If you can get past the stock progressive narratives littered across Gary Rayno’s latest contribution to InDepth New Hampshire, you’ll find…nothing. Well, irony isn’t exactly nothing. He presumes to be challenging the New Hampshire legislature’s integrity. The big question is whether members are representing the best interests of their constituents.
He begins by lamenting the cuts to the University of New Hampshire’s state university system budget. The House proposed cutting 50 million, and he’s like us to believe that is bad, but is it? Whose money are we talking about here? And how much is UNH spending on DEI, CRT, or anything with the word “belonging” in it? That’s the new euphemism for hiding this discriminatory anti-American dogma. How many millions does UNH spend on that? I bet it’s not 50 million, but do taxpayers need to fund it at all for UNH to teach kids useful things? Not a penny. But if you search Google for “UNH+Belonging,” you get more than a half-dozen hits, and at least one of them is secret. Access is Denied to this DEIA-Belonging Page.
There are links to several other pages about diversity and inclusion. Too many. In other words, some amount of money is wasted annually on staff training, information, development, deployment, and enforcement. Offices, supplies, wages, benefits, heating, cooling, lighting. Also, a lot. But DEI has no real-world educational value. You don’t need any of that to learn or earn a degree unless it is in DEI, CRT, sorry …Belonging. Taxpayers voted against that when they elected Republicans who ran on it.
Forcing UNH to redistribute that wealth is representing the interests of the majority. If UNH chooses not to do that in the face of cuts, then UNH isn’t representing the interests of current and potential customers.
UNH also has initiatives related to sustainability that have little to do with degree programs or the University’s operational needs. [Related: What do You Have to Steal at UNH To Go to Jail in This State?]
Then there are the admin salaries. Cut staff, then wages. Cut some programs with DEI or CRT-like characteristics. DOGE the thing, then get back to me about why you need to raise tuition or how that has anything to do with the education or the value of the degree.
Public Education?
Mr. Rayno (and arguably, many in the legislature) need to spend some time listening to this series of videos on the Claremont Decision. They might learn that NH judges often lack a clear understanding of what the NH Constitution means beyond what they want it to say. Or, we could put them (and the judges) in a room with Ian Underwood for a few hours. Q&A. See if any heads explode after exposure to sustained common sense and logic.
Maybe that’s not even possible. The common-sense part. Many appear to be graduates of the Andru Volinsky school of education ambulance-chasing. Their motto is “it takes a school to destroy a village.” It is an odd take given the facts.
We spend an obscene amount per child on public schools. More money every year. In return, we get kids who can’t pass a dumbed-down assessment. Does adequate education, assuming you still believe that’s possible using government schools, mean that 30-50% of students do not need to be able to read or perform math at grade level? It raises the question of whether we might better cherish it by redirecting $100 million to something else in search of better results.
For the sake of disclosure, I am not a fan of any of the Universal EFA programs under consideration. Redirecting any money will not decrease what schools demand from taxpayers. I think what the legislature is doing will create a bigger mess while failing to solve the actual problem. It is NH’s answer to Vermont’s Clean Heat Standard. A poorly thought-out political move that turns out to be more expensive while doing the opposite of its stated intention.
Testimony
Gary burns a lot of narrative gas (on a long list of issues) trying to make the case that legislators ignore their constituents based on testimony numbers, both online and in-person, but Gary never mentions these inconvenient facts.
Anyone from anywhere can spam the online testimony feature of the General Court website, making whatever numbers it produces suspect at best and garbage at worst.
There are no safety features. You can use any name, put in any town you want, and create any email address, as long as it looks like an email address, and GenCourt will record your vote and testimony.
In other words, New Hampshire legislators might be ignoring the will of out-of-state Democratic activists or reporters pretending to be impartial. And according to the Deputy Chief of Staff of the NH State Senate,
The online sign-in page is another way for the public to participate in the legislative process. We do not limit who may submit their views, or what they have to say. Representatives and Senators are free to consider this submitted testimony when debating bills, but the online sign-ins do not represent a poll or referendum in any way. The raw numbers of people supporting or opposing a bill should not be considered a representative sample of the views of all Granite Staters.
I hope this addresses your concern. Thank you for sharing your views with us.
Sincerely,
Grant Bosse
Deputy Chief of Staff
New Hampshire Senate
In-person testimony, while important, is also not a reliable indicator of constituent preference, as a supermajority of constituents are at work when the legislature conducts its business. Paid activists and lobbyists “work” at the state house to advance specific interests. And while some bills attract large crowds of actual citizens who skip work and whose words had best be heard and considered, they could be Gary Rayno or Andru Volinsky, or the Claremont Judges.
Might I suggest they get-together at the $17,570.00 lunch table UNH bought a few years back for a struggle session whose output we can assume, without much difficulty, is what is worst for New Hampshire.
