What quotables have you read or heard that you think reveal the verbal tenor of the 2011 legislative session? Email suggestions for the Daily Briefing to NH@FrontDoorPolitics.com.

Gas (tax cut) fumes

There’s been no shortage of talk about Senate Bill 78, which would cut the state gasoline tax by five cents a gallon through June 30. The measure passed the House this week, 208-98.

“This bill is good for our economy and will give welcome relief to the drivers of the state who are facing soaring gas prices.” — House Speaker William O’Brien.

When asked by the Concord Monitor if he would veto the bill if it reached his desk, Gov. John Lynch said it’s unlikely the Senate would follow the House’s lead. “I don’t believe it’s going to get to me. I don’t worry about political gimmicks,” he said.

House Majority Leader D. J. Bettencourt touted the economic benefits of SB 78. “While a five cent decrease may not seem like much at face value, it will add up when motorists fill their tanks each week. And as a resident of the border town of Salem, I am also confident that lower prices in New Hampshire will encourage those living along the border in Massachusetts to come here and purchase gas along with lottery tickets, liquor and other consumables,” he said.

Portsmouth blogger William Tucker of miscellany: blue had this take on the economic benefits of SB 78 that Bettencourt cited. “Majority Leader Bettencourt suggests Massachusetts’ drivers are going to head to New Hampshire to fill their gas tanks if the state cuts the gas tax by five cents per gallon. Let’s check the numbers. If we assume the entire savings is passed along to consumers (which is not guaranteed), a driver buying 20 gallons of gas would save $1.00. At $4.00 a gallon, if our Massachusetts driver has a car that gets 32 miles to the gallon, he would have to live within four miles of a New Hampshire gas station just to break even. Not likely.”

RGGI reactions

The House voted to prohibit New Hampshire’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), but some Senators aren’t enthused. Sen. Nancy Stiles (R-Hampton) told the Portsmouth Herald that RGGI could be saved through Senate amendments to the bill. “The broad stroke is to save this bill in any way we can save it. There are always opportunities for amendments to come until the last gun is fired. But the most important thing is to make sure we have the components in there that will allow a majority of the senators to support it,” she said.

Andrew Hemingway, chair of Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire, says RGGI isn’t worth saving. “While there are many fallacies about the merits of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the erroneous idea that the program stimulates job growth is keeping a few of the enamored hanging on…When government uses tax dollars to stimulate job growth, it is taking money by force from people who are producing wealth honestly and giving it to people who cannot create wealth on their own because there isn’t enough demand for their products. It’s never good when government picks the winners and the losers. In the case of RGGI, everyone is a loser,” he said in an opinion piece.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

Make your own quotes, below! (Comments policy here.)

3 sides of the nickel

Gov. John Lynch dismissed the last-minute tax cut proposal that was trumpeted by House leadership (see “Speaking of Gas Prices“). Lynch said he wouldn’t have to veto Senate Bill 78 because the Senate won’t pass this “political gimmick” that could chop an estimated $6.5 million out of the state’s Highway Fund, which is used for road and bridge construction and maintenance.

House Majority Leader Rep. D. J. Bettencourt (R-Salem) countered with enthusiasm, suggesting an economic development chain reaction would unfold if the measure passes. While New Hampshire already has the lowest gas tax and prices in the region, Bettencourt said, “Expanding this margin by another 5 cents would result in more out-of-state residents coming to New Hampshire to fill their gas tanks. While they are here, visitors will also take advantage of our low tax environment and purchase other goods, including cigarettes, liquor and lottery tickets. This will help to drive up state revenues, as will the business profits taxes of the local gas stations benefiting from the additional business.”

On the other hand, Senate Finance Chair Chuck Morse (R-Salem) told the Concord Monitor he wondered whether oil producers would benefit most from the gas tax reduction. The Senate also wasn’t ready to embrace the math attached to the House cigarette tax reduction bill (lower taxes = greater revenues) when it tabled House Bill 156 yesterday (see “The Price of Taxing Tobacco“).

Steps of the dance

While it may appear that the Senate is playing bad cop to the House’s good cop when it comes to tax cuts, this is a traditional legislative dance of differing assumptions and priorities. It can and does work both ways, as Sen. Lou D’Allensandro (D-Manchester) found out in 2010 when he managed to get an expanded gambling bill through the Senate — only to run into a wall of opposition and skepticism in the House.

The reality is that this stage of the game is nearly all political posturing. The tax cuts that have been passed by the House or tabled in both the House and Senate remain very much in play. It’s the final House-Senate conference committees, where the two chambers’ differences are worked out, that will reveal the Legislature’s final revenue priorities come June.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

If you’re in retail, we want to know: Do you see more business with lower taxes?

(Comments below, policy here.)

If it seems like politicians want to cut the gasoline tax every time fuel prices begin to skyrocket, as we’ve seen during the past month, well you’re right.

You may recall, for example, how the massive gas price hikes during the summer of 2008 (during a presidential election season, by the way) brought out urgent political calls for a gas tax cut. Last week, the N.H. Republican House leadership said one solution to today’s high gas prices is a temporary 5 cent per gallon cut in the tax through June 30.

Naturally, Gov. John Lynch disagrees.

The proposal

To compensate for reduced revenue stemming from the tax cut, money would be collected from the $30 car registration surcharge, which is also set to lapse after June 30. The registration surcharge money goes into the Department of Transportation’s Highway Fund budget, so the tax cut would essentially take away money that would otherwise go for road and bridge construction and maintenance. It’s estimated the temporary tax cut would cost at least $6 million.

New Hampshire’s gas tax is 18 cents per gallon, ranking in the bottom third of the country’s gas tax rates, and hasn’t been raised in two decades.

The proposal will be attached as an amendment to Senate Bill 78, which would eliminate the registration surcharge immediately upon passage — and which Lynch has threatened to veto.

Back-and-forth

House Speaker William O’Brien (R-Mont Vernon), according to the Concord Monitor, seemed to dare Lynch when he said, “Does he see the same pain that we see in the economic life of New Hampshire?”

“This proposal is simply a political gimmick and would offer no relief at the pumps for the people of New Hampshire,” Lynch’s spokesman Colin Manning also told the Monitor. “What it would do is provide less money for the people of New Hampshire to maintain our roads and bridges.”

Gas tax talk usually drives economists to the extremes. Supporters cite economic benefits to consumers and convenience store owners. Opponents believe the quickest way to bring down gas prices is to cut demand by driving and buying less, which they say is what happened in 2008 when gas prices spiked at around $4 a gallon and demand dropped.

The big picture

In his budget proposal, Lynch kept the surcharge in place through 2013 to help pay for tens of millions of dollars in road and bridge construction projects.

But since last fall’s election campaign season, Republicans have focused on the $30 vehicle registration surcharge as a political issue. Last week, they issued a report showing the surcharge’s impact on towns and cities across the state.

The House report offers no plan for making up the lost revenue to pay for scores of projects the Department of Transportation says will be put on hold if the House budget plan — without the surcharge — is passed.

In other tax cut news, the Senate Ways and Means and Committee has come out against a House proposal to cut the tobacco tax, House Bill 156. The bill is scheduled for a full Senate vote on April 27. It could be an early preview of how the Senate and House approaches to revenue reductions compare. (You can see an earlier report on HB 156 here.)

Q&A

Would you rather have a 5-cent reprieve in the gas tax for two months, or see that money go to roads and bridges? Let us know in the comments box, below. (See the comments policy here.)

>> A public hearing on eliminating the registration surcharge and temporarily cutting the gas tax by 5 cents (SB 78) will be held in the House Finance Committee, Room 210 of the Legislative Office Building, on Tuesday, April 26, at 10:00 a.m.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

In this Dispatch, we highlight two public hearings on bills we have tracked this legislative session.

Big Bird in the Hot Seat

The Senate Finance Committee will hold a public hearing and perhaps hold an executive session vote on House Bill 113, which would prohibit any state funding for New Hampshire Public Television.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester) passed the House 262-102 along largely partisan lines (a handful of Republicans joined all Democrats in opposing the bill). NHPTV, which is overseen by the University System of New Hampshire, could lose more than $5 million in funding for the 2012-2013 biennium if the bill becomes law. The station said that it received $2.7 million — or about one third of its budget — from the state for its current 2010-2011 budget cycle.

Rail Authority Fate

The Senate Transportation Committee will consider repealing the New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority.

A move by Rep. Dan McGuire (R-Epsom) to repeal the NH Rail Transit Authority will see its first test in the Senate today.

House Bill 218, sponsored by Rep. Dan McGuire (R-Epsom) was strongly pushed by House Republican leaders. It passed the House earlier this month by a 190-119 vote. More than two dozen Republicans joined all Democrats in opposing the bill.

As we noted in an earlier Daily Dispatch, the 2007 legislation that created the NHRTA, which is not state-funded, was co-sponsored by Senate President Peter Bragdon (R-Milford). The committee could take executive session votes on any or all of the bills it will consider today.

>> Senate Finance Committee public hearing on HB 113, Room 103 in the State House, 1:00 p.m.

>> Senate Transportation Committee public hearing on HB 218, Room 103 in the Legislative Office Building, scheduled for 11:00 a.m.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

Signed into law in 2007, the NHRTA was established to develop and provide “commuter rail and related public rail transportation services in New Hampshire.” In particular, the NHRTA is using federal grant money to develop plans for a return of passenger rail service through the so-called “capital corridor” from Boston to Nashua, Manchester and Concord.

House Bill 218, which passed the N.H. House last week by a 190-119 vote, would repeal the entity. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Dan McGuire (R-Epsom), is supported by House Transportation Committee Chair, Rep. Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry), who also serves as a legislative member on the NHRTA.

For repeal

Republican House leaders have called for the elimination of the NHRTA because of potential taxpayer costs to establish expanded passenger rail service and a desire not to grow another level of government.

Against repeal

NHRTA supporters believe a revival of passenger rail service could spur economic development and decrease automobile congestion along the Interstate 93 and Everett Turnpike corridors.

The numbers

The NHTRA receives no state money and is staffed by volunteers — and its grant application efforts are funded by more $120,000 raised by private businesses (for more about business community opposition to HB 218, see a recent NH Journal article here).

One recent statewide poll on extending capital corridor service shows that House Republicans may be bucking public opinion. The UNH Survey Center poll released last month pegged 75.4 percent of respondents favoring an extension of rail service, while 5.4 percent opposed it. Indications are that support cuts across geographical and political lines.

Next steps

House Bill 218 now heads to the Senate Transportation Committee. Senate President Peter Bragdon (R-Milford) was a co-sponsor of Senate Bill 75, the 2007 measure that created the NHRTA.

>> Friday, March 25, monthly meeting of the New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority, Legislative Office Building, Room 201, 10:00 a.m.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

The captain of this rowboat will no longer have to check his speed if Senate Bill 27 is passed.

The proposals include eliminating the state motor vehicle registration surcharge, repealing boating speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee, and establishing a managed care platform for the state’s Medicaid program.

Kill the Surcharge

Senate Bill 78 – A motor vehicle registration surcharge enacted in 2009 as a two-year temporary funding measure could die sooner.

Sponsored by Sen. Andy Sanborn (R-Henniker), SB 78 would immediately repeal a 2009 provision that raised registration fees and surcharges for certain vehicles — from $35 to $75 depending on the size of vehicle. The resulting revenue is designated for “highway and bridge betterment.” Sanborn’s proposal would reinstall the previous fee structure and eliminate the surcharges, which are due to expire June 30.

The bill’s fiscal note says revenues for the Department of Transportation would decrease by about $6.59 million. That reduction would decrease state highway fund expenditures and local revenue an estimated $791,000 for fiscal year 2012.

Senate Bill 78 passed in the Senate Ways and Means Committee by a 6-0 vote with an “Ought to Pass” recommendation to the full Senate.

Lake Speed

Senate Bill 27 – Two years ago, lawmakers enacted a speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee: 45 mph during the daytime and 30 mph at night. Now, a proposal sponsored by Sen. Lou D’Allensandro (D-Manchester) would replace that with no speed limit at all.

D’Allesandro’s bill would instead require boaters on any body of water to “proceed at a safe speed that is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions,” with conditions like visibility, weather, and radar use to be considered in determining a safe speed.

The bill’s supporters say common sense boating shouldn’t be replaced by limits of personal freedom, while opponents say safety has been enhanced and the lake is more family-friendly with the current speed limit in place.

The bill was reported out of the Senate Transportation Committee with an “Ought to Pass” recommendation by a slim 3-2 vote.

Managed Shift

Senate Bill 147 – Sponsored by Sen. Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro), SB 147 would set up a five-year contract with private vendors to manage the state’s Medicaid program.

Supporters say the long-term savings with a managed care program could amount to tens of millions of dollars not spent in administrative costs. In the bill’s fiscal note, the Department of Health and Human Services said it was difficult to determine what costs could be saved at this time. The Department provided the following information:

• In 2009, a leading health care actuarial firm, Milliman, Inc., reviewed NH Medicaid claims and conducted actuarial analysis to determine the viability of Medicaid managed care in NH. Their report identified factors that impact the ability of the state to achieve savings utilizing managed care. The existing reimbursement rates, size of the Medicaid caseload, administrative costs, and wrap-around responsibility were factors.
• New Hampshire’s reimbursement rates and administrative costs are comparatively low.
• The federal law requiring states to offer choice to recipients would require at least two managed care organizations to serve Medicaid enrollees.
• States must provide wrap around services; all services required by federal law including services which may not be included in the managed care benefit package.
• The Department issued a Request for Information in July, 2010 to solicit ideas from the managed care industry. Twelve entities responded and none of the responses offered savings. Most of the respondents stated they would need 6 to 9 months from the date of contract approval to program start up. Therefore the Department assumed there could be no fiscal impact until FY 2013.
• The New Hampshire Medicaid program currently utilizes most of the tools used in managed care including prior authorization, care management, and pharmacy benefit management.
• Based on the experience of other states, an up front investment is necessary as two claims adjudication systems are needed for the first 6 months after the transition date. The old MMIS system would continue to operate for 6 months since providers have 6-12 months to submit claims for services provided and new the claims would be processed through the new managed care system.
• Federal approvals required at various points in the procurement process may increase the timeline for implementation.

Senate Bill 147 unanimously passed Senate Finance Committee with an “Ought to Pass” recommendation.

>> Wednesday, March 23, full Senate session beginning 10 a.m. at the State House.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

In particular, we’ll focus on the state Senate, which meets in session Wednesday to consider more than 34 bills and amendments.

The proposals cover a wide range of issues — from a constitutional amendment giving the governor line item veto authority over the state budget to increasing the allowable size of off-highway recreational vehicles on state trails.

It’s all a part of government, folks.

Charge It

Senate Bill 56 >> This would allow the Department of Revenue Administration to accept tax payments by credit and debit card. Sponsored by Sen. Robert Odell (R-Lempster), SB 56 also would allow the DRA to enact a usage service charge.

The bill’s fiscal note says New Hampshire currently handles some 265,000 checks every two years, at a cost of $592,553 annually. Plus, the note indicates, the state pays about $87,000 annually for armored car services and $18,550 in bank fees. Senate Bill 56 passed the Senate Finance Committee with a unanimous 7-0 vote.

Line Item

CACR 5 >> New Hampshire is one of six states in which the governor does not have line item veto power over the state budget, but CACR 5 sponsor Sen. Chuck Morse (R-Salem) would like to change that.

In short, a line item veto allows a governor to edit a bill line by line. In this case, it would only apply to spending bills, meaning the governor would be able to take some spending provisions out of a budget, while leaving other parts intact. And the “veto” implies that the governor could only take certain provisions out of a budget, but wouldn’t be able to add any in.

The issue has had far more attention at the Congressional level than in Concord over the years. If CACR 5 passes through the Senate and House by a 3/5 margin in each body, it would go before the voters in 2012. The measure passed the Senate Internal Affairs Committee with a 3-0 vote.

Wider Trails

Senate Bill 100 >> Sponsored by Sen. Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry), this would increase the allowable size of off-highway recreational vehicles (OHRVs) on any designated state-owned trail.

The OHRV size limit would increase from 50 to 65 inches in width and from 1,000 pounds to 1,600 pounds in weight. The bill passed unanimously out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee by a 5-0 vote.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

As always, to help you follow along, we have highlighted committee names with a link to previous dispatches on these bills.

Retirement System Reform

Executive Departments and Administration

The push by Sen. Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro) for comprehensive retirement system reform takes its next step before the full Senate. Senate Bill 3 passed its committee by a 4-1 vote, with Democratic minority leader Sylvia Larson being the sole vote against the measure. The bill includes a massive amendment, with changes including an increase in contribution rates for teachers, police and fire, while phasing in a system of extended length-of-service requirements for newly hired police and fire personnel and those having less than 10 years of service. The original bill had set the earliest retirement age at 50 following 25 years of service for anyone currently working who had less than 10 years of service.

Expanded Gambling Stalled

Ways and Means

Senate Bill 182, the 13^th attempt by Sen. Lou D’Allesandro (D-Manchester) to expand gambling in New Hampshire, likely will be returning to committee. The full Senate will vote on the committee’s unanimous recommendation to re-refer the bill back to committee until 2012. The measure called for up to 10,000 video slots and table games, such as poker and roulette, at four locations in the state. D’Allensandro told the Eagle-Tribune that, in his estimation, no one wanted a fight over gambling this session. “There’s got to be an appetite. I think the perception is the House doesn’t want to raise money,” he said.

(In proving the Daily Dispatch can be a questionable prophet at times, we noted in our March 4 dispatch on SB 182 that it was unlikely the bill would face the same fate — retained in committee until 2012 – of a similar proposal in the House. We stand humbled and corrected.)

Electronic Car Registration

Commerce

Senate Bill 156, which would establish New Hampshire’s first Electronic Vehicle Registration program, passed its committee with unanimous 4-0 recommendation shortly after its one and only public hearing on March 11. Sponsored by Sen. Andy Sanborn (R-Henniker), the measure would set up a one-year pilot program of allowing consumers to register their newly purchased new or used cars with participating dealers — rather than a town or city hall office.

>> Wednesday, March 16 – Senate in Session beginning at 10 a.m. in the Senate chambers at the State House.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a public hearing on Senate Bill 156 Friday. If implemented, the measure would give New Hampshire consumers the choice to electronically register their vehicle at the time of purchase — and bypass the need to register at their town or city hall or at the local Division of Motor Vehicles. The dealer would collect the registration and other fees and electronically transmit them to appropriate towns and cities.

Sanborn, a freshman senator and Commerce Committee member, tells Front Door Politics that the bill includes a year-long pilot program with one vendor and a small number of participating dealerships and municipalities to determine how the program works and what improvements it needs. The voluntary program – for dealers, municipalities and consumers – assumes no cost to the state, as third party vendors will set hardware and software for the Department of Safety, participating municipalities and dealers. Dealers would be charged a fee from the vendor for each registration transaction and dealers will be allowed to charge customers for the convenience.

“This is new, better and more efficient,” Sanborn says. “We want to bring all the players together and take the next year to see if it will work and does what it says it will.”

Peter McNamara, president of the New Hampshire Auto Dealers Association, says his organization supports the bill in part because it allows dealers to provide a service to time-starved customers. The NHADA did a survey that found the average clerk’s office was open 28 hours a week in New Hampshire.

“In nearly all states, consumers can register their vehicle at dealerships and in 27 states, they can register electronically,” McNamara says.

Some New Hampshire communities currently allow residents to electronically renew their vehicles’ registration through a program called E-Reg. Senate Bill 156 would change the process for newly purchased vehicles.

Sanborn has added an amendment to give town and city clerks more input into the program through an EVR advisory committee. He’s also confident that the bill, which is supported by the state DMV, will have a positive vote in committee and also pass the Senate.

>> Friday, March 11, Senate Commerce Committee public hearing on SB 156, Room 100 at the Statehouse, 9:00 a.m.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

House Bill 593, sponsored by Rep. Edmond Gionet (R-Lincoln) would establish two casinos — “at least 100 miles apart” — offering video poker, slots and table games. The House Ways and Means Committee will consider how the bill proposes permitting the casinos, plus how it would distribute the state’s proceeds to offset the state education property tax and contribute to the highway fund.

According to language in the bill, cities and towns would have to approve a gaming location. A $10 million one-time fee would be assessed to any table game licensee, and as much as $363 million annually would be used to offset the education property tax. That money would come from the state receiving 49 percent of the net machine income. The highway fund would also receive eight percent of all table game revenues. As of Feb. 21, no fiscal analysis of the bill had been provided by the Legislative Budget Assistant.

Sen. Lou D’Allesandro (D-Manchester) is an HB 593 co-sponsor and a long-time advocate for expanded gaming in New Hampshire. In 2010, D’Allensandro led the successful bid to gain Senate approval for the bipartisan bill he sponsored, Senate Bill 489, which supporters said could have raised as much as $150 million in licensing fees alone from six casinos. But gaming foes said the estimated revenues and potential numbers of high-paying jobs were overstated and that out-of-state casino operators would benefit the most. The House defeated the measure by a 212-158 vote.

Last May, Governor Lynch’s Gaming Study Commission released a detailed, long-awaited report on the benefits, costs and consequences of expanding gaming in the state.

“Expanded gaming would generate additional revenues and economic activity, but it would also generate additional societal and economic costs,” the report’s executive summary said. “A fully informed decision about expansion requires a business model analysis that accounts for both benefits and costs. Such an analysis should center on the state’s long-term interests, not just short-term financial or other needs.”

>> Tuesday, Feb. 22, public hearing on HB 593, House Ways and Means Committee, Legislative Office Building, Room 202, 3 p.m.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.