In the first Internet gambling hearing this year in Congress, members of the House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday offered little hope that a vote to regulate and tax online wagering will occur anytime soon.
I think this was an interesting and enjoyable dog and pony show, but I dont think it moved us any further, Rep. Shelley Berkley, a Democrat from Las Vegas, said after the hearing.
Berkley said the Internet gambling debate in Congress will remain stalled until the House Financial Services Committee passes a bill by its chairman, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., to overturn the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) of 2006.
Frank testified briefly at Wednesdays hearing by the Ways and Means Committee and left without taking questions.
Earlier this year, Frank predicted the Financial Services Committee would pass his bill no later than February. But the committee has not even met to discuss Internet gambling since last December. An April 19 hearing was postponed and reports that Frank had scheduled a May 26 hearing proved false.
The inaction led to a heightened sense of anticipation for Wednesdays hearing by the Ways and Means Committee, and a larger crowd than expected attended the hearing in the committees spacious hearing room.
But in reading the opening statement for Republicans, Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif., questioned the need to even have a hearing on Internet gambling.
Given the fact that just four years ago the House voted overwhelmingly 317-93 to ban Internet gaming , I have to ask why we are even holding this meeting when so many other more pressing issues confront us, Herger said.
The hearing focused on a bill by Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., that would tax Internet gambling if Franks bill becomes law.
McDermott has been saying his bill would raise $42bn over 10 years, but that total actually is closer to $72bn according to the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative, a lobbying group that supports McDermotts bill.
This tax revenue would include $31.5bn for the federal government, $30bn for states and $10.5bn for foster children.
Those numbers assume all 50 states would agree to be covered by the federal regulation and taxation provided by the Frank and McDermott bills. Franks bill allows states to opt out of federal regulation of Internet gambling.
McDermott said his bill would result in 32,000 new jobs created by Internet gambling operators.
Gamblers would not be taxed, McDermott told the committee. Instead, Internet gambling operators would pay taxes on deposits made by gamblers when they open accounts at the operators web sites.
Republican Dean Heller of Nevada questioned the fairness of a deposit tax.
Since a deposit is not revenue, Heller said, it should not be taxed.
But without a deposit tax, McDermott argued, there would have to be a gross gambling tax.
With the internet, you dont know where anyone is, so you have to find an alternative to a gross gaming tax. This is the one; when talking to the industry, thats the best way to do it, McDermott said.
Nevertheless, Hellers reservations about McDermotts bill may indicate support for Internet gambling in Congress is eroding. Heller was one of only three Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee in 2008 who voted for Franks bill to roll back UIGEA.
The deposit tax is my biggest concern about this bill, and I cant support it in its current form, Heller said after the hearing.
Heller said he wanted to meet with Berkley and the rest of Nevadas congressional delegation to see if a consensus could be reached on Internet gambling.
But Berkley is even more opposed to McDermotts bill than Heller is.
The future U.S. Internet gaming industry will be better served by legalization and regulation not by taxation, Berkley said in a prepared statement she read during the hearing.
Officials from the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Treasury told the committee they dont see any red flags in the McDermott bill that would create significant problems for their agencies.
While McDermott spent most of the hearing answering questions from skeptical Republicans, Democrats grilled Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., who said gambling regulation should be left to states instead of the federal government.
Goodlatte cited testimony last week from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder who told the House Judiciary Committee he is opposed to the legalization of offshore gambling.
Democrat Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., suggested Holders testimony was more nuanced, and noted the attorney general did not use the term, Internet gambling.
Loading...
8:11
Annie Duke Interviewby pokulator1762 views
This is nothing more than las vegas casinos fighting to restrain the competition.
How about looking for ways to cut the out of control spending and borrowing instead of always looking for ways to tax more people?
And the idea that gamblers would not be taxed is bunk. If you tax the gambling companies they will have to pass on that cost to the consumer, just like ANY OTHER TAX.
zuiprax 1 year ago
All I could really focus on, in the second half of this video, was the big goober on this guy's lip!
LordOfNothingreally 1 year ago