Count Tiahrt, Brownback among anti-gambling forces at work

The odds that gambling will expand in Kansas were bad to begin with, given how competing interests tend to cancel one another out in Topeka. Those odds just got worse, though, with declarations by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, that they’ll work against the efforts to get federal approval for off-reservation tribal casinos in Kansas. One such casino has been variously proposed for Park City, Harvey County and Sumner County. Others have been in the works for Wyandotte and Cherokee counties. But it’s highly unlikely that Interior Secretary Gale Norton would OK any off-reservation casino against the wishes of the state’s congressional delegation. “I think it’s in significant jeopardy,” Matt All, chief counsel to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, told Associated Press after hearing from Tiahrt and Brownback. That’s more bad news for Kansans who’d like to gamble closer to home — good news for Oklahoma and northeast Kansas tribal casinos.
Posted by Rhonda Holman

8 Comments

  1. Nathan
    Posted January 28, 2006 at 12:51 am | Permalink

    Good news for me too!

  2. ProudLib
    Posted January 28, 2006 at 4:51 am | Permalink

    Nathan, we agree on something. For different reasons, but we still agree.

    This is one “economic incentive” we can all live without. The costs far outweigh the benefits. Legalizing prostitution and heroin would bring the same kind of “economic benefits” that casinos do, and the same costs . . .

  3. writerdog
    Posted January 28, 2006 at 5:32 am | Permalink

    Gambling is a “Quick fix” we have become a people that looks for the quick fix. personally, I am against gambling. My dad taught my an object lesson when I was eleven, it almost backfired on him but the point was made.

    He taught me to shoot craps, it was great for awhile because I seem to not be able to lose. imagine the joy of an eleven y.o. in 1970 having 33.00 dollars! Then he suggested double or nothing? After explaining that if I won I would have 66.00 dollars and if I lst I owed nothing.The bet was on, I rolled snake eyes.I had never seen the man more happy, it turned out I had won every bit of money for the week.

    But losing that much money for me taught me that gambling was more about how much you lose then how much you win.

    So if there was a casino next door or a thousand miles away I would not go. I have been to one in Okla, it was loud, crowded and even as one who started smoking at 8 y.o. the smoking lounge caused my eyes to water and it became hard to breath.

    But I do not oppose a casino for others. It would be a quick fix and turn out like the powerball. Sold as a fix for the economy but the money seem to never show up where it is needed.

    The fix for school funding, state budget and the like will not be found with the pulling of a handle or the calling of a number. Gambling is a form of mindless entertainment.And that should be kept in mind, in the end it serves nothing and ends up the same place a cold beer does.

  4. Joe Williams
    Posted January 28, 2006 at 6:55 am | Permalink

    I do not necessarily oppose expanding gaming myself, but I do actually oppose Indian Tribe casinos. They can do it on the reservation, but the off-site Casino monopoly that they are trying to run in this country is what I’m against.

    What gives them the authority to run businesses off-site and to shut everybody else out of the business.

    Casinos either should be state run or open to anybody that wants to establish one, not just exclusively Indian Tribes.

    So kudoes for Brownback and Tiahrt for recognizing that. As far as what we need in South Central Kansas, I say the compromise for slots at the dog track is the best option and leave it at that.

  5. Ben Huie
    Posted January 28, 2006 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    The protection of existing casinos from additional competition has been one of the items on Abramoff’s agenda. So, this comes as no surprise.

  6. Joe Blow
    Posted January 28, 2006 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    Typical libelous views from Ben. C’mon Ben, be a man. Run for Congress :-)

  7. Ben Huie
    Posted January 28, 2006 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    If it’s libel they should sue me. C’mon Blow-jo use your real name!

  8. Otto
    Posted January 29, 2006 at 1:42 am | Permalink

    He doesn’t believe in letting us gamble with our own money, but he sure gambles with our tax money and the money of his campaign people. He gambled with Jack Abramoff’s money and Rep. Tom DeLay’s money. I guess it’s only immoral when we common folks gamble with our money. When politicians gamble with big time contributor’s money, that’s perfectly moral.