Townhall editorial blasts RAWA
News on 19 Mar 2015
News on 19 Mar 2015
Federal interference in states’ rights as envisaged by the Restoration of the American Wire Act could have expensive consequences for both states and taxpayers, claims an editorial this week in the publication Town Hall.
The editorial suggests that new federal regulatory moves, such as Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz’s RAWA, usually result in massive costs and a bloated bureaucracy, all of which ultimately translates to greater pressure on taxpayers.
“The truth is that states should be given more autonomy when making decisions for their citizens,” the editorial comments. “So, it’s right to be skeptical any time the federal government is trying to replace, redefine or reexamine what states are doing to self-govern.”
The editorial reminds readers that the intrastate control of gambling has always been the purview of state governments, and characterises Chaffetz’s proposal as “…a massive power grab that replaces common sense policy at the state level with federal regulations.”
43 states have state lotteries, the editorial notes, observing that Chaffetz’s bill would mandate how those lotteries can be run to the point where some lottery sales will be prohibited…impacting state budgets and, ultimately state taxpayers.
The piece draws attention to the widespread belief that Chaffetz’s bill was drafted by lobbyists working for land casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, and that this major contributor to political campaigns is reported to be “…unlikely to accept exemptions for state lotteries and tribes.”
Commenting that Adelson is not an elected representative of the people, the editorial goes on to examine the casino billionaire’s motivation in seeking to ban most forms of online gambling, rebutting his claims that the under-aged are more at risk by pointing out that since May 2009, his Las Vegas Sands land casino in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania has been fined more than $220,000 for more than 20 instances of underage gambling.
“The Chaffetz bill is a classic corporate welfare that will benefit only one person, and is an inappropriate and unnecessary use of federal powers that would weaken states’ rights,” the editorial concludes.
