Legislature must override governor's veto 

To the editor: 

Gov. Chris Sununu has vetoed the proposed state budget. On Sept.18, the House has scheduled a session to override his vetoes.

The budget passed by the House and Senate included $40 million dollars in unrestricted money allocated to cities and towns. It also included over $130 million more in education funding with increased funding to help property poor districts.

The primary goal in creating this budget was to reduce property taxes for New Hampshire homeowners and increase educational funding.

The governor’s position supports large corporations by maintaining the lowered business tax reductions while increasing the tax burden on the individual property owner.

It is estimated that the proposed budget would provide Derry with approximately $970,000 in municipal aid and $6.9 million in school funding over the next two years. 

Some of the other services funded by the budget include: additional staffing at the state Department of Health and Human Services, additional mental health services, programs to promote New Hampshire jobs and small businesses and law enforcement programs to keep New Hampshire safe.

This budget increases funding to our schools, so every child can obtain an education that will allow them to pursue their educational goals, regardless of their zip code. This is not an “extreme bill.” It addresses the needs of our state and our citizens.

There would need to be bi-partisan support in order to override the governor’s veto.

State Rep. Mary Eisner



The governor's budget is a compromise

To the editor:

Two decades ago, my wife, Dr. Mary Pearson, and I founded a family practice medical and counseling center in Kingston. As I talk with patients and clients in our waiting room, I continually hear stories of people in genuine need, many of whom I’ve come to know and love.

I’ve lived in conservative states and in progressive states. I’ve scrutinized bare-bones budgets, reflective of a political philosophy that states should only focus on public safety and those matters that no individual or group can do, such as maintaining highways. In contrast, I’ve examined budgets reflecting the belief that government should be the first, not last, resort to take care of all citizen needs, with an ever-growing cadre of state employees to render all kinds of services.

Now, I am hearing the call for the governor to compromise with the Democrat-dominated Legislature to forge a compromise between conservative and progressive views.

In my opinion, the budget the governor submitted is already a compromise: funding additional support for various groups of people in need while avoiding structural deficits and the turning of our backs on small businesses that employ our citizens. It is not a budget that ignores people in need. It is not a budget one sees in hard right-wing states.

I spend a fair bit of time with the developmentally disabled and was thrilled to see a $116.8 million increase in the governor’s budget so the wait list can disappear.

I visit parishioners in the emergency room and observe people stacked up because of an inadequacy of mental health beds. I rejoiced when I learned that the governor’s budget called for $40 million to invest in a new 60-bed forensic facility as well as 40 new transitional beds around the state.

I am called into difficult family situations regarding youngsters, so I see the need for more staffing to help. The 62 new DCYF positions the governor proposed in his budget is a much needed addition.

I talk with the victims of sexual violence and am grateful the governor’s budget calls for a 31% increase in funding for various state domestic and sexual violence organizations.

Overall, the governor’s budget proposal is able to provide the highest ever funding the Health and Human Services Department ever seen in a state budget, at over $5.6 billion, which is $649 million over that of our previous budget.

It does this without meddling in tax policies that could hurt our economy, and it does so using sound budgeting practices. We can’t say that for the Democrats’ budget.

Their budget contains a 12.5% increase for the Business Enterprise Tax alone. It contains a structural deficit — spending more money than it brings in. It also is built on what many believe are over-promised revenue estimates, making the potential deficit even bigger. But that’s not all.

As a member of the House of Representatives, I constantly hear that one may not add non-germane amendments to a bill, but rather that particular issues should be addressed on their own.

What troubles me about the budget proposed by the Democrat-led Legislature is they have added many non-germane issues to the budget negotiations. These should be separate bills, not bargaining chips, or politically-driven sound bites.

All my life I’ve worked for consensus and a balanced compromise wherever possible. What I resist is people demanding balanced compromises be further compromised with the extreme positions they are pushing.

Do we need a compromise on the budget? I think we already have one in what the governor has proposed.

State Rep. Mark Pearson



This Week's Circulars

Recommended for you