I'm really not thrilled with the idea of funding government with the proceeds of gambling.
Unless the casino is the NYSE.
Black Caucus offers Ehrlich slots support
By Robert Redding Jr.
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
ANNAPOLIS — The Maryland Legislative Black Caucus says it will support the Ehrlich administration's slot-machine bill if blacks are given ownership in two proposed casinos along Interstate 95.
"He will get slots if black folks get ownership," Senate Majority Leader Nathaniel J. McFadden, Baltimore Democrat, told The Washington Times.
House Deputy Majority Whip Obie Patterson, chairman of the 42-member Black Caucus, yesterday said black ownership is essential to winning the approval of the caucus.
"It has been our position all along that we look at ownership and not just participation," said Mr. Patterson, a Prince George's County Democrat.
Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. last week told The Times that he and Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, who is black, agree that minority ownership is an essential part of the slots legislation.
"We know that is a concern of the Black Caucus, and we think it is a good idea," the Republican governor said.
Mr. Ehrlich this year has proposed basically the same slots legislation he first offered to the General Assembly last year - a bill that would allow the state to reap revenue from licenses for 11,500 slot machines at four Maryland racetracks. However, he has included this year a measure that would set up 4,000 slot machines at two non-track sites along I-95 to garner support from House Democrats, who killed his legislation last year.
The governor said the additional sites can be privately or state owned, and that a panel consisting of himself and Senate and House leaders would decide where to put the gaming facilities. He expects the state to make $2 billion annually from the revised plan.
"If [track owners] can own the other four, why can't we own the two?" Mr. Patterson said.
His comments came one day after six caucus members participated in an anti-slots rally and vowed not to accept a slots bill under any circumstances.
"We are just not entertaining [slots] at this point," Mr. Patterson said. "We would entertain [slots] if some of these changes are made."
He also does not support the panel making the decision about where to put the two additional locations.
"I think local control has to be a part of that process," Mr. Patterson said.
Mr. McFadden said caucus members "at a minimum" want blacks to have at least 51 percent ownership of at least one site before helping Mr. Ehrlich win votes in the House and Senate.
Still, he says the first concern of the caucus is finding money to improve public education.
"The only reason we are having this discussion about expanding gambling is for the purpose of fully funding the Thornton" plan, he said.
The governor wanted to use slots revenue to pay for the Thornton plan, which attempts to erase the disparities between rich and poor school districts.
Posted by P6 at February 6, 2004 07:44 AM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/263
Comments
WTF? It is OK as long as you pay off the right people? Jesus H.
I'm not adverse to the government gambling issue. (I just think of it as a Stupid Tax.) The flat out race pandering really sticks in my craw, though.
Posted by Phelps at February 6, 2004 05:05 PMIt is OK as long as you pay off the right people?
You're just noticing that?
Look, whoever gets thoses licenses will have a guaranteed slice of a government-created money-making machine. Since it's being made from whole cloth and distributed, you're damn skippy I want to see some race pandering up in here. They got Indians and Chicanos in the mix? Spread it out evenly over the populace, I say.
Creation is fundamentally different from redistribution, no matter what you think of redistribution.
My problem is the shift from a progressive tax to gambling revenues as a way of funding the government. In my less charitable mood I'll call it a stupidity tax too. But give the people I know, the Atlantic City trips and $2.50 a day in Pick 3 Lotto tickets, I tend to call it a "dream tax."
Posted by P6 at February 6, 2004 05:40 PMIdiot Tax they call it. Hey, idiots don't generally earn enough money to pay taxes, unless they happen to be adept at chasing inflated rubber objects or pounding each other in the face with their fists. That happens to be only a very small percentage of them though. Being that the poor tend to benefit more from government than anyone else, they should pay something, even if it is through chasing their own, stupid numbskulled vices that made them poor in the first place.
At least that's that much less money they can spend on alcohol.
Poverty isn't a disease you catch walking down the street. It isn't some calamity visited upon some random victim by a jealous and veangeful God. People are the cause of their own misery. I know, I grew up with it, I saw first-hand. My ignorant parents decided that it would be more fun to blow what little money they made on cocaine, heroine, weed, and alcohol. Fuck the kids and their future. I spent my 9th and 10th grade years in a homeless shelter, then living in a tent in a campground in the middle of winter.
I have little sympathy for the dull and unmotivated. Poor people are poor because they made themselves that way.
The reason marxism never really caught on in this country is because we don't have classes here. People who start at the bottom often make it to the top, and people who start at the top rarely keep their place. This is a country where people are made, where hard work and ingenuity brings rewards, and laziness and instant gratification brings poverty.
I have known far more poor people in my life than rich. All the rich people I have known made it by their own efforts, and all the poor I have known likewise made their poverty by their own efforts and poverty of values.
I know this has little to do with the topic, but I had to get that off my mind.
I have noticed that people like me who have made it out of the worst circumstances to find success are the most hated people in this country, mostly by the envious- those at the bottom who never wanted to make the effort- and by the leftists, who hate the fact that I am proof of the falsity of their religion, because they would deceive the poor into thinking that every hardship they experience is someone else's fault, and if only they were to give the leftists more power, for that is all leftists desire- look at what they do when they get it- Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Hitler- they hate more than anyone. They hate the rich because in this country most of the rich are self-made. People like me take the wind out of their rhetoric. The perfect world for a leftist is a dirt-poor one populated with plenty of people they can inspire to blood-red rage, hate and murder, and a few they can lay the blame on. Sometimes they hate falls on Ukrainian kulaks, sometimes Jews, but it is always people who are successful. Hate is the fuel of the leftist's empty soul.
Posted by Carl at February 7, 2004 11:52 PMLook, whoever gets thoses licenses will have a guaranteed slice of a government-created money-making machine. Since it's being made from whole cloth and distributed, you're damn skippy I want to see some race pandering up in here. They got Indians and Chicanos in the mix? Spread it out evenly over the populace, I say.
I do too. The problem is that you do that by taking out the government enforced monooplies, not by making umpteen million monopolies until you have carved out every preference you can think of (except maybe white men).
Creation is fundamentally different from redistribution, no matter what you think of redistribution.
The thing to remember is that the government isn't creating the money. It is simply not punishing the creation in this instance.
Posted by Phelps at February 8, 2004 02:43 PMI'd like to unsarcastically congratulate Carl for making it out of poverty on his own. Seriously. Good for you. That's the glory of our society, an achievement to outshine many others.
But when you say there are no classes in this country, or that the nation is swarming with Stalinists and Maoists, or that success or failure is exculsively the result of personal initiative, I have to differ.
The term "leftist" has been used to describe anyone who disagrees with this premise. Yet examples of leftists are "Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Hitler." It seems to me that you have two operational definitions of "leftist" going on here. One definition is, a leftists is anyone who believes some state intervention is required to mitigate poverty. The other is, a leftist is someone who favors totalitarian, genocidal rule. The latter definition is clearly invalid since leftists revile these people as much as anyone else.
If you hunt long enough you can find a group of radical Maoists in their eternal circle jerks; but they represent a vanishingly small proportion of society. OTOH, I've had supervisors who thought Ayn Rand was the last word on every subject, who also had no embarrassment about filing lawsuits for every grievance, relied heavily on government subsidies for the affluent, agitated for more such subsidies, and so on. Hypocrisy? Would I be rebuked for bringing them up, since they aren't representative of their own principles? Perhaps, but I'm merely seeking to avoid a post hoc definition of a "leftist=bad", "libertarian=good" which you seem to be indulging in here.
In the real world, leftists agitate for things that, in their opinion, would make the world a better place. A good example is the Great Depression, now universally forgotten or mythologized. In this Depression, about half of the wealth creation in the USA ceased, without bombings, famine, or [significant] natural disaster. Who benefitted from this state of affairs? No one. "Leftists" believed the state had a role to play, and after fortifying the state sector, the US economy recovered. Was this part of a conspiracy to keep Americans poor and stupid? If so, it was a dismal failure. The vast majority of Americans were wealthier in 1953 than in 1933.
In 1959, the poverty rate for African Americans was 55.1%; by 2001 it was 22.7%, in large measure because of a tiny share of GDP dedicated to anti-poverty initiatives. Was the desire to spent >1% of GDP on anti-poverty efforts evidence that "leftists hate the successful"? Is a reduction of poverty by that amount not a worthy goal?
Posted by James R MacLean at February 8, 2004 05:15 PMCarl, I understand how you came to your viewpoint. And though I've been broke I've only seen what you say you've experienced so knowing such stuff goes on wouldn't brand my soul.
But that gives me enough distance to see your solution doesn't scale.
The two things that shape one's destiny are the circumstances and one's reaction to the circumstances. I will hold individuals accountable for the latter but the former is a collective issue that no single person can change…and don't mistake overcoming for changing, just as one shouldn't mistake motion for progress.
Also, I don't know who told you what a Leftist is, but from your list they lied to you.
Posted by P6 at February 8, 2004 08:40 PMTo James MacLean:
"Yet examples of leftists are "Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Hitler."
Yes, those were my examples, becasue those arethe kinds of leaders that you get with socialism or communism or whatever. I would put Roosevelt in there too. He was no saint.
""Leftists" believed the state had a role to play, and after fortifying the state sector, the US economy recovered."
That is absolutely false. Most reputable economists, that is, ones who don't spend most of their working as political columnists, agree that the New Deal actually prolonged the Depression. In fact it took a war and hundreds of thousands of lives lost to get us out.
I don't fault leftists for their desire to do good, but what I do fault is that sometimes that desire to do what they consider good can override every other moral consideration, often with disasterous consequences. It was a desire to do good for society that put Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler in power, but in order to enact the policies, it took an enormous amount of brutality, which these sociopaths were willing to commit.
That's the problem I have with leftists. Most are actually people of good will, but through their religious devotion, they often empower evil people to carry out their will.
I have a great deal of respect for anyone who helps the less fortunate. I have done much myself to help kids go to college. However, here is the easy, lazy approach that most leftists want to take: hire some government thugs to confiscate property from some unpopular and hated group of people (Kulaks, Jews, or "the rich", it's all the same hate) to give to another just so they can feel morally superior. Again, they empower a gang of sociopaths to carry out their will. In this country, it hasn't gone nearly quite as far, but the rhetoric is alarmingly similar to what preceded the blood and brutality of past regimes.
Posted by Carl at February 9, 2004 04:33 AMOn the subject of 'left' and 'right,' it seems there is a shift occurring. It is less a matter of that simple dichotomy that one between sommunitarian and libertarian.
A communitarian would hold that the individual is the property of the collective, whereas the libertarian holds that the individual is the property of the individual.
Virginia Postrel's book The Future and its Enemies talks about this in-depth. One one side you have the rightwing nativists who are anti-immigration and pro-america- both collective sentiments, both basing the definition of the collective on nationality. On the left you have anti-globalists and anti-free trade folks who oppose free trade, open markets and such. Their collective is based on some subjective measure of relative power. You'll find both groups at the same anti-globalization protests.
Communitarians believe that they should be able to force people to act on behalf of some larger group through legislation, violation punishable by loss of freedom or life. To them, the individual is community property.
Posted by Carl at February 9, 2004 04:43 AMCarl, Hitler was not a "leftist". I think that's what James and P6 are trying to say. Unless your definition of "leftist" is "supporter of totalitarianism, regardless of ideology". Since none of us here are supporters of totalitarianism, we are not "leftists" by your definition even though we are politically liberal.
Posted by Al-Muhajabah at February 9, 2004 05:57 AMThat is absolutely false. Most reputable economists, that is, ones who don't spend most of their working as political columnists, agree that the New Deal actually prolonged the Depression. In fact it took a war and hundreds of thousands of lives lost to get us out.
Carl, seriously. How did the New Deal prolong the Depression, and WW2 end it? Whether you think US involvement in that conflict was needful is another subject; the fact is, you're saying that massive state spending ENDED the Depression.
How did the loss of anyone's life end the Depression?
Your "reputable economist" line is a classic tautology. Murray Rothbard may agree with you, but that doesn't make him a reputable economist.
If you think the New Deal was as bad as the Repression of Stalin and Hitler (to say nothing of Mao), then I have nothing to add. Your opinion on this subject is--with all respect--as hallucinogenic as the "all reputable economists" remark, and easier for non-economists to spot.
Posted by James R MacLean at February 9, 2004 03:07 PMHowever, here is the easy, lazy approach that most leftists want to take: hire some government thugs to confiscate property from some unpopular and hated group of people (Kulaks, Jews, or "the rich", it's all the same hate) to give to another just so they can feel morally superior. Again, they empower a gang of sociopaths to carry out their will.
It depends on if you think all taxation is theft. If yes, then you can alert people that you are an extreme anarchist. If no, then let's talk: I too am interested in reducing the cost of government (per capita). That requires responding to social problems in an efficient way. The war on drugs is an inefficient and wasteful social policy; replacing it with health-oriented strategies would help us to cut taxes and balance the budget. Similarly, the Bush doctrine has done nothing to enhance US security, while jacking up the cost of defense/security almost $300 billion. A more prudential strategy would allow freer commerce, more local control in other countries, less gov't corruption and waste, greater resources dedicated to human capital formation, and LOWER TAXES, Carl!
Look, I admire your success rising up from poverty. Excellent. If I had my way, I could give you a big check for tax you no longer have to pay. "It's yours, Carl. You've earned it." But minimizing the scale of government is not a matter of just twisting the knob. It's an optimization problem, like choosing how often to maintain your equipment.
Posted by James R MacLean at February 9, 2004 03:17 PMEgad, James, you leave me with nothing to say!
Wait...
How about if I repeat something I read in "Economics Explained?" That the onlyreason the Arab oil embargo a couple of years back didn't send us into a depression is that government spending created an absolute floor below which market activity CAN'T fall? That in economic terms, spending is spending whether it's done by individuals, corporation or governments?
Posted by P6 at February 9, 2004 04:49 PMExcept I screwed up and said "the war on drugs is an efficient [sic] and wasteful policy"--Alack the day!
Obviously, I meant to say that the "War on Drugs" is inefficient. "Respoding" was supposed to be "responding." Pardon, Gentles all, the flat unraised spirit that hath so dared defend the common weal.
Posted by James R MacLean at February 9, 2004 04:59 PMCaught that. I meant to correct the misspelling before you got back.
Posted by P6 at February 9, 2004 07:14 PM