Miscellany Blue - New Hampshire Politics

House Bill 1297 would prohibit the state from planning, creating, or participating in a state health insurance exchange. If New Hampshire’s exchange is not up and running by 2014, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will require the state to join a federal exchange.

House Speaker Bill O’Brien, House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt and GOP Rep. Andrew Manuse argue a state exchange “could be the nail in the coffin of the New Hampshire Advantage.”

“Yes, if we have a federal health insurance exchange all decisions would be made in Washington by federal bureaucrats in a central location. However, if we adopted a state exchange, regardless of what type, we still would end up answering to and obeying these same federal bureaucrats. 

“Let’s keep up our promises to voters by passing this law and prohibiting the state of New Hampshire from creating a state exchange that could be the nail in the coffin of the New Hampshire Advantage.”

Not so, respond a group of conservative business leaders, chambers of commerce and trade associations:

“Business owners, managers and senior executives believe a state-based exchange is the better option for New Hampshire. … New Hampshire would be able to shape and control, to a greater degree, the structure and function of a state-based exchange than it would a federally-imposed one. Business leaders have a real and vested stake in what a health insurance exchange would look like in New Hampshire since they may consider shopping in an exchange or sending their employees to an exchange to buy health insurance.”

— Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield in New Hampshire, Business and Industry Association (BIA), CGI Employee Benefits Group, City Fuel Co. Inc., Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce, Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce, Greater Nashua Chamber of Commerce, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care of New England, MVP Health Care, New Hampshire Association of Insurance Agents, New Hampshire Automobile Dealers Association, Northeast Delta Dental and Ski NH

A new progressive super PAC has been launched by CREDO Mobile, the San Francisco-based mobile phone company that has raised over $67 million for progressive causes.

First order of business for the new organization is a $3 million campaign to “Take Down the Tea Party Ten.” The group promises to open field offices and hire organizers “to hold the worst congressional extremists accountable for their radical attacks on women, science and equality.”

New Hampshire Congressman Frank Guinta made the list.  

Frank Guinta is unfit to serve in Congress. Elected with the help of the Tea Party and some shady campaign finance practices that led him to be named one of the most corrupt members of Congress, he is as anti-woman as he is corrupt. He campaigned on overturning Roe V. Wade and has advocated a total ban on abortion with no exceptions, not even to save the life of a woman.

It’s been said that comedy is a funny way of being serious. Case in point is a piece from Comedy Central on New Hampshire House bills they label Freedom to Beat Your Spouse legislation.

The pair of bills, which would restrict police from making arrests in violations of protective orders and domestic violence cases, are “the latest in the New Hampshire legislature’s attempt to beclown their state as the Arizona of New England,” writes Ilya Gerner.

Take New Hampshire, which in some populist conceit has decided that every dozen residents need their own severely under-resourced and under-paid state legislator, who will somehow remain “close to the people.” Of course, the natural conclusion of “citizen legislatures” isn’t home-spun wisdom and incorruptibility, insomuch as a bunch of part-time real-estate agents throwing monkey feces at a wall and calling the result a “House Bill.”

Under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, a mother receiving public assistance is granted, on average, an additional $72.50 a month for the birth of a child. Last year, House Speaker Bill O’Brien threw his weight behind House Bill 1658, which would bar the increase.

“We’re going to require people to make responsible decisions. If you don’t have enough money to take care of the family you have, you don’t have more children,” O’Brien said.

In testimony before the House Finance Committee this week, sponsor Rep. Neal Kurk elaborated.

“I think it’s bad public policy for the state to make a payment to an individual that is an unnecessary payment when it is within the individual’s control to avoid the problem for the state,” Kurk said.

“When I try to help somebody in a private charitable venture I don’t expect them to do things that will make it more expensive for me to help them. I just will not give money to that kind of a charity or that kind of a person.

In other news, the House passed a bill that would eliminate all funding for basic, preventive health care services — including family planning — for over 16,000 New Hampshire women, men, and families who receive services from Planned Parenthood and other health facilities that offer full reproductive health care.

Last year, the New Hampshire Democratic Party was fined for violating the state election law that requires prerecorded political messages to disclose who paid for the call. State House Speaker Bill O’Brien was outraged and called for Chairman Ray Buckley’s ouster.

“New Hampshire has never stood for Boston-style or Chicago-style, dirty politics like this,” O’Brien said in an interview…

“Unless the Democratic Party takes concrete steps to prevent this from happening again such as removing their chairman, removing their current leadership and move into the mainstream of New Hampshire politics, those are the type of issues through a subsequent civil suit that we feel almost compelled to ask,” O’Brien said in the interview.

Last week, a firm conducting a push poll on behalf of Frank Guinta’s 2010 congressional campaign was fined for making the calls without the required disclosures. O’Brien’s response? Crickets…

h/t: Jeff Feingold

The tragedy is that Republicans won so many seats in 2010 that O’Brien and company have come to believe that they can do absolutely anything they choose. To hell with the spirit of compromise. To hell with the Constitution. Let despotism rule. That’s the modus operandi for Speaker O’Brien…

— GOP state Rep. Steve Vaillancourt

Kevin Landrigan says there was an “overwhelming torrent of opposition” to the “union busting” bills being debated in the House last week. It has invigorated labor, he says, and has increased the chance for Democrats to take back more legislative seats in November.

These anti-union laws aren’t going to become law. Why? Governor John Lynch is going to veto them. He’s  not going to allow the last year of his career to be colored by a lot of anti-labor legislation.

I don’t believe, in the House in particular, there’s going to be the two-thirds majority needed to override that veto … but there’s going to be a lot of debate and another fight on anti-union legislation.

I think it is firing up organized labor. I think that’s important because, with a presidential election, the chance for the pendulum swinging back and for Democrats to take back some legislative seats is going to increase as a result of this anti-union effort.

Like a broken clock that’s right twice a day, the Union Leader made the right call on House Bill 1560. The legislation proposes a novel end-run around the federal health care law by creating an interstate health care compact that would replace all federal health care programs — including Medicare and Medicaid — with block grants.

Supporters of the proposal claim it would give New Hampshire the “authority to enact state laws that supersede any and all federal laws regarding health care” within the state. They suffer from “delusions of grandeur,” writes the Union Leader.

HB 1560 declares that states in the compact have a “right” to direct payments “funded by Congress as mandatory spending” to implement, presumably, their own health care laws. The idea that Congress would approve a multi-state compact that lets states ignore federal laws but keep all money intended to implement those laws is preposterous. This bill is a frivolity upon which legislators should not waste their time.

In an open letter to the chairman of the House Ethics Committee, GOP state Rep. Steve Vaillancourt asks if Speaker Bill O’Brien “and his minions” violated two provisions of the New Hampshire General Court Ethics Guidelines involving coercion and lack of openness.

The first provision Vaillancourt cites is the Principle On Independent Objective Judgment which states, “Legislators should employ independent objective judgment in performing their duties, deciding all matters on merits free from conflicts of interest and both real and apparent improper influences.”

To me, this means that all legislators must put the interests of the Constitution and the people who elected us ahead of party interests. To me, this means that bullying, coercion, or intimidation by party leaders to change votes would constitute a conflict of interest. [emphasis added]

Vaillancourt details several instances of O’Brien’s coercion and intimidation, the most recent which occurred during the debate over the House redistricting plan.

In an absolute stunning development, an amendment … passed by a margin of 170-153. This was not what the Speaker and Republican leadership wanted, so the Speaker immediately called a recess for a caucus. While I don’t feel at liberty to detail what went on in the caucus, in my opinion there was blatant intimidation, coercion, arm twisting, whatever word or phrase you might choose to use. …

I ask for your clarification as to how much coercion is allowed before it would be in violation of the ethics provision I noted here. Clearly, as we learn in testimony from the Emerson bill, intimidation has been at record level this year. It seems to me that the Speaker and his minions and those who have failed to employ independent objective judgment are guilty of ethics violations many times over, but then I’m not a lawyer.

The second ethics provision Vaillancourt cites is the Principle of Accountability which reads, “Legislators should assure that government is conducted openly, equitably and honorably in a manner that permits the citizenry to make informed judgments and hold government officials accountable.”

Others have charged, and I am beginning to agree, that most of the House redistricting process was not “conducted openly”. … An investigation, sadly, would likely show that much of the redistricting work was done behind closed doors by non-elected officials. … Clearly, others were secretly involved. Clearly, these others ignored what little public input there was. The question is how much secrecy is allowed before violation of Section III occurs. Certainly, words have meaning, and if meaning is to be followed, can such secrecy be acceptable?

If Free Stater Rep. Andrew Manuse and his partner-in-crime Rep. George Lambert have their way, you will be able to legally drive as fast as you want to in New Hampshire — as long as you don’t crash!

That’s right, under House Bill 1696, you could only be charged with speeding if the offense resulted in property damage or personal injury.

One wonders where they will apply this logic next. How about driving while intoxicated? After all, drunk drivers don’t hurt anyone if they manage to drive without actually hitting something or someone.

Oh wait, they’ve already thought of that. House Bill 1452, also sponsored by Lambert, would prohibit sobriety checkpoints.

But why stop there? House Bill 1531, sponsored by Manuse and Lambert, limits the definition of a crime to an act with a victim. The victim being a “person who suffers direct or threatened physical, emotional, psychological, or financial harm” from the act.

Dean Barker, founder of the state’s leading progressive blog, and Grant Bosse, lead investigator for a free-market think tank, rarely agree — on anything. So it’s notable that they both made the same point about the proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit an income tax: it has more to do with influencing the November elections than about how we fund state government.

Barker: So today the Republican supermajority House voted to enshrine the prohibition of raising revenue through income into New Hampshire’s state constitution. I have a bridge I’d like to sell to anyone who doesn’t think this is an obvious, partisan, Get-Out-The-Vote move.

Bosse: Putting CACR 13 on the ballot this fall likely won’t keep New Hampshire from ever adopting an income tax. But it will ensure that every candidate for office will be talking about the income tax. And most voters will have the income tax on their minds when they go to the polls.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) announced it will spend $250,000 on New Hampshire legislative races in support of the effort to repeal the state’s law legalizing same-sex marriage.

Next month, the House is expected to vote on House Bill 437, which would prohibit same-sex marriage. NOM president Brian Brown threatened to oppose any lawmaker who votes against the bill.

“A vote for HB 437 is a vote for traditional marriage. We will consider a vote against the legislation a vote for same-sex marriage, and we will hold legislators accountable. NOM will support those who support marriage and will work with local New Hampshire organizations to recruit pro-traditional marriage candidates to run against those who vote against HB 437 and fund them.”

Brown took responsibility for the outsize Republican gains in 2010 and made the dubious claim that they were a direct result of the legislative vote to allow same-sex marriage.

“In 2010 NOM was a significant player in New Hampshire and spent over $1 million in the last election. … Aside from helping defeat Bill Binnie, we worked with grassroots organizations to help flip the state legislature after liberal democrats legalized same-sex marriage in 2009. NOM sent mailers and launched phone calls in 119 house races, and our endorsed candidates won all of them.”

Public opinion surveys have found New Hampshire voters oppose repeal of same-sex marriage by overwhelming margins.

Testifying in favor of House Bill 1645, which would prohibit public employees from participating in collective bargaining, state Rep. Andrew Manuse (R-Derry) argued that allowing public sector employees to bargain collectively gives them an unfair negotiating position that has lead to higher compensation than they would receive in the private sector.

[P]ublic sector unions are contrary to the public good because they give state workers an unfair seat at the table of government, leaving taxpayers out in the cold. This has led to regular salary and benefit increases in the public sector, even when the economy is tanking. This has also led to a public sector employee base that earns more than their private sector counterparts. [emphasis added]

This is simply not true.

In 2010, researchers for The Center for State and Local Government Excellence collected data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and categorized workers based on the characteristics that help determine earnings: education, training, experience, job location and occupation. They compared similar employees and isolated the effect of public or private sector employment.

The resulting report, “Out of Balance? Comparing Public and Private Sector Compensation Over 20 Years,” found:

• State employees earn 11 percent less, and local workers earn 12 percent less, than comparable private sector workers.

• Over the last 20 years, the earnings for state and local employees have generally declined relative to comparable private sector employees.

• Benefits comprise a greater share of compensation in the public sector, but even after accounting for benefits, state and local employees have lower total compensation than their private sector counterparts.

• Total compensation, including benefits, is 6.8 percent lower for state employees and 7.4 percent lower for local workers, compared with comparable private sector employees.

The Constitution is a statement of principles and rights, and the architecture of our form of government. O’Brien and Bettencourt are using a document that our forefathers fought a revolution for [for] petty political gain.

— Kathy Sullivan, DNC member and former state party chair, on House passage of CACR 13, a proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit new taxes on income.

Did state House Speaker Bill O’Brien have advance knowledge that James O’Keefe would be sending his associates to obtain New Hampshire primary ballots using the names of deceased voters? Did he get a sneak preview of the video before it was made public? Writing in The Lobby, the anonymous “Mr. Snitch” suggests he did.

Bully’s sure been busy now that the session is in full swing. So busy, in fact, you’d think he wouldn’t have the time to act as a production consultant with James O’Keefe, conservative activist, pretend journalist and Mama’s Boy (what else do you call a 27-year-old male son who still lives at home, nicely ensconced in Mom-and-Pop’s North Jersey manse, Snitcherinos?)

Turns out Jimmy the Jerk, a convicted felon BTW, gave Bully a heads up on his little voter fraud skit. Explains why Bully was all set with his righteous indignation sound bites for Channel 9 after the video magically appeared.

Writing in support of CACR 13, a proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit new taxes on personal income, state Rep. Keith Murphy (R-Bedford) says it would be an “incredible injustice” to ask the New Hampshire residents to pay some portion of their income to support their state government.

[T]he income earned by the citizens of our state is theirs and theirs alone, through their hard work and risk and savings. Granite Staters of every profession and income level work hard … and it would be an incredible injustice for the state to demand some portion of that money.

In an unrelated op-ed, former Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter responds.

We benefit when we “pool” our money. As citizens, we have a common interest in creating and sustaining a great nation that can pay its bills and invest in its people. Clean up duplicate efforts. Catch the cheats. Hold recipients of our money accountable. But Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. had it right when he said, “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.

The New Hampshire House is expected to vote on CACR 13 tomorrow.

John Nichols traces the origins of right-to-work legislation to the Jim Crow era, when Southern states acted to prevent unions from fighting against segregation.

When the Congress of Industrial Organizations launched “Operation Dixie” in the aftermath of World War II, with the goal not just of organizing unions in the states of the old Confederacy but of ending Jim Crow discrimination, Southern segregationists moved immediately to establish deceptively named “right-to-work” laws.

These measures were designed to make it dramatically harder for workers to organize unions and for labor organizations to advocate for workers on the job site or for social change in their communities and states.

The resurgence of attacks on collective bargaining rights, says Nichols, is an affront to the memory of Dr. King.

King’s last march was with African-American public employees in Memphis, who were oppressed not just by segregation but by right-to-work laws that were written with the purpose of keeping workers divided and powerless. We honor King today by opposing the new push for right-to-work laws in Northern states and by campaigning to overturn the right-to-work laws passed decades ago by the Jim Crow legislatures of Southern states that were determined to prevent the arc of history from bending toward justice.

The title of the Keene Sentinel editorial reviewing the James O’Keefe voter fraud gotcha video gets right to the point: “Right-wingers try a new tactic to justify suppressing the vote.”

The piece warns against using the stunt to justify legislation that would restrict voting rights and nails House Speaker Bill O’Brien for asserting that the revelations threaten the New Hampshire primary.

He saw fit to inflate his cause with this hot air: “I’m afraid — I hope it doesn’t come down to this — it challenges our first-in-the-nation primary position.”

If the state ever does lose its presidential primary status, the Speaker can rest assured that revelations by gotcha-video actors posing as dead people won’t be the reason; more likely a cause would be the existence of a law that suppresses the vote of people who are still alive.

Opponents of federal health care reform have seized upon a novel end-run around the law, an interstate Health Care Compact that would replace all federal health care programs — including Medicare and Medicaid — with block grants to the states.

The history of compacts goes back to the colonial period, and more than 200 are currently in force. Many coordinate activities between contiguous states, such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Others, such as the Driver License Compact and the Wildlife Violators Compact, offer reciprocal recognition of laws and licenses in member states.

The Health Care Compact, however, is the first one that attempts to shield states from a whole area of federal law. It is four pages long and would replace the current federal health-care system with block grants to the states. …

If a significant number of states pass the compact, supporters plan to submit it to Congress for approval in the same way that the body approves interstate compacts regulating commerce, transportation, and resource conservation and development.

And just like that, billions of dollars will be turned over to the states without any strings attached? Unlikely. Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer said “we will put a person on Neptune” before Congress approves the compact.

Nevertheless, the Health Care Compact initiative is backed by Tea Party Patriots, Americans for Prosperity and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which adopted it as model legislation.

HB 1560 is crafted verbatim from the ALEC model legislation. Its intent is clear. The preamble promises to give New Hampshire the “authority to enact state laws that supersede any and all federal laws regarding health care” within the state. The Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire describes it as “the vehicle that we must use to nullify Obamacare in New Hampshire!”

HB 1560 is sponsored by House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt and has been referred to the Constitutional Review and Statutory Recodification committee. The first public hearing is scheduled for January 24 at 10:00 a.m. in LOB 206.

Even right-wing provocateur Mark Brighton has had enough of House Speaker Bill O’Brien’s threats and intimidation. And he has some advice for the targets of O’Brien’s wrath: Stand up to the bully!

It seems that N.H. Speaker of the House William O’Brien, other than being a Republican, is a nasty piece of work. At first we just assumed that Democrats were being petulant because they had lost big time, but then O’Brien’s fellow Republicans also began squawking.

If the speaker is a loudmouth jerk, then he needs to be bested… You folks need to take your power back. Stand up to the bully!