Let Freedom Ring:
Monday, January 19, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
"$8, $9, $10, maybe $12 million,"
Lawmaker wants Old Man replica installed
This seems like the best way to spend money since:
A freshman state representative has introduced legislation this session calling for a likeness of the Old Man of the Mountain to be returned to the cliff from which the granite visage tumbled nearly six years ago.
Kenneth Gidge, D-Nashua, envisions a replica of the Old Man constructed as a monument on the ledge above Profile Lake, made with materials that can withstand the harsh climate in Franconia Notch and large enough for visitors to walk inside, once they've climbed up a walking trail to reach it.
This seems like the best way to spend money since:
Watch more Family Guy videos on AOL Video
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Stimulus Bill Now Online
The proposed stimulus bill is now online.
The Committee Report is also available.
This legislation does not detail which specific projects would receive federal funding, or how much each state will receive.
It does contain an extra billion dollars for the 2010 Census, $200 million for the National Mall in Washington, D.C., and $150 million for the Smithsonian.
The Committee Report is also available.
This legislation does not detail which specific projects would receive federal funding, or how much each state will receive.
It does contain an extra billion dollars for the 2010 Census, $200 million for the National Mall in Washington, D.C., and $150 million for the Smithsonian.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Budgets can't be balanced with windfalls
By CHARLES M. ARLINGHAUS
Rather than helping New Hampshire, a federal bailout of the states has the potential to create a long-term deficit and undermine the financial stability of our state. Free money from the federal government can't be used to balance the budget in any real sense and could create long-term obligations we can't afford to fund ourselves.
Ever since the federal government began printing money a few months ago to help bail out everyone with significant political clout in Washington, governors across the country have looked to the federal Treasury with dollar signs in their eyes.
The feds began the excitement by creating a $700 billion bailout fund to buy troubled assets from financial institutions and also to loan money to automakers. In theory, the government receives assets that may have some future value, or it expects to be paid back when the auto industry recovers.
Nonetheless, governors see the federal government as a big pot of money to tap. States face a discipline unknown to the federal government: They are required to balance their budgets, or at least try to. Where Washington spendthrifts merely nod with amusement at suggestions of fiscal discipline and go off to tax and borrow, the states have to balance spending and revenue. In good times, this is relatively easy. As the economy turns sour, it becomes more difficult.
Enter the state plan to have the best of both worlds. We can balance our budget by merely getting free cash from the big spenders who don't have to balance their own budget. They don't have the money, but they're borrowing so much anyway we can tap them for a few hundred billion dollars.
Today, it is likely that the federal government will borrow money so state governments don't have to, send them a check and not ask for it to be repaid.
If it happens, we must be careful not to count that money toward balancing the budget. It will be a one-time infusion of cash that will have to be replaced later if used for recurring expenses.
State budgets include operating costs and capital costs. When news reports talk about the budget, the revenue shortfall, the looming deficit or state spending, they mean the state's operating budget -- general program expenses that we expect to have for more than just this year.
These programs are the rough equivalent of your household expenses, such as mortgage and utility payments. In your budget, you use wages to pay for them. You don't budget around windfalls, such as an unexpected lottery prize.
The state is no different. Operating expenses can't be balanced by borrowing or bailouts. Rather than fixing the problem, that merely hides the problem for someone else to fix.
The current budget is a good example. The two-year budget was not fully balanced in this sense when it was passed. General fund spending was $106 million more than the taxes the budget expected to raise. Part of the difference was covered by a large transfer from the education trust fund. But about $21 million would have come from surplus money, not revenues.
When the revenue estimates turned out to be high, more money was needed. Much of it has come from one-time revenue sources. The state has borrowed money for operating expenses, received one-time transfers from the Pease Development Authority, and is looking to collect one-time surpluses from other areas. In addition, it spent about $40 million of surplus money to balance the first of the two budget years.
All that borrowing and one-time money means the problems weren't fixed. They merely added to next year's growing problem. A federal bailout presents exactly the same danger. We have to be careful not to use any federal largesse to merely hide an operating budget deficit.
I hope the federal government pares the amount of money it will borrow on behalf of state governments. If it doesn't, we should work to ensure that such money gets spent only on capital costs that don't recur. In addition, we should try to spend it on priorities we have established anyway.
The state should not develop a list of projects that weren't a priority before. If we didn't want to borrow, tax or cut spending to fund something ourselves, borrowed money from the federal sinkhole shouldn't change our mind.
Whatever we do, we should move cautiously so federal help doesn't make things worse.
Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.
Rather than helping New Hampshire, a federal bailout of the states has the potential to create a long-term deficit and undermine the financial stability of our state. Free money from the federal government can't be used to balance the budget in any real sense and could create long-term obligations we can't afford to fund ourselves.
Ever since the federal government began printing money a few months ago to help bail out everyone with significant political clout in Washington, governors across the country have looked to the federal Treasury with dollar signs in their eyes.
The feds began the excitement by creating a $700 billion bailout fund to buy troubled assets from financial institutions and also to loan money to automakers. In theory, the government receives assets that may have some future value, or it expects to be paid back when the auto industry recovers.
Nonetheless, governors see the federal government as a big pot of money to tap. States face a discipline unknown to the federal government: They are required to balance their budgets, or at least try to. Where Washington spendthrifts merely nod with amusement at suggestions of fiscal discipline and go off to tax and borrow, the states have to balance spending and revenue. In good times, this is relatively easy. As the economy turns sour, it becomes more difficult.
Enter the state plan to have the best of both worlds. We can balance our budget by merely getting free cash from the big spenders who don't have to balance their own budget. They don't have the money, but they're borrowing so much anyway we can tap them for a few hundred billion dollars.
Today, it is likely that the federal government will borrow money so state governments don't have to, send them a check and not ask for it to be repaid.
If it happens, we must be careful not to count that money toward balancing the budget. It will be a one-time infusion of cash that will have to be replaced later if used for recurring expenses.
State budgets include operating costs and capital costs. When news reports talk about the budget, the revenue shortfall, the looming deficit or state spending, they mean the state's operating budget -- general program expenses that we expect to have for more than just this year.
These programs are the rough equivalent of your household expenses, such as mortgage and utility payments. In your budget, you use wages to pay for them. You don't budget around windfalls, such as an unexpected lottery prize.
The state is no different. Operating expenses can't be balanced by borrowing or bailouts. Rather than fixing the problem, that merely hides the problem for someone else to fix.
The current budget is a good example. The two-year budget was not fully balanced in this sense when it was passed. General fund spending was $106 million more than the taxes the budget expected to raise. Part of the difference was covered by a large transfer from the education trust fund. But about $21 million would have come from surplus money, not revenues.
When the revenue estimates turned out to be high, more money was needed. Much of it has come from one-time revenue sources. The state has borrowed money for operating expenses, received one-time transfers from the Pease Development Authority, and is looking to collect one-time surpluses from other areas. In addition, it spent about $40 million of surplus money to balance the first of the two budget years.
All that borrowing and one-time money means the problems weren't fixed. They merely added to next year's growing problem. A federal bailout presents exactly the same danger. We have to be careful not to use any federal largesse to merely hide an operating budget deficit.
I hope the federal government pares the amount of money it will borrow on behalf of state governments. If it doesn't, we should work to ensure that such money gets spent only on capital costs that don't recur. In addition, we should try to spend it on priorities we have established anyway.
The state should not develop a list of projects that weren't a priority before. If we didn't want to borrow, tax or cut spending to fund something ourselves, borrowed money from the federal sinkhole shouldn't change our mind.
Whatever we do, we should move cautiously so federal help doesn't make things worse.
Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.
Monday, January 12, 2009
State Oil Board Backs Gas Tax Increases
(CONCORD) The state Oil Fund Disbursement Board is pushing a pair of gas tax increases to boost flagging funds used to clean up petroleum storage tanks. At its first meeting of 2009, the Board discussed two bills being drafted by Representative Chris Christensen (R-Merrimack), who was re-elected Chairman. The panel oversees several state funds which assist gas station owners, as well as cities and towns, to clean up leaking gas storage tanks and monitor groundwater near contaminated sites.
Christensen's first bill would increase the state's import fee on fuel oil by 25%, from a penny per gallon to 1.25 cents, with the revenues going to the Fuel Oil Discharge Cleanup Fund (FOD). The Department of Environmental Services estimates the increase would generate $680,000 in revenues. The FOD has received $925,000 so far this fiscal year, but has paid out over $1.7 million, and currently has a balance of just $125,000.
The second proposal would increase the import fee on diesel fuel by 17%, from 1.5 cents per gallon to 1.75 cents. Those revenues would flow to the Oil Discharge and Disposal Cleanup Fund (ODD). DES projects this fund to spend up to $2.5 million more than it takes in in Fiscal 2009, drawing the ODD fund down to just over $1.3 million.
The Board also weighed in on a draft proposal being prepared by Representative Candace Bouchard (D-Concord), which would lapse the ODD Fund in 2012, three years earlier than current law. Bouchard would then transfer some of the remaining money towards highway and bridge repair. According to Christensen, Bouchard would like major gas station chains to pay for their own oil tank cleanup projects, and not receive state reimbursement.
The Board spent several minutes discussing the legislation's political prospects, such as its chances of coming out of the House Ways and Means Committee. Senator Harold Janeway (D-Webster) suggested using the projected cost of the bill to kill it, noting that the Fiscal Note prepared by DES could "do the job.". The Board voted unanimously to oppose the bill as proposed. Under Section 146-D, the Oil Fund Disbursement Board lacks any authority to provide legislative recommendations or lobby the Legislature. The Board will meet next on March 2.
Christensen's first bill would increase the state's import fee on fuel oil by 25%, from a penny per gallon to 1.25 cents, with the revenues going to the Fuel Oil Discharge Cleanup Fund (FOD). The Department of Environmental Services estimates the increase would generate $680,000 in revenues. The FOD has received $925,000 so far this fiscal year, but has paid out over $1.7 million, and currently has a balance of just $125,000.
The second proposal would increase the import fee on diesel fuel by 17%, from 1.5 cents per gallon to 1.75 cents. Those revenues would flow to the Oil Discharge and Disposal Cleanup Fund (ODD). DES projects this fund to spend up to $2.5 million more than it takes in in Fiscal 2009, drawing the ODD fund down to just over $1.3 million.
The Board also weighed in on a draft proposal being prepared by Representative Candace Bouchard (D-Concord), which would lapse the ODD Fund in 2012, three years earlier than current law. Bouchard would then transfer some of the remaining money towards highway and bridge repair. According to Christensen, Bouchard would like major gas station chains to pay for their own oil tank cleanup projects, and not receive state reimbursement.
The Board spent several minutes discussing the legislation's political prospects, such as its chances of coming out of the House Ways and Means Committee. Senator Harold Janeway (D-Webster) suggested using the projected cost of the bill to kill it, noting that the Fiscal Note prepared by DES could "do the job.". The Board voted unanimously to oppose the bill as proposed. Under Section 146-D, the Oil Fund Disbursement Board lacks any authority to provide legislative recommendations or lobby the Legislature. The Board will meet next on March 2.
Battle of the Think Tanks
The Union Leader editorializes about the House and Senate leadership's reliance on the left-leaning New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies, and wonders if budget writers will be as open to free-market advice from groups such as the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy:
Now, there is nothing wrong with hearing, and weighing, such options.
But have the Democrats in charge, or even the Republican minority, heard from or plan to invite the head of a right-leaning New Hampshire "think tank" to Concord to hear his views?
They should. But if they don't, they can read Charles M. Arlinghaus, president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, each Wednesday in the New Hampshire Union Leader.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Lynch's Third Inaugural Address
Lynch Calls for Spending Restraint, Green Jobs, and Federal Stimulus
By Grant Bosse
January 8, 2009
(CONCORD) In a speech filled with applause lines, but short of specifics, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch delivered his Third Inaugural Address in the New Hampshire House Chamber this afternoon. The Hopkinton Democrat warned the Legislature of a “budget challenge of unprecedented dimensions”, but did not set out his preferred solutions, either in terms of new revenues or spending cuts.
Republican lawmakers warned Lynch and Democratic budget writers two years ago that the revenue projections used to justify spending increases were unrealistic. But Lynch repeatedly pointed to the national economic climate as the reason for New Hampshire’s budget woes, rather than the 17.5% increase in state General Fund spending over the past two years.
“The national recession is having a dramatic impact on our state budget,” Lynch stated. “New Hampshire and states across the nation have seen significant shortfalls in revenue as this recession has deepened.”
Lynch called on Congress to quickly send aid to struggling states in the form of a stimulus package, drawing the first standing ovation of the afternoon from Democratic lawmakers.
“We need national solutions to this crisis. I urge the new Congress and President-elect Obama to act quickly to pass a stimulus package that will create jobs for our workers now,” Lynch said.
Senate Ways and Means Committee Chairman Lou D’Allesandro is also counting on Washington to help close New Hampshire’s budget gap.
“Clearly, the federal stimulus is an important ingredient in the package, and it’s incumbent on the Congress of the United States to work with the incoming President to get that done sooner rather than later.”
Former Republican Governor John Sununu will likely be the next Chairman of the Republican State Committee. He wanted Lynch to take more responsibility for the problems facing New Hampshire, rather than turning to Washington.
“I’m just surprised and disappointed that our principle strategy for dealing with the deficit is to wait for the federal bailout. I was hoping that we’d hear some specifics on reductions and so on, but there weren’t any,” Sununu said.
While not mentioning the size of the current budget gap, nor the structural deficit expected in next year’s budget, Lynch argued “this next budget cannot be balanced by tweaks and minor adjustments.” He promised to “examine every area of spending, look at every program, and say ‘no’ more often that we would like.”
Lynch also echoed his opposition to either a state sales or income tax, drawing his most enthusiastic response from Republican lawmakers. Senate Minority Leader Peter Bragdon led the only GOP-backed standing-O of the speech.
“We like the idea of no sales or income tax. We like the Governor’s idea of having to say no. We wish that we had said no to things in the last two years,” Bragdon said. “I’m disappointed though to hear that there’s no exclusion of other new taxes, and no exclusion of raiding the Rainy Day Fund to pay off the overspending of the last two years.”
While Lynch’s call for fiscal restraint meant with muted applause from the Democratically-controlled Legislature, it was his new spending initiatives that received the warmest response. Lynch unveiled a “Green Jobs Initiative” to be paid for from the proceeds of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The program would increase energy efficiency in state buildings, increases worker training programs, and create a low-interest revolving loan fund to assist New Hampshire businesses with energy efficiency or alternative energy projects.
“The Green Jobs Initiative will help create jobs for our people now, and make New Hampshire’s economy stronger for the future,” Lynch said to a chorus of applause. “Let’s help New Hampshire workers and businesses keep their competitive edge, and let’s keep good paying jobs right here in New Hampshire.”
Lynch did not say how much the Initiative would cost, though New Hampshire could receive $25 to $35 million a year based on the current cost of carbon dioxide allowances. Senate President Sylvia Larsen admitted that she hasn’t yet seen the details of the Green Jobs Initiative, but welcomes the approach.
“I think that was one of the highlights of his speech, and one which has potential both for people who might be out of work, but also for young people who are graduating who might see an opening for a career ahead of them,” Larsen commented.
House Minority Leader Sherman Packard also expressed interest in the program, providing that its cost doesn’t land on New Hampshire ratepayers.
“Anyway that we can get away from importing oil, and sending money overseas, to South America and Russia, is a great idea,” Packard argued. “But I’d have to see how he plans on paying for this, whether it’s on private people who would do this, or whether he plans on putting state money into this.”
The final third of Lynch’s address concentrated on education, congratulating New Hampshire for mandating public kindergarten in every community, and for defining an adequate education. Lynch also renewed his support for a Constitutional Amendment that would allow targeted aid to needy communities, but stopped short of lobbying the Legislature to put such an amendment on the ballot.
“I also recognize that there has not been a consensus in the Legislature on a Constitutional Amendment that would allow for that approach. I believe the discussion should continue, but we also need to meet our education responsibilities and build on the progress we have made,” Lynch added.
Lynch’s comments on education were just one area where Deputy Minority Whip Andrew Renzullo says the Governor has failed to govern.
“He was congratulating himself on the definition of an adequate education. Unfortunately, that’s a $100 million hole in the budget. What does he plan to do about it? Does he plan to come and say that we need a more reasonable definition of an adequate education?” Renzullo asked.
Republican leaders argued that Lynch’s address was another in a long line of speeches calling for bipartisan cooperation and problem solving, but lacking any clear direction. Packard says it’s time for the three-term Governor to step up.
“We still need to hear the details on how he’s going to solve the problem. This is the party in power. He’s the Governor. And we’re certainly willing to work with him, but it’s incumbent on him to bring forward his ideas on how we’re going to solve these problems,” Packard said.
Republican Representative David Hess didn’t think the speech lived up the moment.
“In these difficult times, unprecedented in the last 70 or 80 years, it’s disappointing that the Governor didn’t have any specifics about what the state can and should do to alleviate the economic conditions, to keep the unemployment rate as low as possible,” Hess argued. “These are extraordinary times, and they call for an extraordinary Inaugural Address.”
But Democratic leaders defended the speech, arguing that while it may not have contained specifics, it did set out Lynch’s priorities.
“The roadmap he presented was one which we will work to preserve the safety net for our most vulnerable citizens, and to recognize the importance of maintaining public safety,” Larsen said. “In a time when we’re cutting other programs, those are critical needs that we’re going to work to protect as we look to cut back in state government.”
Larsen said Lynch struck a balanced tone between the somber economic times, and the ability of New Hampshire to rebound.
“Through green job growth, as well as job retraining, we can hopefully grow a new economy that is perhaps not exactly the same as in the past, but one which is forward thinking and moves towards new forms of energy, alternative energy, and jobs that relate to energy savings,” Larsen said. “I thought it was an upbeat message considering the economy we’re facing.”
D’Allesandro said he could easily summarize the Governor’s message.
“What he said was ‘Listen, we’ve got a problem, but we’ve got a great country. We’ve got a great state. And if we work together, we can keep these things going and we can bring success to the down economic situation,’” D’Allesandro concluded.
January 8, 2009
(CONCORD) In a speech filled with applause lines, but short of specifics, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch delivered his Third Inaugural Address in the New Hampshire House Chamber this afternoon. The Hopkinton Democrat warned the Legislature of a “budget challenge of unprecedented dimensions”, but did not set out his preferred solutions, either in terms of new revenues or spending cuts.
Republican lawmakers warned Lynch and Democratic budget writers two years ago that the revenue projections used to justify spending increases were unrealistic. But Lynch repeatedly pointed to the national economic climate as the reason for New Hampshire’s budget woes, rather than the 17.5% increase in state General Fund spending over the past two years.
“The national recession is having a dramatic impact on our state budget,” Lynch stated. “New Hampshire and states across the nation have seen significant shortfalls in revenue as this recession has deepened.”
Lynch called on Congress to quickly send aid to struggling states in the form of a stimulus package, drawing the first standing ovation of the afternoon from Democratic lawmakers.
“We need national solutions to this crisis. I urge the new Congress and President-elect Obama to act quickly to pass a stimulus package that will create jobs for our workers now,” Lynch said.
Senate Ways and Means Committee Chairman Lou D’Allesandro is also counting on Washington to help close New Hampshire’s budget gap.
“Clearly, the federal stimulus is an important ingredient in the package, and it’s incumbent on the Congress of the United States to work with the incoming President to get that done sooner rather than later.”
Former Republican Governor John Sununu will likely be the next Chairman of the Republican State Committee. He wanted Lynch to take more responsibility for the problems facing New Hampshire, rather than turning to Washington.
“I’m just surprised and disappointed that our principle strategy for dealing with the deficit is to wait for the federal bailout. I was hoping that we’d hear some specifics on reductions and so on, but there weren’t any,” Sununu said.
While not mentioning the size of the current budget gap, nor the structural deficit expected in next year’s budget, Lynch argued “this next budget cannot be balanced by tweaks and minor adjustments.” He promised to “examine every area of spending, look at every program, and say ‘no’ more often that we would like.”
Lynch also echoed his opposition to either a state sales or income tax, drawing his most enthusiastic response from Republican lawmakers. Senate Minority Leader Peter Bragdon led the only GOP-backed standing-O of the speech.
“We like the idea of no sales or income tax. We like the Governor’s idea of having to say no. We wish that we had said no to things in the last two years,” Bragdon said. “I’m disappointed though to hear that there’s no exclusion of other new taxes, and no exclusion of raiding the Rainy Day Fund to pay off the overspending of the last two years.”
While Lynch’s call for fiscal restraint meant with muted applause from the Democratically-controlled Legislature, it was his new spending initiatives that received the warmest response. Lynch unveiled a “Green Jobs Initiative” to be paid for from the proceeds of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The program would increase energy efficiency in state buildings, increases worker training programs, and create a low-interest revolving loan fund to assist New Hampshire businesses with energy efficiency or alternative energy projects.
“The Green Jobs Initiative will help create jobs for our people now, and make New Hampshire’s economy stronger for the future,” Lynch said to a chorus of applause. “Let’s help New Hampshire workers and businesses keep their competitive edge, and let’s keep good paying jobs right here in New Hampshire.”
Lynch did not say how much the Initiative would cost, though New Hampshire could receive $25 to $35 million a year based on the current cost of carbon dioxide allowances. Senate President Sylvia Larsen admitted that she hasn’t yet seen the details of the Green Jobs Initiative, but welcomes the approach.
“I think that was one of the highlights of his speech, and one which has potential both for people who might be out of work, but also for young people who are graduating who might see an opening for a career ahead of them,” Larsen commented.
House Minority Leader Sherman Packard also expressed interest in the program, providing that its cost doesn’t land on New Hampshire ratepayers.
“Anyway that we can get away from importing oil, and sending money overseas, to South America and Russia, is a great idea,” Packard argued. “But I’d have to see how he plans on paying for this, whether it’s on private people who would do this, or whether he plans on putting state money into this.”
The final third of Lynch’s address concentrated on education, congratulating New Hampshire for mandating public kindergarten in every community, and for defining an adequate education. Lynch also renewed his support for a Constitutional Amendment that would allow targeted aid to needy communities, but stopped short of lobbying the Legislature to put such an amendment on the ballot.
“I also recognize that there has not been a consensus in the Legislature on a Constitutional Amendment that would allow for that approach. I believe the discussion should continue, but we also need to meet our education responsibilities and build on the progress we have made,” Lynch added.
Lynch’s comments on education were just one area where Deputy Minority Whip Andrew Renzullo says the Governor has failed to govern.
“He was congratulating himself on the definition of an adequate education. Unfortunately, that’s a $100 million hole in the budget. What does he plan to do about it? Does he plan to come and say that we need a more reasonable definition of an adequate education?” Renzullo asked.
Republican leaders argued that Lynch’s address was another in a long line of speeches calling for bipartisan cooperation and problem solving, but lacking any clear direction. Packard says it’s time for the three-term Governor to step up.
“We still need to hear the details on how he’s going to solve the problem. This is the party in power. He’s the Governor. And we’re certainly willing to work with him, but it’s incumbent on him to bring forward his ideas on how we’re going to solve these problems,” Packard said.
Republican Representative David Hess didn’t think the speech lived up the moment.
“In these difficult times, unprecedented in the last 70 or 80 years, it’s disappointing that the Governor didn’t have any specifics about what the state can and should do to alleviate the economic conditions, to keep the unemployment rate as low as possible,” Hess argued. “These are extraordinary times, and they call for an extraordinary Inaugural Address.”
But Democratic leaders defended the speech, arguing that while it may not have contained specifics, it did set out Lynch’s priorities.
“The roadmap he presented was one which we will work to preserve the safety net for our most vulnerable citizens, and to recognize the importance of maintaining public safety,” Larsen said. “In a time when we’re cutting other programs, those are critical needs that we’re going to work to protect as we look to cut back in state government.”
Larsen said Lynch struck a balanced tone between the somber economic times, and the ability of New Hampshire to rebound.
“Through green job growth, as well as job retraining, we can hopefully grow a new economy that is perhaps not exactly the same as in the past, but one which is forward thinking and moves towards new forms of energy, alternative energy, and jobs that relate to energy savings,” Larsen said. “I thought it was an upbeat message considering the economy we’re facing.”
D’Allesandro said he could easily summarize the Governor’s message.
“What he said was ‘Listen, we’ve got a problem, but we’ve got a great country. We’ve got a great state. And if we work together, we can keep these things going and we can bring success to the down economic situation,’” D’Allesandro concluded.
Lynch Inaugurated
Governor John Lynch has taken the Oath of Office from Chief Justice John Broderick, and begun his third term as Governor of New Hampshire.
$500 million problem
Steve Norton, our counterpart at the left-leaning New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies, briefed House and Senate budget writers yesterday on the enormity of the pending deficit facing New Hampshire:
Governor John Lynch delivers his Inaugural Address later this morning. We'll see if it contains specific requests for spending cuts or tax and fee increases.
Norton estimated the state could face a $500 million revenue shortfall over the life of the next two-year budget that begins July 1.
Norton said the federal government helped states in 2001 by temporarily increasing the federal share of the Medicaid program. He said a similar boost is under discussion and could mean as much as $75 million a year in additional federal aid.
Governor John Lynch delivers his Inaugural Address later this morning. We'll see if it contains specific requests for spending cuts or tax and fee increases.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Legislating in the snow
The New Hampshire House and Senate have convened in Joint Session in order to canvass the vote for Governor and Executive Council. Without this important, and Constitutionally required step, neither John Lynch nor the Council could start their terms.
The Council meets this afternoon for a boilerplate session that will authorize the daily functions of state government.
John Lynch takes the oath of office and delivers is inaugural address tomorrow.
The Council meets this afternoon for a boilerplate session that will authorize the daily functions of state government.
John Lynch takes the oath of office and delivers is inaugural address tomorrow.
A way to fix state education funding
By CHARLES M. ARLINGHAUS
Because of the state budget crisis, most of the efforts made on education funding over the last two years will have to be changed. The Legislature has the ability and the opportunity to craft a new plan with the potential to end the constant battle with the courts.
Every month brings news that the state's general tax revenues are not just a little behind the budgeted estimates of a few years ago but are in decline, getting worse, and contributing to a budget hole that will require hundreds of millions of dollars of spending reductions.
The education funding plan that passed last year would require state grants in the next two years of about $100 million more than we will spend in the current two-year budget. But government doesn't have an additional $100 million. On the contrary, we must cut that $100 million and more.
It is not reasonable to believe that we will cut almost every department, division and program of state government but add $100 million to one of the four major state education aid programs (even as we cut or eliminate the other three).
If the amount is to decline, and it almost surely must, then the plan must be revised in total. The necessary revision is an opportunity.
The Legislature can and should draft an education funding plan that starts with the constitution and what legislators think it allows and does not allow. It is the duty of the Legislature to do just that. If lawmakers think a sensible plan that directs aid where it's needed is permissible, they should pass such a plan with an explanation of why they believe it fully complies with their duty to "cherish all seminaries and public schools."
Many who supported some sort of a constitutional amendment did so believing they were changing not the actual constitution but merely rebutting the parts of court decisions they believed were either in error or too inflexible in their interpretation of six words. Many who don't support an amendment believe that flexibility exists within the confines of the court decision.
Without a doubt, some degree of compromise will be necessary. A good starting place for compromise is in the governor's original funding proposal from 2005.
Shortly after his election, Gov. John Lynch proposed a targeted aid plan he believed was constitutional, which eliminated the statewide property tax and sent more aid to towns universally regarded as needy and sent less aid to towns generally regarded as having less need.
The details of which criteria ought to be used and some of the nuances of construction will have to be gone through, but in its broad outlines that plan could command wide support. At the time, it had the support of most of the Democratic leadership and a good portion of the Republican leadership.
Those of us of a more conservative cast were happy to eliminate the statewide property tax. Currently, it merely renames an existing local resource and leaves the money with the local community. But a budget crisis could see the state take over a share and start using it to fund its own shortfalls.
Those of us who asked the governor to include a constitutional amendment with his plan made clear that we thought the Constitution didn't prohibit what he wanted to do, but we were afraid the Supreme Court would say it did. We thought attaching an amendment to the plan was one of the best chances of passing an amendment.
With just five months before a plan must be in place, now is the time for bold action on the part of the governor. The piece of state aid for education that we call "adequacy" will have to be reduced. The best way to make sure that the funds we have are targeted most effectively is to go back to a plan that explicitly targets.
The plan should be sensible and constitutional. It should include a preamble or introduction that explains in detail why the supporters believe it is constitutional. The idea is to attack neither the constitution nor the court. Instead, the governor can explain how he started at a different point than the status quo and how he and the legislators who pass the bill believe it is good policy and constitutional at the same time.
Faced with such a sensible and reasonable effort, the five men and women sitting on the Supreme Court would certainly give due consideration to the argument. More important, instead of trying to figure out what the court wants, the Legislature will have done what it thinks is right.
Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.
Because of the state budget crisis, most of the efforts made on education funding over the last two years will have to be changed. The Legislature has the ability and the opportunity to craft a new plan with the potential to end the constant battle with the courts.
Every month brings news that the state's general tax revenues are not just a little behind the budgeted estimates of a few years ago but are in decline, getting worse, and contributing to a budget hole that will require hundreds of millions of dollars of spending reductions.
The education funding plan that passed last year would require state grants in the next two years of about $100 million more than we will spend in the current two-year budget. But government doesn't have an additional $100 million. On the contrary, we must cut that $100 million and more.
It is not reasonable to believe that we will cut almost every department, division and program of state government but add $100 million to one of the four major state education aid programs (even as we cut or eliminate the other three).
If the amount is to decline, and it almost surely must, then the plan must be revised in total. The necessary revision is an opportunity.
The Legislature can and should draft an education funding plan that starts with the constitution and what legislators think it allows and does not allow. It is the duty of the Legislature to do just that. If lawmakers think a sensible plan that directs aid where it's needed is permissible, they should pass such a plan with an explanation of why they believe it fully complies with their duty to "cherish all seminaries and public schools."
Many who supported some sort of a constitutional amendment did so believing they were changing not the actual constitution but merely rebutting the parts of court decisions they believed were either in error or too inflexible in their interpretation of six words. Many who don't support an amendment believe that flexibility exists within the confines of the court decision.
Without a doubt, some degree of compromise will be necessary. A good starting place for compromise is in the governor's original funding proposal from 2005.
Shortly after his election, Gov. John Lynch proposed a targeted aid plan he believed was constitutional, which eliminated the statewide property tax and sent more aid to towns universally regarded as needy and sent less aid to towns generally regarded as having less need.
The details of which criteria ought to be used and some of the nuances of construction will have to be gone through, but in its broad outlines that plan could command wide support. At the time, it had the support of most of the Democratic leadership and a good portion of the Republican leadership.
Those of us of a more conservative cast were happy to eliminate the statewide property tax. Currently, it merely renames an existing local resource and leaves the money with the local community. But a budget crisis could see the state take over a share and start using it to fund its own shortfalls.
Those of us who asked the governor to include a constitutional amendment with his plan made clear that we thought the Constitution didn't prohibit what he wanted to do, but we were afraid the Supreme Court would say it did. We thought attaching an amendment to the plan was one of the best chances of passing an amendment.
With just five months before a plan must be in place, now is the time for bold action on the part of the governor. The piece of state aid for education that we call "adequacy" will have to be reduced. The best way to make sure that the funds we have are targeted most effectively is to go back to a plan that explicitly targets.
The plan should be sensible and constitutional. It should include a preamble or introduction that explains in detail why the supporters believe it is constitutional. The idea is to attack neither the constitution nor the court. Instead, the governor can explain how he started at a different point than the status quo and how he and the legislators who pass the bill believe it is good policy and constitutional at the same time.
Faced with such a sensible and reasonable effort, the five men and women sitting on the Supreme Court would certainly give due consideration to the argument. More important, instead of trying to figure out what the court wants, the Legislature will have done what it thinks is right.
Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.
The first Wednesday following the first Tuesday in January
Part Second, Article III of the New Hampshire Constitution requires the House and Senate to meet today:
The New Hampshire Constitution does not include the words "weather permitting", meaning that 400 Representatives and 24 Senators will battle the ice and snow to begin the 2009 Session.
Both the House and Senate have light agendas today, as each chamber will adopt its own rules, and come back tomorrow for a joint session to inaugurate the Governor. If Mother Nature prevents a quorum, the House and Senate will need to meet tomorrow morning before John Lynch can officially begin his third term.
The senate and house shall assemble biennially on the first Wednesday of December for organizational purposes in even numbered years, and shall assemble annually on the first Wednesday following the first Tuesday in January...
The New Hampshire Constitution does not include the words "weather permitting", meaning that 400 Representatives and 24 Senators will battle the ice and snow to begin the 2009 Session.
Both the House and Senate have light agendas today, as each chamber will adopt its own rules, and come back tomorrow for a joint session to inaugurate the Governor. If Mother Nature prevents a quorum, the House and Senate will need to meet tomorrow morning before John Lynch can officially begin his third term.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
State Revenues Down
The Department of Administrative Services has issued its monthly report on state revenues, and it's not pretty. For much of the past year, policy makers have been blaming the national economy for the growing budget deficit, when in fact revenues were up over the year before. Now, revenues are actually declining from a year ago, and not coming close to the large annual increases written into the budget by the Legislature.
The General and Education Funds are $21.4 million short of projections, while the Highway Fund has taken in $900,000 less than planned.
Tom Fahey details the year to year comparisons in the Union Leader.
The General and Education Funds are $21.4 million short of projections, while the Highway Fund has taken in $900,000 less than planned.
Tom Fahey details the year to year comparisons in the Union Leader.
A report yesterday from the Department of Administrative Services showed that business taxes were off by $78 million from July through December. Last month alone saw them come in $20 million below expectations.
The business profits and business enterprise taxes produced $220 million through six months, $54 million less than they brought in a year earlier.
Tax collections of $855 million so far this fiscal year are $59 million, or 6.5 percent, below what the state took in last year.
Monday, January 5, 2009
New Ideas, but No New Money
Dan Touhy writes in the Union Leader that state legislators are drafting 1,000 new bills for introduction this year.
Senator Lou D'Allesandro warns lawmakers not to expect new money to flow to their new ideas:
Under New Hampshire system, each bill will receive a public hearing, and at least the opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the House or Senate floor. Unlike Washington, bills can not be killed in Committee, or simply thrown in a drawer if Leadership finds it inconvenient. Such openness is commendable, but it does lead to the Legislature spending its time in interesting ways:
Senator Lou D'Allesandro warns lawmakers not to expect new money to flow to their new ideas:
"As usual, people put in lots of legislation, but I don't think there will be any spending legislation," said Sen. Lou D'Allesandro, D-Manchester, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. "We're facing an economy that's down nationwide and very much in peril as we speak."
Under New Hampshire system, each bill will receive a public hearing, and at least the opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the House or Senate floor. Unlike Washington, bills can not be killed in Committee, or simply thrown in a drawer if Leadership finds it inconvenient. Such openness is commendable, but it does lead to the Legislature spending its time in interesting ways:
They deal with just about everything: Providing property tax relief, protecting the lead role of the New Hampshire Presidential Primary, banning text messaging while driving, raising the state gas tax, and suspending a driver's license for the theft of gasoline.
A month after Michael K. Addison was sentenced to death for killing Manchester police officer Michael Briggs in 2006, lawmakers are pitching several ideas to reform, expand or abolish the state's death penalty law.
But scores of the proposed laws are of a decidedly lighter fare.
Make the Chinook the state dog?
Create a specific penalty for taking stones from one's stone wall?
Text of the legislative requests are forthcoming this month, but their subject titles may prompt some shrugs. A few culled from the list propose:
--Imposing a safari fee on big game hunting preserves.
--Urging the U.S. to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement.
--Examine the treatment of pregnant inmates.
--Require developers to create space for people to dry laundry without electricity.
A dozen or so call for naming buildings, roads or bridges in honor of someone.
One bill proposes renaming the Christa McAuliffe planetarium the McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center, after NASA astronaut and New Hampshire native Alan B. Shepard. Another would rename a bridge to honor Navy SEAL Daniel Healy, an Exeter man who died in 2005 while on a combat mission in Afghanistan.
Retirement System Reform back on the table?
Tom Fahey reports that efforts to reform the New Hampshire Retirement System are back on the table, following legislative changes in each of the last two years.
The New Hampshire Retirement System faces two fundamental challenges. It has habitually promised far more generous benefits that it could reasonably provide, and the returns on its investments have been worse than the market average for the past decade. The current economic slump certainly doesn't help, but can in no way be blamed for the shakiness of state pensions.
Unions say it's time to stop tinkering with the system, which last summer was $2.7 billion under-funded for its long-term obligations, and let reforms take hold.
"If we keep operating on this patient without allowing time to heal, sooner or later he'll die on the table and I don't think that's something anybody wants," David Lang, president of the Professional Firefighters of New Hampshire, said.
Maura Carroll, legal counsel for the New Hampshire Municipal Association, argued that it makes sense to keep moving. Three years ago, critics said not enough was being done, she noted.
"This doesn't mean you make wholesale changes every year, but that you learn something every year, and if you can make some tweaks to improve the system, you ought to act," she said.
The New Hampshire Retirement System faces two fundamental challenges. It has habitually promised far more generous benefits that it could reasonably provide, and the returns on its investments have been worse than the market average for the past decade. The current economic slump certainly doesn't help, but can in no way be blamed for the shakiness of state pensions.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Stephen Pushed NH Reforms in RI
Tom Fahey leads his Under the State House Dome column with word that former NH Health and Human Services Commissioner John Stephen is working to implement some of the changes he championed in New Hampshire down in Rhode Island:
Stephen, now a management consultant on health care and government affairs, worked to convince federal regulators to approve a Medicaid waiver that, among other things, would allow Rhode Island to shift long-term care emphasis from nursing homes to community and home-based care.
He brought a similar plan to New Hampshire with great fanfare in 2004 while Gov. Craig Benson, who appointed Stephen, was still in office. Stephen predicted New Hampshire would save $380 million over five years, most of it through cuts in nursing home use.
GraniteCare moved through several phases before passing pieces of it in 2005, when Stephen butted heads with Gov. John Lynch over its details.
Friday, January 2, 2009
New Year- New Laws
January 1st is often used as the day on which new laws go into effect. Norma Love of the Associated Press runs down some of the new laws that become official yesterday in New Hampshire, including a cap on payday loans:
The rest of the list is quite eclectic:
Payday lenders typically charge $20 per $100 for two-week loans backed by the borrower's car title or next paycheck. That amounts to 1.43 percent interest per day, an annual rate of 521 percent.
The cap translates to a daily interest rate of about 0.1 percent, or total interest charges of $1.38 – a dime a day – on a $100, two-week loan.
The rest of the list is quite eclectic:
• State transportation officials must minimize hazards to bicycles from rumble strips, drain grates and road surface treatments by establishing placement standards that keep cyclists in mind. The law also allows cyclists to pass stopped vehicles on the right without penalty.
• Insurers and pharmacy benefits managers must require pharmacies they contract with to charge enrollees the pharmacy’s usual and customary price for a prescription or the insurance copayment, whichever is less.
• Urinating or defecating in a public place (other than a restroom) is now a violation if the person knew or should have known the act would cause affront or alarm.
• People with seizure disorders diagnosed by a physician may use service dogs in public facilities and places the public is invited.
• Judges can no longer keep traffic convictions from appearing on the records of commercial drivers by placing the convictions on file, deferring judgment or allowing drivers to enter diversion programs that eliminate a conviction. Parking tickets are exempt.
• Administering drugs to wildlife without state permission is now a misdemeanor. The law covers drugs for fertility control, disease prevention or treatment, immobilization and growth stimulation administered to any mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian under the jurisdiction of the Fish and Game Department. The law does not apply to drugs used in normal animal husbandry practices.
• People alleging they were victims of sexual assault as minors have more time to file civil lawsuits. Lawsuits can now be filed until age 30 – a five year increase from the old law – or later if filed within three years of when injury from the assault was discovered or should have been discovered.
• Courts now have specific power to prohibit people convicted of conducting illegal animal fights from having custody or control over the species in the future.
Irony Watch- State to require students to study personal finance
State Representative Don Petterson (D-Brentwood) wants to require every school in New Hampshire to add financial literacy to its curriculum. Lauren Dorgan reports on the new legislation in the Concord Monitor:
New Hampshire already requires economics classes in order for students to graduate. Peeterson's bill would specify what should be taught during those classes.
Setting aside the micromanagement of microeconomics, it's ironic that a Legislature that couldn't balance its own budget now wants to teach high school students how to balance a checkbook.
Rep. Don Petterson has a New Year's resolution for high-schoolers across the state: They will learn to manage their finances.
The Brentwood state representative has filed a bill that would require high-school economics classes to include lessons on personal financial literacy, everything from how to balance a checkbook, follow a budget, understand credit cards and buy homes.
New Hampshire already requires economics classes in order for students to graduate. Peeterson's bill would specify what should be taught during those classes.
Setting aside the micromanagement of microeconomics, it's ironic that a Legislature that couldn't balance its own budget now wants to teach high school students how to balance a checkbook.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
All the best in 2009
A happy, free, and prosperous New Year from NH Watchdog and the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)