The Blast has been on a longer-than-expected sick leave. It is (knock on wood) tentatively back on its regular schedule for now.
AROUND NEW HAMPSHIRE
1. State House Watch
STATE HOUSE WATCH NOVEMBER 13 2015 ISSUE 29
Special Session Wednesday, November 18Representatives, Senators, NH Voices of Faith Return to Concord
The NH House and Senate will convene Wednesday, November 18, in a “Special Session” called to respond to the heroin and opioid drug crisis. The unusual session was proposed by Governor Maggie Hassan and approved by the Executive Council on a 4 to 1 vote on November 4.
The House will convene at noon and the Senate at 1 pm.
The Governor's Proposal
According to a statement from her office on November 9, the governor was hoping for legislation that would:
1. bring the laws and penalties for fentanyl in line with those for heroin; require boards governing all prescribers to update their rules by April 1;
2. establish a statewide drug court office to expand existing drug courts and establish new ones;
3. mandate use of the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program and upgrade its technology;
4. require all insurance companies to use the same evaluation criteria and remove some prior authorization requirements;
5. limit emergency room prescriptions and all prescriptions to 34 days or 100 dosage units;
6. allow increased oversight of pain and methadone clinics; update the Board of Medicine’s membership; provide additional support to local law enforcement;
7. add an attorney at the Department of Justice focused on drug crimes; and
8. increase funding for the Governor’s Commission on Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention, Treatment and Recovery.
The Legislature's Approach
House and Senate Republican leaders, however, came up with their own plan: to create a 25-member legislative task force to consider responses to abuse of opioids. The Task Force would consult experts and make recommendations concerning:
1. Amending the laws and penalties relating to the distribution of fentanyl to ensure they are on par with the laws and penalties relating to the distribution of heroin;
2. Requiring insurance companies to use the same evaluation criteria for substance abuse treatment and removing prior authorization requirements;
3. Mandating greater use of the state’s prescription drug monitoring program and upgrading its technology;
4. Continuing medical education relating to prescribing schedule II, III, and IV drugs;
5. Providing for a statewide drug court grant program; and
6. Reviewing the successful law enforcement partnership program taking place between the city of Manchester police department and New Hampshire state police.
The Task Force would present recommendations to the House and Senate by January 6. You can see additional details in the House Calendar.
The Republicans have the majority in both chambers; State House Watchers expect their proposal to carry the day.
What's this have to do with Medicaid?
Since a vital element of dealing with drug mis-use is making treatment available for addicts, and since insurance coverage to pay for treatment can be made available through Medicaid, there is an obvious connection to the need for the NH Health Protection Program to be re-authorized. But just in case it’s not obvious to all of our legislators, NH Voices of Faith plans to have a visible presence at the State House on Wednesday as the legislators gather. If you can join them, please contact Maggie.
Retained Bills
Legislative committees are wrapping up work on “retained bills” in the House and “re-referred bills” in the Senate. Committee recommendations will come up right away when the Representatives and Senators re-convene in January.
For example, SB 219, relative to breast feeding, was proposed to require employers to make reasonable accommodations for mothers who are breast-feeding their infants. After going through the legislative mill, the bill will return to the House and Senate as a proposal to expand breast-feeding protection to salaried, state workers. It also sets up a task force to study the issue and consider expanding protections to larger classes of workers. A step forward to be sure, but a small one.
SB 136, a bill that puts the legislature on record in support of a Constitutional Amendment overturning Citizens United, passed the Senate unanimously but was retained by the Legislative Administration Committee in the House. Now that committee is calling for the bill to be sent to “interim study,” i.e. held over again without action. We will watch for an effort to overturn the committee report on the House floor and substitute an “ought to pass” motion.
2016 Legislation
The General Court website lists 773 “Legislative Service Requests” (LSRs) for 2016. These are the names of bills that lawmakers have asked the Office of Legislative Services to prepare. Once the legislators have agreed on the bills’ initial language, each one will be assigned a bill number and the text will be made public. That means, for example, that we don’t really know what Rep. Jack Flanagan’s bill to expand the death penalty will say, or what will be the substance of a bill to ban “sanctuary cities.” But we’re pretty sure we’ll be against them, and we’ll let you know the details when we get them.
Medical Marijuana
Diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and told by her physicians that she does not have long to live, Linda Horan decided she would like to use cannabis to relieve the symptoms of her illness. But while the legislature has approved the use of cannabis for situations like this, the state is dragging its feet on implementation. That’s why Linda dragged the state into court yesterday, seeking judicial pressure on the state to at least give eligible patients the documents they need to procure cannabis legally in states where the dispensaries are up and running. NHPR’s report is here.
A big thank you!
We send big thanks to everyone who volunteered, attended, and donated to support “What a Difference 40 Years Can Make,” the October 24 celebration of AFSC’s NH Program. In addition to moving stories about work on immigration, death penalty repeal, MLK Day, and other issues, we had video greetings from Noam Chomsky and Bishop Gene Robinson.
Speaking of thanks, the Governing Under the Influence project had a “volunteer appreciation” party yesterday in Concord. Thanks to the hundreds of people out bird dogging the candidates and carrying the GUI banners at political events, the NH Primary debate includes discussion of for-profit prisons, immigrant detention, halting the plan to spend a trillion dollars on new nuclear weapons, and the need to restrain corporate influence over policy decisions. Just today, AFSC staff and volunteers spoke to Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Rand Paul and heard some interesting replies. Visit our website often to find out where the candidates will be and what they’ve been saying.
“Class Action” Trainings
AFSC is working with Class Action and several other groups to host 4 workshops on class and classism. In this workshop, participants will explore:
•how class identities affect our lives, how we work and who we work with
•how race intersects with class
•how we become more class inclusive (and why it matters)
•how we can celebrate differences from all class backgrounds to build community
The 4 workshops are:
Thursday, December 3 in Berlin, hosted by North Country Listens and Women’s Rural Entrepreneurial Network
Friday, December 4 in Claremont, hosted by United Valley Interfaith Project and Rethink Health
Friday, December 11 in Manchester, hosted by Investing in Communities, NH Citizens Alliance and New Futures
Saturday, December 12 in Pittsfield, hosted by Pittsfield Listens
Look here for more information and to register for the workshop you’d like to attend.
Fight for $15
The NH Fight for Fifteen coalition is sponsoring 3 demonstrations for a $15/hour minimum wage on Monday, November 16 from noon to 1 pm. The demonstrations, coordinated by the Granite State Organizing Project, will take place at Concord Wendy’s, 106 Loudon Road; Manchester Wendy’s, 675 South Willow Street; and Nashua Wendy's, 46 E Hollis Street. Sign up on Facebook.
Don’t Mourn, Organize
November 19 is the 100th anniversary of the execution of Joe Hill, the legendary organizer and song-writer from the Industrial Workers of the World. In Joe Hill’s honor, we say, “Don’t Mourn, Organize” and print his final poem, known as "Joe Hill's Last Will."
My will is easy to decide,
For there is nothing to divide
My kin don't need to fuss and moan,
Moss does not cling to a rolling stone.
My body?—Oh!—If I could choose
I would want to ashes it reduce,
And let the merry breezes blow
My dust to where some flowers grow.
Perhaps some fading flower then
Would come to life and bloom again.
This is my Last and Final Will.
Good luck to all of you,
With best wishes, Arnie and Maggie
The AFSC is a Quaker organization supported by people of many faiths who care about peace, social justice, humanitarian service, and nonviolent change. Arnie Alpert and Maggie Fogarty direct the New Hampshire Program, publish the newsletter, and co-host the "State House Watch" radio show on WNHN-FM. Susan Bruce helps with research and writing. "State House Watch" is made possible in part by a grant from the Anne Slade Frey Charitable Trust.
If you value our work, please consider making a donation. Just go to our web page, and click on the "Donate Now" button. Thanks"
The NH House and Senate will convene Wednesday, November 18, in a “Special Session” called to respond to the heroin and opioid drug crisis. The unusual session was proposed by Governor Maggie Hassan and approved by the Executive Council on a 4 to 1 vote on November 4.
The House will convene at noon and the Senate at 1 pm.
The Governor's Proposal
According to a statement from her office on November 9, the governor was hoping for legislation that would:
1. bring the laws and penalties for fentanyl in line with those for heroin; require boards governing all prescribers to update their rules by April 1;
2. establish a statewide drug court office to expand existing drug courts and establish new ones;
3. mandate use of the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program and upgrade its technology;
4. require all insurance companies to use the same evaluation criteria and remove some prior authorization requirements;
5. limit emergency room prescriptions and all prescriptions to 34 days or 100 dosage units;
6. allow increased oversight of pain and methadone clinics; update the Board of Medicine’s membership; provide additional support to local law enforcement;
7. add an attorney at the Department of Justice focused on drug crimes; and
8. increase funding for the Governor’s Commission on Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention, Treatment and Recovery.
The Legislature's Approach
House and Senate Republican leaders, however, came up with their own plan: to create a 25-member legislative task force to consider responses to abuse of opioids. The Task Force would consult experts and make recommendations concerning:
1. Amending the laws and penalties relating to the distribution of fentanyl to ensure they are on par with the laws and penalties relating to the distribution of heroin;
2. Requiring insurance companies to use the same evaluation criteria for substance abuse treatment and removing prior authorization requirements;
3. Mandating greater use of the state’s prescription drug monitoring program and upgrading its technology;
4. Continuing medical education relating to prescribing schedule II, III, and IV drugs;
5. Providing for a statewide drug court grant program; and
6. Reviewing the successful law enforcement partnership program taking place between the city of Manchester police department and New Hampshire state police.
The Task Force would present recommendations to the House and Senate by January 6. You can see additional details in the House Calendar.
The Republicans have the majority in both chambers; State House Watchers expect their proposal to carry the day.
What's this have to do with Medicaid?
Since a vital element of dealing with drug mis-use is making treatment available for addicts, and since insurance coverage to pay for treatment can be made available through Medicaid, there is an obvious connection to the need for the NH Health Protection Program to be re-authorized. But just in case it’s not obvious to all of our legislators, NH Voices of Faith plans to have a visible presence at the State House on Wednesday as the legislators gather. If you can join them, please contact Maggie.
Retained Bills
Legislative committees are wrapping up work on “retained bills” in the House and “re-referred bills” in the Senate. Committee recommendations will come up right away when the Representatives and Senators re-convene in January.
For example, SB 219, relative to breast feeding, was proposed to require employers to make reasonable accommodations for mothers who are breast-feeding their infants. After going through the legislative mill, the bill will return to the House and Senate as a proposal to expand breast-feeding protection to salaried, state workers. It also sets up a task force to study the issue and consider expanding protections to larger classes of workers. A step forward to be sure, but a small one.
SB 136, a bill that puts the legislature on record in support of a Constitutional Amendment overturning Citizens United, passed the Senate unanimously but was retained by the Legislative Administration Committee in the House. Now that committee is calling for the bill to be sent to “interim study,” i.e. held over again without action. We will watch for an effort to overturn the committee report on the House floor and substitute an “ought to pass” motion.
2016 Legislation
The General Court website lists 773 “Legislative Service Requests” (LSRs) for 2016. These are the names of bills that lawmakers have asked the Office of Legislative Services to prepare. Once the legislators have agreed on the bills’ initial language, each one will be assigned a bill number and the text will be made public. That means, for example, that we don’t really know what Rep. Jack Flanagan’s bill to expand the death penalty will say, or what will be the substance of a bill to ban “sanctuary cities.” But we’re pretty sure we’ll be against them, and we’ll let you know the details when we get them.
Medical Marijuana
Diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and told by her physicians that she does not have long to live, Linda Horan decided she would like to use cannabis to relieve the symptoms of her illness. But while the legislature has approved the use of cannabis for situations like this, the state is dragging its feet on implementation. That’s why Linda dragged the state into court yesterday, seeking judicial pressure on the state to at least give eligible patients the documents they need to procure cannabis legally in states where the dispensaries are up and running. NHPR’s report is here.
A big thank you!
We send big thanks to everyone who volunteered, attended, and donated to support “What a Difference 40 Years Can Make,” the October 24 celebration of AFSC’s NH Program. In addition to moving stories about work on immigration, death penalty repeal, MLK Day, and other issues, we had video greetings from Noam Chomsky and Bishop Gene Robinson.
Speaking of thanks, the Governing Under the Influence project had a “volunteer appreciation” party yesterday in Concord. Thanks to the hundreds of people out bird dogging the candidates and carrying the GUI banners at political events, the NH Primary debate includes discussion of for-profit prisons, immigrant detention, halting the plan to spend a trillion dollars on new nuclear weapons, and the need to restrain corporate influence over policy decisions. Just today, AFSC staff and volunteers spoke to Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Rand Paul and heard some interesting replies. Visit our website often to find out where the candidates will be and what they’ve been saying.
“Class Action” Trainings
AFSC is working with Class Action and several other groups to host 4 workshops on class and classism. In this workshop, participants will explore:
•how class identities affect our lives, how we work and who we work with
•how race intersects with class
•how we become more class inclusive (and why it matters)
•how we can celebrate differences from all class backgrounds to build community
The 4 workshops are:
Thursday, December 3 in Berlin, hosted by North Country Listens and Women’s Rural Entrepreneurial Network
Friday, December 4 in Claremont, hosted by United Valley Interfaith Project and Rethink Health
Friday, December 11 in Manchester, hosted by Investing in Communities, NH Citizens Alliance and New Futures
Saturday, December 12 in Pittsfield, hosted by Pittsfield Listens
Look here for more information and to register for the workshop you’d like to attend.
Fight for $15
The NH Fight for Fifteen coalition is sponsoring 3 demonstrations for a $15/hour minimum wage on Monday, November 16 from noon to 1 pm. The demonstrations, coordinated by the Granite State Organizing Project, will take place at Concord Wendy’s, 106 Loudon Road; Manchester Wendy’s, 675 South Willow Street; and Nashua Wendy's, 46 E Hollis Street. Sign up on Facebook.
Don’t Mourn, Organize
November 19 is the 100th anniversary of the execution of Joe Hill, the legendary organizer and song-writer from the Industrial Workers of the World. In Joe Hill’s honor, we say, “Don’t Mourn, Organize” and print his final poem, known as "Joe Hill's Last Will."
My will is easy to decide,
For there is nothing to divide
My kin don't need to fuss and moan,
Moss does not cling to a rolling stone.
My body?—Oh!—If I could choose
I would want to ashes it reduce,
And let the merry breezes blow
My dust to where some flowers grow.
Perhaps some fading flower then
Would come to life and bloom again.
This is my Last and Final Will.
Good luck to all of you,
With best wishes, Arnie and Maggie
The AFSC is a Quaker organization supported by people of many faiths who care about peace, social justice, humanitarian service, and nonviolent change. Arnie Alpert and Maggie Fogarty direct the New Hampshire Program, publish the newsletter, and co-host the "State House Watch" radio show on WNHN-FM. Susan Bruce helps with research and writing. "State House Watch" is made possible in part by a grant from the Anne Slade Frey Charitable Trust.
If you value our work, please consider making a donation. Just go to our web page, and click on the "Donate Now" button. Thanks"
American Friends Service Committee 4 Park Street Concord, NH 03301http://afsc.org |
2. This and That
m_content=NH+Business+Review+
State now going down road usage fee road
State House Dome, by Garry Rayno, unionleader.com, October 31, 2015
THE COMMISSION to Study Revenue Alternatives to the Road Toll for Electric Powered and Hybrid Vehicles for Funding of Improvements to the State's Highways and Bridges voted unanimously last week to support a bill establishing a road usage fee.
As proposed, the new fee on fuel efficient vehicles would raise about $47 million annually to help fix the state's crumbling infrastructure.
The highway fund has been losing revenue for years as gas prices soared and cars became more fuel efficient. The recent expansion of electric, hybrid and natural gas powered-vehicles that pay little or no gas tax has aggravated the problem
For the last decade lawmakers have used a number of one-time fixes to deal with the shortfall, such as selling Interstate 95 to the Turnpike System and using federal turnpike credits for maintaining the federal highways as the state's match for highway projects.
But those one-time fixes end this year and the Highway Fund will take a $90 million hit compared to what it raised not that long ago.
“Someone has to step up to the plate and do what's right,” said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Norman Major, R-Plaistow, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee. “It may not be the perfect solution, but it moves us in the right direction. It's fair and it's simple and it is not costly to implement.”
Major developed a formula that would in essence replace the money lost due to more fuel efficient vehicles or those that use alternative fuels such as electricity or natural gas.
Under Major's proposal, the base would be a vehicle that gets 20 miles per gallon and travels 13,500 miles a year, the federal Department of Transportation average.
The owner of the base vehicle would pay about $150 a year into the state's highway fund to pay for road and bridge maintenance and construction.
The owner of a more fuel efficient vehicle would pay less money into the highway fund, but the road usage fee would bring the total to $150.
For example, if a vehicle is rated at 40 miles per gallon, the owner would pay about $75 into the highway fund so the road usage fee would be $75 to bring the total to $150.
Major notes that people with more efficient vehicles will retain 90 percent of their savings from having to buy less fuel.
Motorcycles, mopeds and vehicles built before 1984 would be exempt from the fee. And vehicles rated 20 mpg or less would not pay the usage fee.
Town or city clerks would collect the fee based on the VIN number when the owner registers the vehicle and pays the license plate fees.
The current system uses the VIN number to determine the vehicle's weight for the cost of plates and its value for registration, Major notes, so the usage fee would be determined based on estimated miles per gallon and be a third item.
“In a nutshell, this addresses a problem we have. The ship is sinking, the revenue is not there and the costs are going up,” Major said. “We can't put our heads in the sand and not address it. If we want to expand the economy and keep what we have, we have to maintain these roads and bridges.”
Major acknowledges his plan is not going to be an easy sell, but he will put together a PowerPoint presentation and meet with groups and organizations between now and January so they understand the road usage fee and what the state is up against.
Two years ago, lawmakers battled fiercely over increasing the gas tax 4 cents and any attempt to up that levy again faces rock solid opposition from Senate President Chuck Morse, R-Salem.
Major, like many people in Concord, knows the state's crumbling transportation infrastructure needs all the help it can get or it will be even more costly in the future to repair years of neglect.
“With efficiency standards going up year after year, if we do nothing the situation will get worse and worse,” Major said. “Raising the gas tax affects a smaller portion of drivers and the ones who cannot afford to buy new higher efficiency vehicles.”
Major said he intended to make a system that is simple and does not need “an army of bureaucrats to administer.” He said he expects the proposal to change as it goes through the legislative process, but notes something has to be done.
The chairman of the commission, Rep. John Cloutier, D-Claremont, and committee member Sen. David Watters, D-Dover, have signed as co-sponsors of Major's bill.
Retiree health care
The Joint Legislative Fiscal Committee meets Tuesday to take what the Department of Administrative Services hopes will be final action on a plan to address a $10.6 million deficit in the retirees' health insurance program over this biennium.
The committee has delayed action on the proposal since it was presented at the end of August, finally taking action two weeks ago on one section because Medicare requires that patients be notified by Dec. 1 of benefit changes.
That section increased co-pays for retirees over 65 years old for both retail and mail-away prescriptions and doubled the maximum out-of-pocket expenses for individuals and families.
The change is expected to save $1.6 million to help offset the program's deficit.
On Tuesday the committee is expected to tackle other provisions that will save an additional $5.2 million, with the remaining deficit offset by surplus.
Under the plan, retirees over 65 would have to pay a $500 deductible for inpatient hospital or nursing home services, saving $1.1 million.
For those under 65 years old, premiums would increase from 12.5 to 15 percent, saving $1.4 million; co-pays and deductibles would go up saving $2.3 million; and the same prescription changes as for those over 65 would save $400,000.
The state's 12,000 retirees — almost 9,000 over age 65 – have opposed the changes, filling legislative hearing rooms when the committee meets.
Two weeks ago, the committee meeting broke down into partisan bickering, with GOP lawmakers blasting Gov. Maggie Hassan for proposing no changes be made, while draining the program's $5.3 million surplus, with the rest of the deficit being covered by state agency budgets.
Senate President Chuck Morse, R-Salem, led the charge in blasting Hassan, saying he didn't know what she wants; GOP leaders did not say what they want either.
If nothing is done, the program runs out of money next year.
Neither Hassan nor lawmakers fully funded the retiree health insurance program in their budgets, after cost estimates were changed just before the governor submitted her budget in February and designer or miracle drug costs spiked, doubling the deficit to $10.6 million.
The retiree health insurance plan is a real life lesson in why no one should believe the promises one Legislature makes, because officials elected two years later can change everything.
That has been a hard lesson for retirees, school districts, cities, towns, counties and businesses that contract with the state.
Buyer beware.
Simple plans
Lawmakers were outraged in 2010, but more recently in 2014, when the state Supreme Court essentially adopted the federal standard for lawsuits challenging government decisions or actions.
In 2010, the state Supreme Court ruled someone has to suffer harm before having legal standing to city, town, school district, county or state.
The court acknowledged that in the past it had decided taxpayer lawsuits without harm first being done, but said going forward that that would not be enough to establish standing, or meet the federal standard.
Last year, the court dismissed a suit brought by current state school board member William Duncan of New Castle challenging the education business tax credit program approved by lawmakers in 2012 because he lacked standing, without ruling on the merits of the new law.
The Duncan decision prompted Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, to propose a constitutional amendment last session to restore a taxpayer's right to challenge a governmental action or decision without first proving harm.
The proposed amendment sailed through the Senate but when it arrived at the House Judiciary Committee, even proponents of restoring taxpayer rights said the bill needed work and the committee should bring it back next session.
A Judiciary subcommittee chaired by vice chair Joseph Hagan, R-Chester, worked on the proposed amendment over the summer and into the fall with many stakeholders offering suggestions.
But when the proposed amendment was presented last week to the full committee, the sub-committee ran into a road block, mostly over allowing corporations to sue without first proving harm.
Rep. Claire Rouillard, R-Goffstown, proposed a change limiting legal standing to individual taxpayers/voters but that raised other issues.
So committee chair Rep. Rob Rowe, R-Amherst, a retired district court justice, sent the issue back to subcommittee and scheduled another committee meeting next week for a vote.
A simple change to restore what had been the norm for years is not so simple when changing the constitution.
Rowe noted a constitutional amendment needs to be simple and direct with little ambiguity, something he said the proposal was not.
As proposed, the new fee on fuel efficient vehicles would raise about $47 million annually to help fix the state's crumbling infrastructure.
The highway fund has been losing revenue for years as gas prices soared and cars became more fuel efficient. The recent expansion of electric, hybrid and natural gas powered-vehicles that pay little or no gas tax has aggravated the problem
For the last decade lawmakers have used a number of one-time fixes to deal with the shortfall, such as selling Interstate 95 to the Turnpike System and using federal turnpike credits for maintaining the federal highways as the state's match for highway projects.
But those one-time fixes end this year and the Highway Fund will take a $90 million hit compared to what it raised not that long ago.
“Someone has to step up to the plate and do what's right,” said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Norman Major, R-Plaistow, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee. “It may not be the perfect solution, but it moves us in the right direction. It's fair and it's simple and it is not costly to implement.”
Major developed a formula that would in essence replace the money lost due to more fuel efficient vehicles or those that use alternative fuels such as electricity or natural gas.
Under Major's proposal, the base would be a vehicle that gets 20 miles per gallon and travels 13,500 miles a year, the federal Department of Transportation average.
The owner of the base vehicle would pay about $150 a year into the state's highway fund to pay for road and bridge maintenance and construction.
The owner of a more fuel efficient vehicle would pay less money into the highway fund, but the road usage fee would bring the total to $150.
For example, if a vehicle is rated at 40 miles per gallon, the owner would pay about $75 into the highway fund so the road usage fee would be $75 to bring the total to $150.
Major notes that people with more efficient vehicles will retain 90 percent of their savings from having to buy less fuel.
Motorcycles, mopeds and vehicles built before 1984 would be exempt from the fee. And vehicles rated 20 mpg or less would not pay the usage fee.
Town or city clerks would collect the fee based on the VIN number when the owner registers the vehicle and pays the license plate fees.
The current system uses the VIN number to determine the vehicle's weight for the cost of plates and its value for registration, Major notes, so the usage fee would be determined based on estimated miles per gallon and be a third item.
“In a nutshell, this addresses a problem we have. The ship is sinking, the revenue is not there and the costs are going up,” Major said. “We can't put our heads in the sand and not address it. If we want to expand the economy and keep what we have, we have to maintain these roads and bridges.”
Major acknowledges his plan is not going to be an easy sell, but he will put together a PowerPoint presentation and meet with groups and organizations between now and January so they understand the road usage fee and what the state is up against.
Two years ago, lawmakers battled fiercely over increasing the gas tax 4 cents and any attempt to up that levy again faces rock solid opposition from Senate President Chuck Morse, R-Salem.
Major, like many people in Concord, knows the state's crumbling transportation infrastructure needs all the help it can get or it will be even more costly in the future to repair years of neglect.
“With efficiency standards going up year after year, if we do nothing the situation will get worse and worse,” Major said. “Raising the gas tax affects a smaller portion of drivers and the ones who cannot afford to buy new higher efficiency vehicles.”
Major said he intended to make a system that is simple and does not need “an army of bureaucrats to administer.” He said he expects the proposal to change as it goes through the legislative process, but notes something has to be done.
The chairman of the commission, Rep. John Cloutier, D-Claremont, and committee member Sen. David Watters, D-Dover, have signed as co-sponsors of Major's bill.
Retiree health care
The Joint Legislative Fiscal Committee meets Tuesday to take what the Department of Administrative Services hopes will be final action on a plan to address a $10.6 million deficit in the retirees' health insurance program over this biennium.
The committee has delayed action on the proposal since it was presented at the end of August, finally taking action two weeks ago on one section because Medicare requires that patients be notified by Dec. 1 of benefit changes.
That section increased co-pays for retirees over 65 years old for both retail and mail-away prescriptions and doubled the maximum out-of-pocket expenses for individuals and families.
The change is expected to save $1.6 million to help offset the program's deficit.
On Tuesday the committee is expected to tackle other provisions that will save an additional $5.2 million, with the remaining deficit offset by surplus.
Under the plan, retirees over 65 would have to pay a $500 deductible for inpatient hospital or nursing home services, saving $1.1 million.
For those under 65 years old, premiums would increase from 12.5 to 15 percent, saving $1.4 million; co-pays and deductibles would go up saving $2.3 million; and the same prescription changes as for those over 65 would save $400,000.
The state's 12,000 retirees — almost 9,000 over age 65 – have opposed the changes, filling legislative hearing rooms when the committee meets.
Two weeks ago, the committee meeting broke down into partisan bickering, with GOP lawmakers blasting Gov. Maggie Hassan for proposing no changes be made, while draining the program's $5.3 million surplus, with the rest of the deficit being covered by state agency budgets.
Senate President Chuck Morse, R-Salem, led the charge in blasting Hassan, saying he didn't know what she wants; GOP leaders did not say what they want either.
If nothing is done, the program runs out of money next year.
Neither Hassan nor lawmakers fully funded the retiree health insurance program in their budgets, after cost estimates were changed just before the governor submitted her budget in February and designer or miracle drug costs spiked, doubling the deficit to $10.6 million.
The retiree health insurance plan is a real life lesson in why no one should believe the promises one Legislature makes, because officials elected two years later can change everything.
That has been a hard lesson for retirees, school districts, cities, towns, counties and businesses that contract with the state.
Buyer beware.
Simple plans
Lawmakers were outraged in 2010, but more recently in 2014, when the state Supreme Court essentially adopted the federal standard for lawsuits challenging government decisions or actions.
In 2010, the state Supreme Court ruled someone has to suffer harm before having legal standing to city, town, school district, county or state.
The court acknowledged that in the past it had decided taxpayer lawsuits without harm first being done, but said going forward that that would not be enough to establish standing, or meet the federal standard.
Last year, the court dismissed a suit brought by current state school board member William Duncan of New Castle challenging the education business tax credit program approved by lawmakers in 2012 because he lacked standing, without ruling on the merits of the new law.
The Duncan decision prompted Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, to propose a constitutional amendment last session to restore a taxpayer's right to challenge a governmental action or decision without first proving harm.
The proposed amendment sailed through the Senate but when it arrived at the House Judiciary Committee, even proponents of restoring taxpayer rights said the bill needed work and the committee should bring it back next session.
A Judiciary subcommittee chaired by vice chair Joseph Hagan, R-Chester, worked on the proposed amendment over the summer and into the fall with many stakeholders offering suggestions.
But when the proposed amendment was presented last week to the full committee, the sub-committee ran into a road block, mostly over allowing corporations to sue without first proving harm.
Rep. Claire Rouillard, R-Goffstown, proposed a change limiting legal standing to individual taxpayers/voters but that raised other issues.
So committee chair Rep. Rob Rowe, R-Amherst, a retired district court justice, sent the issue back to subcommittee and scheduled another committee meeting next week for a vote.
A simple change to restore what had been the norm for years is not so simple when changing the constitution.
Rowe noted a constitutional amendment needs to be simple and direct with little ambiguity, something he said the proposal was not.
Legislators seek drug epidemic solutions
from State House Dome, by Garry Rayno, unionleader.com, November 14, 2015
LAWMAKERS RETURN to Concord this week, ostensibly to address the state's substance abuse epidemic that has claimed more than 500 lives in New Hampshire the past two years.
Early last week, Gov. Maggie Hassan released her proposed legislation to deal with the crisis and the next day the Republican leadership in the House and Senate said they would not take up her bill but would instead ask lawmakers to appoint a task force to vet proposed legislation and report back the first week of January.
That did not sit well with Democrats in the House and Senate, although Hassan sounded a somewhat conciliatory tone.
While Hassan released a fairly comprehensive package ranging from making penalties for fentanyl distribution the same as heroin, to increasing funding for the Governor's Commission on Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention, Treatment and Recovery, GOP leaders focused on six areas, all of which were more or less included in the governor's proposed legislation.
Things not included were additional money for the governor's commission; limiting emergency room prescriptions; increased oversight of pain and methadone clinics; changing the makeup of the Board of Medicine; and adding an attorney at the Justice Department to focus on drug crimes.
Most of the items left off the GOP agenda cost money, and Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, said lawmakers want a clearer picture of the state's financial health before committing to spending additional tax dollars.
That means none of those issues along with the drug courts will be addressed until the next legislative session begins Jan. 6, which will likely delay those items for a few months.
Hassan maintains there is enough money from a greater than anticipated surplus for fiscal year 2015, tens of millions in savings from operating under a continuing resolution for three months, and state revenues about $20 million higher than anticipated during the first four months of the 2016 fiscal year.
A meeting with legislative leaders from both parties and the governor on Thursday calmed the waters enough that House Minority Leader Stephen Shurtleff, D-Concord, told reporters he was much more optimistic than he was on Tuesday when the GOP laid out its plan and he had said it was nothing more “than kicking the can down the road.”
Shurtleff said he was confident good legislation would come out of the House and Senate and would be expedited so the governor would have much of what all sides agree needs to be done by the end of January.
Earlier, Democrats said they would push the governor's proposed legislation, but after the meeting Shurtleff said that in unlikely now.
“We want to show good faith and all work together in a bipartisan manner,” Shurtleff said. “We are looking for good people from our caucus to go on the commission.”
Democrats, however. are likely to push for some of what is left out of Hassan's proposal as amendments to the concurrent resolution establishing the task force.
House Speaker Shawn Jasper, R-Hudson, said the resolution was drafted with the understanding that all issues related to the heroin and opioid epidemic would be discussed, not just the six listed.
The governor's communications director, William Hinkle, said Hassan appreciates and is encouraged that the Legislature is committed to putting a bill on her desk by end of January.
“The governor would welcome quicker action which she believes is possible,” Hinkle said. “The governor has said all along she needs a bill on her desk by January because we cannot afford to wait until March or April.”
And he noted there is consensus on many of the measures.
Wednesday's session will being at noon in the House, a time change from the original 10 a.m. start time, where the resolution will be introduced. If it passes, it will move to the Senate — which meets at 1 pm. That should tell you the leadership is expecting quick action.
By the way, lawmakers making the trek to Concord will receive mileage payments and an additional $3 per day for the special session.
Now that's big money.
Medicaid expansion
The rubber is about to meet the road with the state's hybrid Medicaid expansion program.
The state sought and received approval from the federal Center for Medicaid Services to move the new recipients who do not qualify for coverage through their employers from traditional Medicaid to private insurance through the state's health care exchange beginning Jan. 1.
The idea is allow private insurers to increase their client number, putting them in a better position to negotiate with providers and at the same time, increase what providers are paid compared to traditional Medicaid, whose reimbursement rates do not cover costs. The result should reduce uncompensated care costs and stabilize the finances of some at-risk, small, rural hospitals,
The arrangement is intended to help private insurers, health care providers, the newly insured and the state, which will have to pick up less of the hospitals' uncompensated care.
The federal government will not pay more for private insurance than it does for traditional Medicaid, so how that works out remains to be seen.
Part of the equation looks good, according to a recent study. The study shows a reduction in uncompensated care due to fewer uninsured people using emergency rooms and hospital services, but the number of visits has increased now that low-income adults have health insurance.
The Medicaid expansion population can visit the exchange and sign up for private insurance coverage beginning Jan. 1.
The enrollment period opened Nov. 1 so it should not take too long to see how the move to private insurance goes.
Hassan made Medicaid expansion a priority of her first term as governor and after some early setbacks bought into the compromise proposal from a bipartisan group of senators.
Now she wants lawmakers to reauthorize the program before it sunsets Dec. 31, 2016, and the GOP legislative leadership have assured the governor it will be taken up early in the session.
Hassan has repeatedly said the program is necessary to convince drug treatment program providers to expand to meet the needs.
However, the consensus on this issue falls far short of the agreement over the opioid epidemic.
Welcome centers
During the last recession the state Department of Transportation closed several "welcome centers" or what used to be called rest stops, mostly in the North Country.
Despite pressure, the department said it could not reopen the centers when money is needed elsewhere.
Since that time, oversight of the centers has moved from transportation to the Department of Resources and Economic Development, and recently lawmakers included some additional money in the current biennium budget to open some of the long dormant rest areas.
From next month through April more welcome centers will be open in the North Country when the ski and winter recreation season is at its peak.
The centers in Littleton, Lebanon and Colebrook will be open five days a week for eight hours so visitors can find a little relief and also learn more about New Hampshire.
Rep. Gene Chandler, R-Bartlett, who chairs the House Public Works Committee, said “In the North Country, the period from mid-December through mid-April is very active with the winter sports and this will be a nice way to promote our communities and say ‘Welcome' to the visiting public.”
Going viral
A photo appeared on numerous social media sites last week of Secretary of State Bill Gardner undergoing a wand search by Secret Service agents before entering his office where former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was scheduled to file her candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination later that day.
Lots of comments blasting Clinton for subjecting the long-time state official to such a humiliation appeared along with the photo.
Anyone around the State House knows when a President, vice president or anyone else with Secret Service protection visits the place is no longer yours.
The House and Senate chiefs of staff work with the Secret Service, but they don't call the shots.
Republican officials fell all over themselves to criticize Clinton, with Republican Party Chair Jennifer Horn saying even when Bill Clinton was President and filed for reelection, no such thing happened.
The problem is Bill Clinton never filed in person with Gardner. Hillary filed both times for her husband.
Bill Clinton visited the State House only when he was a presidential candidate and not as President.
Early last week, Gov. Maggie Hassan released her proposed legislation to deal with the crisis and the next day the Republican leadership in the House and Senate said they would not take up her bill but would instead ask lawmakers to appoint a task force to vet proposed legislation and report back the first week of January.
That did not sit well with Democrats in the House and Senate, although Hassan sounded a somewhat conciliatory tone.
While Hassan released a fairly comprehensive package ranging from making penalties for fentanyl distribution the same as heroin, to increasing funding for the Governor's Commission on Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention, Treatment and Recovery, GOP leaders focused on six areas, all of which were more or less included in the governor's proposed legislation.
Things not included were additional money for the governor's commission; limiting emergency room prescriptions; increased oversight of pain and methadone clinics; changing the makeup of the Board of Medicine; and adding an attorney at the Justice Department to focus on drug crimes.
Most of the items left off the GOP agenda cost money, and Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, said lawmakers want a clearer picture of the state's financial health before committing to spending additional tax dollars.
That means none of those issues along with the drug courts will be addressed until the next legislative session begins Jan. 6, which will likely delay those items for a few months.
Hassan maintains there is enough money from a greater than anticipated surplus for fiscal year 2015, tens of millions in savings from operating under a continuing resolution for three months, and state revenues about $20 million higher than anticipated during the first four months of the 2016 fiscal year.
A meeting with legislative leaders from both parties and the governor on Thursday calmed the waters enough that House Minority Leader Stephen Shurtleff, D-Concord, told reporters he was much more optimistic than he was on Tuesday when the GOP laid out its plan and he had said it was nothing more “than kicking the can down the road.”
Shurtleff said he was confident good legislation would come out of the House and Senate and would be expedited so the governor would have much of what all sides agree needs to be done by the end of January.
Earlier, Democrats said they would push the governor's proposed legislation, but after the meeting Shurtleff said that in unlikely now.
“We want to show good faith and all work together in a bipartisan manner,” Shurtleff said. “We are looking for good people from our caucus to go on the commission.”
Democrats, however. are likely to push for some of what is left out of Hassan's proposal as amendments to the concurrent resolution establishing the task force.
House Speaker Shawn Jasper, R-Hudson, said the resolution was drafted with the understanding that all issues related to the heroin and opioid epidemic would be discussed, not just the six listed.
The governor's communications director, William Hinkle, said Hassan appreciates and is encouraged that the Legislature is committed to putting a bill on her desk by end of January.
“The governor would welcome quicker action which she believes is possible,” Hinkle said. “The governor has said all along she needs a bill on her desk by January because we cannot afford to wait until March or April.”
And he noted there is consensus on many of the measures.
Wednesday's session will being at noon in the House, a time change from the original 10 a.m. start time, where the resolution will be introduced. If it passes, it will move to the Senate — which meets at 1 pm. That should tell you the leadership is expecting quick action.
By the way, lawmakers making the trek to Concord will receive mileage payments and an additional $3 per day for the special session.
Now that's big money.
Medicaid expansion
The rubber is about to meet the road with the state's hybrid Medicaid expansion program.
The state sought and received approval from the federal Center for Medicaid Services to move the new recipients who do not qualify for coverage through their employers from traditional Medicaid to private insurance through the state's health care exchange beginning Jan. 1.
The idea is allow private insurers to increase their client number, putting them in a better position to negotiate with providers and at the same time, increase what providers are paid compared to traditional Medicaid, whose reimbursement rates do not cover costs. The result should reduce uncompensated care costs and stabilize the finances of some at-risk, small, rural hospitals,
The arrangement is intended to help private insurers, health care providers, the newly insured and the state, which will have to pick up less of the hospitals' uncompensated care.
The federal government will not pay more for private insurance than it does for traditional Medicaid, so how that works out remains to be seen.
Part of the equation looks good, according to a recent study. The study shows a reduction in uncompensated care due to fewer uninsured people using emergency rooms and hospital services, but the number of visits has increased now that low-income adults have health insurance.
The Medicaid expansion population can visit the exchange and sign up for private insurance coverage beginning Jan. 1.
The enrollment period opened Nov. 1 so it should not take too long to see how the move to private insurance goes.
Hassan made Medicaid expansion a priority of her first term as governor and after some early setbacks bought into the compromise proposal from a bipartisan group of senators.
Now she wants lawmakers to reauthorize the program before it sunsets Dec. 31, 2016, and the GOP legislative leadership have assured the governor it will be taken up early in the session.
Hassan has repeatedly said the program is necessary to convince drug treatment program providers to expand to meet the needs.
However, the consensus on this issue falls far short of the agreement over the opioid epidemic.
Welcome centers
During the last recession the state Department of Transportation closed several "welcome centers" or what used to be called rest stops, mostly in the North Country.
Despite pressure, the department said it could not reopen the centers when money is needed elsewhere.
Since that time, oversight of the centers has moved from transportation to the Department of Resources and Economic Development, and recently lawmakers included some additional money in the current biennium budget to open some of the long dormant rest areas.
From next month through April more welcome centers will be open in the North Country when the ski and winter recreation season is at its peak.
The centers in Littleton, Lebanon and Colebrook will be open five days a week for eight hours so visitors can find a little relief and also learn more about New Hampshire.
Rep. Gene Chandler, R-Bartlett, who chairs the House Public Works Committee, said “In the North Country, the period from mid-December through mid-April is very active with the winter sports and this will be a nice way to promote our communities and say ‘Welcome' to the visiting public.”
Going viral
A photo appeared on numerous social media sites last week of Secretary of State Bill Gardner undergoing a wand search by Secret Service agents before entering his office where former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was scheduled to file her candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination later that day.
Lots of comments blasting Clinton for subjecting the long-time state official to such a humiliation appeared along with the photo.
Anyone around the State House knows when a President, vice president or anyone else with Secret Service protection visits the place is no longer yours.
The House and Senate chiefs of staff work with the Secret Service, but they don't call the shots.
Republican officials fell all over themselves to criticize Clinton, with Republican Party Chair Jennifer Horn saying even when Bill Clinton was President and filed for reelection, no such thing happened.
The problem is Bill Clinton never filed in person with Gardner. Hillary filed both times for her husband.
Bill Clinton visited the State House only when he was a presidential candidate and not as President.
3. Etc.
Gov. Maggie Hassan and Republican legislative leaders can't even agree on how they disagree when it comes to the opioid crisis
NH Political Report, by Kevin Landrigan, nh1.com, November 13, 2015
CONCORD - Here’s how bad it’s gotten. The two sides can’t even agree on how they disagree.
We speak of the tactical rift between Gov. Maggie Hassan and the Republican-led legislative leadership.
This week House Speaker Shawn Jasper, R-Hudson, and Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, revealed that going back as far as September they had been trying to convince Hassan to go along with their plan for a task force to analyze all the possible, legislative solutions to the opioid crisis.
"We have spent too much time arguing about this," Jasper says.
According to the GOP leaders, Hassan wanted no part of delaying final action on proposals to deal with the heroin and fentanyl epidemic.
"We didn’t get anywhere," Jasper says.
That’s not how Hassan and her team remember the private discussions. According to them, House and Senate GOP leaders behind closed doors refused to make any commitment to take up drug-related legislation early on in the 2016 session.
"I became very concerned that if we were not singularly focused on this, final action could drag on into March even May or June," Hassan told NH1 News during a recent interview.
------------------------------
State Sen. David Boutin, R-Hooksett, can afford to go easy on his peers serving on the Child Fatalities Commission. There’s no rush for them to get to a final resolution on changes in the bureaucracy because in all likelihood, legislators will extend the life of the commission to the end of 2017.
"We’ve got time to do this right," Boutin said.
The panel will next be meeting on Dec. 3 and is expected to finalize its recommendations for legislation to be taken up during the 2016 session.
This would include ending the practice of purging all files on abuse cases after a short period of time and also to give law enforcement the express access to records regarding suspected abused children who end up dying.
------------------------------
They clearly aren’t getting along on the campaign trail but GOP presidential hopefuls Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio employing the same tactics in the first primary state this week.
The Super PACs supporting both candidates did major mailings to independent and Republican registered voters.
Rubio’s Conservative Solutions Project promoted Rubio’s proposals on education to include doing away with the Common Core and making sure students in the future can get college credit for ``real world experiences.’’
"I believe we need to have alternate accredited programs that allow people to get the equivalent of a degree from alternate institutions that allow them to package learning no matter how they acquired it," Rubio said. "Let people learn online for free. Give them credit for what they’ve learned on their own."
Bush’s Right to Rise USA sponsored a mailing that depicted Bush as the Godfather calling him ``Veto Coreleone’’ for the record number of times the former Florida governor used the line item veto to cancel out spending approved by the Democratic-controlled Legislature in that state.
"Jeb Bush is the best-qualified conservative to take on Washington DC’s bloated budgets and crony capitalism," the mailing concludes.
------------------------------
With the state’s Highway Fund dripping in red ink and no hope for increasing the state’s gasoline tax or registration fees in an election year, lawmakers need to get creative if they are going to get more money to support infrastructure.
Enter State Rep. Patricia Higgins, D-Hanover, who has more than 15 co-sponsors for her idea which would lift a current cap on how much cities and towns can raise their own car and truck registration fees to support local projects.
The current fee that’s allowed is $5; Higgins bill would raise it to $10.
This is total local control, ie, the local town meeting voters or town or city council in a larger community would have to vote to assess the fee in their own communities.
The New Hampshire Kids Count Coalition endorses the measure in part because the money could be used to expand walking and biking trails in the community. Greater access to these trails can help reduce childhood obesity, the group says.
------------------------------
Take this one to the bank - the Ballot Law Commission isn’t going to kick either Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz off the first-in-the-nation presidential primary ballot.
Both Sanders and Cruz received challenges to their New Hampshire bids.
For the Sanders camp, the development is largely an expected one. The Vermont senator has identified as an Independent for much of his political career, and declined the nomination from the state Democratic Party in both of his U.S. Senate runs.
For the Sanders camp, the development is largely an expected one. The Vermont senator has identified as an Independent for much of his political career, and declined the nomination from the state Democratic Party in both of his U.S. Senate runs.
He has been embraced by the Democrats this year, though, and was accompanied by party representatives as he filed.
Bringing this challenge is Andy Martin, a New York Republican who ran for the U.S. Senate here in 2014 and mounting his own White House campaign.
Bringing this challenge is Andy Martin, a New York Republican who ran for the U.S. Senate here in 2014 and mounting his own White House campaign.
"If you go to [Sanders'] website, he says he's the longest serving independent" in Congress, Martin said. "If you identify as an Independent in Washington and Vermont, how can you be a Democrat in New Hampshire?"
Secretary of State Bill Gardner says he took Sanders at his word that he’s now a Democrat.
Secretary of State Bill Gardner says he took Sanders at his word that he’s now a Democrat.
Then there’s Ted Cruz who handed over his own paperwork later on Thursday. Two different protests were submitted. The petitioners said Cruz should be ineligible to be president because he was born in Canada.
"He is not a natural born citizen, as he was not born in the United States," both documents read.
Cruz was born in Calgary in 1970, where his parents had moved to work in the oil business. His father was a Cuban national at the time and became a naturalized American in 2005.
His mother is an American from Delaware.
------------------------------
House and Senate Democrats say they are determined to oppose the special session move of Republican legislators to create a task force instead of give final approval of legislation that Gov. Maggie Hassan had proposed.
But House Democratic Leader Steve Shurtleff, D-Concord, said his members will not boycott and in fact will be happy to serve on the task force once it is created.
Jasper and Senate GOP leaders got pilloried by Democratic leaders in the state for suggesting that it would be difficult to get legislators to work during the holiday period on this issue.
But many of those same veteran Republicans insist that some Democratic lawmakers they spoke to had the same complaints.
4. Weak Campaign Finance Transparency
https://politics.
NH election laws have baby teeth
from Capital Beat, by Allie Morris, concordmonitor.com, November 15, 2015
It’s been one year since the advocacy group Open Democracy filed a campaign finance complaint with the New Hampshire attorney general’s office.
The group alleged the state’s chapter of Americans for Prosperity, a politically active nonprofit backed by the billionaire Koch brothers, didn’t properly register and report campaign expenditures during the 2014 state election.
Now, on the cusp of a major election year when presidential and state races are expected to draw millions of dollars in outside money, that complaint is still unresolved.
Why the inaction? A lack of manpower at the attorney general’s office. Only a portion of one attorney’s time is dedicated to election law.
“We just don’t have the staffing we used to,” said Steve LaBonte, an assistant attorney general who handles election complaints. “We used to have an attorney that specifically just worked on election law. Now we have an attorney – that is me – who does litigation and election law.”
It means the election law office has to triage the complaints it receives, whether they deal with election fraud and voter suppression or campaign finance violations.
The AFP example was highlighted last week in a report released by the Center for Public Integrity that gave New Hampshire a flunking grade on a “political financing” category.
The report found that generally individuals, corporations and political action committee’s respect state-set limits on campaign donations. But it also found that while the attorney general’s office has the authority to review campaign finance records, it rarely happens unless someone files a complaint. And even then, it seems the staffing isn’t there to process everything that comes through.
Now, as advocates such as Lawrence Lessig and the Stamp Stampede draw attention to federal campaign finance reform, New Hampshire is taking a look in the mirror.
This year, a bipartisan group of senators and representatives plan to propose three bills aimed at improving the state’s campaign finance system, to make it more transparent and easily accessible to the public. The measures came out of a six-member committee, made up of Republicans and Democrats from the House and Senate.
“We both recognize that there is an issue there, and that the donation issue needs to be more transparent,” said Rep. Kathleen Hoelzel, a Raymond Republican on the committee to study public access to political campaign information. “Right now people can get that information, it’s just that it’s not easy to get at it.”
That’s an understatement.
Currently, state candidates can fill out their campaign finance reports by hand and submit them to the Secretary of State’s office. Then most of them are scanned and posted online in a format that is difficult to search and at times hard to read, depending on the handwriting. While campaign finance reports for gubernatorial and senate candidates appear on the secretary’s website, reports from House candidates do not. Those are printed and kept in the Concord office, available for public review.
“There’s absolutely no quality control. You look at any detail and find out a bunch of them are illegible and a bunch of them just don’t fill out certain pieces,” said Gordon Allen, on the board of Open Democracy, a state advocacy group that aims to reduce the influence of money in politics. “It’s so painful, I try to avoid it.”
The Secretary of State’s office is in the process of developing an electronic filing system for campaign finance reports that will go live within the next couple months, according to committee members. Several of the bills recommended by the group rely on that tool.
One of the bills would require non-candidate political action committees to file electronically using the new system. “We would have searchable data for all non candidate PACs,” said Sen. David Pierce, a Lebannon Democrat and committee member who is submitting some of the legislation and backing all of it.
Another would allow candidates and candidate PACs that upload their finance report electronically, to make the information public before the filing deadline. And the final bill would create a study committee to look at the feasibility of implementing a new campaign finance model that allows for real-time reporting.
That brings us back to the Attorney General’s office, which enforces these laws.
While there isn’t talk of beefing up the office, the e-filing system would make it easier for the staff to weed through complaints, Allen said. We’ll see.
As for AFP, the group maintains it has done nothing wrong. “We have always been confident we have complied with the law, and we remain so today,” said state director Greg Moore.
And regarding the initial complaint: “It’s still open,” LaBonte said. “I can’t give you a date as to when a conclusion will be given.”
5. Commuter Rail Blueprint
Councilors offer new NH rail plan
by Chris Garofolo, nashuatelegraph.com, November 14, 2015
Three New Hampshire Democrats have released draft plans outlining a way to bring passenger rail to Nashua and Manchester.
Executive Councilors Colin Van Ostern and Chris Pappas, as well as U.S. Rep. Annie Kuster, told reporters on a Friday morning conference call that they have developed a blueprint that could bring a commuter line into the state by 2020 and complete it with limited financing from Granite State taxpayers.
"We're so excited about this concept because rail is an economic game changer for our state and it's time we took this conversation to the next level," Pappas said.
The plan would rely on modest investment of New Hampshire money - expected to cost to less than $5 million annually from state funds - because advocates would pull in financial support from private business, a partnership with Massachusetts and federal taxes coming back here.
Estimates for the capital costs included $20 million for stations, $150 million for construction costs and nearly $70 million for railway and signal improvements.
It also includes $38.7 million for a contingency fund.
In total, the project is estimated at roughly $383 million in capital costs alone, including $72 million from the state. The state figure would be paid through a 20-year bond at $6 million annually.
Van Ostern, who is a declared gubernatorial candidate for the Democrats, touted passenger rail coupled with responsible investments in business growth to accelerate the state's economy. He said the proposal to make passenger rail from Boston to New Hampshire a reality would boost employment opportunities and retain young professionals.
"This outline that we're going through today is not the end of the discussion, it's the beginning. We look forward to working with lawmakers who are hard at work right now developing additional public-private partnerships and financing options, both in our state capital as well as on the municipal level," Van Ostern said during the conference call.
"The reality is we need to move from a phase of studying to a phase of planning and action. And we think by putting out an outline like the one today - it shows New Hampshire lawmakers and local community leaders that this is real, that it's achievable, that in the context of a state budget that is constrained, the reality is finding some $5 million a year for something that causes such opportunity for economic growth is both possible and achievable," he added.
At the federal level, Kuster said she is committed to bringing support back to the state. Kuster, who said federal support will be critical to getting this project off the ground, led a New England Regional Passenger Rail Summit in Nashua last month.
State Rep. Latha Mangipudi, D-Nashua, said the high-tech companies in her district echo the desire for a commuter line for tourists coming into the state and to bring a skilled workforce up from greater Boston.
"The opportunity is right - we have to seize it," she said. "There's no other way of putting it - the moment is now. If we don't do it, who else will do it?"
Friday's rail proposal announcement builds on the Capitol Corridor Rail and Transit Study released last December and adds a financial draft to make the route construction and operation a reality.
The study calls for two rail stops in Nashua with 34 daily trains and additional stops at the Manchester airport and in the city's downtown. Projections for weekday ridership was 3,120 passengers.
A legislative study committee led by state Sen. Bette Lasky, D-Nashua, will also report its results in the upcoming session. Fiscally conservative members of the New Hampshire Legislature have expressed skepticism on passenger rail plans and this past term nixed $4 million related to an environmental and engineering assessment related to a commuter line.
6. State Revenues Up Again
aign=nhbr&utm_content=NH+
State revenues in October better than anticipated
by Garry Rayno, unionleader.com, November 4, 2015
CONCORD — State revenues continue to perform better than anticipated by budget writers, as October collections totaled $113.1 million, or $1.3 million more than estimates and $3.5 million more than a year ago.
For the first four months of the 2016 fiscal year, revenues total $561.5 million, or $31.1 million more than a year ago and $19.6 million higher than estimates.
Business taxes produced $24.4 million in October, compared to $20.3 million a year ago, and $156.7 million for the year to date, compared to $142.9 million.
Continued brisk sales in the real estate market and a good tourist season helped the real estate transfer and rooms and meals taxes continue their strong showings in October.
The rooms and meals tax produced $26.4 million, $1 million ahead of estimates, while the real estate transfer tax produced $11.4 million, $800,000 ahead of plan.
The tobacco tax was $1 million below last year’s total for the month, producing $17.1 million, and $80.8 million for the year to date, up $1.5 million.
For the first four months of the 2016 fiscal year, revenues total $561.5 million, or $31.1 million more than a year ago and $19.6 million higher than estimates.
Business taxes produced $24.4 million in October, compared to $20.3 million a year ago, and $156.7 million for the year to date, compared to $142.9 million.
Continued brisk sales in the real estate market and a good tourist season helped the real estate transfer and rooms and meals taxes continue their strong showings in October.
The rooms and meals tax produced $26.4 million, $1 million ahead of estimates, while the real estate transfer tax produced $11.4 million, $800,000 ahead of plan.
The tobacco tax was $1 million below last year’s total for the month, producing $17.1 million, and $80.8 million for the year to date, up $1.5 million.
7. The Right Wing PAC in NH's 2016 State Elections
by William Tucker, miscellanyblue.com, October 24, 2015
The man accused of running a series of “scam PACs” is advising a libertarian, New Hampshire-based super PAC that promises to raise one million dollars to influence state and local election campaigns in 2016.
Yesterday, the New York Times profiled Dan Backer, treasurer and legal advisor to a number of conservative political committees that have “a history of spending most of the money they raise on consulting firms, as opposed to using it to support political candidates.” The Times reported “corporate entities Mr. Backer owns or has financial ties to have been paid at least $1.1 million in fees since 2013″ by PACs he helps run.
Backer disputes his activities are unethical. “It drives me nuts when people say ‘Oh, scam PAC this, scam PAC that,’ ” he told Politico earlier this year. “These guys need legal help, and they need to be able to afford that legal help — they don’t have big money — and so there’s not a market big enough there to justify a lot of lawyers practicing in that space,” he said. “So I kind of found a niche that I work to, but also very much is my philosophy.”
Stark360
One political committee Backer advises is Stark360, which claimed to be the “largest federal Super PAC focussed on New Hampshire” in 2014. The group, which is led by Aaron Day who also chairs the Free State Project and the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire, identifies Backer as treasurer and special advisor.
At least three groups associated with Backer received money from Stark360 in the 2014 election cycle, according to Federal Election Commission datacompiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
DB Capitol Strategies, Backer’s Virginia-based consulting firm, received $13,000 for “legal and compliance consulting.” CoinVox, which identifies Backer as a “company advisor,” received $15,475 for get-out-the-vote field operations. And Stark360 exchanged $9,585 in bitcoin through BitPAC, another political action committee founded by Backer.
The vendor receiving the largest payment from Stark360, though, was Day’s own Delaware-registered limited liability corporation, ARD Ventures II, which received $78,687 in disbursements. The ARD payments were flagged by Center for Responsive Politics’ Anomaly Tracker which highlights, among other irregularities, instances of a single vendor receiving more than 50 percent of a committee’s spending.
In another eyebrow raiser, Stark360 amended its 2014 reports three months ago and reclassified $30,000 in contributions from Day and Stark360 co-founder Matt Philips as loans. “A number of loans made to the committee were incorrectly reported as contributions,” the revised FEC reports noted. The most recent report now lists a total of $50,000 in outstanding loans from the two committee principals.
$1 million goal
In 2014, Stark360 made headlines by partnering with Mayday PAC, the super PAC created by Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig, who is now pursuing a quixotic campaign for president. Stark360 received $137,212 in funding from Mayday for campaign activities in the Republican U.S. Senate primary despite actively opposing the efforts to rein in special interest money championed by Lessig.
Earlier this month, Day announced the group intends to raise one million dollars to influence the New Hampshire gubernatorial and “down-ballot” election campaigns in 2016.
The group’s initial effort is an initiative to draft state Sen. Andy Sanborn to run for governor, but Day signalled the group’s first priority will be to stop the legislature from re-authorizing Medicaid expansion.
Day promised to use the money Stark360 raises “to recruit and then vigorously primary” Republicans who vote for the re-authorization. “If medicaid expansion isn’t stopped,” he wrote, “we will have an income tax, sales tax or both. Please help support our effort.”
8. Ayotte: Just Lip Service
Kelly Ayotte Gives Most Tortured Excuse Yet For Blocking Efforts To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
by Ttaraila, nhdp.org, October 27, 2015
Ayotte’s Attempts to Rewrite Dismal Record on Environment Twist Her in Knots
Concord, N.H. – As Kelly Ayotte continues trying to rewrite history on her record of putting special interests before New Hampshire’s families and environment, she offered her most tortured excuse yet for her dismal environmental record.
When asked about Ayotte’s vote to block the EPA from ever having the ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Ayotte’s spokesperson said Ayotte voted against the interests of New Hampshire’s environment because she “had wanted the opportunity for Congress to lead on climate change.”
If Ayotte had actually wanted Congress to lead on climate change, however, her record doesn’t show it. Instead, she voted repeatedly to protect tax breaks for the five biggest oil companies, voted to block the EPA from ever having the ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in the process earned herself a 23% lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters (showing her record is worse than even Scott Brown).
“As Kelly Ayotte continues trying to rewrite history on her record of putting special interests before New Hampshire’s families and environment, the facts – and her own record – keep getting in the way,” said New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley. “From voting repeatedly to protect tax breaks for Big Oil to voting to permanently block the EPA’s ability to reduce greenhouse gases, Ayotte’s dismal record on the environment is clear.”
“Voters won’t be fooled by Ayotte’s transparent attempt to try to save her political career by following Maggie Hassan’s leadership on fighting climate change,” added Buckley.
See AyotteFactCheck.com for more information on Ayotte’s real Washington record of undermining the environment.
9. TinFoil Hatter's Rant
by William Tucker, miscellanyblue.com, November 15, 2015
A four-term Republican lawmaker has emailed his House colleagues with a racist message warning of an impending “invasion” of “Diaper heads.”
The message from state Rep. Richard Marple (R-Hookset), which was sent before the terrorist attack in Paris, was emailed to all 400 state representatives with the subject line, “Four wives? Yup n Miochighan.”
Marple included a link to a YouTube video that claims Muslim immigrants in Michigan routinely receive public assistance for themselves and their four wives. “Muslim men are allowed four wives,” the video narrator intones. “So when they immigrate to America, they simply list wife number two, three and four as extended family to qualify for welfare and a myriad of other taxpayer-funded government programs.”
“So if you live in Michigan and you are Muslim,” the narrator continues, “there is no need to assimilate into American culture to get a job. You simply call the Public Assistance office…”
“Coming to a State near you!” warned Marple in his email. “’Oh’ ‘Yes’ it is coming here too!”
“1200 to 2,000 a day are coming here. Obama asked for to have 10,000 then it expanded to 100,000 [then within] a week it went to 180,000,” Marple wrote, apparently referencing (inaccurately) the increased number of refugees the United States will accept next year in response to the Syrian refugee crisis.
“That is a lot of Diaper heads,” Marple declared.
”Diaper head” is, of course, a common racial epithet for individuals of Middle Eastern descent that refers to the stereotypical image of Arabs wearing turbans. After 9/11, it was used to paint all Arabs as terrorists, as when public figures from televangelist Jimmy Swaggart to Louisiana Congressman John Cooksey warned that authorities should be suspicious of individuals “with a diaper on their head and a fan-belt around their waist.”
Marple concluded his email warning of an impending invasion. “The thing is,” he wrote, “these that Obama is bringing in does not have a wife or family with them! This a invasion! Wake up people we are being taken under with out a shot fired! Obama’s pen does the same thing! If this pisses you off! GOOD!”
This is not the first time Marple has made headlines with his outlandish comments. In a 2008 Concord Monitor op-ed, Marple claimed the U.S. Constitution prohibits a woman from being elected president. “At the very least a constitutional amendment to change the language will be required,” he wrote.
Three years later, he joined Orly Taitz in the attempt by Birthers to keep Pres. Obama off the ballot in New Hampshire. The Concord Monitorreported Marple’s assertion that the British Nationality Act makes Obama a British citizen, and therefore ineligible to be elected president, because his father was born in Kenya. In a message on Taitz’ website, Marple explained, “The usurper is a British subject by birth!
AND NATIONALLY
10. Middle Class Blues
Goodbye Middle Class: 51 Percent of All American Workers Make Less Than 30,000 Dollars a Year
by Michael Snyder, readersupportednews.org, October 24, 2015
We just got more evidence that the middle class in America is dying. According to brand new numbers that were just released by the Social Security Administration, 51 percent of all workers in the United States make less than $30,000 a year. Let that number sink in for a moment. You can’t support a middle class family in America today on just $2,500 a month – especially after taxes are taken out. And yet more than half of all workers in this country make less than that each month. In order to have a thriving middle class, you have got to have an economy that produces lots of middle class jobs, and that simply is not happening in America today.
You can find the report that the Social Security Administration just released right here. The following are some of the numbers that really stood out for me…
-38 percent of all American workers made less than $20,000 last year.
-51 percent of all American workers made less than $30,000 last year.
-62 percent of all American workers made less than $40,000 last year.
-71 percent of all American workers made less than $50,000 last year.
That first number is truly staggering. The federal poverty level for a family of five is $28,410, and yet almost 40 percent of all American workers do not even bring in $20,000 a year.
If you worked a full-time job at $10 an hour all year long with two weeks off, you would make approximately $20,000. This should tell you something about the quality of the jobs that our economy is producing at this point.
And of course the numbers above are only for those that are actually working. As I discussedjust recently, there are 7.9 million working age Americans that are “officially unemployed” right now and another 94.7 million working age Americans that are considered to be “not in the labor force”. When you add those two numbers together, you get a grand total of 102.6 million working age Americans that do not have a job right now.
So many people that I know are barely scraping by right now. Many families have to fight tooth and nail just to make it from month to month, and there are lots of Americans that find themselves sinking deeper and deeper into debt.
If you can believe it, about a quarter of the country actually has a negative net worth right now.
What that means is that if you have no debt and you also have ten dollars in your pocket that gives you a greater net worth than about 25 percent of the entire country. The following comes from a recent piece by Simon Black…
Credit Suisse estimates that 25% of Americans are in this situation of having a negative net-worth.“If you’ve no debts and have $10 in your pocket you have more wealth than 25% of Americans. More than 25% of Americans have collectively that is.”The thing is– not only did the government create the incentives, but they set the standard.With a net worth of negative $60 trillion, US citizens are just following dutifully in the government’s footsteps.
As a nation we are flat broke and most of us are living paycheck to paycheck. It has been estimated that it takes approximately $50,000 a year to support a middle class lifestyle for a family of four in the U.S. today, and so the fact that 71 percent of all workers make less than that amount shows how difficult it is for families that try to get by with just a single breadwinner.
Needless to say, a tremendous squeeze has been put on the middle class. In many families, both the husband and the wife are working as hard as they can, but it is still not enough. With each passing day, more Americans are losing their spots in the middle class and this has pushed government dependence to an all-time high. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 49 percent of all Americans now live in a home that receives money from the government each month.
Sadly, the trends that are destroying the middle class in America just continue to accelerate.
With a huge assist from the Republican leadership in Congress, Barack Obama recently completed negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Also known as Obamatrade, this insidious new treaty is going to cover nations that collectively account for 40 percent of global GDP. Just like NAFTA, this treaty will result in the loss of thousands of businesses and millions of good paying American jobs. Let us hope and pray that Congress somehow votes it down.
Another thing that is working against the middle class is the fact that technology is increasingly taking over our jobs. With each passing year, it becomes cheaper and more efficient to have computers, robots and machines do things that humans once did.
Eventually, there will be very few things that humans will be able to do more cheaply and more efficiently than computers, robots and machines. How will most of us make a living when that happens?…
The robopocalypse for workers may be inevitable. In this vision of the future, super-smart machines will best humans in pretty much every task. A few of us will own the machines, a few will work a bit… while the rest will live off a government-provided income… the most common job in most U.S. states probably will no longer be truck driver.
For decades, we have been training our young people to have the goal of “getting a job” once they get out into the real world. But in America today there are not nearly enough good jobs to go around, and this crisis is only going to accelerate as we move into the future.
I do not believe that it is wise to pin your future on a corporation that could replace you with a foreign worker or a machine the moment that it becomes expedient to do so. We need to start thinking differently, because the paradigms that worked in the past are fundamentally breaking down.
So what advice would you give to a young adult today that is looking toward the future?
11. The Public's Grasp of Inequality
As Bad as You Think Inequality Is, It's Worse!
How much do you think the CEO of a large corporation makes in a year, on average?
by Les Leopold, alternet.org, October 19, 2015
The following is an excerpt from Runaway Inequality: An Activist's Guide to Economic Justice, by Les Leopold (Chelsea Green, 2015).
Please take a moment to write down the answers to two basic questions:
- How much do you think the CEO of a large corporation makes in a year, on average?
- How much do you think an entry-level factory worker earns in a year, on average?
Your answers allow for the construction of an important statistic about inequality – the wage-gap ratio.
For example, let's say your answer is that the typical CEO makes about $500,000 per year, while the factory worker earns about $25,000 per year. That gives us a wage-gap ratio of 20 to 1 – that is, for every one dollar earned by the worker, the CEO earns $20 (500,000/25,000 = 20/1).
If you said $1 million for the CEO and $25,000 for the factory worker, then the ratio jumps to 40 to 1.
What ratio did you come up with?
How Americans view the wage gap
These same two questions were asked of more than 50,000 people around the world, of whom 1,581 were Americans of all stripes. (The data comes from the International Social Survey Programme: Social Inequality IV-ISSP 2009 on the website Gesis.)
It turns out that the median American response – that is, the response that is exactly in the middle of survey results from Americans – estimated that a CEO of a large company earned about $900,000 per year and that the average factory worker earned about $25,000. That makes for a wage-gap ratio of 36 to 1.
But how close are these estimates to reality? Not very.
The chart below gives us a pretty good estimate of the growing gap between total compensation for the top 100 CEOs and the pay of a typical worker. (The number for workers’ pay was derived by using the average wages of production or nonsupervisory workers, which includes workers in the service sector as well as other private industry sectors.)
In 1970, for every dollar earned by the average worker, the top 100 CEOs earned on average $45. By 2013 the ratio had jumped to $829 to $1, which is 20 times greater that what the typical American in the survey guessed.
More amazing still is that on average Americans think CEOs of large companies receive about $900,000 per year in compensation, when in reality they receive nearly $30,000,000.
It's as if our perception of the income gap was frozen in 1970. We just have not caught up with the realities of runaway inequality.
What do we think the wage gap should be?
Let's try these two questions again. But this time, let's come up with what we think should be the fair and just compensation for CEOs of large corporations and for unskilled factory workers.
- How much do you think the CEO of a large corporation should earn per year?
- How much do you think an entry-level factory worker should earn per year?
Please take a moment to jot down your answers.
Now let's go back to the survey information to see how the typical American answered these same questions.
This time it turns out that Americans’ median response – the one smack in the middle of all the responses – is that a CEO of a large corporation should earn about $200,000 a year and that an unskilled factory worker should earn about $30,000. This produces a wage-gap ratio of about 7 to 1.
Let's pause for a moment to consider how jarring this result is. The actual wage gap between a CEO and the average unskilled worker is about 830 to 1. Yet Americans believe it should be only 7 to 1. This is an enormous difference.
It suggests that if the typical American knew the real numbers, they would be outraged by this glaring example of runaway inequality.
Do our estimates vary by political affiliation or educational level?
The survey also asks questions about political affiliation so that we can see whether those who call themselves "Strong Democrats" have significantly different beliefs than those who call themselves "Strong Republicans." We can also see how the responses vary between people who didn't finish high school and those who have graduate degrees.
Remarkably, the responses hardly vary at all. All of us, on the right and the left – high school dropouts and PhDs – have two things in common: 1) We all grossly underestimate the size of the wage gap; and 2) We all want a much, much smaller wage gap.
As the chart above shows, Strong Democrats estimate that the actual ratio between the pay of a CEO of a large corporation and an unskilled factory worker was about 36 to 1. Strong Republicans said it was 40 to 1. Not much of a difference.
When it comes to offering opinions about what the wage gap should be, the Strong Democrats thought 5 to 1 was about right, while the Strong Republicans thought it should be about 12 to 1. The two political extremes obviously are far closer to each other than to the current reality of 829 to 1.
And how much did the responses vary based on people’s educational attainment? Again, not much. Those who didn't finish high school thought the actual gap was 60 to 1, while those with graduate degrees thought it was about 40 to 1 (both compared to the reality of 829 to 1).
Those who didn't complete high school thought the ideal pay gap should be about 5 to 1, while those with graduate degrees thought it should be 12 to 1. These ratios are identical to those offered by the Strong Democrats and Strong Republicans.
When it comes to our ignorance of the pay gap, there are no blue states, no red states; only misinformed states of mind.
Why are we so blind to runaway economic inequality?
Most of us have no idea that our golden land of opportunity is the runaway leader among developed nations when it comes to inequality (see chart below). Of course, this runs completely counter to the American Dream, that persistent belief that America is the fairest nation of them all– the most just and upwardly mobile country in history.
That core belief about America’s superiority seems to make it hard for us to take in this contradictory information. As social scientists have established, we tend to tune out information that challenges our deep-seated beliefs. In this case, absorbing this new data is just too jarring to our long-held sense of national identity.
Our misreading of inequality also may be a legacy of the post-World War II economic boom. During that time, our working class had the highest global standard of living in the world, with ever increasing yearly real wages.
From the New Deal through the Cold War (1933-1990), it was American policy to boost job and income levels as much as possible to make sure our workers and middle class were “the envy of the world.” That’s a half century of rising prosperity for working people. Also during this period, income taxes on the wealthy were extremely high, more than 90 percent for people at the highest income bracket during World War II and the 1950s. As a result, the top one percent, while living extremely well, saw their share of total U.S. wealth decline.
So it’s little wonder that the massive baby boom generation grew up with both the ideal and the reality of relative equality – at least for Caucasians. Of course, there were wealthy people all over America even then, but life was getting better and better for the vast majority of Americans.
It’s seems we’re still living with this cultural hangover, clinging to a societal self-image from yesteryear.
Although runaway inequality is our new economic reality, many of us still look in the mirror and see the fairest of them all looking back at us.
Both political parties refuse to address inequality
Perhaps the biggest reason we are so misinformed is that it is not in the interests of our political parties for us to see the truth. Neither political party has addressed rising inequality in a meaningful way. Yes, the Democrats tend to support modest rises in the minimum wage that do make a difference to those stuck in the lowest-paying jobs. But they won't go near the revolutionary idea of placing a legal limit on what the CEO/worker pay gap should be. (Might the Sanders revolt change the Democrats?)
Why don’t our politicians propose to limit the CEO/worker pay gap to, let’s say, 12 to 1, a ratio that that even Strong Republicans and the well-educated think would be fair and just?
Perhaps because they live in fear of a different revolution – a massive revolt from their elite corporate donors, who wouldn't dream of earning so little. In fact, the elite establishment – in finance, the corporate world, the higher levels of government, academia and the media – have no intention of limiting their incomes, no matter what the public believes to be just and fair.
Here lies the very essence of class struggle between the 99 percent and 1 percent, and neither party wants any part of it.
What will it take to wake us up to inequality?
The good news is that Americans of all genders, shades, incomes, education levels and politics think on average that the wage gap should be about 7 to 1, not 829 to one. That's a pretty good place to start. Imagine if the only real economic debate was between the Strong Democrats who thought a fair wage gap should be 5 to 1 versus the Strong Republicans who thought it should be 12 to 1. A broad movement for economic justice should be able to build on this shared sense of basic fairness. It’s light years ahead of what elites expect and feel is their due.
For about six months, Occupy Wall Street touched this nerve and put inequality on the agenda. "We are the 99 percent" became the national anthem for many Americans. For the first time in a generation, the country was talking about the gap between super-rich financiers and the rest of us.
Roughly at the same time, the Tea Party emerged with a different message. They also sensed that something was profoundly wrong. But for them the problem was (and is) big government, not inequality. They and their political allies tend to blame inequality on low-income families themselves (the “takers”), while heaping praise on the wealthy (the "makers”).
Others, including some liberals, blame inequality on new technologies that require skills workers don’t have. The implication is that those on the bottom could close the wage gap if they could just get that college degree or advanced skill. This self-help message resonates with most Americans, and access to (free, high-quality) education would certainly help.
But it will take a different kind of education to reduce the wage gap. We no longer have 900 Occupy encampments around the world to remind everyone that inequality is our new way of life. But each day millions of Americans face the stark reality of trying to survive on low pay and porous benefits, and pressure for increasing wages and benefits is growing. And so is the level of anger and frustration.
We need to relearn the skills of building a mass movement. That includes educating ourselves about the realities of growing economic inequality. Only then can we break through the faulty self-image of America that is crippling us.
Spread the word: We are the most unequal society in the developed world, and we can change that.
12. Republicans Stiff the Middle Class
The Republicans Still Have No Middle-Class Agenda
by Suzy Khimm, newrepublic.com, October 27, 2015
The economic concerns of ordinary Americans barely figured into the first two Republican presidential debates. In five hours' time, the GOP candidates uttered the phrase "middle class" only three times—well, four, if you count Jeb Bush's reference to "the great middle."
That's likely to change at the Wednesday-night debate in Boulder. Host CNBC has promised not only to make the economy the central focus of the two hours (including commercials), but also to press the candidates for details—and many of the questions are likely to revolve around the economic anxieties of both middle- and working-class families. The question is whether the candidates will have much to say that goes beyond familiar Republican boilerplate on tax cuts and the economic benefits of making rich Americans richer.
Reform-oriented conservatives—the so-called "reformicons"—have been urging the GOP for years to focus its messages and policies more on the middle. Some are already worried that it won't happen in 2016. The leading candidates seem intent on one-upping each other with larger and larger tax cuts weighted toward the wealthy—George W. Bush on steroids. By contrast, likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has built her campaign around targeted benefits for the ordinary working families—mandating paid leave, expanding support for child care, lowering the cost of public college tuition, and cracking down on employers who intimidate their workers.
"The Republican presidential candidates have not built their campaigns on offering conservative ideas that would give any direct help to families trying to make ends meet," writes National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru. "Their tax-cut proposals are almost all focused on people who make much more than the average voter." Reformicons like Ponnuru say that promises of trickle-down benefits won't be enough to counter the Democrats' far more targeted and concrete proposals to help ordinary working families. Ponnuru gloomily concludes: "So far, Republicans do not seem to be even trying to erode the Democratic advantage on middle-class economics."
The irony is that economic discontent has been driving the Republican primary as much as it's ignited the Democratic contest; witness the white working class's embrace of Donald Trump. But when you look past the rhetoric—and implausible ideas like deporting 12 million illegal immigrants—Republican economic policy continues to center almost exclusively around tax breaks for the wealthy. Michael Strain, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, agrees that the party isn't doing itself any favors by fixating on the top marginal tax rate and just asserting that "growth" spurred by those tax cuts will somehow take care of the rest. "We don't need to be talking about statistical abstractions," he says.
Bush, Marco Rubio, and Trump have all released tax plans that they are trying to sell as a boon for ordinary families. (Ben Carson and Ted Cruz, the other two leaders in GOP polling, have yet to release detailed economic policies, but both have called for a flat tax, another highly regressive policy.) All three plans contain some appealing ideas for middle- and lower-income Americans: Bush, while axing a tax break that benefits hedge-fund managers, proposes to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, which benefits the working poor, and to double the standard deduction, which about two-thirds of all taxpayers take. Rubio's plan creates a new $2,500 tax credit for families with children, though it also lets a 2009 expansion of the current child tax credit expire. Both are embracing the kinds of targeted tax breaks that reformicons have long been advocating for. Trump, for his part, has touted a new zero-percent tax rate for those earning up to $25,000 per individual or $50,000 per couple.
The three candidates are likely to play up these reforms in Wednesday's debate to sell themselves as the savior of America's middle class; their tax plans have already convinced some journalists of their "populist" bona fides. But when you do the math, their proposals are highly regressive and wedded to the old logic of trickle-down economics. In addition to slashing the top tax rate, all three plans would eliminate the estate tax, which overwhemingly benefits the top 0.1 percent of Americans. Rubio's plan would go much farther, ending taxation on capital gains and dividends entirely, also disproportionately benefitting
Under Trump's plan, the middle 40 to 50 percent of Americans would see their taxes fall by 5.3 percent, while the wealthiest 1 percent would see a 21.6 percent decrease, according to the conservative Tax Foundation. Bush's plan, by comparison, would give the broad middle a tax break of 2.7 percent, while the top 1 percent would get a 11.6 percent break. The Tax Policy Center, a leading authority on the issue, says that Rubio hasn't released enough details about his new child tax credit to analyze the full impact of his plan. But the TPC's analysis of an earlier version of Rubio's plan concluded that it, too, was regressive—even before he proposed to eliminate the capital gains, dividends, and estate taxes.
The enormous tax breaks for the wealthy have also driven up the price tag of all their plans: The conservative Tax Foundation estimates that Bush's tax plan will add $3.6 trillion to the deficit over 10 years, while Rubio's will cost $4 trillion, and Trump's a whopping $12 trillion. The candidates will tell you, of course, that these estimates don't factor in the growth that will result from the cuts. In the first GOP debate, Bush served up some fuzzy math he'll likely repeat on Wednesday: "If we grow at 4 percent, people are going to be lifted out of poverty," he declared. "The great middle that defines our country will have a chance to be able to pursue their dreams as they see fit." (That would be impressive growth: The economy has grown an average of 2.7% per year since the beginning of the Reagan administration.) Trump, not to be outdone, has claimed that his plan will unleash 6 percent growth. But most economists simply don't buy these grandiose projections. The consensus is that Bush, Rubio, and Trump would blow up the deficit, which would be likely to dampen growth rather than spur it, as the fallout from George W. Bush's tax cuts has shown.
Strain believes that Republicans need an economic vision that's both broader—going beyond tax policy to embrace education and labor market reforms, for instance—and more specific. "I wish they would spend more time talking about their policy vision, and how their policies will affect real people. When they do talk about these things, it's not tangible," he says. Strain and other reformicons have called for policy reforms that would provide more concrete benefits to ordinary Americans. They want occupational licensing reform, for instance, to make it easier for manicurists, hairdressers, and whole host of other lower-income service workers to be eligible to work. They've floated relocation vouchers for long-term unemployed workers to move to states with more job opportunities, and a wage subsidy as an alternative to raising the minimum wage.
In a similar vein, Rubio has promised to expand investment in vocational training and make it easier to repay college loans. But such proposals are still the exception within the GOP field. Why? It's partly, no doubt, because such policies are not exactly high on the priority list for top GOP donors. The Republican base, meanwhile, still espouses an anti-tax orthodoxy that reinforces the party's obsession with tax cuts—an obsession that's also fueled by outside pressure groups like Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform. The result is another round of GOP candidates like Bush, who has slammed Democrats for promising "free stuff" to black voters from the government—while planning his own massive giveaway to the wealthiest Americans.
This surely won't escape the attention of the debate's moderators on Wednesday—particularly John Harwood, who analyzed the major GOP candidates' tax plans in a New York Times column this month. His conclusion: The regressive nature of their proposals "reflects a party still wedded to the theories of supply-side economics 35 years after President Ronald Reagan championed them under far different circumstances." As Harwood noted in his most recent column, that hasn't worked too well for Republican presidents since then—or the economies they've presided over. And it won't be a winning message for the Republican nominee who tries to run against Hillary Clinton, the most likely opposition, and her smorgasbord of policy offerings for the middle class.
13. The Parties and Economic Growth
Partisan Growth Gaps
by Paul Krugman, nytimes.com, November 1, 2015
Last week The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed article by Carly Fiorina titled “Hillary Clinton Flunks Economics,” ridiculing Mrs. Clinton’s assertions that the U.S. economy does better under Democrats. “America,” declared Ms. Fiorina, “needs someone in the White House who actually knows how the economy works.”
Well, we can agree on that much.
Partisan positioning on the economy is actually quite strange. Republicans talk about economic growth all the time. They attack Democrats for “job-killing” government regulations, they promise great things if elected, they predicate their tax plans on the assumption that growth will soar and raise revenues. Democrats are far more cautious. Yet Mrs. Clinton is completely right about the record: historically, the economy has indeed done better under Democrats.
This contrast raises two big questions. First, why has the economy performed better under Democrats? Second, given that record, why are Republicans so much more inclined than Democrats to boast about their ability to deliver growth?
Before I get to those questions, let’s talk about the facts.
The arithmetic on partisan differences is actually stunning. Last year the economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson circulated a paper comparing economic performance under Democratic and Republican presidents since 1947. Under Democrats, the economy grew, on average, 4.35 percent per year; under Republicans, only 2.54 percent. Over the whole period, the economy was in recession for 49 quarters; Democrats held the White House during only eight of those quarters.
But isn’t the story different for the Obama years? Not as much as you think. Yes, the recovery from the Great Recession of 2007-2009 has been sluggish. Even so, the Obama record compares favorably on a number of indicators with that of George W. Bush. In particular, despite all the talk about job-killing policies, private-sector employment is eight millionhigher than it was when Barack Obama took office, twice the job gains achieved under his predecessor before the recession struck.
Why is the Democratic record so much better? The short answer is that we don’t know.
Mr. Blinder and Mr. Watson look at a variety of possible explanations, and find all of them wanting. There’s no indication that the Democratic advantage can be explained by better monetary and fiscal policies. Democrats seem, on average, to have had better luck than Republicans on oil prices and technological progress. Overall, however, the pattern remains mysterious. Certainly no Democratic candidate would be justified in promising dramatically higher growth if elected. And in fact, Democrats never do.
Republicans, however, always make such claims: Every candidate with a real chance of getting the G.O.P. nomination is claiming that his tax plan would produce a huge growth surge — a claim that has no basis in historical experience. Why?
Part of the answer is epistemic closure: modern conservatives generally live in a bubble into which inconvenient facts can’t penetrate. One constantly hears assertions that Ronald Reagan achieved economic and job growth never matched before or since, when the reality is that Bill Clinton surpassed him on both measures. Right-wing news media trumpet the economic disappointments of the Obama years, while hardly ever mentioning the good news. So the myth of conservative economic superiority goes unchallenged.
Beyond that, however, Republicans need to promise economic miracles as a way to sell policies that overwhelmingly favor the donor class.
It would be nice, for variety’s sake, if even one major G.O.P. candidate would come out against big tax cuts for the 1 percent. But none have, and all of the major players have called for cuts that would subtract trillions from revenue. To make up for this lost revenue, it would be necessary to make sharp cuts in big programs — that is, in Social Security and/or Medicare.
But Americans overwhelmingly believe that the wealthy pay less than their fair share of taxes, and even Republicans are closely divided on the issue. And the public wants to see Social Security expanded, not cut. So how can a politician sell the tax-cut agenda? The answer is, by promising those miracles, by insisting that tax cuts on high incomes would both pay for themselves and produce wonderful economic gains.
Hence the asymmetry between the parties. Democrats can afford to be cautious in their economic promises precisely because their policies can be sold on their merits. Republicans must sell an essentially unpopular agenda by confidently declaring that they have the ultimate recipe for prosperity — and hope that nobody points out their historically poor track record.
And if someone does point to that record, you know what they’ll do: Start yelling about media bias.
FINALLY double play
No comments:
Post a Comment