Maybe Maggie “Squats With Lobbyists” Hassan Just Wants A Casino Bailout?

As our Democrat Governor tries to improve her odds at winning a bet on a state gambling monopoly in norther New England, AP is reporting hard times for the Indian Casino monopoly in the southern part of New England.  The Indian tribes, who got the law changed to allow them to put up casinos as a way to pay for their needs way back when, got so busy relying on other peoples gambling money for their free ride that when that money dried up, (down economy, waste, bad spending decisisons, abuse, because they are entitield) they figured they'd go running back to Uncle Sam for a bailout.

It's millions of dollars, just sitting there, to which the 'law' entitles them, and as the song goes, they aint too proud to beg.

The money provided annually to the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation through the Interior Department and the Department of Health and Human Services has risen over the last five years to more than $4.5 million, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press through the Freedom of Information Act. One former tribal employee says department leaders were encouraged to offset dwindling resources by seeking more federal grants.

The Pequots, who once distributed stipends exceeding $100,000 annually to adult members, are not alone among gaming tribes seeking more federal aid. Several, including the owner of Foxwoods' rival Connecticut casino, the Mohegan Sun, say they have been pursuing more grants — a trend that critics find galling because the law that gave rise to Indian casinos was intended to help tribes become financially self-sufficient.

How many times have I said this?  Gambling revenue (not unlike sales and income taxes) are a poor source of tax dollars for any government.  When they need it most it will be at its least.  That puts a strain on existing spending at a time when the state very often wants to do more.   That means seeking new revenue from people who have already demonstrated, through their lack engaging in gambling or commerce, that they don't have it to give.  But tribal governments, it seems, are no more competent than any other, nor are those dependent upon them.  How many years did every tribal adult get a $100,000.00 stipend?  Where did that money go grasshopper?

Why is anyone in that tribe in need of anything from anyone?  Because they didn't earn it, didn't respect it, and now it is probably gone?

More from the same AP Article

"A billion-dollar gaming enterprise should fully fund the tribal government," said Weissmuller, (who was chief judge of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Court until 2011) who said that he was forced out of the job by tribal officials who told him he did not appear to have the tribe's interests at heart on other matters.

Weismuller is not against accepting Federal grants but if we had to make comparisons he must be the tribal equivalent of the TEA Party, asking those inconvenient questions.  Which brings us New Hampshire Governor Hassan.

Governor Hassan is committed to Casino revenue.  She included it on the revenue (that's tax) side of her budget, even though no such law permitted them.  Meanwhile, the Indian Tribes are struggling so badly with their own investment in casino revenues, that they need the Federal government to come along and help bail them out.  So it appears as if Maggie "Squats with lobbyists" Hassan (or how about "Dances with Debits?") has not only put the cart before the horse,  the cart is empty, or as likely to be at any point at which the other Democrats in her tribe are demanding that the state spend even more on top of what is now less.

There are no guaranteed bailouts from the Federal Government for any future failed New Hampshire Casinos, in a New England market that already has too much competition?, so this means that the spending to which our Democrat Governor has already committed--that and so much more--will have to be "bailed out" by New Hampshire taxpayers who, like the tribal members in Connecticut and other places, were probably told--hey! don't worry, its like--free money.  You'll get stuff for nothing!

You know what else is free?  Poverty.  But when it is imposed on you through deceit and then by the force and will of your government,  around our little Tribe at the Grok, we prefer to call that legislated tyranny.

You are reading  Maybe Maggie “Squats With Lobbyists” Hassan Just Wants A Casino Bailout?   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012

Hassan’s Budget Gamble Takes Heat From Her Left

No one should be surprised to see Maggie Hassan's budget has millions of dollars in revenue from a source that does not even exist.

In this instance it is gambling, but a few years ago Senator Hassan was part and parcel to repeated budget balancing fiascoes that relied on non existent revenue.

She voted for budgets "balanced" with revenues from taxes that had not even been through the committee process or had a hearing.  She voted for budgets that relied on revenue from the sale of land even though no one knew what land or how much they might get for it.    She was a gold medal recipient in the Granite-State-Left-Wing-Fiscal Gymnastics Finals, helping execute chess master like moves to create the illusion of paying for what had not been paid for.  She even continues to insist to this day that the 800 million dollars in spending she helped accumulate in the Majority Democrat legislature--for which there was no money to pay for in successive fiscal years--was not a deficit nor evidence of fiscal malfeasance on the part of her or her party.  So why, WHY would we be surprised when her first budget as governor relies on at least $80 million in gambling industry dollars for casinos that do not even exist?

I'm not surprised.  This is Classic Hassan, which now that I've thunk it, sounds like a good name for a dish comprised of week old flounder, wrapped in baloney, breaded in crushed nuts, half-baked, that comes to your table at twice the price listed on the menu.

So we've got another steaming plate of Classic Hassan, but served with a gambling sauce.   This is of a particular interest given that New Hampshire Democrats, while fond of what I guess we'll refer to as "rapture revenue," are as likely to oppose casino gambling as anyone, having shut down the "I think I can, I think I can" Lou D'Allesandro Millennium Express year after year, even when they held a majority in every branch of state government.  And it looks as if the "Gambling Revenue Resistance" (GRR?) is already on the move.

(And hold your breath because if a recent  press release from the NHGOP is quoting correctly, Democrat Peter Sullivan from Manchester and I are about to agree on something.)

In a series of tweets aimed at Democrat Party leaders, State Representative Peter Sullivan (D-Manchester) sharply criticized Governor Hassan and her casino revenue scheme.

“Dem party leaders pressuring legislators to back casino solely to protect Hassan's hide,”tweeted Representative Sullivan. “Casino gambling is NOT a Democratic issue. Hope@ChairmanBuckley and @nhkathysullivan remember that...I just don't want to see any thumbs on the scale from party officers. Gov. Hassan isn't NH’s only Dem.”

Representative Sullivan also indicated that Governor Hassan’s budget gambit is already facing widespread opposition among House Democrats.

“House response to Governor's casino proposal can charitably be called underwhelming, he tweeted. “ Governor is badly overestimating House Dem support. Outside Manch/Nashua, very thin.”

This is also not surprising, though I am curious to see whether Sullivan has his thumb on the pulse of House Democrats or stuck someplace else.  He was a Cilley person (Still is!).  He ragged on Hassan loud and often during the Democrat primary for Governor.  So for him to come out against anything that avoids what he wants--broad based sales or income taxes--is not surprising; unless you are thrilled at any defection among the Borg.  Then it's all good.

Dean Barker is also called out in the NHGOP press release as expressing concern for Hassan's approach.

“I find disingenuous the implication…that we can’t fund needed services without gambling. That kind of blackmail rhetoric will turn off lawmakers rather than get them on board,” said liberal BlueHampshire (3/18/10) blogger Dean Barker. “NH should not be in the business of holding children’s welfare hostage to whether the slot machine industry gets their way.”

I'm not down for the liberal class warfare-welfare narrative but the same idea applies to roads, bridges, public employee wages, or anything else they care or about, or might actually be a function of state government.

The last time Democrats went Classic Hassan on the budget, the word of the day was unpredictable.  State employees often found their jobs swirling around in the blue water of the toilet bowl called Democrat leadership.  From year to year job cuts, furloughs, all manner of song and dance could come up on any given day with Democrats playing with the purse strings.  It's a feature not a bug.

And the same is true with gambling money.  Even with a contract in hand there is no guarantee of stability tomorrow, or five years from now.  What is guaranteed is that there are Democrats who have already spent it no matter how much it is or isn't, but they will always (ALWAYS) imagine far more than will ever come down the pipe, just so they can spend it, and gambling revenue is just another channel in their sieve.

These are (of course) all subjects long discussed here, regardless of which party is running the table.   Gambling is not the answer to any question that anyone who is serious about local control or limited government would ask and it will never be the revenue pipe dream Democrats would lead you to believe, solving woes or lowering property tax burdens.  So let's reminisce on that a bit...

From a 2010 post titled  "Where do we put the Vagina"

So is expanded gambling inevitable for New Hampshire in this economy? 

I think our situation mirrors the tragic tale of a young woman who has set off ill prepared to pursue some dream only to find herself in dire straits.  Penniless, and perhaps homeless, having lived outside her means for too long, she abandons the last tenuous holds on what once constituted in her mind good or safe behavior and turns her body into a revenue center. 

Keep reading that here

And from Feb 2012 post titled "Gambling?  Seriously? "

Pro-liberty legislators, if anyone, should know what happens when you  funnel that kind of cake directly into the maw of the state capitol.  It filters vast sums past the gore of the voters palette allowing politicians to expand government based on outside interests and influences. Direct Casino revenue would empower central planners and bureaucrats in Concord in contradiction to the libertarian idea of small government and local control.  It would encourage the proliferation of more lobbyists and influence peddlers capable of further superseding the interests of voters on all state matters.  And it would grow government in excess of any preconceived fiscal advantages.    It always does.

Read off of that one here

Those are recent.  I've written at least a dozen like them since 2008.  But I've bored you enough with my relevant and timely back links.  Suffice to say,  gambling is not a done deal with Democrats and it never was.  The house could prove to be the place where it goes to die again.  The Senate is less likely where any stand will be made.  Run as it is by moderates who would risk speech intimidation for the benefit of their own political futures suggests that a little gambling revenue song and dance about jobs and commerce--none of the true, are right up their ally, if for no other reason than the promise of the warm comfort of more lobbyists to comp them buffet lunches.

There are plenty of reasons why gambling would wreck a state like new Hampshire and every one of them is good enough, but all together it should be a dead issue.  And yet it is not.  Such is the nature of politics.

Entire NHGOP Press Release follows

DEMOCRAT OPPOSITION MOUNTS AGAINST HASSAN’S IRRESPONSIBLE BUDGET
Governor’s Casino Revenue Gamble Faces Skepticism From Her Own Party

Concord, NH – As Governor Hassan prepares to testify today on gambling legislation, her irresponsible casino licensing revenue scheme is facing increasing criticism from members of her own party.

“Governor Hassan is constructing a fiscally irresponsible house of cards that could collapse at any moment. She is basing New Hampshire’s financial integrity on a non-existent source of revenue that is even facing opposition from members of her own party,” said NHGOP Chairman Jennifer Horn. “If Governor Hassan is having difficulty convincing Democrats to support her disastrous budget, then its time for her to come up with a ‘Plan B.’” Granite Staters deserved to know how their governor will address the $80 million deficit that could result from her failed leadership and fiscal irresponsibility.”

Since Governor Hassan delivered her budget address last week, Democrats have voiced skepticism on the prospects of her proposal.

“I continue to have grave reservations with using gambling,” liberal Senator Martha Fuller Clark (D-Portsmouth) told the Portsmouth Herald following Governor Hassan’s budget address (2/14/2013.) “That's the conflict for me. I worry that we're allowing gambling to come to the state, (and it) will divert a huge amount of money earned in the state (to) a problematic industry,”

In a series of tweets aimed at Democrat Party leaders, State Representative Peter Sullivan (D-Manchester) sharply criticized Governor Hassan and her casino revenue scheme.

“Dem party leaders pressuring legislators to back casino solely to protect Hassan's hide,”tweeted Representative Sullivan. “Casino gambling is NOT a Democratic issue. Hope@ChairmanBuckley and @nhkathysullivan remember that...I just don't want to see any thumbs on the scale from party officers. Gov. Hassan isn't NH’s only Dem.”

Representative Sullivan also indicated that Governor Hassan’s budget gambit is already facing widespread opposition among House Democrats.

“House response to Governor's casino proposal can charitably be called underwhelming, he tweeted. “ Governor is badly overestimating House Dem support. Outside Manch/Nashua, very thin.”

Democrat Party activists have also criticized the tactics that Governor Hassan is using to promote her budget.

“I find disingenuous the implication…that we can’t fund needed services without gambling. That kind of blackmail rhetoric will turn off lawmakers rather than get them on board,” said liberal BlueHampshire (3/18/10) blogger Dean Barker. “NH should not be in the business of holding children’s welfare hostage to whether the slot machine industry gets their way.”

In addition to criticism from Democrats, Governor Hassan’s budget proposal has also faced widespread skepticism and scorn from editorial pages across New Hampshire including The Union Leader, Concord Monitor, Keene Sentinel, Nashua Telegraph, Portsmouth Herald and Foster’s Daily Democrat.

###

--
Communications
New Hampshire Republican State Committee
603.225.9341 I press@nhgop.org

You are reading  "Hassan’s Budget Gamble Takes Heat From Her Left"   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012

Gambling? Seriously?

The success of any move to add Casinos to New Hampshire will hinge on the Libertarian Republicans currently crowding the House and their ability to override a likely Lynch veto.  While I am on their side in almost every other case, when it comes to casinos we part ways, and not for the reasons you might think.

This is not an issue of social conservatism for me, not exactly, not the way it is a social issue for some Democrats like Governor John Lynch or the left wing social justice cabal at the New Hampshire Council of Communist Churches (NHCcC).   I see this as a matter of personal restraint, not becasue I object to people gambling, but becasue I am willing to pay a personal price, and forgo the risk of casino revenue, to ensure the liberty and freedom that I am convinced a casino culture in the halls of the State House would inevitably destroy.

Before I proceed, let me give credit where it is due.  Yesterday the Union Leader, in a staff editorial, asked an important question.  Why would Republicans embrace the need for Casino revenue when they just demonstrated exemplary fiscal prudence with what can only be called a historic New Hampshire budget?  The answer to that question is quite simple.  The Republican influence toward casinos is motivated by RINO’s whose progressive tendencies seek new revenue with which to grow the influence of government, and the Libertarian Republicans who typically object to the RINO premise but seem willing to discard their good judgement about the dangers of money and politics in an obsessive  pursuit of things they insist are personal freedoms.

But the danger has nothing to do with personal freedom and everything to do with human nature.  While we could debate the potential risk of someone smoking pot and then wandering out of their house in pursuit of Twinkies, a Big Gulp, pork chops, Rasin Bran, an Egg Mc Muffin, Doritos, Donuts (say it like Homer Simpson), or anything even remotely edible that is not nailed down, the casino question is entirely different.  While there is some measure of risk of Jonesy making a public nuisance of his or herself in a motor vehicle, it is less than the long accepted risk of alcohol.  These are personal choices we accept becasue we have enacted laws whose purpose is to limit irresponsible behavior and punish those who refuse to learn self control.  The most serious problem with gambling has little to do with the recreational right to gamble, what it might do to people or neighborhoods, or the laws designed to limit its social side effects (all still relevant objections), and everything to do with  the long term risk of irresponsible behavior from elected officials legislating under the influence of casino revenue.

At no point in the relationship between citizens and their desire for a limited government, if you are serious about keeping that government small, locally controlled, and suitably cowed by the people whose interests it is meant to represent, should you embrace significant amounts of revenue  that by-pass the people on their way to central planners.  This invites all kinds of liberty killing practices that Libertarians should run from screaming and yet, for some reason, human nature as it relates to government abusing power is no longer a concern…as long as people can go to Casino’s in New Hampshire.   How short a vision is that?

Are we next to hear a promise (the lie) of property tax relief?  That would be a sure sign that someone had turned to the dark side.

Pro-liberty legislators, if anyone, should know what happens when you  funnel that kind of cake directly into the maw of the state capitol.  It filters vast sums past the gore of the voters palette allowing politicians to expand government based on outside interests and influences. Direct Casino revenue would empower central planners and bureaucrats in Concord in contradiction to the libertarian idea of small government and local control.  It would encourage the proliferation of more lobbyists and influence peddlers capable of further superseding the interests of voters on all state matters.  And it would grow government in excess of any preconceived fiscal advantages.    It always does.  That is why the left always wants more revenue and I used to think that was why Liberty Republicans objected to it.

Any Republican or Libertarian should be suspicious of ideas with this kind of potential danger to long term liberty, simply becasue you cannot trust human nature in the context of government.

We must accept that the influence peddling will not stop once we let Casinos in the door.    We must believe that the Gambling lobby will continue to use their deep pockets to affect the make up of the legislature, its policy priorities, contrary to the benefit of the traditional goals of a citizen legislature, and in direct opposition to Libertarian political orthodoxy.

Years of Casino ‘revenue’ in Concord would inevitably create the opportunity for entrenched incumbency and make every race about money, and who can spend it.   The special interest money would favor those who support Casino interests and central planners, reducing the citizen legislature to a farce that would inevitably retool itself into a smaller professional body of politicians that is easier to manipulate and buy off.  Something the Democrat party In New Hampshire has been after for years.

Libertarians, by their very nature, abhor this unjust relationship, so why would they ignore vice for the sake of vice, unless their desire to tilt at gambling windmills has blinded them to the inevitable outcome?  Is it possible they have simply failed to see the future?   In their quest for one “token freedom” have they forgotten that a government run by men and women will inevitably fall prey to professional brigands seeking to rob the taxpayers of their power?  That the Casino industry and gambling lobby, once in the Granite State, will be a relentless influence on all future policy decisions?  It is much to risk for that which we can obtain just a short drive away.

It is ultimately a matter of character and thought.  Enduring freedoms require sacrifice so I will repeat what I said earlier:  I see this as a matter of personal restraint, not becasue I object to people gambling, but becasue I am willing to pay a personal price, and forgo the risk of casino revenue, to ensure the liberty and freedom that I am convinced a casino culture in the halls of the State House would inevitably destroy.

This is a basic conservative principle of the relationship between a citizen and its government.  The sacrifice of small freedoms in defense of much larger ones.  But some people cannot see past the small freedoms.   So what happens when the legislative pursuit of those small freedoms could put every other personal freedom and liberty at risk? Casino’s could change everything about how state government works.

We are left to wonder if the libertarian Republicans who support gambling can look far enough down the road to see that danger; that this “personal freedom,” while providing a fleeting and transient victory, could burden millions of future lives with an intractable and uncontrollable State government like those everywhere else in New England.

A Sure Bet

The New Hampshire State Senate has made it's position clear.  Everything goes better with Gambling.  That pesky Lyme disease thing--probably get that passed with gambling.  And they would be more than willing to overturn any lingering Blue Laws if people could gamble on Sunday.  Want to make sure money is a form of free speech--talk to the casino, problem solved.

The Senate Democrat majority has gotten itself a stubborn streak on the matter of how best to hide their irresponsible spending.  Let them gamble! is the only viable alternative even though the House and the governor have told them no. 

I give them points for persistance but I think it's time we face facts.  They have no desire to lead they just want to be able to say they came up with a new solution to an old problem.  But the old problem is that they created almost 25% more government on your dime while you were getting fewer and fewer dimes, and there is not a one of them that will be able to answer the question why?  And not just why, but how much more?  Let's say we let you find a way to pay for all that excessive spending, then what?  You'll just stop growing the government?

Nut-unh.

We got into this mess because the democrats spent money first and looked for the revenue later.   And we've been going through this every year since they took over the legislature.  So they didn't learn their lesson the first time--they simply did it again.  And maybe you've not noticed, but this has proven to be the worst kind of stewardship imaginable.

The Senate loves gambling so much because they have been gambling with your money for years.  And while the house is against it because the people are against it, they've been betting long odds on revenue as well--all to excuse a spending binge well beyond the ability of the taxpayers to pay for it.

Gambling is not the answer, fewer tax and spenders in state government  is.

No Gambling

In the smoldering ruin of SB 489--this years gambling bill, even after a massive campaign by Millennium gaming and its big-money FixItNow NH campaign quarter-backed by their Public relations goo-roo Richard Killion, (whom I suspect is this guy), we get comments like this, from this morning’s Union Leader.

 
“What’s clear is that today’s vote runs contrary to the will of the people, who, overwhelmingly support expanded gaming and see it as the only acceptable new revenue option,” he said. “The people do not want higher taxes.” 

The people do not want higher taxes.  But nothing else he says makes any sense unless he means the will of "the minority of" people who overwhelmingly support expanded gaming, and see it as the only acceptable option."  Isn't language fun?

Richard really should have been around New England long enough to know that the one thing you can count on in New Hampshire is for voters to contact their state reps and let them know how they feel about an issue.  So from square one this statement is at the very least disingenuous.  Before we even get to square two we know that that is exactly what the people did, and the product of that opinion (how the House voted) is clearly represented in the roll call.  Consider the following.

The liberals burned a giant hole in the budget by spending first and looking for revenue after in two consecutive budgets, which Mr. Lack of leadership John Lynch just let them get away with.   They did it while the economy was in a nose dive, so those rosy revenue projections couldn’t possibly compete with their over spending.   

With very little intestinal fortitude available in an election year to go back after the democrats goal of one or more broad based taxes, the ‘desire’ to appear to do something else instead has been ratcheted up significantly. 

The gambling lobby dropped some serious cash—millions?—into a public relations campaign to shift popular opinion towards a pro-gambling solution to our democrat majorities budget problem.  There was clearly some cash and promises swirling around in Concord to get the votes in the House on both sides.  

And as always they had to fend off pressure from the “just let me do what I want crowd,” some of whom would happily ignore the sale of their legislature to a deep pocketed lobby for the short term goal of personal pleasure politics hiding under a thinly veiled cloak of improving liberty.  

So the House Reps could have easily avoided the “really hard choices” now needed to deal with a 250 million dollar and growing liberal/Lynch deficit by simply finding the will to vote for gambling. They didn't.

Can we argue that a veto proof majority was unlikely, and that colored the vote?  We could.  But I think that shows up to some degree in the number not voting.   But if you consider that the veto threat has not been a real concern lately, and Lynch is a squish, I don't think this mattered. 

Given all these factors, the House still voted it down.  That is not a legislature acting on its own.  They had every reason and opportunity to take the quick and easy path, even if only for the sake of what Killion should assume to be a vote for a positive public perception (remember, he says people overwhelmingly want this) in the face of a veto, and they still chose not to.  The people of New Hampshire did what they do.  They contacted their legislators, who then voted to kill SB 489 by a vote of 212 to 158.  Even if the 30 not voting cast votes for gambling, it still would have failed.  New Hampshire does not want expanded gaming.  Killion is wrong.

As to the second part of his remarks, let’s call it the “only acceptable revenue” clause, it assumes that we have a revenue problem, not a spending problem and that the only acceptable revenue option is gambling.  This is the kind of thinking only a liberal, a RINO, or a lobbyist could love.  Hey Mc Fly, we have a revenue problem because we have a spending problem. 

Our “problem” is the result of allowing the party of Dan Eaton, democrat from  “you have to know how much you want to spend before you look for revenue,” to make budgetary decisions with other people’s property based not on the needs of the state, but the desire of a party to create the shortest possible path to a broad based tax.   Gambling does not solve that problem.  The solution to our revenue problem is fewer democrats and Republicrats in the legislature, and someone with a spine in the governor’s office.  

My guidance--if you've read this far--when looking at revenue is this: The shortest path to small efficient government runs alongside revenue streams obtained via a bill for the amount of the taxes alone, delivered to the taxpayer, who must then write out the check to pay for them.  The more taxes you collect by other means, fees, fines, sales or income, phone, utility, gaming, and so on, the larger your government, and the bigger your “Revenue Problems,”  forever and ever, Amen.  The fewer of these you have the smaller the government, and the greater the liberty. 

Broad based taxes, sales taxes, gambling, utility taxes and programs like RGGI, they all funnel revenue in small amounts, from many places, into the state coffers without the burden of any one persons intimate knowledge of a large transaction.   That is exactly what the spenders need to grow government without your permission.  It’s money most people will barely notice until it’s gone and the politicians are asking for more. 

If all your phone or utility taxes and fees came in one separate bill twice a year you’d be calling your State Rep in a heartbeat, every six months. Which brings us back to gambling. 

Gambling builds big government, run more and more by lobbyists and unaccountable politicians, and it builds it quickly with less or no accountability to the taxpayers.  If you don't care about the potential crime and social risks of gambling addiction, you had best start caring about the addicts in the state house.

So while I agree that gambling is a decision that grownups should be free to make in a constitutional republic, grownups need to understand what they are trading for that particular personal liberty because it comes at the cost of our ability to ensure liberty for our posterity.  We’d be selling out the privilege of local control for the “privilege” of gambling.  Given what we already know about government, is that ever going to be a risk worth taking?