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.

Well, President Obama in a speech five days before the election said that they were “five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Well, he’s right, but not in the way that he intended. I believe that Obama wants to fundamentally transform America by doing away with the private sector, capitalism and basically democracy. He wants to shift a rather centrist nation far to the left. However, what he has done is transformed the nation by shifting it to the right.

As the government has tried to grab as much power as possible and grow as large as possible, there has been rebellion among the American people. Equally as important, though, is how it has affected the Republican Party. The Republican Party as it existed in 2008 was more liberal than the Democratic Party in the days of President John F. Kennedy. As a result of the current administration’s policies, though, Republican voters have learned that now we need conservativism more than ever and that big government, high taxes, and high spending policies can’t be accepted, whether it’s coming from a Democrat or a Progressive Republican, such as George W. Bush, John McCain and Charlie Crist. As a result, McCain and Crist are likely to lose in the primaries for their senate seats.

But what about president? At last weekend’s Conservative Political Action Conference, Ron Paul won the straw poll for presidential preference. Paul, who is a Republican with very Libertarian ideology, won 31% of the vote, with Mitt Romney (a centrist) coming in second with 22%. Romney had won the straw poll in each of the last 3 years. Sarah Palin received 7%.

No one knows if Paul will run for the Republican nomination. He did in 2008 and didn’t get nearly as many votes in the primary as Romney or McCain. Times have changed, though, and his anti-spending message resonates now more than ever.

So what does this mean for online gambling? If Paul was elected president, it would be a good thing for the online gambling community in America as well as anyone who wants an expansion of brick and mortar casinos. Paul is co-sponsor of Barney Frank’s bill in the House that would overturn the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA).

Like the issues of spending and regulation, there has been a public shift in sentiment regarding gambling as well. States like Alabama that have traditionally been against gambling, either online or in casinos, are starting to come around, according to recent polls. As the economy continues to struggle and many states are facing budget deficits, adding revenue from gambling makes sense now more than ever. It would also lead to an increase of jobs, something that is badly needed, since 9.7% of the country is still unemployed according to the White House (and a much larger number according to many economists).

Before anyone gets too excited, I should point out that Ron Paul has always been considered unelectable in a national election. Though times have changed, maybe they haven’t changed enough for a man like Paul to sit in the Oval Office. However, his surge in popularity shows a shift in attitude in America, which is just as important. With Americans demanding less regulation, more freedom for private business, and a balancing of the state and federal checkbooks, online gambling legislation could be a safer bet now than ever.

Who would have guessed that getting a bunch of independent countries to agree on having the exact same laws would be difficult? Oh, I guess anyone with intelligence would. For whatever reason, that either didn’t occur to those who pushed for the establishment of a European Union back in 1993 or they just didn’t care.

In any case, if you’ve been following online gambling news you probably have noticed that there have been a lot of disputes between the European Union (EU) and its member countries about gambling. One of the things the EU is supposed to provide for its member countries is free trade. However, several countries either have a ban on foreign online casinos or give incentives for their citizens to use the casinos in their own country instead. The EU doesn’t like that.

You don’t want to make the EU mad, because when they get mad, they react about as harshly as the United Nations: They tell you that you’re being bad and ask you to stop. If you continue being bad, they’ll say that they’re getting really mad and really want you to stop. If you keep doing it, you can expect an angry letter.

The EU now has a new Internal Markets Commissioner, Michel Barnier, who resolves to end this problem once and for all. How? By drafting a paper that clearly outlines the EU’s position on online gambling, of course. He will then send the paper to each member country to remind them that these are the rules that they must follow. Not only that, but it will call out the countries that are violating the EU laws by pointing out what they’re doing wrong. Ooh, that’s gotta hurt.

So who’s ignoring the EU? A few countries right now. France, Germany and Greece have laws that give an advantage to state-run monopolies over foreign online casinos. Spain is a little more covert with their subversion. Though there is no law that gives an advantage to Spanish casinos, their tax code does. The Spanish government offers a tax break on winnings from gambling at Spanish-run casinos. If you win money from a foreign casino, however, you have to shoulder the full tax burden. For that reason, there is significant incentive for Spanish citizens to gamble using the state-run monopolies. Finland is a little more daring. They placed an outright ban on foreign online casinos, making it only legal to gamble using one of the two Finnish gambling companies.

You may be wondering where the new Internal Markets Commissioner is from. Well, Mr. Barnier happens to be from France, which is one of the countries defying the EU rules on online gambling. Maybe this will get interesting after all. France may get a very special letter from Barnier, which would basically say “I’m really disappointed in you. Oh, yeah, and you’re making me look bad.”

Gambling law in Alabama may soon change. The state has traditionally been against gambling, but recent events have some people, the residents as well as politicians, reconsidering their position. Electronic bingo machines, which are currently illegal, have sprung up across the state, but so far nothing has been done about it. Governor Robert Riley was frustrated with the fact that the city police and attorney general seemed to look the other way. In response, he formed a Task Force on Illegal Gambling last year.

One of the first actions of the task force was to raid three establishments believed to be housing illegal gambling, which include Country Crossing, VictoryLand and the White Hall Entertainment Center. However, since they did not have a warrant, a judge ordered that the raid be halted. VictoryLand then filed a restraining order. Since then, a warrant has been issued to search the establishments and in response, the businesses have closed indefinitely to avoid being raided.

And that’s where things get tricky. If the businesses are indeed running illegal gambling operations, Riley is well within his rights by going after them, though many in the gambling community see him as an evil anti-gambling activist. The attempted raids and subsequent closings, however, have stirred up controversy in the state and now it seems that the people don’t even agree with the gambling ban anymore.

Once a strong anti-gambling voice, the people of Alabama have seen their state, like the rest of the country, mired in a bad recession. Jobs are scarce and with those businesses shut down, the economy is hurting even more and countless workers are wondering if they still have jobs. As a result, a recent poll by the Christian Coalition shows that 2/3 of the people of Alabama are opposed to Riley’s gambling raids and a poll by the Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama found that 72% of the people are in favor of regulated gambling in the state and only 25% want gambling outlawed.

In response, Riley’s popularity in the state is falling and state Representative Marcel Black introduced a bill that would allow the voters to decide whether or not to legalize gambling. At this time, shutting down illegal gambling is perfectly constitutional, but doing so could hurt Riley. With thousands of jobs at stake, no one wants to be the guy who made the unemployment situation in Alabama even worse. For that reason, it may be best to let the people vote and see what they decide. In the meantime, do nothing. It may turn Riley’s stomach to turn a blind eye to illegal activity, no matter how harmless, but it may be what’s best for the state, his reputation and that of his party.

Back in 2007, Florida Governor Charlie Crist signed a deal with the Seminole tribe that would have allowed blackjack and other table games in their casinos in exchange for the state getting a cut. The deal was later shot down by the state House and then a second deal was also scrapped. In that situation, most people would give up, say they gave it the old college try and move on. Crist, however, is still fighting for a deal. The question is, why?

I don’t want to sound cynical, but I usually don’t think that politicians make decisions based on what’s best for the people. I think they make decisions based on what’s best for them, which includes covering their butts when they make a mistake. Such may be the case here.

Though I stated it before, it’s worth reiterating that Crist is fighting for money he’s already spent. You see, governors have control over the budget of their state and they allocated funds for each department within the state based on revenue from many sources, mostly taxes. In this year’s education budget for the state of Florida, $433 million comes from revenue brought in by the deal with the Seminole tribe over their blackjack tables. Since earlier this month the House voted down that deal for the second time, that $433 million doesn’t exist.

Folks, if it’s bad financial strategy for an individual to spend money they don’t have, it’s equally bad (or worse) for a state to do that. In fact, many of America’s problems stem from the fact that the federal government is doing exactly that. Now it seems that Charlie Crist, the Florida governor who wants to represent the state in the Senate, has done that as well.

To save face, Crist needs to get a deal done so he doesn’t have to explain why he had to cut $433 million from the education budget. Considering he’s already trailing Marco Rubio in the polls for the Republican primary, that would be a mistake from which it would be nearly impossible to recover. And that’s why Crist is fighting so hard for a deal.

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…

Things are getting more interesting in the great state of Kentucky in regards to gambling. The state has always been a little indecisive in regards to gambling. Horse racing is legal and a matter of state pride, the state has a lottery, yet table games and slots are banned. Online gambling, though not expressly banned in the state, has been a source of controversy ever since Governor Steve Beshear attempted to seize the domains of 141 online gambling sites.

The Senate President, David Williams, attempted to make things more clear. Like the rest of the country, the Bluegrass State is hurting financially, and any extra revenue would be helpful. Many see putting slot machines in the state’s many horse race tracks as a way to generate much-needed revenue. Some lawmakers, however, are opposed to the idea.

Williams, the leading Republican in the Senate, had a novel idea: let the voters decide. After all, the state, like the rest of the country, is supposed to be a Representative Republic, after all, which means that the people are supposed to get a say on what laws are passed.

Williams introduced a bill that would have called for a state-wide vote on the slots. The bill was blocked by the Senate Democrats, which makes sense. To Democrats, there’s no idea crazier than listening to the people. I mean, if you let constituents decide things, they may not decide what you want! And then what?

The House had previously passed a bill for gambling expansion, but with Williams’s bill shot down in the Senate, it’s back to the drawing board. Many of the Democrats who voted against the bill are actually for putting slots in the race tracks; however, they don’t want the people to vote on it for fear that the idea would be rejected. Now they may end up with nothing.

If there’s one thing the American government is good at (aside from taking people’s money), it’s mistreating Native American tribes. Well, Florida has done it again. Today the Florida House rejected a proposal by Governor Charlie Crist that would have allowed the Seminoles to operate blackjack tables in their casinos in exchange for sharing some of the revenue with the state government. The deal was voted down 17-0. This was the second time they reacted this way. Back in 2007, Crist signed a deal that allowed blackjack in Seminole casinos, but the House voided the bill, stating that Crist did not have the authority to offer that deal. (Oh, so suddenly the government cares what they have constitutional authority to do!)

In a separate vote, the House gambling committee voted 15-2 to give extra help to the tribe’s main competitors, allowing pari-mutuels unlimited poker limits, expanded hours of operation and a lower tax rate. So it seems that they’re willing to help anyone but those “red-skinned savages.” Maybe they’re still holding a grudge because the Seminoles have still yet to surrender to the United States.

In another vote, the House decided to invade Seminole territory, burn down their casinos, and steal all of their money… Okay, I made that up. The Seminole tribe has also taken another route in their request for table games, pointing out that some pari-mutuel facilities in Broward County are offering virtual blackjack games. At the tribe’s request, pencil-pushing bureaucrats from the National Indian Gaming Commission took a trip to south Florida yesterday to check out those machines.

Under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the Indian tribes are allowed to offer any game on their reservation that is allowed elsewhere within the state in which the reservation is located. Therefore, if a racetrack in Florida is allowed to offer blackjack, the Seminoles have the right to offer it as well. Dan Adkins, who operates one of the virtual blackjack games in question, says that the game is more like slots and isn’t really blackjack at all.

This is a legal battle that is likely to rage on and it will be interesting to see how things play out. I doubt that the government will send feds into the reservation to shut down the tribe’s blackjack tables, since the Seminoles don’t take kindly to government men telling them what to do. Whatever happens, one this is for sure. The government doesn’t have the best interest of the Seminole, blackjack players or taxpayers in mind. They have their own agenda, whatever it may be, and are looking out for themselves.

A lot of people hate the French, but I don’t. To me, they’re just too silly to hate. I mean, look at that outrageously snooty accent (and don’t tell me Pepe le Pew doesn’t crack you up), their ridiculous idea of how to ruin pancakes, their women with unshaved pitts, and of course their willingness to surrender to anyone who gives them a tough time. Indeed, hating the French is like hating the handicapped or that cousin of yours who just doesn’t seem quite right. It’s not their fault they are French; they were born that way.

Therefore, I didn’t really think much of it when I heard about one of the amendments proposed by the French government in their new gambling legislation that will take effect next year. It’s just the French government being silly again. After all, they do all kinds of silly things, such as not allowing free speech. In this case, the amendment states that once the new gambling laws take effect, all online casinos with French customers must cancel the accounts of those customers and ask them to re-register.

Yes, you read that correctly. The reason is the same as most instances where big government decides to make a decision for someone else: to make it more “fair.” You see, with the new gambling laws in France, more companies will want to start operating in France. It’s unfair to them that other online casinos already have French customers. Therefore, the casinos must drop their existing French customers and ask them to re-register, though they will not be allowed to offer any incentive to register once again with the same company. That would make them susceptible to other casinos swooping in and registering them instead. Gee, do you think lobbyists had anything to do with this amendment? Hmm…

This would be like if I opened a new gym in town and told Bally’s, LA Fitness, and all the other existing gyms that they had to get rid of all of their customers because it’s unfair that they have them and I don’t. Then, since Bally’s can’t offer them a special deal to re-sign with them, I convince them to join my gym instead. Yeah, that sounds fair to me!

Some have speculated that the amendment may be used to protect French monopolies Francaise des Jeux and Pari Mutuel Urbain, who were excited by the EU ruling that monopolies are allowed if the government deems it in the public’s best interest. Big government attacking private enterprise for its own benefit? Who saw that one coming?

* Since I wrote so many bad things about the French, let me say something good to balance it out: France, thank you for Sophie Marceau.