NH civil unions and VT Impeachment: Citizens are the biggest winners!

New Hampshire Is Better Than Many On Social Issues (4.00 / 4)

You make a lot of good points, and I congratulate the people of Vermont for continuing to set out issues that need to be debated nationally.  I'll note that the NH Legislature also approved a resolution in opposition to the Iraq War and calling for a timely withdrawal -- and in opposition to a surge of troop numbers which has seen April become our worst month in terms of casualties, 104 dead and still today (April 30th) to go.

However, I will take exception to your characterization that New Hampshire has been "behind the 8-ball" with regard to a variety of social issues.

I've been in the NH Legislature since 1969.  In those years, I've seen New Hampshire become one of the first states, in the very early 1970s, to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment -- which eventually failed because enough states didn't join New Hampshire's lead. 

In 1969 the NH Legislature voted on the first modern-day pro-choice bill.  On that issue, our state has continuingly been a choice state, while many others have not been.

In the mid 1970s New Hampshire eliminated its anti-sodomy statute.  Such laws were still on the books, thereby making it illegal participate in other than certain kinds of heterosexual activity, in about two dozen states when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned them about a half dozen years ago. 

In the mid-1990s, New Hampshire became the 10th state to adopt civil rights protections of gays and lesbians in the areas of services, housing, and employment; even now just 20 states have such protections, and one can be fired in most of the country today just for being gay -- don't ask don't tell in the workplace.

New Hampshire adopted a hate crimes law in the late 1980s.  In the 1970s "mainstreaming" occurred statewide for our physically and mentally challenged.  New Hampshire has some of the strongest laws protecting the legal rights of children, and, in fact, our senior citizens.

On social issues in particular, New Hampshire has often led the nation, or nearly so.  If the Civil Unions bill is signed into law, we will be ahead of 45 other states in providing legal protections for our gay and lesbian residents.  We're doing good.  More to do, but we're doing good. 

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 06:54:12 AM CDT

Well, you're right, it isn't all about (4.00 / 1)

gender.  Indeed, it's my hope that civil unions--i.e. the legalization of domestic partnerships--will make it possible for our growing elderly and, increasingly, childless population to formalize relationships for their mutual benefit.
Since, it seems fair to observe, in practice, the connection between a legal commitment and sexual relationships is as often as not non-existent. If sex isn't tied to a legal contract, why tie a legal contract to sex?

As Jesus said, "what you do to the least of these, you do to me."  The entire body politic benefits when the rights of a minority are recognized.

---

by: hannah @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:54:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's Great (4.00 / 1)

I knew some of that, but not all of it.

Its good to have someone with such institutional knowledge kicking around here.  It really helps give us some context.

Next time I get in an argument with someone over at DKos and they try to tell me that NH has always been a conservative state, I'm going to link to this comment.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 17:05:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks Rep. Splaine (0.00 / 0)

Rep. Splaine, nice to hear from you. So sorry I never got a chance to meet you before I left the Granite State. I'm from Nashua and I left back when Debra Pignatelli and Barbara Baldazar were my state senators (just to give you an idea how much I've missed over the years). So yes, I have been "behind the 8-ball" in terms of NH politics and I'm now getting re-acqainted with a lot of the things I was familiar with. So thank you for clarifying some of the things I missed.

I left NH during the Steve Merrill years, which for me was a dark time in NH politics. And the thing that sticks for me as to why I said what I said was a.) Not passing a MLK holiday until Jeanne Shaheen came along, b.)Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, c.) abortion d.) the unacceptable sexual harrasment cases that occured during the Benson years, e.) the death penalty: Does NH still have death by hanging and f.) development (I've seen the Monadnock, Nashua, and Franconia regions get developed to smithereens that there just doesn't seem to be any sense of true preservation of small-knit communities, more on that later).

I'll also throw in there the power & influence the Loebs and former Governor Mel Thompson have over the state and how it's affected NH politics over the years. In addition, when I watched Channel 9 weekend round up shows it was always Arnie vs. the conservative Dems like the Grandmaison brothers, Chris Spirou, Norm D'Amours, Chuck Douglas, Rath, Helms, Chris Keefe, the Swett's and it always seemed like Arnie was always alone (she still does it seems sometimes).  True there was John Rauh and all but Arnie always sticks out like a sore thumb as NH's lone progressive voice.

The recent election of Hodes and Shea-Porter blew me away because I never thought that two individuals like thse could ever get elected after Swett, Zeliff, Sununu, Bass, and Bradley (not to mention Humphrey, Gregg and Smith to boot).

Lastly, I grew up in Nashua and I remember in the early/mid 90s the Merrimack Selectboard did not support support services for gays and lesbians at Merrimack schools. This created quite a controversy  and that Selectboard still sends shivers down my spine that back then it felt like that was the sign of the times for most of the state unless you were in Durham, Portsmouth, and the Hanover areas.

So this may sound like a very broad picture I painted but this was what shaped my beliefs on the social climate of New Hampshire.

Maybe you or someone else can fill in the blanks but I remember NH not being as socially foward during that time I was here.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 12:07:36 PM CDT

What? (4.00 / 1)

How do you define progressive?  It seems to me that people like Norm D'Amours, Joe Grandmaison, Chris Spirou, the Swetts, Joe Keefe (I am assuming that is who you meant) and Ned Helms were good Democrats who fought hard against reactionary Republicans. To put their names in the same category as Chuck Douglas and Tom Rath is horribly and wrongly insulting to some good people.  This may seem like heresy, but from what I've seen, they accomplished as much, and probably more, for "progressive" causes in NH than Arneson has accomplished. 

---

by: Frodo @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 12:52:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well said (4.00 / 1)

Though I think they can be praised without knocking Arnie. That's old school. :)

---

by: JimC @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 14:52:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Didn't knock Arnie (0.00 / 0)

But I do have a question; why would it have been old school to knock Arnie, when there are posts critical of other Democrats that aren't called old school?  Not being defensive, just curious what's old school and what's new school?  And what is unschooled? 

---

by: Frodo @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 15:02:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Old School (0.00 / 0)

I just meant that knocking other Democrats is old school. As the joke goes -- "What's the difference between Democrats and cannibals? Democrats eat their own."

I try not to knock Democrats, but sometimes you have to. Maybe we can call it tough love.

---

by: JimC @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 17:03:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Even putting Tom Rath and Chuck Douglas (0.00 / 0)

in the same category is a disservice to Rath.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 16:59:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

YIKES! (4.00 / 1)

Wow folks, I didn't mean to stir up any kind of crap! Normally I'm right on for a lot of things but this one I guess I was WAY OFF! So MEA CULPA BIG TIME!!!!!

I was just shooting things of the top of my head when I wrote this. As I've said, I've fallen behind in NH politics so you all must know things that I don't. I based my decisions what I remember back in '92-'93.

What I remember that bothered me most was the slow movement on granting MLK Day the status it deserved. Perhaps that was because during that time the GOP was in control of the House & Senate. If not, correct me if I'm wrong.

The NH Right to Life Committe seemed back then to have lots of strength behind them and seemed to have the upper hand when it came to legislative politics. Then there was Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and thankfully the US Supreme Court ruled on the right side of the issue there.

Now I'll be up front in that I've always been an "Arnie head" and supported strongly the idea of implementing an income tax. Whenever Arnie was on Channel 9 trying to defend her case, she got pummled by the likes of Douglas, Rath, and Keefe -- from what I remember-- didn't seem to go along with her. I also think a lot of Democrats back then weren't all supportive of it either and maybe that's why she lost to Merrill. Maybe I'm wrong and/or maybe Keefe has changed but this was on the heels of the '92 election and this was what I remembered it to be. What else has Keefe done that I missed out on? Fill me in.

Ned Helms, I think I jumped the gun on that, mostly because I was for Arnie all the way. What has he done since that Blue Hampshirites should be proud of, and I sincerely mean this folks.

Dick Swett always appeared to me as a DLC Democrat. While I suported his stance on gun control (which may or may not have contributed to his loss in '94) I really did not support his so-called Freedom of Choice act (FOCA) on abortion that he tried to get the House to pass.  Not to mention his support from Lantos and other pro-Israel organizations that I personally am not OK with.

These are some of the things that I remember. Seabrook and the constant economic development (a.k.a. urban sprawl) to me has also ruined my idea of NH and it's sad to see continous areas or parcels of land get carved up for another Wal-Mart, Home Depot, or Lowe's, or another ski house going up in Franconia. That is what worries me and it would be great to see it slow down a bit.

Hope this clears up some loose ends I have and if not let me know. Again, no disrespect to anyone. Just calling things how I remember them.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 19:01:39 PM CDT

Jim and NHXP are both right (4.00 / 2)

(I'm such a wimp I disgust myself.)

Yes: Jim is right; New Hampshire has a record on a lot of social issues that we can all wear proudly.

But:

• The libertarian streak and low-tax culture affect things. I believe we are the only state that doesn't require school districts to fund public kindergartens.
  
• It's very clear that the New Hampshire Republican Party is much, much less moderate than Vermont's. Vermont has no figures similar to Mel Thomson, Gordon Humphrey, Bob Smith, and Craig Benson. New Hampshire has no figures similar to Gov. Douglas and Senator Jeffords. And the GOP has dominated New Hampshire elections until 2006.
  
• New Hampshire still has a death penalty, despite Jim's efforts. Connecticut is the only other New England state with one.
  

Our Dems have been to the left of the national party for as long as I can remember. We're not new to progressive thought. But, there's no denying that 2006 was a sea-change in political power here.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 20:07:49 PM CDT

Well said .... and the newspaper that shall remain nameless (0.00 / 0)

> I'm such a wimp I disgust myself

Whooz saying that? No! No! Ain't true dude.

Good points elwood.

Another thing I thought of is the influence of the Union Leader. Look at how much influence it's had over the years with "Axe The Tax." If you didn't take that pledge, your chances of getting elected for state office were shot, especially if you ran for Governor. That slogan stuck on its readers and that paper is distributed through every frickin corner of the state. Distribution and being the only statewide newspaper made a difference... and its staunch editorials.

This has definitely contributed to some right tendencies in the state.

PS: And let's not forget that in 2000 NH went to Bush, the only northeastern state to go for him. Another thing to think about.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 21:09:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In 2000 Nader tipped it. (0.00 / 0)

He got 21,000 votes; Bush won by 7,000.

The Pledge seems to be mandatory for the first and second term. After four years, a Governor can say "I'm still not for a broad-based tax, but I'll ask you to let me consider the option" and get re-elected.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 21:17:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Isn't that how we got Mel Thomson in the first place? n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 22:34:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

IIRC... (4.00 / 2)

Thomson began the Pledge. Peterson had not taken it in his earlier wins.

Peterson had presided over serious tax reform. He replaced the "stock in trade tax" with the "business profits tax." That was generally considered a good economic move: "stock in trade" taxed inventories, even if a business was losing money. And business profits had the potential to bring in more revenue.

The Union Leader was at the peak of its influence in 1972. William Loeb was publisher. He promoted Mel Thomson in the Republican primary and Bob Crowley in the Democratic race -- both won. The UL was waging war on "the Concord gang," meaning the traditional Republican establishment.

Malcolm McLane ran against Thomson and Crowley in the general election, but Thomson won fairly easily. Since then even the "Concord gang" families -- e.g., Gregg and Bass -- have shifted right.

---

by: elwood @ Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:52:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Progressive does not mean pro-income tax!!!!!! (4.00 / 1)

Our state senate is progressive, but this majority was elected on the platform of moving New Hampshire forward without a sales or income tax!!!  As long as candidates insisted on throwing themselves on the income tax sword, Democrats were not winning elections. Jeanne Shaheen changed that dynamic, followed by John Lynch.  If Lynch had been pro-income tax, he would not have been elected his first term, Craig Benson would be in his third, and we would not have an increase in the minimum wage, civil unions, pro-voting legislation, etc.  See, e.g., the electoral results for Mark Fernald, Arnie Arneson and Wayne King. Good people, bad message.

---

by: Frodo @ Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:00:51 AM CDT

Yes, it does. (0.00 / 0)

Douglas Hall has clearly shown that New Hampshire has a "structural deficit:" our current state revenue sources do not grow as rapidly as the cost of our current state programs (everything from state parks to prisons). Continuing to rely on this broken revenue system means a continuing decline in the quality of public programs and facilities.

It is much easier to win election if you take the Pledge. But that is not a "progressive" position.

---

by: elwood @ Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:23:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Doug Hall Does Is Not the Boss of Me! (4.00 / 1)

Nor are you!
Which is more progressive: losing elections year after year, thereby ceding the field to right wing Republicans, so that parental notification passes, minimum wage increase doesn't, anti-gay/lesbian legislation passes, John Stephen is put in charge of HHS, anti-feminists are put on the Commission on Status of Women, cuts are made in social services, hurting real people, etc., etc. or, recognizing that tax policy is just that - tax policy - and electing common sense, progressive Democrats who accomplish concrete objectives like civil unions? 
But this is an argument you and I will never agree on. 

---

by: Frodo @ Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:56:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Frodo (0.00 / 0)

I think that progressive tax policy is a part of progressive ideology.

The question you are addressing is: is it good strategy to run on this issue?  That's a separate issue.

I don't think that Elwood is trying to say that if you don't support an Income Tax, you're not a real progressive.  He's just saying that there is a progressive viewpoint about taxation, and many New Hampshire Democrats don't share it.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Tue May 01, 2007 at 09:03:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hmmmm (4.00 / 1)

Lets see what Elwood says; the heading on my first post said progressive does not mean pro-income tax, and the heading on his response was, yes it does. 
With due respect, I disagree that pro-income tax is per se a progressive position.  There is an assumption that an income tax will reduce property taxes (big assumption), have sufficient exemptions to exclude the poor and working poor (another big assumption), etc. And there is still that nagging problem of the NH constitutional prohibiton against a progressive tax rate.  If a Forbsian national flat tax is not progressive, why is a flat tax here at home progressive?  Inquiring minds want to know!

---

by: Frodo @ Tue May 01, 2007 at 09:20:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No real progressive... (0.00 / 0)

sounds a lot like No true Scotsman.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Tue May 01, 2007 at 12:08:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Neither is progressive. (0.00 / 0)

I prefer the latter, of course.

But let's call it what it is: a choice to abandon or defer important progressive principles in order to achieve other important results.

I'm not a "purity" activist. But when I'm compromising, I don't claim that I am being fully righteous.

And your nonsense about "Hall is not the boss of me:" that's like saying the thermometer is not your "boss." Hall did a thorough analysis of economic data and established the existence of a structural deficit. Even Republican leaders admit it exists -- but they happily see it as an opportunity to slowly eliminate government programs.

---

by: elwood @ Tue May 01, 2007 at 09:46:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The thermometer isn't, either (4.00 / 1)

But, seriously, economic analysis is rarely objective. The fact that Doug Hall issues a report does not mean that the report necessarily is pure in its objectivity, or that its conclusions were not impacted by the researcher's initial premise, or that there are not other ways to increase revenues other than an income or sales tax. I am fine with a state wide property tax, particularly on second homes.
I am done arguing for today, Elwood, you and I just will never agree on the tax issue.

---

by: Frodo @ Tue May 01, 2007 at 09:56:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, I should have been more precise (4.00 / 1)

It isn't an "income tax" that is required, IMHO: it is a change in the state tax structure to a) bring in enough revenue to fund our growing needs and b) do so without having disastrous side effects. That might be an income tax, but it might be other solutions too.

I tentatively favor an income tax -- but I don't want to claim that is the only credible approach. My point is: serious political figures of any ideology need to come to terms with the disparity between revenues and needs.

I have been surprised that Hall's work has not been attacked -- it seems to be acknowledged as accurate by people across the political spectrum. I believe he deliberately avoided calling for any particular change in tax policy: he simply laid out the implications of the current system.

---

by: elwood @ Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:07:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]