"Brother Can You Spare Another 15 Thou?"

As House and Senate budget conferees burn the midnight oil trying to craft an acceptable state spending plan for the biennium, University of New Hampshire system officials are in the room hoping that they aren't hit with any more cuts.  Word is that the Senate has agreed to trim $20 million from its plan to meet the House halfway.

 The University system couldn't be in a worse position, thanks in part to last Friday's banner headline on page four of the Union Leader.  "Huddleston (who was pictured) pay hiked as faculty faces cuts."

Reporter Clynton Namuo did a bang up job noting how the Board of Trustees has awarded a $15,000 bonus (50 percent more than his contract stipulates) to UNH President Mark Huddleston who is already the state's highest paid employee earning about $334,000 a year. 

This inexplicable largess comes at the very time that the university system must absorb about $80 million in state cuts for the biennium, at the very time tuition increases are planned, at the very time faculty and other personnel face salary cuts.

As the Senate and House are set to come back in session at 8 p.m. Tuesday, Huddleston is not in the audience, but two prominent men are--Chancellor Ed MacKay (he makes a paltry $288,000) and former State Senator and current Chairman of the University system Board of Trustees Ed DuPont.

I was infuriated when I read the article and apparently I wasn't the only one.

Holy insensitivity Batman, talk about a boneheaded move at precisely the wrong time.

The Union Leader article made it seem like Trustees feel Huddleston is an indispensable man, that higher education in the state will crumble should he decide to leave his cushy position and that the only way to keep him in place is to keep throwing money at him.

Let's get one thing clear.

No one is indispensable, no senator, no House member, no Governor, and certainly no University President.  No one deserves a huge salary increase, no matter how disguised, at a time when others are suffering.

If President Huddleston had any sensibility whatsoever, he would have immediately issued a press release announcing not merely that he was declining the $15,000 but that he was taking a pay cut as well.

Panhandlers still pester us (at least in Manchester) with some variation of the line, "Brother can you spare a dime?"

At the University trustee level, the new line seems to be, "Brother can you spare another 15 thou?"  Actually, as the Union Leader reports, the latest vote in Durham guarantees Huddleston a $45,000 bonus for this fiscal year.  It'll be placed in an account that will vest on June 30, 2012 when the money will officially become his.

If Huddleston leaves early, Namuo reports, he loses the cash which may eclipse $160,000 by the time the account vests.

Let's spell that out so there can be no mistake.  One hundred sixty thousand dollars! How many tuition hikes will it take to bring in $160,000?

It's almost as if there's a veiled threat that should Huddleston not get the deferred compensation hike, he'll take a hike.  My advice to him--don't let the door hit you on the way out.  UNH got alone just fine before Huddleston arrived on the scene; it'll get along just fine after he leaves.

Greed, among those very well compensated, seems to know no bounds.

Certainly greed knew no bounds with Bernie Madoff.  Certainly he was viewed as an indispensable man by those who invested with him.

Huddleston is no more indispensable than is Bernie Madoff.

House and Senate conferees, as their first order of business at 8 p.m., should cut another $15,000 from the $80 million already removed from the UNH budget.

Of course it would be a pittance, but don't you think the Trustees might get the message?  Don't you think the Eds (DuPont and MacKay) would fall out of their seats if they heard such a motion?

I'm just asking.

Senate Sticks Fork (And Knife) In Channel 11

                   There is no joy in Concord for any culture lovers who are convinced that defunding Channel 11 will result in the ruination of civilization as we know it.

            After tabling House Bill 113 (despite two promises from President Peter Bragdon that the bill would be passed) which would have defunded Channel 11, the Senate has killed  any remaining hopes that state dollars would be forthcoming for New Hampshire Public Broadcasting.

            As House conferees acceded to Senate Section 385 of House Bill 2 yesterday, the final nail may well have been driven into the Channel 11 coffin.

            To grasp at another metaphor, stick a fork in it; this baby’s done.

            Or another…The Senate knifed in the back any Channel 11 supporters who had held out the slim hope that Senators would come riding to their rescue on a white steed.

            Here’s the complete text of Section 385.

            “Appropriation to New Hampshire Public Television.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any appropriation made in the capital or operating budget for New Hampshire public television shall be made directly to New Hampshire public television, and shall not be appropriated or expended by the university system of New Hampshire, the trustees of the university system of New Hampshire, or any other state agency.”

            Channel 11 in recent years had been with an appropriation ($2.7 million a year) which had flowed through the University system.

            House Bill 113 (my bill which was supported by nearly 75 % of House members) originally stated, “No state general funds shall be appropriated expended for the purpose of funding New Hampshire public television.”

            Of course, the House and Senate (with the language of Section 385) could make a special appropriation for Channe1 11.

            Not gonna happen.

            The University system was not gonna pony up the $2.7 million even had section 385 not been added, not when the system itself is taking a 40 percent hit in funding (the final amount is still being negotiated).

            I’ll repeat what I’ve said throughout this process.  I have nothing against Channel 11; I watch Channel 11 (the Alexander Hamilton special a few weeks back was ausgezeichnet—whoops I’m into German these days—it was excellent).   I simply do not believe taxpayer dollars should be used for such niceties.

            Apparently others are agreeing with me.  The Union Leader has been joined by the Nashua Telegraph in editorializing in favor of Channel 11 standing on its own merit.  “NHPTV loss part of national trend” the Telegraph editorialized noting, “Either it will have to learn to operate on a more spartan budget or ramp up its corporate and individual donations.”

            Amen.

            NHPTV hasn’t asked my opinion, but I’ll offer it anyway.  Rather than eliminating the only two local programs it produces on a regular basis (Granite State Quiz and NH Outlook), it should have cut back on its bloated salary packages for administrators.

            Certainly the two local shows could not have cost all that much to produce.  Guess how many staffers work on my weekly show on Manchestertv23 (an hour live each Wednesday at 9 p.m. with rebroadcast Thursday at 9 p.m., Sunday at noon, and Tuesday at 11 p.m., always available on line at vimeo.com/channels/mpa—a shameless promotion is always in order)?

            You would be right if you said ONE—the same one who produces eight hours of live programming every Wednesday.  Dare I say some of them are even more interesting than NH Outlook?

            Yes, I dare.

            Rather than get rid of Lawrence Welk (who has cursed me since my aunt inflicted champagne music on me back in the 1950s), rather than spare us four hours of the latest Les Miz over and over, Channel 11 has made the unwise decision to eliminate its only two local shows.

            That would be analogous to UNH saying—if you cut our funding, we’re going to eliminate football and hockey.

            As I say, nobody asked me, but if they did, I could come up with enough cuts not only to save local programming but to greatly expand it.

            For example, if NHPTV spent less money on its super duper web site, maybe it could spend more on local programming!  As always you don't have to thank me (or pay me).

Romney Clearly Delivered The Goods

The answer is:  I'm a big Bruins fan.

The question of course is:  What did you think of that debate last night?

The answer is:  Hockey (other than World Cup soccer) is the only sport where action in pretty much continuous.  Nothing beats a Stanley Cup finals, especially when the Bruins are in it.

But the question is:  What did you think of that debate last night?

I repeat the answer:  I'm a huge Bruins fan.

Enough already. 

It should be clear I didn't watch the debate.  Oh all right. 

I caught two minutes between periods.  John King was maligning Herman Cain about having Muslims in his Cabinet.  Newt interrupted to say that Nazis were bad people, implying that we wouldn't have Nazis in his Cabinet.  No Newt, I thought, but you might have German Americans (Henry Kissinger was German as I recall) in high government positions, so is the point that all Germans are Nazis, that all Muslims are terrorists?  Just what is the point?

Whoops!  Time to get back to the hockey game.  Whew, that was close.  I nearly had to deal with Newt's pandering to the crowd. 

Score!

The winner clearly was Mitt Romney, not merely because the Nashua Telegraph paid service says so in an alert this morning, but because, from the clip I saw this morning, he's the one who reported that the Bruins were ahead 4-0 (5-2 was the final...in the words of the late great baseball announcer Bob Prince, "We had 'en allllll the way!").

Say all you want about how great this Granite State is, but give us the Bruins score and you win.

While I didn't watch the debate, I heard Glen Beck assailing (humorously so) CNN moderator John King this morning.  Apparently he cleared his throat five seconds into every answer, as if to say my question is much more important than your answer so let's get back to me.  There was something about a Cadillac commercial interrupting a debate on auto bailouts.  Maybe Beck will continue the brutal assault on his Fox show today at 5...brutal, absolutely savage!  (Sarcasm is always appropriate).

But back to important things.  The Bruins have outscored Vancouver 19-8 yet they return to Canada tied at three games apiece.  Kinda reminds me of the 1960 World Series (I'm not that old, but I remember it from history--Chuck Thompson calling Maz's home run in Game 7) when the Yankees drubbed the Pirates by huge margins in three games but lost four close ones.  Say it ain't so, oh great god of the sports world.

While I missed the action (from the debate this is), I was unfortunate enough to catch a snippet of Channel 9's cartoon character scoring the contest on the 11 p.m. news.  Who cares if Daffy Pindell thinks Herman Cain merits only a C-?  Who died and left him adjudicator in chief?  

Here's a man who's failed at every enterprise he's attempted yet your source for news scoops him up for a pay service and deems him qualified to score a debate.

Give me a break!

Thanks the hockey gods and Mitt Romney for delivering the important news.  Bruins win.  CNN loses; Channel 9 loses; Daffy Pindell loses!

Unfortunately my own TV show (More Politically Alert on manchestertv23) goes live Wednesday at 9 p.m., right in the middle of what should be a great game seven.  Oh well, I fear the Maz syndrome anyway.  It'll be better if I don't watch.

In honor of Weiner's Woody, I'll be running Tom Lehrer's classic song "Smut" on the show Wednesday...ah yes, give me smut and nothing but, the adventures of a slut, a dirty magazine I can't shut.  But I digress...

Sic The Grammar Police On The Anointed One

In preparing to post this week's Media Watch, I was going to get picky with grammatical phrasings of Sunday's WMUR reporter.  As I was in the kitchen adding a dollop of whipped cream to a strawberry shortcake (homemade of course), my ears started to bleed from what I heard escaping from the TV in the adjacent room.  I decided that on a picky pedant would bring forth such criticism here, and then I came upon (in Politico) this sentence from the Anointed One being interviewed by Ann Curry for Today.

Regarding disgraced Congressman Anthony Weinter, President Obama commented, "I can tell you that if it was me, I would resign."

While I agree with the Great One's sentiments, am I the only one who's noticed that he committed a grammatical twofer, two errors jammed into one short sentence?

Does grammar not matter any more?  Apparently not.

Is this what we've come to accept and to expect as part of the great dumbing down of American society?  Apparently so.

I normally cut slack to sportscasters speaking off the cuff for long periods of time.  (Dick Stockton is an especially egregious commentator, so bad I usually turn off any game when I first detect his nasal twang). 

I even cut slack to newscasters who are filling time with ad libs.  However, clearly the Channel 9 report was scripted; I'll get to that tomorrow, but the Obama blunder demands immediate comment.

Back in elementary school, I recall working from a textbook entitled "If I Were Going".  It was a perfect way to learn the subjunctive mood.  When one is referring to a statement contrary to fact, the verb form is the plural  "were" even though the noun is the singular I.  I may err when I'm speaking off the cuff, but I usually correct myself immeidately.

If I were to make an error, I would correct myself...not if I was to make an error...

If it WERE me, I would resign.

However, that's not right either...as I'm sure at least one of you has gathered.

We're talking subject complement here, and the nominative form (I) is required, not the objective form (me).

If it WERE I, I would resign...nor if it were ME.

I know, I know, too many people today use Me when I is the correct pronoun for a subject complement.  It doesn't make it right.

"That would be I" is the proper phrasing, not "that would be me".

I'll never forget when no less an august person than then Finance Chair Marjorie Smith felt the need to correct me in the third floor hallway when I stated, "That would be I."

"That would be me is what you mean," she scolded me.

Actually Madame Chair, "That would be I is correct."

When you go out of your way to correct someone's grammar and then err yourself, isn't it especially embarassing?  Well, probably not as embarassing as crafting a budget with revenue estimates $300 million too high! 

I can only hope I'm not in error in correcting the Anointed One...."if it was me".

If I were Anthony Weiner, I would resign.  If I were he, I would resign.

I left my scribblings of quibblings about Channel 9 at home.

Tomorrow is another day.

The Week In Polls--Don't Raise Debt Ceiling

            In a week featuring Obama falling back to earth with a thud and Mitt Romney establishing a substantial lead among Republicans both nationally and here in New Hampshire, the most interesting poll of the week is Zogby’s finding that Americans don’t want the debt ceiling raised and aren’t all that concerned about the consequences.

            Zogby asked, “Do you agree or disagree that the U.S. Congress should raise the debt ceiling”?   Why not just ask, "Should Congress raise the debt ceiling?"  That would be simpler.   By a 42-50 % margin, all voters say don’t raise it.  Republicans are 13-81, Independents 36-57, and only Democrats (by a 71-18 margin) want the ceiling raised.

            Not only that, but by similar numbers, most people aren’t worried that the government will default on its debt and endanger the economy if Congress fails to raise the ceiling.

            The numbers fearing default are 37-45 for all, 18-66 for Republicans, 36-46 for Independents, and again only Democrats (by a 55-27 margin) express fears. 

            By a 51-15 margin, Americans would be more likely to favor raising the debt ceiling if they knew Congress would pass major budget cuts at the same time.  (27 percent said it would make no difference; 17 percent were unsure).

            You don’t hear the Lame Stream Media, trying to whip up fears of economic catastrophe if the ceiling isn’t raised, reporting those numbers.

            Obama never got the big bounce with Zogby that he did in other polls.  He only got up to 48-51, but that was down to 46 % favorable last week, and it’s all the way down to 43 % today.

            Gallup, which had Obama’s favorability margin into double digits, has it back down to two points, 46-44 today.  Rasmussen has it at negative five (47-52), but Rasmussen’s margin of strongly disapprove is back to 18 points (22-40).  That’s the first time strongly disapprove has been at 40 % since bin Laden was killed.

            The Real Clear Politics average, which had Obama up nearly ten points just two weeks ago, has it down to plus 1.2 (47.6-46.4) and falling day by day.

            The RCP average for Congress is minus 46.3 (that’s not a typo) at 23.5 favorable, 69.8 unfavorable.

            Right track-wrong track is minus 30.8 (30.4-61.2).

            Two new nationwide polls on GOP contenders are out Monday.  Romney leads Palin by eight with Gallup, by four with CNN.

            Gallup—Romney 24, Palin 16, Giuliani and Cain 9, Ron Paul 7, Pawlenty and Santorum 6, Bachmann and Gingrich 5, and Huntsman 1.  That’s the first time I’ve seen Santorum ahead of Gingrich who hangs in at 10 percent in the CNN poll.

            CNN—Romney 24, Palin 20, Giuliani 12, Gingrich and Cain 10, Ron Paul 7, Bachmann 4, Pawlenty 3, Santorum, Huntsman, and Perry 1.

            The Boston Globe’s Poll of New Hampshire voters was released Sunday and shows Romney with a 32 point lead, more than four times the number for second place finisher Giuliani.  It’s Romney 41, Giuliani 9, Ron Paul 6, Palin 5, Cain and Bachmann 4, Gingrich, Pawlenty, and Huntsman 3.

            Truth in blogging—I remain an avid Ron Paul supporter.  Johnson, inexplicably shut out of the ridiculous Channel 9 debate tonight (go Bruins!), is my second choice.  Herman Cain is number three for me now!  I could live with Romney, Bachmann, Huntsman and probably Pawlenty.  I could never vote for Santorum (they called me over the weekend) or Gingrich (or Huckabee should he decide to get back in it) and probably not Palin (Palin's decision to quit as Alaska Governor soured me forever on her). 

            With the dust from Trump, Huckabee, and Daniels withdrawals having settled, the RCP nationwide average has Romney up 5.2 points and up 25.8 in New Hampshire.

            Nationwide—Romney 21.6, Palin 16.4, Giuliani 11.0, Cain (go, Herman, go!) 8.1, Ron Paul (go, Ron, go!) 7.1, Gingrich 7.0, Pawlenty 5.4, Bachmann 5.1, Perry 4.0, Santorum 3.2, and Huntsman 1.7.

            In New Hampshire, Romney is up 32 points with the Globe, 23 with UNH, 27 with Suffolk, and even up 15 with an older PPP poll.

            The only nationwide poll which has Romney trailing is from Reuters (Palin 19, Romney 18).

            As always, the poll I look forward to most each week is Rasmussen’s generic Congressional ballot.  Republicans were up six a week ago (43-37).  Today, Republicans are up five points (43-38).  Other outfits have it closer; some even have Democrats ahead, but I've come to trust Rasmussen on this one.  He updates it every week, and those who doubted him last year became believers when Gallup backed up his numbers and drove Democrats into total despair in the final month before the election.  If you trust me, trust Rasmussen (as opposed to Democrat-front polling outfit PPP) on this one.

            Rasmussen has support for repealing Obamacare at plus 19 (54-35), the highest it's been since May 7.  By a nine point margin (46-37), Rasmussen finds Americans believing Obamacare will in fact be repealed.  Gott sei dank!

            Gallup has bad news for any Republican who wonders whether the tea party would siphon off votes if it bolted from the GOP field.  In a generic three way race for Congress, Gallup has it at 40 for a Democrat, 21 for a Republican, and 18 for a Tea Partier with 21 % undecided, rather dramatic evidence that Republicans will lose big time if they lose Tea Party support.

            I could find nothing new from ARG this week.