John F.J. Sullivan - Casino gambling slightly favored, but NH is hardly ‘all in’

By John F.J. Sullivan, Live Free or Die Alliance (http://nhlfda.org)

On May 15, a New Hampshire House joint Fiscal and Ways & Means Committee voted 23-22 against Senate Bill 152, which seeks to clear the way for a single casino in the Granite State’s southern tier. An assessment of the Live Free or Die Alliance’s 13,500 Facebook followers who responded to a related question showed strong support for casino gambling in New Hampshire, though a significant level of opposition was also evident.

In the wake of the House “supercommittee’s” vote, we asked our followers: “Do you support or oppose casino gambling in New Hampshire?” Within 24 hours the question received 126 responses, including “likes,” “shares” and comments, from 115 individuals.

Most (56 percent) expressed support for casino gambling, while 32 percent opposed it and 12 percent of the comments were either judged unresponsive to the question or too ambivalent to tally.

Those who supported casino gambling pointed to its potential for revenue (and the hopes that slot machines and legalized, for-profit table games would serve as a hedge against future tax increases). What’s more, supporters said, other states have already figured this out.

“I wholeheartedly support casino gambling in NH, and really wish we could get this going sooner rather than later,” said one woman whose comment was echoed by many. “We are losing huge amounts of revenue to other states. We need to keep NH money in NH, and get other people to come here to gamble.”

Others said that, in a free society, the state shouldn’t attempt to “legislate morality” and ridiculed arguments tying gambling to vice and more serious crime. “The arguments against it are weak. People that oppose it lead sheltered silver spoon lives,” one man said. “The problems they say it will create already exist and have for a while.”

But opponents insisted that a casino promises nothing more than profits to gambling moguls and would present a dangerous distraction to New Hampshire’s fiscal problems.

“This will victimize the weakest in our society, increase crime, and siphon off business from legitimate enterprises,” one man said. “Most of the money goes out of state. This scheme simply points out the need to implement real reform.”

In addition to the pros and cons, just over 7 percent of respondents criticized the “one casino” model, regardless of whether they supported or opposed gambling in general. One respondent who said gambling wouldn’t pay off as a panacea for the state’s fiscal woes suggested that, were New Hampshire to expand gambling, it should allow small casinos or video poker at numerous established businesses, rather than looking to a single casino. Another, a man who supports expanded gambling, objected to state-sanctioned “gambling monopolies.”

The Live Free or Die Alliance presents this report not as any sort of scientific poll or survey, but rather a digest of citizen testimony. As New Hampshire's Town Hall, the nonprofit, nonpartisan Live Free or Die Alliance is free and open to all, offering a unique and important mechanism for nearly 16,000 community members to express their views.

As legislation to allow casino gambling makes its way to the House floor this week, lawmakers – already equipped with their own research, judgment and conscience – would be wise to recognize the views of the citizens. Judging from our response, support for Senate Bill 152 is significant, though hardly absolute and not without reservation.

John F.J. Sullivan is editor-in-chief of the Live Free or Die Alliance (http://nhlfda.org).

Andrew Manuse - Here's what I would have said to apologize

Here's what I would have said to apologize if I was Stella (Thank God I am not, currently. I would never say the things that she did.). I send this response, "From Stella's Shoes," to you as commentary on the whole episode.

Andrew Manuse

To those people offended by the insensitivity of my comments regarding the Boston Marathon Bombing: please accept my sincere apology. I understand that some folks are not ready for bold questions meant to provoke thought, particularly when human life and limb are involved so close to home.

At the same time, I would like to retract and then refocus my commentary regarding the tragic event that touched many of us here in New England. The bombing was horrific, whatever the cause. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their loved ones. I’m grateful for the quick response of regular citizens with medical experience acting as good Samaritans, as well as the quick and professional aid of those hired to respond.

In light of these thoughts, which I failed to acknowledge in previous commentary, I think it is critically important for Americans to seek a true and full understanding of the tragic event that occurred; not just to give meaning to the lives lost or forever changed, but also to search for truth and a better way of life in the future for our countrymen. Part of that search for truth requires a measured inquiry of our government and accountability from law enforcement and the criminal justice system.

Following the bombing, many of New Hampshire’s neighbors to the south in Massachusetts had their homes violently invaded by swarms of police officers dressed and outfitted in military gear. There were no required warrants. There was no respect for human dignity. Police pointed rifles at the homes and heads of innocent citizens, whom were told to comply--or else. Capturing a suspected terrorist who was seen bombing and shooting at police is critically important, but shouldn’t all resources be directed toward that end, and not toward unnecessary and unproductive home searches? There was blood. A bloodhound would have made a beeline for the guy. Why the army?

The point of the comments I tried to make earlier, and the point I hope to make now is that each tragedy (each “crisis”) under both Presidents Bush and Obama has been used (not gone “to waste”) to expand the power of government. Our founding fathers warned about standing armies, blanket searches and the criminalization of the free acts of a free people, and they tried to protect us from such a government. Our Constitution still represents those protections, but only the people, by changing their minds--by asking questions--, can revitalize the culture of freedom that America once represented.

At the time that President Richard Nixon resigned, the media did their job to uncover his corruption by asking the tough questions. Inquisitiveness is essential in a free society, and it is only natural when our press is no longer free to do their jobs as in our present situation. Media standards among an independent press should apply consistently to each story, which should never be slanted or manipulated for a specific outcome. The government’s talking points are always only one side of the story. The Law and the Constitution are always the most important side, but there are many angles we should use to approach a true understanding of reality.

What would be even more tragic than the Boston Marathon Bombing, 9/11 or any horrible event like them is an all-encroaching federal government that controls our every move and watches our every breath. As Americans, we need to pull ourselves up from terror, face our enemies, both within and outside our nation’s borders, and peacefully reclaim our rights to life, liberty, property and justice that God himself gave each one of us upon our creation. If we do not reclaim our birthright, consider the terrorists the victors. Our future could be quite bleak.

NH Sen Jeff Woodburn - Increase rural speed limit to 70 mph

The idea of increasing the speed limit on a northern portion of Interstate 93 from 65-mph to 70 breezed through the Democratic House and Republican Senate and now awaits Governor Maggie Hassan’s action. Hopefully, she signs it into law and the state adopts a common sense approach to this rural stretch of road.

As the North Country’s Senator, I represent 27-percent of the state’s landmass and much of the road that would see a change. I spend many hours on I-93 driving the 100- lonely miles from my home in Dalton to the State Capitol.  My old truck shakes and begs for mercy when I get much higher than 75-mph, so I try to stick to 70. At this speed, I’m more apt to be passed than pass another vehicle – and only rarely is it crowded. Occasionally, my fellow travelers and I pass a police cruiser unnoticed.

It makes perfect sense that this quiet, country highway would operate differently than other areas.  If we know anything in rural areas, it is that a one-size fits all approach doesn’t work.  But it’s more than that. I support raising the speed limits because I believe laws need to be credible, legitimate and live in the hearts and minds of our people, not on a sign on the road.  When the vast majority of the people disobey a law in plain view of the police -- something is wrong. Eventually, it weakens the authority and credibility of the state.  We can make driving 70-mph illegal, but not unpopular.

I was moved by the democratic logic behind the 85-percentile rule, which is used to set many speed limits.  It is based upon the idea of establishing a maximum speed by judging where the vast majority of the drivers drive.  So, most speed limits reflect established behaviors, rather than change existing behaviors.  It’s a rule that could easily apply to the increasing popularity of gay marriage, gambling and opposition to broad base taxes. 

I believe that if the speed limit signs were removed, most people would behave as they presently do – operating their vehicle in a manner that is safe for themselves and other motorists -- which also happens to be 5-miles over the current speed limit.  

(Jeff Woodburn, of Dalton, is a Democratic State Senator, teacher, writer and child advocate)

Todd Selig - Opposing An Increase in the Road Toll is a Hard Road to Travel for NH Legislators

The Importance of HB 617 to New Hampshire

by Todd I. Selig

After lengthy debate on March 6th, the NH House passed HB 617, a bill that increases the road toll, commonly referred to by opponents as the “Gas Tax,” by 4 cents per gallon of gasoline in each of the next three years (fiscal years 2014 – 2016) and then 3 cents in fiscal year 2017, for a total 15-cent increase over the current road toll of 18 cents per gallon.  It is referred to as the 4-4-4-3 plan with Rep. David Campbell of Nashua as the prime sponsor.

This additional revenue would be placed in a separate fund within the constitutionally protected highway fund to be used exclusively for the construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of state and municipal roads and bridges – investment that will equate to good jobs across New Hampshire, particularly within the construction, engineering, paving, and aggregate industries.

Projections show the modest change in the road toll would result in increased highway block grant funding for municipalities of $3.6 million in 2014 to over $13 million in 2017 and beyond, for a total increase of $117 million over the next ten years. For communities working diligently to stabilize local tax rates across the granite state, this increase is significant.  To put it into concrete terms, the 4-4-4-3 plan would mean an additional $250,962 for Bath; $2,982,522 for Concord; $949,347 for Durham; $980,731 for Exeter; $573,305 for Henniker; $1,656,408 for Keene; $1,140,890 for Laconia; $6,851,848 for Manchester; $5,364,972 for Nashua; $2,079,901 for Rochester; $2,195,307 for Salem; and $112,771 for Woodstock.  Local taxpayers in every town and city across NH benefit from the 4-4-4-3 plan.

But much needed additional revenue for municipalities targeted to roadway repairs is not all that this bill provides. The increase would also fund an additional $8.5 million per year for municipal bridge and highway aid programs, fully fund the I-93 widening project, fully fund the state’s grossly underfunded ten year transportation plan, and provide resources to address the 1600+ miles of state roads currently rated in “poor” condition.

The road toll is a true user fee that has not been increased in over 20 years.  If the citizens of New Hampshire want decent roads, someone will have to pay for them, and it is only appropriate that the cost be borne by the users.  Those who drive less would pay less; those who drive more would pay more.

The House Ways and Means Committee voted on March 20th to recommend reducing the road toll increases from four cents/four cents/four cents/three cents over the next four years, to simply four/four/four.  This is a mistake.  Full implementation of the 4-4-4-3 plan is reasonable and necessary to meet the state’s transportation needs. Here is why.

At 18 cents per gallon, New Hampshire’s road toll is currently the lowest in New England.   

An important aspect of the road toll is that it does not translate penny for penny at the pump.  Drive into Maine with a higher gas tax than NH and you can find lower gas prices there.  This is because supply and demand is the primary driver of gas prices, not the road toll.  When the average driver drives 12,000 miles per year, getting an average of 22.6 mpg, it will cost an additional $79.65 per year after the 15 cents increase is fully implemented.  This cost is based on the assumption that the 15 cent increase passes through penny for penny at the pump, which is unlikely.   

Even assuming that every penny is passed onto the driver at the pump, the cost of $79.65 is less than what the average NH driver is currently spending on vehicle maintenance and repairs due to poor NH road conditions ($323/year), as reported by TRIP, a national transportation group. And in some areas of the state it is worse.  The average driver in the Southern New Hampshire area, including Manchester and Nashua, loses $503 annually due to driving on deteriorated roads, while rough roads cost the average Dover-Rochester-Portsmouth driver $400 annually.

New Hampshire faces an annual transportation funding shortfall of $74 million, more than one third of the state’s major roads are deteriorated, nearly a third of Granite State bridges are in need of repair or replacement, and the state’s rural traffic fatality rate is disproportionately higher than that of other roads in the state.  Unless NH can increase transportation investment, conditions are projected to worsen significantly in the future.  This serves none of us well and works against the NH advantage.

HB 617, at the 4-4-4-3 level, is a good plan and deserves the support of the NH Legislature.  Opposing it is a hard road to travel for our representatives and senators in Concord.

---

Information about Todd I. Selig:  Originally from Laconia, Todd Selig resides with his wife and two daughters in Durham, New Hampshire.  He has served as Durham Town Administrator since 2001.  After graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Syracuse University, Mr. Selig went on to complete a Master of Public Administration degree from the University of New Hampshire.  He has served in a variety of New Hampshire administrative positions within both the municipal and school sectors including positions in Raymond, Laconia, New Boston, Hopkinton, and now Durham.  In 2003, Todd Selig was awarded the Caroline Gross Fellowship allowing him to attend the Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.  He was named as one of New Hampshire’s “40 Under Forty” by The Union Leader in 2005.  Mr. Selig has previously served as chairman of the board of directors for the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies and as a trustee and vice-chairman of the board of PRIMEX (N.H. Public Risk Management Exchange).  He is a member of the International City/County Management Association, a member of the Municipal Management Association of NH, a Trustee Emeritus of the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies, and a member of the Durham Historical Society. 

Rep. J.R. Hoell - New Hampshire jobs, lives in the cross hairs of gun debate

By Rep. J.R. Hoell
Dunbarton, NH

It would seem absurd to almost anyone if a group of politicians said they wanted to ban a list of controversial books or require a background check that verified the completion of some civics education before anyone could vote in an election.

After all, the state and federal constitutions protect the right to free speech, regardless of where a person happens to be, and it also protects the equal right to vote in free elections for everyone who is 18 and older. Importantly, these constitutions specifically restrict the right to vote for people convicted of treason, bribery or violation of election laws, not to mention those individuals who happen to be 17 or younger.

Now, the federal Constitution also protects the right to “keep and bear arms” and specifically asserts that this right “shall not be infringed” by Congress. Our state Constitution protects the right of individuals who are “defending life and liberty” or “protecting property.” It also specifically affirms: “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.” Unlike the right to vote, there are no constitutional restrictions on these very clear God given Natural Rights of self-defense.

Why then, is it not absurd for politicians to seek legal restrictions on citizens’ right to defend themselves from potentially lethal attacks “wherever they have a right to be,” as our state law now says? Why is it not absurd to require background checks before someone can buy a constitutionally protected product? Why is it not absurd to contemplate banning any weapon that a person can bear? How are these restrictions of the right to self-defense any different from the restrictions to voting or speech rights contemplated above?

Quite simply: Any restriction on gun rights or the right to self-defense is equally absurd and unconstitutional.

Yet, we now have a group of Democrat state legislators in the House who have made it their priority to violate gun owners’ constitutional rights, at the expense of safety and the New Hampshire economy. The same group of Democratic legislators who complained last session when Republicans lifted the unconstitutional ban on guns in parts of the State House reinstated the ban as their first order of business this year.

Then, the Democrats busily got to work on bills to ban guns in public buildings, to prohibit people from showing a gun to diffuse a violent confrontation, to allow violent aggressors to sue people who use their gun in self defense, to require people to take a safety course before buying a gun, and to force innocent people to run and cower from someone trying to kill, rape or seriously harm them.

All of the Democrats’ ideas to restrict gun rights this year are unconstitutional and a distraction from more important business, but the Democrats are now working overtime to convince you it is a compromise for them to advance HB 135, a bill that would make you a criminal for defending your life with a gun outside your house. That bill is scheduled for a vote in the House this week.

Perhaps New Hampshire Democrats expect a woman who is about to be raped to urinate or throw-up on herself as she’s trying to get away from her rapist rather than stop the rape with her gun? Or maybe Democrats expect a disabled man in a wheelchair to let an assailant tip over his chair and take his wallet instead of prevent potentially life-threatening injuries and the theft with his gun? Do they think the well trained, concealed-carry license holder should let a madman shoot 30 people before the cops arrive or take the clear shot that he has and stop the mayhem? Maybe Democrats want a young mother to allow her children to be murdered as she runs under a table to hide instead of take a weapon from her purse and save her most precious loved ones?

With their relentless efforts, it is clearly more important for House Democrats to stop law-abiding citizens from lawfully protecting themselves than to work on efforts to rebuild our struggling economy. What’s worse, a quick look at the statistics show how Democratic efforts to curb lawful gun rights in New Hampshire will actually contribute further to economic malaise.

By far, the firearms industry in New Hampshire generates more revenue per capita and employs more people per capita than the firearms industry in every other state. In New Hampshire, there are over 2,100 people working in the firearms and ancillary industries generating over $150 million of economic activity, according to the National Shooting Sports Association, yet the Democrats want to shut this industry down.

With their uncompromising action, it’s quite clear that Democrats are not only trampling all over constitutionally protected rights, they are also actively working to harm the economy.

 

Released by House Republican Alliance