Home » Opinion » Editorials
February 04. 2013 5:30PM
If legislators proposed a bill that would allow two New Hampshire communities to build new hospitals, few people would consider that a statewide job-creation plan. The same common-sense skepticisim should greet any piffle that portrays casinos the same way. A big casino would employ about as many people as a big hospital would.
The first casino bill to make its way in the Legislature this year is House Bill 665, introduced by Rep. Edmond Gionet, R-Lincoln. It would allow the creation of two casinos, "one in the White Mountains and one in a county bordering Massachusetts." Gionet says his bill is all about job-creation.
"This is not a budget bill, and I don't intend it to be one. It's a jobs bill."
No, it's a budget bill. Last year the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies issued a report on expanded gambling in the state. Based on data from other casinos, it estimated that a $500 million destination resort casino in New Hampshire would employ 2,400 people. For some perspective, Elliot Hospital in Manchester employs about 2,800 people.
Casinos would employ a few thousand people, but the direct economic impact would be concentrated in the immediate community. What about the rest of the state? Rep. Gionet says "We've got highways and bridges in really bad shape, and some folks want surcharges on registrations and a gas tax increase to fund that. I don't think so."
The statewide economic impact would come through the use of casino revenues on highway repair and construction. So it is a budget bill after all, not a jobs bill.
Make no mistake, if casinos are allowed in New Hampshire, some jobs would come with them. However, even more jobs would come from reforming our business taxes in ways that encourage more start-ups and relocations. Fidelity Investments' Merrimack campus employs about 5,300 people, more than would be employed by both of Rep. Gionet's casinos combined. When Fidelity closed its Marlborough, Mass., offices last year, it moved those jobs to Merrimack. If New Hampshire concentrated on recruiting more facilities like that, and on making the conditions better for entrepreneurs, we would be far better off than if we pursued a few casinos.
The real reason politicians want casinos is so they can take half of the gaming revenues, vs 8.5 percent of any other business's profits. It's about money, not jobs.
Casino games: They're about revenues, not jobs
The first casino bill to make its way in the Legislature this year is House Bill 665, introduced by Rep. Edmond Gionet, R-Lincoln. It would allow the creation of two casinos, "one in the White Mountains and one in a county bordering Massachusetts." Gionet says his bill is all about job-creation.
"This is not a budget bill, and I don't intend it to be one. It's a jobs bill."
No, it's a budget bill. Last year the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies issued a report on expanded gambling in the state. Based on data from other casinos, it estimated that a $500 million destination resort casino in New Hampshire would employ 2,400 people. For some perspective, Elliot Hospital in Manchester employs about 2,800 people.
Casinos would employ a few thousand people, but the direct economic impact would be concentrated in the immediate community. What about the rest of the state? Rep. Gionet says "We've got highways and bridges in really bad shape, and some folks want surcharges on registrations and a gas tax increase to fund that. I don't think so."
The statewide economic impact would come through the use of casino revenues on highway repair and construction. So it is a budget bill after all, not a jobs bill.
Make no mistake, if casinos are allowed in New Hampshire, some jobs would come with them. However, even more jobs would come from reforming our business taxes in ways that encourage more start-ups and relocations. Fidelity Investments' Merrimack campus employs about 5,300 people, more than would be employed by both of Rep. Gionet's casinos combined. When Fidelity closed its Marlborough, Mass., offices last year, it moved those jobs to Merrimack. If New Hampshire concentrated on recruiting more facilities like that, and on making the conditions better for entrepreneurs, we would be far better off than if we pursued a few casinos.
The real reason politicians want casinos is so they can take half of the gaming revenues, vs 8.5 percent of any other business's profits. It's about money, not jobs.
- Voter restrictions: Who will govern us? - 26
- School board papers: Beaudry gets left behind - 1
- Data overreach Are programs really justified? The weak case for PRISM. - 11
- A Medicaid reduction? That is not likely - 8
- Border security? Maybe, some day, perhaps. Or not - 35
- Priority profs: University system tops HHS - 5
- Recognizing father: Not PC, but still OK - 1
- Closing Hanover St.: Not a 'free market' move - 6
- Step into the past: Discover old NH this weekend - 0
Tax credit math: Who owns your money?
READER COMMENTS: 4- House, Senate at standoff over vaccines, voter registration bill - 0
- Rochester parents called to court to answer for truant children - 0
- Exeter High teachers' resignations announced at meeting - 0
- Rochester woman under arrest in underage party - 0
- LeBron, Heat edge Spurs in OT, force Game 7 - 0
- Santos drives in three as Curve beat Fisher Cats in 10 - 0
- Large billboards grabbing attention on Route 101 in Epping - 2
- Pearl Street lot proposal involves student housing in Manchester - 3
- Manchester VFW posts fights to survive without poker cash - 2
UPDATE: Police say man found dead outside Wall Street Towers jumped
READER COMMENTS: 3
Sorry, no question available



