The Granny D Commission, which resulted after more than 35 hours of open committee meetings which I chaired since last year, will be composed of seven high-level men and women who will consider how to create and fund a system for New Hampshire similar to those Clean Election laws elsewhere.  It's not easy, but it would meant that candidates who don't want to go to lobbyists or other big contributors and beg for money will be able to be competitive in their races.  IF we do find that solution, our democracy will be all the better for it.  

A large bipartisan group of House and Senate members have supported the concept, including some previous candidates for major office, including John Rauh, Walter Peterson, Jim Rubins, and Paul McEachern.

The dilemma for candidates to get large amounts of money in order run for office hit home during the past several weeks.  In both the House and Senate we've been debating legislation that would reduce lobbyist disclosure reporting and allow more money from corporations and unions.   Some politicians do indeed want to open the floodgates even more -- to let the money rush in.

But just this past week, I worked with Secretary of State Bill Gardner and Portsmouth Representative Paul McEachern to defeat House Bill 91 -- which would have allowed lobbyists a 10 day or two week "grace period" before even having to register, and allow some lobbyists 75 hours of free lobbying before they even had to register -- essentially, lobbyist registration by the "honor system."  That was killed on Wednesday.   Some lobbyists wanted that bill so they could contribute to campaigns without actually being called a "lobbyist." 

And on Thursday, part of another bill -- Senate Bill 482 -- which would have repealed most of the state's code of ethics law and allow lobbyists to be placed as voting members onto state boards, committees, and commissions was taken out.  After nearly a two hour debate, the vote was 163 to 100, with the majority representing a bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans supporting an amendment I offered to "repeal the repeal" of the state's code of ethics.  In past years, lobbyists could get certain "rewards" through their contributions by being appointed to positions of influence, but the current code of ethics was put in place in 2006 to stop that "tradition."  On this issue, the majority of the House once again stood for honesty and openness in our state government.

.

A major issue will be debated this Wednesday at the New Hampshire State House.  A proposed amendment to the State Constitution, "CACR 34," will be up for vote in the House.  The Senate has already voted for a variation of the Amendment, and is expected to agree with whatever the House approves. 

WHAT the Amendment really does, or doesn't, and whether it really means much, or not, is the bigger debate.  If the Legislature approves CACR 34, it goes to the voters in November, where 2/3rds approval -- two out of every three voters -- is needed for it to become part of our Constitution.  IF approved, THEN WHAT?

All good questions.

Here is the Amendment, exactly as it will be voted on this Wednesday:

“Are you in favor of amending the second part of the constitution by inserting after article 83 a new article to read as follows:

      [Art.] 83-a [Public Education.]  The legislature shall provide every child the opportunity for a public school education in fulfillment of the legislature’s duty with respect to public education provided for in Part II, Article 83.  The legislature shall have the responsibility to define the content of an adequate education to prepare the student to become a productive and contributing citizen and to determine the total statewide cost of providing that education to all public school students.  The legislature shall have the authority and responsibility to raise the funds that total the statewide cost of this education and to distribute these funds in a manner that alleviates local disparities in educational opportunity and fiscal capacity, provided that every school district shall receive a meaningful share of these funds.” 

That's it.  That is exactly what will be printed on our November ballots. 

What does this Amendment do?  (1), It requires the Legislature to "define the content" of an "adequate education;"  (2), It requires the Legislature to "determine" the cost for providing that adequate level of education;  (3), It gives the Legislature the "authority" and "responsibility" to raise funds for that adequate education; (4), It allows the State to distribute funds to "alleviate local disparities" based on local ability to pay (allowing targeting of State funding aid); and (5), It requires that every school district must get a "meaningful share" of funding. 

What "new" questions does this Amendment raise?  Since there are a number of new qualifying words that will be added to the Constitution, several brand new questions can be raised, opening up the possibility of yet another round of confusing and complicated lawsuits and court declarations:

1.  What is "adequate" education?

2.  Just what does it mean to give the Legislature the "responsibility" to raise funds? 

3.  In order to "alleviate local disparities," does that allow or even require the State to again create a statewide property tax, and perhaps "donor communities?"

4.  In "defining the content" of an "adequate education," are local school boards relinquishing authority over curriculum?

5.  What amount for each school district constitutes a "meaningful share?"

6.  Who determines a community's "fiscal capacity?"

7.  And exactly what does it mean to "...prepare the student to become a productive and contributing citizen...?"  And who decides what "productive" and "contributing" means, and how much THAT costs, and which curriculum creates that productivity and contribution?

If this Constitutional Amendment were put onto the State Constitution, I don't think it makes a bit of difference.  We can already "target" aid, that's not the question.  We don't need to have any "donor communities" now with the Constitution as it currently reads -- the Legislature has just gone that route in the past because it's been convenient at times to approve a statewide property tax with donor communities.

Approval of  this Constitutional Amendment doesn't mean the State won't provide more money for education, nor does not having this Amendment mean the State will provide less -- that's still a Legislative decision, and will be ongoing citizen and Legislative debate well into the future.

If this Constitutional Amendment is approved, that doesn't mean we'll never have an income tax or other tax reform.  And if this Constitutional Amendment is defeated, that doesn't mean we will have an income tax or other tax reform.  One is not dependent on the other.

I will vote for CACR 34 in the Legislature this Wednesday.  I think it is useful for the cause of better education of our kids to have this dialogue among the voters in the Fall. 

Perhaps it's doubtful CACR 34 will pass in the House this Wednesday.   But if it does, with the language offered in this Amendment and the additional questions it raises -- I've only touched the surface here -- I cannot imagine that 2/3rds of our citizens will vote in favor.  I believe we should pass this question onto the voters, and then I will join the many citizens who will oppose its final approval in November. 

We need to have the discussion on this Amendment in November so that if it is defeated by the voters, and I believe it will be, the next Legislature beginning in January will be able to find solutions and answers that don't include the continued debate about whether to amend or not.  That will have been answered by the voters. 

So in this case, I will vote FOR it before I vote AGAINST it.  I'll vote this Wednesday to put this Constitutional Amendment to the voters for their decision, and then I'll vote against it in November when I cast my own ballot. 

Why?

Why?  Because our next generation of young people deserves better and more, and it is our obligation to provide it.  We have to make sure they are prepared to compete with students from all the other states in this country and all the other nations of this planet during the balance of the 21st Century and beyond.

Our kids will have a global economy to compete in, plus problems to solve ranging from environmental concerns, global warming, terrorism, controlling nuclear weapons, creating new and cleaner energy sources, the next round of medical emergencies, viruses we can only imagine in our nightmares, opportunities and possibilities of which we can only dream, and being creative in finding world peace. 

THOSE challenges cannot be met with our next generations only having an "adequate" education.  They need excellence, and it's up to us to provide them with it. 

What are your thoughts?

Seeing him standing next to that great defender of American working men and women, ATR boss Grover Norquist, made for a beautiful picture.  A proud John Stephen trying to get a leg up, or whatever, over former Congressperson Jeb Bradley by showing he's even more conservative.  Brave man this Stephen guy is, willing to sign this "pledge" not to raise any taxes, ever.  Seeing how honest Republicans have been in recent years, one does have to wonder about the value of a signature anyway.

At his grand signing event, John Stephen was quoted as saying, "The tax cuts of the past decade are absolutely critical to the long-term success of our economy and our growth."  Read that to say that if we let the wealthy keep more of their money, they'll make more low-paying jobs for some of us so they can make even more money, as if the incentive isn't there for them to do that already.  (For those of us who remember, President Ronald Reagan put a term to it -- the "trickle-down theory," where us peeons got wet having the economy drip down on us.  Any questions?)

John Stephen is a funny guy.  

"Economy" and "growth?"  Tell that to many Americans -- the 99 percent of us who don't happen to be in the top one percent of the "wealthy millionaire class," many of whom never worked a day at one of the Walmarts or McDonalds or gas stations they own or hold stock in.

With people really hurting, and a winter coming in a few months when people won't be able to pay their heating bill, and kids not getting the education they need to compete in a 21st Century world with kids from other nations, and the need for investing in alternative energy to get off the reliance on Bush's oil friends, it's interesting to see Republicans like John Stephen stumbling over one another to show how "conservative" they are so that government will spend less so that the rich can get richer and keep all their money, and the poor will get poorer.

Corporate America underpays those who work for them, and the CEOs of those corporations get their multi-million dollar golden parachutes, and the Republicans are their servants.  A lot of Republicans seem to want to hold a yard sale for our government and have it just go out of business.  They want to stay in Iraq, they want to attack Iran, they want a 12 foot wall from the Gulf to the Pacific, and they want to have government peering into our library books, listening to our telephone calls, and checking into our bedroom activities.  But they just don't want to pay for it.  

Isn't it neat the way "politics" works among the Republicans?  One hand washes the other.  Fortunately for New Hampshire right now, Carol Shea-Porter, who has an eye out of "the rest of us" 99%, and Paul Hodes, who stands up for people who need help, will be re-elected this November because we need them more than ever.

Yes, John Stephen is a funny guy.  But governing is serious business, and people's families and lives and futures are at stake.  Carol Shea-Porter knows that, and will be re-elected over a John Stephen or Jeb Bradley or whomever because New Hampshire voters aren't going to be laughing this November.  

John F. Kennedy's challenge is an ideal we should all be willing to accept to make our nation, and its people, as great as we can be.  

Democrats in New Hampshire are losing a fighter.  State Senator Peter Burling's retirement at the end of this year, hopefully only temporary, takes off our bench someone with character and the ability to take on Republicans on issue after issue. 

Peter is always quick to "engage" and "go into action" for those causes in which he believes, and that's been one reason I've respected him through all these years.  I appreciate those who can put on a good fight, then win or lose go onto the next issue and perhaps, perhaps, on that next one you're on the same side. 

Republican's shouldn't rejoice too much, and probably aren't.  It's good to have people in each political party who can fight hard, and win or lose go onto the next issue.  Legislative debate is at its best when people get passionate over the issues, make clear their positions, and do it all with class.  Peter Burling has been that kind of leader.  Republicans have had some too, and not to compare him in the same league with Peter, I think Senator Bob Clegg is one of those who is also up front in whatever position he takes, and after the debate and the vote goes onto the next issue.  Senator Ted Gatsas is another.   I'd say the Democrats have more, like Senators Molly Kelly, Lou D'Allesandro, Maggie Hassan, Jackie Cilley, Martha Fuller Clark, Sylvia Larsen, Joe Foster, and I could go on.  "We" as Democrats have some depth on our bench.