Posts Tagged ‘Steve Vaillancourt’

LIBERAL LOU — WHO IS HE REPRESENTING?

Thursday, April 15th, 2010

Guest post by Rep. Steve Vaillancourt:

How strange it is to see a majority of pro gambling Manchester Democrats ready to vote for Lou D’Allesandro’s Senate Bill 489!

If there’s any group that should vote against this bill, it’s pro gamblers from Manchester.

The D’Allesandro bill, by mandating slots for Rockingham, Seabrook, Hudson, Belmont, the north country, and nowhere else, would gurantee that Manchester never share in the revenue, jobs, or economic development from slots.

The only way Manchester will ever have a shot at slots is to kill the D’Allesdandro bill and push for one next session which provides an open opportunity for everyone and every community to get slots.

No wonder Hudson and Salem Reps are supporting the D’Allesandro bill. It guarnetees three percent of overall revenues (right off the top) to the host communities. By most estimates, that means an annual windfall of $10 million for those towns, both of which, by the way, have at least $20,000 median family income more than Manchester. Even Nashua gets one percent with the D’Allesandro plan which earmarks one percent for communities abutting the towns with slot facilities.

Not only will Manchester not get the jobs associated with slots, it will miss out on $10 million with no hope of ever getting in on the action.

Do you doubt it? Does anyone really think that if 17,000 slots go into the six D’Allesandro locations, there’ll ever be another chance for Manchester? Well, never is a long time, but certainly not in our lifetimes.

But it’s worse than that. Senator D’Allesandro was quoted in the Union Leaded saying that Manchester doesn’t need slots because it has charitable gambling. The one sure way to drive charitiable gambling out of Manchesrter is to pass the D’Allesandro plan. Why? Because those facilities which have slots will be most attractive for charitable gaming tables. Why go to the charitable gaming parlor on the West Side when you could get in the car and go to the one in Hudson or Salem? You might want to play table games while other members of the family play slots there. As the senator himself is fond of saying, “This is a no brainer.”

And it’s a no brainer terrible idea for Manchester.

Wake up Manchester.

The D’Allesandro plan is the worst of all gambling plans for Manchester.

Once the D’Allesandro plan is defeated and the Governor’s commission issues its report in May, we’ll be in the election season. Any person elected to the House or the Senate in November will have plenty of time to file a plan which would make a Manchester group eligible to bring slots to the Queen City.

Senator D’Allesandro apparently thinks only Hudson, Salem, Seabrook, Belmont and the North Country deserve that chance, not his own home city.

Go figure!

REP. STEVE VAILLANCOURT ON D’ALLESANDRO’S LATEST GAMBLING SCHEME

Tuesday, March 30th, 2010

By Rep. Steve Vaillancourt

I have been receiving so many emails regarding “expanded gambling” that I thought I’d write this generic response for everyone. I trust this clarifies my position and will be sending this to anyone who emails me in the next few weeks.

I agree with many who say they support “expanded gambling”. I have long been an advocate of allowing people to “waste” their money any way they see fit whether it be on an expensive outing to Fenway Park, Patriots Stadium, Waterville Valley, Cannon, or Europe. I don’t buy the argument that expanded gambling will be the ruination of society. While there will undoubtedly be some social costs, I believe these are generally overstated. A dollar lost gambling can never be retrieved any more than a dollar lost rooting for the Red Sox or Patriots can ever be retrieved. Nor am I convinced that crime rates will increase dramatically with expanded gambling. Likewise, although we can argue about the specific revenues the state will derive, I do not deny that the state will receive significant monies from expanded gambling ($150 million a year seems doable to me, but let’s say between $100-200 million).

Now comes the big IF…

Having said all that, I will not be supporting Senate Bill 489, the 40-50 page bill (from Senator D’Allesandro) which will be heard before the Local and Regulated Revenues Committee. The Senate had every opportunity to whip this bill into shape, and it is, in my opinion, fatally flawed, in dozens of specific ways which we may or may not get into at the committee level, but in a couple of general ways which make the bill unacceptable.

The biggest flaw is that this amounts to a state monopoly for private businesses. Worse than that, it amounts to a monopoly for three pre-existing businesses and from the way the bill is worded, quite clearly a fourth business (the proposed Hudson gambling/slots emporium). While this may not technically be in violation of Part 1, Article 10 of the NH Constitution, I believe this state-mandated monopoly is certainly in violation of the spirit of that article (the right of revolution article, ironically enough) which begins, “Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family or class of them;”

Clearly, to me, allowing these six facilities to have a monopoly (albeit for a fee) on gambling (in effect a license to print money) is instituting government for the “interest or emolument” of a certain class of people.

End of argument in my book. If we are to have expanded gambling, the state should either open it up to every interested party (probably not a great idea) or should control the operation itself and keep 100 percent of the profit as we do with alcohol and liquor.

Regarding the state share, the D’Allesandro bill has already lowered the state’s share down to 30 percent (39 percent if you include the numerous dedicated funds, none of which I support–the entire amount the state gets should go into the general fund to be split up during the normal budgetary course of events). Last year, the state’s share was 40 percent (49 percent if you consider the dedicated funds), so we’ve lost 10 percent already. What a way to do business!

My other general concern is with the pervasiveness of this bill. Again, I’m not against people going gambling, but this bill in fact creates three mega-establishments within 25-30 miles of each other. How far is it from Hudson to Salem to Seabrook? Does anyone honestly believe three huge gambling emporiums can exist in such close proximity? Or are these three locations just thrown into the pot to curry votes from legislators in those three areas?

Note that the D’Allesandro bill offers three percent of revenues to the host community. That’s good for Salem, Seabrook and Hudson, but not so good for Manchester and most other cities and towns. Speaking of Manchester, it would be an ideal location for the gambling emporium. We have 700,000 visitors to the Verizon Wireless Arena each year and at least a couple million people flying into the Manchester airport. Certainly Manchester would be a better (maybe even at the Verizon!!) than Salem, Hudson, or Seabrook, but let’s not get into parochial quibbling here other than to note that Manchester needs the revenue more. The median family income for the state (as noted in the most recent education funding data sheets) is $57,575. It’s $50,039 for Manchester; $67,278 for Salem, $71,313 for Hudson!!

While Seabrook’s median income is only $47,718, its equalized property valuation per student is $2,665,548, nearly four times the $685,593 per student in Manchester. Talk about the rich getting richer! This gambling bill certainly does not reward communities which need help the most….So if you’re from Manchester and you’re emailing me to support this bill, think twice because I’ll ask you why Manchester should not get a piece of this expanded gambling action.

I’ll go into just one of a dozen or so less major points here. Section 284-A:8 spells out distribution formula. Again, I do not support dedicated funds, but I have special problems with section 8 (A) which will funnel one percent of revenues from five locations (all except the Hudson one which will “give” to one percent to commuter rail) into the racing and charitable gambling commission for enhancing “live racing purses”. There’s no language as to how this will be split up, so just imagine the fight over this. Will 100 percent go to Rockingham? How much will go to bring back dog racing which the House last week voted by a 69-31 percent margin to end? In effect, what this expanded gambling bill is doing is force feeding a dying industry. We’re going to give millions and millions of dollars to force dogs to race whether people want to watch dog racing or not.

No thanks.

Expanded gambling, by all means!

But not this incarnation!

A Prediction from Steve V: Gambling Will Pass The NH Senate, But Fail In The House

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

By Rep. Steve Vaillancourt:

Exactly one year from the day that the New Hampshire House voted 295-72 to kill a gambling bill, orange shirts were out in force in Reps Hall as senators lined up to support a very similar bill, sponsored by–you can guess it–Manchester’s Lou D’Allesandro. The crowd was so large that senators moved the hearing from room 100 to the more spacious digs upstairs, and orange was the color du jour.

Who paid for the orange shirts? Here’s a hint. Emblazoned on them in black lettering were the words “Jobs Now” and then in bigger and bolder black lettering “Expand Gambling” and then in the biggest and boldest of black lettering “NOW”.

My guess is that all these people didn’t go out and buy the shirts, but rather that they were provided by the same people who’ve spent tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to get slots and other gambling games at New Hampshire tracks, in the North Country, and now at a special Hudson emporium.

It was the Full Monty before the New Hampshire Senate for a full five hours, and by the time the dog and pony show was over, even long-time gambling opponents admitted that the Senate has the votes to pass this “economic development” bill. That’s the mantra Senator Slots and his colleagues, desperate for an influx of money to state coffers, have latched on to this time around.

Along with D’Allesandro, six other senators co-sponsored the bill (Gallus, Downing, Lasky, Gilmour, Sgambati, and DeVries) and Londonderry Senator Sharon Carson, an opponent of gambling in the past, testified in favor of the bill. Yes, the Hudson emporium is in her Senate district.

Last year, D’Allesandro never joined forces with those advocating a full-fledged casino in Hudson. He held out for slots only at the existing tracks and in the North Country, but this year, realizing he needed more support certainly in the House if not the Senate, he’s included the Hudson emporium in his bill.

It now seems to be a question not of if, but of when (crossover day when all bills must move from one body to the other is March 25), this bill will pass the Senate and come on over to the House Local and Regulated Revenues Committee which considered a very similar bill last year, the one sponsored by current gubernatorial candidate Frank Emiro. Yes, that would be House Bill 593, the one that failed by that 223 vote margin on March 2, 2009.

Divide 223 by two, and all other things being equal, about 113 House members would have to change their positions for the bill to pass this year. Newport Republican Bev Rodeschin became the first to take the plunge. Buying the economic development argument, she switched from anti to pro gambling.

Now, the forces in orange shirts, those who would let New Hampshire keep not 49 percent of revenues but only 39 percent this time around, those forces need merely to change the minds of another 112 or so Representatives.

Could it happen?

Of course, anything is possible.

Is it likely to happen?

Certainly not unless John Lynch sticks his finger in the air and decides that he’ll be hurt more by cutting $140 million in state spending than by jumping aboard the gambling express.

Rep. Jim Craig, who in exchange for supporting the governor’s budget last spring was appointed to the gambling study commission, told the Senate today that the panel should have its report by the end of May, but of course, if the governor wants the report earlier, what do you wanna bet, he’ll get it.

Without Lynch’s support, with both House Democratic and Republican leadership traditionally against expanded gambling, it has about as much chance to pass the House as it does to fail in the Senate, that is to say none.

This bill is laden with dedicated funds, something House leaders from both parties have opposed in the past. Senator Sgambati offered an amendment for yet another dedicated fund this morning. Sgambati, a former high ranking employee in the health and human services department, wants the first $50 million generated from the bill (most likely from Las Vegas-based Millenium, chief orchestrator of the Fully Monty) to go to…

Why don’t you take a guess…?

You got it; she wants the first $5o million to go to the Health and Human Services Department.

Your humble correspondent, a long-time supporter of gambling albeit not a gambling plan which stretches the intent of the Constitution by providing a monopoly to certain out of state interests, kids you not.

As anti gambling opponents, including the State Attorney General who again testified against the plan today, have long suggested…there’s so much money behind these plans that our entire political process could be corrupted…

Or maybe it already has been.

VAILLANCOURT RESPONDS TO UNION LEADER

Thursday, February 11th, 2010

February 11, 2010

To the Union Leader

To The Editor:

Your reporter Tom Fahey, who years ago physically assaulted me in the State House (it’s actually on video and is out there on the web somewhere) is wrong when he reports that I refused to discuss my campaign to defend free speech in the New Hampshire House with the Union Leader.

I did no such thing. In fact, I have been writing about this abuse of power by Speaker Terie Norelli and Local and Regulated Revenues Committee Chair Mary Beth Walz for the past two weeks. Publisher Joe W. McQuaid and editorial page director Drew Cline are among the first to get everything I write or say about it, and it’s been posted on redhampshire. I simply refuse to talk with someone who has a history of assault and who never apologized for it (he actually drew blood; and the only reason I didn’t press charges at the time is that I’m such a nice person). The fact that he approached me as I was leaving the State House yesterday with the sarcastic jibe,”Hey, Senator” is further evidence of his malignant intent.

Maybe it’s time Union Leader hires a reporter who doesn’t assault elected officials and then go out of his way to malign them at every opportunity.

Should you choose to run the whole truth behind the crusade to force Speaker Norelli to stop censoring people (totally new ground for a New Hampshire Speaker), you are welcome to print this as an op-ed piece, but then while I’ve had numerous op-ed pieces printed in papers throughout the state in recent years, Mssrs. McQauid and Cline have ignored everything I’ve written for citizens of my own home city. (While censorship is never acceptable from a House Speaker, it’s something we’ve sadly come to expect from your newspaper).

I didn’t enter into this crusade to defend basic liberties for my own benefit. The bill in question wasn’t mine but rather was that of a former Speaker, the current Republican leader, a Salem Rep elected in a 40,000 person district, and a State Senator who served two terms in the United State Congress). I stepped forward not only for them and the people who elected them but also for every member of any minority ever denied a voice, and I might add for Democrats who are sure to attain minority status (and thus risk being censored) next year. Rest assured, I will be just as passionate in defending their rights should a Republican Speaker be unwise enough to attempt to do what Norelli and Walz did.

Newspaper malice is often represented by the pictures used. That certainly is the case with the photo you chose to use of me on page one. It was obviously a file photo, sitting around for use when you wished to make me look bad. How do I know? Because I wasn’t wearing a white tie yesterday; in honor of Speaker Norelli’s tactics, I was wearing a specially purchased Mickey Mouse tie. My portrait is available on the House web site, but then that wouldn’t suit your malignant purposes.

Seldom have so many trees given their lives for such an inside baseball story, especially one so ineptly reported. The tactic of pulling things from consent calendar was something I learned 15 years ago at the feet of former leaders, not Republicans but Democrat masters Rick Trombley and Ray Buckley, so let’s not hear of Democratic complaints. I simply stored it in the back of my head to employ when an injustice was so great that the only option was to “go all in” in protest.

You won’t get away with blaming me for delaying the lyme vote. That could have been special ordered to the start of the calendar at any time. In fact, bill proponent Claudia Chase told me the reason such an attempt was not made is that since it involved an was an attempt to overturn a committee, she needed all the support she could get and didn’t want to alienate Democratic leadership by moving it up (more inside baseball). A good reporter would have known that, but Fahey is probably the most incompetent scribe ever to draw breath in the Don Tibbetts press room (he’s no Norma Love–Love that Norma!).

It was when I pointed out on the House floor that this all could have been settled at 10 a.m.that Democrats booed (the truth hurts!), not as your caption states, when I declared victory.

In fact, it was a victory for people who cherish free speech everywhere. After visiting Bebelplatz for a re-enactment of Josef Goebbels presiding over the burning of 2500 books in Berlin on May 20, 1933, I vowed never idly sit by while freedom of thought is trampled on. I will fight for free speech to my last breath, despite the slings and errors from a thug reporter like Fahey.

The German phrase I quoted on the House floor (from German philosopher Heinrich Heine) translates as, “Where books are burned, so too shall people burn.” Indeed, I have visited numerous sites in and around Berlin where people were literally burned. Another German phrase should serve as a cautionary tale for our times, “Nie Wieder!” Never again should decent people sit back and watch freedoms be trampled.

The Norellis, Faheys, would be petty despots, and newspaper thugs of the world may not heed the caution, but your readers are smart enough to. The good people of New Hampshire are smart enough to.

Sincerely,

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt

BUDGET DEFICIT FOR FISCAL 2010 — $76 – $92 MILLION

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

According to State Rep Steve Vaillancourt, the deficit for fiscal year 2010, which is not the same as calendar year 2010 looks to be between $76 and $92 million.  Steve’s analysis follows:

According the January revenue report issued by the Department of Administrative Services, the state is $40.6 million short for the first seven months of the year

$1003.0 million was projected

$962.4 million was received

$40.6 million short is 4.05 percent

Not insignificantly, that 4 percent range has been rather consistent throughout the year.

So we most likely can project the 4.05 percent for the year to gain an indication of what we’re likely to be short. Here’s what we get.

Year revenues planned–$22591. million times 4.05 percent = $91.5 million.

If you were to back out $363 million (the amount the state is expected to receive in April for statewide property taxes), the plan for the year is $1891 million.

$1891.0 times 4.05 percent = $76.6 million

More than half the shortfall comes from two sources, rooms and meals taxes and interest and dividends taxes.

Rooms and meal tax – down 9.2 percent—down $14.7 million ($144.3 vs. $159.0 expected for seven months). This extrapolates to a $23.1 million shortfall for the year.

Interest and dividends tax—down 20.4%!—down $9.7 million ($38.8 million vs. $48.5 expected with a whopping $40.8 million expected in April). This extrapolates to $23.9 million shortfall for the year.

Business taxes—down “only” 2.8 percent–$6.6 million ($226.1 vs. $232.7 expected). Most of these taxes come due in March and April, so this is truly the wild card, but extrapolation of current numbers yields a $14.3 million shortfall for the year.

Tobacco tax—is the only revenue source exceeding plan. Up 4.9 percent—up $7.1 million ($145.7 vs. $138.6 expected). Extrapolation of +$10.6 million.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, Hills. 15

FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS — READ THE MINORITY REPORT

Saturday, January 30th, 2010

Set forth below is an e-mail exchange between Democrat Rep Mary Beth Walz and Republican Rep Steve Vaillancourt, in which Walz refuses to approve a minority report, which takes the majority to task for rejecting legislation that would make explicit the right of municipalities to adopt spending/tax caps.  Fight the Democrat censorship.  Read the minority report, which is contained in the exchange.

——————————————————————————–

From: Vaillancourt, Steve

Sent: Fri 1/29/2010 4:08 PM

To: Walz, MB

Subject: RE: Minority Report

Mary,

 This report is perfectly acceptable. It talks about the bill and the discussion we had during committee executive session. It mentions the spending cap over-ride and goes into great detail as to how this bill is not government by referendum but simply an attempt to amend a city charter (much like a constitituional amendment at the state level would be). I didn’t get into the smoke and mirrors in the blurb (the Manchester airport argument, school spending, etc) since those are in fact the irrelevent points, but since they were discussed in committee, I trust they too are open to debate. The word “too emotional” was used during the discussion, so I have every right to use it in the discussion. It seems to be the prime defense of those opposed to the bill (voters are too emotional to decide), so I have more than a right; I have a duty to counter that argument.

The minority blurb has already been sent to every Republican member and will immediately be sent to every Democrat along with every member of the media.

I look forward to having any discussion on the House floor. I will not be contacting you in your office Tuesday. I understand your desire for “secret” behind-closed-doors discussions but as an advocate of free and open government, I will not be part of them.

Let the record indicate that when I asked for a subcommittee on this bill, you suggested secret behind-closed-doors discussions at that time. So much for openness and accountability, the much ballyhoored words of our current president. You may insist on government conducted behind closed doors, but I will never be party to it.

It is truly beyond sad, into the realm of tragic, that you choose to use censorship rather than debate a subject on its merits.

Enclosed for all to see is the censored blurb.

 House Bill 1522

Majority–12-6, ITL

Minority Report–Interim Study

 Rep. Steve Vaillancourt for the minority of Local and Regulated Revenues: Tragic is the only word the minority can think of to describe the majority reaction to this bill which would simply clarify the right of people in cities and towns to vote on spending cap referendums. In fact, such spending caps have already been approved in numerous cities, and this bill simply represents an attempt to forestall law suits declaring the will of the people as illegal. Tragically, rather than addressing the basic right of people to vote to amend their charter, the majority tried to bring forward smoke and mirrors, claiming how specific proposals could be flawed. Nothing about this bill would mandate any specific proposal; that would still be up to any given city or town. The same city or town would have the right to repeal a spending cap in a succeeding year, so nothing in this bill would tie the hands of future generations or even of voters two years out. Tragically again, the majority insisted that people were “too emotional” to vote on their city charter. The minority believes this is tantamount to saying people are too stupid too decide what is best for them. Too emotional to elect Barack Obama? The minority thinks not. Too emotional to elect Scott Brown? The minority thinks not. Tragically, it seems that only the minority of the committee has confidence in the intelligence of voters to make decisions. This bill would also mandate an override (by a two-thirds vote) of any spending cap, but since that might be imperfect, the minority was more than willing to study the ramifications of passing this bill so that we would have a better idea of how to make it “more perfect” next time around. To simply kill it is to shovel dirt on the graves of our founding fathers and our democratic principles and to provide another big pay day for lawyers.

Rep. Vaillancourt

cc: All Reps, Media

——————————————————————————–

From: Walz, MB

Sent: Fri 1/29/2010 12:28 PM

To: Vaillancourt, Steve

Subject: Minority Report

Steve,

 I reviewed your Minority Report on HB 1522 and I cannot approve it. The Minority report is supposed to be about he substance of the bill. Your proposed report strays to unsubstantiated allegations and speculative arguments. If you would like to submit an amended report, I will review it. I will be back in the office on Tuesday.

 Mary Beth

HOUSEKEEPING

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

housekeepingI’ve made some changes to the blogroll.  I have added a link for Steve Vaillancourt’s postings over at the RedHampshire website.  I have re-linked to Granite Grok because Skip Murphy is now formally going it alone.  And I have linked to Grant Bosse’s website New Hampshire Watchdog.

Dracuplex Bats Are Coming Home To Roost by Steve Vaillancourt

Thursday, November 12th, 2009

verizon.arenaThose four most glorious words in the English language, “I told you so”, hardly seem adequate these days as the citizens of Manchester discover what a gigantic boondoggle, a pig in a poke if you will, the civic center (referred to as the centerplex, aka “Dracuplex” in a prior incarnation) was and is.

I told you so.

When the snake oil salesmen told the gentle citizens of Manchester not to worry about funding  Dracuplex, after all “it’s only room and meal tax money”, I told you that no matter what you call it, it’s still tax money which could have otherwise been used to fund more worthy projects in Manchester or to–here’s a novel idea-lower the property tax rate.

When the film-flam artists assured the good people of Manchester that if the rooms and meals tax money ever went away, they had nothing to worry about it, that an insurance policy was in place to protect us, I raised questions.

What kind of insurance company, knowing that any future governor and legislature, when faced with a revenue crisis, could simply take away the money, would ever write such a policy?

No policy, of course, ever existed, and it’s becoming clearer every day that the unsuspecting citizens of Manchester were sold a bill of goods, that those of us sending up alarm flags at the time were absolutely correct.

In the ultimate of ironies, three of the people most responsible for packaging and accepting the snake oil are now in the fray again. 

In 1999, a vote came before the newly elected Board of Mayor and Aldermen to slow down the process and make sure everything was in order.  Just sworn in as mayor, Both Sides Bob Baines was petrified that he’d have to take a stand as the tie breaking vote, but it never got that far.

Newly elected Alderman Ted Gases, after consulting with the snake oil salesmen, voted to rush headlong into the abyss.  Mayor-elect Ted Gatsas may rue that vote today.

Alderman at Large Mike Lopez, who had run against the civic center because he claimed “It’s not for all the people”, flip-flopped (some say he was bought off by the snake oil salesmen) and voted to go ahead with Dracuplex.  For years, Lopez liked to brag that he was the swing vote in favor of the boondoggle.  One can only wonder if he’s bragging today.

The third gentleman of interest was City Finance Director Kevin Clougherty who, of course, today is Governor Lynch’s Department of Revenue Administration Commission.  While drawing $100,000 a year salary, Clougherty was helping put together the Dracuplex bill of goods (he was concocting the snake oil).  While drawing both a city pension and a hefty state salary today, he certainly knows that the rooms and meals monies aren’t coming in as projected.

But let’s be clear here.

Mayor Frank Guinta is wrong in blaming the state.

Governor John Lynch has not taken any rooms and meals money away.   The snake oil salesmen were simply wrong (willfully so) when they told us rooms and meals money would increase each and every year.  In fact, they built their bond payment schedule on that faulty assumption, starting with about $3 million a year in 2000, up to the current total of about $4.5 million, and due to cap out in the $5.2 million range in a few years.

Cloughtery and his minions who put this plan together knew that rooms and meals money was insufficient to pay for Dracuplex, but they gambled (with taxpayers’ money of course) that the King formula (named after former Senator John King) would kick in, and the money would increase each and every year.

 As I (and others) pointed out at the time, that King formula guaranteed additional monies to cities and towns (until it maxed out at 40 percent of rooms and meals monies received) with one important caveat.  It was good only as long as the amount the state took in from rooms and meals went up and up each year.  That money was down last year, and so far in the first four months of the current fiscal year, we’re $10 million off even lower projections! 

In looking at 30 years of bond payments, only irresponsible officials would fail for foresee a time would come when rooms and meals monies would not automatically go up.  

Totally irresponsible. 

That’s just what Manchester officials, both elected and paid staffers, were back then. In their lust to push Dracuplex upon an unsuspecting public, they simply ignored the laws of economics, that cyclical forces dictate that there’s no such thing as a line straight up.

So what’s the solution to the problem today? 

We need only to look to the history to find it.  Remember how the snake oil salesmen told us that only “a portion” of the rooms and meals money would be used for the civic center.  In fact, Alderman David Wihby used “a portion” in the dishonest wording on the referendum which passed by a narrow margin in 1998.

The snake oil salesmen knew all along that people would think “a portion” could mean anywhere from 10 percent (a small portion) to 50 percent (half) to 90 percent or more (a very large portion).  It was never just “a portion” which was to be used for Dracuplex.  It was always intended to be the “lion’s share”. 

About 90 percent of Manchester’s rooms and meals money has been sucked into Dracuplex (fairness demands I acknowledge the father of that title, Raymond Charles Buckley). 

To get through this current crisis, Aldermen need “only” to take all the money. 

“Give me all your blood, not just a portion,” the Count is demanding.

 After all, what’s another half million when you’re already wasting $4.5 million a year in taxpayer dollars?

That’s the dirty little secret Dracuplex proponents have managed to keep hidden all these years that the average Manchester homeowner is not getting off Scott free with this building.  Some people actually think the city makes money with Dracuplex.

Facts are stubborn things.  Every million spent adds about 11 cents to the Manchester tax rate.  Thus, four and a half million adds about 50 cents to the Manchester tax rate.  Multiply that times the average value of a Manchester home ($250,000) and it doesn’t take a math expert to discover that right now the average homeowner, struggling to pay his or her taxes, is paying about $125 a year for a building which he or she most likely hardly if ever uses.

Dracuplex is a great deal for residents of surrounding towns and states.  They pay nothing to go to events which cost the average Manchester homeowner $125 and will cost another $10 or $15 when Alderman are forced not simply to gobble up the lion’s share for Dracula but the entire rooms and meals tax money.

I told you so, and I’ve been telling you so for years.

In exchange for having blood (tax money) sucked out of their veins year after year, Manchester gets a few extra pizza sales for downtown restaurants and the right to boast that we’re a world class city.

Of course, we also get a tremendous increase in crime which can be directly attributed to the civic center.  That’s another dirty little secret that the snake oil salesmen, yes I dare say the blood suckers, hope Manchesterites never figure out.  Not only is their money being stolen for Dracuplex, their safety is endangered.

I told you so.

Those four glorious words sadly provide little satisfaction.

I told you so, but you didn’t want to listen to the truth.

As Jack Nicholson said to Tom Cruise, “You can’t handle the truth.”

Manchester citizens these days are being forced to handle the truth.

PREVIEW OF TONIGHT’S ED MOSCA SHOW

Thursday, November 5th, 2009

question.markAnalysis of Tuesday’s election with guest Rep. Steve Vaillancourt.  Hard-hitting and no punches pulled.  Also, could a third Republican candidate emerge to challenge David Boutin and Terry Pfaff for Mayor-elect Gatsas’ State Senate seat?

COMMENTARY ON YESTERDAY’S ELECTION FROM STEVE VAILLANCOURT

Wednesday, November 4th, 2009

mental.hospital

TEAM OF DOCTORS SUMMONED TO MANCHESTER, TO TREAT MASS SCHIZOPHRENIA

                No, that’s not a headline seen anywhere in the main stream media today, but well it could be.

               Manchester voters, in overwhelmingly voting for the spending cap yesterday and even more overwhelmingly voting for Mayor-Elect Ted Gatsas who is committed to making the spending cap work, appeared stricken with a severe case of mass schizophrenia in electing almost all School Board and Aldermanic candidates opposed to the spending cap and committed to ever increasing big government spending.

               When Frank Guinta was elected two years ago, he had only two of 14 Republican Aldermen (Gatsas and Garrity), but he had independent Real Pinard and two Democrats who showed some willingness to restrain spending, Ed Osborne and Peter Sullivan.  Throw in Bill Shea, and Guinta had six possible allies.

               Mayor-Elect Gatsas has one Republican ally, Phil Greazzo who stunned me (if nobody else) by beating that Ward 10 institution George Smith.   This is after all the same Phil Greazzo who in an eight-member State Rep district (Wards 10, 11, 12) finished 15th last year, great proof that state and municipal elections are different worlds completely in Manchester.  Bill Shea and Ed Osborne are back, but that’s it.  Gatsas has only three of 14 Aldermen who could be considered allies. 

               Mike Garrity lost in a shocker in Ward 9 (839-725), and he lost to big spending Dem State Rep Barbara Shaw whose laziness in dealing with issues is palpable.  In what could be an irony which comes back to nip Dems in the derrier, the defeat could free Garrity up to run for State Senate against Betsi DeVries next year in what could be a very good Republican year.(The fact that two out of three indepedents voted Republican in both Virginia and New Jersey must have Dems scared!)  Remember, Garrity ran for the District 18 senate seat and lost in the GOP primary to Andre Martel in 2002; he would be a great candidate, yesterday notwithstanding.

               In close races all, Will Infantine lost in Ward 6, Leo Pepino in Ward 4, Joe Levasseur in Ward 3, Christine Pariseau Telge in Ward 8, Bob O’Sullivan in Ward 2, and in not so close a race, Keith Hiscmnann in Ward 12.

               They all favored the spending cap which passed by a 55-45 margin.

               Turnout was obviously the key.  Rather than being 2000 votes more than the 20,000 level of 2007 and 2005 levels, it was in fact 1000 votes less (18,803 people cast votes for mayor, so turnout might have been in the 18,900 range–a few people actually leave top of the ticket blank!).  That extra 3000 votes undoubtedly would have pushed Gatsas above 60 percent (he came in at 56.7 percent), but far more significantly, it would have meant the difference in Aldermanic and School Committee races.

In a low turnout election, all kinds of mischief is possible, and the Buckley-Sullivan cabal are the experts in mischief making.  Unfortunately, we all suffer in the cesspool they create.

             It’s fair to say that government enablers and union hacks, despite the Gatsas and spending cap victories, carried the day by depressing turnout to where the big spending voters were maximized.

               I hate to call voters stupid.  After all, despite defeating me in a race for school board in Ward 8 yesterday, they have elected me seven times in a row for state rep.

               But voters weren’t exactly astute yesterday.  Either you want a spending cap or you don’t, and you can’t have it when you elect people dedicated to ignoring it.  When two-thirds of the Aldermanic Board can override a spending cap, it is obviously only as good as the people you elect to enforce it.

               Therein lies the schizophrenia.

               Did some evil scientist sneak in and replace the chlorine in the Manchester water supply with a schizophrenic-inducting drug, I ask with tongue planted in cheek.

               Take my ward for example. Gatsas won 1253-812, 60.7 percent.  The spending cap won 1132-799, 55.7 percent.   However, Alderman Betsi DeVries who didn’t even want people to have the right to vote for the spending cap prevailed 1042-994 against a bright and talented newcomer Christine Pariseau Telge who, mark my words, will be heard from in the future.   And I lost 1031-923 to No Show Tom Katsiantonis who opposed the spending cap because, when he bothered to say anything, said that we need to spend more.

               Lest that sound like sour grapes, I heartily concur with my friend, former Demcorat State Rep and Senator Bill McCarthy who called to congratulate me on not having to endure sitting through two years with a people that really have no business being in government.

               I had promised Ted Gatsas I would run not because I wanted to do this—I prefer being at home reading history and other great books; in other words, I’m one School Board candidate who believes in education.  But I feared that Mayor Gatsas would be surrounded by incompetents, and especially at the school board level, it has come to pass.

               That board is so laden with inexperience and labor hacks that Gatsas will have to display the skills of a Houdini to govern the city.  Gone are voices of sanity Doug Kruse (moved to Florida) and Kathy Labanaris (did not run again).   Arthur Beaudry, who survived against former teacher and labor hack Joan Sullivan Flurey in Ward 9, and John Avard in Ward 10 will be lone voices of sanity on the board.  Although a Republican, Joe Briggs in Ward 2 appears dedicated to more spending, and his wife is a friend of super big spender Kathy Staub who, thank the almighty for small favors, lost for school board at large.  Even liberal Democrat Donna Soucy, who is left, may be out of step with the lunatic fringe which got elected.  After all, Soucy failed to received the teachers’ union endorsement because she had the nerve to buck labor and vote to RIF (reduction in force) teachers last year.

               One can hardly wait to see what this Board will do when Gatas insists that they cannot spend more.

               Typical of yesterday’s election was the victory of the consummate film flam artist Alderman At Large Dan O’Neil who once again succeeded in convincing the public that we can have more spending on police, fire, and schools but lower  property taxes at the same time.  I knew it sounds beyond belief that any politician saying such a thing could be believed but O’Neil, this poster child of deceit actually said precisely that in a mailer which hit homes Saturday.

               Only the most jaded cynic would suggest that voters deserve what they voted in, a totally clueless group that considers public service some type of ego gratifying lark or payback to big spending union special interests.

               It’s people like O’Neil who make us jaded enough to say voters deserve the incompetents they select…the only problem of course is that the rest of us suffer along with the dimwits who vote for the O’Neils and Katsiantonises of the world.

               Oh doctor, doctor, could you round up a hundred or so of your colleagues qualified to treat schizophrenia and ship them forthwith to Manchester.

               Voters are on the cusp of a total breakdown, and Dr. Gatsas needs help desperately.