Home » Opinion » Editorials
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.
READER COMMENTS: 2
- Strategery: A war by any other name - 20
- Freeh dumb: Favoritism in Vt.? - 5
- Public be damned: Litchfield latest example - 2
- NH's 9/11 victims: We cannot forget - 0
- Celebrating Stark: And America, in Manchester - 0
- NH's Obamabots: Taking their cues from party bosses - 57
- Spending & voting: MayDay's wasted money - 5
- For the NH GOP: Two new stars - 13
- 9/11 memories revived: 'A quiet, unyielding anger' - 8
READER COMMENTS: 0
- Pair accused in Hampstead home invasion also face witness tampering charges - 0
- Gunman hits Circle K convenience store in Durham - 0
- Suicide car bomber kills 3 foreign troops in Afghan capital; Taliban claims responsibility - 0
- City officials to review proposed 'spice' ban - 0
- Widow of chiropractor killed this summer says fatal shooting was no accident - 0
- Manchester's Delana Curtis is left out in the cold - 0
- Another View -- Sharon Day: The Democrats' claim to be the party for women is just not believable - 3
- Dave D'Onofrio's Patriots Notebook: Brady a realist - 0
- Burning rubber: And public dollars - 0
Mexican man pleads guilty in international conspiracy to traffic hundreds of pounds of cocaine
DWI license revocations
Another View -- Sharon Day: The Democrats' claim to be the party for women is just not believable
Strategery: A war by any other name
Freeh dumb: Favoritism in Vt.?
Lawyer wants cellphone evidence thrown out