Ohio Opposition Changes Tactics

11/03/2008		Ohio Opposition Changes Tactics
Home History Games News Dictionary		As voting deadlines come closer, those who stand against the proposals of bringing a casino to the Clinton County area in Ohio fear their likelihood of losing. The concern has motivated a change in their opposition, as they try a new tactic to preventing the casino’s construction. Whereas up to this point, the claim has been that opening up a casino in the county by Native Americans would prevent the management from having to pay taxes on the income to the state, if only because of how the bill was worded. The argument however, is not the strongest, as there are no tribes in the area that would be able to open the casino under tribal control and on sovereign land. Stating that if an Indian casino were to open, the state would miss out on the taxes- and therefore the casino proposal should be dismissed, makes little sense if there are no Indians about to take charge of the project. The new argument, developed specifically to battle on in the losing war of Issue 6, relies on persuading the general public that building a casino in Clinton County will not in fact generate any more income for the state, or insufficient funds to maintain other areas of interest in the region. The money-issue can only be solved, they say, if a private company were to be placed in charge, and be responsible for paying the astronomical taxes such an endeavor would result in. Jeff Hooke, of the Buckeye Institute published a statement in defence of the opposition to Issue 6: “We think if the state wants to legalize gambling, the state should auction off this kind of casino license to the highest bidder… There's going to be less money for restaurants, less money for bowling alleys, and less money for movie theatres.” It is possible that revenues that would normally be spent at the movie theatres might go into the new casino; however, again the argument has holes. With the casino would come the development of 5,000 new jobs and generate an estimated new $200 million into the Ohioan economy. Hooke seems resistant to consider how likely it is that all of the new funds, and all 5,000 new employees will be reinvesting the money into their workplace. With new jobs, comes more expendable income- especially for things like movie theaters and bowling alleys. With the American economy struggling in a recession, fighting against a depression, it seems unrealistic for Hooke to encourage fear in Clinton voters against new jobs, opportunities, and above all, income. Only November will tell, and who knows what the argument will sound like by then?

11/03/2008

Ohio Opposition Changes Tactics

As voting deadlines come closer, those who stand against the proposals of bringing a casino to the Clinton County area in Ohio fear their likelihood of losing. The concern has motivated a change in their opposition, as they try a new tactic to preventing the casino’s construction.

Whereas up to this point, the claim has been that opening up a casino in the county by Native Americans would prevent the management from having to pay taxes on the income to the state, if only because of how the bill was worded. The argument however, is not the strongest, as there are no tribes in the area that would be able to open the casino under tribal control and on sovereign land. Stating that if an Indian casino were to open, the state would miss out on the taxes- and therefore the casino proposal should be dismissed, makes little sense if there are no Indians about to take charge of the project.

The new argument, developed specifically to battle on in the losing war of Issue 6, relies on persuading the general public that building a casino in Clinton County will not in fact generate any more income for the state, or insufficient funds to maintain other areas of interest in the region. The money-issue can only be solved, they say, if a private company were to be placed in charge, and be responsible for paying the astronomical taxes such an endeavor would result in.
Jeff Hooke, of the Buckeye Institute published a statement in defence of the opposition to Issue 6: “We think if the state wants to legalize gambling, the state should auction off this kind of casino license to the highest bidder… There's going to be less money for restaurants, less money for bowling alleys, and less money for movie theatres.”

It is possible that revenues that would normally be spent at the movie theatres might go into the new casino; however, again the argument has holes. With the casino would come the development of 5,000 new jobs and generate an estimated new $200 million into the Ohioan economy. Hooke seems resistant to consider how likely it is that all of the new funds, and all 5,000 new employees will be reinvesting the money into their workplace. With new jobs, comes more expendable income- especially for things like movie theaters and bowling alleys.

With the American economy struggling in a recession, fighting against a depression, it seems unrealistic for Hooke to encourage fear in Clinton voters against new jobs, opportunities, and above all, income. Only November will tell, and who knows what the argument will sound like by then?