MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Friday, July 25, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 63.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

Gamblin': Aye or Nay

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

How will you vote on the casino referendum?

Poll ended at Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:02 pm

Yes, allow the casino
17
63%
No, don't allow the casino
10
37%
 
Total votes : 27

Postby ShaneDog » Sat Jan 24, 2004 7:45 pm

One thing that we haven't brought up yet is the existence of Internet gambling. At the present, the whole range of gambling activity is available to anyone with an internet connection via offshore internet gambling. This is hugely problematic because there is no way for the government to tax it or regulate it in any way. The argument for or aginst the local casino is moot once internet gambling becomes universally available and ubiquitous. Once that happens there is no reason for anyone to oppose traditional casinos because at least with traditional casinos the government recoups some (albeit a miniscule portion) of social costs caused by the casino. This is also going to become a huge problem for traditional casinos because internet casinos offer advantages in convenience, payout rates, and direct access to people's credit lines.

I predict that in 50 years gambling will be a bigger problem than alcohol abuse, tobacco use, and drug abuse (not combined). Look at that UW student who murdered 3 people because of internet gambling debts to see where we're headed.
ShaneDog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4296
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 2:46 pm
Location: E Wash

Postby Bwis53 » Sun Jan 25, 2004 12:27 am

My brother-in-law makes a middle-class income as a postal worker. We knew he had a gambling problem when a strange guy called our house asking for him. I found out through a slip from my lawyer that my brother-in-law went bankrupt partially because of gambling. An Indian friend of mine says Indians don't envision casino work as the kind of work they want their children to grow up to. I've seen the pro-gambling commercials. Where's the commercials some of the other bright minds of Dane County say their banding together to produce?
Bwis53
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6289
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:39 pm
Location: Bay Creek

Postby Harbinger » Sun Jan 25, 2004 7:35 pm

ShaneDog wrote: The thing you're missing is that they already have one HUGE casino and I believe they already make huge profits there so I don't think the Ho-Chunk Nation can be considered poor.


Finally just giving up and talking out of your ass aren't you. Are those economist words I here: "huge"? So the Ho-Chunk have the financial ability to pay for health, educational and social services on par with the Sate of Wisconsin and white-dominated counties? You haven't measured the "huge" wealth of this casino and have no idea if it's sufficient. And you probably have no idea that the "rich greedy Indian" is an offensive but prevelant stereotype. Additionally, tribes, since they can be shut down by the feds or by that state's white majority by amending the state constitution, have to make investments for the long run in case casinos are banned at some point. If Wisconsin amends the constitution in three years, do your numbers indicate the one casino will have made them enough to keep from sliding back into the pre-casino poverty, much less be on pare with whites? Are you serious about your "they are rich enough" argument?

http://www.madison.com/archives/read.ph ... 1171:FRONT

http://www.bluecorncomics.com/greedy.htm

http://www.madison.com/captimes/electio ... /62998.php

"USE OF NET REVENUES
* Revenues from Tribal Governmental gaming must be used in five specific areas
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710 [Sec. 11]), net revenues from any tribal gaming are not to be used for purposes other than-
o To fund Tribal Government operations or programs;
o To provide for the general welfare of the Indian tribe and its members;
o To promote Tribal economic development;
o To donate to charitable organizations; or
o To help fund operations of local government agencies.
PER CAPITA PAYMENTS:
* Three-fourths of gaming Tribes devote all of their revenue to Tribal governmental services, economic and community development, to neighboring communities and to charitable purposes and do not give out per capita payments
* Tribal Government services, Economic and Community development, general tribal welfare, charitable donations and any requirements for aid to Local governments must be provided for before a Tribe can file for a "Revenue Allocation Plan"
* The Secretary of Interior must approve any per capita payments as part of a "Revenue Allocation Plan"
* Only about one-fourth of Tribes engaged in gaming distribute per capita payments to tribal members (47 Tribes)
* Tribal members receiving per capita payments PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAX on these payments
REGULATION:
* Tribal Governmental gaming is regulated on three levels.
* Indian Nations are primary regulators of Indian gaming. Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Tribes establish the basic regulatory framework for Indian gaming.
* State regulation may be included in Tribal/State compacts for Class III gaming.
* Federal agencies enforce laws relating to Indian gaming, including the National Indian Gaming Commission, the Interior Department, The Justice Department, FBI, IRS, Secret Service and the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
* Federal law makes it a crime punishable by up to ten years in prison to steal, cheat, or embezzle from an Indian gaming operation, and that law is enforced by the FBI 18 USC ss. 1163.
- Information courtesy of the National Indian Gaming Association -

GAMING HAS NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED MOST NATIVE AMERICANS

There is a growing belief in American society that Indians have struck it rich with the establishment of Indian casinos. Indeed, in a recent article in a leading news magazine, the conclusion was drawn that because of gaming "many Indians have money to spare..."

This is hardly possible when you consider that unemployment among adult Indians is about 15 percent - roughly three times the national average - and Native Americans remain America's poorest people.

Gaming on Indian reservations has not appreciably lowered the high levels of poverty on Indian lands nationwide. According to a "Survey of Grant Giving by American Indian Foundations and Organizations" by Native Americans in Philanthropy, the needs of reservation Indians are so great that even if the total annual Indian gaming revenue in the country could be divided equally among all the Indians in the country, the amount distributed ($3,000) per person would still not be enough to raise Indian per capita income (currently $4,500) to anywhere near the national average of $14,400.

Of the more than 500 Indian nations, only 177 are involved in gaming. Many tribes may never participate in gaming because of their geographic location in rural, unpopulated areas.

THE FEW SUCCESSFUL TRIBES

Among the reasons for the disparity between perception and reality is the attention given to the few tribal gaming operations that have seen spectacular success - such as the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe in Connecticut and the Shakopee Mdewakanton in Minnesota. However, these operations are the exception, rather than the rule.
As small tribes located near major urban areas, these successful gaming operations have benefited the most from the gaming boom generating 40% of all Indian gaming revenue. The remaining 175 tribal operations are only marginally profitable.

SUCCESSFUL TRIBES SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED FOR THEIR SUCCESS
Gaming operations have enabled a number of tribes to reduce unemployment on their reservations.
These tribes must concentrate their gaming revenues to create and maintain tribal police, fire and ambulance services; health and child-care services, educational assistance programs, cultural enhancement, and numerous other human service programs.

If the state of Michigan generates extra money from its lottery, the federal government doesn't take money away from Michigan and give it to Mississppi.

The truth is that all Indian gaming operations in the United States account for less than 8 percent of money spent on gaming by the public.

...."

http://www.sunysb.edu/writrhet/philosop ... 20dong.htm
http://www.madison.com/wisconsinstatejo ... /65974.php
http://www.onenationoklies.com/NDNgaming.html

Bwis53 wrote: An Indian friend of mine says Indians don't envision casino work as the kind of work they want their children to grow up to.


And I have one Black friend, and he thinks affirmative action and reparations are stupid .... Do you realize how partronizing you sound? 'I have thought it over, and I realize I'm in a superior position to decide for a tribe than their own membership and government. Luckilly, it doesn't sound ridiculous because I have one Indian friend who agrees.'

ShaneDog wrote: If a minority candidate receives preferential treatment in hiring, or admissions, and causes other candidates to be (temporarily) disadvantaged, the other candidates are not harmed much because their membership in the priviledged class will give them advantages in other areas


The same can be said for this issue. In both cases, members of the disadvantaged group advance to the detriment of the advantaged and the harm to even the poor of the advantaged is reduced by their other advantages.

Even the poorest of the advantaged group is not so poor as the poor of the disadvantaged group.

So that justifies a tranfer of wealth, along with the huge social costs to be paid by the people affected, city and county?[/quote]

Exactly. But we don't have to justify it exactly, since the tribe decided to do it, you need to justify blocking them. And if Dane County was 80% Hmong immigrants in poverty, then I'd agree you have some points. But it's the richest county in the state that already has tons of state-approved gambling opportunities opposing one highway casino for one of the poorest people in the state and country while rolling in bars and liquour stores. In the same vein, what justifies doing nothing? Or sorry, what justifies doing nothing but voting against the tribe's income knowing they have few options and then crossing your fingers that some kind of reparations are inexplicably around the corner?

The lottery, internet gambling, other gaming opportunities, not to mention bars and more dangerous white-controlled income revenue, make this fight against the tribe silly.
Harbinger
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2002 1:07 pm

Postby ShaneDog » Sun Jan 25, 2004 9:08 pm

ShaneDog wrote: The thing you're missing is that they already have one HUGE casino and I believe they already make huge profits there so I don't think the Ho-Chunk Nation can be considered poor.

Harbinger wrote: Finally just giving up and talking out of your ass aren't you. Are those economist words I here: "huge"? So the Ho-Chunk have the financial ability to pay for health, educational and social services on par with the Sate of Wisconsin and white-dominated counties? You haven't measured the "huge" wealth of this casino and have no idea if it's sufficient.

In 2000, the Ho-Chunk tribe had 6,072 enrolled members. (Source: Ho-Chunk Nation website). The Ho-Chunk Casino Hotel and Convention Center in Wisconsin Dells is the fourth largest Indian casino in the nation and the largest in Wisconsin. Source: http://www.jsonline.com/enter/planit/no ... 110200.asp
I wasn't able to find specific statistics on the profitablity of the casino in the dells but the casino in Milwaukee has annual profits of over $200 million a year. Since the casino in the Wisconsin Dells is much larger, it probably equals or exceeds that number. $200 million divided by 6,072 tribe members = almost $33,000 of services, benefits, and cash per year per tribe member. I have no idea what individual tribe member's needs are so I am not able to determine if this is enough to allow them to barely get buy, do ok, live comfortably, or prosper. The state of wisconsin's budget for 2004-2005 is around 11 billion. If you divide that by the population (around 5.3 million) that comes out to around $2,000 per person per year.
I can't say for sure that the Ho-Chunk of Wisconsin are faring poorly or not but an article in The Hocak Worak, a non-profit periodical published by the Ho-Chunk Nation claims that some tribes are prospering:
"Winnebago tribe prospers from casino profits"
http://www.hocakworak.com/archive/2001/ ... 0808-9.htm

And you probably have no idea that the "rich greedy Indian" is an offensive but prevelant stereotype.

I am aware of that stereotype. Where have I said anything about them being rich or greedy, or implied such? I believe I said that they already make huge profits at the casino in Wisconsin Dells. Depending on what your definition of huge is, that may or may not be a true statement. Profits of $200 million a year make them among the most profitable corporations in Wisconsin, that qualifies as huge to me. If I thought they were greedy or rich I wouldn't be advocating giving them money instead of allowing them to build a casino.

This is hardly possible when you consider that unemployment among adult Indians is about 15 percent - roughly three times the national average - and Native Americans remain America's poorest people.

We're not talking about Native Americans in general here, we're talking about the Ho-Chunk nation. The unemployment figures certainly don't apply to the Ho-Chunk...from their own website since opening the casino, "Among the Ho-Chunk, the jobless rate fell from 19 percent to six percent."

Gaming on Indian reservations has not appreciably lowered the high levels of poverty on Indian lands nationwide. According to a "Survey of Grant Giving by American Indian Foundations and Organizations" by Native Americans in Philanthropy, the needs of reservation Indians are so great that even if the total annual Indian gaming revenue in the country could be divided equally among all the Indians in the country, the amount distributed ($3,000) per person would still not be enough to raise Indian per capita income (currently $4,500) to anywhere near the national average of $14,400.

Those statistics don't apply to this situation because they average the casino profits among all Native Americans, even those who don't belong to a tribe that owns casinos.

Of the more than 500 Indian nations, only 177 are involved in gaming. Many tribes may never participate in gaming because of their geographic location in rural, unpopulated areas.

That doesn't apply to this discussion because we are talking about a specific tribe that already benefits from owning a casino opening another casino. The addition of this casino will not impact the roughly 300 tribes without casinos.

THE FEW SUCCESSFUL TRIBES

Among the reasons for the disparity between perception and reality is the attention given to the few tribal gaming operations that have seen spectacular success - such as the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe in Connecticut and the Shakopee Mdewakanton in Minnesota. However, these operations are the exception, rather than the rule.
As small tribes located near major urban areas, these successful gaming operations have benefited the most from the gaming boom generating 40% of all Indian gaming revenue. The remaining 175 tribal operations are only marginally profitable.

With profits of over $200 million a year I would put the ho-chunk in the spectacular success column.


ShaneDog wrote: If a minority candidate receives preferential treatment in hiring, or admissions, and causes other candidates to be (temporarily) disadvantaged, the other candidates are not harmed much because their membership in the priviledged class will give them advantages in other areas


The same can be said for this issue. In both cases, members of the disadvantaged group advance to the detriment of the advantaged and the harm to even the poor of the advantaged is reduced by their other advantages.

I already explained why the situation are not analagous - there are little to no social costs caused by the "disadvantaging" that takes place in preferential treatment in hiring/admissions.
ShaneDog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4296
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 2:46 pm
Location: E Wash

Postby hotshot » Mon Jan 26, 2004 2:26 pm

ShaneDog wrote: I already explained why the situation are not analagous - there are little to no social costs caused by the "disadvantaging" that takes place in preferential treatment in hiring/admissions.


That's just self-serving. I agree with affirmative action, but there are no programs with no social costs. As a black person, I am questioned by ignorant people about my qualifications. And all the white men who are passed over? Some of them are poor and lose rare opportunities. It's true. The resentment is a social cost. It has helped fuel racist violence. And how about the white women who are advantaged over black people because they are affirmative action hires that racists can stomach? Another problem with some affirmative action programs. These and other programs have social costs and you know it.

But for a tribal casino, here we start with the costs, don't we? And then maybe look at the historical fairness later, after we've made up our minds? You know the costs are a fraction of numerous industries (including liquour stores and bars) and programs (including public housing) that you haven't demonstrated against at all or at least not with equal vigor to your (and others') anti-casino crusade. But, the fact is, you can stomach the side effects of affirmative action because you, like me, have already decided you support it. You, like me, can stomach the side effects and problems of reparations for the same reason. But have a solution come from the bottom up, from the disadvantaged group themselves, from the tribe, and you start counting possible social costs that could be applied to a hundred other industries and then totally dismissing that the result of your obsession with this industry is a radically unfair double standard being applied against a tribe who is no stranger to radically unfair double standards. The tribe is 1) deserving and 2) playing by AT LEAST the same rules and cost requirements that whites have benefitted from and will continue to benefit from. Everything else is justification for paternalism or worse.
hotshot
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 1:37 pm

Previous

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar