In February, Gov. Chris Sununu delivered his first budget address. He proposed no new taxes or fees. His address contained some small surprises, a nod to kindergarten and reorganization of state agencies. It was supposed to be the first step in a process, which, for at least the past 50 years, has resulted in the passage of a biennial state budget.
The governor spoke to a majority Republican Legislature, the governor’s party. But somewhere, in April, things began to go awry and the great train of the state jumped the tracks. The New Hampshire House failed to pass a budget for the first time in 50 years.
The budget process itself is not at issue. The path to passing a budget is familiar and well-worn. First, the governor makes his proposal and announces his budgetary priorities reflecting his best estimate of projected revenue and expenses. The House reviews the governor’s proposal, with committees on Ways and Means and Finances tasked with the job of developing a House budget. Finally, after an amendment process, the House votes on its budget. The Senate develops a budget and, through the exercise of leadership and political compromise, by June, the legislators create and pass a two-year state budget which is sent to the governor for signature or veto. At least, that’s the way things have gone for five decades.
The failure of the House to pass a 2018-19 budget is extraordinary and should be a cause for sober reflection and alarm. Deeper structural issues played a part here: first, the internal dysfunction of the House Republicans and its leadership and; second, the inability or failure of the governor to lead his party on the most basic and fundamental of all the functions of government.
The roots of the legislative train wreck go back a ways and, sadly, appear to mimic dysfunction in Washington.
For example, most recently, the Republican dominated U.S. House, in a fit of internal pique, saved us all from disaster when it failed to pass the latest “repeal and replace” of the Affordable Care Act. What is left of the moderate Republican faction thought the consequences of the replacement too awful too support. The recalcitrant “Freedom Caucus” (D.C. chapter) felt strongly that the bill didn’t go far enough in stripping health care protections from the needy, elderly, women and children. The “Just Say No” group prevailed despite mild entreaties from the current occupant of the White House and the bill went down, with the Freedom Caucus claiming success.
It all sounds eerily similar to what just played out in New Hampshire. How did the Granite State get to this place?
During the 2008 presidential election campaign, a clear undercurrent of ugly racism plagued the national discourse. Upon President Barack Obama’s election, Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell pledged to deny the legitimacy of the Obama presidency and obstruct him at every turn.
In 2010, when the then-reviled Affordable Care Act came up for a vote, the U.S. House was surrounded by a seething mob of Tea Partyers waving Nazi flags and decrying the “government takeover” of their health care.
The 2010 elections removed 60 members of the U.S. House and replaced many of them with members of what became the House Freedom Caucus. Over the remaining years of the Obama presidency, obstructionist philosophy has essentially controlled the Republican House agenda, a political jihad on the pillars of effective government. With the ascension of President Donald Trump and his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, the political fortune of those for whom no government is the only good government has peaked.
Not to be out-done, here in New Hampshire in 2010, over 100 House seats changed hands as Tea Partyers decried purported government interference. They found fertile ground in a state targeted by the Free State movement. This year, eschewing traditional New Hampshire independence, members of the New Hampshire House have adopted the moniker “Freedom Caucus” and, urged on by the deposed former Free State legislator Bill O’Brien have publicly and smugly adopted an eerily similar “Just Say No” approach to governance.
This viral political infection threatens not just the budget process, but also represents a real blow to New Hampshire-style independence.
The obstructionists now holding sway in the New Hampshire House are a threat not just to their own party, but to the very fabric of New Hampshire’s political life. While politics in New Hampshire could be called our state sport, we have always strived to maintain a reasoned, sensible approach to compromise and statesmanship. Common sense and a practical approach to politics were already in short supply.
Now, Speaker Shawn Jasper seems to have lost control of his minions in much the same way as former U.S. House speaker John Boehner did down there in the swamp.
Does this represent the last gasp of hope for statesmanship and compromise in New Hampshire? Are we now a microcosm of D.C. gridlock? And, what was the governor’s role in the intractable impasse in the House? Where was the firm, measured hand at the helm while his party sank into the muck?
In the aftermath, as reverberations still echoed in the press, the governor said he was “disappointed” that the House hadn’t passed a budget and that he was looking forward to working with the Senate for a budget. These seem rather bland statements following a calamity for his young administration.
There are many State House folks wondering whether the governor exerted the kind of leadership and effort necessary to try to prevent what happened. The “L” word, as in “lazy,” has apparently been bouncing around the marble corridors.
If the governor did give it his best shot, the sad results speak volumes about corner office weakness and the new governor’s lack of political capitol. If the governor didn’t work the process effectively, the conclusions are equally distressing.
We may be in for a rough ride with a fractured Republican caucus taking its marching orders from unelected Free Staters and led by ineffective leadership.
The governor and his Republican colleagues had no problem making sure that New Hampshire would enjoy a surge in concealed firearms. They could have applied the same unified zeal to passing the House budget.
The Freedom Caucus celebrated a victory in gumming up the basic works of state government. If this is what victory looks like from now on, it’s a bad blow to good governance.
(Paul Hodes of Concord is a former U.S. representative for the Second Congressional District.)