|
Charles
Weed
State Representative
District 3
|
March
20, 2010
Representative
Charles "Chuck" Weed represents Cheshire District 3
(Keene) in the NH House of Representatives.
Representative Weed
is a member of the House Committee on Labor, Industrial and
Rehabilitative Services.
|
|
I have not changed my mind about gambling as a reliable revenue source for the state of New Hampshire. It is not. Further, it is irresponsible.
In my five terms as a state legislator, I have worked, so far unsuccessfully, for a fair and reliable tax structure to fund our austere state services. Tax researchers and former legislators have both concluded that our many different narrow based taxes are guaranteed to lead to a structural deficit. That means in normal economic times, with ordinary growth in cost-of-living and
population, our revenues cannot keep up with the always meager services provided by the state of New Hampshire. Thus, I have sponsored and cosponsored a number of tax bills including an income tax with substantial property tax relief, a capital gains tax, a luxury sales tax, and, although not "progressive", a gas tax to fix our bridges and highways. These were designed to make our tax structure more progressive, in other words based on the ability to pay. Some of these taxes have passed the House-but were killed in the Senate and faced a well publicized Veto by the governor. They would have provided substantial tax relief for our strapped taxpayers who contribute 60% of the cost of running the state of New Hampshire when they pay their property taxes, whether or not they can afford them. My approach, apparently shared by my constituents, is that we need government services and we should be willing to pay for them.
The existing tax structure -- where the bottom 80% of the population pays about twice as much of their disposable income than does the top 20%
-- provides the New Hampshire advantage to the wealthy and burdens the poor and middle classes. Gambling would further reduce the citizens' responsibilities in providing necessary revenue for government services, and, although it would be voluntary, revenue from gambling would be paid mostly by same poor and middle classes who bear a disproportionate tax burden today.
Everyone who has studied gambling, agrees that there would be consequences -- namely, creating some number of new gambling addicts, and a need for increased policing in the municipalities that host gambling venues. There is less agreement about whether bringing in gambling would bring in organized crime and large additional law enforcement state expenditures, as well as, whether there would be substantial revenue loss because of the discouragement of family friendly outdoor tourism.
|
Looking at only the items about which there is consensus, the unwillingness to engage in preventive tobacco programs by the
state (although funded by a settlement focusing on tobacco company
liability), and the ongoing unwillingness to set aside revenue for alcohol and drug rehabilitation is all the demonstration that I need to indicate that gambling addiction would not be on the radar for state expenditures from revenue raised.
The demonstrated inclination of the governor and Legislature to shift costs to the local level for serving the elderly and for costs in criminal justice is all the demonstration that I need to know that helping out communities that host gambling is an unlikely prospect for the state of New Hampshire. Who will absorb the increased costs that come from gambling if our irresponsible state won't?
However, there is an earlier question -- will gambling provide the millions of dollars promised by its advocates -- usually large gambling syndicates, their well-paid lobbyists, and several New Hampshire senators who seem to need substantial sources of campaign financing to run their expensive elections? Gambling revenues are down 20 to 30% around the country because of the recession and economic crisis of the last two years. It will take at least two years before the first gambling revenues come to the state treasury, because of the need to build facilities, and the permitting process that requires extensive and lengthy investigation. Another reason for caution is the close-by gambling destinations across our neighboring borders that will certainly cut into proceeds from New Hampshire.
Regarding the regressivity of gambling as a revenue source, one need look no further than studies of who plays the lottery. Most of the players of
superball and other big prize lotteries don't seem to be concerned about the one in a million plus odds against winning. Lottery players are the same bottom 80% of the population on the wrong side of "the NH advantage". Perhaps if we had better math education for all the citizens funded as a state interest and obligation, we would be obligated to pay for services through fair taxation rather than by those whose hopes and
wishes for a windfall displace calculation and reason. By the way the poor are bearing most of the burden for the tax the legislature has consistently increased, the tobacco tax.
It will require a conversion experience for our blue dog governor and an overly cautious Democratic Leadership of the legislature to engage in the necessary education and advocacy of fair and sustainable taxes. Instead, we should not be surprised that our leaders have again chosen overly
optimistic - "no cost" voluntary revenue sources - with very large and unfunded long
term social costs if they choose the gambling gambit to close our revenue shortfalls.
Charles F. Weed, Representative Cheshire 3
Keene, New Hampshire
Telephone: 603-271-3125
Email: cweed@keene.edu
|
