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

NH TEA Party Republicans Better At Revenue & Spending Estimates Than Democrats…Again!

I know… New Hampshire Democrats were losing sleep in hopes of some politically-beneficial revenue numbers, and guess what?  They were politically beneficial….To TEA Party Republicans.

The Union Leader is reporting that New Hampshire state revenues were slightly above estimates in July, with solid performances that suggest we are budgeting wisely so that the working families and small business owners in New Hampshire can continuing to drag us out of the economic quick sand in which Democrat tax and spend polices have had us trapped.

So How well did the TEA Party Republicans manage your money for July 2012?

A few highlights from the Article by Gary Rano…  

• • Business taxes returned $17.9 million, $2.7 million than budget writers anticipated and $2.8 million more than a year ago.
  • The rooms and meals tax produced $23.3 million in July, $2.4 million ahead of plan and $2.2 million more than a year ago.
  • The Department of Revenue Administration attributed the good results to an improved economy and good weather in June.
  • The tobacco tax was slightly ahead of target, producing $19.2 million in July, while liquor revenue also was about what was anticipated, returning $12.1 million. Also, the communications tax was on target returning $7.2 million for the month.
  • The real estate transfer tax is beginning to rebound after years of dismal returns. In July, the tax produced $8.5 million, 13.3 percent ahead of estimates and about $1 million more than a year ago.
  • Below estimates for the month were the securities, utility consumption, beer and gaming taxes. The only levy to produce less than it did a year ago was the beer tax, down $100,000 on returns of $1.3 million.

Numbers coming in slightly above plan.  The tax base building slowly without new taxes and fees.  None of that constant left-wing fiscal crisis.  (No 800 million dollar deficits.) Just another great reason to make sure Republicans continue as the responsible stewards of your tax dollars.  Yeah, Democrats will hate this so it must be a good thing.

Image Credit- Squawkfox.com

You are reading "NH TEA Party Republicans...Better at Spending & Revenue Estimates...Again!"  by Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Revenue Prediction

No, I'm not going to guess how New Hampshire will fare on tax revenue.  I am going to predict how democrats will respond to the news of a surplus and business tax revenues over estimate.

Evil Republicans underestimated revenue to cut the budget so they could screw women, and children, and old people, and (insert name of public union employee here.)

Any increase is a result of policies Democrats put in place (insert soft focus dream sequence here.)

Any outstanding issues have nothing to do with Democrat policies and are the fault of greedy devicise Republicans who want to steal your rights.

The tobacco tax cut will (insert disrupted public service enviroment here), and encourage teenagers to smoke and become a burden on the health care system.

Democrats are happy little faeries sprinkling rainbows and sunshine, and never added 100 taxes and fees, never tried to undercut free speech, never left a nearly billion dollar deficit, never wasted most of an entire session on gender issues, never broke the law and added taxes without hearings, never...

Wait.  They might leave that last part out.

Cross posted: Revenue Prediction

A Silber In The Minds Eye

The Granite State Fair Tax Coalitions (GSFTC) most recent shill is for unions and spending as usual.  This months argument is an Op-Ed by Cathy Silber of GSFTC, forwarded by Mark Fernald. It's standard pro-union, blame the economy pap.  Hardly worth the bother.  But Cathy did say something that got me thinking.

Let's also remember that the unprecedented size of the budget gap we're facing was caused by the Great Recession.  Revenues plummeted.  It's a revenue problem.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.  This is a democrat problem.  Stupid democrats to be more precise. (OK, maybe not so respectfully.)

We are told that the Great Recession started in 2007.  Looking back, who was in control of New Hampshire in 2007?  Democrats.  The Housing crisis reached its media zenith in the fall of 2008, banks faltered, the market dipped, employment tanked, the dollar went for a ride, consumer confidence continued downward, energy prices soared, and things generally went to hell.  Wages were flat or declining (unless you were in a Public union) and people were struggling to cut corners to keep their homes and cars, and lifestyles in tact.  Money was tight all around.

So in the face of this economic catastrophe, which the democrats happily sold as a disaster not unlike a Biblical plague, what did NH Democrats do? Did they target spending and manage the state to make the best use of a dwindling resource?  No.  They spent your money like a gold digger and added 23% to the cost of government during a recession.  They demanded 13% more revenue than when times were "good " or at least better.  And then they went after 10% on top of that the next chance they got.

You could call that a revenue problem, if by that you mean "democrats imagined revenue to justify increased spending we could not afford during a recession."  Or how about "democrats were selfish, ideological, tax and spend A-holes, who couldn't be trusted to divide up a dinner check.  This makes them either completely incompetent or criminally insane; neither of which gives them the moral authority to govern responsibly nor the reputation to comment intelligently about anyone elses efforts to unimagine that which never existed.

The new budget sees revenue in real terms, terms the democrats naturally demagogue as underestimated.  Underestimated?  Really? That's your talking point? You overestimate for four years, scramble year after years to come up with some scheme to allow you to call the budget balanced, raise 100 taxes and fees, burn through one-time money, increase debt and borrowing, use accounting gimmicks that would get the average businessman tossed in jail, lie about a surplus, and then leave a $900 million dollar structural deficit in your wake, and you want us to believe you having clue what you are talking about?

So yeah Silber, there is at least one revenue problem.  You get your revenue from tax and spend progressives in exchange for carrying the broad-based, grow government, tax memes for a political party that can't manage pocket change let alone a state budget.  But you go on peddling your tripe.  And keep trying to plant that image of how fair a broad based tax is. We'll keep reminding people just how stupid that all sounds in the real world by showing them all the failed states where it's been tried, and what happens when you put democrats in charge of your wallet.

Cross posted

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?