#

To politicians who paint the picture of couples poring over a household budget and bills at their kitchen table: save the sympathy. Set an example.

The disappointing congressional budget process of Fiscal 2017 needs to be wrapped up quickly, with a federal government partial “shutdown” looming this Friday.

Comparing Congress to a procrastinating college student near spring semester’s end would disparage the student. Spring Break’s a week. Members of Congress just returned Monday from a two-week recess they gave themselves.

For two decades, the budget process has repeatedly broken down. Both major parties have relied on stopgap measures and omnibus bills to keep the federal government’s doors open. This way of conducting the country’s business is resulting in poor policy that produces large and growing deficits, adds to the nation’s debt, and leaves little time for serious long-term planning.

Doing better for Fiscal 2018 means at least approving all twelve appropriations bills for Fiscal 2018 — which begins October 1 — in a timely, orderly fashion. A crowded press conference with party leadership, and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Committees on the Budget, committing to a calendar would be an optic that communicates an expectation to the full Congress and public.

Presidential administration officials have recently reiterated advocacy for increased defense spending, initial funding for a Mexican border wall, and altering or eliminating Affordable Care Act subsidy appropriations. Whether intentional or incidental in their complication of resolving the imminent operations shortfall, the executive branch has been enabled by a chaotic Congress.

Constituents aren’t explicitly asking for everything for nothing. But they have changed their minds some since the pre-election fall. The nonpartisan Pew Research Center has observed an 11-point swing toward a 48-45% preference for a bigger government, more services—for the first time in eight years, and almost across the board. When asked if they were making up the federal budget this year, a majority said they’d increase spending on six of 15 causes (in order of popularity: veterans benefits, education, rebuilding highways and bridges, Medicare, and health care). The 67% for increased federal spending on education are either overlooking the “local control” impulse or simply favor funding schools over federalism. Another six causes garnered plurality support for increased federal funding (descending: scientific research, military defense, environmental protection, anti-terrorism in the U.S., Social Security, assistance to the needy in the U.S.). At 48% for increased scientific research and another 38% for “Keep spending the same” in the survey conducted prior to last weekend’s March for Science, there’s an apparent appetite for maintaining to expanding exploration and innovation at parity with entitlement programs.

Americans surveyed by Pew said they’d keep spending the same for assistance to the unemployed, assistance to the needy around the world, and for the State Department and embassies. So there’s not a consensus or even inclination in favor of reducing spending on any sector. And the narrow two-percent margin for decrease as compared to increase for foreign aid (the plurality still for keeping spending the same) would undoubtedly disappear if respondents knew the actual spend data; Americans have historically overestimated U.S. foreign aid tenfold. We can’t afford it all amidst the nearly $20 trillion debt and reasonably expected revenues via Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code) with its present enforcement mechanisms.

There are also people who want tax cuts. There are no people who want to keep paying hundreds of billions of dollars on debt service—i.e., on interest.

To the extent that foreign affairs are particularly unpredictable, a more predictable budgetary process in the Capitol would at least serve to “control what we can control.” Let’s get through this week, and then we can ask our congressional delegation to help lead on consistency.

The budget battle is over between House Republican leadership and conservative members in the New Hampshire State House for now, but the political divide between the two factions continues to grow. The NH House Freedom Caucus announced plans Wednesday to start its own political action committee, signaling that the fight for control of the chamber is far from over.

The House Freedom Caucus, a 32-member group taking its name after a similar conservative coalition of Republicans in Congress, is pushing back against House Speaker Shawn Jasper in the next election. They are planning on using money from the PAC to support candidates who believe in “limited government and personal liberty.” The PAC will be chaired by Rep. Dan Hynes, R-Merrimack.

“Last year, Speaker Jasper utilized his PAC to target conservative Republican members in primaries,” said Rep. J.R. Hoell, R-Dunbarton, one of the leaders of the conservative group. “The NH Freedom Caucus PAC will help to protect those members and candidates who stand on principle and refuse to be dominated by a big government House leadership.”

Jasper says he has no plans to target conservative members. In 2016, his leadership PAC helped out some Republicans, but left others to fend for themselves. The main NH House GOP PAC also said it plans on supporting all Republican candidates.

The Committee to Elect House Republicans is committed to growing the House GOP Majority by supporting ALL GOP nominees. #nhpolitics

— NH House GOP PAC (@ctehr) April 19, 2017

Members of the House Freedom Caucus are not convinced.

“For many individuals who might consider running to serve in the House, they need to know that there will be help if they don’t immediately pay allegiance to a Speaker that is working to rapidly grow government, whether through his vote on Medicaid expansion or on budgets with 10.5 percent spending hikes,” said Rep. Greg Hill, R-Northfield, a member of the caucus.

Conservatives haven’t been supportive of Jasper in the role as speaker for a while. He won the speaker’s post in 2014 with an overwhelming majority of support coming from Democrats. Only a few dozen Republicans voted for him over former House Speaker and conservative firebrand Bill O’Brien.

In the last session, he was heavily criticized by conservatives for supporting a reauthorization of Medicaid expansion and working with Democrats to get it passed.

He also barely won the speakership in 2016 over Rep. Laurie Sanborn, R-Bedford, and a leader of the other conservative House Republican Alliance (HRA) caucus. He defeated her by a five-vote margin, 109-104, on the second ballot in December. Jasper assured lawmakers that he would unify the caucus in time to get legislation passed. That doesn’t seem to be the case so far.

The first test of the legislative session was right-to-work. Conservatives overwhelmingly supported the bill, but moderate Republicans and members of the House Republican leadership weren’t sold on it, due to their ties to unions or people they know in them. Despite the bill passing in the Senate, it failed in the House and people blamed Jasper for not trying hard enough to get it passed. The vote revealed a splintered Republican majority in the House.

The second battle between conservatives and Jasper was over the budget. Members of the House Freedom Caucus did not support the budget that came out of the House Finance Committee earlier this month. They didn’t like that spending increased over former Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan’s budgets and that the budget lacked tax cuts.

They banded together to vote against the budget until their demands were met. Democrats were already voting against the budget to defy the Republican majority in the House from passing a budget. Conservatives essentially joined them to derail budget negotiations. What resulted was a chaotic two days and the House, for the first time since at least 1969 when they started keeping records of it, failed to pass a budget to the Senate.

Jasper didn’t mince words when he called out the House Freedom Caucus for voting against the budget.

“This is just a movement of people who, I think, are totally disconnected from their constituents and totally disconnected from the facts,” he told reporters after the vote.

It’s important to note that members of the HRA also voted against the budget and led to its defeat. Jasper took aim at their group last week, with leaders of the HRA claiming they have been denied the right to meet in the State House as punishment for their budget opposition.

Three co-chairs of the HRA received a letter stating that their “activities in the State House Complex are hereby suspended” because the organization failed to produce bylaws.

Jasper said he came to his decision on the belief that the HRA has turned into a lobbying group instead of a conservative caucus of Republican representatives, whose membership might extend to people who are not elected officials.

“Once again Speaker Jasper looks to silence the conservative caucus of the State House,” the HRA co-chairs said in a statement. “The Speaker is pathetically trying to provide himself with political cover after failing to pass a budget, something that hasn’t happened in New Hampshire since 1969.”

This was another reason the House Freedom Caucus decided to create a PAC. They don’t believe Jasper is going to spend the funds to help conservatives get elected to the House.

“Based on his recent actions of maligning conservatives in the press and banning conservative House groups from the State House meeting rooms, we have every reason to believe that he will continue to undermine conservative candidates in the next election,” Hoell said.

It’s possible Jasper could see a primary challenger in 2018 if the House Freedom Caucus is serious about padding war chests for conservative candidates. It could also make some representatives who live in relatively safe Republican districts a little nervous as well.

@NHGOP #Republicans were elected on a agenda we can not abandon it or let it fail due 2 Division & score settling #NHPolitics #NorthCountry https://t.co/n7q9NP4SXC

— Leon H Rideout (@RepRideout) April 19, 2017

The next big-item, divisive bill that comes up in the House could further expose deeper wounds within the Republican Party. The House is expected to vote on the budget again later this year, after the Senate passes its version. Who knows what will happen in round two.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

The rankings for the most popular governors are out and the top 10 are all Republicans. New Hampshire’s own Gov. Chris Sununu isn’t far behind the pack, though, coming in at 16th, highlighting a decent start to the Republican’s first term in the corner office.

Sununu has a 55 percent approval rating, with 22 percent disapproving of the first Republican governor in 12 years, according to a Morning Consult poll released Tuesday.

The New Hampshire online survey was taken between January and March with 644 voters and has a margin of error of 4 percent.

That time period is important because it’s essentially the first three months of Sununu’s term. Politically, a lot has happened during that time and the results could depend on when people were surveyed. For example, Sununu made right-to-work legislation a priority, even mentioning its importance in his inaugural address. Yet, the measure failed in House, where moderate Republicans and representatives with union ties sided with Democrats to kill the bill.

There have been bright spots for the governor too, and these could have led to his positive approval rating. He picked Gordon MacDonald to replace Joseph Foster as attorney general, and MacDonald was widely seen as a great pick across party lines. He was confirmed unanimously by the Executive Council last week, with three Republicans and two Democrats voting for him.

The recent budget battle also probably did not factor into the results either. For the first time in recent memory, the House failed to pass a budget. Conservatives banded together to defeat the House Republican leadership’s budget plan, forcing them to recess before the House could pass a budget. Democrats are trying to paint Sununu as the loser of this budget battle since he couldn’t get his own party, which has a 53-member majority in the House, to pass his, or some version of his, budget.

However, Sununu also stands the most to gain from the House’s failure. The Senate Finance Committee will now begin its part of the budget process and instead of using the House version (since there is none), they’re using Sununu’s original budget proposal as a starting point. The House previously took out his funding for full-day kindergarten, removed increased monies for the Alcohol Fund, and even cut his scholarship program for high school students to further their education. The Senate has been more open to Sununu’s priorities, already passing several bills that honored the governor’s budget wishes.

It remains to be seen what the Senate ultimately does with Sununu’s budget, but if his campaign promises remain in the final version, his approval numbers could increase.

Despite his positive approval rating, Sununu still has a high percentage of voters who don’t know about him. He actually ranked 3rd of all the governors in the country for “most unknown,” coming in at 23 percent. The most unknown governor was Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb of Indiana at 27 percent. That’s expected though for many freshman governors, as voters learn more about them throughout their terms.

Nationally though, Morning Consult’s poll found that more voters are happier with their new Republican governors than with their former Democratic ones.

Sununu, who replaced Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan, is 3 points more popular than she was before she headed to Washington to serve in the U.S. Senate. Her approval rating was at 52 percent in the fall.

It also appears that Hassan is struggling with her approval numbers. Morning Consult also looked at the most popular senators in the country and Hassan was ranked in the middle of the pack. Her approval rating is 5 points lower than former Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte, who Hassan replaced in the 2016 election.

According to the poll, Hassan has a 53 percent approval rating among Granite Staters, while Ayotte’s approval was at 58 percent in September. Their disapproval ratings are similar with Hassan at 31 percent compared to Ayotte’s 32 percent before the election. Yet, despite her four years as governor, 16 percent of voters don’t know who she is or have no opinion of her, while only 10 percent said the same of Ayotte in the fall.

New Hampshire Republicans have been trying to call Hassan a rubber stamp of the Democratic Party. They have also called the freshman senator an “intern” of her New Hampshire colleague U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, since they have similar voting records.

Shaheen is more popular than Hassan, according to the poll. Shaheen’s approval rating is at 57 percent, with 30 percent disapproval, and 13 percent not knowing anything about her or having no opinion.

Hassan and Shaheen aren’t up for reelection in 2018, but Sununu is already expected to face some challengers if he seeks a second term. Democrat Steve Marchard already jumped into the 2018 gubernatorial race, making his candidacy official last week. Libertarian candidate Jilletta Jarvis also threw her name into the fray in March.

In the Morning Consult survey, Republican Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker topped the list as the most popular governor with a 75 percent approval rating. The least popular governor was New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie who had a stunning 25 percent approval rating with 71 percent disapproval.

While more Republican governors maintained positive ratings, according to the poll, it’s important to note that Republicans control 33 governorships compared to the Democrats’ 16 governors.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

When New Hampshire voted on Chris Sununu, they had thoughts of the success and prosperity seen under his father, John Sununu, who served three consecutive terms from 1996 to 2002 before moving into the U.S. Senate. New Hampshire was hoping to get back to fiscal conservatism after seeing the budget increase under Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan. To support him, New Hampshire voted him a majority of Republicans to pave his way. We can’t recall the last time the House has not passed the governor’s budget.  Until now.

New Hampshire voted for someone they thought would stand up for the New Hampshire family’s wallets, not try to drain the spare change from their children’s piggy banks. This is not the fiscal conservative that people looked for in a Republican. But then again this is the same man who declared his full-hearted support for Planned Parenthood and all it stood for in a live-streamed voting session of the Executive Council. Then the next day, declared that Planned Parenthood had “tricked him” into that vote. So either he doesn’t read the bills put before him or he just simply doesn’t understand them. Since he had voted against the bill only a year before, it seems more likely that someone read a poll to him and said in this way he could win votes from both sides of the table. Winning the election was all he cared about, so he could jump to a U.S. Senate seat in 2020.

It seems that a higher salary is all he is aiming at. This is evidenced by the fact that he took the highest possible gubernatorial salary he could since before Craig Benson was in office, and then the first thing he did in office was give himself a 2 percent raise.

I encourage the Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate to think about the New Hampshire people when amending and voting on the budget. To think about the fact that we’ve done all we can to support our communities. To remember that many communities have voted down increasing taxes for full-day kindergarten because we simply can’t afford it and let the individual communities make that decision based on what they can and cannot do. It’s not that we don’t want to support our children. I have a child in public elementary school and had two children already graduate from public school, so I understand and value the education they get because I want them to have the best possible future. One of those children wants to be a teacher herself.

I urge our legislature to remember that our small businesses cannot afford to increase their tax burdens and that any increase to them will force them to let go of more employees (those that still have employees). To remember that more than one large businesses are leaving the state due to the cost of doing business here already and when they leave, they take much needed jobs with them.

It is important that we remember the people who pay the taxes in the state when voting on a budget and why they voted for you in the first place. The current governor may not remember them, but I have faith that our elected legislature will.

With about $59 million less to spend than expected, it’s natural that the House Finance Committee would trim a few items from Gov. Chris Sununu’s budget proposal. Yet, the cuts they’re making are concerning advocates who championed Sununu for including them in the first place.

On Wednesday, Republican budget writers in the House killed Sununu’s plan to spend $18 million over the biennium to expand full-day kindergarten programs. They also cut a $5 million college scholarship program.

“This is a short-sighted decision by a subcommittee of the Finance Committee,” said Mark Shriver, president of Save the Children Action Network, in a statement. “When he proposed his budget last month, Governor Sununu showed that he recognizes the importance of a full-day of kindergarten and understands the long-term economic benefits quality early learning programs can have for New Hampshire. The Republican majority in the House should stand with Governor Sununu and vote to put the full-day kindergarten funding request back into the budget.”

Full-day kindergarten isn’t the only proposal on the chopping block. The Alcohol Abuse Prevention and Treatment Fund was also cut this week.

The Alcohol Fund was created in 2000 by a bipartisan majority in the Legislature to be a funding mechanism that takes 5 percent of the gross profits from the sale of alcohol to support education, prevention, treatment, and recovery programs for alcohol and drugs. The funds would be allocated to the Governor’s Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment to pay contracts for service providers in communities.

The fund has only been fully financed one time since its inception, which was in the 2003-2004 biennium. In his budget speech, Sununu proposed increasing the funds to 3.4 percent, double the 1.7 percent rate the previous budget had set.

“First, I propose we double the Alcohol Fund, increasing these important resources by more than $3 million and creating incentives to ensure that those funds are truly spent,” he said in his Thursday speech.

In several biennium budgets, the governor or Legislature would usually suspend the formula and allocate monies from the general fund to go to substance abuse prevention, treatment, and recovery.

Since there’s $59 million less in tax revenue coming in than expected when Sununu wrote his budget, Alcohol Fund advocates suspected that lawmakers would suspend the formula again. However, a more dramatic approach was taken by the House Finance Committee on Tuesday.

An amendment introduced by Rep. Neal Kurk, R-Weare, was added to the budget in House Bill 2 that would repeal the Alcohol Fund for good and it passed in a 6-4 vote on party lines.

“They’re trying to get to a number and they’re trying to come up with different avenues to do that, and some are very creative,” said Kate Frey, vice president of advocacy for New Futures, a nonprofit advocacy group that’s been one of the biggest proponents of the Alcohol Fund.

“New Futures has always been in favor of restoring the Alcohol Fund and using it as intended by the original statute to address problems for the substance abuse crisis,” she told NH Journal. “The fact that they are repealing the Alcohol Fund in its entirety is very unsettling.”

Advocates and some lawmakers like the fund because it’s non-lapsing and flexible, which is a creative and innovative solution to curb the opioid epidemic. The funds are non-restrictive, unlike some federal funds from grants that can’t be used to build brick-and-mortar recovery centers, for example.

New Hampshire is expected to receive $6 million, less than the $10 million previously anticipated by state officials, from the 21st Century Cures Act, bipartisan legislation approved by Congress and signed into law by former President Barack Obama in December, which gave $6.3 billion in funding to states hit hardest by the opioid crisis.

When Kurk introduced the amendment, advocates were also concerned because the language in the amendment appeared that he also repealed the authority of the Governor’s Commission to disperse the funds. The issue was cleared up on Wednesday, when that language was changed, giving the authority back to the Governor’s Commission to allocate funds, but still repealing the Alcohol Fund. The measure passed on a 5-4 vote on party lines, with Kurk absent.

Rep. Cindy Rosenwald, D-Nashua, who sits on the House Finance Committee, said the Governor’s Commission would receive $5.9 million in 2018 and $6.2 million in 2019 for alcohol and drug abuse education, prevention, treatment, and recovery, slightly less than what was allocated in the current biennium. If the elimination of the Alcohol Fund is passed, it would be up to the Legislature in each budget to allocate whatever they thought was an appropriate amount.

“Without the stability of that fund, it’s concerning to providers that are thinking about expanding their services here,” Rosenwald told NH Journal. “The flat funding for the next two years doesn’t expand access to treatment or recovery very much.”

When introducing the amendment in New Hampshire, Kurk said it was inappropriate for alcohol funds to go to the opioid crisis and that the issue the fund was originally created to solve, alcohol abuse, isn’t the main issue anymore — it’s opioids.

Advocates were quick to point out that the statute language when it was first written allowed funds to be used for alcohol and drug abuse programs. They also dismissed the idea that New Hampshire doesn’t have an alcohol problem anymore. According to a 2014 report, the Granite State’s per capita alcohol consumption is nearly twice the national average.

“I was very surprised at the elimination of the [Alcohol] Fund and I was surprised that they would suggest that somehow there is a disconnect between alcohol and our current opioid epidemic,” said Tym Rourke, chair of the Governor’s Commission, in an interview with NH Journal.

“The suggestion that New Hampshire only has an opioid problem is just false and somewhat disappointing that the Legislature would be picking one group of individuals who are suffering over another,” he added.

Previously, the Senate Finance Committee recommended passage of Senate Bill 196, which would put the Alcohol Fund at the 3.4 percent rate originally proposed by Sununu. The bill was laid on the table so lawmakers could go through the budget process before deciding on the fate of that bill.

Once the House Finance Committee signs off on the budget, it goes to the full House for a vote. The Senate will then get their turn to go line-by-line in the budget. At this point, Senate budget writers could have more money to play with since revenue estimates change throughout the year, so in theory, reinstating the Alcohol Fund and funding full-day kindergarten could see a new life. Advocates for those issues are hopeful the Senate would return them to the budget for Sununu to sign.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Although it’s just a budget blueprint, President Donald Trump’s proposal that was released Thursday has already made waves in New Hampshire. It’s hardly a done deal, though, and the president’s budget is usually just a suggestion or a statement of policy they want to see done. Now, the House of Representatives, the body who has the real power of the purse, will draft its plan and the budget process kicks off from there.

Overall, Trump wants to increase defense spending, and in order to offset that bump in funding, he is proposing $54 billion in cuts to other domestic programs. Those cuts are already being criticized in the Granite State because several of the programs he wants to slash would impact the people who rely on or utilize those funds from the federal government.

Here’s what Trump’s budget proposal means for the programs and people in New Hampshire:

MEALS ON WHEELS

The senior nutrition program has become the poster child for the impact of Trump’s budget proposal. Even U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, D-N.H., was in the state on Monday visiting the Strafford Nutrition Program (SNP) in Somersworth criticizing the president for wanting to slash funding for Meals on Wheels.

“This is not, and should never be, politicized,” she said at a roundtable event. “These programs are for everybody, men and women who have worked and have found themselves either disabled or old or poor or all of the above, who need nourishment, and we have to be there for them.”

Jaime Chagnon, the director of SNP, said she would have to cut 2,500 meals from her program if they lost their federal funding. About 80 percent of their revenue comes from state contracts, which are in large part funded by federal grants, she said.

Yet, Trump’s budget doesn’t specifically call for the elimination of the Meals on Wheels program. It cuts Community Development Block Grants, which fund about 3 percent of the national Meals on Wheels program. The national program relies heavily on donations. At the local level, though, Chagnon said the percentage is likely much higher.

However, Trump’s budget — known as a “skinny budget” — is a first outline, and it’s largely silent on the senior nutrition program. Expect Meals on Wheels to be in the spotlight as more specifics and later versions of the budget come out.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS (CDBG)

As mentioned, Trump’s proposal calls for the elimination of these grants, which provide communities with grants for economic development and housing projects.

The Granite State received $8.7 million in CDBG for a number of programs ranging from Meals on Wheels to upgrading sidewalks.

Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas said last month in his proposed budget for the Queen City that if CDBG were to continue, they would support programs such as the Boys & Girls Club, City Year, and the Queen City Bike Collective.

Those grants have also been used extensively in the North Country. For example, Berlin used a $500,000 CBDG to assist Capone Iron North Wood to begin operations in the city. The city also received three grants for a total of $1.35 million for its Neighborhood Reinvestment Program, which assisted more than 90 homes, including for the elderly, disabled, and low-income, to improve or upgrade their properties.

LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (LIHEAP)

LIHEAP is one of the more far reaching programs in the state that would feel the effects of a Trump budget. The program helps heat the homes of thousands of low-income Granite Staters, nearly 28,000 actually, and received more than $25 million in federal funds for the current fiscal year, according to the New Hampshire Union Leader.

Trump’s budget blueprint called LIHEAP “a lower-impact program and is unable to demonstrate strong performance outcomes.”

The funding is through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which is expected to see a 16.2 percent cut in funds, or $12.6 billion less than last fiscal year. The state Office of Energy and Planning administers LIHEAP and contracts with Community Action Agencies for on-the-ground work.

In the North Country, over 6,000 households in Coos County and northern Grafton and Carroll Counties, received assistance through the program from the Tri-County Community Action Program, according to the Berlin Daily Sun.

NORTHERN BORDER REGIONAL COMMISSION (NBRC)

The elimination of this program probably received the most criticism from New Hampshire’s Democratic congressional delegation.

Trump’s budget cuts this commission, which was set up to invest in the economy and infrastructure in the North Country, but also in Maine, Vermont, and New York. From 2010 to 2015, the commission invested $3.3 million in New Hampshire projects.

“The Commission has also provided important funding for treatment and recovery services in the region as we work to combat the heroin, fentanyl, and opioid crisis,” said U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan in a statement. “Eliminating the Northern Border Regional Commission would be harmful to the infrastructure needs and economic development efforts in the region, and I will fight strongly to ensure that these cuts never happen.”

U.S. Rep. Annie Kuster echoed similar sentiments. Even N.H. Senate Democratic Leader Jeff Woodburn from the North Country weighed in on the budget and the elimination of the NBRC.

“We need to make smart investments in order to expand opportunity for all, support businesses throughout our state, and lay the foundation for a new generation of economic growth,” he said in a statement. “I’m very disappointed with the amount of harm that President Trump’s budget proposal will cause to NH’s North Country and urge our Congressional delegation and Governor [Chris] Sununu to oppose the elimination of this vital Commission in the Trump budget.”

NOAA FUNDING

Several environmental officials were concerned that Trump’s budget cuts would end several of their programs that they say are crucial to coastal industries and research.

Programs including the Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve and New Hampshire Sea Grant are at risk of being defunded due to Trump’s proposed 17 percent budget cut to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Conservation and coastal research officials say they are concerned the National Estuary Program, New Hampshire Coastal Program and Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership are also poised to lose funding, according to The Portsmouth Herald.

DEFENSE, VETERANS AFFAIRS

So who is poised to actually benefit from Trump’s proposed budget? Well, if you work in the defense industry or veteran’s affairs, then those areas would see an increase in funds.

Specifically, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs would see a 6 percent bump, or $4.4 billion, and Department of Defense would receive a 10 percent increase, or more than $52 billion.

In New Hampshire, that means defense contractors, like BAE Systems in Nashua or Manchester, and gun manufacturers, such as Sig Sauer, could see more work in the future. Sig Sauer recently won a $580 million, 10-year contract with the U.S. Army to manufacture pistols.

The question remains, though, if these industries see more money, how much of an impact would that have on the state’s economy?

Also, many policy experts say Trump’s budget outline is shifting a lot of funding obligations to the state. If the state doesn’t have the means, they could put that on the cities and towns, with many rural communities, who heavily voted for Trump in November, footing the bill.

“President Trump campaigned on the promise that he would look out for those in rural, economically-disadvantaged areas like the North Country, but instead, his budget proposal stabs them in the back,” Woodburn said. “Instead of supporting efforts to bring new jobs to the North Country, his budget puts corporate special interests ahead of the hard-working people of New Hampshire.”

Everyone will be waiting to see what of Trump’s blueprint ends up in the House’s version of the budget and how Trump supporters react to the potential shift in cost to the communities.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

Time and time again, New Hampshire lawmakers are told that they should be concerned about the state’s aging population. What kind of workforce is going to replace baby boomers as they retire and how does this older population impact housing, health care, child care, and transportation costs?

A governor’s commitment of encouraging young people to stay or come back to the state is usually revealed in their budget proposal, and Gov. Chris Sununu’s recent speech provides some clues on how he plans to do that.

In his Tuesday presentation to members of the House and Senate Finance Committees, Sununu was asked to cite his priorities in his budget.

“With me, everything is about not what we do in two years, it’s what we do for five, 10, and 20 years down the road,” the governor said. “So, I’m really trying my best to bring a philosophy of true long-term planning and long-term thinking. It’s about kids. It’s about what’s happening with our students, what’s happening with our younger population, making sure we can create a foundation there that can be lasting.”

Granted, it’s nearly impossible for Sununu or the Legislature to impact natural population change. As baby boomers retire, the state’s working population, aged 20 to 64, will begin a steady decline, dropping 50,000 persons from 2010 to 2030, which would strain already tight labor supplies and restrain economic growth and vitality, according to research from the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies (NHCPPS).

New Hampshire’s two-year policymaking process also doesn’t help lawmakers’ ability to anticipate and plan for long-term demographic change, but it’s something they should focus on, the Center argues in a 2016 demographic report.

Of course, how to attract young people also differs based on party beliefs. The Republican solution is usually to cut business taxes to make New Hampshire more competitive, with the understanding that more business growth will bring more jobs, which will bring more young people to the state. Democrats believe that New Hampshire needs a massive infrastructure investment, such as a commuter rail connecting Manchester and Nashua to Boston.

Steve Norton, executive director of NHCPPS, said it’s a constant battle of perspectives and there is always going to be some state investment to encourage young people to stay.

Besides making decisions on which projects to fund, Norton said it can be difficult for lawmakers to decide which age group to focus on. Should they look at keeping early 20-somethings in the state or the late-20s-early-30s group who might want to come back?

“We have always lost 20-somethings for reasons that are obvious,” he told NH Journal. “It’s not always the most exciting place or they want to move to an urban center like Boston or [Washington] D.C. When I think about this question of workforce development, it’s really that 30-something population that is coming here.”

Norton pointed to policies in Sununu’s budget that help “create a connection to New Hampshire,” which would encourage a young person to stay after graduating from college or to come back to settle down. He focused on Sununu’s creation of a scholarship program and full-day kindergarten proposal.

Sununu proposed a new $5 million-a-year scholarship fund to assist high school students to attend colleges, universities, or workforce training programs in the Granite State. He said the Governor’s Scholarship Fund would be administered by a proposed commission and would be based partially on need to serve “at least 1,000 students each year.”

He is also seeking $9 million a year to fund full-day kindergarten. He said the funds, which would be awarded in addition to education adequacy grants, would target communities that need it most. It’s expected that he will receive some pushback from Republicans on this policy proposal, so expect the amount of funding to change in subsequent versions of the budget.

“Both of those policies have an impact on young people and there’s an increasing likelihood that they would come back or stay,” Norton said. “Sununu’s expansion of kindergarten could be an important distinction for people who want to start a family, since we know decisions that many people make are based on the strength of the local school systems.”

It can be argued that Sununu isn’t investing enough in higher education, since he didn’t propose increasing the state’s community college or university system’s budget. Without an increase in funding, it’s highly likely they will increase tuition for the next academic school year. The University System of New Hampshire is one of the most expensive public universities in the country and graduating students have some of the highest student loan debt in the nation. With high debt, young people might take more lucrative jobs in urban centers or in other states.

Norton said organizations and businesses that support workforce development and incentivize young people with benefits, such as loan forgiveness programs, could pave the way for a younger and stronger New Hampshire economy.

Kate Luczko, president and CEO of Stay Work Play New Hampshire — a nonprofit group focused on retaining young people in the state — echoed Norton’s sentiments, saying her organization partners with businesses to make their opportunities better known to high school and college students.

“I’m trying to get this message across that being a townie is cool,” she told NH Journal. “Somehow, kids feel like if they want to be seen as successful that means leaving New Hampshire, and there is this stigma of not being cool if you stick around.”

Norton said even the symbolism of having a young governor could benefit New Hampshire’s demographic trajectory. Sununu, at the age of 42, is currently the youngest governor in the United States.

“Symbolically, we also have a young governor who is focusing on economic development,” he said.

In his inauguration speech, Sununu said he was committed to reaching out to “100 companies in 100 days out-of-state to invite them in. You will not get all 100, but we will try. You can’t catch any fish if you don’t go fishing.”

“Even if none of that comes to fruition, you’re creating the symbolism that New Hampshire is a business-friendly and family-friendly place,” Norton said. “But as always, the devil is in the details. For many of the proposals he put forward, we’re going to have to wait and see how the legislative process defines them. There are a lot of potential impacts but we’ll have to wait and see what happens.”

The governor’s budget proposal is expected to go through many rewrites and changes in the next few months as it moves through the House and Senate. While he helps set policy, it’s up to the Legislature to decide what proposals will be funded.

There are a number of education, health care, and child care bills in front of the Legislature, but Norton said he’s not seeing legislation focusing on how to tackle the state’s demographic struggles. He is optimistic, though, since Rep. Neal Kurk, R-Weare, introduced a bill creating a demographic study committee, who would make recommendations to lawmakers about how to tackle the aging problem in the state. It recently passed in the House and now it goes to the Senate.

Luczko said is also hopeful that communication between businesses, lawmakers, advocacy groups, and policy experts will improve as they work together on their mission of attracting young people.

“I cringe when we see duplication of efforts and someone starts a new effort that’s already being done,” she said. “There is a fine line between ‘the more the merrier,’ but then there’s something to say about being more effective if we combine resources and are more strategic about it.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Gov. Chris Sununu is quickly making education reform a priority during his two-year term. Just take a look at his Thursday budget speech.

“This budget and this administration recognizes local control in public education as the touchstone of policymaking, and that state government’s role in shaping education policy should be focused strictly on benefitting students and their families,” he said. “A major goal of this budget is to expand educational opportunity and choice for kids and their families.”

In his 2018-2019 biennium budget, Sununu focused on four areas of education reform that he wants to accomplish: full-day kindergarten, charter schools, higher education, and school building aid.

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

Sununu’s proposal includes $9 million a year for full-day kindergarten. He said the funds, which would be awarded in addition to education adequacy grants, would target communities that need it most.

After his speech, Democrats sought clarity on how it would be determined which communities received funding.

“We also do not know from his presentation which communities will get full-day kindergarten and which ones won’t…” said New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley in a statement.

Sununu said the formula would be based on a community’s property wealth, the number of students on subsidized lunch programs, and the number of English as a second language students.

“So I am proud today to be the first governor to deliver a real full-day kindergarten program for communities across the state,” he said.

Some Democrats, including gubernatorial nominee Colin van Ostern, were in favor of requiring all school districts to offer full-day kindergarten. Sununu’s budget leaves the decision up to individual cities and towns, but if they opt for full-day kindergarten, they’ll receive more funds.

Regardless if a school district offers half-day or full-day kindergarten, they only receive 50 percent of the state’s per-pupil grant compared to students in other grades. Sununu’s proposal would give the neediest communities an opportunity for additional funds to make full-day kindergarten a possibility.

CHARTER SCHOOLS

In his speech, Sununu called for increasing charter school funding by $15 million.

“And in addition to fully funding the adequacy formula, funding for charter school is stabilized and enhanced in this budget by linking funding to the state’s average per-pupil expenditure,” he said. “This will increase funding for our charter schools by $15 million, helping eliminate uncertainty and volatility for administrators, teachers and parents.”

This is probably one of the more contentious proposals in his budget, and it will be interesting to see if that amount changes as it moves through the budget process in the Legislature.

All of New Hampshire’s 25 charter schools, except for one, rely mostly on state and federal funding, and all but one are not supported by local property taxes. In the Granite State, per-pupil expenditures for charter schools are about $6,500, which is lower than traditional public schools, which averages about $14,900 for the 2015-2016 academic year.

Sununu is a fervent school choice advocate and he’s hoping the Legislature passes charter school-friendly bills during the legislative session. Democrats claim charter schools take away state money that could go to improve traditional public schools, and they lack equal proportions of disabled or special needs students, who are then forced into the traditional public school system.

Senate Majority Leader Jeff Woodburn told NH1 News that diverting public school funding to charter schools “is the wrong direction. It doesn’t make our state stronger or our kids better.”

HIGHER EDUCATION

It’s often a criticism of the Granite State that the population is aging and young people are leaving . The million dollar question is how does the state plan on encouraging them to stay?

Higher education advocates see increased funding to the state’s community college and university system as a key investment into the future workforce of New Hampshire.

Sununu said he agrees, but university officials and higher education activists remain skeptical.

“Our higher ed system is a critical part of ensuring New Hampshire students have an opportunity to learn beyond their high school years and enter the New Hampshire workforce with real-world skills,” Sununu said in his speech. “My budget approaches post-secondary education strictly in terms of students and outcomes. The university and community college system of New Hampshire are key to these efforts, and we’ll continue to make investments in our partnership.”

He proposes a “significant increase” to the operating budget of the community college system, to the tune of $10 million for capital infrastructure investments.

However, it’s not immediately clear where those funds are coming from. A few months ago, New Hampshire’s Community College system asked lawmakers for about $49 million for 2018 and $52.5 million for 2019, an increase from about $44 million in the current budget.

In Sununu’s budget, it appears that the community college system’s proposed budget is the same amount of funding as in the current budget. He could pull the funds from infrastructure funds, but it wasn’t exactly clear where he would do that.

University System of New Hampshire (USNH) officials were not thrilled that they didn’t see an increase in their budget either. Sununu’s proposal would provide $81 million a year to the university system — the same level as the current budget. USNH asked for $88.5 million in 2018 and $93.5 million in 2019.

Without an increase in funding, it’s likely tuition will once again increase for the next academic school year at USNH colleges by no more than 2.5 percent for in-state students. The actual figure will be known later this spring after trustees set the rate.

In a statement, USNH “expressed deep disappointment” that the governor’s budget did not provide additional funding, which would have allowed the system to freeze or lower tuition for in-state students.

“Keeping our public, four-year colleges and universities affordable is not only critical for hard-working New Hampshire families, but also for the many businesses that depend on highly skilled talent to grow, thrive and succeed,” USNH Chancellor Todd Leach said in a statement.

Full time in-state tuition at UNH is $14,410 for the 2016-17 academic year. Room and board varies depending on the type of housing and meal plan, but costs range between $10,000 to $14,000 a year.

USNH receives the lowest state funding per capita of any university system in the county and tuition costs for New Hampshire students are some of the highest in the nation, which leads to students also having some of the highest student loan debt in the country after graduation.

Rep. Wayne Burton, D-Durham, and a former college administrator, criticized Sununu’s “cold shouldering of USNH.

“I’m deeply disappointed that Gov. Sununu, though professing the need for an educated workforce, shortchanged the principle player in that effort, our state university system,” Burton told the Fosters Daily Democrat.

Instead of increasing funds to the university system, Sununu proposed a new $5 million-a-year scholarship fund to assist high school students to attend colleges, universities or workforce training programs in the Granite State.

“We have to understand that not every student travels the same workforce path, and we need to build a system that provides flexibility to work within their lifestyle,” he said. “This scholarship program is designed, not to help 10, or 20, or even a 100 students, but at least 1,000 students each year, and we’ll open workforce gateways like never before.”

He said the Governor’s Scholarship Fund would be administered by a proposed commission and would be based, partially, on need.

SCHOOL BUILDING AID

The state is expected to end the current two-year budget with an $80 million surplus, and most of that money will be going to one-time expenses to fix roads and bridges, and provide school building aid through the “Infrastructure Revitalization Fund.”

“For the first time in a long time we’re going to give a boost to school building aid by granting dollars directly to communities to rebuild our classroom infrastructure,” Sununu said. “Specifically, schools with health and safety issues in towns that might not be able to otherwise address things like asbestos, lead paint, or other critical safety issues and these are where our school building aid will be targeted and funded.”

It’s unclear exactly how much of the $80 million surplus would be available at the end of the current fiscal year, and how it would it be allocated to cities and towns, but Republicans applauded the proposal during the governor’s speech.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.