Alarming News

March 24, 2010

Remember when I mocked the madam running for governor?

Suddenly, she’s making a lot of sense (this is from a press release I received from the campaign which is not yet up at their site):

Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Kristin Davis today proposed the State legalize poker at the state’s existing OTB locations and “other locations as may benefit the state’s economy,” rather than shut down the off-track betting sites in New York as is currently being proposed because of OTB’s precarious financial situation.

“New York could make millions of dollars in revenue by legalizing, regulating and taxing poker games in New York State,” said Davis who supplied call girls for Eliot Spitzer and went to prison for breaking the laws against prostitution. Spitzer was not charged.

That is a super fantastic idea. Seriously.

She goes on to say:

“The State should bid these poker rooms out to Steve Wynn, or Donald Trump for the best possible management and presentation,” said Davis. “The State should legalize gaming because we are losing billions of dollars of revenue to Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Jersey and Delaware. Poker should be a first step.”

I don’t think Delaware has poker, and am pretty sure Pennsylvania’s hasn’t arrived yet, but her point is sound anyway. Why not have poker at the failing OTBs? It’s not like it’s going to bring down the quality of the place because, um, have you seen the inside of an OTB? This is a pic I took of an OTB in Bay Ridge in November. I titled it “winners” but IC said that was mean so I took it down:


A backroom with a table or two of poker could only class up the joint. We need the revenue. And if betting on which horsey makes it over the finish line first is ok, why isn’t a game of skill?

Posted by Karol at 11:36 AM |

I don’t think Delaware has poker, and am pretty sure Pennsylvania’s hasn’t arrived yet…

Delaware legalized poker a few days after Pennsylvania did this January. I believe they’re both expecting to be off the ground by the summertime.

Posted by: Jason at March 24, 2010 at 11:46 am

Libertarian candidate who proposes that State regulates business establishments is an oxymoron.

Posted by: Tatyana at March 24, 2010 at 12:34 pm

Possibly off-topic, but I’ve always been amused that the state is the one entity that can’t make money off of people who want to bet on the ponies.

Posted by: Mark Poling at March 24, 2010 at 4:06 pm

Completely agreed, Tatyana. What gets me is that she wants to legalize certain things not on the basis of freedom, but because it will generate tax revenue. More taxes mean that much more money that people don’t have in their own pockets, and that much more money for the government to spend. What about people’s personal freedom to gamble without the government getting its cut?

So much for her as a “libertarian,” and the name “Personal freedom party” is like Democrats calling themselves fiscal conservatives. The name sounds nice until you realize how it’s accomplished.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 24, 2010 at 10:08 pm

Is that the one on 76th Street?

Posted by: Gerard at March 24, 2010 at 11:28 pm

Oh wait, I didn’t see the apartment number.

In any case, it’s ridiculous that the state should be involved in gambling when it can’t even do the things it’s obligated to do correctly.

Posted by: Gerard at March 24, 2010 at 11:31 pm

Hmmmm. Well, if she makes too much sense she’ll never get elected to any important position in New York.

Posted by: Eric at March 25, 2010 at 5:51 am

The group of people in the picture look better than I expected they would.

Posted by: PAUL at March 25, 2010 at 4:07 pm

Whats the problem with legalizing gambling? I would think that in these tough economic times there would be a welcome sentiment to anything that might help improve a state’s fiscal situation by adding something that the people want and is not that difficult to regulate.

Posted by: Chris at March 26, 2010 at 10:30 am

Chris, “in these tough economic times” or even good economic times, the last thing that taxpayers want is for governments to have more revenue. It only encourages governments to continue their spendthrift ways, instead of cutting back.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 28, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Post a comment