Legislative Action Alert
Week of June 27, 2011
Jackie Cilley
jcilley@aol.com
“You Got to Know When to Hold ‘em, Know When to Fold ‘em”
The trip to the Bangor casino was out of compassion, at least that’s how I sold it to my very gambling-averse husband. My friend Norma, a decidedly down Maine gal complete with the accent and derisive tone reserved for out-of-staters, had been hospitalized and home-bound for the past couple of weeks. Her favorite pastime is slots so it was a natural way for me to cheer her up.
The hour long ride to and fro is always filled with chatter about the happenings of South China. I don’t know any of the people mentioned, but I’m beginning to feel as though I do. The conversation moves beyond news of the day and onto flora and fauna and a host of other topics.
For someone lacking a formal education, Norma’s one of the sharpest folks I know. There simply doesn’t seem to be anything for which she fails to know something about and have an opinion on. In the early days of our friendship I thought she delighted in pulling my leg about her “data” and information. I’ve checked up on her facts and she’s generally dead on. (Damned if it didn’t turn out that she was right on such an esoteric fact as mosquitoes are attracted to blue! Who knows that kind of stuff??)
On this particular trip, she talked of more pressing concerns -- her stay in the hospital, the treatment plan for the lung infection and out-of-pocket costs of the illness. They were substantial. Norma is on one of those very limited insurance plans due to age and previous illness. She manages by doing everything in her control to stay healthy and by going to the doctors only when absolutely necessary. That might have been what landed her in the hospital. The doctor said she had waited too long before seeing him and the result was full blown respiratory distress that was more dangerous and difficult to treat.
Thankfully, she was considerably better by the time we got together and she was definitely more cheerful to be on her way to pursue her hobby. I suspect she may enjoy gambling a bit because she’s actually lucky at it, something I am most assuredly not. She plays a bit, loses a bit, wins a bit. A day’s entertainment is often less than the price of the one egg and dry toast she sometimes splurges on for a breakfast out.
This occasion went considerably better than that for Norma. At the end of the afternoon she was several thousand dollars up and I was just envious. All the way back to the camp she ticked off the co-pays that were about to be dispatched. Of course, there was also a discussion about the taxes on the winnings which suddenly seemed steep to her. (Honestly, this is the part I never understand. A few thousand minus a few hundred still puts one up rather nicely. But that’s never quite the way it is viewed.) She asked me how I had handled this. I told her I’d never had the occasion to worry about it.
Later that evening I reflected on the trip and what singularly good timing her win had been. I also thought about the fact that at the beginning of the day we were both certain we would be winners. Only one of us was. And, the odds against even that were very high. Depending upon the type of slot machine either one of us played at any given time the odds could be as high as thousands to one that either of us would hit a jackpot. Nonetheless, and despite knowing that, we both entered the casino in the secure belief that we would each be winners. We humans can be odd creatures.
Speaking of which reminds me of the extreme libertarians who are now in control of our state. It seems to me that the world they are shaping for the rest of us will be a bit like waking up in a casino every day – without the entertaining bells and sirens of the slot machines.
The luck of the draw will either place us with parents competent at homeschooling or with sufficient resources to send us to a private school -- or not. If we hit the jackpot, we will have parents able to afford college for us or we’ll be sufficiently brilliant enough to attract full boat scholarships -- or not. The hand we’re dealt and our ability to negotiate a good deal with a prospective employer will either provide us with a livable wage and decent benefits to carry us into a ripe old age – or not. If Lady Luck smiles on us we’ll be safe in our place of employment and our schools, we won’t be hit by a speeding car, our property won’t be polluted by a bad corporate citizen, the air we breathe won’t harm us and the food we eat at our favorite restaurant won’t poison us. We’re going to need luck because many of the government regulations that seek to help in those ways are targeted for elimination.
We can’t eradicate misfortune. We can’t (or at least I hope we don’t want to try) engineer Mensa candidates. We can’t stop the devastation of an earthquake or a hurricane or a tornado. There are lots of things we can’t prevent and that lead to awful consequences to those who are impacted. But it does seem to me that an enlightened, compassionate society creates conditions for all of its citizens that offer better odds than the pull on a one-armed bandit. Some bills passed this year, coupled with those on the docket for the upcoming year, suggest we are being governed by folks who are just fine with casino odds.
Late Breaking News
The Alert typically stays pretty focused upon legislative antics and activities and sidesteps party politics. However, from time to time something happens that seems to have an obvious connection to what is happening in our Statehouse. An article printed in the NH Journal today was a case in point.
In an article entitled “State GOP in Disarray” author Shawn Millerick notes that the GOP party coffers are down to $1,300 from which to pay its bills and that the situation is “so dire that the party has asked the Strafford County GOP for a loan of $1,000 so it can host a fundraising even with presidential candidate Herman Cain…”
The sad state of GOP financial affairs is being laid right at the feet of the Tea Party-inspired and supported Chairman Jack Kimball. Millerick goes on to say “The New Hampshire Republican State Committee is in disarray and Chairman Jack Kimball is reeling under the strain of a job he thought would be a piece of cake, multiple sources tell NH Journal…” These same sources claim that “…Kimball is now visibly regretful that he ever took the job [sic] of State Party Chairman.”
So, what’s the connection between this and the current legislature? In the GOP-Free Stater sweep of last fall there were far too many who gained the power but failed to grasp the significance of actually governing. They have not listened to constituents who presented expert testimony on numerous bills nor have they spent time assessing the consequences of their actions. Like Kimball, they are “reeling from a job they thought would be a piece of cake…” The difference between the two? When they are done, New Hampshire is going to need a whole lot more than $1,000 loan to correct the damage!
The Week in Brief
Earlier in the legislative sessions there were attempts to defund Planned Parenthood through HB 228. Opponents cited the thousands of NH citizens who receive cancer screenings and reproductive healthcare. Retained by the committee, it was anticipated that the bill would come to the floor next January.
Consequently, it came as a shock last week when the Executive Council suddenly voted to defund Planned Parenthood by withholding a $1,861,116 contract, two-thirds of which are federal dollars, targeted to women’s healthcare by that provider. This puts 15,000 patients who currently receive routine reproductive health services, cancer and STD screenings at risk.
This is a purely ideological attack (also occurring in several states in this country). Supporters of defunding Planned Parenthood have repeatedly cited its abortion services. However, no public dollars are allowed to be expended on abortions. For all of the talk of greater individual freedoms, personal responsibility and patient choice, the extreme ideologues in our legislature and in the Executive Council have denied 15,000 of our New Hampshire citizens the ability to access affordable reproductive healthcare services.
With the Governor declining to veto the budget (either HB 1 or HB 2), Speaker O’Brien notified the troops their services would not be necessary this week. The House calendar for this week listed Thursday, June 30 as a potential session day. The day was reserved for the possibility of a gubernatorial veto of the budget. With that possibility out of the way, the House is “recessed at the call of the Chair.” While most observers anticipate that the next session day will occur in the fall, it is possible for one to be scheduled at any given time.
On June 27 the Governor vetoed yet one more bill, SB 129 the voter ID bill. Assuming the legislature will be called back into session in the fall, this bill along with HB 474 the Right to Work Act will likely be taken up at that time. Several other bills the Governor vetoed were overridden by the legislature before recessing, including the repeal of New Hampshire’s minimum wage, parental notification and the ability of communities to require certain sprinkler systems that best suit the needs of that communities residential and commercial areas. Two other vetoes that have not been dealt with include SB 3, the bill that made substantial changes to the NH Retirement System, and HB 218, legislation that weakened the Rail Authority.
Select List of New Laws
This one is more a new “non” law – After seven decades New Hampshire no longer has a minimum wage law.
Individuals can now use deadly force to protect themselves or a third person in any place s/he is legally entitled to be and has immunity for such use.
There is no longer a minimum mandatory sentencing requirement for felony convictions that include the possession, use or attempted use of a firearm.
By law, NH will not accept the funds to establish nor will it establish a health exchange under the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
New Hampshire is now one of only three states that has privatized weights and measures certification and enforcement (a program that ensures you receive the unit of something you pay for – i.e., a gallon of gasoline). The other states have a public/private partnership for this program. Under the new law, New Hampshire will have essentially privatized the entire function.
Sneak Preview:
The list of “legislative service requests” are posted to the General Court website and can be accessed at http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ols/nhlegislativelsrlisting.pdf. Legislative service requests are the precursor to actual bills. An LSR becomes a bill once it is given a number and assigned to a committee for its first hearing. In each edition of the Alert over the summer I will include some of the more entertaining pieces of legislation.
If Susan Emerson of Rindge (serving Cheshire, District 7) has her way bullying in the Statehouse will be unlawful. After experiencing firsthand the verbal battering of House leadership, Rep. Emerson felt it appropriate to file the first ever bill “prohibiting bullying in the Statehouse and Legislative Office Building.” I can’t wait for this one to make national news!
Robert Kingsbury of Laconia (serving Belknap, District 4) has been a truly busy beaver. You may recall in the last list of bill requests that he was the legislator sponsoring a bill to require the courts to provide a woman who is given a restraining order a gun, a box of ammunition and shooting instructions. One that just might resonate with many folks on the seacoast is a bill “establishing that the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is within the boundaries of New Hampshire.” This has been a contentious issue and one over which there has been longstanding controversy between Maine and New Hampshire. I believe that there was a final court case that settled the dispute, but maybe not. Perhaps our legislators declaring it is ours will simply make it so. This one should be worth watching. I wonder if we can get Maine’s Tea Party governor to come in and break bread with his New Hampshire counterparts? Now that would be worth the price of admission!
Free Stater Jennifer Coffey apparently wants our citizens to know if they inadvertently cross over into Massachusetts because she is sponsoring a bill “requiring the Department of Transportation to post signs on roads that cross the border into Massachusetts.” I just hope that Rep. Coffey of Andover (serving Merrimack, District 6) is going to find a way to include funding for these new signs. Given that our Department of Transportation is losing $90 million just on the loss of vehicle registration monies that will severely impact its ability to maintain our already distressed roads and bridges, it is difficult to see where it will have much excess to spend on signage saying “leaving NH.” Interesting that this is the only border she’s concerned with.
Now here’s one that could really benefit all of us – a bill requiring a course in business or financial literacy as a prerequisite for high school graduation! Just goes to show that every once in a while you can find a diamond in a coal mine. This bill is being supported by Rep. Shaun Doherty of Pelham (representing Hillsborough, District 27). There are MANY things that I could find to disagree with Rep. Doherty about – not the least of which is his support for nullifying any federal law he might not like – but I have certainly found my point of agreement with him on this one. If payday and title loan lending are coming back to our state it would be a particularly good idea for our citizens to have a higher level of financial literacy to determine if these products are a good deal for them.
A Distinction With a Difference
In light of the “thought of the week” that I wrote a few weeks back about NH natives and those who move to our state, the following letter to the editor really resonated with me. This would have made such a fitting ending for that piece as it describes clearly the distinction between….
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.
Showing posts with label Jackie Cilley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jackie Cilley. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Monday, June 20, 2011
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
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
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??
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??
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Jackie Cilley's Legislative Action Alert, Week of May 23, 2011
CONTENTS
Page
Thought for the Week: Middle Class & Main Street 1
The Week in Brief 3
Senate Reads the Tea Leaves
Senate Floor Action 5
State’s Capital Budget Plan 5
Performance Measurement Reviews on Hold 6
Parental Notification Amendment 6
Senate Hearings on Select Bills
Filming Officers on Duty But Not Legislators 6
Kangaroo Court in Our Statehouse 7
Governor’s Veto Message 8
Legislative Action Alert
Week of May 23, 2011
Jackie Cilley
Main Street and the Middle Class
Their Futures Intertwined
I recently asked a restaurateur a simple question: “If a fellow who received a $6 million windfall ate here how much would he spend?” Looking quizzically at me he theorized maybe he’d buy the most expensive meal, lobster and all the trimmings. “How many of those would he buy,” I asked. Clearly wondering where I was going with this, he replied that more than likely our hypothetical jackpot winner would purchase one such meal unless he was a truly big eater.
Taking it a step further, I asked what would happen if 60,000 people in the area had $1,000 more in their pockets each year. The light bulb was going on. We had been talking about tax and labor policies. He was beginning to see how policies he had supported might be harming his business and its future.
It has long puzzled me why so many small business owners support policies that demonstrably harm their long term future prospects. Two weeks ago I discussed the evidence that tax cuts have not led to job creation and, in fact, have contributed to our deficit. I pointed out jobs are created to fill demand and demand comes from desire and ability to purchase specific products. It isn’t that someone has more money in their pocket that creates jobs. It is the fact there is a productive place for money to make more money. That’s what capitalists do. Indeed, it’s their rightful role in a capitalistic society.
If demand for one’s product doesn’t exist here or elsewhere, the capitalist finds more productive places for his money – investments in pork bellies, Chinese clean energy technologies, whatever. What he doesn’t do is create jobs here in the US that serve no useful purpose and don’t give him a return on investment.
It follows that a robust middle class is necessary for a strong Main Street. Just like the restaurant owner, small businesses can’t rely on one wealthy customer. They need numerous average folks for a healthy customer base. Anything that endangers the middle class imperils small businesses as well.
Yet, we’ve accepted policies that imperil both for several decades now. Whether it’s the debunked trickle down economics shell gameor the notion that busting up unions will lead to greater prosperity (also a demonstrable myth), too many of us have supported policies that hurt our own selves, our families, our community, our small businesses and our overall economy.
Take the Right to Work [for less] legislation that may well pass this week. Every previous legislature, Republican or Democrat, has defeated this in the past. They knew RTW produced lower wages ($5,300 less), higher rates of worker injuries, higher work-related death rates (53% higher), lower levels of healthcare coverage (21% lower) and a lower standard of living. Suddenly, those now in power claim this is just the prescription for businesses wanting to come here with more jobs. Even if that were the case (and the evidence on this is not fully vetted), what kind of jobs would those be? More Walmart-style jobs?
Some might say “jobs is jobs.” Here’s what a Walmart economy looks like: 3 better paying local jobs killed for every two produced by a new Walmart store, 2.7% decline in retail employment “in every county they enter,” 10-40% decline in supermarket and other retailers sales when Walmart enters a market and loss of wages and benefits in the marketplace (southern CA estimates a $2.8 billion loss in wages and benefits from the new Walmart economy in that region). Walmart costs taxpayers money from the thousands of associates who make below poverty wages and qualify for Medicaid. Only $43 of money spent at Walmart circulates in the local economy while $68 spent at a local business stays local. And, oh by the way, among these and other sad statistics, Walmart acknowledged that they failed to pay $2.95 billion in taxes owed for 2009. Is that a bit like misplacing your car keys?? http://pubadvocate.nyc.gov/files/Walmart.pdf
Whether it’s Walmart’s or other low wage/low benefit companies seeking to locate in a state that offers up its workers for servitude the cycle will likely be the same. Wages fall forcing more shoppers to low cost alternatives that bring more low cost alternatives into the market driving out locally owned businesses and producing more low wage jobs forcing more shoppers to seek yet lower cost alternatives.
Until Main Street businesses understand their fate is tied to that of the workers in their marketplace, the $6 million man will eat his $30 meal of lobster and 60,000 potential customers with their potential $10 meal will slip silently away.
Contents
Page
Thought for the Week: Middle Class & Main Street 1
The Week in Brief 3
Senate Reads the Tea Leaves
Senate Floor Action 5
State’s Capital Budget Plan 5
Performance Measurement Reviews on Hold 6
Parental Notification Amendment 6
Senate Hearings on Select Bills
Filming Officers on Duty But Not Legislators 6
Kangaroo Court in Our Statehouse 7
Governor’s Veto Message 8
♦♦♦♦♦
The Week in Brief
The upcoming week will be the final week of hearings and Senate committees’ final actions on House bills with the exception of the biennial budget bill. The full Senate chamber will vote on committee recommendations on 23 bills, while two committees will hear the final three House bills on their docket.
As the Senate meets in session on Wednesday, May 25, the House will meet to take up 23 bills, 13 on the consent calendar (these are voted on as a block due to unanimous consent on the recommendation of the committee) and 10 on the regular calendar. No new hearings are scheduled.
The most noteworthy legislation to be taken up will undoubtedly include the attempted override of the Governor’s veto on HB 474, the Right to Work Act, (see the Governor’s veto message at the end of the Alert), the Senate’s shunning of a priority nullification bill pushed by Free Staters and extreme libertarians, parental notification, and a bill to bar utilities from applying eminent domain when no public benefit is evident. Then, there will also be the sad display of the redress of grievance committee, a must read on p. 7.
For the full details of House and Senate calendars, please visit the General Court website at http://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 Reads the Tea Leaves
Of particular interest over the past week is the impact upon the Senate of the Hillsborough District 4 special election. On Tuesday, May 17 a special election was held for the communities of Mount Vernon, Temple, New Boston, Wilton and Lyndeborough between Republican Peter Kucmas and Democrat Jennifer Daler. When the final votes were counted, Daler emerged as the newest State Representative with an impressive 58% to 42% win. Hillsborough District 4 includes Speaker Bill O’Brien’s home town of Mount Vernon who had noted that the results of the election would be “a referendum” on the agenda of the legislature. Daler won Mount Vernon by a margin of 278 to 188.
The lopsided win for the Democrats appears to have had an immediate and profound impact upon the Senate’s action on core House bills that House leadership put considerable muscle behind passing. As Sen. Gary Lambert told Kevin Landrigan of the Nashua Telegraph “We all need to ask ourselves what are the voters saying in that election in the speaker’s district.
Consequently, despite Senate committee recommendations for ought to pass on several Tea Party/Free Stater-sponsored prime bills, the Senate tabled each. These bills include HCR 6, requiring the Congress to reaffirm its adherence to the US Constitution regarding international agreements and treaties, HCR 11 urging Congress to withdraw from the United Nations, HCR 12 urging Congress to withdraw the US from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and HB 590 declaring federal grants unconstitutional and establishing a committee to review all such grants.
Assuming there is no intention to remove the bills from the table (an action that can be made if there are sufficient votes for passage until Thursday, June 2 the deadline for any action on House bills), the bills will be effectively killed. One may reasonably ask, if there is no intention to pass a bill why not kill it outright? Tabling preserves the ability to bring a bill up in the next legislative year. If a bill is voted ITL (inexpedient to legislate/kill the bill) House and Senate rules presumably prevent the same subject matter from being brought forth in the second year of the biennium.
In a similar snub to the House this week and purportedly driven by the same concerns, the Senate Committee on Internal Affairs has shelved one of the most important bills to the libertarian wing of the GOP supermajority. HCR 19, a bill that would allow the NH Legislature to nullify any federal law not to its liking, was passed overwhelmingly by 242 to 109 on a roll call vote of the House. This same legislation introduced in the previous legislature was the impetus for instituting the weapons ban in the Statehouse.
Two years ago when this legislation was put forward, angry supporters of the bill created a commotion in the House gallery when it appeared that the bill would go down in defeat. At the time of the outburst there were visiting fourth graders in the gallery as well and concern was expressed by several parents and teachers over the emotional agitation of visitors who were visibly well-armed. That incident lead to the joint facilities committee instituting a weapons ban in the Statehouse which was subsequently overturned as the first act of the new legislature.
The Senate Internal Affairs committee has recommended that HCR 19 be re-referred to committee by a 5-0 vote. Bills that are re-referred to committee are sometimes studied further, but as often are held for a more propitious time for passage or a time when it might be less noticeable that a piece of legislation is killed. This bill and others that have been re-referred to committees will need to come to the floor eventually. InNew Hampshire no bills can die in committee. Each needs to receive a full vote of at least one chamber. It will be interesting to see if the NullifyNow crowd shows up sporting plenty of fire power and screaming at the Senate members as they try to slide this bill back under the rug the way that they did when it came up under the previous administration.
Detailed below is a selection of noteworthy bills to be voted on by the full Senate as well as those being heard in committee. For a comprehensive list of floor action and committee hearings please go to http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/scaljourns/
Bills on the Senate Floor in the Upcoming Week
One bill that has received only secondary attention to the biennial budget bill is HB 25 containing the legislature’s priorities for capital expenditures. HB 25 is sent to the Senate floor with a 6-0 recommendation of OTP by the Capital Budget Committee. The committee is recommending $87 million of new borrowing and a $218 million overall spending plan for repairs, renovations and new construction. This figure includes bonding against future tax revenues, highway and federal funds.
Two bills that may have moved the state toward the ability to measure the effectiveness of programs have been re-referred to committee. HB 508 would have established a performance measurement system for state agencies. Such a process would begin with establishing goals for any state program and end with the ability to measure whether such goals were being met. Many businesses use such an approach in order to make timely and cost-effective adjustments in order to obtain desired outcomes. Similarly, HB 520 would require that every legislative bill with an attached fiscal note (this details the costs of a proposed bill) would also contain details of anticipated outcomes associated with the bill.
For the second time the NH Senate has passed a parental notification bill. HB 329 requires that parents be notified before an abortion is performed on a minor in cases other than an emergency. The bill does offer an alternative to parental notification through the courts and makes the lack of notification a misdemeanor crime. An amendment to HB 329 is being proposed that will allow a young woman to consult with her physician as opposed to a judge that will protect the patient and address concerns of those young women who cannot go to their parents. The amendment will allow for these decisions to be made precisely where they ought to be, between a doctor and his/her patient, and will protect the health and safety of that patient. Please contact your Senator and ask that s/he vote down HB 329 and vote for the amended language.
Senate Committee Hearings
Of the three bills to be heard in the upcoming week, the most controversial is likely to be HB 145 permitting the audio and video recording of a law enforcement officer while in the course of his or her official duties. Bills of this nature have been before the legislature before but have been defeated due to concerns over possibilities of videotaping innocent bystanders during law enforcement actions. This year’s bill passed the House by a roll call vote of 215 – 151, suggesting that the bill has only moderate support even in the originating chamber. HB 145 will be heard before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Rm. 101 of the LOB (Legislative Office Building) at 1:15 p.m.
Ironically, our protectors of transparency and freedom are working to ensure a bright spotlight on any officer pulling over an erratic driver, but are becoming increasingly edgy about being transparent themselves. Folks who have been filming hearing at the Statehouse have been quizzed about why they are taping the sessions. Dah? Might it be that there’s simply no other way to capture the full, animated absurdity of what is happening in our Statehouse than to capture it live??
♦♦♦♦♦
Kangaroo Court
Of all the absurdity that has been on display at what was once our stately and honored Capital perhaps the most disturbing can be seen in the retrogressive Redress of Grievances Committee. You may recall last week’s story about Chairman Ingrebretson’s recusal from hearings related to one David Johnson’s petition for redress related to his long-standing custody battle and the judge involved. As the story went, Chairman Ingrebretson sat through an entire morning’s worth of the hearing without divulging to the committee that he knew Mr. Johnson and that he had, indeed, been supervising child visitations between said Johnson and his child for a total of 200 hours over the past year. It was only after a complaint alleging a conflict of interest that the Chair saw fit to share this information with his committee members.
After ‘fessing up about knowing Johnson for a lengthy period of time, Ingrebretson told the committee that he had checked with the Speaker who did not feel there was a conflict of interest, then he put it to a vote of his committee to poll their feelings. Shockingly, only one member of the committee said she was disturbed by the revelation. Ingrebretson went on to continue chairing the proceedings and several days later after negative news coverage he finally made the decision to step down.
However, these details were far from the full story. What Ingrebretson failed to tell his committee is that he had already gone through staged redress proceedings with Mr. Johnson some two years ago in June 2009. Ingrebretson knew full well what Mr. Johnson would present, including the full range of public accusations about his ex-wife’s alleged behaviors because he had heard it all during play acting as a redress committee in 2009. Moreover, he was not alone in the mock proceedings. Joining him in role playing at political campaign offices across from the Statehouse were numerous members of current leadership, including Speaker O’Brien (recall he cleared Ingrebetson of any conflict of interest!), Chief of Staff Bob Mead, Rep. Carol McGuire, Rep. Warren Groen, Rep. Al Baldassaro and others. The full tapes of the hearings can be found below a discussion of “Subversive Government” on a Free State-related website at http://bikerbillnh.blogspot.com/2009/06/subversive-government.html
All of this would have been problematic enough for those who care about a democratic process, but truly egregious was the public testimony in an open room about the ex-wife of Mr. Johnson who was accused of all manner of things. Ingrebretson hadn’t seen fit to invite the former Mrs. Johnson or to allow her to hear the accusations or to respond to them. For these constitution-thumping defenders of liberty, one might question how much liberty they are protecting for this woman and her child. The Redress of Grievance Committee will meet at 10 a.m. in Rm. 205, LOB on Thursday, May 26. This one could use witnesses, folks!
Governor Lynch’s Veto Message on HB 474
Press Release
For Immediate Release May 11, 2011 | Contact: Communications Director Office of the Governor 603-271-2121 |
Governor Lynch's Veto Message Regarding HB 474
By the authority vested in me, pursuant to part II, Article 44 of the New Hampshire Constitution, on May 11, 2011, I vetoed HB 474.
States should not interfere with the rights of businesses and their employees to freely negotiate contracts. That is unless there is a compelling public interest, and there is no compelling public interest in passing this legislation.
There is no evidence that this legislation will offer any benefits to New Hampshire's economy or workers.
As I have said repeatedly, New Hampshire has an economic strategy that is working. New Hampshire has one of the strongest and fastest-growing economies in the nation. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates and one of the highest median incomes in the nation. We are considered one of the safest states and one of the healthiest states, and a high percentage of our citizens have private health insurance.
New Hampshire has a lower unemployment rate and a stronger economy than most states with so-called right-to-work laws. In states with a right-to-work law, workers on average have a lower standard of living, bringing home less in their paychecks and going without health insurance more frequently.
In my time as a CEO, in my years spent in the private sector turning around companies, and in my seven years as Governor, I have never seen the so-called right-to-work law serve as a valuable economic development tool.
In the last seven years of recruiting businesses to move to New Hampshire, not one business leader has ever even asked me if New Hampshire had a right-to-work law, let alone suggested it was a factor in the company's location decision. No New Hampshire business leaders have ever told me that the lack of a so-called right-to-work law prevented them from expanding or hiring new workers here in New Hampshire. And no New Hampshire workers have ever told me they couldn't get a job because New Hampshire doesn't have a so-called right-to-work law.
The debate over the so-called right-to-work bill in New Hampshire appears to be largely driven by national outside interest groups, and is not a result of problems facing New Hampshire businesses or workers.
There is no justification in this case for state government to interfere with the right of private businesses to freely negotiate and enter into contracts with their employees. Therefore, I am vetoing HB 474.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)