Make signs or die
By adamg - 12/19/11 - 10:29 am
The Eagle-Tribune reports some granite-headed legislators want New Hampshire's highway department to erect signs near the Massachusetts line reading:
Warning: Massachusetts Border 500 Feet
The paper quotes one of the sponsors:
"It's always a good idea to let people know when they're in New Hampshire because it's the best place to be," said Sen. Sharon Carson, R-Londonderry, a bill sponsor.
Comments
Good for them. Can
Good for them. Can Massachusetts please toll every road leading into NH?
It is indeed the best place
It is indeed the best place to be.
Provided you don't own property. HEY-YOOOOOO!
ZING.
ZING.
On the Mass. side
"Last empathy and bearable human beings for 9,304 square miles."
I like the signs
when you enter Maine from New Hampshire on a non-major highway.
WELCOME TO MAINE. WE HAVE SEATBELT LAWS.
WELCOME TO MAINE. YOU CAN'T RUN AROUND SHOOTIN PEOPLE HERE.
WELCOME TO MAINE. WE HAVE SPEED LIMITS.
WELCOME TO MAINE. PLEASE DON'T MAKE METH LABS HERE.
WELCOME TO MAINE. DON'T LITTER.
WELCOME TO MAINE. NO, REALLY, THERE ARE LAWS HERE.
Ever been to Porstmouth, NH?
Ever been to Porstmouth, NH? I can't tell you the number of cars I've seen with Maine plates sporting the bumper sticker: I shoot tourists.
I got a better idea
Erect one way tolls on 95/93/91 inbound. If NH is such a bastion of goodness, it really won't matter since obviously most of the people living on it's border are not commuting to MA for work, right? Right?
It would also raise revenue. It's a use fee, so NH shouldn't have any qualm. Also would make life nicer for MA businesses around the border.
Seriously. Keep it up NH. We're a regional economy, and we tend to have the same interests. But if you want to shit on your bigger brother, I think it's time we remind them of the pecking order.
I agree. Know your place
I agree. Know your place NH...your just a giant liquor store.
Unfair to NH
> just a giant liquor store
Also a giant fireworks store.
Tobacco
Don't forget the cigarettes!
At least...
At least we can get tats here in MA now.
Don't forget
The cigarettes and other tobacco products.
Oh and the guns. Don't forget
Oh and the guns. Don't forget the guns.
heh
Guns, fireworks and cigars are a good old time. Leave the booze at home though.
N.R.A. meeting
Nachos, Rifles, Alcohol
With thanks to Homer (Simpson)
This is pretty amazing
A thread about how much New Hampster sucks has gotten dozens of comments and double-digit upvotes.
NH sucks?
Who said that?
I love NH, as do many. What we don't like is the few NH'erites that like to put MA down, when we're both heavily reliant on each other economically, and really aren't that different besides a few quirks that we hold as badges of honor.
Especially legislators who try to fan the flames for cheap political gain.
I live in NH but work in MA.
I live in NH but work in MA. So you're welcome for my state income tax contribution that goes toward what little work you do on your roads and your welfare queens flush with 40oz bottles of malt liquor.
If you worked a little harder.....
you could afford to live in MA and we would welcome your income, sales, and real estate taxes.
Until then, keep wasting your time driving and paying your own tolls.
Little goes the roads you use
Federal highway money is probably the chief source of repair on the roads you use. Federal funds that have been declining for the past 15 years as price per paved mile has gone up.
Lots of government subsidies have gone in to ensure you can happily live in NH and work in MA, without personally breaking the bank.
But yes, overall out roads are a lot worse. Unfortunately we have thousands if not hundreds of thousands of more miles to deal with and pay for.
One thing that gets me is cities and towns have not been enforcing the laws on utilities that dig up road. They're not supposed to just patch it, but repave the section to grade. Otherwise, as happened every winter, plows come by and the loosely packed patches are gone.
What law is that?
Don't know about MA
In another state, the laws were clear about the quality of those patches. I believe MA has that repair law, too, but I don't know chapter and verse.
My highwayman dad did some research and found that most repaving jobs in his region stemmed from bad repairs, and got tough with the utilities. That made him unpopular with contractors, but saved his state massive money.
Yea I'm not sure either.
My understanding is that the companies will pave the road if they are doing work over a certain length (gas mains and the like). Service work to invidual buildings happen so often that it would simply cost to much to grind and pave every spot they have to dig up. City engineers have basic standards which these spots must be patches (hotpatch w/no plates in the winter months), but in general they could do a better job all around.
Yeah,
don't know the exact law, but I've heard others talking about it.
Some cities in some states who have similar laws have actually started to enforce it, and require contractors to schedule their maintenance around the same time as when the road is supposed to be repaved anyways, otherwise if they have to do so, they foot the whole bill to resurface it correctly. Once paved by the state there's also a mandatory amount of time until they can dig there again unless it's an emergency.
That introduces it's own problems, especially with utilities and contractors who tend to put off service. Still, it saves the state a boatload of money and insures the roads last much longer.
At $150,000 a quarter mile, having to repave because of poor patch jobs and water seepage due to utilities doing a bad job is not cheap. They're pushing externalities they're causing onto the taxpayers, which isn't fair.
Hate to break it to you, but
Hate to break it to you, but most who live in Southern NH work in MA because there's no industry there. Southern NH would be screwed if it weren't for this state. Furthermore, you don't think NH has its share of slummy areas? How about parts of Nashua, Manchester and Concord? No need for a pissing contest. Both states have positives and negatives.
Pennsylvania does this when
Pennsylvania does this when entering from New Jersey on I-78.
You wanna leave NJ? Give us a dollar.
It's a bridge
Though last time I used it, I think it was 50 cents.
Why shouldn't they toll? Bridges and roads aren't free.
Signs: A public service or another private sellout?
In other words, it's just another thinly vieled gimmick by the Republicans to force yet more useless advertising messages at drivers using the public roads.
3 step program
Step 1: Create conflict that citizens can sign on to (yukyuk)
Step 2: Sell right's to signs for a bit more than those signs cost
Step 3: Profit
The schemes you need to come up with to fund government when "taxs are evil" have been ingrained.
a friend in Arizona just told me that the state allows you to make a "charitable donation" to any public school up to $300, and it's refunded in full by the government at tax time....
Basically they're too scared to actually govern, so they leave school funding up to the citizens and have a "well you voted with your wallet" reasoning on the other end as to why they're in a deficit, or need to raise revenues somewhere else to pay back those tax credits. It's nuts.
Just funding the damn education system seems to make more sense to this guy.
Except
Taxes aren't evil - more liberal BS spin. The argument is that conservatives argue that they are sufficient. Liberals say they are not.
The reason most governments at least around here are in a deficit is because while revenues go up by 2-3% annually, the pay packages are going up by 4% annually. while the rest of us are happy to have jobs, the public employees are complaining about not getting a 3% COL raise and refusing to pay any more for their health insurance. So the politicians instead of telling them to bite the bullet like the rest of the world tell us that they need more of our money. The taxpayers are finally speaking up and saying enough. Taxpayers aren't stupid - if you REALLY need more money you can easily have a prop 2.5 override vote - but the politicians don't dare because that's when all their BS patronage schemes etc. get exposed.
tear them down
Never understood why people these days are taken to tearing others down, rather then fighting for whats owed to them. The "socialist" fear still runs deep, and has been wielded to great advantage it seems.
Inflation is 2-3% a year. If you're only getting a raise of 3% (and for most places the past 10 years that generous) you're technically getting paid less then when you started. That's not a raise, and it's not getting ahead. Unless you put quite a bit of money into investments that yielded interest and dividends.
And people wonder why debt leveraged on equity became the chief income for a lot of people....
Anyways, 4% raises are not unreasonable, in times of good economic health. The bigger problem is rainy days fund not being big enough, or taken seriously enough. Governments don't save enough in times of good. Although it seems people are just as shortsighted.
As for taxes = evil, prove me wrong. I attend the Teaparty rallies around Boston out of curiosity. Unless you're telling me their signs and their own words are fiction, they led me to believe they were being taxed to death.
Then I checked those pesky facts and taxation is at it's lowest since the pre-WWII, and that's not even accounting for the litany of tax loopholes and credits that reduce the effective rate for corporations and the wealthy.
People are worse off than they were 30 years ago, but it isn't because of taxation. Corporations have been stealing from their employees to fund their executive management, board of directors, and toss a few more peanuts to shareholders. That's the real reason for the shrinking middle class. The numbers don't lie.
Now, how to fix that. More of the same, or a different route?
Please explain that math?
You can't raise costs 4% when revenues go up 3% for very long - or you end up in a giant mess (we've been doing this in Boston for 10 years which is why it when it caught up with us in force we had to let go 1000 heads - mostly through attrition). I'd say most people haven't noticed any loss in services. We can probably find room to lose another 500 at least with little or no effect on anyone's daily life.
The tea party is a very small fringe element of the fiscal conservatives (with outsized influence on elections). I'd estimate that most moderates would probably like to see government 5-20% leaner. That's just taxes are high - not taxes are evil. We like having cops and firemen and teachers and the FAA and the FBI and national museums and all that other stuff too. But things like doubling your school custodian force because you have a few million $$$ you need to spend to keep some union happy (and then laying them off a couple of years later at a cost of millions more) is what burns us.
Fix it - simple - if you don't like what the corporations are doing and think you can do better, cheaper, paying your employees more whatever - start your own company. If you have a compelling message and product - people will flock to you and the evil ones will go out of business. If not, you either executed poorly or the downtrodden aren't all that interested in being uptrodden after all.
As for taxes - keep in mind that they are about their lowest in history under Obama - Bush was much higher and only slightly lower than Clinton's when they were probably the highest in postwar history. Obama inherited a mess - but Bush, with all his obvious imperfections, still had to deal with a recession coming in and 9/11 right after that.
Two words
Defense & Healthcare
Structurally, Obama and the Dems are your guys. There's been a unprecedented reduction in government employees under their watch. Even Deval to a point's been doing a good job with that on the state level.
The biggest problems with the debt going forward are defense, and more to a point, healthcare spending. Not that the long term models mean much but to scare the uninformed, but they really are the two biggest contributors to future deficits that need to be seriously tackled. They're also the most entrenched of our plutocratic institutions.
That's the problem - the math
They keep firing people but don't lower the budget - the budgets get bigger and bigger and the staffs get smaller and smaller. I believe the federal budget is now the largest it's ever been as a percentage of GDP. While the feds have cut a lot of heads - they are transferring money to float the states at least for the time being. You can't just cut heads and then raise everybody's salary or transfer funds to support people at the state level - you have to cut heads AND freeze wages, demand more input for healthcare and reform pensions (and take the taxpayers off the hook for underperformance of the pension funds). We made promises we can't keep and the time has come to pay the piper.
I don't disagree on healthcare and defense (SS is easy - just raise the age limits until you balance the books).
Aging and Educated Workforce
One big reason the costs keep going up is because both the Commonwealth and the Fed have aging workforces - partly due to the baby boom, partly due to the role of seniority in determining who gets cut. If you always cut the newest hires first, you get older workers.
The other reason the costs have gone up is that government workers are vastly more likely to be highly trained, educated, and involved in supervisory activities than they were decades ago. That's because a lot of stuff gets contracted out - and those contracts are administered, supervised, audited, etc. by more senior workers in the government.
Having educated and experienced people running contract programs is a lot different than paying people to fill pot holes. The pot hole fillers are all under contract now, and much of government is now management.
yes AND
Also (as we keep hearing when a new head of a quasi-public agency gets hired) in order to be competitive with managerial salaries in the private sector (which keep going up) govt salaries go up to keep pace somewhat.
With the problem being those private sector managers get raises and bonuses when they figure out new ways to "externalize" their companies' costs (i.e., scrape them off on the rest of us - the govt), while the govt only picks up the management of all the things that are impossible (or extremely difficult) to run "like a business."
The Federal, direct-hire workforce is tremendously skewed towards older folks because as Swirly points out, everything gets contracted out, leaving govt employees to be nothing more than contract managers (accountants). It's not a good thing. The worse part is that when the older generation retires (or dies) the replacements will not have had the years of experience necessary to really know what they should be doing.
Denominator goes down
Federal budget as a percentage of GDP is up, because GDP is down!
Basic arithmetic. There is no spike in the size of the actual Federal budget.
Wrong on both counts
GDP, after a relatively small 2-3% pullback in 2009 is expected to hit an all time high of over $15.1 trillion this year. In the first year of the Obama administration, the federal budget jumped roughly 20% from $2.9 trillion to $3.5 trillion and has never been pulled back. There has actually been an increase in GDP and a huge surge in government spending.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf (see pp. 26-27 of the PDF)
And Swirly - really. So by your argument government outsources services so that costs go up and has a payroll structure that is designed to collapse under its own weight as workers age and get paid more not for doing more or better work, but simply for having a birthday? And nobody sees this or does anything about it? Now THAT's a problem.
Your point?
So you think the government should just hand corporations money and assume they do the right things with it without any oversight, all so the government doesn't have expensive workers managing that mess?
Libertarian FAIL!
Read your links better
You think 2-3% is relatively small? That was the massive recession that was the worst since the Great Depression. We are just now reaching levels we should have reached two years ago. GDP is way behind where it should be, and the world does not wait for it to catch up.
If you read the detailed breakdowns in the document you linked (see pp. 68-69), you will learn why spending has increased. The same information is also presented in this shorter CBO document, see Table E-9 or E-10.
Most of the surge in spending is due to "Income Security" (read: Unemployment insurance) and Medicaid, these have added about $350 billion since 2008. These increases are largely due to the recession.
As you can see, the money is going directly into social programs which have existed for many decades -- programs which exist to stabilize the economy in the case of recession. No weird theories about "pay packages" required.
From: CBO: The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021
Read what you wrote
You said GDP is down and there has not been a huge increase in federal spending - you are wrong on both counts. 2-3% is very small, especially compared to the 33% decline during the great depression, the 18% during the depression that came a year later or the almost 5% of the 1970s recession. From the standpoint of GDP this is a pretty run of the mill recession. From jobs - a fair bit worse - especially in duration if not severity of unemployment- but that has nothing to do with what you wrote.
GDP is way behind where it should be - what the hell does that mean? GDP is ALWAYS exactly where it should be - keep in mind that we'd have probably been in about the same place no matter what - the housing boom robbed growth from future years - so we got a short boost in economic activity that was artificial due to leverage - now we are simply reverting to the mean. Very similar to the dot.com boom.
Yes - extended unemployment bennies and medicaid may be part of it - as are huge stimulus bills and a few other things. We can go in circles with the best minds in the world and never come to a conclusion on whether it wasn't enough, was too much or was just right - it's like arguing if Goldilocks last bed really was just right or if she was finally just tired - up there with arguing how many angels can dance Swan Lake on the head of a pin at the stroke of midnight on Christmas.
I get your point about salaries didn't cause the surge (although the bloat predated the surge)- but that's not what you said. we've cut tens of thousands of government employees and my daily life hasn't changed one iota.
And if the NH legislature really wanted to govern
properly, they'd leave the decisions about what highway signs should be posted on the roads up to the DOT.
Instead, they are debating a law that, if passed, will force the DOT to spend time and resources (even if the signs are paid for by private companies, it's still the DOT crews that will be installing them on the public's dime) providing signs that serve no meaningful benefit to the public, and are nothing more than another needless distraction to drivers.
Plus, there's the little matter of possibly impacting their eligibility for Federal highway funding. With very limited exceptions (like the large LOGO service signs - which NH does not provide on its Interstate mainlines), traffic signs are not to carry any advertising messages.
Don't
The tolls on 95 already do that? I though states were forbidden federal highway funding if they put tolls on interstate highways?
Heard Virginia's looking to put tolls back on 95, and it's putting their funds in danger.
Also, does MA get funds? Hows the pike factor in?
Both I-95 in New Hampshire and the Everett Turnpike
portion of I-93 between Manchester and Concord, although they carry Interstate designations, are operated by NH Bureau of Turnpikes. Both these highways, as well as the Massachusetts Turnpike, the NY Thruway, etc., predated the establishment of the Interstate system.
All these roads were grandfathered into the system and given Interstate designations because that was cheaper and more practical that constructing adjacent "free" routes.
Because of the tolls, no Federal Highway money goes into the operation, maintenance, and upgrading of the NH Turnpikes. Although Bureau of Turnpikes is part of NHDOT, for funding purposes it is operated as a separate entity. However, this does not affect the ability of the state to receive Federal funding for its other roads.
The "toll highway" status, and no use of Federal funds for the turnpikes themselves, is one of the reasons that the State can continue to operate their state liquor stores as part of the Turnpike's "safety rest areas".
So, I guess the Bureau of Turnpikes could install one "Danger Massachusetts Approaching" sign on I-95 south in Seabrook. But there's still all the other border crossings on the "free" roads that would need to be signed as well.
As for Massachusetts, although the former Massachusetts Turnpike Authority was abolished when MassDOT was created in 2009, I-90 in Massachusetts still has restrictions on the use of Federal funding for design and construction. But, like NH, that does not affect our ability to receive Federal funding for other roads in Massachusetts.
TMYK
Much appreciated!
You may also be interested to know that
the most significant "we want to toll our Interstates" fight going on right now is not in Virginia, but in Pennsylvania. PA has been trying for the past few years to put tolls on Interstate 80 for nearly its entire length. They have requested permission from FHWA twice now, and have been denied both times.
What's ironic about this is that, in the early 1950s, what is now the I-80 alignment was originally planned to be constructed as part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike system. When the Interstate highway system was announced, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania opted to accept Federal funding to build the highway instead.
That was over fifty years ago. Perhaps one of these days, I-80 through Pennsylvania, which seems to be perpetually undergoing some sort of construction on one section or another, may actually be completed.
Would it benefit the Federal taxpayer......
If we allowed PA to put tolls on that road?
My best guess is that
the Federal money PA would lose out on would just go to other states. It's know as "reallocation".
So that would be good for the MA taxpayer?
And PA might be able to make some money off it?
Yup
But that's not what PA is trying to do. They want the Fed funds and an exception so they can put tolls on it. VA is trying for the same on 95.
Wanting their cake and eating it too.
80 in PA really doesn't have much along it and tolls wouldn't slow it down too much (besides ensnaring truckers), but 95 in the northeast corridor would be hell.
If tolls do go in on interstate highways, the Fed's should require them to do what TX has done with it's toll roads.
No islands, no humans taking change. All high-speed fast lanes and they mail you a paper bill with a bill surcharge if you don't have a fastpass to charge it to. Citations are only given if you don't pay that mailed bill.
We have the technology with our own fastpass system. People that run a toll are photographed and sent a ticket. My question is why? ...when you can just bill them the toll charge? Whats the point of making everyone stop in the middle of the road and pay?
The economic impact of those traffic backups on the pike isn't worth having islands with toll collectors. Especially when most of what they collect is going back to pay for their work in the first place.
Two words
Old people.
Plus a lot of leased cars aren't addressed to the owner or leasee. And people don't want the governemnt knowing where they are going either.
Didn't Deval Patrick want to do something like this a while back with the inspection stickers?
I think all tolls are horrible. Just raise the registration fees.
How about a user fee
Per-mile tax for road use, billed when you get your inspection. That way, you pay as you go. Yeah, not all mileage would be in MA, but so? Either that, or a much steeper gas tax.
Subtext
"If you worked and lived here, you wouldn't be paying MA income tax".
But if you're a business owner
You'd be paying a 8.5% income tax on revenues. That's revenues, not profit.
NH gets theirs. One way or another, states always do.
Wow really?
Why does any business at all go there then? That's nuts.
You make it up on the labor
You make it up on the labor end. Keep in mind this is a state where you can buy a house for what you pay in rent in Cambridge/Somerville, so the salaries are adjusted accordingly.
Then again, you also have to deal with the crotchety old bastards at Town Meeting who really question the need to pay for things like public sanitation, roads, and schools.
And
a McMansion at that.
But, you'll be paying the equivalent in property taxes as if you owned an estate in MA.
NH is really good for renters, as housing prices and thus rents are reasonable. Not so much on property taxes, which are 4th in the nation.
As said, they get theirs. Through different forms of taxation, a litany of use fee's, or just going without. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Just don't knock MA for doing things a little bit different, especially when practically joined at the hip.
MA isn't much better.
I think it's 8%.
Still, if you're a small business, that's real money.
If you're a large business, it's Scrooge McDuck piles of money.
Revenue, not profit
The Massachusetts corporate income tax is based on profit, not on gross revenue.
Socialism
why oh why does Massachusetts penalize success?
/snark
Wasn't sure on that last one, but I think you are correct. Which means in MA only money not reinvested into your business are taxable at the flat rate.
In NH, you're getting taxed on revenue regardless, and there's no incentive to reinvest potential profits.
In all seriousness, having
In all seriousness, having lived next to that state for more than half my life now, the pride over no income or sales tax in NH utterly baffles me. It's not like their state government is some magic efficiency engine better than all the other states. And the property taxes are a nightmare.
Yeah but by having all the
Yeah but by having all the taxes local and part time local legislators it is hard to raise taxes or spend money foolishly since people are generally paying a lot more attention to their politicians and how tax money is spent. This forces a certain level of efficiency not found in this state, where accounting of taxation and expenditures is intentionally kept murky to prevent an uprising by irate taxpayers. Part time legislators also gave the crooks in office less time to spend other peoples' money. Not that it keeps them from spending the money, but at least reduces the time and opportunities to do so.
Disagree
Part-time legislators need to rely more heavily on lobbyists than full-timers, because the part-timers are too busy to understand issues or even write bills.
You think that full time
You think that full time legislators understand issues or even write bills these days? And don't spend all their time entertaining lobbyists? Have you not been paying attention to the average MA house & senator legislative sessions lately?
Sure
But, the part-timers have a better excuse for being that way.
Actually, the overall effect
Actually, the overall effect is that of towns with relatively large tax bases, like Claremont, having decent services and towns with small tax bases, like most of the state, having TERRIBLE public services. Northern New Hampshire is kind of a hellhole, and it's not the fault of the residents, really, which is the worst part.
Mostly New Hampshire succeeds in having all the drawbacks of socialism and capitalism with none of the benefits.
I would gladly contribute
to signs warning people they are entering New Hampshire.
Something like;
"Warning New Hampshire border ahead: IQ's freeze before road does"
"Welcome to New Hampshire or Missouri North"
"Warning New Hampshire border:FULGBT"
Lic. Plate slogan
Live Free? and Work In MA
Hey now
Missouri isn't all that bad!
FULGBT?
NH has gay marriage too, and even the recent Republican landslide wasn't enough to overturn it.
How about NH:
just a small speed bump on your way to Vermont.
wait
You spelled "Canada" wrong.
Wait wait wait...
.you BOTH spelled "Maine" wrong
;0)
"It's always a good idea to
What a nutjob. I bet she's the kind of person who calls people from Massachusetts 'Massholes.'
M-holes....not just for use by Granite Staters
I know PLENTY of people born right here in Massachusetts who proudly refer to their families, their neighbors, their friends and themselves as "massholes" . Like it's a badge of honor.
To quote Principal Onyx Blackman
"Well it's different when we call each other that!!"
But Cow Hampshire residents
But Cow Hampshire residents still work here.
What I don't get
You are driving along, about to go into MA, and there will be these signs telling you that you are about to go into MA and they will have ads for NH businesses on them?
Huh?
Aren't there already state line signs on these roads?
It's been a while since I've driven 93 or 95, but I recall big signs going both directions that announce what state you are entering. Maybe things are different on the more minor roads. But even the Nashua River Rail Trail (a bike path) has pretty obvious boundary signs.
Yea, but a lot of NH
Yea, but a lot of NH residents can't read because NH doesn't fund their schools, but they understand "WARNING:" because it's on cigarette packages.
I can't think of a more
I can't think of a more ridiculous waste of money!
As a son of the Bay State, I
As a son of the Bay State, I am disturbed by the number of negative comments here towards our northern neighbor, and do not believe they represent our spirit.
In truth, we find your state a beautiful rest stop with casinos we are denied in our own state on our way to places like Vermont or Maine. It's like one big HoJo's; cheap food, clean toilets and no unpleasant memories. Of any kind, really.
We're proud of your tradition of insisting on being first in elections without any justification for it; were we the ones doing so, we would be labeled elitist. You have an admirable crusty, skeptical nature, New Hampshire; the kind that knows school is where you keep kids before they go to work in the factories. You boast Dartmouth, the school whose traditions eventually became dramatized in "Animal House" and where the computing world was introduced to BASIC, a computer language that like New Hampshiremen does not care a whit for being useful.
You are the brother-in-law I will never quite get rid of, New Hampshire. Come and stay a while on our couch; you know where the sandwich fixings are in the fridge. And we remembered to leave you a Pabst Blue Ribbon.
Casinos in NH?
Huh?
I think he meant (legal) poker rooms
.
You hit the nail (cow) on the
You hit the nail (cow) on the head. Their state motto should be "LIVIN OFF THE CHICKENS IN MY NEIGHBOR'S YARD"