Senate Democrats Endorse Expanded Gambling

Forgive Democratic Senator Harold Janeway if he looks a little green.

He’s not feeling very good right now.

TAPE: I’m feeling very badly....particularly because there was enough of a margin, so that had I voted the other way it wouldn’t have changed the outcome, but it would have saved me my self-respect.

State senators don’t often say they’ve lost respect for themselves due to votes they’ve made.

But Janeway can’t help it after consistently promising to oppose gambling- particularly video slots.

TAPE: this is a really pernicious, very, very different level than cards or game tables...these machines are designed to trap and fool the players into thinking they’ve just missed...they are not called crack cocaine of gambling for nothing.

At least Janeway can take solace knowing that he’s not alone.

About half of the 14 Senate Democrats aren’t fond of expanded gambling.

But that didn’t stop all 14 from voting for it on the Senate floor this week.

Why did those Senators who genuinely oppose slots, not stick to their convictions?

TAPE: we have the bleakest and most severe revenue shortage in this state since the Great Depression.

Senator Deb Reynolds.

TAPE: the revenue estimates for the month of May 2009 alone were minus 25 million dollars....the state revenue estimates have been down for the past nine months.

When the Senate received the budget from the House, the state was facing about a half a billion dollar shortfall.

Revenues are down, and spending is up.

As an example, since February rising Medicaid and public assistance caseloads have resulted in a$50 million dollar spike in state spending.

That financial reality- coupled with the political reality that an income or sales tax isn’t an option- forced those who don’t like gambling into an uncomfortable position.

Propose unpopular taxes, continue slashing government services, or cozy up to the gambling proposition, a plan worth an estimated $185 million dollars over the next two years.

Speaking on the Senate Floor, Democrat Maggie Hassan told colleagues, gambling keeps the conversation going and avoids the less attractive options.

TAPE: we are taking over to the House for the committee of conference process as many ideas as we can think of. So everything is on the table....we need in the committee of conference process to be exploring all options. And that’s what we are trying to do here.

To some, passing gambling also appears to help the Senate strategically.

The House has passed controversial ideas of its own- namely a capital gains tax as well as an estate tax.

Most lawmakers seem to agree that the House and Senate won’t argue much over how to spend money, but rather where the money will come from.

If the Senate didn’t include gambling, the chamber would be in a weaker position to negotiate with House members.

Some Senators say they have received an email from a House member stating that gambling is dead on arrival during the committee of conference.

Senator Hassan says it’s obvious to her very difficult choices lie ahead.

TAPE: this budget year, and two years from now will force some of the starkest choices any legislator has had ot make in their lifetimes, and that’s not an overstatement. I think what you saw yesterday is the seriousness of where we are unfolding.

Senate Democrats are bracing for hard choices.

And of course, it’s possible that gambling could be part of a budget compromise.

For their part, Senator Janeway and Senator Reynolds say they will work hard to find alternatives to gambling over the coming days.

Neither is sure if they could stomach voting for what they just approved earlier this week.

For NHPR News, I’m DG.