Monday, June 20, 2011

Another gem from the Pickup Patriots: Some words are as powerful as a picture...this one's a Mona Lisa


Every once in a while, we see a letter and perspective that is too good NOT to share. This LTE to the Concord Monitor from Wolfeboro resident, John White, is one such letter. We share it with PuPNation so that you can make it viral. Please send it to everyone you know -- it's that good.

Carpetbaggers vs. immigrants

For the Monitor
Created 06/17/2011 - 00:00

Letter
John R. White, Wolfeboro
A glimmer of hope shines in Concord: The Free State/Tea Party Express seems to have lost a few wheels on the way to the station. Some of the GOP faithful are beginning to doubt the wisdom of Speaker William O'Brien, he who must be obeyed, and his campaign to dismantle the machinery of government in New Hampshire.

Up to now, O'Brien has been able to browbeat his party reluctants into doing things his way. Those who deviated have been summarily relieved of committee assignments, threatened, slandered, verbally abused and libeled. Grudgingly, for the most part, they have sustained the party super-majority.

So who is this William O'Brien who rules the House with an iron fist? And how, in only his second term in the Legislature, is he commander of the House?

He's a carpetbagger from Massachusetts, a Democrat when he was law partner of Tommy Finneran, erstwhile speaker of the Massachusetts House who left that post in disgrace.

In New Hampshire, O'Brien latched on to the Free State movement; in the aftermath of the 2010 election he courted the radicals and won the speaker's chair. He owes his power to a group dedicated to the destruction of state government, reducing the civil obligation to the protection of life and property - nothing more. Strangely, that protection of life and property seems to devolve upon the individual - why else the over-weaning concern that every man carry a gun?

O'Brien is a carpetbagger, as differentiated from an immigrant. Lots of us here in New Hampshire are immigrants. I'm one - moved here in 1991. The difference?

Immigrants come here to change their lives; carpetbaggers come to change your life.

JOHN R. WHITE

Wolfeboro

Jackie Cilley's Legislative Action Alert, Week of June 13, 2011

Legislative Action Alert
Week of June 13, 2011
Jackie Cilley
jcilley@aol.com

Of Lupines and Electric Towers

Bruce and I skipped Maine last weekend and instead took a drive to Sugar Hill. We were glad we did. The town was celebrating the second weekend of a 17 day Lupine Festival dedicated to the ornamental plant in the pea family. Despite the forecasted isolated shower that became a steady rain throughout the day, no amount of grey skies could overshadow the landscape of brilliant pastel colors.

As we climbed hills into town we saw other visitors pull to the side of the road and emerge with cameras in hand. Some of the shutter bugs were obviously amateurs with their miniature Nikon Coolpix Touchscreens used to snap a pretty picture. Others lugged out their tripods to hold their Canon EOS 1DS Mark III to capture a singular image that might end up in some magazine or framed on somebody’s wall. The panorama would not disappoint either.

We visited the open air market where lupines were present in every modality possible. Photographs and canvasses of watercolors and oils sported everything from a single lupine with a fat bumblebee at work pollinating to vast meadows of color. There was pottery with signature lupine and lupine inspired candles for sale throughout the market.

Among the vendors stood a booth whose orange bows and signs contrasted sharply with the pastels of lupine. Messages of “Stop Northern Pass” and “Stop the Towers,” belied the booth’s unique purpose. It was, in fact, the other reason that we had made the trip at the invitation of one of its most vocal and passionate volunteers, Nancy Martland.

This signage had been visible in front of virtually every property leading into or out of Sugar Hill. The landscape for many residents will profoundly change if Northern Pass comes to fruition. The community will change for all of them.

For those unfamiliar, Northern Pass is a partnership project of Northeast Utilities, Connecticut-based owners of Public Service Company of New Hampshire and HydroQuebec, a Quebec Province generator of electric power. Its purpose is to bring high voltage DC (direct current) power lines from Quebec to a substation in Franklin, NH that will convert the power into AC (alternating current) and send it on its way to Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York.

Folks throughout Coos and Grafton counties are up in arms over the project. More than 2,500 have shown up at public meetings or hearings on Northern Pass. The potential change to their landscape is disheartening enough, but the issue that has them mobilized and unified is the use of eminent domain to take their land. While PSNH has rights of way for some of the project, eminent domain will be needed to acquire all of the land necessary for completion.

To prevent this, opponents encouraged legislators to bring forward HB 648 to restrict the use of eminent domain by a utility company to cases in which the electricity is needed for system reliability. That bill passed easily in the House but foundered in the Senate where it was re-referred to committee.

It was over a story in the Alert on this legislation that Nancy contacted me and we began an e-mail correspondence about the impacts to her community from Northern Pass. It was at her urging that Bruce and I were in Sugar Hill.

As the rain intensified and we wrapped up visiting all of the vendors, Nancy invited us for a cup of coffee at her home about a mile away. She and her husband Carl live in an 1850 farmhouse that sits about halfway up a steep hill. Sitting on her sunporch one can see for miles around. In the distance Cannon Mountain and the Kinsmans range shape the horizon. Closer in and across the street the land slopes gently away with its meadow grasses and abundance of colorful lupine.

As we admired the view, Nancy pointed out where the 140 foot towers would slice right through the middle of the skyscape. I suspect that the coffee invitation was designed for us to see just that. It was, of course, not only the Martland views that would change irreversibly with Northern Pass but those of many other landowners in the community.

It’s easy to see how their lovingly groomed property will lose its market value. Even now sales have been stymied over the potential of Northern Pass. Moreover, the damage to the tourism business in the area seems inevitable if Northern Pass is completed. It is difficult to imagine anyone wanting pictures of lupine with electrical towers in the fore- or background.

Opponents of the Northern Pass project are counting on their government to ensure protection of their property and their way of life. They are despondent at the re-referral of HB 648, but are looking forward to a happier result as this bill is worked on and brought to a vote next year. In a political climate in which an increasing number of our legislators believe that the market can be an arbiter of all disputes, it is clear what the outcome will be if government fails to carefully defend our citizens’ interests. Even 2,500 opponents are no match for the billions of corporate dollars being expended on this project.





Contents

Page
Thought for the Week: Of Lupine and Electric Towers 1
Late Breaking News 3
The Week in Brief 4
Gov’s Veto Pen Getting Plenty of Use 4
All Eyes on the Budget 6
Where are the Jobs? 8
One Mom’s View 10
Update on Redress of Grievance Committee 12
Hold Onto Your Hats – Sneak Preview 2012 13



Late Breaking News

Breaking the stalemate on budget negotiations, the Senate caved to House demands to include a 10 cent decrease in the cigarette tax. This makes New Hampshire the only state in the country to decrease such a tax. Interestingly, the reduction in what is purported to be a loss of some $15 million in revenues was dubbed “revenue neutral” so there was no off-setting reduction in expenditures in the budget. Most economists interviewed on the decrease had earlier indicated that it would not result in significantly higher sales of cigarettes. If their prediction is correct revenues will decline.

On Wednesday, June 15 the NH Supreme Court ruled it would be unconstitutional for the legislature to mandate the NH Attorney General to join the lawsuit against the Patient Projection and Affordable Care Act. The Court agreed with the testimony provided by Attorney General Delaney when legislation directing him to join the action was heard before the House Judiciary Committee. In its ruling, the Court stated the bill “which removes entirely from the executive branch the decision as to whether to join the state as a party to litigation, would usurp the executive branch’s power to execute and enforce the law…..[the bill] violates the separation of powers clause and is unconstitutional.”

The unanimous decision by the NH Supreme Court didn’t deter Rep. Andrew Manuse of Derry from arguing that the legislature should simply ignore the ruling and do what they wished. If Rep. Manuse and others like him get his way there will be tens of thousands of dollars in court fees before this one is settled.

Some legislators may have already planned for the possibility of the Court’s ruling, however. There is plenty of legislation in the pipeline to eliminate or water down the court’s role. One bill, for instance, will restrict the courts to only assessing the constitutionality of their own actions, but not the legislature’s (that is, if the legislature passes a law it will be able to determine whether its own acts are constitutional). In light of everything that has happened to date this year, I hope readers will agree this is dangerous to the nth degree!

The Week in Brief

Committees of Conference are in full swing and working toward a deadline of Thursday, June 16 at noon. By that date all CoC’s must have completed their work and members must have signed the report generated by the committee. This report contains either the negotiated language of legislation or stipulates that the committee could not come to agreement which leads to a bill dying a quiet death. Each chamber must act on CoC reports by Thursday, June 23.
The schedule can be found at http://bit.ly/kzecxx. NOTE: The schedule has been found to be incomplete at times so if you want to be certain about the status of any bill you may wish to contact the House Clerk at 271-2548 or the Senate Clerk at 271-2111.

Gov’s Veto Pen Getting Plenty of Exercise:

SB 3, Comprehensive Changes to the NH Retirement System:

On Wednesday, June 15 Governor Lynch vetoed SB 3, a bill that raised pension contributions of employees to cover debts incurred by municipalities and the state over 16 years and reduced benefits to retirees. In an interesting statement accompanying his veto, the Governor indicated that he was vetoing SB 3 in anticipation of additional changes to the pension system that have now been tucked into the budget bills.

It is becoming increasingly evident that the maneuvering with the pension system has far less to do with sound fiduciary management and far more to do with politics – which is just what got the system into the problems that were tackled four years ago by the legislature. This is underscored by the fact that the Committee of Conference on the budget accepted an amendment that would nullify the recommendation of the Board of Trustees of the NH Retirement System. With the guidance of experts and actuaries the Board of Trustees lowered the assumed rate of return on the pension trust. The immediate impact of that action was to increase the contribution of the state and municipalities. Consequently, the $160 million reduction over the upcoming two years that these stakeholders expected would have been cut to $47.6 million.

So what do fiscal magicians do when they don’t like the numbers coming from a credible formula?? Wave their wands and change the formula, of course. In this instance the Committee simply said they were not taking the experts advice, they nullified the vote of the Board of Trustees and delayed the changed formula until 2013, and got the “savings” they wanted at the outset. The savings are, however, a shell game.

Once again the legislature is poised to put into place a formula that allows the state and municipalities to underfund the NH Retirement System and to ultimately break even more promises to public employees. Under the changes that had already been made to the pension system employees will be paying considerably more for fewer benefits than they were promised when they made the commitment to serve our communities and state. If the same lack of ethics and integrity continues to prevail at our statehouse public employees better plan being told they will make up for the shortfall that the current legislature is deliberately creating.

So, here’s my suggested language for any future contract negotiated between public employees and the state/municipalities: Disclaimer: No matter what has been negotiated, please understand that it may be nullified by future legislatures. No matter what promises we are making today, please understand we will probably lobby to have those broken by some future legislature who will be empowered to do so. No matter what trade-offs you make between salary and benefits, please understand you will likely have to pay for all of it in the end anyway. Oh, and by-the-way, we reserve the right to not only break all of our agreements but to call you thugs and parasites when we are doing so.

HB 218, Weaking the Rail Transit Authority:

You may recall that the House introduced HB 218 with the intent to repeal in its entirety the Rail Transit Authority in New Hampshire for no other reason than that they were ideologically opposed to the concept of rail transit. State representatives did this despite a loud outcry from the business community and other stakeholders who believe that rail transit will offer an economic boom to their region. The House passed the legislation also despite the fact that the Rail Transit Authority cost NH taxpayers nothing and had received a $1.5 million grant to conduct a feasibility study – monies that would have been lost if the RTA had been repealed.
When the bill made it to the Senate that body removed the original language but replaced it with language that removed important functions of the RTA. Subsequently, the Governor has vetoed HB 218 and in his veto message made the following points: I am vetoing this legislation because business leaders, particularly in Nashua and Manchester, have clearly said that this bill will hurt their efforts to grow their businesses, to create jobs and to attract new companies to New Hampshire…The support of the business community is validated by an independent study that concluded that the development of rail in the capital corridor could result in more than $2.4 billion in new business sales and nearly 1,000 new jobs created and sustain in New Hampshire in the first twenty years of operation.
HB 109, Prohibiting Local Planning Boards from Mandating Sprinkler Systems:
Given how often throughout this legislative session we have heard that decisions need to be made at the local level, HB 109 stood out as something of an anomaly – though it was hardly the only bill to do so. This legislation would have prohibited local planning boards from setting their own standards for fire suppression systems in one- and two-family dwelling as a condition for receiving local permits. The Governor cited this in his veto message and went on to say: I believe that the decision of whether or not to require fire sprinklers for new or renovated residential development should remain a local one. The state should not dictate a required course of action. It is obviously the local community that is impacted from new residential development both in terms of land use and in terms of bearing the costs of providing increased fire protection services. This legislation will remove local control over an important issue.
HB 329, Requiring Parental Notification Before Performing Abortion on a Minor:

Despite having signaled that some form of parental notification would be acceptable to him, Governor Lynch stated that he had concerns about HB 329, legislation that required parental notification before an abortion is performed on a minor and instituting criminal penalties for failing to meet the requirements of this proposed law.

In this veto message, the Governor stated: The decision whether to complete a pregnancy or seek an abortion is a serious and life-changing one for any pregnant woman. Minors need and benefit from the support and guidance of their parents…However, any law must make reasonable allowances for cases where that is not possible. I am particularly troubled by the lack of an exception for victims of rape, incest and abuse.”

Budget Negotiations Take on Circus Atmosphere

It was probably inevitable no matter how the Senate tried to hold it together and play nice in the sandbox. The House has been so far out of control over this past legislative year that no amount of reason even from members of their own party could produce a thoughtful and rational process.

The Committee of Conference began on an agreeable enough note with the major decision on what each body was willing to spend (regardless of the needs of the state) was deftly managed. With little fanfare the conferees arrived at a spending level that was $17 million more than the House had wanted to spend, $23 million less than the Senate projected in spending and a whopping $267 million less than the Governor felt necessary to meet the needs of the State. All that was left was to determine where the money would be spent.

As the budget conferees slogged through the process of allocating dollars to various programs of state government, suddenly at the eleventh hour earlier in the week as the deadline loomed for the committee to have completed its work, House members brought in some 20 or so last minute and, in some cases, highly technical amendments. Why this surprised Senate conferees is a mystery as exactly the same thing had occurred in the waning hours of the House Finance Committee’s work on the budget.

Senate Finance Chair Chuck Morse went ballistic, publicly berating his House colleagues. “I spent months putting this budget together in a sophisticated manner, and you offer an amendment that could affect everybody in this state and we haven’t debated it. This is absolutely wrong,” he bellowed. “You could have drafted them and you could have had them to the Senate in time to read them all. This is absolutely wrong…We don’t govern like this.”

The media widely covered the story on the initial breakdown of negotiations over the amendments issue. However, Senator Morse’s statement of having “spent months putting this budget together” is also noteworthy. In fact, the Senate Finance Committee members have only had the budget for a little over a month to work on. Morse’s reference to having spent “months” on the documents lends some credibility to rumors that have swirled for the past several months that he worked with gubernatorial wannabe John Stephens to craft New Hampshire’s biennial budget without unveiling that to his Senate colleagues.

The Senate has until noon on Thursday, June 16 to sign off on the budget, while the House has until 5 p.m. The House has indicated it is unwilling to sign off until the ten cent a pack decrease in the cigarette tax is included – something that sent Senator Morse into a another paroxysm of anger. He accused House leadership of reneging on a behind-closed-doors deal that had been brokered over the budget. Saying that “the Senate is totally offended by the actions of House leadership” and that neither he nor New Hampshire would be held hostage over this matter. It remains to be seen who caves first.

Some noteworthy changes in the budget from the Committee of Conference:

• Leasing of Cannon Mountain has been pulled for this year.
• Changes to the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act contained in both the budget bill and a separate piece of legislation appear dead for this year. The House wanted to use this as a bargaining chip over their mission to repeal New Hampshire’s involvement in the regional greenhouse gas initiative program. The separate bill on repeal of RGGI has been vetoed by the Governor.
• Elimination of collective bargaining rights are off the table for the time being.
• The CoC compromise restored some funding for programs at the Department of Environmental services saving the shellfish monitoring and the pool and spa inspections programs.
• About $2 million was added back to the severe cuts to the University System of NH. However, that is not sufficient to prevent the layoffs and tuition increases that are projected to result in massive cuts in state aid.
• The new bed tax on hospitals as well as the loss of federal monies to care for the poor and indigent remain in the compromise budget.

Of central interest in the development of New Hampshire’s biennial budget is whether the manner in which the state raises revenues and the priorities that it sets in spending those revenues create a more conducive climate for economic growth or a less nurturing climate for expansion. The reviews are clearly not in on a document that has yet to see the ink placed on it never mind dry. Nonetheless, indications are that the budget that will be in place on July 2, 2011 will have serious and negative consequences for workers throughout the state and for the businesses who depend upon a middle class having adequate financial resources and being willing to spend some of that on the necessities and niceties of life.

My personal prediction is that we will soon find ourselves sliding backward in economic terms with rising unemployment, increasing home foreclosures and decreasing home values and a decreasing standard of living in New Hampshire. Below are some of the first indicators of what may be in store.

Where Are the Jobs??

For 18 straight months leading into 2011 New Hampshire’s unemployment rate inched its way down the glory days of below 5%. With only a temporary setback it continued on that path to its current status of 4.9%, one of the most favorable unemployment rates in the country.

Throughout the Great Recession, as it has been referenced, New Hampshire lost 28,000 jobs – that’s 28,000 New Hampshire citizens who found themselves without a job. Economists had initially predicted that those jobs would come back or be replaced by the middle of 2012. That prediction has now been pushed out by at least a year to mid-year 2013. http://bit.ly/kWyEiW

According to Dennis Delay, economist with NH Public Policy, the unemployment rate has been dropping, not solely because jobs are being created, but because some workers have moved out of state and some have simply stopped looking, a phenomenon referred to as “discouraged workers.” Had some not dropped out of the rate the actual unemployment would be 5.3% according to Delay.

So the question is: How will policies put in place by the current legislature help or harm the already stalled pace of job creation? Remember that all of these folks ran on the mantra they would “rein in spending and create jobs.” How are they doing?

If some of the preliminary numbers are any indication, not so good. In fact, to paraphrase Rep. Bachman “their report card would have a big failing grade on it!” The latest numbers illustrating that point include:

• 400 – 700 state employees will find themselves in the unemployment line by the end of this year
• 200 folks are slated to be pink-slipped by the University of NH as part of their efforts to deal with a 45%-50% cut in state aid to UNH
• 15-88 state police (the current range between the Senate and the House) may find themselves looking for employment.
• 15-88 state police (the current range between the Senate and the House) may find themselves looking for employment.
• 20 people with full-time jobs at NH Public Television were laid off last week
• Several dozen Department of Environmental Services employees may be pounding pavement soon. This figure will be over and above the general figure of lay-offs for state employees above.
• An as yet unspecified number of layoffs are anticipated from hospitals and healthcare systems throughout the state as a result of the new confiscatory tax on these healthcare providers. Hospitals are projected to sustain losses of $126.9 million this year and an additional $131.7 million next year.
• Dozens, if not hundreds, of jobs in the private, non-profit social service network are rumored to be in jeopardy as the results of budget cuts that affect the servies they provide. At one point during House negotiations this number was rumored to be upwards of a couple thousand under the worst scenarios. Given the reinstatements of some programs by the Senate, job losses are unlikely to reach such levels. However, many area agencies serving the elderly, those with mental illness and those with developmental disabilities will find themselves needing to make tough choices.

Some job losses are more difficult to immediately quantify but those affected know they are coming. For example, the aggregate cuts in spending on roads/bridges, school building and hospital building and expansion is projected to hit the construction industry hard say industry insiders. Many workers within these trades have already gone without employment or have been under-employed throughout this lingering recession. Cuts in a diverse array of construction projects will prolong this misery for these workers.

Projected job losses will have an escalating ripple effect within each community throughout the state. Over the coming months we will see more mortgage defaults, more properties foreclosed upon, loss of property tax revenues to already cash-strapped municipalities, fewer dollars flowing within the community and supporting local businesses and added stress to social service providers such as hospitals and mental health centers who have already been severely impacted by new taxes and loss of federal dollars as in the case of hospitals or loss of state subsidies to care for the indigent in the case of mental health centers.

This phenomenon of an economic dominoe effect has been discussed in past issues of the Alert. For a very succinct overview of what is happening to our economy please see http://bit.ly/lFfgMI. This two minute and fifteen second clip by Robert Reich, noted economist and former Labor Secretary under President Clinton, tells you everything you need to know about why the economy is in the shape it is in. And, it happily just happens to agree with what I’ve been saying in several issues of the Alert!

Personal Perspective on Budget Impacts:

The budget that is about to pass is only marginally less draconian and painful than that passed by the House that drew 5,000 of our citizens in protest. There will be a few more children at risk helped, but the majority, some 400, won’t be. There will be a few more individuals with disabilities assisted, but many won’t be. Remember that although legislators reinstated some monies they also changed the law that requires full funding for the developmental disabilities waitlist. They need that for what they know will be a shortfall. There will be more individuals with mental illness provided services, many more won’t be.

I’ve made the lists of cuts and talked about the impacts of these several times in the Alert. However, simply enumerating each slash to our social service network fails to capture the personal pain that will be felt by our fellow citizens. That personal perspective was shared by Gloria Ruff of Keene in her testimony before House finance. With her permission I share it with you.



Testimony of Gloria Ruff on Proposed Budget Cuts:




I am here as the stepmom to a 19-year old young man.

80% of those in need of developmental services are unsafe to leave at home alone. The increasing freedoms that most parents enjoy as their children grow in age and independence are denied families who have members with disabilities.

Job coaches, respite, both in-home and semi-independent out-of- home supports and placements are not just nice things to have-they are human needs that cannot wait. The families and the disabled themselves are denied as full and productive a life experience as they could have. If supports are cut, my son will be home with me 24/7, bored and lonely, as he is not safe at home alone and will need supports and training for employment.

I appreciate you being here to listen to the public speak, but mostly I’m angry. I’m angry that draconian measures are laid on the shoulders of our most vulnerable populations and their families to balance a budget. All of these groups you’ve heard from today are worthy.

I’m most angry that so many people have had to take time away from their jobs and caring for their families to travel here, hat in hand, to beg our representatives to simply do what is right.

I’m sick of politicians alternately bragging and hand-wringing that they are here to make the hard choices. I submit that they are not making any hard choices because their decisions do not affect them! A hard choice is whether to keep a roof over your family’s head by working productively-while risking a member’s safety, or to stay at home to ensure their safety and putting the whole family in need of welfare services. A hard choice is whether to pay one’s ever-increasing property taxes, or to sacrifice other necessities such as warm clothing, heat in the winter, a healthy diet, or medicines.


I’m angry that cutting the legs out from under anyone struggling to get or to stay on their feet as a responsible citizen is even considered in such a wealthy state, especially when taxes are being cut and even eliminated for those best able to afford them. To add insult to injury, new money is being sought to pay for ridiculous things such as state militias. I suspect I’m not alone in my anger.

Thank you.

Gloria Ruff
Keene, NH




Update on Redress of Grievances Committee

You may recall a discussion in the Alert of the highly conflicted House Redress of Grievances Committee. This committee allows legislators to take up petitions of private citizens against the courts of our state, to hold open hearings about which impacted parties may or may not be notified and to propose remedies for the petitioner which may or may not include overturning court decisions and/or impeaching judges and masters. The recognition that it is something other than “justice” that is likely to be dispensed by a highly political body should be immediately apparent to even a judicial neophyte. The clear and present danger to the constitutional balance of power that has survived since our founding should strike fear into the heart of every rational person.

In a recent editorial, Judge Edwin Kelly, the target of one of the current petitions before the Redress committee, provides an historical and well-reasoned perspective of the implications of continuing on with this body. He also elaborates on the conflicts that the Chair of this committee, Rep. Paul Ingrebretson had that went well-beyond what he acknowledged in stepping down on the widely reported petition brought by David Johnson. Ingrebretson and many members of his caucus including House leadership had role-played this committee in 2009 and had already formed an opinion of this case as well as the remedial action he would take. It is clear that leadership knew precisely what would be presented in hearings before the committee and what decisions they wanted. The media spotlight that has shined on them may have given some pause with moving ahead now, but there are already new petitions being filed for the upcoming year.

Judge Kelly masterfully explains how this new creation of the current legislature is undoubtedly upsetting the careful balance between the three branches of government established by far wiser individuals than are now governing us. His guest editorial is well worth the read and can be found at http://bit.ly/iZBTPO.



Sneak Preview:

Strap Yourselves In: They’re About to Go Into Over-drive!

Maybe it’s because they won so impressively last fall. Maybe it’s because they believe they have been touched by the Almighty to enlighten New Hampshire’s citizens who wandered in the darkness before they arrived on the scene to save us. Maybe it’s because they are so ardently ideologically driven that no information save that confirming what they already believe seeps in.

Whatever the reason one thing is clear: The Statehouse gang doubled down in ways that can only the labeled extraordinary – and not in a good way. The hundreds upon hundreds of citizens who showed up at the Statehouse during this legislative session to protest extremist bills have not deterred our stalwart guardians of the public trust. Just a peak at some of what’s in store for the next legislative session includes the following:

• 2012-H-2504-R, Requiring the courts to give every woman who gets a restraining order a gun and a box of ammunition and provide her with instruction in shooting. I know, I know you think I’m making this up! The prime sponsor for this creative government-mandated and sponsored self-defense program is Rep. Robert Kingsbury who represents Belknap, District 4, Laconia. Rep. Kingsbury is a self-described member of the John Birch Society since 1962. http://bit.ly/iJxspI Can somebody explain what the good citizens of Laconia were thinking when they put him in government? Has anyone from Laconia watched what he has done when in office?

• 2012-H-2026-R, Establishing a permanent state defense force. The New Hampshire army is back! Despite the fact that this bill failed to garner sufficient support for passage in the current year it’s back for a second go-round. The sponsor of this New Hampshire protection plan is Rep. Daniel Itse, Fremont, Rockingham, District 9.

• 2012-H-2107-R, Prohibiting a person from being charged with speeding unless there is a victim of the offense. This is the Free Stater Dream Act. Passage of this bill will make it penalty-free to be a Roadrunner on our streets unless one accidently mows someone down or crashes through their front window. Please note, however, that being scared into a heart attack is unlikely to allow you to press charges as a “victim.” Rep. George Lambert, a Free State Project member serving Hillsborough, District 17 from Litchfield is the prime sponsor of this bill and other equally loopy bills such as that prohibiting prosecution for a victimless crime – think doing drugs on this one which for some inexplicable reason is important to this crew.

• 2012-H-2175-R, Urging congress to privatize all aspects of social security. Not content to simply allow their federal counterparts to unravel the social contract that our country proudly entered into with our seniors seven decades ago (and which Republicans of a by-gone era supported), state legislators want to send a message to dismantle it. We all know how well the stock market has performed over this past decade, now don’t we?? I’m sure that these same folks are just licking their chops over helping us manage our little nest eggs, not to mention being able to extract fees for doing so. Rep. Jerry Bergevin of Manchester serving Hillsborough, District 17, an avowed libertarian is the prime sponsor.

• 2012-H-2176-R, Requiring the teaching of evolution in the schools as a theory. Maybe I’ve been out of school for too long, but I could have sworn that we already refer to the Theory of Evolution. But perhaps the sponsor has something a bit different in mind here? The prime sponsor is the same Rep. Jerry Bergevin as above.

• 2012-H-2320-R, Requiring the teaching of intelligent design in the public schools. Ahhh, perhaps this one coordinates nicely with the above – teach evolution as some pseudo-science guessing game and forget that there is any such thing as separation of church and state. Rep. Gary Hopper of Weare, serving Hillsborough, District 7 is the prime sponsor.

There are plenty more where these came from – 57 pages in all so far and those are only House bills. We’ll be adding to that list over the summer and fall so that you are full apprised of legislation being introduced in your Statehouse. That last point may be difficult to remember at times given what we have been thought this year, but it is an important fact that each of us should keep at the forefront of our minds. This is our state and we didn’t agree to turn it over to folks with this kind of extreme agenda. We are the only ones who can take it back. That is going to take a concerted effort toward letting our families, friends and neighbors know what is happening. Please spend time over the coming months sharing the information on what was introduced and what passed this year as well as what has been introduced for next year. Our only hope of bringing common sense and reason back to our state government

Pickup Patriots on Mitt Romney: He Sucked at Job Creation...anywhere but here!!!


Romney and Speaker O'Brien must operate with the same set of principles: Job creation anywhere BUT HERE. Romney as CEO of Bain advised corporate behemoths to expand - in India and China - while O'Brien created a company that outsourced legal jobs to India.
Not only did Romney pull an O'Brien when he was in the private sector - create jobs anywhere but here - but when he was in the Governor's office, job creation wasn't on his political radar.

The tagline for both pols could read:

“Job creation anywhere BUT HERE.”

According to Ron Paul's campaign in a message released after last night’s debate, Romney sucked at job creation while Governor of Massachusetts:


“From 2003 to 2007 while Romney was Governor, Massachusetts ranked 47th in the nation for jobs growth. Job growth was 0.9% (National average 5%) Market Watch

After Romney’s first year in office, Massachusetts ranked 50/50 Market Watch

Between 2002 and 2006, manufacturing payroll employment declined by over 14% (3rd worst in country) - national average was 7% Boston Globe

Average weekly wage of workers in Massachusetts increased by $1 between 2001 and 2006 (inflation adjusted) Reuters

Real output of goods and services grew just 9% (the rate for the US as a whole was 13%) Reuters



Yours in hauling out the political trash...

www.pickuppatriots.com

Jackie Cilley's Legislative Action Alert, Week of June 6, 2011

Legislative Action Alert
Week of June 6, 2011
Jackie Cilley
jcilley@aol.com


When Middle Ground Doesn’t Exist
Late last week an area newspaper carried an editorial titled “The Right Place is in the Middle.” The point was this right-leaning paper was in agreement with the left-leaning Boston Globe that there should be compromise, a meeting in the middle (more to the right of the middle according to the editorial) over the national budget – the perfect spot was somewhere between Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan and that supported by the Obama administration.

The editorial echoed other recent articles and letters to the editor suggesting the public wants negotiation and compromise, it wants “civility in discourse” and it wants to see those who represent us working together. Ideas of finding the middle ground have been on my mind a great deal lately.

As a former elected official I believed compromise could be a path to better outcomes. While I may have fallen short of always meeting others halfway, I nonetheless fully embraced the notion that negotiation and compromise were admirable approaches to governance. I believed what I believed most folks believe. And, I believe that most folks do, indeed, believe that.

The current chasm in policy arguments is causing me to rethink this. I find myself repeatedly coming back to one central question: Is it possible to find middle ground between a myth or lie and fact? Is it possible, for example, to find an consensus view of our nation’s history between Sarah Palin’s distortion of Paul Revere’s ride and the historical account that even Revere himself conveyed to the ages? Is it possible to find negotiated solutions to climate change between those who don’t believe it is occurring at all and the overwhelming majority of the world’s credible scientists who say our climate is changing in dangerous ways propelled, at least in part, by human activity? Is it possible to find meaningful economic solutions between those who adhere to the thoroughly debunked idea of supply side “economics” and those who subscribe to almost any other supportable economic theory?

A case in point of an adherence to a baseless ideology is the story of Arizona (a state that just so happens to have the highest number of legislators who have signed the Grover Norquist pledge explained in an earlier issue of the Alert). Since 1992 Arizona has cut more than 45 individual taxes and fees. In the current year, the Arizona legislature once again passed a package of tax cuts that will trim an additional $538 million from state coffers despite running a deficit in excess of $3 billion.

The particularly interesting thing about Arizona lawmakers’ unflagging march toward yet still lower taxes is that every single time they have instituted a tax cut they have used the exact same mantra that businesses will now be able to “create new high paying jobs and grow the economy.” The actual factual results: Arizona is 48th in job creation, it has lost 300,000+ jobs since the beginning of the recession, has some of the highest foreclosure rates in the country while continuously shifting the tax burden to local property taxpayers and away from businesses (this will have a very familiar ring in New Hampshire soon), and has sold off most of its state assets including its state Capitol which it must now lease back – ultimately costing the state far more. Add to those pieces of data that 18.9 percent of Arizona’s citizens lack health insurance and more than a quarter of a million children in the state do not have coverage.

Arizona is a microcosm of what is happening on a national level and in state after state currently. It has served as a laboratory for the fullest experiment of supply side economics we have seen in this country. On every single measure the evidence is clear and compelling that the policy is an abysmal failure. Certainly the notion that repeatedly cutting taxes produces “high paying jobs and grows the economy” has been utterly discredited. How does one find middle ground when one side of the debate is grounded in a false premise?

The problem closer to home in New Hampshire goes even deeper. The argument proffered by the Free State/Tea Party faction with increasingly more influence over the Republican side of the aisle is that government is largely unnecessary save for “the protection of life, liberty and property” interpreted in the narrowest possible way. How do we find workable middle ground solutions to challenges in education when one side begins with the position that public education is unnecessary? How do we find negotiated consumer protections when one side argues that the very market from which certain harms arise will self-correct – if, and that’s a big “if,” it does at all it will only do so after significant harm has befallen some group(s) of consumers.

One conclusion that I have drawn from these considerations is that folks may say they want compromise and negotiation but they most assuredly don’t want halfway solutions. We all really want sound solutions, solutions that produce real, measurable results, to the problems we face. We often make the assumption that these are more likely from compromise. In truth, that can only happen if both sides begin with evidence-based positions/approaches and negotiate from there. There really isn’t a viable mid-point between a lie and a truth, between a myth and a fact.


Late Breaking News
As the Alert was being readied for distribution today (Thursday, June 9) the first Committee of Conference on the biennial budget met. While the policy decisions underscoring the budget have yet to be hammered out, arguably the most important decision was made this afternoon. House and Senate conferees agreed that they would spend $24 million less than the Senate used in revenue estimates.
You may recall that there was a difference of $75 million between the House’s utterly draconian budget and the Senate’s merely really painful budget that was itself $244 million less than the Governor’s proposed budget. It now appears that the difference between the two chambers will be $51 million and there will be more cuts coming.

The budget conferees have from now until Thursday, June 16 to come to agreement on where the revenues they have agreed to will be spent. There was considerable difference between the two chambers on priorities within the budget with the Senate clearly directing more funding to Health and Human Service programs for persons with mental illness and persons with developmental disabilities. The next schedule meeting of the CoC on the budget is Sunday, June 12 at 1 p.m. in Rm 210/211 of the LOB (Legislative Office Building) .


The Week in Brief
The deadline of June 23, the final day for any legislative action on all Committee of Conference reports, looms ahead for the legislature. Among the highest profile and important pieces of legislation going into the CoC process is the biennial budget. Negotiations on the budget began this week. There is no indication at present how much time may be needed to resolve the differences between the House and Senate over the budget.

Schedule of Committees of Conference a Mystery:
Tracking Committees of Conference may be far more difficult than is typically the case. Despite having there being a rule that CoC’s must be given a 24 hour notice in order to allow interested parties to attend these public discussions, there have already been CoC’s held at the same time that notice was provided about there being a committee meeting. So much for that transparency thing.

Granite State Progress, a “multi-issue progressive advocacy group,” located in Concord, NH issued the following bulletin on Thursday of this week:

An urgent alert to everyone that there are several committees of conference meeting today with NO PRIOR NOTICE.

If you are following a COC, do not rely on the online posting or the postings in the Clerk's office -- there was a committee that started at 1:00 pm today -- the exact same time it was posted. Please call friendly legislators and find out whether your conference is meeting. For those following the Budget, there is a 2:00 pm coc.

Granite State Progress has spoken to several lawyers in the last hour. We are seeking to file an injunction since law clearly states 24 hours notice is needed. It is unclear whether Democratic members of the committees were informed prior; it is abundantely clear that advocacy groups and consumers have had no prior notice.

IF ONE OF THE COMMITTEES YOU ARE FOLLOWING DID A LAST-MINUTE MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT US. We will be seeking specific examples in addition to the physical evidence we have - time-stamped print outs of the online postings and mid-morning pictures from the Clerk's Wall. Please copy both zandra@granitestateprogress and caitlin@granitestateprogress.org on the example. Thank you so much.

Although it cannot be trusted to list all CoC’s that have been scheduled there is a legislative website listing scheduled CoC’s (at least those they don’t mind your knowing about in advance). The schedule can be found at http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/committee_of_conference/cofc.asp

Vote on Right to Work More of a Mystery:
For the third week in a row NH House Speaker Bill O’Brien refused to call a vote on the infamous HB 474, Right to Work Act. Following the Governor’s veto of this bill that has been discussed on several occasions in the Alert, the House has included it in the House calendar as a possibility to be taken up. Each week has come and gone without the Speaker doing so and despite several calls from fellow legislators to put it to a vote. The Speaker has from now until December 31 of this year to hold that vote and many fear that he will pick a time when those supporting the veto are outnumbered by the two-thirds required to overturn the veto.

In the mean time rumors abound about relentless strong arm tactics used to encourage legislators to change their vote or to take a walk. This week, according to sources, House leadership stooped so low as to use the death of former Governor Walter Peterson. Following the demise of this universally admired statesman, a number of legislators claimed House leadership suggested they simply say they attended the Governor’s funeral and could not attend Wednesday’s House session. That did not happen, but it certainly showed the lengths leadership is willing to go meet their agenda. Shame or embarrassment seems to be an utterly emotional ability among these folks.


The Road’s End for Select Legislation??
Over the next three weeks the legislature will wrap up its work and legislation not retained, re-referred to committee or tabled will head to the Governor’s desk. Once a bill reaches his desk, Governor Lynch has the option of signing it, vetoing the bill or allowing it to become law without his signature. As we have seen with HB 474, the Right to Work Act, that process has already begun. Below are is an overview of the disposition of some of the bills that we have followed and reported on in the Alert. In cases of vetoes, of course, we may not know the epilogue until much later in the year.

Will New Hampshire Keep Its Own Minimum Wage?
Despite the fact that the minimum wage was originally championed by at least two well-regarded Republican governors and despite the fact New Hampshire has had its own minimum wage since 1949, both the House and Senate resoundingly passed a bill that repealed New Hampshire’s minimum wage. That legislation has now reached the Governor who swiftly vetoed it. Unfortunately for our workers and for the traditions of our state, HB 133 repealing the minimum wage passed both the House and Senate by veto-proof majorities (239-106 in the House; 19-5 in the Senate). There is little reason to believe that this bill won’t make its way into law.

Is RGGI In or Out?
In the tortuous manner that some legislation makes its way through the pipeline of the legislature, there is now a bill on the way to Governor’s desk that would repeal New Hampshire’s participation in the regional greenhouse gas initiative. It’s not the bill that started out to do this, but it accomplishes the goal nonetheless. You may recall the Alert tracking HB 519 that started out to repeal RGGI. The House passed that bill with a veto-proof majority. Once it reached the Senate, that body rewrote the whole bill retaining the program and changing the way that it functioned as well tied its fate to any state that decided to leave the program. The Senate’s action sent the House into a snit leading that chamber to replace the original of language of HB 519 onto SB 154 an important bill to the Senate containing changes to the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act.

I hope you’re still with me here because the trail of these two policy positions further winds its way along. The Senate clearly signaled its intent to retain the RGGI program, but it really wanted its changes to the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act. So, it did several things to accomplish its goals. First, it tucked the language of SB 154 on the CSP into HB 2 the narrative of the budget bill. As added insurance that it would get its changes to the CSP, the Senate went ahead and concurred with the House amended SB 154 even though that bill now contained the repeal of RGGI.

The Governor has indicated that he will veto SB 154 when it reaches him in the next few days. The fate of this legislation containing two major policy matters is unknown. The House passed the original repeal of RGGI with a veto-proof majority so presumably it has the votes to override a veto. The Senate, on the other hand, has sent a clear message that it wants to retain the program. The hope, then, is that the Senate will sustain the veto. Did you follow all that??

Expansion of Death Penalty:
New Hampshire is likely to soon have an expanded use of the death penalty. HB 147 was a priority bill for speaker O’Brien who has already dubbed it the Kimberly Cate Bill after the mother murdered in his home town of Temple. Under the House version of HB 147 the death penalty could be invoked for murder committed during a home invasion. The Senate amended the bill to extend the use of the death penalty to murder committed wherever a person was entitled to be.

The Governor signaled his intent to sign the bill in its original language as passed by the House. Despite changes made by the Senate it is still widely anticipated that it will receive his signature.


Turns Out Senate Has Its Own Drama
Talk to political observers over this legislative term and invariably the discussion would turn to whether the Senate was ideologically aligned with the House. Veteran Statehouse players consistently ruminated over whether the NH Senate would be “more disciplined” than its sister chamber. The use of the term “discipline” here refers to whether the most important goal for Senators was to be re-electable and re-elected over and above even their core ideology. Being ideologically pure is not always the best prescription for being re-elected as federal officeholders who signed onto killing the popular Medicare program are finding.

The jury is still out on this issue relative to the NH Senate. There are, however, some early indications that it may be difficult for those with extreme views to contain themselves and follow along with the goals of leadership in the Senate. Last week, for instance, a group referred to by Statehouse watchers as the Sanborn Caucus (named for Senator Andy Sanborn of District 7) created quite a stir for the larger Republican caucus.

According to several sources, shortly before the vote on the Senate’s budget was set to take place, the Sanborn Caucus informed Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley that they would not vote for the budget unless another billion dollars was lopped off. Word has it that it was immaterial to this crew where the billion dollars might come from, they just wanted that amount cut willy nilly from the bottom line. It is worth noting that several of these elected officials campaigned for office saying they would take a scalpel to the budget not an axe. Clipping 10% off the biennial state budget that is already trimmed by at least 5% which by itself fails to meet the needs of the state seems pretty much like an axe or a machete or a buzz saw. In addition to Sanborn, the purported members who meet regularly in this caucus include Sen. Jim Forsythe of District 4, Sen. Fenton Groen of District 6 and Sen. Raymond White of District 9 (for a list of communities comprising each district please click this link).

You might consider reaching out and asking these axe-wielders what else they want to cut in a budget that currently downshifts more than $100 million to local communities, leaves our elderly behind, lays off more than 400 public employees, hits our hospitals with an unexpected $115 million in new taxes and another $135 million loss of Medicaid funds to name a few impacts. Ask for specifics and if you can’t get specifics, question just how serious and thoughtful a representative he is for you and for New Hampshire.

Additional fissures of the Senate majority were evident on the vote to reduce the high school drop-out age. The bill that would allow students to drop out at age 16 rather than the current 18 years of age is strictly ideological and is thoroughly unpopular with the general public in New Hampshire. Even the most conservative newspapers in the state advocated against this regressive measure that flies in the face of New Hampshire’s recent achievement as second in the nation for low drop-out rates. Ignoring the outcry against this bill and voting against the recommendation of the Senate Education Committee to kill the bill was the Sanborn coalition of Sens. Sanborn, Forsythe, Groen and White as well as Sen. Sharon Carson of District 14 and Sen. Jim Luther of District 12. If they’re willing to lop a billion dollars off the budget it probably makes sense to them to encourage as many students as possible to exit early and reduce the burden of educating them – you suppose??

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Susan Bruce's Column for 6.10.11

Guinta, Bass, and the Ryan Plan 



Republican Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin came up with a budget plan that was applauded by his Teabaglican pals in the US House. NH Congressman Charlie Bass got behind it. Congressman Frank Guinta first complained that it didn’t cut enough – but then he got behind it, too. Senator Kelly Ayotte announced that if the Ryan plan came for a vote before the Senate, she’d support it. Then everything started to unravel, as more and more detail about the Ryan budget surfaced. 

Republican economist Mark Zandi found that the Ryan budget would eliminate 1.7 million jobs in the first two years. Economists across the political spectrum warned that the Ryan plan would set back the long-term growth and competitiveness of the US economy. The Ryan plan makes deep cuts to education, training, science and technology R&D, and transportation infrastructure investment. One can see how this would further the “American exceptionalism” that these folks love to get all weepy about. A country with crumbling infrastructure, falling behind in science and technology, while cutting over a million jobs could only be described as exceptional. 

Oh, but wait! There’s more. The Ryan plan also calls for turning Medicare into a voucher program. Those folks currently aged 55 or older would continue to get Medicare, as we know it. Everyone else would get a voucher from Medicare to buy private insurance from the many companies who are just dying to get in on insuring senior citizens. As insurance costs continue to rise, seniors would be paying the difference themselves, from their Social Security pension, which would also be privatized under the Ryan Plan. The vouchers would not increase to meet rising health costs. None of the doughty Republicans are using the term “rationing” or even “death panels,” though certainly both would apply. 

Charlie Bass supports this plan to eliminate Medicare. He’s awfully upset though, that his support for a voucher program is being called support for a voucher program.  A couple of groups paid for a TV ad that criticizes Bass’s support for the voucher program. In the ad, a former Bass supporter talks about what the changes in Medicare would mean to her family. The National Republican Congressional Committee tried to get the ad pulled off the airwaves, claiming it was a misrepresentation of the truth. The ad stayed. It’s the truth that Charlie Bass wishes to conceal. He’s not brave enough to stand up and tell the truth about what he’s supporting. His favorability ratings in NH CD-2 are at 29%. 

Frank Guinta also supports this plan. At his recent town hall meetings, he’s pointed out that this won’t apply to anyone over the age of 55, as if that makes him some sort of hero. There is no thought given to those who lost their savings when the economy tanked, no thought given to those older folks who lost their jobs, and still can’t find work, or are still underemployed. It would at least be honest if Frank and Charlie suggested rebuilding the poor houses we once had for the state’s future senior citizens. 

Meanwhile, the US House continues to run much the same way the NH House is running, on the premise that cutting spending and revenue will magically restore our economy. Even though those spending cuts are eliminating jobs, the magic GOP budgets will make everything okay. All we need to do is destroy Medicare and Social Security and that will fix everything. Just don’t ask them to stop borrowing money to fund tax cuts for billionaires, or to stop borrowing to fund the many wars we’re currently embroiled in. 

The Pentagon is the biggest entitlement program and none of the budget peacocks have any intention of doing anything about it. As I’ve pointed out before, the Pentagon can’t pass an audit, and can’t account for trillions of dollars. One would think that our deficit talkers would find that unconscionable. One would be wrong. There is no talk of making the Pentagon accountable. The only talk is of shoveling more money at them, and continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Every dollar we spend on war is a dollar we aren’t investing in the future of the nation. It’s a borrowed dollar at that – so it’s part of the debt we’ll be leaving our children. These Teabaglicans would further impoverish senior citizens, and rob them of health care to line the pockets of their friends in the insurance industry and Wall St. At the same time, they are desperate to keep on funding the tax cuts for the wealthy, since they themselves benefit from them of course, as do their donors. 

Charlie Bass voted for every bloated Bush defense budget. He voted for every bloated military appropriations bill. He also voted seven times to increase the debt ceiling. Now, suddenly, he wishes to be seen as Mr. Fiscal Responsibility?  The Republican facility for rewriting history is truly a wonder to behold. Or, as Sarah Palin might say, “Ring, Ring, Kaboom!” 

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Jackie Cilley's Legislative Action Alert, Week of May 30


Legislative Action Alert
Week of May 30, 2011
Jackie Cilley

Welcome to New Hampshire, Now Please Go Home!
Native New Hampshirites have a long history of welcoming, though not without reservations, strangers to our beloved state. We love the tourist and we reluctantly accept the transplant. Someplace deep inside, though, we don’t accept anyone not born of this soil as a citizen in full standing and truth be told, we’re more comfortable with second generationers.

We try not to be obvious about this, but there are telltale signs. For example, the majority (some put it at 80%) of natives marry natives. Given that 60% of New Hampshire’s population wasn’t born here, you’d think we might trip over a suitable non-native life mate just on the basis of sheer numbers. Nope! We know our own and that’s who we choose to bring forward the next generation.

Bruce and I are a case in point, a Northfield boy whose ancestors have been here since the late 1600’s and a Berlin girl of three generations. I count myself lucky that he didn’t view me as a carpetbagger.
For all our love of our roots we grudgingly appreciate and respect the diversity brought by new-comers to our state. We understand the value of an infusion of new ideas into our sometimes stubborn Granite State adherence to cultural habits and mythology. We recognize the vibrancy that new blood produces.

We think considerably less kindly of those who come to supplant our way of life. Talk to any long-standing NH farmer and he’ll likely tell you how some of his neighbors moved up heah to git into the country but they was too doggone dumb to know where thar’s cows, thar’s shi’it. It’s a familiar tale of interlopers who enjoy thenotion of a bucolic New England farm right up to manure spreading time.

This tension of who newbies think we are versus who we are sometimes flares up in town meetings or other public forums, but mostly it’s the grist of inter-familial complaining about those gol’ dang img onload="icp.pasteHandler.cleanPastedImage(this)"rints from Taxachusetts or New York or even from down Maine. It’s gone on for generations. We generally work out the differences, more or less.

There is, however, a more recent migration to our state the likes of which we’ve never witnessed before. It began under an unpopular one-term Governor who invited a new group of transplants with a disturbing plan, one that has had and will have profound effects upon our state and our culture. It’s the story of a coordinated effort by a group who have come to take us over and re-build us in their image. It is the aberration of the Free State Project and its adherents.

Free Staters, for those not familiar, are folks from within and without the country who believe government’ssole purpose is to “defend life, liberty and property.” For over a decade they ‘ve been scheming together by the hundreds over the internet to find a place to stage their experiment of dismantling government and establishing a society of each man for himself. They set criteria for selection of a state to re-settle – low in population with an open, easily penetrable form of government, with libertarian leanings and possible to take over with 20,000 Free Staters willing to be very politically active.

While three other states vied for homeland status, none grabbed the heartstrings of Free State Project (FSP) members as thoroughly as the Live Free or Die state, the motto itself a beckoning call. Throw in a gubernatorial welcoming party and New Hampshire’s targeting was a fait accompli.

The disturbing distinction between other transplants to NH and Free Staters are the latter’s commitment to taking over state and local governments and re-shaping New Hampshire’s future into their extremist ideological vision without regard to what the people of NH want. They count on low participation rate of voters and rely on hoodwinking those who do vote. (A comprehensive overview of the FSP, their goals and tactics as well as members currently serving in our legislature and those running for office is contained in this Alert.)

One thing is clear: Now’s not the time for debates about whether you can say you’re a native New Hampshirite if you’ve been here since 8 months old. We can quibble again after we’ve reclaimed our state. The task before those of us here since the 1600’s and those who adopted NH for its quality of life and heritage is to stand together against invaders seeking an extreme makeover of our state. It’s time to say “Hope you enjoyed your stay, now go home!”

The Week in Brief
With Thursday, June 2 being the last day to act on one another’s bills the House and Senate have concluded all hearings on legislation. Each chamber will be holding floor votes on the final pieces of legislation coming out of committee.

All eyes are likely to be on the House again this week to see what new back door maneuverings Speaker O’Brien will pull on HB 474 the Right to Work Act. After more than a week of serious pummeling of Republicans who had voted to sustain the Governor’s veto of the bill and despite having a record number in attendance for the session, the Speaker suddenly postponed the vote. It was evident to all that he did not have his desired votes to override the veto.

The vote on HB 474 is currently scheduled for this Wednesday, June 1. Once again folks on both sides of this debate will be watching to see if there is any finality this week. However, it is clear from the Speaker’s actions last week that he intends to bring this forward only when he knows he has the votes.

Sadly, this is now political gamesmanship at its worst. The Speaker needs two-thirds of the votes of those present when the vote is taken. Thus, at any time of the day or night until the end of the year that O’Brien wishes to convene a session to take up this vote he may do so. Some of our Representatives may want to think carefully about whether this is a year to take any kind of long-distant vacation!

On the Senate side of the building the highest profile bills will be HB 1 and HB 2, the budget bills. The Senate Finance Committee has sent their version (discussed below) of the budget to the floor with a 6-1 recommendation of OTP/A (ought to pass as amended). Although some monies were restored for developmental disabilities and mental health services, this budget is only slightly less draconian than the House version.

For the full details of House and Senate calendars, please visit the General Court website athttp://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/. You may also want to download the Journals from that same site for each chamber. In those you can read the remarks made by legislators during debates on legislation – always good nighttime reading entertainment! Additionally, the Journals contain the roll call votes of each legislator. You will be able to see how your legislator voted on any bill of importance to you.

Senate Budget Still Requires Pain Meds
Anyone hoping for moderation from the Senate’s version of the budget is likely sorely disappointed this week. The Senate Finance Committee wrapped up its work late last week and sent the product along to the Senate floor with a 6-1 vote for OTP/A (ought to pass with amendment). While the Senate reinstated $75 million of the cuts made by the House, their budget is still $244 million below Governor Lynch’s proposed budget – and most have forgotten by now that the Governor’s budget was perceived by many as falling short of the state’s needs. By contrast, that first pass looks positively generous!

No matter how generous that starting position may look now, there is no realistic hope of getting back to it. Assuming that the latest version passes the Senate on Wednesday of this week, it goes back to the House for one of three possibilities. The House may concur (accept all changes made by the Senate), nonconcur (refuse to accept the changes, allow the bill to die and start the process all over again) or nonconcur/request a committee of conference (this process has been detailed extensively in two prior issues of the Alert). The last of these is the most likely.

Assuming that there will be a committee of conference (CoC) on the biennial budget, the most that anyone hoping for a needs-based budget is for the conferees to move closer to the Governor’s proposed budget and there are few indications that this will happen. It is far more likely, given the ample evidence to date, that the ax-wielders will set the parameters at the $75 million difference between the two chambers. Wherever we end up within that margin there will be plenty of pain felt all the way around.

The following is a partial list of items contained in the amended version of the budget.
  • $6 million restored to developmental disabilities programs (less than half that required to address the needs of people with developmental disabilities) and the suspension of the full funding of the waitlist until at least 2013
  • $18 million restored to mental health services
  • The shell of the CHINS program left in place but so underfunded that scores of at-risk youth are likely to pose a danger to themselves, their families and their communities
  • $750,000 restored for NH Legal Assistance
  • Repeals catastrophic illness program
  • Suspends funding for catastrophic aid payments to hospitals through 2013. This amounts to a $250 million tax on hospitals (actual tax plus federal match).
  • Rolls participants of the Healthy Kids program into a Medicaid managed care program (as yet untested with costs unconfirmed) resulting in 800 children losing healthcare coverage
  • Repeals prevention programs for at risk juveniles and incentive grants for these programs
  • Eliminates funding for mediators and guardians ad litem in cases involving indigent parents (those who can afford it can still access justice, though!)
  • Authorizes monetary incentives for liquor store employees while suspending any liquor revenues to fund alcohol abuse prevention and treatment programs. (Kinda makes sense when you think about it. Incentivize employees to sell more bottles of hooch and keep the addicted buying! Just supply and demand.)
  • Strips the money from the privately funded NH Excellence in Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund. (Isn’t there anyone over at the Statehouse that remembers the story of the medical malpractice fund???)
  • 20% reduction of state funds to municipalities (loss of revenue sharing, freezing of meals and rooms revenues and reduction of environmental grants)
  • Elimination of state share of NH Retirement System payments resulting in higher contribution rates from municipalities. (Of course, this legislature is doing everything humanly possible to push that burden – including the debt racked up by both the state and municipalities underfunding of the system for more than 16 years – onto the backs of public employees.)
  • Suspends reimbursements to the foster grandparents program
  • Suspends funding of the Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders program
  • Ups the ante on the House and slashes an additional $4+ million from the University System bringing cuts to virtually 50% of the System’s original request. This should insure our last place position for state funding of higher education.
  • Forbids the University System from making any appropriation to NH Public Television and doesn’t fund it within the budget. Thus, they don’t have to say they are eliminating public television it just disappears from lack of sustenance.
  • Leases Canon Mountain with no input from the Department of Resources and Economics and did not hold hearings on this action.

In addition to the numerous specific program eliminations and cuts, HB 2 also mandates the Governor come up with $50 million in reductions of salary and benefits. The language of the bill specifies that if the Governor cannot negotiate $50 million in savings from current employees, he is to begin lay-offs of state employees. When taken as a part of a much larger picture, the implications of this directive are disturbing.

Over the past several years in order to address budget shortfalls unfilled state positions have been eliminated and layoffs have been done. The elimination and downsizing in other areas of the proposed 2012-2013 budget are already resulting in layoffs within the state and there will undoubtedly be many more. If the mandate to the Governor results in several hundred more lay-offs look for already painfully thin staffing levels of programs to be stretched to the breaking point.

There are at least a few very obvious take-aways from an overview of the proposed budget:

1. Anyone who tells you that this legislature has not raised taxes and fees has lied to you. Just a few of the rising costs in store for us include:
a. Hospitals will now pay a tax for which they receive no benefit and will see the costs of charity care increase. Hospitals will, in turn, be forced to pass those costs along to you and me and we will see our healthcare premiums increase as a result.
b. Property taxpayers will pick up the costs of the elimination of the state’s contribution to NH Retirement System costs, the reduction in revenue sharing and the freezing of the meals and rooms sharing.
c.  All public employees have just been hit with what will amount to a new tax on their salaries intended to pay back the state’s and municipalities’ debt.

2. Anyone who tells you this level of destruction was necessary has lied to you.
a.  Both chambers assumed an unrealistically low revenue number from which to start the process.
b.  Both chambers tucked in plenty of reductions in taxes and fees currently needed to address the needs of the state.  Such actions as rolling back cigarette taxes by 10 cents or shaving $3 off a marriage license will carry no large benefit for the recipients, but collectively will have millions of dollars of negative impact on an already difficult budget situation.
c.  The Senate chose to put $42 million into a “rainy day” fund rather than restore any one or more of the critical services that are being eliminated. Looks like it’s raining to me!

3. Anyone who tells you that this is a really business friendly legislature has lied to you.
a.  Although this legislature has put forward a number of proposals to reduce certain business taxes, they have ultimately succeeded in raising taxes on all small businesses in NH. For example, those who have the luxury of surviving a $ 10 million loss to their business revenues can now carry that forward for ten years, reducing their business profits tax. My bet is there aren’t many small businesses in that category. However, the majority of small businesses are subject to the property tax which accounts for more than half of the taxes they pay. As noted above, that tax is about to see significant increases even as services it pays for are likely to be trimmed back sharply.
b. One of the foremost reasons that businesses choose to locate in New Hampshire (until now, in any case) is the high level of education of our workforce. With the numerous bills to dismantle public education and with the savage cuts to the University System, this is unlikely to be an attraction for much longer.
c. Businesses prosper where there is a high standard of living and a robust middle class. The hundreds (if not thousands by some estimates) of newly unemployed is likely to have a bit of negative effect on that as will the panoply of anti-worker legislation.
d. While businesses may complain about being over-regulated they really only mean those regulations that they have to observe not the ones that everyone else has to observe. Businesses like to set up shop where they receive a measure of protection from unscrupulous vendors or suppliers. The range of anti-regulatory legislation considered in this session year and that which is likely to be introduced next year may make such an environment questionable for businesses.

Other Stuff on the Senate Floor in the Upcoming Week
Failure to Protect Property Owners:
A bill that received strong support from citizen activists, HB 648 intended to prevent the taking of private property for the sole purpose of profit-making curiously failed to receive any support for passage from the Senate Judiciary Committee. This bill would prohibit the taking of private property by a utility in cases where there is no prevailing public interest.

Eminent domain has always been a touchy issue in the Live Free or Die state. We’ve never much liked the government coming in and taking our property even when a case can be made for the “public good” aspects of a project. It is one of the reasons that in New Hampshire we generally have one of the most restrictive uses of public domain by which our property can be taken.

HB 648 is focused on barring the partnership of Northeast Utilities/Public Service of NH and HydroQuebec from using eminent domain to force the sale of properties in the path of a proposed power line running the full length of the state. This case is especially noteworthy given that it is a stretch to make the argument that there is a “public good” for the citizens of New Hampshire. New Hampshire already produces more electricity than it uses and exports the surplus to the grid that feeds the ten-state northeast region. The proposed power line will satisfy the needs of electric consumers in Connecticut and New York and produce windfall profits for the partners involved in the project, but no comparable long-term jobs or revenues for citizens of our state.

One complicating factor for this bill, and one that likely swayed the Senate Judiciary Committee, is prospective temporary jobs that would be created during this difficult economic time. However, the notion that one’s property, property that may have been in the family for generations, can be taken to produce transitory jobs should run counter to anyone’s concept of property rights. It will be interesting to see how the full Senate votes on HB 648 that garnered strong support in the House (by a rare bipartisan 317 – 51 margin).

Senate Slows Down Use of Supermajority on New Taxes/Fees:
Legislation that could lead to a law in NH that has caused plenty of problems for states having it on their books was slowed down, but not killed, by the Senate Internal Affairs Committee. CACR 6, a constitutional amendment that requires a 3/5 supermajority to pass legislation instituting or increasing a new tax or license fee, has been recommended Re-refer to Committee by a 5-0 margin. This could lead to the bill being studied further. Whether that is the case or not, the legislation must be brought back to the Senate floor for another vote in the second year of the session.

While some might view the establishment of such a high majority to pass new or increased taxes or fees as a good thing, the reality is that such laws lead to high levels of inflexibility to deal with the demands on government services and, as importantly, higher costs for government. As Jeff McLynch, Ex. Director of the NH Fiscal Policy Institute points out in his testimony to the Committee on CACR 6, “A comprehensive 1999 study conducted by James Poterba of MIT and Kim Rueben of the Urban Institute finds that states that have supermajority requirements in place face higher borrowing costs – in their words, as much as ‘an extra $1,750 in interest payments per million dollars of debt issued.’ Indeed, in just the past two years, Moody’s Financial Services has downgraded its bond ratings for both Arizona and Nevada, explicitly citing the presence of a supermajority requirement for tax increases in those states as one of the factors influencing its decisions.

McLynch went on to tell the committee that supermajority requirements have proven very difficult to retract even in the face of mistakes and have lead to the use of short-term accounting gimmicks rather than long-term, fiscally sound decision-making. One example that he gives of this phenomenon is Arizona’s sale of many of its assets including its Supreme Court and Statehouse buildings. The state made some money to fill budget gaps over the past couple of years and now faces the costs of leasing back these properties year in and year out.

Students to Stay ‘til 18
While it may be difficult to go on to further education after high school, at least students in New Hampshire will be required to stay in school until age 18. Senate Education recommended ITL (inexpedient to legislate/kill the bill) on HB 429 the bill that would have rolled back the high school drop-out age to 16 years old. Legislation increasing the drop-age to 18 passed in 2007 and the state has seen the steepest rise in graduation rates of anyplace in the country.

House Actions
Guns, First, Last and Always
The House appears intent on ending the year the way it began – by making the wearing and use of weapons as limitless and unmonitored as humanly possible. An overview of the legislation that has been introduced this year on the topic of guns suggest the ideology of this group isn’t simply one that supports those great “second amendment rights” which we all know and love. Rather, it seems a concerted attempt to remove any reasonable oversight about who might be running around armed to the teeth. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with that statement, hopefully you would agree that there is something positively absurd about providing immunity from civil suit for some hot head who decides today’s a good day to be a hero and ends up dispatching some fine upstanding citizens who were innocent bystanders. That’s right, in the unending march to provide super rights to Second Amendment zealots, the rights of the other 99% are being pretty well trampled.

SB 88 will allow a person to use deadly force to protect oneself or another wherever s/he may be. (I can’t swear to it but I think I’ve seen this language in about a dozen other bills but you can never enshrine this right too many times!) While the bill poses some restrictions on the use of deadly force, it leaves ample room for discretion for the person deciding to exercise it. It does not, however, allow for any discretion on the part of someone believed to be a perpetrator. I would recommend that you be careful with whom you get into heated arguments in public or near strangers. It just might be possible for an armed defender of truth, justice and the American way will be at hand to save the day and you just might be mistaken for an “aggressor.”

SB 88 amended by House Criminal Justice Committee also removes minimum mandatory sentencing requirement for felony convictions which include the possession, use, or attempted use of a firearm. Don’t you feel safer now?

Photo Id or Be Damned
Despite ample testimony questioning the constitutionality of SB 129, the opposition by one of the longest-standing Secretary of States in the country, our own Bill Gardner, the evidence that this bill will raise the costs of elections and pose unnecessary barriers to the elderly and students who may not have a photo id and most interestingly, the absolute lack of evidence that this has ever been a problem in our elections, the house once again passed SB 129 requiring a photo id to vote. This will most assuredly end up in court.

Defections Increasing
The following was penned by someone a bit media shy. As it lauds two stand-up State Reps who deserve it as well as captures this week’s theme it is included.

Today marks another milestone in Speaker O'Briens regime. Not satisfied with punishing Representative Marshall "Lee " Quandt for having an opinion and actually using it to craft legislation now Representative Mathew Quandt is punished for also having the fortitude to stand up for what he believes and stand against the power bully's.

 The actual punishment to Mathew Quandt came after Representative Shawn Jasper R from Hudson spent the last session constantly whining that Mathew Quandt was voting his conscience and for his constituents and not, as Jasper put it, as leadership wanted.

We can trace both Quandts ability to think for themselves to their service to their country. Marshall Quandt served a few tours during the Vietnam war and Mathew followed in his fathers footsteps. The Quandt family has a history of fighting and standing ready to fight for their country and the right of all to vote as we saw fit and not as we might be ordered. Representative Jasper doesn't appear to have served which may account for his inability to lead and his desire to please the power brokers. Jaspers inability to lead and his obvious contempt for those who can should be a warning to the voters in his district.

As for leadership, they have made another grave mistake. Matt Quandt was extremely effective and respected. He now joins the ranks of the likes of Susan Emerson, and his father a true American hero, Marshall Lee Quandt.

The caliber and experience of those being cast aside for having the ability to think and to lead gives us hope. The Tea Party took advantage of a disgruntled populace who just felt compelled to throw the baby out with the bath water for the second time. This time there will be choices. This time the voters won’t vote blindly, and they won’t be voting for those who blindly followed. Nor will they vote for those who sell their souls for a parking spot and a title.

The name Free State will have a new meaning in the next election. A Free Stater will be someone who wants to free our state of the lunacy.

Come to Free Us and Force Us to Like It
Reference to Free Staters or the Free State Project have been made in the Alert as well as other publications over the past several months. A number of readers have asked what this is all about, who these people are, what they want, and how many are currently in our legislature. The following is an overview that addresses such questions as well as sources of information for you to learn more.

And learn more you should. Ignoring this group will be done at the price of turning over New Hampshire to those who will re-shape it in surprising ways for the future. Whether you agree with their vision or not is immaterial to these folks and many of them say so. Their’s is not a democracy or a republic or even fair for that matter. Like every self-absorbed self-appointed visionary before them they know what is best and if you don’t share that view, well, you can leave (even if you’ve been here since the 1600’s).

Not once during the campaigns of last fall do I recall or have I heard anyone else recall that a candidate said that they were a Free Stater. Not once did I hear of any candidate advocate for the dismantlement of government, state that government is for the sole purpose of defense of life, liberty and property, acknowledge his/her belief in anarchy, share his/her view of public schools being unnecessary and that parents should homeschool their children or let us know that they had specifically come to our state to chart a course toward the implementation of these and more. They were not very transparent or forthcoming in their intentions when they got inside our government. As time has gone on, however, there are a number of interesting pieces of information about this group that has emerged. What follows are the highlights.

In the Beginning
The Free State Project (FSP) is the brainchild of Jason Sorens, currently assistant professor of political science at the University of New York-Buffalo. In 2001 Sorens wrote an article for the online magazineLibertarian Enterprise that became the manifesto of the FSP and launched the group’s search for the ideal state in the country to establish their new land.

Sorens wrote “What I propose is a Free State Project….the only requirement is that you pledge that you will work to reducing government to the minimal functions of protecting life, liberty and property, establish residence in a small state and take over the state government….Once we’ve taken over the state government we can slash state and local budgets…” “Announcement: The Free State Project,” The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 131, July 23, 2001.

Patron saint of the FSP, Sorens the wunderkind with purportedly innovative ideas for utopian societies appears to be something of a study in contrasts himself. For example, his own econometric models show New Hampshire to be one of the top three freest states in the country, while New York comes in dead last in these models. So where does the Pied Piper of the Lunatic Libertarian Fringe live? That’s right – in the state with the least freedom in the country.

One might reasonably ask why Dr. Sorens didn’t move to New Hampshire as he pledged to do as founder and one of the first thousand advance troops? According to his followers he had to take a job where he could find one and apparently the only place willing to offer one was in the most anti-liberty state in the country. A purist might argue that there were other alternatives and he should have been true to his own vision. But hypocrisy has never mattered to those who blindly follow. Just look at the excuses being made for one Mr. Camping’s predictions of the rapture on the day after it didn’t happen.

Sorens, like his liberty-loving followers who believe that you can either provide for yourself or do without, does not believe in public education. So where is he employed? He is an Assistant Professor at a university. Sorens also believes that we should not be paying taxes for anything other than protection of our life, liberty and property. I’m not sure how he justifies cashing his paycheck that is drawn from the taxpayers of New York for his public employee service at the University of New York’s Buffalo campus.
Sorens and his followers believe the magic of the invisible hand of the market is all that society needs to sort out what is right and good, reasonable and unreasonable, just and unjust in the world. Yet, ironically enough Mr. Sorens is in a tenure-track position at SUNY Buffalo. If he attains tenure he will essentially have a protected job for life. That doesn’t sound very “free market” to me. Maybe he’s working to change that and will turn it down when offered – you think??

Of all of his writings, though, and he is a prolific writer, my personal favs are those he wraps in econometric linguistics to justify chauvinistic attitudes. For instance, in one writing he uses supply-side/demand-side economic-speak to explain why today’s woman experiences difficulty in finding a mate. Dr. Soren’s premise here is that men can now find plenty of substitutable alternatives for their natural lascivious appetites (according to his line of thinking women are different in this regard, they like sex as far as it goes but really it’s just a means to an end toward babies and husband) because today’s women are giving it away for free rather than demanding something in return, i.e., matrimony. Moreover, Sorens argues that the price of marriage has skyrocketed what with a man having to not only go out and work but participate in childrearing, housecleaning chores, grocery shopping and cooking. (For his 1950’s style sexist tract see this piece)

The first thought that came to mind when I read this particular treatise was how smart my Grandma was! She wasn’t anywhere near as eloquent as Sorens but she captured the same basic philosophy when she cautioned “Dearie, ain’t no man gonna buy that thar cow when he kin git her milk for free.” The other thought that rambled through my head (I swear I tried to stop my mind before it went there) was what price poor Mr. Sorens paid given that he is married and has a child. I’m just saying!

More to the point here, however, is the way the mind of the FSP prophet works. His dim view of women and how they have “fallen” suggests something less than full equality in his Brave New Free World.

The Arrivals, What They Believe and How They Operate
Having established the criteria for selection and prioritizing those meeting the criteria, FSP members then proceeded to vote on final selection. Once New Hampshire was selected for re-settlement, calls went out for 20,000 people to make the commitment to move with the first wave of 1,000 agreeing to move by December 31, 2008 . According to the FSP website that number of commitments was reached by the self-imposed deadline of year’s end 2006.

Today the FSP claims to have 907 official members who made the move from someplace else to the Granite state and another 10,934 signed on to make the move within five years of signing. Additionally, there were already FSP members living in NH before the incursion began. Some of the folks who signed to come as the first 1,000 can be viewed here. Review that list carefully. You will find some names of those currently serving in the New Hampshire legislature as well as those who have run and/or are running for office.

The FSP appears on the surface to welcome folks of all stripes so long as they are deemed “liberty-lovers” and commit to the pledge to “…to work to bring about a society in which government’s maximum role is protecting life, liberty, and property…” It’s important to note that this pledge does not embrace such traditional or commonly accepted notions of government involvement in providing public education, protecting consumers from corporate abuse, the care of the elderly or the care of disabled to mention a few.

According to David Weigel in his blog on slate.com “The FSP took only 10 years…to get taken seriously. How’d they do it? The same way the Bolsheviks co-opted the Russian Revolution, or the Tea Party took over state parties – they organized and beat people who outnumbered them.” Others might argue that Free Staters have won elections by hoodwinking voters. Does anyone recall hearing candidates talk about dismantling public education? Were there folks talking about removing all licensure and regulations? At least two FSP members began using new names when they moved to our state. One wonders why that would be necessary if they believe that New Hampshire voters agree with their philosophy.

This desire by some for anonymity is underscored by recent statements by Rep. Andrew Manuse, r, Derry (who, to his credit, acknowledges his FSP membership), “He said there are a dozen Free Staters in the Legislature, though he would not name all as some prefer to remain anonymous, he said.” Free Staters Make Their Mark: Local Reps. Offer Sharp Criticisms, Joey Cresta, seacoastonline.com, April 17, 2011.
Free Staters work together to make members’ migration to the state smooth and affordable. They offer “Landing Zones” such as one referred to in Grafton, NH. They assist in finding property, locating jobs, financing business ventures, and making introductions to the gang already here. They offer scholarships to encourage parents to homeschool their children or to place them in private school. They actively support one another in both civil disobedience activities as well as in running for any type of pubic office.

The FSP encourages both civil disobedience and high involvement in the electoral process. The acts of civil disobedience described by some of their members is frequently nothing shy of juvenile and pointless as near as can be seen. For example, Kevin Roll in an interview about his involvement with the Free State Project (http://freestateproject.org//movers) describes his memorable civil disobedience act as throwing snowballs at the Federal Court House – toward what end he doesn’t say but I guess snowball throwing can be an enjoyable subversive activity while looking for a cause. Others have enjoyed speeding then refusing to show a license (which they may have burned – another civil disobedience activity) resulting in their getting arrested (the highest form of disobedience. It appears that at least some of these acts are intended to demonstrate against society having any rules or laws save those “for the protection of life, liberty and property.”

When they are not throwing snowballs or speeding through our streets Free Staters are dedicated to populating public office from the local to the state level. They count on their cohorts to finance campaigns allowing them to wallpaper the district they are running to represent, to knock on doors, write letters to the editor, work the polls and generally talk them up to neighbors and co-workers.

The FSP established a mechanism through the NH Liberty Alliance to vet candidates and give them their seal of approval. Candidates that make the grade are either card-carrying members of the FSP or sufficiently like-minded as to deserve honorary status. For the list of 2010 candidates of Free Staters and Free State Wannabe’s see http://www.nhliberty.org/2010/endorsements

Consequently, while the FSP claims to have 13 bonafide members serving in the current legislature there are an estimated 150 like-minded souls now giving New Hampshire residents the representation the FSP believes we deserve.

Here’s the conundrum for members of the FSP: If the citizens of the state you chose to take over aren’t in favor of your brand of freedom, what will you do then? Whose freedom are you defending if you try to wrench the way of life supported by the majority of citizens from them? And, most importantly, how do you justify “saving” we poor souls who fail to see how joyous our lives would be in your new Utopia by hiding who you really are and the full extent of your agenda??

Monica, a Free Stater interviewed on her decision stated “This is the next American Revolution, this is the proving ground…The people of NH have this innate freedom mentality, whether or not they really understand it….” Monica is a self-proclaimed anarchist who believes that they only government needed is that which the marketplace will provide.

That may just be what we are in for, folks, if we don’t get organized ourselves, involved in with the electoral process, learn who is asking for our vote and why, and field candidates who uphold the core traditions of our wonderful state.