Figure the odds....

When the state has a floundering economy it shouldn't be using gambling as a lifeline.
But income and sales tax receipts are down. The only state revenue source showing any improvement is lottery revenue. That's why, with lawmakers facing extremely painful budget choices this year, they moved to expand hours of operation for Newport Grand and Twin River in Lincoln.
The House debate was rife with political sloganeering, pandering and head-scratching logic.
For instance, Rep. Deborah A. Fellela, D-Johnston, tried to amend the bill to raise the legal age for gamblers from 18 to 21. Fellela and those who sided with her seem to think that if you're between 18 and 20 you are too immature to handle slot machines. Maybe some are. But, then again, a lot of people older than 21 can't handle gambling either.
If you're 18 you are a legal adult, with all the attached rights and responsibilities, except a few. You can vote, but you can't drink. You can join the military, but, if Fellela had her way - she didn't; her amendment failed - you wouldn't be able to play slot machines. In Fellela's mind you're not mature enough to buy a lottery ticket, but you are old enough to go to the ACI if convicted of a crime.
Wonder how many Marines stationed in Iraq are between 18, 19 or 20.

Leaders sought to make the legislation more palatable to the rank and file by including a provision dedicating revenue - up to an estimated $14.1 million a year - from the expanded hours to state school aid.
Although it sounds nice, the provision is meaningless. Leaders admitted that it would not mean extra school aid. Absent a firm funding formula the General Assembly could still cut or increase state aid at its discretion. In theory, the legislature could cut out all state aid - except the $14.1 million included in the gambling bill.

Finally, Newport Reps. J. Russell Jackson and Steven J. Coaty were right on target when they claimed during the debate that the expanded hours bill was the first step toward bringing in full-fledged casinos to the two legal slot parlors.
You can be assured that when the one-year trial period ends next year, proponents will be back claiming success and pushing for around-the-clock gambling seven days a week. (The bill only allows 24-hour gambling on Fridays, Saturdays and the nights before holidays.)
At some future date, they'll be back again, calling for table games. Although that would require approval by voters, proponents will use the potential of losing revenue to Connecticut and Massachusetts, if they push ahead with casinos, to pistol whip the electorate.

The year after the legislature legalized slot machines, there was a major effort to repeal it. Sen Joseph McGair, D-Warwick, who had opposed VLTs during the previous year's debate, had the right read when asked about the potential for a repeal.
The battle was over, McGair said. Once the state was hooked on gambling revenue, it would never be able to give it up. Gambling proponents would continue to use the threat of lost aid to push through even more gambling, he said. And gambling interests would never give up, McGair pointed out. No matter how many times they got beat, they would be back with their deep pockets, keeping the pressure on their vastly underfunded opponents.
Opponents have won more than their share of battles at the polls. But, as McGair pointed out, they can only lose once.

The pot and the kettle

You can see more acts of sheer audacity during a presidential campaign than anywhere else. Take, for instance, John "Pander Bear" McCain calling Barrack Obama insensitive to the poor and out of touch on economic issues. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/28/mccain_calls_ill_senator_insensitive_to_poor_people/
This from a Republican who has done an about face on the Bush tax cuts, which overwhelmingly favor the wealthy, he once opposed and who has admitted the economy is not his strong suit.
I've said it before but it's worth repeating. Can anyone point out the evidence that federal tax cuts in both the Reagan and Bush II administrations improved the economy? The facts suggest otherwise. In both cases the cuts and concurrent increased military spending caused an exploding federal deficit. Those deficits redirected federal revenue to pay off that debt. On the other hand the era of peace and prosperity in the 1990s happened during a Democratic administration.
McCain's charge that he would be more sensitive to the little guy and better able to manage the national economy just doesn't pass the laugh test.

Insanity

Albert Einstein once said the true definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
So what are we to make of a story in today's Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/21/mccain_defends_proposal_on_tax_cut/ in which Republican presidential hopeful John "Pander Bear" McCain defends extending the Bush tax cuts as more important than reducing the record federal deficit?
Weren't the original Bush tax cuts supposed to stimulate the economy? That's funny. I haven't felt stimulated in the seven years since the tax cuts went into effect. And the national economy? Hmmm. You can judge for yourself.
This is nothing more than McCain pandering to the conservative Republican base, trying to marshall their forces before he has to appeal to middle-of-the-road voters in the national campaign.
Even a child learns that you can't keep sticking your hand in a hot flame without getting burned.

Gas pains

Lucas ... I mean John McCain fired off another economic volley recently. But nobody will confuse his aim with The Rifleman's.
Pandering to his Republican base, the Republican nominee called for a suspension of the 18.4-cent federal gas tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day. It just shows that Pander Bear McCain was accurate when he said he had limited knowledge of the economy. But give the man his due. He sure knows his politics.
As a longtime lawmaker McCain understands the proposal is DOA. Even his GOP colleagues won't support it. That tax raises billions for important road and transporation projects that every legislative district in the country shares in. But proposing it makes him look good to the conservative Republicans who have been slow in warming to the Arizonan.
McCain touted it as an economic stimuli for the ailing economy, but the evidence doesn't support that. What evidence? Well, there's the massive tax cuts Bush pushed through. Weren't they supposed to stimulate the economy, which at the time was just emerging from an unprecedented period of growth? How can tax cut supporters maintain that fiction given our current fiscal state of affairs?
Facts? I don't need no stinkin' facts.

Silly political putty

This Democratic nomination campaign is getting sillier by the day.
In Sunday's Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi goes off on the Obama campaign -
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/04/06/fired_up_and_ready_for_a_nomination_battle/ - for being male dominated, including this passage:
"Earlier this year, (Mass. Senate President Therese) Murray, the first woman to hold the Senate president's post, chastised (U.S. Sen. Edward) Kennedy and other prominent men for abandoning Clinton to support Obama."
The underlying accusation is that they did so simply BECAUSE Obama was a man. Were it true - which is a bit of a stretch - how would that be any different than Murray, and other women mentioned in the story, supporting Clinton BECAUSE she's a woman. Can you say "double standard" boys and girls?
Then there's this whole non-story about the Clintons' income tax returns and whether making that much money disqualifies them from feeling the pain of the average American.
What hog wash.
Ask any Rhode Islander if they think having money made Claiborne Pell less empathetic to the little guy. It hasn't prevented Teddy Kennedy from builiding his legacy as perhaps the most influential U.S. senator EVER and one who constantly fought for those who were on the underside of the American economy.
Hillary Clinton is smart and ambitious and would be infinitely more attuned to the struggles of the average American than the Republican nominee. So, too, would Obama.
Finally, there's the whole Florida-Michigan primary mess. How can the party possibly seat the delegates as elected in the two primaries? Neither candidate campaigned there and Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot. Both states went ahead with their primaries despite advance notice of the consequences. Now they would like to ignore those consequences. That'd be like telling your child he if he doesn't eat his supper he'll have to go to his room and then, when he doesn't eat, allowing him to go out and play.
The way out of the mess would be to seat the elected delegates but require both state's votes to be split down the middle for the first ballot, if the race is not already over.

Rollin' down the (wrong) track

So, according to a New York Times poll, 81 percent of people asked believe the country is headed in the wrong direction.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/us/04poll.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1207314700-ZhK/iMAbMJjKQ031IOCcRQ

What's surprising to me is that there are 19 percent who think everything is hunky dory. I'd bet some of the 19-percenters are those who are giddy over the tax climate in this country, where public officials frequently fall all over themselves to reduce taxes for those who already can afford vacation homes in the Hamptons.
This is what I firmly believe. I believe that the ultra-rich among us have much more longer term views of life than those who struggle week to week or even day to day. They know that the national climate fluctuates and that there will be periods - usually coinciding with a Republican administration - when the push will be on to cut taxes. So they take advantage of that climate while they can, knowing they can increase their holdings enough during those times to weather the storm once the winds of change blow the tax-cutters out of office.
As they might say, you can take it to the bank.

And this little piggie had roast beef....

A very interesting Reuters story in today's Boston Globe about pork barrel spending and how Republicans - the party that likes to make pork spending an issue - is leading the league in it.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/04/03/republicans_lead_in_pork_spending_watchdog_group_says/

And then, on the OpEd page Dan Payne has a column about why those supporting either Barrack Obama or Hillary Clinton should think twice, and perhaps three times, before cuddling up to GOP nominee John McCain should their own candidate lose the nomination.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/04/03/so_you_want_to_be_a_mccain_democrat/

It seems to me that Obama retains the momentum in the race. He is picking up significant endorsements and appears to be gaining on Clinton in Pennsylvania polls, having narrowed her at-one-time 20-point lead to single digits with three weeks to go. It also seem as if those party leaders who haven't commited to either candidate are increasingly voicing fears that the campaign is becoming uncomfortably divisive and only helps McCain. Our own Sen. Jack Reed is one of those uncommitted delegates. Watch him closely. If he shows any sign of alligning himself with one of the two it'll also be a sign that the race is just about over.