As if the script has been written somewhere else and senators come forward just to read their lines, the Senate Thursday voted along straight party lines (13-11) to kill the House passed cigarette tax increase; to kill the House-passed return to a minimum wage for the state; and to amend (if not kill outright) various House-passed voting bills.  Can anyone spell "committee of conference"?

In a break from straight party line voting, the Senate passed medical marijuana by a veto proof margin of 18-6.  All 11 Democrats were for it, albeit Donna Soucy rather reluctantly so or so it seemed; Republicans were 7-6 for the watered down version which is most likely headed to a committee of conference since the Senate bill is much more restrictive than that passed in the House.

The six Republicans voting against it were:  Forrester, Odell, Carson, Rausch, Prescott, and Morse.

Moments later, the stand your ground repeal bill, which caused such angst in the House, couldn't even muster a majority of Senate Democrats.  A motion to table to bill, in effect to kill it, passed 19-5 with all 13 Republicans and six Democrats in favor.  Of the five Democrats opposed, four come from districts where no Democrat could be expected to lose.  The four were Pierce, Kelly, Clark, and Larsen.  Only Lou D'Allesandro, who spoke of murder in his closely divided Senate District 20 (West Manchester and Goffstown), displayed any kind of courage in voting against the tabling motion.  Even Donna Soucy, who--if memory serves--voted for the bill in committee, went along with the tabling motion.  Could it be anything other than cover for someone from the swing South Manchester/Litchfield district?

Republican Jeb Bradley responded succinctly (when you have the votes to win, why drag things out?) to D'Allesandro, "There hasn't been a problem with stand your ground," adding that our citizens need to defend their lives. 

Various Democratic House members (and left wingers on various web sites) have been venting against the lack of courage (is that the same as cowardice?) displayed by Senators Woodburn, Hosmer, Lasky, Gilmour, Watters, and now Soucy.  One high ranking Democratic House member even bewailed (to me personally) how she and other House Democrats could be hung out to dry, having been asked to support such a controvertial bill, if Democrats in the Senate were going to cave like a soufflé when the oven door slams.  The bill passed the House, after thousands of emails and other messages (some of which could not be repeated here) from NRA types by only a handful of votes with only three Republicans in support.

Of course, most Democratic senators are upset with their House colleagues for the vote yesterday to kill their gambling plan.  If memory serves, only David Pierce and Martha Fuller Clark were Democrats against gambling.

When the Senate is not boring us to tears these days, we see Democratic infighting which may or may not mean anything in a few weeks.

Have I missed anything?

Probably, but there's only so much of this a normal sentient human being can take, and the more I say, the more chance I have of offending the powerful! 

I can't wait to see how the paid lame stream media covers this snoozefest, but then as we learned in today's papers regarding yesterday's House debate on gambling, the lame streamers really aren't inclined to cover actual debates; they much prefer to try to gin up controversy by rushing to lobbyists, party hacks, and other so-called non-elected "insiders" for cutting edge reactions.  Forget what policy makers have said; let's just get a quick reaction.

One cannot truly realize how poorly the lame streamers serve us until one sits through a legislative session and discovers just how much of it is totally ignored.  It's as if only Kevin Landrigan, of the Nashua Telegraph, can be trusted to do an actual reporting job any more. 

As for the Senate, give me the drama of the House any day.  The Senate doesn't even offer any comic relief.  I could name a few House members who could provide that, but then I've said enough...

What can one say about a body that refused to pass such a sensible bill as liquid cremation which had passed the House by more than a two to one margin? 

The Senate kept going into mini-recesses so all 24 members could be rounded up for roll call votes; Finance Chair Chuck Morse apparently was working on the budget with LBAO drafters.  Finally, they just gave up even bothering to try and agreed not to have any more roll call votes.

Ah yes, democracy in action!

After the House killed the Senate's gambling plan (SB152) yesterday by a 35 vote margin, it killed a reconsideration motion by a more impressive 60 vote margin (a margin most likely more indicative of true House sentiment on the Senate plan, that is to say very negative).

With Senate leadership promising not to play knuckleball and include a gambling provision in the budget bill it's currently fashioning, gambling is certain dead for this year, right?

Probably, but in case you haven't checked lately, there is one little gambling bill which the House tabled earlier this year.  Yes indeed, that would be HB678, the plan for state-run but privately owned mini casinos.  The state would take 60 percent of the revenues as opposed to 30 percent in the Senate plan.  A bidding process would be involved thus ameliorating (somewhat) the charge of the state creating a monopoly.

Modesty, if such a thing existed, would prevent me from mention who drafted that bill now on the table in the House.

The fact that SB678 is the last gambling plan still standing (or laying around) is somewhat remarkable because, while modesty would prevent me from calling it the best plan, it always seems to get short shrift when it comes to considering gambling ideas.

Case in point, when HB678 was heard by House Ways and Means this year, it was an hour or two late coming forward as the committee spent dreary hour after dreary hour hearing about the vastly inferior Gionet/Weyler two casino plan, subsequently killed on the House floor by a four to one margin.

By the time Ways and Means got to HB678, many committee members had drifted away; in fact, as I recall, not even half remained to hear about this great plan.

The sponsor presented the details and answered a few questions, but it was so late in the day that very few people remained to testify for or against it.  The anti-gambling lobbyists, either jaded or thinking it had virtually no chance of passing, didn't bother to hang around.  Only Jabba the Hut Roberts, a lobbyist trying to convince the committee he was not a lobbyist, was on hand to demean the bill as likely to produce "slot barns" or, as he called them, black wall facilities like those on Indian reservations.

The sponsor listened, quite convinced that the committee would quickly dispose of the bill, but at least the sponsor could live with the knowledge that he had given this superior plan the best chance possible.

Since HB678 is quite meticulous about the state, not some out of state company, benefiting from slot revenues, no high paid lobbyists bellied up to the table to tout the merits of the bill.

None ever will.

Lo and behold, after the Gionet/Weyler bill was slashed to bits on the House floor, the sponsor of HB678 explained his bill in detail and apparently did such a good job that the House, rather than killing the bill, decided by a ten vote margin to table it.

There sits HB678 on the table today.

Any single House member is empowered to move that any bill be removed from the table at any time.

Only a simple majority of the House is required to remove a bill from the table, but don't get your hopes up gambling fans.

Even if HB678 were removed from the table, since it is a House bill and the deadline is long past for House bills to advance to the Senate, a suspension of the rules (requiring a two-thirds vote) would be needed to act on the bill.

Thus, the rather long-winded answer to the question of whether a gambling option is still available to the House…should a significant group of people harken to the Hassanick pleas that we really do need more revenue…is “just barely”.

The sponsor, despite having recently visited a spot in Manchester which would be ideal for one of the six mini casinos, can honestly say he has no plans to attempt to remove the bill from the table when the House meets next week.

Of course the sponsor (any guess who that would be?) cannot control what any one of 395 others might do...I say 395 because three seats are vacant we can only assume that No Show Manchester Rep georgethek remains out of touch with the legislative world...even with great attendance yesterday, georgethek was again among the missing.

But I digress...

HB678 remains alive...just barely.

The text of HB678 (with its sponsor duly noted) is presumably available on the House web site somewhere.

That was the mantra of the New Hampshire Senate Thursday morning, at least when it came to Nashua Rep. David Campbell's 12 cent gasoline tax increase.

Not only did the Senate kill the bill (HB617), by an 18-6 vote, but it went one step beyond killing; thus the word "slaughter" in the headline.  In the House, indefinitely postpone is often referred to as driving the stake through the heart of a bill; the last time I can remember it happening was two sessions ago on the telephone poll exemption bill; it happens very rarely and is meant to send a message, an exclamation mark to a bill, like, "Don't even think of bringing this bill back to us!!!"

The motion was to Indefinitely Postpone, a rarely used parliamentary maneuver which means that the bill not only dies but no bill with a similar subject may even be introduced during the remainder of the legislative session.

Of course it would be up to Senate President Peter Bragdon to rule on what is similar, but he could very well rule that even a smaller increase (say three of four cents for one year) could not even make it into the Senate next year.

But look at the vote to discover just how bad this vote was for gas tax hike proponents.

Had the vote split along party lines, Republicans would have prevailed 13-11.  To get to 18 (and this is very simple math), you can tell that no less than five of the 11 Democrats must have gone along with the killing motion.

In fact, and this should come as no surprise, only six Democrats voted to keep the gas tax hike alive, and five of those six represent districts that are so highly Democrat that, as I liked to say in redistricting, "No Republican need apply."  Only Lou D'Allesandro, whose district includes four Manchester wards and Goffstown, could be considered beatable and then he hasn't been beaten since 1998.

The five Democrats voting with Republicans were Jeff Woodburn from the North County, Andy Hosmer from the Laconia area, Donna Soucy in the swing district of South Manchester/Litchfield, and Nashua's two senators, Peg Gilmour in a problematic district, and Betty Lasky from a fairly safe district (but then she was bumped off in 2010 so must have been voting with the "once burned" idea in mind).

Anybody who still harbors even the slightest of doubts that political considerations are not always uppermost in minds of senators need only look at this vote.

Speaking against the kill motion was David Pierce whose Hanover-Lebanon district is so Democratic that...well, you know the line about being caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.  "Are we open for business in New Hampshire or are we not?" Senator Pierce stated in stressing how the gas tax increase is needed.  He said the kill motion was simply kicking the can down the road, abdicating our responsibility to deal with our roads.

Even if his colleagues agreed with him, only five voted with him.

"It will hurt," Senator Jeb Bradley stated succinctly regarding the tax hike.  Hey, when you've got the votes, don't bother to dray out the debate.

I've stated all along that Rep. Campbell and his Democratic colleagues in the House doomed any chance of a gasoline tax hike by overreaching.  Had they reached for less, they might have succeeded, but in pursuing a hike which could be labeled 67 percent (it was originally 80+%), they made a vote for the bill politically unpalatable.

Rep. Campbell, apparently disgusted, left the Senate gallery prior to the vote.

I had to leave to be on the Ernie Arleen show (94.7 FM); in fact, I broke the news there, but managed to get back for the final vote.

As Rep. Campbell stated in a post mortem on the gambling defeat on Laura Knoy's Exchange this morning--talk about a tough two days; just be thankful you're not David Campbell--the Senate is world unto itself.

Who knows what other hardball the Senate is prepared to play later today (maybe with medical marijuana) or in coming weeks, but I suspect, "We ain't seen nothing yet." 

The hornet's nest was poked yesterday...or perhaps the bear awakened...when the House voted to kill the Senate's preferred funding source, expanded gambling.

Bye, Bye, Jack; Hello NHPR

By the way, the Knoy show was so interesting that I sat in my parked car listening to the final 20 minutes.  Jack Heath, WGIR's new morning host who insisted week after week that the gambling bill would pass, has succeeded in accomplishing the impossible--he's driven me to NHPR.  I've lost all confidence in anything he has to say.  As I tuned in this morning, he was insisting that 90 percent of New Hampshire voters oppose an income tax.

Oh really, Jack?  If that were the case, why did the constitutional amendment against an income tax muster only 57 percent of the vote last November?

By silly overstatements and inane predictions, Heath and GIR have lost me.  I tired of Glen Beck and his sycophantic side-kick long ago!

Hit that button and bring on NPR.  I never thought I'd live long enough to write that. 

The Concord Monitor and Annmarie Timmins, whom the paper actually paid to send out to Pennsylvania to do a full blown report on a Millennium casino last week, must be considered the biggest losers while Kevin Landrigan of the Nashua Telegraph is the biggest winner.

First the Monitor got it totally wrong with today's front page headline predicting how first term Democrats would make a difference.  In fact, as predicted here Monday, it was Republicans who made the difference.  Democrats actually voted for the bill (at least against killing it) by a margin of approximately 92-112 and many of the 112 were clearly first term Democrats who listened to their Governor rather than their more veteran Democratic Representatives colleagues.

However, the first termers, notwithstanding the Monitor's headline prediction, did not make the difference.

Republican opposition to the bill was almost exactly the two to one margin predicted here Monday; it was 107-52.  Thus, it was Republicans, not Democratic first termers, who provided the margin of defeat. In fact, some Democratic leaders told me they weren't confident the bill would be killed after Governor Maggie Hassan rallied the forces with a 15 minute speech in the party's caucus.  Not to worry, I assured them, Republicans are breaking strongly against the bill (in favor of ITL).  After all, why would Republicans want to gift wrap a victory of the Democratic governor?

But I digress...this is supposed to be a report on what the media did...not on what it could have reported.

Timmins, of course, cannot be faulted for headline writers (editors write headlines, at least last time I checked), but her story posted on line Wednesday evening was rather disgusting.

Rather than write about any of the arguments in the two hour House debate, as a reasonable reader might expect, Timmins focused on negative reaction--perhaps best described at piques of petulance--from Democratic Governor Maggie Hassan and bill sponsor Senator Lou D'Allesandro and Republican Senator Chuck Morse of Salem which would have benefited greatly by passage of the bill.

To be sure, I'm only going by what I was able to pull down off the Monitor web site, but I couldn't find the type of report one would expect after 16 Representatives addressed the bill on the House floor.

Kevin Landrigan was excellent in recapping the positions of those for and against the bill (and I'm not just saying that because he quoted me).

Isn't that what a journalist should be doing, covering the debate, not going after extraneous comments from those angered by the result?

As for the Union Leader, I'm sure there will be a full blown story in the print edition, but John Distaso's on-line report was more like Timmins than Landrigan.  He quoted Hassan at length, but there was not a word on the House debate.  DiStaso began his story, "By a larger margin than had been expected, the House-killed the Senate-passed bill".

Really John?  Expected by you and the other members of the media who really had no idea other than a shot in the dark as to how close it would be?  It was a classic example of the media building up a straw horse and then clumsily knocking it down, something most readers probably aren't knowledgeable enough to ascertain...except those who tune in here of course.

After an embarrassing performance on Close-up Sunday morning when he began by mispronouncing guest John Cebrowski's name and then failed to steer the conversation toward gambling, WMUR reporter Josh McElveen's standup outside the State House Wednesday night was tough on the governor but again short on clips of what was said in the House.

McElveen called the vote a "crushing defeat" and then a "major defeat" for the governor.  Like DiStaso, McElveen contended that the vote was expected to be closer.

Really Josh?  What guru was expecting that?

Give McElveen credit, at least, for capturing anti-gambling Represenative David Hess on camera making a salient point that despite the hard work of the governor for the bill, it actually lost by almost as much as last year when Governor Lynch was working against a Republican-led gambling plan.

It'll be interesting to check the media tomorrow morning, but so far it's an A for Kevin Landrigan, a B for John McElveen and barely passing grades for Timmins and DiStaso.

Rather than me write more (Jodi beckons; I heard the jury is deadlocked on its death decision), I'll just paste in Landrigan's excellent report.  (Is this even legal to do?)

I'll run some numbers as I watch Jodi tonight on HLN; oh yes, I'm doing the Arnie Arnesen radio show tomorrow at 11:10 or so.

The biggest financial winners in the loss of the gambling bill (SB152) today are the pro gambling lobbyists, most particularly one James Demers.

These lobbyists have been on the losing end year after year after year, but look at it this way--if a gambling plan actually passed, they'd be off the gravy train.  Their billable hours (or monthly or annual hours...or however they bill) would dry up.

Lobbying is the only game in town where you actually win by losing.

I repeat, they don't like to hear this, but quarterly statements are filed with the Secretary of State's office.  The last time I checked, the Demers firm had taken in more than $100,000 this past year.

Anybody have a calculation for how much Demers and Company have made over the years for losing year after year after year?  Is it more than a million yet? 

Then, of course there's Jabba The Hut, but we won't get into that, now will we?  He was skulking around during the course of the debate today, but I can't seem to find him being paid anything by the gambling industry in the recent reporting...caveat...it's not at all easy to find things in the pile of lobbyist filings in the Secretary of State's office.  You better reserve the better part of an afternoon if you plan to try.

Inquiring minds, on this blog if nowhere else, really would like to know.

Congratulations gambling lobbyists, you win again...by losing that is.

Does anybody really think that Millennium will drop its attempt to win approval for a plan that will net the company billions of dollars in the long run?  Does anyone think Demers and company will be out of a job as they would be had the bill actually passed?

Take note, Kathy, I am one of the biggest supporters of expanded gambling you can find, but not this bill! 

Floor Speech For ITL on SB152

Everett Dirksen, "A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money"...more than a billion will be lost to the state if this version of gambling passes.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, Hills. 15

May 22, 2013

            Thank you, Madame Speaker.

            This is a tremendous bill, a real bargain and one which represents a once in a lifetime opportunity. 

            The pot at the end of the rainbow in this bill overflows with money.

            However Madame Speaker, I stand before you today to oppose this bill and to speak in favor of the Inexpedient to Legislate motion.

            Because unfortunately this bill is tremendous not for the people of New Hampshire but for one out of state gambling interest, Millennium of Las Vegas which stands to reap billions of dollars should this bill pass; New Hampshire is left with a mere pittance.

            Far from being a real bargain for the state of New Hampshire, this bill represents a corrupt bargain, drafted by the greediest of the greedy, those so unfamiliar with the legislative tradition of compromise that  they brazenly go where no glutton has gone before.

            They want it all; with this bill, they beseech us, “Give us it all.”

            The money at the end of the rainbow, thanks to the Millennium lobbyists who drafted this bill, will flow out of our state and into the coffers of a monopolistic company which is more interested in a get rich quick scheme than in equitably sharing a very large pot of money.

            Truth be told, I have always favored expanded gambling.  More than once I’ve stood before this body stressing that as a human being endowed by my creator with the greatest gift of all, free will, I should be allowed to decide whether I would rather spend my money on a summer trip to Fenway park, a fall sojourn to Foxboro, a winter weekend shushing down the slopes, or perhaps bellying up to a black jack table or a slot machine.

            For me personally, the black jack table would always trump a slot machine—different strokes for different folks are words to live by—but the most important thing in my life or I dare say in any of our lives is the ability to exercise free will.

            However, I’ve long believed that if we are going to move forward with expanded gambling, we must get it right at the outset because we will be forced to live forever with the consequences if we fail.

            With this bill, we cannot help but fail.

            This is the worst of all possible ways to bring expanded gambling into our state.  This bill presents us with the worst sort of a monopoly, certainly against the spirit if not the letter of our constitution. 

            The state’s take is indeed a mere pittance.

            A gambling license is really a license to print money, and if we’re going to head in that direction, the state, not some out of state interest, should reap the rewards.

            A few months ago, I asked legislative research to put together a comparison of gambling plans offered in recent years.

            Back in 2004, Senate bill 117, brought forward by the same sponsor as the bill before us today, would have “given” the state 55 percent of net machine revenues.

            In 2008, another bill, Senate bill 330, would have yielded 50 percent to the state.

            By 2009, the number was down to 49 percent; by 2010 down to 39 percent—we seem to be headed in the wrong direction here-but it gets worse, much worse.  In the bill before us today, the state gets only 30 percent of the take. 

            No less than 70 would go to an out of state company which has spent endless amounts of time and money trying to convince us this is a real bargain for the state of New Hampshire.

            This bill is no bargain for New Hampshire; it’s a bargain only for one company.

            By the way, it’s the same company, Millennium which is operating quite profitably in Pennsylvania, thank you, with that state getting 55 percent, not a paltry 30 percent of revenues.  Apparently, Millennium’s lobbyists didn’t write the Pennsylvania law.

            One would think that a company, in seeking to win a monopoly, would settle for something less, but no, that’s not the case.

            Greed is rampant in this bill.

            For the promise to build a $300 or $400 or $500 million dollar complex, this company insists on taking 70 percent.  This company is in effect asking the state to serve as its banker.  It’s not enough that Millennium gets a monopoly, but they actually want New Hampshire taxpayers to pay for their development by accepting a return rate only about half as much as has been considered in previous bills.

            In fact, the state’s share in this bill is exactly half  of that in another bill which I have offered for years now, a bill which sits on the House table today and which would do away with the monopoly by allowing six mini casinos.

Lest you think that bigger is better, that one grand facility is the answer to all our fiscal woes, consider this.

            Bigger brings about more control from non-elected officials; and we have witnessed proof of that this past month.

            Everybody realizes that the state makes out better in the long run by taking less money up front and a higher percentage of the return on an annual basis.

            When we’re talking about 500 million dollars in revenues in a given year, every one percent is five million dollars.  Every five percent would mean an additional 25 million dollars for the state. 

            When the revenue subcommittee figured this out, a vote was taken to increase the state’s take from 30 to 37 percent in exchange for receiving seven percent less money up front.

            It was clearly a better deal for the state; seven times $5 million would be $35 million a year more for the state.

            But in a colossal display of greed, the same Millennium folks who drafted the original Senate bill descended upon the House revenue committee to complain that 37 percent would not be such a good idea.

            Of course, it wouldn’t be such a good idea—for them—but it would be a great idea for the state. 

            However, after listening to Millennium lobbyists, the revenue committee backtracked and moved the 37 percent rate back to 33.33 percent and only by a single vote did the committee not cave completely and revert all the way back to what Millennium really wanted—30 percent.

Sadly, that’s what we can come to expect if we pass this bill.  We can expect more powerful lobbyists who become dedicated to deceiving us into doing what is best for the people who pay them rather than what is best for the state.  We’ve seen the influence of money quite clearly and sadly when a former Attorney General, long opposed to expanded gambling as all previous Attorneys General have been, changes his mind when he signs up as a Millennium lobbyist.

Sad, sad, sad but true that where there’s money to be made, people, even good people, too often abandon their principles.  Just as absolute power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so too money corrupts and an absolutely large amount of money corrupts absolutely.

There can be no doubt that this bill offers up one of the largest pots of money ever considered by the Legislature.

Greed and corruption concern me and should concern you, Madame Speaker.

            You just can’t make up such greed as we’ve seen in this bill, greed in small as well as big things.

            Let’s look at a small thing.

            In gambling, there’s something called breakage.  In its simplest form, consider this as unclaimed tickets.  It’s not a great deal of money, probably less than one percent.  The money rightly belongs to the gamblers themselves, but if they can’t be located to claim it after a period of time, where should the money go?

            I would say it should go to the state…perhaps some to charities, but Millennium’s thirst for profit was so insatiable that in SB152—remember who wrote the bill--all this breakage money goes back to them.

            I’m not making this stuff up.

            Now, let’s move on to a bigger thing.

            Let’s talk about the machines themselves.  They are rather sophisticated and don’t come cheaply.  Many casinos don’t buy or rent the machines but enter into an arrangement wherein the maker—let’s say IGT, International Game Technology for example—takes a percentage of the machine revenue in exchange for supplying the machines.

            In my gambling analysis, I’ve always used six percent as a reasonable number.  In fact, that’s what is written into the law in Delaware.  In Rhode Island it's seven percent, and New Hampshire Lottery Commissioner Charlie McIntyre told the revenue committee that seven percent is indeed a good number to use.

            But no, that wasn’t good enough for the greedy folks from Millennium.  One of its spokesmen actually appeared before the revenue committee saying that 10 to 15 percent is the industry standard.

            Oh really…

            Why would he do that?

            Because the more he can convince legislators that Millennium will have to pay out in an arrangement to bring slot machines into the casino, the more Millennium can demand that it keep; the less the state will receive.

            Let’s go a little higher than the seven percent; let’s use seven and a half percent, and let’s use a number midway between 10 and 15 percent that Millenium is telling us.  Let’s use 12.5 percent.

            12.5 minus 7.5 percent is a five percent difference.  By overstating the cost by five percent, the lobbyists of this bill make it appear reasonable, like magic, that the state take only 30 percent as opposed to the 55 percent that was proposed in 2004.

            Do the math again; that five percent translates into a 25 million dollar annual loss to New Hampshire…25 million that will flow out of state to Las Vegas rather than be available for such New Hampshire projects as aid to the developmentally disabled, or the University system, or funding education adequacy at a higher level…or perhaps, just perhaps cutting taxes.

            To paraphrase the late great Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, “A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon, you’re talking about real money.”  $25 million here and $35 million there adds up to $60 million a year going out of state…that’s more than a billion dollars over the 20 year life span of the monopolist contract.

            I mention 20 years because we, as elected representatives of the people of our state, must look not for a short term fix but for what is in the best interests of the state long term.

            This bill is not in the best long term interests of our state, and if we go forward with it, we won’t have the benefit of a do-over.  Our children and grand children will rue this day if we allow this bill to go forward.

            Every step of the way, this bill was designed to provide more money for an out of state company and less revenue for the state of New Hampshire.

            That’s no real bargain; that Madame Speaker is a corrupt bargain, and that’s why I tell you this bill is so fatally flawed that our only prudent option today is the approve the ITL motion and start all over again.

            Even proponents of this bill stated time and again during the committee debate that this bill is not perfect, that it is flawed.

            They would have us attempt to fix it, but we can’t fix a fatally flawed bill on the fly.

            As I said at the outset, if we’re going to move toward expanded gambling—and I fully believe we should; in fact, I visited a location on South Willow Street in Manchester just this pass weekend, a location that would be an ideal location for a 600 machine facility—if we’re going to move toward expanded gambling, we must get it right at the outset.

            This bill gets it precisely wrong.

            I am aware of opinion polls which show that expanded gambling is favored by a majority of New Hampshire voters.  But what those polls really tell us is that most people favor more than one facility.  The polls do not tell us that any sizeable percentage favors a monopoly for an out of state interest, especially when the state’s take would truly be a pittance, only about half as much as the same people were putting before us years ago, and exactly half as much as my bill, sitting on the table in this House.

            Yes, Madame Speaker, SB152 is a tremendous bill and a real bargain, but when we provide such a monopoly with such a low return to New Hampshire, it’s only tremendous for an out of state special interest which, far from showing its willingness to be a good citizen in our state, has proven time and again that it will go to almost any means to increase its bottom line.

            That’s their right of course, but we have a duty to do otherwise.

            It’s a terrible bill and a corrupt bargain for the state of New Hampshire.

            That’s why I, as a long time supporter of expanded gambling, feel compelled to warn you, Madame Speaker, that this bill is not the answer to any of our state’s fiscal woes. 

Better to do nothing now and to leave open the option of trying again with a bill later, perhaps one not written by gambling lobbyists, than to lock us into this travesty of a plan.

            ITL is our only recourse.

            Thank you, Madame Speaker.

My current total has increased from negative 62 to negative 65, 140-205, and even if the 51 undecided/unknowns break three to one in favor of the bill...that could well happen since most of them are first term Democrats whom I do not know...even if that happens (let's say 38-13), SB152 would still lose 178-218 were everyone to be present for the vote.

Three of the 400 seats are vacant, and as always, I count georgethek as hopelessly absent.  (Will we be in for a surprise?  The Speaker assures me he's still living in his ward!)

That's why I'm going with 40 as the over/under number, and I'd take over if forced to make a decision.

Today, I've moved three people into the no column.  Al Baldasaro and George Lambert, according to my sources, told the House Republican Alliance they would vote no.  A Democrat tells me that Tom Sherman, of Rye, is a no. 

The major change is that libertarian Joel Winters, I have learned, told a group of constituents last week that he's a no.  Since I had him in the yes column, that's a two vote swing.

Two people move from unknown to yes.   John O'Connor, of Derry, tells me that while he's undecided on the bill, he will vote against ITL.  Robert Haefner, of Hudson, says he will vote for the bill.

That's how 139 becomes 140 and 201 moves up to 205.

How sure am I?  Well, let's put it this way.  Even if all my undecided/unknowns moved to the yes side (and that will not happen), the bill would still be defeated.

As noted earlier, I'm not counting absences since I am convinced they tend to break proportionately about the same way as the final vote.  For example, I heard today of two "yes" people who will not be her and two "no" people who will not be here.  The one wild card is that Manchester Democrats tend to be No Shows in a larger percentage, and they would tend to be Yes voters.

All indications are that the vote will go forward in the morning, again contrary to some media reports.  Only the loon and car dealer bills will come before the gambling bill--House precedent is that bill are brought forth alphabetically by committee--and neither of those debates should be all that lengthy.

Even as the Senate appears ready to finalize its budget plans today, I have received confirmation from no one less than President Peter Bragdon that if the House defeats SB152, the Senate will NOT attempt to force it into the budget.  That should allay the fears of some Democrats who have been buying into the Hassanick argument that if SB152 goes down, the House will have no bargaining position on the budget.  That really is reaching for straws, Madame Governor, but desperation most likely has set in.

Neither the Democratic nor Republican caucus is "whipping" the bill, but it bears repeating that almost all Republican leadership and much Democratic leadership is against the bill, and the Republican Party platform contains an anti-gambling plank.

While not usually a gambling man (after all I was a Baltimore Oriole fan for the Amazing 1969 World Series; I learned my lesson way back they), I would certainly be willing to lay a few quid (what's a quid?) on any press room pool that shows a five vote win.

My count is minus 65; but I'll close with a 40 vote loss as a prediction. 

I have updated the Rep by Rep prediction on the guide on nhinsider.com first posted last Friday.

Loon protection (SB89) passes easily.

See photos

 

             Once the Bruins had thoroughly vanquished the Rangers Sunday afternoon (to quote the late great Pittsburgh Pirate announcer Bob Prince, “We had ‘em all the way”), I  decided it was time to get to work.

            With the House vote on expanded gambling only three days away, work in this case consisted of a visit to a very special place on South Willow Street, less than three miles from my house and the Manchester-Boston Regional Airport.

            Directly off an I-293 exit, much closer than Rockingham Park is from the Salem exit in fact, this place used to be the South Willow cinemas.

            You need to check this place out, more than one person told me, suggesting that it would be an ideal location for one of the six mini casinos contained not in Senate Bill 152 but rather in my bill (HB678) which sits on the table in the House.

            Thus, with thoughts of a Stanley Cup in mind, I headed to South Willow, and guess what?

            This indeed would be an ideal location for a 600 machine facility.

            Currently, the old cinema complex is home to three huge bingo halls, two charitable gaming rooms, a restaurant and bistro (Jokers), and several other smaller rooms currently housing various foosball and other games.

            There would be no need to wait years to build a new facility; this one could readily be converted to a mini casino with the state getting 60 percent of the revenue as called for in HB678, twice as much as the 30 percent in the Senate bill which is a great deal for an out of state business (Millennium) but a terrible deal for New Hampshire residents.

            Not interested in either bingo or the table games (different strokes for different folks, I always say), I headed out strictly as a research project, but I learned a great deal.

            The facility comes with a 500 space parking lot; as you might expect, lots of cars would be on hand for movie goers.  It abuts a Hannaford store and is right across the street from a Sam’s Club.

            The great thing geographically about this location is that the infrastructure is already in place; South Willow is not the only point of entrance; there’s a back way through John Devine Drive, the way I always go to Hannaford’s as a matter of fact.

            There would be no need for the state to serve as banker for a hotel to be built, as in the case of the Senate bill; a high rise Four Points Sheraton is right across the street.

            Oh, did I note that the facility is less than three miles from the Manchester/Boston Regional Airport?

            In conversations with people on the scene, I learned that although only about 170 people were playing bingo at the time (obviously Bruins fans were celebrating elsewhere), the three halls fit about 700 people.

            I didn’t come with a tape measure, but I quickly calculated that the space would be just big enough for 600 machines…plus a room or two for charitable gaming tables to remain.

            Keep in mind that HB678 does not provide table games for the casino, but it does envision each of the six facilities entering into agreements with charities for table games on the premises.

            If in fact more space were needed at the South Willow complex, I discovered a tattoo parlor (don’t get me wrong, not some dive but a very clean and nice place) adjacent to the bingo/gaming location. 

            The parlor owner said he would prefer to be back around the corner on the South Willow side, and fortuitously, one of the four storefronts there (a gold outlet) is currently vacant.  (The other three businesses are Hajjar’s Big and Tall, Red Wing Shoes, and Concentra Urgent Care).

            The current tattoo parlor space, with a separate entrance, would be ideal for the charitable gaming section of the new Manchester casino.

            This is not in some residential neighborhood where a casino could disrupt the lives of those living nearby; rather it’s prime in a commercial area.

            Unfortunately, the manager of the bingo/gaming rooms and the owner of the property were not around Sunday night, but I received every indication that they might very well be interested in bidding on one of the six locations should SB152 be voted down and should the state move in the direction of licensing six facilities.

            I was so enthused that I decided to attend tonight’s Manchester Aldermanic meeting asking them to place a question on November’s ballot regarding the willingness of Manchester to host one of the six facilities.  (HB678 mandates approval by the host community).

            Salem would get three percent of revenues from SB152, as much as $15.6 million, according to the fiscal note.

            Why should Manchester and five other communities not share in the windfall?

            Of course this will only happen if SB152 goes down, all the more reason for Manchester Reps to vote against the Senate plan, especially Barbara Shaw, the Alderman/Representative from Ward 9, home of the complex.

            But I digress…

            My research was not finished.  I walked around the facility and determined this would be an ideal spot for a casino for one other very important reason.

            Anti-gamblers delight in disparaging anything other than a 5000 machine mega complex, with most of the money going to out-of-state Millennium, as “slot barns”.

             Lobbyist George Roberts, even while he tried to convince the Ways and Means Committee that he’s not a lobbyist (check the forms in the Secretary of State’s office; he most certainly is one), referred to such mini casinos as black walls (whatever that means).

            He, along with Reps and Senators, should visit the South Willow location.  No black walls here.  This is a clean, well-built facility; I would even use the word classy.  It’s not just one big hall where people would file in and plop down in front on their favorite slot machines.  Quite the opposite, it’s jammed with lots of nooks and crannies including spacious hallways where machines could be located, very much like the Montreal Casino which I’ve visited often in the past.

            There’s even a small cabaret room (currently not in use) in the facility with a small stage which could easily be turned into a prime location with 20 or so of the more poplar slots perched above it all.

            Oh, did I note that the facility is less than three miles from the Manchester Boston Regional airport?

            Did I note that there’s plenty of parking already available, easy access to the interstate, and a Four Points Sheraton right next door?

            No wonder, so many people have been telling me for the last few weeks that I should check out this South Willow location.

            Somebody even dared suggest to me that this space would be good for one of the two 1300-machine facilities envisioned in HB678, but why be greedy?  With only some rewiring for the slot outlets, this place is tailor-made for 600 machines.

             Keep in mind that HB678 has always envisoned an on-site restaurant and bar with the licensee, not the state, keeping all the profits.

            More than a half million people reside within 20 minutes of Manchester.

            I suspect that 600 machines would be occupied a good portion of the time, and charities would realize a huge increase in monies, far more than they currently get from the bingo/gaming rooms.

            Talk about a win/win/win situation.

            That’s what a 600 machine facility at the old South Willow Cinema location in Manchester would be. 

            But of course, to get there, we have to defeat the monopolistic SB152 and revive HB678.  There’s about as much chance of that happening tomorrow as of gerogethek showing up for the vote.

            But hey, keep hope alive; the dream will never die.

            Manchester Aldermen, do your part; put the question on the ballot this fall.

            New Hampshire Representatives and Senators, do your part.  Visit the South Willow Street complex, and don’t wait for another Bruins win to make it happen.

            Which will happen first, a Stanley Cup for the Bruins or a 600 machine mini casino for Manchester?

            It would be great if both happened this year.

"Mine is to plan an artistic revenge upon an enemy, carry it out to perfection, and then go home and go peacefully to bed."

Since there has been no dearth of bad guys in Russian history, six choices are easy enough to come by.

Was it?

A--Ivan The Terrible, living up to his nickname

B--Peter The Great, builder of St. Petersburg

C--Alexander I, Napoleon's nemesis

D--Lenin

E--Stalin

F--Putin, very recently

Followers of this blog will recall I'm slogging though Alan Bullock's "Hitler and Stalin:  Parallel Lives"

The answer is, of course, Stalin (page 344).  I'm not quite sure if this was before or after he killed 10 million kulaks (give or take a few million) in his collectivization program or before or after the purges of 1937-38 or before or after his World War II tactics which cost the Soviet Union 21 million lives (as opposed to less than seven million for the German on two fronts).

Stalin is most assuredly the most evil man ever to draw a breath in the history of the world!

Anyone wanna argue that point? 

Here's some more from Bullock.  "Deceit and treachery were second nature to him.  Whenever he could, he preferred stealth and manipulation behind the scenes to open confrontation, leaving it to an opponent to make the first move and then taking him by surprise, finding someone else to plant the dagger in an unsuspecting back."

All in all, Stalin was far worse than that terrible Ivan or Peter (who had his own son killed) or even Dolf.

Reps who haven't disclosed their position are being especially coy, so I've made no changes in the forecast.

However, I feel compelled to point to the fallacy of the main stream media weekend pundits who seemed to say the vote would be decided by some 100 or so first time Democrats.

Not at all!

This vote, for one of the few times this year, will be decided by members of the minority party, by Republicans.

Here's how; and let's call this explanation the two-to-one analysis.

Let's say there are 100 first year Democrats, and let's say they in fact break more than two to one in favor of the gambling bill (SB152).

Let's say they break 70-30 for the bill.

However, clearly veteran Democrat, 120 of them, are most likely to break two to one the other way, against the bill.  After all, most Democratic leaders (except Speaker Norelli) are outspoken against the bill.  Let's name ten names right off the top of my head--Wallner, Smith, Almy, Waltz, Nordgren, Gile, Richardson, Eaton,  MacKay, Spang.  I could go on and on.

Let's say the 120 veteran Democrats split almost two to one against the bill.

Let's say it's 40-80.

Add 40 plus 70 for a total of 110 Democrats for the bill.

Add 30 plus 80 for a total of 110 Democrats against the bill.

That's 110-110 with Democrats, and clearly, it's Republicans who will make the difference.

Almost all Republican leadership is against the bill.

Almost all members of the right wing House Republican Alliance are against the bill.

Almost all Libertarian-minded Republicans are against the bill.

Hey, even most of the diminished number of so-called Main Street Republicans are against the bill.

Only the Weyler/Sapareto/Elliott ilk, those close to Salem, are pushing for this bill...against their party's platform, I hasten to add.

It would be hard to see how Republicans break less than two to one against the bill.

Of approximately 180 Republicans, that would be 120 to 60 against the bill.

120+110=230 against.

60+110+170 in favor.

The 60 vote margin may in fact be smaller.

Word is out today that Democrats are panicking and have called a Monday caucus, against the edict from Speaker Norelli that Reps not be allowed to go to Concord on Monday and Friday, but for every Democrat who is won over to support the bill at the last minute, expect a Republican to move against it.

All right, let's name names.

10 Republican leadership types against gambling--Chandler, Packard, Hess, Jasper, Kurk, Major, Hunt, Renzullo, Tucker, and lest we forget...former Speaker O'Brien.

10 Libertarian types against the bill--Dan and Carol McGuire, Itse, Comerford, Hoell, Warden, Hikel, Murphy (s), Pratt, me.  I could go on and one.

5 Main Street types against the bill (hey, there aren't many Main Streeters left)--Gargasz, Lockwood, Kidder, Sytek, Emerson.

The Manchester Verizon problem remains--I plan to make that clear at the public comment session of this week's Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting--plus I'll call upon the Aldermen to place a warrant article on this November's ballot to authorize gambling in the Queen City.  Does anyone really believe it'll be much different than the four to one yes margin in Salem.  Of course, to get a mini casino (and I visited the perfect location Sunday night after the Bruins disposed of the Rangers--more on that tomorrow--after all, I'm not allowed to go to Concord to type on Monday!), Manchester Reps would have to put their city ahead of their loyalty to Lou's lobbyists and help defeat SB152 Wednesday.

From a glance at the most reading gambling loss, 154-195 on March 28, 2012, we notice a slight change in party stance.  That day, Democrats were more against HB593l (36-56 or nearly 61 percent) than Republicans (118-139 or 54 percent), so we might in fact see, for the first time, a higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans for gambling, but it still won't matter.

Oh yes, Governor Maggie Hassan was stone cold wrong in the media last week when she said he 23-22 vote against gambling was the closest it has gotten in committee.  That HB593 actually came out of the O'Brien-appointed Ways and Means committee with an ought to pass recommendation (and it wasn't all that close as I recall) only to be overturned on the House floor.  Governor Hassan is to be forgiven for the error; after all, she was on a two-year voter-mandated sabbatical at the time!

Long live the loons!