Racinos might still be in the running in budget negotiations

Sen. David Senjem, R-Rochester, arrived at the Capitol this morning, still pushing racinos as a partial answer to the state’s financial problems.

“I’ve got $200 million, if they want to take it,” Senjem said as he walked into the building this morning.

In his view, the state’s revenue from allowing slot machines into the race tracks at Cantertbury Park and Running Aces, would help lower the amount being shifted from K-12 education. The education shift appears to be equally distasteful to conservatives and liberals.

Sen. David Senjem
Sen. David Senjem

Still, Senjem said, he’s got one problem.

“I don’t have enough votes in my caucus alone; I need DFLers,” the former Senate minority leader said.

But more and more people seem to be thinking that if a racino isn’t brought into play now, it’s prospects are brighter still in the fall when it’s expected that Gov. Mark Dayton will call a special session to deal with a stadium for the Vikings.

Racinos, its supporters say, could fund the state’s portion of the stadium – and still have money left over to help pay down the K-12 shift.

“We are the redheaded nephew living in the attic,” said John Derus, who is among the lobbyists trying to find support for racinos. “People want to talk to us, but they don’t want to be seen with us. But everyone knows, we hold the keys to the kingdom.”

Of course, racino revenues could not be considered stable.

Racino supporters claim the state could expect more than $200 million per biennium. Additionally, it’s expected operators of the two tracks would be willing to put up substantial up-front money to get the machines they say would help save the horse racing industry in the state.

Dayton hasn’t opposed racinos, but doesn’t think the money could be “booked” now, because he believes there will be court cases – presumably suits filed on behalf of the tribes – that will have to be resolved before any money would show up in state coffers. 

The racino crowd was buoyed over the weekend by comments made by Rep. Michael Beard, R-Shakopee, to the Shakopee Valley News.

“Several of us [in the Republican House caucus] threw down the challenge to leaders that either the racino is part of the deal or we’re not going to vote for a deal,” Beard was quoted as saying. “Now they’re struggling with that in negotiations.”

Derus admits that the racino plan faced problems it always has faced.

The Republican platform opposes any expansion of gambling, and DFLers have been grateful for the financial support they have received from American Indian gaming interests.

“But they’ve run out of places to turn for money,” said Derus. “We’ve got more and more people ready to support it.”

Senjem said this morning that because racinos have been in play at the Capitol for so long, they could move quickly through legislative processes.

Doug Grow writes about public affairs, state politics and other topics. He can be reached at dgrow [at] minnpost [dot] com.

Comments (36)

  1. Submitted by Mike Underwood on 07/18/2011 - 04:19 pm.

    “But they’ve run out of places to turn for money,”

    Gee, maybe if they would tax those that can most afford it, their fair share, we would get out of this problem.

    Quit protecting the rich, they need to also be part of he solution!!!

  2. Submitted by Drew McDaniel on 07/18/2011 - 04:35 pm.

    Thank you Sen. Senjem! So many other states realize significant revenue from gaming (i.e. gaming taxes) that it is about time Minnesota become competitive and realize some money from this industry. Gaming has become so much more regional over the past 20 years and our state has done nothing to take advantage of that trend. Now is the time, more than 70% of the public supports the concept. You won’t find that kind of support for any other issue presented the remainder of this session. Get it done!

  3. Submitted by Raj Maddali on 07/18/2011 - 05:32 pm.

    “Tax those that can most afford it” – Now that would be Indian casinos that have a DFL sponsored monopoly.

    Are we saying that the DFL philosophy is tax “those rich people” and not “these rich people” ? After all the tribes donate plenty of moolah to the DFL.

  4. Submitted by Lance Groth on 07/18/2011 - 05:52 pm.

    I don’t have a problem with a racino. I’d go further and say there should be a casino at the Mall of America. Close to the airport with easy access, it would draw from there as well as benefiting (and drawing from) the whole 494 strip.

  5. Submitted by Richard Pecar on 07/18/2011 - 06:54 pm.

    Gambling is a bad idea…Minnesota’s scratch off games and lottery are enough. I have been a gambler since the 1960, and I can tell you this much: The only good casinos were operated by the gangsters. I never left hungry, I had a legitimate chance of winning and always had a good time.

    Besides, games of chance suck away disposable income, and lot’s of it, and if we think consumer spending is in the decline now, we haven’t seen anything yet if racinos are built.

    And besides (again), I am not questioning anyone’s faith, but I thought republicans are so much about God, Scripture and family, an now they’re in the temptation business all dressed up as a budget fixer? Give me a break.

    Tax those who can afford it, and be done with it. The republicans need to beware, everyone they throw onto the street is a refugee, and refugee’s have this tendency of becoming insurgents.

  6. Submitted by Claire Lundgren on 07/18/2011 - 07:38 pm.

    Thanks, Sen. Senjem! The money is there for the taking, no strings attached. And no where does it say the Indians were granted a monopoly, just a tax free ride. On what basis would they file suit? Breach of their own delusions?

    It’s time the racing industry got a chance to show they can be a real asset to the state as well as a chance to survive in a level playing field with the other tracks in the country that have racinos. It’s do or die after the hit they’ve taken during the busiest time of the year in a short season.

  7. Submitted by will lynott on 07/18/2011 - 08:03 pm.

    Senjem is a republican. As such, he does not want to tax the rich, who are his benefactors. He’d rather tax the poor and the other “lower” classes who dream of one day hitting the jackpot, but whom everyone knows are doomed to keep putting their money down and losing.

    That’s what a racino is, folks. It’s a tax on the poor, the people who can least afford it. It’s money down a rathole. Just visit a casino sometime and look at the sad faced gamblers who know in their hearts they’ll be going home poorer tonight, dreams notwithstanding.

    They can’t afford to piddle away their money that way. On the other hand, the rich can afford to have their taxes restored to the reasonable levels that existed before tp and Jesse Palooka cut taxes without cutting spending–which they knew they couldn’t get away with.

    Anybody who backs gambling as a deficit solution knows it means the rich get off and the poor will pay.

    One wonders how they can face themselves.

  8. Submitted by Claire Lundgren on 07/18/2011 - 09:49 pm.

    This can be a real help to the state. A quarter of a billion dollars with no strings attached. And it will save an industry that is on the verge of collapse due to the shutdown and its inability to compete on a level playing ground with either the Indian casinos or the other states that have racinos.

  9. Submitted by Claire Lundgren on 07/19/2011 - 12:05 am.

    will lynott: I think you should give people a little more credit in their ability to make their own decisions. It’s too late to save them from gambling at Canterbury. They are already down the road giving their money to an unregulated and untaxed casino. Canterbury’s payback would at least be overseen by the MRC and the MN state lottery.

    You certainly are having a bad time with the removal of the tax on the top 2%. It’s done. Move on. You’ll get another chance down the road.

    I don’t think that anyone is deluded into thinking that Racinos are the answer to the deficit. But they can be an important part of the solution.

  10. Submitted by Raj Maddali on 07/19/2011 - 06:24 am.

    @7 – Will Lynott

    Therefore, only the DFL elite get to decide who benefits from “a tax on the poor”? When i mean benefit, i mean by hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Isn’t it the heights of DFL hypocrisy that they allow monopoly gaming so that only a single set of people benefit ? All the while taking tens of thousands in donations from them. Yet the same DFL’ers moan and groan about how the “rich” are getting away.

  11. Submitted by Gregory Lang on 07/19/2011 - 06:32 am.

    http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/07/14/budget-deal-tobacco-bonds/

    How much does it (Tobacco securitization)cost?

    A fiscal analyst at the Minnesota House of Representatives crunched the numbers this week. The answer?

    The deal could cost the state $500 million. That includes interest payments and other costs. So, the state gets $700 million now. But the state will have to pay $1.2 billion down the road.

    Another way to look at it: The state takes $700 million in tobacco settlement money, and because of interest and fees, receives only $200 million.

    The report cautions that the number could easily change. “These preliminary estimates are highly dependent on the market at the time of the sale, the state’s bond rating, and the structure of the bonds,” it notes.

    One potential problem: If cigarette sales continue to decline, Minnesota could receive less money each year from the tobacco settlement. Inflation and industry profits could also make the number go up or down. That’s one reason it’s difficult to estimate what the proposal could cost the state down the road.

  12. Submitted by Richard Pecar on 07/19/2011 - 07:06 am.

    Other things government might consider that come with “no string attached” and which usually the pay the host community (or state) a fee, include a storage facility for spent nuclear fuel and garbage landfills. We might try licensing brothels. These have “no strings attached”.

    Enough with the gambling. It’s a mistake to consider expanding wagering as a primary means of increasing revenue. Bring it back when everyone has equity in their home and has a good job with perks. Otherwise, the republicans should go practice their deceptions and wizardry about “what’s good for us common folk” someplace else…like Mars.

  13. Submitted by Rod Loper on 07/19/2011 - 07:09 am.

    Under Dayton’s tax plan those millionaires in the Shakopee tribe would have paid thier share just fine. Tax all the rich and you will get that casino money.

  14. Submitted by Richard Schulze on 07/19/2011 - 07:19 am.

    A model based on disposable income, excessive consumption and vanity is not sustainable. Gambling revenue is one of the most unstable forms of revenue to rely upon.

    One such example is Nevada. Which is experiencing a downturn in revenues as a result of their reliance on gaming to fund the states operations. Illinois would be another example.

    Our state Economist Tom Stinson does not agree that gaming would be a reliable stream of revenue. He states that systems that rely on consumption are much more stable.

    All the MN panels on taxation have all recommended expanding and lowering the sales tax. We have a three legged stool of revenue; income, property and sales tax. The sales tax “leg” is shorter than the other two legs. This needs to be balanced.

    Our political party’s listen to the results of these panels and then nod their heads. Then they go back to their “kitchen table” economics.

    Which results in policy (from both parties) that uses schools as banks to finance state operations. Leveraging the tobacco fund which will cost the state money in the long term. And to continuing to defer and delay payments.

  15. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 07/19/2011 - 07:52 am.

    Funny how the amount of money keep going up, it’s almost double now from previous projections. Let me remind all of you, gambling revenue nationwide is down. It’s not like this money is currently sitting there waiting to be sent to the state. These revenue promises are projections.

  16. Submitted by Dean Ryan on 07/19/2011 - 08:53 am.

    If the state looses the Vikings to Los Angeles it would be a tragic error in judgment. You can’t be a major league state without major league sports. If Racinos can do the heavy lifting to get it done, what’s the problem? We don’t want to become a unattractive place to live and discourage big businesses by appearing to be living at the end of the trolley line.It’s taken years to drag ourselves into the mainstream let’s not throw it all away.

  17. Submitted by Raj Maddali on 07/19/2011 - 09:08 am.

    @14 – Richard Schulze

    So what if gambling is not an even stream of money. It is a stream of money that nevertheless is being handed over to a DFL sponsored monopoly. That stream is still in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Who cares if it is 100 million one year and 50 million the next year, it is still money. Please

    Honestly, the DFL will make any excuse to avoid asking the tribal casino millionaires pay their share. Why ? Because they get gobs of payoff money from the tribes.

    And from the same people we hear how the “rich” are getting tax breaks. That my friends is the heights of DFL hypocrisy.

  18. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 07/19/2011 - 09:22 am.

    Dean,

    Football is not a government project or responsibility. LA, London, Paris, and Hong Kong are among the cities without football teams, perhaps you’ve heard of them? Meanwhile Green Bay is know for the Packers…. and nothing else. We’re better off without the Vikings, their stadium debt, and their drain on our local economy and culture.

  19. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 07/19/2011 - 09:33 am.

    Raj,

    “Honestly, the DFL will make any excuse to avoid asking the tribal casino millionaires pay their share. Why ? Because they get gobs of payoff money from the tribes.”

    The DFL can’t tax the tribes, they are a sovereign nations. Please take some to time to educate yourself. Furthermore, the tribal casinos do in fact contribute more than $2 billion dollars to the local economy, and non-tribal employee’s pay over $100 million a year in state income taxes.

    Strange how some many of the same people who can’t imagine charging a citizen making a million dollars pay another 3% in income tax demand that we violate treaties to try to get more from Native Americans.

  20. Submitted by Raj Maddali on 07/19/2011 - 09:35 am.

    @13 – Rod Loper

    Under Dayton’s plan the Shakopee tribal millionaires continue to keep their DFL sponsored gambling monopoly.

    Give me a monopoly business, I’ll happily pay Dayton’s “fair share” taxes.

  21. Submitted by Raj Maddali on 07/19/2011 - 09:48 am.

    @Paul Udstrand

    “The DFL can’t tax the tribes, they are a sovereign nations. Please take some to time to educate yourself.”

    This the standard response from the DFL to avoid any discussion of the DFL sponsored monopoly.

    Lets see, the state of Minnesota can state that they are going to open/license casinos in Shakopee, Duluth and a few more around the state. Now lets see how soon the tribes come to the table.

    “Furthermore, the tribal casinos do in fact contribute more than $2 billion dollars to the local economy, and non-tribal employee’s pay over $100 million a year in state income taxes.”

    Give me a monopoly business sponsored by the DFL. Even i will “contribute” billions of dollars to the local economy. Of course as long i get to keep the monopoly, pay no taxes. Also i will throw in a few thousands to my favorite DFL politicians to keep spewing phrases like “we don’t want to expand gambling”, “gambling is bad”, “tribes are a sovereign nation”.

    Finally Paul, how does setting up a state casino in Shakopee and a few other places violate tribal sovereignty ? Just asking.

  22. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 07/19/2011 - 10:33 am.

    Raj,

    All this talk of making tribes “pay their fair share” is beyond ignorant. It will be quite some time before any tribal obligation of any kind emerges from 500 years of genocide and oppression.

    Second, the compacts that established the tribal casinos were established on a bi-partisan basis, so I don’t know why you keep harping about the DFL. And by the way, traditionally resistance to expanded gambling has been a conservative Christian agenda more than a liberal concern.

    The gambling compacts were agreed to in order to limit, not grant the tribes gambling rights. The Supreme Court already established the tribes rights to establish casinos. The compacts were about preventing full blown Las Vegas style casinos on tribal land. You want to mess with that you better ask yourself whether not these casinos your going to open can compete with tribal casinos that don’t have to recognize state laws, for instance they can sell alcohol on Sundays if they want to. You’re going to have to spend 10 years arguing for new slot machines.

    Opening casinos doesn’t violate anyone’s sovereignty, it’s this notion of yours that somehow your going to make the tribes “pay” some imaginary debt or obligation that may tread on sovereignty.

    By the way all Indian’s pay federal income taxes, and the only ones that don’t pay state income taxes are those that work AND live on the reservations. Meanwhile the tribes have a long history of pumping money into infrastructure around the reservations. For instance the tribe built a sewer/water service for city of Carlton a few years ago.

    At any rate Raj, you have yet to explain why gambling is such a great idea in the first place? If gambling revenue the great boon you seem to think it is, New Jersey and Nevada would the economic miracles of the American economy… they are not. Both states are in a much more severe recession than most non-gambling states.

  23. Submitted by Claire Lundgren on 07/19/2011 - 10:44 am.

    Just another interesting aside about tribal revenue: The state negotiated an agreement with the tribes that they tax sales of cigarettes and gas on the reservations so that they don’t offer unfair competition to the “mainland” retailers. They collected $19,000,000 in taxes. That money was sent to the state and then $17,000,000 of the money collected was returned to the tribes. So they also are able to tax the outsiders in their sovereign nations. Sweet.

    One other comment: The top 2% of the “rich” does not include any of the residents of the sovereign nations. They DO NOT PAY TAXES on casino revenue if they live on the reservations.

  24. Submitted by will lynott on 07/19/2011 - 10:47 am.

    #9, if we’re going to leave it up to people to make all their own decisions, let’s go all the way. Let’s decriminalize crack and methamphetamine. Let’s take down those pesky traffic lights. If people want to drive drunk, who cares?

    You don’t see rich people in those casinos. You see desperate poor people who in many cases are gambling the rent money hoping to make a killing.

    Damn straight I have a problem with dropping the tax on the rich, and I will not move on. It’s a position worth fighting for, all things considered.

  25. Submitted by Raj Maddali on 07/19/2011 - 11:18 am.

    @22 –

    Paul Udstrand

    “Genocide and Oppression” – So how does doling out hundreds of millions to a select few dole solve this. You are entitled to your political views. However when u ask me to subsidize them on such a ridiculous scale i think it is highly hypocritical.

    The compacts may have been negotiated on a bi-partisan. I am not sure of this as i have not research this. However the biggest defenders of not renegotiating this (no one is forcing the casinos to come to the table) are the DFL politicians. Yup the same ones who howl and moan about the “rich” and their “fair share”.

    In regarding to limiting full blown casinos on tribal lands, that is entirely a joke. Been to Mystic Lake lately. They have shows, games, buffets, open air theatres. The only thing that is missing is alcohol. So what u are saying is “the horror”, if we open casinos that are not tribal, the tribes will serve alchohol. Been to a bar lately ? What do they serve there ? Whats the difference.

    These are all vacuous arguments to avoid talking about the loss of hundreds of millions in revenues. After all the tribes are the “good rich” while the others are the “bad rich”

    Also u have ignored my question about how we will be violating tribal sovereignty.

    As I’ve said, give me a monopoly business from which i rake in hundreds of millions. I too will “contribute” to the economy, infrastructure and hell I will even give the DFL a few more thousands. As long as i have the monopoly and no one else can make money and create competition.

    If Nevada and New Jerseys decline were due to reliance on gambling money (according to you), then New York and California have a reliance on special tax brackets for the “rich”. How well did that work out ?

  26. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 07/19/2011 - 12:01 pm.

    //”Genocide and Oppression” – So how does doling out hundreds of millions to a select few dole solve this. You are entitled to your political views. However when u ask me to subsidize them on such a ridiculous scale i think it is highly hypocritical.//

    Raj,

    If you want to “subsidize” them, don’t gamble at a casino.

  27. Submitted by Raj Maddali on 07/19/2011 - 02:21 pm.

    @26

    Paul

    Firstly I’m glad to note u never answered how we are violating tribal sovereignty by opening up gambling. As always, when it comes to questions regarding the DFL sponsored “rich”, questions always result in vague and vacuous answers.

    Whether i gamble or not I (along with every tax paying Minnesotan) am subsidizing them because they are a monopoly.

  28. Submitted by Dean Ryan on 07/19/2011 - 03:24 pm.

    Paul

    It’s all on the table, including gambling.

    PS subsidizing pro sports is how it’s done in this country.

  29. Submitted by Claire Lundgren on 07/19/2011 - 03:59 pm.

    This has turned into a pissing match that doesn’t become anyone. The problems we had before the shutdown we still have. The only good thing to come of this is that the people will be going back to work and the state services (licensing, etc) will be available. Neither side of the aisle has aquitted itself well. I am saddened to say that we are now witnessing the death rattles of two popular venues in the state. We will sorely miss the Vikings and the attention and pride it has brought to the state in the past years. Even more, we will miss the tracks and the equine industry it supports. It represents thousands of jobs and a huge chunk of the agricultural economy.

  30. Submitted by Richard Schulze on 07/19/2011 - 07:15 pm.

    @ 29

    Is the business model used for the horse racing industry not sufficient in itself to be self sustaining?

  31. Submitted by will lynott on 07/19/2011 - 07:47 pm.

    #10, trying to put words in my mouth is an old, lame, and crusty debating tactic. Nice try, no banana.

    Indian gaming has one redeeming feature. If you’ve seen, as I have, the grinding poverty on the res, the preteen pregnancies, the alcoholism, the stratospheric tobacco use, the one-parent families with a child at the head, the dead cars and other junk in the unkempt front yards, at rates far beyond any other demographic, you would (I hope) be rethinking your scorn for the Indian gaming “monopoly.” At least it gives them a means to climb out of the wretched existence they once knew, gives them a good paying job and the dignity that comes with it, and a chance to live the decent life the rest of us take for granted.

    History is replete with examples of Indians hearing from their conquerors that they could “have this reservation as long as the waters run,” only to find themselves forced off when, say, gold was discovered in the Black Hills. So, you want a piece of the Indians’ action? Join a truly despicable and disreputable club.

    That said, I find no other redeeming factors in gambling, Indian or otherwise. As a means of deficit reduction, it’s yet another tax on the poor, first, last, and always, and therefore outrageous.

    I wish fervently that there was another way.

  32. Submitted by Raj Maddali on 07/19/2011 - 08:58 pm.

    @32 – Will Lynott

    “Gives them a means to climb out of the wretched existence they once knew”

    Is this a joke or what ? Firstly the casino money is not shared among all tribes. The select few gave a really good time with the money. Boats, cars, skidoos, you name it. Any money on formal education or advanced education for their peoples seems lowest in their priorities.

    However as long as it follows the DFL philosophy of one working person subsidizing the other persons fantasies, it must be A-Ok.

    Regarding “tax on the poor”, I’ve got news for you. The existing tribal casinos already tax the poor. You never seem to have a problem with that.

  33. Submitted by Claire Lundgren on 07/19/2011 - 09:57 pm.

    #30: The business of running horses in Minnesota was just doing just fine until the indians built a huge casino a couple miles down the road and took a big chunk of the discretionary spending money available as competition for our industry. The track was then owned by Brooks Fields who had overbuilt when things looked promising and was then unable to service his debt. Ladbroke acquired the track at a bargain price but got greedy and cut purses so the horsemen were not able to make a living. The track closed due to lack of horses. The Sampson family got the track and went public with it. They are horsemen and were able to bring the business into the black by attracting good horses and running a family friendly facility that gained a superior reputation with horsemen all over the country. Competition for horses got tougher when simulcasting came along. To combat that and stay open the track was granted a card club to pump up the purses so that we could get good enough horses to sell our racing cards to simulcasters. All went well until the other states were granted racinos and again offered much higher purses. The horses here are now faced with the rotten choice of either staying in Minnesota where they have built a good industry through lots of investing in the future( it takes 3 years from breeding a mare to get a foal to the track as a 2 year old or 3 if owners can afford to wait)or of moving to a state that is more friendly to racing. They can not stay in Minnesota without racing here because of the short training time slot, the unpredictable weather, and the unfriendly government policy. We have been just holding on hoping the state would make the opportunities for racing more competitive. The shutdown, three weeks with no racing, came at a terrible cost to the industry because the shutdown came in the middle of a very short season. The horsemen were contemplating leaving anyway because of non-competitive purses but were loyal to the track management. It is a great place to race and one of the safest in the country. While many complain that the state workers suffered, the horsemen were also laid off by the state and will see no recompense. It’s just too much to bear with no hope of an increase in purses. The horses will follow the money. The breeding and training farms will be history.

  34. Submitted by Richard Schulze on 07/20/2011 - 07:33 am.

    I understand that there is a state and federal gaming compact that most folks can refer to with regards to Indian casinos and gaming.

    @34 aside from blaming the Indian gaming business model. I hear you blaming the greediness of big business and the possibly that the Indians took state discretionary spending from your special interests. It would appear that most of the industry problems were self inflicted. Sounds as if you might need house ‘tarp fund’ to be bailed out with …

    I am not opposed to adding value to your business operations. Although I do find the attitude that the state should somehow fund your operations to be rather ironic considering who the industry supported in this past election. That in itself is too rich for a second helping….

  35. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 07/20/2011 - 07:48 am.

    //Paul

    It’s all on the table, including gambling.

    Apparently not. The specials session is over and there was no racino bill.

    //PS subsidizing pro sports is how it’s done in this country.

    Until it’s not anymore. I suspect your in for a rude awakening since these stadium deals are getting more and more difficult to pass all over the country.

  36. Submitted by Claire Lundgren on 07/20/2011 - 08:09 am.

    #35- Richard. One of us is a little confused. The racing industry has NEVER asked for
    money or funding from anyone. All we have requested is legislation enabling us to operate on a level playing field with the indians and other race tracks. In other words, the industry needs to be able to raise the purses to a national level to stay in the market. That is all we need. We already pay fees for licensing for many areas- the track to the state to operate, trainers,owners, grooms,etc. all need need to be licensed by the state. When we are able to operate on a level playing field, the racing industry will survive quite nicely without any handouts or concessions. And it should be noted, the state will get a good return for the legislation with no investment. It won’t be the total cure for the deficit but it will be a nice chunk. I never said the state should rely on gambling for income. But you might look at Iowa, Indiana, Oklahoma,Louisiana, New Mexico,and the rest of the states with racinos before you say they are having trouble because of gambling. Nevada does not have racing in their mix.

    Also, I am getting tired of your trying to get my party affiliation into the mix. It does not matter. Racing is a bipartisan issue. The only political interests we are concerned with are the millions the indians invest in keeping a monopoly. They should be made to operate in a free market. Their no taxes already give them a huge advantage over the average Joe. If their business is doing so poorly then why do they continue to expand?

Leave a Reply