Bills to Increase NH Minimum Wage Heard Today

NH Minimum Wage: HB 127 and HB 241

The two bills were lumped together in a January 29, 2013 hearing in the Labor, Industrial, and Rehabilitative Services Committee.

Both bills call for an increase in the minimum wage. Last legislative session, the NH specific minimum wage was eliminated. NH complies with the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. The federal minimum wage has been increased exactly 3 times in the last 30 years.

HB241 would increase the state minimum wage to $9.25 an hour. HB127 would increase it to $8.00 an hour.

There are some 14,000 minimum wage workers in NH. 78.8% of them are over the age of 20.  Contrary to what many believe, fewer than a quarter of them are teenagers. More than a third of them are married, and over a quarter are parents. These are people who are earning $15,080 annually, if they work a steady 40-hour week.

The number of states (and NH counties) where a min. wage worker can afford a 2-bedroom apartment?  ZERO.

The chances that a minimum wage worker is a woman? 64 in 100.

If minimum wage kept up with increases in CEO pay, it would be over $23 an hour.

It was obvious that some of the committee members as well as those offering testimony today believe that minimum wage is the sole province of teenagers, but the facts from the Economic Policy Institute prove otherwise.

Rep. Shawn Jasper testified (in opposition) on behalf of House GOP leadership. He said that what NH needs is a training wage, and repeated several times that not everyone who is earning minimum wage is living on minimum wage. It is Rep. Jasper’s assertion that no one is worth $8 an hour when they’re 8 years old or even 13. The minimum wage does not help our youth, it does not allow them to push a broom or move up the rungs of the employment ladder. In fact, Jasper asserts, teens are unemployed BECAUSE of the minimum wage. Thanks to the min. wage, those jobs aren’t being created. He reiterated that there are a substantial number of people who do not need to live on the minimum wage.

Quick diversion: an informal poll of my friends with kids shows that teenaged babysitters are earning somewhere between $7 and $10 an hour.

Also, the reason for teen unemployment is simple. There are still millions of adults out of work. The teens are competing with them for jobs. It has nothing to do with minimum wage, and everything to do with what we’re still not calling a depression.

Businessman Steve Grenier of Rye has a seasonal ice cream business. He lives year round on those earnings. He states that he would be adversely affected, and would have to raise his prices. It wouldn’t be fair to the kids who worked their way to higher wages, if new kids came in at this new entry-level minimum wage. His employees are all students.

Representative Daniels from the committee wondered how many of the minimum wage workers are under 18 and still living at home. He also wondered how many are working min. wage jobs as a second job, “just for something to do.” Apparently those who work second jobs don’t merit higher pay.

Chris Williams of the Greater Nashua Chamber of Commerce opposes both bills. He told us of several small businesses that have closed in Nashua recently (which had nothing to do with this, btw) as a warning example of what will happen. Of course, if people earn more, they spend more at those small businesses – but that isn’t factored in to the thinking of business/industry groups and their lobbyists. 

Another thing to consider: if wages don’t go up, than the cost of safety net services do.

Dan Juday (not at all sure of the spelling) of the BIA testified in opposition. This will have a ripple effect on all employers, increasing labor costs across the board. This is why we have outsourcing – because of labor costs. Also, he told us that an increase in minimum wage could bankrupt the unemployment insurance trust fund. This is no time to burden employers with more costs.

Beth Mattingly of the Carsey Institute pointed out that the federal poverty guidelines were developed in the 1960’s, based on the cost of food. They do not factor in the cost of housing or childcare, which are the biggest expenses for today’s working people. A single person would need to earn $9 an hour just to reach the federal poverty guidelines. Naturally, there were other folks there to speak in support of increasing the minimum wage. For me, today, the focus is on those who defend sub-poverty wages.

There are some wage subdivisions in place already. Restaurants are allowed to pay tipped workers substantially less than minimum wage. These are also people who don’t get paid sick days, so they come to work sick, because they have to, and then handle your food. Achoo!

There is a mechanism in place to pay people with developmental disabilities less than minimum wage. The business lobby would love to create a “training wage” in order to pay kids (and probably adults too) slave wages.

Curtis Barry of the Retail Merchants Association described the minimum wage working base as students and “retired people, looking for a little extra money.” Apparently those older people don’t deserve a decent wage, either. Fortunately no one mentioned housewives working for "pin money." 

There was almost no respect expressed for workers at this hearing. That was disheartening. 

I did hear from a bill sponsor that there is a lot of support for an increase in the minimum wage. On behalf of 14,000 NH workers, let’s hope that there will be one. 

Free State Project: Censorship is a Libertarian Value?

From the Concord Monitor

A group of New Hampshire activists wants Rep. Cynthia Chase censured and impeached by her fellow state representatives.

and

A petition to the House was assembled and signed by 120 people, led by Darryl Perry, a Keene resident and Free State Project participant. It calls for Chase’s censure and impeachment over the comment, which the petition describes as showing “her intent to enact laws to interfere with protected rights” and “harm a specific group of people.”

Rep. Chase's comments are available at the link.

From the Free State Project website:

We are looking for neighborly, productive, tolerant folks from all walks of life, of all ages, creeds, and colors who agree to the political philosophy expressed in our Statement of Intent, that government exists at most to protect people's rights, and should neither provide for people nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else.

This is a description of the folks they claim they want to move to NH:  Neighborly. Tolerant. Protecting rights.  Sounds mighty high minded, doesn't it?

In reality,the Free Staters are people who bleat about rights 24/7 on internet forums, but it seems they believe THEIR rights are more important than anyone else's. They've been railing on about Rep. Chase for weeks. Not only her words have been attacked, but on those forums they've had plenty to say about her physical appearance. Because of course, that's high minded, tolerant, and neighborly.

Rep. Chase, I hasten to add, has filed NO legislation. She merely expressed an opinion. Apparently the  FSP can't handle freedom of speech, when it is used to speak against them.

Just a reminder: The Original Free State Manifesto, in which FSP founder Jason Sorens explains the intent of the Free State Project in moving to NH:

Once we've taken over the state government, we can slash state and local budgets, which make up a sizeable proportion of the tax and regulatory burden we face every day. Furthermore, we can eliminate substantial federal interference by refusing to take highway funds and the strings attached to them. Once we've accomplished these things, we can bargain with the national government over reducing the role of the national government in our state. We can use the threat of secession as leverage to do this.

This statement of intent has not been nullified. Jason Sorens has never come forth and repudiated his manifesto. Their intent is clear - they're coming to NH to take over the state and eliminate our state government. And furthermore, it seems, if you dare speak out against them, they're going to attack and punish you.

Censorship is an ugly, ugly word. One that has no place in a tolerant society.

That a group preaching freedom and liberty for themselves is willing to use censorship as a weapon against their critics shows them for what they are. Hypocrites.

The cultists are out in full force, all whining to me about how I don't understand the dictionary, and calling me rude names. As it happens, it's the Free State Cult members who are engaging in CENSORSHIP by trying to CENSURE Rep. Chase. Oddly, no one but the cultists have had any trouble understanding my meaning.

wiki/definition
Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

NH SB32 - Changes to Selective Service Registration

NH Senate Bill 32 was heard by the Senate Transportation Committee on January 22, 2012.

SB32 is “An Act relative to Selective Service registration upon driver’s license application or renewal.”

The bill’s sponsors are Senators Carson, Cataldo, and Reagan. Also Representatives Lundgren, Notter, and Christiansen.

The current NH driver’s license application has a section labeled Optional. There are 4 boxes an applicant can voluntarily check off. One of them reads,  “I am 18 years old and consent to registration with the Selective Service System as required by Federal Law.”

The application is clear. An applicant can choose to register for Selective Service by checking that box. It is an option.

This is referred to as an “opt-in system.” SB32 would give us the opposite. New drivers would be automatically registered for Selective Service via this form unless they chose to opt out.

The current system does not automatically register young men for Selective Service. The applicants have the choice to do it or not. SB32 presents itself as a choice, when it is not. An applicant would have to opt out, or be automatically registered.

The only person at the hearing who spoke in support of the bill was sponsor Senator Sharon Carson. When asked for the reason behind the bill, Senator Carson said that this change is recommended by the Selective Service Bureau.

Mary Lee Sargent spoke in opposition to the bill. She is opposed to the state automatically registering young men for Selective Service, which deprives them of their autonomy. Sargent said this bill is one more example of the increasing militarization of our society. She also pointed out that the Selective Service registration website lists 4 places to register, and DMV’s are not on that list. Ms. Sargent further pointed out that the current law is working just fine, and sees no reason to change it.

Senator David Watters of the Transportation Committee asked if the federal government requires this. The answer is no. It is merely a suggestion.

The next speaker was Iraq War veteran Will Hopkins. He disagrees that the choice to register should be made for young men by the state – that this is not the job of the state.

Dave Tiffany pointed out that 16 and 17 year olds cannot legally enter into contracts, and wondered who we plan to start a war with that we need an army of conscripts.

Arnie Alpert of the NH American Friends Service Committee noted that the AFSC was originally formed to give conscientious objectors a way to do service projects instead of serving in WWI. He also pointed out that none of the forms have a box to check off to show that they are a conscientious objector. Alpert also said that this is not the job of the NH DMV, and there is no reason why 16 year olds should have their data sent to Selective Service.

Senator Watters of the committee asked if someone fails to register and is denied a federal school loan (one of the penalties for failing to register) is there a process to appeal as a conscientious objector. The answer to that is no, there is not.

Devon Chaffee of the NH ACLU also spoke in opposition to the bill. She sees no need for NH to change the current law, and pointed out that it is not the responsibility of the state to enforce federal law.

Rick Daly of the NH DMV stated that the opt in box on the current form is used only for those 18 years old and older. He also said that the change would require time and resources, but was not sure what the actual dollar cost of that would be. In addition to the changes in the forms themselves, the DMV would be required to notify applicants of the legal ramifications of opting out, something that DMV employees are not currently required to do.

Nor should they be. The state of NH should not be enforcing federal laws.

This is another bill that addresses a non-existent problem. It’s a waste of committee time and taxpayer dollars.

It’s also an underhanded way to sign up young men for Selective Service. The decision to register should be an informed decision, one that a young man talks over with his family, not a decision made for him by the state of NH.

The text of the bill is available here. 

Solutions in Search of Problems

The new legislative session is underway at the People’s House in Concord. The last election changed the composition of the NH House, and the difference can be felt as one walks down the hallways. The last legislature was grim and angry.  The halls feel a little lighter this year, and legislators can be seen smiling and sometimes even laughing. 

The legislation that our solons are wading through is another matter entirely. The minority party appears to have decided at some point to gum up the works with bills that aren’t likely to go anywhere. 

Last week, the Election Law Committee heard testimony on HB 143, which would return straight ticket voting to our NH ballots. As voters will recall, prior to 2007, at the top of each ballot was a box one could check off to vote a straight party ticket. There was no need to read the ballot, or do any research into candidates – one could vote on the basis of party affiliation alone. There are members of the minority party who would like to return to that system. This bill is sponsored by GOP Representatives LeBrun, Notter, Peterson, and Rice. 

The testimony consisted of a great deal of concern for voter convenience. Apparently having to read down an entire ballot and fill in all the little ovals is exhausting to the voters. Representative Rice spoke for the sponsors. Rep. Moody from the committee asked him what would happen if someone checked the straight ticket box, and then went down the ballot and voted for a candidate from the other party. He didn’t know. Representative LeBrun handed him a copy of the bill, and did some explaining to him. Twice. Apparently it would not cancel out the vote. Rice compared voting to buying a refrigerator at Home Depot. One gets the basic package, but can choose options.

Representative Peter Schmidt spoke in opposition to the bill. He said that convenience to voters should not be a determining factor in how we vote, that voters should know whom they are voting for. Schmidt reminded those present of the elections in 2010, where so many voted on the basis of party affiliation, and later had cause to regret some of their votes. (Martin Harty, anyone?) 

Convenience was the word of the day, and Rep. Schmidt was not swayed by it. When committee member Rep. Marston stated that as a town moderator he’d often heard from voters of their desire for convenience, Schmidt responded, “Why not send someone to their house with a ballot and a pen and let them vote in bed?” 

This bill does nothing to move NH forward into the future, or solve any of our very real and present problems. It does give insight into the minority party fears that the massive gerrymandering they did last session may not be enough to help them win elections.  It also shows that they have low expectations of both voters and their candidates. GOP voters apparently aren’t smart enough to read and fill in an entire ballot, and their candidates need to be protected from the need to stand up to scrutiny and research. 

HB 121 was heard this week by the House Health, Human Services, and Elderly Affairs Committee. This bill is sponsored by Representatives LeBrun and Notter. 

HB 121 requires drug testing for all TANF recipients. TANF is the acronym for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. We used to call it “welfare.” TANF benefits are limited to 60 months, over the course of a lifetime. The average time a person stays on TANF is 19 months. It is a welfare to work program. This bill perpetuates the stereotype that all poor people are drug users. There is no evidence to back up, as other states that have enacted similar laws have discovered. The bill would require the TANF recipient to pay for the test. They would be reimbursed later on if they passed the test.  Their TANF benefits are outstripped already by the cost of housing, utilities and food. This is just another way of demonizing them. 

If a person failed the test, they would lose their benefits for a year, at which time they could apply again. Their children would be able to continue to get benefits that would be handled by a third party, once that person passed the drug testing. The bill doesn’t specify who pays for their test. The bill doesn’t specify what kind of testing will be done. Rep. LeBrun became a little grumpy during his testimony, because there were so many questions he was unable to answer. “No bill is perfect” became his refrain. 

Rep. French from the committee asked Rep. LeBrun if the intent was to identify a person who needs help, or ensure they don’t get welfare? LeBrun answered, “We want to see them get the help they need.” The bill specifies that the state will not be paying for that help, though they will give the person who has just lost TANF benefits a list of treatment professionals in their area. No word on how that treatment will be procured by someone with no money. One can’t properly call this help. 

Deb Shorter, a former caseworker, was present to testify in favor of the bill. She offered anecdotal evidence about TANF recipients. In her opinion many TANF recipients are on drugs. When asked for solid numbers by a committee member, she said she isn’t a statistician. She is, however, an author, as she proudly reminded everyone several times, and kept a copy of her book on the table where she sat while giving testimony. The self-published book is called “An Eye into Welfare,” and from the excerpts available online, appears to be long on anecdote and short on verifiable fact. 

Attorney Ann Rice, from the state’s Attorney General’s office was on hand to oppose the bill. The constitutionality of this bill would be challenged, she said. Other states with similar laws are currently engaged in litigation. 

Other attorneys made similar arguments. This is a bill that guarantees litigation, expensive litigation that the taxpayers of our state will foot the bill for. DHHS will have increased costs. There will need to be people who monitor the taking of the samples, monitor the samples themselves, as well as their storage and delivery.  It seems likely that the cost will be higher than any potential savings. There are also issues of medical privacy that the bill doesn’t address. 

It’s a poorly written bill that stands little chance of going anywhere. It begs at least two questions: why do Representatives LeBrun and Notter have so little respect for their colleagues that they would waste their time on a do-nothing bill? And why do they feel justified in thumbing their noses at NH taxpayers? 

© 2013 sbruce

Published as an op-ed in the January 25, 2013 edition of the Conway Daily Sun newspaper. 

Urine Need of Better Representation

I attended a hearing today at the NH House for HB121, "An act requiring drug testing of applicants for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families." (TANF)

This bill is sponsored by Donald LeBrun of Nashua (who sponsored the bill to drug test food stamp recipients in 2011) and Jeanine Notter of Merrimack. 

   The analysis of the bill:

The bill requires the Dept. of Health and Human Services to implement a drug testing program for applicants of TANF. 

It's so much more than that. Not only do they want to drug test everyone, they want the person being tested to pay for the test. If they pass the test, the money will be reimbursed. If they don't pass the test, they'll be ineligible to receive TANF benefits for a year. Children under the age of 18 are exempt from the testing - UNLESS they  happen to be a teen parent who is not living with a parent or guardian. 

A person who fails the test will get a list of substance abuse treatment providers available in their area. No word on how, if they have no money, they'll pay for the treatment. The bill is very clear that the state of NH will NOT be paying. 

The good news is that if a parent is deemed ineligible for benefits, their dependent child(ren) can still receive benefits. An appropriate payee will be designated to receive the benefits on behalf of the child. 

This appropriate person will also undergo drug testing before being approved. No word on who pays for that drug test. 

Those who are deemed physically or mentally "hindered" will not be required to undergo testing. 

There's more - so much more. The entire text is available at the NH General Court website. 

I missed the first few minutes of the  hearing because I was fighting my way through the huge assembly of gun nuts clogging up the hallway to testify in favor of keeping the so-called stand your ground bill. There were lots of men talking about protecting women, but they were oblivious to the women trying to navigate past them. 

Bill Sponsor Donald LeBrun spoke on behalf of the bill. HHS committee member Rep. Martel asked him what form of drug testing would be used. Rep. Martel didn't know. The bill doesn't specify. As we would learn, the bill doesn't specify a great many things. 

Rep. Barbara French asked "What is your main intent? To identify a person who needs help, or ensure that they don't get welfare?"

Rep. LeBrun answered, "we want to get them the help they need." 

Rep. Susan Ticehurst asked about prescription drugs, since there was no language in the bill to allow someone testing positive for drugs they are legitimately taking to continue to receive benefits. 

Rep. LeBrun said, "The bill does not specify that, but as I've said before, no bill is perfect. Someone can offer an amendment." It seemed he'd made the point about the imperfect nature of the bill a number of times already. 

Next was Assistant AG Ann Rice, opposing the bill on behalf of the Attorney General's office. The constitutionality of the bill would be challenged she said - under both the 4th and the 14th amendments. 

SCOTUS has upheld random drug testing only in the case of public safety. People who run trains, drive trucks, etc. Attorney Rice said this bill will most likely not be found to be constitutional. There is presently litigation proceeding in other states with similar laws. To go down this road will likely lead to litigation. 

Sarah Madsen from NH Legal Assistance pointed out that TANF is a federal block grant given to the states. She also stated that there is little evidence that drug use is prevalent amongst TANF recipients. She believes the bill will cost the state money. Ms. Madsen also pointed out that TANF is a means tested program. Families on TANF do not have the money to pay for a drug test up front, even with the promise of reimbursement. This would be a greater burden for those in rural areas who might have to drive a great distance to a testing facility. 

Rep. Martel had questions for her about the percentages of people who failed the drug tests in Florida. It was 108 out of 4,086. 

Mary Lou Beaver from Every Child Matters stated that the bill is based on stereotypes of drug use among poor people. TANF is a safety net program for children - and the cost of living for TANF recipients is already outstripping the benefit amount, making the paying for the testing especially hurtful. 

She also pointed out that the state will be on the hook for the legal costs accrued by the potential lawsuits. 

(A side note - Rep. LeBrun was listening to the testimony; smiling, laughing, and shaking his head in disagreement with those testifying before the committee.) 

Rep. Martel asked Ms. Beaver if people can buy cigarettes with EBT cards. "They can afford to buy cigarettes but they can't afford drug testing?" Apparently all TANF recipients are cigarette smokers, too. 

Next was Deb Shorter, who identified herself as a former caseworker, taxpayer, and author. She believes that people who are denied TANF will apply for disability. "THEY" will find loopholes, because that's what "THEY" do. She supports the bill, but did point out that "those people" don't even have money for gas, so expecting them to pay for the drug testing is unreasonable. 

She said that she has to pass a drug test to get a job, therefore everyone should. Most of her remarks were along the lines of "I have had many clients who were on drugs." Rep. Sherman from the committee asked her if she had any numbers or data other than "a lot." She said, "I'm not a statistician." She left with Rep. Notter. 

(Note: Her book is self published, and what I read of it on amazon.com proved long on anecdote and short on verifiable fact.)

Next was Jennifer Jones, attorney for NH HHS. She pointed out that TANF is a welfare to work program, intended to lift people out of poverty, that they do in fact have to work. 

(Rep. LeBrun was shaking his head no during her testimony.)

Jones said that the department was able to determine only a small part of the potential fiscal impact of this bill. They were not able to determine the cost of the extra personnel that would be required to monitor the taking of samples, monitor the samples, or handle the storing and delivery process. Certainly there would be a negative fiscal impact on the dept. She mentioned that Rep. LeBrun had stated we would help them with drug treatment, and he became indignant. "I never said that," said  he. Except he kinda did, when he said, "We want to get them the help they need." The bill does specify there will be no help. 

Ms. Jones emphasized the fact that the maximum time limit anyone can receive TANF benefits is 60 months in a lifetime. She said that the average length of time most people get benefits is 19 months. 

Rep. Martel asked, "Is the department taking a position on this bill?" Jones replied, "We're taking the position that there will be a negative financial impact on the department." 

Next was Devon Chaffee, from NH ACLU. She testified that there have been no net savings as a result of these bills, that some states have chosen not to implement testing laws because of the costs. 

She also spoke of the issue of medical privacy and what manner of health related issues might come to light as a result of this sort of testing. The bill doesn't provide any protections for the people being tested. 

She called the bill a solution in search of a problem. 

I had to leave at this point, because I was due at another hearing - but you get the idea. No one offered a compelling rationale for why this testing is necessary, or what savings will result from it. 

It's a bill guaranteed to create lawsuits and expense for the state, and one unlikely to go anywhere. That begs some questions: why do Representatives LeBrun and Notter have so little respect for their colleagues that they'd waste their time on a do-nothing bill? And why do they feel justified in thumbing their nose at NH taxpayers? 

Former NH State Rep. Wants Current Legislators Arrested

Former State Rep. Robert Kingsbury of Laconia is back in the news. Rep. Kingsbury served one term in the NH House, where he sponsored a bill calling for the insertion of quotes from the Magna Carta into each new piece of legislation. He went on to further distinguish himself by revealing the results of a study he'd been doing for 16 years that proves that kindergarten causes crime. That's right - kindergarten is the cause for rising crime rates. Well, kindergarten, the decline of gun ownership, and the fact that boxing is no longer taught in schools.

Representative Kingsbury was frequently mentioned in the national media and was fodder for late night TV as a result of his work during that single term in the legislature.

He's back in the news today. According to the Laconia Daily Sun, Kingsbury asked the police to arrest two Laconia legislators:

Former State Rep. Robert Kingsbury yesterday asked police to arrest two city Democratic state representatives for violating their oath of office to uphold the state Constitution because they voted to reinstate the prohibition against carrying firearms into the Statehouse.Kingsbury, a Republican who served one term representing Laconia in Concord, sat through an hour-long Laconia Police Commission meeting yesterday before making his request to arrest Rep. Beth Arsenault and retired Judge and Rep. David Huot.He began his statements by reading portions of the New Hampshire Constitution, the United States Constitution and explaining to the commissioners how all police authority is local.

It is worth pointing out that the ban on guns in the State House was enacted during a GOP controlled House in the 1970's. The GOP had control of the NH House for 150 years, and didn't lose it until 2006. That ban was in effect for an awfully long time - until Speaker O'Brien ended it in 2010. I don't recall former Rep. Kingsbury calling for any arrests in the decades leading up to the overturning of the ban.

This does, perhaps, illustrate why he's a former State Rep instead of a current one.

HB143 - Straight Ticket Voting

This morning the Election Law Committee heard testimony on HB143: An Act Allowing Straight Ticket Voting.  This bill is sponsored by Representatives Notter, Peterson, LeBrun, and Rice - all Republicans.

The NH legislature abolished straight ticket voting in 2007, after the Democrats took control of the NH House for the first time in 150 years. The state has had 3 voting cycles without it, but now, after the significant losses by the GOP in 2012, they've decided to attempt to bring it back. I was interested to hear the justifications, so I attended the hearing.

Representative Frederick Rice of Hampton was the designated speaker from the group of sponsors.

He was asked by one member of the committee how this bill would impact those candidates who get their names on both sides of the ballot. He did a little dance around that, and said it wasn't a legislative issue, but an issue for the political parties to decide - who is and isn't a member of their party. Assuming the bill would work the same way it did in the past, a straight ticket vote means voting for anyone listed as a candidate for whatever party one chooses. In 2002, when I ran for the legislature, a number of came up and said "I voted for you - I voted straight ticket!" and were horrified to learn that they'd also voted for Gene Chandler, who that year had worked hard to get on both sides of the ballot.

Representative Rice went on to say that a candidate who elevates themselves won't be a casualty of straight ticket voting.  (One might wonder what the point is, if  that's the case.)

He stated a number of times that it's primarily a matter of convenience. Apparently reading down the whole ballot and filling in those little circles with the pencil is inconvenient.

Rep. Bob Perry asked how many states have straight ticket voting. Rep. Rice did not know. I do - because I went home and looked it up.

 There are 15 states that have STV: Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia all have unrestricted STV. New Jersey has STV only in primary elections. N. Carolina has STV for all races but the presidential elections. Rhode Island has STV only in general elections, and New Mexico chose to suspend STV in the November 2012 election.
Straight ticked voting is on the decline in the US. A number of states  have abolished it in the last decade or so. Georgia abolished STV in 1994. Illinois abolished STV in 1997. Michigan tried in 2001, but it was repealed. Missouri abolished it in 2006 as part of their Voter ID law. NH abolished STV in 2007, S. Dakota in 1996, and Wisconsin in 2011. 

Rep. Marcia Moody asked if someone voted straight ticket, then crossed over further down and voted for another candidate if that would cancel out their vote. Rep. Rice didn't know. Representative LeBrun had to slip him copies of the bill twice, and do some explaining to him. Apparently it would not cancel out the vote. Rep. Rice explained that straight ticket voting is like buying a refrigerator at Home Depot - the buyer gets the basic package, but gets to choose the options.

After Rep. Rice completed his testimony, Rep. Peter Schmidt was up next, to testify in opposition to the bill. Rep. Schmidt said that convenience to voters should not be the determining factor in how we vote. He said it's not a good argument, that voters should know who they're voting for. "Voting should be an informed act, a significant act." Rep. Schmidt said that he would not vote solely on the basis of party affiliation if he didn't know a candidate, "that is irresponsible."

He also referenced the number of voters who did vote solely on the basis of party affiliation in 2010 and came to regret their decisions. (Martin Harty, anyone?)

During Rep. Schmidt's testimony, Josh McElveen and a cameraman from WMUR came in and did a little taping of Schmidt's testimony. McElveen  and Rep. Notter both went out into the hallway for a chat.

Committee member Rep. Marston mentioned the long lines at the polls on election day. Representative Schmidt pointed out that those lines were caused by new voters registering on election day. Rep. Marston said that as a town moderator he knows that voters want convenience - that one check mark is so convenient, when there are so many choices on a ballot.

Rep. Schmidt responded, "Why not send someone to their house with a ballot and a pen and let them vote in bed?"

There was also some question about the interpretation of language in the bill in the area of instructions on voting a straight ticked.  Rep. Schmidt's interpretation did not jibe with that of Reps. Notter, Peterson, and LeBrun.

Former Rep. Harriet Cady testified in favor of the bill. She said that it is convenient and less time consuming. As a supervisor of the checklist, she's encountered new young voters who don't even understand the 2 party system. Students in our society are not well educated in our voting system, and they take an inordinate amount of time in the voting booth.

So, rather than educate them, just give 'em a pencil and let them vote a straight ticket?

Bottom line: this bill comes from Republicans in the southern part of the state. Even after the exhaustive gerrymandering done by the GOP in the last legislature, some Republicans STILL lost their seats. Former Speaker O'Brien barely clung to his seat (winning by 67 votes) in a district that was especially designed to keep him. Since gerrymandering isn't enough to maintain a permanent GOP majority, they'll try every gimmick they can think of. The one thing they seem unwilling to try is doing something about the very real problems our state faces. They'd prefer to fritter away their time (and our tax dollars) on manufactured "problems."

 The saddest thing about the testimony today was the kind of low expectations that the members of the minority party have of NH voters. Apparently we're too lazy to bother to read a ballot all the way down, and not clever enough to fill in all the little spaces - and actually researching the candidates to know whom we're voting for seems to be far beyond our ability.

NH GOP Wants to Go Back to Straight Ticket Voting

Some NH Republicans have filed a bill to bring back straight ticket voting. It used to be that there were boxes on top of the ticket that enabled you to vote with one check for the candidates of either the Democratic or the Republican Party. One was not required to READ the ballot, just vote for party loyalty.

Today's story from NHPR:

The four sponsors of the bill to restore it are Republicans. One of the sponsors, Representative Fred Rice of Hampton, says having the straight ticket option would be a matter of convenience and could speed the polling process.

This is the same NH GOP that passed the unnecessary Voter ID bill, which has caused the process to be inconvenient and slow.

In 2012 the NH legislature passed a big redistricting bill. Those who were a little more daring might call it gerrymandering. In any case, it was designed to protect Republican seats, and guarantee Republican majorities.

And still they lost control of the NH House in November. Speaker O'Brien (whose district was designed to protect him) barely kept his seat, winning by only 67 votes. The sudden interest in returning to straight ticket voting is telling us that the NH GOP fears the only way they can win elections is by gerrymandering and gimmickry.

The New Biennium

The New Year has begun, and with it, a new legislature in Concord begins a new biennium. Voters changed the configuration of the House by voting in a Democratic majority; no small feat given the comprehensive gerrymandering that took place last year by the GOP. Certainly after the very public failings of the last bunch, we head into 2013 hoping for better. 

There have been 876 LSRs (potential bills) filed for 2013. There were more, but 148 were withdrawn. Just as a comparison, in 2012, 870 LSRs were filed, and 175 withdrawn. In 2011, 900 LSRs were filed, and in 2010 there were 834. As you can see, the numbers stay pretty much in the same ballpark each year.  Some are bills that we’ve seen before – endlessly. Former Speaker O’Brien has chosen to bring forth another right to work bill, despite the fact that his last try at it went down in flames. Speaking of the former speaker, Rep. O’Brien refused any committee assignment. Apparently he’s too important to work on a committee that he isn’t chairing. 

There are four proposed amendments to the NH Constitution, despite the thorough thrashing that all of the amendments got on the ballot in 2012. 

It is, however, a change from 2010 when there were 13 amendments proposed by the (GOP) minority party. 

CACR1 would provide that a 3/5-majority vote was required to pass legislation imposing new or increased licenses or fees, or to authorize the issuance of state bonds. In other words, CACR1 would guarantee that no new funds could be raised to run the state. This is sponsored by Reps. Jordan Ulery and Sharon Carson. 

CACR2 is also tax related, and would provide that taxes raised by the state of NH or its subdivisions may be graduated. This is sponsored by Reps. Charles Weed and Timothy Robertson, and has a snowball’s chance in hell of going anywhere. 

CACR3 is a bill we’ve seen before, but not as a constitutional amendment. It would provide that parents have the natural right to control the health, education, and welfare of their children. This comes to us from the same crew that has filed it before: Reps. Itse, Baldasaro, Kappler, Comerford, Hoell, and Tucker. One wonders at the thought process – given that this hasn’t made it as a bill, why they think it would succeed as an amendment to the state constitution. Or perhaps this is just the minority party making a ‘statement’ at the taxpayer’s expense. 

CACR4 is another bill that’s failed to go anywhere, turned constitutional amendment. It would provide that the rules made by the chief justice of the NH Supreme Court governing the administration of the courts in the state shall not have the force and effect of law. This comes to us by Rep. Lars Christiansen, who has demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the judicial branch in the past. Christiansen (and some of his cohorts) feel that the legislature should replace the judicial branch. The last legislature was certainly the best possible argument against that idea. This has been floating around now for a few years in varying iterations, and hasn’t gone anywhere. Again, it seems to be a minority party ‘statement’ at the expense of NH taxpayers. 

There are other regurgitations. H1333 would require drug testing of applicants to TANF, as sponsored by Reps. Notter and LeBrun. Rep. LeBrun sponsored a bill in 2011 that called for drug testing of food stamp recipients. It would have saved the state nothing, while costing NH taxpayers over $3million. Another ‘statement’ at the taxpayer’s expense. Rep. Notter achieved a certain amount of renown in 2012 for saying that birth control causes prostate cancer. 

H147 would give the legislature the authority to define education standards. Not content with wanting to take over the judiciary, some members of the minority party are extending their overreach into education, and have filed several bills aimed at a legislative takeover of education. Again – the last legislature was the best possible argument against this. 

There are also a number of gun bills. H14 is relative to the relinquishing of firearms as a condition of bail, and it seems likely that this bill is aimed at ensuring that firearms not be relinquished. H692 would eliminate the license requirement for a concealed weapon. There are a number of anti-abortion bills as well. The minority party is deeply concerned with ensuring that firearms not be regulated, while forcefully regulating the reproductive decisions of the women of our state.  

My favorite LSR is H186: requiring ballot measures to be in plain English. Surely that’s one that we can all get behind. 

H228 would abolish the death penalty, which would enable NH to join the civilized nations of the world. H279 is a bill in support of medical marijuana, something that already exists in Vermont and Maine. We treat our dying pets with great love and care, and don’t want to see them suffer. It’s time we do the same for our fellow humans who are sick or dying. 

Privacy issues are going to be big this session. One of them, H82, would prohibit an employer from requiring an actual or potential employee to disclose his or her social media passwords. 

Of local interest, H760 is  “relative to resurfacing a portion of East Conway Road, and making an appropriation therefore.” It’s sponsored by Reps. Buco and White, and Senator Bradley. 

This is just a small sample of the mixed bag of proposed legislation. Not all of these bills will see the light of day. There seems to be a fair amount of duplication, so some will be combined. Some will never get out of committee. They are all available for viewing at the NH General Court website, which is a great resource: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/

There you can find bills, and track their progress, read the House and Senate calendars to see what’s coming up, and look up legislators. 

It’s a new year, and a new session. NH has real problems that need solving. Let’s hope for a more productive and less embarrassing biennium than the last one. 

© sbruce 2013 

This was published as an op-ed in the January 11, 2013 edition of the Conway Daily Sun newspaper. 

Representative Rude

Last week, a Facebook event page was created to encourage people to go to the state house with their guns hanging out, to a meeting of the House Rules Committee. The Rules Committee intended to reassess the rule change made by the GOP during the last biennium to allow guns in the NH State House.

The FB page disappeared quickly, probably because of some of the questionable commentary. William Tucker of Miscellany Blue got a screenshot of one comment, made by a fellow named Gary Vago, who said: “I say march in peacefully with open carry and remove these people." One can only imagine the sort of hue and cry that would ensue if Democrats threatened to march into anywhere with guns. 
(Or the trouser defacating that would occur if liberals began stockpiling weapons....but I digress.)

The folks at Granite State Progress sent out a press release that pointed out that the language used on this FB page was a form of political intimidation, and the language used was really unacceptable given the recent gun massacre in Connecticut. 

GSP created a form letter that folks could use to contact the state representatives who "liked" the page, to suggest they tone down their rhetoric. I used the form letter. This is the letter:

Dec 21, 2012

Dear Representative

This week you signed on in support of a Facebook event that encouraged
people to attend the House Rules Committee in opposition to some of the
proposed changes. On that event page, one man posted: "I say march
in peacefully with open carry and remove these people."

Allowing this kind of rhetoric to go unchallenged is dangerous  and
could lead to severe and horrible consequences in New Hampshire.
Encouraging people to brandish guns and forcibly 'remove' people from a
committee room is anything but peaceful. You have a responsibility as
an elected official to push back on statements or plans like these
before they develop into something destructive.

NH voters sent a strong message to the NH GOP in November. We the
people didn't like the kind of rhetoric that emanated from the NH House
during the last biennium. As a consequence, we voted a number of you
out of office.

It's time to listen to ALL of the people. Sure, you can only listen to
the kind of knee-jerk partisans who support your questionable behavior
- but you represent your entire district, not just the people who agree
with you. It's time for all of you to make a commitment to speak and
behave like responsible adults. Not a one of you said boo when Speaker
O'Brien cleared the visitors gallery last year and closed it down.
Don't be hypocrites.

NH was the butt of jokes for the last 2 years. We the people sent a
clear message with our votes - we don't want any more of these antics.
If you aren't capable of adult behavior, please do the right thing and
resign immediately.

I ask you to publicly disavow this comment and to commit to doing the
same with any future remarks of that nature. I also call on you to
support the reasonable policy changes up for a vote on January 2nd that
will end the controversial Redress of Grievances Committee -- which had
upset community members and victim advocates for discussing
confidential family court documents in a public setting -- and to
restore the ban on guns on the floor of the State House and in the
gallery where our state's fourth graders spend school field trips.

Sincerely,  Etc. Etc

The three paragraphs that are boldened were my addition, not part of the GSP form letter. Don't blame them! 

I heard from only 2 of the 4 legislators this went out to. Pamela Tucker and JR Hoell did not respond. 
Jordan Ulery's response:

From: Jordan Ulery

Subject: RE: Please Commit to Challenging Dangerous Rhetoric

Date: December 22, 2012 8:33:49 AM EST

To: Susan Bruce

If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t
believe in it at all.
-- Noam Chomsky

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received
this information in error, please contact the sender and delete the message
and material from all computers.
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should
have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence
from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their
own government." -- George Washington 

Not especially clever or interesting - but at least he wasn't rude. Guess who was???

Just in case you're having trouble reading that screenshot, he says:

I signed on many sites that invite me whether I can't make an event or I will be there but I have not read any posts and I have no clue what is written nor do I have any control over peoples post.

I would think you should go after the person on what site your talking about or are you trying to turn it towards me politically because you have nothing better to do.

I would recommend you get a life rather than email a bunch of BS that I have no clue about.

Merry Christmas,

AL

Rude. That's really the only word for it. I know I don't live in his district, but even so, it's not very smart for any elected official to be rude to any NH voter. Clearly Baldasaro isn't interested in (or capable of) toning down his  rhetoric. 

Maynard Thomson: Delusional Egomaniac

Maynard Thomson is up to his old  tricks. His latest diatribe in the Conway Daily Sun is the usual mix of insult, reading comprehension failure, and creepy stalkerish invitation:

Ms. Bruce:  I heard you, I’m your Secret Santa, and your wish is granted — let’s have that conversation. Shall we call Valley Vision together?  This could be riveting TV.  Or we’ll find a space and invite the public to join us for a calm, respectful and data-driven discussion.  I’ll await your call.

He must think the public is going to be calm and respectful, since his letter proves he's certainly incapable of it! Was this letter intended as some sort of enticement? Five paragraphs of insult, and I'd be jumping at the chance to meet up with him? What planet is this sad, delusional egomaniac from?


A brief history of Thomsonia, including his past forays into creepy stalkerism:

Maynard Thomson Again.


There You Go Again Maynard.

Rep. Burt Cares, He Really Cares

William Tucker at MiscellanyBlue has a piece about NH State Rep. John Burt, who had a cartoon on his Facebook page today, showing a teacher "loving and defending our kids" with a gun. He also had this to say:

Then Burt went a step further. He accused parents who support banning guns in schools of not caring about their children. “I wish the ones removing our guns from the sane people would care about our children as much as I do,” he wrote. “But they don’t.”

Representative Burt's deep concern for children was evident during the last legislative biennium, when he voted for these (and other) bills:

To repeal major sections of HB370 , an anti-bullying law.

To repeal coverage of children's early intervention therapy services, as well as diagnosis and treatment of autism or developmental disorders;  HB309.

For weakening judicial oversight of child welfare cases; HB1365.

Against banning BPA in baby food products; HB1182. (The FDA warns that BPA may be hazardous to fetuses, infants, and small children.)

Representative Burt went on to care a little bit more about our children and their families by voting to reducing the lifetime limit for TANF cash assistance that needy families can receive, from 5 years to 3 years. HB0263.

Yes, nothing says "I care" like weapons.  Thank you Representative Burt.



A big H/T to Tuck and Granite to State Progress for their legislative report card.

Please Prove Me Wrong

My daughter began telling me that she was never going to have children when she was around eight years old. As a teen she worked in the restaurant business, which only served to strengthen her resolve. When she was in her twenties, she asked if I’d be upset if she never produced a grandchild. I told her that I wanted her to be happy and have the life she wanted, and that she certainly didn’t need to reproduce to please me. That was the end of the discussion for a decade. 

When my daughter turned 34, she decided to have just one. Into my life came Lucy, the unexpected grandchild. She’s been a source of constant delight. I was a teenaged mother (by choice; it was 1974) and I was scared all the time. This time around, with my granddaughter, I don’t have the fear of dropping her or doing the wrong thing. Still, I do have a new set of fears. She’s growing up in a fairly rural place where she is beloved in her community. But she was born into an unsafe world, with climate change, environmental problems, pollution, war, and violence. 

School shootings were not a common occurrence when I was a student in the 60’s and 70’s. There are those who insist that school shootings occur because we eliminated forced prayer from our schools. That elimination came in the 1960’s. It certainly took God an awfully long time to get ticked off about it. As a society, we haven’t really progressed much beyond cave men grunting at eclipses and inventing reasons for them. 

The recent massacre in Connecticut brings all of the excuse makers out into the world of public commentary. A recent writer to the Conway Daily Sun insisted that though she was saddened by this tragedy, the answer to gun violence in schools is more guns. This kind of logic could supply us with many answers to societal woes. Clearly the answer to teenaged pregnancies is more sex! The answer to drunk driving is more booze! 

These pronouncements seem come from the same people that think we pay our incompetent union thug teachers far too much money – but now, suddenly we want them to be armed.  There’s a reason that Joe Average has never stopped a spree killing. Joe isn’t trained in combat, or how to handle himself in a firefight. Should a firefight spring up around Joe, he’d be quietly messing his pants in the corner with everyone else – as he should be. Who will pay for teachers to go to combat training on an ongoing basis? There’s a discussion that will liven up town meeting considerably. It’s also a deeply stupid idea, and one that only serves to make the gun fanatics look like …gun fanatics. 

Sadly, we are a bunch of immature jerks who are incapable of having the kind of multilayered conversations required to even look rationally at the problem of spree shootings, which do happen in other countries, but not in the kind of numbers in which they occur in the US. Instead, we want to quickly blame video games, movie and TV violence, and of course the lack of  “family values.” 

Detroit had 358 homicides this year. Sister city Windsor, Ontario had 1. Same basic area, same TV, same video games. The difference? We are a country shaped by violence from our inception. We came from Europe and set about killing the natives. We brought slaves from Africa to build the wealth of the nation, while beating, raping, and killing them. We selectively worship the Wild West, while giving little attention to some of the greatest atrocities like Sand Creek, Wounded Knee, and Mountain Meadows. Violence is in our national DNA, and we’re in denial. 

When a big spree killing happens, the fanatics come out. It should be a deep source of national shame that one special interest group has so much money and power that they control a number of our elected officials. The fearful bleat MORE GUNS because they are so afraid that the NRA will not give them money, and/or fund an opponent. We have lousy gun laws. We need to accept that, and do something about it. My car is a transportation machine. To use it, I had to get a driver’s license. This meant that I had to take a written test, and demonstrate a level of proficiency behind the wheel, and pass a vision test. Periodically I must update my driver’s license. To own a car, I must register it in my state, and it must pass a motor vehicle inspection. A gun is a killing machine. There is no license required, no demonstration of proficiency, written test, no registration, and no inspection. Just about any idiot can own one. I’ve applied for food stamps, and I’ve applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Getting the permit was a breeze. Applying for food stamps is an incredibly onerous process, despite the complete lack of any food stamp massacre in our history. Guns should be regulated. 

We have little concern for the treatment of mental health problems in this country. Spending on mental health treatment is always on the chopping block. In NH, we’ve chosen (to a large extent) to use our jails and prisons as de facto treatment centers for the mentally ill. We can do better. 

Our media feeds us a constant diet of anger and fear. We are a nation at constant war, spending more on defense than the rest of the world combined. While we don’t balk at spending trillions to kill people (including children) in foreign countries, we are outraged at the thought of providing health insurance for all. The anti-abortion crowd loves to bleat about the sanctity of life – but that doesn’t extend to the born. They aren’t out in front of the White House protesting the use of drones. The increasing number of homeless children in the US doesn’t outrage them. The alleged pro-lifers are completely silent on the subject of school shootings. The US needs to get out of the global military imperialism business. 

I don’t think we’re even close to being able to have the kind of conversations that need to be had. Instead we’ll do what we’ve always done. We’ll shed a few crocodile tears, and say there’s nothing we can do about this, because: OUR FREEDOMS. 

Please prove me wrong. For Lucy’s sake. 

I wish us all peace on earth and good will toward one another. 

"One failed attempt at a shoe bomb and we all take off our shoes at the airport. 

Thirty one school shootings since Columbine and no change in our regulations of guns" ~ John Oliver

© sbruce 2012  

Published as my latest bi-weekly column in the Conway Daily Sun newspaper, in the December 21, 2012 edition. 

Happy Birthday Billy Bragg!

NWPA (No Power Without Accountability)

Northern Lip Service

Governor-elect Maggie Hassan recently announced the creation of a "north country team" to help her reach out to local communities to learn what their priorities are. The story was in Wednesday's Conway Daily Sun .

I find I'm not high minded enough to refrain from pointing out that this is the same Hassan who spent little time in the north country prior to the election, and was quite clear that this isn't where the votes were.

It comes as no surprise, then, that she's packed this "team" with supporters and elected officials either past or present. No regular working stiffs, no food stamp recipients, and no one scraping by on $10 an hour in a resort area and living in their car because they can't afford the outrageous cost of living. None of the folks who work at providing NH's tiny safety net.

I'd like to have seen some dissenters - folks who do NOT support the GOP tax pledge that Hassan took at the earliest opportunity. I'd like to see folks who work for fuel assistance or food stamp programs, or local health clinics. I'd like to have seen Governor-elect Hassan use some creativity. Instead she's created a group that will almost certainly provide her with exactly the sort of echo chamber she's looking for.

By taking the pledge, she's already ensured that nothing will change in terms of infrastructure or education. There weren't enough votes here for candidate Hassan to pay attention to, which means there aren't enough people up here to waste much time on. This is the same kind of lip service we're used to seeing up here in the area between Concord and Canada.

The beat goes on.

Today's Mailbag

This guy is sending me an email a day, because apparently nothing says "rebuttal" like rewriting history. It's a teabagger "fact" that the Democrats founded the KKK.

Actual history shows otherwise. It was a group of confederate soldiers who founded the KKK, and that's according to KKK history - from their own website.

Nice try, pgkdexja. Don't believe everything you read on the websites for angry white male dullards.





                                             KKK Field Day in Hampton, NH in 1925.

NH Tea Party - Pitiful Clowns

I was wondering where the commenter on Strange Brew came from, and what he was whining about. Apparently the thin skinned tea bagger scaredy cats  are prowling the web, leaving bizarre commentary.

Here's what they posted on their OFFICIAL Tea Party site:

These are the rantings of a self-admitted drunk – Susan Bruce.The tea party is NOT funded by the Koch Bros, is not now, and has NEVER been.
And this is not the first time she’s taken part in calling tea party members ‘white supremacists’. She and her cohorts over at boo-hoo hampshire have called people that before.

Comments are closed.

It's kind of pathetic that after that big brave announcement that they had to close the comments.

This reveals a couple of things. One: lack of reading comprehension skills. I did mention a white supremacist, in this week's editorial, but it was a Bircher, not a teabagger.

Two: Idiocy.  "The rantings of a self admitted drunk? I make no secret of the fact that I used to have an alcohol problem. My last drink was 23 years ago. One would think that Republicans, who love to talk about personal responsibility and pulling themselves up by their bootstraps would applaud my sobriety.
Instead, they prove that they're the kind of self-serving hypocrites I've always said they were.

That's the thing. I stopped drinking. These clowns aren't ever going to stop being stupid.

Strange Brew

They tried. They really tried. Despite all of the efforts of the last state legislature, NH only came in third place in a recent Mother Jones story about the worst state legislatures. Tennessee and Oklahoma took the coveted first and second place titles. In Tennessee there was a bill to outlaw saggy pants and one that defined miscarriages as murder. There were more, so many more, including the state rep who sent out an email warning constituents that President Obama was planning to stage a fake assassination attempt to prevent the 2012 election from happening.

Oklahoma had GOP state Senator Ralph Shortey’s bill to ensure that human fetuses didn’t get into food products, in “their search for artificial flavors.” He had no evidence that any company was doing this, or intended to, but he just wanted to make sure no one was going to have ramen noodles with fetus flavoring.

If you’re thinking that those made the Magna Carta bill and the WARNING signs at the NH border bill sound almost sane, you’re right. Ilya Gerner of Comedy Central described NH as: "a bunch of part-time real-estate agents throwing monkey feces at a wall." As Mother Jones points out, that’s not entirely fair. Some of them are lawyers, too.

NH’s newly elected legislators were sworn in on December 5. A number of last session’s worst offenders were not re-elected, but some were, and some new ones were added. Former Speaker of the NH House, Bill O’Brien barely squeaked out a win in a district gerrymandered to keep him in office. He was photographed sitting (ignominiously) in the rear of the House chamber on swear-in day. The former speaker should take heart, though. Gene Chandler was voted to be the House Minority Leader, proving that scandal and malfeasance have a short half-life in our state.

Newly re-elected Rep. Dan McGuire, a Free Stater from Epsom is bringing back a bill that went nowhere last session. HB 1400 allows the DOT commissioner to sell the naming rights (not limited) to bridges, overpasses, exits, and state buildings. There’s a doctored picture of the Albany covered bridge making the rounds on the Internet, wearing a McDonald’s sign. The companies would pay some sort of annual fee for this privilege, and they’d be responsible for putting up the signs and maintaining the signs. Why not have the “Budweiser NH Dept. of Safety Building”? From my past as an instructor of the state’s DWI program, I know that their products have a role in the commission of drunk driving offenses in our state.

This bill comes from the same Free Stater who tried to get a bill passed to divert the Suncook River back to where it was before a big storm:  in front of his house. Rep. Grifter’s river diversion bill would have cost the taxpayers of our state over $4 million. Dan McGuire is the ultimate poster boy for the FSP. He doesn’t want to pay his taxes, but he’ll happily use yours to feather his own nest. In the mind of Free Staters, everything is for sale, and there should be no such thing as public property. Next up: Mount Walmartshington!

NH has a new legislature, but we still have the same NHGOP, comprised of Tea Partiers, Free Staters, and John Birchers. At first glance, these may seem like disparate groups, but they are all interconnected. In fact, their origins can all be traced to the same place. Koch Industries. The Koch Brothers are the financial engine behind the Tea Party. Fred Koch was a founding member of the John Birch Society, and Free State Project founder Jason Sorens is an affiliated scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. The Mercatus Center is a think tank funded by the Koch Family Foundation. On the FSP web forum just last month, Sorens was huffy about being portrayed as having ties to Mercatus. Evil forces, apparently, are making this all up. His bio on the Mercatus Center website must have just landed there by accident. We are all defined (to some extent) by whom we take money from. He’s a guy who hates all things public, who teaches at a taxpayer-funded university.  Sorens is no stranger to hypocrisy.

Many folks are surprised to find that the John Birch Society still exists. They associate the JBS with commie scares and being anti-fluoridation. These days they’ve turned their sights on the UN. Apparently the UN is the purveyor of all that is evil, and is just waiting to turn us into “one world” where we all join hands and sing kumbaya together. Or something. It was rumored that there were 12 Birchers in the last legislature. The only one to publicly acknowledge it was Norm Tregenza, whose re-election bid was unsuccessful. The others weren’t brave enough to come out as Birchers. The same is true for the Free Staters, most of whom do not acknowledge their ties to the FSP. Why? Both groups are unpopular. They also wish to avoid scrutiny. It wouldn’t help the FSP at all to have their ties to the JBS uncovered and discussed.

For those who don’t remember, the JBS opposed the Civil Rights Movement. Their president, Robert Welch, called Eisenhower a communist and a traitor. Their new hobbyhorse is the UN’s Agenda 21, and they sent a known white supremacist to Conway, to lead a discussion on a film about it.

In fact, the Northeast Regional Field Director of the JBS, Hal Shurtleff, has been turning up on the Sun’s op-ed pages and FB page. I owe my thanks to Mr. Shurtleff for his vociferous defense of a former state rep and Free Stater, which inspired me to dig for the connections between the groups. These two groups may have some surface areas of disagreement, but they speak at each other’s events and conferences. They share members. They’re two peas swimming in the same cup of libertea that the Tea Party has been brewing.

It’s not a brew that has the best interests of our state at heart. It’s a selfish, Randian brew, and one that bears watching.

© sbruce 2012
This was published as an op-ed in the December 7, 2012 edition of the Conway Daily Sun newspaper.