From the State House

CHARLOTTE, N.C.—As a freshman attendant at the American Legislative Exchange Council Spring 2012 summit, I was assigned to the Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force, which aligns somewhat with my position on the N.H. House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee. We considered model legislation bills on insurance, occupational licensing, food safety and labor, several of which could have a future in New Hampshire law. Fellow N.H. Rep. Gary Daniels, who is chairman of our N.H. House Labor Committee, served as chairman of the Commerce Committee in Charlotte.

Strangely, ALEC assigned health insurance legislation to a Health and Human Services Task Force, so I felt torn between the two meetings since the entire reason I joined the House Commerce Committee in New Hampshire was to address health insurance issues, particularly with Obamacare. The way things turned out, however, I was able to straddle both conferences and learn from both, and I have some interesting things to report from my experiences today.

Before I get started, for those who don’t know, ALEC is a national organization of elected state legislators and private sector lobbyists who meet to advance the Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism and individual liberty through a series of periodic summits where members of the public-private partnership work to develop policies and model legislation for advancing these principles. I paid for ALEC membership out of pocket at the cost of $50 a year.

It’s also important to note that my trip expenses to the ALEC Task Force Summit today was reimbursed by private donors, and not by taxpayers. Nevertheless, I minimized expenses for donors as mentioned in my previous post by flying down and back on the same day without a hotel night’s stay and by splitting my cab with Rep. Daniels on the way back to the airport. Besides Rep. Daniels and me, N.H. Reps. Jordan Ulery, Ken Weyler, Andy Renzullo and Kris Roberts were also in attendance.

{ 1 comment }

CHARLOTTE, N.C.—My wife told me that I’d be subject to more scrutiny at the airport today on my way to the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) 2012 Spring Task Force Summit in Charlotte, N.C. Because I had bought my airline tickets less than a week before the event and because I chose to fly down and return on the same day to save on hotel costs and minimize the time away from my family, she said that I could expect the maximum level of scrutiny at the airport. She was right about her prediction, though I can’t say for sure if her rationale was correct.

As you may know, I am the co-sponsor of HB 628, an act relative to searches conducted for purposes of transportation-related security, which is a bill that would create a public database for complaints against the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) enhanced airline screening activities and require state law enforcement officials to take such complaints. I’ve always believed that when we shine a light on something, it encourages good behavior. That is the very purpose of the TSA Accountability Act, as I’ve called it.

The bill passed the House, but it was killed in the Senate by Derry Sen. Jim Rausch’s Senate Transportation Committee. Currently, I have attached the same language to Sen. Rausch’s senate bill, SB 332, which addresses a prohibition relative to auxiliary state troopers. To my knowledge, the TSA Accountability Act is still moving forward as part of SB 332, and I am hopeful the Senate will see the importance of this bill the second time. Perhaps this was the reason for my enhanced screening this morning?

Regardless of whether we pass the law to create the public TSA Accountability database; however, I still have the power of the pen, which they say is mightier than the sword. It is for this reason that I am now writing about my experience this morning with the TSA, which I would explain only as a gross violation of my constitutional rights with a smile. The experience was beyond inappropriate, however I must say to the TSA’s credit that its agents, whom are not law enforcement officials, were very professional and courteous.

Additionally, I have the power of passive resistance, which you will see, I fully exercised today without any trouble. I hope that more people will follow my example and do just what I have done as explained here, as I have followed the example of some of the most effective liberty activists before me. Please read my story below and take action as you believe you should.

{ 3 comments }

I have come before you today to introduce and support HB 1297, which would prohibit New Hampshire from implementing a state health benefit exchange under the so-called Obamacare Act, the federal “health care” overhaul enacted by Congress against popular demand in 2010.

A health benefit exchange is the mechanism the federal Health and Human Services Department would use to enforce the provisions of Obamacare, such as the individual mandate we already said could not be enforced in New Hampshire when we passed SB 148 last year, and the taxes, and penalties the act requires businesses to pay.

The federal health overhaul entices states with the choice to create a state operated exchange or rely on a federal operated exchange. In effect, they are no different; the federal bureaucracy would control either version.

Yet, a state exchange would cost the state an additional $10 million to $30 million a year to run starting in 2015—money we just don’t have—just to pay for state officials to follow the federal government’s orders. Even if we do end up with Obamacare, HB 1297 would save New Hampshire money.

The language of HB 1297 as amended by 2012-1786s is simple and comprehensive. It would be inserted in RSA 420-N, updating the responsibility of the Joint Health Care Reform Oversight Committee to guide the state’s executive branch in protecting New Hampshire from the federal law.

With amendment 2012-1786s, HB 1297 would give state officials guidance on how they should interact with federal agents in the event that the court does not overturn the federal act in its upcoming decision or if the federal act is not repealed by Congress. Specifically, the amended HB 1297 would direct state officials to maintain a free market for health insurance to the best of their ability under the federal law.

On top of this, the language of HB 1297 takes advantage of a flaw in the federal law that relies on states creating their own exchanges. The law did not provide for the contingency that states would refuse to set up exchanges, and because of this, by New Hampshire not creating a state exchange along with other states, it will be more likely that the federal health insurance overhaul would be repealed or amended.

If the court overturns the law or if the law is repealed, most of the changes we’re introducing today would be deleted, but the prohibition on creating a state-run exchange and a new general state policy favoring free-market health insurance would remain in place.

In Conclusion, this bill as amended provides for every possible outcome and maintains the state’s stance against the federal act; yet, it still ensures New Hampshire maintains its ability to regulate health insurance on its own, regardless of what happens next.

{ 2 comments }

If you read He-C 4002.25, the rules enabled by RSA 170-E:11(i), which gives a blanket authority for HHS to write rules regarding the “discipline of children,” the rules say that child care personal must “provide positive guidance” and “positively worded directions” and cannot use “separation, or time out” as “a punitive disciplinary technique.” I understand that children can be redirected once or twice, but what happens when that doesn’t work? In my opinion, and in the opinion of most parents, I believe, the child needs punitive discipline to correct his or her behavior. To not discipline a misbehaving child in my opinion is pure lunacy. No wonder children are so misbehaved these days, and it only gets worse with age. That is why I’m presenting a non-germane amendment today before this committee, to make sure we correct these problematic rules and immediately prevent further harm to children.

{ 0 comments }

I’m writing today to testify in favor of HB 449 as a state representative for Rockingham 5 and as the clerk of the “Legislative Oversight Committee to Monitor Compliance With the Requirements for Online Access to Budget Information and Reports Under RSA 9-F:1.” As you can see, the name of the committee I sit on is rather long, and probably not all that transparent due to its length and complexity.

HB 449 as amended would change the name of the committee so that it will be known as the “State Transparency Website Oversight Committee,” a far simpler and transparent name. This bill as amended by the House would also make the committee permanent, so that there will always be a place for legislators with good ideas about what should be on the state transparency Web site to go with their ideas. To have this committee in place permanently to address these ideas will save time and effort, and it will make sure that only those ideas that are feasible will move forward.

{ 0 comments }

I rise for the Commerce Committee in support of the committee’s report of Ought to Pass as Amended for HB 1297, which is a bill that I sponsored. HB 1297 prohibits state officials from planning, creating, or participating in a state health insurance exchange, which is an option given to states by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Under the terms of the act, states may set up a state insurance exchange (and pay for it starting in 2015) or default to a federal insurance exchange, which in either case is a federally run bureaucracy that administers the mandates, regulations, subsidies and penalties dictated by the federal health care overhaul forced through Congress by our president. In the case of a state exchange, state bureaucrats will essentially serve as conduits for federal edicts.

{ 0 comments }