What Just Happened? Yes, We Shocked Ourselves and the World and Passed a State Budget!
By now—if you’ve had the stamina to consume any news beyond Trump’s indictments and the attempted asphyxiation of eastern US cities by Canada—you may have heard the New Hampshire House and Senate passed a new state budget. Here’s a quick recap of the good, the bad and the ugly.
So What Just Happened?
On Thursday, the New Hampshire House of Representatives passed a new, balanced, $15.2 billion budget that will run from July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2025. The final votes on the two bills comprising it weren’t even close. By a 351-25 margin, the House voted to concur with the Senate on HB1, which sets how much money will actually be spent. Then by a slightly closer 326-53 vote, the House concurred with changes made by the Senate the day before on HB2 , which lists the changes in law and policy required to align with the numbers.
So Why Are Some Calling This “Historic”?
This is the first time in a decade that the House and Senate have actually reached agreement on a budget on-time before the current budget ran out. But labeling it as “historic” also implies there’s some sort of ground-breaking new policy in the budget that will take New Hampshire in a new and different direction.
Fortunately or unfortunately, that wasn’t the case.
While there are several controversial policies in the new budget (more on them below), I’d argue that the current budget that will expire at the end of the month—with its imposition of school vouchers, racist guardrails on classroom discussions, and New Hampshire’s first abortion ban—was a budget that was truly “historic”. But in a bad way.
“Pragmatic” is probably a better way to describe the new budget and the process leading up to its approval. With a few notable exceptions, it simply extends existing policies (good, bad, and ugly) and appropriates the funds to pay for them. In large part, this was a result of a number of factors:
The near-equal split in the House between Democrats and Republicans meant it wouldn’t be as easy for the majority party to impose its will as in previous budget battles.
Given their tiny majority and intense internal disagreements on several items included in the budget, leaders of the Republican caucus couldn’t simply count on marshaling enough votes among their own members to pass a budget outright. They knew Democratic votes were needed, which opened the door to compromise.
One of the most divisive potential policy changes—Trojan horse “parents rights” legislation that would have further marginalized and outed vulnerable LGBTQ+ kids—was killed in the House in a way that made it impossible to add to the budget.
The close-to-evenly-divided House empowered House Democratic leaders to successfully press for key priorities in the House version of the budget.
Looming in the background was the14-10 split in the heavily gerrymandered Senate, where Democrats had less influence over changes.
So If There Was Some Bad Stuff In the Budget, Why Didn’t Dems Press for More Changes in a Conference Committee?
While the budget that came back from the Senate was a mix of good, bad, and ugly—there was less “ugly” than past budgets and more “good.” Democratic negotiators in both the House and the Senate did an outstanding job of ensuring the final budget we voted on reflected Democratic priorities in key areas. Protecting these wins for those who would benefit from them was critical.
As a practical matter, the process was stacked against House Democrats—who are in the minority in both chambers and haven’t held the corner office in 7 years. While sinking the entire budget over objections to its worst components was certainly an option, the reality is it wasn’t the best option because of the conference committee process that would have been used to hammer out a final agreement. Unfortunately, a harsh reality is that committees of conference are appointed by the Senate President and the Speaker of the House—both Republicans. This would have ensured complete Republican control of the committees. Further, only members who voted in favor of the budget during Thursday’s vote would have been eligible to be assigned to a committee of conference. This would have ruled out members who voted against the budget and who would have been among the best advocates for making changes. Also worth noting: conference committee members who disagree with the majority can be replaced by the Speaker with members who are willing go along.
Bottom line: There was no guarantee that holding out for a committee of conference would have resulted in any improvements. Moreover, there was a substantial risk of losing ground in subsequent negotiations.
So Tell Me About the “Good”
The new budget:
Extends the Granite Advantage (also known as Medicaid expansion) for another 7 years for more than 60,000 low-income Granite Staters.
Expands Medicaid post-partum coverage to 12 months following a pregnancy.
Beats back an attempt to divert money from the state’s Education Trust Fund that funds public schools.
Adopts a new funding formula that adds $158 million for public education with the neediest communities getting the most.
Requires law enforcement to provide 24 hours notice of immigration checkpoints.
Increases funding for affordable housing to $50 million over the biennium, including $10 million for homeless shelters and $5 million for a “Housing Champions” program that gives municipalities adopting pro-growth housing policies preferential treatment when it comes to getting state money to repair roads and bridges.
Addresses workforce shortages and attraction/retention issues in long-term care, healthcare, childcare, and state government by:
Increases Medicaid provider rates by $134 million (these funds will be matched dollar-for-dollar by the federal government).
Adds $15 million for child care workforce assistance, including expansions of subsidies for child care, increases to income eligibility thresholds, and increase to reimbursements for providers caring for children with scholarships.
Includes a 10% raise for state employees in 2024 and a 2% raise in 2025.
Allows more older adults to stay in their homes by increasing funding for home and community-based services by $1.7 million.
Allocates $900,000 to help address the behavioral health and wellness of public school students.
Keeps the current school voucher/EFA budget at $20 million.
Provides $10 million to the Department of Corrections for a preliminary design and site survey for a new state prison for men that will replace a current facility that is an aging, leaking, mold-ridden, rat-infested, inhuman embarrassment.
Sets $1 million aside in a cyanobacteria loan mitigation fund to address dangerous bacterial contamination of New Hampshire ponds and lakes.
Now Tell Me About the Bad
Police and firefighters lose. The final budget eliminated a $100 million appropriation sought by the House to provide enhanced retirement contributions for 1,800 state and local first responders who were not vested into the New Hampshire Retirement System prior to 2012. However, a study committee has been appointed to dig deeper into the issue over the summer and Senate President Jeb Bradley believes an agreement can be reached.
More meddling with the governor’s emergency powers. Language added to HB2 will hamper the ability of the governor’s office to respond to an evolving emergency by limiting the ability of the governor to extend a state of emergency and empowering the legislature to renew or end a state of emergency by a majority vote.
The rich get richer. The new budget accelerates repeal of the state’s Interest and Dividends Tax to 2024, eliminating a significant source of revenue from the General Fund that is primarily paid on investment returns by successful investors.
School vouchers remain part of the education landscape. The new budget continues to divert public tax dollars to pay private school tuitions.
An opportunity lost. By refusing to extend Medicaid expansion permanently, the budget sets up a future battle 7 years from now that will once again allow certain legislators to attempt to hold the healthcare of low-income Granite Staters hostage in exchange for concessions.
OK…Tell Me About the Ugly
While the rich get richer, poor kids stay hungry. At the same time New Hampshire’s wealthiest will be saved from paying their fair share by the elimination of the Interest and Dividends tax, the new budget left out proposed expansions to food security for children, including one that would have eased eligibility requirements for free meals for kids at school.
Anti-immigrant fervor disguised as border policy. After being removed by the House and re-inserted by the Senate, the final budget includes a $1.4 million “Northern Border Alliance” appropriation requested by Gov. Sununu to pay for local and state police overtime assistance for border enforcement efforts. This is nothing more that the product of political FOMO (fear of missing out) on a good, fear-mongering controversy surrounding the “other” US border. Worth noting is House Democrats succeeded in killing the appropriation for it in the original House budget, but the Senate voted along party lines to re-insert it and refused to remove it.
So How Should We Feel About All This?
As the song goes: “You can’t always get what you want.” But the truth is the negotiating team for House Democrats (Minority Leader Rep. Matt Wilhelm, Assistant Minority Leader Rep. Alexis Simpson, Labor Committee Ranking Member Rep. Brian Sullivan, and Finance Committee Ranking Member Rep. Mary Jane Walner assisted by other superstars) did an outstanding job in a situation where Democrats were a minority party and had few cards to play.
For anyone disappointed by the “bad” and the “ugly” in the budget, the solution isn’t to criticize leaders in the House and Senate, who did an amazing job given the cards they had to play. It’s to ensure the next time a budget comes up (in 2025), New Hampshire has a Democratic governor and solid Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate.
Anything Else Happen Thursday We Should Know About?
The House also voted on several bills already passed in the Senate.
CACR9, a bill that would have added a clause to the state constitution ensuring that the New Hampshire presidential primary would be first in the nation, was tabled by voice vote. House members in both parties generally felt that existing law protects the status of the primary and that amending the constitution is unnecessary. It was also pointed out that even if the bill was approved, it would need to go before voters for approval—something that wouldn’t happen in time to protect the 2024 primary anyway.
SB132, an anti-immigrant, anti-local control bill that bans New Hampshire communities from adopting “sanctuary policies” was tabled 203-168 was tabled and is effectively dead for this session.
HB58, a bill that addresses workplace violence issues for people delivering health care services, was amended and passed by voice vote. It allows patients who assault medical providers to be arrested without a warrant if they continue to interrupt medical care and pose the threat of additional violence when police arrive.
SB70 also passed by voice vote. It will take Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funds and use them towards the purchase of new voting machines for the 2024 election and the building of an online voter information portal. The portal will allow people to register to vote and to request an absentee ballot.
SB61 passed 236-132. This bill directs the Department of Environmental Services to establish rules for landfill setbacks from bodies of water. While the possibility exists that the legislature will need to return to this issue if the DES rules aren’t stringent enough, the bill at least allows movement on this critical issue, which has been stalled in the legislature for 3 years.
SB193, a very good labor bill, passed 200-171. It requires public sector unions and employers to meet within 10 business days of a written request from either party to the other. The bill prevents either side from simply refusing to meet as a tactic for dragging out negotiations.
Two important transportation safety bills also passed. SB118 passed 192-173. It requires children under the age of 2 to be placed in a rear-facing car seat that meets federal requirements. Current law requires car seats for children age 7 and under, but doesn’t require rear car seats for infants. SB256, establishing a safety program for OHRVs, passed 187-179. While opponents of the bill framed it as a “no-fun law”, the reality is it’s needed to help reduce damage and accidents when operators stray from marked trails and to ensure these vehicles are operated safety when used on roadways.
SB14, a bill making it illegal to place a game camera on the property of another without first obtaining permission, passed on the Consent Calendar.