Racino:Top Ten Reasons
By Mitch Berg
It’s come to my attention that there are Republicans flirting with a public “Racino” – a state run casino, intended to rack up tax money for the state.
There are so many reasons this is just plain wrong. I’ll give the Republicans the top ten. Any one of them should be good enough.
10. A new tax on the stupid is still a new tax. You were sent to Saint Paul to hold the line on taxes. That doesn’t mean “find reasons to rationalize them”.
9. Gambling has done such wonderful things for Nevada ‘s deficits, hasn’t it? Seriously. Panacaeas never works.
8. Ditto New Jersey. Sheesh. Gimme a break.
7. Guido Greaseaballa and his syndicate thank you. Don’t wanna pay up? F*** you!
6. Giving the state more money is like giving teenagers more booze.
5. Yeah, Biloxi, too. We can be a cold Gulf.
4. How does it help pass the budget? I’m sorry – the DFL says it all the time. Just thought I’d see how it felt.
3. Gambling addiction? No action on that bet! It harms Afro-Americans more…
2. We owe the Indians. We took this state from them. It’s only fair that we give them something in return. Best of all? It’s not “reparations”; it’s a free-market solutions. Everyone wins.
1. Mark Dayton wants you to support it. The state’s tribes have been solid DFL supporters for a generation- but that’s fading. Fast. It’s falling rapidly toward even. And Indian gaming has been a huge cash cow for the DFL for a couple decades now. If the GOP can be tied to a Racino, Dayton will veto it immediately, and claim credit with the tribes, turning the spigot back on into the DFL’s coffers.
So – it helps the DFL, and it hurts everyone else.
What’s to like?
May 12th, 2011 at 11:17 am
Whatever it takes to get a craps table in the metro, I support.
May 12th, 2011 at 11:46 am
Same for downtown Detroit. Several casinos added to help the budget.
The slippery slope of government furthering its ties to gambling should be enough.
May 12th, 2011 at 11:51 am
Out of the current gambling in Minnesota: How much TOTAL money is currently gambled?
How much in taxes does the state take from that gambling?
When it comes to the chanting point of “paying fair share”, what does Governor Target say about tribal casinos?
May 12th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
I recall being a spry young lad, growing up on the mean streets of Wisconsin, and listening to the lottery and dog track proponents:
“If we get a state run lottery and dog tracks, this will solve all of our fiscal problems”.
Sooooo how’d that work out for you, Wisconsin?
Whenever a new form of gambling income is proposed, it always is billed as a perminant solution to gov’t spending problems.
May 12th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Your 1 & 2, interesting. That was one of the reasons I kind of support new con games….I mean gambling. I am sick of the current casio cartels bankrolling Democrats.
That I like to see suckers lose their money by going to casinos. As the old saying goes…..”gov’t run lotteries/casinos are a tax on people who are bad at math”.
May 12th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Sooooo how’d that work out for you, Wisconsin?
Exactly the same way the Minnesota State Lottery worked out.
May 12th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Which part of “cut spending” do idiots in St. Paul do not understand? Raising more tax revenue by whatever means does not resolve out of control spending – just delays the inevitable.
May 12th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
It’s the lesson we need to teach our children: Whenever you have societal needs, build A) a casino, or B) a rehab center. Minnesotans are sooo ahead of the curve.
May 12th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
So I assume that you are in favor of the state protecting us from those evil things that hurt us?
So we should have a statewide smoking ban?
Because you pay an extra tax on those, so we must stop that.
And it hurts stupid people.
And states that have smoking taxes still have budget problems.
Last I saw, the Racino bill was not state run. It was a public company asking the state to remove a restriction it had placed on it. In order to get some DFL votes and get it done, they were willing to allow there proceeds to be taxed at a higher rate.
Based on #6, I assume you are also against cutting taxes or doing anything other free market ideas to stimulate the economy since those also increase revenue to the state.
The Racino isn’t perfect since it does still keep the government in th business of saying who can run a casino and who can’t, but it is a small step in the direction.
May 12th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Sam: We don’t oppose because we’re too weak to resist and don’t know how to say ‘no’ to the gambling impuse, but because if revenues need to be raised – gambling is the least preferred method. How about increasing productivity and enhancing the business climate so that there are more revenues to tax?
We’re not puritanical. We’re pragmatists.
May 12th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
My personal choice for increasing tax revenue is increasing the number of people actually paying taxes. That would call for these things we call “jobs”, and not government jobs. Real, honest to goodness private sector jobs that grow the economy. Sadly the congenital idiot we elected governor thinks he can accomplish this by raising rates.
May 12th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
I think casino/lottery…tax/revenue is a perfect example of how with the gov’t, it is NEVER ENOUGH. They propose these things as a solution for economies woes, but a few years later, it is like it did nothing. They come back for more. If we are to have a big casino on Block E, then lets get it in writing that this will be the last time the proponents of Big Gov’t will ask for more.
I do agree with the Indians though (in trying to maintain their monopoly). That we may be getting close to saturation with gambling. So for those like me who find gambling wrong (except for what I do with my friends on weekends), that this will lead to little more people being separated from their cash.
May 12th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
So I assume that you are in favor of the state protecting us from those evil things that hurt us?
No but in a reality in which the costs of “evil things that hurt us” get socialized and outweigh the purported “benefits,” expanding access said “evil things” is pretty far down on my list of priorities.
Also one thing that Mitch didn’t have on this list (although #6 sort of touches on this) is that there is a tendency among our elected officials and the public at large to look at non-tax revenue (e.g. lottery proceeds, racino, etc.) as “found money” to be used on funding extravagances like taxpayer-funded sports stadiums that couldn’t otherwise be justified by any sane person if they were seen as having to compete with priorities like public safety, infrastructure, education and health care that are funded with tax dollars. So long as we’re only using “found money” to pay for it, somehow it becomes less objectionable in some people’s minds.
May 12th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Kermit Says: “My personal choice for increasing tax revenue is increasing the number of people actually paying taxes.”
And the increase should come PRIVATE SECTOR jobs, not increases in public sector employment. I can’t tell you how many people that have gov jobs have exclaimed to me that they pay their “fare share” of taxes too. They sure do BUT the State and Feds had to take their share from the rest of us so they can also “participate”.
May 12th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
We are in agreement, Scott. That is why I said “That would call for these things we call “jobs”, and not government jobs. Real, honest to goodness private sector jobs that grow the economy.”
It cannot be said often enough. Government generates no wealth. It can only impede this generation or get out of the way and permit wealth to be generated.
May 12th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
So I assume that you are in favor of the state protecting us from those evil things that hurt us?
You really haven’t read me much, have you?
I support legalizing private gambling, and decriminalizing most drugs.
So we should have a statewide smoking ban?
Because you pay an extra tax on those, so we must stop that.
And it hurts stupid people.
I oppose the smoking ban.
And states that have smoking taxes still have budget problems.
Not sure if you realize you’re supporting my point.
Last I saw, the Racino bill was not state run. It was a public company asking the state to remove a restriction it had placed on it. In order to get some DFL votes and get it done, they were willing to allow there proceeds to be taxed at a higher rate.
Right. Socializedrather than government owned.
Based on #6, I assume you are also against cutting taxes or doing anything other free market ideas to stimulate the economy since those also increase revenue to the state.
Cutting taxes IS a free market idea. Government exists for a reason, so I don’t oppose taxes per se – I merely insist they be necessary for a very limited version of government.
The Racino isn’t perfect since it does still keep the government in th business of saying who can run a casino and who can’t, but it is a small step in the direction.
Which direction?
Read more carefully next time.
May 12th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Mitch, yes I have read you and that is why I am surprised that your top ten reason are so shallow.
As I pointed out, using your same top ten points for advocating a state wide smoking ban.
You see I support smoking as long as it is done in private.
All the other reasons you stated apply to a long list of things the government could ban if they wanted to.
And your #7 is just stupid.
In a location that has Card Games and Gambling on horses, adding a slot machine and suddenly the mob would move in?
Or that suddenly people who had no interest in gambling will say, wow going that extra 1/2 mile to Mystic Lake was too far but now that it is a the race track I will suddenly become addicted. The main group of people who will be gambling are those who are, you know, already gambling.
They will just increase they spend, because they will be able to do more.
As for step in the right direction, a direction where the government stays the hell out of trying to protect me from myself.
If you look at most of the advocates for legalized drugs, the mantra is – legalize it and then you can get all the tax revenue.
I assume that if they proposed decriminalizing most drugs and taxing them you would opposed.
Also, most of the proposal I have seen also only allow those licensing to sell the drugs – I assume you are against that too?
Or maybe you see that in politics sometimes you have to make small steps to get what you want.
May 12th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Thanks, Sam. I’m glad you had the coura
You see I support smoking as long as it is done in private.
That is very generous of you. Thank you for permission.
Also, most of the proposal I have seen also only allow those licensing to sell the drugs – I assume you are against that too?
Well gee, we have duly elected officials who write this thing we call “law”. So it would follow that only legal drugs under legal auspices are condoned. Is this really a difficult concept?
sometimes you have to make small steps to get what you want
Damn, there are so many Nationalist Socialist analogies I don’t where to begin. Happily, Berg is the arbiter, and it’s not my problem.
May 12th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
Thanks, Sam. I’m glad you had the courage to respond.
You see I support smoking as long as it is done in private.
That is very generous of you. Thank you for permission. But smoking has been banned in nearly every public space conceivable.
Also, most of the proposal I have seen also only allow those licensing to sell the drugs – I assume you are against that too?
Well gee, we have duly elected officials who write this thing we call “law”. So it would follow that only legal drugs under legal auspices are condoned. Is this really a difficult concept?
I assume that if they proposed decriminalizing most drugs and taxing them you would opposed.
I have good money that says you would be wrong, but Mitch can speak for himself.
sometimes you have to make small steps to get what you want
Damn, there are so many Nationalist Socialist analogies I don’t where to begin. Happily, Berg is the arbiter, and it’s not my problem.
May 12th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
And I take no responsibility for the double post.
May 12th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Guys, its going to happen. Deal with it.
May 13th, 2011 at 2:20 am
A more appropriate metaphor would be state-licensed whore houses.
May 13th, 2011 at 5:35 am
“Guys, its going to happen. Deal with it.”
Hands high and let ’em fly!
May 13th, 2011 at 7:55 am
Guys, its going to happen. Deal with it.
Can we put slots in the new Vikings stadium in Arden Hills? Maybe have Vikings cheerleaders dealing Blackjack?
May 13th, 2011 at 11:37 am
“a state run casino”
I’m sorry, but when I think “roles of government”, “run our casinos” never comes to mind. It sure makes it easy to argue for smaller government with people suggesting stupid crap like this. I mean, why can’t government function as a big, inefficient charity too if we need government to function as our big, inefficient blackjack dealer?
May 13th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
I shutter to think that we could end up with blackjack dealers on public employee pensions.
May 13th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Can we put slots in the new Vikings stadium in Arden Hills? Maybe have Vikings cheerleaders dealing Blackjack?
I know this is sarcasm Kermit but I actually think thats a good idea.