Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Perhaps a blackjack dealer is the key to resolving our governmental finances

It never fails to amaze (or amuse) me the degree to which our government officials think that gambling is the key to resolving its financial woes.
Should Illinois govt become a bookie?

Do our officials secretly fantasize about being blackjack dealers, thinking they’re capable of bringing in the big bucks that way to come up with the cash to pay our government’s bills.

THE FACT THAT some people wind up digging themselves into deeper holes through their gambling losses – which potentially causes more problems that government agencies could wind up having to deal with – doesn’t seem to factor into their line of thought.

It just seems like the lights and the jingles and the overall garishness of a casino environment is too enticing for political people to turn away from.

Not that I’m overly moralistic. If people want to piss away their money with games of chance, I suppose that’s their right. I’m just not enthused at the thought of having to cover their losses in life.

And yes, our society is only as strong as its weakest individuals. Meaning we can’t just take a hard line and say to let the losers suffer.
HARRIS: Thinks the answer is 'yes'

GAMBLING WAS UP for discussion in recent days. What with the Illinois Senate’s gaming committee (‘gaming’ is for people who want to think of fun, while ‘gambling’ allegedly is for fuddy-duddys who worry too much about the downside of life) meeting Tuesday at the Bilandic Building to talk about ideas from state Sen. Napoleon Harris, D-Harvey.

He wants Illinois to pass legislation that would permit sports betting in Illinois and would create an Internet platform by which Illinois residents could place bets.

Basically, cutting out the bookie and allowing one to place their bets with the state. No word on how Illinois would handle its collections from big-time losers.
How much money could Chicago win off Loyola loss

But just think of how many people would have been eager to place bets last Saturday either for, or against, Loyola University as they went into their semi-final NCAA matchup against Michigan.

HOW MUCH REVENUE could Illinois have taken in by people eager to place a bet on the Ramblers? How much could the Loyola loss have benefitted Illinois? How much does Illinois want to benefit from its residents (a.k.a., suckers) who bet with their hearts and not with their heads?
McCarthy betting his mayoral bid ...

Of course, there are federal laws that already restrict gambling on sports events. Harris’ measure would only be crafted into an actual bill if those laws are repealed – which some seem to think has a real chance of happening.

One realizes that this is Illinois’ vision of trying to raise revenue through peoples’ gambling losses. Which means that Chicago municipal government also has its own schemes in the works.

Take Garry McCarthy, the former Chicago Police superintendent who now is running for mayor in the 2019 election cycle. He’s making one of his campaign talking points the need for the city to have a full-blown casino.
... on enhancing O'Hare environment ...
WHICH ISN’T NEW. Rahm Emanuel has pushed for that, along with Richard M. Daley before him. But while they often talked about a casino near the downtown area, McCarthy would want it to be on the premises of O’Hare International Airport. He envisions all those travelers making stopovers in Chicago spending the time they have to kill at the casino. Their financial losses while in Chicago could benefit the city.

McCarthy even talks, at least during a Sunday morning radio interview on WBBM-AM, about all the layers of airport security as being a plus. It means anybody wishing to gambling will have had to clear security. Less chance of riff-raff managing to slip in and hang around there.
... with a gambling atmosphere
Although it makes me remember a time I was in a restaurant that had slot machines, and the owner advised me I could win enough money to pay for my meal IF I played the slots while waiting for my food.

Would we wind up getting people traveling from one place to another who pass through Chicago blowing their bucks in the Second City? Thereby depriving some other destination place from benefitting from the intended spending?


No comments: