Have you ever been asked to taste something that is different than your normal menu du jour?  Typically, this happens with things that might be considered gamey, wild, or offensive.  They have a certain allure, the challenge of the hunt, the novelty of being edgy and different but when you ask…”What does it taste like?”  the answer is…”Tastes like chicken.”

The food item might have a different name, a different species, an entirely different origin…but when you peel back the skin or pluck the feathers and the heat gets to it….it is very similar to something very familiar.

We are currently enduring the presidency of a man with great oratorical skills, who can take a message and spin it well.  He is able to affect dialects of various regions without giving away that it isn’t really his at all.  He talks a good game.  His rhetoric and running “against” rather than “for” was enough to get him elected POTUS.

Most of us know of his record.  Not much to it, lots of “present” votes and little else.  Well, then there is that ugly little matter back in Illinois when he voted for late term abortions.  But…he managed to spin that right out of the public eye.  How did he do it?  He deflected, deferred, marginalized, and with his exceptional rhetorical continues to blame others for all that is wrong and he alone can, and will, make it right.

Lately, I’ve had this nagging notion of déjà vu.  What was it?  It was like I was seeing something so familiar but…different.  Then, watching the video of JD Hayworth at the LD21 meeting…it hit me!

JD Hayworth  is the latest version of “tastes like chicken”!

Can JD talk a good game?  YES HE CAN!

Heck, he talked about games for years before running for office.

Can JD captivate an audience? YES HE CAN!

He was paid for his ability to maintain ratings while a sportscaster. What great training and experience that must have been.  Then all those years on drive time radio, where he controlled the mike, the dialogue, and the subject…who could ask for a better venue?

Can JD market himself to appeal to the consumer?  YES HE CAN!

He has been working on it ever since he was booted from office in a district with an 18% Republican advantage.  He had to; his job was to create an image that would appeal to the market his boss served.  If along the way he made a great living and elevated his chances of returning to DC… just a perk.

Can JD spin a news cycle with the best of them? OH, YES HE CAN!

He has marginalized his own record by pointing out the flaws in others and done so with such grace as to make it appear like business as usual.

The guy is good.  He has made a living out of it.

But, what did he do while in office.  What reasonable expectation can the voter have that he will be more than a great voice with exceptional speaking skills?

Well, let’s look at that….. Congressman Dick Armey, who was House Majority Leader for 8 years of JDs time on The Hill had this to say recently:

….J.D. had a fairly short, undistinguished congressional career with virtually no initiative on his part.”

No initiative?  That’s not good.  But, that’s not all….

As I recall, J.D. was on the Ways and Means Committee and I didn’t really see him make any distinguished effort, for example, like people like (Arizona GOP Reps.) Jeff Flake and John Shadegg in terms of creative ideas and legislative initiative,” Armey said. “Certainly nothing on the cost-control front. But John McCain was the first guy to understand the need to get earmarks under control. He took a real leadership role, as did Jeff Flake.”

So, what about his record?  JD Hayworth is deeply tied, unfortunately, to the two things that have caused the prairie fire of anti-Washington and anti-GOP sentiment….corruption and spending.

I will be the first to say unequivocally… JD Hayworth was exonerated of any wrong doing.  However, there is no denying  Hayworth was involved with former “super-lobbyist” Jack Abramoff and the largest recipient of campaign money from the now-convicted Abramoff.

No “illegal” activity.  But what about judgment and desire to win at all costs?

On to spending…..boy, this could fill a page! So, how about the highlights?

The 2002 Highway Bill…the pork-laden bill that gave us the Highway to Nowhere and filled the pockets of lots of folks with money taken directly from ours.

The unfunded Medicare bill, $7 trillion in debt bequeathed to our children.  Yep, he voted for it.

He supported the 527 campaign loophole bill that created more problems than McCain-Feingold.

And while you are on the bi-partisanship never got us anywhere kick…how about his support of the Dem sponsored, job killing, small business impeding  Sarbanes-Oxley Act?

Yeah….definitely, taste like chicken!

Despite state legislators giving a resounding NO to gambling expansion during the regular session, proponents of expanded gambling have launched a new and more aggressive (and expensive!) public relations campaign to try to convince legislators, the Governor, and the public that casino-style gambling should be allowed off-reservation at racetracks. Because their revenues are down, the racetracks are asking the Legislature to bail them out with a proposal that would “help any racetrack in the country stay in business.” Gambling proponents promise a quick, easy way for the state to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars – but there’s much of the story they’re not telling.
 
First, allowing off-reservation gambling will trigger the “poison pill” of the gambling compacts the state has with the tribes, which means the current limits on the number of casinos and games on Indian reservations will be blown open. Arizona could look like the next Las Vegas with very few real limits on casino gambling. Already we see signs that other entertainment establishments will press for casino-style gambling if the caps are off and the tracks get casinos.
 
Second, gambling revenues nationally are spiraling downward, yet the racetracks allege they could produce $500 million and up in state revenue if legislators only would let them have slot machines and table games. Gambling is not recession proof! Lotteries and commercial gambling are declining, with casino owners filing for bankruptcy or selling casinos. People needing jobs don’t have discretionary income to waste on gambling.
 
Next, studies repeatedly show that gambling’s economic and social effects are negative, not positive. Gambling leads to increased rates of crime, divorce, domestic violence, and a host of other social ills!  Professor John Kindt of the University of Illinois estimates that for every $1 in gambling revenue, the state must spend an additional $3 in social services and law enforcement.
 
Lastly, don’t be fooled! Gambling expansion is not inevitable. In fact, the national trends show a decrease in gambling revenue, a decrease in popularity, and a decrease in gambling expansion.
 
Desperate state budget woes do not call for desperate action based on questionable promises of increased gambling revenue. In the CAP 2008 Voter’s Guide, fifteen senators and thirty-five representatives stated they would oppose allowing slots and table games off reservations. We have every expectation these members will keep their word and defeat any gambling expansion proposals. Additionally, while running for Secretary of State, Gov. Brewer answered a similar survey question in our 2006 Voter’s Guide stating that she opposed allowing slots and table games off reservations. We are continuing to work to ensure that those commitments to you, the voters, are kept and that gambling expansion is not included in any budget agreement. For more information on gambling, visit our resource page Gambling Expansion in Arizona.

By Jay Heiler

We have now completed a 2009 legislative session which was dominated by work on a balanced state budget, and yet failed to produce one. Or, if you prefer, failed to produce one that Gov. Jan Brewer would be willing to sign. This is in part the fault of the Legislature, in part the fault of the governor.Of course, many in those provinces will tell you that it’s mainly the fault of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Janet Napolitano may now be keeping the nation safe, but she did not leave the state fiscally sound.

Having said that, the matter is no longer about assigning blame but charting a way out. And it’s also true that given the state’s revenue shrinkage amid the current recession, the budget would be under stress even if it hadn’t been grown too quickly. It would just be under less stress, and the solution set would be less painful. The state’s politicians are now about the business of distributing that pain, not a job most of them relish.

It’s against this fiscal backdrop that the subject of the Arizona’s gaming policy has come due for review. Briefly expressed, that policy holds that some number of the state’s Native American tribes shall be allowed indefinitely to reap billions of dollars from gambling receipts, and everyone else shall reap precious little.

Now for a time and up to a point, that policy has been worthy of some support. In fact I was there, working for then-Gov. Fife Symington, when that policy was born. During Symington’s first term the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) imposed upon states the obligation to allow tribal casino operations, although limited in size, scope and place. And the idea that through their casino operations Arizona’s tribes might gain some overdue relief from persistent poverty was appealing to most Arizonans.

It’s worked out that way too, as nearly two dozen tribes have capitalized well on the exclusive franchise. Across 15 years they have collectively realized s billions of dollars in gaming profits, and they are now aggressively building new destination resorts around their casinos. One tribe has now boldly asserted its right to build such a place not on reservation land but right in the heart of Glendale. Despite the city’s resistance, they will most likely pull it off.

So here comes the point: Casino gambling is here to stay in Arizona. Already embedded in the community, it is going to become more so and it is going to grow. The only remaining public policy question is how effectively we are going to regulate and tax it for the benefit of all Arizonans.

When the state is $3.5 billion and more than 30 percent short on its budget, this question ought to be called by the state’s political leadership. It hasn’t been. Arizona’s racing industry has therefore called it, seeking permission to operate casinos on its existing racetrack properties and give the state 45 percent of the profits.

In the early going this would provide the state with a hundreds of millions in additional annual revenue, to spend on schools and universities, law enforcement and transportation, indigent care and other essential state responsibilities. If the state so chose, it could securitize that revenue and reap an enormous sum to help close the current budget shortfall, or it could simply enjoy the revenue going forward on an annual basis.

There are only two rational objections against allowing the tracks to open so-called “racinos,” which already exist in many states. The first is from gambling opponents who see it as an expansion of something they don’t like, but as noted above that expansion is going to happen anyway. Some people get this. Mike Huckabee was the featured speaker at the Center for Arizona Policy’s most recent annual event. He has already backed racinos in his home state of Arkansas.

The second objection, from the tribes and allied voices who might fear competition, is similarly flawed. The tribes will be fine; their operations will always have a long head-start and first-mover advantage, and they will be qualitatively different from the offerings at horse and dog tracks. They will continue to realize handsome profits for the benefit of their people. They have enjoyed an exclusive franchise for a long time and paid a tiny tax rate, a small fraction of what is paid by gaming operations in neighboring Nevada and elsewhere.

I grew up in the Thoroughbred racing business, tromping through the summer mud and across the frozen winter pastures of rural Cincinnati to feed and water the carefully-bred horses my dad hoped would hit it big. Today the industry — and it is a real industry with real jobs, real intellectual capital and long tradition that exist outside and beyond the wagering on races — has come under tremendous pressure from multiplying casinos. Arizona is actually well-positioned for a prominent place in Thoroughbred breeding and racing and the considerable economic benefits that would bring, but it will not happen without the racinos that have been permitted in other states.

Arizona’s gaming policy is untenable. Time and circumstances have predictably passed it by, like stakes horses dusting a $5,000 claimer on the backstretch. At the same time, the governor and the Legislature remain locked in a bitter dispute over how to balance the budget (they haven’t yet but must) and whether doing so will require new revenues (it will). A long list of vital state interests from education to law enforcement are hanging in the breach. The state’s gaming policy must be revised for the benefit of all Arizonans.

Jay Heiler is the former Chief of Staff under Governor Fife Symington. Currently, Mr. Heiler is a public affairs consultant representing the Arizona Racetrack Association.