Between the Lines: Barney's Rubble
Congressman Frank goes to bat for the gaming industry and your right to lose your shirt.
Comments (8)Thursday, October 25, 2007
"Click it or ticket," barks the young, strapping Massachusetts State Trooper on the TV.
For me, the state's ads warning drivers to fasten their seatbelts or risk being slapped with a substantial fine are about as objectionable as they come. I don't need the lecture; I use my seatbelt whenever I drive and not just because, to quote the kicker of this obnoxious public service announcement, "it's the law."
But what the hell: the law requiring motorists to fasten their safety belts is well-intended, aimed at saving lives and holding down costs that would, in many cases, fall on the public health system or be passed along in the form of higher health care premiums.
So I get over it. I forgive the government its impertinent tone and accept the limitation on my personal freedom in service of the common good.
Yes, government can act like an overbearing parent. Mandatory vehicle inspections and motorcycle helmet laws; bans on cigarette smoking in public places and detailed restrictions telling bars and package stores when they can open and who they can sell booze to; laws against marijuana and other so-called "street" drugs; gun laws; for each of these laws and hundreds more, you can find someone preaching a libertarian argument against it—and losing the argument.
In the end, most of us accept the premise that personal freedom ends when it begins to impinge on others. So while I find the prohibition of, say, marijuana wholly objectionable, I can at least appreciate the logic of the public health argument against legalization: why bring extra stresses on the health system by adding another vice to the list of ones we already permit?
Rare is the politician who stands resolutely for personal freedom and against the government's effort to limit some of that freedom for the good of the greater society. Republicans and conservative Democrats will whine endlessly that government regulations are bad for business and deprive consumers of choices, all while eagerly opposing, say, abortion. Hypocrisy? Oh, yes, but that's politics.
Conservatives hardly have a corner on the hypocrisy market. Gov. Deval Patrick—a private sector émigré who at least pretended to have progressive leanings while running for office last fall—made tax policy a cornerstone of his campaign, only to run like a scalded dog from the tax issue into the warm embrace of the casino industry. In pushing resort casinos as a form of lucrative tax-generating economic development, Patrick not only wimps out on his promise to repeal 16 years of Republican tax policy, but does so while fully acknowledging that his gambling halls will harm about 5 percent of the state's residents, increasing gambling addiction and the myriad attending social ills, including poverty, domestic violence and child neglect. Some progressive, this Patrick fellow.
Of those who've recently jumped on Deval's casino wagon, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Newton) has offered rhetoric that is both obnoxious and soaked in hypocrisy. Frank, known for his steadfast support of gun control among other forms of government regulation, argues that casinos are, get this, a civil rights issue.
"The main reason for allowing [casino gaming] is: human beings like to do it," Frank told reporters last week. He went on to chide people who he characterized as affluent liberals for trying to tell people what they can and can't do with their money.
If Frank's Libertarian-style support for casinos seems at odds with his broader legislative record, it is nevertheless quite in line with his ongoing efforts, as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, to loosen federal restrictions on Internet gambling. Pop his name into a Google search with the word "casino" and you'll soon learn that Frank is the newfound darling of the gambling industry, not just in the United States, but worldwide.
In a recent speech before the House, he compared the bans on gambling to Prohibition. He insisted that since a gambler doesn't hurt anyone but himself, he shouldn't be prohibited from engaging in what he described as a "recreational activity." To do otherwise, he said, amounts to "social, cultural authoritarianism."
Yet even within his effort to free the industry, and bettors, from particular bans, Frank is still in favor of certain regulations. His Internet gaming bill, for example, would prohibit gambling on professional sports.
In other words, the government ought not tell you how to spend your money, unless you want to make an electronic wager on the Red Sox this week.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/26/antigua_bush/
However, I don't think I'm as familiar with Patrick's plans as I need to be to make the connections that nyou refer to and that I seem to be missing.
I'll read up a little more and revisit the issue.
Personally, and as an aside, I think that passing legislation in the dead of night without any debate and in the violation of international treaties is generally a bad thing for the country, irrespective of what law is being passed.
As a response, I'd offer the thought that pot, porn and gambling are three different issues that, probably, warrant three different conversations. (They might share elements of free speech etc concerns, but can't easily lump them together per the legislative treatment of each being determinative of the legislative treatment of the other...)
My "support," such that it is, of Frank's position is that it both addresses the WTO concerns -- a settlement is in the offing -- and it increases, rather than decreases, personal ("consumer" - I hate that word, by the way) freedoms.
Also, the notion that because someone does not support some kinds of personal freedoms he or she should be prohibited from supporting other kinds doesn't compute for me as easily as does the notion that any (responsible) net increase in personal freedoms is generally a good thing.
I'm not sure how liberal a format this feedback space is, so forgive me if this is an abuse of the forum, but I have pasted an article (from a very biased source) that offers some more insight into Frank's position on this matter...
If this is a problem, then please let me know and I will refrain from such lengthy positngs in the future.
PR Newswire
October 4, 2007 Thursday 6:52 PM GMT
Representative Frank Questions Need for Internet Gambling Study and Warns of WTO Internet Gambling Dispute Consequences
LENGTH: 654 words
DATELINE: WASHINGTON Oct. 4
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In an interview with the Las Vegas Review Journal, Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) stated that legislation calling for an independent study on Internet gambling is not necessary and that the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute around Internet gambling could result in significant economic penalties against the U.S., particularly those from the European Union.
Representatives Shelley Berkley (D-NV) recently introduced the Internet Gambling Study Act, which calls for the National Academy of Sciences to study a range of issues that involve Internet gaming legislation. Although Frank has signed on as a co-sponsor of the legislation, he believes that such a study would be ineffective. "What's to study?" Frank stated. "Whether or not I should be able to make my own bet with my own money?"
Frank has introduced his own Internet gambling legislation, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, which would establish a framework to regulate Internet gambling in the U.S. and provide protections against underage and compulsive gambling, money laundering and fraud. An added benefit of the Frank legislation is that it would resolve a WTO trade agreement violation related to Internet gambling.
The WTO previously ruled, in response to a dispute filed by the Caribbean island nation of Antigua and Barbuda, that the U.S. unfairly prohibits foreign Internet gambling operators from accessing the U.S. market, while allowing domestic companies to legally accept online bets. "I know (the pressure) is going to increase," commented Frank on the WTO trade dispute. "I don't know where it ends, but they're going to be asking for big bucks from us."
When the United States refused to comply with the WTO ruling, the European Union (representing 27 member states), India, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Macao, and CARICOM (representing 15 Caribbean nations) joined Antigua and Barbuda in seeking compensation from the U.S. for economic injury resulting from this trade agreement violation. It is estimated that the U.S. could be required to pay penalties in excess of $100 billion to the European Union and other countries seeking trade compensation. Antigua and Barbuda on their own have requested the U.S. pay up to $3.4 billion in damages. "(Antigua and Barbuda do not have) a big enough economy to have an impact on us," Frank said. "The European Union threatens us with much bigger negative consequences."
"Congress previously held a hearing on Internet gambling, which clearly demonstrated that Internet gambling can successfully be regulated in the U.S. to protect consumers and ensure the integrity of financial transactions," said Jeffrey Sandman, spokesman for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. "It does not make sense to prohibit Internet gambling. Americans are continuing to find a way to gamble online. It is time for Congress to regulate and tax Internet gambling to ensure security controls are in place to protect consumers and capture billions in revenue that is needed for critical government programs. Moreover, it is critical that the U.S. act now to address its WTO trade violations to prevent paying billions in trade compensation."
About Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative
The Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative promotes the freedom of individuals to gamble online with the proper safeguards to protect consumers and ensure the integrity of financial transactions. For more information on the Initiative, please visit http://www.safeandsecure.org/ . The Web site provides a means by which individuals can register support for regulated Internet gambling with their elected representatives.
CONTACT: Michael Waxman, +1-202-872-0010 or +1-202-872-4860,
info@safeandsecureig.org , for Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative
Web Site: http://www.safeandsecureig.org/
SOURCE Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative
Print
Email
RSS feedHoward Zinn gave voice to hidden but recurrent strains of our history.
Out of a bond between a college professor and a family living on the margins in Springfield comes a real-life narrative worth reading.
From the International Herald Times, May 4, 2007
U.S. to clarify online gambling ban as WTO members seek compensation for lost revenue
WASHINGTON: The United States will use a World Trade Organization procedure to clarify its ban on online gambling, a government official said Friday, in response to the threat of trading members seeking payment for lost revenue.
Many companies say they were caught off-guard when President Bush signed a measure into law in October, prohibiting U.S. banks and credit card companies from processing payments to online gambling businesses outside the country.
The ban prompted companies, such as Sportingbet PLC and Leisure & Gaming PLC, to sell their U.S. operations. The $12 billion (?8.9 billion) Internet gambling industry is based outside the U.S., mostly in Britain, although half of its customers live in the USA.
A WTO panel opened the door in March to commercial sanctions against the U.S., ruling that the new law unfairly targets offshore casinos. The twin island nation of Antigua and Barbuda in the Caribbean, for example, argues that online gambling had been providing income for hundreds of its citizens.
The Geneva-based global trade referee said Washington could restrict online gambling as long as the restrictions apply equally to U.S. companies offering offshore betting on horse racing.
On Friday, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative John K. Veroneau said federal and state laws have prohibited for-profit interstate gambling operations for decades. "It would be nonsensical for the U.S. to make a commitment to open up interstate gambling for foreign providers."
Veroneau said the WTO process allows the U.S. to clarify its restrictions to "recreational services" offered internationally.
In the early 1990s, when the U.S. was drawing up international commitments to open its market to different services, gambling prohibitions weren't spelled out, he said. A clarification undercuts WTO member claims for compensation in lost revenue as a result of the ban, he added.
In a statement, Antigua and Barbuda urged the U.S. to reconsider its stance and indicated it would pursue "full compensation for our citizens."
Sallie James, a trade policy analyst with the Washington-based Cato Institute think tank, said the U.S. "is in the wrong and it knows it, but it does not want to open up markets on gambling and betting services so it wants to change the law it has to abide by."
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, last month introduced a bill that would reverse the ban on Internet gambling. The bill faces long odds in Congress and likely opposition from the Bush administration.
A message left with the WTO was not returned.
SOURCE: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/04/business/NA-FIN-US-WTO-Internet-Gambling.php