From the Boston Globe: "Some foresee domino effect in N.E. gaming"
Early one morning a few weeks ago at his home in Hanover, N.H., Jim Rubens stared with dismay at an e-mail from a Massachusetts friend that carried news of Governor Deval Patrick's plan to bring three casinos to the Bay State.The government shouldn't be in the business of profiting off of people's vices. But the monster is insatiable, so it's casinos and lotteries and alcohol taxes and cigaratte taxes, the last of which is carefully calibrated so that just enough people stay hooked to generate revenue. Brace yourself, Vermont! Ben & Jerry's is next.
Rubens, a onetime gubernatorial candidate who now heads the Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling, pounced on his keyboard and began dashing off e-mails to fellow gambling opponents warning that Patrick's move bodes ill for keeping slots out of New Hampshire.
"It was like sticking a hot poker in our eye," Rubens said. "You put casinos north of Boston and it's an invitation to our legislators who want casinos to say: 'Look at the money that is going to bleed out of our state.' "
3 comments:
Here we go yet again. For years, casino revenue has been supposed to fix everything. Ever been to Atlantic City? It's worse than ever. How about Indian casinos? I go to a few around here and their pubelos, reservations, etc. are as poor as ever.
Plus, Hawaii wants to basically secede so they can be free to open up casinos all over the islands. It is beyond laughable.
Oh well, I'd write more, but I am out to play some poker and buy my Billy Ocean tickets.
http://www.rt66casino.com/eventinfo.php?id=69
Don't worry... your government is conserving money on the side, by screwing soldiers out of their G.I. Bill deals:
http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=71741
When they came home from Iraq, 2,600 members of the Minnesota National Guard had been deployed longer than any other ground combat unit. The tour lasted 22 months and had been extended as part of President Bush's surge.
1st Lt. Jon Anderson said he never expected to come home to this: A government refusing to pay education benefits he says he should have earned under the GI bill.
"It's pretty much a slap in the face," Anderson said. "I think it was a scheme to save money, personally. I think it was a leadership failure by the senior Washington leadership... once again failing the soldiers."
Anderson's orders, and the orders of 1,161 other Minnesota guard members, were written for 729 days.
Had they been written for 730 days, just one day more, the soldiers would receive those benefits to pay for school.
May I presume, then, anonymous that you certainly don't want a government that could do this to be in charge of national health care? I mean, if it can't even get this right, surely you're wildly against putting it in charge of something much bigger and (arguably) more important, right?
Or do you laughably believe that it depends on who gets elected? Perhaps you might take a good, long look at the people who staff the government and see which party they most support and consider the level of competence they currently evidence.
And, of course any Member of Congress could introduce a special member's bill to provide the sought benefit for just this group.
Oh, and are you also in favor of bureaucrats violating other federal laws and regulations just to get your desired result?
Do you even recognize the tyrannical possibilities remarks such as yours are open to?
Post a Comment