gbaldwin

She’s My Why

Posted on August 15, 2019 by gbaldwin

The other day, I was chatting with a fellow PAD Board member, as we often do, and we were talking about our reasons for why we are active in politics. You know, the skin we have in the game, and why we have dedicated so much of our lives and are so passionate in promoting Democratic values, as is our PAD mission. I got off the phone and had to really sit with myself for a moment, as I never actually thought about it in that great a detail. I mean, we all have our reasons, right? But what REALLY was my do-or-die reason? That thing that really motivates me every day, when so much of the news coming out about the current regime in Washington is so damn horrify and overwhelming.

I took some time to unpack this question, pull the thread in time, go down that rabbit hole to the single incident and the reason I felt I needed to really step up my game and get more involved. For me, it harkened back to the day my 19 year old daughter came out to her father and me, almost 4 years ago. The exact moment that it really sank in for me is forever seared in my memory, and over the next few days, I processed what that really meant for our family and for her, as a member for the LGBTQIA+ community, who has since become very public and outspoken advocate for rights.

I’m sad to say, my mind went to some very dark places. For the first time ever, I had to reconcile the fact that, in some places, heck even in our own backyard, she could be beaten up or even killed for loving who she loves, or will love. She can be denied a job, housing, entrance into the military, healthcare, and the ability to foster a child, or adopt a child, and there are places in this country where that’s all perfectly legal. The discrimination still being perpetrated in this country is so extensive, it boggles the mind.

And it seems to be getting worse, not better. THAT chills me to the bone. So this is why I fight. This is why I get up every day and think about 1 small thing I can do to advance Democratic values. This is why I say “yes” to opportunities to donate time to institutions doing this same work, sometimes to the detriment of my own family-life and financial resources. It’s not my only why, not by any stretch. But it’s the reason I could no longer sit back and lie to myself that voting in every election was “enough”. It’s not. Not even close. And in this next election, which undoubtedly will be the single most important in these modern times, we are literally fighting for our very lives and the life and future of Democracy in this country. Find your why. We need all hands on deck.

A Plea for Adequate Education Funding

Posted on July 2, 2019 by gbaldwin

by Gunnar Baldwin
Plymouth, NH

It is high time to recognize the fundamental role that education plays in the security of our country. Just as a strong military protects frontal attacks on our sovereign territory, a strong public educational system is needed to defend our back door, preventing our country from weakening economically, culturally, democratically, and morally from within. Our security should not be defined solely by tanks and aircraft carriers, but also by all other ways in which we protect our way of life and maintain our status as the land of opportunity. Our back door has been breached because we have been willing to sit back and watch other developed countries out-compete us by providing robust education to their children from all income levels. True commitment to security should mean the same willingness to protect our back side where it is most vulnerable—as to defend against hostilities that are aimed at our front door.

In our country’s frontier days, it was reasonable to expect that every child would remain in the community where they were raised and often, that they would follow in the footsteps of their fathers in tending the family farm or the local logging, blacksmith, or carriage-making enterprise. It was up to communities to prepare their offspring for the local future they would have. Today, not so much. Our children will need to become highly-qualified, effective workers in a global economy, competing with their counterparts in Germany, Sweden, and Japan. Even if they pursue blue collar careers, it is still often the case that they will not stay in their home towns. It should say something that many US companies seek to procure work visas for highly qualified workers from abroad because they cannot find enough qualified applicants from the domestic talent pool.

Today, it seems that many conservatives view the fundamental right to an adequate education with disdain, as a necessary evil, like paying to truck garbage to a landfill, that should be fulfilled with the lowest-cost option. Of course, if a family wants to pay extra to send their children to a premium school, that should be their elective right—correct? I think of past local efforts to slash our school’s budgets and of those who championed that cause. The unspoken subtitle was clear: “the school is not good enough for my children, but it is good enough for the rest of you.” We are steadily marching backwards toward a feudal past, where the wealthiest and most powerful families controlled all of the country’s resources and were the gatekeepers—deciding which demographics got the chance to advance into prosperity.

It is imperative that we finally address the lack of political will to recognize what an adequate education (a common denominator for all citizens) consists of and be ready to fund that amount—whatever it is—through a fair tax system. Although conservatives plead poverty, our state government is only poor if it chooses to be, by obstinately ignoring the vital role education plays in a modern prosperous society. Failure to acknowledge New Hampshire’s responsibility to fund education is part of a broader set of factors on the national level that are slowly ratcheting our society back to a time of feudal lords and peasants. We must decide if our country’s future is just for the most affluent among us or should include everyone.

If our efforts to solve the education funding challenge are successful, we must also confront the fact that simply throwing more money at education will only confirm the most dire predictions of our conservative counterparts. Knowing how to apply improved school funding, if and when we get it, cannot be a Phase II issue that is addressed at a later date. We will not get a second chance to fix education if it is not implemented effectively from the outset. There are many ways to poorly manage an education system and far fewer ways to do it effectively.

Many of the problems that have plagued education systems around the country have resulted from the mindless application of funds to education systems, a myopic focus on aptitude test results, or dog-headed efforts by powerful people (like our country’s Secretary of Education) to do things in very specific, unproven ways that simply do not work for the vast majority of the students we need to educate. Effective teachers should receive a premium—enough to attract talented graduates who would otherwise shun teaching to pursue careers that pay a living wage. Many unpopular changes are needed that will affect the status quo and result in winners and losers. We need to ready to defend the right choices.

Taking Steps Towards Positive Impact

Posted on April 22, 2019April 23, 2019 by gbaldwin

by Steve Whitman
Plymouth, NH

Each April we turn our attention to sustainable practices as the spring weather arrives, our yards and community turn green, and Earth Day approaches. These events serve as a reminder of the beauty and fragile condition of the Earth. Reflecting on how to live lighter on the planet and reduce our ecological footprint during this time is admirable and worthwhile. For many of us, it continues throughout the year, and hopefully throughout our lives. However, the emphasis tends to be on how to reduce the negative aspects of our lives, striving to do less bad rather than working to increase the positive aspects of our environmental footprint.

I think we need to do both, and it can start with one small action that excites you and motivates you to change your behavior. After all, most of what we are talking about under the topic of sustainability is awareness and behavior change. There are many reasons to take action, for some it is an effort to reduce carbon emissions that gets them to walk or bike to work. For others, it is moving away from plastic that gets them to reconsider their current use of shopping bags or new opportunities for bulk purchasing. The beauty of taking these actions is that there is no playbook or required sequence, and all of these actions reduce our demand on the earth’s natural systems. Plus, there are rewards! Saving money, enjoying time outdoors, connecting with other people, and other benefits can be realized as we work to reduce our negative impacts on the planet.

The same can be true of efforts to make positive impacts on the planet. Converting a portion of your lawn to a habitat and food producing system, starting a sustainability initiative in your community, or assisting with outreach and education on important topics all leave a positive environmental footprint that we all benefit from.

As we take on these personal challenges it is important to start with small and simple solutions. In doing so many of us have found that this is an empowering and transformative process that encourages us to consider bigger and bolder changes over time. As an example, on our property, we started by constructing a four foot by eight foot raised bed for growing vegetables. Then we added a compost bin. Years later these steps were transformed to extensive garden areas and a greenhouse that provides year-round food production, habitat, pollination, carbon sequestration, air, and water filtering, and many other important ecosystem services. The end result for this small project is tremendous positive impact as we regenerate natural systems on our small residential lot while also reducing some of the negative aspects of our ecological footprint.

Looking to the future I know I still have more changes to adopt in my life, and I hope to do so alongside all of you as we support and inspire each other. As we do let’s be sure to enjoy the journey and avoid becoming martyrs to the cause. If we do others will take notice and want to join in on this adventure of sustainable living!

“Steve Whitman is the Founder and Principal of Resilience Planning & Design, a community planning and ecological design firm located in Plymouth, NH. Steve is also a certified permaculture designer and teacher, a part-time faculty member at Plymouth State University, and an alternate on the Town of Plymouth Planning Board.”

Looking Ahead – What’s Really at Stake in 2020

Posted on January 15, 2019January 15, 2019 by gbaldwin

by Gunnar Baldwin
Plymouth, NH

Now that the 2020 elections are on the horizon, one question is paramount: How can we keep the 2016 from happening again? It should be crystal clear that we are in for a difficult fight because of the powerful interests and almost limitless funding arrayed against us. These influential players will try to paint the election as a choice between a bright economic future with more jobs versus socialism and economic decline.

This election, however, will not be about boosting job growth through tax breaks for the very rich or about the free market versus socialism. After all, the scale of the subsidies and tax breaks for big oil and agribusiness giants looks downright socialist in comparison with welfare assistance for the poor. With respect to the economy, what is really at stake boils down to a number of fundamental issues:

Whether we have the right message and resolve to stop the greatest feeding frenzy in history, as corporations and wealthy individuals race to maximize the benefits of deregulation while the window of opportunity lasts. These powerful players know that in the long run, the reasons we have regulations (e.g., safe foods, truth in advertising, or the disclosure of predatory consumer lending provisions) and the reality of climate change will become painfully obvious to a critical mass of voters.
Whether the wealthiest individuals and corporations will get to carve up and consume the world’s remaining natural resources (our children’s and grandchildren’s heritage), realizing enormous short-term profits for a few at the expense of long-term prosperity for many. The urgent rush to convert public assets (such as protected public lands) to private wealth looks much like the asset grabs that occurred in Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union, but cloaked in a thin veneer of legitimacy.

One hypothetical question may force Republicans to reveal their bottom line: If the technology existed today to extract, harvest, or catch all of the world’s remaining oil, coal, ore, timber, and fish in a single year—to benefit a single generation—would that be an acceptable goal? If the answer is yes, then their darkest intentions have been exposed. If the answer is no, what measures would they suggest for avoiding that outcome and how are those measures different from the very constraints they are hell-bent on trying to repeal?

Whether we want to transition our economy toward sustainable, next-generation industries and services that support the livelihoods of many for years to come or whether Trump’s interventions will force continued reliance on dirty fuels and technologies at the expense of sustainable ones, in order to ensure the continued profits of incumbent industries (hardly the free market at work).

Finally, if we really want to have a chance at changing the views of right-leaning independent voters, we must first address the assumptions that underlie their political views—or give them a few to adopt. If we cannot agree on why we have a government or why we pay taxes, it will be difficult to win them over with respect to specific policy choices.

As I have stated previously, one argument for government and taxes is the following:

As American citizens, most of us are all born into a collective debt that we owe to those less fortunate because the benefits of living in the great country we enjoy are directly tied to—and arose in a million little ways—from the hardship and exploitation of others.

America’s strong economy and favorable business environment, which allows a hard-working entrepreneur to realize profits and create new jobs, got its head start and an early competitive edge through slavery and the enormous profits that free labor allowed. Slavery may have been abolished in the strictest sense at the end of the Civil War, but other legal ways of exploiting people with lesser bargaining power ensued in our industrial age. The vast disparities in economic advantage that these factors produced endure today in our current society.

Just as a restaurant must pay a generalized royalty in order to play songs from a vast pool of music whose rights are owned by many artists and recording studios—who cannot be individually compensated directly by that restaurant for practical reasons—we must pay a tax to help correct our share of the costs that our standard of living has inflicted on others. Our individual share of this debt is no less real because we cannot quantify it.

Similarly, we are all part of a shared risk pool. We do not know in advance which fellow citizens will be diagnosed with cancer or have their homes destroyed by a hurricane, so we pay taxes to cover our pro-rata share of government services designed to minimize the impacts of these risks and compensate those affected by these catastrophes.

Anyone who lives paycheck to paycheck, has been bankrupted by medical bills despite having insurance, or must continue to pay a mortgage for a home that was washed away may rightly ask how they are benefitting from the American dream and past suffering by others. My answer to this question is that most people who have been locked out of the America’s prosperity nevertheless aspire to it, and in so doing yearn to benefit from a standard of living that was made possible because of the unfair advantages used against those less fortunate over the course of our history.

The arguments above do not mean that our country is bad, only that we know we can do better in pursuing our country’s ideals. But how do we even begin to convey an important message that is long-winded because of its complexity? Is there a way to distill this message into a few sound bites? This is a task that must be addressed and debated in order to reach those voters who are most receptive to rational argument (there are a few).

Finally, we should heed the warnings by Democratic candidates that did not succeed in the recent elections. Making sweeping promises like “healthcare for all” does not play well with voters who are weary of hearing politicians promising changes that can never be delivered. Stating that a policy will “reduce your medical costs” may do better. We must learn from every past mistake if we want to succeed this time around.

Like Many Americans, I was Emotionally Devastated

Posted on August 10, 2018 by gbaldwin

by Gunnar Baldwin
Plymouth, NH

Like most Americans, I was emotionally devastated at the spectacle of thousands of innocent, crying and screaming children being separated from their parents as they crossed our border and were distributed to kennel-like holding pens—by our own government. I could only conjure up images of family separations at the hands of the NAZIs or slave auctions earlier in our own history. My grief quickly turned to rage as I grasped the complicity of fellow citizens who blindly follow the current occupant of the Oval Office and are willing to look the other way, making cheap excuses, spouting cherry-picked scriptures, or sticking their heads in sand. I cannot believe that so many Americans have utterly caved into this administration’s agenda. It seemed like Kristallnacht was not far behind.

Fortunately, my gut feeling is that the child separation atrocity was a low ebb—a bridge too far for even many Trump supporters. I hope I am right. If so, there is likely a segment of citizens who voted for Trump in the last election and are amenable to a rational dialogue about the direction our country should take, but only if we can present the right message. It is hard to have a discussion about complex issues of inequity and the ethical role of government when we are allowed only a sound bite.

One of the most profound challenges for Democrats is making inroads against the ideologies of those who advocate for a small government. If asked, many Republicans will explain that they are not against compassion, but will explain that helping those in need is a role for churches, NGOs, and the Rotary Club—but not the government. Here is why that is wrong: Throughout the history of our country, our government has played a central role in facilitating the current state of affairs—from laying the structural foundation for poverty and vastly wealth disparities to the tilted playing field that secures unfair advantages for deep-pocketed industries and the very rich. In a myriad of ways, our government has been the instrumentality of inequity, from sanctioning slavery, to supporting predatory health care prices, to implementing policies that provide unfair advantages to a privileged few—picking winners and losers in the process. Government had a central role in creating these problems and now must play a central role in fixing them.

Connecting the dots between past injustices and current affairs is inherently a multi-step process that defies sound bites and may seem diffused and attenuated. However, it is no less real. Many of us benefit from the standard of living we enjoy in America today, but we cannot opt out of our past (or our cancer risk pool). Just as we cannot opt out of the debt we owe our forebears in uniform who have defended our country from our enemies, we cannot opt out of the built-in debt we collectively owe to those who are today’s victims of yesterday’s slavery, corporate robber-barons, or ethnic discrimination.

In many ways, those who wish to come to America today from south of our border are no different than those who immigrated from Europe in past centuries to pursue a better life and escape crises, both political and economic. Yet there is an important difference: America has played an enormous role in creating the very conditions (e.g., poverty, gangs) that make so many people try to flee here from Central America and other areas in Latin America. During much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the US has interfered repeatedly in the governments and economies of the countries in our backyard to secure economic advantage and support dictators friendly to US corporations. They are not simply unlucky or poorly educated. We poisoned their well water and now we refuse to share ours.

Ignorance on the part of much of the population is not intentional, but it presents a hurdle for political persuasion. For example, US schools have done a poor job in providing a thorough and balanced view of our history. (The same can be said of schools in Russia, China, Myanmar, and Turkey). It will often be necessary that we share a little additional background to frame our conversation with voters, whether the topic is education, voting rights, healthcare, or immigration. Clearly, this is a challenge. Many of the voters that are cheering efforts to disenfranchise minority voters, turn immigrants into scapegoats, and disseminate absurd conspiracy theories are very comfortable in their bubbles. We need to be creative in developing messages that can burst through a few of them.

New Hampshire: ‘Young people, keep out’

Posted on April 20, 2018April 20, 2018 by gbaldwin

by Jeannie Hruska

New Hampshire is waging a war on young people. This is quite peculiar given that any lawmaker will tell you that our state desperately needs young people. In fact, the governor established a Millennial Advisory Council last year specifically aimed at figuring out how New Hampshire can better attract and retain young people.

Here’s an idea, stop trying to charge college students for their right to vote.

During its meeting this week in Concord, the Millennial Advisory Council should take a look at how the NH House Election Law Committee is once again considering putting up a “Young People Keep Out” sign on our border through HB 1264, which aims to deter college students from voting.

HB 1264 is effectively the same bill as the highly scrutinized HB 372. They both would result in the same poll tax for any voter in New Hampshire who has an out-of-state drivers’ license, which disproportionately includes college students. These bills would require such voters, within 60 days of voting, to pay the motor vehicle fees to obtain a New Hampshire driver’s license and car registration.

It is absolutely legal to vote with an out-of-state driver’s license or car registration in New Hampshire. People do it all the time, in every state, and have been for years. It is not a sign of voter fraud. It is a sign of the times, where people move for school, for work, for family, or any host of reasons. And yet, some legislators want to specifically require college students who do not have a New Hampshire driver’s license to pay motor vehicle fees as a condition of voting.

In a hearing this week on HB1264, one Representative claimed that allowing college students to vote disenfranchises “the local community,” implying students are not part of that community. I bet business owners in every college town would beg to differ, noting their reliance on students as employees and customers. More- over, I would inquire how making college students pay DMV fees somehow makes them more genuine community members.

College students live here and are integral to our communities. They spend money in our stores. They drive on our roads and have a vested interest in our infrastructure. They seek medical care at our hospitals and are a stakeholder in our health care system. They explore our mountains and care for our environment. So why is it that they shouldn’t vote here? Why don’t they have a vested interest in their college communities?

HB 372 was proposed last session and is currently pending in the House of Representatives. We commend Governor Sununu for bucking many in his own party by opposing HB 372. We implore him to stay true to his word and veto HB 372. As HB 372 is effectively the same as HB 1264, we assume that the Governor’s coura- geous position is the same on this new bill as well.

It would be a thinly-veiled rouse were the Legislature to kill HB 372 in response to the Governor’s resistance, only to pass HB 1264. If our elected officials swap one for the other, we deserve the scrutiny that will inevitably follow. And we will earn our declining demographics.

Our state unquestionably needs more young people. We need them to fill jobs, to fix our colleges’ declining enrollment, and to care for our aging population. But, why should young people come here and invest in our communities if we make clear that we think of them as lesser citizens? They may keep our businesses running, our college doors open, but how dare they vote here.

Oh wait, they can vote, if they jump through hoops that make voting look more like a pay-to-play obstacle course. Obstacles that no state in our surrounding area imposes. Voting costs a college student nothing in Vermont or Maine.

But vote in New Hampshire, and it will cost you over $100 in DMV fees.

New Hampshire is increasingly the des- tination for retirees, including people who spend the winters elsewhere. And yet, there is no discussion about how allowing such people to vote disenfranchises the people who stick it out here 365 days a year. Nope, it’s only college students who may go home during part of the summer that are a problem.

Those pesky young people.

There is no lack of irony in the Governor’s Millennial Advisory Council meeting the same week that the House Election Law Committee considers yet another bill that would make the Granite State that much less attractive to young people.

If this is the New Hampshire way, let us be honest about it. At every border sign that says “Welcome to New Hampshire,” let us add a sign that says, “Young people, Keep Out.”

Jeanne Hruska is policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire.

Straight Talk

Posted on March 23, 2018 by gbaldwin

By Rep. Marjorie Porter, D-Hillsborough

http://indepthnh.org/2018/03/05/look-to-lawmakers-as-income-inequality-in-nh-keeps-growing/

For me, one of the unexpected perks of serving as a state rep is being called to substitute for a colleague on a different committee. I get to see how other committees are run, and what issues they must deal with in the bills that come before them. If I’m lucky, I will get to hear testimony from experts on a topic new to me. I can listen to the arguments pro and con before committee votes are taken. I learn a lot that way, and get a better understanding of the complexities of governing. It’s like getting a free college education, which helps to make up for the ridiculously low salary.

Recently, I got to substitute on the Ways and Means Committee, a first time for me. In fact, I got to be there twice within just a few weeks, and it was indeed edifying.

Ways and Means deals with the state’s revenues and how we raise them—or reduce them as the case may be. Revenue estimates, taxes and fees, tax credits and tax reductions—but because so many of my colleagues have signed the Americans for Prosperity (AFP) anti-tax pledge, never EVER a tax increase. (Greg Moore, New Hampshire’s AFP director, spends a lot of time at the state house, and keeps a close eye on everyone.)

The committee chair was very welcoming, and so were the other committee members. They even tolerated my asking questions so I could better understand what I was hearing and voting on.

On the first day, the committee dealt with several bills that would increase, or decrease, the tax credits given under different circumstances. I was struck by how cautious folks from both parties were being about the potential unintended consequences that might result from decreasing revenues too much too soon.

That’s why I was so surprised about the outcome of HB 1686, relative to applications for and the use of education tax credits.

Some background is needed here. In 2012 the legislature established a tax credit for businesses that contribute money to a scholarship fund, administered by an independent scholarship-granting organization, and used to pay the tuition of children who attend private, religious, or home schools. Businesses receive a tax credit for 85% of what they donate. There is a $5 million cap on the total amount of annual contributions.

It seems businesses are not eager to take advantage of this tax credit, so contributions have been low. So far, less than $800,000 has gone into the fund, with 85% of the scholarships granted being used at religious schools.

I don’t think this was the result the law’s sponsors had hoped for. In January 2017, NHPR reported the legislature was looking for ways to expand the program. HB 1686 seems to be that way.

The bill allows individuals who pay the interest and dividends (I&D) tax to also contribute to the scholarship fund and receive the 85% tax credit. This is the first time ever a tax credit would be given for the I&D tax. It potentially opens the door to a very large increase in the fund—and a very large decrease in the state’s revenues. But surprisingly, there was strong support from the otherwise cautious Republican committee members.

Puzzled, I asked why, when we had turned down other tax credit bills because of the potential revenue loss, this one should be supported. The answer was quick to come. The cap had not been raised—it remained at $5 million—so there would be no impact on revenues. Others also had concerns, and raised questions that were unanswered. It was clear, at least to me, that more information was needed, but a vote was taken anyway.

By a 13-10 margin the committee recommended the bill ought to pass.

Over the course of the next several weeks, some of those lingering questions did get answers. The $5 million cap was not the figure used when the budget was crafted last year. Instead, they used an estimate of the actual contributions made. A sudden increase in donations would definitely be felt as a loss of revenue.

Surprisingly, cap itself is flexible, not fixed. If contributions to the fund reach 80% of the cap, the cap goes up. It can, and will, be raised if contributions come flooding in.

And flood in they just might. According to a report written by Carl Davis at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy in Washington, and reported in the Concord Monitor, these types of education tax credit programs are very popular tax shelters for high-income taxpayers. That’s because they can actually make money by combining the education tax credit with the federal deduction for charitable giving. A good accountant is sure to recommend the program to her wealthy clients—in fact, she wouldn’t be performing her duty if she didn’t. This tax credit will definitely be used.

Indeed, the Monitor reports, Georgia’s “…$58 million in ETC tax credits was snapped up within hours in 2016.”

After this information came to light, the committee met again. A reconsideration of the vote was asked for. Given what we now know, and given the potential for a quite large decrease in revenue over the next several years if this bill were to pass, shouldn’t we reconsider? It was disappointing that the answer was no.

The bill comes before the full House for a vote this week.

The Interest and Dividend tax brings close to $100 million a year into the state coffers. If fully utilized, this tax credit could reduce that by close to 40% over the next ten years.

But I guess it won’t much matter, if the Senate has its way. They are recommending doing away with the Interest and Dividends tax altogether.

This, after we cut business taxes twice in the past few years. Big, out-of-state businesses benefit most from these cuts too.

We hear a lot in NH about how we can’t afford things because we must live within our means. We can’t afford to fully fund the developmental disabilities waitlist because we must live within our means. We can’t afford school building aid because we must live within our means. We can’t afford to spend more money to combat the opioid crisis, pay the state’s share of Medicaid expansion, contribute to public employee retirement, boost workforce development, fund the university system, raise the amount of the education adequacy grant, fix our crumbling infrastructure, and help reduce property taxes, because we must live within our means.

We must live within our means, but we keep cutting those means to the help the biggest businesses and the wealthiest citizens. No wonder NH’s income inequality is the fastest growing in the country.

Marjorie Porter is serving her fourth term in the NH House, representing the citizens of Antrim, Hillsborough, and Windsor. She currently sits on the election Law Committee. She has two grown children of whom she is extremely proud. A retired teacher, Marjorie lives in Hillsborough with her husband and three cats.

Supply-Side Economics: Fool Me Once, Shame on You; Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me; Fool me Three Times? You Have Got to be Kidding.

Posted on December 8, 2017December 8, 2017 by gbaldwin

by Mark Fernald

Since the Reagan Administration, the Republican Party has been enraptured by what the first President Bush called “Voodoo economics:” the ‘theory’ that tax cuts pay for themselves by boosting economic growth and tax receipts.

Republicans have acted on this misguided theory over and over, with the same results: record-high deficits, soaring debt, and reduced economic growth in the long run.

The Reagan tax cuts caused huge deficits. In the short term, the economy grew, as the borrowed money sloshed around the economy. It was ‘morning in America.’ Or, as Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it, we borrowed a trillion dollars from the Chinese and threw a party.

When the party was over, we endured the severe recession of 1989-1991. Nearly every major bank in New Hampshire failed. The re-election campaign of the first President Bush failed along with the economy.

Our next Republican president, George W. Bush, copied the Reagan playbook: huge tax cuts for the rich, a temporary rise in the economy, followed by the Great Recession.

Recent Democratic administrations provide the counterpoint to “voodoo” supply-side economics.

In 1993, President Clinton signed a tax increase on the rich. Republicans claimed a tax increase would throw us into recession. Not a single Republican in Congress voted for the Clinton plan. What followed was the longest and strongest economic boom in American history, and the first balanced budget in a generation.

During the Obama administration, many of the George W. Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire, particularly the tax cuts for the wealthy. Under Obama, we experienced nearly eight years of steady growth, during which time the unemployment rate and the deficit were cut by more than half.

The last 37 years of economic history present us with two stark choices:

Republican tax cuts, huge deficits and a temporary boost to the economy, followed by a bust.

Democratic tax increases on the wealthy, followed by steady growth, falling deficits, and no bust.

Incredibly, Republicans appear to be poised to repeat the failed policies of the past. Their dream is a tax cut bill that gives its biggest gifts to large corporations and the wealthy, while increasing the deficit by “only” $1.5 trillion over the next ten years.

The point in reviewing economic history is not that all deficits are bad. Temporary tax cuts, and temporary deficits, are standard macroeconomic practice when the economy is weak. When tax cuts are permanent, so are the deficits, but the boost to the economy is temporary. Increased government borrowing to fund the deficits pushes interest rates up, making business investment more expensive. Short-term deficits can boost the economy out of recession, but long-term deficits harm the economy in the long run by crowding out private investment.

It is true that tax cuts could be paired with spending cuts. But consider this: excluding spending for Social Security and Medicare (which is increasing as the Baby Boomers retire), federal spending is a smaller part of our economy than at any other time over the last four decades.

Republican faith in tax cuts and ‘supply-side’ economics is so strong, it has killed off the traditional Republican fear of deficits.

In the 1960s and 1970s, Democrats claimed that deficits did not matter, passing one unbalanced budget after another. The stagflation of the 1970s followed.

Republicans won the debate about deficits in the 1970s. Deficits do matter. But here’s the irony. Democrats started talking about fiscal responsibility. When they gained control in Washington, they acted to reduce the deficit. Republicans kept railing against deficits, but when they gained control of Washington, in 1981 and again in 2001, fiscal responsibility went out the window and the deficit soared.

The current Republican plan began with a good idea: a revenue-neutral simplification of the tax code that reduces deductions and loopholes, and lowers tax rates. That good idea has been swamped by the mania for tax cuts, with no regard for the deficit. If the Republican plan passes, we will cut taxes for the big corporations and the wealthy by at least $1.5 trillion, and we will borrow every penny needed to pay for those cuts.

We have a lot that needs fixing, including the tax code. Unfortunately, we are stuck with this Congress until 2018. They don’t do balanced budgets. They don’t do hearings. They don’t listen to experts. They don’t do science. They do tax cuts for the wealthy, no matter what the cost.

Mark Fernald is a former State Senator and was the 2002 Democratic nominee for Governor. He can be reached at mark@markfernald.com.

What Would the Northern Pass Mean for Main Street? Rep. Steve Rand, Owner of Rand Hardware, Explains.

Posted on July 14, 2017July 14, 2017 by gbaldwin

To: Counsel for the Public and Consultant Tom Kavet

I am very concerned about the impact of the Northern Pass project, should it be buried, as planned, down Main Street Plymouth. I am the third generation owner of Rand’s Hardware, a 110-year-old business right on Main Street in the heart of the Town. We employ 18 people in our business and are the only hardware store in Plymouth. Our business includes Blue Seal feeds, a full service rental department, the area’s only plumbing supply wholesale or retail outlet, service for our Stihl lawn and garden equipment and more usual hardware store items, all housed in three buildings, a total of about 20,000 square feet.

Main Street is the main artery of access to our business both for vehicles and for pedestrians. Anything that affects Main Street has an immediate impact on our business. We have worked hard to survive all the competitive forces that have been thrown our way over the years, including, in recent years, Wal-Mart, big box home improvement stores, internet providers like Amazon and smaller regional competitors, like Aubuchon and Tractor Supply. So far, we have survived to continue our tradition of service to our strong customer base. Our ability to serve these customers depends upon their ability to access our business. We are strictly a bricks and mortar operation.

If a huge project to bury high voltage power lines were to impose itself on our Main Street, we could lose half of our business during the worst of it. I understand that the project could tie up Main Street for at least 6 weeks, possibly 11 weeks. For calculation purposes, if it turns out to be 8 weeks, and we lost 1/2 of our business during this busiest time of our commercial year (April to July), we could expect to lose on the order of $100,000 in gross profit. As I understand it, there is no compensation offered to us as part of the package.

I am sure of these magnitude of consequences because of a similar experience that our business had in the Nineties, when the Town of Plymouth tore up the sidewalks and pavement on Main Street to install new curbing, paving, sidewalks and street lighting. The project took place over several months and involved extensive excavation, rebuilding of all sorts of infrastructure both above and below ground, resulting in a huge impact on customer flow. My guess is that its financial impact was less than what Northern Pass will be, because the project was done in stages and did not affect every business for the full duration. Although Rand’s survived, many of our neighbor-businesses did not. Main Street ended up with several vacancies and the business “tide” was lowered for all. Despite the negative impact, the town center did end up as a more pleasant, better looking place that has shown itself to be more conducive to customer visits in the many years since. Unfortunately, I expect no such “end of the day” positives from the Eversource plan.

I ask, then, why a for-profit company, Eversource, with a foreign partner, Hydro Quebec, who is simply using NH as a conduit to transmit electricity to MA, CT and RI, with no payment to the State of NH, and none announced for the Town of Plymouth, with no invitation from me, should cost me $100,000 in lost gross profit, without any consultation or compensation?

In addition, I ask what my customers, who rely on day to day access to our store for products, like horse and poultry feeds, nuts and bolts, rental equipment that they use to conduct their businesses, and plumbing supplies to repair problems, will need to do to accommodate the profit motive of this big-business multi-national organization? How will they be compensated for their inconvenience? How far will they have to travel to find a replacement source? Once they have found a new source, will they ever return to my store as their continuing provider?

I am sure that the cost to my business will not occur only during the project period. Rand’s has spent over 100 years earning the shopping habits of its customers. For that habit to be interrupted over 2-4 months means that they may form new habits that could exclude Rand’s as their main or preferred vendor. Additional hundreds of thousands of lost sales dollars could occur over the years.

This is pure madness, and I reject the idea that any justice would be served by this arrangement. For me, this is more than a financial risk. It is a threat to my lifestyle and the preferred lifestyles of the people of Plymouth and surrounding towns. We should be allowed to enjoy dealing with our challenges and small victories without having to deal with somebody else’s need to make a profit.

As I read the research it is clear to me that there is no impending emergency or civilization-threatening need for the project as it is now proposed. The alternative site, the buried line down I-93, as provided by the newly-designated energy corridor of the State of NH, is the only plan that enjoys the support of the Town of Plymouth, as voted by us. To bring the line down Main Street and Route 3 might be a temporary advantage to Eversource, but a huge pain to the public and a life-threatening menace to businesses like mine.

Thank you for all your efforts on our behalf to see that the real costs of this project are known and incorporated into the decision process of the SEC. I am available at any time for testimony or further information. As you can see, I am willing to open my financials in order to see that the understanding of impacts is substantiated.

Yours Sincerely,

Steve Rand
NH State Representative, Grafton Dist 8

A. M. Rand Company (Rand’s Hardware)
71 Main Street, Plymouth NH 03264