The debate over whether to allow predatory gambling into New Hampshire is not about the thousands of lives it would ruin, it is entirely about the notion that there will be enough magic gambling money to balance the state budget and reduce property taxes. But the $250 million plus revenue estimate cited by Rep. Wells would not come from magic sources, it would be taken from money that residents now spend at existing local businesses and for food for their families, heating oil, and retirement savings.

And the $250 million number is more than triple what the state would actually get when Massachusetts legalizes bigger, flashier casinos on our southern border, as it will promptly do if New Hampshire moves first.

Rep. Wells’ more alluring claim is that gambling taxes will be large enough to reduce property taxes by one-third. The total New Hampshire property tax burden for 2008 was just under $2.9 billion. If all the $250 million in overstated gambling tax revenue were sent to towns and cities (and none to balance the state budget), and towns and cities used all those funds dollar for dollar to reduce property taxes, property taxes would decline by less than ten percent, not by one-third.

Unfortunately, even a promise of a ten percent property tax reduction is unsupported by very recent New Hampshire history. Of the $400 million in increased state education aid given to cities and towns after 1999, almost none remains in property taxpayers pockets. An analysis by the Committee for Sensible School Funding found that, for the 2003-04 tax year, only 4 cents of each new dollar of education aid was used for property tax relief, 96 cents went for increased municipal, county, and school spending.

Casino gambling advocates single attractive proposition always seems to involve wildly exaggerated promises of free money. The legislature would be wise to learn from the toxic mortgage collapse, ignore the siren song, and use information from sources other than gambling advocates.