Rep. Jim Splaine Blog

John F. Kennedy's Challenge: Let's Be As Great As We Can Be

2008-05-11T01:25:48Z

President John F. Kennedy said it all when he challenged us to do what we can do for our country, and by that he meant for one another. Lots of Republicans seem to want to take all they can from this country, and keep it all for themselves. Not all Republicans are like that, but it sure does seem to be a trend.

Case in point: John Stephen, wannabe Republican candidate against Carol Shea-Porter this November, held a big public ceremony, attended by only few people, to sign the "Americans For Tax Reform Taxpayer Protection Pledge." Whoopee Golly Gee Gosh I'm so surprised I could fall off my chair.

Seeing him standing next to that great defender of American working men and women, ATR boss Grover Norquist, made for a beautiful picture. A proud John Stephen trying to get a leg up, or whatever, over former Congressperson Jeb Bradley by showing he's even more conservative. Brave man this Stephen guy is, willing to sign this "pledge" not to raise any taxes, ever. Seeing how honest Republicans have been in recent years, one does have to wonder about the value of a signature anyway.

At his grand signing event, John Stephen was quoted as saying, "The tax cuts of the past decade are absolutely critical to the long-term success of our economy and our growth." Read that to say that if we let the wealthy keep more of their money, they'll make more low-paying jobs for some of us so they can make even more money, as if the incentive isn't there for them to do that already. (For those of us who remember, President Ronald Reagan put a term to it -- the "trickle-down theory," where us peeons got wet having the economy drip down on us. Any questions?)

John Stephen is a funny guy.

"Economy" and "growth?" Tell that to many Americans -- the 99 percent of us who don't happen to be in the top one percent of the "wealthy millionaire class," many of whom never worked a day at one of the Walmarts or McDonalds or gas stations they own or hold stock in.

With people really hurting, and a winter coming in a few months when people won't be able to pay their heating bill, and kids not getting the education they need to compete in a 21st Century world with kids from other nations, and the need for investing in alternative energy to get off the reliance on Bush's oil friends, it's interesting to see Republicans like John Stephen stumbling over one another to show how "conservative" they are so that government will spend less so that the rich can get richer and keep all their money, and the poor will get poorer.

Corporate America underpays those who work for them, and the CEOs of those corporations get their multi-million dollar golden parachutes, and the Republicans are their servants. A lot of Republicans seem to want to hold a yard sale for our government and have it just go out of business. They want to stay in Iraq, they want to attack Iran, they want a 12 foot wall from the Gulf to the Pacific, and they want to have government peering into our library books, listening to our telephone calls, and checking into our bedroom activities. But they just don't want to pay for it.

Isn't it neat the way "politics" works among the Republicans? One hand washes the other. Fortunately for New Hampshire right now, Carol Shea-Porter, who has an eye out of "the rest of us" 99%, and Paul Hodes, who stands up for people who need help, will be re-elected this November because we need them more than ever.

Yes, John Stephen is a funny guy. But governing is serious business, and people's families and lives and futures are at stake. Carol Shea-Porter knows that, and will be re-elected over a John Stephen or Jeb Bradley or whomever because New Hampshire voters aren't going to be laughing this November.

John F. Kennedy's challenge is an ideal we should all be willing to accept to make our nation, and its people, as great as we can be.

On Senator Peter Burling's Retirement

2008-05-07T00:13:35Z

Democrats in New Hampshire are losing a fighter. State Senator Peter Burling's retirement at the end of this year, hopefully only temporary, takes off our bench someone with character and the ability to take on Republicans on issue after issue.

Peter is always quick to "engage" and "go into action" for those causes in which he believes, and that's been one reason I've respected him through all these years. I appreciate those who can put on a good fight, then win or lose go onto the next issue and perhaps, perhaps, on that next one you're on the same side.

Republican's shouldn't rejoice too much, and probably aren't. It's good to have people in each political party who can fight hard, and win or lose go onto the next issue. Legislative debate is at its best when people get passionate over the issues, make clear their positions, and do it all with class. Peter Burling has been that kind of leader. Republicans have had some too, and not to compare him in the same league with Peter, I think Senator Bob Clegg is one of those who is also up front in whatever position he takes, and after the debate and the vote goes onto the next issue. Senator Ted Gatsas is another. I'd say the Democrats have more, like Senators Molly Kelly, Lou D'Allesandro, Maggie Hassan, Jackie Cilley, Martha Fuller Clark, Sylvia Larsen, Joe Foster, and I could go on. "We" as Democrats have some depth on our bench.

But back to Peter -- as a State Representative back in the 1990s, then as Democratic House Leader, Peter worked during the more lean years and then some of the greener times of Democratic politics. Despite not having the numbers of members in the House to his advantage, he many times was tremendously effective at taking the fight to the Republicans, catching them off-base, and stopping bad things from becoming worse. He and now Democratic Chair Ray Buckley, who also can put on a good fight, teamed up and put together a coalition of House Democrats which stuck tightly together on most good causes. Democrats can't ask for much better service than that.

In 2002 and again in 2004, had circumstances been a bit different, Peter Burling would have, could have, been elected Governor. In early 2004 I pledged to him I'd support him if he ran for Governor. It would have been a good campaign, and Craig Benson had to be defeated. Things turned out well for Democrats that year -- with John Lynch coming forward with his candidacy, and Peter ran for the State Senate where again he's done some good things.

I've enjoyed watching Peter Burling at work in his committees and on the floor in debate. The New Hampshire legislative process benefits when people of conviction are willing to use their talent and life's experiences to help problem-solve. Peter Burling earned his $100-a-year salary many times over by giving so much of himself. That's what a good "citizen" is all about, and that is even more descriptive of Peter Burling than the title "politician."

Throughout the years, there's been a clarity and a commitment in what Peter Burling has said, and they way he says it. That has led to much respect from both Republicans and Democrats, and that will last him through his retirement, and will be waiting for his return if he decides to do so.

The Port Of Portsmouth: Let's Not Put Power In The Hands Of The Few, Or One

2008-04-26T23:18:45Z

There is a local issue directly concerning the Seacoast area that nevertheless has a lot of implications statewide. It has to do with House Bill 65, which in my view as now written gives too much power and control to the Pease Development Authority, and specifically to its Executive Director, over The Port in Portsmouth. Especially relevant to the rest of the state is that there is commercial activity at The Port that generates some income for the state and could eventually bring in more.

I have opposed the legislation for over a year, and it is now in the State Senate, having already passed the House. At hearings and discussions up to this point I have pointed out that I believe there is value to the separate "departmentalization" which we now have, where there is oversight of the functions of The Port, but still a certain degree of independence as well.

Unifying control and power in the hands of just a few, or just one, means perhaps what some might term as "efficiency," but there is something important in spreading power out, as is now the case. Instead of one telephone call or deal to "get something done," it might take two or three or four. In government, that is a good thing. Two people can keep a secret. It's much more difficult with three. And after all these years of being involved -- gosh, back to the mid-1960s -- I still remain a bit skeptical of government.

Government can do good things, but citizens have to be able to watch it and guide it. I believe in the value of involving our citizens in as many ways as possible. Centralizing control of The Port in the hands of the Pease Development Authority, and giving greater oversight of The Port to PDA staff, to me is counter to citizen involvement -- and "keeping 'em all honest."

My observation is not to infer distrust in the current PDA Board, the Director, or the staff. What we have to remember is that those currently in those positions will not always be there, and the system and framework that we set up now is one we will have to live with in years to come. The solutions we come up with today aren't just about now -- they're about twenty years from now.

This past week The Portsmouth Herald editorialized, and I share its view, that "The governance of our ports and harbors may not be perfect, but it is certainly not in urgent need of repair and we worry that, as a cure, House Bill 65 is far more dangerous than the ills it intends to fix. It would be far better to thoroughly vet the bill and then reintroduce it at the beginning of the next legislative session than to rush and make a mistake."

I also agree with the concerns raised by the Portsmouth City Council, Rye Selectpeople, Executive Councilor Bev Hollingworth, and some other Seacoast legislators. On this issue I find myself in disagreement with Governor John Lynch and some others who are pushing this legislation forward.

While I understand the difficulty at this point in stopping legislation from passing on which many people have spent considerable time, now that others have stepped forward and offered their concerns as I did over a year ago, I think there is a need to step back and take a new look at the bill, and how it will impact our future -- and the vision of the entire state as to what The Port should become for the balance of this Century, and beyond. Let's be mighty careful in the changes we make.

The "Granny D Bill" Might Become Law

2008-04-25T00:22:54Z

A potentially far-reaching bill that all Republicans and Democrats should support because of the way it can clean up our political system has passed the State Senate and is on its way to Governor John Lynch for his signature.

House Bill 794 creates a seven-member group which will consider public funding options of certain campaigns in New Hampshire -- possibly Governor, State Senate, and Governor's Council. So, this legislation could eventually dramatically affect for the good the way that democracy is exercised in our state.

After a public hearing early last year the bill was sent to a House Election Law Subcommittee which I chaired. There I saw first-hand the enthusiasm for the concept of this bill that Granny D and others brought to her cause as we held a dozen work sessions on the bill.

The Subcommittee even met with Maine State Representatives to learn more about how public funding of certain campaigns works in that state. Altogether, we had over 35 hours of discussion on this bill in the Legislature. HB 794 passed the House on January 16th on a roll call of 199 to 121.

I have dubbed House Bill 794 as "THE GRANNY D BILL," because this is her cause. She walked across America in support of "clean elections." In light of the ever-increasing costs of running for public office and the reliance on personal wealth or extensive fundraising in order to run for public office, this bill seeks to allow for a different approach to funding campaigns for potential candidates without such financial sources.

The people on the bipartisan Commission created by HB 794 will dedicate themselves in the next few months to the task of identifying alternative ways to fund state campaigns. The Commission will examine potential revenue sources for funding and develop recommendations to the legislative session of 2009.

This Commission, under the directives of the bill, may consider voluntary contributions, in-kind donations of services, and other means to generate revenue. The Commission will include not more than three members of a political party. No Commission members can currently hold elective office. Two appointments are to be made by the House Speaker, two by the Senate President, two by the Governor, and one by the Secretary of State. The Commission will report back by December 1, 2008, in time for legislative action in 2009.

Some twelve states already have "clean election" laws at one level or another, with Maine, Arizona, and Connecticut having statewide versions affecting most elected offices. This concept has been publicly endorsed by leaders and people who have run for "higher office" from both parties: former GOVERNOR WALTER PETERSON, former Gubernatorial candidate JIM RUBINS, former Democratic U.S. Senate nominee JOHN RAUH, former Gubernatorial nominee PAUL McEACHERN and former State Senators CLIF BELOW and RICK TROMBLY, among others.

In addition, SECRETARY OF STATE BILL GARDNER has been a strong advocate of the legislation and the public funding concept. A number of other long-time supporters of the Granny D cause who have worked with her for the past decade also contributed to the success of the legislation to this point. Representatives of the League of Women Voters, NH Citizens Alliance, Americans for Campaign Reform, Public Action for Clean Elections, and Veterans for Peace NH have also supported the legislation.

I think the Commission will do its job well, and that it will come up with inventive, innovative ways to implement the concept here "The New Hampshire Way."

House Bill 794 was cosponsored by Representatives PETER ALLEN, BETTY HALL, DANA HILLIARD, BARBARA RICHARDSON, SENATOR JACKIE CILLEY, and myself. Several members of the House Election Law Committee worked especially hard on making the bill succeed, including DAVID PIERCE, who prepared the amendment creating the Commission, CLAUDIA CHASE and CHUCK WEED, who were on the Subcommittee which I chaired, along with David Pierce and Betty Hall and went to a number of meetings on the bill, and COMMITTEE CHAIR JANE CLEMONS, who helped in passage on the House Floor.

But this one really is a great victory for Granny D -- who repeatedly would tell us this isn't "about her," it's not even "about us," it's about our children, and our future.

She's right.

Should 17 Year Olds Be Able To Vote In New Hampshire Primaries?

2008-04-23T23:50:36Z

A bill that would allow 17 year olds who turn 18 by the time of the General Election to be able to vote in the September state primaries and in the NH First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary is being considered in the New Hampshire Legislature. I've long supported the measure, and I think it would increase voter interest, as some nine other states with similar laws have already learned. Besides, it is the right thing to do.

The legislation, Senate Bill 436, has been "tabled" by the House so that the State Supreme Court will answer questions as to whether it is constitutional to allow 17 year olds to vote in primaries.

IF the Court opines "yes," the legislation could be taken from the table before the end of this Legislative Session in June, but that is unlikely. It will take perhaps until mid to late May for the Court to offer an opinion, and it will take a 2/3rds vote to remove it from the table.

The Republicans, generally, seem opposed to passage. New Hampshire Republican Chair Fergus Cullen made some weird comment about this being a "pumpkin bill," some reference to legislation from a couple of years ago. I responded that he's comparing apples to oranges. I guess he likes fruit, and I personally will not criticize him for that. Fruit and vegetables are very healthy, and are generally inexpensive so we can agree on that.

Anyway, this isn't really a delay, because the bill would as recommended by the House Election Law Committee have an effective date of the end of this year, making it applicable to the September 2010 state primary at the earliest. So a Supreme Court opinion as to constitutionality is a wise thing to request since when the legislation is reintroduced later this year for the 2009 Legislative Session, it can be properly written, and if it needs to be a Constitutional Amendment instead of a statutory change that can be accomplished at that time.

I hope we'll see eventual passage of this bill, despite the opposition that it has received from some quarters. The fact is, 17 year olds can join the military to be trained to fight in the American wars that our President and the Congress commits our nation to.

They at least should have the right to vote in the primaries where the political parties decide who to put up as nominees. Besides, I think a lot of 17 year olds are less biased and are a lot smarter than many of us who are two, three, four times their senior.

What do you think?