Gambling would be a new STATE bureaucracy

[CNHT]

I know some of you are FOR gambling, but for NH it would mean a massive new state bureaucracy, not a private venture.
In this press release, Jim Rubens outlines some of the other problems with government, that it would create.

Granite State Coalition
Against Expanded Gambling
NoSlots.com

For Release As Of:  January 10, 2007, 11 am
Contact:  Jim Rubens, (603) 359-3300

Concord, NH.  Tom Golisano, the founder and CEO of Paychex, owner of the Buffalo Sabres and 2004?s outstanding philanthropist, told New Hampshire legislators today that he has committed $1 million to a new advertising campaign to stop casino expansion in New York State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Golisano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paychex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Sabres
http://www.upstate.edu/publicaffairs/public_media/?id=816.htm


Golisano?s motivation:  the harsh economic and social impacts of casinos on surrounding communities.  ?Video crack? is the term Golisano uses in one of his ads to describe the slot machines that bring in eighty percent of the revenue in a typical casino.  Here is a recent interview where Golisano describes his reasons for opposing casinos.

http://artvoice.com/issues/v5n15/cover_story/tom_golisano_vs_the_casino

Golisano?s million dollar anti-casino campaign is the largest known single personal contribution to such an effort.

Massachusetts state senator Sue Tucker also addressed legislators at a lunch sponsored today by the Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling.  Tucker warned that if New Hampshire were to legalize, her state would quickly follow.  According to a 2000 study done for the New Hampshire Commission on Education, Massachusetts casinos would reduce projected New Hampshire casino revenue by almost 60 percent.

http://www.noslots.com/Mendoza.pdf

Tucker, a Democrat, also urged legislators to carefully examine the alluring revenue numbers promised by the gambling proponents. ?Do a sober review of gambling industry revenue claims and you?ll see more warning signals than on the Mount Washington Auto Road after a freezing rain,? Tucker said.

The Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling includes a dozen organizations spanning the political spectrum and includes the state?s leading voices for law enforcement, hospitality and tourism, taxpayers, faith, education, healthcare, and children.  Representatives for the New Hampshire Chiefs of Police and the New Hampshire Restaurant and Lodging Association also spoke against casino legalization.

The Coalition opposes slots casinos because its members feel that revenue claims are exaggerated, and that casinos would damage New Hampshire?s high quality of life and force taxpayers and business to pay for the social and economic costs of gambling addiction and crime.

?Casinos are a trap door to an income tax,? said Jim Rubens, executive committee chair for the Coalition.  ?Casino lobbyists want us to build a state budget on the polar ice cap of revenue sources.  It melts away, and we get stuck with an income tax to fill the hole.?

###

The Granite State Coalition opposes legalized slot machines and casinos -- whether at racetracks, hotels or owned by the state -- because they would:

?   Damage our state?s growing economy.  Industry proposals are for convenience (local customer) casinos, because the New Hampshire market is too small for Las Vegas-type destination-resort casinos.  Because most casino patrons live nearby, convenience casinos would drain revenue from existing New Hampshire businesses, such as restaurants, hospitality, theaters and auto dealers.  Loss of revenue by these businesses is not voluntary.

?   Drain business profits from New Hampshire.  Out-of-state interests would own and profit from casino operations to a greater extent than the shuttered and shrunken New Hampshire businesses casinos would replace.

?   Aggravate state budget pressures.  Casino advocates never account for the not-so-hidden costs of gambling-addiction: white collar and violent crime, civil justice, reduced workplace productivity, healthcare and human services.  Overall, these costs are 2 to 3 times the gambling revenue and will drive up mandatory spending in Corrections, DHHS, and other state agencies.

?   Cause big, out-year state budget gaps.  Casino advocates? revenue estimates are badly inflated.  Regional competition and casino pressure to reduce tax rates would make likely revenue much less than advertised.  If New Hampshire were to legalize slots, Massachusetts would quickly follow, cutting New Hampshire slots revenue by up to 60 percent.  Ontario racino revenue is collapsing after ten years due to player burn out.  Lottery and Rooms & Meals Tax revenues would be lost due to diversion of resident and visitor spending to casinos.   

?   Damage tourism.  Whether in local or destination casinos, patrons do not leave casinos to visit nearby visitor amenities, draining revenue from existing tourism, New Hampshire?s second largest industry.  Casinos would also sully New Hampshire?s healthy and valuable ?brand? image. 

?   Destroy families and damage our state?s enviable quality-of-life.  Casinos double gambling addiction within a 50 mile radius.  Casinos at the four race tracks and one North Country location would create at least 6,000 additional pathological gambling addicts among our neighbors, 1,200 of whom would attempt suicide.  Gambling addiction sharply increases divorce, bankruptcy, family violence, attempted suicide and teen addictions.

?   Increase six of the seven FBI Index I crimes by 8 to 10 percent (aggravated assault, rape, robbery, larceny, burglary and auto theft).

?   Create gambling addicts in order to tax them:  Half of state gambling taxes would be paid by problem and pathological gamblers for whom gambling is not voluntary.

?   Increase political corruption.  If casinos were legalized, gambling interests would eventually dominate the legislature, as in most other casino states.

?   Open the tribal casino loophole.  Under federal law, legalization of even one slot machine would require the state to allow unregulated casinos owned by recognized tribes.  There is no legal means to limit gambling to race tracks or state-owned casinos.  Gambling interests fund tribal recognition once slots are legalized.

?    And ? slots are designed by casino industry psychologists to trick gamblers.  Most electronic slot machines worldwide use ?virtually-mapped? and ?unbalanced? reels to generate frequent near-misses, making perceived win odds far higher than reality.  These techniques and sound, lights and play speed are carefully manipulated to maximize addiction and revenue.

[aries]

At least it would pay for itself

[CNHT]

At least it would pay for itself

Not consistently apparently. That is one of the problems with revenue like that...it can't be depended on.... but a dependency is created then there is an excuse for a new tax........

[Lloyd Danforth]

There are so many innacuracies in the article, I can't even cover it all.  The part about 50% problem gamblers is the most obvious.  In any case we all have a right to gamble or throw our own money down any drain we wish.

[CNHT]

There are so many innacuracies in the article, I can't even cover it all.  The part about 50% problem gamblers is the most obvious.  In any case we all have a right to gamble or throw our own money down any drain we wish.

I agree we do have the right, but I just would hate to give the government more rights to our money and another bureaucracy along with it.
There is no question about whether it would be state run, that is why I am opposed.
If it were private business that would be another story.

[toowm]

Maybe we could ease restrictions on personal gambling. Call it "Salvatore's Law" after the optometrist that was killed by a SWAT team. Which gets me back to my other idea of eliminating SWAT teams.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193652,00.html

[Rocketman]

Maybe we could ease restrictions on personal gambling. Call it "Salvatore's Law" after the optometrist that was killed by a SWAT team. Which gets me back to my other idea of eliminating SWAT teams.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193652,00.html

                                             

Wow, this really really really makes me angry.  This should never be allowed to get close to happening, certainly not in New Hampshire!

[citizen_142002]

Actually you could set it up so that the Gambling Commision will not use any of the General Fund and will pay for itself. The real estate commision can only borrow a certain amount from the general fund, and must raise 125% of its budget each year so that it can reemburse the general fund.

I don't want state controlled gambling, but I'd rather have regulated gambling than no legal gambling. I might change my tune if they were to run at a defecit and taxpayer expense, like they do in New York. That is New York however, so one could expect that any state endevour will be a massive waste of funds.

I'm not sure casino gambling would lead to that many bureaucratic jobs being created. It wouldn't have to be a 'new' bureaucracy either. They could just have a few agents who work for the NH lottery commision, cover casinos.

In Quebec they do have casinos, but for the most part people just play the video slots, which are in almost every bar. I'm willing to be the province makes a killing of those things. Of course one of the guys I was with won 25 on a 1 dollar bet, so he actually made money.

Would you rather have higher property taxes or scratch tickets?

[CNHT]

Would you rather have higher property taxes or scratch tickets?

NOTHING is going to lower property taxes, especially another tax, so I don't buy that argument.

My whole beef is how will this be run, by whom and how much out of control-ness/corruption will we have to deal with inside the system itself?

Th gambling part is never the problem... <sigh>

[Fluff and Stuff]

I am all for gambling expansion.  Gambling is one of the most popular activities in America.  Almost everyone likes it and legalized gambling generates jobs, helps keep taxes down, and sharply reduces crime.

Also, this sounds very positive,   

Open the tribal casino loophole.  Under federal law, legalization of even one slot machine would require the state to allow unregulated casinos owned by recognized tribes.  There is no legal means to limit gambling to race tracks or state-owned casinos.  Gambling interests fund tribal recognition once slots are legalized.

But, does NH even have any tribes?

I tell you, this is one of my biggest issues.  However, I am not sure what to do.  Jane's cooking is real good.  If she threatens to withhold her wonderful food, I might just forget about pushing for legalized gambling but I will continue to do it in the black market

[KurtDaBear]

Several years ago, I worked for a company in San Francisco that had a heavily unionized work force.  The union presence was large enough that they had their own bookie runner in the shop.  Although Calif. had legal betting on horse racing, public card rooms and a state lottery with its own daily imitation of the numbers racket, most people preferred to use illegal private outfits for gambling because they had better odds, paid off promptly in cash, had free pick-up and delivery service, and offered one-stop shopping.

So the government always has to outlaw all private gambling in order to succeed in gambling themselves because of their shoddy and greedy approach to gambling (just like everything else).

[CNHT]

I am all for gambling expansion.  Gambling is one of the most popular activities in America.  Almost everyone likes it and legalized gambling generates jobs, helps keep taxes down, and sharply reduces crime.
Also, this sounds very positive,   "Open the tribal casino loophole.  Under federal law, legalization of even one slot machine would require the state to allow unregulated casinos owned by recognized tribes.  There is no legal means to limit gambling to race tracks or state-owned casinos.  Gambling interests fund tribal recognition once slots are legalized."

But, does NH even have any tribes?

Yes of course! Then you will have the special interests as in, how come they can do it and we can't? More PC.

I tell you, this is one of my biggest issues.  However, I am not sure what to do.  Jane's cooking is real good.  If she threatens to withhold her wonderful food, I might just forget about pushing for legalized gambling but I will continue to do it in the black market

Aw thanks how cute! Yes my cooking, 99% of which you've not even yet tasted, is VERY good.
But I won't hold it against you if you like gambling.

I'm just wary of the GOVERNMENT involvement, seeing as this is what I do and see day in and day out and I know that once the GOVERNMENT gets involved, it would screw up a ... well you know what I mean!

So I am confused and on the fence about it. I assure you I have no MORAL issue with gambling (I've been accused of being too moral in the past), but I am more looking at this from the clinical, fiscal angle...and the 'special rights' crap.

[CNHT]

Just for the halibut, here is another article in the CM.

It's obvious that people are on the fence about this because there are so many unknowns.
You never see the special interests until it's too late.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070111/REPOSITORY/701110381/1037/48HOURS

I won't repost the whole thing here because the CM keeps them online, but here is one excerpt:

"Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, has not expressed support for expanded gambling.
Before the governor would even consider expanded gambling, he would have to see compelling evidence it would not hurt New Hampshire's economy and quality of life," said Colin Manning, a spokesman for Lynch"

[Ruger Mason]

Jane,

Most people here are probably of the viewpoint that it is better for the state steal from gamblers than it is to incarcerate them.  And if some bureaucrats do shady things with that money, so what?  Maybe a few of them will end up in jail.  I just don't think you're going to get much traction for your anti-gambling crusade here.

[CNHT]

Jane,

Most people here are probably of the viewpoint that it is better for the state steal from gamblers than it is to incarcerate them.  And if some bureaucrats do shady things with that money, so what?  Maybe a few of them will end up in jail.  I just don't think you're going to get much traction for your anti-gambling crusade here.

Incarcerate? I don't think that is what this is about. I don't know of anyone who's been arrested for gambling lately do you? That part of it never entered mymind. As always I think it's about money and who controls that money.

The state will just act as if it were the mafia in the whole situation.

To me I guess it means enabling bigger government and I'm just surprised so many of you would not see it that way.

On the other hand I would never be one to be advocating incarceration for private gambling.   
I think you are just hung up on the moral issue.