Recently the Kentucky General Assembly voted not to allow slot machines and other gaming to accompany horse racing. This was a bad move in my opinion.
Kentucky has a proud heritage of horse breeding and horse racing. I can remember going to races at Keeneland Downs in Lexington, Kentucky and seeing the immaculate grounds at Church Hill Downs in Louisville, Kentucky. The Kentucky Derby is one of the most watched cultural-sporting events in the U.S.
However, the General Assembly's decision to not allow gaming at race tracks is hurting the purse winnings in Kentucky's horse racing and the overall talent that races in Kentucky. Our Kentucky tradition is under fire from neighboring states that allow facilities to offer horse racing as well as casinos.
Our neighboring states, most notably, Indiana and Pennsylvania, have what are called "racinos" (horse racing and casinos combined in one central location). These racinos divert winnings from their casinos to their horse races in order to offer better purses for the riders and horse owners. When horse owners, breeders, and experienced riders catch wind of these bigger purses, they leave Kentucky and follow the money. Kentucky horse racing officials have already began reporting losses from the migration of breeders and riders to other states.
Plain and simple, Indiana racinos attract business from Kentucky and Ohio is theatening to take some more business from us too if they open up their own racinos. These are dollars that help our state economy. The General Assembly is allowing these funds, the funds that Kentucky needs right now during the economic collapse, to go to our neighboring states. Instead of these dollars being reinvested in Kentucky, they travel across the Ohio river and are reinvested in Indiana or in whichever state these dollars are spent. Could you imagine if these dollars stayed here in Kentucky? How many jobs would they create? How much tax revenue would they generate to the state of Kentucky?
By allowing racinos in the state, Kentucky can better compete with Indiana and Ohio. Indiana is already beginning to fear the actions that neighboring states will take regarding gaming as their state revenue depends heavily on their government-sanctioned casinos. Indiana has long said that the state's loss of gaming revenue from state competition is not a matter of "if it will happen" but "when it will happen". Their prophecy is coming true as both Kentucky and Ohio have considered allowing racino legislation.
Most people who are opposed to allowing expanded gaming at horse racing facilities argue that gambling is regressive (disproportionately affects the poor) and that including gaming at such harrowed places like Keeneland and Church Hill Downs will compromise the beauty of these places.
In regards to the first argument, I personally don't feel that government should take a paternalistic approach to making laws. That is to say that government should not act like a parent and decide what is best for it's citizens. I have always appreciated the tenets of Social Darwinism (not to be confused with Darwinism); only the most resourceful survive in this world. In my opinion, if you are foolish enough to go out and gamble away all of your paycheck or wager and lose your house on a game of roulette or black jack, that is your decision and you should have to pay the consequences, not myself or anyone else for that matter.
I know that opens a Pandora's box of responses, especially if the actions of said addicted gambler also affect members his or her family. In this situation, I do not think those family members should be punished equally for the actions of the addicted gambler, otherwise warranting some form of assistance.
If people are concerned about the beauty of these historic racing sites, there are ways to provide gaming and horse racing at one location, but still not compromise these buildings. Establishing casinos on site (but not attached to) of these historic places will provide casinos near the horse racing action and at the same time leave the racing facilities fully intact and without alteration. And besides, at least gambling will save these historic horse racing sites by drawing back those breeders, owners, and riders that left in the first place.
I take pride in my Kentucky heritage, especially around Derby time. When people think "Kentucky", they think bourbon, basketball, and thorough-bred horses. Bourbon has remained unchanged since it was first created in Bourbon County, Kentucky in the 18th Century. With the addition of Coach John Calipari to the Kentucky basketball program, Kentucky basketball is back on track to being the dynasty it once was. With the addition of gambling at horse racing sites, Kentucky can work to preserve it's proud heritage of horse racing and take back what our neighboring states have stolen from us; our thorough-breds, our breeders, our riders, and our money. This is not an issue of gambling, this is an issue of Kentucky Pride.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Playing Catch-Up
Since it's been so long since I've had the time to write, I thought I would briefly touch on some of the more important events that have taken place since my last column.
Sarah Palin is offering her services to any candidate who believes in the following; (1) limited government, (2) energy Independence, (3) strong national defense, and (4) budget restraint. School board elections may never be the same. Honestly, given her toxicity on the campaign trail, I honestly can't see her being hired by anyone in the near future. Don't get me wrong, she's a very noble woman, but I believe the overall sentiment is that she was a political experiment from the McCain campaign and would today hurt a campaign more than she would help it (depending on your constituency). I respect her and her achievements, but resigning from the state of Alaska (where the people love her) in order to play a national role for the GOP was just a bad strategy on her part. I doubt she will have any influence in helping the GOP win back some seats in Congress during the 2010 midterm election.
Speaking of GOP leaders, there are none. Dick Cheney, maybe, but since he has been characterized as such a mysterious and evil man in the media, I would hardly consider him a leader for the party. Besides that, with the exception of his occasional rants about something the Democrats are doing, he is largely surreptitious and has already publicly stated he is not interested in holding office again.
And if people think Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP, then please, wake up. Smell the coffee. Pull your heard out of your hind-quarters. This man is so radical and impractical in his thoughts and speech, he stands as much chance of leading the GOP as he does leading a mule to water. Rush, if you're reading, I know you have to kill a lot of time on your talk show, but do you have to always make such incendiary remarks as to ignite the entire Democratic party and even parts of your own party against you?
And then there is South Carolina's Governor, Mark Sanford. He was one of the best prospects the GOP had for a real leadership position, if not a 2012 run against President Obama. And then we all got to read (or hear) his love letters to his Argentinian mistress he described as his "sole mate". (Note: Intentionally spelled "sole mate" because he told his staff he was going hiking in the Appalachian Mountains and then turned up in Argentina.) So much for the party of family values. However, kudos to Governor Sanford to admit the affair publicly (even though he was caught) but we didn't need all the details he provided us. Simply put, he should just know when to shut up so as to not bore everyone with details.
So GOP leadership is few and in-between. But there has been talk of at least one last current politician who is in the running for the leadership position. Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana has a clean record when it comes to his personal life, has a state that has had a balanced budget (even this year during the economic collapse), won reelection this past November in a landslide victory during an election year when Democrats performed very well, and has demonstrated excellent executive budgeting. He was the director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bush and was given the nickname "The Blade" due to his tendencies to slash budgets.
But there's just one problem. He too has stated he will not run for the Presidency. However, he has began taking more of a leadership role for the party by speaking out against policies and laws introduced by President Obama and implemented by the Democratic controlled Congress. At least someone is starting to take on a leadership role, and who knows, maybe he will rethink the whole Presidency thing in the next year or two.
And now onto different things. Judge Sotomayor is currently undergoing her confirmation hearings to replace Justice Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. These judges are required to act impartially when deciding on cases before the Court. There are no other courts to appeal to and the Supreme Court has been stereotyped as making law from the bench. Essentially, the rulings that are made on the court become precedent and subsequently law (at least until they are overturned later). This being the case, we should be trying to focus on appointing justices that are the definition of impartial, but President Obama stated he selected Sotomayor because she favors minorities, not because she is a minority herself (or a woman for that matter). This is further evidenced by her decision to uphold the New Haven, Connecticut case where promotions were denied to white firefighters because the promotion exam did not score enough promotions for minorities.
I know there are Justices on the court who decide cases based on their own political ideology (Justice Scalia, most notably). But if President Obama is the hope and change the nation needs, should he resort to the same practices previous Presidents have used? Shouldn't he be trying to place truly impartial judges on the highest court in the land? Had President Obama just said he selected Sotomayor to sit in Justice Ginsburg's spot in order to retain diversity on the Supreme court, I would have been 100% okay with that. Instead the whole comment about favoring minorities, in my mind, has discredited any impartiality Sotomayor might have previously had.
Lastly, President Obama is ready to veto his own defense spending bill. Why? He wants to stop additional acquisitions of the F-22 Raptor fighter planes. His reasoning behind the request; F-22's require 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time. President Obama has finally begun using some fiscal prudence, except he's exercising it on our defense. Now, here's what's wrong with this logic; the F-16's are an aging fleet. They require about as much, if not more, maintenance and money for their flight time because they are 30+ years old. Also, the F-16's just do not have the capabilities the F-22's have. The F-22's are made to meet the war fighter needs of today, not during the Cold War. War fighting has changed quite a lot since then.
I understand President Obama has only asked that no additional planes be manufactured in his plan, but the F-22's just became operational in the mid 2000's. We don't yet have enough to sustain replacing the aged fleet of the F-16's. Essentially, the Department of Defense needs these planes. Cutting production on these planes will also cost Lockheed Martin and Boeing thousands of jobs as they have assembly plants that make F-22 parts in 40 of the 50 states. Granted, I know this will probably not pass Congress, but President Obama's logic is again flawed here. The last thing we should be doing is negatively impacting our military and cutting jobs.
Sarah Palin is offering her services to any candidate who believes in the following; (1) limited government, (2) energy Independence, (3) strong national defense, and (4) budget restraint. School board elections may never be the same. Honestly, given her toxicity on the campaign trail, I honestly can't see her being hired by anyone in the near future. Don't get me wrong, she's a very noble woman, but I believe the overall sentiment is that she was a political experiment from the McCain campaign and would today hurt a campaign more than she would help it (depending on your constituency). I respect her and her achievements, but resigning from the state of Alaska (where the people love her) in order to play a national role for the GOP was just a bad strategy on her part. I doubt she will have any influence in helping the GOP win back some seats in Congress during the 2010 midterm election.
Speaking of GOP leaders, there are none. Dick Cheney, maybe, but since he has been characterized as such a mysterious and evil man in the media, I would hardly consider him a leader for the party. Besides that, with the exception of his occasional rants about something the Democrats are doing, he is largely surreptitious and has already publicly stated he is not interested in holding office again.
And if people think Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP, then please, wake up. Smell the coffee. Pull your heard out of your hind-quarters. This man is so radical and impractical in his thoughts and speech, he stands as much chance of leading the GOP as he does leading a mule to water. Rush, if you're reading, I know you have to kill a lot of time on your talk show, but do you have to always make such incendiary remarks as to ignite the entire Democratic party and even parts of your own party against you?
And then there is South Carolina's Governor, Mark Sanford. He was one of the best prospects the GOP had for a real leadership position, if not a 2012 run against President Obama. And then we all got to read (or hear) his love letters to his Argentinian mistress he described as his "sole mate". (Note: Intentionally spelled "sole mate" because he told his staff he was going hiking in the Appalachian Mountains and then turned up in Argentina.) So much for the party of family values. However, kudos to Governor Sanford to admit the affair publicly (even though he was caught) but we didn't need all the details he provided us. Simply put, he should just know when to shut up so as to not bore everyone with details.
So GOP leadership is few and in-between. But there has been talk of at least one last current politician who is in the running for the leadership position. Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana has a clean record when it comes to his personal life, has a state that has had a balanced budget (even this year during the economic collapse), won reelection this past November in a landslide victory during an election year when Democrats performed very well, and has demonstrated excellent executive budgeting. He was the director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bush and was given the nickname "The Blade" due to his tendencies to slash budgets.
But there's just one problem. He too has stated he will not run for the Presidency. However, he has began taking more of a leadership role for the party by speaking out against policies and laws introduced by President Obama and implemented by the Democratic controlled Congress. At least someone is starting to take on a leadership role, and who knows, maybe he will rethink the whole Presidency thing in the next year or two.
And now onto different things. Judge Sotomayor is currently undergoing her confirmation hearings to replace Justice Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. These judges are required to act impartially when deciding on cases before the Court. There are no other courts to appeal to and the Supreme Court has been stereotyped as making law from the bench. Essentially, the rulings that are made on the court become precedent and subsequently law (at least until they are overturned later). This being the case, we should be trying to focus on appointing justices that are the definition of impartial, but President Obama stated he selected Sotomayor because she favors minorities, not because she is a minority herself (or a woman for that matter). This is further evidenced by her decision to uphold the New Haven, Connecticut case where promotions were denied to white firefighters because the promotion exam did not score enough promotions for minorities.
I know there are Justices on the court who decide cases based on their own political ideology (Justice Scalia, most notably). But if President Obama is the hope and change the nation needs, should he resort to the same practices previous Presidents have used? Shouldn't he be trying to place truly impartial judges on the highest court in the land? Had President Obama just said he selected Sotomayor to sit in Justice Ginsburg's spot in order to retain diversity on the Supreme court, I would have been 100% okay with that. Instead the whole comment about favoring minorities, in my mind, has discredited any impartiality Sotomayor might have previously had.
Lastly, President Obama is ready to veto his own defense spending bill. Why? He wants to stop additional acquisitions of the F-22 Raptor fighter planes. His reasoning behind the request; F-22's require 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time. President Obama has finally begun using some fiscal prudence, except he's exercising it on our defense. Now, here's what's wrong with this logic; the F-16's are an aging fleet. They require about as much, if not more, maintenance and money for their flight time because they are 30+ years old. Also, the F-16's just do not have the capabilities the F-22's have. The F-22's are made to meet the war fighter needs of today, not during the Cold War. War fighting has changed quite a lot since then.
I understand President Obama has only asked that no additional planes be manufactured in his plan, but the F-22's just became operational in the mid 2000's. We don't yet have enough to sustain replacing the aged fleet of the F-16's. Essentially, the Department of Defense needs these planes. Cutting production on these planes will also cost Lockheed Martin and Boeing thousands of jobs as they have assembly plants that make F-22 parts in 40 of the 50 states. Granted, I know this will probably not pass Congress, but President Obama's logic is again flawed here. The last thing we should be doing is negatively impacting our military and cutting jobs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
