AROUND NEW HAMPSHIRE
1. The Republican Budget: Cuts & Downshifting
The veto is not the issue – the issue is compromise
Here’s the thing — this summer’s budget crisis cannot be laid solely at the feet of Gov. Hassan as suggested in a previous letter to Viewpoints.
In June, Gov. Hassan’s proposed budget was sent to the House. This is the usual first step in the budget review process. The Republican led Finance Committee proposed millions of dollars in Draconian cuts such as cutting almost $10 million from the rainy day fund, $50 million from the renewable energy fund (RGGI) and nearly $8 million for the community college system.
In addition the Finance Committee declared there will be no Medicaid Expansion renewal in New Hampshire, and removed the funds targeted for the state’s portion of the program.
Further, the House cut millions from the Department of Health and Human Services budget. These cuts would leave thousands of people without the infusion of funds to help fund programs which are needed such a substance abuse programs, Meals on Wheels and ServiceLink.
The need does not go away just because the money is cut. To fund any DHHS programs that are in jeopardy, the funds would come from the county budget and in some cases, your property taxes. If this is not remedied, you could conceivably see the tax increases as soon as next year or when you see your first tax bill of 2016. For example, the Hillsborough County budget has projected an 8 percent increase should be expected to just begin to cover county costs.
The next step in the process is to send that House version on to the Senate. To their credit, the Senate did listen to hours of dissent from citizens from all over New Hampshire whose lives would suffer if the cuts were not restored. Ultimately, the Senate restored some funds in many of the line items, but in most cases did not fund to even present day levels.
Technically they can say they did restore some of the budget. Also not included in the Senate version of the budget is the raise to the state employees or funding for Medicaid Expansion.
To add to the mix, the Senate decided to institute tax breaks to businesses operating in New Hampshire. The tax break would play out over three years.
The last step in the usual process is to return the budget to the governor for signature or veto. In July, when the budget revised by the Senate was returned to the governor, she vetoed it. To date, the Joint Fiscal Committee and the Joint Finance Committee have refused to respond to the veto.
Hassan then released a compromise proposal. Again, no response.
There is no question that Hassan’s compromise proposal has been ignored.
It is clear that the most vulnerable among us will suffer from the cuts proposed by the Republican led House and Senate. Property taxes, county taxes, and school budgets will reflect the shortfall and you, the ordinary taxpayer, will be asked to fund the downshifted needs because the need doesn’t go away.
Please contact members of your delegation. To find your legislators names, go tohttp://www.gencourt.state.
This issue of compromise needs to be fixed.
Rep. Carol R. Roberts (D — Wilton), represents Hillsborough District 4 which includes: Francestown, Greenville, Lyndeborough and Wilton.
2. The New NH Charitable Gambling Law
Poker law raises revenues and worries
by Garry Rayno, unionleader.com, September 1, 2015
CONCORD — Removing the betting limit for some forms of charitable poker games has attracted more players and dramatically increased state revenues and money for charities.
But some are concerned that poker players could lose lots of cash, and want to see changes.
Lobbyist Rick Newman, who represents the River Card Room in Milford and was the manager of the Lakes Region Greyhound Park facility in Belmont, said the law that went into effect July 1 has made a big difference. He said cash poker games at the Milford facility generated less than $2,000 in June, but $40,000 in July.
“The charities got 35 percent, the state 10 percent and a lot more dealers have jobs,” Newman said.House Bill 169 passed the Legislature this year and was signed by Gov. Maggie Hassan June 30, the day before it went into effect.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Kermit Williams, D-Wilton, said he wanted to make New Hampshire’s charitable poker games more satisfying for the players, many of whom did not like the bet limit of $4 per hand. The goal was to make the cash games more like poker tournaments, with higher stakes and larger bets.
But on Tuesday, he told the Games of Chance Study Commission that his bill has had some unintended consequences.
Under HB 169, the limit on bets is removed and a $150 buy-in per game is established. But charitable gaming operators have set that limit on one round of play — allowing players the $150 buy-in more than once. One facility allows a buy-in five times — raising the stakes to $750.
Paul M. Kelley, director of the Racing and Charitable Gaming Commission, said the change has produced about a 40 percent jump in state revenue, with a projected increase of about $500,000 for the fiscal year.
Commission member Rep. Pat Abrami, R-Stratham, noted the changes move the poker games “out of the realm of charitable gaming into real gambling.” He called for more regulation.
Another commission member and long-time casino gambling advocate Sen. Lou D’Allesandro, D-Manchester, called it an unregulated situation, with little uniformity among the facilities.
“It’s not unregulated. We’re on top of it,” said Ted Connors, chairman of the Racing and Charitable Gaming Commission. “It is quite a bonanza for the charities right now.”
Connors said his agency plans to make some changes when it meets Sept. 9, but they will not be dramatic.
In July the commission asked to see each of the 10 licensed facilities’ house rules for the cash poker games, and is expected to set limits on how much players can wager.
The Milford facility caps the amount of chips a player can hold at 300 and allows only two buy-ins, Newman said, noting other facilities have different limits.
Rockingham Park President and General Manager Ed Callahan told the study commission that since July 1, charities at the Salem facility have seen revenues increase 64 percent and state revenue has jumped 44 percent.
Callahan suggested many of the poker players who were going to Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun are now staying in New Hampshire, and participants in hundreds of home games are now coming to a regulated room, which he described as a much safer environment.
But some are concerned that poker players could lose lots of cash, and want to see changes.
Lobbyist Rick Newman, who represents the River Card Room in Milford and was the manager of the Lakes Region Greyhound Park facility in Belmont, said the law that went into effect July 1 has made a big difference. He said cash poker games at the Milford facility generated less than $2,000 in June, but $40,000 in July.
“The charities got 35 percent, the state 10 percent and a lot more dealers have jobs,” Newman said.House Bill 169 passed the Legislature this year and was signed by Gov. Maggie Hassan June 30, the day before it went into effect.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Kermit Williams, D-Wilton, said he wanted to make New Hampshire’s charitable poker games more satisfying for the players, many of whom did not like the bet limit of $4 per hand. The goal was to make the cash games more like poker tournaments, with higher stakes and larger bets.
But on Tuesday, he told the Games of Chance Study Commission that his bill has had some unintended consequences.
Under HB 169, the limit on bets is removed and a $150 buy-in per game is established. But charitable gaming operators have set that limit on one round of play — allowing players the $150 buy-in more than once. One facility allows a buy-in five times — raising the stakes to $750.
Paul M. Kelley, director of the Racing and Charitable Gaming Commission, said the change has produced about a 40 percent jump in state revenue, with a projected increase of about $500,000 for the fiscal year.
Commission member Rep. Pat Abrami, R-Stratham, noted the changes move the poker games “out of the realm of charitable gaming into real gambling.” He called for more regulation.
Another commission member and long-time casino gambling advocate Sen. Lou D’Allesandro, D-Manchester, called it an unregulated situation, with little uniformity among the facilities.
“It’s not unregulated. We’re on top of it,” said Ted Connors, chairman of the Racing and Charitable Gaming Commission. “It is quite a bonanza for the charities right now.”
Connors said his agency plans to make some changes when it meets Sept. 9, but they will not be dramatic.
In July the commission asked to see each of the 10 licensed facilities’ house rules for the cash poker games, and is expected to set limits on how much players can wager.
The Milford facility caps the amount of chips a player can hold at 300 and allows only two buy-ins, Newman said, noting other facilities have different limits.
Rockingham Park President and General Manager Ed Callahan told the study commission that since July 1, charities at the Salem facility have seen revenues increase 64 percent and state revenue has jumped 44 percent.
Callahan suggested many of the poker players who were going to Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun are now staying in New Hampshire, and participants in hundreds of home games are now coming to a regulated room, which he described as a much safer environment.
3. NH: Behind in Solar
Report: NH lags the region in solar energy
by Bob Sanders, nhbr.com, September 3, 2015
New Hampshire has the lowest ranking of any New England state when it comes to the amount of installed solar energy per person, and it especially lags behind Massachusetts and Vermont, which are among the nation’s leaders, according to report released by Environmental New Hampshire.
The difference is even more dramatic when you consider that the Granite State doubled its total amount of solar power in 2014.
New Hampshire installed three megawatts of solar power in 2014, bringing its total solar power capability to five megawatts, which is the lowest amount of the 32 states included in the report.
On a per-capita basis, that’s four watts per New Hampshire resident, which places the state 29th out of the 32 states.
Compare that with 24th-ranked Maine, with 10 watts a person, eight-ranked Massachusetts, with 111 watts per person, or seventh-ranked Vermont, with 112 watts per person.
Indeed, Massachusetts installed 308 megawatts of solar power last year, the fourth highest total of any state. The Bay State now has 750 megawatts of installed solar, the sixth-highest ranking. California has the most, nearly 10,000 megawatts, and Hawaii has the most per capita, 312 watts.
New Hampshire could do better, said Jana Wilkes, a new organizer for Environment New Hampshire, which is scheduled to hold a press conference about the report Thursday. “The state needs to change its policies to encourage solar.”
Renewable Energy Fund
Jack Ruderman, director of community initiatives for solar installer ReVision Energy and former director of the NH Public Utilities Commission’s Sustainable Energy Division,, ticked off some of the policies to explain the reason New Hampshire lags behind other states:
• The renewable energy certificate value received by power generators is low. New Hampshire has a price cap of $55 per megawatt. Massachusetts has a price floor that’s declining but still won’t go lower than $189.
• Renewable energy goals are very low. New Hampshire only requires that utilities in the Granite State obtain 0.3 percent of their energy from solar, a figure that won’t be going up. That works out to just 30 megawatts. Massachusetts; goal is 1,600 megawatts.
• Net metering restrictions are limiting. New Hampshire only allows systems with under a megawatt to sell power back to the grid, with a total capacity of 50 megawatts, to be apportioned by load among the utilities. But three of the four utilities are getting close to their goals. Most other states with net metering don’t have a cap and allow larger systems to use them.
• The state’s Renewable Energy Fund, paid for by utilities that don’t meet the above goals either by purchasing power or renewable energy certificates, is in a precarious state. When it was doing well and it looked like it would be able to hand out $20 million to $25 million a year, the Legislature considered raiding it to balance the budget. The budget that passed, but was vetoed by Gov. Maggie Hassan, reduced that raid to $700,000 this year and $1.5 million the next. In addition, another bill pertaining to the state Site Evaluation Committee, which mainly concentrates on wind farms and oil and gas pipelines, will grab $500,000.
These raids didn’t seem like that much at the time, but it turns out the state will only be getting about $7 million for its Renewable Energy Fund next year, said Ruderman. Already, the grants for large scale solar projects has been exhausted said Ruderman.
“Solar is the fastest-growing market in New Hampshire,” Ruderman said. “We are bursting at the seams. Still, because of these policies, we have to work very hard to bring these deals to fruition.”
4. A Competitive Future
Planning to help NH compete
There is much to do to make the state competitive and keep it a great place to live
by Bill Norton, nhbr.com, September 1, 2015
In the past several columns, I have been ruminating about the future of New Hampshire and how it will compete in the global economy.
There are many elements that contribute to answering that question. First, most would say, is demographics – how many, how old, how educated, how wealthy (or poor) the population is. The second might be our economy in terms of types of jobs and quantity of jobs. Third might be education – are our citizens well-trained and educated to compete in the 21st century? Next, I would put quality of life. I am sure there are other factors which for now we will label “other.”
In April, after returning from Denver, I was excited about the energy young tech companies and their employees can bring to a neighborhood, city or region. But it immediately comes to mind that there has to be scalability to rise up and be noticed in the global marketplace.
Concord at 43,000, Portsmouth at 24,000, Manchester at 113,000 and Nashua at 95,000 don't do it. But if we aggregated all of southern New Hampshire (and even overlap into Vermont, northern Mass and/or Maine), then we are approaching a half-million people, and that may get us a seat at the table.
One of the “other” elements is colleges, tech schools and universities. They are economic engines and must be part of the equation. Southern New Hampshire University is truly a global entity, with over 70,000 online students, a large percentage of whom are international. Dartmouth has a global footprint (but remains hugely isolated and unconnected to New Hampshire). Our tech schools are OK, but fall well short of the 99 community tech schools/colleges in North Carolina, for instance.
This is a philosophical and strategic view – the details and tactics can come later. In management, organizational improvement and strategic management classes, we hear and see, “Plan your management and manage your plan.” If you don't have a plan or a vision you cannot manage it.
Much to do
Can New Hampshire be a successful entrepreneurial platform to launch transformative concepts that address our population trends and demographics? Our economy is largely service sector-driven and dwindling in strong manufacturing jobs. What about our education systems, from pre-K through bachelor’s and master’s programs? The quality-of-life equation?
I began my career development as a carpenter’s apprentice. I thought I would work in at least six trades (carpentry, plumbing, heating and mechanical, electrical, masonry and site work) so I would be well prepared to go on to study architecture. I never quite got there, but I have always touched “the built environment,” whether that is houses, apartments, condos, office buildings, medical facilities, warehouses or manufacturing. I have studied neighborhoods, communities, towns, cities and regions. I have a master's degree in urban geography and marketing.
My goal for the next decade is to integrate all this education and experience, along with visions from travel in the U.S. and abroad, into efforts to improve health (not health care), neighborhoods (through infill and intergenerational housing) the economy and jobs (promoting more tech and modern manufacturing), and even education.
I have worked on several charter schools – they feel right, but they fall under the Department of Education, so they are challenged to be all they might be and are constantly accused of “stealing” all the good students, leaving the rest in the mainstream system.) That one won't be solved this year – or next!
To make New Hampshire competitive and keep it a great place to live, there is much to do. We need to acknowledge that, then identify all of our weaknesses and then start addressing them collaboratively and at a scale we can actually move the needle and affect net change. If we cannot do it in New Hampshire with 1.3 million people or even southern New Hampshire, then the future is dour.
5. Undeclared Voters in NH
Will The N.H. Primary Be "Independents' Day?" All Signs Point To Yes
by Steve Koczela, nhpr.org,
New Hampshire’s independent streak is wider than ever and still growing. And that could make predicting the outcome of the 2016 presidential primary tougher than usual.
In political terms, increasing numbers of New Hampshire voters are showing their independence by declining to register with either major party. There are more of these “undeclared” voters in New Hampshire today than in any previous election cycle, and they are playing a bigger role in the state's primary elections.
Because New Hampshire allows undeclared voters to participate in the party primary of their choosing, they add a dose of uncertainty to each party’s contest. And when they do cast a ballot, recent history shows independent voters choose different candidates than party loyalists in either contest.
New Hampshire Has More Undeclared Voters Than Ever
Source: NH Secretary of State figures, averaged for each Presidential Election
Let’s take a look at the numbers. Since 1992 the number of undeclared voters has more than doubled in New Hampshire, while the total number registered with a major party has climbed less than 10 percent. Today, 44 percent of registered New Hampshire voters are unaffiliated with a political party, the highest share ever, and that number is likely to climb.
These undeclared voters aren't content to sit on the sidelines on Primary Day, and their presence is slowly but surely reshaping presidential primary contests. In 1996, just 21 percent of Primary Day voters were undeclared. Over the last few election cycles, this figure has jumped to between 35 percent and 37 percent overall. And in the most competitive contests within each party’s primary, the share of undeclared voters has been higher than 40 percent.
Undeclared Voters Are Playing A Larger Role in N.H. Primaries
Chart 1: Undeclared voters and undeclared N.H. Primary voters are on the rise
Chart 2: Undeclared voter participation in party primaries varies greatly based on political climate
Source: NH Secretary of State website. Total undeclared voter participation figures are available back to 1996. Breakdown of which party primary undeclared voters participated in is only available back to 2000
This trend shows no signs of reversing. If anything, the influence of undeclared voters in all aspects of New Hampshire politics may grow even stronger as demographic trends take hold. Compared to other age groups, young people in New Hampshire are less likely to register with either political party. Just over half of voters under 30 are undeclared, a percentage that's nearly twice as high as for the state’s oldest voters.
New Hampshire's Undeclared Voter Roles Will Continue to Grow
Data from NH state voter file from Aristotle, Inc. Voter age is appended using commercial databases.
As today’s young people become a larger share of the state’s electorate, the share of undeclared voters is likely to grow. This pattern is not unique to New Hampshire, but it does matter more here than elsewhere, given the importance of the state’s undeclared voters in the first-in-the-nation presidential primary.
In theory, tomorrow’s younger voters could prove to be more partisan, but there's no evidence this is on the horizon. The Pew Research Center has tracked party affiliation by generation for decades. Their research shows, at most, a very slight trend toward party affiliation as voters age, but not nearly enough to stem the tide of independents washing upward on the state’s population pyramid.
Younger people are also least likely to see a major difference between the two parties, and they are the most likely of any generation to consider themselves political independents.
Source: Pew Research Survey, Feb 12-26 2014
Even if New Hampshire’s younger population continues to decline, this trend will continue as each age group proves more independent than the one before it. In other words, today’s 70-year-old is more likely to be undeclared than today’s 80-year-old. This is a trend accelerated by young people, but it’s not exclusive to young people.
Whatever happens in the future, today’s undeclared voters introduce the potential for volatility in New Hampshire right up through February's first-in-the-nation contest. That’s because they can change their mind as to which party election to vote in, even as they walk into their polling place.
For instance, if the Donald Trump wave continues and the Republican side does not appear competitive, undeclared voters may choose the Democratic primary rather than “waste” their ballots on what appears to be a foregone conclusion. If both races are competitive, as was the case in 2008, undeclared turnout could soar on both sides.
All of this poses problems for pollsters, given that a large slice of voters polled this week for the Republican contest may opt for the Democratic side next week, and flip back to the GOP the week after. Research shows that New Hampshire's undeclared voters do indeed change their plans for which primary they will choose. In 2000, for instance, some undeclared voters who initially said they planned to vote in the Democratic primary changed their mind and voted on the GOP side, boosting Arizona Sen. John McCain in the Republican contest. He would go on to win, based largely on his margin among independent voters.
The lack of a publicly available state voter file means we don’t have great data on the extent of switching primaries between elections. But looking at the drastic differences in turnout from election to election shows it is not just the same old group of disguised partisans who make up the undeclared voter group each election cycle.
McCain's 2000 victory is not the only time independent voters took a different route than partisan voters. Most pre-election polls and exit polls focus on which party voters identify with most closely rather than how they are actually registered. This makes assessing the impact of undeclared participation somewhat imprecise. But there is considerable overlap between registration and self-identification, and the differences in candidate preference are often considerable, meaning we can use party ID as a rough approximation for party registration in this case.
In 2008, for example, Barack Obama pulled more support from independent voters, while Hillary Clinton rode Democratic support to a surprise upset,according to exit polls. On the Republican side that year, it was just the opposite, with John McCain again winning with a lopsided margin among independent voters. In 2012, Mitt Romney tied with Ron Paul among independents but won the primary easily because of his 34-point margin among registered Republicans.
History shows this trend over and over again. Independent voters do not vote like partisans. Historically, the candidate with the highest level of support from partisans wins the primary. But with the share of undeclared voters at an all-time high and rising, we are nearing the day when the whims of the undeclared voters may prove decisive.
6. Saying One Thing While Voting the Other Way
Kelly Ayotte Highlights Importance Of Critical Women’s Health Services She Just Voted To Defund
by Ajacobs, nhdp.org, September 2, 2015
Concord, N.H. – Yesterday, Kelly Ayotte tweeted a reminder that September is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, highlighting the importance of the critical women’s health services that Ayotte herself has repeatedly voted to defund.
Planned Parenthood provides thousands of New Hampshire women with breast and cervical cancer screenings, in addition to exams that can increase the chance of early detection of ovarian cancer, which can make a huge difference in treatment. Despite the critical health services they provide, Ayotte has voted three times to defund Planned Parenthood, and has also voted to eliminate funding for thousands of family planning centers across the country.
“Kelly Ayotte is correct that we need to raise awareness about the importance of women’s health services, but the problem is that Ayotte has repeatedly voted to defund those very same services,” said New Hampshire Democratic Party Communications Director Lizzy Price. “The fact that Ayotte clearly understands the importance of the critical health services that Planned Parenthood provides makes her three votes to defund Planned Parenthood even more appalling.”
BACKGROUND
Regular Physical And Pelvic Exams Increase The Chance Of Early Detection Of Ovarian Cancer. “How is ovarian cancer diagnosed? Regular physical and pelvic exams increase the chance of early detection, because health care providers can check for tenderness and swelling. Blood tests, abdominal ultrasounds, MRIs, biopsies, and other tests can be used to diagnose or rule out ovarian cancer.” [PlannedParenthood.org, Accessed 9/2/15]
Mar. 2011: Ayotte Voted For Republican Continuing Resolution That Eliminated Title X Funding And Blocked Funding For Planned Parenthood. According to the National Women’s Law Center, the Republican continuing resolution, which Ayotte voted for, “Eliminates Funding for the Title X Family Planning Program, Teen Pregnancy Prevention and Planned Parenthood H.R. 1 eliminates funding for the Title X program, which for more than 40 years has provided family planning services, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and other preventive health care to low-income women in need. Title X-funded health centers serve more than five million low-income women and men each year, and six in 10 women who obtain health care from a family planning center consider it to be their primary source of health care.” [National Women’s Law Center, 3/30/11; H.R. 1, Vote 36, 3/9/11]
- Title X Program Funded Nearly 4,200 Family Planning Centers That Served About 4.5 Million Clients Per Year And Provided Broad Range Of Contraceptive Methods And Counseling, Breast And Cervical Cancer Screenings, Pregnancy Testing And Counseling, And STD Treatment And Screening. “For more than 40 years, Title X family planning centers have provided high quality and cost-effective family planning and related preventive health services for low-income women and men. Family planning centers play a critical role in ensuring access to voluntary family planning information and services for their clients based on their ability to pay. Family planning centers offer a broad range of FDA-approved contraceptive methods and related counseling; as well as breast and cervical cancer screening; pregnancy testing and counseling; screening and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (STIs); HIV testing; and other patient education and referrals. […] The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Population Affairs (OPA) oversees the Title X program. OPA funds a network of nearly 4,200 family planning centers which serve about 4.5 million clients a year. Services are provided through state, county, and local health departments; community health centers; Planned Parenthood centers; and hospital-based, school-based, faith-based, other private nonprofits.” [Department of Health & Human Services, Accessed 8/7/15]
AND NATIONALLY
7. Another Immigration Myth
Immigrants Don't Drain Welfare. They Fund It.
by Laura Reston, newrepublic.com, September 3, 2015
Republican presidential candidates who want to deport undocumented immigrants en masse, end birthright citizenship, and build a wall along the Mexican border just got some new ammunition. A report released Wednesday by the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that advocates for reducing immigration to the United States, has concluded that 51 percent of households headed by immigrants—legal or undocumented—receive some kind of welfare. “They are creating a significant burden on public coffers,” writes Steven Camarota, the study’s author and the director of research for CIS. “By using welfare programs immigrants may strain public resources, harming taxpayers and making it more difficult to assist the low-income population already in the country.”
While that sentiment is likely to resonate with conservatives, the facts prove otherwise: Native-born Americans aren’t footing the bill for immigrants so much as immigrants are contributing to a welfare system that many of them can't take advantage of.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 cut back on welfare extended to immigrants. It categorized green card holders and refugees granted asylum as “qualified,” and all other immigrants—including undocumented workers and many people lawfully here in the United States—as “not qualified” and therefore ineligible for welfare. But the law stipulated that even qualified immigrants had to spend five years in the United States before they could apply for benefits like Medicaid, food stamps, or cash assistance for families with children. Since that major welfare reform, some states have responded by providing for immigrants with programs that offer health care to the children of immigrants or pregnant mothers, and a few states—like California and New York—offer nutritional or cash assistance. But those efforts are mostly limited to qualified residents, while all other immigrants are still almost universally banned from receiving welfare.
The CIS study exaggerates the number of immigrants on welfare by using households as the unit of analysis; as long as the head of household is an immigrant, they consider it an immigrant household, and Camarota counts a household “as using welfare if any one of its members used welfare during 2012.” This means that a household with an American spouse who therefore qualified for welfare could be counted as “using welfare.” The same would go for a child born in the United States to immigrant parents. If he or she received subsidized lunch at school, the whole household would be categorized as “using welfare.” As the Cato Institute notes in its critique of the study, that measure is “ambiguous, poorly defined, and less used in modern research for those reasons.” Relying on such mutable methodology let Camarota exaggerate the number of immigrants on welfare to back up the claim that Americans are footing the bill for immigrants.
Groups like The American Immigration Council have long argued that, contra conservative depictions of “moocher,” immigrants have long given more to the welfare system than they take from it. “In one estimate, immigrants earn about $240 billion a year, pay about $90 billion a year in taxes, and use about $5 billion in public benefits,” a 2010 report by the Council found. “In another cut of the data, immigrant tax payments total $20 to $30 billion more than the amount of government services they use.” And a report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2013 found that “more than half of undocumented immigrants have federal and state income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes automatically deducted from their paychecks.” Those immigrants are essentially helping to underwrite the welfare system, providing an enormous subsidy to it every year without being able to reap any of the benefits.
Camarota rejects that conclusion.
“We have an immigration system that lets in vast numbers of unskilled laborers. We tolerate illegal immigration,” he said in an interview. “Pretty much everyone concludes that it’s going to be a net drain.” He wants to institute a “selective” immigration system, one that cuts back on the number of immigrants and places an emphasis on allowing only educated, not unskilled, workers into the country.
Many economists would advise against such a plan. From construction sites in Virginia to farms along the California coastline, immigrants provide essential labor in an evolving economy. The Chamber of Commerce report found they are more than twice as likely as native-born Americans to start a new business each month. In fact, immigrants started 28 percent of all new businesses in the United States in 2011. Immigrants pay billions in taxes to the government every year; in Texas alone, they generate $1.6 billion annually in taxes. To deport millions en masse, sending them back to their home countries—to say nothing of Donald Trump’s proposal to uproot American citizens born here—would be economically disastrous.
8. About that "Work Your Way Through College" Idea
Next time someone says students should work their way through college, show them this map
by Libby Nelson, vox.com, August 28, 2015
Part of the reason college is so expensive now is that tuition has risen much faster than inflation. But the other reason is that wages have stagnated.
The result is that working your way through college, possible in the 1970s and '80s, is now a thing of the past.
At the flagship public universities in most states, students working 20 hours a week at minimum wage would have to work for more than a year in order to afford a year's worth of tuition, as this map from the Chronicle of Higher Education's Sandhya Kambhampati and Meredith Myers shows:
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4008538/Screen%20Shot%202015-08-28%20at%2010.34.16%20AM.png)
Flagship universities tend to be the most prestigious and best-known, but also the most expensive. Still, this map is just about tuition. It doesn't even count room and board or living expenses, which at some public universities exceeds tuition and fees.
The Chronicle has built a fascinating tool that lets you test different minimum wage levels and see how much tuition a year's worth of earnings at 20 hours per week would cover. In some states, even raising the minimum wage to $15 wouldn't be enough.
It's a good reminder that increasing tuition prices aren't the only reason college can feel unaffordable. Stagnating wages mean students can't contribute as much as they used to to tuition bills, either.
9. Angry White Voters
Donald Trump and the decline of the white voter
by Janell Ross, washingtonpost.com, September 1, 2015
If this summer in politics had a singular and omnipresent theme, it would be Donald Trump. Trump has survived public statements and controversies t
And, as summer draws to an end, GOP officials now seem resigned to a certain fate: One way or another, Trump will be a factor in the 2016 race -- a factor that must be managed and/or dealt with.
For the party, this involves harnessing the political enthusiasm of Trump's mostly but not exclusively white supporters -- people attracted to Trump's hard-line immigration and trade platforms -- and yet somehow broadening the party's appeal beyond it's overwhelmingly white base. Both are pretty essential to the GOP's path to the White House. The truth is, fears are well-founded that Trump's supporters, many of whom are also known to be infrequent and inconsistent voters, will simply sit the election out if Trump is nowhere near the GOP's center stage.
In fact, white voter participation -- meaning the actual share of those who turn out and vote in presidential and congressional elections -- has been declining since about the mid-2000s. And in 2012, that pattern produced a first: African Americans participated in the presidential election at the highest rate, and white voters lagged behind in second place.
Consider these long-range looks at voter turn out in presidential (Chart No. 1) and midterm (Chart No. 2) elections.
Take a close look at both of those charts. The slow but clear decline in white voter turnout in both presidential and congressional elections started long before Trump joined the presidential race. The decline predates Obama's White House run and certainly his presidency. And while black and Latino voters haven't sustained the pattern of slow and steady increases in midterm elections, the top chart tells us that blacks and Asians have done just that in presidential election years.
Look closely: Something is eating white voters and has been for years.
This begins to explain why, in the 2016 GOP primary season, a collection of men and one woman who have never held public office -- businessman and reality TV star Donald Trump, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former tech executive Carly Fiorina -- are outperforming more conventional candidates with more campaign resources. It's early, of course, but that pattern sure is clear and intriguing.
One part, at the very least, of Trump's appeal to the GOP's largely white voter base has been his immigration policies. That includes the unilateral deportation of an estimated 11.3 million illegal immigrants and at least some of their 4.5 million U.S.-born children.
Trump often turns to generalizations about immigrants, entire countries -- namely China and Mexico -- and people who just happen to bear some loose resemblance to long-running stereotypes and ethnicity-enhanced suspicions. And the consistent way in which Trump supporters report admiration for his unbridled, politically incorrect way of speaking suggests that there might be some level of racial anxiety fueling support for his campaign.
To be clear: No one is saying that's the only reason that voters like Trump, or that this is the sole reason that white voters like Trump. But that is part of the appeal for some of his supporters.
In the crowded Republican field, the candidate who can figure out the Trump Secret Sauce might have a shot at attracting some of Trump's supporters if and when Trump is out. And the many other men and women competing to become the GOP nominee know this.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) has gone so far as to plan joint events with Trump. And both former Florida governor Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker have experimented with embracing harder-line immigration ideas and language. Those experiments have registered as pretty awkward, if not outright shoddy moments in both campaigns. In fairness to both Bush and Walker, of course, Trump has had years of practice speaking about himself and others in superlative terms, lobbing insults and generalizations at entire groups and living with the consequences.
But solving the riddle of the disappearing white voter is, for every GOP contender, critical. And yes, it's even more critical for Republicans in 2016 than Democrats. (Remember those charts above.) White voters comprise the vast majority of the GOP base. Broadening the party's appeal is an unavoidable long-term goal, but attracting as many white voters as possible to the polls is an immediate imperative.
Now, if all this business about white voters and black voters, Latino voters and Asian voters just plain disconcerts you, welcome to the present and future.
As the nation's population hurtles toward a state in which minority groups collectively comprise the country's majority (that will happen in 2044, according to the most recent Census projection) every feature of group political behavior -- meaning the well-documented ways in which black, Latino and Asian and, yes, white Americans behave politically -- is going to be increasingly important.
Sure, individual voters of all races and ethnicities sometimes operate in ways that are not like other members of their group. And other factors like income, education and geography also influence voter behavior. But race and ethnicity are major factors. Dismiss that and you won't be able to understand politics -- much less succeed in them -- in just a few years. In fact, you might have missed some significant aspects of national politics since Richard Nixon was in the White House.
That's why inside both major political parties, knitting together and sustaining cross-racial coalit
Case-in-point: Scott Walker's comments in this next CNBC interview.
Walker doesn't just avoid the question of what he, a politician who has always won Wisconsin-wide elections with a nearly all-white voter base, will do to broaden his appeal. He says something that those Trump voters who feel that they are overlooked and ignored by the "political class" probably won't like much.
"The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president," Walker said. "Twelve states are, and Wisconsin is one of them right now. New Hampshire [too]."
Translation: People who live in the remaining 38 don't matter.
FINALLY
No comments:
Post a Comment