#

The only question NH political observers have about Chris Pappas’ announcement that he’ll vote to impeach President Donald Trump is what took him so long?

Sticking with his fellow Democrats was always the smart play for Pappas, one of the 31 Democrats in Congress representing a district Trump carried in 2016. While polls show swing voters tend to oppose impeachment and removal of President Trump — and that opposition is rising — for Pappas there’s simply no upside to breaking with his party leadership and going rogue.

“Voting against impeachment won’t get him a single Republican vote, and voting for it won’t cost him a single Democrat,” one NH Democratic insider told NHJournal. “Pappas was always going to vote this way.”

That certainly appeared to be the case in July when Pappas became the first Democrat from a Trump district to back the impeachment inquiry. It was an unusually aggressive move from the reputedly mild-mannered congressman, one that left some NH Democrats puzzled.

Was Pappas going to aggressively embrace the impeachment push?

Instead, the congressman quickly dropped the subject, refusing months of requests for comment and leaving the impeachment topic out of his public statements and social media, even as the debate raged in Washington, D.C. and on the front pages of New Hampshire’s newspapers.

Sunday night, with the impeachment vote looming and most Granite Staters watching the NFL, Pappas posted a statement on his website announcing his decision.

“I have reviewed the articles and the underlying evidence and testimony very closely. I have heard from constituents on all sides of this issue. Ultimately, this comes down to the facts, the Constitution, and my conscience,” according to the statement. “What the President has done is blatantly wrong, and I will not stand idly by when a President compromises the rule of law and our national security for his own personal political benefit.

“I will support both articles when they come to the floor for a vote. The President abused the powers of his office and obstructed Congress as it sought to put facts on the table for the American people and hold him accountable,” Pappas wrote. “Our nation’s founders created a government with shared powers and co-equal branches of government. They gave us the presidency — not a monarchy.

“They created a system where no one is above the law, even the President of the United States. If Congress does not act in this case where bright Constitutional lines have been crossed, we dishonor the wisdom of our founders and undermine the institutions of our democracy.”

A new Suffolk Poll released Sunday finds that only 41 percent of Americans say House members should vote to impeach Trump. Independent voters, who will determine Pappas’ fate next November, oppose a House impeachment vote by an 11-point margin, 52-41 percent.

The NHGOP and the Trump campaign immediately went on the attack.

Trump ally and former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski told NHJournal, “Chris Pappas’s vote for impeachment is in direct conflict with the people of the First Congressional District who voted to elect Donald J. Trump President.

“Congressman Pappas has sold his vote to appease AOC, Rashid Tlaib and the extreme left of the Democrat party.  I predict he will be a one-term Congressman because NH voters don’t support a ‘Do-Nothing Democrat’ who has accomplished nothing while in Washington, D.C.”

Other GOP sources tell NHJournal internal polling shows voting for impeachment is unpopular among NH-01 voters, and they believe it creates an opportunity to take back a seat they lost in 2016.

“Chris Pappas just let down all those in the First District who want a Congress that works for them, not for the far-left Democrat base. Coming out in favor of impeaching the President on a Sunday night after weeks of lackluster Democrat circus hearings in D.C. is disgraceful,” NHGOP chairman Steve Stepanek said in a statement. “Congressman Pappas clearly didn’t listen to Granite Staters when making his decision, and voters will swiftly replace him on November 3rd.”

RNC Spokesperson Nina McLaughlin said, “Chris Pappas’ choice to support the impeachment sham is the ultimate betrayal of his constituents. Granite Staters won’t forget that Pappas chose Nancy Pelosi and the socialist squad over them.”

Pappas joins fellow NH Democrat Rep. Annie Kuster in publicly announcing his support for impeachment, and both U.S. senators, Democrats Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen, are expected to vote to remove Trump from office when the impeachment comes to the Senate floor next year.

Interestingly, even in announcing his decision, Pappas declined yet again to answer the same, simple question: What’s his message to the majority of voters in his district who backed President Trump in 2016 and whose vote he’s now attempting to overturn?

His inability to answer is yet another sign of how tricky the impeachment issue is for swing-district Democrats like Pappas.

One of the speakers scheduled to appear at a New Hampshire Young Democrats event in Manchester Friday night is best known for speaking out about Israel, foreign policy and the Jews. And not in a good way.

For reasons unknown — the NH Young Democrats have declined multiple requests for comment — notorious Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar will be one of the keynote speakers at their Granite Slate Awards event, campaigning on behalf of fellow progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Omar has been a member of Congress for less than two years, and already she’s been pressured into making repeated public apologies for comments her fellow Democrats describe as “vile, anti-Semitic slurs.” Her insults toward Jews have been so offensive that House Democrats drafted a resolution condemning her anti-Semitism specifically, until pressure from progressives inside her party forced Speaker Nancy Pelosi to replace it with a watered-down version condemning hate in general.

“While we commend Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to bring to the floor the issue of anti-Semitism within its ranks, the politically expedient resolution failed to call out Representative Omar by name,” the Simon Wiesenthal Center said in a statement afterward.

Among Rep. Omar’s most notorious anti-Semitic statements:

• “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”
• “It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” explaining that American politicians’ support for Israel is motivated by Jewish money.
• Suggesting that American Jews have a dual loyalty to both the U.S. and Israel and their commitment to America is therefore questionable.

“This accusation that Jews have a dual loyalty or require people to pledge allegiance to a foreign power, it is an anti-Semitic charge that has been used against the Jewish people literally for hundreds of years, long before there was a state of Israel,” said Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt.

And just weeks ago, Omar was embroiled in another controversy over a tweet that appeared to imply businessman Leon Cooperman’s support for presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg is based on the fact that they’re both Jewish.

Now, thanks to the New Hampshire Young Democrats and Senator Sanders, young Granite State progressives will get to hear Omar’s sparkling insights, up close and personal, in Manchester.

Sanders’ willingness to embrace progressives with anti-Israel, and sometimes anti-Semitic, views is not new. Just days ago, he was forced to fire a new staffer when his anti-Semitic tweets about “Jew money” were discovered, and several members of Sanders’ senior staff have been embroiled in controversies regarding Israel and anti-Semitism.

“Bernie Sanders should know better: Omar’s anti-Semitic and insensitive language does not reflect the values of Granite Staters, or the vast majority of Americans.  Bernie and Omar’s shared socialist pipe dream is sure to further solidify Granite Staters support for President Trump and Republicans across the state,” Republican National Committee Spokesperson Nina McLaughlin told NHJournal.

So why are the NH Young Democrats embracing a divisive figure like Omar? It certainly doesn’t fit in with their mission as New Hampshire’s official chapter of the Young Democrats of America.

“Our membership reflects the broad diversity of our nation and the Democratic Party,” the organization claims. “Acceptance of diverse viewpoints is fundamental to a well-functioning democracy.”

The YDA’s platform even includes a declaration on behalf of “Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish Democratic state,” which is ironic given the number of events Rep. Omar has attended with crowds shouting, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” — a not-so-subtle call for the destruction of Israel.

The NH Young Democrats have offered no explanation of how Rep. Omar’s standing as an outspoken opponent of Israel fits in with the values of this local Democratic organization. And no elected NH Democratic officials have spoken out publicly about Omar’s attendance at the Granite Slate Awards. In fact, NH Senate Majority Leader (and 2020 candidate for governor) Sen. Dan Feltes sent out an email Wednesday urging Granite State Democrats to “get your tickets now” for the event.

In March, when the House was debating Omar’s anti-Semitic comments, not one of New Hampshire’s four Democratic members of Congress would condemn her offensive remarks. Several members of the Granite State’s Jewish community did speak out, however.

“I think Omar’s comments were anti-Semitic and I think they were unacceptable,” former N.H. Congressman Paul Hodes told NHJournal. “Had I been a member of Congress, I think –I hope– that I would have been clear in rejecting anti-Semitic comments and holding the speaker accountable.” Hodes was the first Jewish member of the House of Representatives elected from New Hampshire.

Rabbi Boaz D. Heilman of Temple B’nai Israel in Laconia, N.H. was more direct: “All I can say is that Rep. Omar’s comments were anti-Semitic, and that silence is wrong.”

In July, New Hampshire Rep. Chris Pappas became the first Democrat representing a Trump district to endorse an impeachment inquiry into the president. But now that actual articles of impeachment are under consideration, Granite Staters are asking: Where’s Chris?

While many of his fellow Congressional Democrats have declared their support for impeachment — including New Hampshire’s other member of Congress Rep. Annie Kuster who called Trump a “clear and present danger”  — Pappas remains noncommittal. “I will review these articles and the underlying evidence further before this moves to the House floor for a vote,” Pappas said in a statement to WMUR. “I remain committed to considering the unbiased facts of this case with the thought and care that this moment requires.”

That’s a far cry from Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s (D-Calif.) statement that “the evidence of the president’s misconduct is overwhelming and uncontested.”

Not only has Pappas refused to give his position on impeachment for months, he hasn’t even posted a public statement on his website or social media feed about the articles of impeachment. A search of his official website came back with zero hits for “impeach.” In fact, after declaring his support for an inquiry in July, the freshman congressman has gone virtually radio silent on the issue, declining repeated requests for comment.

All of which adds to speculation that, however impeachment plays out in Washington, DC, it may not be a winner in New Hampshire.

While there’s no publicly-available polling data from the NH-01 congressional district on impeachment, polls indicate that among swing and independent voters in states like New Hampshire, support for impeachment has fallen since Speaker Pelosi announced her decision to back the inquiry.

According to The Washington Post, a poll of eight key battleground states (including New Hampshire) found only 44 percent of voters supported impeachment while 51 percent opposed.  “And national polls since the start of public hearings show independents are now divided: 42 percent in support and 44 percent opposed,” the Post reports.

In fact, the same day Democrats announced their two articles of impeachment, a new Quinnipiac poll was released showing “slightly more than half of all registered voters, 51 percent, think that President Trump should not be impeached and removed from office, while 45 percent say he should.” It’s the highest level of opposition to impeachment since September, Quinnipiac says.

Meanwhile, Morning Consult reports that the state where Trump has enjoyed the biggest jump in support since the impeachment inquiry began is New Hampshire — he’s had a seven-point spike. President Trump is still underwater in the Granite State, but given that he carried Pappas’ district in 2016, it’s likely the increase in support is disproportionately in NH-01.

Republicans apparently think so. Pappas is on the list of seats targeted by the GOP in 2020, and the RNC isn’t wasting any time calling him out.

“By siding with Nancy Pelosi and the socialist squad in pursuing this baseless impeachment witch hunt, Chris Pappas is clearly ignoring the will of his constituents. New Hampshire’s First Congressional District supports President Trump and will hold Pappas accountable in 2020 for choosing party over people,” RNC spokesperson Nina McLaughlin told NHJournal.

The GOP also points to polls showing independent voters oppose Democrats’ efforts to remove President Trump from office by a 13-point margin. Those are the voters who will determine the outcome in the 31 districts Trump won but are currently represented by Democrats in Congress.

The three Republicans planning to run against Pappas believe impeachment will help their cause.

“Voters I talk to tell me this is a transparent attempt to overturn the will of the people because Democrats don’t like Trump,” said attorney Matt Burrill of Newton, N.H. “I think it’s a ‘fill-in-the-blank’ impeachment. They were going to do it no matter what.”

Former NH Republican Party vice chair Matt Mayberry called impeachment “an absolute waste of money, time and effort,” adding, “I am extremely confident that we will spend the next year talking about Mr. Pappas’ voting record, especially in regards to impeachment.”

And former White House advisor Matt Mowers said, “Chris Pappas will follow the radical socialists in Congress off the ledge every time in order to support Nancy Pelosi — even if it means neglecting the needs of New Hampshire families.”

Democrats dismiss the idea that Pappas is in any trouble, pointing to Trump’s dismal numbers in New Hampshire and Pappas’ eight-point victory in 2018. At the same time, New Hampshire’s First CD is one of the “swingingist” districts in the country, flipping between GOP and Democratic control five times since 2006.

Since July, New Hampshire Journal has been asking Rep. Pappas the same question: What is your message to the voters in your district who backed Trump in 2016, and whose votes would be overturned by impeachment?

For five months, he has declined to give an answer.

Perhaps Pappas is reluctant to talk about impeachment because he doesn’t have one.

Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard is so committed to winning the New Hampshire primary that she’s moved to the Granite State, renting a house in Goffstown, N.H.  Now that she’s moved in, the question has arisen: Should she be able to vote for herself here, too?

According to the New Hampshire ACLU, the state Democratic Party, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and — oddly enough — Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the answer appears to be yes.  Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii should be able to cast a vote in the New Hampshire presidential primary.

In 2018 when Republicans still controlled the state legislature, Gov. Chris Sununu signed a voting reform bill into law that specifically declared voters must be residents of New Hampshire, as opposed to merely “domiciled” here. “New Hampshire now aligns with virtually every other state in requiring residency in order to vote,” Sununu said in defense of the legislation.

As a result, people who are domiciled in New Hampshire — students, temporary workers, 2020 Democratic presidential candidates — must take actions to indicate actual residency, like getting a New Hampshire driver’s license or registering a car. Which means that, under current law, Rep. Gabbard wouldn’t be able to vote in the First in the Nation primary in February.

But what happens if the ACLU of New Hampshire, with the support of Sen. Elizabeth Warren and most of the 2020 presidential field, is able to get the law overturned? Could Tulsi vote “Gabbard 2020” in Goffstown?

“Yes,” says Republican state Rep. Barbara Griffin, “And I hope if she does, she votes for me, too!”

Griffin, one of the key supporters of the voting reform efforts, represents Gabbard’s new home/residence/domicile in the state legislature. “She’s got a lease agreement and a phone number. Under the old law, that’s all she would need.”

To some — particularly actual New Hampshire residents who own homes and pay local taxes and don’t want non-residents picking their city councilors or members of Congress — the idea of a congresswoman who currently represents a district seven time zones away voting in a New Hampshire election may sound crazy.  Is this really what the ACLU and progressive activists fighting to change the law want?

The ACLU-NH declined repeated requests for comment and refused to answer any direct questions about Gabbard’s voting eligibility. Sen. Shaheen, who urged every 2020 Democratic candidate to publicly oppose the new Granite State law, also declined to say whether she supports allowing Gabbard to legally vote for herself here.

Multiple sources inside state government who deal directly with voter eligibility and the new law told NHJournal that while there are legitimate questions about Gabbard’s voter status in New Hampshire, she almost certainly would have been allowed to vote legally under the old system.

“A person in [Rep. Gabbard’s] situation would not have been turned away,” one source told NHJournal.

It’s also worth noting that in Gabbard’s home state, would-be voters must pass a “residency” test as well. “The residence stated by the applicant cannot simply be because of their presence in the State, but that the residence was acquired with the intent to make Hawaii the person’s legal residence with all the accompanying obligations therein,” according to the state of Hawaii’s election’s office. Anyone making that claim falsely “may be guilty of a Class C felony.”

Why would New Hampshire, with the highest percentage of college students per capita in the U.S., want lower standards for voter residency than an island state in the South Pacific?

Unfortunately for the ACLU-NH (and, theoretically, Rep. Gabbard), that’s unlikely to happen. Last month, a federal judge refused the ACLU-NH’s request for a preliminary injunction to block the law from being in effect for the First in the Nation primary on February 11.

For her part, Rep. Griffin says she has no problem with Gabbard voting in the #FITN primary–as long as she does it legally.

“Just register your car here in our town within 60 days,” she requests. “That’s more tax revenue for my town!”

When Sen. Kamala Harris dropped out of the Democratic presidential primary, she blamed it on her inability to raise money. Some pundits, both left and right, said her lack of a clear message was the problem.

But others saw a more disturbing force at work: White people. In particular, the white Democratic primary voters in Iowa and New Hampshire.

“Iowa is 91 percent white. New Hampshire is 94 percent white,” Rolling Stone senior writer Tim Dickinson tweeted in reaction to Harris’s exit from the 2020 field. “These states are off the charts white, and yet the Democratic Party gives the electorates in these states effective veto power over the nomination process.”

“It’s structural racism masquerading as tradition,” Dickinson said.

Nate Silver of the left-leaning website FiveThirtyEight wrote, “If the Democratic Party wants a field that’s representative of its members and its voters, it probably shouldn’t have two states as white as Iowa and New Hampshire vote first every year.”

“Having two super white states go first is a big disadvantage to nonwhite candidates,” Silver added.

Defenders of the New Hampshire #FITN primary are used to hearing the “too white” complaint. “You go to New Hampshire. There are not any minorities there. Nobody lives there,” then-Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told the Washington Post back in 2015.

What’s new is the more overt suggestion that white New Hampshire Democrats are rejecting candidates of color out of bigotry. That they’re participants in the “structural racism.”

“I’ve seen the bile, the anger, from my family members, to people in the Congressional Black Caucus, to leaders of color across this country who just don’t understand how we’ve gotten to a point now where there’s more billionaires in the 2020 race than there are black people,” Sen. Cory Booker said in response to Harris dropping out of the race.

Progressive writer Lauren Duca was more direct, telling her nearly 500,000 Twitter followers:

“Kamala Harris officially ended her campaign today, which means that all of the candidates who currently qualify for the December Democratic debate are white. White supremacy is not just a Fox News problem, folks.”

So is it a New Hampshire Democratic Party problem?

“I have heard all the arguments and don’t buy any of them,” former Democratic National Committeeman and longtime New Hampshire strategist Terry Shumaker told NHJournal. “They certainly don’t explain Govs. Inslee, Hickenlooper and Bullock dropping out — as well as Beto and others dropping out even earlier — they are all white.”

Shumaker notes that “an African American has won our primary, as has a woman and a Mormon.  Jesse Jackson ran competitively here in the 1980s. He didn’t blame not winning on the voters.”

True, but progressives are. Their argument isn’t just that “New Hampshire voters are too white,” but rather this whiteness prevents them from supporting candidates of color. Call it “racism,” “bigotry” or “lack of wokeness”–it’s a commentary on New Hampshire Democratic primary voters.

“I don’t agree that they are saying Iowa and New Hampshire are racist,” New Hampshire Democratic Committeewoman Kathy Sullivan told NHJournal. “They are saying that having more diversity among voters would better reflect the Democratic electorate. I think the DNC addressed that by having Nevada and South Carolina added to the calendar.”

“I would also add that Barack Obama came very close to winning the New Hampshire primary in ’08, and he won the general election here twice.”

Then there are the New Hampshire polling averages for Castro, Booker and Harris, which are similar to their numbers nationally. Yes, when she dropped out Harris’s RealClearPolitics average was about half a point lower in the Granite State (2.7 percent) compared to her national numbers (3.4 percent), but both Booker and Castro are actually outperforming their nationwide average in New Hampshire.

Even in her racially-diverse home state of California, Harris had been stuck in single digits and well out of the top tier. Are white voters to blame?

And yet it remains the case that the top six Republican frontrunners in 2016 were more racially diverse (one African American and two Hispanic candidates) than the Democrats today. And many on the left see bias at work.

“Women are held to a different standard,” Rev. Al Sharpton said on Tuesday, “and black women especially.”

Former HUD Secretary Julian Castro, whose 2020 POTUS candidacy has rarely cleared the 5 percent support mark, has long argued that New Hampshire’s demographics were a problem for Democrats, going so far as to compare it to what he deems Republican voter suppression.

Gov. Chris Sununu announced on Tuesday he’s nominating New Hampshire Attorney General Gordon MacDonald to serve as the next Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, filling the vacancy created when Chief Justice Bob Lynn retires at the end of August. If confirmed, MacDonald would be the third Sununu pick to be placed on the bench, giving the governor a majority of appointees on the five-member court.

“Gordon has never been afraid to follow the path or take the action that he believes is right, even when that course may not be the easiest and even when some, including myself, may disagree with him,” Sununu said in a statement. “Our Department of Justice is stronger than ever due to Gordon’s leadership and independence, and I am confident that, if confirmed, Gordon will use his unparalleled legal talents and fair-minded approach to lead our judicial branch with distinction.”

Sununu will make the formal nomination at the Governor and Executive Council meeting on Wednesday, June 5.

In 2017 a bipartisan Executive Council voted unanimously in favor of MacDonald’s appointment to the AG’s office, and his nomination to the court was met with approval from both sides of the aisle.

“Gordon MacDonald is one of the better attorneys general this state has ever had, I hate to lose him,” Democratic state Sen. Lou D’Allesandro told NHJournal. “We win cases with him!  And he has endless energy. It’s an excellent pick.”

Ted Gatsas, a Republican member of the Executive Council, called it “a great nomination.”  When asked if he expected any opposition from his fellow councilors Gatsas replied, “You never know.”

Councilor Andru Volinsky, a Concord Democrat considering a run for governor in 2020, was reluctant to comment on MacDonald’s nomination in advance of a public hearing. But Volinsky voted (along with fellow Democrat Chris Pappas) to confirm MacDonald for the AG’s job and praised him at the time for his high ethical standards.

Given Volinsky’s ambitions, should New Hampshire expect the sort of “I am Spartacus!” hearings that U.S. Supreme Court nominations inspire down in DC? “We generally avoid the sort of partisanship you see in Washington,” Volinsky told NHJournal. “But I have pressed nominees hard in the past,” he said.

There have been some controversial nominees, however, most recently Dorothy Graham. In 2015 Graham, a former public defender nominated by Gov. Maggie Hassan (D), was rejected 3-2 by a GOP-controlled Executive Council over her handling of cases involving accused child rapists. Opponents argued that she was too aggressive in pursuing loopholes and technicalities attempting to reduce her clients’ sentences.

There are currently no dark clouds on the horizon for MacDonald. Former New Hampshire Supreme Court Chief Justice Linda Dalianis, an appointee of Democratic Gov. John Lynch, said in a statement, “I have every confidence that he will be an excellent Chief Justice of New Hampshire.”

And longtime Republican strategist Jim Merrill told NHJournal that MacDonald “is one of the smartest and most honorable men I know and we are better for someone of his caliber agreeing to continue serving New Hampshire.

“Governor Sununu could not have made a finer nomination to the Supreme Court,” Merrill said.

Legislators in Concord are about to add another layer to the already challenging cost of doing business in NH by abandoning the last steps of modest reductions of the state’s two major business taxes. In 2015, the Business Profits Tax (New Hampshire’s corporate income tax), an assessment on all profits earned by a business, was 8.5%. The Business Enterprise Tax, which is primarily based on total compensation businesses pay employees, was 0.75%. The state’s corporate taxes were among the highest in the country. Combined with one of the nation’s highest energy costs, a limited labor market, and high housing costs, legislators will be making it more difficult to attract new companies and retain those already doing business in the state.

Recognizing the economy was improving and wanting to stimulate further growth, the democratic governor and republican legislature at the time agreed to reduce business tax rates in small steps over several years. For the taxable period ending in 2016, the BPT went down to 8.2%. For 2018, it went down to 7.9%, and for taxable year 2019 the rate is 7.7%. The BET also went from 0.75% to 0.72%, then 0.675%, and to .6% in taxable year 2019. (How businesses set their fiscal year and whether they pay quarterly are left to their discretion, but all businesses operating in New Hampshire pay one or both of these taxes.) To ensure the cuts wouldn’t leave the state short, the first two tax reductions were contingent on meeting established revenue thresholds. If too few taxes were collected and the thresholds were not attained, the rate reductions would be reset.

The final tax reductions are scheduled for 2021, when the BPT rate will be 7.5% and the BET 0.5%. However, there is a move at the State House to squash this tax relief already written into law and already factored by businesses when calculating their future operational costs. HB 623, which passed in the House last week 200-141 and now goes to the Finance Committee for further debate, would “freeze” these tax rates at the 2018 level (7.9%/0.675%). However, since we’re already in 2019, it’s not a freeze but a tax hike. A similar bill in the Senate, SB 301, would also raise business taxes to these levels. A third bill, SB 135, takes a slightly different approach. Like the other two bills it rolls back business tax rates to the 2018 level, but instead of freezing them at those rates, the bill suspends the final two business tax reductions for two years.

One could infer that reversing agreed-upon tax rates must be the result of some fiscal calamity. Ironically, business tax revenues are not down; they’re up! New Hampshire has a very large surplus in business tax revenue, even with the BPT and BET reductions (or perhaps because of them). State revenue reports show that even with the lower rates, New Hampshire collected nearly $114 million more in business tax revenue than anticipated last fiscal year. After the first seven months of this fiscal year, the state is already $143 million over projections.  In fact, total revenue exceeding projections since FY 2016 is $406 million.

If the tax receipts are still flowing in, even stronger than before, why is the legislature seeking to go back on its word to businesses? Perhaps a clue lies within the way proponents talk about the rate reduction. More than one policy leader has characterized them as “tax cuts for large out-of-state corporations.” Notwithstanding the fact that “out-of-state corporations” like BAE Systems, Liberty Mutual Insurance, Whelen Engineering, and hundreds of others are some of the most attractive employers in the state, seeking to position tax relief as solely going to large employers to the exclusion of our small businesses is disingenuous. By raising business tax rates, hundreds of small businesses up and down every Main Street in New Hampshire will also be harmed.

Some are also dismissive of the over-performance of business tax revenue, claiming it’s a one-time bump from recent federal tax reform. While those cuts probably had some impact, New Hampshire business tax revenues have been exceeding projections since 2016, long before the federal cuts were signed into law.

In his recent budget address Governor Sununu said, “It is irresponsible governance for the legislature to ping pong core tax policies every two years.” We agree. The state made a promise to businesses. The state ought to keep it.

Collectively, we need to keep the NH economy strong with businesses growing, paying fair taxes, and attracting new business to the state. This will gain the revenues to grow the state, not place an undue burden on existing companies to carry the weight and fold under the pressure.

Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld told a politically-savvy New Hampshire audience that he is forming an exploratory committee to challenge President Trump in the 2020 GOP primary to rescue the party from “Stockholm Syndrome.”

“Our President is simply too unstable to carry out the duties of the highest executive office,” Weld told the Politics and Eggs breakfast in Bedford, NH—a must-stop on the presidential campaign trail through the Granite State. “They say the President has captured the Republican party in Washington. As the president might say: ‘Sad.’ But even sadder is that many Republicans exhibit all the symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome, identifying with their captor.”

For Weld, who last held elected office in 1997, riding to the rescue of the GOP is an unexpected role.  His most recent foray into American politics was as the Libertarian Party’s nominee for vice president, and he has long been at odds with the party’s conservative base.  In fact, Weld often notes that the Gary Johnson/Bill Weld ticket in 2016 took votes by a three-to-one margin from otherwise GOP voters. “A Libertarian vote was a protest vote or change vote in 2016. Those votes were going to go to Donald J. Trump not Hillary Clinton,” Weld said.

But Weld has returned to the GOP  because, he argues, Trump has put the country “in grave peril.”

Weld began his remarks to the crowd of New England business people and political insiders with a withering critique of President Trump, calling him a “schoolyard bully” who “virtually spat upon the idea that we should have freedom of the press,” and who “goes out of his way to insult and even humiliate ore democratic allies.”

“The situation is not yet hopeless,” Weld said, “but we do need a mid-course correction. We need to install leaders who know that character counts.

“As we move towards 2020 election we must uphold difference between the open heart, open mind and open handedness of patriotism versus the hard heart, closed mind and clenched fist of nativism and nationalism,” Weld said.

Weld laid out a series of his own policy proposals that were commonly heard in GOP circles in the 1990s but are rarely advocated today: a 19 percent flat income tax, baseline budgeting for the federal government and individual retirement accounts for “millennials who may never receive the benefits of Social Security.”  But it wasn’t Weld’s policy proposals that generated the massive media attention his speech received. It was the premise of a primary challenge against President Trump.

Weld repeatedly suggested that other candidates might enter the 2020 race, both as third-party candidates and as Republicans, which he clearly saw as a positive development.  When asked if his entrance into the GOP primary “would make the dam break,” Weld answered “If I get traction and cracks begin to appear, you may see a gold rush.”

This possibility—that Weld’s candidacy will open the door to a more traditional Republican challenger– may pose Weld’s most significant danger to Trump.  Trump’s poll numbers, both nationally and in key early primary states like New Hampshire, have actually risen in recent months.  Emerson College’s Director of Polling Spencer Kimball tells InsideSources that “We were just in the field in Iowa testing Trump vs. [Ohio Gov. John] Kasich and Trump was up 90-10 percent. It’s not going to be any easier there for Bill Weld.”

And in New Hampshire, which border’s Weld’s home state of Massachusetts, Trump’s approval rating among Republicans is 82 percent, and his approval among all Granite State voters has risen from 36 percent a year ago to 43 percent today in the latest NHIOP poll. When asked if they would encourage Trump to run for re-election in 2020, 77 percent of New Hampshire Republicans said yes.

Which may explain why multiple Republican strategists told InsideSources that they see little if any path forward for Weld in the Republican primary (“He misses on some of the attributes I think are needed to run a successful national effort,” New Hampshire-based GOP consultant Dave Carney tells InsideSources.)

Pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson of Echelon Insights says “Bill Weld is fighting an uphill battle on two fronts. First is that President Trump remains quite popular within the party, and rank-and-file Republican voters do not want to see a primary battle that could impair President Trump in a general election against a Democrat.

“Second is that Weld’s particular brand of Republicanism is now very rare in the party. Lots of voters in America are socially and fiscally progressive or are socially and fiscally conservative. But among those who ‘mix it up’ a bit, you find more people who are fiscally progressive but socially conservative – the opposite of a sort of ‘New England Republican’ formula.”

And even if the GOP base were in the mood to make a change, it’s hard to imagine the Republican Party of 2020 embracing Weld, with his history of pro-abortion and pro-amnesty policies, and his support for liberal politicians like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

“The Republican Party is a big tent, but someone who endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 and supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 as the Libertarian Party’s Vice Presidential nominee really needs to think about how welcome he is in the Republican Party,” said Steve Stepanek, chairman of the New Hampshire GOP.

“I don’t expect his campaign to get very far among Republican primary voters.”

Weld announced that he plans to stump across New Hampshire and other states in coming weeks, but emphasized that he has not made a final decision to run.

“If people won’t buy dog food, then I won’t advance,” Weld conceded. “That’s how it is in showbiz. If the dogs won’t eat the dog food, it doesn’t matter how good the promoter is.”

Does climate change activist Michael Bloomberg practice what he preaches as a potential presidential candidate?

That was the question that Carly, a political-science major from New England College, asked the former NYC mayor during a New Hampshire appearance on Tuesday promoting his new book on climate change—and possibly a 2020 POTUS bid.

“I am personally a big environmental person,” Carly told Bloomberg. “You are very big on changing the big aspects, but in your own personal life, like–are you a vegan? Do you practice a reduced-waste lifestyle, do you drive an environmentally-friendly car?”

Bloomberg had a witty comeback — “First let me say that I’m addicted to Cheez-Its and popcorn”– but he left Carly’s question unanswered.  Like many progressives who see the political as the personal, the Gen-Z college student wanted to know if Bloomberg walks his climate change talk?

And the answer appears to be no. In fact, the man who was appointed the U.N. secretary-general’s Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change in 2014 doesn’t so much “walk” his #GreenNewDeal lifestyle as “fly” it.

In his private jet.

“What’s happening to the world is really scary,” Bloomberg said in his speech at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics on Tuesday, “and it may be irreversible. I hope not.

“You just have to take action, and that’s what we’re trying to do. And we’re trying to get people starting from the bottom up. What we need is a president that can lead us instead of trying to drag us backwards,” Bloomberg said.

Mike Bloombergs private jet, which he often pilots himself.

“From the bottom up,” perhaps. But from the top down?

Bloomberg, a licensed pilot, owns a $30 million Dassault Falcon which he flies a couple of times every month to his waterfront home in Bermuda. When he’s not in his jet, Bloomberg can be found piloting his $4.5 million Agusta SPA A109s helicopter.

A flight in a private jet generates an estimated 37 times more carbon emissions than the same trip on a commercial flight. And Bloomberg’s six-seat chopper burns a jaw-dropping 72 gallons of fuel every hour.

The New York Times reports that, “In October 2004, officials with the Meadowlands Sports Complex denied Mr. Bloomberg’s request to fly his helicopter to a Jets game and encouraged him to take the bus from the Port Authority Bus Terminal.”

When Bloomberg does drive, he’s got a high-performance Audi R8 sports car (from 0-60 in less than 4 seconds) and a comfortable Chevy Suburban SUV. Neither vehicle gets more than 15 mpg in city driving.  And when the public complained about the environmental damage being done by his SUV idling on the street with the air conditioning on, Bloomberg’s solution was to have his staff wheel an actual window-unit air conditioner out to his car on hot, summer days.

Not exactly the actions of a man who believes “climate change is a crisis,” as Bloomberg told NBC’s Chuck Todd.

And about that multi-million-dollar mansion in Bermuda. It’s one of at least 10 properties Bloomberg owns around the world, and even by luxury island resort standards, it’s impressive: Seven bathrooms, five balconies, 6,000 square feet and all of it right on the water.

Bloomberg’s Bermuda getaway home

Bloomberg’s day-to-day home is a five-story townhouse on Manhattan’s Upper East Side with an estimated 12,500 square feet of space. Then there’s his mansion in the Hamptons, Ballyshear, with 22,000 square feet.

Based on published accounts of his various holdings from London to Vail, CO, climate champion Michael Bloomberg owns more than 100,000 square feet of housing he must heat and cool on a regular basis.

As for Michael Bloomberg going “vegan,” the conflict between his pro-health-food, soda-tax-and-snack-food-ban politics and his personal dietary habits is well-known.

“My favorite vegetable is steak,” then-Mayor Bloomberg quipped in 2010, at the same time he was pushing healthy eating with TV chef Rachel Ray. “I like most vegetables,” he said, “but I love steak.”  At Rustico, one of his favorite haunts in Bermuda, he’s known for ordering up platters of herb-marinated chicken and beef tenderloin.

Bloomberg’s even a member of the exclusive Game Creek Club in Vail, CO which, in between appetizers of foie gras and Wagyu carpaccio, serves bison, venison and wild boar.

On Tuesday, Bloomberg acknowledged that he wasn’t anywhere near going vegan, listing a litany of animal proteins he still packs away, from fish to fast-food burgers. In fact, just hours after his appearance, Bloomberg was spotted in in Nashua, NH with a slice of pepperoni pizza, loaded with cheese.

But does that matter?  Will Democrats who support Bloomberg’s climate-change policies reject him in the 2020 primary because of his personal behavior? Will environmentally-mined voters like Carly put a candidate’s lifestyle choices ahead of his climate-action agenda?

If they do, Michael Bloomberg can read all about it while relaxing in his seven-bedroom, Eighteenth-century London estate.

The latest New Hampshire Journal poll finds that most Granite State voters believe the pain caused by the government shutdown outweighs the potential benefit of President Trump’s border wall.

When asked, “Do you believe the government shut down is worth the cost to government workers if it results in significant funding for a border barrier?,” 57.6 percent of New Hampshire registered voters said funding a border barrier was not worth the cost of the shutdown, while 35.8 percent said it was.  Another 6.6 percent were not sure.

The partisan divide on the shutdown vs. border question is wide, with 93 percent of Democrats saying no and 83 percent of Republicans supporting President Trump’s position. Unaffiliated voters, the largest group in the state, believe the shutdown isn’t worth the cost by a 65 to 23 percent margin.

Young Granite State voters were the most likely to reject the shutdown as an acceptable price for a border barrier, with just 25 percent of 18-30 year olds supporting it and 69 percent opposed. This is not good news for a GOP already struggling to attract Millennial and Gen Z voters.

“New Hampshire may be a purple state, but voters here are solidly against President Trump’s government-shutdown strategy. Such a wide gap in support from a state the president nearly carried just two years ago is not good news for the president or his agenda,” said Shawn McCoy, a former GOP campaign strategist who now serves as publisher of New Hampshire Journal.

The actual question and results:

Additional results from the latest NHJournal poll, including the president’s approval rating and results of head-to-head match-ups with potential Democrats, will be released soon.

The poll was conducted for NHJournal by Praecones Analytica between January 16-21. Survey results are based on a statewide sample of 593 registered voters in New Hampshire. Responses were gathered using both interactive voice response (IVR) landline calls as well as online surveys.

The margin of error for the entire sample is +/- 4.0%.