Just the facts
HOUSE Local Bill 22-26, which would allow five casino licenses on Saipan, is legally problematic. Can a local bill amend a CNMI statute? It seems that the answer depends on whose lawyer you’re asking. Legislators, in short, may need to sort that out (with lawyers) before they can act on the measure.
Like many other bills, H.L.B. 22-26 was written as if it’s an editorial or a press release attached to the usual legislative legalese. Its “findings” are argumentative, and its tone is that of a Monday morning quarterback. As they say, everyone’s an expert in hindsight.
By now, however, one might think that someone among the present crop of elected officials or politicians would publicly point out that Saipan casino gaming has been an issue since the Trust Territory era. Sadly, not a lot of us can remember anything that can’t be easily Googled — or posted online more than 30 minutes ago.
Still, if some lawmakers are willing to spend $50,000 in public funds on a casino feasibility study which, to begin with, is the responsibility of any interested investor, then they may also want to consider creating a fact-finding commission of nonpartisan researchers. Their primary task will be to conduct a post-mortem on the island’s first casino investor, Imperial Pacific International.
Right now, the prevailing “narrative” — i.e., morality tale — about IPI and its misadventures on Saipan appear to have little or no resemblance to what has actually happened since the legalization of casino gaming on island. Policy makers, however, must be guided by facts and not their ever-shifting political or ideological versions or misrepresentations.
We need a factual account of what transpired when the Saipan casino bill was introduced and signed into law. We need to remind ourselves of the investors who submitted proposals and the selection process adopted by the Lottery Commission. What were the proposals? How did the Lottery Commission justify its selection?
And what happened next? The payments made by the investor to the CNMI government; the revenue generated; the jobs created, among other things? How did Soudelor and Yutu affect the casino investment? How about the deteriorating U.S.-China relations? The Chinese government’s crackdown on cross-border gambling activity? The applicable federal immigration and labor laws/rules?
The fact-finders’ end product will be a report filled with dates, events, names and figures with graphs, footnotes, references — the works. It will be a document that can help policy-makers make informed decisions and/or policies regarding casino gaming.
This may be news to some of us, but as long as the CNMI government spends more than what it can earn — that is, as long as politicians overpromise to get elected, and as long as voters elect overpromising politicians (there seems to be no other kind) — casino gaming, including online gaming, will always be a quickie-revenue-generating option for the Commonwealth as it is now in other countries, U.S. states or other jurisdictions.
Longest Christmas season ever
PLEASE, please, take note that the current argument between the governor and his political opponents in the House regarding the retirees’ bonuses is not about spending public funds “wisely.”
No. It’s all about who “loves” the retirees (and frontliners and everyone else) more. It’s more of a bidding war than a political debate. Of course, “everyone” is for “responsible public spending.” And in politics, “responsible” usually means spending other people’s money on voters — regardless of the costs or any other long-term considerations.
That’s one of the politicians’ “primary skills,” come to think of it. We can’t blame them, to be sure. For most voters — anywhere — the usual consideration is a question, and that question is, more likely than not, directed to a politician seeking office: What have you done for me lately?
We still hope though that some politicians will also try to learn how to generate government revenue besides taking it by force from society’s actual wealth creators: legitimate and law-abiding businesses, entrepreneurs, investors. These are, to paraphrase economics professor Don Boudreaux, the same “greedy” folks whose efforts produce the riches that politicians seek to confiscate.
