N.H. House panel moves to defund arts division, and plans vote to eliminate the state library
The
'This is a budget in which we really need to identify what we need to fund as a state and to make reductions in what I would call the optional or the wants of the state,' said Sweeney, noting that he had identified the arts and the library as two such cases.
Get N.H. Morning Report
A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox.
Enter Email
Sign Up
There are many more steps in the budget process before any cuts could be finalized. The proposal would still have to go before the full House and be heard by a Senate committee. The proposal would also need to have vote before the full Senate. The House and the Senate also have an opportunity to reconcile any differences in their budget proposals before they go to the governor's desk.
Advertisement
'When it comes to the arts, the state does not have a constitutional need to fund the arts,' Sweeney said. 'There's no constitutional need to fund the state library.'
The State Council on the Arts was
Sweeney's proposal would retain state ownership of the state library building, which he proposed using for the executive branch or as office space for the legislative branch.
Last week, Sweeney posted a photo of himself with the New Hampshire State Library in the background. 'Another great and productive day in Concord doing the people's work!' he said.
Advertisement
'Lovely building,' House Majority Leader Jason Osborne,
Another great and productive day in Concord doing the people's work!
— Joe Sweeney (@JoeSweeneyNH)
Under state law, the State Council on the Arts is responsible for encouraging public participation in the study and presentation of the performing and fine arts. It
Eliminating it would save the state about $1.7 million in fiscal year 2026 and 2027, according to the proposal.
Republicans on the panel agreed to defund the arts division in a 5-4 vote, but at least one Republican balked at the idea of cutting the state library and asked for more time to consider it.
'I know we're in a crisis. I don't have a problem with doing away with the arts for a while, postponing it for a couple of years, we can pick it up easily again,' said Representative Gerald Griffin, a Mount Vernon Republican.
But, he said, eliminating the state library gave him pause. It's the
'It's part of our history, and I think at least the building itself and the function that is served have to be preserved,' he said, asking for the vote to be delayed.
Advertisement
Eliminating the state library would save the state about $4.5 million between 2026 and 2027. The state library also receives federal funding, although the status of that funding is in question.
Earlier in March, President Trump issued an executive order
Sweeney said given those cuts, the state library would lose the $1.5 million per year it has used to fund an interlibrary loan service — money, he said, the state would not be able to make up in its budget.
'With losing revenue that goes towards the state library, to me, it's one of those cuts that we just sort of have to make as a state in order to help balance our books,' he said. The state is facing a difficult budget year, as
But leadership at the New Hampshire Department of Natural and Cultural Resources said in a statement Monday that they still have no additional details about how federal funding will affect the state.
'We have no clarity on if or how much any funding will be cut,' the statement said. 'All we know is what is in the President's Executive Order and what the interim head of IMLS has said. We are awaiting more clarity on funding.'
A spokesperson did not respond to a question about the department's position on the proposal to defund the arts division or state library.
Democrats on the House committee spoke against both proposals.
Advertisement
'I think it's absolutely abhorrent that we're discussing zeroing out, firing people at the state level in these departments that are focused on the state library and arts,' said Representative Rosemarie Rung, a Merrimack Democrat.
'I think it's going to be a wake-up call to Granite Staters when they realize they're living in a state where their representatives aren't even supporting these types of programs,' she said.
There are
Amanda Gokee can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
21 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' cracks down on Biden's student loan 'scheme,' top Republican says
The chairman of a key Senate panel is claiming victory against former President Joe Biden's student loan plans as part of President Donald Trump's "one big, beautiful bill." "The Biden administration was attempting to forgive student loans for people who willingly took on the loan and required the taxpayer, including people who never went to college and would never make what the person who took the loan would ever have the hope to make," Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La., told Fox News Digital. "So we end that transfer of that student loan on the taxpayers, and that's probably our biggest savings." Cassidy's committee released its portion of the Trump agenda bill late on Tuesday. A press release for the legislation said it "ends Biden's student loan schemes that transfer debt onto the 87 percent of Americans who chose to not go to college or already paid off their loans" and "also prevents future Democrat administrations from implementing schemes." The bill specifically takes aim at Biden's expansion of Borrower Defense to Repayment regulations and Closed School Discharge regulations, which Republicans have held up as costly policies that shift federal student loan borrowers' burdens onto other taxpayers. Various versions of Biden's plans had previously been struck down in court. The bill would also eliminate federal Grad PLUS loans, a program used by graduate-level and professional students to pay for their studies, which can be used for graduate students' entire cost of attendance. It would instead keep in place a $20,500 annual limit for Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loans on graduate degrees, capped at $100,000 total, excluding undergraduate loans. For professional degrees, it keeps a $50,000 annual unsubsidized loan limit and a $200,000 total cap. The legislation is also aimed at cracking down on taxpayer funding subsidizing degrees from lower-performing universities. Colleges that see people with undergraduate degrees earn less than the typical high school graduate in their state, or graduate programs where attendees then earn less than the normal bachelor's recipient, would be blocked from federal student loan programs. "What we've got was a situation where people can borrow more money than they can effectively pay back, and that destroys their life, leaving them with a debt burden which keeps them unable to do other things in life. And there's at least some sense that universities offering these programs know that's the case. And so we attempt to fix that," Cassidy said. "So we have provisions that would say that if the degree being acquired does not end up paying more, the person receiving that degree doesn't get more on average than a person who did not get that degree, then the federal government is not going to lend them money." To encourage more people to pursue non-collegiate degrees, the bill would also establish a Workforce Pell Grant. Pell Grants are currently aimed at low-income students pursuing bachelor's degrees and are generally not repaid. "For example, a student gets a commercial driver's license. They're going to go out and make $100,000 a year after a couple of years of driving, I am told. And so we want to enable those people to accomplish that," Cassidy said. Foreign income would be taken into account when evaluating Pell Grants, while farm and small business assets would not, under the GOP bill. Those and several other measures in the legislation would add up to roughly $300 billion in taxpayer savings, Cassidy said. Senate Republicans are currently working through their version of Trump's massive agenda bill, which passed the House late last month. Republicans are using the budget reconciliation process to pass a sweeping bill advancing Trump's agenda on taxes, immigration, energy, defense and the national debt. They are also working to use it to bring down the national debt – nearing $37 trillion – with the aim of cutting $1.5 trillion in federal spending. Reconciliation allows the party in power to completely skirt the minority, in this case Democrats, by lowering the Senate's threshold to advance from 60 votes to 51. The legislation must adhere to a specific set of rules, however, including measures that deal with the budget, taxation, or the national debt. Both the House and Senate must agree to identical versions of the bill before it gets to Trump's desk for a signature. The House's version passed 215 to 214, and leaders there have implored the upper chamber to change as little as possible. Cassidy acknowledged there were some changes made but was optimistic about how they'll be met in the House. "There's several things, but one thing I think that they're going to like is that we do fully fund the Pell Grant program. You know, we address the shortfall there. And so I think they're going to like it," he said. "It's going to give low-income students access to career education. We need those kind of career type jobs to make sure that all this manufacturing and construction has a workforce to address it. And so we think it helps the needs of society. We think it helps the needs of the student." House and Senate GOP leaders had previously set a goal of having a bill on Trump's desk by the Fourth of July. Cassidy declined to comment on whether that was a feasible benchmark but argued that lawmakers should be ready to extend that timeline – and possibly shrink their summer recess – to get the final product. "As far as I'm concerned, the most important thing is to get it right. So if there is a delay, the president said it today – if there is a delay, that's not that big of a deal. The most important thing is we get it right," he said.
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
House GOP advances first 2026 funding bill out of committee
House Republicans early Wednesday morning advanced legislation that calls for more than $450 billion to fund the Department of Veterans Affairs, military construction and other programs for fiscal year 2026. The bill advanced out of the GOP-led House Appropriations Committee along party lines, as Democrats came out in strong opposition to the plan. It marks the first of the 12 annual funding bills House GOP appropriators are hoping to move out of committee before Congress leaves for its August recess. The bill calls for about $152 billion in discretionary funding for fiscal 2026, marking a 3 percent increase compared to current levels. Overall, the bill would provide about $453 billion for the VA, including $300 billion for mandatory programs. Among the increases Republicans have highlighted in the measure are boosts to the VA, military construction and family housing, and funding for a new homelessness program. In his opening remarks on Tuesday, Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), the head of the subcommittee that crafts the annual funding bill, said the bill ensures 'veterans get the benefits and care they've earned.' 'The bill does that while also addressing other issues affecting veterans, including homelessness, mental health services and taking care of our women veterans,' he said. 'The bill also makes crucial investments totaling nearly $18 billion in the infrastructure of our service members need to work on to live.' Democrats, however, have railed against the plan, needling Republicans for not including advanced funding for the Toxic Exposure Fund in the proposal, which they also said falls nearly $1 billion short of the funding needed for military construction. Democrats have also accused Republicans of seeking to privatize medical care for veterans. 'This bill hurdles us towards VA privatization, a top project 2025, priority that undercuts what veterans consistently ask for, which is the high quality medical care at VA, by transferring record funding from VA medical services to community care,' Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), the top Democrat on the veterans' funding subcommittee, said. House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) has emphasized as the committee ramps up its funding work that the legislation currently being considered will look different when eventual bipartisan spending talks begin. Senior GOP appropriators have also acknowledged that further changes are possible during the annual process as they await more information from the Trump administration about the president's vision for government funding for fiscal 2026 and beyond. 'As this process moves forward and we receive further documentation on the OMB budget, we will take it under consideration, put forward a product that best addresses the needs of our service members and veterans,' Carter said during the meeting on Tuesday, referring to the Office of Management and Budget. The bill comes about a week after hardline conservatives urged top appropriators to write bills 'consistent' with President Trump's budget request and to 'include adjustments initiated' by his Department of Government Efficiency. In a slim budget request released earlier this year, Trump called for cutting funding for domestic programs by more than $160 billion for fiscal 2026. As appropriators await more details from the administration, the committee also approved interim subcommittee allocations for a third of the annual funding bills. 'These interim allocations will allow us to begin our work. As we move forward, this committee is prepared to do the hard work – line by line – to uphold fiscal discipline and effective governance,' Cole said. However, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, criticized Republicans over the process, saying negotiators are 'beginning the appropriations process without a total funding level.' 'We are flying blind and handcuffed into the critical work of providing discretionary funding for programs and services across the government that help to grow the middle class, protect the working class, support small businesses, and grow our economy – this is important business that cannot be done responsibly without a complete vision for how we plan to fund the government.'
Axios
40 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump-y ad blitz launched to sway the president on energy credits
A new business-backed group with GOP ties just launched a $2 million, three-week ad blitz to preserve IRA tax credits — and the framing is very Trump-y. Why it matters: It comes during crunch time for hundreds of billions of dollars of tax incentives on the chopping block in the budget reconciliation fight. The big picture: Built for America is placing ads on Fox, Truth Social, Rumble, podcasts and beyond. "Unlike other efforts focused on Congress, Built for America is the only campaign speaking directly to the president and making the case that these energy tax credits are a cornerstone of his pro-worker, pro-growth agenda," the rollout states. State of play: It's not disclosing specific donors, but backers include players in nuclear, carbon capture, hydrogen, critical minerals, storage and more, it said. The executive director is Mitch Carmichael, a Republican who previously served as West Virginia's lieutenant governor and economic development secretary. Republican strategist and former Trump campaign adviser Bryan Lanza is advising the new effort. Driving the news: "Trump country is booming. We're building, hiring and winning in America, because energy tax credits put America first," one of the ads states, touting new jobs and manufacturing. "President Trump, keep what works," it states. Catch up quick: More business interests are pressing the Senate to soften House GOP budget plans that scuttle or restrict IRA energy tax credits. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in a new post, is urging preservation of what it calls "pro-growth" credits around hydrogen and clean electricity production. The bottom line: Low-carbon energy industries are increasingly framing their message more around "energy dominance" and less — a lot less — around green goals.
