Congressman Ron Paul Discusses State Legalization of Online Gambling

[Dirty]

Submitted by Jenny Woo on Sun, 03/22/2009 - 20:37.

Gambling911.com's Senior International Correspondent, Jenny Woo, sat down with Texas Republican Congressman, Ron Paul, this week to discuss the issue of legalized online gambling. Dr. Paul has been one of the most outspoken supporters of legalized Internet gambling, citing "individual rights" as a primary reason for this platform. He has even co-sponsored a bill to legalize online gambling with none other than Democrat Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
Ron Paul gained huge national attention through his grassroots campaign to become President of the United States. At the time, Congressman Paul did not hesitate to declare the US economy was in a recession while everyone else appeared to be in self-denial. And, yes, he did beat out eventually GOP candidate, John McCain, in some of the earlier state caucuses.
As a means of helping to prop up their economies, individual states are now seriously considering legalizing what is now a $38 billion industry.
Jenny: What's your opinion of moves being made by individual states to draft legislation that would make online gambling legal vs. the federal governments attempts? Would you consider following the lead of other states by trying to get online gambling legalized in Texas?
Congressman Paul: I think that's good, in other ordinary circumstances that should be the end of it. There was time in our history, it's a long time ago when the states were recognized as almost like independent countries and they were suppose to have very a loose relationship to the fellow government. That has long passed but recently there have been a lot of people talking whether it has to do with gambling or other things. The states are just tired of the mess and are sort of striking out and saying we have to reassert ourselves. So any time a state will do this whether it's online gambling or not, it should be encouraged. I'm afraid, of course the mentality of those who love to rule over us in Washington as well as our Courts will continue to give us trouble but I think it's an encouraging sign that the states and the people want more independence rather than by the Federal Government.
JENNY: House Banking and Finance Committee Chairman Rep.. Barney Frank noted that online gaming would represent $52 billion dollars in tax revenue and said a bill to overturn the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (UIGEA) would come soon. You co-sponsored a bill with Congressman Frank. And just so you have some idea, we spoke to online gambling operators last week in Costa Rica and a few operators out of the UK as well and they are claiming the recession has barely caused a dent in their businesses. Wouldn't it be a no-brainer to get online gambling legalized so that we can start pumping this much needed money into the nation's economy?
CONGRESSMAN PAUL: This is probably where I'll have a slightly different opinion on this because my goal has never been to send more money to the government. It's up to states if they are going to collect in this way. Fine, but I don't want to change this for the purpose and the goal of raising more revenue. I've always had trouble with the "supply siders" who say, "Well if you are at marginal rates you're going to get more revenues because it'll be a healthier economy." Which is very good. But if we get more revenues because we have a healthier economy, I want to cut the government. Same way with this, if it's a source of revenue and taxes occur, I don't want to try to bail out Washington or any state government that spends too much money by any additional taxes. But all things being equal that shouldn't stop us from continuing in moving in the direction of saying, "Yes, we ought to be allowed to have online gambling and run our affairs as we see fit."
JENNY: We know your stance on the issue and it seems a strong possibility that Barney Frank is going to try and push new legislation through Congress to get the UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act) repealed. Do you see a good number of Republicans supporting such legislation now?
CONGRESSMAN PAUL: I think it's going to be tough. They see this, not so much in the economic terms; they see this as endorsing something very bad - that kind of thing. It's sort of the whole idea of when I talked to them about even legalizing medical marijuana, "Well yeah that makes sense Ron, that's okay and we understand the state's rights issue but I don't want to look like I'm soft on drugs." And for many of them, their constituents think there's something awfully wrong with gambling. Of course, you've heard me say before that, for me it is not the issue; it's people making their own free choices on how they would like to spend their money and enjoy themselves.
Be sure to check back Tuesday for Part II of Jenny Woo's Interview With Congressman Ron Paul where he discusses proposed legislation to audit the Fed.
Jenny Woo, Gambling911.com Senior International Correspondent



Congressman Ron Paul Discusses State Legalization of Online Gambling | Gambling911.com

[BIGBOYDAN]

He could speak all day long and it still won't change anything.

[Cooper]

Ron Paul was the answer. Ron Paul still is the answer.

Nobody wants to admit it.

[Dirty]

As Much as I agree with Ron Paul.... He never was nor will he ever be the answer... No Libertarian will until the Local and State governments start having Libertarian Leaders who can start grassroots efforts into getting people in Congress. There has to be members of Congress that believe as he does, and right now there are few. Him as President would be total Anarchy in our government as it would cause the Dems and Republicans to band together as Neither Like him. In our 2 party system today Paul would have been worse for this country than Obama... At least with Obama it is making the true conservative come out in people and look at what they Democrats stand for today... With Paul 90% of the Members of Congress would have railed against Him and cause chaos..... What Good would Ron Paul do on a Island by himself in Washington with the 535 Members of Congress against Him? Not a thing... cause there is more than the 75% needed to override anything he did as President

[Cooper]

So you are saying he is so right and everyone else is so pathetically wrong that it's better to have someone equally as pathetic as congress?

How'd that work out with the last guy?

How about the new guy?

Not so good huh? That's what I thought.

[Dirty]

Ok Coop... Keep living in a Fantasy world and thinking Ron Paul as President would change the world. It would accomplish Nothing. If you think that having 90% of Congress aligned against the President is better than having them Vote Party lines now you are disillusioned. You think we are headed down a fast slope to a socialist state Now... There is no way it could be stopped with Both Major parties aligned and them having guaranteed Veto Power over anything the President could possible do.

It has nothing to do with whether Paul is More right than the rest of the Congressman. It has nothing to with right and wrong. It is about a 3rd Party gaining ground in this Nation. No way in Hell the two Major Parties will allow a 3rd Party President threaten their Power unless they have to. As Long as K-Street controls the Votes in Congress and the DNC and the RNC can raise money in the Hundreds of Millions of dollars at the drop of a hat and freeze out the little guy he has no chance. Not to even mention the Control of the Media that the Lobbyists and advertisers have. We saw that with 3rd Party Canididates and Paul being frozen out of the debates that were on National TV. The two party system is Entrenched and the only way to get rid of it is Term Limits for All Congressmen and Disband K-Street. We have Term Limits for the President... so we damn well should for congress as they are more powerful the way the Constitution is set up....

Fundraising also needs to be capped at so much or all Money raised goes into a General Fund and dispersed on how Candidates do in Caucuses and Primaries... we also need to limit Campaigning to 12 months before the election instead of 3 years like last time...

The ONLY way a 3rd party Candidate gains any ground in this Nation is to elect Congressmen first. Then they can band enough votes together to Filibuster the two major parties to show them they can make a difference.

The Grass is not always greener on the other side.... We are seeing that now and all these buffoons that voted for Obama just to see "Change" and not for his qualifications.

Am I saying to give up the fight for a Viable 3rd party to change things .... HELL NO!!! But the fight has to start from the Bottom to the top and Not Vice Versa... You just destroy the foundation you are trying to build when you try to put on the Steeple before the rest of the Building is Built..... It starts Locally then Works its way up... Only way it can be successful without Term Limits, K Street being eliminated and getting the Congressmen out of Big Business' Pockets...

[Cooper]

Two things. A) You are talking about the possibility of him getting elected. I am not. I know that it is simply not possible.
B) You are operating on the assumption that the two parties would work together. That is one big assumption. I do not believe that would be the case.

There are plenty of Congressmen that are moderate but are forced to play party games. Having a guy like Paul as president might free them from their obligation which only exists so they they might maintain their office.

Term limits would also help to solve that issue.

You want to argue about whether or not he could be effective because of what other people would do. Therefore, any time it is brought up you close your mind and revert to this same argument.

I don't want to talk about other people trying to undercut him.

My point is that he has the best ideas and the best values, and has only the best interest of the American people at heart. Now, all of his ideas may not be the best and they may not all work, but you cannot say that he doesn't have the people's best interest in mind.

Now, other candidates including our current president may believe they are doing what is best for our country but their belief is that having their party in power and maintaining power is what's best, rather than considering individual policies.

If the Congressmen and women care more about their party than they do the country, enough to intentionally undermine the president, I think that says EXACTLY where the problem lies in this country.

Continuing to elect those same people to office, reelecting them, and electing them to an even HIGHER office (see President Obama) sends a pretty clear message to them: Do whatever you want, the American people are too lazy to care.

Electing someone like Ron Paul says we are mad as hell and we aren't going to take it anymore. They value their jobs and their power. They'll come around pretty damn quick when you start holding them accountable.