Rep. J.R. Hoell - New Hampshire jobs, lives in the cross hairs of gun debate

By Rep. J.R. Hoell
Dunbarton, NH

It would seem absurd to almost anyone if a group of politicians said they wanted to ban a list of controversial books or require a background check that verified the completion of some civics education before anyone could vote in an election.

After all, the state and federal constitutions protect the right to free speech, regardless of where a person happens to be, and it also protects the equal right to vote in free elections for everyone who is 18 and older. Importantly, these constitutions specifically restrict the right to vote for people convicted of treason, bribery or violation of election laws, not to mention those individuals who happen to be 17 or younger.

Now, the federal Constitution also protects the right to “keep and bear arms” and specifically asserts that this right “shall not be infringed” by Congress. Our state Constitution protects the right of individuals who are “defending life and liberty” or “protecting property.” It also specifically affirms: “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.” Unlike the right to vote, there are no constitutional restrictions on these very clear God given Natural Rights of self-defense.

Why then, is it not absurd for politicians to seek legal restrictions on citizens’ right to defend themselves from potentially lethal attacks “wherever they have a right to be,” as our state law now says? Why is it not absurd to require background checks before someone can buy a constitutionally protected product? Why is it not absurd to contemplate banning any weapon that a person can bear? How are these restrictions of the right to self-defense any different from the restrictions to voting or speech rights contemplated above?

Quite simply: Any restriction on gun rights or the right to self-defense is equally absurd and unconstitutional.

Yet, we now have a group of Democrat state legislators in the House who have made it their priority to violate gun owners’ constitutional rights, at the expense of safety and the New Hampshire economy. The same group of Democratic legislators who complained last session when Republicans lifted the unconstitutional ban on guns in parts of the State House reinstated the ban as their first order of business this year.

Then, the Democrats busily got to work on bills to ban guns in public buildings, to prohibit people from showing a gun to diffuse a violent confrontation, to allow violent aggressors to sue people who use their gun in self defense, to require people to take a safety course before buying a gun, and to force innocent people to run and cower from someone trying to kill, rape or seriously harm them.

All of the Democrats’ ideas to restrict gun rights this year are unconstitutional and a distraction from more important business, but the Democrats are now working overtime to convince you it is a compromise for them to advance HB 135, a bill that would make you a criminal for defending your life with a gun outside your house. That bill is scheduled for a vote in the House this week.

Perhaps New Hampshire Democrats expect a woman who is about to be raped to urinate or throw-up on herself as she’s trying to get away from her rapist rather than stop the rape with her gun? Or maybe Democrats expect a disabled man in a wheelchair to let an assailant tip over his chair and take his wallet instead of prevent potentially life-threatening injuries and the theft with his gun? Do they think the well trained, concealed-carry license holder should let a madman shoot 30 people before the cops arrive or take the clear shot that he has and stop the mayhem? Maybe Democrats want a young mother to allow her children to be murdered as she runs under a table to hide instead of take a weapon from her purse and save her most precious loved ones?

With their relentless efforts, it is clearly more important for House Democrats to stop law-abiding citizens from lawfully protecting themselves than to work on efforts to rebuild our struggling economy. What’s worse, a quick look at the statistics show how Democratic efforts to curb lawful gun rights in New Hampshire will actually contribute further to economic malaise.

By far, the firearms industry in New Hampshire generates more revenue per capita and employs more people per capita than the firearms industry in every other state. In New Hampshire, there are over 2,100 people working in the firearms and ancillary industries generating over $150 million of economic activity, according to the National Shooting Sports Association, yet the Democrats want to shut this industry down.

With their uncompromising action, it’s quite clear that Democrats are not only trampling all over constitutionally protected rights, they are also actively working to harm the economy.

 

Released by House Republican Alliance

Matthew Godlewski - State Government Should Not Be Picking Business Winners and Losers

One-Sided Bill Runs Contrary to New Hampshire’s ‘Live Free or Die’ Tradition

By Matthew Godlewski, Vice President of State Affairs

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

Think back to 1998.  Remember your hairstyle?  Your clothes? 

A lot changes in 15 years.  Not only do styles and trends change, but most things need a refresh from normal wear and tear.  The same is true for auto showrooms.

That’s partly why automakers are so strongly opposed to legislation crafted by car dealer lobbyists in Concord that would restrict automakers from requiring New Hampshire’s franchised auto dealers from improving or upgrading facilities for a full 15 years.  Automakers are asking for a reasonable 7 years, the industry standard.

And when they do upgrade and refresh their showrooms and waiting areas, dealers want full freedom to do whatever they want without input or oversight from automakers.  But like with any retail product, brand consistency is important in the ultra-competitive auto industry and manufacturers deserve to be part of the renovation process.

The truth is franchise agreements serve a very real and necessary purpose when it comes to retail sales.  They ensure like quality, style, and design that reflects on the value and character of the product sold.  That’s why a McDonalds looks like a McDonalds or a Jiffy Lube like a Jiffy Lube.  The same is true for selling cars and trucks.

And the illogical changes dealers want in New Hampshire law that regulates their business relationships with manufacturers doesn’t end there.  Their changes hurt consumers.  They will cost consumers.

Dealers insist on changes that would raise retail rates for service and repairs for everyone.  Why should New Hampshire motorists pay more than drivers in other states so dealers can increase their own profits?  They shouldn’t.

Dealers want to eliminate checks and balances built into today’s accounting practices.  Five years ago, automakers could ensure the reimbursements they were paying for warranty and recall work were accurate by auditing those invoices up to 24 months back.  In 2009, that review period shrank to 12 months.  Dealers now insist on 6 months.  What are they hiding?

And, in their bill, dealer lobbyists included first-of-its-kind language in the country that would make it easier for dealers to secure automakers’ proprietary and confidential information and sue, thereby increasing litigation, clogging up the courts, and passing on those increased costs of doing business to consumers.  Good for dealers and their lawyers, but again not for you.

The fact is Senate Bill 126 is poor public policy that lets government pick business winners and losers and sets a dangerous precedent in New Hampshire law.  It benefits car dealer interests, not yours.  And it runs contrary to New Hampshire’s “Live Free or Die” tradition of encouraging a competitive marketplace for commerce while also protecting the interests of consumers.

The auto industry is in rebirth, and that’s good for New Hampshire.  Close to 24,000 New Hampshire families rely on jobs in the greater auto industry.  And auto-related taxes and fees generate $295 million annually to state coffers, totaling 14 percent of total state tax revenue.

According to the National Automobile Dealers Association, last year dealers enjoyed record pretax profits of nearly $850,000 per store on average.  The ship has been righted.  Automakers want to share that success with dealers, but not at the expense of New Hampshire families who will ultimately be left footing the bill if SB 126 becomes law.

Automakers stand ready to work with both legislators and dealers to find a balanced solution that addresses the needs of all parties and protects consumer interests as well.

###

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the leading advocacy group for the auto industry, represents 77% of all car and light truck sales in the United States, including the BMW Group, Chrysler Group LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, Volkswagen Group of America and Volvo Cars North America.

Carol Shea-Porter - It’ll Take More Than a “Jobs Card”

While there is good news about jobs again—227,000 new jobs were added in February, and there have been 23 consecutive months of private jobs growth—we still have a high unemployment rate and Congress has not passed either President Obama’s comprehensive jobs bill or one of their own.  We lost 8 million jobs during the Great Recession, and while the 23 months of private jobs growth proves that the Stimulus and other measures, such as the “Auto Bailout,” worked and that we are in recovery, Americans need a comprehensive jobs plan to move the recovery forward at a faster pace. Why can’t Congress get this done?

There was a bipartisan effort on the floor this week, as the House of Representatives passed the Jumpstart Our Business Startup (JOBS) Act. While it is nice to see anything get done in the poisonous climate, this was a minor effort, and many of the provisions actually had passed the House before and were being recycled.  This bill also will not help most Main Street businesses.  As Ed O’Keefe said in the Washington Post, “The House Bills passed Thursday would make it easier for small businesses to go public by lifting SEC restrictions on running advertisements soliciting new investors and permit ‘crowdfunding’ so that entrepreneurs can raise equity capital from larger pools of small investors.”  He goes on to say that it would also let small companies have more shareholders and sell more shares before registering with the SEC.  This bill is a help for some, but these issues are not the issues that confront most small businesses on Main Street.

 So, this is a little good news, but it is not going to drive down the unemployment rate. How many jobs will come out of this “jobs” bill?  I could not find anyone in the majority who would hazard a guess. With all the bragging that normally goes on, though, this is not a good sign. Congressman Steny Hoyer, a Democrat from Maryland, said to the Republicans during the floor debate, “I thank you for bringing it to the floor, but let us not delude America or deceive ourselves that this is the jobs bill that we need to be passing.”

Are there any other bills that would create jobs? Speaker John Boehner has asked all of the Republican members to carry a card that lists all of their efforts to create jobs.  The Representatives should just stick to waving the card and not let anyone actually read it, because voters won’t be happy if they do. For example, one bill on the card is HR 2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN) Act, also mentioned by Congressman Guinta as a jobs bill. It is not a jobs bill. Instead, it prohibits the EPA from implementing rules that mandate pollution controls to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants, including those causing smog and acid rain. Implementation of these EPA rules will prevent unnecessary deaths and improve Americans' health, but the Republican legislators are willing to allow corporations to spew more mercury under the pretense of creating jobs.

Also on the card and on Congressman Guinta's jobs list is HR 2587, the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act, also known as the "Jobs Outsourcers Bill of Rights."  This bill deprives workers of any remedy if a company closes a plant or lays people off or transfers workers to punish them for engaging in protected union activity. It permits employers to discriminate against workers who try to form a union, forcing them to choose between their job and their rights.

The jobs card is fake. It takes more than placing "jobs" in a bill title to make a jobs bill.  Bruce Bartlett, an economist who served in both the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations, said that the majority’s insistence that cutting regulations will somehow create a lot of jobs is “just nonsense. It’s just made up.” He noted that, “It is a simple case of opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.”

Many Republicans acknowledge they are not creating jobs. Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican of West Virginia, said,  “I think there’s a huge sense of frustration with everybody, regardless of party. Nothing’s getting done on the most significant issue facing them.”

President Obama presented a comprehensive jobs bill. The House refused to bring it to the floor.  Let’s hope they surrender and do the right thing soon.

###

Former Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter represented New Hampshire’s First District from 2007-2011, she is seeking a third term in the November, 2012 election.  She wrote the proposal for and established a non-profit, social service agency, which continues to serve all ages.  She taught politics and history and is a strong supporter of Medicare and Social Security.

Bill Wilson - Obama's Lost Labor Force

Since Barack Obama assumed office, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the total population over age 16 has grown by 5.845 million to 240.5 million, and yet, since then, the civilian labor force has actually shrunk by 349,000 — from about 154.2 million to 153.8 million. 

This is a startling contradiction, and it is at the heart of why the unemployment rate is much higher than the 8.5 percent being reported.

The problem is that the measured civilian labor force participation rate has fallen from 65.7 percent to 64 percent since Jan. 2009, reflecting people who have lost hope and simply stopped looking for work.  If those people were still counted, the actual civilian labor force would be 4.176 million higher than is reported at about 158 million.

Based on this analysis, the number of unemployed is actually closer to 17 million instead of the 13 million reported jobless.  That is simply astounding.

Instead of 8.5 percent, the effective unemployment rate should be closer to 10.9 percent, and the underemployed closer to 17.4 percent, or 27.3 million.  This is what we mean when we say that the unemployment rate is no longer a valid economic indicator.

Propaganda is not going to get the real unemployed into jobs.  It's not going to help families keep their homes.  It's not going to help college graduates to enter the work force.  We're nowhere near where we should be, and it's Obama's fault.

It's his regulatory burdens that are being imposed through the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) carbon endangerment finding and through Obamacare.  It is he who is insisting on raising taxes on job creators, and playing class warfare to cobble together a constituency that wants to apparently take from their employers' purses.  It is Obama who has refused to get the nation's crushing debt load under control, where the $15.2 trillion national debt is nearly larger than the entire economy. 

To get the economy moving again, the government needs to slash corporate tax rates, which are the highest in the world of advanced economies.  It is imperative that the regulatory overkill come to an end.  The dollar needs to be strengthened to lower costs and stabilize energy and food costs.  The debt needs to be paid down and retired, and the budget balanced. Onerous federal securities laws and state-by-state blue sky laws need to be repealed that make it cost-ineffective for new businesses to raise capital.

In short, it must become competitive to do business here in America again.  And that will probably not happen so long as Obama is in office.  It is clear the nation needs new leadership that is intent on actually creating jobs and restoring hope, instead of ignoring the despair of Obama's lost labor force.

###

Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government.

NH Sen. Jeb Bradley - Continued Frugality Necessary to Protect Taxpayers and Grow Jobs

By Jeb Bradley 11/28/2011

In passing the 2011 budget, the Legislature made tough decisions and difficult cuts to stabilize NH finances while also laying the groundwork for economic recovery.

Judging the 2011 budget must be made in the context of the previous two budgets which increased spending 23% from $9.36 billion to $11.5 billion. In those prior budgets, when tax revenue underperformed, Legislators resorted to unprecedented borrowing for operating expenses and Stimulus funds to close growing deficits. That gap from prior budgets was at least $800 million when current legislators began formulating the 2011 budget. Difficult choices could not be avoided!

Those of us tasked with producing a balanced budget also recognized that New Hampshire taxpayers, working families, and small business owners were still reeling from nearly 100 new or increased taxes and fees passed in the previous four years. Those new levies included the job killing LLC business owner income tax and the camping tax that proved to be so odious they were repealed. Given the negative impact that higher taxes would have on job growth and hardworking Granite Staters, higher taxes were an obvious non-starter.

Two of the more difficult decisions involved funding for hospitals and the University System. Due to the fact they are both large expenditure items, cuts in these line items could not be avoided if the budget was to be balanced. Very few legislators wanted to make these cuts, but unfortunately they were necessary.

Due to their not-for-profit status hospitals pay no business taxes and very little property taxes. Over the years these hospitals have absorbed numerous private physician practices that had previously paid taxes, but now don’t, because they are under the hospital umbrella.  Meanwhile, some of these not-for-profit hospitals act like large businesses by engaging in expensive advertising wars fighting for market share. Nevertheless, a provision in the budget allows some future funding for hospitals should revenue become available.

While virtually all state departments received less funding, the Senate retained funding for the mental-health system and for families that have disabled children.

Other budget cuts that generated much discussion were in the Department of Transportation and were made necessary by the expiration of the $30 (and in many instances higher) surcharge on motor vehicle registrations. The surcharge was enacted in the 2009 budget and promised to be a temporary measure.  New Hampshire residents complained about this surcharge as much as any of the nearly 100 taxes or fee increased in the previous four years -- rightly viewing it as a “fee” to get to work. 

Allowing it to expire as promised does have consequences in the Transportation budget however. Initially the Department proposed snow plowing cuts on secondary roads.  Several legislators led by Sen. Chuck Morse and Rep. Gene Chandler objected and the newly appointed Transportation Commissioner announced an alternative plan that will ensure the same level of plowing as in past winters.  Instead, reductions will be made in maintenance, mowing, road sweeping, tree trimming, and pavement markings in 2012 and the Department will work with the Legislature to meet budget constraints.

In my view, we must prioritize necessary maintenance over most new construction with the exception of projects such as Route 93 expansion, the Little Bay Bridge or Conway bypass that have  state-wide traffic significance.  There also must be recognition that maintaining our roads and highways costs money.

Because of realistic and conservative projections, revenue is somewhat ahead of expectations -- welcome news indeed.  Business taxes, the most important revenue source, are 12% above predicted. The rooms and meals tax, the communications tax, and the real estate transfer tax are all slightly ahead. It is a hopeful sign of possible light at the end of the recession tunnel, when business, real estate, and tourism revenue are improving.

A key priority, especially for the Senate, has been enacting legislation that improves the business climate for job creation. We passed bipartisan legislation (SB 125) that dramatically curtails the ability of the Department of Revenue to foist a de-facto income tax on the salary a business owner pays him or herself.  We passed legislation (SB-86) that restricts the Department of Labor from imposing large fines on business owners for rather minor paperwork violations without first warning the business.  We expanded net operating loss provisions to encourage start-up businesses and job creation by wrapping SB-126 into the next budget.   Also included in the budget, SB-154 made changes to development rules near rivers and lakes that will encourage a depressed home building industry by easing requirements while still protecting the environment.

Furthermore, the Senate sought to relieve future pressure for tax increases through a number of government reform efforts.  A new education funding formula sponsored by Senators Jim Rausch and Nancy Stiles ended donor downs and prevented unsustainable future cost increases while ensuring the cities and towns received the same level of funding in these difficult times.  SB-147 reforms Medicaid, the largest cost center in our budget, saving significant present and future costs while maintaining quality services for those in need.  And finally pension reform will save property taxpayers from skyrocketing costs.

This Senate legislation – much of which I was the primary sponsor of -- will pave the way for more cost effective, efficient government and a demonstrably improved business climate. New Hampshire’s unemployment rate -- while still too high -- has dropped from 5.7% in November 2010 to 5.3% today. However, the fact that nearly 40,000 of our friends and neighbors remain out of work gives added urgency to these measures.

There are also budget storm clouds on the horizon. The federal government seeks to recoup $35 million of excess Medicaid payments made to New Hampshire several years ago. This calls for continued careful budgeting and living within our means.  Governor Lynch was able to save $26 million from the previous budget through carefully managing each department’s expenditures. 

A budget provision supported by Governor Lynch as well as Senate and House budget writers would curtail welfare eligibility saving $8million per year. Though almost most legislators agree with this change, a drafting mistake was made and the language was not reflected in the final budget. 

Realizing this, the Senate met in early September to pass fix-it legislation before more money was spent. Unfortunately, the House waited for a month to address the issue which cost nearly a million dollars.  The House then added a non-germane amendment that will foolishly cost another two million dollars.

The State needs to continue to practice frugality to protect hard pressed New Hampshire taxpayers and to help our economy weather the national recession.