Thank You Republicans. Once again if it doesn't benefit their party it won't fly. Williams is a complete bafoon.

I agree..but what I don't understand is why Beshear was so against online poker sites (which are now again legal in the state after being outlawed).A little consistancy at the top would go a long way IMHO.

We have a lottery and horse racing industry in this state. People are going to gamble whether legal or illegal (rooster fights for instance). Once again we try to legislate morality, and it will fail gain due to human nature.

I just hate to see what effect this will have on the racing industry in the state.

 

Those were offshore sites that were untaxable. That was his beef. In a way, it was a move done with the interest of protecting the horse industry by eliminating some of its competition.

Good. We do not need expanded gambling in Kentucky. Or, gambling period, for that matter.

 

Do you care to explain why you feel We do not need expanded gambling or gambling period in Ky?:confused:

 

The word We is what bothers me...I don't need the Government to tell me what I can do with my own Money...

BTW I do not Gamble...And I could care less who does...It's none of my Business...:thumb:

Those were offshore sites that were untaxable. That was his beef. In a way, it was a move done with the interest of protecting the horse industry by eliminating some of its competition.

 

Or to make his gambling bill and campaign promise more enticing.

For those in a state of euphoria in regards to what happened with this legislation, speak up. We would like to hear from you.

So, you're ok if the horse industry and our racing industry dies?

 

Pat Robertson wouldn't be since he owns some race horses.

It's obvious that some legislators care about nothing more than pulling votes. A horrible, cowardly decision by the Senate, which will irreparably harm the state. It's a shame the majority of the senators don't posses the same common sense that was exhibited in the House. Oh well, at least they'll keep their seats safe.

 

I'm not big into politics, but I'm not sure the Senate can be fully blamed here. I was reading some stuff this morning on this, and when the Senate came to vote yesterday, the original 14 page bill grew to 57 pages. Now, were they voting on something different from the House? With these bills, there's always something one or the other is trying to sneak past the other, which ultimately hurts the main issue with the bill.

I'm not big into politics, but I'm not sure the Senate can be fully blamed here. I was reading some stuff this morning on this, and when the Senate came to vote yesterday, the original 14 page bill grew to 57 pages. Now, were they voting on something different from the House? With these bills, there's always something one or the other is trying to sneak past the other, which ultimately hurts the main issue with the bill.

Which furthers my belief that the main problem is we as voters allow them to keep their jobs. If we use our right to vote these bozo's out of office...eventually they will have to be held accountable. I don't feel like looking for stats to back this statement, but I believe an OVERWHELMING majority of the KY population wants extended gaming, especially when it applies to slots at the tracks. But, I would guarantee that Williams won't be held accountable and will easily when re-election.

I'm not big into politics, but I'm not sure the Senate can be fully blamed here. I was reading some stuff this morning on this, and when the Senate came to vote yesterday, the original 14 page bill grew to 57 pages. Now, were they voting on something different from the House? With these bills, there's always something one or the other is trying to sneak past the other, which ultimately hurts the main issue with the bill.

 

From what I understand, the additional pages were added to address the education related projects that were to be funded with the VLT revenues. I understand that part of the Senate's "problem" with the final House bill was the Senate's belief that the VLT's would never generate enough money to fund the education related projects and that those projects were just "pie in the sky" to get House members to vote for the bill. Since the Senate didn't agree with the House's revenue numbers they didn't feel that voting against the bill would "hurt" the education related projects since they weren't going to happen anyway. The Senate proposed its own idea on how to say the horse industry by using a tax on lottery tix and interstate, off track betting. But the House didn't think that idea would generate enough money to save the horse industry so the House didn't support the Senate's idea. Who knows at this point whose numbers are right. Seems to me that if the horse industry and the House were so confident in their numbers, they'd have addressed the Senate's concern by agreeing that the first tax and license dollars generated would be applied to the education related projects, and if there was anything extra, the extra dollars would go to the horse industry. Such would certainly undermine that opposition of the Senate to the bill.

 

Some members of the Senate opposed the House bill because they felt it created a monopoly, since only the racetracks would get the VLTs. Personally, I think that is a stupid argument. Others opposed the bill because they felt the Ky Constitution requires the state to vote on it (which the Ky AG disagrees with). As an attorney, if I was in the Senate, I'd have voted for the bill and said let the court system decide if it was unconstitutional (that's why we pay those guys ) since I doubt there is any existing case law on the specific issue.

It's obvious that some legislators care about nothing more than pulling votes.

 

So you're saying that they did this so that they would get a lot of votes? If so, doesn't that mean they are representing their constituents?

Motto in a couple years' time: The states surrounding Kentucky - Horse Capitals of the World.

So you're saying that they did this so that they would get a lot of votes? If so, doesn't that mean they are representing their constituents?

 

Sometimes legislators need to look at the big picture rather than their -- and their constituents' -- narrow self-interests.

Sometimes legislators need to look at the big picture rather than their -- and their constituents' -- narrow self-interests.

 

Isn't the first responsibility of a legislator to represent his/her voters?

 

Secondly, are you the judge who determines what "big picture" is or is it me? Or Rockmom?

Isn't the first responsibility of a legislator to represent his/her voters?

 

Secondly, are you the judge who determines what "big picture" is or is it me? Or Rockmom?

 

:thumb:

Isn't the first responsibility of a legislator to represent his/her voters?

 

For me, the problem is not that the elected are representing their voters, but that a few, more powerful members of the elected are over-representing their voters. The bill was killed in Kentucky's Senate budget committee, never reaching the floor. Of course, this happens all the time, as it is supposed to. Yet, this was a high profile bill and its death in committee smacks of obstruction.

 

At any rate, the politically safe compromise for the elected would be to allow for a public referendum. However, I imagine those opposed to gambling would go out of their way to keep a gaming bill in the legislature again.