This letter was sent to us by a loyal reader and NH State Representative. It outlines some red lines that Soucy and Shurtleff should not cross. Emphasis is mine.
***********
June 12, 2019
The Honorable Donna Soucy President
New Hampshire Senate State House, Room 302 107 North Main Street Concord, NH 03301
The Honorable Steve Shurtleff Speaker
New Hampshire House of Representatives State House, Room 311
107 North Main Street Concord, NH 03301
Dear President Soucy and Speaker Shurtleff,
As the House of Representatives and the Senate form the Committee of Conference to work on the State Budget for Fiscal Years 2020 and 2021, I want to once again make my position clear. There are areas where I have concerns, areas where our partnerships have made meaningful improvements, and areas where there is great opportunity for compromise. It is my sincere hope that we can get to a place where we can meet our financial obligations and responsibly allocate resources to ensure strong and consistent services. This letter is meant to highlight some areas of compromise, but not all, and provide a suggested roadmap to common ground.
The structural deficits presented in both the House and Senate Budgets are deeply concerning. I have been very clear: the State should not put forward a budget that does not balance within itself. Any budget that depends on the use of one-time revenues for ongoing expenses may create financial gaps in future budgets. This policy could set precedent for state employee layoffs, elimination of services, and broken promises in future budgets. The State has a responsibility to pass a balanced, sustainable budget.
Over the last few years, we have worked hard to increase New Hampshire’s economic competitiveness, and the state is seeing the fruits of that work through our booming economy. We should not sacrifice this success by reversing course and raising tax rates. Revenues are booming. The Senate’s base revenue estimates for Fiscal Year 2021 are $141.5 million over the amounts used in our current fiscal year’s budget. The business tax reform package we have worked on together is estimated to generate an additional $30 million in Fiscal Year 2021, and Sports Betting an additional $IO million. All told, we are expecting almost $190 million more in revenue in Fiscal Year 2021 than we are receiving now. We do not have a revenue problem and there is no need to raise business tax rates.
It was suggested by a legislator that, 90% of the budget is operational, 5% are areas we can find a compromise, and 5% are areas we will have to agree to disagree. We can’t allow that 5% stop us from working together on the other 95%. I agree. Throughout the House and Senate phases of the budget process, my team and I have worked with members of the Legislature to address issues that have been raised. Whether it was addressing the Parole Board Audit, designing a new formula for municipal revenue sharing, or creating a grant program to address lead hazards, we have proven we can work together in a bipartisan matter. Through collaboration, we have repeatedly been able to find reasonable solutions for our citizens.
***********
Quick Thought: 90% of the budget is operational, 5% are areas we can find a compromise, and 5% are areas we will have to agree to disagree
Sorry, not buying this and for one reason – it posits that 90% is untouchable. Sorry, that should NEVER be a “right premise.” That is a status quo statement that generally leads to higher budgets down the line as that 90%, in a few years, may still be 90% in terms of percentage but be millions upon millions more on the bottom line as a burden to be borne by taxpayers.
EVERYTHING should always be on the table and NEVER because “well, that’s the way we’ve done it forever”. After all, look at what the Fiscal Committee did in denying the DOJ litigation monies – that has been status quo for years and because of political worldview, decided to not release more funding because it might be used for litigating issues (e.g., voter domicile/residency) that they don’t want litigated.
Ditto for that $46 million for new charter schools. Since when have the Democrats EVER refused “free money” for anything?
Now, I’m against that “free money” for lots of reasons I’ve written about, well, forever. But they refused it for political reasons. The 7-3 vote showed their partisanship in protecting the status quo and eliminating any additional competition for Govt run schools (or, rather, the teachers’ unions that believe they own the schools).
Sununu should turn around and do the same thing in a fiscal version of mutually assured destruction / playing driving chicken.
Or maybe it is already happening. Red pens galore!
