City-State Gambling Debate

Over the weekend, John Rothlin, Chief of Staff, House Republican Caucus, took exception to my opinion piece published here in Patch.  Rothlin gave permission for me to quote him as to what he wants clarified:

"The non-tribal gaming proposal is in no way a part of the House Republican budget proposal, let alone a 'key element.'  Rep Alexander (Rep. Gary Alexander, R-Olympia, ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee) is a sponsor of the non-tribal gaming bill (HB 2786) but did not assume it in the Republican budget.  I suggest you watch the budget rollout news conference on TVW during which Rep. Alexander addresses (at the 22:09 mark) this specifically."

OK, consider the clarification made.  But, in the exchange of emails discussing the finer points of the issue with Rothlin, I indicated to him that while I would post his position on this matter, I would at the same time reiterate my contention - which remains as originaly expressed and elaborated as follows.

Both the Republican budget proposal on the one hand, and the Republican Alexander sponsored gambling expansion bill on the other, by any measure fit under the same economic umbrella by which the Republicans are addressing the $1.6 billion shortfall.

While gambling expansion is technically - as in specifically mentioned - not to be found in the exact phrasing of the Republican version addressing the economic shortfall in Washington as articulated by Rep. Alexander (the point Rothlin is trying to make), that is only to say we would be at minimum simply parsing words were it not for the fact that what Alexander is proposing in his sponsorship of HB 2786 is far worse - as a recent Tacoma News Tribune editorial opined -than mere semantics.

Rep. Alexander is a proponent - and because of his position a most important proponent and spokesperson - for a bill (HB 2786) that would undermine the very talking points he espoused in the budget package - talking points I emphasized in my article as reflecting a position quite hypocritical given Alexander's position on the one hand in the budget (where gambling is indeed not mentioned), and on the other hand (sleight of hand?) Alexander's promotion of a bill that eviscerates his budget talking points - HB 2786 - where gambling expansion is quite indeed the focus.

The Republicans want it both ways.

For Rep. Alexander and co-signers to contemplate the demise of "the vulnerable" that the budget package was said to protect - by advocating for passage of HB 2786 - is less than in keeping with what should be the values of the GOP.

It is also worth noting that a Don Anderson, perhaps Lakewood Deputy Mayor Don Anderson although his title is not indicated in his comment, believes my charge that Lakewood leaders support slot machine expansion is "an invention."  There is a five-page PDF file however that indicates otherwise and it will be interesting to see if Lakewood leaders will be present to protest the slot-machine-precursor-gambling-expansion-bill HB 2786 when it receives a public hearing in Olympia.