I had bookmarked this a bit ago and just reread it now. I really don’t like gambling from a moral standpoint – but going along with the "Conservative with libertarian leanings", I have no problem with folks throwing their money away (there’s a real good statistical reason that they call it "the House odds"). However, as a fiscal conservative and a REAL LIMITED government guy, I fear that once again, we’re about to socialize bad behavior on behalf of the folks that just can’t help themselves and throw their family’s money away – which Government will end up taking care of such families.
And yes, I’m willing to debate this whole notion later – not now….for now, either I’m real confused or someone really is about definitions:
"The purpose for me has never been to raise money," said Vaillancourt, a self-described libertarian. "I just feel people should be allowed the right to gamble here rather than go to Connecticut."
OK, I still don’t believe that Government "allows" or can give Rights, but I’ll go along with this for now….and most real Libertarians seem to agree with my notions as well as the above – it is all about personal choice (and choice is freedom). However…. the "The purpose for me has never been to raise money," statement is stumping me:
Vaillancourt said that although the bill is a long-shot, "I think a lot of people would support something they think gives everyone a fair opportunity" to profit by hosting a gambling venue.
Profit is good but what’s this about "hosting" bit? Hosting? I’ve not ever heard it put that way before….
He said his bill would allow host facilities to keep 15 percent of revenues as "a rental fee," while the state "would hire all employees to run the facilities."
Back to "Libertarian" – I don’tknow of many of Libertarians, looking at this proposal, that would say that this is Libertarian in philosophy. They are all about self-responsibility and a VERY REALLY limited government – WHY is having Government running yet another commercial enterprise a good thing? Oh yeah – this:
He said the state general would receive 60 percent, with host communities receiving 1 percent and the other 24 percent going for administrative costs.
He also said that unlike Senate Bill 489, his plan contains "no dedicated funds," other than an amount to cover administrative costs and the small host community share, because, he said, "I’m not trying to buy votes."
Ah-yeah: "The purpose for me has never been to raise money,". I’m trying to rationalize that, from a long term politician, and this " state general would receive 60 percent" (that would be the state general fund, btw).
It is all about the bucks, and if his plan were to be voted upon positively, that politician would receive recompense in "other than money" (if that’s what you were thinking). Now, I don’t know Mr. Vaillancourt at all – don’t think I’ve ever met him so I’m not making a judgment on him – but Readers? ALWAYS remember that Greed can also be defined in terms of power and influence – because those are the abilities to get "stuff done" that the Politicians are wont to do. And very few, having tasted Power and Influence once and seen the ramification of using either, will swear off them forever. Again, Greed is not always just about the bucks…
And 60% of the money to the State? Er, it IS all about the money – otherwise, let private concerns do this. This is nothing than allowing Government to grow larger to allow it to grow much larger. This is, just like Fran Wendelboe’s attempt (here and here), to give Democrats political cover for their overspending ways…
Kill it – start calling your NH Reps and NH Senators.
