By State Senator Jeb Bradley
So said the Concord Monitor in their June 13th Editorial titled “Not a State Budget to be Proud Of.” How did the Democratic controlled New Hampshire Legislature get into such a predicament?
Spending has jumped by 10.5% while revenues fell through the floor --- $102 million behind the estimate for the first eleven months of this fiscal year. Leading the revenue plunge are business taxes – off $43 million, rooms and meals taxes ---off $20 million, and interest and dividends taxes --- off a whopping $27 million. With the economic recovery anemic at best, revenues are not likely to improve any time soon.
On top of that, the effort to simply expropriate $110 million from a doctor’s medical liability fund (JUA) was deemed to be an unconstitutional taking of private property. All of which created a budget deficit estimated at $300 million by June 2011 when books close – up from a $220 million projection just in April.
Governor Lynch recently called a ‘Special Session’ of the Legislature to confront this alarming deficit – about 10% of the state’s General Fund. The package that emerged from the Special Session includes unprecedented borrowing and one-time revenue sources, uncertain receipt of federal funds, and unspecified sale of State property: The Credit Card.
The non-partisan Legislative Budget Assistant projects one-time revenue sources in the original budget and in the recent deficit package exceed $1 billion. Even excluding the $110 JUA raid and a $50 million reduction of funds that traditionally has gone to cities and towns to lower property taxes – this combined budget package relies upon a whopping 27% of one-time revenue for the General Fund. Nearly $200 million of that amount is unprecedented borrowing for operating expenses rather than capital investments such as buildings or bridges. Much of the balance of one-time revenue was federal stimulus funds.
Even stimulus funds may have reached their limit. Americans, fearful of a Greece-like debt crisis have sent Congress a message. Several incumbents have lost or barely survived recent primaries so Congress has yet to authorize more state aid. Thus $48 million of even more one-time federal money Legislators counted on is in limbo. Whoops – the check is not in the mail even though desperate Legislators are declaring it will be.
The deficit package also relies on unspecified sale of State property. While this idea may make sense, in a very soft real-estate market how likely is the State to receive reasonable value? When this idea was first proposed several weeks ago the estimated revenue proceeds were $50 million. Like magic, the revenue projections just jumped to $60 million. Presto: revenue grows when Legislators simply deem the real estate market has improved.
What about cuts? There were some cuts totaling $52 million but only 1.6% of the General Fund. This so-called $300 million deficit fix in reality is limited cuts, huge borrowing, and one-time revenue --- some of which may not even be real.
Where do all these maneuvers leave the budget? The authors claim the budget is now balanced, precisely what they predicted a year ago before it became a $300 million deficit. For the budget to balance now, they are counting on the unlikely prospect of revenue recovery.
The Prayer: what all the borrowing and one-time revenue does is allow the budget’s authors to cynically claim it is balanced for political purposes in November and pray they avoid the voter’s wrath for their spendthrift ways. But next year---facing nearly a billion dollar one-time revenue shortfall, New Hampshire will confront a fiscal train wreck.
While spending soared and the deficit grew, the numerous tax hikes over the last four years have hurt struggling families, besieged small businesses, while leaving New Hampshire less competitive for job growth or able to confront this looming deficit. In the previous budget, 29 taxes or fees were hiked. In this budget, 38 taxes or fees were raised including the job killing LLC Tax -- nothing more than an income tax on small businesses. The LLC Tax turned out to be so toxic to both small businesses and the Democrats who voted for it, that it was repealed. Even with the repeal, New Hampshire still has the worst corporate tax laws in the nation according to the non-partisan Tax Foundation.
Other warning signs from the Tax Foundation for our State include one of the highest levels of state debt per capita, being only slightly below the national average for state and local tax burden, and having among the higher levels of property taxes in the nation.
All these new taxes and warning signs in terms of national rankings are against the recent backdrop of 50,080 New Hampshire people being unemployed and the national pace of job growth anemic at best.
Four short years ago when change came to both Concord and Washington, the unemployment rate in New Hampshire was 3.6% and 26,865 people were unemployed. In April, the unemployment rate had soared to 6.7% and 50,080 were out of work. Having the worst corporate taxes and a Legislature willing to levy an income tax on small business owners is no way to get people back to work.
There are those legislators -- and now candidates -- who want to ignore the taxes, spending hikes, and deficits of the last four years and claim their stewardship of New Hampshire has been responsible. They point to other states in worse shape than New Hampshire, but ignore the fact that these other states have even higher levels of spending and taxation. Comparing New Hampshire to even more profligate states is no way to govern or help struggling families and small businesses.
The Wish: many of these same folks have always wished for income and sales taxes. Next year they will likely propose an income tax and a sales tax to close the budget hole they created. There could not be a clearer choice in November or a more important election for our State’s future
6.15.2010
A message from Kelly
Dear Friends,
Today I voluntarily appeared before a legislative panel in Concord that is reviewing the state’s oversight of Financial Resources Mortgage. I did so to help prevent future white collar crime from ever happening again in New Hampshire.
My heart goes out to the victims of this horrible criminal fraud. Let’s be clear: what happened to the victims of this criminal Ponzi scheme should never have happened – and must be stopped in the future.
As I have said previously, I had no personal knowledge of FRM. Had I known this type of financial crime was being committed in the state, I would have moved quickly to stop it – just like I did with other criminal cases.
In my view, jurisdiction – who was responsible to act – was a significant factor in this matter. I strongly believe that in 2002 the Legislature should not have taken jurisdiction for unfair business and trade practices for matters involving banking and securities from the Consumer Protection Bureau of the Attorney General’s Office.
As a result of the changes in 2002, and further changes in 2004, which were opposed by the Attorney General’s office, the Legislature removed the authority of the Attorney General to pursue actions under the Consumer Protection Act for matters regulated by Banking and Securities. The Legislature also removed a consumer’s private right of action under the Consumer Protection Act for any matters regulated by Banking or Securities.
That means the Attorney General’s Office lost jurisdiction – the ability and responsibility to act on consumer complaints – and that others gained that jurisdiction. That should not have been done. You can’t tie the hands of the Department of Justice behind its back and then expect it to roll up its sleeves and get to work. That’s exactly what happened by taking away jurisdiction from the Consumer Protection Bureau.
Because jurisdiction was removed from the Attorney General’s Office, the Department of Justice referred the consumer complaints it received regarding FRM to the Banking Commissioner in accordance with the law.
To improve financial regulatory oversight in the state, I suggested that legislators take the following actions:
· Reinstate jurisdiction to the Consumer Protection Bureau of the Attorney General’s Office for matters related to banking and securities;
· Allow consumers the right to seek relief under the Consumer Protection Act;
· Establish clear central reporting requirements to ensure communication and coordination across state agencies, so bad actors can’t use jurisdictional exemptions to avoid detection and accountability.
It is my sincere hope that my appearance today will help lawmakers and regulators better protect consumers in New Hampshire. Please know that I remain grateful for your support and look forward to seeing you on the campaign trail soon.
Sincerely,
Kelly Ayotte
Today I voluntarily appeared before a legislative panel in Concord that is reviewing the state’s oversight of Financial Resources Mortgage. I did so to help prevent future white collar crime from ever happening again in New Hampshire.
My heart goes out to the victims of this horrible criminal fraud. Let’s be clear: what happened to the victims of this criminal Ponzi scheme should never have happened – and must be stopped in the future.
As I have said previously, I had no personal knowledge of FRM. Had I known this type of financial crime was being committed in the state, I would have moved quickly to stop it – just like I did with other criminal cases.
In my view, jurisdiction – who was responsible to act – was a significant factor in this matter. I strongly believe that in 2002 the Legislature should not have taken jurisdiction for unfair business and trade practices for matters involving banking and securities from the Consumer Protection Bureau of the Attorney General’s Office.
As a result of the changes in 2002, and further changes in 2004, which were opposed by the Attorney General’s office, the Legislature removed the authority of the Attorney General to pursue actions under the Consumer Protection Act for matters regulated by Banking and Securities. The Legislature also removed a consumer’s private right of action under the Consumer Protection Act for any matters regulated by Banking or Securities.
That means the Attorney General’s Office lost jurisdiction – the ability and responsibility to act on consumer complaints – and that others gained that jurisdiction. That should not have been done. You can’t tie the hands of the Department of Justice behind its back and then expect it to roll up its sleeves and get to work. That’s exactly what happened by taking away jurisdiction from the Consumer Protection Bureau.
Because jurisdiction was removed from the Attorney General’s Office, the Department of Justice referred the consumer complaints it received regarding FRM to the Banking Commissioner in accordance with the law.
To improve financial regulatory oversight in the state, I suggested that legislators take the following actions:
· Reinstate jurisdiction to the Consumer Protection Bureau of the Attorney General’s Office for matters related to banking and securities;
· Allow consumers the right to seek relief under the Consumer Protection Act;
· Establish clear central reporting requirements to ensure communication and coordination across state agencies, so bad actors can’t use jurisdictional exemptions to avoid detection and accountability.
It is my sincere hope that my appearance today will help lawmakers and regulators better protect consumers in New Hampshire. Please know that I remain grateful for your support and look forward to seeing you on the campaign trail soon.
Sincerely,
Kelly Ayotte
6.11.2010
Beware
By Jerry McConnell
In today’s mail I got this very official looking envelope from the Department of Health & Human Services, complete with a note above my name and address stating, “Important Information from Medicare. (But also the Spanish version; I couldn’t find the French, Greek or even the Muslim version) Informacion Importante de Medicare.” How nice of them to waste my tax dollars to add that importante note in Spanish when the English version is almost perfectly identical. Even a liberal could understand the English version.
But I guess this is the Obama and company idea of letting us know that they are pushing for more Spanish illegal aliens who haven’t a clue or scintilla of the English language (except when they want to protest or sue some Americano.) What’s next? Farsi?
However, getting back to the mail I received from the illustrious Madam Secretary Kathleen Sebelius telling me what a lucky guy I am that the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) passed by Congress (with the help of some turncoat Blue Dog Democrats who were “bought” off) and signed by President Obama that will “provide you and your family greater savings and increased quality health care.”
That’s interesting in that so many others are saying just the opposite – that the new health law will cost more money and a great deterioration in health care quality, even the Congressional Budget Office. But hey, what’s a little fib between friends, right? We forgive you Kate; we know who you work for, and his truth-telling is also very suspicious and rare.
Well, this brochure that came in the official envelope was a four-page, glossy paper in full color and was just full of so many gushy and wonderful things that it almost made me forget that when this bunch also get the Congress to vote to give somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 million non-insured, by choice and not by choice, along with free coverage for untold millions of illegal aliens who are in this county illegally and have broken our laws to get here, there won’t be enough doctors or other medical personnel to treat all of us.
Every country in the world that has this gem of socialism for their medical care has waiting lines and lengthy times for extensive treatments to the point that those country’s citizens have been coming to America to get medical care. So how is all that going to help us?
“The law increases the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and physician assistants…”
Probably the most deceitful or deceptive statement in the brochure says: “The guaranteed Medicare benefits you currently receive will remain the same.” If you believe that than you will probably also believe it when they say: “The law increases the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and physician assistants…”
We keep hearing and reading that we already have a shortage of these medical types and also that many doctors are just going to opt out of the profession due to the many negative factors they face in this law. (See NCPA article below.) Do you want to be treated by a medic that was rushed through medical school and training? That will be a big help, won’t it?
Ironically, on this same day when the above “jubilation” document was received, the National Center for Policy Analysis posted online (June 02, 2010) another document titled, “SENIORS WILL LOSE BIG UNDER OBAMACARE” authored by Kathryn Nix, dated May 24, 2010, and by Obamacare, they of course mean the aforementioned Affordable Care Act.
The NCPA article quotes a Heritage Foundation health policy expert named Robert Moffit who says: “Passage of ObamaCare will have negative consequences for practically all Americans. However, it is the nation’s senior citizens who will get the short end of the stick…”
NCPA also quotes Heritage Foundation‘s Kathryn Nix who states that “For the next generation of senior citizens, finding a doctor will be more difficult and waiting times for appointments are likely to be longer.” She continues, “The American Association of Medical Colleges projects a shortage of 124,000 doctors by 2025. ObamaCare does nothing to reverse this worrisome trend, instead making it worse.”
NCPA also says that doctors who have a large part of their business with Medicare patients could find it difficult to remain profitable, ending their participation in the program; somewhat due to higher taxes that will be placed on drugs (effective in 2011) and medical devices (effective in 2013) especially affecting seniors due to their heavy dependency on those products.
So dear readers, believe who you will, but remember, you once believed in the man currently in the White House that promised “CHANGE”; well he certainly has brought change, but not the sort that he envisioned for us as he campaigned for the presidency.
So far, the changes have been favorable to foreigners, particularly the law-breaking illegal aliens and also to the radical Islams of the world and in this country and the non-working, government bottom feeders that our government has become ‘nanny’ to in their daily living. These changes have come at the expense and detriment to the lawful and taxpaying citizens of the United States of America.
An old saying tells us: “Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it.”
In today’s mail I got this very official looking envelope from the Department of Health & Human Services, complete with a note above my name and address stating, “Important Information from Medicare. (But also the Spanish version; I couldn’t find the French, Greek or even the Muslim version) Informacion Importante de Medicare.” How nice of them to waste my tax dollars to add that importante note in Spanish when the English version is almost perfectly identical. Even a liberal could understand the English version.
But I guess this is the Obama and company idea of letting us know that they are pushing for more Spanish illegal aliens who haven’t a clue or scintilla of the English language (except when they want to protest or sue some Americano.) What’s next? Farsi?
However, getting back to the mail I received from the illustrious Madam Secretary Kathleen Sebelius telling me what a lucky guy I am that the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) passed by Congress (with the help of some turncoat Blue Dog Democrats who were “bought” off) and signed by President Obama that will “provide you and your family greater savings and increased quality health care.”
That’s interesting in that so many others are saying just the opposite – that the new health law will cost more money and a great deterioration in health care quality, even the Congressional Budget Office. But hey, what’s a little fib between friends, right? We forgive you Kate; we know who you work for, and his truth-telling is also very suspicious and rare.
Well, this brochure that came in the official envelope was a four-page, glossy paper in full color and was just full of so many gushy and wonderful things that it almost made me forget that when this bunch also get the Congress to vote to give somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 million non-insured, by choice and not by choice, along with free coverage for untold millions of illegal aliens who are in this county illegally and have broken our laws to get here, there won’t be enough doctors or other medical personnel to treat all of us.
Every country in the world that has this gem of socialism for their medical care has waiting lines and lengthy times for extensive treatments to the point that those country’s citizens have been coming to America to get medical care. So how is all that going to help us?
“The law increases the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and physician assistants…”
Probably the most deceitful or deceptive statement in the brochure says: “The guaranteed Medicare benefits you currently receive will remain the same.” If you believe that than you will probably also believe it when they say: “The law increases the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and physician assistants…”
We keep hearing and reading that we already have a shortage of these medical types and also that many doctors are just going to opt out of the profession due to the many negative factors they face in this law. (See NCPA article below.) Do you want to be treated by a medic that was rushed through medical school and training? That will be a big help, won’t it?
Ironically, on this same day when the above “jubilation” document was received, the National Center for Policy Analysis posted online (June 02, 2010) another document titled, “SENIORS WILL LOSE BIG UNDER OBAMACARE” authored by Kathryn Nix, dated May 24, 2010, and by Obamacare, they of course mean the aforementioned Affordable Care Act.
The NCPA article quotes a Heritage Foundation health policy expert named Robert Moffit who says: “Passage of ObamaCare will have negative consequences for practically all Americans. However, it is the nation’s senior citizens who will get the short end of the stick…”
NCPA also quotes Heritage Foundation‘s Kathryn Nix who states that “For the next generation of senior citizens, finding a doctor will be more difficult and waiting times for appointments are likely to be longer.” She continues, “The American Association of Medical Colleges projects a shortage of 124,000 doctors by 2025. ObamaCare does nothing to reverse this worrisome trend, instead making it worse.”
NCPA also says that doctors who have a large part of their business with Medicare patients could find it difficult to remain profitable, ending their participation in the program; somewhat due to higher taxes that will be placed on drugs (effective in 2011) and medical devices (effective in 2013) especially affecting seniors due to their heavy dependency on those products.
So dear readers, believe who you will, but remember, you once believed in the man currently in the White House that promised “CHANGE”; well he certainly has brought change, but not the sort that he envisioned for us as he campaigned for the presidency.
So far, the changes have been favorable to foreigners, particularly the law-breaking illegal aliens and also to the radical Islams of the world and in this country and the non-working, government bottom feeders that our government has become ‘nanny’ to in their daily living. These changes have come at the expense and detriment to the lawful and taxpaying citizens of the United States of America.
An old saying tells us: “Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it.”
6.02.2010
Dover doings
By former State Representative, and my friend
David Scott
On the 10th of June in the year 1215 the first tax cap was signed. In a meadow at Runnymeade a group of Barons confronted King John and his councilors. They said “ enough of your excessive taxation. Our taxes have been increasing at over 3 times the consumer price index - you are running us into bankruptcy”.
Seeing that he was outnumbered the king signed the Magna Carta.
Pope Innocent the third was disturbed, because if the King had to operate within a tax cap, less money would flow to Rome. In response to a request of the king, the Pope declared the Magna Carta null and void. He called it and I quote “unlawful, unjust, base and shameful”. He threatened to excommunicate the GADFLYS that support A Tax Cap.
The Pope added any person arguing for a tax cap was “a cancer on the body politic”
The barons realized that King John was bad and 2/3rds of them transferred their allegiance to Prince Louis of France. This gave King John a stomach ache and he died.
Dover passed its Magna Carte (great charter) in November of 2007. Dover’s mayor, City Manager and some councilors were against a tax cap. Some today want to override it now and permanently eliminate it.
Their plan is to hold Dover’s children as hostages in their battle to punish those that organized and voted for a tax cap. They have issued this ultimatum - Either accept an override or the swimming programs for Dover’s children will be eliminated.
In the budget presented by the City Manager and its passage encouraged by the Mayor the funding for the swimming programs has been virtually eliminated.
The tax cap is not the reason to eliminate funding for the Jenny Thompson pool and Indoor Pool. The wrong priorities of the city manager and the Mayor are the problem.
Does it make sense to eliminate funding of over $500,000 from the Dover’s two pools.
In its place is it good budgeting to insert a new item of $230,000 for a parking garage.
This allocation of funding will benefit owners of a few large office buildings.
If a parking garage is a benefit to a few property owners they should come up with their own funding. Don’t divert money from our pools used by 3,000 children for the benefit of 3 property owners.
Another wrong spending priority is the enormous increase of spending of Dover’s Computer department. Last year $440,000 was spent by this department. This year the budget is $550,000 and next year a budget of $820,000 is proposed. This is an 85% increase in two years.
If the garage is eliminated and the computer department level funded both pools will have the funds to continue with funding of the for the past few years.
There is a third source of money available – fund balances.
Dover has cash balances of $5 million. The bonding agencies tell us we need $4.2 million in cash balances to maintain our double AA bond rating. We have $800,000 which is more than needed to fund both pools
Fund balances have been used before.
In 2003 over one million dollars of fund balances were used to fund the huge bonuses paid to a few municipal employees. At that time the city refused to disclose who got those bonuses. A law suit forced the city to reveal the names of the recipients.
Then there is the Coast bus service. The budget shows $120,000 of cost and no revenue. Dover taxpayers deserve an accounting of this activity. Where is all the revenue to offset this cost.
The problem is not the tax cap but poor spending decisions. Dover can live within its spending cap and keep our pool programs open.
The council should delay the vote until the end of June. What is the problem if the budget vote is taken in the last week of June?. Two more public hearings could be held on the 2011 budget and public input on the above issues and many other issues raised by the public could be analyzed.
The popularity of King John and his councilors plummeted after he and the Pope tried to destroy the original magna carta.
Dover’s Magna Carta must not be overridden. We must not burden our senior citizens and those laid off, or working part time with higher taxes. Our children should not have their swimming pools closed.
Councilors don’t be a scrooge and take away our children’s fun for lower priority spending.
The public will be watching to see which councilors will vote for a budget that punishes the children. The elderly will be watching to see which councilors will vote to increase their taxes. .Reject this budget and Vote no for an override.
David Scott
On the 10th of June in the year 1215 the first tax cap was signed. In a meadow at Runnymeade a group of Barons confronted King John and his councilors. They said “ enough of your excessive taxation. Our taxes have been increasing at over 3 times the consumer price index - you are running us into bankruptcy”.
Seeing that he was outnumbered the king signed the Magna Carta.
Pope Innocent the third was disturbed, because if the King had to operate within a tax cap, less money would flow to Rome. In response to a request of the king, the Pope declared the Magna Carta null and void. He called it and I quote “unlawful, unjust, base and shameful”. He threatened to excommunicate the GADFLYS that support A Tax Cap.
The Pope added any person arguing for a tax cap was “a cancer on the body politic”
The barons realized that King John was bad and 2/3rds of them transferred their allegiance to Prince Louis of France. This gave King John a stomach ache and he died.
Dover passed its Magna Carte (great charter) in November of 2007. Dover’s mayor, City Manager and some councilors were against a tax cap. Some today want to override it now and permanently eliminate it.
Their plan is to hold Dover’s children as hostages in their battle to punish those that organized and voted for a tax cap. They have issued this ultimatum - Either accept an override or the swimming programs for Dover’s children will be eliminated.
In the budget presented by the City Manager and its passage encouraged by the Mayor the funding for the swimming programs has been virtually eliminated.
The tax cap is not the reason to eliminate funding for the Jenny Thompson pool and Indoor Pool. The wrong priorities of the city manager and the Mayor are the problem.
Does it make sense to eliminate funding of over $500,000 from the Dover’s two pools.
In its place is it good budgeting to insert a new item of $230,000 for a parking garage.
This allocation of funding will benefit owners of a few large office buildings.
If a parking garage is a benefit to a few property owners they should come up with their own funding. Don’t divert money from our pools used by 3,000 children for the benefit of 3 property owners.
Another wrong spending priority is the enormous increase of spending of Dover’s Computer department. Last year $440,000 was spent by this department. This year the budget is $550,000 and next year a budget of $820,000 is proposed. This is an 85% increase in two years.
If the garage is eliminated and the computer department level funded both pools will have the funds to continue with funding of the for the past few years.
There is a third source of money available – fund balances.
Dover has cash balances of $5 million. The bonding agencies tell us we need $4.2 million in cash balances to maintain our double AA bond rating. We have $800,000 which is more than needed to fund both pools
Fund balances have been used before.
In 2003 over one million dollars of fund balances were used to fund the huge bonuses paid to a few municipal employees. At that time the city refused to disclose who got those bonuses. A law suit forced the city to reveal the names of the recipients.
Then there is the Coast bus service. The budget shows $120,000 of cost and no revenue. Dover taxpayers deserve an accounting of this activity. Where is all the revenue to offset this cost.
The problem is not the tax cap but poor spending decisions. Dover can live within its spending cap and keep our pool programs open.
The council should delay the vote until the end of June. What is the problem if the budget vote is taken in the last week of June?. Two more public hearings could be held on the 2011 budget and public input on the above issues and many other issues raised by the public could be analyzed.
The popularity of King John and his councilors plummeted after he and the Pope tried to destroy the original magna carta.
Dover’s Magna Carta must not be overridden. We must not burden our senior citizens and those laid off, or working part time with higher taxes. Our children should not have their swimming pools closed.
Councilors don’t be a scrooge and take away our children’s fun for lower priority spending.
The public will be watching to see which councilors will vote for a budget that punishes the children. The elderly will be watching to see which councilors will vote to increase their taxes. .Reject this budget and Vote no for an override.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)