AROUND NEW HAMPSHIRE
1. Executive Council Report
by Councilor Colin Van Ostern, October 19, 2015
Often an item included in these reports I write about out Governor & Council meeting still takes a few twists & turns before being enacted on the ground. Earlier this summer, the Council approved by a 3-2 vote a grant for a groundbreaking solar project in Durham, NH which will use a solar array on a nearby gravel pit to provide all the power needed for all municipal buildings in the town. This past week, the town councils of Lee & Durham both finalized payment details for the project and it is on track to move forward!
At our meeting earlier this month, the Executive Council approved 85 items:
- IN CENTRAL NH: Supplemental nutrition benefits and breastfeeding counseling for low income women; emergency repairs to fix a sinkhole on I-93 N earlier this summer; and deed restrictions on 2.6 acres along the Soucook river.
- IN THE MONADNOCK REGION: Confirmed promotion of Lieutenant Colonel Marie-Claude Bettencourt of Charlestown in the NH Army National Guard; supplemental nutrition benefits and breastfeeding counseling for low income women; and a FEMA emergency grant for the town of Marlow.
- IN STRAFFORD CO: Supplemental nutrition benefits and breastfeeding counseling for low income women; received a $300k strategic transportation planning grant by the Strafford Metropolitan Planning Organization; major water line repair at the NH Army National Guard training site in Strafford; a grant to protect public drinking water in Dover; funds for management & monitoring of the Piscataqua estuaries; culvert vulnerability analysis for ten coastal communities;hazard mitigation planning for five coastal communities; and Soak Up the Rain project funding.
- STATEWIDE ISSUES: New backend software for the state EZ Pass toll system (at lower cost); renovations to the passenger flow area on the secure floor of the Manchester Airport terminal; training for law enforcement in interaction with individuals with mental illnesses; and violent death monitoring system data collection.
- APPOINTMENTS & NOMINATIONS: The Council confirmed 14 appointees and hear a number of additional nominations (full list below) including six judicial nominations.
Our next meeting will be this Wednesday, October 21 in Mason, NH.
Sincerely, Colin, Executive Councilor, District 2
(or follow the links below for documentation of each item)
FULL INFORMATION
1. DETAIL: CENTRAL NH
#14 Authorized to amend existing agreement with the vendors as detailed in letter dated August 18, 2015, (originally approved by G&C on 5-13-13, items #47, 48, 49), to provide statewide Women, Infants and Children, Commodity Supplemental Food Program and Breastfeeding Peer Counseling Program services to low income women, children, and seniors, by increasing the price by $66,451 from $13,205,552 to $13,272,003. Effective upon G&C approval through the original end date of June 30, 2017. 100% Federal Funds.
#24 Authorized the Bureau of Turnpikes to retroactively pay R.S. Audley Inc., Bow, NH, an amount up to $60,000 and Continental Paving of Londonderry, an amount up to $15,000, both as sole source vendors, to perform emergency repairs of a large hole developed by a failed drainage pipe without any warning on I-93 Northbound in Concord on August 19, 2015. 100% Turnpike Funds.
#38 Authorized to accept deed restrictions on 2.60 acres along the Soucook River in Concord from Liberty Utilities Corporation. Effective upon G&C approval. No Funding.
2. DETAIL: MONADNOCK REGION
#B. Authorized the confirmation of LTC Marie-Claude Bettencourt, Charlestown, NH, to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, NH Army National Guard.
#14 Authorized to amend existing agreement with the vendors as detailed in letter dated August 18, 2015, (originally approved by G&C on 5-13-13, items #47, 48, 49), to provide statewide Women, Infants and Children, Commodity Supplemental Food Program and Breastfeeding Peer Counseling Program services to low income women, children, and seniors, by increasing the price by $66,451 from $13,205,552 to $13,272,003. Effective upon G&C approval through the original end date of June 30, 2017. 100% Federal Funds.
#68 Authorized the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management to enter into a grant agreement with the Town of Marlow for implementation of projects identified through the evaluation of natural hazards, for a total amount of $216,360. Effective upon G&C approval through April 21, 2018. 100% Federal Funds.
3. DETAIL: STRAFFORD COUNTY
#14 Authorized to amend existing agreement with the vendors as detailed in letter dated August 18, 2015, (originally approved by G&C on 5-13-13, items #47, 48, 49), to provide statewide Women, Infants and Children, Commodity Supplemental Food Program and Breastfeeding Peer Counseling Program services to low income women, children, and seniors, by increasing the price by $66,451 from $13,205,552 to $13,272,003. Effective upon G&C approval through the original end date of June 30, 2017. 100% Federal Funds.
#21 Authorized the Division of Project Development to accept and expend revenue in the amount of $300,000 for the Strategic Highway Research Program Implementation Assistance Program. Effective upon G&C approval through December 31, 2015. 100% Federal Funds. Fiscal Committee approved.
#35 Authorized to enter into a retroactive sole source contract with Testing & Coring Co. LLC., Alton, NH, for the purpose of repairing a major water line at the NH Army National Guard Training Site in Center Strafford, NH. Effective upon G&C approval through September 30, 2015. 100% Federal Funds.
#41 Authorized to award a Local Source Water Protection grant to the City of Dover, NH, in the amount of $20,000 to complete a project to protect public drinking water systems. Effective upon G&C approval through December 31, 2016. 100% Federal Funds.
#43 Authorized to enter into a retroactive memorandum of agreement with the University of NH, Sponsored Programs Administration, Durham, NH, to support implementation of the Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership’s management plan and monitoring plan, in the amount of $180,000. Effective upon G&C approval through June 30, 2016. 100% Other Funds.
#44 Authorized to enter into a retroactive sole source agreement with the University of NH, Durham, NH, to complete the Support for the Piscataqua Region Monitoring Collaborative project, in the amount of $65,000. Effective July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016. 23% Federal, 77% Clean Water State Revolving Funds.
#45 Authorized to award a sole source grant to the University of NH, Sponsored Programs Administration, Durham, NH, in the amount of $108,798 to perform culvert vulnerability analyses in ten coastal communities and create a new hazard dataset for the web-based Coastal Viewer. Effective upon G&C approval through March 31, 2017. 100% Federal Funds.
#47 Authorized a sole source agreement with the Strafford Regional Planning Commission, Rochester, NH, to perform vulnerability analyses in five coastal communities and update their hazard mitigation plans, in the amount of $30,887. Effective upon G&C approval through March 31, 2017. 100% Federal Funds.
#48 Authorized to accept and expend federal funds of $51,060 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for implementation of the 2014 Project of Special Merit: Soak Up the Rain Great Bay and 2015 Project of Special Merit: Resilient Coastal Communities. Effective upon G&C approval through March 31, 2017. 100% Federal Funds.
4. STATEWIDE PROJECTS AND POLICIES
#25 Authorized the Bureau of Turnpikes to transfer funds in the amount of $4,500,000 from the Turnpike General Reserve Account to budget and expend revenue for the design, testing, installation and consultant oversight of the NH E-ZPass Back Office for the Division of Operations. Effective upon G&C approval through June 30, 2106 and the amount requested for the FY 2017 budget. (2)Further Authorized to enter into a contract with Cubic Transportation Systems Inc., for design, testing, installation and maintenance services for the operation of the NH E-ZPass Back Office for the Turnpike System within the Division of Operations, in the amount of $51,889,724.83. Effective upon G&C approval through June 30, 2021 with the option to renew for up to 3 additional periods of 3 years, but not beyond June 30, 2030. 100% Turnpike Funds.
#26 Authorized the Bureau of Aeronautics to award a grant to the City of Manchester to modify the passenger flow area in the non-secure section on the second floor in the terminal building at the Manchester-Boston Regional Airport, in the amount of $3,004,016. Effective upon G&C approval through October 31, 2019. 90% Federal, 5% General, 5% Local Funds.
#60 Authorized to enter into a service agreement with NAMI – New Hampshire of Concord, NH, to provide instruction in law enforcement interaction with individuals with mental illnesses at a total contract limitation of $19,800, to be held at the Arthur D. Kehas Law Enforcement Training Facility and Campus. Effective upon G&C approval through June 30, 2016. 100% Other Funds (Penalty Assessment).
#69 Authorized to accept and expend a grant from the NH Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health Services, Bureau of Population Health and Community Services, Maternal & Child Health Section Injury Prevention Program, for the purpose of establishing a program that will support activities to collect and analyze data relevant to violent deaths occurring in the State, as part of the national Violent Death Reporting System initiative, in the amount of $242,367. (2)Further Authorized to establish one full-time temporary Planning Analyst/Data Systems position, LG 24, within budget class 059. (3)Further Authorized to provide for a consultant to upgrade computer software/hardware in order to interface with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention program and for a consultant for adaptation of space needed to accommodate the project. Effective upon G&C approval through December 31, 2015. 100% Transfers from other agency Funds. Fiscal Committee approved.
5. DETAIL: APPOINTMENTS AND NOMINATIONS
( * = District 2 Resident)
Board of Architects
James A. Loft, Contoocook*
Justice of the Circuit Court
Susan W. Ashley, Rochester*
Michael H. Garner, Laconia
Per Diem Justice of the Circuit Court
Kimberly A. Chabot, Hooksett
Barbara A. M. Maloney, Auburn
Board of Fire Control
Martin U. Michaelis, Amherst
Fire Standards and Training Commission
Justin A. Cutting, Hampton
Mechanical Licensing Board
Paul E. D'Allesandro, Campton
Stephen M. Labbe, Hooksett
Lyndon B. Rickards, Rochester*
Board of Nursing
Ann Finn-Waddell, Concord*
Police Commission
Nicholas Dahl, Nashua
Special Commissioner of the Public Utilities Commission
Michael J. Iacopino, Manchester
Radiation Advisory Committee
James J. Cherniack, Derry
Edward J. Farmlett, Laconia
Assistant Commissioner of the Department of Safety
Richard C. Bailey, Bow
Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles at the Department of Safety
Elizabeth A. Bielecki, Bedford
Speech-Language Pathology Govering Board
Robyn Kingsley, Dover*
Justice of the Superior Court
Dorothy E. Graham, Manchester
Mark E. Howard, Manchester
Unemployment Compensation Advisory Council
Glenn Brackett, Northwood
Water Council
Robert Beaurivage, Auburn
Confirmed by the Council:
Agricultural Lands Preservation Committee
Peter S. Helm, Canterbury*
Current Use Advisory Board
David M. McMullen, Groton
Board of Dental Examiners
Puneet Kochhar, Dover*
Assistant Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Services
Clark Freise, Litchfield
Executive Branch Ethics Committee
Gregory L. Silverman, Concord*
Genetic Counselors Governing Board
Thomas B. Merritt, Littleton
Midwifery Council
Evelyn A. Aissa, Concord*
New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board
Peter R. Mans, Newbury*
Board of Optometry
Scott M. Krauchunas, Belmont*
Railroad Appeals Board
Wayne M. Gagne, Nashua
Real Estate Commission
Paul A. Lipnick, Nashua
Rivers Management Advisory Committee
James W. Ryan, Northwood
Transportation Appeal Board
Eric G. Falkenham, Hopkinton*
Carl L. Quiram, Bedford
2. Advocating for Rail
Rail advocates gather at Nashua summit
by Tina Forbes, nashuatelegraph.com, October 20, 2015
New England state and federal rail advocates gathered at Nashua City Hall Monday to discuss ongoing and future rail projects, and emphasized the need for officials to collaborate across state lines to encourage passenger rail throughout the region.
"Here in New Hampshire and much of New England we have fallen woefully behind in maintaining and improving our infrastructure to meet current and future needs," said Rep. Annie Kuster, D-N.H., who hosted the rail summit along with Mayor Donnalee Lozeau.
"In Nashua, and all across the region, traffic congestion is stifling our community."
Commuters are spending more than two hours a day in traffic when they could be home with their families, or spending time and money in their local communities, Kuster continued.
"This passenger rail system could have a huge impact bringing jobs and economic growth to the Granite State, and bringing peace and security to families who are now stranded in traffic," said Kuster.
Kuster has been working in Congress to increase federal funding for rail initiatives, but said coordination across the Northeast states is key.
"We are a small and tightly knit region, and our communities and economies are closely linked ... that to continue to grow and thrive we must all work together to align our efforts and build a stronger future for everyone," she said.
The summit included talks by representatives from the Federal Railroad Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and the Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island and Vermont departments of transportation.
"It's a very important project not only for New Hampshire, but for the region," said Michael Izbicki, chairman of the New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority. In order for a passenger rail line to come through the state, the region must be considered as a whole, he said.
Izbicki and Patrick Herlihy, director of aeronautics, rail and transit at the New Hampshire Department of Transportation, reviewed the limited existing rail system in the state, and reasons to expand service with the New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Project.
The project would extend passenger rail service from Lowell, Mass., north to Nashua, Manchester and potentially to Concord.
Currently, there is no passenger rail past Lowell, although it is the busiest commute in northern Massachusetts and southern New Hampshire with more than 165,000 drivers passing through Routes 3 and Interstate 93 each day.
"It's the only corridor in the U.S. with more than 600,000 residents not served by a passenger rail system," said Izbicki.
The New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority collected data for the project, and saw a potential of attracting up to 668,000 riders per year by expanding service into New Hampshire.
Requiring a two-year construction project, Izbicki said they expect to ultimately attract 5,600 permanent jobs and 3,600 residential units in the vicinity of new train stations in New Hampshire.
After years of analysis, rail advocates are ready to move forward.
"We've been studying this for eight years now - we've studied this to death. We're now moving into the engineering phase," said Izbicki.
The NHRTA now wants New Hampshire legislators to provide $4 million to complete the next phase of the project, which includes developing a detailed financial plan, final engineering and preparing funding applications for the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Rail Administration.
Izbicki said the investment would pay off, with new jobs and residents coming to the area investing money back into the state over the next decade.
"Economic impact, this is all based on the study, they're looking almost 2 million square feet of commercial space," he said.
Real estate development would add $750 million to the state's output between 2021 and 2030, he said, and "reinvestment and potential resident earnings could add another $220 million to the economy per year after 2030."
Lozeau spoke in support of the rail, and agreed with Kuster about the importance of collaborating as a region to succeed.
"We have to find a way to work together," she said, adding she also does not want to see New Hampshire left behind.
"As many of us have talked about with rail, we don't want New Hampshire to be the 'donut hole,' where it's everywhere but here," said Lozeau.
Throughout the summit, each state representative presented their visions for rail their state. Kuster said she would use feedback from states to further her efforts in Congress to support passenger rail projects at the federal level.
"With the political winds changing, we're confident this can be achieved in the coming years," she said.
3. Drug-Testing for NH Welfare Recipients?
from Granite State Rumblings, by MaryLou Beaver, everychildmatters.org/nh, October 20, 2015
Our NH legislators are filing bill requests for the next session. These are called Legislative Service Requests (LSR’s). These are the beginning of the drafting process to create a bill. The Office of Legislative Services (OLS) processes all legislation that passes through the New Hampshire General Court. The Office has attorneys who draft the legislation as well as other support staff. Only a member of the House of Representatives or a member of the Senate can sponsor an LSR. While the titles of LSRs are published, the actual language is confidential because of an attorney-client relationship between the drafting attorneys and the sponsor. LSRs become public once they are introduced to the appropriate chamber and they become bills. However, you can always ask the sponsor about the content of an LSR, and the sponsor will often share the language.
As of Monday evening there were 688 LSRs for the 2016 session. Every Child Matters in NH tracks the LSRs to determine, as best we are able based on the language, which ones we will want to watch and follow.
There is one LSR in particular that has caught our attention. It is number 2016-2208 HB - requiring drug testing of public assistance recipients.
I have spoken with the sponsor of this LSR (who happens to represent the ward I live in) and, at his request, will be e-mailing to him information on drug testing results from the handful of states that have had or do have drug testing requirements. One piece of information that I will be passing along is the article below from Think Progress.
What 7 States Discovered After Spending More Than $1 Million Drug Testing Welfare Recipients
BY BRYCE COVERT & JOSH ISRAEL - FEB 26, 2015
Proposals keep cropping up to drug test applicants to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, or welfare. Bills have been introduced so far in Montana, Texas, and West Virginia, with a handful of others also considering such a move. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has gone further, proposing to drug test applicants for food stamps and unemployment benefits. They follow recent bills put into action in Maine, Michigan, and Mississippi.
Proponents of these bills claim they will save money by getting drug users off the dole and thus reduce spending on benefits. But states that are looking at bills of their own may want to consider the fact that the drug testing programs that are already up and running haven’t seen such results.
According to state data gathered by ThinkProgress, the seven states with existing programs — Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah — are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to ferret out very few drug users. The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population. The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent. Meanwhile, they’ve collectively spent nearly $1 million on the effort, and millions more may have to be spent in coming years.
Does Drug Testing Welfare Applicants Work?
Lawmakers who push these bills claim that they will cut down on costs by rooting out drug abusers while also helping to refer those users to treatment. But in reality, they come with few, if any, benefits.
“The main impact of it is first…to spend TANF money that could go into other things,” said Elizabeth Lower-Basch, policy coordinator and director of income and work supports at CLASP, a non-profit focused on policy for low-income individuals. While many states told ThinkProgress that the funds don’t necessarily come out of the pot that would go to TANF benefits, it is still money that could go elsewhere. “The money could certainly be spent on other things if it wasn’t going to drug testing,” she said. “Even if it’s a state where it can’t go to into childcare or cash assistance, it probably comes out of their administration pot, so that’s caseworkers and things like that.”
The other impact is increasing stigma around both welfare and drug use. It can increase the shame people feel around applying for welfare benefits in the first place, which could drive them away from getting assistance they may need to get by. At the same time, it may make drug users less willing to disclose and therefore keep them from connecting with treatment, according to Lower-Basch. “If people are afraid they’ll lose their benefits if they admit to using drugs, it makes it hard for them to say, ‘Hey, actually I have this issue,'” she explained. A study of Florida’s program, which has since been struck down by the courts, found that it didn’t produce any reliable estimates of drug use among welfare recipients.
Even if the policies did unearth drug users in need of help, however, that doesn’t mean states are going to get it to them. Many “don’t guarantee your slot [in treatment facilities] or in some cases pay for it,” she noted. Centers often have long waiting lists, so someone who gets referred may not even be able to get in. Some states used to use TANF money to expand access to drug treatment, but as the money allocated to the program has dropped in real value, those efforts have dried up.
There is one way Lower-Basch thinks drug testing welfare recipients used to be helpful: not to determine eligibility for benefits, but to help them get work. “It was part of the work assessment,” she explained, “what are your barriers to work, what do you need in order to get a job.” If it was a barrier to employment, states could try to help them get what they needed to overcome it.
The High Costs And Few Rewards In Each State
The drug-testing regimes in the seven states all differ slightly, but the lack of effectiveness is widespread.
Missouri - In 2011, Missouri adopted a law to require screening and testing for all TANF applicants, and the testing began in March 2013. In 2014, 446 of the state’s 38,970 applicants were tested. Just 48 tested positive.
Oklahoma - Oklahoma passed its law in 2012, requiring a screening of all applicants and chemical tests for those for whom there is a “reasonable cause” to believe they are using illegal substances. From November 2012 through November 2014, 3,342 applicants were screened and 2,992 selected for further testing (though those numbers could include some who applied more than once). Two-hundred and ninety-seven tested positive for illegal substances.
Utah - Utah also enacted its law in 2012, requiring a written screening and a drug test for anyone with a “reasonable likelihood” of having a “substance use disorder.” Between its implementation in August 2012 and July of 2014, 9,552 applicants were screened and 838 were given drug tests. Just 29 tested positive at a cost of more than $64,000, according to a Utah Department of Workforce Services spokesman.
Kansas - Kansas enacted its drug screening law in 2013, requiring that from 2014 onward, all TANF applicants be tested if a “reasonable suspicion exists” that they might be illegally using “a controlled substance or controlled substance analog.” In the first six months in which the system was in place, Kansas received 2,783 TANF applications. A spokeswoman for the Kansas Department of Children and Families told ThinkProgress, “The first three months of implementation yielded very few drug tests, as staff became comfortable with the criteria. Referrals have increased since that time. So far, 65 individuals have been referred for suspicion-based drug testing. 11 tested positive [and] 12 failed to appear for their scheduled test appointment.” She estimated that the cost to the department over those six months was about $40,000.
Mississippi - Last year, Mississippi passed a law requiring all TANF applicants to complete a written questionnaire about drug use and mandating testing for anyone whose questionnaire suggests a “reasonable likelihood” of a “substance use disorder.” The new system went into effect in August 2014. Over the first five months, 3,656 TANF applicants were screened for use of illegal substances and 38 were referred for drug testing. Just two tested positive.
Tennessee - A 2012 Tennessee law was particularly descriptive about its reasoning for TANF drug testing. After observing that “persons who are not under the pernicious influence of illegal drugs [are] less disruptive of the social fabric, persons and neighborhoods around them are safer as well,” that ” tax dollars should go to persons who are trying to better themselves rather than to persons who violate our state and national laws and support a network of illicit purveyors of misery and disappointment,” and that “the public image of TANF recipients will be enhanced by removing the stigma that is too often attached to such recipients that they use government funds to purchase illegal drugs,” the legislature mandated “suspicion-based drug testing for each applicant” otherwise eligible for TANF.
The program went into effect in July 2014 and, between that time and the end of the year, 16,017 applied for Families First, Tennessee’s TANF program. Of those, 279 were given drug tests and 37 failed then.
Arizona - In 2009, Arizona’s legislature passed a new requirement to “screen and test each adult recipient who is otherwise eligible for temporary assistance for needy families cash benefits and who the department has reasonable cause to believe engages in the illegal use of controlled substances.” Anyone who tested positive would be ineligible to receive the benefits for a year. Supporters claimed this move would save the state $1.7 million annually.
While the legislature has kept the rule each year since its 2010 implementation, very few people have actually even been referred for drug testing after completing a written drug use statement. Since 2014, more than 140,000 Arizona TANF recipients have been screened by the Arizona Department of Economic Security. Just 42 have been referred for a drug test over that time — of the 19 who completed the test, only three have ever tested positive.
Our next door neighbor instituted drug testing requirements in April of this year. Maine Governor Paul LePage argued for legislators to pass this legislation in 2014 saying, "We must ensure that our tax dollars do not enable the continuation of a drug addiction."
From April through June, the state attempted to screen 15 out of about 5,700 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families recipients, according to an Associated Press investigation, and just one person tested positive.
As you can see drug testing welfare recipients has not created the millions of dollars in projected savings, instead it has cost taxpayers more money in the end. And the stubborn stickiness of the idea that drug testing low-income families is good policy reflects a broader misunderstanding about the lifestyles of the poor. In reality, people who rely on public assistance programs to make ends meet are thriftier than the average American. They have to be. There is not one county in New Hampshire where the amount of a monthly TANF check covers the cost of rent.
So, let’s get ready to work together to insure that Granite State families who need a temporary hand up to make ends meet are not subjected to this humiliating and insulting kind of treatment by our legislature.
MaryLou Beaver
New Hampshire Director
Every Child Matters Education Fund
4. Looking Over the Field
Hassan candidacy creates cascade of candidates
by Kathy Sullivan, unionleader.com, October 19, 2015
There has been a recent flood of Granite State political news. A lot of attention focused on Hillary Clinton’s sterling debate performance and measurable rise in the polls. However, in addition to “feeling the turn,” there are a lot of non-presidential stories worth paying attention to.
Gov. Maggie Hassan announced her candidacy for Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s seat. The New Hampshire Republican State Committee perceives the governor as a real threat to unseat Ayotte, as evidenced by their increasingly breathless, often silly anti-Hassan news releases.
One occurred after the Hassan campaign sent out an “In case you missed it” email regarding a blistering column in the satirical website Wonkette on Ayotte’s votes against the Paycheck Fairness Act and for defunding Planned Parenthood. Rather than defend Ayotte, Republicans accused Hassan of trolling satirical websites instead of running the state. Even worse, the Republicans tweeted a link to the Wonkette piece, thereby spreading the article with its headline, “GOP Senator Says Moms Need More ‘Me’ Time, Votes Against That Ever Happening” to a wider audience.
One Republican Party official also made an odd attack on Hassan. Saying that being governor was a full-time job, GOP state committeeman Steve Duprey took to social media to tell Hassan that she should resign to run for Senate. Of course, Duprey said nothing of the sort when Gov. Judd Gregg ran for the Senate. Also, following Duprey’s logic, Kelly Ayotte should resign, since being senator is a full-time job — unless she isn’t working at it full time, in which case perhaps she should give up part of her salary.
(Full disclosure: I am the treasurer for the Hassan campaign, and if New Hampshire Republicans continue down this path, this is going to be fun.)
Gov. Hassan’s announcement means there will likely be lively primaries in both parties next year. On the Democratic side, Executive Councilor Colin Van Ostern announced his entry last week. Other potential candidates include Portsmouth City Councilor Stefany Shaheen, state Sen. Andrew Hosmer and former Securities Bureau chief Mark Connolly.
Although Republican Executive Councilor Chris Sununu announced his candidacy some weeks ago, he has not been able to clear the field, and probably faces his own primary. Three state senators are being mentioned, Jeb Bradley, Chuck Morse and Jeanie Forrester, along with first-term state Rep. Frank Edelblut. It would not make sense for three state senators to run, so look for two of Bradley, Morse and Forrester to decide against running.
In congressional race news, FEC fundraising reports for the quarter ending Sept. 30 were released. Incumbent Frank Guinta’s FEC scandal has caused horrible poll numbers. A recent UNH poll had only 4 percent supporting his reelection. Yet during the quarter, he managed to raise nearly $110,000. He still owes his parents $355,000, but with cash on hand of $350,000, he nearly is at break even. That is better than his only announced primary opponent, Dan Innis. He raised $111,000, but with cash on hand of only $109,000, as well as a debt of $189,000, he is in worse financial shape than Guinta. In short, donors are not jumping on the Innis bandwagon. They may be treading water waiting for former BAE executive Rich Ashooh to jump in. As things stand now, however, the Republicans are in tough shape.
Whoever emerges will likely face former Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter. Although she is facing a well-heeled opponent (FEC reports showed entrepreneur Shawn O’Connor has put $1 million of his own funds into the race), it will be hard to overcome the sense that she deserves another chance after Guinta lied about her in the closing days of the election.
As for 2nd District Congresswoman Annie Kuster, she has no announced opposition, while her FEC report showed nearly $1 million cash on hand. It doesn’t get much better than that.
While the headlines will continue to focus on presidential politics until the primary, there will continue to be significant activity in these other races, as 2016 looks to be an exciting, competitive year — with the exception of the 2nd District.
Kathy Sullivan is the former chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party.
Gov. Maggie Hassan announced her candidacy for Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s seat. The New Hampshire Republican State Committee perceives the governor as a real threat to unseat Ayotte, as evidenced by their increasingly breathless, often silly anti-Hassan news releases.
One occurred after the Hassan campaign sent out an “In case you missed it” email regarding a blistering column in the satirical website Wonkette on Ayotte’s votes against the Paycheck Fairness Act and for defunding Planned Parenthood. Rather than defend Ayotte, Republicans accused Hassan of trolling satirical websites instead of running the state. Even worse, the Republicans tweeted a link to the Wonkette piece, thereby spreading the article with its headline, “GOP Senator Says Moms Need More ‘Me’ Time, Votes Against That Ever Happening” to a wider audience.
One Republican Party official also made an odd attack on Hassan. Saying that being governor was a full-time job, GOP state committeeman Steve Duprey took to social media to tell Hassan that she should resign to run for Senate. Of course, Duprey said nothing of the sort when Gov. Judd Gregg ran for the Senate. Also, following Duprey’s logic, Kelly Ayotte should resign, since being senator is a full-time job — unless she isn’t working at it full time, in which case perhaps she should give up part of her salary.
(Full disclosure: I am the treasurer for the Hassan campaign, and if New Hampshire Republicans continue down this path, this is going to be fun.)
Gov. Hassan’s announcement means there will likely be lively primaries in both parties next year. On the Democratic side, Executive Councilor Colin Van Ostern announced his entry last week. Other potential candidates include Portsmouth City Councilor Stefany Shaheen, state Sen. Andrew Hosmer and former Securities Bureau chief Mark Connolly.
Although Republican Executive Councilor Chris Sununu announced his candidacy some weeks ago, he has not been able to clear the field, and probably faces his own primary. Three state senators are being mentioned, Jeb Bradley, Chuck Morse and Jeanie Forrester, along with first-term state Rep. Frank Edelblut. It would not make sense for three state senators to run, so look for two of Bradley, Morse and Forrester to decide against running.
In congressional race news, FEC fundraising reports for the quarter ending Sept. 30 were released. Incumbent Frank Guinta’s FEC scandal has caused horrible poll numbers. A recent UNH poll had only 4 percent supporting his reelection. Yet during the quarter, he managed to raise nearly $110,000. He still owes his parents $355,000, but with cash on hand of $350,000, he nearly is at break even. That is better than his only announced primary opponent, Dan Innis. He raised $111,000, but with cash on hand of only $109,000, as well as a debt of $189,000, he is in worse financial shape than Guinta. In short, donors are not jumping on the Innis bandwagon. They may be treading water waiting for former BAE executive Rich Ashooh to jump in. As things stand now, however, the Republicans are in tough shape.
Whoever emerges will likely face former Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter. Although she is facing a well-heeled opponent (FEC reports showed entrepreneur Shawn O’Connor has put $1 million of his own funds into the race), it will be hard to overcome the sense that she deserves another chance after Guinta lied about her in the closing days of the election.
As for 2nd District Congresswoman Annie Kuster, she has no announced opposition, while her FEC report showed nearly $1 million cash on hand. It doesn’t get much better than that.
While the headlines will continue to focus on presidential politics until the primary, there will continue to be significant activity in these other races, as 2016 looks to be an exciting, competitive year — with the exception of the 2nd District.
Kathy Sullivan is the former chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party.
5. Ayotte: Making College More Expensive
Ayotte Fact Check: Making College More Expensive
by Ttalraila, nhdp.org, October 20, 2015
Concord, N.H. – As part of the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s “Ayotte Fact Check” accountability project, we will be highlighting a different area of Kelly Ayotte’s true Washington record every day this week.
Today’s focus is Ayotte’s record of making college more expensive for New Hampshire students and families.
“From voting repeatedly to cut Pell Grants to opposing a common-sense measure to let students refinance their loans, Kelly Ayotte has voted directly against the interests of New Hampshire’s students and families since going to Washington,” said New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley. “Even worse, Ayotte is now trying to mislead voters about her true Washington record with a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ student loan bill that’s been called a ‘sweetheart deal for private-sector lenders.’”
“Granite Staters deserve better than a Senator like Ayotte who puts special interests before New Hampshire’s students and families, and then uses Washington tricks to try to hide her true record,” added Buckley.
See below for the facts on Kelly Ayotte’s record of making college more expensive for New Hampshire students and families:
Earlier this year, Ayotte voted for the Republican Fiscal Year 2016 budget, that cuts Pell grants by nearly $90 billion (affecting roughly 23,000 New Hampshire students) and ends an expansion of the “Pay As You Earn Program,” which could double the cost of student loan payments for those who had enrolled in the program. Ayotte also voted this year against an amendment that would allow young people to refinance their student loans, which would help 129,000 Granite Staters.
Not to mention that Ayotte voted for the Ryan Budget three times that would cut Pell Grants for thousands of New Hampshire students.
That’s why Ayotte introduced a sham student loan bill to try to paper over her record. But experts have pointed out that Ayotte’s bill is a bad deal for students that would benefit Wall Street lenders while weakening consumer protections – calling it a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” “a handout to the loan industry,” and a “sweetheart deal for private-sector lenders.
6. At Her Master's Table
Super PAC icon David Koch hosts Manhattan fundraiser for Ayotte, 3 others
by Kevin Landrigan, nh1.com, October 20, 2015
Big money donor David Koch hosted a $10,000-a-plate fundraiser in Manhattan Monday night for four, Republican Senate candidates including Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-NH according to published reports.
Koch’s hometown favorite is August Wolf, a GOP hopeful running against Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-CT, The Connecticut Mirror reported.
But other benefactors of the event were GOP Senators Roy Blunt of Missouri, Jerry Moran of Kansas and Ayotte, the newspaper reported Monday.
Ayotte finished the most recent quarter impressively with more than $5 million in the bank.
David Koch and his brother Charles are best known for initiating the establishment of third-party super PACs that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money independent of a candidate’s campaign to help or hurt that candidate.
The Koch Brothers have become shorthand by Democratic activists in New Hampshire for excessive spending on attack ads and other expenses on behalf of conservative candidates.
David Koch established the Americans for Prosperity super PAC, and the brothers have said they would spend as much as $300 million of their own money to influence the 2016 elections.
AFP has a very active chapter in New Hampshire.
This dinner Monday night was a traditional fundraiser subject to limits on the amount of money individuals and political action committees can contribute.
Meanwhile, the liberal Emily's List that has already endorsed Gov. Maggie Hassan's Senate bid announced today it is giving Ayotte ``On Notice'' status as a target of the abortion rights group. Allies of Ayotte have aired positive commercials making pitches to women voters on behalf of their candidate.
7. More TinFoil Hatters Running Amok
by William Tucker, miscellanyblue.com, October 20, 2015
This week’s episode of Republican cray cray features a novel conspiracy theory to explain why Democrats support gun safety legislation; the resurrection of a four-year-old debunked report to dispute the authenticity of the President’s birth certificate; and a state rep who declares Muslims are “the most barbarous group of people on the face of the Earth” – except for basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
The conspiracist
State Rep. Max Abramson (R-Seabrook) took a break from posting 9/11 truther videos and anti-vaxxer myths to declare Democrats are coming for your guns because they’re in bed with organized crime and the crime bosses want their victims disarmed.
“The real reason that so many Democrats support gun prohibition,” he wrote on Facebook, “is that they are politically tied in with organized crime and don’t want armed victims. They are deliberately ruining this country – and you can’t fully appreciate that until you get actively involved in the process.” (As the only sitting lawmaker with a felony conviction, Abramson has first-hand information about the judicial process.)
To back up his claim, Abramson posted a link to a story about a California state senator who pleaded guilty to gun trafficking, along with a image including movie scenes from Goodfellas and The Godfather. “It is extremely important to criminals that we have gun control… drug control, gambling control, etc.,” the caption read.
The birther
Yesterday, state Rep. David Murotake (R-Nashua) posted the contents of a four-year-old discredited story that purportedly cast doubt on the authenticity of the President’s long-form birth certificate.
The piece related the story of Tim Adams, a former Hawaii elections clerk, who “signed an affidavit swearing he was told by his supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities.”
It was originally published by WND, an online publication the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as being devoted to “manipulative fear-mongering and outright fabrications designed to further the paranoid, gay-hating, conspiratorial and apocalyptic visions” of its founder, Joseph Farah.
The story, which fell apart soon after publication, has recently resurfaced in right-wing media. “Oh oh. Were the ‘Birthers’ right after all? Another piece of ‘evidence’ gets debunked,” Murotake wrote. “I’m not sure why it popped up, again, but I thought it would be worth republishing,” he added. “People forget this stuff…”
Snopes explained why people forget this stuff:
When the claim ran as an exclusive at WND in January 2011, the affidavit upon which it was based attested merely to hearsay and rumors. And while Adams initially asserted that he was not party to a purported ongoing search for Obama’s long-form birth certificate, he appeared months later claiming that he was an integral member of the birther investigation team as part of his six-month-long temp job at the elections division in 2008. Adams’ multiple recitations of things he claimed he heard didn’t amount to much when they first cropped up around Stormfront in 2010, and no new "information” accompanied them in 2015 when they were repeated on web sites as novel findings.
The Islamophobe
Last week, Rep. Don Leeman (R-Rochester) unleashed an anti-Muslim tirade on the Facebook page of a fellow representative, Rep. Gary Hopper (R-Weare).
“Let me remind you that the most barbarous group of people on the face of the Earth are all…MUSLIMS! I know of no other group that beheads innocent human beings who have simply exercised their God-given rights to change their religious beliefs. Only muslims do that! I know of no other group that beheads reporters who are merely going about the business of doing their jobs…” Leeman wrote.
“And lest we forget: How about the innocent people who were first beheaded and then crucified due to their religious beliefs? Who committed that crime?” he asked. “More muslims. All of them are terrorists…those who did these horrendous acts of barbarity. It does not seem to make any difference if they are Palestinians, or Saudis, or from any of the other muslim theocracies.”
Leeman then noted a single exception. “In my lifetime, I have met exactly ONE muslim for whom I had any respect at all,” he wrote. “No, it had nothing to do with the fact that he is 7'2" tall. It had everything to do with the fact that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar kept his religious beliefs to himself and was not known to try to get anyone to change their own beliefs in order to follow his beliefs. He was also one of the greatest basketball players in the history of the NBA,” Leeman added.
“You’ve not known many muslims then,” a visitor replied.
"As I said, I’ve only met one who I respect,” answered Leeman. “Then there is Muhammad Ali….the boxer who refused to fight for his Country. COWARD!”
AND NATIONALLY
8. No: He Didn't "Keep Us Safe"
Jeb Bush: Why Did Your Brother Completely Ignore Pre-9/11 Warnings About Bin Laden Planning US Attacks?
by Mark Karlin, truth-out.org, October 20, 2015
No, Jeb, George W. Bush did not try and keep the US "safe" from 9/11 occurring.
Despite Jeb's claims otherwise, Bush was indeed warned of bin Laden planning attacks in the US. These included an alarming memo that he received while on a month-long vacation in Texas, just weeks before 9/11. The memo referred not only to a long history of bin Laden's goal to strike on US soil, it directly mentioned hijackings.
While on a month-long vacation at his Texas ranch just a few weeks prior to 9/11, George W. Bush ignored this CIA memo (and others) warning of al-Qaeda attacks on the US. (Photo: ThinkProgress)
A September 10, 2012, commentary in The New York Times by Kurt Eichenwald provides the damning context to George W. Bush's negligence in taking any steps to prevent an al-Qaeda operation such as the one that caused such a loss of life on 9/11:
On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s "presidential daily brief" — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal....
[This memo should be] read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of al-Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that "a group presently in the United States" was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be "imminent," although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
If you believe Jeb, George W. Bush could have done nothing to prevent 9/11 because he was not given any intelligence to predict that such a catastrophe might occur. Either Jeb Bush is being duplicitous or he is willfully ignorant of the facts. Having written many commentaries about George W. Bush's failure to take any preventative steps prior to 9/11 - despite ongoing alarm bell warnings from the US intelligence community - I find Jeb's repeated assertion that his brother "kept us safe" to be of one of the biggest false narratives about post-9/11 US history.
Eichenwald further notes the urgency of the warnings to Bush,
And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have "dramatic consequences," including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but "will occur soon." Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.
Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic.
As Eichenwald notes - and I recall watching George W. Bush assert at a press conference while he was president - Bush said that he couldn't be blamed because he didn't receive precise information that the attack was to be on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Condoleezza Rice, his National Security Advisor at the time, made a similar excuse.
Yes, it would be convenient if Osama bin Laden had sent a personal memo to George W. Bush with detailed plans of the 9/11 hijackings, names of the hijackers and clear targets, but the absurdity of such a notion speaks for itself. The reality is that if Jeb's brother had actually tried to prevent the loss of life on US soil, he would have taken general steps to tighten up internal US security measures, such as preventing hijackings. Bush and Rice, however, just ignored the urgency of the memos that they were receiving.
In short, at a minimum, George W. Bush and his White House team were negligent; they were repeatedly alerted to an imminent domestic al-Qaeda attack for months prior to the devastating September 11 attacks, and they did not respond to the urgency of these alerts.
There were other pre-9/11 indicators of likely "terrorist actions" in the US. We covered these extensively on BuzzFlash in late 2001 and thereafter. For this commentary's purpose, one point needs to be emphasized: George W. Bush was warned again and again of a likely "imminent" domestic terrorist attack - very possibly a hijacking or hijackings - and did nothing to try and prevent such an occurrence.
The book's opening anecdote tells of an unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush's Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."
That, Jeb, is not "keeping us safe." It's a dereliction of duty.
[Not to Mention what Bush did after 9/11, including the idiotic invasion of Iraq, resulting in around 4,500 American deaths and 33.000 American wounded (they surely weren't kept safe), his blowing up the Middle East, creating violent instability, creating many more terrorists, leading to the formation of ISIS, etc. Heck of a job keeping us safe, W. ]
9. Who Benefits?
Lessons for the Trans-Pacific Partnership
by Mark Weisbrot, thecipherbrief.com, October 13, 2015
There are many lessons from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that are relevant to the current debate over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). First, like the TPP, NAFTA was never mostly about trade and even less about free trade. In 1994, the U.S. already had low tariff barriers to Mexican goods. The agreement was much more about creating and expanding new rights and privileges for investors, mostly multinational corporations. For example, the Investor to State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provision of NAFTA allowed corporations to sue governments directly for laws or judicial decisions that infringed upon their profits. This became a threat to environmental, food safety, public health, and other regulation. The main concern is that the sovereign laws and judicial systems of the signatories of treaties such as NAFTA could be subordinated to a tribunal established by the agreement, without the guarantees and extent of due process of, for example, the U.S. legal system, and judges who were generally more sympathetic to corporations than to the public interest.
The ISDS is one of the most important provisions of the TPP that has evoked opposition from environmental and other public interest groups. Proponents of the treaty argue that we now have ISDS in dozens of international agreements, and there have been only 13 judgments against the U.S. But, as economist Jeffrey Sachs has pointed out, corporations are just getting started with using this advantage: “In 1995, only a handful of ISDS cases had been filed; as of the end of 2014, there had been more than 600 known claims (because most arbitration can be conducted in secrecy, there may have been many more claims).”
Since NAFTA, economists have also learned that the gains from the parts of these agreements that have to do with trade are extremely small. The most widely cited estimate of the gains to the U.S. from the TPP come to about 0.4 percent of GDP after 10 years – that’s total, not annual gain. This would be barely noticeable. And worse, the likely impact of the TPP on wage inequality would wipe out these gains from most wage earners, so that most people would be worse off as a result of the agreement. Even worse, the TPP’s provisions that strengthen and lengthen patent and copyright protection, according to the drafts that have been leaked, would have even more of an impact in the upward distribution of income. It is no exaggeration when opponents of the TPP refer to the agreement as a “corporate power grab.”
Of course, Mexico did pretty badly in the 20 years following NAFTA. While Latin America as a whole did very badly in the last 20 years of the 20th century (total growth in GDP per capita was just 5.7 percent over the two decades, as compared with 91.5 percent in the previous 20 years [1960-1980]), most of the region rebounded at the turn of the century. But Mexico’s per-capita growth was just 18.6 percent for 1994-2014, about half that of the rest of the region. Mexico’s poverty rate of 52.3 percent was almost the same as in 1994, thus adding 14.3 million people to the population living below the poverty line.
The lessons from NAFTA are a big part of the reason that the Obama administration is having so much trouble getting the TPP past Congress. Of course the TPP’s proponents have also learned lessons from NAFTA: That’s why its contents have been kept secret from the public throughout the negotiations.
10. Trump is Not from MARS
How Donald Trump Peddles Populism for the Rich
by Jeet Heer, newrepublic.com, October 19, 2015
Donald Trump is a walking contradiction that still needs explaining. He's a first-time campaigner who's never held high office (or any office) but is trouncing accomplished politicians in the polls; an insult comedian who seems only more beloved by his fans with every wildly inappropriate remark; a habitual liar who somehow has a reputation of being unvarnished and candid. And he's running, with success that few would have ventured to predict, as a “populist billionaire”—a phrase used as early as 1988 by New York magazine andrevived during his current run for the presidency. "I'm not a populist," Trump has averred, but the populist label still clings to him, in part because of own cultivation of his image as blunt-spoken man who echews elite refinement.
Both sides of the "populist billionaire" equation can called into question, of course, and often have. Trump’s populist rhetoric is belied by his constant defense of privilege. It's not absolutely clear how rich he really is—and it is certainly true that his fortune is due to the luck of having a rich dad rather than any actual business acumen. Still, even if “populist billionaire” doesn’t quite describe the reality of Trump, it certainly captures the image he’s crafted of someone who embodies both the common-sense wisdom of the average person and the supposed leadership skills of the wealth-creating elite.
But how has he fit together populism and plutocracy into an appealing formula for so voters? Two sturdy books of political science offer us a way of understanding the two sides of Trump’s contradictory appeal: Donald I. Warren’s The Radical Center: Middle Americans and the Politics of Alienation (1976) and Isaac William Martin’s Rich People’s Movements: Grassroots Campaigns to Untax the One Percent (2013). The two political traditions outlined in these books are very different—one being lower-middle-class populism, and the other upper-class plutocracy. Trump has found a formula for combining them. But he's not the first.
The Radical Center grew out of the 1970s fascination with the phenomenon of blue-collar conservatism, reflected in everything from the political campaigns of George Wallace to clashes between construction workers and anti-war demonstrators. Archie Bunker, the loudmouth working-class bigot on All in the Family (1971-1979), memorably encapsulated the grassroots version of this policital character. Using extensive polling data, Warren argued that the Archie Bunkers of the world were a distinct ideological cohort; he labelled them Middle American Radicals, or MARS.
MARS were lower-middle-class white Americans who didn’t fit the familiar patterns of either the left or right: They were hostile to black Americans, but also to the corporate elite; they supported government programs like Social Security and Medicare, but opposed efforts to help the black poor. They were, Warren wrote, "caught in the middle between those whose wealth gives them access to power and those whose militant organization in the face of deprivation gains special treatment from the government.” These voters tended to be extremely nationalistic, while also believing that the Washington elite was corrupt and the rich had too much power. Opposing both the rich and the poor, MARS felt alienated from both the Republicans and Democrats, and preferred an outsider candidate like Wallace, who combined strong support of segregation with an equally vigorous defines of New Deal style economic policies.
John Judis has argued that Trump is the latest in a line of outsiders who've rallied the MARS demographic—from Wallace to Ross Perot to Pat Buchanan. The case Judis makes is partially persuasive. Certainly, Trump's rhetoric is similar to that of Wallace, Perot, and Buchanan. Like them, Trump paints a grim picture of a once-great America being brought low by a corrupt elite, with ordinary middle-class citizens being squeezed by both the poor and the rich. MARS have a deep distrust for the Washington elite. That's why Trump's blistering critique of George W. Bush's handling of9/11 and the Iraq War, seen as gaffes likely to turn off GOP primary voters, are only likely to endear him more to MARS.
But Trump, no matter how he talks, is a far cry from an old-style, right-wing populist. He may complain about hedge-fund speculators “getting away with murder," but the actual tax policies he rolled out in late September are standard GOP tax cuts that would overwhelmingly benefit the rich. As Matthew Yglesias noted on Vox, “after months of faking that he was going to break with GOP orthodoxy on taxes, Donald Trump proposed a plan to cut income tax rates across the board, a structure that necessarily deliversespecially large tax cuts to the highest-income taxpayers.” Such is the power of rhetoric, even so, that news outlets like ABC and the Financial Times described Trump’s brazenly plutocratic tax policies as “populist.”
The root problem is that too many analysts conflate movements and campaigns that use populist rhetoric with actual populism. Even the astute Judis falls into this error when he tries conflates the support many Tea Party activists are giving to Trump with the MARS demographic. “There is, as it turns out, considerable overlap between the tea-party worldview and Middle American Radicalism,” Judis writes. (He adds the proviso that “I would distinguish between local tea-party groups, which line up with the MARS outlook, and national business front organizations that took on the tea-party mantle, which do not.”)
But the MARS demographic and Tea Party diverge greatly. As Warren defined them, MARS voters weren't college-educated or financially well-off. They struggled to make ends meet. Tea Party activists, as we know from extensive polling, are actually weathier and better-educated than average Americans. The MARS model of disgruntled lower-middle-class voters hemmed in by both the poor and rich doesn’t fit the Tea Party—nor, as far as the sketchy data we have, does it fit Trump supporters who, like Republicans in general, are likely to be the the top half of the economic divide. Trump supporters might be poorer than other Republicans, but they aren’t poorer than average Americans.
Trump’s tax plan was the giveaway, if we needed one: the sure sign that while he might be talking populism to MARS voters, his real political pedigree is different—and better explained by Martin’sRich People’s Movements. RPMs, which Martin finds have been around for a century, are political activist groups made up by the rich for the purposes of lowering their tax burden—and supported by both their fellow rich and those who hope to get rich. RPMs are typically organized by political entrepreneurs in pseudo-populist campaigns to shift the Republican party to the right. That describes Trump's campaign as aptly as Warren's MARS theory describes his appeal.
At the beginning of his book, Martin provides a vivid picture of vintage RPM politics: “On September 4, 1962, hundreds of conservative activists crowded into the Wilshire Ebell Theatre in Los Angeles for a protest meeting that they called the California T Party. These protestors were unusually well-heeled and unusually radical. They were there to support a constitutional amendment that would outlaw all federal taxation of income and inherited wealth, and would further require the federal government to sell off virtually all its assets in order to pay for a massive, one-time transfer of wealth to the richest Americans.”
These days, the most powerful RPMs are the Tea Party and Grover Norquest’s Americans for Tax Reform. There had briefly been signs of tension between Trump and Norquist, but the candidates tax plan won Norquist's blessing. (Trump, as is his wont, does continue to feud with another prominent RPM group, the Club for Growth.)
Ultimately, Trump’s politics are defined by the fact that he talks like a MARS, but serves the interests of the rich. One of the crucial points Martin makes is that Rich People's Movements emerge at times when the rich face the “policy threat” of steeply increased taxes. This is certainly true right now, as the Occupy Movement and the rise of Bernie Sanders have raised the specter of using taxes for redistribution for the first time in a generation. If Trump, following in the path of earlier RPM, decided to respond to the “policy threat” of new taxes against his ilk by creating a new political movement, he showed particular shrewdness by cloaking himself in the guise of MARS populism.
Combined together, the theories of MARS and RPMs go a long way toward explaining Trump's strategy—how he's wielding right-wing populism to keep tax cuts for the rich at the core of American politics. As sui generis as his campaign message has often seemed, understanding the roots of his fusion of populist and plutocratic politics ultimately makes Trump seem much less contradictory and unusual. For all his bluster and crudeness, he’s actually part of the mainstream of Republican politics stretching back to Goldwater and Reagan
FINALLY
No comments:
Post a Comment