The Blast will be on hiatus until September 20 or 21 due to a post-Labor Day trip to NYC.
AROUND NEW HAMPSHIRE
1. Assorted
Highway plans try realistic approach
State House Dome, by Garry Rayno, unionleader.com, September 5, 2015
THE DEPARTMENT of Transportation unveiled its draft 10-year highway plan last month, with fewer promises offered than other recent proposals.
The 2017-2026, $3.58 billion package spends about $130 million more than there is revenue but is short any new major projects.
If proposals are included that do not have funding, said Department of Transportation Project Development Director Chris Waszczuk, the public perception is that all those projects will be done, although the agency can't meet those expectations.
“This brings it more in line, makes us more accountable and the plan more predictable,” he said “and we'll be able to deliver the projects in the plan.”
Most of the new projects were added to the tail end of the plan — 2024-2026 — when additional funding is available, he said.
The most expensive new projects are the widening of Route 101 in Bedford — $6 million — and reconstructing Route 12 in Charlestown — $5.9 million.
Under the plan, several large but to-date unfunded turnpike projects will begin at the end of the 10 years, including redoing the Amoskeag Circle or Exit 6 and Exit 7 off Interstate 293. Also, several red-listed bridges on Interstate 93 in Bow will be reconstructed beginning at the end of the plan.
The current 10-year plan approved by lawmakers two years ago contains $325 million in unfunded turnpike projects, and the draft plan would fund work on the three projects in fiscal 2024 and 2026.
Waszczuk said several executive councilors and state senators asked the department what could be done to complete all the unfunded turnpike projects within the next 10 years.
For discussion purposes, he said, the department looked at increasing tolls on the system, going up 50 cents at the Hampton and Hooksett tolls, and 25 cents at Dover and Rochester and at the Hooksett and Hampton off ramps.
The increase would produce about $35 million more annually and allow all the turnpike projects to be completed by 2026, Waszczuk said.
“What's unique here is the users of the system pay the toll and directly benefit from the toll increases,” he said. “And the projects are completed in a relatively reasonable time frame.”
The turnpike projects involve expanding the Spaulding Turnpike from Newington to Dover, including rehabilitation of the General Sullivan Bridges, widening the FE Everett Turnpike from Merrimack to Bedford, the exit 6 and 7 projects in Manchester and widening I-93 from Bow through Concord.
The Governor's Advisory Commission on Intermodal Transportation — the five executive councilors and Department of Transportation commissioner — will hold 16 public hearings on the draft plan around the state beginning Sept. 15 and ending Oct. 26.
After the hearings, the GACIT will make its recommendations to the governor, who will review the plan and make suggestions.
The governor gives her plan to lawmakers in January and the finished product should be done by June.
Capital budget fix
When lawmakers return Sept. 16 to Concord to act on Gov. Maggie Hassan's vetoes — including the two-year budget — they will also be asked to suspend the rules to take up a bill and fix a problem with the $126 million capital budget that was approved by lawmakers and signed by Hassan.
The wording in a section on how the Liquor Commission can spend money is flawed and needs to be changed.
The non-controversial issue is likely to receive the two-thirds majority needed to pass. The deadline for such changes has long since passed.
The same would be true if an agreement is reached on the $11.35 billion operating budget. Any bill to make the changes would need a two-thirds majority to come before the House or the Senate.
Another hearing
This week, the presiding officer in the dispute between the Bureau of Securities' and Property-Liability Trust over its continued operations will decide several motions.
The trust has asked the presiding officer to allow it to seek new business, which it is currently prohibited from doing. The group has to prove it has the financial resources to cover new clients. Now, it is forbidden to add new customers and is required to cover existing and future claims with its remaining assets.
No decision has been made on that request.
The hearing on the motions will be held Wednesday afternoon in the Legislative Office Building.
Presidential candidate
Another name will be entering the presidential sweepstakes soon.
Steve Comley, founder of We the People, a nuclear plant safety watchdog group that promoted the revelations of whistleblowers about shoddy work and equipment, will soon announce he is running for the Republican presidential nomination.
Last week, the Rowley, Mass., resident filed papers with the Federal Elections Commission.
Comley sought to engage a number of presidential candidates in a discussion about the safety of nuclear power plants and evacuation plans, particularly for Seabrook Station.
With little to no feedback from the candidates, Comley said, he decided to run to highlight the nuclear safety issue and topics such as the economy, the federal deficit, immigration and energy.
“It will be an honor and a privilege to serve my country,” Comley said. “I may not be a political science major, but I have experience.”
He will make his official announcement Friday at the former office of We the People in Rowley.
Greener pastures
Longtime medical marijuana and pot decriminalization and/or legalization lobbyist Matt Simon is moving on.
He will be moving to Vermont and lobbying its legislature where he believes the prospects of legalization are far greater than New Hampshire.
The New England political director for the Marijuana Policy Project, Simon said he will continue to lobby in New Hampshire but most of his efforts will be in the Green Mountain State.
“The stars seem to be aligning (for legalization) in Vermont,” Simon said last week. “We can't even get the New Hampshire Senate to have an adult conversation about the relative merits of legalization.”
He said he looks forward to the next election in New Hampshire, noting 60 percent of Granite Staters support legalization and 72 percent support decriminalization.
“Sometimes popular opinion is wrong, but in this case the people are far ahead of most of their elected officials,” Simon said. “Our marijuana laws are archaic and counterproductive, and they should have been reformed a long time ago.”
There is little chance marijuana legalization would pass in the Granite State, as Hassan has said she would veto the bill, and more importantly, the 2016 session will be during an election year.
Summer gone
The summer break for lawmakers is over.
This week both the House and Senate have full calendars as study committees and commissions take up their responsibilities and standing committees begin shifting through the retained bills that have to come back before the House and Senate in January.
Break's over. Now back to those committee rooms.
The 2017-2026, $3.58 billion package spends about $130 million more than there is revenue but is short any new major projects.
If proposals are included that do not have funding, said Department of Transportation Project Development Director Chris Waszczuk, the public perception is that all those projects will be done, although the agency can't meet those expectations.
“This brings it more in line, makes us more accountable and the plan more predictable,” he said “and we'll be able to deliver the projects in the plan.”
Most of the new projects were added to the tail end of the plan — 2024-2026 — when additional funding is available, he said.
The most expensive new projects are the widening of Route 101 in Bedford — $6 million — and reconstructing Route 12 in Charlestown — $5.9 million.
Under the plan, several large but to-date unfunded turnpike projects will begin at the end of the 10 years, including redoing the Amoskeag Circle or Exit 6 and Exit 7 off Interstate 293. Also, several red-listed bridges on Interstate 93 in Bow will be reconstructed beginning at the end of the plan.
The current 10-year plan approved by lawmakers two years ago contains $325 million in unfunded turnpike projects, and the draft plan would fund work on the three projects in fiscal 2024 and 2026.
Waszczuk said several executive councilors and state senators asked the department what could be done to complete all the unfunded turnpike projects within the next 10 years.
For discussion purposes, he said, the department looked at increasing tolls on the system, going up 50 cents at the Hampton and Hooksett tolls, and 25 cents at Dover and Rochester and at the Hooksett and Hampton off ramps.
The increase would produce about $35 million more annually and allow all the turnpike projects to be completed by 2026, Waszczuk said.
“What's unique here is the users of the system pay the toll and directly benefit from the toll increases,” he said. “And the projects are completed in a relatively reasonable time frame.”
The turnpike projects involve expanding the Spaulding Turnpike from Newington to Dover, including rehabilitation of the General Sullivan Bridges, widening the FE Everett Turnpike from Merrimack to Bedford, the exit 6 and 7 projects in Manchester and widening I-93 from Bow through Concord.
The Governor's Advisory Commission on Intermodal Transportation — the five executive councilors and Department of Transportation commissioner — will hold 16 public hearings on the draft plan around the state beginning Sept. 15 and ending Oct. 26.
After the hearings, the GACIT will make its recommendations to the governor, who will review the plan and make suggestions.
The governor gives her plan to lawmakers in January and the finished product should be done by June.
Capital budget fix
When lawmakers return Sept. 16 to Concord to act on Gov. Maggie Hassan's vetoes — including the two-year budget — they will also be asked to suspend the rules to take up a bill and fix a problem with the $126 million capital budget that was approved by lawmakers and signed by Hassan.
The wording in a section on how the Liquor Commission can spend money is flawed and needs to be changed.
The non-controversial issue is likely to receive the two-thirds majority needed to pass. The deadline for such changes has long since passed.
The same would be true if an agreement is reached on the $11.35 billion operating budget. Any bill to make the changes would need a two-thirds majority to come before the House or the Senate.
Another hearing
This week, the presiding officer in the dispute between the Bureau of Securities' and Property-Liability Trust over its continued operations will decide several motions.
The trust has asked the presiding officer to allow it to seek new business, which it is currently prohibited from doing. The group has to prove it has the financial resources to cover new clients. Now, it is forbidden to add new customers and is required to cover existing and future claims with its remaining assets.
No decision has been made on that request.
The hearing on the motions will be held Wednesday afternoon in the Legislative Office Building.
Presidential candidate
Another name will be entering the presidential sweepstakes soon.
Steve Comley, founder of We the People, a nuclear plant safety watchdog group that promoted the revelations of whistleblowers about shoddy work and equipment, will soon announce he is running for the Republican presidential nomination.
Last week, the Rowley, Mass., resident filed papers with the Federal Elections Commission.
Comley sought to engage a number of presidential candidates in a discussion about the safety of nuclear power plants and evacuation plans, particularly for Seabrook Station.
With little to no feedback from the candidates, Comley said, he decided to run to highlight the nuclear safety issue and topics such as the economy, the federal deficit, immigration and energy.
“It will be an honor and a privilege to serve my country,” Comley said. “I may not be a political science major, but I have experience.”
He will make his official announcement Friday at the former office of We the People in Rowley.
Greener pastures
Longtime medical marijuana and pot decriminalization and/or legalization lobbyist Matt Simon is moving on.
He will be moving to Vermont and lobbying its legislature where he believes the prospects of legalization are far greater than New Hampshire.
The New England political director for the Marijuana Policy Project, Simon said he will continue to lobby in New Hampshire but most of his efforts will be in the Green Mountain State.
“The stars seem to be aligning (for legalization) in Vermont,” Simon said last week. “We can't even get the New Hampshire Senate to have an adult conversation about the relative merits of legalization.”
He said he looks forward to the next election in New Hampshire, noting 60 percent of Granite Staters support legalization and 72 percent support decriminalization.
“Sometimes popular opinion is wrong, but in this case the people are far ahead of most of their elected officials,” Simon said. “Our marijuana laws are archaic and counterproductive, and they should have been reformed a long time ago.”
There is little chance marijuana legalization would pass in the Granite State, as Hassan has said she would veto the bill, and more importantly, the 2016 session will be during an election year.
Summer gone
The summer break for lawmakers is over.
This week both the House and Senate have full calendars as study committees and commissions take up their responsibilities and standing committees begin shifting through the retained bills that have to come back before the House and Senate in January.
Break's over. Now back to those committee rooms.
2. Snips
Hybrids take bite out of state budget
Capital Beat, by Allie Morris, September 5, 2015
Gas stations across the state will be getting a lot of traffic from SUVs and trucks this weekend, as vacationers fill up their tanks during the Labor Day holiday.
But in between the pumps there are fewer hybrid cars, which can drive much farther on a single tank of gas.
It’s a concerning prospect to lawmakers who manage the state budget because every gallon of gas drivers pump into their vehicles helps pay to maintain the state’s roads and bridges.
The state’s gas tax – at 22.2 cents a gallon – is funneled into the highway fund, money that helps pay for road and bridges, municipal aid and operations at the Department of Transportation.
But within the next 10 years, the highway fund is projected to amass a major cumulative deficit, DOT officials have said.
And adding to that bleak picture is the fact that gas tax revenues are plateauing as vehicles increasingly become more fuel efficient. It’s a trend officials expect only to accelerate, as more people switch to alternative fuel vehicles that use less or no gas at all.
“More and more people are either driving electric vehicles or using hybrids, which is great for the environment, great for fuel economy, but it’s not so great for our roads and bridges,” said Democratic Rep. John Cloutier, of Claremont. “In 10 to 20 years, it’s going to be a major problem.”
So this fall, a small group of lawmakers is meeting to try and come up with a way to fairly tax all vehicles, including hybrids and electric vehicles, that use the state’s roads.
Politically, it’s not a popular prospect. Recent proposals to raise the gas tax or vehicle registration fees, have faced intense criticism from Republicans, who currently control both Legislative chambers. But even so, it looks like this year there will be another push to raise money for the highway fund.
Republican Rep. Norm Major, a member of the study group and chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means committee that looks after state revenue, has already filed a bill to create a new road usage fee. The fee would be paid in addition to the gas tax and be calculated in relation to each vehicle’s fuel efficiency. He will present the plan at the study committee’s next meeting Friday.
“If you’re going to use the roads, you need to support the upkeep,” said Major, of Plaistow.
While transportation funding may be a pressing legislative challenge that many lawmakers recognize, it’s also a controversial one, even when a plan has GOP backing.
A proposal to raise the state gas tax by 4.2 cents in 2014 – the first increase since 1991 – was a knock-out legislative fight that pitted Republican against Republican. The increase passed, but it came back to haunt some supportive Republicans in that year’s election, when they faced primary challengers critical of their vote. Of note, both Republican senators who co-sponsored the gas tax increase won their bids for re-election.
It doesn’t mean lawmakers aren’t receptive to any increases. Last winter, a small contingent of Republican House budget writers floated a plan to raise the gas tax again, by roughly 7 cents, to help close a gap in the transportation budget. But it didn’t go far – the plan was shot down before it was ever brought to the House floor.
While roads, bridges and transportation funding may not be the sexiest issues, they are ones that constituents notice.
Over in Bow, residents on Birchdale Road may be waiting years before they can cross a local bridge that was closed this summer after it was deemed unsafe.
It’s because the project isn’t slated to get state bridge aid – money generated by the gas tax – until 2025.
Kuster challenger?
While most political speculation these days is spent on the U.S. Senate race and whether Gov. Maggie Hassan will jump in, Republicans are starting to chatter about potential candidates to run against U.S. Rep. Annie Kuster, a Democrat who says she’ll seek a third term in 2016.
Some names include Senate President Chuck Morse, House Majority Leader Jack Flanagan and Gary Lambert, a former state senator who ran in 2014 for the seat, but lost the Republican primary.
Both Morse and Flanagan say they have been approached, but neither is committed.
It’s something Morse says he’s been interested in.
“I won’t rule anything out at this point,” said the Salem Republican. “Right now, realistically, I have to worry about the Senate.”
Flanagan echoed that sentiment.
“I haven’t said no, and I haven’t said yes,” he said. “I have been approached by a number of people, and I am very flattered. Right now we have a budget thing.”
Lambert said he’s considering it, but said he doesn’t know if 2016 is the right year.
“If you’ve done it once, you always consider doing it again,” he said. “I can’t say I’ve made a decision either way.”
Some Republicans say Kuster’s seat is ripe for a challenge. But until a clear-cut candidate emerges to take Kuster on, she’s in the clear.
“Everyday there’s not a candidate is a day that Annie Kuster doesn’t have to spend money, she doesn’t have to spend resources pushing back against a potential Republican challenger,” said Wayne Lesperance, a professor of political science at New England College.
Kuster has been known for fundraising abilities. And she handily defeated Republican challenger Marilinda Garcia in the 2014 election to win her second term.
There’s still time until the 2016 race. But it’s ticking.
Moving shop
New Hampshire is a hostile environment for marijuana policy. At least that’s according to Matt Simon, the New England political director for the Marijuana Policy Project.
In search of more fertile ground, he’s moving shop to Vermont for the upcoming legislative session, where he expects marijuana legalization will be a top issue.
“We’re not abandoning New Hampshire, we’re just being realistic about next year,” he said. “We have a governor who has been hostile to everything we’re trying to do.”
The House passed a bill this year to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana, but it was narrowly defeated in the Senate after a deal to get it through fell apart on the floor.
The “Live Free or Die” state is the only one in New England that has not lessened the penalties for marijuana possession, a point Simon is quick to point out.
While the House has passed several bills to decriminalize and even legalize and regulate marijuana, they have always died in the Senate. The big victory for advocates came in 2013, when the state legalized medicinal use of marijuana. But even then, in the years since, the roll out to patients has been slow, Simon says.
Simon has been based in New Hampshire in 2007. He now plans to move to Montpelier and commute down to New Hampshire for marijuana policy hearings or special occasions. Simon sent an email to lawmakers last Thursday, breaking the news about the move and telling them he looks forward to the 2016 election, linking to a poll that shows residents overwhelmingly support decriminalization and legalization of marijuana.
“I look forward to being a part of this when it finally happens,” he wrote.
Papal visit
When Pope Francis makes his long-awaited visit to the U.S., Penacook Rep. Steve Shurtleff will be there to greet him.
Shurteff was invited to join President Obama at the White House to officially welcome the Pope to America after he arrives on Sept. 22.
Even Shurtleff seemed a little mystified about the invite.
“The question in the State House will be, ‘Why Shurtleff?’ ” he said laughing, and then attempted an answer. “I don’t know, I’m Catholic.”
3. Ideological and Shortsighted
Planned Parenthood vote bad for N.H. families, business
by Mark Connolly, seacoastonline.com, September 6, 2015
The recent 3-2 vote by the Executive Council to defund Planned Parenthood of Northern New England is not only bad public policy for New Hampshire women and families, it’s also a bad business decision for our state.
The shifting ideological wind in Concord these past few years does not make for a positive, stable business environment.
Companies looking to do business in New Hampshire want predictability and practicality from state government. What they don’t want is a political environment beset by ideological and political posturing.
With this vote, many New Hampshire women’s basic health care needs, like birth control and cancer screenings, are now in jeopardy.
We shouldn’t be sending out mixed signals concerning the state’s commitment to health care, especially when it comes to meeting women’s health needs in a state with above-average health care costs.
Here are two important facts to consider about this important health care matter: No state money would have gone to fund abortions; furthermore, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England has nothing to do with the disturbing videos concerning the purported sale of fetal tissue.
My own Executive Councilor Chris Sununu, who voted with the majority in this misguided vote, ought to know better — in the past, he has supported Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. With this vote, he as well as Councilors Kenney and Wheeler are jeopardizing health care services for more than 12,000 New Hampshire women.
Providing important and needed medical services for all New Hampshire citizens ought to be the chief concern of our elected leaders.
Voting suddenly to de-fund a contract with an organization that has been providing needed health services for women and families for many years just sends the wrong message to businesses about how our state government works — or doesn’t work.
New Hampshire does not need Don Quixote-like tilting at imagined and invented windmills. The politics of division does not help New Hampshire’s future. We ought to look beyond the same old tired, ideological battles and instead truly focus on the needs of all Granite Staters.
We need a New Hampshire that is open for business for everyone — not a state that places some of its most vulnerable citizens in harm’s way. New Hampshire places in the bottom half of states concerning health care costs for its citizens. Further financially burdening women for needed services is not only unfair and wrong, but it is just bad business policy for our state.
This vote by the Executive Council is a step backward in an economy where we compete globally for workers and businesses. The days of New Hampshire growing its worker base by 50 percent as it did in the 1970s are long gone.
Shortsighted public policies like defunding critical health services won’t do anything to help us compete for business and workers. This vote should serve as wake-up call to all concerned citizens that this is the wrong path for New Hampshire women, families and, yes, our economy.
4. Stuck on Their Tax Cut Mania
Sides brace for budget showdown
by Garry Rayno, unionleader.com, September 5, 2015
CONCORD — Gov. Maggie Hassan and Republican legislative leaders hope to have a budget compromise they can present to lawmakers when they return to Concord later this month.
But the likelihood of a compromise depends on one issue and whether State House wizards can carefully conjure a brew with enough flavors to satisfy both sides.
The battleground remains business tax cuts. Hassan wants additional revenue to pay for the money lost when rates go down now and in the future, as Republicans counter to say reductions will make the state more business friendly.
“We have narrowed it down to one issue, which is the business tax cuts,” said House Speaker Shawn Jasper, R-Hudson. “The governor doesn't believe that is a model that will help.”
Hassan cited the business tax cuts when she vetoed the $11.35 billion budget passed by Republican legislators without one Democrat voting in favor.
She said, as she did when her Republican opponent in the 2014 election Walter Havenstein made the same proposal, “the cuts would blow a $90 million hole in the state's budget.”
Crafted by Senate Republicans to begin in 2017, the business profits and enterprise tax cuts would reduce state revenues by more than $20 million this biennium and by about $90 million for the 2020-2021 biennium when the cuts are fully implemented.
Before the budget was approved, Hassan unsuccessfully proposed paying for the cuts with a cigarette tax increase along with several other tax and fee increases.
Later, as part of a compromise package, Hassan agreed to the first 0.5 percent business tax reduction this fiscal year, but again wanted new money to offset the cut.
But Jasper and Senate President Chuck Morse, R-Salem, rejected any increases in taxes or fees, saying they would not pass the House or the Senate.
In recent negotiations Hassan proposed allowing the tax reductions in this biennium to go forward, if the next two reductions were eliminated, but that too has not been enough for Republicans.
“The governor made it clear she is willing to do a (small tax cut) in exchange for not having the next two cuts,” Jasper said.
New Hampshire business tax rates have to be below Massachusetts' and somewhere in the middle of the pack nationally for the state to be competitive, he said.
“Right now we are far from the middle of pack,” Jasper said. “We need to move in that direction. A tiny (cut) will not help the situation at all.”
Last week, Hassan's communications director, William Hinkle, echoed her words again.
“Republican legislators have yet to offer a true counterproposal that addresses the central issue of unpaid-for corporate tax cuts that create a $90 million hole in future budgets,” Hinkle said. “Governor Hassan has put forward a proposal that would accelerate those tax cuts and pay for them, and she continues to urge Republicans in the Legislature to negotiate in good faith and offer a true counterproposal so that we can reach a fiscally responsible, bipartisan budget agreement as soon as possible.”
Both sides have dug in their heels on the tax cuts since Hassan's veto and the budget battle has turned into a political joust.
Republicans focus on the pain the veto caused: no additional money for treatment, prevention and recovery programs to combat the state's heroin crisis; delaying the opening of a 10-bed mental health crisis unit at New Hampshire Hospital to relieve the pressure from hospital emergency rooms, and no pay raises for medical providers of home-based services for the elderly.
Hassan maintains the business tax cuts would hit those programs in the future and also endanger the state's ability to make investments in higher education, highways and economic development projects, and that will damage the state's economic priorities.
“We're trying to get something done (before Sept. 16),” said Morse, “but no one wants to compromise their principles. Republicans clearly think the tax cuts are needed for the state's economy.”
He noted the tax cuts are the main sticking point. The savings from the continuing resolution and strong revenues from the first two months of the 2016 fiscal year will take care of other issues such as state employee pay raises and less surplus money from the 2015 budget than anticipated, Morse said.
Along with the state employee pay raise, Hassan also pushed to include Medicaid expansion, which has provided more than 40,000 low-income adults with health insurance, in the budget package.
Senate Republicans have assured her that reauthorizing the program will be debated early next session and will be decided long before the program ends Jan. 1, 2017, without legislative action.
Hassan wants about $40 million to be available to pay for the state's share of the program during the final six months of the biennium when the federal government reduces its share of the program from 100 percent to 95 percent.
Although other issues like additional money for substance abuse treatment, prevention and recovery have been resolved, the business tax cuts issue remains unresolved.
“I think we have defined the problem to the end,” Morse said. “How we get a solution — I don't think anyone knows how to do that, but we will try right up to the 16th.”
Hassan, Morse and Jasper plan to continue meeting, hoping to find a solution before lawmakers return to Concord Sept. 16 to act on Hassan's veto, including the two budget bills.
“I am very hopeful the governor realizes her concerns moving forward into 2021 are less important than delivering the $560 million in new spending in the budget she vetoed,” Jasper said. “The here and now is more important. If she is right (about future revenue loss), the Legislature will deal with it then.”
But the likelihood of a compromise depends on one issue and whether State House wizards can carefully conjure a brew with enough flavors to satisfy both sides.
The battleground remains business tax cuts. Hassan wants additional revenue to pay for the money lost when rates go down now and in the future, as Republicans counter to say reductions will make the state more business friendly.
“We have narrowed it down to one issue, which is the business tax cuts,” said House Speaker Shawn Jasper, R-Hudson. “The governor doesn't believe that is a model that will help.”
Hassan cited the business tax cuts when she vetoed the $11.35 billion budget passed by Republican legislators without one Democrat voting in favor.
She said, as she did when her Republican opponent in the 2014 election Walter Havenstein made the same proposal, “the cuts would blow a $90 million hole in the state's budget.”
Crafted by Senate Republicans to begin in 2017, the business profits and enterprise tax cuts would reduce state revenues by more than $20 million this biennium and by about $90 million for the 2020-2021 biennium when the cuts are fully implemented.
Before the budget was approved, Hassan unsuccessfully proposed paying for the cuts with a cigarette tax increase along with several other tax and fee increases.
Later, as part of a compromise package, Hassan agreed to the first 0.5 percent business tax reduction this fiscal year, but again wanted new money to offset the cut.
But Jasper and Senate President Chuck Morse, R-Salem, rejected any increases in taxes or fees, saying they would not pass the House or the Senate.
In recent negotiations Hassan proposed allowing the tax reductions in this biennium to go forward, if the next two reductions were eliminated, but that too has not been enough for Republicans.
“The governor made it clear she is willing to do a (small tax cut) in exchange for not having the next two cuts,” Jasper said.
New Hampshire business tax rates have to be below Massachusetts' and somewhere in the middle of the pack nationally for the state to be competitive, he said.
“Right now we are far from the middle of pack,” Jasper said. “We need to move in that direction. A tiny (cut) will not help the situation at all.”
Last week, Hassan's communications director, William Hinkle, echoed her words again.
“Republican legislators have yet to offer a true counterproposal that addresses the central issue of unpaid-for corporate tax cuts that create a $90 million hole in future budgets,” Hinkle said. “Governor Hassan has put forward a proposal that would accelerate those tax cuts and pay for them, and she continues to urge Republicans in the Legislature to negotiate in good faith and offer a true counterproposal so that we can reach a fiscally responsible, bipartisan budget agreement as soon as possible.”
Both sides have dug in their heels on the tax cuts since Hassan's veto and the budget battle has turned into a political joust.
Republicans focus on the pain the veto caused: no additional money for treatment, prevention and recovery programs to combat the state's heroin crisis; delaying the opening of a 10-bed mental health crisis unit at New Hampshire Hospital to relieve the pressure from hospital emergency rooms, and no pay raises for medical providers of home-based services for the elderly.
Hassan maintains the business tax cuts would hit those programs in the future and also endanger the state's ability to make investments in higher education, highways and economic development projects, and that will damage the state's economic priorities.
“We're trying to get something done (before Sept. 16),” said Morse, “but no one wants to compromise their principles. Republicans clearly think the tax cuts are needed for the state's economy.”
He noted the tax cuts are the main sticking point. The savings from the continuing resolution and strong revenues from the first two months of the 2016 fiscal year will take care of other issues such as state employee pay raises and less surplus money from the 2015 budget than anticipated, Morse said.
Along with the state employee pay raise, Hassan also pushed to include Medicaid expansion, which has provided more than 40,000 low-income adults with health insurance, in the budget package.
Senate Republicans have assured her that reauthorizing the program will be debated early next session and will be decided long before the program ends Jan. 1, 2017, without legislative action.
Hassan wants about $40 million to be available to pay for the state's share of the program during the final six months of the biennium when the federal government reduces its share of the program from 100 percent to 95 percent.
Although other issues like additional money for substance abuse treatment, prevention and recovery have been resolved, the business tax cuts issue remains unresolved.
“I think we have defined the problem to the end,” Morse said. “How we get a solution — I don't think anyone knows how to do that, but we will try right up to the 16th.”
Hassan, Morse and Jasper plan to continue meeting, hoping to find a solution before lawmakers return to Concord Sept. 16 to act on Hassan's veto, including the two budget bills.
“I am very hopeful the governor realizes her concerns moving forward into 2021 are less important than delivering the $560 million in new spending in the budget she vetoed,” Jasper said. “The here and now is more important. If she is right (about future revenue loss), the Legislature will deal with it then.”
5. The Importance of Shaheen's Endorsement
Shaheen's Endorsement Of Clinton Comes With Decades Of N.H. Political Know-How
by Emily Corwin, nhpr.org, September 6, 2015
When an event is billed as a “Women for Hillary” rally, it’s not surprising candidate Hillary Clinton and Senator Jeanne Shaheen were more or less preaching to the choir.
Heather Johnson was standing behind a barricade in front of the Portsmouth Middle School – the backdrop to something of a lovefest between Shaheen and Clinton Saturday morning. “I already know what I’m doing,” she says, “I’m voting for Hillary.”
The fact that Shaheen, New Hampshire's Democratic U.S. Senator, had given her endorsement to Clinton was not surprising - as Portsmouth lawyer Paul Pudloski commented, “they’ve been political allies for over 25 years." For Pudloski, who said he has not yet decided who he’s voting for, the endorsement “makes no difference to me.”
But there was a reason Shaheen and Clinton stood on a stage Saturday, Shaheen pronouncing “I am a woman for Hillary,” and Clinton responding she’s “lucky to have a friend like Jeanne Shaheen.” As Clinton supporter Ned Helms put it, “This is not just a nice, stand up, wave your hand and now you have an endorsement.”
Helms has worked in New Hampshire politics for decades, co-chairing President Obama’s state campaign in 2008 and 2012. He says when Shaheen makes an endorsement, she puts her back into it.
“She’s built presidential campaigns from the ground up. She knows the inside workings; she knows who to call. She’ll give invaluable advice in terms of how to position things, what the important strategic and operational aspects of the campaign are.”
Shaheen worked on Gary Hart’s 1984 campaign for President, in which Hart won the New Hampshire primary in an upset victory. She was also John Kerry’s national chairperson, and has been credited with reviving his 2004 campaign early in the primaries.
In a speech, Shaheen made it clear she has an idea who Clinton needs to reach. “She will proudly stand with women,” Shaheen said, “she will proudly stand with Latino Americans. She will proudly stand with the LGBT community. She will proudly stand with teachers. And she will proudly stand with the hard working men and women of labor.”
If Shaheen can mobilize Democrats in New Hampshire early on in an increasingly competitive Democratic field, that could give Clinton the edge she needs heading into the most serious stretch of primary campaigning.
6. Misusing a Death
by William Tucker, miscellanyblue.com, September 5, 2015
Gun rights activists are exploiting a fatal shooting in Manchester in an attempt to build support for legislation that would repeal the state’s license requirement for carrying a concealed firearm.
The New England chapter of Gun Rights Across America has posted aFacebook meme that features a photo of Denise Robert, the longtime advertising sales representative with the Union Leader who was shot to death in Manchester on Sunday night. Authorities have not yet made an arrest in the case.
“If it can happen to a 62 year old woman enjoying her evening walk in the North End of the city of Manchester, it can happen to you in your neighborhood,” the meme reads. “Manchester has 231 police officers! How many are in your home town?”
The post asks viewers to call their state legislators and urge them to vote to override Gov. Maggie Hassan’s veto of Senate Bill 116, which would repeal the concealed carry license requirement.
The governor explained her veto in a statement released earlier this year. “New Hampshire’s current concealed carry permitting law has worked well for nearly a century – ensuring the Second Amendment rights of our citizens while helping to keep the Granite State one of the safest states in the nation,” she wrote.
Senate Bill 116 was originally approved by the Senate 14-9, in a straight party line vote. The Senate is scheduled to take up the governor’s veto when it reconvenes on September 16. If all the senators are present, two Democrats would have to vote with the Republican majority in order to override the governor’s veto.
If the Senate does vote to override the veto, which is considered unlikely, the bill would then advance to the House, which passed the bill in a 212-150 vote, well short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override the governor’s veto.
Gun Rights Across America claims to be the nation’s “premier 100% grassroots and volunteer” gun rights organization. It is led by Eric Reed, an airline captain in Texas who founded the group in response to the Newtown school shootings.
Gun Lobby Watch refers to GRAA as the social media warriors of the gun lobby. “Nazi references. Vile sexism. Obama jokes. GRAAW has them all,” they write.
AND NATIONALLY
7. Good Going, Dubya
ID=MjYxOTc5MjY4OTYS1&spJobID=
ISIS and the Curse of the Iraq War
by John Cassidy, newyorker.com, August 28, 2015
I've been reading up recently on the ancient history of Iraq and Syria, a region that is often referred to, not for nothing, as the cradle of civilization. Here is where rapid population growth, urbanization, the specialization of labor, manufacturing, written language, money, mathematics, and astronomy all originated.
Today, of course, parts of the region have fallen under the control of the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham, which, as part of its stated aim to create an Islamic caliphate, is destroying any traces of earlier religions and civilizations. (Evidently, in keeping with its Wahhabi roots, it regards them as antithetical to Islam, despite the fact that they existed thousands of years before the prophet Muhammad was born.) Earlier this year, after occupying Mosul, in northern Iraq, ISIS militants ransacked the city’s central museum, taking drills and sledgehammers to statues and relics from the empires of Akkadia and Assyria, some of which reportedly dated back to the start of the first millennium B.C.
More recently, ISIS forces have extended their campaign against human history to Palmyra, a city built around an oasis in central Syria. It dates to the start of the second millennium B.C., and was later ruled by the Seleucids, who came to power after Alexander the Great’s empire was divided. A week and a half ago, ISIS fighters beheaded Kh
Then, last week, ISIS forces blew up the Baalshamin Temple, a United Nations World Heritage Site that was first constructed in Palmyra in the second century B.C., and rebuilt in the first century A.D. “The systematic destruction of cultural symbols embodying Syrian cultural diversity reveals the true intent of such attacks, which is to deprive the Syrian people of its knowledge, its identity and history,” Irina Bokova, the director-general of UNESCO, the cultural and educational arm of the U.N., said in a statement responding to the destruction. “Such acts are war crimes and their perpetrators must be accountable for their actions.”
A commendable statement, indeed. But what prospect is there that ISIS’s murderous ranks, and their leaders, will be brought to justice—not just for destroying antiquities, of course, but also for rounding up and massacring people living in the territories they’ve occupied, inducing women into sex slavery, killing Western captives and posting the footage online, calling for terrorist attacks in the United States and other countries, and so on. Right now, the chance that ISIS’s leaders will be brought before the International Criminal Court, say, is slim to none.
Despite more than a year of air strikes by the United States and its allies, and despite some important battlefield successes by the Iraqi army and Kurdish peshmerga forces during that time, ISIS appears to be as strong as ever. Or, at least, that is what U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded, according to a report published a month ago by the Associated Press. And, this week, the Times revealed that the Pentagon is now investigating whether intelligence officials “skewed intelligence assessments about the United States-led campaign in Iraq against the Islamic State to provide a more optimistic account of progress.”
Obama Administration officials continue to claim that the policy of air strikes, combined with the deployment of several thousand U.S. soldiers to train Iraq’s army and the supplying of arms to the so-called “moderate rebels” in Syria, will eventually bear fruit. “I’m confident that we will succeed in defeating ISIL and that we have the right strategy,” Ashton Carter, the Defense Secretary, said last week. But Carter also conceded that “it’s going take some time.” Assuming so, that means the task of confronting ISIS, and deciding whether to escalate the level of U.S. involvement, will almost certainly fall on the next President.
And what will he or she do? Absent a horrific ISIS-inspired attack on U.S. soil, the likely answer is not much more than Obama is doing. Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, has publicly backed Obama’s strategy of seeking to “degrade” ISIS’s military capabilities over time. The Republican candidates for President are forever criticizing Obama for not doing enough to tackle ISIS, but when you examine the policy statements of the leading contenders you find few concrete proposals, and a marked reluctance to commit U.S. troops.
Jeb Bush, in a typically bold move, has said that he would defer to the advice of U.S. military commanders. Donald Trump, seemingly oblivious to the fact that most of Iraq’s oil fields are controlled by the government or the Kurds, has said that he would order U.S. forces to bomb them. Marco Rubio and Scott Walker, in speeches they delivered on Friday, both called for more aggressive actions against ISIS, but stopped well short of promising to deploy additional U.S. ground troops in Iran and Syria. Of the seventeen G.O.P. candidates, only two no-hopers—Lindsey Graham and George Pataki—have grasped that particular nettle. And, as you might have guessed, it didn’t help their poll ratings.
What explains the reluctance among politicians to consider confronting, head-on, a movement that has been intent on eradicating ideals that the United States and its allies hold dear? The Iraq War, of course. By destroying the Iraqi state and setting off reverberations across the region that, ultimately, led to a civil war in Syria, the 2003 invasion created the conditions in which a movement like ISIS could thrive. And, by turning public opinion in the United States and other Western countries against anything that even suggests a prolonged military involvement in the Middle East, the war effectively precluded the possibility of a large-scale multinational effort to smash the self-styled caliphate.
To be clear: I’m not calling for a full-scale ground war against ISIS: I’m not calling for anything. At this stage, like many other people, I suspect, I can hardly organize my thoughts about what’s happening in ISIS-held territory, beyond an acute feeling of dread and despondency. Hopefully, the current strategy will work. And, hopefully, the organization’s appeal to disaffected young Muslims around the world will wane. But do I have any real confidence that either of these things will happen? I do not.
Even at the time, the Iraq War seemed like a very bad idea. Twelve years on, it has developed into a wretched curse on the civilizations whose foundations were laid in places like Palmyra and Mosul.
8. Labor's Present
Labor Day: Fighting For Workers So They Can Fight For Themselves
by Isaiah J. Poole, ourfuture.org, September 4, 2015
The National Law Journal this week posted an article that declared that unions received “an early Labor Day present” from the National Labor Relations Board: a memorandum from the board’s general counsel that set standards for how union organizers could use online methods to certify worker interest in forming a union.
This adds to the anger anti-union conservative politicians have against efforts to restore to workers the bargaining power they have lost the past 30 years. They are already irate over last month’s NLRB decision that large corporations, such as the major fast-food restaurant chains, could not hide behind their franchisees and claim that they were not employers to avoid union organizing efforts. That ruling prompted Sen. Lamar Alexander, of the right-to-work-less state of Tennessee, to introduce legislation to overturn the NLRB “joint employer” ruling and to rein in what he called a “runaway” agency.
Now Alexander can add to his indictment the specter of workers indicating their interest in being represented by a union with the ease with which workers at some banks can deposit their paychecks with a smartphone. This, as the Law Journal warns, “will greatly reduce the time employers have to respond to such efforts by educating their employees on the pros and cons of such a choice” – because employers, despite their resources, are apparently ill-equipped to compete on a level plane with advocates for workers unless those advocates are somehow slowed down.
That, of course, is silly. The real “runaway” actors in this whole drama, of course, have been corporations and their right-wing enablers in the Congress. It’s been their actions to weaken the ability of workers to fight for better wages and benefits that have left workers little to celebrate on Labor Days for the past two decades.
Two reports this week highlight the consequences. The Economic Policy Institute detailedhow workers have failed in recent years to reap the benefits of their productivity gains. The National Employment Law Project offered even more devastatingly pointed statistics: Lower-wage workers in particularly have experienced significant wage declines when measured against increases in the cost of living.
Bottom line: We are working longer than ever – this Gallup survey from 2014 found that full-time U.S. workers report working an average of 47 hours a week, and nearly four in 10 work more than 50 hours a week – but are less likely to receive a fair wage for their more-than-fair-day’s work.
That is why the attacks from the right on the ability of workers to organize are so nefarious, and so dangerous. They are a fundamental factor in the national debate we should be having over income inequality and how to address it. (Keep in mind that the whole point of so-called “right-to-work” laws is to keep worker wages low – and it works: An Economic Policy Institute paper shows that workers in right-to-work states earn on average 3 percent less than workers in states that do not restrict union organizing. That translates into more than $1,500 less a year for the average worker.)
In an ideal political climate, we would have a Congress that could intelligently address such issues as ensuring that workers could indicate their wish to join a union without filibustering and obstruction from employers. Congress could – and in fact should – declare that workers should have a baseline set of benefits, protections and rights regardless of whether they are classified as employees or contractors, and whether their boss is a corporate manager or a franchise owner.
An ideal Congress could have arguably stepped forward and taken on the task of updating the nation’s overtime rules, which currently allow a $24,000-a-year worker to be christened a “manager” and thus required to work more than 40 hours a week – sometimes 80 hours a week or more – without so much as an additional dime in pay.
The Labor Department has had to instead step in to administratively rectify that wrong. The department opened a 60-day comment period, which is ending Friday, on proposed regulations that will lift the salary floor for who can be considered a manager not eligible for overtime to close to what it was in the mid-1970s. (As of midday Friday, the department had more than 194,000 comments.) When the regulation goes into effect, that will close a loophole an increasing number of retailers and other businesses have used to nullify one of the most important achievements of the labor movement, the 40-hour workweek and time-and-a-half pay for rank-and-file workers who are called to work longer than 40 hours a week.
That is an example of an administration using its authority to take action when a Congress compromised by corporate interests and paralyzed by ideology cannot act. This would not have happened without grassroots activists pushing President Obama and Labor Secretary Thomas Perez to take this on in the face of major corporate opposition. This augments such other administration initiatives as the executive orders President Obama signed in 2014 that set a $10.10 minimum wage for employers with federal government contracts and cracked down on contractors who violated wage and worker safety laws.
But there remains a major contribution that President Obama must make to ensure that workers receive a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work. That would be a “good jobs” or “model employer” executive order that would require federal contractors to be open to collective bargaining. Ideally, this executive order would raise the floor for federal contractor pay to $15 an hour, the minimum breadwinners actually need to care for themselves and their family.
This would not be extraordinary. As Peter Dreier pointed out in this Los Angeles Times op-edlast year, President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942 issued Executive Order 9017 that often required employers to recognize unions and bargain collectively with employees in exchange for workers taking a no-strike pledge. “As a result, unions added millions of workers to their ranks, which after the war helped build the biggest middle class in history,” Dreier wrote.
We are not at war – unless you count the very real war against working people being waged by the corporate class and its right-wing facilitators, which has resulted in tangible economic losses felt by millions of people. That damage to workers and to the Main Street economy warrants the next bold step by President Obama to ensure that workers can fight for themselves – and have Labor Days in the future worth celebrating.
9. Labor's Future
Labor Day 2028
by Robert Reich, robertreich.org, August 31, 2015
In 1928, famed British economist John Maynard Keynespredicted that technology would advance so far in a hundred years – by 2028 – that it will replace all work, and no one will need to worry about making money.
“For the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem – how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and well.”
We still have thirteen years to go before we reach Keynes’ prophetic year, but we’re not exactly on the way to it. Americans are working harder than ever.
Keynes may be proven right about technological progress. We’re on the verge of 3-D printing, driverless cars, delivery drones, and robots that can serve us coffee in the morning and make our beds.
But he overlooked one big question: How to redistribute the profits from these marvelous labor-saving inventions, so we’ll have the money to buy the free time they provide?
Without such a mechanism, most of us are condemned to work ever harder in order to compensate for lost earnings due to the labor-replacing technologies.
Such technologies are even replacing knowledge workers – a big reason why college degrees no longer deliver steadily higher wages and larger shares of the economic pie.
Since 2000, the vast majority of college graduates have seenlittle or no income gains.
The economic model that predominated through most of the twentieth century was mass production by many, for mass consumption by many.
But the model we’re rushing toward is unlimited production by a handful, for consumption by the few able to afford it.
The ratio of employees to customers is already dropping to mind-boggling lows.
When Facebook purchased the messaging company WhatsApp for $19 billion last year, WhatsApp had fifty-five employeesserving 450 million customers.
When more and more can be done by fewer and fewer people, profits go to an ever-smaller circle of executives and owner-investors. WhatsApp’s young co-founder and CEO, Jan Koum, got $6.8 billion in the deal.
This in turn will leave the rest of us with fewer well-paying jobs and less money to buy what can be produced, as we’re pushed into the low-paying personal service sector of the economy.
Which will also mean fewer profits for the handful of billionaire executives and owner-investors, because potential consumers won’t be able to afford what they’re selling.
What to do? We might try to levy a gigantic tax on the incomes of the billionaire winners and redistribute their winnings to everyone else. But even if politically feasible, the winners will be tempted to store their winnings abroad – or expatriate.
Suppose we look instead at the patents and trademarks by which government protects all these new inventions.
Such government protections determine what these inventions are worth. If patents lasted only three years instead of the current twenty, for example, What’sApp would be worth a small fraction of $19 billion – because after three years anybody could reproduce its messaging technology for free.
Instead of shortening the patent period, how about giving every citizen a share of the profits from all patents and trademarks government protects? It would be a condition for receiving such protection.
Say, for example, 20 percent of all such profits were split equally among all citizens, starting the month they turn eighteen.
In effect, this would be a basic minimum income for everyone.
The sum would be enough to ensure everyone a minimally decent standard of living – including money to buy the technologies that would free them up from the necessity of working.
Anyone wishing to supplement their basic minimum could of course choose to work – even though, as noted, most jobs will pay modestly.
This outcome would also be good for the handful of billionaire executives and owner-investors, because it would ensure they have customers with enough money to buy their labor-saving gadgets.
Such a basic minimum would allow people to pursue whatever arts or avocations provide them with meaning, thereby enabling society to enjoy the fruits of such artistry or voluntary efforts.
We would thereby create the kind of society John Maynard Keynes predicted we’d achieve by 2028 – an age of technological abundance in which no one will need to work.
Happy Labor Day.
10. Thank Unions
This Labor Day brought to you by unions
by Richard Gulla, thecitizen.villagesoup.com, September 2, 2015
Many of you will enjoy a long weekend due to the annual celebration of Labor Day, the first Monday of September.
Labor Day, which was created by the labor movement in 1882, is just one of many work rights and benefits that unions have provided for all working people over time. Unions have done great things for workers that they use and benefit from each day of their lives – things like paid vacation, paid sick leave, maternity leave, eight-hour workdays, weekends, breaks at work (lunch), overtime pay, wage increases, safety standards in the workplace and so on.
Yet, unions and their members, working families like yours and mine, are currently under attack by a well-orchestrated and well-funded counter movement.
The Koch brothers and Americans for Prosperity are among those who are doing all in their power to dismantle the workers’ rights we have fought to earn.
They want to turn back time and do away with a five-day work week, do away with the minimum wage, do away with overtime pay and paid holidays.
They do so by making jumbo contributions to support political candidates, such as presidential candidate Scott Walker and many others. Once elected, these politicians introduce legislation that has been drafted by the extreme right, including the so-called right-to-work laws, laws to do away with collective bargaining and many others designed to weaken and eventually reverse all workers’ rights.
We need unions now more than ever before to preserve the many work related rights we now have. The income disparity in our nation is unparalleled. Those who hold all the wealth and power are determined to keep it to themselves by suppressing working families.
If we do not stand up for ourselves, the progress gained by dozens of generations will disappear. Employers will be able to pay workers for maximum hours at below minimum wages. The ability to take a sick day without loss of income will be gone. Workplace accidents that result in loss of wages will be standard. This is not what I wish to see for our great state and nation. I wager that you do not, either.
I invite you to stand with us in protecting the rights we have fought hard to obtain for all working people. Talk with your family, co-workers and neighbors about the subject. Educate yourself about where political candidates stand on labor issues. Just as it was with generations before us, the power to protect the American Dream is in our hands. We just need to use it.
Richard Gulla is president of SEA/SEIU Local 1984
11. Lessons from the Summer
The 9 big things I think I know about the 2016 Republican race
by Chris Cillizza, The Fix, washingtonpost.com, September 2, 2015
Summer is (almost) officially over. There are 152 days between today and the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses. Now seems a good time to go through the nine facts I think I know about the state of the Republican race. (I did this for Democrats last week.)
And away we go!
1. Donald Trump isn't going anywhere.
The summer of Trump looks poised to turn seamlessly to the autumn of Trump. His numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire -- as well as nationally -- look to have topped off a bit of late, but a) that still puts him in a very strong position, and b) his numbers haven't dropped off in any meaningful way.
Trump's immigration stance makes him appealing to a large number of conservatives, and his willingness to say whatever he is thinking at any moment conveys a sense of freedom that attracts less partisan Republicans. Trump's, um, trump card in the race might actually be his unwillingness to accept big-dollar contributions; that's his biggest applause line at many of his events.
2. Republicans hate the party establishment. A lot.
We've known for a while that people are fed up with the political status quo. I don't think anyone grasped just how deep-rooted that dislike for the political establishment really was, however. Four in 10 Republicans in the new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll chose either Trump (23 percent) or Ben Carson (18 percent) as their preferred candidate. Neither man has either held or even run for political office before.
Even a decade ago, that would have been unthinkable. Putting aside the frontrunning status of Trump and Carson, the hottest candidate on the GOP side is former HP executive Carly Fiorina. Fiorina, like Trump and Carson, has never held any elected office -- although she did run unsuccessfully for Senate in 2010 in California. Meanwhile, people like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and former Florida governor Jeb Bush seem to be struggling to appeal to Republicans in early states.
3. Jeb Bush is not where he wants to be.
The rise of Trump has complicated every other candidates' plans, but Bush's dilemma is unique. He quite clearly wanted to totally ignore Trump in hopes that the boomlet surrounding the real estate reality star would burst. But it didn't. And now Bush finds himself caught between a rock and a hard place: Attack Trump, which is the opposite of his promise to campaign "joyfully," or risk being regarded as weak.
Jeb's decision to attack is probably the right one -- though in truth neither were good options. It remains to be seen whether he can be the first Republican candidate to successfully slow Trump while also not sustaining campaign-damaging injuries. Bush doesn't have oodles of goodwill with the GOP electorate: In the Register/Bloomberg poll, more Republicans viewed him unfavorably than regarded him favorably.
4. Ted Cruz is right where he wants to be.
Lost amid the focus on Trump and, to a lesser extent, Bush, is the fact that the senator from Texas is sitting right behind the lead pack, biding his time and making sure no one gets to his ideological right on, well, anything.
Cruz is tied for third in Iowa, according to the Register poll, and is regarded favorably by more than six in 10 likely caucus-goers. The struggles of Rand Paul -- more on that later -- have allowed Cruz to seize more space within the GOP than I thought he would be able to at this point in the race. Plus, Cruz's fundraising success via a group of aligned super PACs virtually ensures that he will have enough money to compete in the early states and take advantage of a better-than-expected showing in any of them.
Cruz's biggest issue is that he needs Trump or Carson -- or Trump and Carson -- to lose some steam so that he can pick up the similarly minded voters who have flocked to that duo.
5. Scott Walker. Ugh.
Any time you openly acknowledge that you need to "show more of the real you" on the campaign trail, it's not a good sign.
The Wisconsin governor's once-solid edge in Iowa has slipped mightily; he's now in single digits, having lost nine points of support since a May Register poll. Walker's fumbling answers on whether he supports the revocation of birthright citizenship showed how much Trump has gotten into his head, and it's led to renewed chatter that Walker might have bitten off more than he could chew in this race.
Walker is in danger of losing control of his image -- standing for nothing and, therefore, falling for everything. His résumé remains potent, but he needs to figure out who he is as a candidate -- and fast.
6. Rand Paul. Double ugh.
At the start of 2015, I saw the Kentucky senator as a possible top-tier candidate, given his strength with libertarians, his efforts to court the establishment and his presumed fundraising ability.
Nine months later, he's in Alaska looking for somewhere to win votes. Paul has simply disappeared from the main conversation within the GOP about the policies -- and the candidate to carry those policies -- they want and need in 2016. He has, oddly, transformed into his father -- a niche candidate for a not-big-enough piece of the Republican electorate.
Paul's moves back in Kentucky to preserve his ability to run for reelection to the Senate even while running for president suggest he sees the writing on the wall.
7. Chris Christie. Triple ugh.
Want to take a guess at what the New Jersey governor's favorable/unfavorable ratings were among likely Republican caucus-goers in the Register/Bloomberg poll? Try 29 percent favorable to 59 percent unfavorable.
Christie, to his credit, continues to pound New Hampshire with visits in hopes of staging the sort of comeback that John McCain did -- and with the same straight-talking appeal -- in 2008. Maybe. Christie's image problems suggest that voters may be too far gone to care about him. At this point, there's no debate that Christie would have been A LOT better off running in 2012.
8. Super PACs can't save you. Not really.
Conventional wisdom -- including from yours truly -- going into the 2016 cycle was that with every major 2016 candidate having at least one aligned super PAC, no one would need to drop out of the race before the first votes.
Well, Rick Perry's campaign has put lie to that assumption. Perry is essentially out of money in his campaign account but does still have several million dollars sitting in a friendly super PAC. That hasn't stopped a series of defections from his campaigns in key states like Iowa and New Hampshire. The lesson? Super PACs can solve some problems but not all problems. Staff, donors and activists like to be with someone who looks like a winner. And a super PAC is never going to be able to fill that void if a candidate can't do it. (Note: Are you listening, Jeb?)
9. Attacking Hillary Clinton = good strategy.
Fiorina has spent much of the past nine months hammering away at Hillary Clinton. It's worked. Fiorina's status as the Clinton attack dog coupled with avery strong performance at the so-called "kids table" debate last month have made her a candidate on the rise.
As we've written before in this space, Fiorina was very smart to run for president in 2016 given the lack of gender diversity being offered up by her party and the looming presence of a general election fight against Clinton. Expect Fiorina to continue to bash away at Clinton and paint herself as the candidate best equipped to draw a winning contrast with the former secretary of state. It has worked so far.
FINALLY
No comments:
Post a Comment