General Court to face budget without revenue from
expanded gaming
By JEN
KEEFE
news@fosters.com |
Sunday, May 26, 2013
DOVER — Casino gambling is a no-go in New Hampshire — at least for now, and
that means so is the revenue source on which Gov. Maggie Hassan was counting to
help the state budget.
In a 199-164 vote Wednesday, the Democratically-led House struck down a bill that would legalize 5,000 video slot machines and 150 table games at one facility.
SB 152 had passed the Senate in a bipartisan, two-to-one margin in March, but a House supercommittee recommended the full House kill the bill.
Gov. Hassan had heavily lobbied House Democrats to vote against the supercommittee’s recommendation so the bill’s 17 amendments could be considered and perhaps win over a majority of supporters for a final vote.
While Hassan managed to convince a majority of House Democrats to vote against killing the bill; House Republicans voted 107-52 in favor of killing it.
And a motion to reconsider, which failed 212-152, demonstrates how far apart House legislators stand on the issue.
Legalization of casino gambling in the state came closer this time around than in any previous attempts, but the message out of the House on Wednesday was that the bill just wasn’t one they could swallow.
Hassan’s proposed budget included $80 million in casino revenue that she had earmarked for government spending — infrastructure improvements, social services, higher education, and other programs.
Many agree the revenue is needed, but weren’t willing to bring a casino to the state in order to get it.
“I would not even think of passing that bill out of the House,” said Jacqueline Cali-Pitts, D-Portsmouth. “It wasn’t strong enough on regulations or distribution of funds. I think counties would bear the brunt of what was going on at the casinos — the county jails, sheriffs and dispatch. I think we would have a problem. And I’m talking about the surrounding towns, too. Not just Salem.”
Rockingham Park in Salem was floated as a potential location for the casino, which because of its proximity to Massachusetts gave rise to the question of where the benefit of new jobs or spending revenue would really be felt.
Rich Killion, spokesperson for casino developer Millenium Gaming that has invested the most in lobbying for a casino at Rockingham Park, said by voting against the measure, New Hampshire is losing out on jobs and revenue.
Killion cited reports by the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies and the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth that residents here spend more than $70 million annually at casinos, and that activity will heighten when Massachusetts opens its three casinos in a few years.
“Those are New Hampshire dollars that are leaving the state and that’s a missed opportunity,” he said, adding that even if some jobs and revenue went over the border because of Salem’s location, the majority of the benefit would still be felt in the Granite State.
But for many representatives like Cali-Pitts, the bill wasn’t something they felt good about passing, despite the state’s need for revenue.
“I’m worried about where the cuts are going to come from,” Cali-Pitts said.
In what is being seen as retaliation to the House casino vote, Senate members on Thursday handily killed several key pieces of legislation out of the Democratically-controlled House — including about $53 million in tax increases.
The Senate rejected a 20-cent-per-pack increase to the cigarette tax, which was expected to generate about $40 million over the next two years, a 12-cent increase in the gasoline tax over the next three years and a tax on tips earned by restaurant and hospitality employees.
Hassan, in a prepared statement released after Wednesday’s vote, said crafting a balanced budget will be that much more difficult without money from a casino licensing fee.
“I remain committed to working with the legislature to finalize a balanced budget that restores the priorities that the people of New Hampshire support: job creation, higher education, economic development, strengthening our mental health system and protecting the health and well-being of our communities,” Hassan said. “Without passing SB 152, the path will be more difficult, but the people of New Hampshire expect us to do difficult things. We must work together to keep our state moving forward and to ensure a brighter, more innovative economic future for all Granite Staters.”
James Verschueren, D-Dover, voted against killing the casino bill and said following the vote that while he’s “not particularly fond of gambling,” he is less fond of a state that can’t meet its responsibilities to its residents.
“We don’t have another revenue source,” he said, adding Dover has been especially hard-hit as the state isn’t adequately funding its schools, leaving between $9 million and $11 million in needed funds.
Neither the House nor the Senate budgets relied on revenue assumptions from a casino. A committee of conference will meet to craft a budget on which both bodies agree, but it’s anyone’s guess what that budget will look like.
However, the outlook is many programs will remain underfunded.
“We’re going to be looking at a seriously underfunded set of programs in the state and that’s sad,” said Verschueren, adding that while Hassan’s $80 million projection for revenue might not have been exact, the lack of revenue anticipated from a casino “does mean that particularly mental health and school aid just aren’t going to be there now.”
Jim Rubens, chairman of the Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling, said it was “fiscally irresponsible” for Hassan to include anticipated casino revenue in the budget and pointed to committee findings that the money wouldn’t have arrived in time for the biennial budget.
“It was a compelling argument for freshman Democrats who want revenue to fund needed services,” Rubens said. “But it would have created budget chaos. Going forward, legislators won’t have that gun to their head that the budget won’t work without casinos.”
Other casino opponents are calling for the revenue shortfall to be addressed without depending on a “quick-fix” revenue source that could carry other implications for the state.
Rochester Republican Rep. Warren Groen, who voted in favor of killing the casino bill, saw casino revenue as a road to bigger government — and with bigger government, comes greater spending, he said.
“The way I see it,” Groen said, “the prime moving force behind this bill was to provide state revenue. As the state gets more revenue, government grows, and the larger it gets the more power it has and the less power the citizen has.
“What we need to do is examine our priorities and the revenue we currently have and adjust accordingly.”
Groen, who works in the construction industry, noted his business has taken a “real hit” in the past couple of years.
“We took a cut in pay,” he said. “Government doesn’t seem to think that way.”
Groen’s main concern with legalizing casino gambling in the state was the social impact from gambling addiction. He worked for years at an addiction recovery center and has seen “the bottom side of the industry.”
However, Verschueren said he believes any social impact from a casino in New Hampshire would be a marginal increase compared to what is likely to come from Massachusetts having casinos just over the border.
For him, the revenue source was a bigger concern.
“I think the people who voted against gambling — I understand where they’re coming from and there were lots of good arguments against it,” Verschueren said. “But in the end, I believe they made the wrong choice.”
Rubens is certain the proposal will come back again as developers put pressure on legislators to approve casinos, but said this most recent debate doesn’t bode well for its success.
“The more we see about casinos, the more we see them portrayed as a magic, economic elixir,” Rubens said. “But they’re not a new thing anymore. This ‘magic money’ phenomenon where you can put a casino in and people will come from miles around is not a thing anymore. The arguments being made are becoming less and less effective over time.”
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130526/GJNEWS_01/130529362
In a 199-164 vote Wednesday, the Democratically-led House struck down a bill that would legalize 5,000 video slot machines and 150 table games at one facility.
SB 152 had passed the Senate in a bipartisan, two-to-one margin in March, but a House supercommittee recommended the full House kill the bill.
Gov. Hassan had heavily lobbied House Democrats to vote against the supercommittee’s recommendation so the bill’s 17 amendments could be considered and perhaps win over a majority of supporters for a final vote.
While Hassan managed to convince a majority of House Democrats to vote against killing the bill; House Republicans voted 107-52 in favor of killing it.
And a motion to reconsider, which failed 212-152, demonstrates how far apart House legislators stand on the issue.
Legalization of casino gambling in the state came closer this time around than in any previous attempts, but the message out of the House on Wednesday was that the bill just wasn’t one they could swallow.
Hassan’s proposed budget included $80 million in casino revenue that she had earmarked for government spending — infrastructure improvements, social services, higher education, and other programs.
Many agree the revenue is needed, but weren’t willing to bring a casino to the state in order to get it.
“I would not even think of passing that bill out of the House,” said Jacqueline Cali-Pitts, D-Portsmouth. “It wasn’t strong enough on regulations or distribution of funds. I think counties would bear the brunt of what was going on at the casinos — the county jails, sheriffs and dispatch. I think we would have a problem. And I’m talking about the surrounding towns, too. Not just Salem.”
Rockingham Park in Salem was floated as a potential location for the casino, which because of its proximity to Massachusetts gave rise to the question of where the benefit of new jobs or spending revenue would really be felt.
Rich Killion, spokesperson for casino developer Millenium Gaming that has invested the most in lobbying for a casino at Rockingham Park, said by voting against the measure, New Hampshire is losing out on jobs and revenue.
Killion cited reports by the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies and the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth that residents here spend more than $70 million annually at casinos, and that activity will heighten when Massachusetts opens its three casinos in a few years.
“Those are New Hampshire dollars that are leaving the state and that’s a missed opportunity,” he said, adding that even if some jobs and revenue went over the border because of Salem’s location, the majority of the benefit would still be felt in the Granite State.
But for many representatives like Cali-Pitts, the bill wasn’t something they felt good about passing, despite the state’s need for revenue.
“I’m worried about where the cuts are going to come from,” Cali-Pitts said.
In what is being seen as retaliation to the House casino vote, Senate members on Thursday handily killed several key pieces of legislation out of the Democratically-controlled House — including about $53 million in tax increases.
The Senate rejected a 20-cent-per-pack increase to the cigarette tax, which was expected to generate about $40 million over the next two years, a 12-cent increase in the gasoline tax over the next three years and a tax on tips earned by restaurant and hospitality employees.
Hassan, in a prepared statement released after Wednesday’s vote, said crafting a balanced budget will be that much more difficult without money from a casino licensing fee.
“I remain committed to working with the legislature to finalize a balanced budget that restores the priorities that the people of New Hampshire support: job creation, higher education, economic development, strengthening our mental health system and protecting the health and well-being of our communities,” Hassan said. “Without passing SB 152, the path will be more difficult, but the people of New Hampshire expect us to do difficult things. We must work together to keep our state moving forward and to ensure a brighter, more innovative economic future for all Granite Staters.”
James Verschueren, D-Dover, voted against killing the casino bill and said following the vote that while he’s “not particularly fond of gambling,” he is less fond of a state that can’t meet its responsibilities to its residents.
“We don’t have another revenue source,” he said, adding Dover has been especially hard-hit as the state isn’t adequately funding its schools, leaving between $9 million and $11 million in needed funds.
Neither the House nor the Senate budgets relied on revenue assumptions from a casino. A committee of conference will meet to craft a budget on which both bodies agree, but it’s anyone’s guess what that budget will look like.
However, the outlook is many programs will remain underfunded.
“We’re going to be looking at a seriously underfunded set of programs in the state and that’s sad,” said Verschueren, adding that while Hassan’s $80 million projection for revenue might not have been exact, the lack of revenue anticipated from a casino “does mean that particularly mental health and school aid just aren’t going to be there now.”
Jim Rubens, chairman of the Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling, said it was “fiscally irresponsible” for Hassan to include anticipated casino revenue in the budget and pointed to committee findings that the money wouldn’t have arrived in time for the biennial budget.
“It was a compelling argument for freshman Democrats who want revenue to fund needed services,” Rubens said. “But it would have created budget chaos. Going forward, legislators won’t have that gun to their head that the budget won’t work without casinos.”
Other casino opponents are calling for the revenue shortfall to be addressed without depending on a “quick-fix” revenue source that could carry other implications for the state.
Rochester Republican Rep. Warren Groen, who voted in favor of killing the casino bill, saw casino revenue as a road to bigger government — and with bigger government, comes greater spending, he said.
“The way I see it,” Groen said, “the prime moving force behind this bill was to provide state revenue. As the state gets more revenue, government grows, and the larger it gets the more power it has and the less power the citizen has.
“What we need to do is examine our priorities and the revenue we currently have and adjust accordingly.”
Groen, who works in the construction industry, noted his business has taken a “real hit” in the past couple of years.
“We took a cut in pay,” he said. “Government doesn’t seem to think that way.”
Groen’s main concern with legalizing casino gambling in the state was the social impact from gambling addiction. He worked for years at an addiction recovery center and has seen “the bottom side of the industry.”
However, Verschueren said he believes any social impact from a casino in New Hampshire would be a marginal increase compared to what is likely to come from Massachusetts having casinos just over the border.
For him, the revenue source was a bigger concern.
“I think the people who voted against gambling — I understand where they’re coming from and there were lots of good arguments against it,” Verschueren said. “But in the end, I believe they made the wrong choice.”
Rubens is certain the proposal will come back again as developers put pressure on legislators to approve casinos, but said this most recent debate doesn’t bode well for its success.
“The more we see about casinos, the more we see them portrayed as a magic, economic elixir,” Rubens said. “But they’re not a new thing anymore. This ‘magic money’ phenomenon where you can put a casino in and people will come from miles around is not a thing anymore. The arguments being made are becoming less and less effective over time.”
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130526/GJNEWS_01/130529362
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment