2 Congressmen Fight Back

[oldbookguy]

Rep. Peter King (R) and Rep. Steve Israel (D) Are Fighting back with a good Op-Ed in the NY Post.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08142007/pos..._peter_king.htm

Story:
August 14, 2007 -- THE Treasury Department is charged with a number of law-enforcement jobs - protect ing the president, investigating counterfeit money, tracking terrorist financing and more. But now, thanks to a legislative "rider" passed last year, Congress has told Treasury officials to spend their time and resources going after something far more trivial - people who play cards from their home computers.

Frankly, federal law-enforcement officials have bigger fish to fry.

In the final hours before Congress went out of session last October, anti-gambling lobbyists got their "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act" attached to our port-security bill. The move allowed their measure to ride the coattails of our vital legislation and become law.

The ban on Internet gambling is misdirected - and it's also probably unenforceable. People will still gamble on the Web, just without the protections that a legal framework could provide to ensure age-verification and protection against fraud. And online gambling now generates $13 billion a year; under the ban, online gamblers won't send a portion of that cash in tax dollars to the Treasury - instead, it'll go to scam artists and gray market entrepreneurs.

The Internet poses new challenges and problems. When the music industry ignored the massive and growing consumer desire to access songs online, a piracy industry blossomed. Similarly, our bans on Internet gambling have been effective only in pushing the business off U.S. shores and out of the hands of scrupulous businesses. By contrast, simply taxing Web betting would generate significant revenues that could be used for a variety of domestic priorities.

Of course, some serious issues need to be addressed. Children, gambling addicts and those who would try to use gambling sites for illicit purposes absolutely need to be restricted from these Web sites. But it is far easier to put in common-sense protections when the industry is controlled by law-abiding businesses than when it operates as an illegal market. Thankfully, technology now allows companies to address these issues. In Britain, where Internet gambling is legal and regulated, technology checks ensure that gamblers are of age and are not problem gamblers; watch lists work to prevent money-laundering.

The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, which we've cosponsored, uses fines and revokes licenses for Web sites that don't sufficiently police against improper use. That's the right approach. Rather than simply repeal the ban on Internet gambling, our Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act would create a regulatory framework that ensures operators are licensed and protects consumers against underage gambling, compulsive gambling, money-laundering, identity theft and fraud.

In the end, there is the question of how much we want government to be involved in our private lives: For many, playing poker with friends on the Internet is a way to unwind at the end of the day. Technology aside, Web gambling isn't so different than the way Americans have relaxed and enjoyed the company of friends for decades.

Years ago, the Treasury's Secret Service agents used to help Harry Truman put poker games together in the White House. Now they'd be locking him up.

Reps. Steve Israel, a Democrat, and Peter King, a Republican, represent Long Island.

obg

[meleader2]

Please dealer one time.

[75s]

[ QUOTE ]
Please dealer one time.

[/ QUOTE ]

When the new york times and wsj publish this, then we've got outs...otherwise, drawing dead.

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please dealer one time.

[/ QUOTE ]

When the new york times and wsj publish this, then we've got outs...otherwise, drawing dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. As most know the Post is a very right-wing paper. To have a paper that caters to the right wing print a commentary like this is very significant, perhaps even more significant than if it appeared in the Times.

[oldbookguy]

If you visit the Post article, below the picture of Truman is a link - REDDIT - click this, choose a name and password - NO E-MAIL ADDRESS REQUIRED - and add a positive comment, the more the better.

my comment added:
Finally there is at least ONE sensible Republican in congress!
I read early on where Rep. King stated, we never intended to ban poker, at LEAST he has the moxey to admit a mistake and take steps to rectify his error!

article: http://www.nypost.com/seven/08142007/pos..._peter_king.htm

obg

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Finally there is at least ONE sensible Republican in congress!

Ron Paul has been there all along. These 2 guys are just parroting the same old lies about internet gambling. They just want another way to stick their hands in our pockets.

The sites we play at are not "unscrupulous" nor run by "con artists." The fact that they use the term "gray market" gives me the creeps.

Right now we have precisely ONE ally in congress, Ron Paul, who would keep online poker available and UNREGULATED.

[oldbookguy]

I don't actually consider Paul a republican any more than he does at heart, he is a Libertarian running under the GOP banner as it was the only way he could get elected, his words, not mine.

obg

[Uglyowl]

While I am happy Peter King is now on our side, but I find it hard to believe that he didn’t know that cards would be effected by passing this law.

I remember calling Mr. King’s office and explaining this to his staff and was told his lines were flooded with similar messagesn by the operator.

If Mr. King held these views back in October we probably wouldn’t have been where we are today. I am glad he has seen the error of his ways, don’t get me wrong, but I have mixed feelings here. The negative being enacting a law which you do not know how it will impact American citizens.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't actually consider Paul a republican any more than he does at heart, he is a Libertarian running under the GOP banner as it was the only way he could get elected, his words, not mine.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

To be clear, Ron Paul ran for President as a Libertarian in '88, but ultimately left the LP because of its non-stand on abortion.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
The sites we play at are not "unscrupulous" nor run by "con artists." The fact that they use the term "gray market" gives me the creeps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? What gives me the creeps is that when a site like UB tries to play games with my cashout, the closest thing I have to a recourse is posting something bad about them on 2+2.

When I have this kind of money at stake, I happen to like having some sort of oversight authority in place.