Generally speaking, governments tend to work very slowly. This is mostly because they are very inefficient machines that have more impediments toward getting things done than stuff put in place to help getting things done. Bureaucratic red tape clogs the works and keeps things moving at a snail’s pace. For just two examples in the United States, look at the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), which was passed in 2006 yet won’t take effect until June of this year at the earliest, and Obama’s healthcare reform act, which is now passed yet the supposed “benefits” won’t kick in until at least 2014.

It’s not just the U.S. government that represents the model of inefficiency, though. Pretty much every government is like that. Right now that inefficiency and inability to get things done in a timely manner is really hurting the government of South Africa.

In 2008, the country legalized online gambling and passed legislation that would regulate and tax the industry. The new law allows for up to ten online casino operators to set up in South Africa and begin serving their citizens. Those casinos must be approved for a license by the Minister of Trade and Industry, Rob Davies. So far, for reasons unknown to me, he has yet to give the okay to a single online casino.

As a result of the political foot-dragging, ineptitude, or whatever is going on, black market online casinos have sprung up and become major players in the industry. The people of South Africa are now getting their online gambling, but the government isn’t getting the tax money. Not only that, but there is no government agency assuring the fairness of those casinos.

Last week, government officials met for the national Gambling Review Commission (no, we’re not a sponsor; they just used our name). In that meeting, advisors, some of whom pushed for the Interactive Gambling Act in 2008, described the illegal gambling activity going on in the country and its affect on the nation.

This is yet another example showing that the government can’t ever effectively deprive the people of something they want. If they want to gamble, they will find a way to do so. That is why the South African government passed the Interactive Gambling Act two years ago. However, because they have yet to license any online casinos, the black market has jumped in and supplied the goods demanded by the people. Now the government has two problems, because they still need to get around to approving and adequately taxing and regulating the online gambling in the country, but now they also have competition from illegal sites.

The European Union (EU) is kind of funny. They love to regulate and control the lives of the citizens of its member states and they love to control all business, but if someone actually stands up to them and says no, they don’t know what to do. That is because, despite all of their power and greed, the EU is still basically spineless.

Whenever a member country defies EU rules, they respond in much the same way as the United Nations: they tell you that they don’t like it. Do it again and you might get a friendly letter reminding you of the EU laws. Keep doing it and the letters may get less pleasant. Keep doing it after that and who knows what will happen? They might condemn you.

As part of the EU’s Free Trade Agreement creates a single set of rules and regulations for commerce between its member nations. Each member nation must accept and abide by the EU rules and the result is supposed to be a simplified and more inclusive market. The problem is that nations aren’t following the rules. Estonia is the latest to defy the EU’s regulations on online gambling.

Under EU rules, countries must accept all European-based online casinos and related sites, giving no preference based on origin. Estonia has recently begun licensing online gambling operators, but only those that are not included on their blacklist. Several things can land a casino on the blacklist, with one of them being having your operations based outside of Estonia. The country is giving preference to casinos based inside their borders and excluding foreign competition, a practice that is strictly prohibited under EU rules.

So far there has been no response from the European Union, but these things take time. After all, for some time now Germany, France and Greece have been ignoring the EU regulations and giving preference to their own casinos. Spain is giving tax breaks to customers who win money at Spanish casinos but none if you win at a foreign site.

Meanwhile, there has been little response from the EU. They now have a new Internal Markets Commissioner, who has drafted a paper and sent it to each member nation reminding them of the free trade rules. Now that a new country has joined in the defiance, you wonder what is next.

Those lovable lunatics at the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are now going after Mike Tyson. It’s not for anything you might think, like operating an underground pigeon fighting ring or biting their heads off. They’re mad because he races pigeons.

Seriously. Mike Tyson is a brute well known for sexual assault, biting the ears off his opponents, threatening to cannibalize his opponents’ children and getting a weird tribal tattoo on his face, so I wouldn’t put anything past him, but from all reports I’ve heard the man is a genuine animal-lover who owns and cares for hundreds of pigeons. That’s why he has a new show on Animal Planet called Take on Tyson, where he will race pigeons, which Tyson claims is his first love, before beating the pulp out of people for money.

So what’s PETA’s problem? According to those crazy critter-lovers, “Tyson’s claim to care about pigeons is rather incredulous given that he chooses to tout using them in a ‘sport’ that – like horseracing — exposes them to danger and death.” In case you’re wondering, PETA released that in a statement, so they actually had time to plan out that response rather than being cornered with a question about pigeons.

So the reality-challenged folks at PETA think that pigeon racing is bad because it exposes them to danger and death? For the uninitiated, this is basically what pigeon racing entails: releasing pigeons and letting them fly through the air. Basically, it’s exactly what pigeons do in their regular, day-to-day life, except that they’re competing against others, even if they don’t know it. If flying is too dangerous for pigeons, does PETA suggest a massive campaign to clip all of their wings? Something tells me they’d be against that.

The fur-hating fruitcakes were unable to block Tyson’s televised pigeon race, so now they have a new tactic. They want Tyson and everyone involved arrested. On what charge, you ask? Illegal gambling, of course. This was naturally a surprise to Tyson and the folks at Animal Planet, since there was no betting on the pigeon races.

PETA, however, has always had a distorted view of reality. According to their crackpot team of legal experts, because Tyson is being paid for the show, he is profiting from gambling on the pigeons. Betting on animal racing is illegal in New York state, where Tyson lives and the series is being shot, but getting paid to appear on a show where you race pigeons isn’t the same as profiting off of pigeon gambling. Where PETA’s case loses its credibility is in the fact that no one is betting on any outcomes of the races. Instead, Tyson is simply being paid to appear on a TV show and is paid the same no matter what happens with the birds. Regardless, the charge is currently being investigated by Brooklyn’s District Attorney.

When you think of big government abusing its power and taking over private industry, the state of Kentucky usually isn’t the first thing that comes to mind. But such is the problem in America that the progressive movement has so infected both major parties that even a traditionally conservative state like Kentucky has fallen victim.

Last year, Governor Steve Beshear and the state of Kentucky attempted to seize the domain names of 141 online gambling sites. The Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) and the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC) immediately filed a petition to block the seizure of those domains. Under current state statutes, online gambling isn’t even illegal in the state of Kentucky, though of course laws can be interpreted a variety of ways, which is why lawyers exist.

Yesterday, the state Supreme Court ruled against the 141 gambling sites. In the ruling, the court stated that the domain names themselves cannot serve as an entity and court and they must be owned by a person or entity. With no owners in court, iMEGA therefore did not supply a member of the domain names. In other words, the court threw out the petition because iMEGA’s clients did not appear in court.

As a result of this ruling, the state of Kentucky can once again attempt to seize the online gambling domain names. If they do, however, it’s likely that iMEGA would file another petition. It is the belief of iMEGA that the Supreme Court’s ruling is not final and that if they can produce an owner of one or more of the domain names, the Court would be willing to hear their case.

Joe Brennan, Chairman of iMEGA, stated that “the Court clearly indicates they agree with our arguments and are inviting us to re-file so that the technicality of the standing issue can be resolved.” iMega plans to re-file and when the Supreme Court reaches a decision, we’ll let you know.

Tribal casinos employ approximately 280,000 people across the United States, many of whom are American citizens. For the most part, the casinos are not subject to union control. However, one of the biggest tribal casinos, Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut, is the first to sign a union agreement under tribal law. They may soon be the first tribal casino to file for bankruptcy.

Foxwoods Casino, I hope you enjoyed making money and having productive employees, because you have a union contract now, so you can kiss all of that goodbye. Say hello to fewer hours worked, longer lunch breaks, more frequent breaks, a higher payroll and a workplace full of employees who have no incentive to try their best. Say hello to unionized labor.

The dealers at the casino were upset because the big, bad company was mistreating them for no good reason so they decided to organize and set up collective bargaining. One dealer told NPR that they wanted to join a union because they were “angry that we were losing these good benefits that we had when the company was still making money.”

Um… So you admit that they’re no longer making money? In 2007, revenue was down so the casino had to cut costs in payroll and benefits. It’s what economists would call balancing a budget. That’s kind of like what you’re supposed to do with your finances at home – make sure you’re not spending more than you’re making. Anyway, after cuts were made the dealers got upset and voted to join the United Auto Workers union. Yes, that would be the same UAW that has led to GM, Ford and Chrysler being so successful of late.

In order to stay in business the casino had to lay off a large part of their workforce, including 700 employees as recently as the fall of 2009. The casino’s revenue is down 13% and has $700 million in debt that is due.  And how did the UAW respond to this financial crisis that could lead to the company filing for bankruptcy? They got raises for the workforce!

The recently completed deal gives dealers a 12% raise, allows part-time employees to receive the benefits of full-time employees and provides a more beneficial system for tips. The UAW even gushed with pride that the contract is so “progressive,” which is union code for “bad for business.”

Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I always thought that when a company was hemorrhaging money was a bad time to hold your hand out and ask for a bigger cut. We’ve seen how well that has worked with the Big Three automakers. Union contracts have put them in a situation where it’s almost impossible to make a profit. Is such a fate coming to the casino industry now as well? The UAW hopes so, and they have been going after the casino industry for years.

None of this was even possible until 2007. Because tribal territory is considered a sovereign nation separate from the United States, they had always been immune from any federal labor laws, including the National Labor Relations Act. However, in 2007 a California judge ruled against the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and said that federal labor laws did apply to tribal casinos because they employ so many non-tribal members. So let’s get this straight. Because American citizens decide of their own free will to take a job for a company that operates on foreign soil, that foreign company now has to abide by American labor laws? That makes no sense. The tribes saw the ruling as an assault on their sovereignty, and rightfully so, and as a result it has opened the floodgates for powerful unions like the UAW to take control.

So is bankruptcy next for the Foxwood Casino? It’s unclear whether a tribal casino is even eligible for bankruptcy, but then again, logic would state that federal labor laws don’t apply to them, so who knows? If not bankruptcy, since the UAW is involved, a taxpayer-funded bailout may be in the future. And if it happens, we all know where the bulk of those bailout funds will go: to the UAW.

And here is example number one billion of why governments are stupid, ineffective creatures that do more harm than good. The state of Idaho actually has a law that makes using common sense illegal.

Yes, you read that correctly. Right now it is a misdemeanor for prosecutors or police officers to fail to act on a gambling “crime” that they know is in progress. Sure, we want the law to be enforced, but I have never heard of them being held accountable for not doing so before. This whole issue came up when the police raided a senior center and made arrests because a $20 poker game was being played. The police acted on what common sense says to ignore because failing to do so would be against the law, and they took an oath to uphold that law.

People should never knowingly break the law, but it is necessary for the police and prosecutors to use discretion in the enforcement of those laws. How would our society be if the police ticketed everyone who jaywalked, rode a bicycle on the wrong side of the road, or drove one mile-per-hour over the speed limit? Common sense says to focus on the bigger crimes and when it comes to the smaller ones, use your own judgment to determine whether or not it is worth your time.

Luckily, due in part to arrests like the senior center incident, lawmakers in Idaho have changed their minds. Yesterday, Governor Butch Otter (yes, that’s his name) signed a bill into law that allows law enforcement agencies to use their discretion in such cases. The law will go into effect on July 1. From that time on, the police will not be committing a crime if they decide not to haul grandma into jail for betting $5 on a square in the office Super Bowl pool.

The original law came into existence because once upon a time there was rampant illegal gambling going on in Idaho and the authorities were ignoring it. However, time and again we have seen that increasingly restrictive and specific laws usually end up doing away with common sense. In fact, if we just followed common sense, there wouldn’t be need for very many laws at all. After all, do we need a law saying you can’t steal someone else’s property? Obviously that’s bad!

But I digress. The new law is a victory for anyone who favors common sense over Draconian rule. Sense, of course, isn’t all that common, especially in government, so it’s nice to see it prevail on these rare occasions. Now they just need to consider whether or not it’s common sense to let people gamble with their own money.

A recent study on US gambling habits claims to show that while visits to brick and mortar casinos are declining, there is an increase in online casino business. This is despite the belief that online gambling is illegal in America (wrong: it is only banned in 4 states) and the worry that the passage of the UIGEA in 2006 means the government can prosecute online gamblers and confiscate their winnings (it gives the authority for neither).

A survey by a media study group called Mintel International Group showed that 30% of Americans visited a land-based casino in 2009, which is down from 35% in 2001. Mintel also reports that 12% of Americans visited an online casino in 2009, which they say is an increase from an undisclosed amount. In truth, there is no way to accurately determine how many Americans gamble online, since so many think it is illegal or at least vague (to say that some states’ gambling laws are unclear on the subject is an understatement).

So what does this all mean? Perhaps nothing. You may recall that in 2009 the economy started getting pretty bad, with the bank bailouts and the housing bubble bursting and everything. Job losses, fear of job losses, depleted savings accounts and 401(k)’s led to a decrease in tourism everywhere, and that includes hotspots like Las Vegas.

Many in the online gambling community, including some of our competitors, have looked at this information and concluded that it means online casinos are taking business away from brick and mortar casinos. It means people have decided to gambling online instead of taking a trip to a casino. That’s possible, but it’s impossible to tell conclusively. Maybe if we were certain that the online gambling figure of 12% was a significant increase, that would mean something. However, with no previous number given, maybe the 12% figure is a decrease as well. Also, one year isn’t a big enough sample to conclude that former land-based gamblers are now playing online. In one year, any shift could be because of the economy. Even if more people are gambling online, it could be because it’s cheaper and if/when the economy improves they will go back to taking trips to Vegas and Atlantic City.

But for the sake of argument, let’s say that it’s true that people who once gambled in land-based casinos are now exclusively playing online. Why would that be? It’s probably because of price and convenience. Blockbuster is fighting tooth and nail to keep every possible customer right now amid their massive store closings, while people flock to Netflix and Pay-Per-View. Those services are cheaper and don’t require the customer to leave their house. Remember, Americans are lazy. Similarly, iTunes and internet piracy has led to closings of countless music stores. I even went into Best Buy recently with a list of about 20 CD’s I was looking for and couldn’t find one. They had nothing but bare shelves with one copy of a few current hit albums. It’s a sad day when a music store doesn’t fully stock CD’s anymore. They did, however, have lots of iTunes gift cards.

Whether the trend toward online gambling, if it’s a trend, continues or not, this study does tell us something: At least 12% of the country is gambling online at casinos that are operating in the jurisdiction of other countries. That is a lot of tax revenue that the government is losing. If there’s one thing our power-hungry government hates, it’s missing out on the ability to take someone’s money. Therefore, you can probably expect a federal regulation of online gambling in the near future.

Right now the state of Nevada is trying to balance their budget. In an attempt to meet that goal, they have proposed raising the taxes and fees placed on the gambling industry. Representatives from the state’s casinos, who are already being bled by the government, predictably said no. According to the Associated Press, the casinos’ unwillingness to accept higher taxes could derail “plans to raise enough extra revenue to avoid deep cuts to education and social services.”

This is how it always goes, isn’t it? We want to raise your taxes! No? Fine, we’ll have to lay off teachers then! This form of government blackmail is certainly nothing new, but it’s also dishonest. Governments love taking money and when you resist, they don’t take that lightly. I lived in the great state of Florida for a large portion of my life and I can tell you that every time the city faced opposition to raising taxes, they claimed that if they don’t hike the taxes then they’ll have to lay off teachers, police and fire fighters. The state acted the same way. You hear it from across the country and I would imagine every state uses this form of manipulation whenever they want to raise taxes. But it is dishonest.

If you listen to that argument, you are led to believe that the cities and states only pay for three things: education, police and the fire department. After all, those are the only places they can make cuts if taxes aren’t raised, right? I can think of a few other ways to balance the budget.

Does every road in the state need to be under construction? Do you need pretty grass and flowers in the median that need to be watered daily? And since Nevada brought up social services, are there a few people out there receiving welfare checks that don’t need them? Are there a few government employees with unnecessary jobs? Are there a few government employees making too much money (since those jobs pay considerably more than the private sector)? Can we cut back on some of the wasted “expenses” of government employees? This is just a list off the top of my head. Anyone who sits down and looks at the expenditures of the government can come up with lots of ways to balance the budget without letting teachers go. The point is this:

Don’t believe the lie. Nevada, you should be ashamed for threatening cuts in education if you don’t get more money. Then again, Nevada ranks 47^th in the nation in education, so there’s a good chance a lot of those teachers should be let go, anyway. So let’s add the teachers unions to the list of problems, since they make it almost impossible to fire bad teachers. A bad teacher is an unnecessary expense.

People panic when they hear that the government will have to lay off teachers and police and that’s exactly what the government wants. Worse yet, on occasion they actually go through with the threats, while refusing to make any of the cuts I mentioned above. One thing you need to remember, though, is that anytime the government enacts a new tax or fee, they never get rid of it, even if they say it’s temporary. And if they raise taxes it’s very difficult to get them cut again.

The government works for you and is supposed to serve you, but they waste your money and always ask for more. Balancing the budget means making the amount of your money that they take equal the amount of your money that they spend. Since both types of money are yours, shouldn’t you get a say in how much is taken, what it’s spent on, and where the cuts are made?

Nevada and other states are doing nothing more than using scare tactics to get what they want: your money. The casinos in Nevada are already losing money in this recession. Increasing their taxes and fees would be crippling, but that’s not the government’s concern. The government doesn’t care about the business’s profits as long as they can get their share of the money. That’s why taxes are taken out of gross revenue rather than net. The casinos are right to reject the tax hike and as a result, uninformed idiots have branded them bad guys who don’t care about education. However, it is the state of Nevada, not the casinos, that is threatening the teachers, when they know there are much better ways to make cuts.

This is what governments do, though. They can’t just ask nicely for more money because most people will say no. Instead, they come up with a catastrophe that more money will avert. The planet will be destroyed by “global warming” unless we pass cap and trade legislation (which is essentially the largest tax hike on the middle class in history)! Our entire country will be unemployed unless we pass this “stimulus” bill! We’ll become a third-world country if we don’t bail out the banks and auto manufacturers! Those are all federal examples, but state and local governments do the same exact thing, but on a smaller scale. They invent or exaggerate problems that, according to them, can only be solved by taking or spending more of your money. It is a con, nothing more. Don’t buy into it.

On Thursday, the Indiana House approved a bill that would require deadbeat parents to pay child support before collecting their casino winnings. The bill passed the Senate earlier and now has to go back to the Senate for a few changes to be approved.

Once it is signed into law, anyone who wins an amount of $1200 or more at a casino must first have their name run through a database before they are given their winnings. If they are shown to be at least $2000 behind in child support payments, part or all of their winnings would be withheld and given to the correct party as a child support payment. Of course, that would be after the state takes their cut of the winnings for taxes. $1200 is the minimum amount that requires a tax form to be immediately filed in the state of Indiana.

This bill is a tough one to gauge as far as whether it’s a good idea. On the one hand, who is going to stick up for deadbeat parents who aren’t helping support a child that they had no problem creating? Certainly I won’t. On the other hand, I’m not a fan of the government taking the possessions of private citizens, either. If you win money at a casino, that is your money. What right does the government have to take that money and use it for what they deem appropriate? The answer is none. The government does not have a right to do that.

Representative Trent Van Haaften, who voted for the bill, said that it is just “another way to ensure that if you plant a seed, you tend the garden.” Certainly anyone who creates a child should do their part in helping raise that child. Ideally, both parents raise the child together, but there are circumstances where that doesn’t happen, in which case one of the parents (usually the father) pays child support instead.

So the government is doing this because they care about the children, right? Umm… Sort of. It seems to me that if the children were the primary concern, the government wouldn’t tax the amount until the child support is paid, either, but that’s not the case. Instead, what the government is saying is that if you win money at a casino and are behind in child support payments, you can’t take your cut of the money until the child support is paid. The government, however, will take their cut right away, even if that means less money is paid toward child support. So it seems that providing for children is important, but not important enough for the government to give up its share of the money.