How often has the federal legislative branch followed the Atlas Shrugged formula for naming legislation? Remember that not altogether fictional Congress in Ayn Rand's novel/temper tantrum/simplistic but (at the same time) long-winded hardback? It would pass legislation that, in the end, would ruin many a livelihood--and call it the Preservation of Livelihood Law. A bill to confiscate property would be called the Fair Share Law. A bill that would shatter public stability would be called the Public Stability Law.
Miss Ayn might have exaggerated her novels, if not her beliefs, but she had Congress' number.
Some of us have been tickled to read the stories about the casinos trying to nudge their way into Arkansas. Not because it would be funny to have more gambling in the Natural State, but because of the very names of those pushing the idea. And we mean pushing. Like any other dealer of an addictive substance.
Take, for example, the Driving Arkansas Forward outfit, which would drive Arkansas to be more like Las Vegas. If that's going forward, what would going downhill--backwards and fast--look like? Then there's the Arkansas Jobs Coalition that's also "fer" Issue 4 on November's ballot. If that amendment passes and four casinos open in Arkansas, how many people working in current entertainment or restaurant jobs will be put out of work?
But you'll see the item on your November ballot, Mr. and Mrs. Arkansawyer--probably. Unless the state wins an appeal in the courts, those pushing the gambling addiction have enough signatures to get a vote. And there'll be plenty of commercials touting the benefits of the Giving Money to Casino Operators Act.
Up through the middle part of this year, the committee in charge of the casino lobby reported a total of $2.26 million in contributions. And where did that money come from? The Quapaw Tribe in Oklahoma donated $1.2 million and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma gave $1.05 million.
Do you think they hope to win their money back somehow?
The sponsors of this bad idea have told the papers that the casinos would "raise" about $66 million a year for the state, at first--a large portion of that going to the various state and local governments.
Interesting use of the language, that. Do you suppose that "raising" this money would look anything like the local swim team offering car washes in the Walmart parking lot? Or will the pit bosses be more likely to "raise" the money by taking the suckers at the poker table?
The governor and his Democratic opponent in this year's elections were heard from, too. As they should be. This is important.
The current governor, Asa Hutchinson, told the public prints that he would vote "no" on the casino measure.
His opponent took both sides:
"This is one of the issues that there are good arguments for and against it," said Jared Henderson at his campaign headquarters. "This could provide some deeply needed resources to some communities that are really hurting for them, but we also know that casinos can come with really negative externalities as well."
Negative externalities?
Jared Henderson is an impressive candidate and person, with big plans, especially in education. He needs to come up with a better answer on this issue than on-the-one-hand-this-but-on-the-other-hand-that. A better platform would be: "I'm agin."
Editorial on 09/09/2018