Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 14 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Barbour calls for casino moratorium
Published Friday, May 9, 2008
BILOXI (AP) — Gov. Haley Barbour says he will ask the Legislature to limit casinos to counties where they are already located.
Barbour's comments came Thursday in a speech at the Southern Gaming Summit in Biloxi.
Barbour said he would present the casino moratorium issue to lawmakers in an upcoming special session. A similar bill failed in the 2008 regular session that ended in April.
"To consider closing the window and saying we will not expand gaming beyond the counties where it is now. I think that's the right policy," Barbour said.
Barbour said he may ask lawmakers to reconsider a casino tax incentive, a proposal that also failed in the regular session, but only if it has the votes to pass. The proposal would have given casinos tax breaks for building non-gaming projects like hotels and golf courses.
Mississippi casino operators got some good news: Barbour said casino taxes are high enough.
"We shouldn't raise the tax on gaming. We have the third lowest tax rate in the country. And I don't think it's coincidence that we have the third largest industry of any state in the country," the governor said.
Barbour said he would oppose a lottery in Mississippi.
"If you want to have a tax on the poor, a lottery is about the perfect tax on the poor," he said.
Barbour praised the gaming industry for its contributions in helping revive the coast after Hurricane Katrina in August 2005.
"The future for the Mississippi Gulf Coast is incredibly bright and for your industry on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Because you're going to have stability. You're going to have stability as long as I'm governor," said Barbour.
___
Comments
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on May 9, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
well its about time
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on May 9, 2008 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The way I read it, Barbour is only trying to protect the current casinos from increased competition. I do not think this is a moral crusade against the industry.
Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on May 9, 2008 at 11:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yep, OGD, I think you are right. And that tax on the poor might cut into existing casino profits too.
I like the classification of gambling as an industry.
Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on May 10, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I felt relief when I read this article . For whatever reasons Govenor Barbour has on his agenda ,I believe the end result is a good one . You don't offer an alcoholic a drink , you don't dangle cocaine in front of a dope addict and don't give a compulsive gambler a deck of cards . Gov Barbour is right about the lottery tickets . Most people anywhere that gamble are desparately looking for a quick fix out of poverty . Most people that gamble can't afford to and that my dear friends is why our Gov. said what he did . Thank God and good sense that Ms. isn't trying to take even more money out of it's peoples pockets . Making gambling too excessable to its addicts only compounds the problem .
Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on May 11, 2008 at 1:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
yes, southernbelle, thank God Mississippi is only prostituting itself a little bit, in certain places. that is much better than doing it everywhere.
Posted by Preacher (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting comments. Overall, Barbour has been a good governor, but the state has protected the existing casinos in several ways. The state first opposed bringing in a casino to Edwards on I20 to protect Vicksburg casinos, then Barbour let them come in 800 foot on land on the coast to protect them from storms and now he wants to lock it down so they will have no other competition and not pay additional taxes. Everyone knows I am against them all, but lotteries are even worse than the fixed barges. Has anyone figured out that if the local boat took in 43 million last year, it means that the gamblers in our area lost 43 million. I'm sure our local businesses would much rather that money be spent on groceries and other useful products and family entertainment. Some folks might even pay the bills they owe in town if it wasn't for the casino. We certianly don't need any more.
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 12:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When I look at some of the locals shopping in WalMart, I umm, don't think many of them are having to go without groceries. When I look at the parking lot of WalMart, I don't think too many locals are hanging out at the boat very often. No, as a matter of fact, the majority are fighting to get the next place in line at Murphy's oil to gamble on that tank of gas lasting all week. You know $20 in gas now is like $5 in gas in 2001. There may be a few hanging out on the boat and losing enough to want to jump over, but not all that many. The boat is just entertainment, and if a person limits the amount they are willing to spend on entertainment (ie: $20), the boat is no different than any other form of entertainment. I've spent way more than $20 at the local theater on popcorn and cokes, but I haven't seen anyone bashing the cinema over the high prices of admission, popcorn, or coke. The boat has, in the past, put on some really good entertaining shows. I remember Elvis impersonators (Roger McCranie, a local, was one), Persy Sledge, along with many other comedians and singers. And once, when they were giving away an automobile, folks in Natchez were lined up along Silver Street, all the way up the hill, waiting to see who the winner would be. Of course there would only be one winner, and that wasn't me, but it was still entertainment.
If people in town aren't paying their bills, it is because their wages are less than they need to make ends meet, or because they are poor money managers. Some people have their priorities messed up and it takes learning from experience to get that straightened out...a couple of eviction notices, and they will learn that if you don't pay your rent, you get kicked out of your home, and if you don't pay your electric bill, your lights go out, etc and so on. Otherwise, you move back in with your mom until her rules get you down, at which point you give it a try out on your own again with a little more sense about how things work.
In my humble opinion, if you don't like the boat, don't go, but don't take away everyone else's right to be entertained.
Posted by emp (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 1:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Peace, I respect your opinion, but mine is more in line with Preacher. I agree that people should exercise self-control and take responsibility for their actions. The problem is that there are a few people that go to the boat and spend their entire paycheck trying to get rich. Then its their families that suffer. Churches in the area try to help but they can only do so much. If the casinos weren't there the problem would mostly go away. I don't think the casinos should give drinks to the gamblers. Everyone knows alcohol takes away self control to some degree in everyone.
I guess what I'm saying in all of this rambling is that if the casino was used purely for entertainment it wouldn't be a bad thing. But many, if not most, people go there to try to win money even if it is a small amount. Desiring to get money that you didn't earn violates the tenth commandment that God gave us.
Posted by mike8427 (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't see a lottery as being "a tax on the poor", can someone explain that one to me?
Posted by emp (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Most of the people who play the lottery can't really afford to play the lottery. Drop by Louisiana and hang out at a convenience store for a while. You will see people who are obviously poor buying 20 to 40 lottery tickets at a time. They are hoping to hit it big so they will be out of poverty. Yes, its all a matter of personal responsibility but if it wasn't there they wouldn't be buying them. When the "pot" is really high, a line forms in the store to buy the tickets. Even though many of these people work really hard and trust in God, they are putting their hope into winning money from the government instead of depending on God and hard work to provide for them. Since the lottery tickets are purchased in mass by poor people who can't really afford them, it becomes a tax on the poor.
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Personal Responsibility.
emp, do you buy tickets? Why not?
No one makes anyone buy a ticket.
Besides, how is it your business how anyone spends thier money.
Posted by mike8427 (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thats kinda what I thought the Gov was saying. I definately don't agree with that statement, that the lottery is a tax on the poor. The lottery is something people choose to do. Its not a tax on the poor. If they choose to do it, so be it.
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You could say turning your lights on is a tax on the poor. People have the option of turning on 25 lights or 1. Up to them how they want to spend their money.
Posted by mike8427 (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not really, you need to have electricity to run a household. Do you need a lottery ticket to do anything in life?
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)