Miscellany Blue - New Hampshire Politics
I did not vote to sustain the veto. I do not believe in “gerry mandering” and am a constitutional conservative. Progressivsm takes away our liberties. Thanks for the time to write me.
— GOP state Rep. Stella Tremblay, in an email response to a constituent regarding her vote to override Gov. Lynch’s veto of the House redistricting plan.
We have an out and out tyrant in the Speaker’s chair, wielding the gavel of a once proud institution.
Tyranny is abusing power because you have the votes to do it, and know you can get away with the abuse.
When (supposed) good people refuse to stand up to a tyrant, then and only then can tyranny exist in New Hampshire or the United States.
We have a liar and a tyrant in the Speaker’s chair only because Republicans (who know better) allow it.
— GOP state Rep. Steve Vaillancourt on House Speaker Bill O’Brien
Is Grover Norquist greasing the skids for a conservative Republican to challenge Rep. Charlie Bass in a GOP primary for the 2nd District Congressional seat?
For the second time in recent months, the godfather of the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” has thrown his weight around the New Hampshire political world.
Yesterday, Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform released a statement blasting Bass for his vote on the Simpson-Bowles Budget Substitute.
—Why did Congressman Bass vote for a budget that raises taxes by $2 trillion and contains phony and fraudulent spending cuts?—
WASHINGTON, March 29, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The following release is being issued by Americans for Tax Reform:
On Wednesday night, Congressman Charlie Bass (R-N.H.) voted for a budget which calls for nearly $2 trillion in tax increases and contains phony and fraudulent spending cuts. As one of only 38 Congressmen in the 435-member U.S. House of Representatives to do so, Congressman Bass should answer to his constituents as to why he supports this budget.
What makes this noteworthy is that Bass appears to be the only one of the 38 Congressmen who voted for the Budget Substitute to be targeted by ATR.
As to who might be the beneficiary of Norquist’s muscle, well, we know Norquist is a fan of state House Speaker Bill O’Brien.
“The [New Hampshire] legislature’s Republican leadership has cut taxes and reduced spending, balancing New Hampshire’s budget while maintaining the state’s status as the most prosperous and free in New England,” continued Norquist.
And it’s not the first time that Norquist has gotten his hands dirty in New Hampshire politics. Last year, Norquist attempted to rescue O’Brien in his struggle to pass Right to Work legislation by luring away an opponent with an all-expense-paid trip to Washington on the day of the showdown vote.
Just sayin’.
Forget all the other shenanigans, his latest mischief with the redistricting veto override may actually have the last straw with a sizable group of Republican House members. Do we need any more proof that he’s a one-term speaker?
— Jeff Feingold, New Hampshire Business Review editor, on state House Speaker Bill O’Brien thumbing his nose at House protocol — if not the New Hampshire Constitution.
The New Hampshire House and Senate have both passed legislation (House Bill 1607 and Senate Bill 372) that would grant businesses tax credits for contributions to a voucher program that would reimburse the educational expenses of students attending private, parochial and home schools.
Proponents of the private school voucher program claim it would improve the quality of education by offering more school choice and increasing competition. An editorial in the Portsmouth Herald dismisses that canard and denounces the legislation as “a vote to damage public schools.”
The vouchers take money from public schools in two ways. First, a tax credit given to a business is a tax not collected by the state. Second, when a student leaves a public school, the state funding that supported that student goes away, but the fixed costs to the schools remain unchanged….
The result would be either higher local property taxes or more cuts to our public schools, lost educational opportunities for our children, and a hollow victory for those who embrace the deluded notion that somehow our country would be better off without public schools.
Yesterday, the New Hampshire House passed House Bill 1652, which would transfer a $16.2 million surplus from the last biennium budget to the state’s Rainy Day Fund. A floor amendment, opposed by the Republican leadership, allocated $1.5 million of the surplus funds, and added an additional $1.5 million, to eliminate the developmental disability wait list.
The press release from the House GOP leaders celebrating the bill’s passage was titled, “House Leaders Comment on Rebuilding the Rainy Day Fund, Expanding Services to Developmentally Disabled.”
Here’s what Speaker Bill O’Brien had to say specifically about expanding services to the developmentally disabled:
Here’s what Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt had to say specifically about expanding services to the developmentally disabled:
You already know that New Hampshire Congressman Frank Guinta is more extreme than Reps. Allen West and Michele Bachmann. So it probably doesn’t surprise you to learn that when the Sierra Club rated members of Congress on their votes for critical clean water legislation, Guinta was 0 for 12. That’s a failing score in anybody’s grade book.
Looking to spend a little quality time with your U.S. Senator? How about a weekend getaway? Be forewarned, she doesn’t come cheap.
Cough up $1500 and you can join Sen. Kelly Ayotte in August for a “Universal Studios Weekend” at the Hard Rock Hotel in Orlando, Florida. If you who prefer something a little more sedate, you may want to wait for the “New Hampshire Weekend” at the Omni Mount Washington in Bretton Woods. It’s the last weekend in September and should be peak leaf peeping season.
If you’re representing a political action committee, you’ll have to kick in another grand for your outing with the Senator.
3/29/12 UPDATE: This plan was approved by the state Senate in a voice vote and now goes to the House.
John DiStaso reports that Reps. Charlie Bass and Frank Guinta have ended their behind-the-scenes tug-of-war and agreed on a Congressional redistricting plan.
The proposal would move Sanborton (R+1), Tilton (EVEN) and Campton (D+5) from Bass’ 2nd District to Guinta’s 1st District. Deerfield (R+6), Northwood (R+1) and Center Harbor (R+2) would be transferred from the 1st District to the 2nd District.
Bass would be giving up three towns that Obama carried in 2008 by 581 votes, a 55%-44% margin. McCain won the three towns Bass would receive in exchange by 73 votes, a 50%-49% margin.
Based on the 2008 presidential vote, Bass would net about 500 additional Republican votes in his Democratic-leaning district. Bass won his seat in 2010 beating Democrat Ann Kuster by just 3550 votes.
The plan, writes DiStaso, will be introduced on the Senate floor later today.
It was another wild and woolly House session in Concord this morning. We’ll pick it up when the House GOP returns from a private caucus called by Speaker O’Brien.
Update: The House Democrats issued a statement calling Speaker O’Brien’s actions “an unprecedented power grab.”
There is no better example of the extreme ideology of the House GOP majority than the bill that mandates a woman receiving an abortion must first receive anti-abortion information masquerading as science.
Among its many onerous requirements, House Bill 1659 requires that she receive “medically-accurate information” stating that abortion is associated with an “increased risk of breast cancer.”
Medically accurate information describing an association between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer is an oxymoron. It doesn’t exist. The National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society and The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all agree: There is no relationship between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer. Period.
This report summarizes the epidemiologic, clinical and animal studies findings related to early reproductive events and breast cancer risk, and each finding is given a Strength of Evidence Rating.
•
Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk. (Strength of Evidence Rating: Well established)
The issue of abortion generates passionate viewpoints in many people. Breast cancer is the most common cancer, and it is the second leading cancer killer in women. Still, the public is not well-served by false alarms. At this time, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer or any other type of cancer.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:
Early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk were methodologically flawed. More rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.
The bill attempts to justify this false assertion with a long paragraph describing what it now labels a “theory” beginning with the statement, “It is scientifically undisputed that full-term pregnancy reduces a woman’s lifetime risk of breast cancer.” This is also untrue. The National Cancer Institute reported the evidence is “well established” that an early age full-term birth is related to a lifetime decrease in breast cancer risk, but a woman who has her first full-term birth around age 30 has approximately the same risk as a woman who never gives birth.
Clearly this bill has nothing to do with science — or with a woman’s “psychological and physical well-being” as it claims. Its purpose is to create barriers and hardships to prevent women from receiving what is, after all, a legally-protected medical procedure. It is more evidence of the GOP’s utter disregard and disrespect for women.
189 lawmakers initially voted for HB 1659. The final House vote is scheduled for tomorrow.
As Pindell first reported, Congressman Frank Guinta has filed documents with the Federal Election Commission to form a leadership political action committee.
The PAC will allow Guinta to raise additional campaign contributions from individuals and lobbyists. Leadership PAC funds are then generally funneled to other candidates and organizations to win friends and influence people.
The Center for Responsive Politics notes, however, that the rules governing leadership PACs are not strict. The funds can be used to dine in fine restaurants, travel around the country, hire additional staff or lay the groundwork for higher office.
Guinta imaginatively named his PAC, Guinta PAC. As is the norm, the name is an acronym: Getting Us Involved Now Transitioning America PAC.
Given Guinta’s ethical lapses — he was named one of the most corrupt members of Congress by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington — I have another suggestion: Guilty, Unethical, Is Not Telling All PAC.
“If ever there was an opportunity to restore legislative control over the Supreme Court, this is it.”
— Rep. Paul Mirski on CACR 26, a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature to make rules governing the administration of the state courts.
The number of high profile Republicans who went down to defeat in this year’s New Hampshire town elections was noteworthy.
GOP Rep. Lee Quandt says these losses foreshadow the results of the upcoming statewide election. He puts the blame squarely on the shoulders of House Speaker Bill O’Brien.
[A] surprising number of O’Brien supporters lost their seats in the local elections, either selectman or budget committee. I’m sure they can rationalize it away; but, I think we all can see the writing on the wall for the next election. The speaker has done something most other speakers could not do, bring down the Republican Party in NH; don’t take this lightly, it was no easy feat.
New Hampshire Congressman Frank Guinta likes to say he supports “common sense” solutions. He brags of “setting aside partisan differences” to work for his constituents. Don’t believe it.
By objective measures, Guinta is one of the most ideologically extreme members of Congress. Each year, National Journal rates lawmakers on an ideological scale by comparing their votes to their colleagues. In this year’s ratings, Guinta was ranked the 31st most conservative member of Congress.
To put that in context, Guinta is more conservative than Tea Party favorites Joe Walsh (#162) and Allen West (#174). He’s more extreme than conservative GOP leaders Eric Cantor (#73) and Paul Ryan (#150). He’s even more conservative than Michele Bachmann (#101).
In fact, Guinta is more conservative than the entire congressional delegations from Alabama (#68-#266), Mississippi (#54-#338), South Carolina (#80-#338) and 33 other states!
That’s extreme. Oh, and he was also named one of the 14 most corrupt members of Congress.
Gov. Lynch today vetoed the House redistricting plan, calling it “completely contrary to what the citizens of New Hampshire called for in the state constitutional amendment adopted in 2006.”
I am vetoing HB 592 because it violates the constitutional principle for equal representation and local representation; it is inconsistent in its treatment of similarly situated towns and wards, and it unnecessarily changes the boundaries of existing districts.
Based on the 2010 census, there are 152 towns and wards in New Hampshire that qualify for their own representative. HB 592 denies a total of 62 New Hampshire towns and wards their own seats in the House.
Lynch also complained that the plan “unnecessarily breaks up towns and wards.”
One of the unique advantages to living in New Hampshire is the ability of citizens to encounter his or her state representative in their daily activities — at the grocery store, in a house of worship, or walking main street. HB 592 undermines that very special quality of life in New Hampshire and the critical component of representative local democracy that is expressed in a commonality of interest among a community’s citizens.
The governor urged the House to quickly act on his veto to allow time for alternative plans “or for litigation in the event of the absence of agreement.”
Earlier this year, the House tabled a controversial plan that would bypass the Governor and send the redistricting plan directly to the Secretary of State for implementation through use of a House Concurrent Order.
Rep. Paul Mirski had called the approach a “belt-and-suspenders kind of deal” to be used if the Governor rejected the plan. House Speaker Bill O’Brien signaled his approval. “The question of whether this is constitutional, I tend to think that it is and we’ve shared the concern with the secretary of state who seems to believe it is entirely appropriate.”
This could get interesting.
If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. The Obama campaign today officially embraced the “Obamacare” epithet. The “I Like Obamacare” campaign includes an online petition, an #ILikeObamaCare Twitter hashtag, and a Facebook page that allows people to “like” Obamacare.
Today is the two-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act. Since then, the law that almost everyone calls Obamacare has been doing exactly what the other side has hoped it wouldn’t do: It’s been working. It’s about time we give it the love it deserves. Let everyone know: “I like Obamacare.”
Progressive advocacy groups Colorado Health Access and Progress Now Colorado launched a similar campaign last fall:
Congressman Frank Guinta and I agree on one thing, spiraling health care costs are a threat to the future of Medicare.
The blank-check system in Medicare, in which the government pays most costs with no incentive to save or be efficient, threatens the solvency of this critical program.
“The failure is to not act,” he says. So what action does he take? He votes to do away with a key program specifically designed to keep Medicare costs from zooming out of control!
The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), introduced in President Obama’s healthcare reform, would make recommendations to Congress to help reduce Medicare costs. The board only acts if the projected growth rate of Medicare exceeds targets; it is prohibited from recommending policies that ration care, raise taxes, increase premiums, restrict benefits or change eligibility requirements; and its recommendations are subject to Congressional approval.
Yesterday, Guinta voted to eliminate the IPAB. How did he justify this vote? Demagoguery. The board would “greatly restrict” access to health care, he claimed.
IPAB is tasked with reducing medical costs, and it would do that by restricting healthcare access for seniors. Granite State seniors deserve better than a 15 member panel of unelected bureaucrats intruding into their relationship with their doctor. They shouldn’t have to cut through red tape just to get the medical care they need. Hardworking Granite Staters who have paid into Medicare for decades have the right to receive the healthcare they’ve counted on. IPAB would greatly restrict that, and that’s why IPAB has to go.
Writing in Forbes, Rick Ungar calls repeal of the IPAB a “giant Medicare fraud.”
Sometimes, the willingness of Congress to so blatantly act on behalf of special interests to the out-and-out detriment of the average American — or to waste time and frighten the taxpayer all for the benefit of a good political narrative —astounds even me.
According to the House GOP, other political players and the storied think tanks whose pockets are lined by special interests such as the pharmaceutical companies, hospital associations, or just about anyone who might lose a few bucks if someone has to actually do something to get medical costs under control, this IPAB is the mechanism that the socialists (and you know who you are) will use to ration our healthcare.
Except, as the facts would have it, it turns out that this small board of medical experts can’t ration a thing — whether they want to or not.
Let’s see. The Center for Responsive Politics reports Guinta has raised over $97,000 in campaign contributions from the insurance industry, $56,000 from health professionals and $30,000 from hospitals and nursing homes.
Ed Naile, Chairman of the The Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers, is quite frank about the attempt by the GOP state legislature to dismantle New Hampshire’s public schools.
Why are we herding kids into government schools in the first place? Government schools are not mentioned in the US or NH Constitutions. … Remember who pays. The government school experiment in this current society has just about run its course. The sooner Americans let the old German government school idea die a graceful death, the better everyone will be.
Cornerstone, the New Hampshire organization most dedicated to repealing marriage equality, expressed “disappointment” over today’s defeat of House Bill 437. Cornerstone claimed same-sex marriage will lead to greater dependency on government services, increases in substance abuse and an escalation of juvenile delinquency — with a cost of $1 trillion over the next decade.
Ultimately, it will be our children that will pay the price for failing to pass HB 437. For instance, genderless marriage ends the biological link between parents and children. In the future, parenting will just become a contract between two people; the gender roles of a mom and a dad will be irrelevant. This violates the right of the child to know their biological mother and father.
There are also real long-term economic consequences to the breakdown of traditional marriage. Such costs include dependency of children on government services like Medicaid, increases in substance abuse, and an escalation of juvenile delinquency. These costs in New Hampshire have been conservatively calculated to be nearly $100 million a year and, nationally, the cost is $100 billion a year or $1 trillion over a decade.
