Rick Olson Is More Politically Alert (Guest)

NHinsider.com blogger Rick Olson is my guest for the full hour of More Politically Alert this week which aired Wednesday night on Manchestertv23 with rebroadcast Thursday at 9 p.m., Sunday at noon, and Tuesday at 11 p.m. (always on vimeo.com/channels/mpa).

It was a quick hour.  I let Rick go on about his opposition to Northern Pass while I checked the Bruins score (it was 0-0 at the time.  One caller, a transplant from Quebec, predicted the Bruins would lose in four straight--no, it wasn't Majority Leader DJ Bettencourt or the bearded Rep.Tim Comerford!  Yes, sadly, the caller, could be right).

Rick and I agreed on most items (right to work, photo ID to vote, Romney's level of acceptability, Wiener's wiener), but Rick is more anti Northern Pass than I am. 

We also slipped into a discussion the Pemi-Baker Fish and Game Club which got me to reminiscing about my days spent as a newspaper reporter for the Plymouth Record back in the 70s when the entire area was extremely Republican as opposed to rather Democratic today.

With right to work still a few votes shy of two-thirds needed to override the Governor's veto, Rick Olson was a perfect guest.  He lost a race for State Rep in highly Democratic Manchester Ward 5, and he was only 18 votes short of Republican Norma Greer Champagne who inexplicably has bolted the GOP and sided with big labor on the issue.  Rick Olson would have been a firm vote in favor of right to work.  Hint, hint, Ward 5 Republicans regarding whom to put your money behind next time around (Rick and not Norma).

Actually as I explained on the show, Rick Olson should have much more fertile territory to run in in 2012.  As Manchester loses two State Representatives, any redistricting plan will have to include floaterial districts.  Rick will not be forced to run in just Ward 5.  A plan which included Wards 1, 2, 4, and 5 would be much better for a Republican running for Rep, but that's a blog for a future date.   

We also share our philosophy of what we decide to blog about here.  Good stuff—at least I enjoyed it.  That's more than I can say about some of my shows (just kidding Joel!  That was fun too).

I also reveal that I now enjoy doing this blog more than I do my TV show (lazy person that I am, I always believed that talking for an hour was easier than sitting down to write, but writing is actually more fun--and rewarding--these days). 

May Revenues $4.2 Million Ahead of Plan

As reported here for the past two weeks (and nowhere in the lame stream media it seems), May revenues have come in ahead of plan, at $100.2 million or $4.2 million ahead of plan.  They also exceeded last year's numbers for May by $12.4 million.

However, with only June to go in the fiscal year, overall revenues are still $42.5 million behind the plan, 2.1 percent off at $1,991.1 million total.

Business taxes were up $2.9 million for May.  The tobacco tax came on strong at the end of the month to finish $0.9 million ahead of plan, and the real estate transfer tax (as previously reported) was up $1.2 million at $8.4 million for the month, 16.7 percent ahead of plan.  For the year, that tax is now $1.2 million ahead of plan and $1.4 million ahead of last year. 

In her monthly report, Linda Hodgdon, Commissioner of Administrative Services, writes, "This category has only failed to achieve plan one in the latter half of the fiscal year."  However, at least one realtor who is also a Hillsborough County Representative expressed fears earlier today that the best news may be over, and we might see this tax begin to underperform in coming months.

Underperformers for May included:  meals and rooms tax off $1.3 million or 7.1 percent (that's a troubling sign indeed); liquor off $1.7 million or 14.4 percent; and lottery transfers off $1.5 million or a whopping 23.1 percent.  We're told that some Memorial Day liquor receipts won't be booked until the June report, so it's not as bad as it seems.  For 11 months, liquor revenue is $112.3 million, $4.5 million or 3.9 percent shy of plan.

Perhaps surprisingly, fuel consumption is up approximately one percent over the same period last year, but is that's $1.2 million shy of estimates ($114.9 million vs. $116.1 million).  I'm say surprisingly because one would think that with the price of gasoline skyrocketing, we'd be down much more.  Apparently people are traveling just as much but have cut back of boozing and gambling.

Come on folks, let's start drinking more in June, and you could buy a few more lottery tickets as well. (Only kidding of course).

"Government has to protect us from our own stupidity." WOW!

            That’s a verbatim quote uttered on the House floor Wednesday during the debate on Senate Bill 2, a spending caps bill.

            I repeat.

            “Government has to protect us from our own stupidity.”

            I could not disagree more.

            This ultimate confession of nanny state mentality is a reflection of everything I have spent my legislative career opposing.

            The fact that it was uttered by a Democrat I usually respect, Kris Roberts of Keene, is especially troubling.

            Imagine the consequences of that statement.

            People are too stupid to act in their own best interests; government exists to do what’s best for us. 

            My friend, Representative Roberts, our founders would be rolling over in their collective graves if word of that remark filtered through the ether to them.

            Fortunately, Rep. Roberts and the Nanny Staters lost the debate, and the bill passed by nearly a three to one margin, 276-95 (74.4 percent).            

            An amendment removed some of the language which Senate sponsors wanted in the bill; it retained much of the language from the House version which, thanks to the sublime ego of one particular senator (yes, I’ll name names here—it’s David Boutin), the Senate laid on the table.

            Thus, the bill may well end up in a committee of conference.  As long as he gets his name on it, Boutin will be happy.  He actually said that to House members tying to fashion an acceptable bill.  The House version, a much better bill, was mine, and guess what.  I couldn’t care less if my name is on it.  As long as we accomplish the goal of allowing spending caps for cities and towns which desire them, who cares whose name is one the bill.

            Kris Roberts and his unfortunate comment, David Boutin and his insistence on holding a better bill hostage for the sake of his own ego, what a sad day although the end results is fine, just fine.  Talk about making sausage!

            Republicans were 272-4 in favor of the amended spending cap bill. Three of the four (Amy and Lawrence Perkins and Mark Proulx of my own Manchester Ward 8) were obviously putting their devotion to big labor ahead of party or principle.  The fourth was Remick.

            Democrats were 4-91 against the bill.  The four were Hawkes, Gimas, Watrous, and Watters.

            In other action today…well actually in non-action today, the House did not take up the Governor’s veto of right to work legislation and it did not attempt to remove from the table the special property tax exemptions for telephone companies.

Good!  The deadline has now passed and barring a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules or some bit of hanky panky like putting provisions of the bill in the budget or trailer bill, this terrible piece of social engineering, of welfare statism, this travesty will die on the table. 

I just can’t get over it.

            “Government has to protect us from our own stupidity.”

The fact that someone would think such a thing is appalling; the fact that someone would state it on the floor of any legislative body in this great country truly boggles the mind.

By a veotproof margin (260-110, 70.3 percent), the House scrapped its old education funding formula and instituted a slimmed down version.  Forget the veto, this is one instance in which John Lynch and Republicans are in accord.  Only one Democrat (Suzanne Smith) voted for the bill, so Lynch is obviously on the outs with his own party on this bill which reneges on a promise made four years ago. 

Only 14 Republicans voted against it.  If it sounds like I was one of the 14, bingo!

Democrats were right in pointing out that 138 of 228 communities will be deprived of the adequacy amount promised them.  It’s worse than that though.  When Democrats were in control, they promised those funds, but included a rider in the bill that the funds would not come through until…guess when…until this year.

            Is there no honest man or woman in this House?

            Democrats came up with a good plan but never funded it.  The Republican plan is just terrible and most likely unconstitutional…if in fact the court even cares about its Claremont constitutional decision any more.  Republicans, in passing this bill which funds every community at the same level as last year, are gambling that a jaded court simply has given up caring.

            Of the 14 Republicans who voted no, four were from Manchester which loses more than any other community with this bargain with the devil (more than $30 million a year).  The other three are Will Infantine, Kathy Souza, and Jerry Bergevin (the latter two sit in front of me—maybe I influenced their decision…just a little).

            The other ten Republicans to vote against it were Richardson, Hawkins, Amy and Lawrence Perkins, Election Law Chairman David Bates of Windham, Case, Lundgren, McKinney, Julie Brown, and Laware.

            I knew we had no chance to win on this matter.  The cake was already baked, so I said nothing. I’m sure all the 138 communities knew they were going to lose out.  Long ago, they came to realize that promises made by Legislatures mean nothing!

            Say it one more time…out loud with me…

            “Government has to protect us from our own stupidity.”

How insane and inane!             

I think I’ve offended enough people with this entry, so I think I’ll just go home and enjoy the air conditioning until it’s time to do More Politically Alert, live at 9 p.m. Wednesday.  My guest this week in another nhinsider blogger, Richard Olson.

House Passes Voter ID Again--Veto proof Again

By more than a two to one margin (259-116, 69.1 percent), the New Hampshire House passed a photo ID for voting bill for the second time Wednesday morning.

The vote was necessary since the bill was sent to the Finance Committee following passage the first time around.  After a rather lengthy debate on an amendment to the bill (almost identical to an amendment which had failed the first time around), the House finally debated the fiscal ramifications.

I had the majority side of the debate and went point by point through basically what I had blogged here two weeks ago.  The League of Women Voters really ought to be ashamed of itself.  It was handing out a bogus flyer contending the bill would cost upwards of $2.5 million.  Finance had evidence that the number in fact was $200,000 for four years in the fiscal note, and that number is probably twice what reality demands.

For example, the cost of creating an ID was pegged at $10 in the note, but new data shows that number to actually be $3.

Since the House and Senate disagree on how to handle the photo ID (the House would employ a system of provisional ballots while the Senate wants cameras available at all polling locations--a much more costly procedure), the matter will probably be decided in a committee of conference, but no matter which plan comes forth, it will almost certainly come with veto proof margins in both bodies.

Only one Democrat (Tom Katsiantonis of Ward 8 Manchester, my ward) voted for the bill. 21 Republicans voted against it--not the usual suspects (liberal Republicans) but rather, for the most part, the most libertarian of Republicans (even more libertarian than I am, quite a feat!) who feared this bill might send us down the slippery slope of Real ID.  I respect their concerns; I was addressing merely the minimal fiscal ramifications of the billl.

Media Watch--It's 60 %, Not 2/3 Drew

Expect a full-blow Media Watch (by popular demand) later in the week, but it's necessary to correct an error immediately in Tueday's Union Leader.  (And I though I'd get through an entire week without having to correct the William Loeb Lane folks).

In his editorial in support of CACR 6 (with which I totally agree), Drew Cline notes that "it appears to have enough votes to pass teh Senate with the required two-thirds majority".

This is a Constitutional Amendment which would require a 3/5 vote by the Legislature to pass new or increaded taxes or fees.

Here's the problem.

Constitutional Amendments require not a two-thirds vote by the House and Senate but sixty percent (of the entire body, not merely those present and voting--normally all 24 senators are present) to get on the ballot (and then two-thirds is required by the people voting).  Two-thirds of 24 senators would be 16 votes, but 60 percent would be 15 votes (14.4 rounded up to 15).  It's only a one vote difference.  That could be critical but even more important is that editorial writers get Constitutional provisions correct. 

The editorial notes that the House passed the measure 256-117 earlier.  Had two-thirds been required, it would not have passed (two-thirds of 400 is 267; even if you account for three vacant seats, two-thirds of 397 is 265, more than the 256 votes received).

You're forgiven Drew (if indeed it wasn't W writing his own editorial).