Bad, Badder, And Baddest Week For Maggie Hassan
Friday, May 24, 2013 at 01:04PM I know, I know, the headline is grammatically incorrect. The adjective's comparative and superlative components are worse and worst, but I'm channeling my LeRoy Brown, baddest man in the whole damn town, here.
John Lynch was occasionally criticized, ever so gently of course, for not wading into issues up front, using up some of his considerable capital to try to influence votes.
After this week, John Lynch is looking more and more like the font of political wisdom. No wonder he broke the record of being elected four times in a row.
This week provided us with a great indication that Maggie Hassan is not likely to be a four timer. I'm not about to write her political obituary, be I will again revert to poor grammar to say that this was not merely a bad week, but it got badder as the week went on and wound up being the baddest week of all for the first term Democrat who still has never visited a casino although she seems to think (as I, a frequent casino visitor, also do) that they are just fine for society.
Bad
By noon Wednesday, long before the House vote on gambling, insiders knew bad news was in the offing for the governor. Despite her 15 minutes impassioned plea to the Democratic caucus to win one for the Gipper (in this case, for Maggie herself), to do what many of them were philosophically opposed to doing (vote for the Senate gambling bill), it was obvious the bill was going down. Talk in the hallways of the State House was that the governor's people knew they didn't have the votes to overturn the inexpedient to legislate motion and keep the debate alive. Of course, they would never be honest enough to say this publicly; in fact, they kept the spin machine in motion by insisting they were within five votes. In doing that, they managed to keep a lot of Democrats on board, Democrats who now regret the way they voted (but I'm getting ahead of myself...I would reserve that for the worst category here).
To me, there was never any doubt that the vote against gambling would never be close. That level of confidence was only bolstered when I asked one of the truly undecided (in my count) if he had made up his mind. Democrat Majority Leader Steve Shurtleff, of Concord, by this time had heard the governor's 15 minute plea. His response to me was that he would be voting with the majority, in other words, against gambling, against his governor.
Game!
Set!
Match!
Bad news, but hardly surprising news. Steve Shurteff is both a smart and responsible legislator. He would have bent over backwards to support his governor and vote for the gambling bill had it not been clearly a terrible bill. I repeat, it was a terrible, terrible bill, so bad that a vote against it was a no brainer. Only someone whose brain was washed in the corner office could abandon his or her common sense and vote for such a bill (but again we're getting ahead to the wost category).
The vote to kill the gambling bill was about as expected, at least by me, 199-164 with more than two out of three Republicans voting against the bill (107-52). I was somewhat surprised that Democrats, for the first time in the history of gambling votes, actually cast a majority for the bill 92-112. But wait, that's not quite true.
Badder (Worse)
Normally the first vote on a given bill is the most indicative of sentiments of Representatives. However in this case, I am confident the second vote, the vote against reconsideration, in other words the vote to kill the bill a second and final time, was the vote most reflective of legislative support.
That's where it was even worse for the governor. The margin went form 35 to 60 votes, which by sheerest coincidence is the exact final count I had written down (150-210 were my final numbers). The vote was 212-152, and on this vote, by a margin of one vote (102-103), the Governor did not even manage to carry Democrats. Republicans were 49-110 on this vote.
I'm not going to name names here (several reps preferred being coy), but more than I expected voted against ITL but never ever would have voted to pass the bill. I have at least a dozen names (maybe 20), thus add 24 to the 35 total for a margin of 59 (at least) in sentiment against this bill. We will never know for sure, but the 60 vote margin on ITL serves as a fairly good proxy.
Without going into a long lesson on the history of substitute motions, I can't truly explain how House leadership did the proper thing by bringing forward the ITL motion first. It was stunning how some who have been around for so long would try to convince their colleagues that in this one particular instance, we should abandon all rules and precedent by allowing a substitute motion at the outset. If we did this for every bill with an ITL motion, the House would be nothing more than pure chaos That's saying something when you consider the source; I tend to be a maverick or outsider, but even this maverick realizes that we can only function when our rules are followed not abandoned at random.
For people like Steve Spratt and Peter Leishman to mislead their less veteran colleagues by criticizing House rules, House precedent, House leadership...well that's the saddest thing about Wednedday's vote. Spratt's words were so wrong-headed he was forced to apologize at the end of the day, long after the damage had been done!
I've put together a list of 10 legislative winners and losers, five media winners and losers, and five special interest winners and losers which I will courageously post here soon, but here's a sample. Terie Norelli and Mary Jane Wallner are among the winners; Leishman and Spratt are among the winners.
Leishman, by the way, was insisting to me moments before the vote that it would be within ten votes "one way or the other". Gun to my head prediction (as in--if you're wrong, you forfeit your life), that's not going to happen I told my friend from Peterborough.
Baddest (The Worst)
As if the vote and reconsideration weren't bad and badder enough, the worst was yet to come.
In the aftermath, Maggie Hassan displayed every bit as much of a tin ear as she had in counting votes and cajoling Democrats into doing something they really didn't want to do.
Asked point blank by the media whether she was about to give up on her gambling fixation (my words, not theirs), the governor refused to say no. The refused to close the door on bringing back something House members, by at least a 60 vote margin, said they clearly would not accept.
Her language even left some thinking that she would veto a budget if it does not contain funding for her programs, funding which would only be possible if she reverts to spitball rather than hardball to get gambling back on the table.
First term governors not so good at hardball should not resort to spitball.
The governor clearly is not as politically stupid as she appeared to be in her public comments chastising the House for voting against a terrible, terrible gambling bill; if she were that stupid, it would be easy to start writing her political obituary, but she can't be that stupid.
Since this all centered on gambling, allow me to close with two gambling analogies, ones the non-casino-visiting governor most likely will not understand.
What the governor did, extending so much political capital on a terrible plan which, media fantasies notwithstanding, never really had a chance of passing--was to resemble a Texas hold 'em player or a black jack player--
--a Texas Hold 'em player who, with testosterone flowing, decides to go all in on a ten high--or
--a black jack player who doubles down on seven with the dealer showing a ten card.
No sane Texas hold 'em player or black jack player would do such a thing, but then again no sane politician would play this hand like Maggie Hassan did in here bad, badder, baddest week of them all.
Truth in blogging--Peter Leishman truly is a friend; Steve Spratt most assuredly is NOT!
Democrat Peter Leishman made the motion, passed overwhelming by the Hillsborough County delegation, to ask department heads to come in with plans for a 98 percent plan. That request thanks to delegation chair--yes that would be Steve Spratt--never was forwarded to commissioners. In other words, Steve Spratt's first act as chair was to act illegally. No wonder he felt justified in espousing illegalities on the House floor.
Inquiring minds want to know if Mssr. Spratt will be satisfied in trying to drive the Hillsborough County budget up just 10 percent next week or if he will shoot for his big tax and spending stars of 15 percent!
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 12:46PMRemember that according to rules of the New Hampshire House, once a bill has been reconsidered, it may not be reconsidered again.
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.
Senate Slaughters Gas Tax Hike; GIR Loses Me
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 11:47AMThat 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 South 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 for a hike which could be labeled 67 percent, 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.
