Question of the day
Monday, Feb 10, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The AP has the umpteen millionth annual story on why this could be the year that gaming expansion is approved…
[Sen. Terry Link] said this year’s bill would include ample money for oversight. He also promised it would be much more streamlined than the 500-page previous version that Gaming Board Chairman Aaron Jaffe has called a “Christmas tree bill.”
“It can get so top heavy that nobody wants to be a supporter,” Link said. “… Everyone thinks we’re going to be making billions of dollars off of this. The whole point of this is to try to get money for schools and possibly a capital development bill.”
Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno of Lemont wants even more limits in place and a better evaluation of the impact of video gaming machines at restaurants and bars around the state. Yet, with Democrats’ current veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate, Radogno said she expects the proposal will be pushed this year.
“It’s a perennial issue, but I think what will drive it (this time) is the fact that Democrats have not done what they need to do to get spending under control and they’re looking for revenue,” she said.
She might be right, though, even if it is an election year.
* The Question: Do you think some form of gaming expansion will happen this spring? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
survey tools
- anon - Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 12:01 pm:
Dems wont go it alone, and repubs wont give them them the money in an election year.
- Not Rich - Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 12:01 pm:
The truth is: this is the one bill where the saying “it is too big to pass” is actually true.
- Left Leaner - Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 12:05 pm:
Radogno’s right. Dems are going to need the revenue.
- Dee Lay - Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 12:49 pm:
>
Simple balance sheet economics: Can’t/won’t cut anymore? Increase Revenue!
- Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 1:27 pm:
Gaming questions always get the least number of comments. Kinda weird.
- Nieva - Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 1:29 pm:
This is a way for big government to get bigger. More money more projects and programs. I vote yes
- DuPage - Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 1:48 pm:
Somewhere I read other states charge fees many times higher then Illinois. It will be interesting to see if this issue is visited before new licenses are issued.
- Mittuns - Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 2:02 pm:
If only to help the state coffers and save the horse racing industry, we can hope.
- x ace - Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 2:28 pm:
No - Not it is strictly scrutinized.
It won’t save horse racing.
It lacks needed safeguards.
It won’t generate the revenue they need.
Downstate Democrats will wake up and see Chicago benefits and the State loses,
- Been There - Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 4:02 pm:
I voted yes but meant to vote no. I think if will wait until veto session or next lame duck. A couple of factors against the bill. First it will need republican votes in the House but I can’t see Durkin letting that happen before the election. Two, the oddles of money that Chicago will eventually get I don’t think Rahm wants that tied up with the pension debate. If they try to “fix” the Chicago pension problem they want the employees to take some pain and that will be harder to do if there is other potential revenue sources.
- foster brooks - Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 4:42 pm:
plenty of gambling going on in the bars now,maybe a casino on the border of wisconsin and indiana.
- Cook County Commoner - Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 4:42 pm:
I voted “Yes” because Illinois’ revenue needs are increasing. Also, expanded gaming may provide some much needed jobs.
But then the astute observers on this blog point out the political angles.
I’m naive. I just want to get some jobs and money to folks that are hurting more and more. But in Illinois, I guess politics trumps all that.
- Dirk - Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 8:48 pm:
I don’t think this will happen in a election year.
- Odysseus - Monday, Feb 10, 14 @ 10:06 pm:
Expanding gaming is terrible policy and I will certainly lobby my representative to vote against it.