On the same day, he was featured in the Monadnock Ledger-Transcript for legislation he is working on to ensure that New Hampshire communities are provided funds they are contractually entitled to:

Under HB 325 [...] the communities would be reimbursed the 2011 funds as part of the 2014 state budget and the 2012 funds in the 2015 budget. The law, sponsored by State Senator Andy Sanborn, would also repeal language included in the current state budget, that allows New Hampshire to only cover its 30 percent.

[...]

“Today you’ve got 18 communities totaling 56 senators and House representatives who are now hyper-sensitive to this issue,” [Sanborn] said. “I don’t think it will be swept under the rug again.”

It should have never been swept under the rug in the first place.

Click here to read the full article.

On Tuesday, we commented on the extent to which budget cuts in New Hampshire have forced expenses to be accommodated to one degree or another by the cities and towns in the state, in a process known as “downshifting.”  Downshifting the responsibilities of New Hampshire government to the state’s municipalities is one thing, but when the state of Massachusetts ends up downshifiting its obligations to New Hampshire towns, that’s downright ridiculous.

Yet that is what’s been happening for the past two years, as the Bay State reneged on payments it agreed to make in lieu of taxes for property taken in the 1950s for flood mitigation projects.  As we reported on May 2, a number of towns in New Hampshire within the Merrimack River and Contoocook River drainage areas gave up land in the early 1950s, when a flood control plan was put into effect, mostly to the benefit of our neighbor to the south.

Massachusetts agreed to compensate New Hampshire every year under an interstate compact, and the state was supposed to distribute the money to each town, based on the amount of land taken.  Seventy percent of the amount came from Masschusetts and the rest from New Hampshire, which collected the Massachusetts share and sent both that money and the state’s portion to the towns.

But in recent years, Massachusetts stopped paying.  New Hampshire continued to send the full amount back to local towns until this year, when the state stopped covering the Massachusetts share.  Now there is legislation pending in Concord (SB326), expected to pass this week, that requires the state to sue Massachusetts for its share, and to ensure that the towns get what they are owed from both Concord and Boston.

Under HB 325, which was unanimously supported by the House Ways and Means Committee, the communities would be reimbursed the 2011 funds as part of the 2014 state budget and the 2012 funds in the 2015 budget.  The law, sponsored by State Senator Andy Sanborn, would also repeal language included in the current state budget, that allows New Hampshire to only cover its 30 percent.

Sanborn of Henniker, told the Concord Monitor he’s confident the measure will stand.  ”Today you’ve got 18 communities totaling 56 senators and House representatives who are now hyper-sensitive to this issue,” he said.  ”I don’t think it will be swept under the rug again.”

It should have never been swept under the rug in the first place.  Fortunately, actions have been taken to correct the situation after only a brief period of non0payment.  While Massachusetts failed to pay its part of the Merrimack River Vally Flood Control Compact for several years, New Hampshire covered the entire bill until last year.  In 2011 the affected communities saw only 20 percent, and this year saw nothing, with losses ranging from $3,000 to $200,000 per town.

Peterborough, which lost about 700 acres in West Peterborough when MacDowell Reservoir was built, is owed about $23,000 per year.  Hancock gave up 350 acres along the Contoocook River and is owed $6,000 a year.

No one has been able to offer a reasonable explanation as to how Massachusetts could walk away from such a clear-cut contractual obligation, other than a deep recession that has state governments all over the nation looking for ways to cut corners, often at the expense of local taxpayers.

While there is much we can do to improveoverall access and opportunity to find more affordable health insurance in New Hampshire, the legislature has historically balked by creating special exceptions for large employers and political sub divisions, but has largely ignored small businesses and individuals. As a Senator, I believe we need to correct this mistake through passage of Senate Bill 150, as amended by myself and Majority Leader Senator Jeb Bradley.

Today we are facing many concurrent factors which continue to drive up our healthcare costs, but before we address this one current discriminatorypractice in government, we have to understand how we got here.

Anyone who has been a small business owner for years remembers when, not that long ago, we had literally a plethora of insurance companies bidding to gain our trust and business. It was a competitive market with many carrier choices and through offering a bevy of cafeteria style plans, most could find something they could afford while still meeting their needs.

During the past 15 years, local government has imposed many changes to insurance, from requiring the pricing model to morph into a same price for every plan mentality to creating a whopping 43 individual mandates in New Hampshire, making us one of the most heavily mandated and consequently one of the most expensiveStates in America for health insurance.

What is often not being discussed is how New Hampshire is playing favorites with health insurance. In our State today, if you own or work for a company with over 50 employees you are not necessarily required to comply with all the expensive mandates or be forced to buy locally. Similarly, if your company “self-funds” its health insurance (where really large operations don’t actually buy insurance, they just pay the bill out of cash flow) like our State Government, again, they are not mandated to comply with all of our State regulations. Being exempted from state mandates or opening up purchasing sources for more competition can make the cost of insurance much more affordable.

So in the end, today, only individuals and small companies are required to purchase only the most expensive health insurance products available in our state. I’m not sure how you feel about it, but if you are a small employer or individual looking for insurance, this should make you pretty upset.

But, we can fix thiswith the support of the Senate, House and Governor. Senate Bill 150, as amended, will for the first time in decades allow both in state and out of state companies to offer multiple health insurance plans to everyone and not just the economically privileged. As a stabilizing condition, each company will also be required to offer a plan which encompasses all the current mandates as presently required so for the first time, we will actually be able to compare the true cost of mandates on overall policy costs.

Knowing today that annual health insurance costs are increasing with double digit regularity, we have an obligation as legislators to enact every opportunity as reasonably can be to lower costs and insure affordable health insurance is available to all. By encouraging the most competitive market possible, inclusive of a broad cafeteria of insurance plans where one can opt for plans from the Cadillac to the Pinto of models, we can work to lower costs and expand just how many people actually have health insurance coverage in our State. While this one Bill will not solve every factor we have in New Hampshire with excessively expensive insurance, it’s a start and with continued effort we can focus on other issues to reduce costs and increase availability of insurance. Now isn’t that what we should be trying to do?

Senator Andy Sanborn(R) – Henniker is Vice Chairman of the Commerce Committee.

Sen. Andy Sanborn and Rep. Laurie Sanborn are no strangers to Bedford.

Sure they live in Henniker, where they were elected to their respective seats, yet when they spoke in front of the Bedford Republican Committee Tuesday night, they already seemed at home.

Indeed, the Sanborns are moving to Bedford, where they have many friends and political acquaintances. In fact, they’re quite familiar with the greater-Manchester area. They did, after all, reside in the Queen City for nearly a decade prior to moving to Henniker, and Laurie’s parents live locally as well.

Laurie, the first in her family to attend and graduate college, was elected to the House in 2010. She spoke first at the meeting and discussed, primarily, her background in banking and local commerce and her efforts to amend and pass legislation that aids New Hampshire small business and creates jobs.

“I never saw myself as a politician, I never had that aspiration, but I noticed about five or six years ago that the culture in New Hampshire was changing,” said Laurie. “There were taxes and fees everywhere you turned. The state government was growing. It was spending a lot of money and increasing regulations and, for the first time in my business life, I really felt the government was overreaching … and I briefly thought to myself, do I need to leave New Hampshire? But, of course, I quickly decided the right thing to do was stay in New Hampshire and fight for our traditional values.”

Andy, who ran and was narrowly defeated for a Senate seat in 2008, prior to winning the election in 2010, said he, like his wife, never envisioned a career in politics. Yet observing the changing political landscape in New Hampshire, he said he felt a calling to defend traditional Granite State conservative values – principles that were passed on to him from his grandfather.

“For Laurie and I, it’s been an amazingly unique journey. I didn’t know there were anything in our state but conservatives,” he said. “I’m a fourth-generation New Hampshire native … I’m a blue collar, dirt under my fingernails, scab on my knees kind of guy and, honestly, I’m proud of that … If you see someone struggling in your yard next door, you go over there and help them out, but that doesn’t give you the right to go into their home when they’re not there, and to me that’s what makes a traditional New Hampshire Republican, that’s what makes me a curmudgeon, and to me, that’s the best thing you can be.”

Count Laura Condon among the Bedford residents excited to welcome the Sanborns to town.

“I think it will be tremendous for Bedford to have both Laurie and Andy represent us,” said resident Laura Condon. “I’ve gotten to know them and they’re both very much pro business. They’re both numbers, bottom-line sort of people.

“They’re both very candid and sincere. They’re not politicians at all,” she continued. “You can talk to them and you don’t think there’s a hidden agenda. They’re both very truthful about what they seek to do … real common sense things, smaller government, less spending … Businesses do really good things, and so do people and so do communities. Government? Maybe not so much. If we can let those other things have their day in the sun and shine, I think they’ll take us good places.”

The experience of both candidates should serve them well, added Condon. Andy is likely to face stiff competition for the District 9 Senate seat, a position being vacated by Bedford’s Ray White. Attorney Lee Nyquist of New Boston, a Democrat, and fellow Bedford Republican Ken Hawkins, currently serving as a state representative, have already announced their intention to run.

“I think they were both pretty green when they headed off to the Statehouse, but by golly, I think they’re both very quick learners. I have no doubt they spend countless hours and they work very hard at this,” said Condon.
“They’re very passionate. They live and breath this. They’re not part-time legislators. They’ll put in their time to do this. I mean, I don’t see them being career politicians, but they felt the state was in a crisis and they stepped forward and have given it their best effort, and I believe they’ll continue to do just that.”

WGIR-AM’s Paul Westcott also attended the meeting. He spoke briefly and answered several questions regarding the role of media, both locally and nationally, in determining elections.
About this column: Your guide to all local, state and national politics relating to or impacting voters in New Hampshire.

http://bedford-nh.patch.com/articles/sanborns-we-re-not-politicians-but-we-ll-defend-traditional-nh-values#photo-9547552

Understanding the challenge requires a separation from the amount of the budget reduction to what was cut. The Price and the Policy. The price, $10.3 Billion Dollars. This currently passed budget amount is almost identical to what the last Democrat controlled legislature hailed as a great budget when they passed theirs for the 2008-2009 cycle. The budget which ended in 2009 was $10.4 billion and this Budget is $10.3 Billion. This House has moved the financial clock back to 2009. Irresponsible? Draconian? World ending? Actually, most will agree, it will hurt, but it is a manageable number. I believe, with minor changes, overall we will see concurrence in the Senate. Even my close Democrat friends understood and agreed cuts needed to be made, but the real issue and anger is the policy of what is being cut.

At its core, Government’s role is to provide safety, roads and to help those most in need within our community. But wait, isn’t that what was just most cut? It was, and it may actually not be entirely the House’s fault. By existing default parameters, this is the only place they had to make cuts.

Our State operates utilizing many different checking accounts, or Funds. These fund accounts can be dedicated to a single purpose, mixed, include Federal money and more. The General Fund is generated primarily from taxes paid by the residents of New Hampshire. Over the years many of our State agencies have been able to make the case for operating outside of the “General Fund” with claims of needing more flexibility or arguing their State Agency is mostly self funded (abet, even through imposing fees, fines, penalties and assessments on New Hampshire residents) and therefore the legislature allowed for the migration to self management which has absolved them from the level of scrutiny of agencies operating within the “general fund monies”. As a result, agencies within the General Fund, including Health and Human Services (which oversees most of our care for those in need) which is the bulk of it, received the most scrutiny and largest cuts.

I believe this is the wrong policy for fixing our State as it has resulted in making the majority of our cuts on those who actually have the most need. This is bad policy. But we can fix it.

I believe the Senate has the responsibility to truly reform how State Government works, and that means fundamentally changing how it operates. Modernize its processes, institute efficiencies, change how it is funded and how it is overseen by the legislature. We should look at reforms to consolidate all Business to Government functions into one digitally integrated agency where significant operational savings will be found. Our reforms need to examine both front end and back end operations for customer service and data processing. This is where our legislature needs to invest significant time and every dollar saved in operational efficiencies can be put back into a program to help those most in need.

We need to change the policy of how our legislature constructs the budget, how it manages the process and the expected results. I am optimistic that our legislature will be able to reform how this State operates and combine both the lower price as mandated by the residents with the correct policy of maintaining our core values.

Big, bold, revolutionary changes to how government interacts don’t happen every day. Timing, outside economic influences, makeup of the governing body and public desire must all come together at the same time for us to effectively change how we do business.

Today we have that same opportunity to rebuild the relationship between Government and Business, and re-establish New Hampshire as the best place in America live, work and play.

It is time for New Hampshire to modernize, and reestablish a Business to Government relationship that takes advantage of departmental, vertically integrated online digital processes utilizing today’s technology and interactive online integration.

From the decision to create a new company whether you live in state or in Sutton NH or Sutton Alaska, to monitor, educate, report and even with the enforcement processes, the Business Community needs an online facility to easily access forms, requests, reporting and to review the interchange of information. Not to mention, how much more efficient it would be in helping our state employees to perform their jobs with 2011 technology.

Delaware, Virginia, Carolinas, Texas, Utah. Today, these are the names of places in America where the business community looks to when seeking opportunities to create, grow and prosper. As much as we would like to believe New Hampshire is a leader in attractiveness to operate a business, it no longer appears near the top of the charts

EFCA, deceptively-named in classical Orwellian doublespeak manner, would accomplish precisely the opposite of its name: remove any vestiges of free choice from employees. Under this “Card-Check” law, ordinary workers would be deprived of the right to a secret ballot as to whether to organize a union in a factory or company.

The fundamental of right to cast a vote in private was adopted by ancient Greece and the Roman Republic. It is virtually unheard of to conduct a public election in this country without a secret ballot, yet union officials and the Democrat party are rubbing their hands in glee at the removal of secret balloting from the unionization process.

Unions, of course, prefer Card-Check because it reveals to them exactly which workers are in their pocket and which may want to exercise their free choice. For anyone who enjoys his or her job as-is and doesn’t want to pay union dues, he or she becomes identified and open to intimidation and undue pressure by co-workers, union organizers and even supervisors. Does that sound like “free choice” to you?

No less a leading light of the Democrat party than former Senator and Presidential nominee George McGovern has come out against Card-Check. McGovern had a 100% pro-union voting record while serving as a Senator, yet he recently declared that “As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak. Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder, free from fear of reprisal.”

And how real is that fear of reprisal? Just since 2000, the Electronic Case Information System at the National Labor Relations Board shows thousands of unfair labor practices cases filed against unions, including 1,417 for coercive statements, 416 for violence and assaults, 546 for harassment, and 1,325 for threatening statements. If you think it’s tough turning down co-workers when they ask you to buy candy for their kids’ fundraisers, imagine turning down a demand by your supervisor to vote for union certification.

What unions and the Democrats don’t want you to consider is that success, higher wages and job growth comes not from more union activities, but rather from the traditional New Hampshire values of hard work and free markets. Competition in labor markets is as valuable as competition in product markets. After all, consumers can choose among many brands of beer and cars; why can’t companies offer differing levels of pay and jobs?

The genius of the free markets is that everyone, be they workers or employers, consumers or stores, are free to search for the best deal. Governments are pitifully lacking in the ability to decide which contract makes the best sense for which person – and thus the government should allow us to decide for ourselves. Simply put, voluntary transactions work for the benefit of both sides – employer and employee, and any laws that inhibit that would only cause more job losses in this state, rather than more opportunities.

Thankfully, public outrage has been escalating over this deceptive bit of legislation. Even as unions turn up their already-impressive donations to Democratic candidates (over $100,000 to Carol Shea-Porter and over $200,000 to Jeanne Shaheen), they fear that too many voters will learn about the actual intent and effect of the bill – which is why union puppets like Jim Casey, Carol Shea-Porter and Jeanne Shaheen are now desperately pounding the table. If you want to learn truth for yourself`, please visit www.employeefreedom.org.

In an interview with Monitor editors, Sanborn, a Republican candidate for state Senate, called for a streamlined government that stays out of private enterprise. Why, he wondered, does the state run a tree nursery? Why isn’t the state buying electricity in bulk? How can the Legislature help attract more small businesses to New Hampshire?

Focusing on economic expansion, he says, is the only way for the state to repair its troubled finances and avoid similar problems in the future.

“There is no magic bullet to fix this,” he said. “The problem is bigger than that. It’s naive to say we can just go in and cut (the budget). There are so many things we can’t just cut from an operational standpoint.”

Sanborn lives in Henniker with his wife, Laurie, who is running for the state House of Representatives. The couple owns The Draft, a sports bar in downtown Concord, and Sanborn serves on the board of directors for the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association.

This is Sanborn’s second bid to represent Senate District 7, which includes 19 small towns to the north and west of Concord. In 2008, he challenged Democratic Sen. Harold Janeway, losing by just more than 1,000 votes. This year, he faces Boscawen resident Michele Tremblay, who decided to run after Janeway announced plans to retire.

Even before formally announcing his candidacy, Sanborn was drawing attention as he rallied opposition to the so-called LLC tax, which changed the way many small businesses were taxed. The tax has since been repealed, but Sanborn continues to advocate for a government favorable to small business owners.

Sanborn favors boosting tourism through marketing, improvements to the state parks and road projects that make it easier for visitors to reach rural areas of the state.

“How many people are we missing because every Friday, Saturday and Sunday we’re a parking lot from the tollbooth to Tilton?” he said.

To pay for such efforts, Sanborn suggests trying to avoid pricey lawsuits like the one that delayed the expansion of Interstate 93 and using the money for projects beneficial to both the state and environmental groups.

He tends to “lean against” gambling, but if the state were to allow casinos he’d like to see the money used to reduce existing taxes.

Sanborn has spent ample time on the campaign trail since announcing his candidacy, attending close to a dozen parades and hosting pasta dinners throughout the district. The mood, he says, is different from two years ago. People are more vocal, more frustrated and more focused on the bottom line. He hasn’t received a single question about abortion or crime. Rather, he says everyone wants to know about jobs.

“They ask how are you going to cut my taxes? I need to find a job,” he said. “People minds are really on ‘how do we make it?’ ”

(Meg Heckman can be reached)

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219635/sanborn-grow-economy

During the past 4 years The Governor and his band of elitist tax and spend politicians running the State have and continue to attack every facet of our lives. The 80 new Taxes and Fees, the LLC Income Tax, the JUA theft, Freddie Mac style refinancing our children’s future, the gimmicky accounting tricks… it just doesn’t seem to stop.

Well, it actually hasn’t stopped. Just when you think the State has chewed our financial future to the bone, they have now found new industries to attack.

Last week, the DRA announced that our state’s small Credit Unions are “break’in the Law” and although it has never been the case, they must now pay a new Interest and Dividends Tax on distributions to its members. Actually, no-one is breaking the law; it is just our current State Government re-interpreting the law to its sole benefit. Just another case of the New Hampshire Government trying to take money that it is not theirs for its own wasteful purposes.

In addition to the Credit Unions, the State is also attacking small retail cigarette and cigar shops. For those who choose to buy their tobacco in a pouch and roll their own, 2 small operators have made personal cigarette rolling machines available to their clients, for a fee. The State is attempting to re-classify these retail stores as “Manufacturers” and initiate a host of new taxes, fees and regulations, to again find new ways to tax our community.

How many times does the Governor’s leash need to be jerked back? The State Supreme Court repeatedly has said the JUA money is not the governments; the small business communities said NO to in Income tax on their personal income, the Credit Unions are already mounting a legal defense.

Unfortunately it would appear that the only way to stop the continual destruction of our business community is to find legislators, who understand what creates jobs and what doesn’t. It’s the expansion of the economic base that actually allows for the hiring of new employees, it’s the stability of government regulation that provides the confidence to invest or expand. It’s the trust in our Government that provides the room to take risk. Today, in New Hampshire, the business community has no stability, trust or confidence in our Government.

When all we want to do is help our communities, by hiring those friends and neighbors find employment, by

Although readily acknowledging that State revenues are projected to retract to 2004 levels, one would think that you would reduce State spending to 2004 levels. After all this State is supposed to have a balanced budget. Instead, you have levied 36 new taxes and fees at an additional cost to New Hampshire tax payers of $300 Million Dollars, just this year alone. And then cost shifted significant amounts down to local communities, further increasing individual challenges. When that wasn’t enough, you reached into the pockets of Doctors and Hospitals to illegally take their money too. You have shown that you are out of touch with the New Hampshire populous. When every working household and business is struggling to find a way to cut expenses to match a much lower level of income, you and the out of control leadership in Concord are pillaging the future of our State. Every responsible household and business understands that under this reduced level of income, expenses have to be cut. Luxuries given up and hard choices to be made. No-one wants to spend less money. No-one really wants to give up the things they have worked so hard to accumulate, but they understand that this is a different time and being frugal is important.

Today, the great people of New Hampshire are in crisis which is much greater than rising waters or wind-blown trees. At a time when over 55,000 people are presently un-employed and most others are underemployed, the State has ignored the cries for help. There was a time, not long ago, when New Hampshire was an economic powerhouse. Unemployment virtually non-existent, 20 different healthcare providers competing for business, economic opportunities for anyone willing to work. When social programs were designed to get people back up on their feet, not up off their feet. New Hampshire was a State that embraced small business and understood that the success of New Hampshire was based on the success of business. Now for the first time, our State population is shrinking, your own reports show an inability to attract and retain young workers.

If there was ever a time to face these challenges it is now. The Federal Governments’ Stimulus money to repave our roads will end when the weather turns cold, resulting in a significant jump in unemployment. We cannot count on the Federal Government to rebuild our economy; we have to do it ourselves. Our economy will only rebound when everyone has a job and those employed have the confidence to participate in the economy. We have to return this State to a self sustaining budget, to clear the way for business to succeed and provide gainful employment. If you are having a difficult time finding a way to cut the budget, please, reach out and I can bring as many small business owners and home owners as you have room for, to provide realistic cuts and efficiencies to the State Budget. It’s not necessarily about laying off State workers, as no-one wants or desires to be laid off during these times. Reportedly attrition of State employees due to retirement and or moving on is almost 1,000 per year. This in itself should provide an opportunity to retain those who are employed, while providing the ability to institute real meaningful efficiencies in State operations. Through realistic commonsense efforts we can have a win-win situation, where the cost of living in New Hampshire is reduced, yet opportunities for gainful employment exists.