To the Editor

Hooray! We stopped the Milford District Court from closing. OK, but at what cost.

Last year the Judicial Branch decided as a cost savings to close the Milford District Court and transfer the court function to the newly constructed, large and efficient courthouse in Merrimack. This would require the citizens and police in the towns of Amherst, Milford, Mont Vernon, Lyndeborough, Wilton, Mason and Brookline to travel to the court in Merrimack located near Baboosic Lake Road and Route 3A – over a half hour drive for some of the communities. Also included in the economy move was the closing of district courts in the communities of Claremont, Colebrook and Keene.

The consolidation of district court districts has been a long term policy for the judicial branch. The Judicial Branch has decided to construct large efficient buildings, that have every conceivable courthouse amenity facility requirement and serve a larger population area. Ignored is the traditional that goes back to the 19th century that the Municipal and District courts were the peoples court; the courts closest to the citizens. True, the court houses in towns were small and did not provide the desired court house amenities; some borrowed space in the town hall. When I served as a judge in Wilton the court met in the selectmen’s room, heated in the winter by a wood stove. True facilities were lacking, but the court was part of the community, and the court functioned for the citizens, often open on Saturdays and evenings for the convenience of the citizens.

So now we are allowed to keep the Milford Court open, but only if the towns pay much of the cost. Starting in July, the seven local communities serviced by the Milford District court must pay the non-personnel and rental costs totaling $97,680.20 a year. The rent for the building is almost $80,000 a year. With the towns paying the costs, the Judicial Branch saves money in that the building is on a long term lease that is still in effect that they are obligated to finance. Had the court been moved the state would be obligated to pay the rent for an empty building until the end of the lease term; now we must pay. Here are the costs apportioned to the towns: Amherst: $30,573.90, Milford: $36,141.87, Brookline: $11,330.90, Lyndeborough: $1,562.88, Mason: $2,051.28, Mont Vernon: $4981.69, and Wilton: 11,037.86.

So how do we save our local courts? First, we can offer legislation to stop the District Court relocation to Merrimack. Second, we can pass legislation that gives the towns the court fine money to offset the cost; currently all fine money goes to the state.

Last, there may be two Constitution violations. First, the courts are a state responsibility; it may be discrimination to have some towns bear the costs of courts and the state pay for others. Second, there is a provision in our constitution that states that if the state mandates a program to the communities, the state must bear the mandated costs.

If I was a selectman in the communities served by the Milford District Court, My answer would be not to pay and to take the position that the law is unconstitutional. After all the towns have passed budgets in March and this cost was not included.

Your representative,

Robert H. Rowe

HCR26 reaffirming the state’s religious heritage and constitutional rights to practice religion and free speech.

This Resolution, which was cosponsored by Representative Steve Palmer, is quite lengthy so you can take a look at the full text here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HCR0026.html
It basically reinforces and reiterates our right to freedom of speech and religion here in the Granite State. Are you surprised that our Democrat majority chose to kill this resolution? These ideas just aren’t as popular as they used to be. This resolution failed on a 122-215 vote. Here’s the breakdown for our delegation:

FOR the resolution: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette
AGAINST the resolution: Bergin, Chandley (D), Dokmo

HB1522 relative to local spending caps.

This bill, which was cosponsored by Senator Peter Bragdon, would have provided statutory support for cities and towns enacting spending caps for town and school budgets. Would you care to guess what this legislature thinks of local control of budgets and the people voting to enact limitations on local spending? You guessed correctly if you said, NOT in favor. The bill died by a 148-202 vote. Here’s what our folks had to say:

FOR the bill: Belvin, Bergin, Daniels, Dokmo, Palmer, Rowe, Willette
AGAINST the bill: Chandley (D)

HB1653 decriminalizing possession of one quarter of an ounce or less of marijuana.
Here we go again. Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em – and if it’s a quarter ounce or less of the wacky weed this legislature says “party on” by a vote of 214-137. Here’s what our delegation had to say. Let’s see how many of them inhaled….

FOR the bill: Bergin, Chandley (D), Willette
AGAINST the bill: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe
Not Voting/Excused: Dokmo

HB1445 eliminating the meals and rooms tax on campsites.

Here’s one they got right. If you go camping and bring your own room and bring your own meal, you shouldn’t have to pay a meals and rooms tax. The House has repealed this tax by a vote of 202-125. Here’s how our folks voted:

FOR the bill: Belvin, Bergin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette
AGAINST the bill: Chandley (D)
Not Voting/Excused: Dokmo

HB1218 requiring a report of payments to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

This bill would have required the treasurer to submit an annual report of state payments to ACORN. I don’t know about you but I sure would like to know if any of our money is going to this group. Unfortunately, the legislature would prefer to not provide us with this information. The bill failed 139-176. Here’s the Hillsborough 6 tally:

FOR the bill: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette
AGAINST the bill: Bergin, Chandley (D)
Not Voting/Excused: Dokmo

HB1343 establishing a joint committee on the constitutionality of acts, orders, laws, statutes, regulations, and rules of the government of the United States of America in order to protect state sovereignty.

You will want to read this lengthy bill here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1343.html. This bill would set up a commission to discuss the constitutionality of federal legislation, hold hearings, and propose legislation where a need is seen. Evidently, this legislature cannot even stomach the idea of a commission to discuss these issues. The bill failed 123-208. Here’s what our folks had to say about it:

FOR the bill: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette
AGAINST the bill: Bergin, Chandley (D)
Not Voting/Excused: Dokmo

HCR21 urging all members of Congress who vote in favor of a government run health insurance option to enroll in that option and forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
This one could be summed up as the “eat your own dog food” resolution. If you impose something on the people you should have to live by it yourself. Not according to this crowd in Concord. The resolution failed 122-185.

FOR the resolution: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette
AGAINST the resolution: Bergin, Chandley (D)
Not Voting/Excused: Dokmo

HB1635 prohibiting the open carrying of a firearm in a public building.

This bill would have been a major infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. Fortunately, it was soundly defeated by a vote of 256-33. I am pleased to report that none of our Amherst/Milford Representatives voted in favor of this bill.

HB1433 relative to lawful commerce in firearms, including manufacture and sale, in New Hampshire.
This bill, cosponsored by Gary Daniels, is a challenge to federal regulation of intrastate commerce. This piece of text from the bill provides a good description:
“The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture, on an intrastate basis, of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.”
In other words – if it’s made here and sold here it isn’t INTERstate commerce and is therefore not subject to federal regulation. You can imagine what this legislature thinks of state’s rights (refer back to HB1343). The bill failed 107-205. Here’s the Hillsborough 6 roll call:

FOR the bill: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe
AGAINST the bill: Bergin, Chandley (D), Willette
Not Voting/Excused: Dokmo

HB1691 relative to the treatment of cable television as a protected utility service.
Did you realize the cable TV is now considered an essential service for tenants and therefore cannot be shut off for non-payment? This bill would have removed cable from the list of essential services (like heat, electricity, etc.) but no, according to this legislature, by a vote of 140-129 cable is a “must have” service for all tenants, even the deadbeats. One more discouragement for prospective landlords. Here’s how our folks voted on this one:

FOR the bill: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette
AGAINST the bill: Bergin, Chandley (D)
Not Voting/Excused: Dokmo

HB1693 relative to the powers of the joint committee on legislative facilities.
This bill would have overturned a decision of the Joint Legislative Facilities Committee that banned weapons in the State House complex. The irony of the move by this committee to impose the ban is one of the reasons given: They claimed that legislators were intimidated by spectators in the house gallery who were shouting at them after the defeat of a bill. And, some of these people were openly carrying firearms. Never was there any accusation that anyone had used or otherwise brandished a firearm in a threatening way. And, most importantly, the rules as they existed at that time (and had since 1971) already prohibited carry on the House floor and in the gallery. The rule was NOT enforced that day, as it certainly could have been. This bill would leave those prohibitions in place. There is simply no reason to further restrict personal defense in the people’s house. But, the legislature did not agree and the bill was defeated 167-191.

FOR the bill: Bergin, Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette
AGAINST the bill: Chandley (D)
Not Voting/Excused: Dokmo

HB1664 making appropriations reductions in the operating budget for fiscal year 2011 and relative to state revenues and expenditures.

Finally, let’s talk budget cuts – we need some. OK, we need a lot of cuts. But evidently, this crowd in Concord can’t even get started with budget cutting. This bill was tabled by a vote of 212-151. These Democrats have absolutely no ability to cut back on their spending. They continue to dig us deeper into a budgetary hole and show no sign of letting up. To them it’s all about new taxes, higher taxes, more taxes. The tabling of this bill is yet more evidence of this. Here is how our delegation voted. I am counting a vote to table as a vote AGAINST the bill and AGAINST reducing spending.

FOR the bill: Bergin, Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette
AGAINST the bill: Chandley (D)
Not Voting/Excused: Dokmo

Let’s not forget the State Senate – they have been busy this month as well:

SB461 requiring a 2/3 vote for the general court to adopt legislation incurring indebtedness.

Make it more difficult to go into debt? Why would we want to do that? Democrats prefer it be as easy as possible to borrow in order to feed their insatiable appetite for spending. And thus, this bill was killed 15-9.

Senator Bragdon – IN FAVOR of the bill

SB472 making the commission of certain murders eligible for the death penalty.

I don’t understand why ALL murders aren’t eligible for the death penalty. But apparently we’re going to have to go about it piecemeal. But this piece was too much for the Democrats to stomach. They voted to refer the bill to interim study 14-10. WHAT IS THERE TO STUDY? Seems pretty simple to me.

Senator Bragdon – IN FAVOR of the bill

SB474 changing the rate of the meals and rooms tax, repealing the meals and rooms tax on campsites, and requiring a reduction in general fund appropriations for the biennium ending June 30, 2011.

This bill would change the meals and rooms tax from 9% to 8% and repeal the tax on campsites. It would also reduce general fund spending by a paltry $8 million. Much like their counterparts in the House, spending reductions just aren’t possible for Senate Democrats. They tabled the bill by a vote of 14-10.

Senator Bragdon – IN FAVOR of the bill

SB487 relative to charter limitations on the growth of budgets and taxes and to the validity of certain city and town charter provisions.

SB488 relative to the adoption of local spending caps.
These two bills are similar to HB1522 regarding cities and towns having the ability to enact their own spending caps for town and school budgets. Both were tabled in the Senate on party line votes. Senate Dems, like their House counterparts just cannot abide the idea that we the people might want to constrain the rate of growth of government at the local level.

Senator Bragdon – IN FAVOR of both bills.

SB489 relative to table gaming and video lottery at certain locations throughout the state and relative to the recovery of horse racing.
Expanded gambling (“gaming” to make it more palatable) is thought by some to be the answer, or at least part of the answer, to our budgetary woes. This bill passed 14-10 but it was not a party line vote. Senator Bragdon and other Republicans voted in favor and some Democrats were opposed. The real test for this bill is in the House, which has usually opposed such measures. The Governor’s announced opposition might make it more difficult, if you can believe he is really opposed to the bill. He might be against it before he is for it. In any case this will be one to keep an eye on.

OK – that’s all for now. Of course, this is nowhere near a complete list of all roll call votes. For that go to http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/

This has been especially true since that other party has been in the majority in the General Court. In an effort to provide you with an update on the shenanigans in Concord, I present you with this brief recap of some important bills recently voted on and how our Amherst/Milford delegation voted. For constitutional amendments, a vote FOR the amendment is a vote in favor of putting it to the voters in the fall, and isn’t necessarily a vote in favor of the amendment itself. But a vote AGAINST is to prevent the people from having a final say.

CACR26: relating to taxation. Providing that there shall be no broad-based taxes in New Hampshire

This is one that comes up about every session and for some reason never seems to pass. I would think that if you are against a broad based tax on the citizens of the state that this would be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, this failed by a vote of 136-221. Here’s what our delegation had to say:

FOR the amendment: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette

AGAINST the amendment: Bergin, Chandley (D), Dokmo

OK, so we won’t be able to vote on a constitutional amendment to take a broad based tax off the table. How about an amendment to make it more difficult to raise taxes or create new taxes and fees?

CACR23 relating to taxation. Providing that a 2/3 vote is required to pass legislation imposing new or increased taxes or license fees provided that the legislature may increase the rate of taxes and fees with a majority vote in any fiscal year that insufficient revenues are provided to pay the principal and interest on a debt payable in that year, to which the state has pledged its faith and credit.

Looks like that’s what CACR23 would do. But it failed 108-239. Here’s the Hillsborough District 6 tally:

FOR the amendment: Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette

AGAINST the amendment: Belvin, Bergin, Chandley (D), Dokmo

One of the largest budgeting problems we have is that the courts control education funding, rather than the legislature. This amendment would have given some of that power back to the legislature where it belongs:

CACR27 relating to education funding. Providing that state funding of education shall be targeted.

But we’re 0 for 3 on amendments as this one went down 125-233….

FOR the amendment: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette

AGAINST the amendment: Bergin, Chandley (D), Dokmo

Lastly, for amendments to the state constitution, there’s this one:

CACR28 relating to the definition of marriage. Providing that the state shall only recognize the union of one man and one woman as marriage

The amendment failed 135-201. Here’s the breakdown for our district:

FOR the amendment: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe

AGAINST the amendment: Chandley (D), Dokmo, Willette
Bergin – Not Voting/Not Excused

That’s all for amendments, now on to a few House bills…..

HB1654 relative to state house security

This bill is the infamous State House gun ban that I emailed you all about previously. This would have taken the existing rule against carrying weapons in the State House and adjoining buildings and made such an act a felony, rather than just resulting a request to leave the building. I am pleased to report that this bill died a well-deserved death by a vote of 35-300 and I am also pleased to report that all members of our delegation voted to kill the bill.

HB1128 relative to the distribution of meals and rooms tax revenues to cities and towns.

This bill would give back $5 million in meals and rooms tax revenue that was taken away to balance (??) the budget last year. It passed but just barely 184-174. Here were the votes from Amherst and Milford:

FOR the bill: Bergin, Belvin, Daniels, Dokmo, Palmer, Rowe, Willette
AGAINST the bill: Chandley (D)

HB1454 requiring parental consent for medical procedures and medications provided to minors.

Our own Bob Willette is the sponsor of this bill, which would ensure parental rights. Here’s some more detail on it:
This bill requires the consent of a parent or guardian for any person to provide medication or provide or perform any medical procedure, including vaccinations, immunizations, and abortions upon any unemancipated minor, except in a medical emergency. A minor may seek court approval for such medication or procedure, if the minor elects not to seek consent or does not receive the consent of a parent or guardian. Any person who violates such a law shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

This seems to be a fairly common sense approach to parental rights. But, perhaps not too common in Concord these days as the bill failed 140-218. Here’s the tally:

FOR the bill: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette

AGAINST the bill: Bergin, Chandley (D), Dokmo
HB1645 relative to freedom of choice on whether to join a labor union

This is a “right to work” law. It’s a another one that has come up before and never seems to pass. Wouldn’t the freedom to decline membership in a labor union fit in with our “Live Free or Die” motto? Evidently, according to the majority in Concord, freedom just doesn’t extend that far as this bill failed 122-232. Here’s how our folks voted:

FOR the bill: Belvin, Daniels, Palmer, Rowe, Willette

AGAINST the bill: Chandley (D), Dokmo
Bergin – Not Voting/Not Excused

There’s a sampling of a few important votes cast over the last month. This is in no way a complete list. For that, go to the General Court web site where you can see all the roll calls and look up any bill:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/

You can search by bill number, or keywords so you can find bills that pertain to the issues you care about. There are a lot of pieces of legislation still in the pipeline so stay tuned.

– Mark

November 30, 2009

NEWS RELEASE

REP. ROWE SPONSORS TAX AND FEE REDUCTION LEGISLATION

With the New Hampshire House of Representatives set to return for another session in January, Representative Robert Rowe, who represents the towns of Amherst and Milford, has submitted legislation that would bring some relief to the taxpayers of the State. Rep. Rowe is sponsoring a bill that would reduce the motor vehicle registration fee increases and sir-charges passed into law last session; legislation that raised fees by as much as $25.00 per vehicle.

“The motor vehicle fee increases for registration and vanity plates are creating a hardship for many of our citizens and businesses who can least afford it. The result in many cases is self defeating since many residents have chosen not to register a vehicle while some businesses have chosen to register vehicles out of state.”

His bill would also repeal legislation that doubles fees charged to New Hampshire businesses by the Department of Environmental Services. “Before increasing administrative fees, the State should first look to enacting department efficiencies,” said Rowe. “Small business is the backbone of the New Hampshire economy and during a down economic turn, fee and tax increases should never be an option,” he concluded.

Representative Rowe is the Republican Leader in the House Judiciary Committee and is serving his seventh term in the New Hampshire House. His bill will be debated by the Legislature during the 2010 session.

———-

For further information contact Representative Rowe by telephone at 673-2693

The recent release of New Hampshire’s revenue receipts simultaneously offers glimmers of hope while raising even more concerns about the State Budget enacted in June.

First the good news: The “Rainy Day Fund” which is the State’s hedge against economic downturns ended the fiscal year with $56 million more of a cushion than anticipated. Governor Lynch froze new hiring, deferred equipment purchases, and curtailed out of state travel to produce these savings.

Despite the fact that Governor Lynch and Democratic Legislators approved an overall spending increase in 2007 of 11.17% and in 2009 of 10.48%, the Governor’s executive orders curbed the worst excesses of the Legislature’s spending blitz that has increased expenditures from $9.36 billion to $11.5 billion during that time.

This $56 million in the Rainy Day Fund will be a critical one-time buffer if the State loses its NH Supreme Court appeal of the JUA (Joint Underwriting Association) lawsuit. This lawsuit comes from a budget provision attempting to simply “take” $110 million from a fund designed to keep a lid on physician’s medical liability insurance costs. The State’s attempted money grab has already been ruled in violation of both the State and Federal Constitutions by the Superior Court.

The mixed news is that business tax revenues were only 4% lower than expectations. While it is preposterous to call any shortfall good news, in comparison to last year’s business tax receipts that were off by 25%, being 4% below expectations is a slim glimmer of hope. However, it’s also a warning that if the trend continues the State will face a nasty budget deficit.

Despite the good and the mixed news, NH is far from out of the budget woe woods as the bad news dwarfs the good. Other revenue sources are badly underperforming, despite many taxes being increased in the budget. Receipts from the rooms and meals tax, communication tax, and real estate tax are all down by about 9%. The interest and dividend tax is down a whopping 25%. Even tobacco taxes are down slightly. In the three months since the budget was enacted revenues are down a total of $26 million or 6.4%. Should this trend continue the deficit will only grow.

Now that the state employees union has rejected the proposed contract that would have implemented 19 furlough days, Governor Lynch must begin a series of layoffs to save a mandated $25 million. Whether he will run into roadblocks if the union files a grievance for each position eliminated or political roadblocks from his allies in the Legislature – these savings may be questionable.

So with all these budget monkey wrenches, it is certainly understandable that its authors are quick to claim that the national economy is to blame and that revenues are likely to rebound when the economy turns around. But that is a cavalier attitude based on wishful thinking rather than rational evidence.

NH’s unemployment rate just jumped to 7.2% which means nearly 25,000 people have lost jobs this year. As bleak as that is, the national numbers are worse — much worse. Since the federal stimulus legislation was enacted in February, 2.7 million Americans have lost their jobs and the national unemployment rate is at a 26 year high of 9.8%. The human toll of these numbers is staggering for individuals, families and businesses struggling to stay afloat.

Some pundits have tried to argue that things are getting better as only 263,000 Americans lost their jobs in September vs. 741,000 in January. While true, any signs that employers may be thinking of adding jobs in the future is at odds with the evidence. Job losses continue, while overtime and the average length of the work week both fell. Employers don’t need to hire anytime soon and consumer spending which drives our economy continues its retreat.

So NH Legislators who voted for huge spending increases — not to mention the property tax hikes from cost shifting and 61 additional tax and fee hikes in the last two budgets — are desperately praying for a rebound in the economy to produce the revenue they need to balance their budget. Voters should not hold their breath waiting for miracles.

Instead what Democratic Legislative Leaders are planning is a TAX SUMMIT to discuss new and innovative ways to separate taxpayers from their hard earned dollars. Will these leaders recommend an income tax, a sales tax, a tax on mortgage refinancing, an entertainment tax, or new levies on New Hampshire businesses? Every one of these taxes or others could be on the table at a time that 53,330 New Hampshire people are out of work.

After hiking spending 23% in the last two budgets, raising property taxes and 61 other tax and fee hikes one would think that Democratic Legislative Leaders appetite for new and varied taxes would be satiated. Most NH voters are shaking their heads wondering if a SUMMIT to REDUCE SPENDING is too much to ask for. Isn’t it time for the Democrats to turn off the tax hike spigot and focus on fiscal discipline?

As tough as things are for families and businesses across NH, they will get much worse if taxes continue to climb to meet revenue shortfalls. Then we will have to re-title this blog to “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”!

In reality, this budget is neither fiscally responsible, nor balanced as the law requires. A recent court decision prevented the State from confiscating $110 million from the Joint Underwriters Association (a fund to assist physicians in purchasing malpractice insurance). Thankfully, the court stopped this theft of a privately owned fund to which the State contributed nothing. This budget was also “balanced” in the last minutes of the legislative session by miraculously discovering $75 million of projected revenue that somehow had not previously been available. Based on the past performance of the Democrats’ revenue projections I would say we’ll be in a mess again early next year when this miracle revenue does not appear. Worst of all, we continue to have a structural deficit of over $500 million which is being filled this budget cycle by one-time federal “stimulus” funds. It appears the only thing this money stimulates is an even more bloated New Hampshire State budget. And let’s not forget the 38 tax and fee increases included in this monstrosity.

The good news is that 7 of 8 State Representatives from the Amherst/Milford legislative district, as well as our State Senator Peter Bragdon voted against this irresponsible budget. Unfortunately, Shannon Chandley complied with the wishes of the Democrat leaders in the House and voted in favor of it. She has helped set us on a course to an income or sales tax in the next budget cycle unless real cuts are made. If Democrats are allowed to control our legislature for one more term, this is a near certainty. Please keep this in mind when you go to the polls in November 2010.

Mark Vincent
Amherst Republican Committee

Mark Vincent
Amherst

http://www.sos.nh.gov/2009%20Election%20law%20changes.pdf

Please look them over as some changes may impact future election strategy.

2010 Election Schedule:

- 2010 Elections
- Filing period – June 2-11, 2010
- State Primary – September 14, 2010
- General Election – November 2, 2010

The Secretary of State’s Office has not posted the entire schedule, as of yet, but plan to soon.
Please bookmark the Secretary of State’s Website and log back to get the full, official, schedule.

The JUA was formed in 1975 to provide medical liability insurance to physicians and currently provides over 20% of the medical liability coverage in New Hampshire. The Judge ruled the JUA is independent from the State. More importantly, physicians, not the State, contribute to its funding and when the JUA faced a deficit in 1985 a surcharge on doctor’s policies was assessed to cover the gap–not State funding. Twice in the past, the JUA distributed surplus funds to policy holders–not the State. Given these facts, it’s political hubris and arrogance seldom seen in our State, for the Democratic supporters of this budget to simply expropriate $110 million. These unseemly political shenanigans, now defy both our state and federal constitutions.

The sanctity of contracts is one of the underpinnings of our society, as is the prohibition of the government taking a person’s property without just compensation. Good for Justice McGuire for upholding constitutional principles and shame on politicians who believe the State can simply break contracts and take property it doesn’t own, to enable the gravy train of a 10.5% state spending increase.

What does this $110 million hole mean for the New Hampshire Budget? First, the budget hole is not just $110 million. Recently Superior Court Justice Diane Nicolosi ruled in favor of the New Hampshire Health Care Association and blocked the State from garnering $9 million that nursing homes claim they are entitled to. Furthermore, the New Hampshire Municipal Association is set to file suit against the State for changes to pension contributions made in the recent budget. The State has historically contributed 35% of the cost of pensions for police, firefighters, teachers, and other employees. Under the recent budget the State’s contribution will drop to 25%, costing property taxpayers an estimated $27 million. Thus far, 143 towns and 53 school districts have agreed to join the Municipal Association lawsuit displaying the depth of anger at the Democratic leadership’s hike of property taxes.

In total, the State could be looking at a nearly $150 million litigation shortfall. As if misery did not already have enough company, when the budget was passed in June, its authors inflated revenue projections by $75 million to give the appearance it was in balance, at least on paper. The question now is if this budget, passed only a month ago, is even worth the paper it is written upon?

New Hampshire residents may quickly lose sight of the interminable Washington debate on new bureaucracies, taxes, and regulations involving global warming and government run health care and soon be consumed with the budget wildfire in Concord that not even all this rain will stamp out.

So where does the State go from here? The option I support would be to cut spending to balance the budget with available revenue. Spending reductions of about 3.5% would be necessary to make up the $110 million gap. During budget debates, Republicans in the House and Senate proposed larger spending reductions and unfortunately each and every one were rejected on largely party line votes. If Democrats won’t cut spending, then what other options will they pursue?

Are new taxes on the horizon? Unfortunately, that is more likely. The budget Governor Lynch signed increased tobacco taxes, taxes on rooms and meals, and numerous fees all while adding new taxes on gambling winnings, camping and owners of limited liability companies — the latter two new taxes without even the courtesy of a public hearing. The House earlier voted to increase gas taxes and implement new taxes on capital gains and estates. The Senate earlier voted to increases taxes on New Hampshire businesses small and large. At a time that the New Hampshire unemployment rate stands at 6.8% and families are struggling to pay their bills, there is no shortage of Democrats in the Legislature ready, willing, and almost gleefully able to raise taxes.

What about gambling? There is little question the prospects for gaming just improved. The Senate already voted for gambling (though I voted in opposition). Would the House reconsider? Even if the House does reconsider, and gambling fills this $110 million crisis of today, larger budget problems loom in the near future.

The budget that just passed included $500 million of one-time funding sources—much of it federal stimulus money. Given that the federal budget deficit this year will approach an unheard of $2 trillion and federal budget deficits are estimated to top $1 trillion per year for the next 10 years (before health care reform), no state should expect more federal largess any time soon.

So, today’s crisis involving an unconstitutional attempt to simply grab $110 million will quickly become an even larger problem that gambling revenue will not fill. Bottom Line: our State is hurtling headlong towards an income or sales tax, possibly both, unless we meet the challenge of reducing state spending.

Jeb Bradley is a NH Senator serving District 3

Health Care Questions