logo
Republicans target New Hampshire's child advocate and other small state agencies in budget cuts

Republicans target New Hampshire's child advocate and other small state agencies in budget cuts

Yahoo20-03-2025

New Hampshire Child Advocate Cassandra Sanchez speaks during an event in Concord on April 2, 2024. (Photo by Ethan DeWitt/New Hampshire Bulletin)
As New Hampshire lawmakers look for ways to cut the state budget, Republicans in the State House want to eliminate the state's Office of the Child Advocate, the Commission on Aging, and the Housing Appeals Board.
'Are you sure about the Child Advocate,' Rep. Rosemarie Rung, a Democrat from Merrimack, asked during a work session Monday to discuss this and several other budget-related proposals. 'Have you discussed — I mean, they're the overseer of YDC.'
The Youth Detention Center — a juvenile corrections facility in Manchester that's been renamed the Sununu Youth Services Center — has been embroiled in one of the largest child abuse scandals in U.S. history. Over 1,100 former residents of the facility have filed lawsuits alleging physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, and several state workers have been arrested.
'Yeah, they're there,' Rep. Dan McGuire, the Republican from Epsom who chairs the subcommittee holding the work session, responded.
House Finance Division I, which is one of three legislative subcommittees working on various aspects of the massive state budget — which was proposed by Gov. Kelly Ayotte in February and is currently being debated by the Legislature — approved a series of amendments to that budget on Monday that would eliminate these state agencies.
'There's a number of these smaller things that are sort of nice-to-haves, but they're not necessary,' McGuire said. 'And so, we need the money. I don't know how to put it any blunter.'
The committee voted, 5-4, along party lines in favor of recommending the amendment eliminating the Office of the Child Advocate, firing its staff, and repealing the statutes that created it. The full House will also have to approve the amendment before it's officially added to the proposed budget. Then the entire budget will have to be passed with this amendment included for it to become law.
All four Democrats on the committee voted no.
'We just had a discussion an hour ago about a $150 million appropriation needed to fund the YDC settlement fund,' Rung said, referring to the money the state is being forced in court to pay to the facility's victims. 'And this office, you know, it's $1 million a year. To me, if we can prevent future liabilities that we've seen with the YDC … I think this is one of those positions, one of those offices, that actually is a cost saving to us in the long run. I think it's penny-wise and pound-foolish to get rid of this.'
Cassandra Sanchez, New Hampshire's child advocate, said she was at a conference in Boston when she heard from one of her legislative partners about the vote. She said the news came as 'quite a shock and surprise.'
As child advocate, Sanchez serves as a watchdog overseeing the state's child welfare and juvenile justice systems and advocating for the best interests of children in the state. Her position and the office she leads were created by the Legislature in 2018. It is independent of any other state agency or official. Sanchez is under contract until January 2026; the budget would become effective July 1, 2025.
Sanchez said she and her team hadn't been told this was even being considered ahead of Monday's vote, including on Feb. 26 when she gave a presentation to the subcommittee.
'They did mention that there needed to be further cost-saving measures, but had not floated any idea of the potential of repealing our statute,' she said. 'And given our office budget is so miniscule, I had not even thought of that as a potential option.'
Eliminating the Office of the Child Advocate would save the state approximately $2 million over two years, McGuire said. He noted that most of the cost savings come from firing the eight staff the office employs besides Sanchez. Amid a tight fiscal environment, the House is currently trying to trim Ayotte's two-year budget proposal by around $800 million after the Ways and Means Committee predicted state revenues would be much lower than the governor's estimates. As subcommittee chair, McGuire said he's been tasked with finding $200 million of that savings.
Sanchez argued her office actually saves the state money in the long run. She said her team works to identify situations where children are being harmed and address them before they grow into a situation that spurs a costly lawsuit.
As an example, she pointed to a 2023 incident where her office discovered that two New Hampshire boys who had been sent out of state to a residential treatment facility in Tennessee were being abused there. Her office had them removed from the facility, and she argued it could've led to a lawsuit against the state if she hadn't acted.
She also noted that her office works to ensure children can receive the services they need in the community while remaining with their family or another family as opposed to being sent to a residential care facility. Those facilities, she said, are 'extremely costly' to the state.
Even more, Sanchez said, her office's services are essential to ensuring the best outcomes for children. She said her office works toward 'prevention as opposed to reacting and waiting for something terrible to happen to children.'
'We are the one entity that's giving a voice to children,' she said. 'And that wouldn't exist anymore. And children are so vulnerable. They need to be heard. Their needs need to be met. And I don't know who would be filling that if we're not here.'
Sanchez said if she'd known this was being considered she would've offered to sit down with members of the committee beforehand and discuss what her office does, how it helps children, and how it saves the state money long-term. She's still willing to do this with legislators wanting to understand more. She said she'd already proactively reached out to some.
Sanchez said she watched the hearing online after the fact.
'It appeared that the Democrats had a pretty good understanding,' she said, singling out Rung and Rep. Karen Ebel as two who spoke well on the issue. 'From my perspective, I don't feel that all of the members on that committee truly understand what we do, understand our mandate, and didn't ask any questions to figure that out during our presentation.'
The subcommittee also voted to recommend an amendment eliminating the Commission on Aging, 5-4, on party lines Monday. That amendment will also need the full House's approval.
McGuire called the Commission on Aging 'an easy one.' Democrats on the committee disagreed.
'I understand the constraints we're under, but this commission is up and running,' Ebel, a New London Democrat, said. 'It's been very active. It's been useful. So I'll be voting against the amendment.'
In a 6-2 vote, the committee also recommended an amendment to eliminate the Housing Appeals Board, which allows New Hampshire residents to contest decisions made by their local planning and zoning boards and officials. The amendment would forbid the board from taking on new cases beginning in July and give it 60 days to complete the cases it's already accepted. Because two of the board's employees are under contract for terms well beyond the end of this year's budget — one is contracted through June 2027 and the other through June 2028 — the amendment offers those two jobs in the state judiciary if the judiciary wants them. This amendment also needs the full House's approval to be added to the budget.
'The whole point of doing this is to save money,' McGuire said. 'It's not because they're doing a bad job.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

California gov describes Trump's deployment of National Guard as 'the acts of a dictator'
California gov describes Trump's deployment of National Guard as 'the acts of a dictator'

Yahoo

time11 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

California gov describes Trump's deployment of National Guard as 'the acts of a dictator'

California Gov. Gavin Newsom accused President Donald Trump of 'the acts of a dictator' for deploying National Guard troops to quell violent protests in Los Angeles. Newsom posted to socia media a video of Trump saying he would charge state and local officials federally if they interfere with the immigration enforcement that sparked the protests June 6, 7 and 8. Gavin accused Trump of 'inciting and provoking violence,' 'creating mass chaos' and 'militarizing cities.' 'These are the acts of a dictator, not a President,' Newsom said. The two men have long been at odds. Trump said on social media June 7 that federal authorities needed to step in because of the inaction of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Newsom, who Trump has nicknamed. "If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!" Trump said in the post. The two have repeatedly clashed, most recently in late May, when Trump threatened to cut California's federal funding after a transgender high school athlete qualified for the state championship. "Large scale Federal Funding will be held back, maybe permanently," Trump said at the time, if California fails to follow an executive order he signed Feb. 5 seeking to bar transgender student athletes from playing women's sports. Newsom, a Democrat with presidential aspirations, has also sparred with Trump over tariffs, fighting fires and the management of water and environmental resources, though he has also criticized his own party. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: California governor accuses Trump of 'acts of a dictator'

Live Updates: Tensions Flare Between Protesters and Law Enforcement in L.A.
Live Updates: Tensions Flare Between Protesters and Law Enforcement in L.A.

New York Times

time17 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Live Updates: Tensions Flare Between Protesters and Law Enforcement in L.A.

News Analysis National Guard troops in Los Angeles on Sunday. Gov. Gavin Newsom of California has formally asked the Trump administration to remove them. It is the fight President Trump had been waiting for, a showdown with a top political rival in a deep blue state over an issue core to his political agenda. In bypassing the authority of Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, a Democrat, to call in the National Guard to quell protests in the Los Angeles area over his administration's efforts to deport more migrants, Mr. Trump is now pushing the boundaries of presidential authority and stoking criticism that he is inflaming the situation for political gain. Local and state authorities had not sought help in dealing with the scattered protests that erupted after an immigration raid on Friday in the garment district. But Mr. Trump and his top aides leaned into the confrontation with California leaders on Sunday, portraying the demonstrations as an existential threat to the country — setting in motion an aggressive federal response that in turn sparked new protests across the city. As more demonstrators took to the streets, the president wrote on social media that Los Angeles was being 'invaded and occupied' by 'violent, insurrectionist mobs,' and directed three of his top cabinet officials to take any actions necessary to 'liberate Los Angeles from the Migrant Invasion.' 'Nobody's going to spit on our police officers. Nobody's going to spit on our military,' Mr. Trump told reporters as he headed to Camp David on Sunday, although it was unclear whether any such incidents had occurred. 'That happens, they get hit very hard.' The president declined to say whether he planned to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act, which allows for the use of federal troops on domestic soil to quell a rebellion. But either way, he added, 'we're going to have troops everywhere.' Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, posted on social media that 'this is a fight to save civilization.' Mr. Trump's decision to deploy at least 2,000 members of the California National Guard is the latest example of his willingness and, at times, an eagerness to shatter norms to pursue his political goals and bypass limits on presidential power. The last president to send in the National Guard for a domestic operation without a request from the state's governor, Lyndon B. Johnson, did so in 1965, to protect civil rights demonstrators in Alabama. Image President Donald Trump in New Jersey on Sunday. On social media, he, his aides and allies have sought to frame the demonstrations against immigration officials on their own terms. Credit... Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times But aides and allies of the president say the events unfolding in Los Angeles provide an almost perfect distillation of why Mr. Trump was elected in November. 'It could not be clearer,' said Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker and ally of the president who noted that Mr. Trump had been focused on immigration enforcement since 2015. 'One side is for enforcing the law and protecting Americans, and the other side is for defending illegals and being on the side of the people who break the law.' Sporadic protests have occurred across the country in recent days as federal agents have descended on Los Angeles and other cities searching workplaces for undocumented immigrants, part of an expanded effort by the administration to ramp up the number of daily deportations. On social media, Mr. Trump, his aides and allies have sought to frame the demonstrations against immigration officials on their own terms. They have shared images and videos of the most violent episodes — focusing particularly on examples of protesters lashing out at federal agents — even as many remained peaceful. Officials also zeroed in on demonstrators waving flags of other countries, including Mexico and El Salvador, as evidence of a foreign invasion. 'Illegal criminal aliens and violent mobs have been committing arson, throwing rocks at vehicles, and attacking federal law enforcement for days,' wrote Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary. Mr. Newsom, whom the president refers to as 'Newscum,' has long been a foil for Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly targeted California and its leader as emblematic of failures of the Democratic Party. 'We expected this, we prepared for this,' Mr. Newsom said in a statement to The New York Times. 'This is not surprising — for them to succeed, California must fail, and so they're going to try everything in their tired playbook despite the evidence against them.' Image Law enforcement officers and members of the California National Guard engaged protesters in downtown Los Angeles on Sunday. Credit... Gabriela Bhaskar/The New York Times On Sunday, the governor sent a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth formally requesting that Mr. Trump rescind the call-up of the National Guard, saying federal actions were inflaming the situation. He was echoed by other Democratic officials, who said the mounting demonstrations were the result of Mr. Trump's own actions. The president and his aides 'are masters of misinformation and disinformation,' Senator Alex Padilla of California, a Democrat, said in an interview. 'They create a crisis of their own making and come in with all the theatrics and cruelty of immigration enforcement. They should not be surprised in a community like Los Angeles they will be met by demonstrators who are very passionate about standing up for fundamental rights and due process.' Republicans defended Mr. Trump's moves, saying he was rightfully exercising his power to protect public safety. 'The president is extremely concerned about the safety of federal officials in L.A. right now who have been subject to acts of violence and harassment and obstruction,' Representative Kevin Kiley, Republican of California, said in an interview. He added: 'We are in this moment because of a series of reckless decisions by California's political leaders, the aiding and abetting the open-border policies of President Biden.' Trump officials said on Sunday that they were ready to escalate their response even more, if necessary. Tom Homan, the president's border czar, suggested in an interview with NBC News that the administration would arrest anyone, including public officials, who interfered with immigration enforcement activities, which he said would continue in California and across the country. Image Protesters in Pasadena, Calif., on Sunday. Credit... Alex Welsh for The New York Times Mr. Trump appears to be deploying against California a similar playbook that he has used to punish universities, law firms and other institutions and individuals that he views as political adversaries. Last month, he threatened to strip 'large scale' federal funding from California 'maybe permanently' over the inclusion of transgender athletes in women's sports. And in recent days, his administration said it would pull roughly $4 billion in federal funding for California's high-speed train, which would further delay a project that has long been plagued by delays and funding shortages. 'Everything he's done to attack California or anybody he fears isn't supportive of him is going to continue to be an obsession of his,' Mr. Padilla said. 'He may think it plays smart for his base, but it's actually been bad for the country.' White House officials said there was a different common denominator that explains Mr. Trump's actions both against institutions like Harvard and immigration protests in Los Angeles. 'For years Democrat-run cities and institutions have failed the American people, by both choice and incompetence,' Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement. 'In each instance,' she added, 'the president took necessary action to protect Americans when Democrats refused.'

Speaker Johnson teases follow-ups to the ‘one big, beautiful bill'
Speaker Johnson teases follow-ups to the ‘one big, beautiful bill'

Yahoo

time17 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Speaker Johnson teases follow-ups to the ‘one big, beautiful bill'

The 'one big, beautiful bill' may not be so singular, after all. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is teasing follow-up legislation to the megabill of President Trump's tax cut and spending priorities that Republicans can push though using the same special budget reconciliation process that requires only GOP votes. That tool can be used once per fiscal year, with the current fiscal year ending on Sept. 30. So after Republicans are done with the 'big, beautiful bill,' the GOP trifecta has, in theory, two more shots to muscle through party-line legislation before the next Congress comes into power after the midterms. Johnson floated plans for a second reconciliation bill while rebutting concerns from deficit hawks on the budget impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — which includes an extension of tax cuts and boosts to border and defense funding, with costs offset in part by new requirements on low-income assistance programs like Medicaid and food aid. 'Everyone here wants to reduce spending,' Johnson said Friday morning on CNBC. 'But you have to do that in a sequence of events. We have a plan, OK? This is the first of a multistep process.' 'We're going to have another reconciliation bill that follows this one, possibly a third one before this Congress is up, because you can have a reconciliation bill for each budget year, each fiscal year. So that's ahead of us,' Johnson continued, also pointing to separate plans to claw back money based on recommendations from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 'We're also doing rescissions packages. We got the first one delivered this week from the White House, and that will codify many of the DOGE cuts.' The promise of another reconciliation bill is somewhat surprising given the crux of the debate that dominated the early weeks of the year: Should Republicans divide up their agenda into two bills, passing the first quickly to give Trump an early win on boosting funding for border enforcement and deportations? Or would putting all of Trump's priorities into one bill — which would contain both bitter pills and sweeteners for different factions of the razor-thin majority — be a better political strategy? Trump eventually said he preferred 'one big, beautiful bill,' a moniker that became the legislation's official title in the House last month. It's not clear what would be in a second piece of legislation. Multiple House Republicans who spoke with The Hill were unaware of plans for more reconciliation bills and were not sure what could be included in them. 'I think we need to see what's left on the table after the first one,' Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) said. And to muster through multiple reconciliation bills is a delicate prospect. If members know more reconciliation bills are coming, that complicates the argument that everything in the current package — even policies some factions dislike that others love — need to stay in one megabill. The Speaker declined to elaborate on what might be in such a package when asked in a press conference last week. 'I'm not going to tell you that,' Johnson said. 'Let's get the first one done.' 'Look, I say this is the beginning of a process, and what you're going to see is a continuing of us identifying waste, fraud, abuse in government, which is our pledge of common sense, restoring common sense and fiscal sanity. So we have lots of ideas of things that might be in that package.' Republicans had started planning for the current legislative behemoth months before the 2024 election so they would be prepared to quickly execute on their policy wish list if they won the majority. 'This isn't something we just drew up overnight. So, we'll go through that same laborious process,' Johnson said. But some members have ideas of what else they'd like to see. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) said that he'd hope a second bill would do more to tackle rolling back green energy tax credits and make further spending cuts. Ultimately, though, it will be Trump's call, Norman said: 'I know when the president gets involved, it adds a lot of value.' And Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas) speculated that passing the 'big, beautiful bill' would inspire members to keep going with another bill. 'People like the feeling of winning,' Pfluger said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store