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.
- David Harsanyi: Get the IRS out of the speech business altogether - 9
- Another View -- Ryan Gallagher: The U.S. government spies on reporters all too frequently - 4
- John Stossel: Who has true grit anymore? - 0
- Another View: New Hampshire would take a risky bet on casinos - 6
- Ramesh Ponnuru: In flextime fight, liberals play to their stereotype - 0
- Jonah Goldberg: Benghazi's smoking guns - 1
- Another View: Nashua does need to conduct its own review of commuter rail - 1
- George Will: Forgetting the lessons of Watergate - 0
- Charles Arlinghaus: Screeching lies does not count as debate - 2
Charles Krauthammer: Redacted truth, subjunctive outrage
READER COMMENTS: 0- Man shot to death on Manchester street late Saturday - 2
- UNH hires firm to redesign one of its logos - 10
- Disengaged: Obama's lousy excuse - 11
- Underestimating NH: Gun control picks two wrong targets - 17
- Roaming jihadis: A terrorist visits Manchester - 3
- Ted Siefer's City Hall: School board on the defensive over Cupcake-gate - 1
- Garry Rayno's State House Dome: All eyes on House as casino vote nears - 1
- 43 killers on lifetime parole - but where? - 3
- Official says NH abortion sites need state scrutiny - 13
NY man stable after destroying classic Porsche 911 in Route 16 wreck
READER COMMENTS: 1
Sorry, no question available



