Ray Buckley thinks you’re stupid

I’ve watched with great sadness as Ray Buckley (Chairman of the NH Democratic Party) has worked overtime to create hate and insult NH voters. He recently said this about NH voters who voted for Republicans:

“…what you’ve got now here in New Hampshire and, frankly, across the country, are the real low-information voters who don’t want to deal with facts. They want to cheer on anyone who says the most outrageous thing, whether it’s rational or not.”

Pot, meet kettle. Mr. Buckley does not understand that there are those who actually take his words seriously. When he sent a despicable and inaccurate mailer to voters in my district in the last election implying that I didn’t care about domestic violence (not true to according to the thank you card I have from Turning Points, and my voting record), people believed him. Based on this and other sensational lies, he succeeded in fostering hate and fear right here where we live. The result was that my wife, while working at a poll in one of my towns, was accosted by voters and threatened. We will unfortunately have to provide security next time. I can’t tell you how sad that makes me. Mr. Buckley’s outrageous fear-mongering has to stop.

I know good Democrats across the state, and right here in Sullivan County. We disagree, but we don’t hate each other. We even work together quite a bit, for you, as we should. They deserve better than this… unless they support Mr. Buckley when he is next up for re-election.

Since no Democrat locally seems to have done the right thing and apologize to you for calling you stupid, I will. Republican or Democrat, no elected party official should demean the voters. We are supposed to be working to gain your support, and NOT belittling you when we fail.

Rep. Steven Smith
Sullivan County District 11
603-826-5996

This article may help explain the key difference in the two positions on the current budget. If the Executive Branch overspent their budgets…. they shouldn’t be allowed to use process to cover that up. It is apparently not illegal for them to spend more than your Representatives authorize. It should be, otherwise, what is the point?

Steve

Budget squabble won’t end before October
By CHARLES ARLINGHAUS

THE ONGOING state budget fight is about yesterday, not tomorrow. Big squabbles in government are never about what the news release claims. This one won’t and can’t be resolved quickly.

The news conference phase of the budget that we are currently undergoing amounts to positioning before negotiations, which can’t begin until official documents are released at the beginning of the fall.

Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan vetoed the Republican Legislature’s budget last month. The public fights between those two parties have been over tax cuts, tax hikes, state employee raises and expanding the Medicaid program. The real fight, however, is all about last year.

The governor has charged the legislative budget with being unbalanced because she contends it would move $31 million of money budgeted for last year forward to this year. In her words, the Legislature is double counting that money. The Legislature’s counter charge is that nothing is double counted unless the governor and her departments overspent the budgeted authority and are trying to obscure that alarming fact.

The charges are confusing and sound both technical and obscure, leading the casual observer to dismiss them as largely irrelevant minutiae. In fact, this dispute is the most important part of the squabble and critical to future budgets.

In the budget process, the most important public document released is called the surplus statement. The surplus statement is an explanation of every major change a proposal — the Legislature’s or the governor’s — makes. It is a summary of the bottom line of the budget that shows spending levels, tax estimates and how the budget is balanced (as required by state law).

Under the law, the budget proposal does not stand as an island. It must take into account the prior year that is ending as the new budget begins.

The prior year’s spending must fall within the budget limits established by the prior budget and any adjustments to that spending authority made by other laws or executive order. In addition, the executive branch must meet its estimated managerial savings, referred to as “lapses.”

This year, up until the moment of veto, there was remarkable agreement over the outcome of fiscal year 2015. A look at the surplus statement in the budget documents on the Legislative Budget Assistant’s website shows that the Legislature and the governor estimated 2015 spending at precisely the same $1.34 billion and both count on precisely the same $51.9 million lapse adjustment. Nonetheless, in the current budget squabble, the governor claims the Legislature has underestimated spending by $31 million. Her public statements have accused the Legislature of double counting revenue and not paying for all the 2015 spending. Yet the Legislature pays for the same spending and counts the same lapsed spending.

The only possible way the legislatively passed budget doesn’t pay for the 2015 bills is if the bills are coming in high — if the executive branch is spending more than it said it spent. The Legislature has not pressured the governor to spend less in 2015. Instead, it appropriated the same amount and made the same assumptions the governor said she was making.

This is why the budget can’t be fixed anytime soon. In late September or early October, the state will issue official documents detailing how much was actually spent, whether some departments exceeded their authority (overspent their budget) and whether the $51.9 million everyone agreed was going to lapse actually lapsed.

There is no legal penalty if the executive branch spent more than it was supposed to. In fact, there will likely be an argument about what the numbers actually mean. If a department spends too much but characterizes it as “not meeting its lapses,” it amounts to the same thing as overspending its authority, but it falls within a sort of wiggle room under the law.

Nonetheless, yesterday matters. If spending will exceed $1.34 billion or if lapses won’t be $51.9 million, the managers of state government should not allow the fake number to be the basis of a budget. In about two months, the truth will come out. If spending is not as advertised, any compromise budget must include transparent methods to keep a jaundiced eye on unreliable stewards of spending.

Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.

The following statement was released this morning by Speaker of the House Shawn N. Jasper in response to Governor Hassan’s veto of the state budget.

“Governor Hassan’s veto of the state budget certainly comes as no surprise since she threatened  to do so long before we had finished the budget process.  What is particularly disappointing is that she has chosen to put her own political agenda ahead of the people of New Hampshire who are in most need of our help,  as well as the future economy of our state.  She has chosen to veto a budget which reduces business taxes over the next five years, affecting companies that provide 95% of the private sector jobs in the state. She has chosen to veto a budget  that provides much needed funding in our fight against substance abuse, increases funding for local schools and higher education, invests in our state’s continued efforts to improve our infrastructure, ensures public safety, and appropriates more money for health and human services than we have ever budgeted before.  In short, this governor has chosen to turn her back on the real people of New Hampshire.   I am concerned that her decision today will create a hardship for the men and women of our state who are most in need of our services.”

House and Senate budget writers have worked diligently to produce a thoughtful and responsible budget that meets the needs of the people of New Hampshire.

This budget includes carefully considered appropriations that will allow our state to take care of those most in need while enabling a stronger economy while promoting job growth through reducing the tax burden on our business community and making New Hampshire more competitive.

This budget maintains important House priorities including increased funding to our state’s charter schools, and minimizing impacts on local property taxpayers. Most importantly, it contains no new taxes or fees.

This budget provides much needed funding in our fight against substance abuse, increases funding for local schools and higher education, invests in our state’s continued efforts to improve our infrastructure, ensure adequate public safety, and appropriates more money for health and human services than any previous budget in our state’s history.

The House and Senate made an important decision not to include an extension of Medicaid Expansion in any version of the budget. Review of data, costs, and the federal government’s commitment to its share of funding will be considered in the next legislative session, separately from the budget.

New Hampshire’s taxpayers deserve an honest, transparent, and fiscally responsible budget that promotes efficiency and accountability, and is built on realistic revenue estimates. We are confident this budget leads us in that direction.

Fiscal Responsibility:

The Committee of Conference produced a budget that relies on sound revenue estimates ensuring we only spend money we can reasonably rely on receiving. The budget will also more than double the size of the state’s rainy day fund, which will help our state’s fiscal security and bond rating.

Very importantly, this budget does not contain any new taxes or fees. It relies on revenue from existing sources and the increased revenue we expect as a result of an improving economy. It also protects local property taxpayers from downshifting or costs or unfunded mandates.

Reducing Business Taxes to Help Spur Economic Growth:

This budget contains a plan to lower the state’s business profits tax by 11.4% over the next 3 years. New Hampshire has come of this highest corporate tax rates in the nation. In order to compete for jobs, we must be more business friendly. Lowering our BPT rate by 11.4%will help us be more competitive in attracting new business and help our current businesses stay in New Hampshire to grow and create more jobs.

Health and Human Services:

This budget provides much needed increase in funding for substance abuse treatment, services for the developmentally disabled, mental health and elder care services, including meals on wheels and Servicelink. In fact, this budget spends more on health and human services than any prior state budget. Funds were made available for emergency shelters and an additional $1 million was appropriated to fund 10 additional beds at the New Hampshire hospital.

Education:

This budget fully funds our Community College system, allowing them to keep tuition affordable. It also increases funding to the University System by 5.8% for a total of $162 million. Communities affected by a cap in education adequacy funding will experience a boost in funding for their local schools, with the cap being removed in FY 2018. Education stabilization grants will continue at 96% of current levels, ensuring no school district will see a dramatic reduction in funding.

This budget also increases charter school funding by $1000 per student, ensuring these institutions continue to provide an innovative alternative for parents looking for education solutions that fit the unique needs of their children.

Public Safety and Infrastructure:

This budget funds priorities in the Department of Safety and Department of transportation that will ensure our efforts to improve roads and bridges continue, and our citizens can feel safe that our State Police had the resources they need to keep crime low. This budget ensures municipal block grants from road toll revenue continue, and DMV substations remain open for business. Very importantly this budget abides by state law that states that gas tax revenue be used for our roads and bridges and not diverted to other areas of government.

Travel and Tourism:

This budget provides $4.2 million per year in funding for travel and tourism promotion, ensuring one of our state’s biggest industries continues to be an economic benefit. An additional $5 million in revenue from the meals and rooms tax, which is highly dependent on our tourism industry, will be distributed to cities and towns, which is good for local property taxpayers.

Efficiency and Accountability:

This budget takes steps to make government more efficient by merging offices, sharing resources and asking agencies to find ways to do more with the same amount of resources.

This budget also takes steps to demand more accountability from government agencies. For example, this budget allows for more oversight of the liquor commission by requiring legislative review of transfers over $75k in their budget. It also adds legislative appointees to the university system board to increase oversight of their expenditures and operations to answer the best decisions are being made to improve the quality of education they provide.

HB 1-A, making appropriations for the expenses of certain departments of the state for fiscal years ending June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2017.

This bill is the state’s budget for the next two fiscal years. The committee of conference believes it achieves two important objectives: it meets the state’s responsibilities to provide important public services at responsible levels to its citizens, and it provides encouragement for businesses to start and grow here and offer the state’s citizens an increasing number of good jobs.

The budget is balanced using house-estimated revenues from current revenue
sources: there are no new or increased taxes or fees in this budget. It appropriates $11.352 billion in total funds for the next biennium, up 5% from the $10.797 billion appropriated in the current biennium. Included in that total are $2.843 billion in general (tax-generated) funds, up 7% from the $2.657 billion appropriated in the current biennium.

No dedicated funds were “raided” in the process. For the first time in nine years, the so-called “rainy day” fund is increased, more than doubling from its current $9.3 million level to over $24 million. This should reassure investors, help sustain the state’s relatively high bond rating and keep its interest costs low.

Some highlights of the budget:

• Education stabilization grants will be provided in FY 17 at 96% of their current level, up from 90% in the House-passed budget. The limit, or “cap,” on adequacy aid to growing school districts has been increased from its current 108% to 160% and the number of towns subject to it will decrease from 44 to 10. The cap is removed entirely in FY 18. Starting in FY 17, charter schools will receive an additional $1,000 per pupil in state adequacy aid adjusted annually for inflation.
• The community college system is fully funded and should be able to freeze its tuition for the next biennium; the university system is level funded at $81 million per year.
• Health and human services received higher funding in this budget than in any prior one – $4.449 billion, up 8% from the $4.106 billion in the current budget. Funding has been restored for elderly services, including meals on wheels, services for veterans, the developmentally disabled (including family support and early intervention), and the mentally ill, the latter at levels that meet the requirements of a legal settlement.
• The 40,000 people served by the expanded Medicaid program will continue to receive their 100%-federally-funded health coverage through December 31, 2016, as provided for in current law. No provisions were made in the budget for the program to continue beyond that termination date.
• Provisions were made for the Sununu Youth Services Center to reduce its excessively high per-child operating costs.
• Funding for substance abuse prevention and treatment has been increased by 49.5%, from $28.3 million in the current biennium to $42.3 million in the next, to help deal with the steady increase in the number of individuals affected. The increased funding will support a new substance abuse benefit that has been added to the traditional Medicaid program.
• A 5% rate increase was granted to providers of long-term care in the community, including personal care aides, home health aides, home nursing services and homemaker services.
• Transportation department services are funded at $1.172 billion, up 8% from the $1.089 billion in the current budget, more than sufficient to maintain and improve state roads and bridges and provide their winter maintenance without personnel reductions. Low-interest rate funding from the federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act helped make this possible. Of the $9 million made available for new equipment, $5 million of long lived items, such as graders and boom cranes, will be bonded.
• The department of safety saw a 9% increase in its budget, largely through the substitution of general for highway funds. The department’s budget is now in compliance with the statutory limit on the percentage of gas tax revenue that can be used to support it.
• The fish and game fund received a $1.2 million infusion from the general fund.
• Municipalities will receive the larger highway block grants anticipated from the recent 4.2c increase in the gas tax as well as state aid grants. They will also receive larger amounts from a $5 million increase in their rooms and meals tax distribution in FY 17 for a total of $132.6 million over the biennium.
• Grants for clean water and landfill closure projects are preserved.
• The cap on county-paid long-term care services was raised by the usual percentage each year, while the 25% reduction in bed-tax payments to county and private nursing homes in the house budget was eliminated.
• Municipalities entitled to flood control payments will receive them from the state should they otherwise remain unpaid or partially paid.
• An additional superior court judge was authorized for the judicial branch.
• Travel and tourism promotion is level-funded for the next biennium.
• Solid support is provided for the Innovation Research Center, the Small Business Development Center and the Office of International Commerce.
• Thirty-five unfunded positions in the department of corrections were funded. There is no funding for the operation of the new women’s prison, which is not expected to open before the end of the nextbiennium.
• The liquor commission is required to meet its revenue estimates or suffer a 5% decrease in its next year’s appropriation.
• Retired state employees’ health insurance premiums are not increased.
• Importantly, the budget reduces business taxes over the next five years. This affects companies that provide 95% of the private sector jobs in the state.
• The Business Profits Tax will drop from 8.5% to 7.9%, and the Business Enterprise Tax will drop from .75% to .675%. The anticipated revenue loss for the next biennium has been reflected in adjusted revenue estimates.
• A $5 million increase in the research and development tax credit will begin in FY 18.
• Over time, these changes should make New Hampshire more business friendly and more competitive with the other New England states whose taxes are lower.
• No agreement was reached on the implementation of Keno, and it is not included in the budget, nor was funding for the state employees’ labor contract. Despite that, over half of the state’s employees will receive roughly 4% step increases during the next biennium under the continuing “evergreen” provisions of the current contract.
  Rep. Neal Kurk

NHGOP BLASTS HASSAN’S DOMICILE BILL VETO THREAT

Concord – New Hampshire Republican State Committee Chairman Jennifer Horn today released the following statement regarding Governor Hassan’s veto threat of SB 179, which would establish a thirty day residency requirement to vote in New Hampshire:

“Secretary of State Bill Gardner’s nearly forty years of public service overseeing elections has made him one of the foremost authorities on election law and voting requirements in New Hampshire. His support for a thirty day residency requirement demonstrates that this commonsense, bipartisan measure would help preserve the integrity of our election process. Governor Hassan’s veto threat of this important legislation is partisan politics at its worst. It’s time for Governor Hassan to listen to the concerns voiced by Secretary Gardner and support this bipartisan legislation that would protect the credibility of the ballot box in New Hampshire.”

Governor Hassan’s veto threat follows Secretary of State Bill Gardner reaffirming his support for SB 179. Recently, Secretary of State Bill Gardner stated that New Hampshire has “drive-by voting” and that he has witnessed fraud personally.