Recently in Expenditures Category

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Ryan Williams
August 5, 2009   
(603) 225-9341


State Court Filings Admit Budget “Uncertainty” Threatens Bond Rating, Lynch And Democrat Leadership Still Won’t Consider “Plan B”


CONCORD – As Governor Lynch, Senate President Larsen (D-Concord) and Speaker Norelli (D-Portsmouth) continue to ignore the JUA budget crisis, the State admitted in court papers filed today that the “uncertainty” created by their refusal to develop a “Plan B’ is threatening New Hampshire’s bond rating. According to a motion for an expedited appeal filed with the State Supreme Court, the chaos created by Governor Lynch’s inaction is causing “bond rating agencies that regularly evaluate the State’s finances,” to lose confidence in New Hampshire.

“Governor Lynch, Senate President Larsen and Speaker Norelli need to take their heads out of the sand and finally admit that the State is facing another fiscal crisis created by their irresponsible budget,” said NHGOP Communications Director Ryan Williams. “Their inaction and failure to provide leadership during this crisis is creating uncertainty that threatens New Hampshire’s bond rating and the State’s long-term fiscal stability.”

The State’s court motion also admits that "the Legislature needs as much time as possible... to consider alternative budget reductions and funding options." Despite calls from the Union Leader (8/3), Concord Monitor (8/3), Nashua Telegraph (8/2) and Foster’s Daily Democrat (8/2) to develop a “Plan B,” Lynch and the Democrat Leadership are currently refusing to address the budget crisis. They are even refusing to acknowledge the Superior Court’s recent ruling that blocked their attempted theft of $110 million in private funds from the JUA.

“We have no crisis,” claimed House Finance Chairperson Marjorie Smith (D-Durham) yesterday in an interview with NHPR’s The Exchange. “There is no talk at all that I am aware of [about a ‘Plan B’] because the people who made the decision that this was a legitimate way to proceed continue to believe that it is a legitimate way to proceed…There is no ‘Plan B.’”

Republican leaders in the House and Senate repeatedly warned Governor Lynch that his attempt to steal private money to balance the state budget was unconstitutional and would likely be overturned by the courts. After the Superior Court initially froze the JUA money on June 29, 2009, Republican senate minority leader Peter Bragdon immediately called on the Governor to veto the budget and work on a new plan that excluded the disputed funds. Lynch ignored Bragdon’s warning and signed the Democrats’ irresponsible budget on June 30 – knowing full well that it would be out of balance on day one. Senate President Larsen has also brushed off calls for a special session to address the crisis, saying that she sees “no immediate need,” for it (Larsen Statement, 7/31).


CLICK HERE FOR STATE’S MOTION FOR AN APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT

CLICK HERE FOR AUDIO OF REP SMITH DENYING THE JUA BUDGET CRISIS

By Lloyd Jones
Editor, Conway Daily Sun

Lloyd@conwaydailysun.com

[emphasis by Skip]

CONWAY — Former governor John H. Sununu, the head of the of New Hampshire Republican Committee, calls John Lynch the nicest governor in the history of the state — and the worst.

"He is the worst governor we've ever had because he cannot make a decision," Sununu said at a recent house party hosted by Maryann and Ray Shakir on Birch Hill in North Conway. "He's a great follower. He lets the radical left leadership of his House and Senate move things forward, but he will not give guidance, he will not tell them what he accepts or doesn't accept. He will not draw the line, he will not go back and cut spending, he will not be honest with what he is saying yet he still goes around smiling and yet is continually well-received around the state. We have to replace the governor."

Sununu served as New Hampshire's governor from 1983-89 and was White House Chief of Staff under President George H.W. Bush. When he first took over as head of the New Hampshire Republican Party in January, he said he refrained from labeling Lynch the worst governor in the state's history because "he had such good political capital." However, "By St. Patrick's Day I was doing (former executive councilor) Bernie Streeter's roast where they raise money for charities in Nashua, and the governor and I were both speakers. He came in and made a couple of jokes about me calling him the worst governor in the history of the state. I got up and said, 'Governor, I've got to admit, you're the nicest governor we've ever had, but the fact is nicest and worst are not mutually incompatible.'"

Victoria A. Bonney, communications director for the New Hampshire Democratic Party, offered a response Wednesday, saying, "Mr. Sununu may yearn for his glory days as governor but the reality is our state is better today than it was yesterday. Under Governor Lynch’s leadership we’ve seen significant gains for education, the environment, clean energy, small business and an overall improved quality of life. That’s why Governor Lynch is not only the most popular governor New Hampshire has seen in decades, but the most popular governor in the nation.”

At the house party Friday, July 17, attended by approximately 55 staunch Republicans, Sununu talked about what brought him back into the world of politics as chairman of the N.H. Republican Committee.

"It really is important to understand that this state in particular and certainly the country as well is at a very critical crossroads," he continued. "We've had Democratic governors for 10 of the last 12 years. By the way, I am not running for anything, let's get that clear from the start. I am not going to run for anything. We have had Democratic governors for 10 of the last 12 years. With Lynch, the Democrats will now have it 12 out of the last 14 years. Over that period of time, what has happened to New Hampshire is horrible. It wasn't quite a tsunami but it was a tide so you may not have noticed the individual change, the incremental change. Over a period of time it piles up to make a healthy sandwich of problems for the state of New Hampshire."

Sununu said the rate of growth in New Hampshire has "virtually disappeared" over the last 12 years.

"We're down to about a half of a percent per year over the past few years," he said. "Last year, for the first time in almost 50 years, more people moved out of the state than moved in. Investment has stopped coming to New Hampshire. Jobs have stopped coming to New Hampshire. Our economic structure is deteriorating because we have adopted principles that are anti-job, anti-family, anti-business and anti-growth. We used to be rated in terms of a business environment in the top five, six, seven states. We are now rated in the 40s."

Sununu continued blasting away at Lynch.

"We have had in this last session 38 increases in taxes and fees and new taxes imposed on us," Sununu said. "We have a governor that has no sense that this is not the way to go.  We have a governor who has no capacity to lead or to stand up or to communicate to the legislature what he will or won't accept. Instead he sits there and waits for them to send him whatever they want to send him and 99 percent out of a 100 he signs the garbage they present to him. The Democrats are ruining the state of New Hampshire."

Sununu is attending a number of house parties across the state this summer looking to rally Republicans. He told the enthusiastic audience two weeks ago the political ball is essentially in their court.

"It's up to us to talk to our friends and our neighbors; the people who work for us; the people that we work with; the people that we meet at our post-retirement parties," Sununu said. "It is only by us communicating what has really happened that people will get angry enough to fix what has to fixed in 2010."

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Ryan Williams
July 30, 2009   
(603) 225-9341


Embattled Governor Without A Backup Plan As Court Decision To Block JUA Theft Plunges State Into Another Budget Crisis

CONCORD – One day after a Superior Court ruling blocked his attempt to steal $110 million from the New Hampshire Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association (JUA), Governor John Lynch is frantically scrambling to address the state’s latest budget crisis. Despite repeated warnings that the court would rule against the state’s claim, Governor Lynch has failed to develop a contingency plan since the court initially froze the funds in June.

“Its time for Governor Lynch to finally stand up and take responsibility for his failure to produce a balanced and fiscally responsible budget. The Governor was fully aware that his attempted theft of the JUA funds would likely be blocked by the courts - even before he approved this disastrous budget,” said NHGOP Communications Director Ryan Williams. “His irresponsible actions further prove that during these challenging times, John Lynch is incapable of providing responsible and effective leadership for the State of New Hampshire.”

Republican leaders in the House and Senate repeatedly warned Governor Lynch that his attempt to steal private money to balance the state budget was unconstitutional and would likely be overturned by the courts. After the Superior Court initially froze the JUA money on June 29, 2009, Republican senate minority leader Peter Bragdon immediately called on the Governor to veto the budget and work on a new plan that excluded the disputed funds. Lynch ignored his warning and signed his irresponsible budget on June 30 – knowing full well that it would be out of balance on day one.

Lynch has “deflected repeated questions from reporters about contingency plans,” (AP, 6/30) in the event that the court would halt his irresponsible revenue scheme. Despite obvious indications that the state wouldn’t be able to claim the surplus funds, Lynch has “repeatedly declined to detail alternatives and instead emphasized his belief in the rightfulness of the state's claim to the money.” (Concord Monitor, 7/30)

Lynch’s silence has drawn criticism from non-partisan budget watchers including New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies executive director Steve Norton, who said that as a result of the court ruling, “Plan B needs to be developed, and to date, we haven't heard any Plan B," from the Governor. (Concord Monitor, 7/30) Since the decision was announced, Lynch has continued to dodge questions about how he plans to address the staggering deficit and has merely pledged to appeal the decision to the State Supreme Court.

“John Lynch’s only solution to this budget crisis is to cross his fingers and hope that it will somehow fix itself. That’s not leadership – that’s a dereliction of his duties as New Hampshire’s chief executive,” said Williams. “During these tough economic times its becoming increasingly obvious that now more than ever New Hampshire needs a new governor.”

Governor Lynch’s crumbling state budget faces additional challenges as even more lawsuits threaten to unravel his irresponsible revenue schemes. Local government leaders are moving forward with a separate lawsuit to stop the Governor from reducing the state’s share of the retirement contribution rate for municipal employees and downshifting costs to local taxpayers. A court has also issued an injunction requested by the New Hampshire Health Care Association that halts Lynch’s attempt to rescind an $8.8 million dollar payment to Granite State nursing homes.

As a result of his failed leadership and fiscal mismanagement, Governor Lynch’s favorability ratings have plummeted in recent months and his disapproval ratings have reached all time highs. Governor Lynch’s problems only look to get worse in the future as he begins to make plans for the FY 2012-2013 budget. This budget will start off with an immediate $500 million deficit due to his irresponsible use of one-time money in the current budget, and will present the Governor with an even worse fiscal crisis than the one he currently faces.

           FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                         CONTACT: Ryan Williams
           April 13, 2009                                                                    (603)225-9341

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:

THE SPEAKER AND SENATE PRESIDENT’S

“KOZLOWSKI-ESQUE” BATHROOM

 

A Bathroom Battle At The Statehouse

Fosters Daily Democrat

Editorial

April 13, 2009

Who drew up the specs for the "luxurious lavatory" at the Statehouse, the same people who gave the Pentagon a $640 toilet seat?

Republicans are cleaning up with their showering of Democrats with shots over the $72,000 cost of renovating a Statehouse bathroom.

Democrats are trying to fend off the blows in saying the project was to make the lav compliant with the American Disabilities Act. Did someone get word there was a federal bathroom inspector in the neighborhood when there was bipartisan support for the appropriation two years ago?

It will be pointed out that funding was approved before it was found the economy was being flushed into the political and social hopper. The answer to that has to be, "So what?"

Even in the best times, $72,000 for renovating a bathroom is a bit Kozlowski-esque. You remember Dennis Kozlowski — the Tyco tycoon who was convicted of misappropriating more than $400 million to support a lavish lifestyle that included decorating a luxurious company-owned apartment in Manhattan. Among the amenities of the redo was a $6,000 shower curtain for the bathroom.

Kozlowski was sentenced to eight to 25 years in prison for his excesses in misappropriating assets that belonged to Tyco's stockholders and is now mopping up in a way that is different from his days at Tyco.

And, of course, there were the Pentagon days of a $640 toilet seat and $7,600 coffee makers and Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger trotting up Capitol Hill to defend his department's outrageous procurement practices.

But back to the minor league bathroom excess in Concord.

Was the bathroom in question in need of repair? Yes, it has needed a going-over for several years. But to the tune of $72,000?

Frankly, the facility was overdone when it was designed and outfitted more than 80 years ago. Marble walls? A bit ostentatious, don't you think? We are talking about a public building in New Hampshire in the 21st century, not a palace or castle in 18th century Europe.

There are some people in government who think putting their best face forward means showing off in as regal a manner as possible. There are some elected officials who have some waking up to do — some who have to understand the perception of waste can be as bad as waste itself.

Put the two together and you have the beginning of a breakdown in confidence. And when a breakdown in confidence occurs, a breakdown in the ability of those in office to govern should not be far behind.

Senate Majority Leader Maggie Hassan, D-Exeter, was quoted in Foster's Daily Democrat Friday as saying, "This is a large public restroom, so $72,000 should be evaluated in that context."

Maybe it shouldn't be evaluated in the context of a restroom. After all, it is not a place where people go to rest.

Maybe we should redefine our thinking, come up with a better appellation while maintaining good taste in the naming.

Yes, there are more important considerations than the appropriate design and functionality of a Statehouse "loo." But credit some GOP members of the Legislature and the redesigned Republican State Committee, led by the sometimes sharp-tongued and always sharp-minded John H. Sununu, a three-term governor of New Hampshire in the 1980s, for converting a bathroom into an attention-grabber.

The bathroom issue will soon go away — as well it should. But it was something that allowed the GOP to run the Democrats around the Statehouse for several days — and it was the kind of thing that stirs the always changing imagination of writers and editors for a day or two or three.

Maybe someone will soon propose pay toilets in all state buildings.

The one thing certain is that all involved in the discussion will soon wash their hands of it.

CONCORD -- Former New Hampshire Governor and Republican State Committee Chairman John H. Sununu released the following statement on Governor John Lynch’s budget proposal:
 
“It is always difficult to comment on a complex budget without having time to examine all the details. However, some aspects of Governor Lynch's budget are readily apparent, and can be addressed after a first review.
 
The Governor is to be commended for applying fiscal discipline to the spending side of the budget. He made some of the hard decisions required at this time.
 
However, there are serious issues on the revenue side, even beyond concern over his increases in taxes, tolls and fees. Tapping the long standing malpractice fund for $110 million over three years is very questionable, as is covering school building aid by $83 million of bonds. Serious problems are created for future budgets by counting on a one-time federal bailout program to make up for short changing the cities and towns of $167 million due to them from rooms and meals taxes and direct aid. And the additional $230 million in one-time federal stimulus money also included on the state revenue side is a serious concern for future budgets. These one-time patches on the revenue side completely undermine the integrity of the fiscal system of the State of New Hampshire.
 
But of course the Governor's biggest problem will come when his budget works its way through the legislature. Historically the House and Senate Democrats have spent more than the Governor has proposed. The critical question for this budget will be whether Governor Lynch will be willing and able to get the Democratic legislature to send him back a responsible fiscal package.”

I commented earlier that the Democrats are not worried at all with what they wrought with the latest State budget ("The senator insisted that “new” spending measures added up to “barely 3-percent”, with the rest of the increase caused by “things we had no control over”).

Well, in the same article (Daily Sun, P20), an NH House Democrat candidate was quoted this way:

"Ellen McLung of Gilford — a candidate in House District 5 – got off the best one-liner of the day, saying she was interested in mass transit issues but her home state’s only real example to date is ski lifts."

The problem with her statement is that it may well be true that, indeed, the only places that mass transit may be needed is at the area's ski lifts. Mass Transit systems only work where the population is high density (think large urban areas like Boston and New York City). Even with that as a given, Mass Transit systems are not self sustaining - they continue to operate only with massive taxpayer subsidies that yield a "reasonable" fare per rider.  Thus, many are dinged for the few.

Looking around the Lakes Region, it is clear that this fundamental necessity for success, high population density,  is missing.  In fact, even the Winnipesaukee Transit System own numbers shows that taxpayers might as well give each rider almost $26 each time they get on one of those always empty buses.  It would probably be more cost effective to give out taxi vouchers and let the private sector provide that service more efficiently. 

From the Coordinated Transit Study Final Report:

• A budget of $194,077 per year
• A ridership of 7,566 people per year
• This breaks down to $25.65 / rider - trip
  
• Given an 8 hour operational day, that is only 21 riders / day, or if you prefer 2.5 riders per hour.
• That is out of a possible ridership (as estimated in 2000) of 15,500 living with 1/4 mile of all the stops.

No way that this could be judged to be a successful program (unless you are one of the very few riders that WTS  does have).  It could be said that all that the WTS seems to provide is jobs for the bus drivers and their  management.  And just think of all the carbon offsets that are needed to compensate for burning all that gas / diesel while running empty the vast majority of the time.

The Downeaster, running down from Portland to Boston still requires a taxpayer subsidy of pretty much $20 / rider / trip.  We are talking millions in subsidies!

Once again, Democrats seem willing to provide a solution for which there is no problem.  Once again, they are willing to spend lots of other peoples' money to benefit very few.

In the same Daily Sun article as here, the reporter had news on the Democrat picnic (which was excised from the report on this site.  However, Democrat Deb Reynolds attempted to tell her fellow Liberals that it really didn't matter - it wasn't their fault.

Uh-huh - sure it isn't!  From yesterday's Daily Sun (P 4):

To the Editor,

In the Sun article published 7/28 (Mars v. Venus: Dems & GOP forming battle lines over fiscal and social issues), Democrat Senator Deb Reynolds remarked about the 17.5% rise in State spending under Democrat control being under Republican attack: “It’s not true,” she exclaimed. The senator insisted that “new” spending measures added up to “barely 3-percent”, with the rest of the increase caused by “things we had no control over”, like the cost of state employee insurance benefits.

You know, I'd love to be able to do my family budget the same way this Democrat Senator does for NH taxpayers. Imagine, only being concerned with “new” spending – while ignoring increases in the “fixed” spending that they've helped to create. Sorry, but non-discretionary spending IS part of the overall budget (after all, you are forcing us to pay for it, right?) even if she wants us to ignore that little-bitty fact.

Like all State spending, everything budgetary can be controlled – the Democrats simply chose not to. After all, with control over all branches of government, the Democrats can choose to control funding, expenditures, programs, and staffing – they chose not to. They could change the law and issue executive orders to control how they use your tax money – but they chose not to. Instead, they chose to spend more, not less. I challenge her to show us anywhere in the budget where Democrats chose to spend less, not more.

NH families have to be concerned with ALL of their spending, especially that spending forced by government taxes. Unlike Senator Reynolds, they know how to prioritize their spending and cut where and when necessary when revenues do not meet expenditures. They know what is really important and what is not for their hard earned money and their family budgets. They know that “fixed” costs have to be managed as well as the discretionary costs. And when needed, the former gets cut, too. And that, managing money, is a traditional NH value.

Skip Murphy
Gilford Town Republican Chair
(Cross-posted over at GraniteGrok)

From the Laconia Daily Sun (7/28, P1 et al)

Mars v. Venus: Dems & GOP forming battle lines over fiscal and social issues
By Ed Engler
 

Its hard for most people to get worked up about politics in the middle of a brief New England Summer so it was no surprise that the number of people who showed up at local Republican and Democratic gatherings a Sunday ago could be measured in 10s and not in hundreds. The folks who attended a kick-off event for Republican Greg Knytych’s campaign for the N.H. Senate at the Weirs Beach Community Center and, later in the day, at the annual Belknap County Democratic Party picnic at the Opechee Park Clubhouse are among the real die-hards.

Many of them were party officials and candidates.

Though almost exclusively “preaching to the choir”, the candidates had a chance to polish their public speaking skills and sound the themes that will dominate the local political discussion this fall.

The content of the speeches also dramatized that, to borrow a phrase, Republicans are from Mars and Democrats from Venus — or is it the other way around — for it at times is hard for a neutral observer to imagine that people who share the same general, American space could be so different.

The Republicans are on the outs in Concord for the first time since since the 19th Century. It has been that long since the Democrats have occupied the governor’s office and controlled both the Senate and the House at the same time.

“Now they have a record to run on,” Republican operative Sam Pimm of Concord encouraged the 15 or so people gathered for pulled-pork sandwiches and Kellerhaus ice cream at Knytych’s gathering, signaling the GOP’s aim to counter-punch against what they see as readily apparent Democratic failures.

Specifically, speaker after speaker blasted Democrats for increasing spending at the state level for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 by 17-percent and agreeing to borrow $80-million to fulfill the constitutional obligation to balance the state budget.

Knytych, who represents Ward 1 on the Laconia City Council, told friends he wants to go replace Sen. Kathy Sgambati in Senate District 4 because, “I want to stop this irresponsible spending”. “We don’t have a budget problem,” he said of the action to borrow millions, “we have a spending problem . . . (state) revenues are increasing, just not enough (to cover expenditures).”

The first-time candidate for state office scoffed at Democrat suggestions the state is facing a budget deficit that could run into the hundreds of millions because they were unaware of the likelihood of a national economic downturn when the two-year budget was drafted in 2007. “They knew,” he said. “They just didn’t care.”

Former Congressman Jeb Bradley of Wolfeboro, who is running to get his old First District job back, sounded another familiar theme when he predicted all the spending in Concord, left unchecked by Republicans, was going to lead to an income tax.

By KEVIN LANDRIGAN Staff Writer
klandrigan@nashuatelegraph.com

CONCORD – The two possible Republican candidates for governor signed a pledge that would cap state spending at the rate of inflation plus population growth.

Sen. Joseph Kenney, R-Wakefield, charged that Democratic legislative leaders and Gov. John Lynch are bent on spending the state into needing a broad-based sales or income tax.

"We are being backed into an income or sales tax by this spending," Kenney told reporters.

"They want an income tax; there is no doubt about that."

Leaders of the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition insisted the pledge is meant to dovetail with – not dilute – the vaunted pledge to veto a broad-based sales or income tax.The group is staging a drive to get a local spending-cap petition before the voters in several communities across the state, including Merrimack.

Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta said lawmakers "fleeced" taxpayers by increasing state spending by 17 percent in the two-year state budget that concludes June 30, 2009.

Asked to give an example of the excess, however, Guinta offered a proposed reform of the state retirement system that GOP gubernatorial candidate Kenney voted for earlier this month.

"That's an example of fleecing the taxpayers," Guinta said.

The Senate passed its retirement reform proposal (HB 1645), 24-0. Kenney said he voted yes only to get it to a negotiated settlement that he hopes will generate a better, final product for taxpayers.

As the Memorial Day recess rapidly approaches, Senate Democrats last night scrapped the version of the supplemental war funding bill they initially brought up on Tuesday. Democrats have been trying to find a way to “load up” the bill with more than $28 billion in extra spending over the next two years, according to the AP.  Fortunately, one of the provisions that fell by the wayside was work permits for immigrant farm laborers, but the bill, as Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said yesterday, is still filled “with a raft of unrelated domestic spending projects and policy proposals.”

In an editorial today, National Review Online lays out the problems with the supplemental bill that Democrats have crafted, but as NRO writes, the bottom line is, “We should be able to fund our troops in the field without paying billions of dollars in ransom to Congress’s pet projects.”

The issue of the spending itself aside, Democrats’ insistence on larding up the bill with “veto bait” is only serving to delay passage of the funds our troops need. The Pentagon has indicated it must have the funding approved by the middle of June, otherwise “the Defense Department will be unable to make payroll for our uniformed Army,” as Sen. McConnell pointed out. NRO was clear about what the hold-up means: “[T]hanks to Senator Reid’s lacksidasical management, even this flawed piece of legislation will probably not be sent to the president until after Memorial Day — meaning that we’ll be honoring our veterans while leaving our active-duty troops in the lurch.”

While Democrats struggle to figure out what to do with the supplemental bill, conferees agreed to a conference report on the fiscal 2009 budget resolution, which the House is scheduled to consider today. Unfortunately, there is little improvement in the budget since it was last seen. According to the AP, “The House-Senate compromise, more than a month overdue, contains a host of shaky assumptions - and forecasts that many of President Bush's signature tax cuts will expire on schedule at the end of 2010.”

Sen. Judd Gregg, ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee said yesterday, “This is a partisan budget crafted behind closed doors -- a budget that’s bad for taxpayers and bad for the economy. It includes the largest tax increase in history, blows through the $1 trillion mark in annual discretionary spending, and once again completely punts the urgent issue of entitlement spending reform.” Sen. McConnell added this morning, “American families can’t afford this budget. American job creators can’t afford this budget. And our economy can’t afford this budget.”