Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Fahey opens his column with a report that the 110 million dollar surplus of the medical malpractice fund run by the Joint Underwriting Association might be off limits to the state in balancing the budget. This fund offers lower cost malpractice insurance to doctors. The fund was created by the state 25 years ago, but as a "public-private" entity, is not considered a state agency, according to Belknap Superior Court Justice Kathleen McGuire.
These public/private entities look good on paper, but can be complicated in practice.
The (Webster) birthplace is owned and managed by the state Division of Parks and Recreation and is one of 26 sites slated for an "alternative management strategy," according to a plan released earlier this month. The state does not have enough money to continue to maintain these parks and historical landmarks, according to the parks division.
...All the buildings on the property are in poor condition. The Sawyer House has been closed to the public since 2005, when the state decided that its structural problems were a liability issue, according to Webb. The white paint is peeling off the Sawyer House and the foundation is visibly crumbling. Inside, Webb said the bricks in the fireplaces are concave because the floors are rotting from moisture problems in the basement. He also said the roof is leaking and mold is growing on all the ceilings.
This is so pathetic. We prance and preen around when the candidates visit for the primary, but this is the sad underbelly of how we really feel about our historical and political traditions in this state.
Some priorities we have. Daniel's remains crumble while we live in fear of Meldrim's ghost.
Adding: There is one solution. We could federal earmark it and call it the Judd Gregg Daniel Webster Homsetead.
But really I could have blockquoted any number of other things:
Car owners will pay an additional fee of at least $30 to register their vehicles after July 1, money that will be used for road repairs. There is a graduated fee system by weight. The $30 surcharge applies to owners of vehicles lighter than 5,000 pounds. The cost of maintaining a vanity plate will jump $15, to $40 a year.
Retired state employees who are under the age of 65 will, for the first time, pay a premium for their state-provided health care. Single people will pay $65 per month; couples or families will pay $130.
...Low-income parents who insure their children through the state's Healthy Kids Silver program will pay $7 or $9 per month more on top of premiums that are now $25 to $45 per month per child, depending on income.
...The Tobey School in Concord, for students with emotional problems, will close Sept. 1.
The Lakes Region Facility will close at the end of this month. Most of the inmates have already been transferred, largely to Berlin, corrections officials said. In total, about 40 corrections employees will be laid off.
Who among us will leave the cave behind?
After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave-a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. - And we-we still have to vanquish his shadow, too.
The budget before the State Reps is not what NH needs. There is time to craft a better budget. We don't have to be afraid of the Republican bogey man. And since when, do Democrats act out of fear? This budget hurts the very people Democrats are supposed to represent, the elderly, the lower income folks and the workers. Yeah, you remember the workers, the union folks that show up every time Democrats need to get re-elected.
We can't afford to lose 750 to 1000 State jobs and still expect the State to run efficiently or at all for that matter. At the bargaining table, the SEA has offered over $58,000,000 in cost savings to the State. To date, they have yet to take it seriously. I ask you, who knows better where the savings are than the people who do the jobs?
Having lived through two breaks in State service, one under Steve Merrill's budget cuts, and having seen what happened under Terry Morton's reign of terror at DHHS a few years back, things are not so sweet for this State Employee/taxpayer.
NH gov takes gaming off table in budget debate (Norma Love, AP)
CONCORD, N.H.-Gov. John Lynch is taking video slots off the table in hopes of wooing support from New Hampshire lawmakers disappointed gaming wasn't in the budget package they will vote on Wednesday. Lynch told reporters Tuesday he will appoint a commission to study gaming, but he won't support expanding gambling in New Hampshire this year.
The vote tomorrow is expected to be very close. Everyone knows Governor Lynch has been doing the rain dance the last few days to get the needed votes to pass the bill. On the other side of the issue is the State Employees Association/SEIU Local 1984, which held a press conference today calling for the budget to be sent back to the conference of committee.
SEA President Gary Smith:
"We are gathered here today to ask our State Legislators to reconsider the proposed State Budget. This budget doesn't work. It doesn't solve the real problem of providing adequate funding for public services. It fails because it adds taxes and fees onto residents who can least afford them. It fails because it adds to the burden of property taxpayers by downloading state obligations. It fails because it hurts people who need help during this tough time."
(This is a very important topic, and one not to be taken lightly. Thank you, mrollo. I hope more people who are in the know chime in and those who want to know ask questions. Last session, the Republicans were successful in pushing their 17.5% hike meme, which was untrue. We need to understand the budget as best we can so we can work from fact, not fiction, when advocating policies. - promoted by Jennifer Daler)
Tomorrow, we as legislators will be asked whether or not we approve of the committee of conference report on the state budget. While there are things in the budget I may not like, I hope as Democrats we stand together and pass the budget, and I'll tell you why.
First, we have a responsibility as the majority party to craft a budget and we did. While some of our newer colleagues may not understand it, we cannot posture on this issue...we must lead. Tomorrow's vote is an up or down vote, there is no room for further negotiation on the floor, that part of the process is over.
Secondly, we must be aware of what not passing the budget tomorrow gets us...nowhere. We will not have another budget within minutes or even hours. If we don't pass this budget we will be in the position of operating under a continuing resolution. That means months of negotiations and months of spending at a level we can't afford. It means not being able to access federal stimulus money. All in all it means a failure to lead.
More importantly, it means that when we do come back, we need a 2/3rds vote of the House to bring in a new budget. In case anyone doesn't understand, that means the GOP is in the driver's seat. That means another 13% cut from critical programs. I can't imagine what services will be cut further, but I know the GOP is salivating at the chance.
Privately members of the minority party may tell us this is a responsible budget, but they won't vote for it for purely political reasons. I don't want to put people's lives at risk for gotcha points. If the GOP wants to play games with our state's future, let them, I won't be party to such a shameful act.
Folks, I know I'm a newbie to this site, but I implore you to look at this in a bigger context and to contact your representatives to vote for the budget tomorrow... the alternatives are just too scary.
CONCORD - Democratic Party Chairman Raymond Buckley today issued the following statement regarding the GOP's plan for more unspecified budget cuts:
"After months of hearings, Democratic leaders crafted a responsible and balanced budget while Republicans sat back and admittedly refused to be 'fully involved' in the process. Now as the eleventh hour approaches, Republicans have buckled to political pressure and put forward an irresponsible plan for unspecified cuts. If adopted, their plan would downshift costs and spell $100 million in new taxes for property owners.
"Today, Republicans offered too little, too late. It's time for them to stop using political gimmicks to appear engaged in the process and actually do the job they were elected to do.
"A 7 percent across-the-board cut isn't a budget plan, it's a back door property tax increase. Saddling property owners with the burden of balancing the state budget is not only irresponsible, it's plain wrong. Homeowners shouldn't be forced to pay for the GOP's lack of ideas or leadership."
(Posted by Victoria Bonney, Communications Director at the New Hampshire Democratic Party)
(I certainly don't agree with some of the cuts, and I certainly don't agree with revenue that's automatically off-the-table, but the chairman makes a valid point: the NHGOP is grandstanding instead of working when it comes to coming up with their own solutions to the budget dilemma. Part put below the fold by me. - promoted by Dean Barker)
Chairman Buckley's Op-ed from Today's Concord Monitor
Last fall, our nation was rocked by George W. Bush's gross mishandling of the economy. From Wall Street to Main Street, the fallout left millions unemployed and many more struggling to provide for their families. While we are now seeing signs of financial recovery, New Hampshire still faces a serious revenue shortfall that will require state leaders to make tough decisions in order to balance the budget.
At a time when the need for services are at their highest, and revenue is near 2004 levels, cutting the budget is no simple task. But Gov. John Lynch and Democratic legislators rose to the challenge and proposed tough cuts and reforms to account for the revenue gap. Their cuts include a 5 percent reduction to the state's workforce, closing five district courthouses and the Laconia prison, reducing public employee benefits, and extending the freeze on hiring, travel and new equipment purchases.
Today's Sunday State House columns focused on the budget, which has to be passed by July 1st or the state must run on continuing resolutions, which would not be good for its fiscal health.
As expected, the Republicans are being told by their leaders to vote no. Why? Because. Have they proposed a viable alternative? No.
Tom Fahey (bold mine)
Even without the finished numbers, Republicans are being urged to vote against the plan as spending too much. Democrats are calling it a difficult compromise that spreads the pain fairly.
Sununu, Republicans Claim More Budget Cuts Are Needed But Still Can't Name a Single Cut
CONCORD - After weeks of calling for unspecified budget cuts that will likely result in sharp hikes to local property taxes, Republicans still can't say what they would cut from the budget.
Just this week, NHGOP Chairman John H. Sununu told a Derry News/Eagle Tribune editorial board that more budget cuts are needed but couldn't specify a single area of the budget he would cut. Apparently not much has changed with him: Sununu sent state spending skyward by 27.5 percent while governor in the 1980s.
In contrast, Democratic Leaders are proposing a budget that includes many reforms and cuts, including a reduction of the state's workforce by 5 percent, the closure of five districts courts and the Laconia prison, and the extension of the current freeze on hiring, travel and equipment purchases over the next two years.
Of course, John H. Sununu isn't the only Republican paying lip service to the budget process. Senate Minority Leader Peter Bragdon told the Union Leader that he doesn't know what's in the budget, let alone what he'd eliminate from it. House Minority Leader Sherm Packard authored an op-ed calling for cuts, but failed to identify a single line item, program or agency he would trim.
"With the bulk of our state budget dedicated to local aid one has to wonder if Republicans are talking about slashing assistance to cities and towns, which would result in the highest property tax increase in New Hampshire history. If Republicans really want to balance the budget on the backs of property owners they should at least be honest about it. It's time for Republicans to either name their cuts and be part of the process, or support the balanced budget plan proposed by Democrats," said NHDP Chairman Raymond Buckley.
(Posted by Victoria Bonney, Communications Director for the New Hampshire Democratic Party)
CONCORD - The national economic crisis continues to impact New Hampshire families and businesses, and the state budget isn't immune, with revenues for the next fiscal year expected to come in lower than those in 2004. Yet Republicans continue to claim that new revenue is not needed to balance the budget and instead are calling for unspecified cuts that would likely result in sharp local property tax hikes.
However, it wasn't too long ago that Republicans found themselves in a similar situation when they held majorities in the legislature and had to put together a balanced budget in a sluggish economy.
The difference between the budget passed by Republicans in 1990 and the budget Democratic leaders are proposing now is that Democrats are making tough choices to reduce the bottom line. Democrats this year are proposing to cut the state's workforce by 5 percent, close five districts courts and the Laconia prison. Republicans in 1990 chose to create new taxes and raise existing taxes in order to increase overall spending and to make up for a massive expansion of state spending throughout the 1980s.
In 1990, Republican leaders used new taxes and tax increases instead of cuts to balance the budget after inheriting a record deficit left by former Gov. John H. Sununu, who increased spending by 27.5 percent while in office and is now the state party chair.
Then-Republican Speaker of the House Doug Scamman said of the need to raise taxes in the midst of serious economic challenges, "These issues are bigger than party or personal political objectives. Today, we must all be statesmen. I ask that you face your obligations as legislators to vote responsibly today. Put the political considerations aside and face your responsibilities."
According to the 1990 House Journal, Representative Scamman's argument was successful in persuading his Republican majority to increase taxes and spending - in fact 17 Republicans still serving in the Legislature voted for the bloated budget. Republicans approved:
* An estimated $14 million increase in telecommunication taxes for consumers
* An estimated $11.9 million increase in the real estate transfer tax
* An estimated $8.5 million increase in the tobacco tax
* An estimated $2.3 million increase on the beer tax
* An estimated $13.9 million increase in the Meals & Rooms tax
* Increased taxes on motorists, including a $5 process fee for diesel fuel users
* A 5 to 7 percent tax increase on gambling profits
"Republican legislators must be suffering from a severe case of amnesia," said Ray Buckley, Chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. "It wasn't too long ago that they passed historic tax increases and out-of-control spending during an economic crisis. Republicans should stop playing politics and start naming their cuts."
(Posted by Victoria Bonney, Communications Director for the New Hampshire Democratic Party)
Republicans Still Can't Say How They Would to Trim Budget
CONCORD - For months, Republicans have called for cuts to the state budget but still can't name a specific area of the budget that needs trimming.
Today, New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Raymond Buckley said enough is enough and again challenged Republican legislators to name their cuts or support the balanced budget proposal put forth by Democratic Leadership.
"If there is fat left in the state budget, Republican legislators should name it. Democratic Leaders have rolled up their sleeves and gone to work, cutting the budget line by line while Republicans have sat back and offered no solutions. It's time for Republicans to stop playing petty politics with our state finances and name their cuts," said NHDP Chairman Raymond Buckley.
With 2010 revenues projected lower than 2004 levels, Democrats have carefully scrutinized over the budget and outlined significant cuts to make up for the revenue shortfall. Their proposed cuts include:
· Reducing to the state's workforce by five percent
· Unfunding 200 state positions
· Extending the public employee hiring freeze for the next two years
· Eliminating a half dozen health and human service programs
· Freezes on travel and equipment purchases
· Closure of five district courthouses and the Laconia State Prison
Still, Republicans claim there is room to cut, but remain unwilling to name specific programs or areas to eliminate from the budget.
(Posted by Victoria Bonney, Communications Director for the New Hampshire Democratic Party)
June may be flowers and sunshine outside, but inside the State House it's ugly. It's the perennial dance of obstinance, righteousness, anger, and frustration. Ratchet it up many notches: welcome to the 2010-11 budget process .
When I was in the senate, there were dire warnings of a perhaps $200 million shortfall. Now we're talking $500-600 million.
What's a state government to do? Well, of course, more of the same, only worse.
Raise taxes we now have, such as rooms and meals tax from 8 to 8.75 percent? That burdens the hospitality industry, so vital to NH's identity and strength.
Wipe out the business enterprise tax credit? Small businesses can least afford it in this historic recession.
Then there's the idea to hike the cigarette tax another 35 to 45 cents a pack. True, it discourages smoking and taxes what we don't want, which is good. But it also whacks those least able to pay.
Then there's the ingenious idea of broadening the real estate transfer tax to include those refinancing their homes to cut their monthly payments. Once again, hitting those already burdened, those who are doing all they can to reduce their family's debt.
Then there's the perennial Lou D'Allesandro Special: expanded gambling. In a big change from his past efforts, this year the senate approved it (at midnight, with no public hearing).
Thirteen thousand slot machines, creating a new behemoth of an industry, eclipsing all other business interests. which would clearly have the ability, and motivation, to manipulate and dominate New Hampshire politics. The revenue estimates of $185 million are highly suspect. This whole column could specify ways in which the costs to NH greatly outweigh any promised benefits, but I'll spare you.
Some fee-raising ideas in both the House and Senate proposed budgets are indeed benign: raising the automobile license fee from 50 to $60, and car registration from 10 to $25. That $31m is targeted to much needed bridge and road repair. Rasing the permit for out of staters to carry a concealed weapon from $20 to $100 raises $1.7 million. Cutting the budget for charter schools which generally cost more than public schools and as Lou D'Allesandro points out, "These students all have a place in a public school."
Clearly each of these options carries pain. One factor that is constant is that each and every budget cycle somehow finds a one-time pot of gold it can ransack. This year, it's $100 million from a 30 year old account to help make malpractice insurance affordable. But even that option is likely to face a successful lawsuit.
Many of these ideas would almost certainly exascerbate the state's reeling private sector economy.
Needs continue to mount: schools are in need of repair, our population is older than most states, the call for social services rises as the recession drags on. In both the House and Senate verisons cuts will hurt more than people expect.
Republicans call for an 8 percent spending cut across all areas of state government. That's not only callous, it's just plain crazy. The agencies that deliver needed services do amazingly well given the little they get now.
There is one constant in all this: the tradition of just tweaking here and there, sweeping the revenue problem under the rug year after year after year by resorting to increased fees, truly nickel and diming us into harder times for all. I hate to publicly agree with a Republican, but Senator Gatsas is right:: "Downshifting is not something that local communities can afford, (this budget leaves) no other place to go other than the property tax."
How long will it take until that bump from sweeping our problems under the rug gets so big NH trips and falls? the tipping point is fast approaching.
Conventional wisdom is that Lynch's first victory was a referendum on the income That is not fully accurate; there were personalities which weighed heavily into the outcome.
New Hampshire's wealthiest have had a long, very easy ride on the backs of all other taxpayers.
The more time we avoid the inevitable: simple tax fairness, the more pain we will have chosen to inflict on ourselves.
Mel's ghost is alive and well in Democratically controlled New Hampshire...
• Taxing refinancing - 5-to-1 says it happens: It seems oxymoronic to be applying a tax on the only part of the real-estate economy that's really humming along, but that's how state tax money is made, right?
...• Capital gains tax - 20-to-1 against: Senate negotiators are dead set against this, and Lynch has never been wild about it, either. The fear that some Democratic senators have is that this could easily be recast in an election campaign as a new income tax on investments
...but does not extend past the border:
Maine lawmakers are looking at setting up bridge loans so that banks could give first-time homebuyers in that state the value of the federal $8,000 tax credit contained in the stimulus package President Barack Obama signed last February.
I don't know if you've been thinking about it, but the costs of long-term care have been on the mind of some friends of mine lately.
For reasons that we won't go into here, they are in the process of pricing long-term care at care facilities...and yesterday afternoon, we had a chance to have a look at the "menu" of services (the facility's term) that can be purchased at this particular location.
If you are facing this issue in your own family, if you are a taxpayer thinking about how we plan to fund long-term care in the future...or if, one day, you expect to be old yourself...this conversation will surely matter.
I'm finding it hard to believe that the tax on home refinancing is moving past the trial balloon stage.
Can someone explain to me the wisdom of this? And that's not a snarky question.
This idea is a policy loser. Responsible middle-class families struggling with rising costs of everything are heeding the President's economic rescue plan and moving to re-finance to lower rates. This puts more money in their pocket to pay the bills and maybe even stimulate the economy a little. But one of the biggest obstacles to getting those families to re-finance are the up-front one time costs associated with that.
This idea is a political loser. These same families, who in New Hampshire are already burdened with a perverse revenue system aimed squarely at their property, vote.
When the NHGOP and I are in agreement, something has got to be wrong.
Is this all happening because the Democratic majority Senate couldn't stomach a capital gains tax?
Someday, the NHDP will be able to elect a Democratic majority to the NH House and Senate, and we will have a Democrat in the corner office. When that day comes, a proposal to tax people trying to dig themselves out from under a financial burden so we don't have to tax the capital gains and estates of the very wealthy will be laughed at.
I noted that you identified the refugees as the only reason Manchester school test scores are low. I'm sure you must be right, but the state Department of Education publishes all these "lies, damned lies, and statistics" about our schools that are somewhat inconvenient. Fortunately, nobody ever looks at them, but just in case, I wanted to give you a heads-up.
I'm simplifying, but the main way that schools stay out of "School In Need of Improvement" status is for every student subgroup to get a passing Group Performance Index Score in reading and math. The number that's a pass varies between reading and math, and between primary and secondary schools. If you crunch the numbers the DoE puts out, none of our schools would have changed from a flunking to a passing score if none of the limited-English immigrants were there.
Some of the poorest-testing schools, like West, don't test more than a handful of limited-English kids. I know you're really good at this, but it's hard to blame a next-to-non-existent group.
One other thing... you might want to change the line about the immigrant kid who's only been here three months and does poorly on the tests. They don't test kids who don't speak English for at least a year. I'm sure someone must have misled you when you checked into this.
So I'd suggest quietly finding another goat to blame for the low test scores. My personal favorite is "kids whose parents don't care about education". Nobody will self-identify with THAT, and there's no way to measure it, so it's pretty safe.
Regards,
TMM
P.S. Sorry to hear about all the kerfuffle re you being both mayor and senator. I guess they just don't know what you're capable of. As far as the cost of the special election - well, it should be obvious that Manchester will get its money's worth, and more!
Dolman and some of the other whiners on the school board may try to secede from the city - they'd set their own tax rate, like in Concord. I've heard they're using the code-phrase "fiscal autonomy". Of course, that would put the kibosh on the money-laundering operation. We can block it off the ballot, and if that doesn't work, we can do the "tax-and-spend out-of-control liberal school board" thing, with the usual help from the UL. If that doesn't work, we can paint the administration as spendthrift. Maybe we can inflate another pizza-gate, or cell-phone-gate, or whatever - anything that will stir up the base. So I'm not too worried on this one.
The Dems up in the State House could decide that they know better than you where school aid should go - they could insist that it actually be spent on schools. They might start tying more strings to the money. Worst-case, they might stop us from dropping the school tax rate when they give us more school aid - that might really gum up the works. But it's way too late in this session for them to do anything, and the few legislators who have a clue will have forgotten all about it by next session.
Some of the school board members in the towns that outsource to us are whining a bit, but their contracts don't stipulate how we spend our aid money, so no problemo there.
That's all I got - it looks to me like we got away with it!
Are you in the money-laundering business?
No? Are you sure?
If you're a Manchester taxpayer, then starting July 1st, you will be. Congratulations!
But don't worry - it's all perfectly legal, and you'll be doing it for a good cause - the city needs your help to balance the 2010 budget.
It's really neat! Here's how it works, in just three easy steps:
Step 1: The city accepts $7.4M in additional state education adequacy funding, and gives all 100% of it to the school district. All of it. Every last penny. Because it's the law. And because Ted said that's what we're doing.
Step 2: The city takes a different $6.1M from the school district and - yippeeeee - gives it to you by reducing the school tax rate from $6.00 to $5.38. I'm not sure how you can tell that it's different money from the money in step 1, but it is. It is, because Ted says it is. You don't need to know any more. If you don't get it, just sit down, and shut up already.
Step 3: Not so fast... you didn't think you'd get to keep it, did you? The city takes back the $6.1M from you by increasing the municipal tax rate. But because it came from you, not the state, it's now "clean" money, unencumbered with any of those nasty education strings, so it doesn't have to be wasted on other peoples's brats.
Thanks for doing your part. Isn't it clever? Isn't it smart? It's like those wormholes in space - the money disappears down one end, and just magically pops out at the other, lickety-split!
Wormholes are cool. We need somebody who can think like this to be our mayor, don't you think?
Then we'll truly be, as Ted says: "Manchester - a community of the ...hole."
(Promoting to the front page not as endorsement necessarily, but because of the importance of the topic. - promoted by Dean Barker)
The next big political battle in our state is going to be how we balance the state budget for the biennium starting on July 1. It is no secret that we have a huge hole because of rising needs and shrinking revenues.
Two ways of closing the budget gap, not mutually exclusive, have been proposed: legalizing gambling or instituting a capital gains tax and bringing back our estate tax. The progressive community in the state should weigh-in on this. Here is my take, in the form of an op-ed, favoring taxes as the best solution:
A capital gains tax is the best way to close state's budget gap
Like virtually every other state in the country, New Hampshire is facing its toughest budget challenge in more than 30 years. The Legislature is forecasting a drop in general fund revenues of $450 million compared to the last budget- almost 10%. This is unprecedented. At the same time, the number of people who need assistance from the government is growing because of the recession. While federal funds will help fill part of our revenue gap, they are not sufficient. Since we start with a lean government, we simply cannot cut enough services to balance our budget. It is a pretty good indication that this is true when the minority party refused to make any specific cost cutting ideas, instead recommending sweeping across-the-board cuts. This is simply passing the buck. But if we are to meet the basic needs of the citizens who depend on the state for education, social services, Medicaid, and other forms of assistance, additional revenues are needed.
