AROUND NEW HAMPSHIRE
1. Maggie Running for Senate
New Hampshire Gov. Hassan to challenge Sen. Ayotte
by Steven Shepard, politico.com, October 5, 2015
by Steven Shepard, politico.com, October 5, 2015
New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan will challenge GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte next year, Hassan announced Monday — a decision that boosts Democrats' chances of winning the swing-state Senate seat and taking back control of the chamber.
"You can count on me to take my bipartisan approach, my common sense and my commitment to problem-solving and results to the Senate," Hassan said in a video announcing her candidacy.
Hassan's announcement is a boon for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which recruited the second-term governor to take on Ayotte. Democrats need to pick up four or five Senate seats — depending on which party wins the presidential election — to win back the Senate next year.
Polls have showed the popular Hassan running close with Ayotte in early matchups; Ayotte had a 3-point lead in an NBC News/Marist poll in early September. But Ayotte starts with a $5 million head start: The Republican will have raised $1.6 million in the third quarter, according to a campaign source. That's a slight uptick from the $1.4 million Ayotte raised in the second quarter.
The Hassan-Ayotte fight amplifies national attention on a race already at the center of presidential politics. Hassan recently endorsed Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, though her rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, leads most Granite State polls. The Senate race could determine whether Democrats are able to wrest back control of the chamber, which will give presidential candidates of both parties even more impetus to spend time in the early primary state.
Ayotte welcomed Hassan to the race with a statement that avoided criticism of her new Democratic rival. "We have lots to talk about," Ayotte said, "including confronting the challenges facing our state and how we can best deliver results for New Hampshire families."
But Republican groups signaled quickly that they would be critical of Hassan's tenure as governor, labeling her the "gridlock governor" for her role in a protracted budget fight this past summer.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee hit Hassan for vetoing a budget passed by the GOP-controlled state Legislature — the two sides came to an agreement last month on a budget and averted a shutdown of the state government. Hassan "has failed to move New Hampshire forward — and now she wants to take her résumé of partisan gridlock to Washington as Harry Reid’s hand-picked Senate candidate," said NRSC communications director Andrea Bozek.
Hassan, for her part, touted her gubernatorial record in the announcement video. "We held the line against an income or sales tax," she said. "We balanced the budget and created a business-friendly environment that has New Hampshire's unemployment rate at the lowest levels since 2008."
Hassan's decision not to seek a third term means Democrats will be seeking a candidate for next year. Early speculation has centered on Executive Councilor Colin Van Ostern. Chris Sununu, Van Ostern's GOP colleague on the Executive Council, is already in the gubernatorial race.
Democrats expressed confidence they would keep control in Concord, with Democratic Governors Association Executive Director Elisabeth Pearson noting that the GOP hasn't won the governorship in a presidential year since Steve Merrill was elected in 1992. (Republicans have won two midterm gubernatorial elections since then: Merrill's reelection in 1994 and Craig Benson's victory in 2002.)
Republican Governors Association Communications Director Jon Thompson said in a statement that Hassan's decision not to seek a third term "increases GOP chances of picking up the governorship and further puts Democrats on their heels nationally, creating the fifth open gubernatorial seat they must defend in 2016."
[To see Governor Hassan's announcement video, click on the following link:
The Governor's Race
...Battle for Governor
With Hassan running for the Senate rather than re-election, the big question is which Democrats will campaign to succeed her. Executive Councilor Colin Van Ostern, a likely candidate, put out a statement Monday morning saying "I will make a definitive announcement on whether I plan to be a candidate for Governor in the coming days."
State Sen. Andrew Hosmer told NH1 News on Monday that I"m "certainly thinking about it, continue to thinking about it, continue to listen to people throughout the state who’ve asked about it. But really haven’t made any decision. I don’t have any time frame. But happy to continue the conversations."
Portsmouth city councilwoman Stefany Shaheen, the daughter of U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, has also expressed interest in running.
Her father, New Hampshire DNC committee member Billy Shaheen, told NH1 News that "I do think she’s interested. And she’d be a terrific governor. The question is whether or not this is the time for her."
"Knowing me, I’m the last guy to tell a woman in my family what to do or what they’re going to do. I think she’ll do what her heart tells her to do.”
And State Sen. Lou D'Allesandro told NH1 News “I’m going to talk to my wife about it. See what she says."
"I do think we have a wide open race. Lot of people are talking about running for governor. I’ve done it before and it’s a tough tough business. But listen, her decision to run for the Senate opens it up for a lot of people. The names of Stefany Shaheen, Andrew Hosmer, Colin Van Ostern, (Mark) Connely, it will be like a cast of thousands, so buy your lottery ticker early."
Asked if he'll be part of that list, D'Allesandro told NH1 News "it may or may not, who knows."
The only declared candidate currently for governor is Republican Executive Councilor Chris Sununu, who launched his campaign on Labor Day.
by Colin Van Ostern, October 5, 2015
This morning, Governor Maggie Hassan announced that she will run for U.S. Senate in 2016. This is great news for the people of New Hampshire.
Maggie Hassan has been a great leader for our state. Her patient determination and her focus on always doing what's right for the people of New Hampshire leads to real progress. We need more of that in Washington. I really enjoy working with her, especially on expanding health care coverage to more than 41,000 New Hampshire citizens this past year, fighting for women's health issues, and advocating for passenger rail to Boston.
We live in a special state, and I love New Hampshire deeply. It's a beautiful place with great communities, hard working people who care about our neighbors, and the best quality of life in the country. Our parents, our kids, our entrepreneurs, our employers, our citizens struggling with addiction, our college students, and every one of us need leaders who will keep our state moving forward and see an even brighter future for all of us.
I believe my work making debt-free college a reality for thousands of students at Southern New Hampshire University's College for America and my past experience as a business leader at successful employers like Stonyfield gives me a good perspective on how we can keep New Hampshire a great place to work and raise a family.
Because it is critical we build an even brighter future for the people of New Hampshire, I will make a definitive announcement on whether I plan to be a candidate for Governor in the coming days.
Sincerely,
We live in a special state, and I love New Hampshire deeply. It's a beautiful place with great communities, hard working people who care about our neighbors, and the best quality of life in the country. Our parents, our kids, our entrepreneurs, our employers, our citizens struggling with addiction, our college students, and every one of us need leaders who will keep our state moving forward and see an even brighter future for all of us.
I believe my work making debt-free college a reality for thousands of students at Southern New Hampshire University's College for America and my past experience as a business leader at successful employers like Stonyfield gives me a good perspective on how we can keep New Hampshire a great place to work and raise a family.
Because it is critical we build an even brighter future for the people of New Hampshire, I will make a definitive announcement on whether I plan to be a candidate for Governor in the coming days.
Sincerely,
2. Around the Capital
Consumer advocate job lugs political baggage
Capital Beat, by Allie Morris, concordmonitor.com, October 4, 2015
As word spreads that the state’s consumer advocate won’t be reappointed to another term, some residents are taking it as a distressing sign – that the political power of energy companies factored into the decision.
News broke last week that Susan Chamberlin, the consumer advocate who represents ratepayer interests before utility regulators, will not serve the second term she sought.
While a citizen advisory board recommended against Chamberlin’s reappointment due to “poor performance reviews,” Chairwoman Claira Monier said she still has gotten half-a-dozen emails from citizens concerned that Chamberlin’s take on specific energy projects played a role.
One “felt she had done a good job defending consumers against Kinder Morgan,” Monier said, referencing an energy developer planning to install a controversial natural gas pipeline through southern New Hampshire.
The reaction illustrates the charged nature of the consumer advocate, one person in a sea of industry lobbyists and attorneys who is tasked with looking after residential utility customers.
And it could foreshadow what is likely to become a political fight over who replaces Chamberlin — with issues including Northern Pass, renewable energy and how to manage high electric rates figuring into the discussion.
The consumer advocate doesn’t weigh in directly on whether the state will permit specific power projects, such as wind farms and gas pipelines.
But the person is charged with speaking up for consumer interests, and voices an opinion at the Public Utilities Commission on cases such as electric rates and renewable rebates.
What’s best for ratepayers, when it comes to energy, can be a hotly debated topic. In the months to come, the consumer advocate will likely play a role in changes to solar power incentives, a sale of Eversource fossil-fuel power plants, the creation of a statewide energy efficiency standard and a purchase power agreement between Eversource and the Northern Pass project.
A subcommittee of the Consumer Advocate Residential Ratepayers Advisory Board – made up nine people appointed by the governor, Senate president and House speaker – is in the process recommending three candidates to Gov. Maggie Hassan. Hassan’s final nomination will have to get through the Republican-controlled Executive Council.
That may be easier said than done.
Consumer advocates have fallen prey to council politics in the past, and approaching an election year where at least one councilor is running for higher office, the nomination could become a platform.
Back in 2011, the all-Republican Executive Council blocked Meredith Hatfield by a vote of 3-2 from another term as consumer advocate, with one councilor accusing her of being too liberal.
Leading up to the vote, the state chapter of the conservative group Americans for Prosperity opposed Hatfield’s renomination. Chris Sununu, a Newfields Republican who is still on the council, voted against Hatfield saying she has a “very liberal point of view” and is “very political in nature.”
At that time Monier, a longtime Republican activist, defended Hatfield, saying she couldn’t think of one time Hatfield acted politically.
More recently, even when the council was controlled by Democrats, energy appointments have proven controversial. Hassan scrapped two bipartisan nominees to a state energy siting board when they faced harsh opposition from anti-wind groups and some councilors.
So now the search is on for a new consumer advocate who is required by law to be an attorney. Chamberlin’s term ends in early November, but under statute she serves until a successor is appointed and qualified.
The new consumer advocate will come in at a key time, as the cold weather sweeps in, concerns about electric rates rise and debate resumes over how to tackle the region’s high energy costs.
Money to spend
Lawmakers and Hassan, who fought tooth and nail over the state budget, just got word they may have millions more to spend.
An unaudited analysis shows the state surplus from the 2015 budget year came in at $73 million, roughly $10 million more than expected.
The savings is largely from agencies spending far less – an estimated $30 million – than they had anticipated. Also, some state liabilities like Medicaid came in lower than expected.
The discussion will now likely shift to what the dollars could pay for, and lawmakers may take a closer look at why departments returned so much money.
Hassan said in a statement the surplus could strengthen the rainy day fund, and suggested the state “consider if there are ways to address concerns raised by communities about school funding levels.”
New Hampshire is facing a lawsuit from Dover over a cap on state education funding that the city asserts is unconstitutional.
Morse said in his own statement he is concerned the state didn’t spend $20 million it had budgeted to finance services for people with developmental disabilities. But the surplus figure is just preliminary at this time. Until auditors present a final statement later this year, Morse cautioned against making any assumptions.
Dealing with addiction
If there’s one issue lawmakers agree on, it’s dealing with drug abuse.
After rolling out several initiatives last week, Hassan and lawmakers may be eying a special session to tackle other substance abuse measures that need legislative approval.
Hassan met with Republican leaders last week and mentioned that possibility, sources said.
“Nothing is definite,” said Senate President Chuck Morse, a Salem Republican.
The state sprung into action last week, announcing a new public awareness campaign, a plan to distribute free overdose reversal kits and several grants for local law enforcement anti-drug initiatives.
Hassan unveiled most of the measures at a press conference in Concord. It was a visual push back on Republicans’ earlier criticisms of her office’s handling of substance abuse.
Last summer, Republicans slammed Hassan’s “drug czar,” saying he hadn’t met with key leaders, but ultimately extended the position. During the budget battle, they accused her of holding up substance abuse spending.
2016 watch
While many expect an announcement any day, Hassan hasn’t yet said whether she will challenge U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, seek another term as governor or neither. Once she does, expect a domino effect as other candidates announce their own plans.
There’s a long line of Democratic contenders who many anticipate will run for governor if Hassan goes for the U.S. Senate. Some are making moves.
Democratic activist Debby Butler will join Executive Councilor Colin Van Ostern’s political committee as treasurer this week.
Van Ostern hasn’t made public his political plans, but many speculate the two-term councilor would mount a gubernatorial bid if Hassan challenges Ayotte, a first-term Republican.
So far, Republican Executive Councilor Chris Sununu is the only candidate who has officially announced a gubernatorial campaign for 2016.
Butler, of Concord, co-chaired former governor John Lynch’s campaign for Governor in 2004 and several of his re-election bids.
Anna Moffett, who was deputy finance director for U.S. Rep. Annie Kuster’s campaign in 2012, is also expected to join the Van Ostern campaign as finance director.
What to watch
Lawmakers on Tuesday will have an informational meeting on the proposed Merrimack County Courthouse at 1 p.m.. The capital budget includes money to build a new courthouse in Concord, but the location has proven controversial. While some city officials hoped to keep it downtown, it looks like the building will be off Hazen Drive.
3. NH's Business Tax Cuts: Any Real Impact?
Measuring Impact of Business Tax Cuts in N.H. May Be a Tricky Business
by Paige Sutherland, nhpr.org, October 5, 2015
After a long battle in Concord, the state’s business tax rates are now set to drop starting next year, the first such cut in more than a decade.
But the question of whether these cuts will succeed in luring new businesses to New Hampshire doesn't yet have a clear answer.
Think of Michael Bergeron as New Hampshire’s top salesman. He works at New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development, where it's his job to persuade businesses to pick up and move to the state.
In the nearly two decades Bergeron’s tried to lure companies across the border, he has yet to come across a single CEO who avoided New Hampshire for its business taxes alone. Businesses consider a broad array of costs in deciding where to move, Bergeron said.
“Cost of occupancy includes taxes, it includes labor, it includes the energy costs, it includes overhead expenses such as workers compensation and unemployment insurance,” he said.
Of that list, just one item dominated the recent State House budget debate: business taxes.
Gov. Maggie Hassan and Republican leaders agreed two weeks ago to lower the rates of New Hampshire’s main corporate taxes as part of a budget compromise. The tax cuts were at the heart of a three-month fiscal stalemate, with Republicans saying the cuts would improve New Hampshire’s business climate, and Democrats claiming they would lead to future deficits.
Hassan and GOP lawmakers eventually agreed on a two-step approach, with the first round of cuts in January, and further cuts two years later -- as long as state revenues don’t decline in the interim.
But while the debate over the cuts themselves has been put to rest, predicting their impact on individual businesses, state tax revenues, and the overall economy is far from settled.
Bill Ardinger, a tax attorney in Concord, said corporate tax cuts are an investment worth making.
“By doing that they are sending a message to businesses – we are open for business, we would like you to locate in the state and we are very conscious and aware that we need to remain competitive,” Ardinger said.
Others, including Jeff McLynch of the New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute, worry that reduced business tax receipts may cause state services to suffer.
“They will significantly reduce state revenue’s in the future and really impair the state’s ability to invest in the sorts of public services that are critical to our shared economic prosperity…things like quality public education, safe roads and bridges and strong communities,” McLynch said.
The recently passed state budget cuts New Hampshire's two main corporate taxes -- the Business Enterprise Tax and the Business Profits Tax -- in two steps over a three-year period. But the second phase of cuts will only happen if total state revenues reach certain preset targets. The state Department of Revenue has forecast declines in business tax revenues over this period based on current revenue patterns.
CREDIT SARA PLOURDE/NHPR
New Hampshire isn't the only state having this debate. In fact, there’s an entire industry devoted to teasing out the relationship between taxes and economic growth.
Every year Site Selection, a global magazine that focuses on corporate real estate and economic development, surveys businesses across the country on what matters most when selecting where to locate. According to managing editor Adam Bruns, last year transportation, infrastructure and a skilled workforce were the highest priorities. Further down the list, tax structure ranked in sixth place.
Still, lowering corporate taxes has lately been a priority for many states in recent years, said Mandy Rafool, a tax analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures.
New Hampshire is unusual, however, for the degree to which it relies on business taxes to pay the bills. Business taxes here make up nearly a quarter of total state revenue –more than double the rate of the next highest state.
“Where other states can cut the rate by a percent or two without feeling a lot of impact, I don’t know if that will be the case in New Hampshire. I think it will affect the bottom line a lot more,” Rafool said.
And with each state’s unique tax structures – comparing what works in one state to another, Rafool said, is nearly impossible.
Who pays, and how much?
According to the state’s Department of Revenue Administration, a majority of New Hampshire businesses don’t even pay the state’s corporate taxes, the Business Profits Tax and the Business Enterprise Tax. And most corporate tax revenue comes from only one percent of state businesses.
Business taxes make up more than a quarter of New Hampshire's state revenue. That's a far larger share than most other states.
CREDIT SARA PLOURDE/NHPR
Therefore, many state businesses may not see much of a tax break when the rate cuts take effect. In addition, since businesses can write off state corporate taxes from their federal tax bill, those who do see a tax cut will likely end up paying slightly more in taxes to the federal government, off-setting any state benefit.
Jeff Baker, the CEO of Image 4, a marketing company in Manchester, said he talks to a handful of business owners around the state as part of his job. Among those he speaks with, increasing tax incentives is a more appealing policy approach than tax cuts.
He pointed specifically to the Research and Development Tax Credit, which gives a tax break to companies that invest in innovative research.
“That kind of really fuels the intent to better the business as well, better our product line, better our fabrication method. It’s really supporting both a mentality and an ethic here of continuous improvement, as opposed to a percentage tax cut, which is great but it is not an incentive,” Baker said.
During this legislative session lawmakers upped the amount that can be received from $2 million to $7 million a year starting in 2017. But most states with an R&D tax credit don’t even have a cap.
So, if economists and tax experts generally agree that corporate taxes aren’t the only factor driving business decisions, is it even possible to know what impact the ne,w cuts will have on New Hampshire’s economy? Even advocates for the tax cuts, like Ardinger, say the answer is likely to be murky.
"You can't really conclude five years from now, that a particular change like a tax change is the reason why we added 220 or 2,500 jobs," Ardinger said. "It doesn't usually work that way. So, it's going to be hard, honestly, to evaluate this."
Which means we can probably expect another round of debate on this issue sometime in the near future.
4. Ayotte's Corporate Giveaway
Republican Student Loan Bill Is A Handout To The Loan Industry
by Casey Quinlan, thinkprogress.org, October 5, 2015
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Sen. Shelley Moore (R-WV) introduced the Student Loan Relief Act of 2015 on Thursday, which would let borrowers refinance their federal student loans in the private market. The senators argue that if their legislation passed, students would be able to benefit from lower interest rates.
“Our legislation would give borrowers flexibility, allowing them to save money by refinancing their student loans the way they would refinance a mortgage. And to better support our younger generation of workers, this bill would allow employers to help qualified employees pay off their student loan debt with pre-tax dollars,” Ayotte said in her announcement about the introduction of the legislation.
Despite the framing of the legislation as beneficial to students, it’s really the private market that has the most to gain from this bill. This bill would also provide a loan guarantee for refinanced loans. To better understand why Republican lawmakers are pushing for this bill, it’s important to remember that in 2010, The Affordable Care Act contained a reconciliation bill that meant all student loans would originate with the federal government compared to the old system, when 55 percent of those loans originated with banks. The federal government used to pay the banks more than the cost of the loans, which meant the change would actually save taxpayer money.
When the bank-based student loan system ended in 2010, most conservatives opposed efforts to change the system, even though it would cost far less if the government took on those responsibilities. Several institutions that benefitted from the old bank-based system were allowed to become student loan servicers after the change, but this bill would allow them a way back into issuing loans.
Although many large banks left the private student loan market after the financial crisis, plenty of politically connected organizations such as state agency lenders and nonprofits have fought to stay in the market. One example is Granite State Management, a New Hampshire nonprofit organization that does student loan servicing. GSM’s primary income is through its student loan servicing, but they would make much more through issuing loans. GSM’s status as a charitable organization was challenged by the City of Concord in 2013 but the court ultimately held up its status, saying that “servicing and administration of loans is not GSMR’s charitable purpose, but a means to achieve” the purpose of its mission to “providing low cost or alternative financial assistance to eligible students and to parents . . . and of supporting the development of higher education and educational opportunities.”
“What they’re trying to do is go back to the bad old days of a bank-based loan system. They want private banks to take over the loan and take none of the risk. So what they’re saying is, ‘Oh, it will be good for students because they will get a lower rate from the private market,'” said Ben Miller, senior director for postsecondary education at the Center for American Progress. “But really what’s going to happen is that the private market is going to get a giant windfall and pass along a tiny slice of it to the students in the form of a lower interest rate … You would hope to do a lot more by spending the exact same amount of money and just cutting their interest rates. There is no value add from the private market.”
Miller said that these organizations were allowed some protections after the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 ended the Federal Family Education Loan Program, through which which nonprofit and state agency lenders issued loans and borrower outreach programs, Congress allowed these groups to service loans so that they could remain involved in the student loan market.
In 2010, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) spoke about the importance of keeping these organizations involved in the student loan market:
These changes will also upgrade the customer service borrowers receive when repaying their loans. The legislation will also maintain jobs by ensuring a robust role for the private sector, allowing lenders and not-for-profits to contract with the Department of Education to service Direct Loans.
“They weren’t based by the whole faith and credit of the state but they were quasi-state agencies, and so when this change went through in 2010 they were given a giveaway, where they said you can stay in the loan program as a servicer,” Miller said. “So they already got this sweet grandfathered deal and this would be another example of catering to do with local interests … Student loan servicers get three-fourths of the student loan volume every year. That’s more than they actually used to get.”
These organizations are still hoping to increase their share of new student loan volume, however. In July, The White House sent a letter to Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, highlighting several problems the administration had with the fiscal year 2016 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. One of those criticisms was of a rider that would benefit nonprofit student loan servicers.
Shaun Donovan, director of management and budget for The White House wrote, “The bill also includes highly objectionable language that would allocate 50 percent of new student loan volume to not-for-profit loan servicers, violating the terms of the current performance-based contracts which allocate volume based on servicer performance in keeping borrowers current on their student loans. This provision would prioritizes special interests over borrowers’ access to high-quality loan servicing.”
Miller isn’t optimistic that nonprofit student loan servicers would get the benefits Ayotte and Moore’s legislation would provide, because such a bill would require reversing the department’s 2010 decision and actually cost more money than keeping the current system.
“As much as many people would like to generate bad policy proposals that funnel taxpayer dollars into the private sector, it costs money and there isn’t money to be spent,” Miller said. “So I think that if they found the money to do it they would have support, but the reason why this change was made in the first place was because it was cheaper for the government to make the loan than have the bank do it. Undoing that costs money.”
AND NATIONALLY
5. GOP Congress: Against Women's Health and Economic Security
It’s Not Just Planned Parenthood
by CAP Action War Room, thinkprogress.org, September 30, 2015
Even as Republican House and Senate leaders scramble to avoid a looming budget shutdown, Republican Congressional leaders have gone out of their way to attack Planned Parenthood, with yesterday’s charged hearing where Congressional Republicans again rehashed discredited attacks against the health provider and votes to end federal funding for it. This is all political theater—as expected, a measure defunding Planned Parenthood was easily defeated in the Senate last week and the House just passed a bill to avert a government shutdown—but once again, conservatives in Congress are demonstrating how far they will go to gut one of the nation’s leading suppliers of women’s health services.
Planned Parenthood and other women’s health providers are essential for women’s economic security, providing resources for women to make their own choices about family planning. However, the attack on Planned Parenthood is only one way this Congress, the first fully Republican Congress in eight years, is attacking women. The Congressional GOP’s legislative agenda has also repeatedly undermined the economic security of women and working families in other ways. Republicans have refused to take action on proposals to support paid sick leave, to promote pay equity, and to help working families get access to pre-school while pushing policies that will set women and working families back.
As many women and their families continue struggle through an economic recovery that has left too many people behind, Congress must drop the political games and enact policies that allow women and families to get ahead.
Paid Sick Leave. Forty-three million American workers do not have access to paid sick days through their employers, meaning that these workers risk losing pay or their jobs when they need a day off to take care of themselves or their children. 70 percent of Americans support requiring companies to offer paid sick to their employees, and 50 percent of small businesses would support a law requiring employers to let employees earn paid sick time. Earlier this year, the Senate took a vote to express support for paid sick leave, but the majority of Republicans (39 of 54) voted against it and the Republicans who voted in favor—many of whom will have close reelection contests in 2016—have not taken any meaningful action on paid sick leave since.
Equal pay for equal work. Women earn 79 cents for every dollar men earn. Rather than move forward and pass legislation that would help to close the pay gap and strengthen equal pay protections, Congressional Republican leaders have done little to give more than lip service to ensuring that women and men are paid fairly for their work. Two Republican equal pay bills are now pending, but there has been no serious effort to discuss what steps are needed to address discriminatory pay practices. Congressional Republicans have previously voted down Congressional Democrats’ wage gap bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act, three times.
Pre-kindergarten for working families. Even though research shows that pre-schoolcan significantly improve a child’s later-in-life outcomes, that pre-school can significantly help families address childcare costs, and that low-income families are the least likely to participate in pre-school programs, Republicans blocked an amendment to the Every Child Achieves Act that would have provided federally-funded pre-kindergarten to over 3 million children in each of the 50 states. The proposal would have been paid for by closing special interest tax loopholes.
Minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage is one of the single biggest actions Congress can take to help improve women’s and working families’ economic security: 56 percent of the workers who would benefit from raising the minimum wage to $12/hour by 2020 are women, and 27 percent of women who are also working moms would see their wages improve. But rather than take meaningful action to help these workers, 52 of 54 Republican Senators voted against supporting an increase in the minimum wage to $10.10/hour, keeping good on a promise Mitch McConnell made explicit to a group of conservative donors in June 2014 not to let the minimum wage go up.
BOTTOM LINE: Attacks on Planned Parenthood may be dominating the news, but the pains Republicans have taken to go after Planned Parenthood only tell half the story: this Republican Congress has failed to do anything meaningful addressing women’s economic security. It’s time for Congressional Republicans to stop grandstanding and come up with a legislative agenda that helps women get ahead.
6. Digging into the Poll Numbers
by Amy Walter, cookpolitical.com, September 30, 2015
By now, everyone has an opinion on who “won” and “lost” 1) the summer; 2) the last debate and 3) the momentum to win the party nomination. What’s more important is to see how actual voters perceive this race. The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll – the gold standard of public opinion polling IMHO – is out with its latest survey which both upends and justifies the current inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom.
Forget the horse race, at this stage of the game the most important question is whether a candidate has room to “grow” his/her support. Is he/she seen as a viable and electable candidate by his/her party? The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll asks GOP and Democratic primary voters whether they could see themselves supporting a candidate for the nomination of their party or whether they could not support that candidate. The goal for every candidate, of course, is to have more people say they could support you than not. Also, if a majority of your own party says they don’t think they could support you, that’s a sign that your candidacy has a “ceiling” – there’s only so many people you can get to vote for you.
The good news for Democrats is that their top three candidates/potential candidates have overwhelmingly positive scores on this front – strong majorities of Democrats say they could see themselves voting for Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.
Forget the horse race, at this stage of the game the most important question is whether a candidate has room to “grow” his/her support. Is he/she seen as a viable and electable candidate by his/her party? The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll asks GOP and Democratic primary voters whether they could see themselves supporting a candidate for the nomination of their party or whether they could not support that candidate. The goal for every candidate, of course, is to have more people say they could support you than not. Also, if a majority of your own party says they don’t think they could support you, that’s a sign that your candidacy has a “ceiling” – there’s only so many people you can get to vote for you.
The good news for Democrats is that their top three candidates/potential candidates have overwhelmingly positive scores on this front – strong majorities of Democrats say they could see themselves voting for Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.
| Candidate | Could see self support candidate | Could NOT see self support candidate | Difference (support v. non-support) | Difference in support v. non-support btwn June and Sept. poll |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hillary Clinton | 76 | 21 | +55 | -29 |
| Joe Biden | 73 | 22 | +51 | +19 |
| Bernie Sanders | 62 | 24 | +38 | +30 |
That’s not so much the case for Republicans. Of the 15 candidates tested, only six had net positive scores – meaning more Republican primary voters said they could see themselves supporting that candidate than not supporting that candidate. Those candidates were Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz. A majority of Republicans said they could notsee themselves supporting Donald Trump (52 percent), Chris Christie (51 percent), Rand Paul (58 percent), Rick Santorum (56 percent), Lindsey Graham (67 percent) or George Pataki (64 percent).
| Candidate | Could see self support candidate | Could NOT see self support candidate | Difference (support v. non-support) | Difference in support v. non-support btwn July and Sept. poll |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ben Carson | 69 | 23 | +46 | +24 |
| Marco Rubio | 63 | 27 | +36 | +3 |
| Carly Fiorina | 61 | 28 | +33 | +31 |
| Jeb Bush | 55 | 43 | +12 | -5 |
| Mike Huckabee | 47 | 46 | +1 | -8 |
| Ted Cruz | 45 | 44 | +1 | -13 |
| Donald Trump | 47 | 52 | -5 | -3 |
| Chris Christie | 42 | 51 | -9 | +9 |
| John Kasich | 34 | 44 | -10 | -9 |
| Rand Paul | 35 | 58 | -23 | -20 |
Some Other Important Take-Aways:
1. The Shine Has Come Off Hillary, But She Remains Well-Liked Among Democrats: Back in June, a whopping 92 percent of Democrats said they could see themselves supporting Hillary Clinton. Today, that number is down to 76 percent– but is still higher than any Republican candidate is doing among his/her own party.
2. Joe Biden Looks Better Than Ever: Back in March, just 54 percent of Democrats said they could support him and 40 percent said they couldn’t. Today, 73 percent could support him and only 22 percent said they couldn’t. That’s an impressive turn-around that is likely driven both by sympathy for the loss of his son earlier this summer as well as increased scrutiny on the current frontrunner. That said, he’s not any more popular among Democrats than Hillary. And, of course, if he does run we’ll see how well these numbers hold up once he’s put under the same intense microscope as the former Secretary of State.
3. Rand Paul is in very bad shape. Paul’s high-water mark was in April, right after he announced his candidacy. Back then 59 percent of Republicans said they could see themselves supporting his candidacy, with 32 percent saying they couldn’t. By June that margin had slipped to 49 percent supporting to 45 percent not. It slipped again in July to 44 support to 48 percent against. Today, a whopping 58 percent of Republicans said they could not see themselves supporting his candidacy.
4. Bush isn’t in as bad of shape as the CW suggests: Yes, he’s had a rough summer. He’s stumbled on the stump and on the debate stage. He’s in the middle of the pack when it comes to the GOP horserace. But, he’s worn much better than some of the other candidates did this summer. Perhaps most notable is how much better Bush is seen by the GOP field than another establishment favorite, John Kasich. As Kasich’s name ID has risen, he’s seen a larger increase in the percent of voters who say they couldn’t support him than say they could support him. In June of 2015, almost half of Republicans (42 percent) didn’t know his name. Back then 25 percent of Republicans said they could support him and 30 percent said they couldn’t. By September, Kasich’s name ID gap had been halved (now just 20 percent of GOPers said they couldn’t identify him), but those who said they couldn’t support him had grown faster than those who said they could -- +9 in his favor to +14 against.
5. Ted Cruz has not worn well: Cruz came out of his announcement swing in solid shape (his support to non-support ratio in April was +20), but his “could not see supporting” numbers have been slowly climbing since. He remains a potent force in this contest, but he’s also become more polarizing.
The next month will bring with it the third GOP debate and the first Democratic debate, an important congressional hearing (Clinton in front of the Benghazi committee) and more scrutiny on the newest frontrunners Fiorina and Carson as well as the surging Rubio. These events will test the durability of these numbers more intensely than anything else thus far and should give us some real insight into which candidates will be able to survive the primary season.
6. Christie remains underwater – but is getting closer to the surface: Back in March, just 32 percent of Republicans said they could see themselves supporting the New Jersey Governor and almost two-thirds (57 percent) said they couldn’t. Today, 42 percent said they could support him (a ten-point increase) and a slight majority said they couldn’t (51 percent). He’s obviously not out of the woods, but the New Jersey Governor is getting a second look from GOP voters.
7. Trump may have peaked – but he’s not sinking: The September poll is the first since March in which the percentage of Republicans who say they could not support Trump rose (from 49 percent to 52 percent)and those who said they could support him did not go up (it remained at 47 percent from July to September). This suggests that he has plateaued. Even so, these changes are pretty small and much less significant than, for example, the drop off seen by Cruz, Paul and Bush. Moreover, he’s nowhere NEAR his early summer numbers that showed him more than 30 points under water.
7. Paying for Single Payer
Paying for Single Payer
by Nancy LeTourneau, washingtonmonthly.com, September 27, 2015
For a while now I’ve been saying that one of the questions I have for Bernie Sanders is how he would pay for single payer health insurance - especially in light of the fact that this is what stopped single payer from going forward in his home state of Vermont.
And so I was interested recently to find this paper by Gerald Friedman, Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts which outlined a payment plan for single payer. It’s important to note that the bill Friedman analyzed (HR 676) is authored by Rep. Conyers. Sanders has never endorsed this bill and it differs from the one he introduced in the Senate in 2013. But we’ll get to that later.
One of the assumptions about single payer is that it will save money in administrative costs (Friedman builds that into his calculations). But since it would eliminate the way we currently pay for health insurance (employer/employee payments, a mix of individual payments and government subsidies in the health insurance exchanges and government programs), any proposal for single payer will be required to identify who will pay and how much. Here is Friedman’s proposal for that:
* Existing sources of federal revenues for health care
* Tax of 0.5% on stock trades and 0.01% tax per year to maturity on transactions in bonds, swaps, and trades
* 6% high-income surtax (applies to households with incomes over $225,000)
* 6% tax on unearned income from capital gains, dividends, interest, profits, and rents
* 6% payroll tax on top 60% of income earners (applies to incomes over $53,000, tax paid by employers)
* 3% payroll tax on the bottom 40% of income earners (applies to incomes under $53,000, tax paid by employers)
What this information provides for us is some idea of what such a system would mean - both in terms of the magnitude and the politics. Beyond the 6% surtax on upper incomes and 6% tax on unearned income, employers would be required to take on additional payroll taxes - depending on how much the employee earns, either 3% or 6%. For those who currently pay for part of all of their employees health insurance, they would substitute that expense with the new payroll tax. And for those who haven’t contributed to health insurance, it would entail a new cost.
When it comes to individuals, since the proposal does away with co-payments and deductibles, only those making over $225,000 or benefiting from unearned income (or trading stocks) would have to pay anything for health insurance.
As I noted earlier, this is an analysis of a bill that Sanders has never endorsed. The bill he introduced in 2013 (S 1782) differs mainly in the fact that, while Conyers would set up a national single payer system, Sanders allows for individual systems in each state.
The federal government would collect and distribute all funds to the states for the operation of the state programs to pay for the covered services…
Each state would have the choice to administer its own program or have the federal Board administer it. The state program could negotiate with providers and consult with its advisory boards to allocate funds…State programs could negotiate with providers to pay outpatient facilities and individual practitioners on a capitated, salaried, or other prospective basis or on a fee-for service basis according to a rate schedule.
This summer Sanders said that he was preparing to introduce such legislation in the Senate again sometime soon.
Addressing a rally outside the Capitol to mark the 50th anniversary of Medicare, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday announced that he will introduce legislation to provide Medicare-for-all health insurance…
Sanders’ bill, which he said he will soon introduce in the Senate, would set federal guidelines and strong minimum standards for states to administer single-payer health care programs.
In terms of financing, here’s what Sanders has proposed in the past:
(1) a health care income tax, and (2) an income tax surcharge on amounts of modified adjusted gross income exceeding $1 million. Imposes an excise tax on securities transactions and allows an income tax credit for such taxes.
As others have noted, what that comes down to is that this part of his plan remains under construction.
I am curious about why Sanders has never signed on to Conyers’ bill. It would seem that - especially after the failure in Vermont - a national program that has at least the possibility of cost efficiencies could be necessary to make single payer viable.
Overall, there is a lot to like about proposals like this - just as they raise a lot of questions. But given the fact that what derailed single payer in Vermont was the possibility of an 11.5% income tax on all residents, Friedman’s proposal is an improvement - as long as it raises sufficient revenue. Still…these kinds of numbers make it clear that Sanders is right to say that it would take a veritable progressive revolution to make single payer even a remote possibility.
8. Energy, Climate Change, and the Partisan Divide
Enemies of the Sun
by Paul Krugman, nytimes.com, October 5, 2015
Does anyone remember the Cheney energy task force? Early in the George W. Bush administration, Vice President Dick Cheney released a report that was widely derided as a document written by and for Big Energy — because it was. The administration fought tooth and nail to keep the process by which the report was produced secret, but the list of people the task force met was eventually leaked, and it was exactly what you’d expect: a who’s who of energy industry executives, with environmental groups getting a chance to make their case only after the work was essentially done.
But here’s the thing: by the standards of today’s Republican Party, the Cheney report was enlightened, even left-leaning. One whole chapter was devoted to conservation, another to renewable energy. By contrast, recent speeches by Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio — still the most likely Republican presidential nominees — barely address either topic. When it comes to energy policy, the G.O.P. has become fossilized. That is, it’s fossil fuels, and only fossil fuels, all the way.
And that’s a remarkable development, because while it’s true that fracking has led to a boom in U.S. gas and oil production, we’re also living in an era of spectacular progress in wind and solar energy. Why has the right become so hostile to technologies that look more and more like the wave of the future?
Before I try to answer that question, a few facts about renewable energy.
Wind and solar used to have a reputation as hippie-dippy stuff, not part of any serious approach to our energy future, and many people still have that perception. But it’s way out of date. The cost of wind power has dropped sharply – 30 percent in just the past five years, according to the International Energy Agency.
And solar panels are becoming cheaper and more efficient at a startling rate, reminiscent of the progress in microchips that underlies the information technology revolution. As a result, renewables account for essentially all recent growth in electricity generation capacity in advanced countries.
Furthermore, renewables have become major industries in their own right, employing several hundred thousand people in the United States. Employment in the solar industry alone now exceeds the number of coal miners, and solar is adding jobs even as coal declines.
So you might expect people like Mr. Rubio, who says he wants to “unleash our energy potential,” and Mr. Bush, who says he wants to “unleash the Energy Revolution,” to embrace wind and solar as engines of jobs and growth. But they don’t. Indeed, they’re less open-minded than Dick Cheney, which is quite an accomplishment. Why?
Part of the answer is surely that promotion of renewable energy is linked in many people’s minds with attempts to limit climate change — and climate denial has become a key part of conservative identity. The truth is that climate impact isn’t the only cost of burning fossil fuels, that fossil-fuel-associated pollutants like particulates and ozone inflict huge, measurable damage and are major reasons to support alternative energy. Furthermore, renewables are getting close to being cost-competitive even in the absence of special incentives (and don’t forget that oil and gas have long been subsidized by the tax code.) But the association with climate science evokes visceral hostility on the right.
Beyond that, you need to follow the money. We used to say that the G.O.P. was the party of Big Energy, but these days it would be more accurate to say that it’s the party of Old Energy. In the 2014 election cycle the oil and gas industry gave 87 percent of its political contributions to Republicans; for coal mining the figure was 96, that’s right, 96 percent. Meanwhile,alternative energy went 56 percent for Democrats.
And Old Energy is engaged in a systematic effort to blacken the image of renewable energy, one that closely resembles the way it has supported “experts” willing to help create a cloud of doubt about climate science. An example: Earlier this year Newsweek published an op-ed article purporting to show that the true cost of wind power was much higher than it seems. But it turned out that the article contained major factual errors, and its author had failed to disclose that he was the Charles W. Koch professor at Utah State, and a fellow of a Koch- and ExxonMobil-backed think tank.
It’s unlikely, I guess, that energy policy will play as big a role as other issues, such as tax policy, in the 2016 election. But to the extent it does, you need to know what’s really at stake.
While politicians on the right may talk about encouraging innovation and promoting an energy revolution, they’re actually defenders of the energy status quo, part of a movement trying to block anything that might disrupt the reign of fossil fuels.
UNH Survey Finds Trump and Sanders Supporters Differ on Key Scientific Fact
by Carsey School of Public Policy, unh.edu, October 5, 2015
by Carsey School of Public Policy, unh.edu, October 5, 2015
DURHAM, N.H. -- New Hampshire voters who support Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders for president differ sharply in their beliefs about the global rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, a recent University of New Hampshire poll found. Trump supporters are much less likely (47 percent) than Sanders supporters (78 percent) to believe the well-established scientific observation that atmospheric CO2 levels have increased in recent decades.
Similar contrasts occurred when matching Trump vs. Biden voters (45 to 79 percent) and Trump vs. Clinton voters (46 to 78 percent).
The WMUR/CNN poll conducted by the UNH Survey Center asked voters who they would vote for if the 2016 presidential election was being held today (Trump vs. Sanders, Clinton and Biden) as well as a question about whether the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is increasing, decreasing or staying about the same.
Putting together responses to the political and CO2 questions, researcher Lawrence Hamilton, a UNH sociologist and senior fellow at the Carsey School of Public policy, noticed a 31-point gap between Sanders and Trump supporters. Seventy-eight percent of those who said they would vote for Sanders in that match-up, but only 47 percent of those favoring Trump, agreed with scientists that CO2 is increasing.
“Party-line divisions are a common finding now when surveys ask science or environmental questions,” Hamilton said. “What was unusual this time was the unplanned combination of a basic science question with pre-election match-ups in an early-primary state.”
The Carsey School of Public Policy conducts research, leadership development, and engaged scholarship relevant to public policy. They address pressing challenges, striving for innovative, responsive, and equitable solutions at all levels of government and in the for-profit and nonprofit sectors.
The University of New Hampshire, founded in 1866, is a world-class public research university with the feel of a New England liberal arts college. A land, sea, and space-grant university, UNH is the state's flagship public institution, enrolling 13,000 undergraduate and 2,500 graduate students.
Available for download:
Brief: https://carsey.unh.edu/
Diagram 1: http://www.unh.edu/news/
New Hampshire voters on a Trump vs. Sanders election
Diagram 2: http://www.unh.edu/news/
New Hampshire voters on increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide
FINALLY
No comments:
Post a Comment