NH House passes bill to ban cell phones in schools
CONCORD, N.H. (ABC22/FOX44) – Officials in the New Hampshire House have voted to pass bill SB 206, which would ban the use of cell phones in school through a 'bell-to-bell' policy.
This bill, as amended by the House, defines 'bell-to-bell' as 'from when the first bell rings to start instructional time until the dismissal bell rings to end the academic school day, with approved exceptions determined by the superintendent or their designee with respect to student medical, disability, or language proficiency need.'
Governor Kelly Ayotte said yesterday in a statement that she is 'glad to see the House pass this today' and thanked them 'for taking action'.
'Screens are distraction for students and a barrier for teachers to do their jobs. A bell-to-bell ban on cell phones in the classroom will help kids focus on learning and let teachers do what they do best without being the phone police. I'm glad to see the House pass this today and thank them for taking action to help deliver a best-in-class education for all of New Hampshire's students.'
Governor Ayotte has yet to make a final decision on the bill. If it goes into effect, SB 206 will likely take effect in time for the 2025-2026 school year.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rep. Sarah McBride Details Unique Bond with AOC Over the ‘Spotlight' They've Both Faced in Congress (Exclusive)
Rep. Sarah McBride tells PEOPLE that AOC is "a friend and someone who I have turned to for advice" during her first term in the House In a powerful conversation with AOC featured in the State of Firsts documentary about her run for Congress, McBride discusses the pressures she faces as the first openly trans congresswoman State of Firsts premieres June 7 at the Tribeca Festival and screens through June11Rep. Sarah McBride has a strong ally in Congress in one of the House's most visible figures: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. McBride, 34, tells PEOPLE that AOC, 35, has been a source of support since she began her first term in Congress in January. McBride, who made history when she became the first openly transgender person to be elected to the House in November 2024, is the subject of the new State of Firsts documentary from director Chase Joynt, which follows her campaign for Congress. In one scene from the documentary filmed after she won her seat as a U.S. representative from Delaware, McBride and AOC sit down in her office for a chat about "firsts." While speaking to PEOPLE ahead of State of First's Saturday June 7 premiere at the Tribeca Festival, McBride detailed her important bond with the lawmaker. "She's definitely become a friend and someone who I have turned to for advice. She entered Congress with a profile that exceeds mine with a lot of attention," McBride says. "And you know, it wasn't always easy for her." AOC made history in 2018 as the youngest women ever elected to Congress and currently represents New York's 14th congressional district. But in her first term, she said she faced backlash for her outfits and was treated like an intern. McBride says AOC's struggles in her first term have strengthened their connection. "I have often gone to her as one of the few people who knows what it's like coming in as a new member, as a freshman and having a spotlight on you that exceeds what most freshmen have," McBride says, noting, "The challenge of navigating a new place, a new workplace with that spotlight, with those attacks, there are very few people who have that experience." During the meeting between the two congresswomen featured in State of Firsts, the Delaware lawmaker tells AOC she's "struggling with protecting my voice and my ability to be seen and heard authentically for who I am and what I am here to focus on, and the inevitable pool that others are trying to pull me in." Ocasio-Cortez nods as she replies, "What people don't see and what they don't really experience is that being the first means being the only." She continues, "The immense amount of expectation placed on anyone who's a first, in my experience, that is not something that goes away." She then becomes heated over critics who have attacked McBride for her gender identity, telling her, "What they go after is your essential dignity as a human being. And, to be frank, that's what really pisses me off about this." "I want to respect your autonomy and I want to respect your story and how you want to handle this for yourself, but I also want to clock these motherf------," she exclaims. Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. In a moment also included in State of Firsts, AOC hits back after the House bans trans people from using the Capitol's single-sex bathrooms that match their gender identity, calling the proposal "disgusting" in an interview that first aired on Spectrum News. "All it does is allow these Republicans to go around and bully any woman who isn't wearing a skirt because they think she might not look woman enough,' she says in the interview. While speaking with PEOPLE, McBride says AOC is someone she has "come to rely on for advice," adding, "She certainly has become a friend and I really deeply respect her." State of Firsts premieres at Tribeca Festival on June 7. Read the original article on People
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts -- but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain
The Congressional Budget Office, the government's nonpartisan arbiter of tax and spending matters, says the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by the House last month and now under consideration in the Senate, would increase federal budget deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. That is because its tax cuts would drain the government's coffers faster than its spending cuts would save money. By bringing in revenue for the Treasury, on the other hand, the tariffs that Trump announced through May 13 — including his so-called reciprocal levies of up to 50% on countries with which the United States has a trade deficit — would offset the budget impact of the tax-cut bill and reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.5 trillion. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up So it's basically a wash. Advertisement That's the budget math anyway. The real answer is more complicated. Actually using tariffs to finance a big chunk of the federal government would be a painful and perilous undertaking, budget wonks say. 'It's a very dangerous way to try to raise revenue,' said Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury Department. Trump has long advocated tariffs as an economic elixir. He says they can protect American industries, bring factories back to the United States, give him leverage to win concessions over foreign governments — and raise a lot of money. He's even suggested that they could replace the federal income tax, which now brings in about half of federal revenue. Advertisement 'It's possible we'll do a complete tax cut,'' he told reporters in April. 'I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.'' Economists and budget analysts do not share the president's enthusiasm for using tariffs to finance the government or to replace other taxes. 'It's a really bad trade,'' said Erica York, the Tax Foundation's vice president of federal tax policy. 'It's perhaps the dumbest tax reform you could design.'' For one thing, Trump's tariffs are an unstable source of revenue. He bypassed Congress and imposed his biggest import tax hikes through executive orders. That means a future president could simply reverse them. 'Or political whims in Congress could change, and they could decide, 'Hey, we're going revoke this authority because we don't think it's a good thing that the president can just unilaterally impose a $2 trillion tax hike,' '' York said. Or the courts could kill his tariffs before Congress or future presidents do. A federal court in New York has already struck down the centerpiece of his tariff program — the reciprocal and other levies he announced on what he called 'Liberation Day'' April 2 — saying he'd overstepped his authority. An appeals court has allowed the government to keep collecting the levies while the legal challenge winds its way through the court system. Economists also say that tariffs damage the economy. They are a tax on foreign products, paid by importers in the United States and usually passed along to their customers via higher prices. They raise costs for U.S. manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components and equipment, making them less competitive than foreign rivals that don't have to pay Trump's tariffs. Advertisement Tariffs also invite retaliatory taxes on U.S. exports by foreign countries. Indeed, the European Union this week threatened 'countermeasures'' against Trump's unexpected move to raise his tariff on foreign steel and aluminum to 50%. 'You're not just getting the effect of a tax on the U.S. economy,' York said. 'You're also getting the effect of foreign taxes on U.S. exports.'' She said the tariffs will basically wipe out all economic benefits from the One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts. Smetters at the Penn Wharton Budget Model said that tariffs also isolate the United States and discourage foreigners from investing in its economy. Foreigners see U.S. Treasurys as a super-safe investment and now own about 30% of the federal government's debt. If they cut back, the federal government would have to pay higher interest rates on Treasury debt to attract a smaller number of potential investors domestically. Higher borrowing costs and reduced investment would wallop the economy, making tariffs the most economically destructive tax available, Smetters said — more than twice as costly in reduced economic growth and wages as what he sees as the next-most damaging: the tax on corporate earnings. Tariffs also hit the poor hardest. They end up being a tax on consumers, and the poor spend more of their income than wealthier people do. Even without the tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill slams the poorest because it makes deep cuts to federal food programs and to Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Americans. After the bill's tax and spending cuts, an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model found, the poorest fifth of American households earning less than $17,000 a year would see their incomes drop by $820 next year. The richest 0.1% earning more than $4.3 million a year would come out ahead by $390,070 in 2026. Advertisement 'If you layer a regressive tax increase like tariffs on top of that, you make a lot of low- and middle-income households substantially worse off,'' said the Tax Foundation's York. Overall, she said, tariffs are 'a very unreliable source of revenue for the legal reasons, the political reasons as well as the economic reasons. They're a very, very inefficient way to raise revenue. If you raise a dollar of a revenue with tariffs, that's going to cause a lot more economic harm than raising revenue any other way.''
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The changes coming to Trump's 'big beautiful bill have little to do with Elon Musk
Washington was on two parallel tracks this past week when discussing President Trump's "big, beautiful bill." On one front: The nation's capital was transfixed by a seismic fight between Elon Musk and President Trump, centered on the cost of the $3 trillion tax and spending bill. On another front: Republican leaders steadily advanced the pricey package with only a few changes apparently on offer. "Pedal to the metal," Senate Majority Leader John Thune offered in a speech Thursday near the height of the Musk drama — ignoring promises from the world's richest man to oust lawmakers who didn't join his effort to kill the bill. Republicans instead appeared to move closer to passage. They previewed changes that will be of interest to taxpayers and businesses, but with little to fulsomely address the critique from Musk and others around the package's price tag. In spite of Musk's campaign and multiple government and independent analyses that found at least $2.4 trillion in new red ink, Thune dismissed Musk this week by saying "we're a long ways down this track" and that his party is "rowing in the same direction." Thune may be overstating things a touch, with a vocal group of fiscal conservatives emboldened by Musk suggesting they will vote no. But Republican leaders from the president on down echoed Thune's position throughout the week. Stifel's Brian Gardner offered a bottom line in a note this past week, suggesting the fighting "makes for great TV and fodder ... but it is unlikely to fundamentally change the composition of the tax bill." "Musk's sway among Republican voters is limited," he added. The week saw a flurry of negotiations over changes to the House package, but, perhaps Washington being Washington, even the cost-saving changes appear to have been immediately spoken for. A meeting on Wednesday with the president, Thune, and members of the Senate Finance Committee ended with a focus on two changes. The first could save significant money by paring back a $40,000 tax deduction in the House bill for state and local taxes (SALT). Any changes there will face fierce opposition when the bill returns to the House, but the Washington Post reported this week that Trump has even indicated he is willing to lower the deduction. But any savings there may be quickly eaten up by the second bit of news this week, which concerns making some business tax incentives permanent. These tax deductions to businesses involve property depreciation, interest expenses, and R&D and are currently temporary in the House package. But an array of key Senators are keen to make them permanent (and more expensive). It's still a matter of some debate, with some hawks like Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin having told reporters he is looking to keep those tax breaks temporary and that Trump isn't sold. Johnson had emerged as a fierce critic of the package over spending and is also threatening to reform or break the package into different parts. He would need at least three Republican senators to join him and stand up to what is expected to be a fierce White House pressure campaign. Another key business-world change in the offing that emerged this week involves a provision that says no state may make its own law to regulate artificial intelligence in the coming decade. The need for changes there became evident when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia acknowledged she hadn't been aware of the provision when she voted yes in the House, but that she would flip to no if it stayed in place. Those proposed revision — seen this week as part of a larger spectrum package released by the Senate Commerce Committee — would change the House plan for a 10-year outright ban to a system that blocks some federal broadband funding if a state passes certain AI laws. Tech companies will be watching those developments closely, but they're not expected to have much impact on the bill's price tag. Another possible change could actually push up the price tag, with a growing debate around changes in the House bill to Section 899 of the IRS code, focused on what Republicans call "discriminatory foreign countries." The provision would allow the president to impose new taxes to combat the practices. Removing that change could cut into future government revenues, allowing the president to levy fewer taxes as a result. Other changes could also be coming that might increase the price tag, with some senators still concerned that current cost-saving measures go too far. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri has been outspoken on one of the key changes around limiting Medicaid benefits, writing in a recent New York Times op-ed that cuts will hurt the working class and that the core of the issue is "will Republicans be a majority party of working people or a permanent minority speaking only for the C-suite?" Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
