Items 1 and 2: There is an intense debate underway in Concord over the issue of slot machines. The House has rejected two slot machine bills, but some of the ‘no’ votes were gambling supporters who were voting against poorly-drafted legislation. The real fight is in the State Senate. Opponents point to the social costs of expanded gambling. Proponents downplay those costs. But if there is no social cost to expanded gambling, why do the Senate bills limit slot machines to a few locations? If slot machines are a good way for the state to make money, why not have a slot machine casino in Concord and Manchester and Nashua and every other town in the state? The answer, of course, is that most people (and legislators) do understand the social costs of casinos and do not want one in their town. Limiting gambling to just a few locations does not make an expansion of gambling less damaging to NH. It just hides the effects from most of those who vote for the expansion.

Item 3: Op-ed by Gary Long, President of the State Employees Association: follow cost-saving ideas proposed by state workers; allow state workers to carry out programs, rather than private contractors (who knew that NH Easter Seals has five execs earning over $250,000 a year?); and consider all revenue options, in addition to cuts.

Item 4: Rep. Sally Kelly of Chichester makes some strong arguments for mandatory seat belt use.

Item 5: The Governor will use some of the federal stimulus money to pay for the state’s share of education expenses. However, this leaves several cuts in local aid still in the Governor’s budget proposal. It also means that in two years, when the stimulus money is gone, we won’t have enough money for the state aid to public education.

Item 6: The State is short of money, so we won’t reduce the wait list for people with disabilities. No surprise here, it’s what the State has been doing for years.

Item 7: Robert Reich’s take on President Obama’s budget proposal.

Item 8: This op-ed is a great rejoinder to those who call the President’s proposals “socialist.”

Mark Fernald

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1. Published: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 Lawmakers lobby for slots in NH By LAUREN R. DORGAN, Concord Monitor

Economic growth was pitted against crime and social costs in testimony Tuesday before Senate lawmakers who will decide whether to recommend allowing as many as 15,000 slot machines at the state's racetracks and in the North Country.

Expanded gambling would spur job creation, rejuvenate the North Country, and revitalize ailing horse and dog racetracks, proponents testified.

Sen. Lou D'Allesandro's bill would allow 5,000 slot machines at Salem's Rockingham Park, 2,000 each in two North Country facilities and 2,000 each at the state's dog tracks. One of the three dog tracks, Hinsdale Greyhound Park, shut down in December. Municipalities would vote on whether to allow new gambling either by referendum or at town meeting.

D'Allesandro, D-Manchester said lawmakers "pushed $2 billion out the window" when they shot down a gambling bill 10 years ago. "I've spent a decade of my life trying to create a viable economic situation for the state of New Hampshire," D'Allesandro said.

The plan, which he called a "private stimulation" package, would produce two years of construction jobs and 4,000 permanent jobs at the "racinos," he said.

Opponents said slot machines would cause the state's crime rate to spike and lead to gambling addictions. For those reasons, every state attorney general for three decades has opposed expanded gambling, said Senior Assistant Attorney General Will Delker.

Gambling spurs higher crime rates, Delker said, citing a 2005 study of counties across the United States. Counties that saw the introduction of casinos had, after about two years, increases in crime in six of seven categories tracked by the FBI. Matthew Landry, a consultant hired by Rockingham Park to run economic projections for how much money the slot machines could bring in, estimated that with 5,000 slot machines, Rockingham would reel in $418 million a year in revenue or $287 million a year if Massachusetts also expands gambling. Sen. Bette Lasky, D-Nashua, who is a sponsor of the D'Allesandro bill, introduced an amendment to allow Green Meadow Golf Club to open a resort hotel and casino in Hudson. Sen. Ted Gatsas, R-Manchester, introduced a separate gambling bill that would permit up to 6,000 slot machines at state-run facilities.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, R-Manchester said that after years of supporting gambling, he had become neutral or possibly opposed to its expansion. He said the D'Allesandro bill includes more machines than the combined number of slots at Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods Resort Casino.

"Gambling is an addiction. Gambling is a scourge on society," Vaillancourt said. "If you want to go forward with it, go forward with eyes wide open."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2. Published: Friday, March 6, 2009 After quick death of 2 House bills, Senate OKs one on slot machines By KEVIN LANDRIGANStaff Writer CONCORD – A state Senate committee on Thursday endorsed a proposal to legalize gambling on slot machines.

The 3-2 recommendation of the Senate Ways and Means Committee creates a likely showdown before the full Senate next week.

Sen. Peggy Gilmour, D-Hollis, voted for the measure (SB 169) of Manchester Democrat Lou D'Allesandro; Nashua Democrat Bette Lasky is a co-sponsor of the bill. On Wednesday, Lasky offered an amendment to add a resort casino to the bill at the request of the owners of Greenmeadow Golf Course in Hudson.

The committee recommendation was to pass the bill without any changes. The panel also recommended killing the rival proposal of Manchester Republican Sen. Ted Gatsas for state-run gambling facilities (SB 179). This action came a day after the House of Representatives had voted overwhelmingly to kill two bills for state-run and privately run casinos and slot machine parlors.

House leaders stressed that they would take up any expanded gambling bill that cleared the state Senate. Gov. John Lynch repeated this week he remains skeptical that expanded gambling would not harm the state's quality of life and urged legislators to carefully examine any such measure.

Kevin Landrigan can be reached at 321-7040 or klandrigan@nashua telegraph.com.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

3. State's workers know where savings exist

By GARY SMITH For the Monitor

March 07, 2009 - 12:00 am

Five months before Gov. John Lynch delivered his proposed budget, the State Employees' Association held discussions with him about the many ways to save money and become more efficient.

Frontline state employees continue to offer hundreds of suggestions about ways state government could realize substantial savings - some as simple as turning off computers and using setback thermostats. We also suggested investigating a four-day workweek and restricting the use of state vehicles.

Many suggestions are the same ideas proposed to the Legislature in 1990 and which have been ignored. Here we are again in 2009, scrambling to balance the needs of the state with the reality of insufficient revenue. Have we learned nothing from previous economic downturns?

In the rush to find efficiencies we often overlook the most obvious options, and we compound the problem by making decisions out of fear. I suggest that we turn to the dedicated state workers who are well-qualified to root out inefficiencies and could expose waste, fraud and abuse - but they need protection from retribution from their bosses and the political forces in the public sector.

The Monitor expressed surprise that the Department of Health and Human Services - with the largest portion of the state budget - pays an estimated 4,000 separate contractors for services not provided directly by the state ("State budget review finds potential savings," Sunday Monitor editorial, Feb. 22).

I am not sure what the Monitor is surprised with, but here is one thing it should be looking at: In 2007 the CEO of Easter Seals New Hampshire Inc. was paid more than $484,000 in total compensation. A large portion of his excessive salary came from taxpayers who struggle daily to pay their bills while worrying if they will still have a job next week. In addition to Larry Gammon's exorbitant salary, three other Easter Seals officers took home a quarter of a million dollars each that year.

Why is Larry Gammon's salary a problem? The state pays Easter Seals more than $20 million out of the biennial budget. I am sure there are many fine folks at Easter Seals who are actually delivering services to our most vulnerable citizens and work hard, but they likely don't make much more than $10 to $15 per hour. We need real leaders who will do more that just say the word "accountability."

We also need better distribution of our tax dollars because those frontline workers toiling for Easter Seals are buying houses or paying rent and shopping in our communities. We need to admit that the state budget system needs more than just a little tweaking.

For starters, we need a governor and responsible legislators who are not afraid to shake up the system and ask whether we should build it or buy it before we bid it out to contract. Contracts represent more than a billion dollars of state services each year.

Before we let the governor wipe out 300 jobs - and eliminate 400 vacant positions - we need to know why we're spending billions in outside contracts that may come at a much higher cost.

Finally, we need politicians who are not afraid to say no to the so-called " tax pledge" and honestly look at all revenue options. No citizen of New Hampshire benefits when a politician tells us they will not consider any new revenue streams just to get elected to a job after they recklessly take options off the table. Just tell us what you stand for and we will either vote for you or not. And if you do get elected, look at all the information, listen to experts and constituents, and then make the decision that makes the most sense -not one that is made because of an inane campaign promise.

We have an opportunity for an honest, open and thoughtful discourse about how this state sets priorities for spending and income.

If we don't honestly take a hard look at how we operate, we'll be here again and again and again.

(Gary Smith is president of the State Employees' Association.)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

4. Why I changed my mind about seatbelts

Facts clearly support mandating their use

By Rep. SALLY KELLY For the Monitor

March 05, 2009 - 12:00 am

Two years ago, I didn't support the mandatory seatbelt legislation. I thought it was in opposition to our New Hampshire commitment to fierce independence. Being a resident of this wonderful state for 34 years, I often proudly cited the fact that we were the only state in the union that didn't force adults to wear seatbelts.

Then I was appointed to the commission to study how to increase the use of seatbelts in our state. After sitting through 30-plus hours of expert testimony, representing every position on this issue, I learned a lot from both sides. All the logic helped move me from a decision based on emotions to one based on facts. Fact 1: Until very recently, we ranked dead last out of the 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, in terms of seat belt use. The " good" news is that we just moved from 52nd to 51st place.

Fact 2: Cars are different today. They are softer in the front to absorb the shock of a crash and harder around the driver and passenger seats, which acts as a steel cage to protect us. Seatbelts are an integral part of the design; they help the driver to stay in the right position to best control the car. Think ice skates when the laces are tied. As a direct result of these improvements, more lives are saved.

Fact 3: Today passengers survive more, but those who are unbelted are more apt to sustain extensive brain injuries. As New Hampshire citizens, we ultimately pay for the cost of these treatments while they, their friends and families face the long-term loss of independence.

Fact 4: Our current safety strategy of using only education has resulted in our current average of 69 percent seatbelt use, compared to the national average of 83 percent. We've gained 6 percentagae points in the past 10 years. At this pace, we could achieve the national average in about 25 years.

Fact 5: An additional $3.7 million in federal highway safety funding will be given to our state if we enact a bill by Sept. 30. This is the final year for this grant. If we don't qualify, the $3.7 million goes into a pot to be distributed to the other states that have already met their requirements. This money just the icing on the cake - it's not the key reason for legislation - but our state could use something "extra" to sweeten our economy.

Fact 6: It is impossible to calculate the exact cost to the citizens of New Hampshire, because of the rippling effect of a serious injury. Hospitalization costs are just the beginning; there are the costs to the employer, the community and the family for the long-term consequences of serious injuries.

Today, I understand that being a culture of fiercely independent individuals is so much more than merely clinging to old ideas. In New Hampshire, we like to take our time listening and thinking. A recent University of New Hampshire study found that 64 percent of state voters support a mandatory seatbelt law.

New Hampshire is a great state. We are independent thinkers who make good decisions, at the right time, based on solid facts.

Please join me in supporting the seatbelt bill, the right bill for our state.

(Democratic Rep. Sally Kelly of Chichester is the sponsor of House Bill 383, which requires motor vehicle drivers and passengers to wear seatbelts.)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

5. Lynch wants towns to get $120m

By NORMA LOVE Associated Press Writer Friday, March 6, 2009 CONCORD, N.H (AP) — Gov. John Lynch said Friday he wants communities around the state to get $120 million in federal stimulus money as a way to offset cuts in local aid.

Lynch will take the money from $201 million in stimulus funding allocated to states for education aid. He wants to use the $120 million for school aid that the state already had in the budget. That will free up the same amount to restore some of the money his budget cuts in local aid.

Lynch has not decided what to do with the remaining stimulus money.

When Lynch presented his budget to lawmakers on Feb. 12, it was unclear how states could allocate federal stimulus money, Pamela Walsh, Lynch's deputy chief of staff, said Friday. Final versions made it possible for states to use the money for education aid, she said.

In his budget address last month, Lynch proposed suspending two of the state's aid programs distributing money to local communities and reducing a third program. The reductions total about $187 million over the two-year budget that starts July 1. He said the moves allowed the state to meet its commitment to fully fund school aid — a $123 million increase.

In exchange for taking their aid, Lynch proposed giving communities $160 million in expected federal economic stimulus money. Lynch said property taxpayers — who support both local government and schools — would benefit in the aggregate.

Local officials protested that they had no control over schools or their spending. They said local government services would suffer if the aid wasn't directed to communities.

Walsh said Lynch was sensitive to the need to be sure money went into the " right buckets" and will ask lawmakers to move the money around in the budget so communities get some aid restored.

Walsh said about $45 million of the remaining money will be distributed to schools under the Title 1 formula. Lynch has not decided what to do with the remaining $36 million.

Walsh said communities will fare better under the budget than most state agencies.

"We're looking at keeping (communities) ahead of (2009 spending) levels," she said. Maura Carroll of the New Hampshire Municipal Association, which lobbies for cities and towns, said Lynch's announcement will calm local officials who must present their budgets next week to voters at town meetings.

"Local officials are encouraged," she said, but added that "the battle isn't over."

She said communities will continue to lobby the Legislature to fund all the aid, not just $120 million. Lynch's announcement will help, she said.

House Speaker Terie Norelli said Friday the aid cut has been a concern to lawmakers.

"The House will take a close look at it," she said.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

6. No money in state budget for disabled on wait list

By NORMA LOVE The Associated Press

March 07, 2009 - 12:00 am

Gov. John Lynch's budget contains no funding to continue to pare down the wait list of New Hampshire's disabled as they seek new services over the next two years. Matthew Ertas, administrator of the state Bureau of Developmental Services, estimated Thursday that $27 million is needed to serve the 648 disabled residents and 53 with brain injuries expected to seek services in the period covered by the budget.

Ertas told a House budget subcommittee Lynch's budget funds services only for those who already receive them.

Pamela Walsh, Lynch's deputy chief of staff, pointed out that the budget funds a $20 million increase in developmental services.

"We placed the priority on making sure the people who were getting services keep getting services," she said.

The disabled community fought for years to end long waits for services, and two years ago Lynch's budget had funding intended to eliminate the wait list over three years.

Lynch signed a law requiring the state to provide the services within certain time limits, generally allocating funding within 90 days. Children who were getting help in school would receive state services automatically when they left school. Ertas said his agency tries to provide services to people within 90 days of being put on the list, but the wait is still longer for the disabled. He said there aren't as many people with brain injuries waiting so they are helped faster.

Ertas said the state will never abolish the wait list as long as the disabled need services. He also said he underestimated the number who would seek services when the budget was prepared two years ago. More young people than anticipated no longer get services at school, he said, and more aging baby boomers are unable to care for disabled adults living at home. And, he said, more people with autism are seeking services.

The law Lynch signed in 2007 called for the wait list to be eliminated within three years at a cost of $12.6 million. Democrats and Republicans disagreed not whether the services should be provided, but how best to shore up a system that had been neglected by 16 years of underfunding by the state. Democrats argued the state needed time to ensure qualified people are in place to provide the services. Republicans wanted the wait list to be eliminated in two years, not three - something they did not do when they controlled the State House. At the time, estimates to speed up the process were about $2 million more than it cost to eliminate the wait list over three years.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

7. Finally a Progressive Budget

Thursday 26 February 2009

by: Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

President Obama's new budget is, well, audacious - not just because it includes several big, audacious initiatives (universally affordable health care, and a cap-and-trade system for coping with global warming, for starters) but also because it represents the biggest redistribution of income from the wealthy to the middle class and poor this nation has seen in more than forty years.

In order to see the whole, you need to look both at where revenues will come from and at where they'll go: Come from: By allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, the marginal income tax on the highest earners goes back to 39.6 percent (from 35 percent, now), and capital gains rates to 20 percent (from 15, now). The budget also limits the amount highest earners can claim for mortgage-interest and charitable deductions (from 35 percent now down to 28 percent), raising an estimated $318 billion over ten years.

Finally, wealthier Medicare beneficiaries will have to pay higher premiums for prescription drugs. Come from, and go: Revenues from a cap-and-trade auction - the costs of which will presumably will be passed on to all consumers - will finance a continuation of the middle-class and lower-income tax credits now in the stimulus bill at a slightly higher rate ($500 per individual, $1,000 per couple, phasing out above $75,000 per person). Go: Although we don't have details as yet, the President's health-care proposal is likely to include substantial subsidies for lower-income families.

In addition, let's hope the expanded Earned Income Tax Credit now in the stimulus bill will continue beyond 2010, as well as the refundable Child Tax Credit, enlarged Food Stamp program, larger Title I for poor school districts, and expansion of Pell Grants. (So are, no clear signal on this.) Presidential budgets are aspirations. They're not real, in the sense that no one really has to adhere to them. Obama's budget now goes to Congress, where budget committees will draw up their own versions. Even these congressional budgets are mere guidelines for appropriations and tax-writing committees.

Lobbyists will be swarming. So don't expect the final sausage to look exactly like the meat the President is putting into the grinder. On the other hand, the sausage is likely to bear more than a passing resemblance. Remember: This president's approval ratings are well over 60 percent - substantially higher than Congress's overall approval rating, and far far higher than Republicans in Congress - and the nation is still looking to Obama to lead the way out of our troubled times.

And it's a Democratic congress, with a Democratic Senate that could be (if Franken is seated) one vote short of being able to cut off a filibuster. It's about time a presidential budget uneqivocally redistributed income from the very rich to the middle class and poor. The incomes of the top 1 percent have soared for thirty years while median wages have slowed or declined in real terms. As economists Thomas Piketty and Emanuel Saez have shown, in the 1970s the top-earning 1 percent of Americans took home 8 percent of total income; as recently as 1980 they took home 9 percent.

After that, total income became more and more concentrated at the top. By 2007, the top 1 percent took home over 22 percent. Meanwhile, even as their incomes dramatically increased, the total federal tax rates paid by the top 1 percent dropped. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 1 percent paid a total federal tax rate of 37 percent three decades ago; now it's paying 31 percent. Fairness is at stake but so is the economy as a whole.

This Mini Depression is partly the result of a widening gap between what Americans can afford to buy and what Americans when fully employed can produce. And that gap is in no small measure due to the widening gap in incomes, since the rich don't devote nearly as large a portion of their incomes to buying things than middle and lower-income people. The rich, after all, already have most of what they want.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

8. Who You Calling Socialist? Wednesday 04 March 2009 by: Harold Meyerson | Visit article original @ The Washington Post

"We are all socialists now," proclaims Newsweek. We are creating " socialist republics" in the United States, says Mike Huckabee, adding, on reflection, that "Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff." We are witnessing the Obama-era phenomenon of "European socialism transplanted to Washington," says Newt Gingrich. Well!

Even as we all turn red, I've still encountered just two avowed democratic socialists in my daily rounds through the nation's capital: Vermont's Sen. Bernie Sanders . . . and the guy I see in the mirror when I shave. Bernie is quite capable of speaking for himself, so what follows is a report on the state of actual existing socialism from the other half of the D.C. Senators and Columnists Soviet.

First, as we survey the political landscape, what's striking is the absence of advocates of socialism, at least as the term was understood by those who carried that banner during the capitalist crisis of the 1930s. Then, socialists and communists both spoke of nationalizing all major industries and abolishing private markets and the wage system.

Today, it's impossible to find a left-leaning party anywhere that has such demands or entertains such fantasies. (Not even Hugo Chávez - more an authoritarian populist than any kind of socialist - says such things.) Within the confines of socialist history, this means that the perspective of Eduard Bernstein - the fin de siecle German socialist who argued that the immediate struggle to humanize capitalism through the instruments of democratic government was everything, and that the goal of supplanting capitalism altogether was meaningless - has definitively prevailed.

Within the confines of American history, this means that when New York's garment unions left the Socialist Party to endorse Franklin Roosevelt in 1936, they were charting the paradigmatic course for American socialists: into the Democratic Party to support not the abolition of capitalism but its regulation and democratization, and the creation of some areas of public life where the market does not rule.

But in the United States, conservatives have never bashed socialism because its specter was actually stalking America. Rather, they've wielded the cudgel against such progressive reforms as free universal education, the minimum wage or tighter financial regulations. Their signal success is to have kept the United States free from the taint of universal health care. The result: We have the world's highest health-care costs, borne by businesses and employees that cannot afford them; nearly 50 million Americans have no coverage; infant mortality rates are higher than those in 41 nations - but at least (phew!) we don't have socialized medicine.

Give conservatives credit for their consistency: They attacked Roosevelt as a socialist as they are now attacking Obama, when in fact Obama, like Roosevelt before him, is engaged not in creating socialism but in rebooting a crashed capitalist system. The spending in Obama's stimulus plan isn't a socialist takeover. It's the only way to inject money into a system in which private-sector investment, consumption and exports - the other three possible engines of growth - are locked down. Investing more tax dollars in education and research and development is a way to use public funds to create a more competitive private sector.

Keeping our banks from speculating madly with our money is a way to keep banking alive.

If Obama realizes his agenda, what emerges will be a more social, sustainable, competitive capitalism. His more intellectually honest and sentient conservative critics don't accuse him of Leninism but of making our form of capitalism more like Europe's. In fact, over the past quarter-century, Europe's capitalism became less regulated and more like ours, one reason Europe is tanking along with everyone else.

Take it from a democratic socialist: Laissez-faire American capitalism is about to be supplanted not by socialism but by a more regulated, viable capitalism. And the reason isn't that the woods are full of secret socialists who are only now outing themselves. Judging by the failures of the great Wall Street investment houses and the worldwide crisis of commercial banks; the collapse of East Asian, German and American exports; the death rattle of the U.S. auto industry; the plunge of stock markets everywhere; the sickening rise in global joblessness; and the growing shakiness of governments in fledgling democracies that opened themselves to the world market - judging by all these, a more social capitalism is on the horizon because the deregulated capitalism of the past 30 years has blown itself up, taking much of the known world with it.

So, for conservatives searching for the culprits behind this transformation of capitalism:

Despite our best efforts, it wasn't Bernie
and it wasn't me. It was your own damn system.