frontpage Blog. Anon 2:03pm....your line "I believe that most people do want to take care of themselves and you believe the opposite." struck a key distinction between Libs and Conservatives. But I believe my distinction is quite different from your intentions.

Man by nature is animalistic and very selfish for self preservation. It's in our caveman heredity. What makes man human is our acceptable common socialization and family upbringing.

Conservatives realize the necessity to instruct and develop children into contributing society adults. Liberals believe it is the function of the state to be the primary caregivers and teachers to develop children into citizens.

The deterioration of the instructional family unit in USA society has resulted in our continuing decline by worldwide standards. First the black family was broken up by the welfare state and now the devaluation of the family is widespread across all races. Why do foreign students and immigrants succeed in America when native born Americans fail at higher rates? Foreigners depend on a strong family structure with higher expectations and discipline.

So everyone wanting to be self supporting (take care of themselves) does not develop into reality without a support structure demanding excellence, while providing discipline and instruction from the family unit. Society, Lib's Village, will never replace the success rate of a strong family structure.

at 12:01 PM, February 12, 2008

Anonymous said...

Me again. Snow days are great even if to fritter in this way.

I don't think the moniker "liberal" advocates state support as a goal but rather acknowledges a point in time where we find ourselves and how to fix it while preserving a safety net - the realization that it could happen to anyone. I think you're thinking of old school "communism" - a deliberate way to structure a society. I think we're all trying to fix something that's broken without doing more harm. So maybe liberal and conservative have evolved as things to attack in the others' minds.

That animal instinct that you're talking about, I see it to: hence my reference to Wall Street greed.
I don't know if your reference to the black family unit indicates that you believe that they absorb more services than are proportionate to the population, but if so, I think that is inaccurate. Last time I checked, they make up about 13% of the population and about 17-20% of those receiving services such as ADI. I stand ready to be corrected on this - haven't kept up in awhile; certainly not really out of proportion.

Also, I've always only partially agreed with the late Daniel Moynihan about the breakdown of the black family unit by the welfare state. It was broken by slavery and whatever mental instabilities this may have caused can hardly have been eradicated in these short generations, and only exacerbated by Jim Crow, etc. I know in my own relatively stable family that fathers who drink and bully sons, create angry offspring who have had two, three wives and children who can't concentrate in school, etc. etc. etc....and that's three generations of a "normal" family which doesn't air its business; those same offspring have been the first to succumb to failures when the economy deals them a blow - lost job, etc; they have no ability to rebound.
Again, the welfare system should be a safety net and abuses should be eradicated, but I'd really like to know the practical outcome of the Devil's deal constructed by W.J. Clinton and Newt Gingrich when they overhauled this system....I suspect that all that happened was that states and cities are now bearing the brunt of the fiscal burden, and their "exit strategy" more closely resembles the shambles in Iraq rather than a well functioning alternative. How about some follow up stories, dear media?

I leave the last post to you, my fellow anon., if you wish. My "life" calls. Good "talking" to you.

at 6:52 AM, March 18, 2008

Anonymous said...

I am the last poster on this blog and thought a few follow up ideas would be useful at this time.

I recently read a study about infant mortality in the US and how our ranking in the world is comparable to the Third World countries. Most interesting, however, is that while the number of infant deaths was coming down, it suddenly stalled in 1997-98, and without just repeating all the details, the author provided the sources supporting the revision of the welfare system as a direct cause. Now, unless you're a thoughtless Darwinian, (not heartless, but thoughtless, since consequences for everyone must be considered even if it's for selfish reasons) when other people's children die of things, I cannot benefit as part of that society - even if it is just an ethical problem.

Second follow up thought: Bear Stearns. Hold on, this is the tip of the iceberg, and I hope, unlike myself, most of you have old fashioned pensions with your employers, which were generally not linked to the stock market, but rather funded by company profits. NEVER let them put the Social Security funds in the "free" market. Glass Steagall........

Previous Posts

Thursday, January 31, 2008

You wanna bet?

15 Comments: