#

During a conspiracy-spinning interview with radio host Jack Heath Tuesday retired Brig. Gen. Donald Bolduc called fellow Republican Chris Sununu a “Chinese Communist sympathizer” whose family business “supports terrorism,” and claimed he drove the governor from the U.S. Senate race.

“I derailed Gov. Sununu from running for Senate,” Bolduc said. “Let’s face it — the most powerful political family in New Hampshire made a decision not to run against a political outsider for the United States Senate.

“We ran a Sun Tzu-like campaign that brought to the forefront all of his flaws for serving at the national level as a U.S. Senator. And he surprised all of his supporters because in the 11th hour, he looked at the polls and there was no guarantee could beat Bolduc. And he can’t afford a loss based on his future ambitions in the political arena.”

A UNH Survey Center poll released in October found that while Sununu led Sen. Maggie Hassan 45-42 percent, Bolduc trails her 47-42 percent.

Bolduc also called Sununu a “Chinese Communist sympathizer” who’s “in business with Saudi Arabian companies that give money to terrorists. He’s a globalist world-government guy.”

While some of Bolduc’s rhetoric appears to be motivated by personal anger at Sununu’s unwillingness to back him in last year’s Senate primary, the retired general has embraced conspiracy theories as a central part of his campaign.

Bolduc is touting Trump’s fact-free claims about the Biden campaign stealing the 2020 presidential campaign.

Bolduc was also one of 124 retired generals and admirals who released a letter in May claiming the election was rigged in Biden’s favor. And his most recent campaign event headlined disgraced former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

“He was a lousy candidate when he was sane,” one NHGOP insider told NHJournal. “Running as a lunatic isn’t much of an improvement.”

Gov. Chris Sununu’s decision to ditch Washington and run for a fourth term in the Granite State has political Twitter buzzing. Some tweeters are trying to figure out why, some are looking at the impact of Sununu’s bow out, and others are looking at what could happen next.

The New York Times’ Shane Goldmacher said Sununu’s decision not to run could be one of the biggest stories for the upcoming mid-term elections.

The news did not seem to go over well in Sen. Mitch McConnell’s circle. The Senate minority leader heavily recruited Sununu for months. Here’s McConnell’s former campaign manager, Josh Holmes, shortly after Sununu’s announcement. (Holmes co-hosts the popular “Ruthless” podcast, and Sununu was a featured guest over the summer.)

Fox New’s Laura Ingraham said no one should have been shocked, and blamed McConnell and other establishment Republicans.

The liberal magazine, The New Republic, echoed Sununu’s views on life in the U.S. Senate.

Dave Weigel, a Washington Post reporter, seemed to like Sununu’s path.

Raw Story’s Matthew Chapman blamed McConnell for botching the recruit.

New Hampshire Bulletin’s Annmarie Timmins raised a possible presidential run.

CNN’s Dan Merica took note of how Sununu made the announcement: By going after Washington.

The decision is good for the state Republicans, according to Chaz Nuttycombe with CNalysis.

Kyle Kondik with Sabato’s Crystal Ball sees it ultimately helping Hassan.

Speculation as to who might jump into the race is getting heated up and Drew Nirenberg, the communications director for Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, threw out a new name.

As New Hampshire Democrats continue to deny that Critical Race Theory curriculum has made its way into Granite State classrooms, Republicans are targeting Sen. Maggie Hassan’s vote against banning funding of the radical, race-based content in classrooms.

“Critical Race Theory, and its destructive elements seeping into our public education system, has become a hot issue in school boards and statewide races across the country,” the National Republican Senatorial Committee said in a press release Thursday.

“In August of 2021, Democrats had the chance to join Republicans and vote for an amendment that would ‘prevent federal funds from being used to promote Critical Race Theory in prekindergarten, elementary, and secondary schools, and they all voted against it.”

The vote occurred during the so-called “vote-a-rama” as part of the budget reconciliation process allowing Democrats to pass President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion COVID-19 spending plan without any negotiations across the aisle or any votes from the GOP.

New Hampshire Sens. Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen joined their fellow Democrats in voting down the CRT ban.

“Liberals have tried their best to say the controversy is fake, made up, a conspiracy theory, contrary to reality,” the NRSC said.

That’s certainly been the case in New Hampshire, where progressive state Rep. David Meuse (D-Portsmouth) attacked NHJournal for a news report on CRT-based content in classrooms from Manchester to Laconia to Litchfield.

“The partisan hackery of  @NewHampJournal needs to be called out,” Meuse tweeted. “It’s a GOP propaganda machine—not a legitimate news source. What should be called out is veiled racism of those who think teaching kids about racism has no place in NH schools.”

New Hampshire Democratic Party chairman Ray Buckley retweeted the attack.

(The news article in question, which includes links to CRT-based classroom materials and actual images of handouts for elementary school students, can be found here.)

The use of CRT-based content is not in dispute among serious education scholars or mainstream media outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post.

On Thursday, the Times’ Ross Douthat called out Democrats’ hollow claim that Critical Race Theory as an academic premise isn’t being taught in k-12 schools. “Yes, fourth graders in the Commonwealth of Virginia are presumably not being assigned the academic works of Derrick Bell,” he conceded.

But he argues this is no defense of the race-based, anti-White propaganda from CRT proponents like Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi that has become common in classrooms.

For example, “the racial-equity reading list sent around in 2019 by one state educational superintendent which recommended both DiAngelo’s ‘White Fragility’ and an academic treatise titled ‘Foundations of Critical Race Theory in Education.’

‘That superintendent was responsible for Virginia’s public schools,” Douthat noted.

A national Rasmussen survey of 1,000 American adults found  57 percent said parents should be concerned about Critical Race Theory in classrooms, and 76 percent said they’re concerned that public schools may be promoting controversial beliefs and attitudes.

Just 27 percent called these concerns “phony” issues.

Hassan’s vote against a ban on funding CRT will almost certainly be used by her GOP opponent in 2022. If that opponent is Gov. Chris Sununu, he’ll be able to point to the anti-CRT language in the state budget.

Based on the reaction of Democrats and their allies in the media, it appears they’re afraid it will work.

D.C. Democrats, including President Joe Biden, are once again targeting the filibuster, floating a plan to eliminate it for a vote to raise the debt ceiling. On Wednesday morning, Delaware Democrat Sen. Chris Coons told CNN “there very well may be” 50 votes in the Senate to change the filibuster rules to allow for a simple majority vote on the debt ceiling. Coons spoke of “a lot of passion in the caucus” given the current game of chicken with Senate Republicans on the issue.

By Wednesday evening Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) had repeated yet again his opposition to undermining the filibuster rule, a rule he and his fellow Democrats used repeatedly during the Trump presidency. In fact, in April, 2017, a bipartisan group of more than 60 U.S. Senators signed a letter urging then-Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell to preserve the legislative filibuster.

Among those defending the filibuster: Senators Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen.

But now that President Biden is saying eliminating the filibuster, at least for raising the debt ceiling, “is a real possibility,” where are New Hampshire’s two U.S. Senators? Are they standing by their defense of the rule, or are they following their fellow Democrats who’ve flipped on the issue?

Neither senator would respond to questions about their current position on the filibuster.

For months Democratic leadership in the Senate strategized that they could get enough Republican votes for raising the debt ceiling to reach the 60 vote threshold for cloture. But in response to the Democrats’ decision to move forward on a purely partisan basis with their $3.5 trillion social programs spending plan, Republicans are sitting on the sidelines.

“Since mid-July, Republicans have clearly stated that Democrats will need to raise the debt limit on their own. All year, your party has chosen to pursue staggering, ‘transformational’ spending through unprecedented use of the party-line reconciliation process,” McConnell said. “I have relayed this reality to your Democratic lieutenants for two and a half months.”

The liberal New Republic magazine concedes that McConnell is correct: “[Democrats can] Revise the existing budget resolution for fiscal year 2022, which was used to set instructions to craft the reconciliation bill. The revised resolution can ask the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee to raise the debt limit to some dollar amount.”

Instead, Democrats like Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) are pushing to pass a rule change to kill the filibuster for debt ceiling votes. This is possible thanks to then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid invoking the “nuclear option” allowing the Senate to change any rule (including the filibuster) with just 50 votes.

Which means the Biden-backed proposal to end the filibuster on the debt vote still needs all 50 Democrat votes. Some Senators clearly believe that, other than Manchin, they’re close. Are Hassan and Shaheen on board?

New Hampshire voters aren’t.

In a March 2021 Granite State Panel conducted by the UNH Survey Center, just 30 percent of respondents said they support eliminating the filibuster. Among New Hampshire independents, that number is just 17 percent. (Another 15 percent of all voters say they’d support changing the rule to a “talking filibuster.”)

The filibuster has been part of the Senate in some form since at least the 1840s. The requirement of a two-thirds vote to end debate and bring a bill to the floor, aka “cloture,” was codified into Senate rules in 1917.

Before she signed the 2017 letter defending the filibuster, killing it had been a cause near and dear to Shaheen for more than a decade.

In 2010, Shaheen co-sponsored a resolution with progressive Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) to change the filibuster rules so that legislation would eventually pass with a simple majority. In 2011 and 2013, she backed another set of proposals to change or override the filibuster proposed by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.).

Interestingly, during those years, Democrats were in the majority. After Republicans took control in 2014, Shaheen began suggesting that keeping the filibuster protection for the minority party might be a good idea.

In June, Shaheen and Hassan told WMUR they opposed ending the filibuster but supported some “reforms.” Could those “reforms” include a rule change for the debt ceiling? If Democrats don’t use the existing rules to get it done, New Hampshire voters may find out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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

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.

U.S. Sens. Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen’s town hall-style meeting on Friday with their New Hampshire constituents was mostly a warm welcome back to the state. Unlike many of their Republican colleagues who have dealt with protesters, shouting, and many interruptions in their town halls during Congress’ recess week, Hassan and Shaheen received very few interruptions during their question-and-answer session, receiving mainly applause during the hour-long event.

While the positive feedback from the audience showed general approval of their job so far in the Senate, the town hall also revealed that Hassan and Shaheen aren’t some of President Donald Trump’s biggest opponents in the Democratic Party.

While the two senators have made it clear that they do not approve of many policies and much of the rhetoric coming from the Trump administration, they have been more bipartisan in their approach to Trump than others.

For example, Hassan and Shaheen have both approved of seven of his Cabinet nominations and opposed seven of them. That puts them on the lower end of “no” votes in the Democratic Party, with only five Democrats and one Independent who caucuses with the Democrats having fewer “no” votes.

Senators in states that Trump won or who are expected to face tough reelections have fewer “no” votes, including Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Independent Angus King of Maine, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, and Mark Warner of Virginia. Most senators have eight or nine “no” votes for Trump’s nominees, with potential 2020 Democratic-presidential hopefuls disapproving of 12 or 11 of his appointments, including Sens. Kristen Gillibrand of New York, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with Democrats.

While Hassan and Shaheen’s cabinet votes weren’t the main focus of Friday’s town hall, their position on Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, received the biggest disapproval.

Both Democrats rejected the idea of blocking a hearing for Gorsuch, resulting in audible boos and shouts of “no” from the audience.

“It is not in our interest to deny a hearing to Neil Gorsuch,” Shaheen said. “That’s what’s prescribed under the Constitution. Let me tell you something. I’m not going to go out and say it’s wrong for them and then say that it’s right for us.”

Shaheen was alluding to Republican Senate leadership’s refusal last year to hold a hearing for former President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. Some Senate Democrats have previously stated they want to filibuster or block Trump’s nominee from ever getting a hearing, just like the GOP did to Garland.

Yet, neither senator said they have made a final decision yet on how they will vote for Gorsuch. His confirmation will require 60 votes, so some Democrats will have to cross party lines if he is to get the seat on the bench.

“I think it is absolutely appropriate and right for us to do our constitutional duty and have a hearing,” she said.

Hassan said she plans to meet with Gorsuch this week to discuss “the protection of civil rights for all Americans. In my view that includes the rights of the LGBT community. It includes the rights of women to make their own health care decisions.”

In addition to Hassan and Shaheen’s middle-of-the-road approach to the Supreme Court nominee, they have also not gone to the same extremes as other Senate Democrats when it comes to Trump and Russia.

“I never thought that I’d begin my tenure having to stand up to a president whose conflicts of interest and whose campaign and administration’s involvement with Russia would cause so many questions,” Hassan said. “I also think that it is concerning that a president who is so tough on our allies seems so soft on Russia. I think that raises real questions.”

Hassan and Shaheen have joined several Democrats who have called for an independent commission investigation of possible Trump administration ties to, and communication with, Russian officials, in addition to possible Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Several high-profile Republicans, including Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, also said they support similar measures.

“The American people need to know what happened here, and then we need to take appropriate action,” Shaheen said.

However, Hassan and Shaheen didn’t go as far as other Democrats who have publicly talked about the possibility of impeaching Trump.

Hassan told WMUR after the town hall that impeachment talk was “premature,” yet restated her support for an independent investigation into Trump’s ties to Russia.

“I think it’s really important that we investigate concerns we’ve heard about connections to Russia in the Trump administration, and I think it’s very important that we have a bipartisan commission for the same reason,” she said.

It makes sense for Hassan and Shaheen to take a more bipartisan approach to Trump given the political climate in New Hampshire.

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton won the state over Trump by only three-tenths of a percent — 46.8 to 46.5 percent. Hassan’s victory over former GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte was even narrower, winning only by 743 votes, and while the Granite State sent an entire Democratic delegation to Congress, the GOP won the majority in the Legislature and took back the corner office for the first time in 12 years. Many people call New Hampshire a “purple” state, since it usually swing back and forth between red and blue every election. Hassan and Shaheen can’t upset their base too much, but they also can’t alienate the independents and moderate Republicans in the state either.

Near the very end of the town hall, Shaheen and Hassan also said they would do what they can to address climate change. Yet, some in the room weren’t happy with what they saw, including one man who shouted that the two women were using plastic water bottles, instead of reusable ones.

Hassan stated she is willing to work with Republican senators, but not at the risk of undoing progress.

“There is a difference between constructive compromise and undermining the progress that we have made,” she said.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

When Sen. Dan Feltes, D-Concord, introduced a bill Wednesday, he sought a $25 million appropriation to the state’s affordable housing fund. Instead, he’s walking away with $5 million at best.

Senate Bill 94 would have put $25 million in the NH Housing Finance Authority’s Affordable Housing Fund to do what its name suggests — create more affordable housing for Granite Staters.

“This is a competitiveness issue,” Feltes testified before the Senate Capital Budget Committee. “We have to think about housing. I think, quite frankly, if there is one bill that’s a top priority, this is it. We have to do something right now and something significant.”

This funding mechanism isn’t anything new. It’s been around since its creation in 1988, under former Republican Gov. John H. Sununu, to be a revolving loan fund that provides low-interest loans and grants to build, rehabilitate, or acquire affordable housing. It’s first appropriation was $4.5 million. Since then, there have only been a few times when the Legislature has added cash to the fund. The fund didn’t see another dime until 2002, when $5 million was added to it.

In 2007, during Democratic Gov. John Lynch’s administration, approximately $750,000 was given to the fund. In 2015, $800,000 was added, and in 2016 $2 million was appropriated, but that money was earmarked for housing for people with substance use disorders.

The appropriation last year came to fruition on Tuesday where city and state officials broke ground for the Families in Transition’s Family Willows Substance Use Treatment Center and Recovery Housing in Manchester. The expanded treatment center and recovery housing focuses on women, and mothers with children dealing with the opioid crisis. It’s expected to provide treatment for about 400 women. Gov. Chris Sununu and U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan attended the groundbreaking ceremony.

Feltes said the lack of funding for affordable housing is a “workforce, jobs, and competitiveness issue.” Testimony from leading experts on affordable housing in the state said all three areas are connected and important for New Hampshire’s future.

Without affordable housing in the state, people have trouble finding a place to live and workers end up living farther away from their jobs. Sometimes that’s too much for employees, so companies are left with an inadequate workforce, and without a strong workforce, or affordable housing, the state won’t be able to convince businesses to come and set up shop.

“You’ll hear about how we need a stronger workforce and affordable housing to keep the young working families that are demographically and economically needed as we move forward,” Feltes said.

Feltes is right. Lawmakers have heard testimony and had meetings from advocacy groups, government agencies, and political experts on how New Hampshire’s aging population will impact housing, transportation, and health care costs.

Already, workers are feeling the crunch of high housing costs, spending approximately 60 to 75 percent of their income on housing each month, according to Elissa Margolin, director of Housing Action NH, a coalition of organizations and businesses advocating for expanded workforce and affordable housing options.

Currently, the statewide median rent in New Hampshire is approximately $1,206 a month, she said, which is a 15 percent increase from five years ago. The vacancy rate, a factor in what’s driving the rising rents, is at 2 percent statewide and about 1 percent near the larger job centers.

The Granite State has already fallen behind the rest of New England and most of the country in terms of providing funding for affordable housing.

Rhode Island voters recently approved a $50 million bond for their state’s housing trust fund. They previously issued a $25 million bond in 2012 and a $50 million bond in 2006. Vermont uses a percentage of their real estate transfer tax for its housing trust fund, which is about $9 million a year.

In Maine, which has a similar population size to New Hampshire and similar workforce challenges, regularly funds its trust fund through their real estate transfer tax, with about $6 million invested annually. In 2009, a $50 million bond was approved, followed by another $15 million bond in 2015.

Connecticut and Massachusetts have also recently appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars a year to affordable housing.

Dean Christon, executive director of NH Housing Finance Authority, said the fund gives them “a lot of flexibility into how these dollars are being used.” They can be spent on housing from homeless shelters to senior housing to workforce rental housing.

David Juvet, senior vice president of public policy for the NH Business and Industry Association, said for the businesses he talks to, workforce and housing are the top issue for them.

When asked by Sen. David Watters, D-Dover, if the state should have “some skin in the game,” he responded that “there is some legitimate policy reason why the state should be involved with helping to assist economic development.”

The issue of affordable housing, workforce development, and business competitiveness of the state is usually a bipartisan issue. Everyone wants to see New Hampshire succeed. Affordable housing, especially when it comes to providing relief for the substance abuse crisis, also receives bipartisan support.

The bill only had Democratic support though, including Senate Democratic Leader Jeff Woodburn and House Democratic Leader Steve Shurtleff.

So why aren’t Republicans jumping on board? Well, it’s most likely the price tag of the legislation — $25 million can be a hard sell. During the hearing, Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley asked a witness if they would the measure if it were a different amount.

The committee also has to tackle a more pressing issue with the unanticipated charge costing the state millions of dollars to convert several state-owned buildings to natural gas after Concord Steam Corp. announced plans to close this year. The Senate Capital Budget Committee will her testimony on that bill in the coming weeks.

Ultimately, the committee unanimously voted on an amendment to changed the $25 million appropriation to the Affordable Housing Fund to only $5 million, and then they recommended that the bill “ought to pass” when it goes to the Senate soon.

Some activists say any little bit can help “move the needle” some more.

“We need the state’s oar int he water to help steer the ship,” said Evelyn Whelton of the Mount Washington Valley Housing Coalition. “A small push at the state level would influence housing growth and send a signal to businesses and those who want to move here, that we are engaged in economic development and are serious about it.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

After President Donald Trump issued his immigration executive order on Friday, which put a four-month hold on allowing refugees into the United States and temporarily barred travelers from Syria and six other countries, New Hampshire’s congressional delegation was quick to respond.

But for some of the Democratic lawmakers, their statements are at odds with their previous rhetoric and voting records.

Before getting into their statements, it’s important to reiterate what Trump’s executive order entails. You can read guides from USA Today and Reuters. But here’s the quick highlights:

1. His executive order suspends all refugee entry for 120 days.
2. It indefinitely suspends entry by Syrian refugees.
3. The order blocks for 90 days all immigration of citizens of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen, which are Muslim-majority countries.

Since he announced his executive order, Green Card holders and permanent residents of the United States have been detained at airports, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the order, and protests have erupted at airports across the country. Trump’s administration has made it clear that the immigration ban would not apply to Green Card holders.

Sen. Maggie Hassan probably has one of the most unclear records when it comes to immigration and Syrian refugees. Following the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, Hassan became the first Democratic governor in the country to call for a pause in Syrian refugee resettlement.

“The governor has always made clear that we must ensure robust refugee screening to protect American citizens, and the governor believes that the federal government should halt acceptance of refugees from Syria until intelligence and defense officials can assure that the process for vetting all refugees, including those from Syria, is as strong as possible to ensure the safety of the American people,” said Hassan’s spokesman at the time.

And she never wavered from that position throughout the extremely close campaign against Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte. Ayotte was known for being a foreign policy and immigration hawk.

But now, it seems Hassan is singing a different tune. She called Trump’s executive order “un-American” and her office said that she never supported an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.

“Senator Hassan believes we can strengthen the vetting process for all entryways into the country while staying true to the values that make America the greatest country on earth. She never has and never will support a policy like what the President has put into place with this executive order, which is a backdoor Muslim ban and religious test that goes against American values. Senator Hassan will work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reverse this un-American executive order that will make America less safe,” her office said in a statement to WMUR.

“Senator Hassan strongly opposes this un-American and dangerous executive order which includes an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees, something that the Senator has never supported,” her office added. “The Senator believes that we can strengthen the process for all entryways into the country while remaining true to our values and engaged in addressing this humanitarian crisis.”

So while that statement is technically correct, since she only supported a “temporary halt” in Syrian refugees, not an indefinite ban, some people are wondering where she really stands on the issue. Was she reacting to the Paris attacks with what she thought was the best decision or was she pandering to voters on her right? It’s still unclear.

@SenatorHassan yes or no? Do you support a ban on Syrian Refugees as you previously said you did? #MuslimBan #nhpolitics #NHpolitics

— Winston Smith (@RumpoleinUSA) January 30, 2017

Rep. Annie Kuster also has an interesting position on Syrian refugees and immigration policies.

Kuster called for a broad expansion of former President Barack Obama’s administration’s program to bring Syrian refugees to the United States before the Paris attacks. She joined other House Democrats in signing a letter to Obama, calling on him to increase the number of refugees to be allowed in the United States to 200,000 by the end of 2016.

But after the terrorist attacks, Kuster didn’t mention anything about bringing in more Syrian refugees. She actually voted with Republicans for a stronger vetting process.

“I am fiercely protective of our national security and believe we must be tough and smart in pursuing policies that protect Americans both at home and abroad,” she said in a statement. “As we work with our allies to defeat ISIS without endangering American lives in another civil war, we must maintain and expand rigorous screening and security checks for any Syrian refugee fleeing terrorism by seeking to enter our country.”

She joined 46 other Democrats and all of the House Republicans to pass the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act. The bill expanded the screening process for refugees attempting to enter the United States from Iraq or Syria by requiring the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct its own background checks in addition to those conducted by the Department of Homeland Security.

In defense of her vote, Kuster told New Hampshire Public Radio that, “it doesn’t pause the program. It doesn’t apply a religious test. It’s a certification that the person does not pose a threat to the security of the United States.”

But Kuster is now the only member of New Hampshire’s congressional delegation that did not release a statement after Trump’s executive order was announced. Instead, she took to Twitter for a very brief statement that didn’t really say if she was for or against the ban.

America can & should be a beacon of hope around the world. Urge @realDonaldTrump to honor the values of inclusion that make us truly great.

— Ann McLane Kuster (@RepAnnieKuster) January 29, 2017

She followed that tweet up later with another one that said, “Not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans, we can balance security & compassion. USA founded on freedom from religious persecution.”

Both Kuster and Hassan have brought up religion in their statements, saying they believe his executive order is a religion test as a way to ban Muslims from coming to the United States. That point is still debateable and up for interpretation. There are many media reports that have former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani saying it is a “Muslim ban” as Trump put it.

But other articles say religion already plays a role in federal asylum and refugee law. David French from the National Review has an extensive piece on it and Politifact rated former Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s claim that religion plays a role in refugee screenings as “Mostly True.” Obviously, the law leaves much room for interpretation, so expect several legal experts to weigh in on the subject in the coming weeks.

As for Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, they both have been the most consistent in their language when discussing Syrian refugee resettlement and immigration.

Shaheen was supportive of allowing more Syrian refugees to come to America during Obama’s presidency and she hasn’t changed her mind after Trump’s executive order.

“We’re among those members of Congress who think that the United States can and should do more, both to try and take in more of the refugees who have been vetted, but also to support — in every way we can — the humanitarian crisis that has been created,” she said in 2015.

After Trump’s announcement, she said in a statement, “This executive order is un-American and grossly inhumane. We are a nation of immigrants and should remain welcoming to all nations and faiths, particularly those who are fleeing violence and oppression. Refugees, from Syria in particular, are fleeing unspeakable terror and hunger, and it’s unconscionable that the United States will no longer provide any of these refugees a safe haven.”

Shea-Porter said the United States should welcome Syrian refugees, but should also ensure they are properly vetted. She voted with House Democrats against a 2013 Republican amendment that would defund Obama’s executive orders on immigration.

“I think we’re very capable of absorbing a certain number of refugees who are fleeing their country for the same reasons that we would,” she said in 2015. “I think we all need to know exactly what kind of vetting is being done.”

She released a very straightforward statement on Saturday rejecting Trump’s actions.

“Our nation’s founders built this nation on dreams of a better, more tolerant society, and now we must stand together and defend and preserve those ideals,” she said. “I call on President Trump to immediately reverse his actions, and I invite all Granite Staters to join me in letting our refugee and immigrant neighbors know that we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them as one community.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.