With the release of its annual “Top States for Business” rankings last week, CNBC confirmed a growing fear in New Hampshire: Unprecedented budget cuts and misplaced Republican priorities are damaging our state’s economy.

According to the study, New Hampshire’s ranking dropped in infrastructure, transportation, and education – all areas that received devastating funding cuts in the GOP’s state budget. New Hampshire’s overall “economic” ranking suffered the biggest drop of all, plummeting from 10th to 34th nationwide.

More important than individual numbers, however, these rankings undercut the central Republican message of this term.

Republican leaders have defiantly argued that their budget cuts and legislative priorities were good for New Hampshire’s economy, an argument that increasingly flies in the face of independent analyses.

Before Republicans took control of the Legislature, New Hampshire had an economic strategy that was working. Democrats worked with Gov. John Lynch throughout the recession to keep job losses at a minimum, and heading into the 2010 election New Hampshire held the lowest unemployment rate east of the Mississippi River.

By working with the governor to enact the Research and Development Tax Credit and to implement new jobs programs such as NH Working and the Job Training Fund, Democrats created a business-friendly environment that led national economists to credit New Hampshire as a leading state in the economic recovery.

Unfortunately, we are losing that forward momentum since the 2010 election. Because of the majority’s misplaced priorities, New Hampshire is no longer a leading state in the economic recovery.

Our unemployment rate has dropped only 0.7 percent since the 2010 election, less than half the national average. Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut and 33 other states have added jobs at a faster rate since Republicans took control, leaving New Hampshire an embarrassing 37th in job growth.

Instead of continuing to focus on jobs, Republicans spent their energy on Tea Party priorities like expanding gun rights, weakening public education and labor unions, and meddling in women’s reproductive health.

The leader of this misguided effort was House Speaker Bill O’Brien, who drew the ire of business groups this spring when he risked the Research and Development Tax Credit by insisting on amending it with an already-defeated abortion bill.

When Republicans did turn their focus to economic issues, they only made matters worse.

The GOP state budget slashed over $250 million in aid to hospitals, directly causing more than 1,000 layoffs in the health care industry last summer.

The budget slashed university system funding by nearly 50 percent – the largest cut of any state in U.S. history – causing more job loss and forcing significant tuition hikes that are putting New Hampshire colleges out of reach for prospective students, our future skilled workforce.

And even with tobacco revenue down $20 million since last year, the House majority leader has said he would still have cut the cigarette tax.

Given the financial strain that budget cuts to health care, infrastructure and education place on business, it’s hardly surprising that New Hampshire’s economy has sputtered.

What is frightening is the GOP’s promise to double down on their failed policies if re-elected this fall. Despite the job losses that would follow, O’Brien wants to cut another $400 million from the budget if he returns as speaker next term.

Like the economists who conducted CNBC’s “Best States for Business” study, Granite Staters know that quality infrastructure and an educated workforce are critical elements to a growing economy. If New Hampshire is to regain its role as a national leader in economic development, the Legislature we elect this fall needs to share those values.

Rep. Terie Norelli of Portsmouth is the Democratic leader of the New Hampshire House of Representatives.

In fact, the requirement to publish the veto message prior to a vote to override is required by the state Constitution. Part II, Art. 44 of the Constitution says that if the governor vetoes a bill, “he shall return it, with his objections, to that house in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it.” Although the Constitution does not say “then proceed to reconsider it,” the sequence of the phrases in the sentence leads to the conclusion that the veto message must be entered into the Journal before reconsideration.

Given that the Constitution was written before we had electronic communication, it makes perfect sense for the framers to require that a veto message be recorded in the Journal for everyone to read before proceeding with a vote. Even in the digital age, legislators are entitled to see what they are voting on before casting their votes.

More important, the public is entitled to know what business the House is conducting. The House “Calendar and Journal” is the only notice that the public receives of the issues that will be considered during a House session. The Constitution requires that the House gallery be kept open to enable the public to observe the functioning of their government.

That right is hollow if the public is not provided with notice of the business being conducted.

Our Right-to-Know Law states that “openness in the conduct of public business is essential to a democratic society.”

The speaker can flout a statute, but he cannot flout the Constitution. Part 1, Art. 8 of the Constitution states that “all power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted.”

I could not have said it better. So much for transparency in government.

(Rep. Gary B. Richardson of Hopkinton is the Democratic floor leader.)

A ghastly story from the past?

One has only to visit today’s House of Representatives to hear some chilling testimony by some of the current Republican representatives to realize that the attack on women and women’s health care is alive in this century.

It has taken women in this country hundreds of years to attain protections that are inherent in our federal and state constitutions. Now, under the guise of “religious freedom” and “personal liberty,” Republican lawmakers are recklessly determined to take New Hampshire’s women back decades.

In August of 1992, Susan Sarno was hospitalized in Wolfeboro with severe facial injuries requiring 17 stitches to her bloodied and battered face after a beating from her estranged husband. He pled guilty to a misdemeanor and spent only 29 days in jail. After Sarno went public with her story, New Hampshire became a leader in the country enacting laws to protect victims from these heinous crimes.

As if living in a time warp, last year Republican leadership insisted on budget cuts that leave women and children at the hands of their abusers. In recent years, 50 percent of the homicides in New Hampshire were domestic violence related. Our state’s crisis centers are not able to keep pace.

This year, Republicans have filed bills to further erode protection for victims and once again make it easy for abusers to victimize their intimate partners. One bill would prevent police from arresting anyone for spousal battery unless the police saw the assault with their own eyes. Another would make it easier for repeat abusers to violate their restraining orders by limiting police arrest powers.

This week, the House will vote on a bill to repeal the criminal history and protective order check for the sale of firearms. In 2010 NH’s Gun Line law, a program which allows NH to conduct criminal background checks when an individual attempts to purchase a handgun, stopped 370 individuals who could not legally possess a firearm in New Hampshire from making firearm purchases. Once again, repeal of this law is being pushed by a member of Republican leadership and is a real threat to NH women.

This legislative session has seen continued attempts by Republican leadership to defund Planned Parenthood, the only statewide agency capable of delivering necessary health care services to women. At the same time Republican leadership is denying some women contraception coverage.

Under the pretext of religious freedom, Republican legislators are using the Constitution to impose their religious beliefs on citizens. Republican leadership insisted that a House committee pass a resolution urging Congress to reverse the requirement that insurance plans cover contraceptives for women, despite the fact that these drugs are commonly prescribed for the treatment of other health conditions.

The federal policy does not violate any citizen’s basic right to religious freedom. No individual will be forced to buy or use contraception.

Republican leadership shows a complete disrespect for sound public health policy, one that makes contraceptives more affordable and reflects the requirements of the majority of American women regardless of their religious affiliation. Not only have they sent the resolution to Congress, but they also seek to repeal NH’s current law that requires insurance companies that cover prescriptions in health care plans to also provide coverage for contraceptives.

The rights of women today are under attack.  Much like Sarah, Penelope and Ruth were persecuted by the state; today under the pretext of religious freedom Republican legislators are denying the personal liberties of women in New Hampshire. This IS about a woman’s freedom to make her own health care decisions, her individual liberties and her right to live without fear.

(Representative Stephen Shurtleff a Democrat from Penacook is currently serving his fourth term on the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. He was the Committee Chair from 2009-2010.)

In their column asking us all to support the state Senate’s version of a constitutional amendment on education funding (“Finally a school amendment everyone should like,” Monitor Opinion page, Feb. 25), Martin Gross and Eugene Van Loan urge us to accept a constitutional amendment that they characterize as a compromise. The so-called “compromise” would give the Legislature “full power and authority to determine the amount of, and the method of raising and distributing, state funding for public education.” This language is not the language of a compromise; it is a wholesale sellout of public education.

There are two components to the Senate amendment. The first is the proper role of the courts in overseeing the responsibility of the Legislature to fund education. There are those who believe that how much money the state provides for education should be a purely legislative decision. They say if the voters are unhappy at the level of state funding for education, the people will elect representatives who will look more favorably on education and who will provide the appropriate level of funding in the future.

Targeting assistance

The second component is the question of whether the state should be able to target money to poorer communities (those that have lower assessed valuation and therefore less ability to raise money for education). Given that the state has limited resources to spend on education, every state dollar sent to a wealthy community is a dollar that can’t be sent to a poor community. We all know that it is harder to raise, say, $12,000 per student, for education in Berlin than it is in Bedford. If we are ever to have an equal opportunity for students in Berlin, we need to give more state aid to Berlin than we give to Bedford. That is why most people, including residents of property wealthy communities, support the concept of targeting money.

These two concepts, the proper role of the courts in overseeing education spending and whether we can target money to property poor communities, are entirely separate concepts. But some political leaders have chosen to combine the concepts into one constitutional amendment. The reason has been that some people on both sides of the first issue have supported targeting as a way to lessen the state’s responsibility to fund education. But targeting does not mean spending less state money on education unless it is coupled with language that allows it.

The decision to couple the authority of the legislature with targeting, whether calculated or not, has prevented us from solving the school funding dilemma.

Simple solution

The solution is relatively simple: Give the people the opportunity to vote on the two concepts independently. Let them decide once and for all what role the courts should play in overseeing the funding of education.

If the voters want to give the Legislature full discretion to fund, or not to fund, education, so be it. Let the voters decide. But don’t prevent the voters from also deciding whether to approve the concept of providing additional funding to communities that lack adequate resources to fund education. And most important, don’t call an amendment that gives the legislature “full power and authority” a compromise.

(State Rep. Gary B. Richardson of Hopkinton is the House Democratic floor leader.)

The 2012 legislative session has been dominated by reckless bills, most notably a proposal to allow guns in civic arenas and on college campuses.  House Republicans have issued 18 press releases promoting specific bills since January, covering such important topics as TSA searches, Arizona’s immigration law, and abortion policy.  Jobs have been mentioned only twice, in press releases promoting payday loans and the repeal of insurance mandates.

Republican leadership in the House appears more than willing to take on high-profile social issues instead of concentrating on job creation. Less than a week after trying to downplay their support of a bill repealing New Hampshire’s marriage equality law, House Speaker Bill O’Brien told the Union Leader that “this is the right time” to debate and repeal marriage rights for same-sex couples.  The Speaker’s promotion of this issue not only distracts from Republicans’ self-proclaimed “jobs” agenda; it completely ignores the will of Granite Staters who support marriage equality by a margin of 2 to 1.

When Republican-backed legislation influenced the job market, it had a detrimental effect.  The state budget passed last June was the single biggest job-killer, as nearly 2000 jobs were lost due to new taxes on hospitals and unprecedented cuts to higher education.  New Hampshire’s unemployment rate spiked after the Republican budget became law and it remains higher today than when the budget first took effect.

Hundreds of small business people have also felt it necessary to take time out of their workday to travel to Concord to try to avert the passage of bills seeking to repeal licensing requirements the businesses believe are beneficial to their profession and to the consumer.  And now the Republican leadership is backing a bill that bill that would decrease the availability and affordability of workforce housing.  Understanding the need for employees to access affordable housing, the Business and Industry Association opposes this move.

When Democrats were in the majority, we worked with Governor Lynch to improve the job market in a number of ways.  Programs such as NH Working and the Job Training Fund helped businesses retain and train employees during a time when the recession was forcing record numbers of layoffs across the country.  With the help of these programs, our unemployment rate remained well below the national average throughout the recession, and New Hampshire was widely credited as a leader in the national economic recovery.

Democrats improved educational opportunities for every child in New Hampshire by bringing public kindergarten to every community, defining and fully funding an “adequate education” for the first time since the Claremont ruling, and investing in our university system.  Because an educated workforce is necessary for business to thrive, Democrats made education an integral part of our economic development strategy.

With these accomplishments in mind, Governor Lynch implored legislators to “do no harm” during his recent State of the State address. Progress has been hindered by budget cuts and policy changes enacted by the Republican legislature last year, but further damage can be avoided.  House Republicans would be wise to shift their attention away from guns, gay marriage and press conferences, and onto legislation that provides the educated workforce businesses need to create jobs.

(Representative Terie Norelli is the Democratic Leader in the New Hampshire House of Representatives.)

All of New Hampshire’s public colleges and universities currently ban guns on campus, and HB 334 would mandate a reversal of that policy. University officials and police, citing the prevalence of alcohol use and the fact that one’s college years are “often among the most volatile periods in a person’s life,” requested an exemption to HB 334 that would retain their authority to regulate the possession of firearms on campus. That request was denied, as supporters of the bill actually argued that allowing everyone to carry guns on campus makes us safer.

The negative consequences of HB 334 unfortunately stretch well beyond the college campus issue, as the bill’s effect is much more widespread than most people realize. By banning firearm regulations on any publically owned property, the bill removes the ability of anyone – even private businesses that lease property from the state – to adopt firearm regulations that fit their specific needs. Were HB 334 to become law, local officials would have no authority to stop individuals from carrying guns into places like the Alzheimer’s unit at county nursing homes or day care operations located on public property.

Ironically, by supporting this bill, Republican leaders have abandoned numerous values they usually purport to embrace. Local control, business rights, opposition to government mandates, and adherence to the constitution have all been tossed aside in exchange for a drastic expansion of gun rights.

A late amendment, likely added because of justified concerns from town officials, allows town selectmen to override the mandate. While beneficial for towns seeking to protect public safety on their property, that provision is a direct violation of the equal protection clauses of both the U.S. and New Hampshire constitutions. Because the override provision applies to towns but not New Hampshire’s 13 cities, one-third of our population is denied the constitutionally-guaranteed equal protection of the laws.

The question becomes, why are Republican lawmakers so focused on an unnecessary pro-gun mandate at the expense of public safety and local control?  Do people really feel that their rights are being violated when they can’t bring their gun into the county-run daycare center or the registrar’s office at UNH?

Regarding colleges specifically, this legislature has already placed an extreme financial burden on our institutions of higher learning by cutting state funding for the university system 50 percent, and the community college system 30 percent, in the budget that became law July 1. This bill would force university officials to completely re-train their security and police forces, using up time and increasingly scarce resources that would be better utilized supporting the education that students pay for.

Our job as elected officials is to listen to our constituents and support commonsense legislation that helps the people of New Hampshire. This bill is staunchly opposed by those who it would most affect. House members should listen to the people we represent, and defeat HB 334 when it comes before us in January.

(Representative Terie Norelli is the Democratic Leader in the New Hampshire House of Representatives)