Arkansas Blog

I'll bet Kenneth Copeland could pony up the money to build a church/casino adjacent to the Presidential Library.

Kiss my ar$e you arrogant ba$tard!

Brummet's whole article smacks of "anyone not signing the petition hates America!" or if you don't sign the petition "you want the terrorists to win!"

Could a reasonable person have a legitmate reaason to not support this single proposal? I say yes!

I see a BIG difference between allowing a private company to operate a track or casino and taxing and regulating it, and a state run and heavily promoted operation.

There is an enormous difference between allowing and promoting.

Allowing my smoking neighbor to sit on my deck and smoke cigarettes is completely diffrerent from constantly badgering a non-smoker to light one up with me.

Allowing citizens freedom to choose is quite different from actively persuading a vice. I have enough vices without my government using my tax money extorted from me to persudae me to do that which is not in my best interest.

There is an enormous difference between allowing and promoting.

I appreciate liquor stores conveniently located so that I may swing by at my convenience and pick up some booze. But I would not be able to run a profittable liquor store because when a person that I know is an alcohlic came in to buy whiskey my conscience would keep me up at night. I am fully aware that if I did not sell him the bottle someone 2 blocks up the road would but I would not be a contributor.

I have a friend that loves to go to titty bars but I was very aware that his wife (now Ex-wife) threatened divorce if he went again. Anytime we were out and had a few playing pool or at the sports bar he would start lobbying to go to a strip club "just for a beer or two" and I would refuse to aid or abbet his divorce. I expect I would have trouble sleeping if I were with him when he got caught and the marriage failed. He was free to go without me. No judgement there.

You see, there is a BIG difference between allowing and promoting.

Now how much more guilt would I have if I had actually talked him into going with me to the topless joint, and then his wife left?

Now back to this specific lottery issue. In my oppinion only an ignorant idiot would even consider a lottery ticket since the odds are so warped out of anything that could be considered fair. Sure the house always has an edge in casinos and such but a single digit advantage is far from the dismal bettor chances in a lottery.

In my oppinion government is necessary and a government needs money to opperate. Various taxes are needed to raise funds. We all know taxes can be levied or reduced in order to promote or deter activities such as a tax deduction for mortgage interest promotes home ownership and cigarette taxes discourage smoking.

I STRONGLY agree that we need to spend and spend heavily on education and make ANYONE that wishes to increase their education level should be aided by the state. But, the ends does not justify the means in this case. A noble cause does not excuse abuse.

Remember "Solent Green"? A very noble cause, feed the hungry, reduce overpopulation, but grinding up innocent people is not an acceptable cure. Remember Solent Green is People!

A society can be judged by what they are willing to pay for. If we do not wish to pay the necessary price to educate our citizens then we are voting not to educate.

I bet payday lending could raise quite a fancy sum to pay for education. We could have the state set up every convenience store with payday lenders. With the money the state has available to get this thing up and running on a grand scale we could rake in saome major cash. From reading the paper these payday lenders are raking in megamillions with the few scattered operations aroundthe state.

Just imagine a thousand locations with billboards and radio spots and print ads and tv commercials showing people happily paying bills and buying clothes and food with money they got Arkansas State EZ-Money Payday lender Emporium.

That could raise some serious jack for scholarships.

Payday lenders would not be a morally acceptable way to help more people go to college.

There is a difference between what you allow and what you promote.

In summary, in my oppinion it is the height of arrogance to claim that a reasonable person could not object to a single aspect of the current lottery proposal being presented by Halter.

As I've said before: Utah and Arkansas the last two. Reality.

Lottery funding for college education takes money from the poor and gives it to the middle class. How you feel about that sort of redistribution of wealth will determine how you feel about the lottery.

Me, I think Bill Halter needs to stuff his moneybags where the sun don't shine. If the Democratic Party can't do better than him--but I believe it can, so no ultimatums from me.

I get all choked up when people with money spend a lot of time worrying about what poor people choose to do with THEIR money.

It is the rankest sort of plantation-era massa-knows-best patronizing when somebody who lives in a gentrified neighborhood and drives a new car weeps about those po' folks squandering their hard-earned money on some unapproved form of entertainment. These weepy skunks feel it's their duty to ensure that the guy who mows their yard or washes their new car doesn't decide he wants to spend his entertainment allowance on the slots at Tunica or at some Missouri Lottery emporium six feet over the state line north of Bella Vista.

You spend your money the way you want, Massa, and let the folks who live in the mosquito-infested plantation cabins down by the crick spend theirs they way THEY want to.

Y'heah?

So, Earl, you think that people who have resources have no responsibility to those who don't? You think that we should substitute paying taxes to support right and proper uses of government with a lottery? An endeavor that has been shown to be nothing more than a tax on the stupid (see comments above about ridiculous odds) or the hopeless? I'll concede Brummett's point that we already have gambling in this state and the state benefits. But Citizen home is correct on all points and I'll add a couple:

Do we really want give the Legislature this responsibility/power? Do we really trust them to operate a mega-million-dollar enterprise in a way that is even competent? Or without extensive influence peddling? You're kidding yourself if you don't think this state will be swarming with lottery industry lobbyists as soon as this passes. The advantage of not getting on this bandwagon from the first is that there are extensive track records of states who've instituted lotteries. The income stream is strong at the beginning and then the marketing has to be rolled out. Then the state bombards their own citizens to try to keep them buying tickets and maintaining the income stream. It's simply a way for those who have resources to avoid paying taxes while those who are without hope keep buying the tickets. I've worked with homeless people in another state and I can testify that it's tragic to see people whose circumstances force them to be suppored by inadequate government assistance using their meager resources on lottery tickets. It's truly a tax on the hopeless and that's why it's immoral.

Earl Swagger,

You take your name from an admirable character in a damn good book. Stephen Holden may be a wingnut, but he's also an excellent writer of hard thrillers. His _Hot Springs_ had virtues out the wazoo, not the least of which was putting the disclaimer that Sid McMath in no way resembled his weasely fictionalized counterpart in the front of the book instead of the back. I'm anxious to get _Pale Horse_, and I think Mrs. Arkansawyer has _The Master Sniper_ around somewhere.

That said, your argument is crap.

I'm not saying poor people shouldn't gamble. I'm saying the government shouldn't stick lottery tickets (with a way worse payout than any casino game I'm aware of, I might add) in their face every time they walk into a store.

Oddly enough, I think Mrs. Arkansawyer and I are going to take advantage of a friend's offer to let us tag along on their next trip to Tunica and use the free hotel room the casino provides them. (I guess they go a lot, because they're getting enough free rooms to offer us one and still have one for themselves.) While we aren't gamblers, I figure we can find something to do in a hotel room without the daughter along.

As for the gentrified neighborhood, no, sorry. Just north of us, there's been an epidemic of McMansions, so I think gentrification is working against us, not for us. You did manage to nick me on the new car, as I did buy one seven years ago, the only one I expect I'll ever own, and I still drive it, but I don't feel particularly wounded by that. We usually mow our own lawn, and I get my car washed (when I do) by kids raising money for good causes.

Oh, and my dad left grade school to pick cotton, and there are no plantations on my mom's side of the family, either, so the whole "Massa" thing doesn't sting me. I'm more interested in killing those damn mosquitoes.

Funny you happen to mention this now. I happen to be in Las Vegas, working on assignment. It's been an interesting trip.

I seem to see three sorts of tourists here -- those who are here for entertainment, such as the shows, NASCAR (the town is packed for NASCAR week here), and the idea of "hey, wouldn't it be cool to get MARRIED in Las Vegas?"; those who are here for conventions and conferences (who sometimes are also those here for entertainment), and the gamblers.

Bless their hearts, most of them are oblivious. I was walking through the MGM Grand on the way to see one of those Cirque du Soleil shows, and I noticed the same sight. With all the glamour and eye candy and neat things around them, these gamblers were so focused on the job at hand -- put money into the machine, punch button. Put money into the machine, punch button. Over and over and over again. I felt pity for them, but then again -- it is a choice what you do in Vegas, and where you spend your money.

That being said... over the years, when I travel, I tend to actually overnight at casino hotels. I don't gamble, but these properties are usually a bit more upscale for the price. Many of them have such accommodations as bigger rooms, indoor pools, and spas -- all aimed at those traveling with the gambler. Sometimes I'll go to Tunica to catch an act that's not coming through Little Rock. I also appreciate the "one stop shopping" of having hotel and restaurant right there, so I could overnight, eat, and go.

I do realize the fantastic shows and concerts, the splendid hotel rooms and meeting areas, and the perks are created to draw people in and financed by gamblers. I could be bothered by this. I am not. The choice to attend a casino is exactly that -- a choice. I know people who get a big kick out of visiting, and hey -- what the heck?

What does depress me a bit is the lack of "vacation destination" locations in Arkansas. Yes, we have Hot Springs and Eureka Springs, and I love both. But I see the states around us doing this better than we are. I see places that are affordable to any class level -- with tiered hotel rates and the like. Branson does this very, very well -- and has no gambling. Yet. Seems that with the gorgeous state we have we could make something like that happen in more places. Take advantage of our beautiful commodity -- a temperate, warm environment with spectacular views and friendly people.

Oh, yes, Vegas is a sight to see. There are things here that are truly incredible. But I miss the natural friendliness Arkansans seem to have. Here it's all about business.

Those are great points that aren't often put forward, Citizen home.

The only thing I would quibble with is that the state doesn't just allow gambling now, it actively promotes it. Oaklawn shows up in a lot of our tourism material inside and outside the state. it's just another form of corporate welfare as our taxpayers help pay for Cella's advertising.

That being said, allowing our legislature to run a lottery will get us the same result as we've had with natural gas. The working class will be screwed one way or another by the rich and the big corporations.

It is a fact that lotteries transfer wealth away from the poor (who tend to see lottery tickets as a substitute for the retirement plans they don't have), and therefore aid in the concentration of wealth that is at the bottom of so many of society's ills.

Certain people have decided that certain adult activities are bad for us and bad for society. They have decided certain printed materials are bad for you and for me and for society. There are certain movies, certain music, certain clothing styles, certain opinions about religion and other particulars that fit into that same file. It's not odd these same people have no hesitation adding gambling to their lists.

I agree there are certain things bad for our society: all terrain vehicles, S. Stallone, Britany Spears, Neo-Cons, tattoos, purple hair, smoking, alcoholism and Viagra. But in free societies adults are to decide what they read, what movies they see, what religious opinions they embrace, what gambling activities they embrace....not the state. Hold it all up to ridicule if one wishes but not banned, unless the safety, wefare and well being of another person is threatened. Living in free socities is tough going, but mainly because of all the banning that is wanted by one set of citizens on other citizens based on "we know what is best for you and you don't have the superior intelligence we possess" attitude. Puritanism is alive and well in America, even in 2008.

KUDOS CATO!
If Arkansas had a Grand Canyon, they'd probably build a big fence around it and keep people back 20' from the edge so they wouldn't fall off. Or jump.
Let's face reality kids. Those hollering the loudest about keeping Arkansas casino & lottery free, and financing others shouting the same crap, are the interests in the states where our money goes. We're like people who smoke in closets so God can't see us.

Cato,

I'm not arguing against gambling. I'm arguing against profiteering via gambling.

If you want to play poker or shoot craps in your living room, be my guest--or hell, let me be your guest. I've played poker, bridge, and backgammon for money and enjoyed it. But lotteries are to gambling what crack is to coca leaves.

The argument from choice, which I see you making there, is flawed. On the individual level, it's hard to argue with choice. When the rhetoric of choice is used in (for instance) the Little Rock school system to make it okay that the aggregated choices of some individuals ensure that other individuals' kids will end up in substandard schools, that's bad for society (to say nothing of those kids!)

And who makes the list of choices, anyway? There's usually nothing I want on the list.

John A., thanks for the compliment. I want to respond to you without getting into ad hominem stuff.

The Arkansas Constitution forbids lotteries of any kind.

Halter and his people want to change the Constitution to allow at least one form of lottery. If he gets enough signatures to get it on the ballot and the voters approve the change, it then becomes the will of the people of Arkansas to allow a lottery that earmarks its proceeds for education purposes.

If that happens, you may/will not like it. That's fine. But it will become legal for other Arkansas adults to take part in it. You may decide to circulate petitions to allow the people to repeal the lottery legislation. If the voters approve that, fine.

But please don't take the attitude that because you deem gambling bad for people you should have the power to prevent them from doing something legal. You think it's bad for people with less income or education than you to spend their money on gambling. These same people could possibly think it's bad for you to live in a neighborhood where McMansions are a worry for you. Neither of you has the right to dictate to the other what is or is not suitable behavior as long as the behavior is legal.

BTW, my creator's name is Stephen Hunter, not Stephen Holden.

Well, crap, Earl. Stephen Hunter it is. None of his books were at hand and I didn't think to look it up. I'm used to not being old and feeble-minded. (I think I got the title of _Pale Horse_ wrong, too, maybe.)

One comment about something other than my error: When you say, "Neither of you has the right to dictate to the other what is or is not suitable behavior as long as the behavior is legal," you have a point, speaking of us as individuals. But: First, I'm saying it shouldn't be made legal. Second, I do think that society as a whole has some ability to specify or prohibit (or dictate, if you prefer) some behaviors. Where's the line drawn? How about between no smoking in classes and no smoking on campus?

By the way, I really did dig Earl Swagger. The intense loyalty he practiced toward those under his command wasn't the least of his virtues, but it was the one that moved me most.

You got it mostly right, John. It is "Pale Horse Coming." "Hot Springs" is a good (and mostly accurate) one. "Dirty White Boys" is another good one, as is "Black Light."

Whoa!

Sorry about the novelet which was my 8:10 post but my Saturday morning 3 cups of coffee must have really taken effect.

But, I believe that same hyped up on coffee as I do at other times.

I disagree that tourist advertizing of private business paid for the state to increase tourist income is corporate welfare.

Tourism income is mostly low polluting and doesn't deplete finite natural resources. Out of state advertising also brings money into Arkansas to increase the wealth of citizens that are not even directly employed by "tourist" businesses.

It makes sense to advertise attractions which would intice visitors be they public such as parks and Razorbacks games or private such as the Passion Play or Oaklawn.

Lure them in to feed the ponies and if from out of state they will tend to eat, buy gas, and rent hotels. Notice neither Oaklawn nor the Passion Play sells gas or rents out rooms. They might even like the beautiful lakes and mountains and decide to buy a weekend or retirement place. Property values, and taxes, are up in Hot Springs and Bella Vista becasue people were lured in to visit and decided to come back permanently.

Or I guess we could allow a smokin' chokin' mercury spewing coal plant just up wind from Little Rock and sell power to Texas instead.

(Notice Texas proposed to put the coal plants just inside the east border of the state so all the pollution would blow into Arkansas but on second thought nixed the idea because even if 90% of the crap blew into Arkansas, that was too much pollution to put up with?)

Whoa!

Sorry about the novelet which was my 8:10 post but my Saturday morning 3 cups of coffee must have really taken effect.

But, I believe that same hyped up on coffee as I do at other times.

I disagree that tourist advertizing of private business paid for the state to increase tourist income is corporate welfare.

Tourism income is mostly low polluting and doesn't deplete finite natural resources. Out of state advertising also brings money into Arkansas to increase the wealth of citizens that are not even directly employed by "tourist" businesses.

It makes sense to advertise attractions which would intice visitors be they public such as parks and Razorbacks games or private such as the Passion Play or Oaklawn.

Lure them in to feed the ponies and if from out of state they will tend to eat, buy gas, and rent hotels. Notice neither Oaklawn nor the Passion Play sells gas or rents out rooms. They might even like the beautiful lakes and mountains and decide to buy a weekend or retirement place. Property values, and taxes, are up in Hot Springs and Bella Vista becasue people were lured in to visit and decided to come back permanently.

Or I guess we could allow a smokin' chokin' mercury spewing coal plant just up wind from Little Rock and sell power to Texas instead.

(Notice Texas proposed to put the coal plants just inside the east border of the state so all the pollution would blow into Arkansas but on second thought nixed the idea because even if 90% of the crap blew into Arkansas, that was too much pollution to put up with?)

John A

"I'm not arguing against gambling. I'm arguing against profiteering via gambling"

So, John A, are you telling me you are also opposed to profiteering via gambling in the stock market? If no, you would have to be opposed to many other factors in free societies that have capitalist enconomies. Where do you draw the line with such decisions? You are opposed to Cella making a profit off the Oaklawn Jockey Club gambling? Where do you draw the line?

"The argument from choice, which I see you making there, is flawed"

Of course it is....in the eyes of certain beholders. Choice is religion is flawed, according to some, and they have been and are willing to use force if necessary to convert those led astray by choice to the wrong religion and these missionaries will bestow the blessings of their superior intelligence in choosing the correct religious ideology.

As I said, freedom of choice by adults in free societies is what it's all about and as long and one choice brings no harm to the well being of others physically and in other ways then I hold it is no business of government to dictate such behavior. I still say if baseball players use steroids why is it any concern to government? These are grown men/adults and do they bring harm to others for their use of such drugs? Let baseball take care of it but why should government give a crap. The same holds true with gambling. Education is much more effective (like smoking) than any efforts to have centralized control of society through the state.

Where do you draw the line?

I believe a lottery and/or legalized gambling would have poor results on life in Arkansas. So John call me hypocrite, but my decision not to sign Halter's misguided petition is not religious, merely my extrapolation of what effects and abuses will result.

I believe that Halter's push for this is as misguided as Bush's invasion of Iraq and possibly driven by the same venal motives. But I am only one vote, everyone look at this issue carefully and make up your own mind.

Are the rosy predictions of income true or overblown? What will be the impact of a lottery? What will be the impact of changing the Constitution? Will the control of the lottery and its funds create a new power center and opportunity for corruption for our politician and legislators?
s
Legalizing a lottery will inevitably lead to legalized gambling and other new power and money centers, and opportunities for corruption? Will the benefits outweight the harmful changes? . . . Not to me.

Can a man add one cubic to his stature? answer, NO
Can a leopard change his spots? answer, NO

A friendly bet is one thing but betting for money is abomination. It will make Arkansas the ass of the betting world. It would open the door to all kinds of corruptions.

One tries, finally unsuccessfully, to read these comments without confronting them.

First we're lectured like children. "You see, there is a BIG difference between allowing and promoting [a state lottery and legalized gambling]." You mean, like Las Vegas? 'Splain, Lucy.

Same poster: "In my oppinion [sic] only an ignorant idiot would even consider a lottery ticket" then misspells it again in the next paragraph. "In my oppinion [sic] government is necessary and a government needs money to opperate [sic]." No shit?

He misspells "opinion" for the third time in his concluding sentence.

In MY opinion this "ignorant idiot" (as he dubs those who enjoy purchasing a lottery ticket) should consider remedial English. Or at least learn to use spell-check. Those aren't typos: they're mistakes repeatedly made by somebody who can't spell, doesn't know it and is too lazy to correct it. Yet he's demanding we "respect" his marginally educated bumpkin opinions here. Respect is earned, not given.

"Remember 'Solent Green'?" he writes, misspelling the film's title, which is "Soylent Green." He repeats the mistake one sentence later. Hell, he can't even correctly spell his cultural references (thought exactly what the connection between "Soylent Green" and a state lottery is, he never clarifies).

"Lottery funding for college education takes money from the poor and gives it to the middle class," states another commentator - without a shred of objective attribution or sourcing. We're just supposed to take his word.

"An endeavor [the lottery] that has been shown to be nothing more than a tax on the stupid," comments another poster. Really? WHERE has that been objectively shown or proved? Uh, nowhere. Since when are people who throw a few bucks at the lottery "stupid?" Talk about arrogant.

"I believe a lottery and/or legalized gambling would have poor results on life in Arkansas," says another pontificator. I learned long, long ago that every statement opening with, "I believe . . ." as opposed to, "Here are the facts . . . ," will be followed by uninformed or misinformed opinions and nothing else. And so it is here again. Coupled with rhetorical questions that culminate with, "Will the benefits outweight [sic] the harmful changes? . . . Not to me." So, without citing a single source or fact to make his point, this dude's mind is made up and closed. "Not to me."

The FACTS are contained in the image of the Las Vegas strip which heads this thread. One of the most spectacular tourist destinations in the world. Built from NOTHING, with the construction of Hoover Dam, completed in 1935. Renowned for its mind-boggling entertainment options at every price-point, for kids and adults; a concentration of internationally diverse fine-dining experiences recently declared unequaled in any city in the world; a retirement Mecca because there are NO state income taxes; and, of course, legalized gambling - which provides (and always has) the revenue stream for Las Vegas' incredible growth.

Does Las Vegas face problems? Of course. Chief among them, water. (Have you seen Lake Mead lately?) But that's not as sexy as talking about the "sins" of legalized gambling and prostitution (which is NOT legal in Clark County, BTW, though as readily available as in any other metropolitan area).

In fact, Las Vegas has no more problem with prostitution, drugs and crime than any other large city - and statistically LESS problem than Little Rock or Pine Bluff, Razorbacks.

I lived there. There are churches everywhere. A wonderful educational system that culminates in UNLV. As many rabid sports fanatics as Arkansas (though unlike the Hogs' home state, you can find air-conditioned sports books minutes from home and bet on and view every conceivable sports contest in the world, 24/7, while enjoying your choice of refreshing beverage). Unbelievably effective law enforcement (with tougher drunk-driving laws than Arkansas). Amazingly beautiful scenic destinations (Valley of the Fire tops my list), though not IMHO, as beautiful as many spots in Arkansas.

Racially international and diverse, where bartenders and waitresses can afford $400K homes (I know plenty of them), far better job opportunities available to the general population than Arkansas has ever offered - anybody experienced and knowledge about Las Vegas' history (ALL of it based on legalized gambling) knows how it's evolved and what it's become. Perhaps the most unique success story of any city in America.

It's too late for Arkansas. Had we legalized gambling in the '20's and '30's (and even later) when the mob declared Hot Springs "neutral" territory, Hot Springs would be what Las Vegas is today. Remember the Vapors? I was a kid, but I saw some great entertainers there because my Dad and Mom enjoyed vacationing in Hot Springs and shooting some craps at the Black Orchid on Central, or whatever it was.

But no. The Morals Squad shut it all down. The Morals Squad has kept our wonderful state backward, impoverished, racist and relatively uneducated for over a century - afraid, as they are, of change, diversity, growth and well-rounded education.

The best Arkansas can hope to become, now, is a second-rate Tunica; a comparatively dismal destination if you've ever been to Las Vegas. (Well, that's not quite true. Were Arkansas to allow fully legalized gambling, we could become something much more. But we'll never compete with Las Vegas or Atlantic City.)

Brummett is right. We already have legalized gambling here. It's just couched in such hypocritical legalese that it, once again, makes us look like southern hicks. "Video Blackjack" at Oaklawn? Are you kidding? Their "casino" with all their silly rules for skirting Arkansas' archaic gambling laws (religiously based) supports the track, which would be closed by now were it not for the "casino."

The lottery is peanuts compared to flat-out legalized gambling and the tax revenues generated, which could lift Arkansas from our bottom-tier status.

But nah. We've got people who can't spell, don't know grammar, haven't a factual clue about legalized gambling statistics, spouting "beliefs" and "oppinions [sic]" on the subject and calling it an "abomination" and full of "corruptions."

Truth? Las Vegas and Nevada politics and finances are less "corrupt" than those of Arkansas and Nevada's FAR ahead of us by virtually all yardsticks.

Wanna bet?

Then read and inform yourself and stand up to uninformed nonsense.

NormaBates,

Rather than answer your entire screed point by point, let me simply answer the only point in my arguments you were able to address. When you said:

" 'Lottery funding for college education takes money from the poor and gives it to the middle class,' states another commentator [that's me! John A Arkansawyer] - without a shred of objective attribution or sourcing. We're just supposed to take his word."

you were narrowly correct and broadly wrong. I did not make specific reference to the study which showed this result. I can't find a link to it, but it was referenced in this blog and presented to the Clinton School. Perhaps someone else can point us to it.

Keyword? "Objective" studies. I have never seen an independent objective study on lotteries that supports your claims. Those studies that seem to support your claims turn out inevitably to have been conducted by groups with a religious anti-lottery / anti-gambling bias.

For instance, the Washington Post commissioned a poll by Martinez Marketing of St. Louis to find out the facts about who plays the lottery.

Here are the results:

* Middle income Americans were the most likely group to play the lottery. Two out of three Americans with household incomes between $25,000 to $45,000 a year play the lottery at least once a year. One out of four play monthly. Americans earning $45,000 to $65,000 play even more often, with three of four playing occasionally while one third wager at least once a month.

On the other hand, the wealthiest and the poorest Americans were least likely to take a chance on the lottery. Half of those earning less than $25,000 a year said they never played the lottery, and about half of those earning more than $65,000 a year said they also never play.

The oft-cited negative effects of lotteries on the poor are simply not supported by factual studies over decades.

Norma,

I didn't try to convince anyone, I stated my position and asked everyone think about a couple of questions and make up their own mind, as you did.

However, I think the Las Vegas Sun and others might differ with your characterization of ". . . Las Vegas and Nevada politics and finances are less 'corrupt' than those of Arkansas . . ." I must have missed the investigation of Governor Beebe by the FBI last year, but I guess the investigation of Governor Gibbons doesn't count.

Norma,

Did that study happen to tell us anything about what percentage of income people in various income demographics spent? That's a considerably more meaningful number than the ones you quote.

It's kind of like the cigarette problem: How do you tax tobacco enough to discourage new users without unfairly punishing elderly addicts?