+1 (unfortunately)

This is true, and those that don't agree are either very naive or simply in denial. And Congress is just stage one in the process. Next it's the states which will be at least as hard to crack as Congress

That said, I still think something can get through if we look beyond ABC bill passage. We need help. The pie should be cut in a way that can get Horse Racing and the tribes on board, and the underlying model will probably need to change. I know that is unpopular with the grinders who actually are whining that their HUDs may have to be sacrificed, the least of our problems, but that is reality.

If that doesn't give hope, I don't know what will.

"Additional revenue" is code for tax increases, not new revenue streams, and at the federal budget level poker revenues would be insignificant.

This is just not true. Online gaming revenue would represent over 3% of the $1.2 trillion they are trying to shave off of the deficit.

I strongly disagree that the States are harder to crack than Congress for many reasons, not the least of which is that almost every State, (45 or so) already have a multi-state presence in gaming among pooled player bases;
Powerball. States love revenue and gaming is a revenue source in almost every State.

Of the few States that do NOT participate in multi-state lotteries, one is Nevada .... which is steaming full speed toward legalization .... if not federal, than multi-state.

The market is there, the race will be to carve it up among enabling jurisidictions and, when the money is on the line, State will move quickly.

A federal grab for revenue, which was THE basis for legislation prior to early 2010 was NEVER going to pass. Nor was a Federal Poker Authority ever really in the cards. The best federal role is something enabling States to move quickly themselves, and believe me they WILL move quickly if a State-Interstate enabling bill becomes federal law and only less quickly even if it does not pass.

No State wants to be shut out of poker, as New Jersey finds itself with respect to sports-betting.

Why do you assume that the feds would get the lion's share of online poker revenue ?

Why would any State agree to forego its traditional hold on ALL gaming revenue ?

A SuperCommittee federal revenue grab would have to work out a "double-counting" and promise the revenue to States.

personally I think it's very very unlikely they do anything at all. Who the hell came up with this super committee idea anyway, ya lets stick 12 people on this panel who won't agree on what color the sky is, and have them butt heads over issues they refuse to compromise on. And lets do it all in the name of saving 1.2 trillion over 10 years, when we go in debt more than that number in 1 year... weeeeeeeeeee

when it's all said and done, the "automatic" cuts will happen, but they will be repealed by the next congress, saying they can't cut defense spending that much.. so all this is a waste of time imo.

I think, historically, most states have been much tougher on gambling than the federal government. The hundreds of casinos we see in state after state didn't exist in the early 80's (with the exception of Nevada and NJ). The legal maneuvers that most enabled the creation of all these casinos came from Washington (Cabezon and later IGRA), and were not welcomed by the states.

Generally, the more local the election, the greater the percentage moral busybodies make up of the voter turnout because they are more likely to get out and vote in these less celebrated elections.

However, your "enabling" suggestion is worthwhile. Something that allows the states to create their own interstate gambling activity would have a much greater chance of passing Congress than Reid-type bills... and is the kind of idea I was suggesting in my cited post.

Actually, they are talking about repealing the automatic cuts even before they take effect. I just heard a story about it on NPR. The excuse is that they are afraid people will come to think Congress is broken and ineffectual if cuts take place that nobody wants (as if people don't already feel that way, lol).

Apparently, Dems are resisting repeal or even coming up with an agreement because many of the programs they support aren't subject to sequestration, so Dems will get big cuts in defense without sacrificing as much on their side.

I disagree about bots being a small %. But I agree that he definitely misguided a lot of thoughts on the subject.

Were facing a huge defecit and regulating online poker could bring them 4 billion plus in tax revenue a year but why the fu*k would they do that?? Pretty sure the people on this committee are ******ed and it should be the "super special committee".

I would like to point out (late) the thread title is still ambiguous. It can be interpreted as a statement that an unlikely bill will pass.

"Online poker regulation unlikely to pass through super committee"

You would think that their has never been a better time, unfortunately that is not always how politics work . On a side note, I think it is possible half this population has possibly never cared so much about politics, untill they lost there beloved online poker. If nothing more, it will be an invaluable learning process on it's way to legalization.

Historically, gaming has always been a matter of State level regulation AND revenue.

WHY would any State concede gaming revenue streams to the federal government ?

There are HUGE deficits at the State level, too. If you are the Governor of X State, facing your own deficit, why would you want to send potential online gaming revenues generated in State X to DC ?

Look at California, for example. Why would California support sending online poker money to DC ?

Look, Harry Reid MAY pull out a last minute passage, I never bet against him. However, if nothing federal passes in 2011, what do you expect in 2012 ? In 2012, there will likely be a political theme of anti-DC/give power back to the States. State will still need money as well. Do you think any bill, beyond something to enable State level interstate compacts, stands a chance of passage ?

Honestly more concerned about losing the deduction for gambling losses than anything else regarding the Supercommittee at this point.

Even if there are no direct taxes on poker sites by the federal government, they will still get corporate taxes.

It would be somewhat disconcerting if the SuperCommittee simply proposed a federal online poker tax provision, like 25% on say gross rake, and left all the mess of licensing and regulation to the States .... could happen, but unlikely to.

..... have you suggested to the PPA that THAT concern should be a message members should send to the SuperCommittee ?

Where did you get this $4 billion number?

I've seen estimates of $5 to 6.5 billion in revenues. Is the government going to get 60-80% with no overhead? Do you think rake is (was) not high enough already?

The super committee is looking for 1.2 trillion over 10 years. 4 billion per year is 3.33%.

Also, the annual (not ten year) deficit is about 1.2 trillion, but nobody wants to try to change that number substantially because they'll never get reelected.

Poker sites would still be taxed like normal businesses no?

Frank bill

Different strokes for different folks. Yes, they likely would be subject to the same federal income tax rates as any other business. However, there is nothing to say that is the only tax they would pay.

No reason why the Feds could not tack on some huge surtax, if the votes are there to do so. ......

What's the point of doing so?

EDIT: I dont think the gambling loss deduction will get eliminated entirely, but I am worried about it getting capped or reduced above a certain AGI which will kill the games for rec players above small stakes. Obama has proposed something similar for charitable donations, Tom Coburn came out today and specifically mentioned the gambling loss deduction as a potential revenue source. In practice, given the law is loosely adhered to, it will only **** over people who get big wins at the casino and now cant offset with losses and recreational poker players due to session laws.