It’s the high legislative season in South dakota, and the Chief has taken cognizance of some pithy items that have inspired some commentary:
Democrats push higher state cut of gambling
DISCLAIMER: The Chief is opposed to state-run lotteries or gambling to raise government money. Personally, the Chief considers lotteries and gambling a self-assessed voluntary tax on stupidity. You decide for yourself how stupid you are, and pay accordingly!
If something the government does is important enough to people, they they had darned well be willing to face the reality that things cost money, and somehow contrive to raise enough taxes to get the programs they want. If raising taxes to do this is too onerous, then it may be supposed that the programs maybe aren’t that important to people after all, and deserve to go away (or not get started as a means for Legislooters to bnbe the constituency for votes).
A group of Democratic legislators want state government to take a bigger cut of the South Dakota video lottery revenue.
Rep. Peggy Gibson, D-Huron, is prime sponsor of HB1290, which would give the state 60 percent of the net machine income from video lottery. The state currently takes 50 percent. The higher state cut would last only until July 1, 2010.
What else can be said, except to note that Legislooters do what Legislooters do…try to figure out how to extract rvrtmore money from us to give us stuff that we get to pay for, to impress us so we vote for them again.
(Am I REALLY that cynical about it? Yeah…maybe so.)
Senate panel endorses plan to block Iowa casino
A proposed constitutional amendment that could lead to a huge casino in Sioux Falls was approved Wednesday by a South Dakota Senate Committee.
The measure’s main sponsor, Senate Democratic Leader Scott Heidepriem of Sioux Falls, said SJ1 is not aimed at building a Sioux Falls casino but is intended to be a threat to prevent construction of a casino in Larchwood, Iowa, only a few miles from Sioux Falls.
The mind is boggled by the prospect of amending the state constitution to allow more gambling…in order to prevent…more gambling! (Dang! More gambling Means Less Gambling! That fits right in with WAR IS PEACE, SLAVERY IS FREEDOM, etc. I had NO idea that George Orwell was still alive and had moved to Pierre!)
In the short term it might actually slow the wascally Iowegians in Larchwood, but you just KNOW if the authorization is written into the SD Constitution, somewhere down the line there will be an oh-so-vital need to exercise it. Just put the two items together: more money and more (potential) gambling…and then it’ll be Katie bar the door to stop S.F, Rapid City, etc. from getting a taste of being mini-Vegas. What legislooter could resist the combination?