NH Democrat State Senator Matthew Houde’s Conflict of Interest

Nowhere on New Hampshire State Senator, Democrat Matt Houde’s Bio Page does it mention that he is employed as a Lobbyist for Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center (DHMC) .  I guess they forgot to update it?

So when the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire (Disclosure- I am on the RLCNH board), asked Senator Houde to step down from the Joint Health Care Reform Oversight Committee (not knowing that he was a paid lobbyist), you might be surprised to learn why?

The problem is simple.  Decisions Houde will make on the committee will have a direct effect on his employer, Dartmouth-Hitchcock.   Decisions  that could result in a massive expansion of Medicare, which given DHMC’s near monopoly in the Granite State, would ensure it access to millions of taxpayer dollars, a fraction of which could then be used to continue to pay Houde between $76,482.00 dollars to as much as $104,957.00 dollars for being a senior community communications specialist with DHMC.

Knowing how sensitive New Hampshire Democrats are to such cozy relationships between business and government (cough-cough) I feel certain that (any day now) Democrat State party leadership will “encourage” Democrat Senator Houde to step aside, or at the very least make it abundantly clear–before the entire committee–that as a lobbyist with DHMC–his employer could benefit significantly from anything he says or does regarding the business before them.

RLCNH Calls Foul on Sen. Houde’s Conflict, Demands His Resignation from Oversight Committee

August 20, 2012

CONCORD, N.H.—The Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire is calling on Sen. Matt Houde to resign from his position on the Joint Health Care Reform Oversight Committee because the senator’s employment as a lobbyist for Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center poses a direct conflict of interest with the decisions still left to be made this year by the committee.

Senator Houde’s employer would directly profit from outstanding oversight committee decisions if the committee decides to pick a benefit-rich essential health benefits package, set up a so-called partnership health insurance exchange, and choose to expand Medicaid. All three of these decisions, however, would directly oppose the will of the people who oppose Obamacare, contradict the decisions of the Legislature and significantly raise premiums for people who have private health insurance.

“The three remaining decisions that the oversight committee is likely to make this year will directly affect Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, and yet Sen. Houde has not said a word in public about his employment in the government affairs office of the state’s largest health care provider to his colleagues on the committee or to the people of this state,” said Carolyn McKinney, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire. “Sen. Houde has a vested financial interest in ensuring the growth of Medicaid and the full implementation of the disastrous Obamacare scheme. He should step down from the oversight committee immediately and not continue to leave himself in this ethical quagmire he’s created.”

In his position at New Hampshire’s largest health care provider, Sen. Houde is currently earning an income between $76,482 and $104,957 as senior community communications specialist for DHMC, reporting to Frank McDougall, vice president of government affairs, and to Neil Castaldo, DHMC general counsel. Yet, on the oversight committee, Houde will be voting on which essential health benefits package to select as a minimum standard for the state, whether the state should partner with the federal government on setting up a health insurance exchange and whether to expand Medicaid, and all three decisions would directly impact his employer, which pays his salary.

According to the Legislature’s ethical guidelines booklet, a legislator must take action when he “becomes aware” that a conflict of interest exists by either declaring his conflict to the committee and not participating in voting, or declaring his conflict in detail to the committee and expressing his intent to vote anyway. Sen. Houde has not made such a declaration to his colleagues on the oversight committee, and yet he has participated in votes and discussions on issues that will directly affect his employer. The most significant votes are still yet to come, so Sen. Houde should step down now to avoid any further impropriety, McKinney said.

As the oversight committee considers whether to expand Medicaid in New Hampshire, Sen. Houde’s colleagues and the people of New Hampshire should know that the senator’s employer is the largest Medicaid provider in the state and stands to profit substantially from a potential expansion of Medicaid, McKinney said. Additionally, Sen. Houde’s employer would also benefit substantially from a decision that allowed state insurance bureaucrats to partner with federal Health and Human Services bureaucrats on the creation of a partnership health benefits exchange. Such a move would trigger subsidies for insurers and the insured that would directly impact the amount of money reimbursed to Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. This is a clear and present conflict that would personally enrich Dartmouth-Hitchcock as well as the senator’s own compensation, she said.

“It’s time for Sen. Houde to be honest with his fellow committee members and with the public,” McKinney said. “It’s time for Sen. Houde to declare his conflict and step down from the oversight committee.”

You are reading "NH Democrat Matthew Houde's Conflict of Interest..."  by Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

The NHRVC Merges with the RLCNH

Last Friday I announced that some changes were coming with the New Hampshire Republican Volunteer Coalition, the NHRVC.  Well, they are upon us.  Effective last Monday, we have joined forces with the RLCNH, in an effort to create one of the largest Grass roots groups in the state dedicated to supporting and electing  principled conservative and pro-liberty Republicans to office in New Hampshire.

Every member of the NHRVC is welcome to participate in any capacity that suits them, just as it always was with the NHRVC.  And while I will be contacting everyone personally, I have provided links here to help you along.

For those interested in the joining the Facebook Group you can request to do that here.

Join the RLCNH Yahoo! Group here. (Much like the NHRVC Yahoo! Group but quite a bit more active.)

Please feel free to follow the RLCNH Twitter Feed here.

You can subscribe to the RLCNH Report and email updates here.  The sign up box is on the right.

You can provide contact info and sign up as a volunteer here, to do the kind of on the ground, hands on work the NHRVC was created for.

You can even become a full Dues paying member by signing up here.

You decide your level of involvement, from Facebook lurker, to comment junkie, to full membership or anything in between, just like before.  But whatever your speed is, I encourage you all to come an join us so that we may continue to find, support, and elect principled Republicans to office in New Hampshire.

[Updated - I added the RLCNH Yahoo! Email group]

Here is the Press Release...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 26, 2012
Media Contact: Carolyn McKinney, chairman RLCNH, 603-769-4264, chair@rlcnh.org

REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS OF N.H. ACQUIRES GRASSROOTS ACTIVIST ORGANIZATION
NHRVC Merger Into RLCNH Will Add Thousands of Activists to Liberty-Minded Republican Election Effort

CONCORD, N.H.—Today, the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire announces that it has acquired the political assets of the New Hampshire Republican Volunteer Coalition and has added NHRVC Co-Founder Steve MacDonald to its 10-member RLCNH Board to lead a merger effort and help carry on the mission of the NHRVC within the RLCNH organization.

“By merging the NHRVC into the RLCNH and adding Steve MacDonald to the RLCNH board, we are adding new vigor to our now substantially larger political action organization and ensuring the ongoing success of principled Republican activism in New Hampshire,” said Carolyn McKinney, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire. “During the last few election cycles, the RLCNH and the NHRVC groups had been duplicating efforts to elect liberty-minded Republicans. It simply makes good common sense to merge our efforts so that we can motivate our now larger group of activists to pursue one effective mission.”

The NHRVC was founded in the wake of the November 2008 elections as a grassroots coalition of highly motivated activists working to elect principled Republicans who stand for low taxes, fiscal responsibility, free enterprise, individual liberty, and the U.S. and NH Constitutions. Founded by Kevin McHugh and Steve MacDonald, the NHRVC grew from just a handful of people trading e-mails to more than 4,000 members working to spread liberty through the Republican Party.

The RLCNH was launched in December 2004 to promote the ideals of limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, free enterprise and adherence to the N.H. and U.S. Constitutions among Republican Party officials and throughout the state by identifying and supporting candidates sympathetic with the organization’s ideals, and by supporting, through public education and outreach, initiatives in the N.H. Legislature that further these ideals.

Both RLCNH and NHRVC have operated on the Facebook, Twitter and Yahoo Groups social media portals and have a Web site with a blog. The NHRVC social media portal sites and blog have been shut down. As part of the merger, NHRVC members will be migrated into the RLCNH social media sites (Facebook | Twitter) where members discuss political ideas and candidates, and they will be invited to sign up to receive the RLCNH Report of state legislative action items as well as to visit the RLCNH Web site and blog.

“Beginning today, I am inviting all former NHRVC members to continue their involvement in pursuit of the same aims, to whatever degree suits them, under a new banner,” Steve MacDonald said. “We will be able to engage in the same  debates on Facebook and start thousands of new ones, share important links and commentary on Twitter, and use our ‘boots on the ground’ mentality in the RLCNH Yahoo Group and beyond to connect our principled ideas with principled Republicans in New Hampshire and across the nation.”

Leading up to the merger decision, NHRVC Co-Founder Kevin McHugh handed the reins to MacDonald and resigned from the organization to focus more of his time on his work and family. It was at that time that MacDonald determined that the mission of the NHRVC could be more effectively fulfilled within the structure of the RLCNH. The merger plan was developed by MacDonald and members of the RLCNH Executive Committee during the past week, and today’s announcement seals the deal.

###

About The Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire
The Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire, a state chapter of the national Republican Liberty Caucus, was launched in December 2004 to promote the ideals of limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, free enterprise and adherence to the N.H. and U.S. Constitutions among Republican Party officials and throughout the state by identifying and supporting candidates sympathetic with the organization’s ideals, and by supporting, through public education and outreach, initiatives in the N.H. Legislature that further these ideals. For more information about the RLCNH, please visit www.rlcnh.org.

You are reading The NHRVC Merges with the RLCNH, by Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com.(Home)

Where Is That Elusive Middle Ground?

Grassroots is at the root of all politics in New Hampshire these days (most days really) and in response to that the Sunday News has taken notice, publishing an article this morning by Shawne K. Whikham which highlights a handful of groups from around the state.

The New Hampshire Liberty Alliance is mentioned in regard to their Bill review training.  Andrew Manuse gets some ink for the Natural Rights Causes (NRC) but not for the RLCNH which is arguably larger and more influential.  Kathy Sullivan gets some space to talk about her not yet formed 'Pragmatic and Progressive' democrat group as does Steve Marchand, former democrat mayor of Portsmouth, for championing NoLabels--which claims to be a un-labeled effort at partisan problem solving.

But some readers may get confused and assume that these groups all have some shared purpose.

  Following the initial reference to NoLabels, and Sullivan's group, Kevin Smith speaks to the point.  No elected official should assume that simply because the group advocates an issue or issues favored by one party that they are automatically going to get their support.  And this is where the contradictions begin.  While the purpose of the piece seems to be to demonstrate a growing sense of moderateness across the spectrum, where party is less important than issues, the reality is exactly the opposite.

Kevin's real point is that there are morals and values which cannot be sacrificed to bipartisanship.  If you are a pro abortion republican, it will be difficult for someone who views that as murder to get past that unless the alternative is so much worse they feel compelled to accept incrementalism as a way to advance the greater goal of defending life.

Likewise, Sullivan's group has been advertised elsewhere--by Kathy--as the liberal-progressive contrast to the influence of Cornerstone and think tanks like Josiah Bartlett, and will be a decidedly hard left project funded by wealthy DC liberals  They are and will be all democrat, all the time, the further the left the better, though if tradition stands, they will vote in anyone with a 'D" and then assume they can strong arm them into voting with the caucus.  NoLabels is also driven by squishy left wing money just like the LFODA and the Coffee Party, using a non-partisan approach to advance the center lefts goal of promoting pro-government solutions without as much screeching.  The end result is still more government a situation that is diametrically opposed to everything the right is working towards.

Anyone not paying attention might get confused.  If we stick to fiscal issues on the right the NHLA, RLCNH, NRC and Cornerstone are all pro-liberty, small government efforts.  Even Abortion, which the liberty groups shy away from, has a fiscal component they will have to oppose.  This all works in direct opposition to groups like NoLabels and Sullivan's unnamed non-profit which are going to seek pro-government solutions that will tend to grow government and taxes, thereby infringing on seeking smaller government to ensure liberty.

And nothing demonstrates this more than Sullivan's quote at the end of the article.  In an obvious reference to earlier remarks by Manuse to Article 2 of the New Hampshire Constitution, "enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness," Sullivan offers up her own version.  "A real return back to the fundamentals of what this country was founded on and to have people talking about the real issues; What does life, liberty and equality for all mean?"

We all know what they mean to Kathy Sullivan.

Even if we can ignore the absurd fact that Sullivan's ideology is in direct opposition to the fundamentals of the founding, this is really just a rhetorical place marker; a finger in the eye meant to infer that we have not been talking about life liberty and equality.  That the election wipe out had nothing to do with that at all.

The problem for Sullivan is that we have been talking about them in the context of the founding of America, not the founding of the progressive-socialist movement of which she is a part.  Take equality for example.  While the pro-liberty and Republican groups are trying to get the government out of the way to defend equality of opportunity so that all may have equal access through their own hard work to whatever success they choose to make for themselves,  Sullivan and the NH democrats want to step in and define equality, legislate it, and use the force of an expanding and imposing government to punish success they do not approve of.

Good luck finding the middle ground on that.

Cross Posted