URGENT: NH Bill Would Allow Federalization of Education
Posted by Admin in News, State Legislation on 04 29th, 2011
There is a Bill before the NH Senate Education Committee giving the Legislature the authority to vote on the adoption of National Standards. (HB 164)
Last year the APPOINTED NH Board of Ed. voted in favor of adopting National Standards. This Board is not representative of the people in NH however the Legislature is an elected body representing the voters in NH.
The national take-over in education is no different than the national take over in health care. With a Republican led Senate, this should be an easy decision for the Senators.
This Bill was presented to the Senate Education Committee a while ago but has not been voted on. I think this is a good time to write YOUR Senator and the Senate Education Committee letting them know we do NOT want a National take -over in education.
-Not only will this erode even MORE local control, this could cost an enormous amount of money. Some states are predicting the costs to be in the millions. CA is predicting 1.5 BILLION (Source: EdSource_CommonCore_2010-06-1.pdf pg. 18, starting in the third full paragraph)
-The Legislature should vote on National Standards not an unelected/appointed Board that does not reflect the will of the voters.
-Nationalizing Education is similar to Nationalizing Health Care, where EXACTLY does your State Senator stand on this issue?
Send an email to the Senate Education Committee members, you can find them here:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/members/sencom.asp
Make sure you send a copy to your State Senator, you can find their e-mail address here:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/senatemembers.asp
4.30.2011
Kelly's Kornor
News From The Office Of Senator Kelly Ayotte
Dear Friends,
Please allow me to share an update on some of my recent work representing New Hampshire in the United States Senate.
As you know, with over $14 trillion in debt, our country continues to face a significant fiscal crisis. Before the Senate's recent adjournment, I was pleased to join with my fellow Republican senators to highlight the urgent need for bold action to put our fiscal house in order. If you missed it, I outlined my approach to this critical issue in a Union Leader op-ed piece last Sunday - "No more borrowing without some cuts."
During the Senate's state work period, I've traveled across New Hampshire to meet directly with Granite State citizens. The feedback I've heard from workers and small business owners is critical to helping me effectively represent the interests of the people of New Hampshire in Washington - and I will bring their concerns to Senate debate in the weeks and months ahead.
Please read on for recent news from my office.
On The Road With Kelly
Understanding that the best advice and input comes from Granite Staters, Kelly has spent time traveling across New Hampshire visiting business owners, talking with groups, and meeting with public officials.
Continuing to make stops up and down the state, last week her list of visits included appearances in Portsmouth, Exeter, Durham, Londonderry, Manchester and Bedford. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she delivered the keynote address at the New Hampshire National Guard's Annual Convention and later in the week visited the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
Kelly was honored to be named as a "Champion for Children" by the Child Advocacy Center of Rockingham Country.
At a recent ceremony in Exeter, the group highlighted her work to improve the investigation and prosecution of child abusers, as well as the treatment of child abuse victims - including her efforts as New Hampshire's Attorney General to help establish and support Child Advocacy Centers to investigate child abuse across the state.
Kelly Says Debt Crisis Requires Presidential Leadership
Continuing her efforts to cut out of control deficits and debt, Kelly recently joined several Senate Republican leaders for a press conference in the Capitol to call on President Obama to put forth a serious debt reduction plan.
Putting the stakes into perspective, she highlighted the reality that failure to put America's fiscal house in order will have serious consequences for future generations. She said, "We're ready to work with [the president] to put our country on a responsible path, because it's not just about us. It's about my six-year old, my three-year old and parents across this country that are concerned about what we are leaving for our children and our grandchildren."
Kelly Tells CNN: No Tax Increases
Appearing earlier this month on CNN's John King USA, Kelly made it clear that President Obama's recent call for tax hikes is a non-starter.
Standing up for small business owners in New Hampshire and nationwide, she made it clear: "Many small business owners, in fact, a huge chunk of them in this country, those taxes go through their personal incomes and we're talking about taxing small businesses at a time when we need them to grow and thrive. So, I think it would hurt our economic growth and I wouldn't support that."
Kelly appreciated the opportunity to appear on the show with Senator Rob Portman (R-OH), the former director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Standing Up For New Hampshire's Fishermen
Kelly recently brought the concerns of New Hampshire's fishermen to the Senate Commerce Committee. At a meeting of the panel's Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard, she highlighted the burdens that federal catch limits represent for local fishermen.
Questioning NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, Kelly noted that, "The catch limits and sectors established by NOAA for the Northeast multispecies fishery management plan have represented significant obstacles for the fishing industry and my beautiful home state of New Hampshire."
In sticking up for the state's fishermen, she explained that NOAA has been measuring fish stocks and catch limit history in New Hampshire based on insufficient records. She pressed the Administrator for answers on how NOAA plans to correct its policies so that fishermen aren't robbed of their livelihood.
Dear Friends,
Please allow me to share an update on some of my recent work representing New Hampshire in the United States Senate.
As you know, with over $14 trillion in debt, our country continues to face a significant fiscal crisis. Before the Senate's recent adjournment, I was pleased to join with my fellow Republican senators to highlight the urgent need for bold action to put our fiscal house in order. If you missed it, I outlined my approach to this critical issue in a Union Leader op-ed piece last Sunday - "No more borrowing without some cuts."
During the Senate's state work period, I've traveled across New Hampshire to meet directly with Granite State citizens. The feedback I've heard from workers and small business owners is critical to helping me effectively represent the interests of the people of New Hampshire in Washington - and I will bring their concerns to Senate debate in the weeks and months ahead.
Please read on for recent news from my office.
On The Road With Kelly
Understanding that the best advice and input comes from Granite Staters, Kelly has spent time traveling across New Hampshire visiting business owners, talking with groups, and meeting with public officials.
Continuing to make stops up and down the state, last week her list of visits included appearances in Portsmouth, Exeter, Durham, Londonderry, Manchester and Bedford. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she delivered the keynote address at the New Hampshire National Guard's Annual Convention and later in the week visited the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
Kelly was honored to be named as a "Champion for Children" by the Child Advocacy Center of Rockingham Country.
At a recent ceremony in Exeter, the group highlighted her work to improve the investigation and prosecution of child abusers, as well as the treatment of child abuse victims - including her efforts as New Hampshire's Attorney General to help establish and support Child Advocacy Centers to investigate child abuse across the state.
Kelly Says Debt Crisis Requires Presidential Leadership
Continuing her efforts to cut out of control deficits and debt, Kelly recently joined several Senate Republican leaders for a press conference in the Capitol to call on President Obama to put forth a serious debt reduction plan.
Putting the stakes into perspective, she highlighted the reality that failure to put America's fiscal house in order will have serious consequences for future generations. She said, "We're ready to work with [the president] to put our country on a responsible path, because it's not just about us. It's about my six-year old, my three-year old and parents across this country that are concerned about what we are leaving for our children and our grandchildren."
Kelly Tells CNN: No Tax Increases
Appearing earlier this month on CNN's John King USA, Kelly made it clear that President Obama's recent call for tax hikes is a non-starter.
Standing up for small business owners in New Hampshire and nationwide, she made it clear: "Many small business owners, in fact, a huge chunk of them in this country, those taxes go through their personal incomes and we're talking about taxing small businesses at a time when we need them to grow and thrive. So, I think it would hurt our economic growth and I wouldn't support that."
Kelly appreciated the opportunity to appear on the show with Senator Rob Portman (R-OH), the former director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Standing Up For New Hampshire's Fishermen
Kelly recently brought the concerns of New Hampshire's fishermen to the Senate Commerce Committee. At a meeting of the panel's Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard, she highlighted the burdens that federal catch limits represent for local fishermen.
Questioning NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, Kelly noted that, "The catch limits and sectors established by NOAA for the Northeast multispecies fishery management plan have represented significant obstacles for the fishing industry and my beautiful home state of New Hampshire."
In sticking up for the state's fishermen, she explained that NOAA has been measuring fish stocks and catch limit history in New Hampshire based on insufficient records. She pressed the Administrator for answers on how NOAA plans to correct its policies so that fishermen aren't robbed of their livelihood.
4.25.2011
Another U.N concoction!!!
By Jerry McConnell
Hillary Clinton’s eyes must be lit up like seldom before; the United Nations is preparing a Treaty for her to sign off on that will place the United States even further down the totem pole of world importance.
The UN debate is already underway to bring to the world a monster new RIGHTS agenda that will, if finally adopted and ratified, bring grief and misery unequalled ever before in planet history.
As stated in a Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise article written by the Conservative Action Alerts on April 22, 2011 online, “Mother Earth is about to get RIGHTS! Startling?. It will be if Bolivia gets its way. Bolivia’s Socialist President Juan Evo Morales Ayma (Evo Morales) actually wrote the draft of a United Nations treaty that will give nature - “Mother Earth” the same HUMAN RIGHTS worldwide as humans.”
Can you believe that you would ever see the day when a pile of dirt has equal values to a human being? In my estimation that does not speak very highly or glowingly about us humans, except perhaps those that have proposed this extravagant piece of dung.
Oh I will quickly agree that there really are SOME other humans who fit that description; in fact I have even met some that could never measure up to a handful of the soil that once graced the basis of my well fertilized vegetable garden. But the entire universe; including all socialist liberals? Nah!
But believe it or not, that is what has been proposed not only by Senor’ Morales of Bolivia but a small host of other socialist nations, not one of which is anywhere near the caliber or qualifications of being a world leader, in ANYTHING except radical and aberrant behavior.
These whiz-bang hotshots of wannabee world leaders starting with Bolivia are joined by of course the biggest and foulest mouth-in-the-south, Venezuela’s Chavez, along with Educador, Nicaragua, Saint Vincent, and the Grendadines, Antigua, Barbuda and seemingly our of their geographical element, Syria.
How a contingent of those countries could have the ambition to even want to rouse themselves to put forth the efforts involved in bringing an honest to goodness piece of literate and wildly thoughtful proposed literation for a potential world wide treaty is almost unimaginable or comprehendable.
This treaty, if enacted by the almost totally corrupt and self-serving entities of socialist, communist and despotic nations, will give the earth the same “rights” as a recently passed law in Bolivia does for bugs, trees, and other “natural” things in that south of the border country. It’s president, Evo Morales, wants, according to CAA Alerts, “the UN to recognize the Earth as a living entity which humans have sought to ‘dominate and exploit’ to the point that the ‘well-being and existence of many beings’ is now threatened.”
Can air, rain, sunshine, thunder and lightning be less important or that far behind that they won’t be included after the inauguration of the first ceremonial piles of dirt? And here we thought we had it bad with the narcissistic fruitcake in our White House. Then again, come to think about him, yeah, we do have it worse; but you can bet he will revel over this piece of foolishness.
And Al, the goracle, Gore will be dancing in his monstrous sized carbon footprint mansion in the wilderness over this piece of dictating legalese that will make it easier to force more global warming wacko-ism down our throats. This dumb-headed treaty will make Cap and Trade global warming, even while it is global cooling, much easier to slip by the many know-nothing governments that believe in witchcraft, voodooism and pure bunko as well.
CAA further explained that “Mother Earth Day”, April 22 each year, is the anniversary of the UN General Assembly’s voting unanimously to declare that date “to guarantee the “balance” between human rights and the other members of Earth’s ‘community’ - animals, plants and the terrain itself.”
Does not that make you feel so much closer to the earth to know it has an equal ‘balance’ with your meager and selfish desires? Does not that make you feel much closer to the ‘tree huggers’ among us who also have now been upstaged by the dirt lovers as well as the wind and fire zealots?
And doesn’t it make you feel grand just to know that the new earth rights treaty will also establish and employ a Ministry of Mother Earth to provide planet earth an ombudsman whose job, according to CAA, “will be to hear nature’s complaints as they are voiced by the world’s most extreme and radical environmental activists and the eco-alarmists within our own government?”
Maybe this farcical charade of fatuousness is not all negative; Pablo Salon, Bolivia’s Ambassador to the U. N. states, “We’re not saying. you cannot eat meat because you know you are going to go against the rights of a cow.” (Can you believe this?) And he also so graciously acknowledges that “you need a mine to extract iron or zinc, but there are limits.” Salon did not elaborate on what those limits might be or who would be the sole arbiter to define them.
As might be expected from ANYTHING devolving from the United Nations, nothing will be etched in concrete until the high level officials decide what benefits will first enrich themselves and then what’s left over for the serfs.
KILL THIS BEAST AT THE SOONEST OPPORTUNITY
Hillary Clinton’s eyes must be lit up like seldom before; the United Nations is preparing a Treaty for her to sign off on that will place the United States even further down the totem pole of world importance.
The UN debate is already underway to bring to the world a monster new RIGHTS agenda that will, if finally adopted and ratified, bring grief and misery unequalled ever before in planet history.
As stated in a Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise article written by the Conservative Action Alerts on April 22, 2011 online, “Mother Earth is about to get RIGHTS! Startling?. It will be if Bolivia gets its way. Bolivia’s Socialist President Juan Evo Morales Ayma (Evo Morales) actually wrote the draft of a United Nations treaty that will give nature - “Mother Earth” the same HUMAN RIGHTS worldwide as humans.”
Can you believe that you would ever see the day when a pile of dirt has equal values to a human being? In my estimation that does not speak very highly or glowingly about us humans, except perhaps those that have proposed this extravagant piece of dung.
Oh I will quickly agree that there really are SOME other humans who fit that description; in fact I have even met some that could never measure up to a handful of the soil that once graced the basis of my well fertilized vegetable garden. But the entire universe; including all socialist liberals? Nah!
But believe it or not, that is what has been proposed not only by Senor’ Morales of Bolivia but a small host of other socialist nations, not one of which is anywhere near the caliber or qualifications of being a world leader, in ANYTHING except radical and aberrant behavior.
These whiz-bang hotshots of wannabee world leaders starting with Bolivia are joined by of course the biggest and foulest mouth-in-the-south, Venezuela’s Chavez, along with Educador, Nicaragua, Saint Vincent, and the Grendadines, Antigua, Barbuda and seemingly our of their geographical element, Syria.
How a contingent of those countries could have the ambition to even want to rouse themselves to put forth the efforts involved in bringing an honest to goodness piece of literate and wildly thoughtful proposed literation for a potential world wide treaty is almost unimaginable or comprehendable.
This treaty, if enacted by the almost totally corrupt and self-serving entities of socialist, communist and despotic nations, will give the earth the same “rights” as a recently passed law in Bolivia does for bugs, trees, and other “natural” things in that south of the border country. It’s president, Evo Morales, wants, according to CAA Alerts, “the UN to recognize the Earth as a living entity which humans have sought to ‘dominate and exploit’ to the point that the ‘well-being and existence of many beings’ is now threatened.”
Can air, rain, sunshine, thunder and lightning be less important or that far behind that they won’t be included after the inauguration of the first ceremonial piles of dirt? And here we thought we had it bad with the narcissistic fruitcake in our White House. Then again, come to think about him, yeah, we do have it worse; but you can bet he will revel over this piece of foolishness.
And Al, the goracle, Gore will be dancing in his monstrous sized carbon footprint mansion in the wilderness over this piece of dictating legalese that will make it easier to force more global warming wacko-ism down our throats. This dumb-headed treaty will make Cap and Trade global warming, even while it is global cooling, much easier to slip by the many know-nothing governments that believe in witchcraft, voodooism and pure bunko as well.
CAA further explained that “Mother Earth Day”, April 22 each year, is the anniversary of the UN General Assembly’s voting unanimously to declare that date “to guarantee the “balance” between human rights and the other members of Earth’s ‘community’ - animals, plants and the terrain itself.”
Does not that make you feel so much closer to the earth to know it has an equal ‘balance’ with your meager and selfish desires? Does not that make you feel much closer to the ‘tree huggers’ among us who also have now been upstaged by the dirt lovers as well as the wind and fire zealots?
And doesn’t it make you feel grand just to know that the new earth rights treaty will also establish and employ a Ministry of Mother Earth to provide planet earth an ombudsman whose job, according to CAA, “will be to hear nature’s complaints as they are voiced by the world’s most extreme and radical environmental activists and the eco-alarmists within our own government?”
Maybe this farcical charade of fatuousness is not all negative; Pablo Salon, Bolivia’s Ambassador to the U. N. states, “We’re not saying. you cannot eat meat because you know you are going to go against the rights of a cow.” (Can you believe this?) And he also so graciously acknowledges that “you need a mine to extract iron or zinc, but there are limits.” Salon did not elaborate on what those limits might be or who would be the sole arbiter to define them.
As might be expected from ANYTHING devolving from the United Nations, nothing will be etched in concrete until the high level officials decide what benefits will first enrich themselves and then what’s left over for the serfs.
KILL THIS BEAST AT THE SOONEST OPPORTUNITY
4.24.2011
Kelly's Korner
LAST WEEK, all Americans got a stark reminder of something citizens in New Hampshire have known for some time: Our nation’s fiscal crisis is poised to wreck the country’s economic future.
Skeptical that Washington will reach agreement on a long-term debt-reduction plan, the Standard & Poor’s credit-rating agency took the extraordinary step of downgrading its outlook for U.S. Treasury securities to “negative.” Hard to believe, isn’t it? The greatest nation on earth — and the global economic engine — has essentially been declared a risky bet by experts who evaluate risky bets.
S&P isn’t the first to pull the alarm on Washington’s inability to put its fiscal house in order. The International Monetary Fund has raised concerns about America’s debt load and implored us to clean up our act. And Moody’s, a firm similar to S&P, continues to entertain the prospect of a downgrade.
These ratings aren’t just inside baseball for Wall Street financiers. When Treasuries become a riskier investment, higher interest rates inevitably follow.
The result? It will be more expensive for individuals and businesses to borrow money — discouraging investment, growth and job creation.
Nothing less than our quality of life is at stake.
And yet some in Washington continue to believe that bold action is unnecessary. President Obama is chief among them. Having refused to acknowledge the magnitude of the challenges we face, the President has so far declined to lead a substantive debate on how we can put our nation on a path to solvency.
A few days before S&P announced its downgrade, President Obama focused on deficits and debt in a major address — but avoided the opportunity to initiate a serious discussion about America’s entitlement programs, which account for about 60 percent of federal spending. While he was quick to demagogue House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s substantive plan to address Medicare, the President failed to propose a credible alternative.
According to the Government Accountability Office’s most recent report, entitlements face a $99 trillion unfunded liability. That means these programs will eventually grow to consume every dollar of revenue the government takes in — and stand to drive our country into bankruptcy. Rather than address America’s spending problem at its root cause, President Obama instead issued a call for higher taxes — continuing to antagonize already skittish job creators in the private sector.
It should come as no surprise that the Obama administration is in denial over the state of our country’s deteriorating fiscal condition. The President kicked off 2011 by announcing a budget that would put public debt on a path to reaching $20.8 trillion — or 87 percent of Gross Domestic Product — in 2021. Under his budget, net interest payments alone on the debt would rise more than four-fold over the next decade, from $214 billion this year to $931 billion in 2021.
Having voted against it when he was a senator, the President is now asking Congress to raise the debt ceiling (the amount of money that the federal government is legally allowed to borrow). By the way, a statement from the Treasury last Tuesday indicated that we’re currently about $25 billion shy of the existing $14.29 trillion limit.
No one wants to see the government default on its obligations. But with Congress having raised the debt ceiling 11 times since 1997, it’s clear that both parties have failed to take the necessary steps to rein in runaway spending.
I cannot in good conscience raise our debt ceiling without Congress passing real and meaningful reforms to reduce spending. Those reforms should include a balanced-budget amendment, statutory spending caps with sequestration if Congress fails to meet deficit-reduction targets, spending cuts to eliminate waste and duplication, and entitlement reform.
It’s not too late to make the tough decisions that will signal to investors — and to the world — that America is serious about addressing its fiscal crisis.
Congress and the President must make the tough decisions that will preserve the greatest nation on earth. We owe our country nothing less.
.
Kelly Ayotte, a Republican, represents New Hampshire in the United States Senate. She lives in Nashua.
Skeptical that Washington will reach agreement on a long-term debt-reduction plan, the Standard & Poor’s credit-rating agency took the extraordinary step of downgrading its outlook for U.S. Treasury securities to “negative.” Hard to believe, isn’t it? The greatest nation on earth — and the global economic engine — has essentially been declared a risky bet by experts who evaluate risky bets.
S&P isn’t the first to pull the alarm on Washington’s inability to put its fiscal house in order. The International Monetary Fund has raised concerns about America’s debt load and implored us to clean up our act. And Moody’s, a firm similar to S&P, continues to entertain the prospect of a downgrade.
These ratings aren’t just inside baseball for Wall Street financiers. When Treasuries become a riskier investment, higher interest rates inevitably follow.
The result? It will be more expensive for individuals and businesses to borrow money — discouraging investment, growth and job creation.
Nothing less than our quality of life is at stake.
And yet some in Washington continue to believe that bold action is unnecessary. President Obama is chief among them. Having refused to acknowledge the magnitude of the challenges we face, the President has so far declined to lead a substantive debate on how we can put our nation on a path to solvency.
A few days before S&P announced its downgrade, President Obama focused on deficits and debt in a major address — but avoided the opportunity to initiate a serious discussion about America’s entitlement programs, which account for about 60 percent of federal spending. While he was quick to demagogue House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s substantive plan to address Medicare, the President failed to propose a credible alternative.
According to the Government Accountability Office’s most recent report, entitlements face a $99 trillion unfunded liability. That means these programs will eventually grow to consume every dollar of revenue the government takes in — and stand to drive our country into bankruptcy. Rather than address America’s spending problem at its root cause, President Obama instead issued a call for higher taxes — continuing to antagonize already skittish job creators in the private sector.
It should come as no surprise that the Obama administration is in denial over the state of our country’s deteriorating fiscal condition. The President kicked off 2011 by announcing a budget that would put public debt on a path to reaching $20.8 trillion — or 87 percent of Gross Domestic Product — in 2021. Under his budget, net interest payments alone on the debt would rise more than four-fold over the next decade, from $214 billion this year to $931 billion in 2021.
Having voted against it when he was a senator, the President is now asking Congress to raise the debt ceiling (the amount of money that the federal government is legally allowed to borrow). By the way, a statement from the Treasury last Tuesday indicated that we’re currently about $25 billion shy of the existing $14.29 trillion limit.
No one wants to see the government default on its obligations. But with Congress having raised the debt ceiling 11 times since 1997, it’s clear that both parties have failed to take the necessary steps to rein in runaway spending.
I cannot in good conscience raise our debt ceiling without Congress passing real and meaningful reforms to reduce spending. Those reforms should include a balanced-budget amendment, statutory spending caps with sequestration if Congress fails to meet deficit-reduction targets, spending cuts to eliminate waste and duplication, and entitlement reform.
It’s not too late to make the tough decisions that will signal to investors — and to the world — that America is serious about addressing its fiscal crisis.
Congress and the President must make the tough decisions that will preserve the greatest nation on earth. We owe our country nothing less.
.
Kelly Ayotte, a Republican, represents New Hampshire in the United States Senate. She lives in Nashua.
4.19.2011
Questions and answers. SB-3
By Jeb Bradley April 15, 2011
Over the last few weeks, many people, especially public employees, have called, emailed or spoken with me at the State House about the pension reform bill, SB-3, which recently passed the Senate. Many of these people have received misinformation about what the bill actually does and how it affects them. Reforming the pension system to ensure its long term viability has been an emotional discussion for some folks, and that’s why I believe it is so important for everybody to have accurate information on the exact changes that are called for in SB-3. It is my hope that this column will help provide clarification. As always, I remain open and available to discuss concerns or share thoughts on this issue.
Background
As of June 30, 2010 the unfunded liability of the New Hampshire Retirement System (NHRS) was $4.7 billion – approximately $3500 per person in NH. On July 1, employers -- meaning taxpayers -- will pay 13.95% of salary for teacher’s retirement, 25.57% for police officers, and 30.9% for firefighters. In two years those rates will escalate to 29.2% for police and 33.9% for firefighters – rates that are unsustainable in my view. Without SB-3, the entire unfunded burden will be borne exclusively by taxpayers. This will price employees out of jobs, drive up property taxes, make growing and attracting businesses to NH more difficult, and may lead to a downgrading of the state’s bond rating.
Impact of SB-3 on retired public employees -- There will be no changes in the pensions of people already retired.
Medical subsidy eligibility -- The medical subsidy is a payment to a retired teacher or municipal employee that allows them to stay on their former employer’s health plan. Legislation several years ago froze the 8% growth rate in the medical subsidy. SB-3 continues that freeze, but if a retired employee is eligible for the subsidy payment he or she will continue to receive it without a growth factor. The medical subsidy is now funded by employers.
Impact of SB-3 on COLA’s – SB-3 does not change COLA status. Legislation several years ago established a 1.5% COLA in 2010 on the first $30,000 of pensions. SB-3 does not alter that but it also does not authorize additional COLAs.
Gainsharing—“gainsharing” is the practice of diverting revenue from the main pension fund into the Special Account to pay for COLAs and the Medical Subsidy. Gainsharing is one of the primary reasons the NHRS has an unfunded liability of $4.7 billion. Pension systems rely on good earning years to balance poor earnings. Gainsharing diverted $900 million from good earning years leaving the NHRS with no cushion for poor years. No pension system is viable when diversions occur. Legislation enacted several years ago eliminated gainsharing for the foreseeable future and SB-3 ensures gainsharing does not return. COLAs in the future will have to be funded from a different source.
Impact of SB-3 on employees who have worked for 10 or more years and are vested into the NHRS -- Contribution rates will increase from 5 to 7% for employees and teachers; public safety employees will increase from 9.3% to 11.3%. Overtime, unused sick and vacation time, end of career payments will still count toward retirement calculations, and current multipliers will be used. Special detail pay will still be included in retirement calculations provided it is not higher than the average of the previous 7 years. Also, effective in July of 2016, no one will be able to retire at a level higher than 100% of their base pay.
Impact of SB-3 on employees who have worked less than 10 years and are not vested -- Contribution rates will also increase similarly. Employees will not be able to count unused sick or vacation time or end or career payments toward retirement -- though overtime will count. Retirement will be calculated over 5 rather than 3 years. Public safety employees will have to work somewhat longer depending upon years of service. Currently these employees can retire at age 45 with 20 years of service. Under SB-3 an employee with 8 or 9 years of service can retire at 46 with 21 total years. For someone with 6 or 7 years they will be able to retire at 47 with 22 years. Someone with 4 or 5 years of service could retire at 48 with 23 years. Someone with 1-3 years could retire at 49 with 24 years. For newly hired public safety employees, they will be able to retire at age 50 with 25 years of service with a pension multiplier designed to achieve 50% of base salary after 25 years.
For more information about SB-3 and the NHRS – SB-3 can be found at www.nh.gov and the NHRS at www.nhrs.org
Over the last few weeks, many people, especially public employees, have called, emailed or spoken with me at the State House about the pension reform bill, SB-3, which recently passed the Senate. Many of these people have received misinformation about what the bill actually does and how it affects them. Reforming the pension system to ensure its long term viability has been an emotional discussion for some folks, and that’s why I believe it is so important for everybody to have accurate information on the exact changes that are called for in SB-3. It is my hope that this column will help provide clarification. As always, I remain open and available to discuss concerns or share thoughts on this issue.
Background
As of June 30, 2010 the unfunded liability of the New Hampshire Retirement System (NHRS) was $4.7 billion – approximately $3500 per person in NH. On July 1, employers -- meaning taxpayers -- will pay 13.95% of salary for teacher’s retirement, 25.57% for police officers, and 30.9% for firefighters. In two years those rates will escalate to 29.2% for police and 33.9% for firefighters – rates that are unsustainable in my view. Without SB-3, the entire unfunded burden will be borne exclusively by taxpayers. This will price employees out of jobs, drive up property taxes, make growing and attracting businesses to NH more difficult, and may lead to a downgrading of the state’s bond rating.
Impact of SB-3 on retired public employees -- There will be no changes in the pensions of people already retired.
Medical subsidy eligibility -- The medical subsidy is a payment to a retired teacher or municipal employee that allows them to stay on their former employer’s health plan. Legislation several years ago froze the 8% growth rate in the medical subsidy. SB-3 continues that freeze, but if a retired employee is eligible for the subsidy payment he or she will continue to receive it without a growth factor. The medical subsidy is now funded by employers.
Impact of SB-3 on COLA’s – SB-3 does not change COLA status. Legislation several years ago established a 1.5% COLA in 2010 on the first $30,000 of pensions. SB-3 does not alter that but it also does not authorize additional COLAs.
Gainsharing—“gainsharing” is the practice of diverting revenue from the main pension fund into the Special Account to pay for COLAs and the Medical Subsidy. Gainsharing is one of the primary reasons the NHRS has an unfunded liability of $4.7 billion. Pension systems rely on good earning years to balance poor earnings. Gainsharing diverted $900 million from good earning years leaving the NHRS with no cushion for poor years. No pension system is viable when diversions occur. Legislation enacted several years ago eliminated gainsharing for the foreseeable future and SB-3 ensures gainsharing does not return. COLAs in the future will have to be funded from a different source.
Impact of SB-3 on employees who have worked for 10 or more years and are vested into the NHRS -- Contribution rates will increase from 5 to 7% for employees and teachers; public safety employees will increase from 9.3% to 11.3%. Overtime, unused sick and vacation time, end of career payments will still count toward retirement calculations, and current multipliers will be used. Special detail pay will still be included in retirement calculations provided it is not higher than the average of the previous 7 years. Also, effective in July of 2016, no one will be able to retire at a level higher than 100% of their base pay.
Impact of SB-3 on employees who have worked less than 10 years and are not vested -- Contribution rates will also increase similarly. Employees will not be able to count unused sick or vacation time or end or career payments toward retirement -- though overtime will count. Retirement will be calculated over 5 rather than 3 years. Public safety employees will have to work somewhat longer depending upon years of service. Currently these employees can retire at age 45 with 20 years of service. Under SB-3 an employee with 8 or 9 years of service can retire at 46 with 21 total years. For someone with 6 or 7 years they will be able to retire at 47 with 22 years. Someone with 4 or 5 years of service could retire at 48 with 23 years. Someone with 1-3 years could retire at 49 with 24 years. For newly hired public safety employees, they will be able to retire at age 50 with 25 years of service with a pension multiplier designed to achieve 50% of base salary after 25 years.
For more information about SB-3 and the NHRS – SB-3 can be found at www.nh.gov and the NHRS at www.nhrs.org
4.13.2011
More loser than leader
By Jerry McConnell
Having been there himself on occasion, Oliver North, former U. S. Marine Corps Lt. Colonel, sees Barack Obama in “serious trouble.” The good colonel, never shy with comments on current events or, I might add, bravery in military or political actions, says in an online column for Townhall.com. “Laureates and Leaders” on March 25, 2011, “Nobel laureate Barack Obama, fresh from his Latin American spring break, is in serious trouble. Globalists and Utopians who once lauded his constant contrition now want POTUS to return his Peace Prize.”
North sees Washingtonians including all the classifications that are so abundant in that self-anointed “swamp” such as libertarians, progressives and conservatives as being outraged that our U. S. military forces were committed to combat in the Middle East without Congressional participation.
And the Colonel is correct, except for one who, though known for always picking the absolutely wrong time to speak up, and has been boisterously silent on Obama’s very possible illegal actions, and that is stone-headed, flap-jaws Joe Biden, Obama’s VEEP.
Joe “the Lip” Biden once declared loudly and clearly to Congress, the lamestream Media and just about anybody who would listen that any president who placed our military forces into a combat attack on a foreign country without Congressional authorization should face impeachment.
Newsmax.com in its Insider Report online on March 27, 2011 reported that “a videotape has surfaced from the 2007 campaign trail showing Biden threatening to impeach President George W. Bush if he attacked Iran without the approval of Congress.” Biden, according to Newsmax, communicated with legal scholars, the “best-known Constitutional scholars in America because for 17 years I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee.”
Joe, the inept, went on to say “And I want to make it clear, I want it on the record if he does, (attack without Congressional approval) as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and former chair of the Judiciary Committee, I will move to impeach him.”
Can’t you just see the angst at the White House right now, the picture of a 24-7 vigil with perhaps even some large labor union thugs keeping a ‘closer-than-skin’ physical monitor action on Joe Biden to prevent his granting any conference time to ANY news media, and in particular, not one from outside the mainstream media. Old Joe just might forget who the president is right now and make a similar statement to that in the preceding paragraph.
Getting back to Colonel North, he insists to the Insider Report that “The commander in chief’s approval ratings are dropping faster than a JDAM (procedure to convert unguided bombs into controlled directions.) And no matter what happens to Moammar Gadhafi, the turmoil in the Middle East is likely to get a whole lot worse before it gets better. For all of this, President Obama has nobody to blame but himself.
The President, according to North decided on his own that “what was needed to be done and finding allies to support it, a process employed by American leader for two centuries, Obama turned over to the United Nations and the Arab League to build an ‘international coalition’ to determine the outcome.”
But by the time the U. N. Security Council got a Resolution passed, North says that “our military forces were ready and French President Sarkozy was ready to lead; our president was not; and when the first airstrikes to be launched against targets were beginning in Libya, Sarkozy seized the moment and delivered his message that French aircraft was headed for action in Libya on March 17th..
Of course by the time this was taking place our fearless leader was thousands of miles away in Brazil where he bravely announced that the U. S. forces would contribute “unique capabilities” at the front end of the mission, as Lt. Col. North explains, in the form of intelligence, surveillance, signal jamming, and other logistical capabilities. And at that time he repeated his pledge that ‘we will not deploy any U.S. troops on the ground.’
The Newsmax Insider Report went on to state that this promise was “modified” on the night of March 21-22 when a Marine Expeditionary Unit launched an air-ground force from the USS Kearsarge to rescue an Air Force pilot who had bailed out of his damaged F-15.
Of course all of this activity in and out and around Libya was carried on while Obama was enjoying the South American sunshine in Brazil and other vistas. To paraphrase Lt. Col. North, Obama’s dithering and trying to avoid offending any of the nations in the Middle East while others such as Bahrain, Yemen, Syria get deeper involved in tumult and citizen unrest can not replace leadership.
And as North states, “This is no time for artful rhetoric and equivocation. Even a Nobel laureate must know that a leader who tries to placate everyone ends up pleasing no one.”
That’s why I said at the top, Obama is more loser than leader.
Having been there himself on occasion, Oliver North, former U. S. Marine Corps Lt. Colonel, sees Barack Obama in “serious trouble.” The good colonel, never shy with comments on current events or, I might add, bravery in military or political actions, says in an online column for Townhall.com. “Laureates and Leaders” on March 25, 2011, “Nobel laureate Barack Obama, fresh from his Latin American spring break, is in serious trouble. Globalists and Utopians who once lauded his constant contrition now want POTUS to return his Peace Prize.”
North sees Washingtonians including all the classifications that are so abundant in that self-anointed “swamp” such as libertarians, progressives and conservatives as being outraged that our U. S. military forces were committed to combat in the Middle East without Congressional participation.
And the Colonel is correct, except for one who, though known for always picking the absolutely wrong time to speak up, and has been boisterously silent on Obama’s very possible illegal actions, and that is stone-headed, flap-jaws Joe Biden, Obama’s VEEP.
Joe “the Lip” Biden once declared loudly and clearly to Congress, the lamestream Media and just about anybody who would listen that any president who placed our military forces into a combat attack on a foreign country without Congressional authorization should face impeachment.
Newsmax.com in its Insider Report online on March 27, 2011 reported that “a videotape has surfaced from the 2007 campaign trail showing Biden threatening to impeach President George W. Bush if he attacked Iran without the approval of Congress.” Biden, according to Newsmax, communicated with legal scholars, the “best-known Constitutional scholars in America because for 17 years I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee.”
Joe, the inept, went on to say “And I want to make it clear, I want it on the record if he does, (attack without Congressional approval) as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and former chair of the Judiciary Committee, I will move to impeach him.”
Can’t you just see the angst at the White House right now, the picture of a 24-7 vigil with perhaps even some large labor union thugs keeping a ‘closer-than-skin’ physical monitor action on Joe Biden to prevent his granting any conference time to ANY news media, and in particular, not one from outside the mainstream media. Old Joe just might forget who the president is right now and make a similar statement to that in the preceding paragraph.
Getting back to Colonel North, he insists to the Insider Report that “The commander in chief’s approval ratings are dropping faster than a JDAM (procedure to convert unguided bombs into controlled directions.) And no matter what happens to Moammar Gadhafi, the turmoil in the Middle East is likely to get a whole lot worse before it gets better. For all of this, President Obama has nobody to blame but himself.
The President, according to North decided on his own that “what was needed to be done and finding allies to support it, a process employed by American leader for two centuries, Obama turned over to the United Nations and the Arab League to build an ‘international coalition’ to determine the outcome.”
But by the time the U. N. Security Council got a Resolution passed, North says that “our military forces were ready and French President Sarkozy was ready to lead; our president was not; and when the first airstrikes to be launched against targets were beginning in Libya, Sarkozy seized the moment and delivered his message that French aircraft was headed for action in Libya on March 17th..
Of course by the time this was taking place our fearless leader was thousands of miles away in Brazil where he bravely announced that the U. S. forces would contribute “unique capabilities” at the front end of the mission, as Lt. Col. North explains, in the form of intelligence, surveillance, signal jamming, and other logistical capabilities. And at that time he repeated his pledge that ‘we will not deploy any U.S. troops on the ground.’
The Newsmax Insider Report went on to state that this promise was “modified” on the night of March 21-22 when a Marine Expeditionary Unit launched an air-ground force from the USS Kearsarge to rescue an Air Force pilot who had bailed out of his damaged F-15.
Of course all of this activity in and out and around Libya was carried on while Obama was enjoying the South American sunshine in Brazil and other vistas. To paraphrase Lt. Col. North, Obama’s dithering and trying to avoid offending any of the nations in the Middle East while others such as Bahrain, Yemen, Syria get deeper involved in tumult and citizen unrest can not replace leadership.
And as North states, “This is no time for artful rhetoric and equivocation. Even a Nobel laureate must know that a leader who tries to placate everyone ends up pleasing no one.”
That’s why I said at the top, Obama is more loser than leader.
4.05.2011
Union political campaign contributors
1990-2010
Democrat- Republicans
Ame Fed.of State,County Municipal Employees $40,281,900- - $547,700
Intel Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 29,705,600- 679,000
National Education Association 27,679,300- 2,005,200
Service Employees International Union 26,368,470- 98,700
Communication Workers of America 26,305,500- 125,300
Service Employees International Union 26,252,000- 1,086,200
Laborers Union 25,734,000- 2,138,000
American Federation of Teachers 25,682,800- 200,000
United Auto Workers 25,082,200- 182,700
Teamsters Union 24,926,400- 1,822,000
Carpenters and Joiners Union 24,094,100- 2,658,000
Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union 23,875,600- 226,300
United Food and Commercial Workers Union 23,182,000- 334,200
AFL-CIO 17,124,300- 713,500
Sheet Metal Workers Union 16,347,200- 342,800
Plumbers & Pipefitters Union 14,790,000- 818,500
Operating Engineers Union 13,840,000- 2,309,500
Airline Pilots Association 12,806,600- 2,398,300
International Association of Firefighters 12,421,700- 2,685,400
United Transportation Workers 11,807,000- 1,459,300
Ironworkers Union 11,638,900- 936,000
American Postal Workers Union 11,633,100- 544,300
Nat'l Active & Retired Fed. Employees Association 8,135,400- 2,294,600
Seafarers International Union 6,726,800- 1,281,300
Democrat- Republicans
Ame Fed.of State,County Municipal Employees $40,281,900- - $547,700
Intel Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 29,705,600- 679,000
National Education Association 27,679,300- 2,005,200
Service Employees International Union 26,368,470- 98,700
Communication Workers of America 26,305,500- 125,300
Service Employees International Union 26,252,000- 1,086,200
Laborers Union 25,734,000- 2,138,000
American Federation of Teachers 25,682,800- 200,000
United Auto Workers 25,082,200- 182,700
Teamsters Union 24,926,400- 1,822,000
Carpenters and Joiners Union 24,094,100- 2,658,000
Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union 23,875,600- 226,300
United Food and Commercial Workers Union 23,182,000- 334,200
AFL-CIO 17,124,300- 713,500
Sheet Metal Workers Union 16,347,200- 342,800
Plumbers & Pipefitters Union 14,790,000- 818,500
Operating Engineers Union 13,840,000- 2,309,500
Airline Pilots Association 12,806,600- 2,398,300
International Association of Firefighters 12,421,700- 2,685,400
United Transportation Workers 11,807,000- 1,459,300
Ironworkers Union 11,638,900- 936,000
American Postal Workers Union 11,633,100- 544,300
Nat'l Active & Retired Fed. Employees Association 8,135,400- 2,294,600
Seafarers International Union 6,726,800- 1,281,300
4.03.2011
Tinkering won't do it
by Dave Buhlman
There appears to be noticeable slippage in the American way. It's been going on for some years, but has become more noticeable during the Obama presidency, and Democrat control of the House and Senate from 2006 until the November 2010 elections.
The wild spending, the czars, the giveaway of taxpayer money to the banks, more bureaucratic regulations, the high unemployment, jobs going overseas, high gas prices, losses in retirement accounts, the refusal to exploit our own natural resources, coddling of terrorists, inflation beginning to rear its very ugly head, wars in countries where most people hate us, illegals slipping in and out of our country at will, and a president who seems aloof to it all. There is more worry about the future, even among those who planned for it the best they could. And the thoughts of what life will be like for our children and grandchildren can cause nightmares and paroxysms of guilt because, really, it is our fault.
With the regular stumbling going on in Washington, DC, it seems we are adrift. We are in desperate need of one real leader - a Reagan, a JFK, even an FDR.
All of the candidates thus far, with the exception of Ron Paul (who I regret to say may be too old), talk about some tinkering around the edges. They will cut spending and taxes, win wars in various ways, increase our exports, hold government accountable, create jobs, reduce regulations, solidify relations with our allies, and, generally, just do a little trimming of the ship of state, and all will be well. But they will not deviate meaningfully from the basic themes of the past fifty years.
It's been tried; it's not enough.
Donald Trump has stepped up and been a pleasant surprise with his straight speaking and innovative approaches. One of his ideas, to pay us back for all we did in Iraq by keeping control of the oil wells until we are paid the trillions we spent, sure sounds sensible. No amount of money will make up for our many brave soldiers who gave their lives there, of course, but getting paid back in these and other situations would sure help reduce our $14-plus trillion dollar debt. This approach can be applied to many of our foreign commitments and activities. Let other countries pay us for our efforts to reduce a load of the debt we now have.
He has had the courage to bring up the Obama birth controversy and he's not backing down, no matter how much he is scoffed at. That shows leadership qualities. And Trump has produced his birth certificate while Obama continues to spend millions to prevent many aspects of his background from being exposed. Something is amiss, and Trump is raising the questions at a high level on the national stage when no other candidates or potential candidates have the courage to do so. Of course, true to form, Whoopie Goldberg immediately called Trump a racist. The prospect of being accused of racism scares others, but it doesn't scare Trump. I like that.
To this point, I am quite impressed with Trump, and want to hear more.
Dave Buhlman is a former New Hampshire State Representative
There appears to be noticeable slippage in the American way. It's been going on for some years, but has become more noticeable during the Obama presidency, and Democrat control of the House and Senate from 2006 until the November 2010 elections.
The wild spending, the czars, the giveaway of taxpayer money to the banks, more bureaucratic regulations, the high unemployment, jobs going overseas, high gas prices, losses in retirement accounts, the refusal to exploit our own natural resources, coddling of terrorists, inflation beginning to rear its very ugly head, wars in countries where most people hate us, illegals slipping in and out of our country at will, and a president who seems aloof to it all. There is more worry about the future, even among those who planned for it the best they could. And the thoughts of what life will be like for our children and grandchildren can cause nightmares and paroxysms of guilt because, really, it is our fault.
With the regular stumbling going on in Washington, DC, it seems we are adrift. We are in desperate need of one real leader - a Reagan, a JFK, even an FDR.
All of the candidates thus far, with the exception of Ron Paul (who I regret to say may be too old), talk about some tinkering around the edges. They will cut spending and taxes, win wars in various ways, increase our exports, hold government accountable, create jobs, reduce regulations, solidify relations with our allies, and, generally, just do a little trimming of the ship of state, and all will be well. But they will not deviate meaningfully from the basic themes of the past fifty years.
It's been tried; it's not enough.
Donald Trump has stepped up and been a pleasant surprise with his straight speaking and innovative approaches. One of his ideas, to pay us back for all we did in Iraq by keeping control of the oil wells until we are paid the trillions we spent, sure sounds sensible. No amount of money will make up for our many brave soldiers who gave their lives there, of course, but getting paid back in these and other situations would sure help reduce our $14-plus trillion dollar debt. This approach can be applied to many of our foreign commitments and activities. Let other countries pay us for our efforts to reduce a load of the debt we now have.
He has had the courage to bring up the Obama birth controversy and he's not backing down, no matter how much he is scoffed at. That shows leadership qualities. And Trump has produced his birth certificate while Obama continues to spend millions to prevent many aspects of his background from being exposed. Something is amiss, and Trump is raising the questions at a high level on the national stage when no other candidates or potential candidates have the courage to do so. Of course, true to form, Whoopie Goldberg immediately called Trump a racist. The prospect of being accused of racism scares others, but it doesn't scare Trump. I like that.
To this point, I am quite impressed with Trump, and want to hear more.
Dave Buhlman is a former New Hampshire State Representative
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)