Universal EFA bill clears House committee
Mar. 4—An amended bill to offer universal access to a taxpayer-funded Education Freedom Account grants, regardless of family income, cleared its first hurdle Tuesday.
House Education Funding Committee Chairman Rick Ladd, R-Haverhill, persuaded his panel to support, along party lines, an incremental expansion of the program allowing families making up to 400% of the federal poverty level to receive them in 2026.
The current cap is 350% of the poverty level.
For a family of four, this would raise the eligibility income level from $109,200 to $128,600 annually.
Under Ladd's amended bill, the income limit would be eliminated in 2027.
"Parents are looking at options — what is the best placement for the child," Ladd said. "The education-choice programs are showing they are creating more competition with the public schools."
Rep. David Luneau, D-Hopkinton, said it makes no sense to offer a taxpayer subsidy equal to about $5,200 per child to wealthy families.
More than 70% of those currently receiving EFA vouchers already had their children in private schools, he said.
"Hardly anybody is leaving their public schools to take a voucher," Luneau said.
The original bill (HB 115) would have eliminated the income limit for the school year starting this fall.
The committee vote was 10-8 with all Republican members joining Ladd in support, all Democrats backing Luneau in opposition.
Ladd said he objects to EFA critics who bemoan the use of taxpayer dollars on grants parents can spend as they wish on private, religious or alternative public schools or home schooling.
"Whose taxpayer dollars are these? The taxpayers, they are my dollars, your dollars. I feel everybody who is paying into the system ought to have the opportunity to benefit from that contribution," Ladd said.
Luneau and Ladd battled over the price tag of the bill, which didn't have an updated fiscal note.
Luneau said the current $27 million cost of the program could go over $40 million during the first year and as high as $100 million after that.
To back up his estimate, Luneau said there were 16,600 students in private schools and 3,900 in home school programs.
But Ladd said 9,000 private-school students are ineligible for an EFA because their parents live outside the state and pay the full tuition at Phillips Exeter or some other boarding program.
Another 1,700 are in pre-school private programs and they likewise can't get an EFA, Ladd said.
"I am not going to debate you but $100 million is totally off track. The combined cost would be a little more than $17.5 million for two years," Ladd said.
Vice Chairman Walter Spilsbury, R-Charlestown, said lawmakers next year should discuss whether to enhance accountability over EFA spending since by then they will receive a performance audit of the program.
klandrigan@unionleader.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans advance measure to ban noncitizens from voting in local DC elections
WASHINGTON — The House advanced a bill to ban noncitizens from voting in local elections in Washington, D.C., marking the latest step from Republicans to crack down on city policies they view as too liberal. Lawmakers voted 268-148 largely along party lines to advance the measure, sending the bill over to the Republican-led Senate for consideration. The bill managed to garner some bipartisan support after 56 Democrats voted in favor. However, the legislation's future is uncertain as it would require seven Democrats to buck party leadership and support the proposal. 'The right to vote is a defining privilege of American citizenship,' House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said in a speech on the House floor. 'Diluting that right by extending it to noncitizens — whether here legally or illegally — undermines the voice of D.C. residents.' The bill would overturn the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, a bill passed by the D.C. Council in 2022 that permits undocumented residents living in Washington to vote in local elections. City lawmakers have defended the measure by pointing to a 'long history of the U.S. allowing noncitizens to vote in local (or) state' elections. Lawmakers also note many of the undocumented residents pay local taxes, support businesses, and attend district schools — arguing that should qualify them to have a say in local elections. However, Republicans have argued that allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections sets a dangerous precedent that could negatively harm local governments. 'Some may wrongly dismiss these as local elections. The reality is local elections are a vital part of our democratic process and have a significant impact on communities,' Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, who led the bill in the House, said in a speech. 'Local elections determine matters such as taxation, the criminal code, and the election of city council members who create essential ordinances, including those that dictate voting rights.' Additionally, Republicans have criticized the law as a way to dilute 'the voice of American citizens.' 'It's also important to acknowledge that many local elections are decided by razor-thin margins underscoring their significance and importance of active participation,' Pfluger said. GOP lawmakers also cited opposition from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who withheld her signature from the ordinance but allowed it to take effect. 'Why would my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want foreigners to vote in local elections in Washington, D.C.? What's the purpose?' Pfluger said. 'Free and fair elections are prerequisites for the healthy republic our founding fathers envisioned, with the District of Columbia as the epicenter.' House Republicans passed a bill in 2023 seeking to repeal the D.C. law allowing noncitizens to vote. The bill was spearheaded by Republicans but 52 Democrats ultimately joined all Republicans in approving the bill despite efforts from Democratic leadership to quash the proposal. However, the legislation was never considered in the Senate, which was controlled by Democrats at the time. Despite not being a state, Washington is permitted to operate as an independent city government under the D.C. Home Rule Act. However, local laws are still subject to congressional approval before they can take effect, occasionally setting up showdowns between Congress and local lawmakers. The vote on Tuesday is the first of three bills being considered this week by the House to rein in some of D.C.'s local ordinances. Other proposals being considered would rescind D.C. Council policies allowing city employees to not comply with requests from the Department of Homeland Security or Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Politico
29 minutes ago
- Politico
Rep. Mikie Sherrill wins Democratic nomination for NJ governor
Democrats chose Rep. Mikie Sherrill as their nominee for governor of New Jersey, as the party attempts to defy odds by holding onto the governorship for a third term in a row. The Associated Press called the race just under an hour after polls closed. The four-term member of Congress prevailed in the crowded Democratic primary field on Tuesday to succeed term-limited Gov. Phil Murphy. She'll face Republican Jack Ciattarelli, setting up a high-stakes battle of two party establishment favorites. Both sides acknowledge that November's election will be competitive. Although the electorate does favor Democrats, it's been decades since Democrats have won the governorship three terms in a row in the Garden State. But in recent history, the candidate of the party opposite of the one that controls the White House typically wins the race for governor. Still, Republicans are emboldened by President Donald Trump's closer-than-expected loss in New Jersey last November, as well as the gains they've made to cut into Democrats' voter registration advantage. And Republicans argue it helps that they have a candidate with high name ID: Ciattarelli ran for governor two times prior and narrowly lost to Murphy in 2021.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fact check: Trump makes multiple false claims to the troops at Fort Bragg
President Donald Trump made a series of false claims to members of the military on Tuesday in a partisan and combative speech at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Trump lied again about the 2020 election. He repeated a long-debunked story about a Minnesota National Guard deployment in 2020. He again distorted the history of his first administration's fight against the ISIS terror group. He revived a fictional tale about immigration during former President Joe Biden's administration. And he exaggerated the military's recruiting challenges under Biden. In addition, Trump made a series of vague assertions about the protests in Los Angeles for which he presented no evidence. Here is a fact check of some of his checkable false claims from the speech – plus a false claim he made in remarks about California at the White House earlier in the day. The 2020 election: Trump repeated his long-debunked lie that the 2020 election 'was rigged and stolen.' Trump legitimately lost a free and fair election to Biden. The National Guard and Minneapolis: While bashing Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Trump revived a false story that CNN debunked nearly five years ago. Trump wrongly claimed that it was him, not Walz, who sent the National Guard to Minneapolis in 2020 amid the civil unrest that followed the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. Trump said: 'I'll never forget in Minnesota: that city was burning down, Minneapolis, it was burning down, it was gonna burn to the ground, and he wouldn't call the guard. And I waited for a long time, and I called the guard, and I saved it.' In reality, publicly available evidence proves that Walz first deployed the Minnesota National guard more than seven hours before Trump publicly threatened to deploy the guard himself. While Walz was criticized by many Republicans and some Democrats for not sending in the guard faster, it is indisputable that Walz, not Trump, was the person who deployed the guard. You can read more here. Trump and the battle against ISIS: Trump repeated his regular false claim that even though 'they said it would take five years to defeat ISIS, we did in four weeks, four weeks.' The so-called ISIS 'caliphate' was declared fully liberated more than two years into Trump's presidency, in 2019, not 'in four weeks.' Military recruiting under Biden: Trump, boasting of the military's recruiting performance during his second administration, falsely claimed, 'Just think of this: six months ago, we couldn't recruit anybody to join the military. Nobody wanted to join. That was six months ago.' Even granting that words like 'nobody' can be used less than literally, it's simply not true that 'nobody wanted to join' the military at the end of the Biden administration. The ongoing uptick in recruiting actually began under the Biden administration. The Defense Department announced in October 2024, before Trump's second victory, that recruitment was up more than 12% in the 2024 fiscal year compared with the previous fiscal year; reported in October 2024: 'After years of negative recruiting news and headlines, all the military branches managed to eke out wins this year and meet their recruiting goals – largely aided by new programs and policies that allowed them to sign up recruits who would have been disqualified in previous years.' The Army, for example, added just over 55,000 recruits, up substantially from just under 45,000 in fiscal year 2022. Migrants, prisons and mental institutions: Trump made his frequent assertion that foreign countries deliberately placed prisoners and people with mental illnesses in the US as migrants during Biden's presidency. 'Many of them came out of prisons and jails – the most heinous people, they came from all over the world. They came from the Congo in Africa, they came from Asia, they came from the prisons of these places, they were put into the United States and allowed to stay here,' Trump said at one point. At another, he said, 'Their countries would bus them or drive them right to our border and say, 'Go in there. If you ever come back, we're going to kill you.'' Trump has never presented any evidence of any foreign government transporting their criminals to the US border under Biden. Nor has he corroborated his stories about foreign governments deliberately emptying prisons and mental health facilities to somehow facilitate migration to the US, which even his 2024 presidential campaign could not prove. His allegations about prisons in 'the Congo' have been rejected as baseless by independent experts, human rights organizations, and the governments of the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Congo. California, fires and water: At the White House earlier on Tuesday, Trump again wrongly asserted that the January wildfires in Los Angeles 'started because they wouldn't allow water into LA, they wouldn't allow water into California' – and added that he then turned water 'around,' and 'now we have billions of gallons of water flowing down.' None of this is true. First, nobody has broadly refused to allow water into Los Angeles or into California as a whole. Second, experts on California water policy and firefighting have repeatedly explained that there is no basis for Trump's claims that the January wildfires were caused by water being used for environmental protection in northern California rather than being sent to Los Angeles. Third, Trump did not actually send water to Los Angeles earlier this year. Rather, in what experts widely described as a waste and a stunt, he had about two billion gallons of fresh water sent from one part of California's Central Valley to another part of the valley in late January and early February.
