My posts have been missing here - they shifted to the pages of the local papers for a few weeks as one of our State Reps showed his true colors as he tried to refute, deflect and generally obfuscate the issues I raised about the House budget.  You can see most of the letters on the blog page of my site www.itsalllocal.weebly.com.  The funny (or not so funny) thing is that with the move of the budget to the Senate, the conversation is back at my previous post here about nonsensical cuts (see below).  The House opted not to cut business taxes, but the Senate is sticking to the plan to cut revenues in the face of cuts to HHS, public education and a repeal of expanded Medicaid which is providing insurance to nearly 40,000 NH residents.  The NH Hospital Association further underscored the progress made (in increased health care coverage), reporting that the NHHPP (NH Health Protection Program - expanded Medicaid) is “driving a reduction in inpatient admissions, emergency visits and outpatient hospital services among the uninsured.”


The purpose of the sunset (expiration at the end of 2016) of the expanded Medicaid bill passed in 2014 was to 'be sure' the program worked before continuing.  So, fewer uninsured residents, less uncompensated care to inflate the costs to insurance rate payers - and we are cancelling it?  Exactly what were they looking for in terms of success?  Mental Health care, especially via community health centers, has struggled to manage - in fact, NH was sued because of the abysmal status (due to inadequate funding).  Mental Health coverage is included in Expanded Medicaid and the decrease in uncompensated mental health care has provided needed stability to this vital resource.  The NH Business Review published a letter from 10 Community Mental Health Centers testifying to the positive effects of Expanded Medicaid (here).


Congress expanded Medicaid for full-time low-wage workers to help both businesses and their low-wage employees.

Employers in low-wage industries find it difficult to pay the cost of insurance, and the insurance those employers can afford often comes with a very high deductible, which does not cover the employee’s family. Medicaid has no deductible and covers the entire family; it is a far better alternative.
(see this entire letter in NH Business Review HERE)

So, to summarize, the Senate proposes to cut business taxes for fewer than 10% of NH businesses.  75% of businesses do not pay the Profits Tax, 42% do not pay the Enterprise Tax.  Of the business that do pay these taxes, the proposed reduction will not amount to more than a few hundred dollars for more the vast majority of them.  Yet, cumulatively, the General Fund will lose $14 million in FY2017 and $93 million per biennium when fully phased in.

The same budget hawks who say we need to live within our means turn around and cut millions from our future 'means'.  That is not responsible budgeting when education and infrastructure is cut, it is not moral budgeting when cuts go deep into Health and Human Services, and it does not reflect my 'core principles'.

Senators Birdsell (R-Windham, Hampstead and Derry) and Morse (Salem, Pelham, Atkinson & Plaistow) both voted for this bill, despite Senator Morse voting against a similar bill in 2004 that would have repealed the requirement for a license for concealed carry.

SB116 would not only repeal the requirement for a concealed carry license, whether on foot or in a vehicle. It would also lengthen the duration of a gun license from four years to five years.  So, basically, we would be repealing the requirement of any license to carry, but keeping the process in place for those who use their NH license to gain reciprocity (and ease of carry) in other states which recognize NH's license (23 states as of Feb 2014).

The NH concealed carry license is essentially a "shall issue" versus a "may issue" state - the instances in which the designated authority can deny a concealed carry license are very limited.  RSA 159:6 says the license is to be granted to "a suitable person" but the police have the burden to provide "clear and convincing" evidence to the contrary.  The decision is not at the discretion of the local authority, but only based on what can be documented and proven.

NH's law has been in place for over 90 years.  Currently you only need a license to carry a loaded pistol or revolver in a vehicle or to carry a loaded handgun concealed on your person. You may not have a loaded rifle or shotgun in a vehicle per the Fish and Game law RSA 207:7.

Repealing this requirement would not only remove these very limited precautions, but will reduce funds to both towns and the state.  NH residents pay a fee of $10 which goes to the issuing body (ie: local police department).  The Fiscal Note attached to SB116 says it is not possible to know how many permits are issued annually, so the impact is unknown.  Of larger impact are the 9,800 licenses to out of state residents that are issued annually.  The Fiscal Note predicts that at least 9,000 of these would likely not be needed, a loss of $900,000 annually - as well as the 800 licenses that are anticipated to continue to be applied for that would be in effect for an additional year so the $100 renewal fee will be delayed a year in terms of collections.

This bill is considered a 'Constitutional Carry" bill.  The Second Amendment is below for your reference.  The right of the people is not restricted in New Hampshire by our current law, it is licensed - providing a minimal check and balance on those who wish to carry concealed handguns or to carry loaded handguns in vehicles.  Open carry is unrestricted.  Unloaded handguns in vehicles are unrestricted.  Guns do not need to be registered.  Guns are very accessible for purchase in New Hampshire, especially between private parties. I have no doubt that a militia, well-regulated or otherwise, could be raised quite readily in our fair state.

SB116 is not needed in NH, would further diminish our limited general funds, and is not supported by the NH Association of the Chiefs of Police.