When it comes to gambling, the devil is in the details

And this is different because? (4.00 / 2)

My only two experiences with "lobbying" were years and years ago, once as a volunteer, once for a client (a one day lobbying effort in each case). It surprised me to learn that in each case, lobbyists or industry representatives wrote the legislation in question. In one instance, I went to a legislative hearing, and was told, "we have put that off until this afternoon; [a well known lobbyist/lawyer] is rewriting the language and will have it back then."

Am I wrong, or is lobbyist written legislation not unusual at all?  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 07:46:22 AM CDT

Not wrong (4.00 / 5)

One of the jobs of a lobbyist is to offer language to a legislator who may or may not submit it, or change it, or ignore it. But you are correct,Kathy.
It happens all the time. Of course, when a bill or amendment is precisely the language submitted by lobbyists, then it is fair for the other side to point that out and suggest a better balance. In general, though it is not unusual for a bill to be laregely crafted by a lobbyist, the people who are actually experts on the subject and who have attorneys who can create the best, most precise words.

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 07:58:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This scares the crap out of me (4.00 / 4)

Burt, thanks for the first-hand insight. . . . Of course, this happens far more in Washington than in Concord, and it testifies to the ease with which hired guns can pervert the legislative process.

This also is a very good argument for a professional, full-time legislature.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:09:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Burt! (4.00 / 1)

I am not in disagreement that the bill should be improved; Mike's major point was that the gambling lobbyists had written the bill, which I don't think should be the major criticism of the bill.

The specifics, however, whack away. This legislation does have significant problems, and unless this bill is significantly revised, it is a bad bill (with due respect to the sponsors). Not because expanded legalized gambling is wrong, but because there is insufficient time for background checks, there is not a requirement for a qualified independent gaming commission, etc.  

As the bill stands now, I wouldn't vote for it. They need to fix it now, New Hampshire.  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 11:02:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kathy- how does a bill get vetted and revised (4.00 / 1)

when it is in front of a committee of conference that has a  week or so to review and reconcile 2 versions of the 1000-or-so page long budget? There simply isn't time, nor is the committee of conference designed to be the venue for holding hearings on complex bills, and how they ought to be written or amended.

With all due respect to the bill's sponsors, they have taken this approach because they know the bill's specifics cannot stand scrutiny, and the only way it could pass is if it were presented as the only possible solution to the budget gap, without an opportunity for revision.

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 13:26:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ummm.... (0.00 / 0)

Good point. I am flummoxed.
Although it wouldn't be the first time in a legislative body that things are done to "fix' a piece of legislation without adequate public hearing - or even public notice.  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 14:03:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

actually.... (4.00 / 1)

The gambling legislation did come up during the Senate Finance Committee's deliberations.  And it is virtually identical to a bill which received a few hours of hearings this winter and then was tabled in the full Senate.  It has been vetted a little, but it is still being rushed through unceremoniously.

The House killed two other gambling bills this session.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 19:09:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lobbyists are often involved, particularly when the Senate is the source, but (4.00 / 2)

Lobbyists normally write what they are told to do by legislators. Legislators hold hearings to see if the provisions are practical and to identify problems and unintended consequences in a bill. Different viewpoints are heard, the input is synthesized, and the legislature makes decisions. If the bill involves revenues, the neutral Budget Office looks at it and gives an forecast of what revenues will be.

None of this happened. The House never even saw this bill. The agencies responsible for implementing it were never heard from. No revenue forecast was ever prepared. Not a single person has sat down and looked in  detail at what this bill will mean. And that's the way the bill's sponsors' want it.

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:21:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

one way in that it is unusual is that it gives away a multi-million dollar benefit without competitive biddingand with minimal oversight. (4.00 / 4)

Oh wait, that's exactly how Judd Gregg's brother Cyrusended up owning half of Pease in long leases given out by a commission appointed by Judd and his political friends without oversight by the Executive Council, so that he would then be in a position to have his Judd  shovel federal money in earmarks at his property, which as a result  appreciated in value to the point that Judd's own personal take reached close to a million dollars.

It's the New Hampshire Advantage! No reason to change the way we do business now.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 09:03:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

at'd for run on sentence :) (0.00 / 0)

 a new rating I requested from Dean and Laura...'almost trolled'

www.KusterforCongress.com

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 09:41:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dont interrupt! I'm channeling Marcel Proust. (4.00 / 3)

working my way up to 958 words

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 10:29:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The scale is a lot different, though, when you compare gambling and Pease (0.00 / 0)

By my reckoning, the exclusive monopoly to run a casino in Hillsborough County that we are giving to Rockingham Park is worth between $300 million and $500 million on a Net Present Value basis, depending on a couple assumptions. We are giving this to the Rock for $50 million.

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 13:35:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How did you derive that? (0.00 / 0)

I don't dispute it, necessarily, but those are big round numbers.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 14:03:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Very briefly, because it is a little geekish... (4.00 / 1)

When slots at the Rock are fully rolled out, there will be 5000 machines installed. A machine generates between $150 and $200 per day in  revenues (the tracks think the number will be higher- I don't) , and the casino keeps a little more than half this. This is between $140 and $180 million in revenues. The best estimate I have seen is the casino operating cost will be $50 million per year, and there's another $30-40 million debt service on planned new construction. That's an annual  income stream of $50-90 million pre-tax, $35-60 million after tax. This is worth $300 to $500 million on a NPV basis,depending on your discount rate and what you assume is the residual value.

These are round numbers, and of course you can argue the details one way or the other. The tracks would claim their revenues will be north of $200 million, and they might argue the operating costs will be higher too.  

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 15:51:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What is the governor's position? (0.00 / 0)

n/t

---

by: JimC @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 13:30:55 PM CDT

Easy one (4.00 / 2)

I can answer this question.

Somewhere between sitting on the fence and the middle of the road. ;v)

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 16:17:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lynch is waiting... (0.00 / 0)

Lynch is waiting to see who is going to win before joining their side.  

He has sent conflicting signals: on the one hand he threatened to veto any budget with an increase in the gas tax (which blows a huge hole in an already sievelike budget.) and on the other the second-most powerful official in the state, Kelly Ayotte, has been going around (presumably with Lynch's blessing) attacking the gambling proposal.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 19:15:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

well... (4.00 / 1)

With the gay marriage thing, Lynch was pro-gay rights but he also thought the state and the world weren't ready for gay marriage.  When he found that the time was in fact Now, he belatedly joined the movement.

With regards to gambling, if it passes, he will implement it--- and implement it competently and honorably.  If it doesn't, he won't.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 19:32:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gas tax: (0.00 / 0)

Wait a minute.

The state constitution requires that gas tax money be spent on roads and bridges, period. We can't even use it for other transportation projects such as light rail.

So I don't see how freezing it can "blow a hole in the budget", or how increasing it can help the General Fund.

What am I missing?

---

by: elwood @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 05:00:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Blows a hole in the transportation budget... (4.00 / 2)

The gas tax or (road user tax) is one of the fairest taxes we have. There is no smoke and mirrors or realocation that takes place, as you get what you pay for.  The hole in the budget is tied to the the State's highway transportation 10 yr plan.  There are considerable needs and the tax hasn't been increased since the early 90's, all the while gas mileage has improved to where less income per travelled mile is being generated.

---

by: moderatejoe @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 07:29:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

On the other hand (0.00 / 0)

our road tolls are quite low.  

"Whatever America hopes to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of America." Dwight Eisenhower

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 13:51:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, I get that - (0.00 / 0)

But it's a separate problem.

Our legislators and governor should be ashamed they didn't deal with road funding when times were better. It's not surprising that resistance to a gas tax hike is greater when every other tax is also being hiked, and jobs are being lost.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 17:48:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Suspicious nature (0.00 / 0)

I think that this dedication is the problem for the governor. Inasmuch as these funds are not part of the general fund, they can't be moved around to fill other holes other years. The infrastructure needs maintenance and improvement money every year and should not be held hostage to the economic cycles. We need clarity in government funding not more excuses which pop up whenever things improve and the tax cutters rise like zombies.

Please, house members, stick to your guns (philosophical not the literal second ammendment ones). Take this funding out of the hot potato toss of budgeting. Infrastructure requires maintenance and improvement whether times are good or tough. There is enough to worry about without crumbling bridges and highways, leaking roofs and rusting equipment.

---

by: xteeth @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 07:13:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not accurate (0.00 / 0)

He is proposing his own revenue plan.

While the budget is being hammered out, I think people are trying to avoid drawing too many lines in the sand. It's called being open to compromise, which is a good thing.

Not sure how threatening to veto a budget with a raise in the gas tax is a conflicting signal with the AG opposing gambling.  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 07:54:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Soory, Kathy, but how.. (0.00 / 0)

... is saying he would veto a gas tax, an income tax, a sales tax, and (I think) a cap gains tax being open to compromise, which after all, is a good thing?

As an aside, the AG doesn't get a veto on legislation. In the case of the current gambling amendment, she didn't even get asked if the proposal was feasible even though her agency is responsible for implementing some of it. So its hard to see an equivalency between the Governors statement and the AG's position.

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:50:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I said... (0.00 / 0)

"too many lines", not "no lines".  

Note on your aside: I didn't try to draw an equivalency between the two; Mr. Horrigan compared the two and said they were conflicting. I said, I didn't see how the two were conflicting, one is a statement by the Governor on possible vetoing a gas tax increase, the other is an objection by the AG to a gambling bill. So on that, I don't get your point.  And yes, I am well aware that the AG doesn't get a veto - I took civics! Which is why I questioned Mr. Horrigan's point.

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 09:00:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

gas tax vs. gambling tax (0.00 / 0)

There are basically three types of taxes: transactions taxes (which includes both sales and income taxes), property taxes and found money taxes.  The gas tax, even though the revenues go into a specialized fund, is a broad based sales tax, and it is fairly closely correlated to how much pollution you cause and how much damage you do the roads.  The gambling tax is a "found money" tax (even though it takes a percentage of all the money lost by gamblers.)  How much gambling tax the state collects is not really related to how much people consume, how much they produce, or how much property is worth.

Looking forward to future biennia, Lynch's threat to veto the gas tax is really a pre-emptive threat to veto a general sales or income tax.  He will not be governor forever, but he is likely to be here for the next budget cycle, which promises to be just as difficult as this one.  Certainly, if he runs for re-election, his "Pledge" will be a key issue in the campaign.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 17:51:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I believe he "has concerns" (4.00 / 1)

Seriously, the AP's Norma Love reports "Lynch has signaled he would not support expanded gambling as a way to help solve the state's money problems and declined Thursday to say if he would veto a budget containing video slots."

Is "would not support" the same as "oppose"?  Probably not. He certainly had the chance to say he would veto it, as he has said he would do if the budget contained a gas tax or, heaven forfend, an income or sales tax. He declined to do so.

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 19:12:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]