Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v47)

Here we go again, New York. 

We're losing gambling money to neighboring states, dammit, and we're not going to take it anymore!

First, there was the casino money we were hemorrhaging to neighboring states.

Then, it was sports betting at our casinos, something we needed, you know, to fund things like education and gambling addiction treatment, and to stop bleeding money to neighboring states. And to help our underperforming casinos, which were not generating nearly the revenue we expected. 

Then it was mobile sports betting, because, you know, funding education, even more gambling addiction treatment, and buying tourniquets to stop the blood loss from all that hemorrhaging we've been doing are important governmental functions, as is helping casinos addict more gamblers.

And now, it's online casino gaming; here's some info from a Spectrum News report from October 2023.

Lawmakers are working to amend legislation to legalize a new form of online gambling in the state officials say could bring upwards of $1 billion in revenue to New York and help close budget gaps expected over the next few years.

Why? Well, we're addicted to the money gambling brings in, of course, and the success of mobile sports betting can't be ignored. It's

spurring discussion to permit online casino gaming — also known as iGaming — in the state, allowing games like blackjack, roulette and others to be played from a mobile device.

And, of course, because of those darn neighboring states that already allow it. After all, as Sen. Joseph Addabbo, chair of the Senate's Addiction Funding Committee (sorry - the Racing, Gaming, & Wagering Committee), says

Other states surrounding us are doing it. We can do this. I think it's the conversation we have to have dictated by the poor fiscal situation we're going to be in next year.

In addition to the revenue, it's flat-out altruistic, too, especially for the New Yorkers who are forced to do their online gambling on apps registered in other states.

We can't help someone with an addiction because we don't know who they are, and once we regulate it in New York, iGaming, we then can help those that might be in need are on their pathway to addiction. We'll put in statutory language in this bill to address that.

Fast forward to January 2024, and the legislation is being worked on in earnest. According to Addabbo 

It's a good bill. We got a lot of input from a lot of individuals, but it's a starting point. It's a starting point where I'm hoping that we can have these kinds of discussions during the budget process.

The bill would allow for mobile or online betting on various types of interactive gaming, referred to as iGaming, and iLottery. I'm pretty sure those names are not affiliated with the giant fruit vendor known for selling all the other iThings, or with iCarly, an old Nickelodeon TV show, but there's a chance we could see some kind of copyright lawsuit, right? What are the odds? 

As proposed, the licensing fees for the iStuff would be a cool $2M, and revenues would be taxed at 30.5%, which could generate a billion dollars annually. And, of course, we're hemorrhaging that money to PA and NJ now. Once we get that back, we'll be in good shape, Addabbo thinks.

We need to look at the outyears, 2025, 2026, where according to the state comptroller the fiscal situation only gets worse, then we do need to figure out a sustainable plan both short-term and long-term and that is iGaming and iLottery.

And what about those problem gamblers? There's $11M in annual funding for "addiction services and supports." I'm not sure if that money is dedicated solely to gambling addicts, or if it covers all other causes of addiction as well. But we do need to act with urgency, it seems.

If we're serious about helping people with a gaming problem, knowing that they're doing iGaming anyway in New York, they're just doing it illegally, then you try to do it this year because that will actually help the New Yorker who is already participating in iGaming.

But wait - there's more! Progressive more!

To ensure "existing union casino employees" aren't threatened by the new option, there's a "a fund of at least $25M annually" towards training and supporting employees of private business enterprises - because that's the New York Way. Addabbo also said we may see more union jobs created because people will be able to sit in their jammies and play poker on their phones - with live dealers. I'm sure they'll be even more addicting than CGI dealers.

Anyone who's already allowed to feed our gambling addiction won't be ignored, either. Existing license holders, including "current video lottery terminal licensees, mobile sports betting operators, state-licensed and Native American casinos" can participate in the iJunk if they like.

I'll be following this one as we go through the legislative session.

Sunday School 1/19/20

None of the Democratic presidential candidates were around today, but a few of the House impeachment managers were out and about, as was attorney Alan Dershowitz, who's doing part of Trump's defense (but prefers we don't say he's part of Trump's defense team).

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-Trump) was slithering around, too, of course.

Today, I decided to pass on impeachment and instead sit in on a conversation between Gary Cohn,Trump's former director of the National Economic Council, and Margaret Brennan on CBS' Face the Nation. Cohn, you may recall, left the administration in 2018, and is now back in the private sector.

In general, he doesn't see a recession coming; consumer spending is strong, in part because we have all that extra disposable income from the Christmas Tax Cut. He's also not worried about interest rates, and thinks growth will continue to be strong. He's happy we have a new trade deal with China, but says it doesn't address the whole intellectual property issue which was "the big issue that he and Trump agreed upon." He still doesn't like tariffs, and thinks they have "totally hurt the United States."

On addressing income inequality through taxes on billionaires, taxes on financial transactions and the like, Cohn (a Democrat) notes that if we want to get more revenue,

which I'm not against, (if) we have to collect more revenue, it's going to come from the top half of workers. And it fact, it's going to come from the top 10% of workers. That's where you can find the taxable income. I think that we will end up doing that. We will potentially need to do that. But these fangled plans that they're coming up with, we don't need to do things like that to collect more income from people. We have a basic tax system that works, and we can do some fundamental things, if we need to collect more money. The question is, do we need to collect more money? 

Here's where he sounds a lot like me.

You know, we look at spending and we look at revenue and we don't talk about them in the same sentence. We collect taxes and we spend. And Congress never thinks about how much money they have to spend. They just go spend... you wouldn't run your household like that. I wouldn't run my household like that. 

And then this happened - Brennan said  "But you're -- you're a Democrat."

Cohn; Yes, I am.

Brennan: Is there a single Democrat that you would consider voting for?

Cohn: There - there - I'll consider voting for anyone. I vote on policy.

Brennan: Even Elizabeth Warren, whose policy you just tried to -

Cohn:  I would consider voting for anyone, I said. I didn't say I would. I said I'd consider voting for them.

Brennan: Well, that's evasive.

Cohn. Yeah.  

Fun stuff there, for sure, suggesting that every Democrat has to be a tax-and-spender. But, when Brennan asked about Wall Streeters "continuing to vote along the lines of whatever the president is putting forward" even if, she said, they don't like how he behaves, here's what Cohn said about the Dems.

...what I do know is, the economy is really strong, and the Democrats haven't really come up with an idea of how to help the economy get even stronger. So it's probably easier to talk about corporate greed, and talk about Wall Street, and talk about technology companies because they don't really have an answer for an economy that's growing at 2.5% with 3.5% unemployment and 3% wage growth. I haven't heard their answer on that, except let's tax it to death.

Cohn did admit that, while he's "very supportive" of the president on the economy and deregulation,

... I just don't vote on the economy. I vote on a lot of the social issues as well. So, you know, in many respects, I've got to balance both sides of that equation before I figure out who I'm gonna vote for.... I'm leaving the door open. But at this point, I don't have any intention not to vote for the president. 

Brennan moved on to wondering if there's "anyone around the president who can be direct with him right now", who can do what Cohn said he did when he was there - disagree with him, and live to tell about it  - who'd doing that now, was basically what Brennan was after.

..he's got advisors in there that I'm sure are telling him differences. I know that there are people in there - 

He specifically mentioned Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and tariffs, but didn't really get to what Brennan was fishing for. He touched on that, though - a little more than a month ago - as this Politico article shows, recounting an interview Cohn did on David Axelrod's The Axe Files podcast.

I am concerned that the atmosphere in the White House is no longer conducive or no one has the personality to stand up and tell the president what he doesn't want to hear. 

We (early members of Trump's administration) were not bashful...It was a group that was willing to tell the president what he needed to know whether he wanted to hear it or not. 

None of us are there any more. 

And that was the lead-in to the last bit of the interview, when Brennan turned to the topic of the day - the new book, A Very Stable Genius, written by two Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists from the Washington Post. Here's how that exchange went.

Brennan: Lastly, I want to ask you about a new book. I know you haven't read it. It's coming out, and there have been excerpts released that directly reference you, which is why I want to give you a chance to respond. 

...the president is - is in this meeting accused of calling advisers "dopes and babies" and the like. Is the - the description of the president and his management style matching your experience?

Cohn: I don't know what book you're referring to. As you said, I haven't read it, so I - I wouldn't know.

It's almost impossible to believe that he hadn't heard of he book from news reports, or that he hadn't heard from reporters looking for comment, as Brennan was doing, but anyway - when Brennan asked him specifically about "the management style of berating advisors," which Cohn would likely be familiar with even if there was no book, here's what he had to say.

Look... what you see on TV is exactly what you get in private with the president. The president is the same person behind closed door as he is out in public, which is - which is a unique feature. You know, it's not like he turns it on or turns it off when he walks outside. So you've seen everything the president has. That's exactly what you see when you're in a private meeting with him.

Which is kind of funny; so many of the president's supporters and minions and the politicians he owns work so hard to distract us from his horrible comments and his awful behavior, or blame us and the medial and his 'enemies' and tell us how he can't help lashing out after the horrible treatment he receives....

But thanks to Cohn, we know that those excuses are just as untrue as so much of what Trump says, in his own inimitable, abusive style. Which makes me wonder, how must it feel to be treated that way, and still go out and defend him? I'm guessing it's something like this.

For your Extra Credit this week, I'll look at some of what the impeachment managers had to say.

See you around campus.