Legislative Approval Of Contracts Should Pass

UPDATE--As predicted below, SB153 was defeated by a fairly straight party line vote (191-135) Wednesday afternoon.  After all, we wouldn't want mere elected officials to get a look at what goes into contracts, now would we?

Passage of SB 153, which would mandate legislative approval of state contracts, is not likely.  The bill, sponsored by Senate President Peter Bragdon, passed the Senate on a straight party line vote of 13-11.   It went to the House Labor Committee which, by a straight party line vote of 11-9, recommended killing the bill.

The writing is on the wall on this one, but hey, I think it's not only a good idea; it's a great idea.  Besides I tire of being on the prevailing (winning) side all the time, so I plan to speak in favor of this bill sure to be defeated this afternon.

Here's what I'll say, but don't expect Democrats to listen.  More than likely more Republicans will vote against the bill than Democrats will vote for it. 

C'est la guerre.

Floor Speech For Senate Bill 153

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, Hills. 15

            Thank you Madame Speaker.  I rise in favor of Senate Bill 153 fully realizing that to get to an ought to pass motion, we will need to overturn the inexpedient to legislate motion.

             We can do it; we should do it.

            Although this bill comes to us from the Labor Committee, the concept is not new, and it’s really not as much a labor bill as it is about finance and budgeting. 

            Last session, we dealt with a similar concept in finance.

            This bill simply calls for legislators, who have the ultimate responsibility for passing a state budget, to be involved in the process which produces by far the largest portion of funding for any budget, labor contracts.

            This bill simply would have us do at the state level what most counties already do. 

            In fact, tomorrow, the Hillsborough County executive committee meets to look at three labor contracts.  The way it works in Hillsborough is that the county commissioners, the executive department of state government, negotiate contracts, and then bring them to the executive committee for a recommendation to the full county delegation for action at the annual meeting.

            What’s good and essential for county government, I’ve always thought, should be good and is probably even more essential at the state level.

            In order for legislators, yes, that would be us, to responsibly formulate a budget; we have to be cognizant of what’s in it.  Since salaries take up the greater part of all budgets these days, we need to know the details of what’s in contracts.

            This bill actually represents a compromise.  It doesn’t call for the full legislature to approve any contract but merely that they go before the fiscal committee.

            You may recall Madame Speaker that just a few months ago, when House budget writers decided to give the governor the power to dip into any of more than 300 special designated funds, we agreed that Fiscal Committee needed to be involved.

            Thus, this bill merely follows the pattern that this House already agreed upon. 

            I would prefer that the entire House and Senate be involved with ultimately approving these contracts, as we are at the county level, but I learned long ago that politics is the art of the possible; that compromise is often needed.

            This bill represents that compromise.

            I also learned long ago that if we are to sustain government at a rate which will serve the needs of our state’s most vulnerable citizens, we must be wise enough to understand what goes into these contracts.

            While sitting on Division I of Finance last term and dealing with the corrections budget, I was astounded to learn that some employees in that department cost us more in benefits than in the basic salary.  Very few, if any people, seemed to realize this, and I suspect most of us here today, don’t grasp that fact, but it’s something we as legislators need to know if we are to create responsible budgets.  With benefits exceeding salaries, I began to ask myself, can we sustain budgets at a level we can afford.

            This bill would provide such information in a timely manner, when contracts are being formulated.

            Here’s another thing I learned just in the past month.  In dealing with the Hillsborough County corrections budget, I went immediately to the bottom line and found nearly a five percent increase, about $700,000 year to year.  Wow, I thought, this is a lot, but then I discovered that one single line is responsible for more than half that increase, and no, it’s not the salary line.  It’s an increase in the county’s share of the pension plan for corrections officers, up from about 20 percent to 25 percent this year, a five percent increase which in effect freezes out our ability to do other things we might want to be.

            Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that this increase isn’t necessary, but I am saying that we as legislators need a heads up on such, some type of advance warning that we can expect these kinds of numbers when we begin the budgetary process.

            This bill in effect serves as an advance warning system for legislators who must a accept budgets.  That’s why I can repeat that it’s really not about labor or negotiations, but more precisely about effectively carrying out our fiduciary responsibility to tax payers who sent us here.

            This bill simply asks that we do at the state level what we’ve been doing for a long time at the county level, at least in Hillsborough County, allow elected officials to understand what goes into the budgets they, we, must ultimately approve.

            That’s why Madame Speaker I would ask that we overturn the ITL recommendation so that a motion of Ought to Pass can be made.  Thank you.

Don't Trust Talks Of A Budget Stalemate

Excuse me if I yawn when I hear the next report about how this will be the year that New Hampshire House and Senate budget negotiators will be unable to reach an agreement, and we'll be here all summer working off continuing resolutions and other makeshift plans.

Yawn.

The media, now that it's been proven totally wrong with speculation that the gambling margin would be razor thin--that never was in the cards--feels compelled to move on by ginning up yet another controversy and hoping that it will get to report on the drama of a budget crisis.

Society would be better served if the media would report the facts rather than make things up to fit what it hopes will happen, more and more drama.

Gentlemen and ladies of the press, save your doom and gloom scenarios for the weather.

Perhaps I'm just jaded, but I've been around long enough to recall that every two years we hear this talk of stalemate and crisis, but when July 1 rolls around, the budget is in place; life goes on.

The only exception was when Craig Benson vetoed a budget, ostensibly because it spent too much, and the end result was a budget which spent slightly more.

Yawn.

Of course, as always, I could be wrong, but who should you trust.  Someone who called the gambling vote from the get-go or media types who simply want a good story, regardless of whether or not it's a real story?

Yawn.

Sure there are differences between House and Senate budget writers, but that's to be expected.  The system is designed to take care of these differences.

The Senate is not likely to yield on cigarette and gas tax increases, but keep in mind, 10 cents of the 30 cent cigarette tax increase kicks in automatically since expected revenues from the O'Brien cut never materialized.  Also keep in mind that the gas tax hike was not really part of the budget.

If history repeats itself, expect revenues to come in rather strongly in the next few weeks, thus allowing the committee of conference to spend more simply by increasing revenue estimates.

May is not a big month for revenues, but a sneak peak with three days to go reveals that real estate transfer taxes are up a million for the month, $7.4 million vs. $6.4 million expected, and meals and rooms are already $2.7 million ahead of plan, $18.8 million vs. an expected $16.1 million.

These two taxes serve as a good proxy for increase economic activity, and that translates into better revenues than expected.

That, plus a little punting of items which shouldn't be part of the budget process to begin with (gambling certainly would fall into that category and Senate leaders have promised to keep it out), and we'll all be free to get on with our own lives come July first.  Good thing too; that's Canada Day with jazz, fireworks, and a street arts festival in Montreal, not to mention great bike trails.

I'm ready to, to quote a B52s lyric, "get out of the state you're in". 

No Henny Penny, the sky is not falling on the New Hampshire budget.

We are not doomed to a summer of our discontent.

Of course, a bit of face saving will be required for the spinmeisters on both sides.  Presto, like magic expect Reublicans to emerge from the process claiming that the new budget looks a lot like the so-called draconian O'Brien budget of two years ago while Democrats manage to take credit for moving us closer into the realm of a responsible budget which serves the needs of the most vulnerable of our citizens.

Blah!  Blah!  Blah!

Yawn!

From 199-164 To 212-152, Here's What Happened

An analysis of roll call votes reveals that no less than 18 members of the New Hampshire House (all but four of them Democrats) changed their votes from a pro gabling stance to anti gambling between the two votes last Wednesday.

The motion to kill the bill passed by 35 votes, 199-164 originally; then the motion to keep it alive by reconsideration failed by 60 votes, 212-152.

Democrats went from 112-92 for gambling to 102-103 against.

Republicans went from 107-52 against to 109-50 against.

While 18 members became anti-gambling, six switched to pro gambling, at least to the extent that they voted in favor of reconsideration.

That, plus the appearance of one Rep who had missed the first vote, account for the 25 vote swing.

18 times 2 equals 36; 6 times 2 equals 12.  36 minus 12 equals 24; 24 plus 1 is 25.

Here are the 18 who moved from pro gambling (or at least against killing the bill) to anti gambling.

Christopher Ahlgren, R-Wolfeboro

Gladys Johnson, D-Keene

Tara Sad, D-Walpole

Lucy Weber, D-Walpole

William Hatch, D-Gorham

Rebecca Brown, D-Sugar Hill

Linda Massimilla, D-Littleton

Jill Hammond, D-Peterborough

Marjorie Porter, D-Hillsborough

Jordan Ulery, R-Hudson

Cindy Rosenwald, D-Nashua

Joel Winters, D-Manchester

David Karrick, D-Warner

Maureen Mann, D-Deerfield

Robert Nigrello, R-East Kingston

Lisa Whittemore, D-Londonderry

Mary Till, D-Derry

John Mullen, R-Middleton

This is just a theory but perhaps Marjorie Smith, D-Durham, had alluded to the reason in her floor speech.  Referring to her decision to support Democratic Governor John Lynch in his call for a Constitutional amendment on education funding a few years back (she and Lynch both went down in flames), she noted how some Democrats had pledged to give their governor "one vote".  Clearly, the pledge was off for a second vote.  That could have been the case again on the gambling bill.  Pointing in that direction is the fact that three Democratic chairs (Sad, Weber, Porter) and Vice Chair Rosenwald came up on the no said the second time around.

Here are the six Representatives who moved from opposition to the bill (for ITL) to support (against the reconsideration motion which in fact killed the bill once and for all).

Andrew Renzullo, R-Hudson

Steve Shurtleff, Majority Leader, D-Concord

Geoffrey Hirsch, D-Bradford

Tom Walsh, R-Hooksett

Jackie Cali-Pitts, D-Portsmouth

Elizabeth, R-Danville

Bianca Garcia, R-Salem, missed the first vote but was on the anti gambling side for reconsideration.

The anti margin vote may in fact have been greater than 60 more votes been taken.  At least three Democrats (Tim Horrigan, D-Durham; Renny Cushing, D-Hampton; and Michael Garcia, D-Nashua) voted for gambling both times, but most likely were doing so only in the hope of getting to amendment.  Not to mention Speaker Terie Norelli, D-Portsmouth, a most likely strong no had her vote been necessary!

As to Edmond, ah yes...he voted for gambling twice and we'll never know his true feelings.  He reminds me of a quote regarding Franz von Pappen, the duplicitous chancellor in the waning days of the Weimar Republic, whom historian Allan Bullock describes as "trusted by neither his friends nor his enemies."

Sorry, Edmond, it was too good a quote to waste.

The margin may well have exceeded 70 votes against gambling had we kept voting.

That's why Finance Chair Mary Jane Wallner, D-Concord, is to be praised for here decision to accept the ITL motion first in committee.  It's standard House practice.

Let The Gambling Blame Games Begin

           Gentlemen (and gentle ladies), start your engines.  Let the blame games begin. 

           “Who’s to blame?” 

            Who’s to blame for the defeat of expanded gambling, once again, last week in the New Hampshire House?

            Former Democratic Party Chair Kathy Sullivan and current Republican State Senator Jeb Bradley were quick to begin the blame game.

            Media members and pundits, none of whom seemed willing to acknowledge just how wrong they were in predicting a close, razor thin vote, jumped right from basically ignoring the debate on the House floor in favor of quoting partisan hacks and lobbyists to focusing on the blame game a la Sullivan and Bradley.

            Sullivan insists that Republicans are to blame for killing what was probably the worst gambling bill to ever be brought forward.

            Blame, Kathy? 

            A more proper word would be “credit”. 

            Who deserves credit for killing this atrocity?

            But Senator Bradley didn’t see it that way.  One of a handful of Senators to vote against the plan, the former Congressman wasn’t buying Ms. Sullivan’s blame scenario.  He chose to blame Governor Maggie Hassan for failing to round up enough Democrats to support the bill he voted against.

            Blame the governor Senator? 

            Again, a more proper word would be “credit”.

            Of course, the blame game gets downright silly, but you certainly must have expected that.

            Both Sullivan and Bradley are not totally wrong, but in their rush to partisanship, they are more wrong than right.

            Yes, Kathy, Republicans in the House voted against this bad bill by a two to one margin, but as we learned earlier in the budget debate and in the attempt to increase the gasoline tax by 87 percent, Democrats don’t need Republican votes; they can pass any bad bill they please just by sticking together.

            What Ms. Sullivan does not want you to know is that Democrats were split precisely down the middle, 102-103 on the reconsideration vote which would have kept this terrible bill alive.

            In fact, Democrats have always been slightly more against expanded gambling than Republicans, and all indications are, Ms. Sullivan’s peroration notwithstanding, that they will be so again in the future.  You see, Democratic support for the bill clearly came from Reps who most likely will not be here again in two years.  I could name names, but to be discreet I’ll simply refer you to Manchester and Nashua where the pro gambling votes came from. 

            Democrats from these two cities have always been pro gambling, to the dismay of their colleagues in the rest of the state, and these are areas where Democrats most certainly will lose Reps in 2014.  This in not merely a wild projection, but a look to history; Democrats score big wins in sweep years in those two cities, then fall back in years like 2014 is likely to be.

            As always, don’t take my word for it.  The numbers, from actual roll call votes are staggering.  For example, Manchester Democrats were 18-5 in favor of gambling.  Overall Hillsborough County Democrats were 46-15 in favor of gambling (Republicans in the county were 41-10 against it for a 56-56 split in the county).

            Now look at Grafton County which has become a Democratic stronghold, thanks in large part to Democrats with seniority.  17 of 20 Grafton County Democrats were against gambling.  In Merrimack County, Democrats were 20-14 against the plan.

            This, mind you, was on the first vote on which Democrats went 92-112 for gambling.

            In other words, the worst of all possible scenarios faces Ms. Sullivan who will most certainly be out of synch with her own party next term.  While she will remain pro gambling (she is after all a F.O.L.—friend of Lou—from Manchester), the veteran members of her own party, those who have been here for years and will likely to be here again in two years (from Norelli to Almy, Smith, Wallner, Nordgren…I could go on and on) long after the pro gambling newbies (Grady from Merrimack and Whittemore from Londonderry to name just two) have been thrown out of office.

            The Democratic split can be traced back to 1996 when anti gambler Peter Burling defeated pro gambler Raymond Buckley in a bitter fight for minority leader.  The fault lines have barely moved since then.

            Thus, Ms. Sullivan’s blame game is simply not accurate.

            As always, anti gambling sentiment crosses party lines.

            That’s why Senator Bradley is as far off base as Ms. Sullivan.  In fact, Governor Hassan did an admirable (or reprehensible…depending on your point of view) in corralling a cadre of unsuspecting first term Democrats to vote for this bill.

            But why play the blame game?

            Why not be honest.

            Neither Republicans nor Democrats alone are responsible for defeat of this gambling bill.

            Let’s put the blame (or credit) where it clearly deserves…in the New Hampshire Senate.

            How could Senators, faced with an opportunity for once to actually get a gambling bill passed, send across the worst bill yet to surface?

            How could they allow Millennium lobbyists to draft the bill?

            How could they fail to provide regulations the House has always insisted would be necessary?

            How could they, knowing full well that Millennium has a deal giving the state of Pennsylvania 55 percent of the take, fail to see how some of us in the House would challenge how 30 percent could be a good deal here in New Hampshire?

            Senators, imbued with the idea that with the governor on board they could simply pass any piece of trash they wanted, failed to do the work necessary to get the bill in shape for passage.

            Senators forwarded such a fatally flawed bill that no amount of work in the House could have made it palatable.

            Fill in the silk purse out of a sow’s ear analogy here.

            The blame for this bill should rest clearly on senators who failed to work hard to produce a product which the House could have at last accepted.

            Of course there’s plenty of blame for the media as well which bought into the myth that the vote would be close in the House.  In sustaining that myth, the media allowed the Senate to send trash across, and only a few of us were wise enough to realize all along that the vote was never going to be close.

            On a perfectly constructed gambling bill, the vote MIGHT have been close in the House.

            On this piece of garbage, there was never any chance.

            Democratic Senators like Sylvia Larsen, Molly Kelly, and David Watters are perhaps even more to blame than Lou and his long term supporters.  Not only did they abandon their long-held principles against gambling, but they sold out on the cheap, for such a paltry sum that the bill was virtually dead on arrival in the House.  Hey, if you’re going to sell out, at least hold out for more lumps of gold.

            Who’s to blame?

            No not Governor Hassan; no, not House Republicans.

            To paraphrase a line from Shakespeare, the fault dear senators lies not in the stars, but in yourselves.

            As I sit here, a Democratic Representative, on my list of undecided until the very end, relates, “They had ten years to get this right; how could they get it so wrong?”

            How indeed?

            Hubris might describe it; hubris of the magnitude which we would discover in a work by the Immortal Bard.

            Not only have I been sorting through roll calls, but also through press clips (give the Union Leaders a thumbs-up for the inspired headline “Full House flushes casino”).

            In Sunday’s Monitor, columnist Katy Burns captured a flavor of just how bad the bill, sent over from the Senate, was.

            After quoting my words about how this bill represented a great deal for Millennium but a terrible deal for New Hampshire, Burns wrote, “Far be it for me to imply that the governor and a majority of the senate were, well, rubes targeted by the city slickers.  But I still can’t help thinking that the sharpies at Millennium Gambling saw a really attractive turnip truck just loaded with free produce and rosy-cheeked farmers chugging into sight.  And no, it appears all that schmoosing by the sharpies with the locals and the cash-hungry state officials was for naught.”

            What killed the gambling bill?

            Greed, pure unadulterated greed by an out of state company which managed to convince a majority of the Senate that “Greed is good.”

            Greed may be good but only when tempered with a modicum of common sense.

Who's To Blame?--A New Wave View

 

"Who's To Blame?"  Just ask Fred Schneider.

One of the joys of aging is that when a phrase gets stuck in your mind, it's there forever and is quite likely to resurface at the most unlikely moments.  This past weekend, as I was thinking of a blog about "Who's To Blame" for the defeat of gambling (once again in the New Hampshire House), I kept hearing in my mind's ear, Fred Schenider of my favorite new wave group the B52s screaming, "Who's To Blame?", the catch line from one of my favorite B's songs, "Party out of Bounds".

I know, I know, I don't look it, but back in the day, I was a child of new wave.  From "Planet Claire" to "Rock Lobster", I loved the Bs, and "Party Out of Bounds" should go down as one of the undiscovered masterpieces of music from any generation (all right, I resort to a bit of sarcasm here).

I first saw the Bs at Hampton Casino...was it 1980 or 1981?

Then...two summers ago when I first arrived in Montreal for my annual visit to Canada Day (July 1) and the Jazz Festival, I discovered that the B52s were closing out the Jazz Festival with a free outdoors Fourth of July concert.  I actually had camera with me and after rearranging my schedule (I usually return home for an American Fourth), I was on hand to film the entire concert.

About 100,000 people were crammed into Place des Artes as Fred screamed, "Who's to Blame?".  Alas, I no longer have a TV show, but more than once, I managed to run the Montreal version of "Party Out of Bounds".  At least, I can dig it out for myself as I ponder the imponderable question, "Who's To Blame" for gambling's failure once again.

“Who’s to blame when situations degenerate?  Disgusting things you'd never anticipate..."

Hey, that sounds like the Senate-passed gambling bill.

"You know, it can ruin your name."

"Be tactful when making the rounds and maybe you can save the parteee."

Ah great stuff, but through the joys of googling, here are the entire lyrics.

(Speaking of a new wave child, guess what my one-eyed, drooling cat was named. Whip it!  Yes, she was the beloved "Devo"  Hey, maybe Devo will highlight this year's Festival; I won't hold my breath, but it’s nearly time to head to the border, carefully keeping track of how many people are breaking the speed limit going up I-89 of course.  My guess?  86 percent.

But I digress…Here are the lyrics.

Send "Party Out Of Bounds" Ringtone to your Cell

Surprise! Party!
Yeah, we just thought we'd drop in!
Where's your icebox?
Where's the punch?
Ew, house-a-tosis!
Who's to blame when parties really get out of hand?
Who's to blame when they get poorly planned?
Hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoooo-ooooooooo.
Crashers get bombed, slobs make a mess.
Ya know sometimes they'll even ruin your wife's dress.
Crashers getttin' bombed. (Who's to blame?)
Can you pull it back in line?
Can you salvage it in time?
What can you do to save a party?
Parcheesi? Charades? A spur-of-the-moment
Scavenger hunt, or Queen of the Nile?
Who turned out the lights!
Bombed, crashers gettin' bombed
crashers gettin' bombed, bombed, bombed, bombed, well who's to blame?
Who's to blame when situations degenerate?
Disgusting things you'd never anticipate?
Hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoooo-ooooooooo.
People get sick, they play the wrong games.
Ya know, it can ruin your name!
Crashers gettin' bombed. (Who's to blame?)
Can you pull it back in line?
Can you salvage it in time?
WOOOOOOOOOOOH!
It shouldn't be difficult!
Try not to condemn!
O.K. Who ordered pizza?
I'll be tactful when making the rounds
Be tactful when making the rounds
and maybeeee you can save a parteeeee.
Party gone out of bounds!
Gone out of bounds!
Party gone out of bounds!
Gone out of bounds!