Gambling Vote Won't Be Close--New Total--136 Yes, 198 No

            Even while media “experts” continue to predict a close vote when the Senate gambling bill (SB152) comes to the House floor presumably next week, my updated tally is that even if every single undecided (or not responding or not saying) Representative voted for the plan, the best it could do would be a 198-198 tie.

            That’s correct.  My latest tally is 198 against and 136 in favor with 62 unknowns, three vacant, and the George Katsiantonis seat which is really vacant although he refuses to submit his resignation letter.  (Only Speaker Norelli and Democratic leaders could explain why they insist on playing the game of keeping him on the list when he’s no longer living here).

            But I digress…

            WMUR’s gap is widening.  The station now reports a losing margin of 105-128 (Democrats 55-57, Republicans 50-71), but the station inexplicably continues to list no fewer than seven Representatives as Yes who are most certainly No.  I’ve explained that before, so I won’t name names again here.  John Hunt was one of the seven, but Channel 9 has finally moved him to the No side; the other six remain in error.  If you make those seven corrections, the WMUR total is up to 137 No and only 98 Yes for a 39 vote margin, hardly close. 

            My 136-198 total is an update from 129-186 last time I did a complete rundown.

            Of the 62 unknown Reps, I have only about 20 as truly undecided (mostly Democrats), including majority leader Steve Shurtleff and Dan Eaton and William Hatch on the joint Finance/Ways and Means Committee which is scheduled to vote tomorrow.  Also undecided are Kris Roberts, Keene Democrat, and my seatmate Lisa Whittemore from Londonderry who insists she has not yet made up her mind.  I trust her.

            Deputy Speaker Naida Kaen is not saying how she’ll vote.  I’ve “pushed” her to the No column, but it’s somewhat of a guess.

I’m trying not to guess here, and every time I post numbers here, a few Reps inform me of how they actually intend to vote, either secretly or openly, so these numbers should be fairly solid.  I expect to get the 200^th no later today; maybe we should make it a contest.  “Tell me now; you could be the magical 200^th NO.  Come on Lisa, you can do it.”

            Bad news for gambling buffs is that I’ve included five Republicans in the Yes column who would have to do some fancy footwork to get around their party’s platform in order to cast that yes vote.  They include Al Baldasaro who would have to go against not only his party but the House Republican Alliance who he co-chairs.  The other four are Rideout, Boehm, Haefner, and Lynn Ober (Russ was always a yes).  The loss of any of them would push the No total to an absolute majority.

            Good news for gambling buffs is that I’ve increased my projection on that committee from support of only 17 members to as many as 20, from 17-28 to perhaps 20-25.  Richard Ames is clearly a yes; I had him as a no before.  William Hatch and Karen Umberger are preparing a major amendment for the revenue subcommittee this afternoon; should they both flip and support the gambling plan, the vote could be as close as 20-25.

            My sources are solid that Governor Maggie Hassan is continuing to work very hard to twist arms, mostly of first-term Democrats.  In fact, a prominent Democratic source just now revealed to me that much of the omnibus 19-page amendment (to be offered by Representatives Kathi Rogers and Richard Ames) was actually written in the governor’s office.

            Without releasing how I expect 334 Reps to vote, here’s my latest methodology.

            From the old WMUR total of 101-120, I removed seven from the Yes column and added them to the no column to get a total of 94-127.

            I  “push” five of the WMUR “Not Saying” to the no column and two (David Cote and Mary Nelson) to the yes column for a total of 96-132.

            Of the WMUR “Undecided” group I “push” 23 to No and 15 to yes to get the total up to 111-155.  From the WMUR Not Responding group, I deem 43 to be in the No column and 25 in the yes column for an overall total of 136-198.

Hillsborough Dems Push For A 10% County Tax Increase

Apparently a seven percent increase for Hillsborough County taxpayers is not enough for Democrats who, thanks to Bill O'Brien and Ovide Lamontagne, managed to seize control of the county delegation last November.

If Kermit Williams and other Democrats on the county's budget subcommittees have their way, Hillsborough County property owners may very well see a budget increase in double figures.

The Board of Commissioners came in with a budget increase of nearly five percent, but they didn't include an extra two percent in the cost to counties of long term care downshifting passed by Democrats in the House budget.

Thus, the proposal is seven percent.

The last several years, the legislative delegation, with Republicans in control, has managed to cut back on the commissioners' request and hold the line for county taxpayers.

Hmmmm...that's not likely to happen this year I told myself as I went into the first subcommittee hearing last Friday afternoon.  While I might (and do) want to cut back, Democrats have the votes to spend just about anything they want to.

By a series of 4-3 votes, that's just what subcommittee Chair Kermit Williams did Friday, but the big spending was even more egregious that one could imagine.  The county commissioners had included a two percent salary hike for county attorneys (cost of living and merit) in their budget, but oh no, that wasn't enough for big spending Williams.

Now get this.  County Attorney LaFrance proposed no new positions or salary hikes in her budget to commissioners.  In fact, there are two lines in the budget--department request and commissioner approved; they were the same.  However, Chairman Williams colluded with the County Attorney who came in with more than $100,000 in spending increases which commissioners were never aware of, including a return to steps for prosecutors, something Republicans and Democrats, at the commissioner and delegation level, has strived mightily to get rid of.

Where can we spend more--not less--money?  Chairman Williams did his homework in thinking up new ways to hit county taxpayers.  He rammed through the step increase on top of the the COLA and merit increases, but was that enough?  Oh no; the subcommittee hit taxpayers with another $11,000 cost insisting that they pick up the bill for attorneys keeping up their accreditation.

Not only that, but contrary to past county sessions which have been at least somewhat bipartisan, this meeting of seven people featured Nashua Democrat Rep. Marty Jack going around the room whispering to his fellow Democrats on how they could get more spending passed.

I kid you not!

I felt like saying, "Rep. Jack, if you'd like a caucus, you could ask for one so you wouldn't have to whisper" but what good would it have done.  When you've got the votes to ram through more and more spending, just vote. 

Delegation chair, Democrat Steve Spratt, is as guilty as Williams.  For the first time in the history of the county, he has taken an ignorance is bliss approach to governing, not allowing members of the executive committee to do their job of attending subcommittee hearings to get detailed information.  Since there was barely a quorum for Friday's first two hearings, the approach seems to be working.  The Spratt/Williams approach is clearly to keep the delegation and the people in the dark regarding their attempts to create a double digit tax increase!

Oh yes, Chairman Spratt apparently chose to ignore a vote by the entire delegation in December.  The motion, passed with support of both parties, was that a letter be sent to commissioners asking that 98 percent budget proposals be submitted; Spratt voted in the minority, against that idea, so apparently he felt justified in simply ignoring a vote by a duly elected body. 

Commissioners swear they received no such message, and thus, no 98 percent budget ideas were submitted, not that Spratt, Williams and Company would have taken them seriously even had they been forthcoming.

You just can’t make up such malfeasance of office!

Oh by the way, Democrats had the 4-3 majority because two Republicans on the subcommittee (Jordan Ulery and Peter Hansen) failed to show up for the meeting. Beyond the lesson that Democrats will go to any means to increase spending, we now have another lesson.  It can only happen when Republicans don't bother to show up.

At the rate Democrats are going at the county level; the property tax rate will not be up five or even seven percent, but ten percent or more.  Maybe that would be a good thing--maybe it would lead to the demise of big spenders in control and hasten their defeat come November, 2014, but only if the media helps get the word out.

And when it comes to county government, the media is as AWOL as georgethek! 

The entire executive committee will have a chance to overturn the big spending ways of this and other subcommittees in late May; then the entire 122-member delegation will vote on the budget in June.

Republican Deceit Part II--Moore On Carson

When someone spreads false information, that someone should never be trusted again.

It should come as no surprise that Greg Moore, the untrustworthy Chief of Staff when Bill O'Brien was Speaker, has been caught in deception.

Last Wednesday morning on Jack Heath's program on WGIR, Moore claimed that Londonderry Senator Sharon Carson was poised to move on up in the state's political pecking order.

Hmmmm...curious I thought.  I tend to be an insider of sorts and I haven't heard anything about this.   I like Senator Carson (although she deserves several demerits for her role in killing the alkaline hydrolysis bill; really senator!), so I though I'd have to congratulate her on her plans to seek higher office.

The day wasn't more than half over when I ran into the senator outside the House chamber.  She seemed stunned when I informed her of what Moore had said about her future plans.  Noting that she is quite happy in the Senate, she insisted not once or twice but three times (I can be quite persistent in dispelling rumors) that she has no plans to seek higher office.

I should have known.  Greg Moore, for whatever his reasons, was trying to make something up out of whole cloth, just like he often did when he was O'Brien's chief of staff.

The lesson, Jack Heath and other political insiders, is simple.

Don't trust anything Greg Moore says.  He may in fact be telling the truth, but how would you be able to differentiate any truths that may by chance fall from his lips from what is obviously a tendency to fabricate...one might even say a pathological need to fabricate!

I could name others who make stuff up to the point where they can no longer be believed (we could even dub it the Raybo syndrome), but let's do it this way.  You name them; I'll verify.

• ServiceNext Slide
  " jQuery17206806053668526161="5" sizcache08056333634566839="1">
  
  ServiceNext Slide
• Read MoreNext Slide
  " jQuery17206806053668526161="6" sizcache08056333634566839="1">
  

Maggie, Jeanne, Carol Shea can rest more easily.  Sharon says she's not going to try to move on up!  Don't blame this picture on me; I just downloaded it from her own site!

Republican Deceit--Part I--Millerick The Mom

Truth in blogging--I remain an elected Republican.  However, one of the missions of this blog is to ferret out deceit wherever it may lurk.

Over the weekend, I noted something rather peculiar on the pro-Kelly Ayotte ad in response to her shameful vote on background checks, a vote which the GOP would just as soon the world forget.   The ad, which assumes the form of man-in-the-street interview endorsements, lists one Jayne Millerick as a New Hampshire mother. 

Hmmm...I thought the first time I saw this ad.  Maybe your average person watching the ad won't catch it, but I seem to recall Jayne (note that Y) as something more than a New Hampshire mom.  She's been a mover and shaker in the Republican Party for virtually as long as I can remember, but the ad labels her as New Hampshire mother.

That's certainly not a lie, but it does indeed constitute deceit; so I decided to google Jayne Millerick just to see if my memory is correct.

Sure enough, it is.  It's not merely Jayne Millerick, it's Jayne Marcucci Millerick, and she's not merely a Republican operative; she's a former state chair according to this which I found on the Granite Grok site.

• Shawn Millerick is friend and partner with Patrick Hynes, founder of Hynes Communications (a hot shot digital maven outfit that works on political campaigns and commercial accounts) and founder of NH Journal.
• Shawn Millerick is also the husband of Jayne Millerick, a former NH GOP Chair, is the head of Marcucci Consulting, and had a role in the infamous NH GOP phone bank scandal
• Jayne Millerick big supporter / advisor to Kelly Ayotte

If this pro-Ayotte ad is trying to pass Jayne Millerick off as "merely" a New Hampshire mother, what other deceit is there in it, I can't help but wonder.

Oh, I know, this happens all the time in the ad business, you might say.  However, it's not all the time I catch those making ads in such blatant deceit.  As I noted recently about lobbyists, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."  I for one will no longer trust anything this ad maker puts forth.

Jayne Marcucci Millerick

State Leaves A Billion Dollars On Table With Senate Gambling Bill

Although the math is fairly simple if you use rounding, this exercise will require a calculator if you wish to follow along.

Rep. Neal Kurk, R-Weare, the chair of the gambling subcommittee on revenues, offered the most salient point of them all during yesterday's hearing when he stressed how the duty of elected officials should be to guarantee that the state of New Hampshire accrues the greatest amount of money possible when it comes to establishing gambling...or as Rep. Kurk asserted, how the state in future years will regret "leaving money on the table."

That's been my position all along and I had developed a hypothesis that the less money the state takes up front in licensing fees, the more it takes in an annual tax rate, the better the state would be in the long term.  Even as I sat in the hearing yesterday, I ran the numbers and came up with a difference of not merely millions of dollars, but hundreds of millions, in fact of more than a billion, $655 million plus another $521 million at the high end.

The Kurk subcommittee ran six scenarios, based on 3000 or 5000 machines at per machine per day rates of $149.00, $253.74, and $257.50.

For my analysis, I've gone with the original fiscal note for the gambling bill, 5000 machines at $162.89 per machine per day (Maine's take) on the low end and $285.98 per machine per day (Connecticut) on the high end.  While the Kurk panel added 30 percent for gaming tables, a disputable industry average, I just went with the machines (so you could conceivably add 30 percent to my totals if you want to build in table game revenue).

At the low end, LBAO calculates $297,274,250 generated annually for the casino; $521,913,500 at the high end. Next we need to take into account the three scenarios--

SB152 calls for an $80 million licensing fee and 30 percent tax rate;

the Kurk panel opted for $50 million and 33.33 percent, but clearly the best take for the state is:

$5 million up front and 37 percent per year.

At 30 percent, and for the sake of simplicity, I'll do some rounding here; the state share would be $89 million at the low end and $156 million at the high end.

Were the figure to be 37 percent, the state take would be $110 million at the low end and $193 million at the high end.

Next we need to multiply by 20 since this is a 20 year contract and rates would not change.

At 30 percent, the state's take over 20 years would be $1.78 billion at the low end and $3.13 billion at the high end.

At 37 percent, the state's take over 20 years would be $2.20 billion at the low end and $3.86 billion at the high end.

That's a difference of $420 million for the state at the low end and $730 million at the high end, but we need to back $75 million out of those numbers since the licensing fee would be only $5 million at the five percent rate versus $80 million at the 30 percent rate.

Thus, by not going to the 37 percent rate, the state would lose $345 million at the low end and $655 million at the high end.

We can also run the numbers for the $50 million up front fee and a 33.33 percent tax rate.  We get, after backing out the $30 million in the licensing fee ($80 million minus $50 million), a state loss of approximately $188 million on the low end and $352 million on the high end.

The hypothesis that the greater the tax rate and the less the licensing fee, the better for the state is certainly proven by the data. 

One caveat must be noted; some will point out that a dollar 20 years from now will not be worth the same as a dollar today.  That's most likely true although we have to way of quantifying it.  However, we do know that the state, at a difference between the 30 and 37 percent rate, would make back the $75 million in only two to four years, and anything beyond that would be pure gravy 

Were the state absolutely desperate and in need of the additional $75 million immediately, borrowing would actually be a better idea.  The Treasurer could borrow at less that three percent; thus an annual cost in the $2 million range or $6 million for three years.  Anyone conversant with basic math would have to agree that the $6 million cost would be more than offset by the long term gain of $345-655 million!

There's also the matter for what a casino should reasonably expect to lease or rent a slot machine, and that's where I get the additional $521 million of loss to the state.  As reported here two weeks ago, a Millennium spokesman insisted to the revenue panel that the going rate is in 10-15 percent range.  N.H. Lottery Director Charlie McIntyre pegged that number at seven percent.  I provided proof that six percent is in fact used in Delaware, and since then, I have received a seven percent figure from Rhode Island.  Let's be generous and say the leasing fee will be 7.5 percent; that's still five percent less than midway range Millennium was claiming (12.5 percent).

Take the $521 million LBAO estimates for the casino yearly intake and multiply by five percent, the true difference in what slot rentals costs and what Millennium claims, and you get $26 million a year; multiple that by 20 years, and the state loses another $521 million by accepting Millennium numbers.

Thus, the answer to Rep. Kurk's question about how much the state will be "leaving on the table" with SB152 is potentially $655 million plus $521 million or a total of 1 billion, 176 million, money that will be lost to the state and will flow right back to Las Vegas where Millennium, the drafters of SB152, are based.