#

The flurry of activity in the Granite State this week has some calling it the start of the 2020 New Hampshire primary. Former Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley held some meet-and-greets and a town hall meeting on Sunday, and former Vice President Joe Biden is headlining the state Democratic Party’s fundraising dinner on April 30. Smack dab in the middle of the two Democrats is Republican Gov. John Kasich, who visited the state on Thursday to promote his new book.

It felt like a reunion of sorts for Kasich, his team, and over 200 supporters who came to hear him speak at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College. In a small gathering before his speech, he thanked key allies for their help during the 2016 Republican presidential primary. Even though Kasich was in the state in August to campaign for Gov. Chris Sununu in his gubernatorial bid, it’s his first foray back to New Hampshire since Trump won the White House.

Of course, there was an elephant in the room (and not just because the room was chock full of Republicans): is Kasich going to run for president again in 2020? Those waiting with bated breath will have to wait a bit longer.

“People ask why I am back,” Kasich said. “I am back to sell books.”

His new book, “Two Paths: America Divided or United,” came out on Tuesday and one of his first stops in his book tour was New Hampshire, so it’s easy to see where the 2020 speculation comes from.

He mostly talked about his 2016 campaign and national politics, with some advice to his followers who are unhappy with President Donald Trump.

“In course of running for president, something happened to me that never happened before,” he said. “I was, like, so boring, you know, and boring didn’t cut it.”

Kasich finished second in last year’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary, far behind Trump (35 percent to 16 percent). Yet, Kasich spent more time in the state than any other candidate, holding more than 100 town halls during the primary.

He took note of Trump not following through on some of his campaign promises, like ripping up the Iran nuclear deal and deporting “13 million Muslims out of the country.”

“You notice all that promise? It’s all been taken back,” he said.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich speaks at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College to promote his new book, “Two Paths: America United or Divided” on Thursday, April 27, 2017. (Photo Credit: John Kasich Facebook page)

He also encouraged unity, bemoaning the wide political divide in the United States.

“We all ought to spend about 10 minutes a day reading something we don’t agree with. All of us are absorbing only that that we agree with and getting rid of those things that we don’t agree with,” Kasich said. “Over time, I think things are going to settle down and people are going to realize that the difficulties that we face cannot be solved without unity. Difficulties cannot be solved unless we have deliberate and steady solutions to the problem.”

Out of the three “potential candidates” visiting New Hampshire this week, Kasich is probably getting asked the most if he is going to run again in 2020.

“He hasn’t been president for 100 days, yet,” Kasich told reporters. “I mean, everybody needs to take a deep breath. We’ll see how it runs out. He’s the president. Give him a chance. We’ll see how it goes.”

Why is he getting the question more? Well, it’s good political theatre. If there’s still #NeverTrump sentiment in a few years, Kasich is a good person they can rally behind, since he’s one of the few 2016 Republican presidential candidates who did not endorse Trump after he secured the party’s nomination.

That’s not to say O’Malley and Biden aren’t getting asked (both of whom have also skirted the question). The 2020 Democratic primary should be an exciting one, with 20 or so candidates expected to enter the race, but political pundits and the media love the idea of an incumbent president getting a primary challenger.

Challenges to White House incumbents aren’t as rare as people think. Five of the six presidents who served between 1968 and 1992 faced insurrections. When they do — like Ronald Reagan’s challenge of Gerald Ford in 1976, Ted Kennedy’s race against Jimmy Carter in 1980, and Pat Buchanan’s bid to unseat George H.W. Bush in 1992 — it’s usually because they were viewed as unsuccessful or unpopular, especially within their party’s base.

It’s very possible that Trump’s base could leave him in the next three years, but after his first 100 days in office, it appears they are still with him.

A University of Virginia Center for Politics poll of Trump voters released Thursday shows his approval rating at 93 percent with his base.

The most recent poll in New Hampshire shows that a majority of Republicans approve of the president, although not as high as the national average. About 80 percent of New Hampshire Republicans approve of the job Trump is doing as president, according to a University of New Hampshire Survey Center poll from February.

Those percentages would need to decrease for anyone to seriously consider mounting a GOP primary challenge. What does this mean for Kasich? It looks like he’s playing the “sitting-and-waiting game.” If the opportunity presents itself, don’t be surprised to see him be one of the first Republicans to declare their candidacy. For now, he told NH1 News that he will “see how things develop in the future.”

Kasich is still popular in the Granite State, and he said he had a feeling he would return often because he has many friends here, so he could become a regular face in these parts over the next three years.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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

Three months into Republican Gov. Chris Sununu’s term it already looks like he’s got a couple challengers in 2018. The first to announce in March was Jilletta Jarvis for the Libertarian ticket. Now, Steve Marchand, former Democratic mayor of Portsmouth is throwing his hat into the ring too.

Do these names sound familiar? Well, they both ran for governor in 2016. Jarvis was an Independent and Marchand came in second in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, finishing behind eventual nominee Colin Van Ostern.

“We can make New Hampshire the best place in America to start and raise a family, and the best place to start and grow a business,” Marchand wrote in a Monday email to supporters. “We will aspire to be the example of what America, at our best, can be. That’s why I’m running for governor.”

Last year, Marchand trailed behind his Democratic challengers in campaign fundraising and the polls, often coming in behind businessman Mark Connolly and Van Ostern, the former executive councilor. However, he managed a surprising second place finish, garnering 25 percent of the vote. Van Ostern received about 52 percent and Connolly took 20 percent.

On a Tuesday press call, Marchand chalked up his difficulty in fundraising to his timing and to entering the race late, but told reporters he enjoyed the experience.

“Keep in mind, last year, I got to second place in our primary despite very little time and consequently very little money,” he said.

Now, he’s not going to make the mistake of entering late again, and while it is definitely early to announce a run for the Corner Office in 2018 (more than a year-and-a-half out), Marchand said he couldn’t sit idly by under the leadership of President Donald Trump and Sununu.

“I realized there was an unprecedented passion unprecedented due to a lot of circumstances at the state and national level,” he said. “These are unusual times.”

Marchand has been quietly campaigning for the past few months, attending various Democratic meetings and doing meet-and-greets with his base. Already, he’s criticizing Trump’s and Sununu’s agendas. He pointed to Sununu’s first bill signing, which repealed required permits for concealed weapons.

“That’s not the direction we need to go in as a state,” he said. He also accused Sunnunu of wanting to weaken unions, suppress voter turnout, and privatize public education.

So what makes this campaign different than his last one?

He’s taking his job of fundraising more seriously, by hiring Nick Daggers of the CFO Consulting Group. Daggers specializes in fundraising for political campaigns.

Marchand only raised about $30,000 during his campaign last year, according to campaign filings with the secretary of state’s office. Van Ostern raised $1.1 million in just the primary election.

Daggers even wrote a blog post on his company’s website discussing the importance of early campaign fundraising.

“An early fundraising start will give the opportunity to build a solid infrastructure, allow the candidate more time to campaign, and most importantly give you the greatest chance at victory,” he wrote in 2013.

If Marchand can drum up a solid war chest before other candidates jump into the race, he could be a serious contender before he actually starts spending any of it.

Don’t expect too many changes in his platform, though. Marchand still supports legalizing and taxing marijuana and increasing the state’s business profits tax, which would supply millions of dollars to support state aid for full-day kindergarten and improve the state’s infrastructure, among other policies.

Yet, his record is already being criticized by the Republican Governors Association.

“From property taxes, to the gas tax, to the business profits tax cut, Marchand has consistently supported increasing the tax burden on New Hampshire families,” the group said in a statement. “While Steve Marchand may claim to be the most fiscally responsible candidate for governor, his campaign won’t be able to rewrite his record of supporting higher taxation on Granite State voters.”

Besides entering the race early, Marchand said he’s more committed to expanding his “knowledge base” and getting out to interact with voters on a grassroots level statewide.

“The more you go out and speak to groups and to people, the more you learn,” he said.

With this early momentum, Marchand also seeks to improve upon some mistakes his Democratic challenger made in the general election.

Van Ostern’s biggest struggle in his race was name recognition. A poll before the election found that only 10 percent of respondents did not recognize Sununu’s name, but about 28 percent never heard of Van Ostern. While Van Ostern benefited from a strong ground game from the New Hampshire Democratic Party and a bigger war chest than Sununu, the voters didn’t turn out for the Democratic nominee like they did at the top of the ticket.

By getting out of the gate early and meeting with voters now, Marchand is increasing his chances that come Election Day next year, the voters will remember who he is.

Yet, Democratic voters might also recognize Connolly’s name on the ballot. The former gubernatorial candidate is also mulling another run. He stirred some intrigue when he had a paid “sponsored post” on Facebook last week.

Connolly said Marchand’s announcement was too soon and that now is the “time to governor” and the “focus should be on the budget.”

“We should be working with our leadership in the Senate and House to get our best possible budget for the state,” he told NH1 News. “After the budget plays out… I’ll consider running again if the ideas I offered in 2016 aren’t being fully addressed. But certainly at this stage you don’t say if you’re in or you’re out.”

Marchand’s focus is on Trump and Sununu. He believes Sununu’s “full-throated” support for Trump during the campaign and still in his term, will ultimately be his downfall.

“It’s never too early to begin what’s going to be a long and difficult process,” he said. “It is difficult to defeat a first-term incumbent governor. I’m under no illusions. I will be a happy warrior. I will not be outworked. I know the magnitude it will take.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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

There’s a new presidential opioid commission in town, but drug policy experts remain skeptical about its mission and effectiveness. It also appears that New Hampshire does not have a seat at the table, for now at least.

The President’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis was announced Wednesday when President Donald Trump signed the executive order laying out its blueprint. It will be chaired by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has made the opioid crisis a priority as governor, and will study appropriate steps for lawmakers and federal officials to take to combat the epidemic.

“This is an epidemic that knows no boundaries and shows no mercy, and we will show great compassion and resolve as we work together on this important issue,” Trump said.

The panel’s mission would be to identify federal funding streams that could be directed to address the crisis, determine the best practices for prevention and recovery, evaluate federal programs and the U.S. health system to identify regulatory barriers or ineffective initiatives like prescribing practices, and consider changes to the criminal justice system.

More than 52,000 Americans died from a drug overdose in 2015 — up from 47,000 in the previous year — according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, and nearly two-thirds of those deaths involved an opioid.

The commission would make interim recommendations within 90 days of its establishment along with a final report in October. The agencies involved would be expected to take actions implementing those policies.

The commission would be composed of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tom Price, Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin, and Defense Secretary James Mattis. Another five members from state governments, law enforcement, and other groups would finish it. Massachusetts Republican Gov. Charlie Baker and North Carolina Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper are reportedly set to sit on the panel.

When the commission was announced, a spokesman for New Hampshire Republican Gov. Chris Sununu told NH1 News that he “doesn’t have a formal role with the commission.”

If that stands, it would be an interesting position from the White House. The Granite State has the second-highest overdose deaths in the country. While Massachusetts has also been devastated by the opioid crisis, Baker did not support Trump in the 2016 presidential election and Governor John Sununu never once wavered from his support for Trump.

There was also no one from New Hampshire taking part in the listening session at the White House when they announced the commission. None of New Hampshire’s Democratic congressional delegation took part in the session.

That’s worth noting because Trump and Christie as presidential candidates often discussed the opioid crisis during their campaign visits in New Hampshire.

“A wall will not only keep out dangerous cartels and criminals, but it will also keep out the drugs and heroin poisoning our youth,” Trump said in a stop in the Granite State in October.

However, drug policy experts are concerned that Trump is focusing on just the criminal justice side of the crisis, and not enough on treatment and prevention.

“We don’t yet fully know what the Trump policy towards the opioid crisis will be,” said Leo Beletsky,a law professor at Northeastern University who specializes in health and drug policy, in an interview with NH Journal.

“During the campaign, he made statements supporting treatment access and focusing on interdiction at the US-Mexico border,” he added. ‘Since the election, we have heard much about the ‘Wall,’ other interdiction efforts, and criminal justice tools to combat the crisis, but not so much about the treatment issue.”

Other advocates are frustrated with actions the Trump administration has already taken that could actually worsen the crisis.

The Office for National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) would support the commission, and the office’s director — known as the “drug czar” — would represent the president. Yet, the ONDCP post is still unfilled, despite reports that former U.S. Rep. Frank Guinta of New Hampshire was being considered for the job.

A new spending plan reported last week would cut the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s mental health block grant by $100 million in 2017. Trump’s proposed 2018 budget for HHS would cut the agency’s funding by nearly 20 percent.

Beletsky was also concerned about Sessions being involved in the commission due his skepticism about treatment and favoring a punishment system to handle the opioid crisis.

“Further, Jeff Sessions is a long-time adherent to the idea that we can arrest and punish our way out of substance misuse in this country — an idea that has been a demonstrable failure and one that has frankly brought us to where we are today,” he said.

Several experts also question the value of the commission and how its efforts could be duplicative of actions and groups already in existence.

In November, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy released the office’s first-ever report on opioids and addiction, which included tools and recommendations to combat substance abuse.

There’s also the Bipartisan Task Force for Combating the Heroin Epidemic, which was created in 2015 by Guinta and New Hampshire’s other delegate, Democrat U.S. Rep. Annie Kuster. It’s mission has transformed as the crisis evolved from just heroin to include opioids and fentanyl, but it remains a legislative approach to handling the epidemic.

“The Presidential Commission…appears to be weighed heavily towards a more partisan and more criminal justice-focused approach, in a tone set by the AG,” Beletsky said. “As far as I know, there is not one public health expert on the Commission, which is as clear signal as any that Obama Administration’s mantras of ‘public health approach’ and ‘we can’t arrest our way out of this problem’ will not find much support in this group.”

Kuster appeared supportive of Trump’s efforts to tackle the opioid crisis and create a presidential commission, but cautioned against repealing parts of the Affordable Care Act that provide support for individuals seeking substance abuse treatment.

“We also know that there is not enough capacity for those seeking treatment, and I was pleased to see that part of the Commission’s mission will be to assess the availability of substance use treatment and recovery services,” she said in a statement. “I look forward to working with the Commission and discussing how the Bipartisan Heroin Task Force can be a productive partner in the House of Representatives to advance policies to address the opioid addiction crisis.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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

For art advocates, they say their work is needed for a thriving “creative economy” in New Hampshire. Gov. Chris Sununu understands that, but apparently, President Donald Trump does not.

Members of the New Hampshire Citizens for the Arts and N.H. State Council on the Arts held a press conference Wednesday to raise awareness about the economic impact the arts has on the state and national economies and to protest Trump’s budget, which proposes defunding the National Endowment for the Arts.

“The arts are vital to a vibrant nation,” said Roger Brooks, chairman of the State Council on the Arts. “The arts enrich our souls, expand our horizons and aspirations, and identify the best within us.”

The State Arts Council was established in 1965 and is advised by a 15-member board, who are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Executive Council.

About 3,505 arts-related businesses and nonprofits in the state employ more than 10,300 people. A 2012 economic study from the Americans for the Arts of 161 nonprofit arts and cultural organizations in New Hampshire, showed a $115 million annual impact in the state. An estimated $62 million of that was spent by guests and visitors, which in turn supports more than 3,500 full-time jobs.

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and National Endowment for the Humanities receive about $150 million annually from the federal government. In the current fiscal year, the State Arts Council receives about $719,000 from the NEA, along with about $310,000 in direct state appropriation.

Ginnie Lupi, director of the State Arts Council, said they receive about 70 percent of their budget from federal funds and the elimination of that revenue stream would be “devastating.”

“It would be devastating and also from our perspective, we use those funds very consciously to really, truly underserved populations,” she told NH Journal. “All of our youth arts projects and grant making go to those kids at risk and underserved areas in New Hampshire.”

That’s the key argument for the State Arts Council and NEA. Congress has a chance to rewrite Trump’s budget, and while conservatives have traditionally called for the defunding of arts programs and public media, their funding usually stays in the budget with bipartisan support.

“We are disappointed because we see our funding actively making a difference with individuals of all ages in thousands of communities, large, small, urban and rural, and in every Congressional District in the nation,” NEA Chairman Jane Chu said in a statement after Trump revealed his budget earlier this month.

The State Arts Council is seeing more support at the state level, though.

It’s been reported that Rep. Kenneth Gidge, D-Nashua, is reaching out to other representatives to start a new House Arts Caucus.

Sununu has been supportive of their cause. He noted the importance of the arts in New Hampshire’s economy in his budget address and he increased funding for the council too.

“We are also reorganizing a new Department of Natural and Cultural Resources to create more comprehensive management and promotion of New Hampshire’s most treasured natural and cultural assets,” he said in his budget speech in February. “In doing this, we want to acknowledge the natural beauty of New Hampshire, while supporting what we call ‘the creative economy’ to, I believe, to date has been really left on the sidelines. But, it is vital to the New Hampshire advantage and something that must be supported.”

Sununu increased funding to the council by about $50,000 in the next biennium. Despite cutting several other priorities Sununu had in his budget, the House Finance Committee kept that increase in funds for the council when they voted to approve of their budget on Wednesday. The full House will vote on the budget next week.

Lupi said the money will go to fill a community arts position that’s been vacant for two-and-a-half years.

“Governor Sununu is the first governor to mention the creative economy in a budget address,” she said. “That there is a recognition that this sector of the economy exists, it’s very big in how to sustain, promote, and grow the arts.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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

The month of March hasn’t been good to Northern Pass and its parent company, Eversource. First, there were the conflicting media reports that its Canadian partner, Hydro-Québec (HQ), isn’t paying for any part of the hydroelectric transmission line in New Hampshire. Then, there were allegations that their Transmission Service Agreement (TSA) with HQ expired. Now, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) ruled against a petition filed by Eversource for a 20-year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with HQ, and there is a competing bid from a rival energy company that could give them a run for their money.

In June 2016, Eversource announced it had reached an agreement with HQ that would guarantee at least 100 megawatts of electric energy would be available to New Hampshire consumers at lower than the average market prices from the proposed Northern Pass project. Northern Pass is the controversial transmission project running 192 miles from Canada to Deerfield.

Under the terms of the proposed PPA, HQ would sell and Eversource would buy 100 megawatts of electricity and then resell it to the wholesale energy market, which would include any net gains or costs of its purchases and sales in its electric distribution rates.

The plan would have put the terms in writing that the Northern Pass project would benefit New Hampshire by ensuring 10 percent of the total 1,090 megawatts of energy would have stayed in the state. However, the PUC ruled Monday that the PPA would be against state law.

“That proposal, however, goes against the overriding principle of restructuring, which is to harness the power of competitive markets to reduce costs to consumers by separating the functions of generation, transmission, and distribution,” the ruling states. “Allowing Eversource to use the [Stranded Cost Recovery Charge] mechanism as a ratepayer financed ‘backstop’ for its proposed 20-year PPA would serve as an impermissible intermingling of a generation activity with distribution rates. We cannot approve such an arrangement under existing laws, and accordingly dismiss Eversource’s petition.”

It’s important to note that a PPA is not required for the Northern Pass project to receive the green light from the Site Evaluation Committee (SEC), which will make a final decision on it this fall.

“A Power Purchase Agreement is not a requirement of our permit process, but the PPA was proposed as a response to many, including business leaders and policy makers, who asked for a guarantee that New Hampshire, as host state of the Northern Pass project, will receive its fair share of energy from the project and economic benefits above and beyond those received by other New England states,” said Martin Murray, spokesman for Northern Pass, in an email to NH Journal.

Senate Bill 128 is being currently consider in the New Hampshire Senate and would make the restructuring law more flexible to allow the PPA. The Senate is scheduled to vote on the bill on Thursday.

“We know there is broad support in the Legislature to provide regulators with assurance that they have the authority to consider whether proposals like the PPA would be in the best interest of customers,” Murray said. “SB128, if passed into law, would provide that assurance.”

Opponents of the Northern Pass project applauded the decision saying it’s a risky project that could put ratepayers at risk.

WHO PAYS FOR PROJECT IS STILL MURKY

Eversource has also received criticism in the past few weeks over the confusion on who is ultimately paying for the Northern Pass project. Canadian media started a firestorm after HQ officials were quoted saying they would not “pay a penny” for the Northern Pass line in the United States.

HQ issued a statement saying it won’t abandon the project and that the Canadian reports were written in error.

However, the public relations clean up from HQ and Eversource was messy and left more questions than answers for concerned parties. Allegations came up that the two energy companies had an expired TSA, which is required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) before the project could be approved by the SEC and it specifies the respective rights and obligations of the parties involved in the project, including the terms for recovery of costs.

In the original TSA approved by the FERC in 2010, it states that HQ would pay for initial construction costs and Eversource has repeatedly said that New Hampshire ratepayers would not foot the bill for the project.

Yet, HQ’s recent comments about not paying for the line in the United States seem to contradict what the TSA states.

“I am concerned that the means for payment and assurance of profitability sought by HQ may have effects on the quantification of benefits of the project to the people of New Hampshire,” wrote senior assistant attorney general Peter C.L. Roth in a March 20 letter on behalf of the Counsel for the Public to Eversource.

“On numerous occasions, in the Application and accompanying testimony, the Applicants have expressly stated that HQ or one of its subsidiaries would pay for the entire costs of the line,” he added.

Marvin Bellis, senior counsel for Eversource, responded to the letter on Tuesday, which was obtained by NH Journal, stating that the TSA is still in full force, but did not directly answer Roth’s questions about the cost of the project.

“To the extent you have further questions about these issues you will be free to inquire about them during cross examination when the hearings commence in April,” he wrote. “However, as noted above, the fundamental financial structure of the Project has not changed, and you, as the Counsel for the Public, are in no different a position today vis-à-vis the TSA than you were at the time the application was filed.”

The trial-like adjudicative hearings are scheduled to begin in April and run for about 40 days before the SEC makes a decision on the application by September 31.

This spring, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is expected to seek a “request for proposals” for clean energy delivered to customers. If Eversource and HQ are successful in winning the proposal bid, they will modify the current TSA agreement or add a new one. Regardless if they get the nod or not, Eversource reiterated that New Hampshire customers would not pay for the transmission line.

However, the bill could end up being paid by Massachusetts ratepayers. HQ said its expecting Massachusetts electric companies, who in turn could call on the consumers, to pay for the line.

“We know so far with certainty that it is the electricity distribution companies of Massachusetts who will be assuming the cost of this project,” HQ spokesperson Lynn St. Laurent told Canadian-media outlet The Suburban in a March 15 report. “As for the American portion of the proposed transmission line…once again, we say that [HQ] is not paying a cent for it, whether aerial or underground.”

NATIONAL GRID ADDS PROPOSAL TO MIX

To make matters even more complicated for Northern Pass, National Grid announced Tuesday that it wants to build a power transmission project from Canada to Londonderry.

Their plan, called the Granite State Power Link, would use wind and hydroelectric energy in eastern Canada and provide 1,200 megawatts to the region. It would transmit the power along 58 miles of line in Vermont, cross the Connecticut River into Littleton, N.H., and continue for 114 miles, before terminating in Londonderry.

The project has a $1 billion price tag, and would require 6 miles of new transmission lines in New Hampshire, mostly using its existing rights-of-ways in utility corridors.

Northern Pass welcomed the new project, stating it reiterates the region’s need for more renewable energy, but National Grid seemed less optimistic about both projects succeeding.

For comparison, Northern Pass is projected to cost $1.6 billion, provide 1,090 megawatts of power and be operation in late 2019 or early 2020. It would carry hydropower from Canada and new transmission lines would need to be built and some are expected to be buried.

Republican Gov. Chris Sununu has not weighed in on the project yet.

WAITING FOR SUNUNU, LABOR UNION REACTIONS

On NHPR Tuesday morning, Sununu reiterated his support for Northern Pass, before news broke about National Grid. He said it’s a “good project” and a “needed project” in order to keep energy costs down in the state for residents and commercial industries.

Sununu has been courting businesses across the globe since he was inaugurated in January, as part of his “100 businesses in 100 days” campaign pledge to woo them to set up shop in New Hampshire. He told NHPR he has spoken to businesses in the United States, including Arizona, but he has also spoken to ones in China and Taiwan.

It’s not immediately clear if he would change his support for Northern Pass to the National Grid project.

However, labor unions representing construction workers have also indicated they support the Northern Pass project.

North America’s Building Trades Unions sent a priority list to President Donald Trump earlier this year, which included Northern Pass on it.

McClatchy reported Monday that the White House requested the list of projects, as it switches gears and gets ready to focus on infrastructure. They were seeking projects to approve that require little to no federal funding.

It’s also not immediately known which energy project labor unions in New Hampshire would support.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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

The American Health Care Act (AHCA) was pulled Friday minutes before a vote was to take place on the bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, which essentially means Obamacare is here to stay.

House Republicans were shy of the votes needed to get the legislation passed, and defections from the conservative House Freedom Caucus, whose members didn’t think the “repeal and replace” bill went far enough, put it out of reach for President Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan.

After pulling the vote, Trump said that the “best thing we can do, politically speaking, is let Obamacare explode. It’s exploding right now. Almost all states have big problems.”

With no new health care plan in the foreseeable future, there are a couple of bills that New Hampshire lawmakers are expected to revisit that would make changes to Granite Staters’ health care.

Under AHCA, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 14 million fewer people would be insured in the first year if it passed. Although it was unknown how many New Hampshire residents could have lost coverage under the plan, about 91,000 people had individual plans on the health exchanges as of February, according to state estimates. Also, 52,000 low-income people in New Hampshire who have insurance through Medicaid expansion were at risk.

It didn’t take long for the Granite State’s all-Democratic congressional delegation to praise the withdrawal of the AHCA, citing how much harm it would do to the state’s residents.

“It’s time for them to admit that while the Affordable Care Act is not perfect, it has made New Hampshire and the country healthier and is worth improving, rather than repealing,” U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen said to WMUR.

U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan also applauded the defeat of the bill.

“The failure of Trumpcare is good news for people across New Hampshire and America who would have faced higher costs for less care,” she said.

They also all said that Republicans and Democrats should work together to make improvements to former President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA).

“It’s time to have a serious discussion about improvements that can help our health care system work better for everyone,” U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter said. “There’s so much more work to do if we can put partisanship aside and work for the good of our constituents. Let’s get to work.”

Since it appears Congress isn’t going to change health care, it’s now up to the states to make changes within the scope of the ACA, and that’s what the New Hampshire Legislature will do. Leaders of each state party also seem ready to tackle Medicaid expansion with bipartisanship, yet there appears to be some disagreement over when it should get done.

Gov. Chris Sununu said he had issues with the AHCA and he wanted flexibility under the law to allow states the power to implement the policy in ways that made sense to each state. He previously supported a block grant system for Medicaid, which would have capped the federal share, letting the states decide how to spend the dollars on care.

“The bill that’s been proposed in Congress gives us concerns on a lot of different levels,” Sununu said last week. “Expanded Medicaid is part of that discussion. There’s no doubt expanded Medicaid has provided [drug] recovery, treatment options for a lot of folks that otherwise may not have had that option available.”

New Hampshire was one of 31 states that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare. Former Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan signed the plan into law in 2014 after working with Republican legislators to approve it in two-year increments. She signed the latest expansion bill in 2016. New Hampshire has more than 187,000 individuals enrolled in either traditional or expanded Medicaid, according to state health officials.

Now that block grants aren’t on the table anymore, New Hampshire lawmakers will figure out if they want to extend the program past 2018. The Senate tabled a bill last week, without debate, that would make Medicaid expansion permanent. Senate leadership said they wanted to see what happened with the AHCA before they debated Medicaid expansion in the state.

Senate Minority Leader Jeff Woodburn told NH1 News that “what we designed in a bipartisan fashion clearly has worked. Democrats are ready to move immediately.”

Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley said lawmakers shouldn’t rush into anything, especially since the New Hampshire Protection Health Program doesn’t expire until the end of next year.

“Even though the legislation in Washington was pulled and there’s no changes right now to federal guidelines for Medicaid Expansion, I think before we think about reauthorizing the current program, we need to make sure that’s exactly what’s going to happen in Washington that three or four or five months from now, they’re not coming back with a new health care bill,” Bradley told NH1 News. “If December comes and there are no changes to the ACA, that will guide us in what we’re going to do in terms of Medicaid Expansion next year. To me that’s the prudent way to do it. It’s what we did in 2016. We waited for the implementation to go forward in [2015]…So I continue to think doing it now is premature.”

Sununu has also previously indicated that he doesn’t want to continue kicking the can down the road with Medicaid expansion by renewing it every two years. He said he wants to find a long-term solution.

The right-leaning public policy group, Federalism in Action, released a 2016 study discussing the issue of long term care in New Hampshire and the challenges it will face in the future.

“New Hampshire is an apt harbinger of the country’s long-term care challenges. The state’s age 85 plus population will nearly quadruple in the next three and a half decades,” the report stated. “If its Medicaid long-term care expenditures for the elderly keep pace they’ll increase from $282 million per year to $1,047 million, more than one billion dollars every year. Sustainability at that level is highly dubious.”

It’s not immediately clear if New Hampshire lawmakers plan on taking the Medicaid expansion bill off the table in 2017 or will debate in 2018.

The N.H. Senate also tabled Senate Bill 149 last week that would allow out-of-state health insurance companies to operate in the Granite State without providing the benefits required under state law. It was tabled most likely to see what the federal government was going to do.

Significant questions still remain over what Obamacare would have in store for people with health insurance on the exchanges. Health experts are also curious about how the insurance industry will react in 2018. Will they stay or leave? What will rates be like? Minuteman Health in New Hampshire said it plans to be on the exchange in 2018, but no other health insurer has yet to say it would remain in the state.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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

A Democratic member of the Federal Election Commission isn’t going to let President Donald Trump go without providing evidence that there was voter fraud during the 2016 presidential election in New Hampshire.

In yet another letter to Trump, FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub is asking Trump to provide proof of his claim that thousands of Democratic Massachusetts residents were bused to the Granite State on election day to illegally vote against him.

“This allegation of a vast conspiracy, involving thousands of people committing felony criminal acts aimed at stealing the election, has deeply disturbed citizens throughout America,” she wrote in a Wednesday letter. “I have heard from many of them, including proud and patriotic New Englanders who are shocked by the allegation and feel that it impugns their historic role in our democracy.”

She also called on Trump in February to provide evidence for his voter fraud claim.

This latest letter adds fuel to the fire of what’s already been a heated debate between Republicans and Democrats in New Hampshire when it comes to the state’s election laws. In fact, the Senate is close to voting on a major bill that would close several of the state’s voting law loopholes, according to Republicans.

The legend of Massachusetts voters busing into the Granite State to cast a ballot in our elections is not a new tale, but here’s a quick timeline of events that led to this sweeping legislation:

• A few weeks after the election, when Trump defeated Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, he tweeted, “Serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California — so why isn’t the media reporting on this? Serious bias — big problem!” Trump won the Electoral College, but lost New Hampshire to Clinton by about 2,700 votes.
• Before Trump’s tweet, and about a week before the election, then-Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Sununu, told radio host Howie Carr that Democrats abuse New Hampshire’s same-day voter registration, and “when Massachusetts elections are not very close, they’re busing them in all over the place.” Politifact rated his claim as “Pants on Fire.”
• This led to backlash from Granite State officials, including the state’s attorney general and secretary of state’s offices, who wanted to quell fears that New Hampshire elections are illegitimate.
• After the election, Sununu said he was not aware of any “specific evidence of voter fraud.”

Yet, it didn’t stop there. Trump kept talking about voter fraud even after his presidential inauguration.

• During a closed-door meeting between Trump, former N.H. Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte, and 10 other senators to discuss U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, Trump reportedly started the meeting by discussing the election and voter fraud.  He claimed that he and Ayotte would have both won in the Granite State if not for the “thousands” of people who were “brought in on buses” from Massachusetts to “illegally” vote in New Hampshire.
• Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to Trump, made the claim again in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.” He said: “This issue of busing voters in to New Hampshire is widely known by anyone who’s worked in New Hampshire politics. It’s very real, it’s very serious.”
• Even recently, in a TIME Magazine interview published Thursday, Trump stood by his claim that three million undocumented people voted in the national election. He said: “Well now if you take a look at the votes, when I say that, I mean mostly they register wrong, in other words, for the votes, they register incorrectly, and or/illegally. And they then vote. You have tremendous numbers of people. In fact I’m forming a committee on it.”

Many Republicans and Democrats are upset that Trump is pushing a false narrative and is making people question the integrity of the democratic voting process. However, his statement perfectly illustrates what his supporters and several Republicans believe is the problem with election laws in New Hampshire: The current laws make it difficult to charge anyone with voter fraud because what’s legal here is usually illegal in another state.

Are there lots of illegal votes in NH? No.

Are there lot of legal votes from people who have no business voting in NH? Yes. #nhpolitics

— Greg Moore (@GregMooreNH) November 28, 2016

Hence, Senate Bill 3, which was introduced by Sen. Regina Birdsell, R-Hampstead, to address a lot of those concerns. Of course, the bill is divided on party lines — it’s cheered by Republicans who say they are trying to tighten the process and ensure that those who vote in New Hampshire actually live in New Hampshire and criticized by Democrats who say the bill is a form of voter suppression.

One of the issues it focuses on is the definition of domicile, which varies from state to state, and the New Hampshire Legislature is trying to better define the difference between “domicile” and “residence” in this bill. Under current laws, the definition of domicile is “that place, to which upon temporary absence, a person has the intention of returning.” Republicans think that’s vague and allows campaign workers, who might be in the state for a month or so, to vote in New Hampshire, even if they plan on leaving after the election.

An incident occurred in the 2008 and 2012 elections when Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, D-Portsmouth, allowed Democratic staffers to live at her home. The staffers used her address to vote in the election, and since they were living in the state for at least three months before the election, the Attorney General ruled that it was legal.

Under the new bill, a person who registers to vote within 30 days of an election or on Election Day must show verification that a New Hampshire address is his or her domicile. That can be done by showing proof of residency at a college or university, driver’s license, utility bill, among other forms. Those who do not show documentation can still register and vote by filling out a domicile affidavit and registration form, and provide the documentation within 10 or 30 days of Election Day, depending on the community. Someone could get charged with voter fraud if they fail to provide a document verifying his or her domicile within that window.

A previous version of the bill called for police officer to knock on doors to verify a voter’s domicile, but that provision was taken out this week. The bill still allows municipal officials to visit those addresses or ask “agents” to do so.

The Senate Election Law Committee recommended Tuesday in favor of the bill by a 3-2 vote on party lines and it now heads to the full Senate for a vote.

Adding to the controversy, the Attorney General’s office recently said investigations into thousands of affidavit voters who cast ballots in New Hampshire without identification during the 2012 and 2014 election cycles have been dropped due to the lack of manpower and money to complete the investigations.

How can the Attorney General and Secretary of State’s office say there is no evidence of voter fraud if they aren’t investigating every potential violation? That’s what Republicans are asking.

Sununu’s budget didn’t fulfill the attorney general’s request for roughly $93,000 annually to hire a full-time elections investigator. A Senate bill would provide about $500,000 to the Attorney General’s office for with focus on elections, lobbying, and campaign finance law. That bill passed the Senate and is now in the House Finance Committee.

“No matter how you change it, there is not a problem in the state of New Hampshire,” said Senate Democratic Leader Jeff Woodburn. “There’s been a ruse of illegal voting, and Trump buses, and all of this business. This is nothing but a concerted national attempt to suppress voting and harass voters.”

“This is not national trend legislation,” Birdsell said this week. “This is homegrown here. It is something that is trying to address what some of our constituents are looking for.”

The debate on this bill, and the discussion of voter fraud in New Hampshire, is far from over.

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.

When it comes to Medicaid expansion in New Hampshire, Gov. Chris Sununu is in a tight spot. It’s not just him, actually. A lot of Republican governors across the country are having a difficult time figuring out how to balance the “repeal and replace” rhetoric on Obamacare within their party, while also seeking to protect certain provisions of the health care law, like Medicaid, that help the residents of their states.

It’s a balancing act that Sununu, the first GOP governor in the Granite State in 12 years, waded into last week. He said in its current form, he’s not “signing on” to the House Republicans’ American Health Care Act due to his concerns over Medicaid funding and coverage.

“The bill that’s been proposed in Congress gives us concerns on a lot of different levels,” Sununu said on Tuesday. “Expanded Medicaid is part of that discussion. There’s no doubt expanded Medicaid has provided [drug] recovery, treatment options for a lot of folks that otherwise may not have had that option available.”

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that $880 million less in federal money would be spent on Medicaid over the next decade. The Republican plan phases out the program by 2020 with states receiving funding for existing expansion recipients as long as they maintain continuous Medicaid coverage.

The Medicaid provisions in the Republican’s bill are reigniting a longstanding debate between conservatives and moderates of the party. Conservatives are critical of the program’s cost and performance, while moderates are worried that cuts to the program will result in a loss of funds in their state’s budget, leaving patients without help.

Sununu falls into the latter category. He has previously indicated his support for Medicaid expansion, yet doesn’t want to make the program permanent. He’s waiting to see how the Medicaid battle plays out in Congress before taking any action in the state.

New Hampshire was one of 31 states that expanded Medicaid under former President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act. Former Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan, now a U.S. senator for the state, signed the plan into law in 2014 after working with Republican legislators to approve it in two-year increments. She signed the latest expansion bill in 2016, with the program scheduled to expire at the end of 2018. New Hampshire has more than 187,000 individuals enrolled in either traditional or expanded Medicaid, according to state health officials.

During Sununu’s 2016 gubernatorial bid, he said extending the state’s Medicaid program until 2018 was “probably a good step forward,” but lawmakers shouldn’t keep doing it every two years.

“I like the idea that we’re moving forward without any tax payer burden, any tax burden on the taxpayers back,” he told NH1 News in February 2016. “We have essentially a public-private partnership helping to fund it as we move forward, and those are very positive steps. What I would like to see is a long term strategy for this state, not simply taking it in two- or four- year chunks.”

Democrats attempted to paint him as opposing Medicaid expansion because of his 2014 Executive Council vote against a $292 million state contract to implement Medicaid expansion. However, the item was added to the agenda at the last minute and he tried unsuccessfully for a two-week delay to fully understand the contract. He said the council shouldn’t vote on something that hasn’t been read thoroughly.

Yet, throughout the campaign, he was ambiguous about his plans for the future of Medicaid in New Hampshire. He didn’t indicate if he was supportive of extending past 2018 or would support an outright repeal of the program.

Those in New Hampshire who were concerned about Medicaid’s future were also not consoled by a letter Sununu sent to Congressional GOP leadership in January. With Republican President Donald Trump in the White House and GOP majorities in the U.S. House and Senate, it appeared that the repeal of Obamacare was imminent.

As a result, Sununu sent a letter to U.S. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, urging Congress to give states as much flexibility as possible to design their own health care systems.

“We urge Congress to untie the hands of the States,” he wrote in the letter. “Let us have the flexibility to design a New Hampshire system for New Hampshire citizens.”

However, his letter left out any mention or comment on Medicaid expansion.

It wasn’t until February that Sununu became more clear on what he thinks about the program. He said “there’s no doubt that it’s [Medicaid expansion] been helpful.”

“It was a price tag of somewhere between $400 and $500 million,” he told NHPR. “We’ve been able to do it to date without a single New Hampshire taxpayer dollar. No state taxes go into it.”

Later that month, he expanded on what he wanted to see from Medicaid in the GOP’s health care plan.

“When we hear the term block grants coming out of Washington, especially with healthcare, the opportunities are tremendous for us,” he said at a meeting of the Concord Chamber of Commerce. “We spend tens of millions of dollars on the state level on things we simply don’t need. So give us a block grant.”

When Republicans initially rolled out their health care plan, block grants weren’t included. The House plan focused on paying states a fixed per-capita amount to cover their population based on their average expenses, but a Republican amendment to the bill allowed the option for states to choose a Medicaid block grant in lieu of the capped reimbursement model.

Under current health care laws, when an eligible person enrolls in Medicaid there are matching federal funds to ensure that they get care. The block grant proposal caps that federal share, letting states decide how to spend the dollars on care. However, many health care professionals say capping Medicaid funding in block grants could hurt access to quality health care for the poor, children, and elderly by cutting the amount of federal dollars available.

It’s not immediately clear if Sununu approves of the most recent, updated version of the American Health Care Act, but Sununu said he would work with Trump to to ensure that the bill gives states the opportunity to create “flexible” and “nimble” health care program.

Democrats in the state, including Hassan, believe block grants would fail to sustain the expanded Medicaid program. It’s a position that’s shared with many advocacy groups, including AARP, which released a “fact sheet” last week about how changing Medicaid to a block grant or per capita cap could hurt New Hampshire residents.

“The House bill will impact health care seriously, but what it would do to Medicaid expansion … it would in fact repeal it,” Hassan said at a press conference last week. “That [block grants] will make health insurance out of reach for thousands of Granite Staters, and it hurts the ability of those on the front lines to save lives and fight this [opioid] epidemic.”

New Hampshire has one of the highest drug overdose death rates in the country. Nearly 500 people died from drug overdoses in 2016 and approximately 6,000 Medicaid expansion recipients have accessed treatment, state health officials said.

Sununu, and other state Republican leaders, believe block grants will allow them to allocate the money to places that need it most, such as towns hardest hit by the opioid crisis. Yet, some policy experts argue that block grants will severely strain state budgets and leave states vulnerable when they have to deal with unexpected issues, like drug outbreaks that raise the average cost of treating individual patients.

Sununu said he has spoken with Trump and Vice President Mike Pence about the importance of Medicaid with treatment and recovery for the opioid crisis, and how that requirement should continue under the GOP plan.

The N.H. Senate tabled a bill Thursday, without debate, that would make Medicaid expansion permanent. The senators said they wanted to wait to see what will happen at the national level before they tackle it in the state.

As conservatives and moderates battle it out on Medicaid provisions in the GOP health care bill, it appears New Hampshire, and Sununu, will wait for the dust to settle.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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

Two appointees to President Donald Trump’s administration, who are also New Hampshire residents, were in the spotlight this past week, being criticized for their lack of experience to hold the positions.

For one of the appointees, controversial Twitter posts resulted in his dismissal from the federal government.

Greentech Media first reported on Friday that Trump appointed a massage therapist from New Hampshire with no apparent relevant experience to work at the Department of Energy (DOE). However, after a series of anti-Muslim social media posts on his Twitter account were revealed, the department “parted company with the employee Friday.”

Sid Bowdidge received a nameplate and worked in the director’s office of the DOE’s Office of Technology Transitions (OTT), but it was not clear exactly when he started or what his job would be. OTT specializes in guiding research developed at the national labs into the private sector, where apparently Bowdidge did not have any experience.

A former special adviser to OTT, Teryn Norris told Greentech Media about the tension felt by some still working for the agency.

“What’s in question here is not just the integrity of federal institutions and respect for professional civil servants, but basic stewardship of taxpayer-funded programs,” Norris said. “It’s one thing to recruit former campaign staff into roles focused on scheduling and communications. It’s quite another to install a campaign staffer with zero relevant expertise into an oversight or coordination function for a multimillion-dollar office dealing with the commercialization of advanced technologies. Given Secretary Perry’s stated commitment to supporting energy technology commercialization, I imagine he will want well-qualified professionals to manage offices like the Office of Technology Transitions.”

Bowdidge previously volunteered for the Trump campaign and was quoted in an NBC News report for attending a debate watch party in Trump’s New Hampshire campaign office where he was described as a “massage therapist from Bedford.”

DOE employees became upset by Bowdidge’s posts on his Twitter account, which was reportedly made private sometime on Friday. He accused former President Barack Obama of having terrorist “relatives” and posted anti-Muslim views, Greentech Media reported.

In a tweet on Dec. 6, 2015, he wrote that “Obama won’t use the term radical Islam because they’re his relatives!!!!” A day later, he replied to a CNN tweet that included a picture of the suspected San Bernardino shooters, writing, “Scum sucking maggots of the world. Exterminate them all.”

A week later, Bowdidge replied to a person he was having a dispute with that he “wouldn’t say that if it was your wife, sister or family member that was murdered by some Muslim piece of shit.”

DOE officials confirmed that he is no longer with the agency.

“Normally, we do not comment on personnel matters,” said Bob Hause, a DOE spokesman. “In this case, we can confirm that Sid Bowdidge is no longer employed at the Department of Energy.”

POLITICO also reported on the controversy surrounding Bowdidge and that some DOE staffers said they were concerned about his social media posts.

“Every time there’s a new political that comes in, we’re all ‘Who is this guy? What’s his background?’” a career staffer told POLITICO. “This person’s in charge of, theoretically, overseeing the policy around commercializing billions of dollars of federal research. This guy seems like he’s pretty far out and we just don’t know. It looks like sort of a ridiculous appointment.”

Former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz launched OTT in 2015 to help address the disconnect and bureaucratic hurdles the office had in getting its research from its national labs into the public marketplace.

Bowdidge is not the only one of Trump’s appointees to be called out for controversial social media accounts. Several Trump appointees in the Education Department have reportedly shared their “unfiltered views” about women, African Americans, and transgender people, among others.

Just last week, Trump adviser Roger Stone was suspended from Twitter for calling a woman a “stupid, stupid b*tch” and saying CNN commentator Anna Navarro is “fat, stupid and f*cking Al Cardenas.”

The other one of Trump’s appointees from New Hampshire was criticized last week for his young age in working for the federal government.

The investigative journalism site ProPublica reported on Wednesday that of the approximately 400 individuals whom Trump appointed to the executive branch that don’t need Senate confirmation, several include “obscure campaign staffers, contributors to Breitbart and others who have embraced conspiracy theories.” ProPublica also says several of the appointees include Washington insiders who could technically be considered a part of the “swamp” that Trump pledged to drain.

Part of the investigative journalism site’s records dump included information about Danny Tiso, who is listed as a special assistant to the secretary of the Labor Department.

His LinkedIn page, reportedly, identified him graduating from high school in 2015, although the page no longer lists that. His account lists that he worked for the Trump campaign in New Hampshire as an event coordinator. His most recent position lists him as an assistant site lead for the Presidential Inaugural Committee.

Slate, an online liberal publication, was quick to jump on the the fact that Tiso could have just graduated high school and did some digging to prove that fact.

They found a 2014 internship announcement suggesting he would not have been a senior until the 2015-2016 academic year. He could have graduated early though, since a February 2016 Nashua Telegraph article identifies him as a former high school student. He also, reportedly, made the 6th grade school honor roll.

New Hampshire liberal blogger Dean Barker tweeted about the ProPublica article and pointed to an article in Amherst Today that talked about a Trump rally held before the first-in-the-nation primary from a student’s perspective. It was reported that Tiso, who was an alum of Souhegan High School, asked some of his fellow students to leave the rally.

“While Trump told the crowd he loved his protestors, the protestors would beg to differ. Rachael Facey, Seth Facey, Isabel Cullen, and Hannah Rowe, all current Souhegan students, attended the rally for informational purposes, yet were asked to leave by former Souhegan student and Trump campaign worker Danny Tiso,” the article stated.

Alex Tucci, who was a field representative for former Republican Rep. Frank Guinta during his 2016 campaign, tweeted back at Barker asking him why he was age discriminating Tiso.

.@deanbarker why are you discriminating against someone based on their age? Sad!

— Alex Tucci (@TucciNH) March 8, 2017

Although Barker never said Tiso was unqualified for his position within the Trump administration, he alluded that maybe he should have a college degree.

@TucciNH You are very defensive about a charge I didn't make. Why is that? Does he have a position that typically requires a college degree?

— Dean Barker (@deanbarker) March 8, 2017

Shaun Doherty, a former state representative, also came to Tiso’s defense saying “college is overrated, expensive” and has become a part of “SJW [Social Justice Warrior] nonsense.”

@deanbarker @TucciNH Doubt it requires anything and I really don't care. Most successful people I know don't have college degrees

— Shaun Doherty (@SDohertyNH) March 8, 2017

In a statement to NH Journal, Doherty said Tiso was “one of the most effective Trump staffers in New Hampshire.”

“It’s great to have a local person working in a federal department with the new administration in Washington,” he said. “Danny is smart beyond his years, and has always conducted himself in a professional manner. We have many elected officials in our legislature who are around Danny’s age, In fact, I was elected to the state legislature at the same age he currently is. It’s always nice to have diversity of age and background in our government. I’m glad to see Danny has earned this opportunity to help make America great again.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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