Democrats offer a budget that reflects values of NH, not DC: Rep. Simpson
As the House Finance Committee worked through the state budget over the past few months, a couple things became abundantly clear. Despite constant claims to the contrary, the decisions that House Republicans are making to slash state programs and services are not necessary or unavoidable; they are choices.
And the choices Republicans are making, which include the elimination of core state functions, indiscriminate firings, and tax hikes to subsidize the well-off, reveal a party eager to emulate the chaos of Washington at the expense of the people who just elected them five months ago.
Republicans are doubling down on a failed and deeply unpopular strategy: expanding tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and large, out-of-state corporations while slashing essential services and raising costs on everyday Granite Staters. The result? A budget that works for the top 1%, not for the rest of us.
It didn't have to be this way. New Hampshire's tax structure already leans too heavily on property taxes, which overburdens working people, seniors, and our most vulnerable neighbors. The budget proposed by Republicans exacerbates that burden by cutting aid to cities and towns and removing the income cap on school vouchers, making taxpayers suddenly responsible for thousands of well-off students in our state's private schools.
To make matters worse, House Republicans needlessly reduced the state's share of casino gaming proceeds, giving millions of dollars that Governor Ayotte's budget allocated to public education away to Vegas-based casino owners instead.
To pay for these decisions, Finance Republicans made the kind of rash decisions that we increasingly see out of Washington. Their budget fires a hundred employees in the Department of Corrections, jeopardizing safety in an already understaffed department. It eliminates the Office of the Child Advocate, which has uncovered abuse of NH children in state custody in recent years.
The GOP budget cuts funding for Medicaid providers, developmental disability support, and mental health services, raising costs on everyone from patients to health care providers. It hits those who can least afford it the hardest, placing new health care premiums on families on Medicaid and Granite Advantage recipients who make under $20,000 a year.
Republican budget writers slashed funding to the state's university and community college systems, eliminated the state's adult education program, and eliminated the robotics fund, which helps elementary and high schools engage students in STEM subjects.
If those decisions weren't shortsighted enough, GOP budget writers drastically reduced the tourism development fund and eliminated the state Arts Council, decisions that will harm businesses from restaurants to ski resorts.
House Democrats believe New Hampshire can and must do better and are proposing an alternative known as the Better Budget which puts people first and begins to repair the systemic damage caused by eight years of Republican control for our state.
By rolling back the GOP's school voucher expansion, returning to the Governor's revenue allocation for casino gaming, and investing in the economic drivers that make New Hampshire thrive, the Better Budget restores the GOP's most egregious cuts - everything discussed above - without any new or increased taxes.
House Democrats believe in a New Hampshire where families can access affordable healthcare, where students are supported from kindergarten through technical school and college, where communities are safe and strong, and where the government works for everyday people, not just those at the top.
That's why we're bringing forward the Better Budget this Thursday, a plan that reflects the true values of our state and offers our Republican colleagues and the people of New Hampshire a better path forward, restoring the disastrous cuts they have made to essential services and programs here in our state. Granite Staters deserve a government that invests in them, their families, and their future.
Let's pass a budget that reflects our shared priorities. Watch live from the House Floor this week as we stand up for Granite State values.
Rep. Alexis Simpson, of Exeter is the House Democratic Leader
This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Democrats offer a budget that reflects NH values: Rep. Simpson
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
22 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Southern Baptists target porn, sports betting, same-sex marriage and 'willful childlessness'
Southern Baptists meeting this week in Dallas will be asked to approve resolutions calling for a legal ban on pornography and a reversal of the U.S. Supreme Court's approval of same-sex marriage. The proposed resolutions call for laws on gender, marriage and family based on what they say is the biblically stated order of divine creation. They also call for legislators to curtail sports betting and to support policies that promote childbearing. The Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination, is also expected to debate controversies within its own house during its annual meeting Tuesday and Wednesday — such as a proposed ban on churches with women pastors. There are also calls to defund the organization's public policy arm, whose anti-abortion stance hasn't extended to supporting criminal charges for women having abortions. In a denomination where support for President Donald Trump is strong, there is little on the advance agenda referencing specific actions by Trump since taking office in January in areas such as tariffs, immigration or the pending budget bill containing cuts in taxes, food aid and Medicaid. Remnants of the epic showdown in Dallas 40 years ago Southern Baptists will be meeting on the 40th anniversary of another Dallas annual meeting. An epic showdown took place when a record-shattering 45,000 church representatives clashed in what became a decisive blow in the takeover of the convention — and its seminaries and other agencies — by a more conservative faction that was also aligned with the growing Christian conservative movement in presidential politics. The 1985 showdown was 'the hinge convention in terms of the old and the new in the SBC,' said Albert Mohler, who became a key agent in the denomination's rightward shift as longtime president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. Attendance this week will likely be a fraction of 1985's, but that meeting's influence will be evident. Any debates will be among solidly conservative members. Many of the proposed resolutions — on gambling, pornography, sex, gender and marriage — reflect long-standing positions of the convention, though they are especially pointed in their demands on the wider political world. They are proposed by the official Committee on Resolutions, whose recommendations typically get strong support. A proposed resolution says legislators have a duty to 'pass laws that reflect the truth of creation and natural law — about marriage, sex, human life, and family' and to oppose laws contradicting 'what God has made plain through nature and Scripture.' To some outside observers, such language is theocratic. 'When you talk about God's design for anything, there's not a lot of room for compromise,' said Nancy Ammerman, professor emerita of sociology of religion at Boston University. She was an eyewitness to the Dallas meeting and author of 'Baptist Battles,' a history of the 1980s controversy between theological conservatives and moderates. 'There's not a lot of room for people who don't have the same understanding of who God is and how God operates in the world," she said. Mohler said the resolutions reflect a divinely created order that predates the writing of the Scriptures and is affirmed by them. He said the Christian church has always asserted that the created order 'is binding on all persons, in all times, everywhere.' Separate resolutions decry pornography and sports betting as destructive, calling for the former to be banned and the latter curtailed. At least some of these political stances are in the realm of plausibility at a time when their conservative allies control all levers of power in Washington and many have embraced aspects of a Christian nationalist agenda. A Southern Baptist, Mike Johnson, is speaker of the House of Representatives and third in line to the presidency. At least one Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas, has called for revisiting the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. Other religious conservatives — including some in the Catholic postliberal movement, which has influenced Vice President JD Vance — have promoted the view that a robust government should legislate morality, such as banning pornography while easing church-state separation. And conservatives of various stripes have echoed one of the resolution's call for pro-natalist policies and its decrying of 'willful childlessness which contributes to a declining fertility rate.' Some call for eliminating Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission Some preconvention talk has focused on defunding the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the Southern Baptist Convention's public policy arm, which has been accused of being ineffective. Ten former Southern Baptist presidents endorsed its continued funding, though one other called for the opposite. A staunchly conservative group, the Center for Baptist Leadership, has posted online articles critical of the commission, which is adamantly anti-abortion but has opposed state laws criminalizing women seeking abortions. The commission has appealed to Southern Baptists for support, citing its advocacy for religious liberty and against abortion and transgender identity. 'Without the ERLC, you will send the message to our nation's lawmakers and the public at large that the SBC has chosen to abandon the public square at a time when the Southern Baptist voice is most needed,' said a video statement from the commission president, Brent Leatherwood. A group of Southern Baptist ethnic groups and leaders signed a statement in April citing concern over Trump's immigration crackdown, saying it has hurt church attendance and raised fears. 'Law and order are necessary, but enforcement must be accompanied with compassion that doesn't demonize those fleeing oppression, violence, and persecution,' the statement said. The Center for Baptist Leadership, however, denounced the denominational Baptist Press for working to 'weaponize empathy' in its reporting on the statement and Leatherwood for supporting it. Texas pastor Dwight McKissic, a Black pastor who shares many of the Southern Baptist Convention's conservative stances, criticized what he sees as a backlash against the commission, 'the most racially progressive entity in the SBC.' 'The SBC is transitioning from an evangelical organization to a fundamentalist organization,' he posted on the social media site X. 'Fewer and fewer Black churches will make the transition with them." Amendment to ban churches with women pastors An amendment to ban churches with women pastors failed in 2024 after narrowly failing to gain a two-thirds supermajority for two consecutive years. It is expected to be reintroduced. The denomination's belief statement says the office of pastor is limited to men, but there remain disagreements over whether this applies only to the lead pastor or to assistants as well. In recent years, the convention began purging churches that either had women as lead pastors or asserted that they could serve that role. But when an SBC committee this year retained a South Carolina megachurch with a woman on its pastoral staff, some argued this proved the need for a constitutional amendment. (The church later quit the denomination of its own accord.) The meeting comes as the Southern Baptist Convention continues its long membership slide, down 2% in 2024 from the previous year in its 18th consecutive annual decline. The organization now reports a membership of 12.7 million members, still the largest among Protestant denominations, many of whom are shrinking faster. More promising are Southern Baptists' baptism numbers — a key spiritual vital sign. They stand at 250,643, exceeding pre-pandemic levels and, at least for now, reversing a long slide.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump-Musk feud shows what happens when unregulated money floods politics
Elon Musk said, very loudly and very publicly, what is usually the quiet part of the role of money in US politics. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate. Such ingratitude,' he wrote on his X social media platform amid an ongoing feud with Donald Trump. When rightwing commentator Laura Loomer wrote that Republicans on Capitol Hill had been discussing whom to side with in the inter-party feud, Musk replied with a nod toward the long tail of his influence. 'Oh and some food for thought as they ponder this question: Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years … ,' Musk wrote on X. Billionaires in the US often seek to influence politics in big and small ways, throwing their money and influence around to extract what they want from the government. But few are as explicit and influential as Musk has proven in the past year – and it's showing just how transactional and broken US governance has become. The Trump-Musk battle exemplifies the post-Citizens United picture of US politics: the world's richest person paid handsomely to elect his favored candidate, then took a formal, if temporary, role with a new governmental initiative created for him that focused on dismantling parts of the government he didn't like. We're sitting ringside to a fight between the mega-rich president and the far richer Republican donor to see who can cut more services from the poor. As one satirical website put it: 'Aw! These Billionaires Are Fighting Over How Much Money to Steal From Poor People.' Fifteen years ago, the US supreme court ruled that corporations and outside groups could spend as much as they wanted on elections. In that ruling, conservative justice Anthony Kennedy said: 'The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.' In the years since, it's become clear that these infusions of wealth have eroded democracy, with Musk's ostentatious example accelerating an already out-of-control level of money in politics. Musk spent nearly $300m to elect Trump in 2024. It's the billionaire's government now. 'Fifteen years after that decision, we're seeing the full culmination of living under a Citizens United world – where it's not just elections that are for sale, but it's that our entire government, and the apparatus of our government, is up for sale,' Tiffany Muller, the president of End Citizens United, told the Bulwark earlier this year. Musk isn't alone here: in races up and down the ballot, ultra-rich donors are throwing around their cash to get their favored candidates elected. This is the standard state of play for politics in the US now, in both political parties. Bernie Sanders confronted Democrats at their convention last year to say: 'Billionaires in both parties should not be able to buy elections, including primary elections.' Earlier this year, Musk poured big money into a Wisconsin judicial election, but lost to the Democratic candidate. And he's sent small-dollar donations to Republicans who wanted to go after judges who ruled against the Trump administration. The threat of his money, even if it is uneven and has an inconsistent success record, looms large for both political parties. But, by virtue of his unelected role, Musk couldn't do as much as he wanted to stop Trump's signature spending bill – or so it seems so far. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' didn't cut enough spending or favor Musk enough or otherwise meet his litmus test for a budget. And when the administration stopped working for him, he turned on it, blazing out the door in a chaotic fashion. It's a fitting coda to the uneasy alliance between Trump and Musk that started with a warm embrace and front-row status for the ultra-wealthy when Trump took office. The fact that Musk holds such sway over the budget process is in itself corruption. Trump has said Musk knew what was in the bill, the undertone being that the administration sought his approval before the public explosion. Musk embraced a brawling style of political spending that is rare among the uber-wealthy, who tend to let their money speak louder than their public words. One expert in philanthropy previously told the Guardian Musk stood out because of his 'complete eschewal of discretion as a mode of political engagement'. Musk is now rallying his followers on X to reach out to their members of Congress and kill the bill, a quest that could be successful, depending on how Republican lawmakers shake out when they're forced to decide between their ideologue president and a megadonor known for his vindictiveness. In rightwing media, the feud has created a chasm. On Breitbart, one commentator noted how Trump was 'sticking his finger in the eye of his biggest donor and that never happens'. In the American Spectator, one writer opined that Musk did not elect Trump: 'the American people did.' But in the pages of the Washington Examiner, Musk's stance on the bill was praised because Trump's budget plan 'deserves to die'. 'I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago,' Trump wrote to cap off a series of posts and public comments about Musk. Musk has 'lost his mind', the president said in a TV interview Friday. So far, Republican officials are lining up behind Trump. 'President Trump has done more than any person in my lifetime to earn the trust of the movement he leads,' JD Vance said. If Musk ultimately loses, he could take his money and run elsewhere. He floated the idea of creating a third political party, a prospect that's been tried many times before but without the wealth infusion and bully pulpit he'd offer to the cause. Democrats, themselves quite reliant on rich donors, will lobby for him to switch sides. The Democratic representative Ro Khanna suggested the party should 'be in a dialogue' with Musk. Although Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley and has called for the left to embrace economic populism, saw intense backlash against his comments from his party, he doubled down. 'If Biden had a big supporter criticize him, Trump would have hugged him the next day,' he wrote on X. 'When we refused to meet with @RobertKennedyJr, Trump embraced him & won. We can be the party of sanctimonious lectures, or the party of FDR that knows how to win & build a progressive majority.'
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fury as Republicans go ‘nuclear' in fight over California car emissions
California has long been one of the nation's preeminent eco-warriors, enacting landmark environmental standards for cars and trucks that go much further than those mandated by the federal government. Vehicles across the country are cleaner, more efficient and electric in greater numbers because of it. But that could all change if Donald Trump and his Republican allies manage to revoke the state's ability to set its own, stricter emissions standards amid a White House crusade to combat climate-friendly policies. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets and updates its own federal standards for all states on smog and emissions from cars and trucks, which the Biden administration made even stricter last year, saying they will save American drivers thousands in fuel costs and maintenance over the life of a vehicle. But for decades, California has been granted the ability to make those rules even stricter to help address some of the worst smog and air quality issues in the nation, which are linked to a host of health effects that disproportionately affect people of color. On Wednesday, the Senate voted to reverse the waivers, in move that prompted fury from Democrats who call it a 'nuclear' option, calling it an unprecedented, and illegal, use of the statute. The Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian have agreed, saying EPA waivers are not subject to the review law. The House approved similar resolutions earlier this month. The resolutions now go to the White House, where Trump is expected to sign them. 'This move will harm public health and deteriorate air quality for millions of children and people across the country,' said senators Alex Padilla, Sheldon Whitehouse and the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, in a statement. 'This Senate vote is illegal. Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent. We won't stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again,' California's governor, Gavin Newsom, said in a statement on Thursday. 'We're going to fight this unconstitutional attack on California in court.' Kathy Harris, the director of clean vehicles at the Natural Resources Defense Council, emphasized California's ability to mandate strict emissions standards for cars, trucks and buses had existed for nearly 60 years, noting the state had been granted more than 75 waivers under Republican and Democratic presidents. Among the waivers include rules to increase the share of electric vehicles each year among all new car and truck sales, as well as mandates that auto companies introduce progressively cleaner vehicles. She described the waivers as a 'quadruple win', benefiting public health, air quality, drivers' pockets and the economy as a whole. 'These waivers are not new or novel,' Harris said in an interview. 'California has historically been innovators in systems to help produce cleaner air and stymying California's ability is a direct attack on our ability to limit pollution and health harming pollutants in the air.' She added revoking the waivers would immediately lead to an increase in pollution on the nation's roadways. More than a dozen states follow California's lead on emissions standards, according to the California air resources board. The standards now cover nearly 40% of new light-duty vehicle registrations and more than a quarter of heavy-duty vehicles like trucks across the entire US. Automakers have largely followed California's emissions standards as well so they can continue to sell cars there, as the state equates to the fourth-largest economy on the planet. Newsom upped the ante in the nation's environmental future in 2020, declaring his state would ban the sale of all new gas-powered vehicles by 2035. Eleven states have also joined California's plan to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by the 2035 deadline, a reality that has spooked major car companies. Joe Biden's administration approved the plan at the end of his term. Trump, however – a vehement opponent to many of the nation's climate efforts – has vowed to see them reversed. 'California has imposed the most ridiculous car regulations anywhere in the world, with mandates to move to all electric cars,' Trump said during his campaign last year. 'I will terminate that.' Newsom on Wednesday cast the battle as a nail in the coffin for the American car industry and decades of public health advancements. 'The United States Senate has a choice: cede American car-industry dominance to China and clog the lungs of our children, or follow decades of precedent and uphold the clean-air policies that Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon fought so hard for,' he challenged Republicans in a statement. 'Will you side with China or America?' The Senate's decision may have sweeping effects far beyond the state's borders. Harris said she recently pulled up pictures of what air quality looked like in cities around the country in the 1960s before the Clean Air Act, the seminal environmental law that regulates the nation's air quality, was in effect. She described normal levels of smog in California as blanketing the state similar to the apocalyptic clouds of wildfire smoke that have descended during recent fire seasons. The American Lung Association also found last month that Los Angeles remained the country's smoggiest city for the 25th time in 26 years of tracking, despite decades of improvements in air quality. 'I think we have forgotten about what our air used to look like,' Harris said. 'We take it for granted because it's a policy that's been around for so long we don't really recognize those direct benefits. 'There is still a long way to go, we have not succeeded in fully cleaning up our air yet,' she added. 'These types of policies help ensure we are moving in a positive direction.'
