Rep. Bedrick on Decriminalization - NPR
Posted on May 19th, 2008
Jason Bedrick on Marijuana Decriminalization
National Public Radio [Real Player at 17:35]
Jason Bedrick on Marijuana Decriminalization
National Public Radio [Real Player at 17:35]
This week there were no “good” or “ugly” bills to report. There was one bad bill and then two absolutely horrific bills. Tomorrow the House will consider CACR 34, a constitutional amendment relative to “adequate” education. The Union Leader, which supported last year’s constitutional amendment, correctly identifies the flaws with the new amendment in today’s editorial: “No on CACR 34: Quarter-loaf is not enough.”
Note that SB 530 and SB 539 were amended by the Finance Committee so my report is different from my previous reports on these bills.
The Bad: Bills that SHOULD NOT have passed, but DID.
SB 350: Another increased “fee” which is being used to raise revenue rather than simply to cover the cost of providing a service. That’s the purpose of taxes, not fees. This bill extends the surcharge on certain probate courts entry fees.
SB 530: This kindergarten aid bill mandates kindergarten for all communities, including the 12 school districts which have not voted to offer public kindergarten. This bill is unconstitutional because it creates a new state mandate without fully funding it, a violation of Part I, Art. 28-a of our state constitution. It also repeals current state law that prohibits school boards from spending any money beyond that authorized by the voters (the “no means no” statutes, RSA 32:8 and 32:11). This one would be in the running for Worst Bill of the Year but the next one is even worse!
SB 539: The latest education funding plan adds $128 million dollars to create a nearly one BILLION dollar plan over the next biennium. This is in a year when we’re facing a $200 million deficit and the bill contains no means of raising the necessary funds. This bill is paving the way for new broad based taxes, most likely an income tax. The arbitrary costing formula relies on the number of “free and reduced lunch” students as well artificially inflated teacher and staff salaries (apparently an “adequate education” requires that all staff, including janitors, have at least three years of experience — I’m not making that up!). The bill re-establishes 37 donor towns and it also violates the state constitution’s ban on unfunded mandates (Part I, Art. 28-a).
Fiscally irresponsible, arbitrary, irrational, and unconstitutional, this might well be the Worst Bill of the Year!
The House met very briefly last week to continue voting on bills which have already passed the Senate. Continuing our one-a-week record of victories, we managed to overturn the committee report on SB 416 which would have allowed planning boards to waive their own regulations. This means that a 3-person majority on a 5-person committee could simply choose to ignore local regulations willy-nilly. Such a change would seriously undermine public confidence that laws will be applied fairly and equally. Fortunately, the legislature recognized this problem and defeated the bill 195-120.
At the end of the year, I plan to send out a compete and updated Good/Bad/Ugly list which includes information about which “bad bills” the Senate ultimately killed and which ones the Governor signed. In advance of this, I’m hoping to expand the distribution of this list. If you know any NH voters who might be interested in joining this list — especially if they live in Windham or Salem — please invite them to join and have them email me! Also, I’m always available for any questions you might have.
The Good: Bills that SHOULD have passed, but DID NOT.
SB 464: This bill would’ve provided more flexibility to the state in assigning hard-to-place children in foster homes.
The Bad: Bills that SHOULD NOT have passed, but DID.
SB 259: Another business regulation that’s attempting to push what the free market is already solving. The bill establishes energy efficiency standards on certain appliances, forbidden the sale of appliances which don’t meet the standard. Energy-conscious consumers are already demanding more energy-efficient models and the market is responding. On the other hand, the banned models are often less expensive, so this bill makes things harder for those who can least afford it.
The Ugly: Bills so bad that even the Dems wouldn’t pass them!
SB 470: This bill’s title was: “allowing lobbyists and those connected to lobbyists to sit on committees established by the judicial branch” — yikes!
Today the House met for a very brief session. I’m happy to report that the House overturned a committee report from the Labor Committee on which I sit. SB 537 would’ve sent personal data of NH citizens — including their names, place of work, and Social Security numbers — to the Census Bureau. While the proponents of the bill argued that it would bring economic benefits to the state, but we believed that the risks associated with such a massive transfer of personal data was too great, especially considering that the privacy guarantees amounted to a mere promise that the government wouldn’t misuse or share the data. Even if government malfeasance weren’t a concern, government incompetence certainly is: there have been several cases where highly sensitive information has been compromised, including the passport information of the three presidential candidates.
As for the other bills:
The Good: Bills that SHOULD have passed, but DID NOT.
None this week!
The Bad: Bills that SHOULD NOT have passed, but DID.
SB 376: This bill mandates that local fire chiefs annually inspect all local school buildings. Whether or not this is good public policy is irrelevant since it is not under the proper jurisdiction of the state. This is a local issue, not a state issue. Moreover, this unfunded mandate violates Part II, Article 28-a of the state constitution.
SB 442: Another fee! This bill also diverts money collected from court fees to the law library revolving fund in a year when we’re facing a $260 million deficit (yes, that number keeps climbing!). Since the dedicated fund is “non-lapsing”, none of the left over monies will be returned to the general fund.
The Ugly: Bills so bad that even the Dems wouldn’t pass them!
SB 385: This bill would require pharmacies to report when they couldn’t fill prescriptions due to the unavailability of a pharmacist. Like most bad bills, it was well-intentioned but not well thought out. The bill would increase the paperwork required of pharmacists without solving or even alleviating the problem its sponsors sought to address, the shortage of pharmacists in the state. (Mandating more paperwork is not likely to increase the attractiveness of the profession.)
The quiet spell at the State House was broken today when the House met to vote on Senate bills and a few leftover House resolutions. Here’s the update:
The Good: Bills that SHOULD have passed, but DID NOT.
HR 22: This resolution would have urged Congress to enforce existing immigration law. Apparently the Democrats are against enforcing the law.
The Bad: Bills that SHOULD NOT have passed, but DID.
SB 530: This bill mandates kindergarten across the state, whether or not local voters approved kindergarten. Moreover, the bill violates Section 28-a of the state constitution which prohibits state mandates which aren’t fully funded. The bill allocates an additional $20 million in a year when we’re already facing a $190 million budget deficit. And with state funding comes state control at the expense of local control. A bad bill all around.
SB 539: The convoluted formula used to arrive at the cost of an adequate education is enough to make Einstein’s head spin. What’s clear is that the BILLION DOLLAR price tag indicates that we’ve purchased the luxury model, not the “adequate” model. Case in point, the bill requires all teachers, administrators, and even *janitors* to have three years of experience in the “adequate” funding model, which raises state costs by about $60 million a year. And where do we get all this money? The Democrats told us on the floor of the House that we shouldn’t worry our little heads. Perhaps they’re going to take out a sub-prime mortgage on the state?
SB 212: This elitist bill creates licensing for home inspectors that requires a high school education or its equivalent. How does another year or two of Shakespeare and calculus help someone inspect homes? Someone whose been inspecting homes for twenty years but never graduated from high school would now have to get a GED just to keep his job. The regulations in the bill are arbitrary, elitist, and unfair.
SB 317: Whenever the legislature wants to raise more revenue, they look to tobacco first. Here’s another fee increase.
The Ugly: Bills so bad that even the Dems wouldn’t pass them!
HR 24: This House resolution called for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. For all their faults, there’s no evidence that they’ve been bribed, commit treason, or otherwise engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors. That didn’t stop the moonbats from assembling a lengthy list of spurious charges and flimsy, non-specific allegations to debate on the floor of House, wasting 45 minutes of the legislature’s time. Fortunately, the only thing that was impeached was the credibility of the 95 representatives who voted for this garbage.
The following is a summary of the “Good, Bad and Ugly” list of 2008 House bills, resolutions and constitutional amendments. It’s not yet complete but I plan to publish a comprehensive list at the end of this term.
The Good: Bills that SHOULD have passed, but DID NOT
HB 1403-FN: This bill would have prohibited an abortion when the child is viable outside of the womb. The bill had some drafting errors so the sponsors of the bill proposed an amendment in committee. The committee chose to vote down the amendment, then vote down the bill because of the very flaws the amendment would have fixed.
HB 1169: This bill would have required parental approval before a public school could teach sex education, changing the “opt out” system to an “opt in” system.
CACR 23: This constitutional amendment was flawed, but an amendment on the floor of the House would’ve fixed the problems. This would’ve enshrined the right of parents to control the welfare and education of their children in the state constitution.
HB 1296: This would’ve repealed an insurance mandate enacted last year forcing insurance plans to cover divorced spouses. The state refused to enact a similar policy for government employees because the mandate was too costly.
HB 1602: This would’ve repealed another insurance mandate enacted last year — called “Healthy Kids” — forcing insurance plans to cover “children” up to 26 years old so long as they’re full time students. There are eight members of the House who could qualify for “Healthy Kids” (all three Republican “kids” voted for the repeal while all five Democrat “kids” voted against the repeal).
CACR 21: This constitutional amendment would’ve enshrined local control of education (”the power to determine curriculum, set standards, and determine funding”) while allowing the state to provide supplemental funding. The educrats who favor centralized state control of education are a very powerful lobby on the Democrat side of the aisle, so this amendment never had a chance.
CACR 29: Another constitutional amendment which would’ve enshrined local control of education in the state constitution.
HB 1224: This bill would’ve removed kindergarten from the definition of “adequate” education that the state must provide and fund. Kindergarten might be a good idea, but that’s for the towns and cities to decide, not the state government.
CACR 24: This constitutional amendment would’ve prohibited a personal income tax. It failed 213-120. Opponents didn’t want to “tie the hands” of future legislatures. In other words, they want it to be easier for future legislatures to pass an income tax.
HB 1255: This bill would’ve made it illegal for a person to put their name on the ballot to run for office if they had no real intention of serving. Currently, there are several representatives who haven’t even voted on a single bill this year.
HB 1265: This bill would’ve required any business or institution that prohibits firearms on their property to provide security or be held strictly liable for failure to provide protection in the case of an attack. In the wake of all the school shootings and post office shootings, it should be clear to everyone that a “gun free” zone is really an “unarmed target” zone.
HB 1495: This bill would’ve reinstated parental notification in the case of an abortion for a minor. The Democrats repealed this law last year under the pretense that it was unconstitutional because it didn’t contain a health exception. This bill contained a health exception modeled after a Pennsylvania law that the Supreme Court upheld in the Casey v. Planned Parenthood decision. In voting this down 190-128, the Democrats demonstrated that they weren’t truthful law year when the repealed the original law. This was the first of four abortion bills the Democrats defeated last week.
HB 1498: This bill would’ve prohibited medical professionals from performing any surgery (whether it’s an abortion or pulling a tooth) on a minor without notifying the parents except in the case of an emergency or if the minor appealed for an exception from a judge.
HB 1517: This bill would’ve required parental consent for an abortion except in cases of emergency or where the minor appealed for an exception from a judge.
HB 1588: This bill would’ve required abortion providers to verify the NH residency of any minor seeking an abortion. Girls from other states which have parental notification laws (like MA) are coming to NH, making NH a magnet state for abortions for minors. There’s already been one fatality linked to a botched abortion; the girl’s mother didn’t know what was wrong with her daughter until it was too late.
HB 1360: This bill would have repealing the court civil filing fee surcharge. Under Part I, Article 14 of our Constitution, each citizen shall have the full right and access to the courts without any denial, promptly and without delay. Any surcharge is a burden, especially to the poorest among us.
HB 1359: This bill would’ve placed some limits on the power of the registers of deeds to impose fees. Currently, they have a near-unlimited ability to impose fees which has resulted in fees that far exceed the government’s cost to provide the service.
HB 1589: This bill would’ve prohibited the lethal injection of any substance as a part of the abortion process. In order to circumvent late-term abortion laws, some abortionists are using lethal injection. Liberals argue that this is “cruel and unusual” when done to convicted murderers, but apparently they found room in their hearts to allow the practice to continue on unborn children.
The Bad: Bills that SHOULD NOT have passed, but DID
HB 1508-FN: This bill makes it easier for non-residents to vote in NH, opening the door to voter fraud wider and wider.
HB 1549-FN: A well-intentioned bill to help the disabled which is worth studying, but with a $29 million per year price tag, this is not the time to be implementing it (the Democrats apparently forgot that we have a deficit that’s currently $50 million and growing).
HB 1309: A new tax on small cigars, which the House inappropriately defined as “cigarettes” despite the fact that they don’t smoke like cigarettes at all. They’re little cigars. As one member noted on the floor of the House: How many legs does a cow have if you call its tail a leg? Answer: Four. It doesn’t matter what you call the tail, it’s still not a leg!
HB 1414: An increased fee on bail commissioners. Once again, Democrats have violated the NH tradition of tying a fee to the costs of performing the service. Fees are not supposed to be sources of revenue for unrelated pet projects.
HB 1330: This bill makes it much harder to fire bad teachers. This is a part of a nationwide problem that favors bad teachers at the expense of children’s education.
HB 1435: Food police alert! This bill removes control of school food programs from the local school boards and centralizes power in the state. The Union Leader captures the both the problems with the bill and the serious underlying philosophical flaws in their recent editorial:
“State legislators are really getting carried away with three pernicious ideas: 1) If they don’t tell you how to live your life, you’ll make stupid decisions; 2) the more power and authority the state can take away from localities, the better off we will all be; and 3) public is good, private is bad.”
HB 1628: This bill would subsidize the private use of renewable energies. While the use of such energies should be encouraged through tax cuts, the government shouldn’t be taking from Person A and giving to Person B to subsidize their choices.
HB 1222: This bill bans text messaging while driving. While there is no “right to text while driving” this bill was fraught with problems. First, such activity is already prohibited under the broad category of distracted driving. Should the law list reading a newspaper, eating a salad, applying make up, and a dozen other activities? Moreover, in order to prove that a person was sending a text message rather than typing in a phone number, the police would have to confiscate the phone to check. This is a solution in search of a problem.
HB 1127: This is the first time I had to vote against a bill of which I was a cosponsor! The Labor Committee amended it so that the “governing body” of towns can decide whether or not to negotiate with unions with between three and ten members. The Municipal Association argued that the “legislative body” (i.e. — the voters) should make this decision. Since it will involved increased expenditures, the decision should be vested in the legislative body.
HB 1436: This bill required an evergreen clause in all government employee contracts so that the contracts will continue (including step increases) even after the contract has “expired”. In addition to being bad public policy, this bill entails a state mandate that will increase costs to the towns and cities, therefore it is unconstitutional. Part I, Article 28-A of the NH Constitution is unambiguous: no unfunded mandates!
HB 1472: This bill mandates that towns and cities provide “reasonable and realistic” opportunities for “economically viable” workforce housing, without ever defining what “reasonable and realistic” or “economically viable” means. It’s not even clear if the housing has to be “economically viable” for the developers or the inhabitants. In addition, this bill has dozens of other problems that are too long and complicated to enumerate here. For more information, listen to Rep. Kurk’s floor speech here (it was the first debate of the day, starting just after the 11:00 minute mark).
HB 1434: While it’s not clear whether Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) will have any effect on climate change, it’s very clear that it’s going to increase NH’s electric rates. For more information, read Thomas Sowell exposing the environmental Chicken Littles.
HB 432: Here’s another example of where a fee inappropriately exceeds the cost of providing the service. This bill essentially raises fees for establishments serving alcohol.
HB 1426: This bill raises the fees on gasoline use and importation.
HB 1469: This bill creates motor vehicle learners’ permits. In other words, it’s a new fee charged to families. Amazingly, New Hampshire teenagers have been learning how to drive without learners’ permits for decades!
HB 1644: This is a “job creation tax” for Coos county. Coos county isn’t the other part of NH struggling economically. A tax break like this should apply across the state, not just in one county.
The Ugly: Bills so bad that even the Dems wouldn’t pass them!
HB 404: The “Sanctuary State” bill that would’ve prevented NH law enforcement agents from enforcing any immigration laws.
HB 711: This bill would’ve mandated the insurance companies cover hormone treatment for transsexuals.
HB 1417: This bill would’ve banned the manufacture and sale of “low efficiency” light bulbs but the feds beat us to it. The light bulb industry actually favors this sort of legislation because it forces consumers to purchase more expensive light bulbs.
HB 1515: This bill would’ve prohibit “at will” employment in NH. This bill didn’t define “just cause” so a business owner wouldn’t know if she violated it until a judge said so. This wouldn’t have helped any employees, but it would have made it harder to do business. The only beneficiaries of this bill would have been lawyers.
HR 26: This resolution would’ve criticized Senators Sununu and Gregg for blocking the passage of a U.S. Senate bill to grant Washington D.C. a Congressman. I proposed a floor amendment which would have supported Congressional representation for D.C., but only through constitutional means (a constitutional amendment, statehood, or retrocession of residential areas into Maryland). Unfortunately, the Democrats rejected my proposal 120-132. After a few hours of wrangling, the resolution died completely. Apparently they cared more about sliming our U.S. Senators than about representation for Washington D.C.
HB 503: This bill included a new tax on bottles.
CACR 8: This constitutional amendment would’ve made the governor less accountable to the people by increasing his term to four years.
HB 1342: Another classic example of good intentions leading to bad results due to unintended consequences. The bill would’ve required the home health care industry to pay nurses the same amount for travel time as it does for taking care of patients. Since home health care providers can’t pass the costs onto Medicaid patients, they would be forced to cut services, especially in rural areas where travel costs can be prohibitive.
HB 1593-FN-A-L: An income tax. Enough said. Technically, the Democrats “tabled” this bill so that their leadership wouldn’t actually have to vote against it (thereby upsetting their liberal base) and so that their left wing could avoid voting for it (thereby upsetting everyone else in the state!).
HB 503-FN: The recycling program in this bill had some merit, but the hidden sales tax on bottle manufacturers did not.
HB 1373: Establishing an income tax.
HB 1195: Another insurance mandate.
HB 1291: This bill would have required anyone under the age of 18 to wear a helmet while skiing. Maybe we should just make everyone wear bubble wrap until they’re old enough to vote!
HB 1454: One of the dumbest bills of the year, this bill would’ve awarded NH’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who won the *national* popular vote, regardless of who won the popular vote in NH. Why would any candidate bother campaigning in NH if this bill passed? The Electoral College may have its flaws, but it forces candidates to travel to each state to campaign and learn the issues there. A pure popular vote election would be an incentive to candidates to focus on population centers while avoiding rural or suburban areas like New Hampshire.
HB 1469: This bill would’ve required “matters related to safety considerations” to be a mandatory subject of negotiations with government worker unions, but it didn’t define “safety considerations.” The only thing that was clear about this bill was that it would drive up local expenses, thereby driving up local taxes.
CACR 28: This constitutional amendment would’ve raised the pay of state legislators to the tune of about $2,000,000 a year for the state. Is it really appropriate for legislators to vote themselves a raise when there’s a budget deficit of over $90 million right now? Fortunately, the legislature didn’t think so. Unfortunately, the prime sponsor was from my district: Rep. Tony DiFruscia of Windham.
HB 1354: This bill would’ve banned firearms in the State House, essentially turning legislators into unarmed targets. Fortunately, the House had enough sense to kill this bill 279-19.
HB 1427: The House killed this fee on home heating oil, but passed a second fee on gasoline.
There hasn’t been much activity at the State House lately since all bills have recently crossed from the Senate to the House and vice-versa. Committees holding hearings on bills and the House and Senate will likely act on them beginning next week.
In the meantime, here is an article from the most recent edition of National Review:
Live Free or Shrug
What the Democrats have done to New Hampshire
ANDREW CLINE
In the 2006 election, New Hampshire voters did what they had not done since 1874, the year Republicans were routed nationally because of scandal and an immensely unpopular Reconstruction agenda: They handed Democrats control of every elected branch of state government. Now they are paying the price — literally. The orgy of taxing, spending, and regulating in which Democrats have indulged is threatening New Hampshire’s status as the New England state most hospitable to business and individual liberty.
Immediately after taking control in January 2007, the Democratic majority began working toward a massive increase in state spending. Popular Democratic governor John Lynch proposed a huge new budget, and the legislature larded it up with even more spending. That summer, the legislature passed, and Governor Lynch signed, a $10.3 billion budget — the first New Hampshire budget to cross the $10 billion mark. Its 17.5 percent increase in state-general-fund spending, the largest in two decades, was financed with more than $100 million in tax and fee increases, including a 28-cent-per-pack cigarette-tax hike, as well as higher car- and deed-registration fees, court filing fees — even turkey-hunting license fees.
The previous state budget, passed by a Republican legislature under the same Democratic governor, had grown by only 2.28 percent over its predecessor — one of the reasons Lynch had become so popular. But without a Republican legislature in opposition, he was free to let his hair down a little. And he did, on budgetary and other issues.
Even with the massive tax increase, the $475 million in new spending was not fully funded. Legislators took care of that by simply assuming that there would be healthy increases in revenue, despite economic data that predicted a slowing economy and, therefore, declining revenue. Even before the budget was passed last summer, Republicans predicted that it would be more than $100 million out of balance by the end of the biennium in 2009.
Guess what? Department heads now predict a budget shortfall of about $140 million.
The governor got legislators to cut $50 million from this year’s spending — targeting some of the same programs and policies (health and human services, land conservation) that Democrats had relentlessly attacked Republicans for trimming in 2006 and 2004. The Democrats are deferring the remaining $90 million (at least) in needed cuts until the second year of the biennium — which is to say, until after this fall’s elections.
There is good reason to suspect that, instead of cutting spending, they will raise taxes again. Governor Lynch began the year (an election year, remember) by pledging to oppose any new spending. He refused, however, to oppose tax increases or new taxes. When asked twice on a popular public-radio talk show whether he would oppose new or increased taxes, he dodged the question both times.
The tax hikes and the laughable justifications for them continue. The very first bill approved this January was a new tax on sellers of animal vaccines. It was labeled a fee and passed under the pretense that the state veterinarian needed new revenue to cover the cost of animal-vaccine licensing. But New Hampshire does not license animal vaccines; the FDA does. The state merely processes some paperwork for about 50 vaccines a year. And not a dime of the “fee” was directed to the state veterinarian’s office. The bill put all the new money into the state’s spay-and-neuter program.
Next, legislators attempted to pass a tax on bottled beverages and label it a fee as well. This “fee” would have provided no service to consumers, but instead would have funded environmental programs, including startup grants for “green” companies. It was approved 15–2 in committee, but opponents were able to stop it in the state house of representatives.
Sensible Democrats did manage to kill the worst new tax proposed since their takeover. They nixed a proposal — by a British-born Democratic legislator, no less — to mandate that all candy sold in New Hampshire bear a tax stamp. Yes, the bill would have created colonial-style stamps that merchants would have had to stick on every piece of candy, in order to prove they’d paid the tax on it.
It’s also true that, thanks to pressure from Lynch, legislators have not been as energetic in their pursuit of tax and spending hikes since January as they were in 2007. But after just one year with Democrats running the state, New Hampshire is operating with an unbalanced budget that spends nearly half a billion more than the previous one, and the state’s residents are facing the real possibility of tax increases as large as the ones passed last summer.
The new Democratic majority has also begun crusading against personal behavior it dislikes. Last year, the legislature banned smoking in bars and restaurants statewide. The state’s motto is “Live Free or Die,” but Democratic lawmakers believe they have a mandate to interfere with personal behavior they find objectionable. The tough-on-smoking theme is a recurring one. A bill is moving through the legislature to redefine cigarillos as cigarettes. They are actually small cigars, but the state taxes cigarettes at a much higher rate.
And as recently as February, New Hampshire’s house of representatives appeared to be on the verge of putting all the state’s cigar shops out of business, with a plan to place a 60 percent tax on cigars — double the 30 percent tax imposed in Massachusetts. (The bill was referred to interim study after cigar-shop owners and the New Hampshire Union Leader’s editorial page pointed out that the tax, which would have applied to all inventory and not only to cigars sold, would have cost some cigar shops tens of thousands of dollars the day it went into effect, putting many of them, if not all, out of business.)
Democratic legislators’ attempts to kill another industry were more successful: They passed a bill that will effectively kick payday lenders out of the state next year. The payday-lending industry had boomed in New Hampshire in the past few years, and not a single complaint had been lodged with the banking commission against any payday lender. Nonetheless, Concord decided it had to “protect” the citizenry, and placed a 36 percent cap on the interest rates charged on short-term loans. When that cap takes effect, a payday lender will be able to charge no more than $1.38 on a typical two-week loan of $100, instead of the $20 now charged. Some lenders have said they will continue to operate until the law goes into effect. After that, with their profits legislated away, they will leave the state.
So now, in the “Live Free or Die” state, you can no longer smoke in a bar or offer a short-term loan at market-determined interest rates. Nor can you ride a bicycle without a helmet if you are younger than 16. You can still drive a car without buckling up, and ride a motorcycle without a helmet — for now. A mandatory-seatbelt bill was passed by the New Hampshire house but defeated in the senate. And — thanks to “Bike Week” in the city of Laconia, an annual tourist draw — legislators have yet to dare mandating the use of motorcycle helmets.
Last year, Granite Staters nearly lost the ability to release helium balloons at parties or other celebrations. A bill to ban the release of more than one balloon was defeated only after it was widely ridiculed as an example of the majority’s zeal for prohibiting any behavior of which it disapproves.
Democrats would also force the Granite State to reduce its consumption of electricity. Bills making their way through the legislature this session include a ban on the sale of any light bulb that is not energy-efficient, and a mandate that landlords allow tenants to hang their laundry out to dry (no electricity needed). The governor also wants the state to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, in order to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions — even though this would significantly raise power rates at a time when high home-heating-oil prices are prompting people to use more electricity.
But those 15-year-olds who cannot ride a bicycle without guidance from the state may now have an abortion without oversight from their parents — and those parents may now be part of a same-sex couple: The Democrats passed a civil-unions law and repealed the state’s parental-notification law. And a bill proposed this year would mandate that health insurers cover hormone treatments for transsexuals.
During their last few years in power, New Hampshire Republicans became a flabby self-parody, simply spouting anti-tax slogans instead of governing as effectively as they could have. But by punishing Republicans, New Hampshire voters have punished themselves with higher taxes, a weaker business environment, and more restrictions on personal freedom. If they wanted to send a message to Republican politicians, e-mail would have been a lot cheaper.
Mr. Cline is editorial-page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader.
March 18th/19th Session
This is the third week straight in which supporters of limited government can claim a major victory (though there have been many, many more defeats). HB 686 — the “anti-Big Brother bill” — provides many consumer protections and limits how the government can use radio frequency identification (RFID) chips. For example, any company that puts an RFID chip in the products they sell must label their product to inform the consumer. The bill also:
I. Requires consumer products or identification documents with remotely readable devices to include a consumer notice to that effect.
II. Prohibits the human implantation of a remotely readable device without the individual’s informed, written consent.
III. Prohibits electronic tracking of another individual with certain limited exceptions.
IV. Amends the definition of payment card and reencoding for purposes of the crime of using a scanning device or reencoder for fraudulent purposes.
We also managed to overturn HB 1427, a bill raising fees on the use and importation of fuel oil. Unfortunately, its sister bill, HB 1426, a bill raising fees on gasoline, passed.
Also, I just want to make a distinction between what I call a “victory” and the “ugly” bills. “Ugly” bills include all terrible bills that the House kills. “Victories” include any bill which was given a recommendation by the Democrat-controlled committees that are overturned on the floor of the House.
The deadline for all bills to be acted upon before being sent to the Senate was this week, so we voted on dozens of bills. Here’s the good, the bad, and the ugly:
The Good: Bills that SHOULD have passed, but DID NOT.
HB 1360: This bill would have repealing the court civil filing fee surcharge. Under Part I, Article 14 of our Constitution, each citizen shall have the full right and access to the courts without any denial, promptly and without delay. Any surcharge is a burden, especially to the poorest among us.
HB 1359: This bill would’ve placed some limits on the power of the registers of deeds to impose fees. Currently, they have a near-unlimited ability to impose fees which has resulted in fees that far exceed the government’s cost to provide the service.
HB 1589: This bill would’ve prohibited the lethal injection of any substance as a part of the abortion process. In order to circumvent late-term abortion laws, some abortionists are using lethal injection. Liberals argue that this is “cruel and unusual” when done to convicted murderers, but apparently they found room in their hearts to allow the practice to continue on unborn children.
The Bad: Bills that SHOULD NOT have passed, but DID.
HB 1628: This bill would subsidize the private use of renewable energies. While the use of such energies should be encouraged through tax cuts, the government shouldn’t be taking from Person A and giving to Person B to subsidize their choices.
HB 1222: This bill bans text messaging while driving. While there is no “right to text while driving” this bill was fraught with problems. First, such activity is already prohibited under the broad category of distracted driving. Should the law list reading a newspaper, eating a salad, applying make up, and a dozen other activities? Moreover, in order to prove that a person was sending a text message rather than typing in a phone number, the police would have to confiscate the phone to check. This is a solution in search of a problem.
HB 1127: This is the first time I had to vote against a bill of which I was a cosponsor! The Labor Committee amended it so that the “governing body” of towns can decide whether or not to negotiate with unions with between three and ten members. The Municipal Association argued that the “legislative body” (i.e. — the voters) should make this decision. Since it will involved increased expenditures, the decision should be vested in the legislative body.
HB 1436: This bill required an evergreen clause in all government employee contracts so that the contracts will continue (including step increases) even after the contract has “expired”. In addition to being bad public policy, this bill entails a state mandate that will increase costs to the towns and cities, therefore it is unconstitutional. Part I, Article 28-A of the NH Constitution is unambiguous: no unfunded mandates!
HB 1472: This bill mandates that towns and cities provide “reasonable and realistic” opportunities for “economically viable” workforce housing, without ever defining what “reasonable and realistic” or “economically viable” means. It’s not even clear if the housing has to be “economically viable” for the developers or the inhabitants. In addition, this bill has dozens of other problems that are too long and complicated to enumerate here. For more information, listen to Rep. Kurk’s floor speech here (it was the first debate of the day, starting just after the 11:00 minute mark).
HB 1434: While it’s not clear whether Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) will have any effect on climate change, it’s very clear that it’s going to increase NH’s electric rates. For more information, read Thomas Sowell exposing the environmental Chicken Littles.
HB 432: Here’s another example of where a fee inappropriately exceeds the cost of providing the service. This bill essentially raises fees for establishments serving alcohol.
HB 1426: This bill raises the fees on gasoline use and importation.
HB 1469: This bill creates motor vehicle learners’ permits. In other words, it’s a new fee charged to families. Amazingly, New Hampshire teenagers have been learning how to drive without learners’ permits for decades!
HB 1644: This is a “job creation tax” for Coos county. Coos county isn’t the other part of NH struggling economically. A tax break like this should apply across the state, not just in one county.
The Ugly: Bills so bad that even the Dems wouldn’t pass them!
CACR 28: This constitutional amendment would’ve raised the pay of state legislators to the tune of about $2,000,000 a year for the state. Is it really appropriate for legislators to vote themselves a raise when there’s a budget deficit of over $90 million right now? Fortunately, the legislature didn’t think so. Unfortunately, the prime sponsor was from my district: Rep. Tony DiFruscia of Windham.
HB 1354: This bill would’ve banned firearms in the State House, essentially turning legislators into unarmed targets. Fortunately, the House had enough sense to kill this bill 279-19.
HB 1427: As noted above, the House killed this fee on fuel oil, but passed a second fee on gasoline.
Before I send out the usual update, many of you are already aware that I spoke in favor of HB 1623 to reduce penalties for marijuana. I know that this is a very contentious issue and that many of you will disagree with my position. In fact, the conservative House Republican Alliance was divided almost exactly in half over this issue.
Just to be clear, HB 1623 would NOT legalize marijuana. Currently, possession of marijuana is a class A misdemeanor which carries a fine of up to $2,000 and up to a year in prison. HB 1623 reduced the penalty to a violation with a fine of up to $200 for possession of less than 1/4 of an ounce. Anyone caught with marijuana of any amount in their vehicle or selling any amount would still face the higher penalty.
I based my vote on the principle that the punishment must fit the crime. In addition, government policies which do not accomplish their stated goals should be eliminated and/or replaced. As Milton Friedman argued, government programs must be judged by their effect, not their intent. The intent of the anti-marijuana laws is to reduce marijuana use, which is a legitimate government interest. Nevertheless, the current policy of threatening high school students with prison doesn’t appear to be working. Studies show that almost 90% of high school seniors say that marijuana is “easily available” and in the last 15 years, marijuana use among teens has tripled. Meanwhile, we’ve managed to reduce tobacco use through education without threatening prison.
I don’t believe that throwing teens in prison for smoking a joint serves a societal interest. It’s a stupid decision, but it shouldn’t be criminal. Opponents of the bill said that prison sentences were rare — if so, why are they on the books at all?
As I argued on the floor of the House, if our true goal is to reduce marijuana use, we need to abandon our failed policies and emphasize education over imprisonment. We’re wasting precious resources on a system that doesn’t work and we’re destroying lives in the process. The late, great William F. Buckley Jr. argued in favor of marijuana decriminalization because he recognized that the war against marijuana is doing more harm than the drug itself.
If you have any questions or concerns, you are certainly welcome to email or call me about this and I’ll discuss it with you further.
March 12th/13th Session
As we approach the deadline for all bills to cross over to the Senate, the House is scrambling to finish its business. We had a two-day House session last week and there are three days scheduled for this week. Our one major victory last week was overturning the committee report in favor of HB 1469 requiring “matters related to safety considerations” to be a mandatory subject of negotiations with government worker unions. I took to the floor to ask one of the bill’s proponents what “safety considerations” entail since the bill doesn’t define the term. Since “technology” is specifically excepted from negotiations as “managerial prerogative” I asked the representative if fire trucks or police weapons would be negotiable “safety considerations” or non-negotiable “technology” — the representative accused me of “obscuring” the issue and dodged the question. The bill failed 147-151.
With regard to all the losses, I’ll continue with the good/bad/ugly theme:
The Good: Bills that SHOULD have passed, but DID NOT.
CACR 24: This constitutional amendment would’ve prohibited a personal income tax. It failed 213-120. Opponents didn’t want to “tie the hands” of future legislatures. In other words, they want it to be easier for future legislatures to pass an income tax.
HB 1255: This bill would’ve made it illegal for a person to put their name on the ballot to run for office if they had no real intention of serving. Currently, there are several representatives who haven’t even voted on a single bill this year.
HB 1265: This bill would’ve required any business or institution that prohibits firearms on their property to provide security or be held strictly liable for failure to provide protection in the case of an attack. In the wake of all the school shootings and post office shootings, it should be clear to everyone that a “gun free” zone is really an “unarmed target” zone.
HB 1495: This bill would’ve reinstated parental notification in the case of an abortion for a minor. The Democrats repealed this law last year under the pretense that it was unconstitutional because it didn’t contain a health exception. This bill contained a health exception modeled after a Pennsylvania law that the Supreme Court upheld in the Casey v. Planned Parenthood decision. In voting this down 190-128, the Democrats demonstrated that they weren’t truthful law year when the repealed the original law. This was the first of four abortion bills the Democrats defeated last week.
HB 1498: This bill would’ve prohibited medical professionals from performing any surgery (whether it’s an abortion or pulling a tooth) on a minor without notifying the parents except in the case of an emergency or if the minor appealed for an exception from a judge.
HB 1517: This bill would’ve required parental consent for an abortion except in cases of emergency or where the minor appealed for an exception from a judge.
HB 1588: This bill would’ve required abortion providers to verify the NH residency of any minor seeking an abortion. Girls from other states which have parental notification laws (like MA) are coming to NH, making NH a magnet state for abortions for minors. There’s already been one fatality linked to a botched abortion; the girl’s mother didn’t know what was wrong with her daughter until it was too late.
The Bad: Bills that SHOULD NOT have passed, but DID.
HB 1330: This bill makes it much harder to fire bad teachers. This is a part of a nationwide problem that favors bad teachers at the expense of children’s education.
HB 1435: Food police alert! This bill removes control of school food programs from the local school boards and centralizes power in the state. The Union Leader captures the both the problems with the bill and the serious underlying philosophical flaws in their recent editorial:
The Ugly: Bills so bad that even the Dems wouldn’t pass them!
HB 1291: This bill would have required anyone under the age of 18 to wear a helmet while skiing. Maybe we should just make everyone wear bubble wrap until they’re old enough to vote!
HB 1454: One of the dumbest bills of the year, this bill would’ve awarded NH’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who won the *national* popular vote, regardless of who won the popular vote in NH. Why would any candidate bother campaigning in NH if this bill passed? The Electoral College may have its flaws, but it forces candidates to travel to each state to campaign and learn the issues there. A pure popular vote election would be an incentive to candidates to focus on population centers while avoiding rural or suburban areas like New Hampshire.