Atlantic City defines the failure of Predatory Gambling.
You might consider reading this to enlighten yourself if you're still a misguided supporter --
Unwilling to assess the disaster, Governor Chris Christie is promoting sports betting and internet gambling that will target the poor, suck discretionary income from the local economy and spread the community destruction evidenced in Atlantic City, yet he promotes his tenure as Governor of the failed state as success?
A successful argument could be made that the costs of Predatory Gambling is what put New Jersey where it is.
Christie is pushing for internet gambling and sports betting [known to cause match fixing and corruption around the globe], subsidized Revel with taxpayer $$$ [which will eventually file for bankruptcy], 'de-regulated' the Gambling Industry [known for its corruption] to balance the budget on the backs of the poor.
A few days old, but I think very worth re-posting in light of Christie's speech last night -- when you hear calls for painful solutions and shared sacrifice, remember who is actually being asked to make sacrifices and who isn't:
"Also, while much of his [Christie's] program involves spending cuts, he has effectively raised taxes on low-income workers and homeowners by slashing tax credits. But he vetoed a temporary surcharge on millionaires while refusing to raise the state’s gasoline tax, which is the third-lowest in America and far below tax rates in neighboring states. Only some people, it seems, are expected to make sacrifices."
The Comeback Skid
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: August 26, 2012
There will be two big stars at the Republican National Convention, and neither of them will be Mitt Romney. One will, of course, be Paul Ryan, Mr. Romney’s running mate. The other will be Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey, who will give the keynote address. And while the two men could hardly look or sound more different, they are brothers under the skin.
How so? Both have carefully cultivated public images as tough, fiscally responsible guys willing to make hard choices. And both public images are completely false.
I’ve written a lot lately deconstructing the Ryan myth, so let me turn today to Mr. Christie.
When Mr. Christie took office in January 2010, New Jersey — like many other states — was in dire fiscal straits thanks to the effects of a depressed economy. Unlike the federal government, states are required by their constitutions to run more or less balanced budgets every year (although there is room for accounting gimmicks), so like other governors, Mr. Christie was forced to engage in belt-tightening.
So far so normal: while Mr. Christie has made a lot of noise about his tough budget choices, other governors have done much the same. Nor has he eschewed budget gimmicks: like earlier New Jersey governors, Mr. Christie has closed budget gaps in part by deferring required contributions to state pension funds, which is in effect a form of borrowing against the future, and he has also sought to paper over budget gaps by diverting money from places like the Transportation Trust Fund.
If there is a distinctive feature to New Jersey’s belt-tightening under Mr. Christie, it is its curiously selective nature. The governor was willing to cancel the desperately needed project to build another rail tunnel linking the state to Manhattan, but has invested state funds in a megamall in the Meadowlands and a casino in Atlantic City.
[Revel is floundering and will eventually file bankruptcy.]
Also, while much of his program involves spending cuts, he has effectively raised taxes on low-income workers and homeowners by slashing tax credits. But he vetoed a temporary surcharge on millionaires while refusing to raise the state’s gasoline tax, which is the third-lowest in America and far below tax rates in neighboring states. Only some people, it seems, are expected to make sacrifices.
But as I said, Mr. Christie talks a good (and very loud) game about his willingness to make tough choices, making big claims about spending cuts — claims, by the way, that PolitiFact has unequivocally declared false. And for the past year he has been touting what he claims is the result of those tough choices: the “Jersey comeback,” the supposed recovery of his state’s economy.
Strange to say, however, Mr. Christie has told reporters that he won’t use the term “Jersey comeback” in his keynote address. And it’s not hard to see why: the comeback, such as it was, has hit the skids. Indeed, the latest figures show his state with the fourth-highest unemployment rate in the nation. Strikingly, New Jersey’s 9.8 percent unemployment rate is now significantly higher than the unemployment rate in long-suffering Michigan, which has had a true comeback thanks to the G.O.P.-opposed auto bailout.
Now, state governors don’t actually have much impact on short-run economic performance, so the skidding New Jersey economy isn’t really Mr. Christie’s fault. Still, he was the one who chose to make it an issue. And even more important, he’s still pushing the policies the state’s recovery was supposed to justify.
You see, all that boasting about the Jersey comeback wasn’t just big talk (although it was that, too). It was, instead, supposed to demonstrate that good times were back, revenue was on the upswing, and it was now time for what Mr. Christie really wants: a major cut in income taxes.
Even if the comeback were real, this would be a highly dubious idea. By all accounts, New Jersey still has a significant structural deficit, that is, a deficit that will persist even when the economy recovers. Furthermore, the Christie tax-cut proposal would do very little for the middle class but give large breaks to the wealthy.
But in any case, the good times are by no means back, and neither is the revenue boom that was supposed to justify a tax cut. So has the very responsible Mr. Christie accepted the idea of at least delaying his tax-cut plan until the promised revenue gains materialize? Of course not.
Which brings me back to the comparison with Paul Ryan. Mr. Ryan, as people finally seem to be realizing, is at heart a fiscal fraud, boasting about his commitment to deficit reduction but actually placing a much higher priority on tax cuts for the wealthy. Mr. Christie may have a different personal style, but he’s playing the same game.
In other words, meet the new boaster, same as the old boaster. And pray that we won’t get fooled again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/opinion/krugman-the-comeback-skid.html
Sometimes, you need the common sense to get out of the muck!
New Jersey adds D.C. lawyers to arsenal as it prepares to defend sports-betting law
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2012
Strange to say, however, Mr. Christie has told reporters that he won’t use the term “Jersey comeback” in his keynote address. And it’s not hard to see why: the comeback, such as it was, has hit the skids. Indeed, the latest figures show his state with the fourth-highest unemployment rate in the nation. Strikingly, New Jersey’s 9.8 percent unemployment rate is now significantly higher than the unemployment rate in long-suffering Michigan, which has had a true comeback thanks to the G.O.P.-opposed auto bailout.
Now, state governors don’t actually have much impact on short-run economic performance, so the skidding New Jersey economy isn’t really Mr. Christie’s fault. Still, he was the one who chose to make it an issue. And even more important, he’s still pushing the policies the state’s recovery was supposed to justify.
You see, all that boasting about the Jersey comeback wasn’t just big talk (although it was that, too). It was, instead, supposed to demonstrate that good times were back, revenue was on the upswing, and it was now time for what Mr. Christie really wants: a major cut in income taxes.
Even if the comeback were real, this would be a highly dubious idea. By all accounts, New Jersey still has a significant structural deficit, that is, a deficit that will persist even when the economy recovers. Furthermore, the Christie tax-cut proposal would do very little for the middle class but give large breaks to the wealthy.
But in any case, the good times are by no means back, and neither is the revenue boom that was supposed to justify a tax cut. So has the very responsible Mr. Christie accepted the idea of at least delaying his tax-cut plan until the promised revenue gains materialize? Of course not.
Which brings me back to the comparison with Paul Ryan. Mr. Ryan, as people finally seem to be realizing, is at heart a fiscal fraud, boasting about his commitment to deficit reduction but actually placing a much higher priority on tax cuts for the wealthy. Mr. Christie may have a different personal style, but he’s playing the same game.
In other words, meet the new boaster, same as the old boaster. And pray that we won’t get fooled again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/opinion/krugman-the-comeback-skid.html
Sometimes, you need the common sense to get out of the muck!
New Jersey adds D.C. lawyers to arsenal as it prepares to defend sports-betting law
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2012
New Jersey is bringing on two top Washington, D.C. lawyers — including one who argued on behalf of George W. Bush in 2000 — to defend against a lawsuit seeking to block the start of sports betting in the state.
Theodore B. Olson, who argued in front of the Supreme Court following the contested 2000 presidential election, and Matthew D. McGill, a fellow partner at the Washington-based Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher law firm who successfully drafted briefs in 10 Supreme Court victories, filed paperwork with the U.S. District Court in Trenton on Monday asking to defend New Jersey.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association, National Basketball Association, National Football League, Office of the Commissioner of Baseball and the National Hockey League filed the lawsuit seeking to overturn a New Jersey law that runs counter to a federal act prohibiting sports betting in all but four states. Those states — Nevada, Delaware, Oregon and Montana — allowed some form of sports wagering prior to the enactment of the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act in 1992.
Lawyers on both sides have been jockeying for position through multiple letters filed with the federal court since the complaint was filed earlier this month. Lawyers are scheduled to participate in the first court meeting on the lawsuit today — a conference call with Judge Lois H. Goodman intended to set a timetable for the rest of the case.
The sports leagues are asking the court to make a quick decision on the case, while the state’s lawyers say the proceedings shouldn’t be rushed.
“(T)here is little time before the state begins to carry out its threat to award sports gambling licenses in violation of federal law,” Newark-based William O’Shaughnessy wrote in a letter filed Friday with the court on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Meanwhile, state Attorney General Jeffrey Chiesa wrote in a letter filed Aug. 17, “The state’s opportunity to defend this important matter should not be abridged, nor is there a basis for plaintiffs to insist that the court rush in rendering judgement.”
The five sports leagues argue the court has enough information — mainly the existence of the federal law and related past court cases — to render a quick decision and, if necessary, issue an injunction to block the start of sports wagering in New Jersey.
State lawyers counter that prior court cases are different from New Jersey’s argument, and that the state should be given sufficient time to present its evidence and facts before any decisions are rendered. They argue the state doesn’t anticipate awarding any licenses before Dec. 1.
At the same time, the state has not revealed how it intends to defend against the lawsuit, making references only to a possible constitutional argument. Lawyers said in documents that they intend to dispute whether the sports leagues are the right ones to bring the lawsuit and would suffer “irreparable harm” — something that money could not overcome — if sports wagering were to commence in New Jersey.
Olson and McGill specialize in constitutional law. Olson lists the Commerce Clause — a clause in the U.S. Constitution regulating commerce among states — as one of his specialities on the bio listed on the law firm’s website.
The case is being widely watched by lawyers and legal analysts across the country.
Brian Porto, a law professor and deputy director of the Sports Law Institute in Vermont, said he isn’t surprised that the NCAA is part of the suit because it has tried relentlessly to discourage gambling on college sports.
With college-age kids who are not paid, some of them poor and surrounded by coaches who pull an income, the temptation is greater to get involved in gambling, Porto said.
“The NCAA is scared to death of that sort of thing happening,” he said.
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/new-jersey-adds-d-c-lawyers-to-arsenal-as-it/article_9f3385d2-f088-11e1-9661-0019bb2963f4.html
Theodore B. Olson, who argued in front of the Supreme Court following the contested 2000 presidential election, and Matthew D. McGill, a fellow partner at the Washington-based Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher law firm who successfully drafted briefs in 10 Supreme Court victories, filed paperwork with the U.S. District Court in Trenton on Monday asking to defend New Jersey.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association, National Basketball Association, National Football League, Office of the Commissioner of Baseball and the National Hockey League filed the lawsuit seeking to overturn a New Jersey law that runs counter to a federal act prohibiting sports betting in all but four states. Those states — Nevada, Delaware, Oregon and Montana — allowed some form of sports wagering prior to the enactment of the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act in 1992.
Lawyers on both sides have been jockeying for position through multiple letters filed with the federal court since the complaint was filed earlier this month. Lawyers are scheduled to participate in the first court meeting on the lawsuit today — a conference call with Judge Lois H. Goodman intended to set a timetable for the rest of the case.
The sports leagues are asking the court to make a quick decision on the case, while the state’s lawyers say the proceedings shouldn’t be rushed.
“(T)here is little time before the state begins to carry out its threat to award sports gambling licenses in violation of federal law,” Newark-based William O’Shaughnessy wrote in a letter filed Friday with the court on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Meanwhile, state Attorney General Jeffrey Chiesa wrote in a letter filed Aug. 17, “The state’s opportunity to defend this important matter should not be abridged, nor is there a basis for plaintiffs to insist that the court rush in rendering judgement.”
The five sports leagues argue the court has enough information — mainly the existence of the federal law and related past court cases — to render a quick decision and, if necessary, issue an injunction to block the start of sports wagering in New Jersey.
State lawyers counter that prior court cases are different from New Jersey’s argument, and that the state should be given sufficient time to present its evidence and facts before any decisions are rendered. They argue the state doesn’t anticipate awarding any licenses before Dec. 1.
At the same time, the state has not revealed how it intends to defend against the lawsuit, making references only to a possible constitutional argument. Lawyers said in documents that they intend to dispute whether the sports leagues are the right ones to bring the lawsuit and would suffer “irreparable harm” — something that money could not overcome — if sports wagering were to commence in New Jersey.
Olson and McGill specialize in constitutional law. Olson lists the Commerce Clause — a clause in the U.S. Constitution regulating commerce among states — as one of his specialities on the bio listed on the law firm’s website.
The case is being widely watched by lawyers and legal analysts across the country.
Brian Porto, a law professor and deputy director of the Sports Law Institute in Vermont, said he isn’t surprised that the NCAA is part of the suit because it has tried relentlessly to discourage gambling on college sports.
With college-age kids who are not paid, some of them poor and surrounded by coaches who pull an income, the temptation is greater to get involved in gambling, Porto said.
“The NCAA is scared to death of that sort of thing happening,” he said.
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/new-jersey-adds-d-c-lawyers-to-arsenal-as-it/article_9f3385d2-f088-11e1-9661-0019bb2963f4.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment