House-Senate conference committee on budget formed
Senate President Sharon Carson and House Speaker Sherman Packard, both R-Londonderry, acted quickly in a sign that it could take some time for the two sides to find common ground.
'There are differences between the House and Senate-approved versions of the state budget. We look forward to working through them over the next two weeks and remain committed to delivering a balanced budget that protects New Hampshire taxpayers while serving all Granite Staters,' Packard and Carson said in a joint statement.
As the first-named House member, Rep. Kenneth Weyler, R-Kingston, is likely to become chairman of the conference committee.
Weyler chaired the House Finance Committee.
The other four House members, who also serve on Weyler's committee, are Vice Chairman Dan McGuire, R-Kingston, House Deputy Majority Leader Joe Sweeney, R-Salem, Rep. Jose Cambrils, R-Loudon and Rep. Mary Jane Wallner, D-Concord and the ranking Democrat.
Packard decided to name some alternates who had other experiences beyond writing the budget. The potential stand-ins are House Majority Leader Jason Osborne, R-Auburn, House Executive Departments and Administration Committee Vice Chairman Erica Layon, R-Derry, House Ways and Means Chairman John Janigian, R-Salem, Rep. Keith Erf, R-Weare, and Rep. Jess Edwards, R-Auburn.
Erf and Edwards each co-chair subcommittees on the House Finance Committee.
Carson names herself to commitee
Carson chose to name herself as the first senator on the panel along with Senate Finance Chairman James Gray, R-Rochester, and Senate Deputy Democratic Leader Cindy Rosenwald of Nashua, the ranking Democratic Senate budget writer.
The only Senate alternate is Majority Leader Regina Birdsell, R-Hampstead.
Most House speakers don't get involved directly in state budget negotiations.
It's not unusual for Senate presidents to get into the fray, however.
Carson's predecessor, former Senate President Chuck Morse, took the gavel after serving as Senate finance chairman for many years.
The House and Senate meet Thursday to complete the naming of all conference committees that will try and forge compromise on other bills.
They have until June 19 to reach agreements and then the House and Senate have to vote on all of them by June 26.
The $15.4 billion House-passed budget relied on conservative revenue estimates, which meant their budget writers had to make deep cuts in spending.
The House plan would lay off 100 workers in the state prison system and do away with the Office of the Child Advocate, the state Division on the Arts, the Commission on Aging and the Housing Appeals Board.
The Senate updated the predictions for revenue, which meant it could spend about $250 million more in state dollars than the House plan did.
The Senate budget pared the layoffs down to about 25 in the Department of Corrections.
It kept the child advocate office in the running while erasing four of nine jobs, revived support for the arts by proposing a new business tax credit for companies that donate to the program and restoring groups on aging and housing appeals, though with smaller budgets than the ones that Gov. Kelly Ayotte proposed last February.
The Senate plan also increased by nearly $70 million the level of state aid to the University System of New Hampshire compared to the House budget.
USNH would receive in the Senate proposal $85 million a year, about a 10% cut from its support in the current state budget that ends June 30.
klandrigan@unionleader.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
How the ‘tech titans' can save Social Security
The Wall Street Journal reports that several of 'Silicon Valley's elite' believe the artificial intelligence boom will generate massive wealth even as it displaces millions of workers, leaving them unemployed. Their solution to this unemployment crisis is to use the newly generated wealth from AI to provide a universal basic income for everyone. It's a terrible idea for several reasons. But it could be tweaked to address a huge public policy problem: funding Social Security. The idea of a universal basic income has been around for decades. While proposals vary, the basic plan is a taxpayer-funded redistribution scheme: providing everyone with a designated amount of money — usually between $500 to $1,000 per month — with no strings or work attached. Wall Street Journal reporter Josh Reich notes that Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey and Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes have used their own money to set up limited universal basic income, or UBI, pilot programs to see if they work. And they aren't alone. Stanford University's Basic Income Lab tracks UBI programs around the world. While most are in the U.S. and created at the state or local level, there are several in other countries. Some are funded by donations; others are taxpayer funded. Reich says OpenAI CEO Sam Altman is a UBI proponent and funded an experiment in 2016 that gave $1,000 a month to low-income individuals for three years. Elon Musk has talked about 'universal high income,' and boasted that AI 'will automate most production and the public can share in the revenue.' And tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang proposed a $1,000 a month UBI program as part of his failed Democratic presidential campaign in 2020. What's different now is that some tech titans 'see a future flush with wealth generated by artificial intelligence.' And 'that revenue can be shared under a massive wealth-redistribution system.' It's not clear how AI-created wealth could be redistributed. Wealth is usually created by a company or an individual, who owns the wealth. To redistribute that wealth, the owner has to voluntarily donate it or the government must take it. Even if AI were to dramatically boost federal revenues, the federal government currently has a $37 trillion debt and a $1.9 trillion 2025 budget deficit that need to be reduced. And there are other problems. UBI programs have a dubious record, as a recent National Bureau of Economic Research paper demonstrates. The funds aren't enough to reduce income inequality, especially since participants tend to work fewer hours. Even many center-left organizations oppose them. Finland tried a pilot UBI project for two years. About 2,000 unemployed Finns received the equivalent of $634 per month. The hope was the money would encourage the unemployed to find a job. The BBC asks, 'Did it help unemployed people in Finland find jobs, as the centre-right Finnish government had hoped? No, not really.' However, if untold riches flow from AI advancements — and that's a very big 'if' — as some tech titans seem to think, there is a way that money could help both individuals and the country. Instead of handing people a monthly check, establish something like a special individual retirement account for everyone. The individual could not take out any funds until retirement age — say 60 or 65. Individuals would have limited, broad-based investment options to prevent speculation. Workers would continue to pay their current payroll taxes to Social Security. They wouldn't be funding this new type of IRA because the money would come instead from the tech titans' predicted AI revenue. At retirement, an individual could then choose between standard Social Security and their AI-funded retirement accounts. If enough money has been deposited and appreciated in these accounts over the years, retirees might choose it over standard Social Security. Plus, they would have ownership rights, meaning any money left over would be passed on in their estate. Retirees who choose their special private retirement account would forfeit their claim on traditional Social Security, leaving fewer retirees relying on Social Security's underfunded financial position. Those who choose traditional Social Security would forfeit their special account. Unlike a universal basic income, the special account would be more like a universal basic retirement program. Because people would not have access to their universal basic retirement funds until retirement, there would be no economic incentive to reduce work. And it wouldn't be a new entitlement, because retirees would choose between traditional Social Security or their private retirement option. Although AI will surely make a lot of money for some people, it is unlikely to produce the flood of revenue some tech billionaires anticipate. That said, if AI does produce massive wealth, using it to improve retirement and save Social Security is a much better and more workable option than a universal basic income.
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
Texas Democrat Nicole Collier slams GOP in interview from state House floor
A Democratic Texas state lawmaker who spent the night on the Texas House floor rather than accept a police escort slammed the GOP in an interview as Republicans try to move forward with their plan to redistrict the Lone Star State. Texas Rep. Nicole Collier was one of the Democratic state legislators who fled earlier this month to break quorum and stall the plan, before returning to the Lone Star State on Monday after a two-week standoff. She opted to spend the night in the state House rather than let law enforcement surveil her as part of Republicans' effort to ensure lawmakers would return to the Capitol, The Associated Press reported. 'At the moment that the directive was issued, I felt like it was wrong. It's just wrong to require grown people to get a permission slip to roam about freely. So I resisted. I objected, in the only way I knew how, and that's to resist,' Collier told MSNBC's Ali Vitali in an interview from the state House floor, when asked why she wouldn't sign on to the law enforcement escort. Collier, who has been on the floor for nearly 24 hours, vowed to stay 'as long as it takes.' 'This is the fight that all of us have in resisting the end of our democracy, basically,' she said. She slammed Texas Republicans for putting 'politics over people' as the redistricting fight dwarfs conversations about disaster relief for Texans affected by recent floods. More than 50 Democrats left Texas in early August to deprive the state House of the numbers it needed to function, putting a pause on the redistricting plan that could net five GOP House seats. After their conditions were met, enough Democrats returned to Austin on Monday to reach quorum. The maps are expected to move quickly through the Republican-controlled state legislature. Meanwhile, California is expected to charge ahead with a plan to redistrict in response to the Texas changes. 'Typically they say, take that high road. Well, you know, that high road has crumbled. We're on a dirt road, and we're going to meet them on that dirt road and get down and dirty, just like they are,' Collier said.
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
Top Oversight Democrat: DOJ plan to release Epstein files in ‘batches' a ‘cover-up'
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee ranking member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) said the plan for the Department of Justice to respond in 'batches' to the committee's subpoena for files relating to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein amounts to a 'cover-up.' 'Releasing the Epstein files in batches just continues this White House cover-up,' Garcia said in a statement on Tuesday. 'The American People will not accept anything short of the full, unredacted Epstein files.' Garcia's statement came as the clock struck noon on Tuesday, the deadline for the Department of Justice to turn over documents and communications relating to the 'Epstein files' pursuant to an Oversight panel subpoena issued earlier this month. Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the chair of the panel, said Monday that the DOJ was going through the material, but it would take time to ensure 'identification of victims and any child sexual abuse material are redacted.' He said the DOJ would begin to give the committee records pursuant to the subpoena on Friday. 'In a bipartisan vote, the Committee demanded complete compliance with our subpoena,' Garcia said in the statement. 'Handpicked, partial productions are wholly insufficient and potentially misleading, especially after Attorney General Bondi bragged about having the entirety of the Epstein files on her desk mere months ago.' Comer had issued the subpoena to the DOJ pursuant to a Democratic-led motion in a subcommittee in July to seek the 'full, unredacted Epstein files,' which passed with support from three Republicans on the panel. In that same subcommittee meeting, Republicans offered a successful motion to subpoena a swath of former federal officials in the Epstein probe, including former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and several former attorneys general and FBI directors. The first of those depositions occurred Monday when former Attorney General Bill Barr, who held the job in President Trump's first term, spoke to the panel. Comer told reporters on Monday that Barr testified that he did not know of any information that would implicate Trump. Garcia, though, said that Barr during his deposition 'could not clear President Trump of wrongdoing,' calling on Comer to release the full unedited transcript of Barr's deposition to the public. 'We will keep pressing until the American people get the truth — every document, every fact, in full,' Garcia said. 'The administration must comply with our subpoena, by law.'
