Suspension of the rules and deficit spending.
Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 08:03PM One of the interesting dynamics of the legislative process I think is the suspension of the rules. During my two terms in the NH House I saw this used on several occasions especially during times like crossover where important pieces of legislation, usually from the Finance Committee would after a motion and floor vote by the Speaker be allowed in.
This suspension of rules, as I would later learn also included legislative amendments that may not even have been deliberated or considered by the committee but since the amendments are part of the bill they too are included in the suspension of the rules and were allowed in. For example there could be a bill lowering the Rooms & Meals Taxes from 8.5% to 8.0% with an amendment allowing probation and parole officers and the Director of the NH Port Authority into the Group II retirement system and with a floor vote the legislation moves forward. And in some cases as I recall there was no fiscal note attached.
I'm thinking about Suspension of the Rules in the NH House now because every time I read a newspaper with an article about the finances in NH State Government it always seems to come down to that NH is increasing its spending at the same time as the continual state deficit is growing.
Money bills originate in the House this is in the State Constitution. But has their been a suspension of rules allowing for New Hampshire to increase its total spending while at the same time increasing the total state indebtedness?
What is to stop the Legislature from increasing the state deficit another 700-800 million dollars? After all they have the ability to suspend the rules. Their rules.
During these same legislative sessions there was often discussion about the state's bond rating and what increased debt would do to the state's ability to raise capital through the issuance of debt. Debt that becomes all important in capital projects like school construction. Curiously, I don't see the state's bond rating even mentioned anywhere.
And does it even matter?
Reader Comments (2)
Hopefully this will help:
Typically, the state bonds around $120 million in a biennium. There is no "rule" that defines the maximum amount of indebtedness the state can take on. What limits the level of debt are essentially two things. First, the fiscal sense of the legislature, based in part of on advice from the Treasurer, and second the impact of an increase debt load on our bond rating and therefore on the interest rate that the state pays for bonds. I assure this is something the legislature, or at least key legislative committees, pay a lot of attention to. That you "don't see the state's bond rating even mentioned anywhere" is an indication that the legislature is taking the issue very seriously and therefore the rating is not in jeopardy. Kind of like the dog that didn't bark, in a sense.
I was standing in the room when Port Director Tom Orfe was asked why he was trying to get his position into the Group II Retirement System.
Orfe replied that he had no knowlege of any of this. An amendment was drafted by OLS and the Director of the NH Port Authority has no knowlege of this.
One advantage of having such a large citizen legislature is that the entire legislative process does recieve a great deal of analysis and close scrutny. Rep. Henry Mock proposed killing this amendment.
It passed.