Chairmen appointed to new committee that focuses on Wyoming's billion-dollar gambling industry
CHEYENNE — Wyoming's billion-dollar gambling industry will be the sole focus of a new select committee created by legislative leadership this year, given the 'heavy lift' of the complex issue.
'The issue is, there's no home committee for gaming,' said Sen. John Kolb, R-Rock Springs, one of the co-chairmen for the new Select Committee on Gaming. 'It's been kind of the unwanted child, getting passed from committee to committee.'
Last year, the Legislature's Joint Appropriations Committee took the first stab at investigating gambling in Wyoming. The JAC created a special working group devoted to exploring this topic and paid for a statewide comprehensive study of the gambling industry. By the end of the interim, five committee-sponsored bills related to gambling were filed for the 2025 legislative session.
One of these bills focused on allowing local governments to have a say in approving historic horse racing machines, and another would have allowed national betting on Wyoming live horse races.
However, a majority of these bills failed at the beginning of the session, and none made it to the finish line.
This year, the Management Council created the new select committee that will be entirely dedicated to studying gambling issues in Wyoming.
There are six members on the committee, three from the House of Representatives and three from the Senate.
No meetings have been scheduled yet, however.
Rep. Jayme Lien, R-Casper, and Kolb are the co-chairpersons of the committee. Kolb told the Wyoming Tribune Eagle he'd like to focus on local governmental control to issue gambling licenses and unifying revenue from the gaming industry to make it more equitable.
'There's a lot of issues with how the formulations have been constructed over the years, for lack of a better word, how this activity's been taxed,' Kolb said. 'It's certainly not uniform across the board, with different types of gaming activities.'
He elaborated that gambling revenue is 'complex' and 'not some one-size-fits-all situation.'
The gaming-related bill that made it farthest through the legislative session was House Bill 85, 'Local approval for simulcasting.' This bill would have given city and town governments the authority to approve or deny simulcast permits, a power that is currently reserved at the county level. HB 85 made it all the way through the House before dying in the Senate president's drawer.
Before the creation of the new committee was announced earlier this month at a Management Council meeting, the Joint Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources listed gambling and lottery issues as one of its priorities for the interim.
Both chairmen told the WTE the committee will likely focus on lottery issues during the interim, but will hand over gambling to the new select committee. Co-chair Sen. Bill Landen, R-Casper, said the committee will review the modernization of the lottery and look at safety and security for retailers.
Co-chair Rep. Andrew Byron, R-Jackson, said he appreciated that there's a new select committee to take on the heavy lift of gambling issues, especially after legislative leadership reduced the number of committee meeting days from six to four this interim.
Byron hosted an educational meeting at 6 o'clock one morning during the session and invited lawmakers to attend to learbn more about the gambling industry. The meeting was led by Wyoming Gaming Commission Executive Director Nick Larramendy.
'If anything, it made me realize that … it needs its own standing committee,' Byron said. 'It's become such a huge industry. … It's the Wild West right now as it relates to what's happening in Wyoming.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans struggle to defend Trump's military parade as tanks prepare to roll in D.C.
Around this time eight years ago, Donald Trump attended Bastille Day celebrations in France in 2017, which the president apparently loved — in part because it included a military parade along the Champs-Élysées. 'It was one of the greatest parades I've ever seen,' the Republican said after the event, adding, 'It was military might.' Soon after, Trump began pushing for a related display in Washington, D.C., which was not an especially popular idea, even among many of his allies. According to multiple reports, Gen. Paul J. Selva, the then-vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the president during a Pentagon meeting that military parades were 'what dictators do.' There were similar reactions on Capitol Hill, including among Republicans. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said ostentatious American military parades would likely be 'a sign of weakness,' adding that he wasn't interested in a 'Russian-style hardware display.' Around the same time, GOP Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana explained, 'Confidence is silent. Insecurities are loud. When you're the most powerful nation in all of human history, you don't have to show it off, like Russia does, and North Korea, and China. And we are the most powerful nation in all of human history. Everyone knows that, and there's no need to broadcast it. I think we would show our confidence by remaining silent, and not doing something like that.' The White House's plan ultimately unraveled in 2018 — though in politics, it's often tough to keep bad ideas down. On Saturday, June 14, the president will finally get the military parade he's long sought, ostensibly celebrating the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary. The event will also fall on Flag Day, as well as Trump's 79th birthday. Seven years after Graham said such displays would likely be 'a sign of weakness,' the South Carolinian told NBC News this week that he's now 'okay' with the parade. And while that trajectory was probably predictable given Graham's broader political evolution, as HuffPost noted, many of his colleagues were more reluctant to talk about the event. They snapped. They stared off into space. They zipped into Senate elevators and smiled as the doors closed with them safely inside. This is how nearly a dozen Senate Republicans reacted Wednesday when asked the simplest question: Do you plan to attend President Donald Trump's military parade in D.C. on Saturday, and are you comfortable with its estimated $45 million price tag? What's more, GOP senators aren't just loath to answer questions about the military parade, they're also disinclined to show up for the festivities: Politico reported that most congressional Republicans won't be in attendance when tanks start rolling down Constitution Avenue, and 'those begging off include members of the Republican leadership in both chambers.' As for intraparty criticism, Graham has apparently changed his mind, but other Senate Republicans have subtly made clear that they're not fully on board with Trump's vision. 'I wouldn't have done it,' Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky told NBC News this week. 'I'm not sure what the actual expense of it is, but I'm not really, you know, we were always different than, you know, the images you saw in the Soviet Union and North Korea. We were proud not to be that,' Paul said. (He clarified that he was 'not proposing' that that's the image Trump intends to project, but he's worried what message the parade will send.) As for Louisiana's Kennedy, the senator echoed the point he raised during the president's first term. 'The United States of America is the most powerful country in all of human history. We're a lion, and a lion doesn't have to tell you it's a lion. Everybody else in the jungle knows and we're a lion,' the senator said. It's a point Trump will probably never fully understand. This article was originally published on
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump's Medicaid and SNAP red tape will devastate millions of Americans
Extending President Trump's 2017 tax cuts is a centerpiece of what the president calls his 'big, beautiful' spending bill that was passed late last month by House Republicans by a single vote. Now it is the Senate's turn to weigh in, but that chamber's narrow Republican majority needs to take a hard look at the facts before pressing the yay button. Trump's legislation may truly be enormous, but it is far from pretty — it stigmatizes the wrong people, slashes the wrong programs and will hurt far more Americans than it helps. For starters, those tax cuts will disproportionately go to the wealthy while adding trillions to the deficit. Meanwhile, the punitive work requirements and layers of paperwork for Medicaid and SNAP (formerly food stamps) recipients are still visible beneath the flimsy camouflage of reducing welfare fraud. Academic research, including my own, shows that the vast majority of Americans who are working, are disabled or are providing caregiving already meet these requirements for state and federal aid. Even the independent Congressional Budget Office reports that work requirements for Medicaid and SNAP do not accomplish their stated goal of increasing employment. Millions of Americans rely on Medicaid and SNAP, essential programs that have lasting benefits beyond health care and healthy eating. In 2023, nearly 83 million children and adults — 24 percent of Americans — relied on Medicaid. Medicaid supports care from the cradle to the grave: Medicaid pays for more than 4 in 10 births in the U.S., and is the largest funder of long-term care, supporting the long-term services and supports needed by almost 6 million Americans in 2021. In 2023, SNAP provided food assistance to an average of 42 million Americans each month. SNAP is important across the age spectrum, too: Nearly half of all children in the U.S. participate in SNAP before their 20th birthday, and more than 4 million seniors 60 or older receive SNAP. The CBO estimates that if the Senate passes the bill in its current form, nearly 15 million Americans will lose their health coverage by 2034 because of Medicaid work requirements and other cuts. The reconciliation bill includes the largest SNAP cut in history. It will eliminate food benefits for more than 3 million adults (about 1 million adults over 55) and roughly 1 million children each month. Still, that doesn't keep Republicans from continually trying to portray recipients as lazy cheaters who need to lace up their boots and get back to the factory. They've been making the same mistake for years. Arkansas in 2018 and Georgia in 2023 implemented Medicaid work requirements. Those moves merely caused thousands to lose insurance coverage, had no effect on employment and did not protect these states from fraud. In Arkansas, they were halted after one year. The punitive requirements in the House Republicans' bill will not only fail to force millions of people into low-paying jobs, but they will also increase Americans' medical debt, creating a further, unnecessary strain on our economy and health care system. If Republicans really think that work requirements and paperwork reduce fraud, they are wrong. Medicaid fraud, for example, is relatively rare and more often committed by health care providers, not beneficiaries. Further, these work requirements will bury Americans in mounds of paperwork and cost millions to administer. Instead, they should try to limit the sophisticated tax evasion strategies used by the top 1 percent, which are rarely detected but very expensive for the country. If Trump's complaisant members of Congress really wanted to increase employment, expansions in public preschool and child care would be much more effective and economical. It's somewhat ironic that an administration that supposedly is taking a chainsaw to the federal bureaucracy is moving to wrap ordinary Americans in red tape. But the reality is the Trump administration seeks to break down barriers for millionaires, while building them up around the rest of us. Taryn Morrissey is a professor and chair of American University's Department of Public Administration and Policy, and associate dean of research at the School of Public Affairs.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Cassidy in a bind as RFK Jr. blows up vaccine policy
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has put Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) in a political bind, squeezed by his loyalty to President Trump and commitment to medicine. Cassidy, the chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, publicly wavered over Kennedy's confirmation, sharply criticizing his views before eventually voting for him. Cassidy said he secured a series of promises about vaccine safety, including for Kennedy to not undercut public confidence in vaccines. 'If Mr. Kennedy is confirmed, I will use my authority … to rebuff any attempts to remove the public's access to lifesaving vaccines without ironclad, causational scientific evidence that can be defended before the mainstream scientific community and before Congress,' Cassidy said on the Senate floor in February, just after he voted to advance Kennedy's nomination out of committee. Cassidy said Kennedy also pledged to keep in place a pivotal independent advisory panel on vaccine policy. 'If confirmed, [Kennedy] will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) without changes,' Cassidy said. On Monday, Kennedy fired the entire 17-member panel, arguing a 'clean sweep' was needed to purge conflicts of interest and help restore trust in vaccinations and public health. The move was an unprecedented escalation in Kennedy's quest to reshape the nation's vaccine policy and seemingly ignored one of the key promises Cassidy said he extracted from the longtime anti-vaccine activist. However, the second-term Louisiana senator and medical doctor did not publicly confront the Kennedy this week, pointing to his political vulnerabilities as he runs for reelection in 2026 and hopes to survive the deep red state's GOP primary. Robert Hogan, department chair and political science professor at Louisiana State University, said it seems clear that Kennedy is playing Cassidy for a fool — but that won't matter to GOP primary voters. 'You would think that that would hurt him electorally, but … I think ultimately, what could have hurt him is if he had stuck with his professional standards and the standards of the medical community' and spoken out against Kennedy, Hogan said. 'Keep in mind that in Louisiana, just a few days ago voted to make ivermectin available without a prescription. … Republicans are all in on this kind of thing and in that kind of environment, especially in a nomination battle where they are going to be the vast majority of people voting … it doesn't pay at all to push Kennedy on these matters,' Hogan said. Cassidy spent three decades as a practicing gastroenterologist before being elected to the House in 2009 and the Senate six years later. He won his 2020 election in a landslide, but he committed a cardinal sin in today's Republican party when, in 2021, he voted to convict Trump of impeachment for trying to incite a riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6. After his vote against Trump, state Republicans changed the rules to create a closed primary, where only Republicans and people who aren't registered in any other party can vote. Since Trump's reelection, Cassidy has tried to make amends. He's supported every controversial Cabinet nominee and touted his visits to the White House to brief Trump. Cassidy reported raising $1.36 million during the first quarter of 2025 with $7.5 million cash on hand. His campaign said it was the most ever by an incumbent Louisiana senator at this early stage in the campaign. Trump has so far largely stayed quiet on the race, but The Associated Press reported last month that Trump and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R) have discussed having the president support Rep. Julia Letlow (R) as a primary challenger to Cassidy. State Treasurer John Fleming (R), a former House member who is also a medical doctor, has already launched his primary campaign against Cassidy. Hogan said Fleming is a formidable opponent. 'If it comes down to, they're equal on every other dimension except [Fleming] did not vote to impeach Trump? That's the message, I think that will come through very clear to Republican voters,' Hogan said. Cassidy declined to comment for this article. He hasn't said much about Kennedy's latest move, telling reporters only that he is having conversations with the secretary. He also wouldn't say if Kennedy violated their agreement and instead pointed to a social media post. 'Of course, now the fear is that the ACIP will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion,' Cassidy wrote on the social platform X. 'I've just spoken with Secretary Kennedy, and I'll continue to talk with him to ensure this is not the case.' Firing ACIP members is far from the first time Kennedy has flouted Cassidy's guardrails. Earlier this month, Kennedy bypassed ACIP entirely when he declared pregnant women and healthy children don't need COVID-19 vaccines. He canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in mRNA vaccine contracts and forced out the head of the Food and Drug Administration's vaccines division. As part of his commitment to Cassidy, Kennedy agreed to testify upon request on a quarterly basis. Yet he declined to do so when Cassidy requested a hearing in April following massive layoffs at HHS. Instead, he testified weeks later during a budget hearing on the HHS appropriations request. Cassidy pointed out it was the first time 'in at least two decades' an HHS secretary testified to the HELP Committee about a budget request. Before the start of the hearing, Cassidy gave Kennedy a clear sign of support when he walked to the front of the hearing room and shook Kennedy's hand in front of a barrage of cameras. While Cassidy largely avoided the issue of vaccines during the hearing, Democrats did not. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) accused Kennedy of misleading senators and the public about his support for vaccines. 'If I were the chairman, who believes in vaccines and voted for you because he believed what you said about supporting vaccines, my head would be exploding,' Murphy said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
