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
(I'm hoping for encores in from Rep. Splaine, but this is a good time for a bow and a cheer. - promoted by elwood)
One of my first political heroes, State Representative Duke Maynard of Portsmouth, very long ago told me that the greatest wisdom of getting old(er) is to realize that life is short, and as you age year by year, life is even shorter. He told me that back in 1969 at a time when I was a really young pup serving my first year in the New Hampshire House, and he was then about the age I am now.
For me, leaving isn't new. I've left the NH Legislature after being in it four times -- from the House in 1970 after a term (lost re-election by 5 votes), again in 1978 (ran for the Senate and won), then from the Senate in 1984 (had enough of that!), and the House again in 1996 after having returned there for another three terms (onto other things). Each time I eventually went back, even though after I left on each occasion I thought I never would. That's my intention this time as I leave in 2010 -- not to return even someday, but one never knows what tomorrow brings.
With my years ahead of me getting shorter, I've been planning to move on for the past several months, really the past year. The only reasons I'd feel I would want to stay would be to defend House Bill 436, marriage equality, or because we need all the Democrats we can get for 2011-2012. However, I'm confident that especially with our ability to defeat the repeal of gay marriage a few weeks ago by such a wide margin in the House and in referendums in town meetings, the defense of our success in achieving marriage equality will be carried on by others very well.
And in November, 2010, whether I ran or not, we'll continue to have an all-Democratic team from Portsmouth and Newington. In fact, by me not running gives a good former House member who wants to return an easier shot without losing any of our current other good House members who may seek re-election; fact is, there may be other "new" ones who should have their chance to serve and offer their fresh perspectives.
At the moment, there's a mighty good chance I won't be running for reelection to the New Hampshire Legislature this November, after a bit too many years of being there off-and-on since 1969. But in all that time, I've never been prouder of our state government than during the past five years.
There was a dark cloud over our government for many of those years I've been there, with some glimpses of sunlight now and then with Governors like Walter Peterson, Hugh Gallen, and Jeanne Shaheen. These past five years, with Governor John Lynch, and Democratic majories in the House, Senate, and Governor's Council, the sunrise has come, and especially these past few months show why that is important to us all.
My take on the current review of the Financial Resources Mortgage Ponzi scheme is government working at its best. And despite some of the news media, Democrats should feel especially proud of some of the activities at the State House in recent weeks.
Years of information and records concerning FRM have been uncovered and released publicly, and those who have been hurt by the greed of a business are seeing that sunlight and openness has been brought to the process. That is a good thing.
Yes, some mistakes and oversights have been identified by agencies that should have prevented the Ponzi scheme of FRM from going on for so long. Mistakes occur in government as well as business. No process is perfect, and years -- decades really -- of cutting staff and making fewer and fewer state employees assume larger and larger volumes of work is bound to result in oversight not always being as good as it should be, or in follow-up action being limited. Employees can only do so much with the machinery and the personnel they have.
When you look at what was done and what was missed through the years, the fact appears to be that the Department of Banking did do most of the audits it was required to do and wrote the reports it should have. The Department of Securities did what it interpreted that under the law it had the authority to do, and took most of the follow-up action it should have done.
And the Attorney General's Office fulfilled most of the functions on those matters where it believed it had an enforcement role. From my detached point of view, it's not so much a matter of assigning blame for the past as it is clarifying responsibility for the future. We need better process, specific procedures, and clearer policies.
It's been an interesting ride. And to be pleased with where we are, it might be good to see where we've been, how far we've come, and what's ahead of us.
Anyone who has been paying attention to the progress of House Bill 436 and marriage equality knows the train track it's been on. Almost all along, it's been a balancing act, sort of like walking along the top cliff trails of the Presidentials.
Introduced formally on January 8th, HB 436 had a great 3-hour public hearing in the House Judiciary Committee on February 5th. That Committee voted a 10-10 tie on the bill, giving "no recommendation" to the House floor. The legislation initially failed on a 182-183 vote in the House on March 26th, then passed on a 186 to 179 vote. It went to the State Senate and had another great public hearing -- this one over 5 hours -- in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, with over 500 people, most of them supporters, filling the State House chambers.
House Bill 436 received a 3-2 recommendation from that Committee that it be "inexpedient to legislate," or killed. However, our Democratic Senators worked to craft an amendment and on April 29th they approved the bill by a vote of 13-11. Back in the House last week on May 6th, HB 436 passed in final form by 178-167. Because of absences, if all those who we know supported the bill were present, it would have likely received 203 votes.
Over these past few weeks some have wondered why I did not loudly proclaim my position on certain controversial pieces of legislation in advance of the Senate vote.
Yet those who know me best know that before making a decision on an important vote I try first to listen to all sides. This approach reflects a deeply held respect for the process of discussion and debate.
...The marriage equality bill passed by the Senate this week is an example of the benefit of listening to one another. I believe the Senate version of House Bill 436 respects the desire for equality for all New Hampshire citizens and honors the need of religious groups to live by their beliefs and principles. For some churches, it is an affirmation of the uniqueness of the human spirit to marry committed same-sex couples. Others say this violates the core of their beliefs. By making the distinction between a "religious marriage" and "civil marriage", the Senate has affirmed the right of our religious denominations to make faith-based decisions when it comes to blessing a marriage.
There is more on the transgender bill that is worth reading, imo.
Speaking for myself, I wasn't looking for a loud proclamation so much as a yes, no, or still deciding, thank you, and here's why.
This seat is ripe for a great Democratic Primary. In recent Presidential Primaries NH-02 has shown a slight preference for candidates such as Howard Dean and Barack Obama. Tapping in to that style of leadership and running that sort of a campaign may give newcomers a real shot. NH-02 is a couple of points in the D's favor out of the gate, so no need to be a centrist for centrism's sake.
It's time for the first Blue Hampshire Straw Poll on this race. Nascent campaigns hit your email list and post on your Facebook wall, let your supporters know that they should freep this poll!
This Poll contains names thrown around here that have not otherwise removed themselves from contention. Of course outcomes of this poll are not scientific as they only reflect the views of Blue Hampshire readers who choose to participate. Participation is free and easy (kinda like Sunday Morning) but you do need to be a registered user to play. Accounts in the upper 1800's are now available, get yours today.
Concord attorney Ann McLane Kuster confirmed she is "seriously considering" running. She didn't say so, but friends say it's unlikely she would run against Senate President Sylvia Larsen or Executive Councilor Debora Pignatelli, who are also weighing Senate and/or House options.
Concord state Rep. John DeJoie has also been making calls, and Nashua attorney Mike Atkins is being mentioned as a potential candidate, both for the House.
Others being recruited include former state Sen. Joe Foster, Lebanon Mayor Karen Liot Hill and Keene state Sen. Molly Kelly.
Adding: I think there's no doubt we will have a primary here in CD2. Which is as it should be. In the safest of our four federal seats, it makes the best sense to have the most progressive candidate emerge. And since Paul has been a progressive champion in the House, I'm not willing to have his seat, and my voice in Congress, take a step backwards in that respect.
Many of you probably saw this article posted in the Union Leader regarding our own Ray Buckley and how he earns his keep. I have included a part of the article with some reader comments. My favs are from Republicans who wish their party was not being trounced by Ray and his efforts.
http://www.unionleader.com/art...
CONCORD - State Democratic Party Chairman Raymond Buckley, who has helped Senate Democrats pile up nearly $1 million in the past 18 months, has been paid well for his work.
BUCKLEY
Campaign finance reports filed this week show that Buckley collected $147,000 in consulting fees from the New Hampshire Senate Democratic Caucus political action committee since March 2007. Since February 2005, the PAC has paid Buckley a total of nearly $250,000.
The committee reported this week that it raised $431,000 and spent $324,000 over the past 16 months. Senate Democrats who filed their own reports this week showed cash on hand that exceeds $537,000.
Senate President Sylvia Larsen, D-Concord, chair of the committee that hired Buckley, said yesterday, "Obviously we have one of the best talents in the nation and we feel Ray Buckley is worth the money we spend on him."
She said the payments represent more than three years of fundraising and consulting work.
"We had started him out low because we didn't have any funds to pay him," she said. "It's reasonable and he's worth every penny."
While I disagree with Ray on many issues, he is honest and has a right to make a living. The GOP critics on this page are acting hypocritically. GOP office holders and operatives have done this for decades. Mitt Romney paid a small fortune to Tom Rath and many others and they rightly earned it
- paul needham, derry, nh
Buck(le)y: From a Republican: I am proud of you! You took a small political party of NH nutcases and raised them like a son who just got promoted to CEO of his own company. You dropped the anti-gun, pro-tax policies and adopted GOP principles.
While the GOP has gone in circles the past few years you guided the DEMs to the point of where they are today.
AND, make no doubt about it, Kathy Sullivan and company did NOT do it, it was you behind the scenes making it happen. I hope you take your money and go on vacation... a very long one and give us a break so we can reorganize.
- Mike, goffstown
Ray is making what he is worth.
He has helped the Dems win three straight elections, take the NH House, Senate, Governorship and both seats in the US House. $147,000 is a bargain.
If our GOP leaders would stop sobbing over spilt milk and actually stand for something, Ray would not be making what he is.
Good for him for being competent.
That is more than I can say for the hacks on the other side.
- William Simpson, Concord, NH
Great over it, folks. What you're looking at is a vital party vs. a party in full drift with a noisy chairman.
- Bill Duncan, New Castle
Ray Buckley is a hard working conscientious person who works tirelessly for what he believes. Rarely has the State or City of Manchester experienced so high a percentage of voter turnout as we have seen under Ray. His work behind the scenes in helping manage Democratic efforts has made a difference in voter reaction. For all this work he is not actually paid enough. Our State and Local politics need more dedicated individuals such a Mr. Buckley.
- Norman R. Gill, Hooksett,NH
Wow - I'm glad I'm not a contributor to the Democrat Party! I would think that money would be spent on getting the candidates information to the voters not just funding Ray Buckley's life.
- Sue, Manchester
As usual the democrats in New Hampshire stand by Ray, like a bunch of sheep. If they did not have any money and Ray took 200,000.00 for salary they would say the same thing. But we all know the dems are smarting from this revelation, that none of them knew about. How much money did Kathy Sullivan pay herself when she ran the state party? I bet she did not take a nickle, but Ray gets away with it? I belive one year ago he was paid 1000.00 per week which was enough, now its over 125,000.00? Something is very wrong here.
- Peter S., Bedford
I thought it used to be that the Republican party was the part of big money? The amount of money being raised in these Senate races is obscene. D'Allesandro has to be kidding me. This kind of money inoculates talented individuals in both parties from considering running for office because they lack the war chest to even get a gasp of their platform out to the public. But Mr. Buckley seems content to allow this unfortunate spiral to continue with his gluttonous fund raising tactics. All while he lines his own pockets.
- D.J. Bettencourt, Salem, NH
By my reading Ray has avergaed roughly 80k per annum over three years. Not bad, and certainly worth it on an outcomes based analysis. I am left with two questions...how the hell did he live all those years when he was not raking it in, but always working for Democrats to get elected, and two where to go from here ? Good for you and us man.
(Similar, yet different enough from Elwood's piece that I am posting)
Halfway through his second term as Governor John Lynch finds himself between Scylla and Charybdis. Are future plans preventing bold actions now?
Just as we elected a Democratic majority to Congress in 2006 to help end the war in Iraq, Hampshireites gave Governor John Lynch majorities across the General Court and E.C. to help end our Holy War known as the Education Funding Crisis. Just as many Dems are frustrated with the lack of leadership and backbone in regards to standing up to the unitary executive at the federal level, New Hampshire Dems are restless with a lack of progress towards ending our sectarian conflict in a manner which will not partition our state in to retirement towns and kid towns.
John Lynch has been a good governor showing strong leadership in times of crisis and NH has passed historic legislation over the past couple of years. Yet, it should be clear that his legacy will be judged on whether or not the Education Funding Crisis is fixed on his watch or is simply kicked down the road a piece.
I first met Granny D -- just a few quick times -- in 1999 and 2000. I saw her again, and more often, in 2004 when she ran for United States Senate. For those who might forget, she was our Democratic Party nominee against Judd Gregg. Yes, he won, but she took the challenge to him. It was generally a tough year for Democrats.
Back then, I was fascinated by this somewhat short and unassuming woman who seemed to have a lot of get-up-and-go. I enjoyed campaigning for and voting for this visionary, very positive human being.
But only in the past two years or so have I seen her quite up close (REALLY close when she gives you the patented "Granny D Hug"), and come to know, better understand, and even get to love this 98 year old New Hampshire treasure who is made of gold.
I could write so much about her, but watching her for a couple of hours this past Thursday as she experienced one of her greatest victories -- the New Hampshire State Senate approving a bill that she and her cause has inspired -- kind of sums up all about her.
That legislation, House Bill 794, called "The Granny D Bill," creates a seven-member Commission to craft and recommend a public financing program for New Hampshire. Whether that can be done is not the question -- some dozen other states have similar programs for at least some of their candidates, and Maine, Arizona, and Connecticut have rather complete systems. And whether it WILL be done here is not the question -- it will be someday, because it is at least a partial answer to improving democracy and making it more accessible by more of our citizens. It will happen. It has to.
And all that is Granny D's cause. She says the same thing -- that this will happen -- that we must do this not for ourselves, but for our future, and our children. To hear her say that makes you believe that it will be done. Because it has to.
But what was remarkable this past Thursday was to see this energetic woman walk the halls of the New Hampshire State House, a building only a little more than twice her own age, with just a cane while leading her troop of supporters at a fast pace. More on that walk in a moment.
After being introduced to the Senate by Keene Senator Molly Kelly and Senate President Sylvia Larsen, she sat for close to an hour in the historic chamber for her bill to come up and be voted on. It passed unanimously after two speakers, one a Democrat (Senator Jackie Cilley of Barrington) and one a Republican (Senator Peter Bragdon of Milford) recommended passage. Then Granny D stood to the applause and thanks of a gallery full of her longtime supporters who came from throughout the state to cheer her on.
Then she stepped -- "ran" might be a better description -- out of the Senate into her crowd of backers while she answered questions from reporters. In the midst of all this commotion Governor John Lynch walked up the stairs going toward his office. He stopped for a moment to say hello to Granny D. It gave her a chance to corner him on her cause...(more below fold)
I offer the following with little comment, except to observe that there is indeed a difference in "values" which are considered to be priorities for the future of New Hampshire between Democrats and Republicans.
The first bill is sponsored by a longtime Republican State Senator. It deals with getting people to talk all the same way. I guess "accent" doesn't matter in his bill -- I hope not, because some people I talk with don't quite get my accent and I'd have to work on that if his bill passes.
The other bill is sponsored by several good Democratic State Senators. It deals with allowing people to be able to afford a place to live in this day and age when it gets more expensive to do that.
Yes, a difference in priorities. A difference in values.
Thoughts?
SB 388 - AS INTRODUCED
2008 SESSION
08-2684 - 03/09
SENATE BILL 388
AN ACT relative to commercial driver license qualifications.
SPONSORS: Sen. Barnes, Dist 17
COMMITTEE: Transportation and Interstate Cooperation
ANALYSIS
This bill requires that commercial driver license applicants demonstrate English language skills.
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eight
AN ACT relative to commercial driver license qualifications.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Paragraph; Commercial Driver License Qualification Standards; English Language Skills. Amend RSA 263:87 by inserting after paragraph II the following new paragraph:
III. The department shall require all applicants for commercial driver licenses to demonstrate English language skills sufficient to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
SB 421-LOCAL - AS INTRODUCED
2008 SESSION
08-2785 - 06/10
SENATE BILL 421-LOCAL
AN ACT requiring municipal land use regulation to provide reasonable opportunities for the creation of workforce housing.
SPONSORS: Sen. Fuller Clark, Dist 24; Sen. Larsen, Dist 15; Sen. Reynolds, Dist 2; Sen. Burling, Dist 5; Sen. DeVries, Dist 18; Sen. Foster, Dist 13; Sen. Hassan, Dist 23; Sen. Cilley, Dist 6
COMMITTEE: Public and Municipal Affairs
ANALYSIS
This bill declares it to be the policy of planning and zoning regulation in the state that:
I. Municipalities have an obligation to provide reasonable and realistic opportunities for the development of workforce housing.
II. Such obligation extends to regional as well as local needs.
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eight
AN ACT requiring municipal land use regulation to provide reasonable opportunities for the creation of workforce housing.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Workforce Housing. Amend RSA 672:1, III-e to read as follows:
III-e.(a) All citizens of the state benefit from a balanced supply of housing which is affordable to persons and families of low and moderate income. Establishment of housing which is decent, safe, sanitary and affordable to low and moderate income persons and families is in the best interests of each community and the state of New Hampshire, and serves a vital public need. Opportunity for development of such housing, including so-called cluster development and the development of multi-family structures, should not be prohibited or discouraged by use of municipal planning and zoning powers or by unreasonable interpretation of such powers;
(b) The state of New Hampshire has experienced a shortage of housing which is affordable to working households. The shortage of housing affordable to working households poses a threat to the state's continued economic growth. This housing shortage presents a serious barrier to the expansion of the state's labor force, undermines state efforts to foster a productive and self-reliant workforce, and adversely affects the ability of many communities to host new businesses. Achieving a balanced supply of housing requires increasing the supply of workforce housing, serves a statewide public interest, and constitutes an urgent and compelling public policy goal. Municipalities should meet regional as well as local needs in providing reasonable and realistic opportunities for the development of workforce housing.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
Per today's Union Leader, the Senate leadership has postponed a vote on the civil unions bill indefinitely, for no known reason, and people suspect it is at the request of Governor Lynch.
Senate President Sylvia Larsen said the decision was hers. "I didn't want the senators to be rushed when it came time to be voting on civil unions," she said...
Spokesman Colin Manning didn't answer directly when asked yesterday whether Lynch was involved in the delay.
Now, Larsen was not worried about Senators having enough time to consider Lynch's constitutional amendment, approved weeks after its unveiling.
My question: are Larsen and Lynch trading Senate approval of civil unions for House approval of his amendment? If the House approves it, will the Senate calendar suddenly free up?
