“I understand that America is a mess right now. Unemployment and the economy are in a dismal state. It is my number one priority to solve these problems and fix the economy. But people, don’t spend money! Save it! Stuff it under your mattress! Keep it away from the greedy banks and don’t spend it on frivolous things! Hoard your money because you’re going to need it!”

Obviously, saying something like that would be terrible for the economy and is the exact opposite of what the country needs. It’s also a loose paraphrase of the words of President Barack Obama. Throughout his year in the White House and even before, Obama has made it clear that he’s not a fan of capitalism, taking every opportunity to portray businesses as greedy, people as being in need of handouts, and the government being responsible for taking care of the people. That would be fine, except that he is the president of a country that has a Representative Republic system of government and a capitalist form of economy. His attitudes are not only counterproductive, but also downright dangerous for both.

The most recent of many examples of this is Obama’s criticism of Las Vegas and people who visit the city. Obama recently said that people saving money for college shouldn’t waste their money on gambling in Vegas. Last February, he made a similar remark about companies that received TARP funds, saying that it was irresponsible for them to take trips to the Sin City.

It’s no surprise that an anti-capitalist wouldn’t realize that trips to conferences and junkets in places like Las Vegas are an important part of the process of obtaining and retaining clients. But at least in that case he was criticizing the spending of money by companies that had received money from taxpayers. In his recent comments, he criticized private citizens for spending their own money.

Lawmakers and businessmen in Vegas are understandably furious and many have vowed to support whoever runs against Obama in 2012. They recognize that his comments and policies are bad for Las Vegas, the state of Nevada, and the country as a whole.

While the entire country has a dismal unemployment rate of 10% — you know, the catastrophic number that Obama said we would reach if he didn’t get to pass his “stimulus” bill – Nevada is even worse, at 13%. You should also note that both are conservative estimates that don’t count people with part-time jobs, those who have given up looking for work, and those who work on a temporary project. And with unemployment that bad and Nevada’s tourism industry struggling, the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the country (with the exception of George Soros and Al Gore), is telling people not to visit Las Vegas and not to spend money in their casinos, which just so happens to be the biggest industry they have in the state. Real responsible, Mr. President.

People of the United States and the rest of the world, spend your money as you see fit. You should of course be responsible, but if you have the disposable income to take a vacation, I can think of no place better than Vegas. Of course, as I’ve said countless times, you should never wager money that you can’t afford to lose, but if you can afford to lose it, Las Vegas would be happy to have it.

As the recession that Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner won’t admit exists shows no sign of getting better, states are looking at ways to make more money. Right now, most states are hemorrhaging cash and every little bit of revenue is needed. For that reason, Iowa and Kansas are the latest to look at their current gambling laws and discuss whether they need to be changed.

Right now lawmakers in Iowa are considering expanding their legal gambling by expanding the areas where it can occur. Currently casinos can only offer gambling on the gambling floors. The new legislation would allow gambling to occur in other rooms in the casino. The advantage would be that casinos could open poker rooms and start hosting major poker tournaments, which in theory could be a big source of revenue for the state. So it seems that in 2010, the politicians in Iowa finally realized that poker is big and involves a lot of money. In related news, the state legislature has said that they believe that the Internet is starting to catch on. If only there was a way of making money off of the Internet…

Meanwhile, Kansas lawmakers are basically asking for a do-over. In 2007, the Democratic-led Congress passed a law to bring in four state-owned casinos. As early as 2008, they realized that they wrote a terrible law that gave no incentive for anyone to actually buy property, build a casino on it, and open the business. Basically, the state charges way too much upfront for everyone involved and in a bad economy, no one is willing to risk paying that money. This is why Democrats should never try to have anything to do with business or economics. They simply have no understanding of either.

As a result of the bad bill, though the casinos are legal in the state, none exist. Last year, the lawmakers realized that they badly needed the casino revenue due to the recession, but were unwilling to take the time to discuss changing the law because they were too busy dealing with the recession and trying to find ways to help the economy (no, I’m not making this up). So now that, according to the federal government, the recession is over, they want a do-over.

Some Republicans are against amending the law. Republican House Speaker Mike O’Neal said that “they got the deal they wanted. They can live with the deal they got.” The Democratic response was something along the lines of, “Look, we’re Democrats. We always write terrible bills. That’s what we do! (It’s also why we don’t bother reading them). Don’t hold that against us. Let us try again and I assure you we’ll come up with a good one this time!”

The proposed changes in the law are aimed at making it more affordable for companies to come in and start up a casino. Among other things, there would be a drop in the investment that is required of developers from $225 million to $100 million. There is also a fee that must be paid up front to the state for the privilege of allowing the state to run your casino. That fee would drop from $25 million to $11 million. Another change would be to give the developers a larger cut of the profits from the casinos.

It will be interesting to see if the Kansas lawmakers do end up rewriting the gambling bill and if so, whether it will bring any casinos to the state. If not, they can always try again. If at first you don’t succeed…

Last Friday, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm signed a new smoking ban into law that outlaws smoking in all bars and restaurants. The new law will take effect in May 2010. Similar smoking bans already exist in other states, such as Florida and California. Smokers have predictably called the legislation discrimination, saying that it tramples on their right to smoke wherever they please. Like is often the case, these people have no idea what is a “right” in our country and what is a privilege. I’ve read the US Constitution many times, including the Bill of Rights, and smoking is never mentioned. The anti-smoking crowd points out that they have a right to eat food without choking on someone else’s cigarette smoke, but they aren’t right either. The truth is, each establishment has the right to choose whether or not they want to allow smoking. A smart restaurant separates the smoking and non-smoking sections in such a way that smoke from the smoking section won’t bother people in the non-smoking section. If they do not, non-smokers have right to refuse to eat there. But I digress. For the record, I think smoking is a filthy habit and I can’t enjoy eating a meal when someone else’s smoke is in my face. Plus there is still that believe, though unproven, that second-hand smoke can cause cancer.

As is often the case, though, the new legislation does not affect everyone equally. Lobbyists are very good at getting new laws to work to their benefit. As a result, cigar bars and casinos are exempt from the smoking ban. As a result, some believe that casino business could increase. Smokers enjoy smoking as a social activity, and if they can’t do it at their local bar but can at a casino, why not go to the casino? And while you’re there, you can always try your hand at blackjack.

Some employees of casinos have complained about having to inhale smoke all night at work and are likely unhappy with the exemption, but there are now plenty of places where they can work in a smoke-free environment. Only time will tell if the ban significantly increases the business of the casinos, because it’s unlikely that smokers will go there instead of a restaurant to eat, but they could take away a lot of business from bars. Of course, while that’s good for the casinos, it’s not so good for the bars. We’ll keep you posted.