CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Legalizing what’s already everywhere

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

Six Degrees of Separation — Thu, 21 May 2009 21:12:56 -0000

This capital bill, which supposedly was the most important piece of pent-up legislation in years, is receiving scant interest here. The 3 bills easily passed the House tonight and await Quinn's signature. Here's $26 bil comin at'cha.

Now back to our regularly scheduled nap.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

Six Degrees of Separation — Thu, 21 May 2009 16:41:02 -0000

I guess among all the lottery and video poker talk, it's worth noting that Rep. Sandoval (he of the "Chicagoland is getting shorted" fame) put his Y vote on a plan that unanimously passed the senate, and essentially maintains the 45/55 Chicagoland/downstate highway formula (I think it was more like 47/53) in the capital bill.

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

FOLLOW THE BUCK — Thu, 21 May 2009 15:24:34 -0000

I'm amazed that JC's lottery scheme is getting so little attention. He is giving away 5% of gross sales for a lottery that is now running on about 3% of gross. And that is just the tip of the iceburg. Go figure!! Follow the buck.

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

Ghost — Thu, 21 May 2009 15:22:45 -0000

Legaleagle, your analysis is a little too two dinmensional.

If a family is in credit card debt etc, but they can purchase a new car and get half of the cost covered by the federal government, and the new car will generate revenue for their family because the people being paid to build it will send tox money to cover the debt, will spend money in the family restraunt to increase their profits from the busienss etc; then they are not simply adding debt to debt, they are spending some money in order to recieve free money and stimulate an increase in their take home pay which is then used to help pay that debt.

If your burried in debt how wise is it to throw away free money and stifle economoci growth when that growth is the key to eliminating the debt?

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

Elliott Ness — Thu, 21 May 2009 15:03:02 -0000

If the Liquor Commission were required by law to revoke a license for a first offense, or even a second offense, of video poker gambling, then this would not have gotten out of hand. That is where the problem lies.

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

Ghost — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:58:47 -0000

Louis Howe summed it up best. This is one of those deep grey areas.

This has to be the best summation of the issue I have ever seen "The reality is that itâ€™s a tax on human frailty and ignorance."

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

Phineas J. Whoopee — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:54:33 -0000

Isn't it ironic?

Illinois, one of the most corrupt state's in the nation gets a new Governor who appoints a commission that recommends several reforms.

Instead of adopting the reforms, we expand legal gambling to have mini casinos on every block to raise billions of dollars for our suspect politicians to dole out.

Meanwhile reform bills appear headed nowhere.

Illinois ain't ready for reform yet.

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

Legaleagle — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:14:34 -0000

If the state truly has an $11 billion dollar operating deficit, then it should not raise $1.1 billion via five new taxes to go deeper into debt for capital projects that could be put off for a time. If a family is buried with credit card and mortgage debt, it should not borrow more money to buy a new car, but should just get the old car to make it through another year. Any new money should go to pay down any operating deficit. This capital bill is a huge mistake in this economy. It's hard to believe that the Senators were all praising each other, as if they had done something wonderful. Even if it is needed and desired, the state just can't afford it now.

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

Rich Miller — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:04:32 -0000

===can you get more regressive than the gambling taxes? ===

Nobody deducts slot machine tokens from your paycheck. Please.

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

wordslinger — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:59:48 -0000

-- The Defender's conclusion is that the Lottery is bad for the members of those communities.--

Pluto, again, things are not always so simple. Back in the day, when the numbers racket was illegal, the Defender was a partner in the policy wheels, serving as the official source of winning numbers.

Once again, I recommend Nathan Thompson's book "Kings, The True Story of Chicago's Policy Kings and Numbers Racketeers." If you can't find the book, you can get some decent hits by googling "Chicago Policy Wheel, Ted Roe, Ed Jones."

It's the story of how the black South Side gangsters ran the numbers racket, and plowed the money back into the community by investments in legitimate businesses.

It also tells how Sam Giancanna made a name for himself by taking it over for The Outfit -- and taking the money out of the community --through kidnapping and murder.

Great yarns in the book from Ted "Double Duty" Radcliffe.

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

Plutocrat03 — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:41:38 -0000

We currently get solutions from simpletons and you see where that has gotten the State. The self serving and self dealing would be funny if it were not so tragic. How about a excess profits tax on the magic deals that net millions of dollars to administration insiders like the one for the minority representation in the Chicago parking meter scam?

For all the falderal about regressive taxation, can you get more regressive than the gambling taxes? According to the Chicago Defender in FY 2008, six out of the top 10 revenue producing zip codes had a majority black population. The Defender's conclusion is that the Lottery is bad for the members of those communities.

I will ask my question another way. Is there no activity the legislators are not willing to tax in their chase for money? If so what constitutes the basis for that line and is that line fixed, or infinitely variable?

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

Rich Miller — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:13:00 -0000

===It is stupid not to tax this river of mone===

Yeah, so they have to raise even more money from even more special interests. Brilliant idea.

Simple solutions are neither.

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

Plutocrat03 — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:09:48 -0000

Politicians do not pay any kind of tax on the millions of dollars of donations to their campaigns. This money is used to promote their quests for public office. i.e. personal betterment.

It is stupid not to tax this river of money when the legislators are changing the definition of candy so that it can be taxed at a higher rate.

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

Six Degrees of Separation — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:55:48 -0000

Right now, I see about 34 comments on the revenue side of the capital bill, and none about the content. Does anyone care?

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

Anon — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:54:46 -0000

==Sheriff Dart is mistaken. If we pass the bill we wouldnâ€™t have unregulated mayhemâ€¦weâ€™d have regulated mayhemâ€¦ ==

You haven't actually read the bill, obviously.

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

Phineas J. Whoopee — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:24:44 -0000

The mob has the recourses, the know how and the infrastructure to jump into legalized video poker with both feet and make even more millions than they presently do but now they won't be the mob- they will be businessmen.

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

Boscobud — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:19:26 -0000

You said it so much better than I would have. We the state of Illinois really needs to see who is the addict? I think it is our government.

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

Rich Miller — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:14:58 -0000

===Since no politician will ever wish to tax themselves, we need to prepare a citizens initiative to tax the politicians like they tax us.===

What a stupid comment. You don't think they pay income, sales, property, etc. taxes? If they play a video poker machine, will they be exempt from the taxes?

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

Vote Quimby! — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:13:54 -0000

==guys dropping their whole paycheck==
This has been happening for decades, at least now the Outfit will get less of a cut and players may get fairer odds. Current machines have a setting to control payout, just like any slot machine.

==video crack==...==Actually, youâ€™re quoting Rod Blagojevich==
Could Blago have been protecting some of his old cronies, since his numbers job probably got killed by the daily lottery back in the day?

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

Rich Miller — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:13:48 -0000

What?, they get 5 percent of the take.

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

Plutocrat03 — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:13:38 -0000

I thought that we were talking about an expansion of gambling based on the argument that its already there, so lets tax it.

I am focusing on the thinking behind the expansion and what it will mean for other illegal activities that can be taxed.

The legislature has run out of palatable taxes to raise or enact. I am curious how far they are willing to go.

Since no politician will ever wish to tax themselves, we need to prepare a citizens initiative to tax the politicians like they tax us.

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

What? — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:09:56 -0000

Maybe I missed it in the bill - but the bill doesn't allow municipalities to take more than $25.00 for each machine. They get no cut of the "deal". If that is wrong - someone tell me/

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

VanillaMan — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:09:07 -0000

Who is the addict here?
If we had balanced budgets, would we be expanding gambling? Why is balancing an out of control state budget to be done in such an obviously unethical and immoral way? Is it OK to take money from citizens because the state government says it will use the money for good? Who is the addict here? Is there any vice a desperate State will not legalize in order to get their cut?

"Because I need the money", says the hooker.
"Because I need the money", says the moonshiner.
"Because I need the money", says the pot dealer.
"Because I need the money", says the meth cooker.
"Because we need the money", says the governor.

How about trying to reform government so that it doesn't take addicts to keep it functioning?

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

wordslinger — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:08:27 -0000

I find Dart's position curious.

How does state licensing and regulation benefit organized crime? Bloggers here have talked about clubs with more than 100 machines paying out -- that's wide open. There apparently is little interest by law enforcement to investigate. It's all gravy for any organized crime element.

Give state and local governments a financial interest, and now you have a real-world incentive to crack down on any organized crime participation.

On Fox yesterday, Dart said there never has been an instance where legalizing a widespread illegal activity hurt organized crime. That's a bizarre statement from a law enforcement official from Chicago. When the Volstead Act was repealed, it was an enormous financial hit to The Outfit, as was the the institution of the state lottery.

Dart sure does have a lot on his plate these days. I'd suggest he step up his patrols and law enforcement activities in those odd stretches of "unincorporated" Cook County under his jurisdiction. Everybody knows that, for decades, if you want to have a good time on the other side of the law, those are good places to start.

Re: Legalizing what’s already everywhere

Leroy — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:05:22 -0000

Daley - â€if gambling is so bad, why did we allow it to happen?â€

Things were so less hypocritical when the mob was running gambling.