• Advertisement

In Case You Don’t Remember: The Republicans Have a “Jobs Plan”

GOP Jobs Plan

Haven’t read this morning’s New York Times? Here’s what you’re missing:

WASHINGTON — Anticipating a takeover of Congress, Republicans have assembled an economic agenda that reflects their small-government, antiregulation philosophy… The proposals would mainly benefit energy industries, reduce taxes and regulations for businesses generally, and continue the attack on the Affordable Care Act. It is a mix that leaves many economists, including several conservatives, underwhelmed.

What’s on the list?


View Fraccidents Map in a larger map

What’s not on the list?

  • Fixing our roads and bridges (even though more than 177,000 bridges around the country are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete)
  • Overhauling immigration laws (maybe Fox News and the Tea Party think xenophobia is good for the country)

Look again, at that last omission from the Republicans’ “Jobs Plan.”

A bipartisan Senate-passed bill on immigration would increase economic growth by 3.3 percent in a decade and save $175 billion by then, the Congressional Budget Office estimated.

Look again, at what could have been… if only the GOP hadn’t been so determined to stop anything and everything President Obama proposed.

When Mr. Obama sent Congress his jobs package three years ago, several forecasting firms estimated that it could add up to 150,000 jobs a month in the first year.

(Read about the Senate GOP filibuster here.)

Then, remember that the GOP’s opposition started on the first day of Obama’s first term.

WASHINGTON — As President Barack Obama was celebrating his inauguration at various balls, top Republican lawmakers and strategists were conjuring up ways to submarine his presidency at a private dinner in Washington.

And then, think about what this “GOP Jobs Plan” is really all about.

GOP Jobs Plan

Local Economy PAC Announces “All About Andy” Campaign to Introduce Voters to the Real Andy Sanborn

Screen shot 2014-10-22 at 6.47.53 AM

Screen shot 2014-10-22 at 6.47.53 AM

Campaign will educate Senate District 9 voters about Sanborn’s extreme voting record, money ties, and business dealings 

Peterborough, NH – A new campaign dubbed “All About Andy” will use mail, paid advertising, direct voter contact, and online activities to introduce voters across Senate District 9 to the real Andy Sanborn in the run-up to the November 4 election. The campaign and a related microsite, www.allaboutandy.org, were announced this morning by Strong Local Economies NH, a state political committee formed by New Hampshire residents to advance a proactive local economy agenda for New Hampshire.

“Andy Sanborn wants District 9 voters to believe he’s a bipartisan compromiser. But based on his voting record, he’s the most extreme member of the New Hampshire Senate – and votes don’t lie,” said Molly Cowan, chair of Strong Local Economies NH. “When we scored and graded every senator on local economy votes in our Local Economy Report Card, Sanborn earned an F grade and a score of just 27% – far below every other senator, Republican or Democrat.”

The Local Economy Report Card, released in September, found Sanborn voted against helping unemployed people start small businesses, against expanding access to affordable health coverage for 50,000 uninsured New Hampshire residents, and against multiple bills aimed at combating the corruption of the political process by big money that stacks the deck in favor of out-of-state big business interests at the expense of local, home-grown small businesses, among other things. The full report card is available online at: http://bit.ly/NHLocalEconomyReportCard

“Republicans and Democrats across District 9 are joining in opposition to Sanborn not only because of his failing grades on local economy issues, but also because of serious questions about his values and his judgment raised by his financial ties and business dealings,” Cowan said. “The ‘All About Andy’ campaign will highlight these questions and bring a reality check to Sanborn’s claims about bipartisanship. Because in reality, the only thing that’s bipartisan about Andy Sanborn is his opposition.”

Follow the “All About Andy” campaign sponsored by Strong Local Economies NH here:

Website: www.allaboutandy.org

Twitter: www.twitter.com/LocalEconomyNH

Facebook: www.facebook.com/StrongLocalEconomiesNH

AFL-CIO Worker’s Voice PAC To Air Ads In Seven Key States

AFL-CIO_Headquarters_by_Matthew_Bisanz2

With high stakes elections coming down to the wire across the country, the labor movement is going up on radio and TV in support of working family candidates.  The ads will build on the effective grassroots campaign that labor has been running for several months including door knocking, worksite leaflets and phone banking.

Workers’ Voice has just launched full 60 second radio ads designed to educate working families about the stakes on November 4th and promote the candidates who will work for their economic interests:

  • Senator Mark Begich (Alaska)
  • Senator Mark Udall (Colorado)
  • Congressman Bruce Braley (running for Senate in Iowa)
  • Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes (running for Senate in Kentucky)
  • Congressman Mike Michaud (running for Governor in Maine)
  • Mary Burke (running for Governor in Wisconsin)

Each ad will run through Election Day in multiple markets across each state.

In addition, a 30 second television ad in Michigan launches today and will air through Election Day.

Each of these ads focus on economic issues and aim to clarify for voters which candidate will fight for a secure and growing middle class.

The Iowa radio ad is an example: By including Senate candidate Jodi Ernst’s own words in support of Social Security privatization, the ad steps above the din on an issue (retirement security) of deep-seated concern to working people in Iowa.

To listen to any of the radio ads, click below:

Alaska US Senate, Radio

Colorado US Senate, Radio

Iowa, US Senate Radio

Kentucky US Senate, Radio

Maine Governor Radio

Wisconsin Governor, Radio

And the Michigan Governor TV ad can be found here

Nashua Chamber Of Commerce Explains To Walt Havenstein How Governor Hassan Is Truly Bipartisan

Screen shot 2014-10-22 at 4.42.36 PM

Failed CEO Walt Havenstein’s Baseless Attacks Against Governor Hassan’s Bipartisan Accomplishments Fall Flat at Nashua Chamber Forum

Manchester, NH – Earlier today, failed CEO Walt Havenstein’s baseless attacks against Governor Hassan’s bipartisan accomplishments and leadership were swiftly refuted at the Nashua Chamber of Commerce forum. Havenstein stumbled when faced with the reality of Governor Hassan’s bipartisan accomplishments.

“This morning’s painful exchange reinforces how desperate failed CEO Walt Havenstein has become with his false attacks on Governor Hassan’s bipartisan leadership,” said New Hampshire Democratic Party Deputy Communications Director Bryan Lesswing. “The Governor’s record of bipartisan accomplishments speaks for itself: she passed the most bipartisan budget in over a decade with no sales or income tax, worked with both parties and the business community to pass a bipartisan transportation bill to fix New Hampshire’s roads and bridges, including finishing the completion of I-93, and reached a bipartisan compromise to expand health care to 50,000 hard-working Granite Staters.”

“Havenstein, on the other hand, is a failed CEO who drove defense contractor SAIC into a ditch. Now, Havenstein is pushing a Koch Brothers ‘plan’ that would do to New Hamsphire what he did to SAIC. No matter how many false and misleading attacks Havenstein launches, he won’t be able to hide his disastrous record as CEO of SAIC and his Koch Brothers agenda that would hurt New Hampshire’s families, businesses and economy,” added Lesswing.

See below for a transcription of the exchange:

Moderator: But I’m going to push on that a little bit more. She had Medicaid Expansion…

Havenstein: Medicaid Expansion…

Moderator: … which was bipartisan in it’s passage from the… it was absolutely bipartisan when it came out.

Havenstein: You have… everything has to be bipartisan if it gets signed. Right? At some point. But be very careful…

Moderator: But what you’re saying is that toxic partisanship means that she doesn’t work at all with Republicans. That’s how I define ‘toxic partisanship’. It’s that she will not work with Republicans. She passed Medicaid Expansion. She got the gas tax increase, which was actually led by a Republican State Senator.  When you look at these state Supreme Court decisions against the hospital, or in favor of the hospitals…

Havenstein: You mean the MET?

Moderator: Yep, on the MET. She was able to bring all but one hospital in the state together, and many of the CEOs of those hospitals are ardent Republicans themselves. I think there are some good examples where she can credibly say, ‘I have been bipartisan in my leadership’.”

Havenstein: Okay…

Moderator: Alright [laughs].

Havenstein: We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Hassan Campaign Statement on Failed CEO Walt Havenstein’s Dishonest and Misleading Ad

Maggie Hassan

MANCHESTER–Hassan Campaign Manager Marc Goldberg issued the following statement regarding failed CEO Walt Havenstein’s dishonest and misleading ad:

“This dishonest and misleading ad is the height of desperation from failed CEO Walt Havenstein. Given Havenstein’s record of bad management and his Koch Brothers agenda, it’s clear that Granite Staters can’t afford to give him a single term to take New Hampshire backward.”

“Governor Maggie Hassan has worked across party lines to make the tough decisions to responsibly balance the budget without a sales or income tax, and she would veto one if it reached her desk – period. In stark contrast to the gridlock in Washington, D.C., Governor Hassan has proven that she knows how to bring people together to get real results for New Hampshire’s people, businesses, and economy.”

“Under Havenstein’s watch, SAIC shed thousands of jobs, overcharged taxpayers for a project meant to train first responders, and on another taxpayer-funded project, SAIC went $500 million over budget due to massive fraud. And he still has no answers for the $90 million hole he’d blow in the budget to give tax breaks to big, out-of-state corporations at the expense of New Hampshire’s middle class families and small businesses.”

“Granite Staters continue to support Governor Hassan because she fights for the priorities of New Hampshire’s small businesses and middle class families, while Havenstein puts his own interests and Koch Brothers agenda first, no matter who gets hurt.”

BACKGROUND

Governor Hassan’s Bipartisan Budget Passed “Nearly Unanimously,” Contained “No Tax or Fee Hikes”

“A nearly unanimous Legislature yesterday approved a bipartisan, $10.7 billion state budget for the next two years that contains no tax or fee hikes” [Concord Monitor, June 26, 2013]

Havenstein’s False Attack Ignores that Agencies Are Required By Law to Submit a Budget that “Incorporates New Costs Such As Additional Personnel or New Legislatively Mandated Programs”

“The agencies traditionally submit “wish lists” to the governor by Oct. 1, and then the governor trims the requests before presenting his or her budget proposal in February. [...] By law, state agencies have to submit both a maintenance budget that includes the cost of existing services going forward and a budget that incorporates new costs such as additional personnel or new legislatively mandated programs or technology.” [Union Leader, October 14, 2014]

Governor Hassan Told Agencies Their Budget Requests Are Non-Starters, Already Instructed Agencies to Submit Lower Proposals

“Hassan noted the budget uncertainty in her letter to the department heads and directed them to submit proposals to improve efficiency and effectiveness and reexamine whether contracted services are cost-effective. [...] Hassan told agency heads not to include ‘automatic inflation factors’ in their budget proposals and to decide first if the spending is necessary and second how to reduce costs through efficiencies and innovation. She wants department heads to submit proposals for each division that would reduce costs through greater efficiencies and innovation by Dec. 1. Hassan also will require agencies to submit proposals that limit fiscal year 2016 spending to 2015 levels with a 3-percent increase in fiscal year 2017.” [Union Leader, August 7, 2014]

Granite State Rumblings: Medicaid Expansion Helps Former Foster Kids Receive Healthcare Till Age 26

obamacare Approved

As a former foster parent I was thrilled that when the Affordable Care Act was signed into law in March 2010 it contained a provision to expand Medicaid coverage to former foster children up to age 26. Here’s what the law states:

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) Section 2004:
Medicaid Coverage for Former Foster Care Children

Beginning in 2014, states must provide Medicaid coverage for individuals under age 26 who were in foster care at age 18 and receiving Medicaid. Consistent with this rule, youth are eligible for Medicaid if they:

  • Are under age 26;
  • Are not eligible for and enrolled in mandatory Medicaid coverage; and
  • Were in foster care under the state’s or tribe’s responsibility and also enrolled in Medicaid under the state’s Medicaid state plan or 1115 demonstration (or at state option were in foster care and Medicaid in any state rather than “the” state where the individual is now residing and applying for Medicaid) at age 18 or older if the state’s federal foster care assistance under title IV-E continued beyond that age.

First Focus released a new SPARC brief last week Former Foster Youth: An Update on the State Option and State Efforts to Ensure Coverage for All Young People Irrespective of Where They Aged Out of Care. This policy brief provides an overview of the new mandatory Medicaid coverage for former foster youth under the ACA, highlighting relevant Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) regulatory activity to date and additional concerns regarding the “state option,” summarizes state progress in taking up this option to provide coverage for former foster youth, irrespective of where they aged out of care, and makes recommendations for what more should be done to ensure access to coverage for every young person aging out of care.

Here are a few excerpts from that brief.

Why Health Coverage Matters

The expansion of Medicaid to cover youth previously in foster care to age 26 is a significant victory for this population because it provides access to critical health coverage for an especially vulnerable group of young adults. Children who have been abused or neglected often experience a range of physical and mental health needs, physical disabilities and developmental delays, far greater than other high-risk populations. For example, foster children are more likely than other children who receive health coverage through Medicaid to experience emotional and psychological disorders and have more chronic medical problems. Research suggests that nearly 60 percent of children in foster care experience a chronic medical condition, and one-quarter suffer from three or more chronic health conditions. Roughly 35 percent have significant oral health problems. In addition, nearly 70 percent of children in foster care exhibit moderate to severe mental health problems, and 40 to 60 percent are diagnosed with at least one psychiatric disorder.

Not surprisingly, youth aging out of foster care continue to experience poor health outcomes into adulthood, including high rates of drug and alcohol use, unplanned pregnancies and poor mental health outcomes. More than half of former foster youth report being uninsured, and more than one-fifth report unmet needs for medical care. Findings from the Midwest Study highlight that one-third of youth aging out reported two or more emergency room visits in past year, 22 percent were hospitalized at least once, 43 percent were uninsured, fewer than half had dental insurance, three-quarters of young women had been pregnant, and 19 percent received mental or behavioral health care in the past year.

Given that former foster youth have well-documented and often significant health care needs, these young people should be eligible for Medicaid coverage in any state, and once enrolled, should be able to retain their coverage irrespective of changes in residency.

Regulatory Guidance to Date on the ACA Provision for Former Foster Youth

In early 2013, CMS issued a number of documents to clarify how states should implement the new provision. On January 22, 2013, CMS issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register, which clarified CMS’s interpretation that a youth is only eligible for Medicaid coverage in the same state in which he or she was in foster care at age 18 and enrolled in Medicaid. While CMS gave states the option to cover youth under this group who were in foster care and Medicaid in any state at the relevant point in time, it did not require that they do so.

On July 15, 2013 CMS published the final rule, clarifying several outstanding issues, including that the new eligibility category of former foster youth are eligible for full Medicaid benefits including Early, Periodic, Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) up to age 21. On December 31, 2013, CMS issued a FAQ that clarified that it would approve state plan amendments8 to cover youth who were in foster care and receiving Medicaid when they turned 18 or aged out of foster care in another state – meaning that states could receive federal reimbursement for out-of-state foster youth if they choose to enroll them in Medicaid.

More recently, on August 24, 2014, CMS posted a State Highlights feature on Medicaid.gov focusing on the provision to enable former foster youth to keep their Medicaid coverage, and highlighting efforts in Idaho and Georgia to reach out to and enroll young people who have aged out of care.  It is noteworthy that CMS chose to highlight this provision and demonstrates that it is tracking implementation progress in states.

To date, only 12 states have taken up the option to extend coverage to youth who aged out in another state:

  • California
  • Georgia
  • Kentucky
  • Louisiana
  • Massachusetts
  • Michigan
  • Montana
  • New York
  • Pennsylvania
  • South Dakota
  • Wisconsin
  • Virginia (pending state plan amendment)

Unfortunately, with a majority of states opting to not cover youth aging out in other states, many young people will be left without essential medical coverage.

The expansion of Medicaid to cover youth previously in foster care to age 26 is a significant victory for this population. One of the most popular parts of health reform is coverage for kids up to age 26 on their parents’ insurance plan. This new mandatory coverage for former foster youth has the potential to provide equal treatment in cases where the state steps in to care for children removed from the home as a result of abuse or neglect. It is critical that we remove any barriers to coverage for young people aging out of care, and that includes removing the eligibility restriction tied to residency.

While we hope that both Congress and CMS will consider taking steps to resolve this concern, it is also critical that state advocates, policymakers and other stakeholders continue to work to push states to take up the option to cover all former foster youth residing in their state.

GROWING UP GRANITE

Last week the Census Bureau released the Supplemental Poverty Measure for 2013.  The SPM extends the official poverty measure by taking account of many of the government programs designed to assist low-income families and individuals that are not included in the current official poverty measure.

Our friends at the NH Fiscal Policy Institute delve into the Census Bureau release in their new Common Cents blogpost and find that the New Hampshire poverty rate increases with the Supplemental Measure:

Ask any scientist or researcher and they’ll tell you: measurement matters. While one might commonly think of a biologist or an astronomer calibrating instruments to arrive at more accurate observations, that truth extends to the social sciences as well, where better, more robust measures can yield new insights into economic conditions.

For instance, a more comprehensive measure of poverty – known as the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) – demonstrates that New Hampshire’s poverty rate is much higher than typically thought. New SPM data released last week by the US Census Bureau indicate that New Hampshire’s poverty rate for the 2011-2013 period was 10.5 percent, 2.2 percentage points higher than the rate under the traditional, official poverty measure for that time frame. It also suggests that approximately 138,000 Granite Staters lived in poverty during that period, an increase of roughly 29,000 people or nearly 27 percent over the number living in poverty under the traditional measure.

Economists and other experts have long understood that that official measure of poverty suffers from significant shortcomings. It both fails to account properly for all of the costs people face and neglects the fact that certain parts of the country can be far pricier than others. The SPM attempts to address these fundamental flaws and to assess more precisely the resources available within families to meet basic needs, counting not just income, but the cash value of benefits like nutrition assistance or housing subsidies.

These adjustments have a distinct impact in New Hampshire, which was one of just 13 states where the poverty rate was higher under the SPM than under the official measure. In contrast, some 26 states enjoyed lower poverty rates under the SPM, while, in the remaining 11, there was no statistically meaningful difference between the two measures. The reasons for the differences among the states are uncertain, given the data available from the Census Bureau, but the agency’s analysis of national level data reveal that out-of-pocket medical expenditures as well as work expenses can drive up poverty rates under the SPM. It may also be telling that many of the 13 states with heightened rates are concentrated in the Northeast, which tends to have a higher overall cost of living.

The latest Supplemental Poverty Measure data, when combined with traditionally measured poverty rates that are still higher than pre-recession levels in New Hampshire, suggests that much remains to be done to ensure greater economic security for all Granite Staters.

Daniel Weeks Speaks At Rivier University About Poverty And Democracy (10-21-14)

Screen shot 2014-10-21 at 6.48.34 AM

Screen shot 2014-10-21 at 6.48.34 AMNH Reformer Addresses Rivier University About Poverty And Democracy After Visiting 30 States By Greyhound Bus On $16/Day

Daniel Weeks’ Atlantic and UNH publications based on poverty-line research across USA

NASHUA, NH – To understand poverty and its complex relationship to American democracy, New Hampshire political reformer Daniel Weeks traveled some 10,000 miles through 30 states by Greyhound bus interviewing citizens in poverty and maintaining a poverty-line budget of $16 per day. On Tuesday, Oct. 21 at 4pm, Weeks will present his findings at Rivier University’s Benoit Educational Center in a public lecture (details here).

Weeks completed his research as a fellow of the Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University and with support from the Carsey School of Public Policy at UNH. His research was published as a 2014 series for The Atlantic, in Business NH Magazine, and featured on NHPR’s “The Exchange” and other programs.

The “Poor (in) Democracy” project explores the complex relationship between institutional poverty and political power, including how economic inequalities enter the political sphere and undermine political equality; how political arrangements deepen and entrench poverty; and what it means in real life to be poor and (seek to) participate in democratic life. The work concludes with a menu of cross-partisan governmental reforms aimed at combatting poverty by strengthening American democracy.

In an effort to deepen his experience of American poverty, Weeks maintained a poverty-line budget, eating a restricted diet and spending nights in public parks and homeless shelters, on buses or bus stations, and in home-stays over his six weeks on the road. From benches on Capitol Hill to the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans, from the desert colonias of New Mexico to Skid Row in L.A., Weeks’ profiles and careful analysis help put a human face on poverty and political inequality in the age of Obama.

Since completing his travels, Weeks now serves as Executive Director of Open Democracy, a nonpartisan nonprofit working to reduce the influence of private money in politics and expand political voice and participation for under-represented people in New Hampshire.

For more information, please visit: www.PoorInDemocracy.org.

Frank Guinta Says He Wants To Make Cuts To Social Security, Repeal ACA And Block Student Loan Refinancing Legislation

Guinta 2010 (Image Jason Meserve)

Former Congressman Frank Guinta affirmed that he still plans to cut seniors’ benefits in an interview with the Concord Monitor last week, saying that “Republicans are going to want” to adopt a benefit-cutting measure, Chained CPI, in the next Congress.

“New Hampshire seniors beware: Frank Guinta has a plan to cut your earned benefits,” said Shea-Porter spokeswoman Marjorie Connolly. “Instead of ending tax breaks for Big Oil and huge corporations, Guinta would balance the budget on the backs of our seniors. His extreme Tea Party platform would not only punish seniors, but also the hardworking Granite Staters who pay into this system with the expectation that their earned benefits will be there when they need them.”

Disturbing facts about Guinta’s benefit-cutting proposal to adopt Chained CPI:

  • Guinta’s proposal would hit beneficiaries harder as they age.
  •  Since women live longer than men and the cuts accelerate over time, women would be hit especially hard.
  •  Under Guinta’s proposal, a senior who retires at 65 would lose almost $14,000 by age 85, and $28,000 by age 95.
  •  By the time retirees reach 85, their benefits would be cut by an average of $1,147 per year.
  • A 92-year-old would lose an entire month’s income from his or her annual benefits.
  •  Guinta’s proposal would cut almost 14 weeks’ worth of food from a 75-year-old’s budget, and almost 24 weeks of food from an 85-year-old’s budget.
  •  Even Guinta’s hyper-conservative pal Grover Norquist opposes the proposal, saying that it’s “a very large tax hike over time.”

Unlike Guinta, Carol Shea-Porter opposes the benefit-cutting chained CPI proposal, and successfully fought to eliminate it from President Obama’s budget proposal.

But wait there is more!

In the interview with the Concord Monitor Guinta stated  “he’d oppose any measure to eliminate student loan debt and saddle taxpayers with that cost instead.”  The current proposal by Senator Warren and co-sponsored by Sen. Shaheen would allow students to refinance their federal student loans.  This does not shift the burden to the taxpayers, it stops the government from collecting over $60 billion in profits off the backs of our college students.

Guinta is still denying climate change science that has the support of 97% of the scientific community. “I’m not sure the science is accurate or complete on this issue.”  As a politician who has received major funding from the Big Oil and the Koch Brothers he would know better than 97% of the scientific community.

Guinta also wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act. “Guinta said he would vote to repeal it, but he does support the provisions that protect people with pre-existing conditions and that allow people to stay on their parents’ health plans until age 26.” Of course he wants to keep the part that has unmatched support by both sides.  Even though Frank Guinta wants to repeal part of the law, and keep part of the law, the Republicans in the House have not submitted any legislation to do that. They continue to waste our taxpayer dollars voting for a repeal that will never get passed the Senate or the President who signed the bill.

The ACA is working. It is saving the government money, including the $600 million in savings from Medicare alone.  The NH Department of Insurance just announced that over 20,000 people have signed up for healthcare who did not previously have any coverage.  So again the ACA is not perfect but it is working. We need to make it better not destroy it completely.  If Congressman Guinta wants to repeal it so bad, he should be the one to tell the 20,000+ people who got healthcare for the first time, that he is taking that away from them to ensure that millionaires and billionaires continue to pay less in taxes than average Americans.

Manchester Police Patrolman’s Association Endorse Maggie Hassan

DSC_0229

DSC_0236Manchester Police Patrolman’s Association Endorses Governor Maggie Hassan for Her Record of Supporting Public Safety in the Queen City

Fourth Public Safety Organization to Endorse Governor Hassan for Re-Election

Manchester—Praising her strong leadership and record of fighting for the priorities that help keep New Hampshire’s largest city safe, the Manchester Police Patrolman’s Association endorsed Maggie Hassan for re-election.

“Governor Hassan’s strong leadership and proven record of protecting our communities make her the clear choice on public safety in this election,” said MPPA President Ken Chamberlain. “We are proud to endorse Governor Hassan for re-election and know that she will always work to bring DSC_0229together members of both parties to get things done to strengthen public safety and ensure that our law enforcement officials have the support we need to protect the people of Manchester.”

“It’s a tremendous honor to have earned the support of the Manchester Police Patrolman’s Association again this year as we work to keep Manchester safe and solve problems the New Hampshire Way,” said Governor Hassan. “Maintaining the safety of our communities and citizens is the most important job of state government, and through our bipartisan budget, we’ve made critical investments in protecting our communities, without a sales or income tax. We maintained drug task force teams, funded the cold case unit, restored the CHINS program, and through our bipartisan health care expansion plan, thousands of people will have access to substance and alcohol treatment coverage for the first time.”

“But my opponent is pushing a so-called ‘plan’ that’s straight out of the Bill O’Brien playbook and would blow a $90 million hole in our state budget, placing critical investments in public safety at risk. We have come too far to let my opponent take us backward, and together we’ll continue to keep New Hampshire safe and move our state in the right direction,” added Governor Hassan.

Through her bipartisan budget, Governor Hassan fought to protect critical investments in public safety – without a sales or income tax. The Governor restored the CHINS program, invested in drug task force teams, funded the cold case unit, and launched Media Power Youth, a public-private initiative to increase media literacy and reduce and prevent youth violence.

The Governor also worked across party lines to strengthen community-based mental health services and pass a bipartisan Medicaid expansion plan that is providing coverage for mental health and substance use treatment to thousands of hard-working Granite Staters, strengthening the safety and well being of our communities.

The MPPA is the fourth public safety organization to endorse Governor Hassan for re-election, joining the New Hampshire Troopers’ Association, Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire, and the New Hampshire Police Association.

NH CD01: A Clear Choice For Granite Staters

Carol Shea Porter - Frank Guinta

Carol Shea Porter - Frank GuintaThis election, voters in New Hampshire’s in the First Congressional District once again have a choice between two candidates that we know very well: Carol Shea-Porter and Frank Guinta.

The two candidates have faced each other in the same race for the last three election cycles.

Carol is a true fighter for the middle class: pushing for stronger labor laws, a higher minimum wage, and access to healthcare for all Americans.

Frank is a self proclaimed “Tea Partier” who opposes any increase in the minimum wage, wants to “reduce government regulations” that help protect our environment, and would take away a woman’s right to choose.

Carol has the endorsement of workers organizations like the NH AFL-CIO, the State Employees Association, The American Federation of Teachers -NH, and the National Education Association of New Hampshire. Carol has also been endorsed by Planned Parenthood for her opposition to the attacks on women’s rights, the Human Rights Campaign for protecting the rights of the LBGT community, and the Sierra Club for her work protecting the environment.

On the other hand, Frank has been endorsed by the Koch brothers funded Americans For Prosperity and the Association of Builders and Contractors. Frank and the ABC held up construction of the Manchester Jobs Corps building because they were opposed to a federal agreement that would have protected construction workers and ensured that they were paid a fair wage.

Carol has voted time and time against proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare – programs that Americans have paid in to, their entire working lives. Vote after vote, Carol has defended the promises of retirement security that Americans have relied on since 1935. Protecting Social Security is one of the cornerstones of Carol’s service in Congress, and that’s why she has been endorsed by the New Hampshire Alliance For Retired Americans.

Frank, on the other hand, supports Paul Ryan’s plan to make cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Carol has defended the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard from threats to close it. She was also very vocal in her opposition to last October’s 16-day government shutdown.

There is no doubt that Frank would have voted with the extremists in Congress to shut our government down. And Frank has already promised he would join the faction that keeps forcing the House to waste resources voting on Obamacare (at least 60 times so far).

Once again, Granite Staters in the First District have a very clear choice between candidates.

  • If you want a fighter for the middle class who opposes corporate PAC money, vote for Carol Shea-Porter.
  • If you want someone in Washington who will vote for his corporate funders and against the middle class, then Frank Guinta fits the bill.

Myself, I will be voting to re-elect Congresswoman Shea-Porter.

  • Advertisement

  • Advertisement