inside sources print logo
Get up to date New Hampshire news in your inbox

Senate Passes State Budget, But There Could Be Trouble Ahead in the House

In a 10-hour marathon session, the Republican-led Senate approved an $11.8 billion state budget, defeating all Democratic attempts to increase spending in mental health, social services, and education. The budget ultimately passed on a 14-9 party line vote.

The spending plan changed very little from what the Senate Finance Committee put forward, but concerns and praise for the budget fell on party lines. Republicans applauded the money going to help the mental health crisis in the state, but Democrats disagree, saying the budget doesn’t fund critical social services.

Some of the budget’s highlights include expanding mental health treatment beds, creating a new student scholarship program, and cutting the state’s business taxes.

“What we’ve developed is a budget that serves the citizens of New Hampshire, but lives within our means,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Gary Daniels. “I believe we have achieved an appropriate balance between the two and we’ve done a lot to get us to this point.”

Democrats put forward more than two dozen amendments to increase funding for child protective services, adding nurses to New Hampshire Hospital, making Medicaid expansion permanent, funding full-day kindergarten, and increasing the budget for the state university system. They argue that the state can spend an additional $45 million since the budget’s revenue estimates are too low.

“It creates an artificial, trumped-up surplus to sell the biggest Republican ruse of all, that slashing taxes for the rich will grow revenues and improve lives for poor, middle-class people,” said Senate Minority Leader Jeff Woodburn.

“I recognize and respect my colleagues who think it’s not enough or some would suggest even never enough, but on the other hand, Mr. President, you know there are people like me who are always very concerned that maybe it’s always too much,” responded Sen. Andy Sanborn, R-Bedford.

On a few amendments, a couple of GOP senators sided with Democrats, but it was not enough for the measure to be adopted. For example, Republican Sens. Sanborn and Ruth Ward of Stoddard voted with Democrats to roll back proposed health care premium increases for state retirees, but it failed on a 12-11 vote. In another 12-11 vote, GOP Sens. Regina Birdsell of Hampstead and Harold French of Franklin voted with Democrats to add $6 million in additional education aid grants to public schools, but that measure also failed.

Heated debate between the two parties occurred, as expected, on the business tax cuts in the budget blueprint. An old debate flared up over abortion policy, though, when an eleventh-hour Republican amendment was introduced to block state and federal funds from going to centers that offer abortion services.

“This is about controlling women’s health choices, plain and simple, and this is about merging church and state,” said Sen. Martha Hennessy, D-Hanover.

Tensions remained high as Sen. Kevin Avard, R-Nashua, raised his voice in response to Hennessy.

“Forcing people to violate their conscience with their tax dollars, that is hateful,” he said. “I challenge anyone in here to tell me in any constitution where I am forced to pay for somebody’s abortion, show it to me.”

Hennessy said the amendment was an attack on her rights, while Republicans argue it’s just codifying what’s already happening.

“Could you imagine the men in this room if we snuck in some amendment about how the government shouldn’t pay for Viagra?” Hennessey said.

The amendment ultimately failed, 17-6. Democrats also tried unsuccessfully to eliminate a reference to the so-called Hyde Amendment that outlaws spending public dollars on abortions, in order to prevent any future cuts to Planned Parenthood.

With the Senate’s approval, the biennium budget is sent to the GOP-led House. Yet, there are some concerns from conservatives who are threatening to oppose the plan because it spends too much. The chamber is likely to call for a conference committee of senators and representatives to compromise on various issues within the budget, despite the House failing to pass their own plan earlier this year.

Red flags that House conservatives were not entirely pleased with the budget were first raised during a Tuesday budget information session.

“I’m opposed to this budget as it currently stands, and I am going to work to defeat it,” said Rep. James McConnell, R-North Swanzey, who is also a member of the House Freedom Caucus.

The House Freedom Caucus helped sink the chamber’s budget this year, making it the first time since at least 1969 that the House failed to produce a spending plan.

Yet, it’s still too early to tell if the caucus will try to defeat the Senate budget. In an interview with New Hampshire Public Radio, Rep. J.R. Hoell, R-Dunbarton, and co-chair of the House Freedom Caucus, said the Senate proposal is an improvement.

“They’ve made some great changes in terms of improvements — cutting the business taxes is a good example, funding the charter schools is another good example, so there are positive steps forward,” he said. “Some of us are still concerned that it spends more than we’re comfortable with and that’s…put us in a stalemate almost. The overall increase in government size is bigger than a number of us are conformable with.”

Hoell sent an email to caucus members after a meeting this week, saying the group is hopeful that their needs will be met in the conference committee.

Republicans only hold a slim majority in the House and a handful of defections could defeat the budget if Democrats also oppose it. They have largely criticized the GOP-budget, but some could side with Republicans out of fear of not getting anything passed.

The budget process needs to be over by June 30 before the start of the next fiscal year. If a budget is not passed by then, lawmakers would need to pass a continuing resolution, which would fund the government at its current levels until a full budget is passed.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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

Progressive Outside Groups Weigh In on New Hampshire Voting Rights Bill

Outside groups often funnel money into states during an election, but many New Hampshire residents were probably hoping it would be some time before they again face the onslaught of more political ads. Yet, two progressive groups are currently spending money in New Hampshire, trying to influence how lawmakers decide on a voting rights bill that would tighten the state’s voter ID and registration laws.

The latest group, Let America Vote, made a five-figure digital ad buy in the Granite State at the end of March targeting Sen. Kevin Avard, R-Nashua, to change his vote on Senate Bill 3.

Senate Bill 3 was introduced by Sen. Regina Birdsell, R-Hampstead, to address concerns that due to New Hampshire’s “lax” voting laws, people who aren’t living in the state, or are only temporarily here, are voting in New Hampshire elections. Republicans want to tighten the process, but Democrats have dubbed the bill as a form of voter suppression. The Senate passed the bill on March 30 on a party line vote, 14-9, with Avard voting for the legislation.

The bill tackles the complex issue of “domicile” versus “residence.” 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 want to make clear who can and cannot vote in the state.

Democrats are pushing the narrative that the bill would prevent college students and military members who are “temporarily” in the state from voting in elections when it’s their right to cast their ballot. That’s the message Let America Vote wants residents to hear, so they can encourage their lawmakers from moving the bill forward.

Republican lawmakers and New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Jeanie Forrester are pushing back, saying it will not stop college students or military members from voting.

Let America Vote is a new group that formed in February 2017 under the leadership of Jason Kander. The former Democratic Senate candidate gave Republican U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt a run for his money in the Missouri Senate race, which was one of the most watched races in the country. Blunt beat Kander — 49.2 to 46.4 percent.

Kander didn’t stay quiet after losing the election, though. With his new organization, he focuses on states that are trying to suppress voting rights.

Let America Vote recently announced they were launching three new voting rights ads in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District special election, in Virginia to oppose a Republican plan to overturn Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s veto of a bill that would require a photo copy of a state-issued ID included with absentee ballots, and in New Hampshire to oppose SB 3, “which could strip voting rights from college students and would allow elections officers to visit people’s homes to check in on residents just because they voted.”

Kander penned an op-ed for The Nashua Telegraph on Sunday, writing that Republicans are trying to suppress Democratic voters so they can win in future elections.

“For decades, some Republicans across the country have gotten away with passing deliberate voter suppression laws by rebranding them as efforts to fight against voter fraud,” he wrote. “There is more to this agenda than simply suppressing the vote. Not coincidentally, Republicans are pushing this bill just months after New Hampshire Democrats won both a U.S. Senate seat and the presidential vote in the 2016 election. Senate Bill 3 will tip the scales against Democrats where they’ve have won by razor-thin margins.”

Yet, it’s been noted by several right-wing bloggers and members of State House press corp that progressive outside groups seem to be very interested in this bill. New Hampshire Democrats often decry when outside money for Republicans pour into the state, but now, they have publicly applauded these groups focused on voting rights.

Priorities USA, a pro-Democratic group, launched digital ads earlier in March targeting Republican senators on the Election Law Committee to defeat the bill before it went to the Senate.

The ads targeted Sen. James Gray, R-Rochester and Sen. Andy Sanborn, R-Bedford, both cosponsors of the bill, and Birdsell, author of the bill and chair of the committee.

“Hmmm — liberal Democrats from outside New Hampshire trying to influence the outcome of our democratic process. Sounds familiar,” said NHGOP senior adviser Patrick Hynes to WMUR when Priorities USA launched their ads.

Priorities USA is known nationally for its focus on voting rights. The fundraising arm of the organization, Priorities USA Action, was the top super PAC supporting Democratic president candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016 and was the main money driver for former President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign.

The group also said it urged voters to call N.H. House Speaker Shawn Jasper’s office about voting rights.

The bill now moves to the House Election Law Committee, which will hear public testimony again before the bill moves on to the full House for a vote. It can be expected that these outside groups, and possibly others, will also continue their campaign to kill the bill.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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

NH Senate Bill Seeks to Get More People Off Food Stamps

A bill seeking to change the requirements to receive food stamps in New Hampshire could be much needed reform for the welfare system or would prevent about 17,000 people from getting food assistance. It just depends on who’s talking.

Senate Bill 7 was introduced by Sen. Kevin Avard, R-Nashua, on Tuesday in front of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, and includes key provisions such as requiring the state’s Department of Health and Human Services to use federal limits to evaluate families for food stamp eligibility and requiring individuals to pay child support if they receive food stamps.

“It’s time for this reform to take place,” Avard said. “Food stamp programs have outpaced job programs. We need to get people back into the workforce. The intent of this legislation is to strengthen New Hampshire’s food stamp program so that it can remain solvent for those who truly need the benefits for years to come. By requiring an asset test, we are protecting those most in need be ensuring precious resources are not being diverted to those who do not need assistance.”

Avard is especially passionate about the child support provision, because he said it personally affects his family. He said his daughter is owed $29,000 in child support.

“That affects my grandchildren,” Avard said. “We need to reverse that trend, we need to support the parents that have dependent children. Our children deserve better.”

Democratic Sen. Martha Fuller-Clark questioned the child support provision and how the state would force noncustodial parents to pay the money.The bill would require individuals to cooperate with the Division of Child Support Services, and custodial parents who seek food stamp assistance would have to identify the noncustodial parent.

Opponents find fault with the child support provision, but they also say the state’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is already very precise, not easily abused, and the bill would target families who are working but are struggling to pay their bills.

“(Senate Bill) 7 is directed at struggling working poor families with children,” said Sarah Mattson Dustin, policy director for New Hampshire Legal Assistance. “They’re working, but they still can’t make ends meet with the high cost of basic needs. The need for food is the most basic of human needs.”

She said the law would make it difficult for people to qualify for food stamps if they have a gross family income greater than 130 percent of the federal poverty level — or $2,184 a month for a family of three. The federal government pays for SNAP benefits, but New Hampshire covers 50 percent of the administrative costs of the program.

The bill would also get rid of “expanded categorical eligibility,” a mechanism within the law that allows for families who make more than income limit to receive food assistance, but still have enough expenses for services like child care that if factored into the formula, would qualify them for food stamps. Opponents said striking that provision would negatively affect the families and children on welfare.

The Granite State’s expanded categorical eligibility differs from many states because in order to qualify for that, they must have children.

Sam Adolphsen, commissioner of finance for Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services, said he supports the bill since the neighboring state has a similar law on the books.

“Welfare for able-bodied adults should be temporary and they shouldn’t rely on taxpayers,” he testified. “Those who can go to work should work.”

Maine’s food assistance law, passed under Republican Gov. Paul LePage, also includes work and volunteer requirements. Adolphsen said the state has led the country in getting people off food stamps and into a job.

“They didn’t just disappear,” he said. “They went to work. A job truly lifted them out of poverty.”

However, a report by the Portland Press Herald found that even though there are fewer people on food stamps, the state received approximately $155 million in federal food assistance funds that it is not spending, and is trying to divert to programs to help the elderly.

The number of children who receive food assistance has dropped from 22,425 in 2012 to 8,461 in 2016, according to the Press Herald. Yet, there are still 19,000 kids living in extreme poverty.

Also, the Good Shepherd Food Bank, Maine’s largest hunger relief organization, released a study earlier this month titled, “Hunger Pains: Widespread food insecurity threatens Maine’s future,” which doesn’t paint a rosy picture on the current state of poverty in the state.

The New Hampshire Food Bank said if the bill was passed, they wouldn’t be able to keep up with the demand of food. Even though less people would technically be on food stamps, Eileen Groll Liponis, executive director of the Food Bank, said she is concerned that cities and towns would need to foot the bill for food assistance as more families turn to local food pantries for help.

“We…are unable to handle the anticipated (food) poundage this bill would create,” she said. “That would take power to buy food away for so many.”

The bill does have the potential to make its way to the governor’s desk. Most of the Republican leadership in the Legislature supports it, including Senate President Chuck Morse, Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, who is also chair of the health and human services committee, and House Speaker Shawn Jasper.

Before the start of the legislative session, Jasper said he wanted to do something with welfare reform.

“There’s a lot more to do in the area of welfare reform, and we’re looking forward potentially to block grants coming from Washington that will take some of the strings off,” he told NH1 News in December. “There are a lot of things that we can do to actually save the taxpayers money now that we have control and do it in a way that takes care of the neediest people in the state but makes sure that the scams are kept to a minimum.”

 

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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