New Hampshire Senate passes expanded gambling; House likely won’t consider

Gene Johnson

Thursday, April 6, 2000 | 4:50 a.m.

CONCORD, N.H. - The Senate on Thursday voted to repeal the state's inheritance tax and cut property taxes while legalizing video gambling, even though the House has said it wants nothing to do with expanded gambling.

Lawmakers have long been trying to rid the state of its 18 percent inheritance tax, which they have condemned universally as unfair and unconstitutional.

But they worried about how to replace the $25 million a year the tax raises. By a 12-11 vote, they combined expanded gambling - expected to bring the state $198 million in its first year - with the inheritance tax repeal.

"Expanded gambling may not be good for this state," said Sen. Sylvia Larsen, D-Concord. "But an expansion of the gaping hole that is our state budget ... is definitely not good for this state."

The House has voted not to consider any expansion of gambling until next year at the earliest. Thus, the vote set up a game of political chess between the House and Senate.

And when it comes down to it, the Senate may have to take back its most recent move. Senators have the option of changing the bill to drop the gambling issue.

"We are not allowed to take it up," said House Speaker Donna Sytek, R-Salem. "The Senate knew that. It's a way for them to be on the record as voting for this wonderful tax repeal and also be able to blame it on us."

The only way the House could consider the legislation is by voting with a two-thirds majority to suspend the rules.

The proposal, sponsored by Sen. Lou D'Allesandro, D-Manchester, and Arthur Klemm, R-Windham, would lower the statewide property tax from $6.60 per $1,000 of assessed value to $6 per $1,000 over two years.

It also would:

Opponents said it was wrong to pay for tax breaks by expanding gambling. Polls show a majority of New Hampshire residents supports expanded gambling, but that does not make it right, said Sen. James Squires, R-Hollis.

"Of course there's a majority that wants gambling," said Sen. James Squires, R-Hollis. "Most people don't gamble, so they're not going to pay for it."

But supporters said gambling is voluntary, so lawmakers should not feel guilty about passing it. They also suggested it would be hypocritical to oppose the measure on moral grounds because the state already profits from the lottery, liquor sales and cigarette taxes.

"It's not compulsory," said Sen. John King, D-Manchester. "The revenue collected by this is completely voluntary. We could even call it a contribution."

Others, including Sen. Cliff Below, D-Lebanon, said for many, gambling is addictive. And video gambling is the "crack cocaine" of gambling, in part because of its promises of a 90-cent return on the dollar, Below said.

He urged lawmakers to study the issue further and cited federal findings that people are much more likely to become compulsive gamblers if they live within 50 miles of a casino.