Layoffs for NH state workers (2010, home builders, employment)

[fishnfool]

Administrative Services Budget Office

I'm not too sure how usable this is, but it's on that site. It's a little more complex than rolling out a number like 17.5%.....

[seamusnh]

Originally Posted by nicolem

[/b]Don't hold your breath because we know it does not exist.

Beuller? Bueller?

[fishnfool]

And that is your opinion and many agree with you and many do not. We are still a democracy or at least we are supposed to be so politicians should be listening to the majority of the voters-even if you or anyone else for that matter does not agree. Whether we like the issue or not-whatever that issue is, that is how democracy is supposed to work. But I suppose in 2009 the "will of the people" is outdated and not hip.

Actually, we are a republic, where we elect politicians that we feel represent out views and thoughts. We send them to the capital to act on our behalf, and if we feel they are not representing us well, we elect someone else. Obviously Lynch was re-elected, so it wasn't such a big issue to the electorate.

Our government is not set up to elect a robot who always bends to the whim of public opinion. If that was the case, we could run our entire government completely based on polling data and not need senators or representatives.

I hope I don't have to explain the principle of the tyranny of the majority here. Just because most people support it does not make it correct or legal. Slavery was once legal and supported by the overwhelming majority of this country. Women were not allowed to vote, we had in place Jim Crow laws and segregation.....all fully supported by the "majority". I doubt anyone would argue that those were good laws in their time because they were popular.


This country simply does not work on the notion of the majority being able to discriminate or oppress the minority....plain and simple.

[buck naked]

I'm glad they passed the Civil Union law.


One thing to consider before ranting about state lay-offs, is how many state employees have been added over the past two terms?

[buck naked]

one reason Lynch is so popular is he eliminated a major budget deficit, without new taxes and still investing in education, health care and economic development. He put $50 million in the state’s Rainy Day Fund, and reduced the insurance premium tax.

Additionally, during his first term he passed one of the nation’s toughest and most comprehensive laws to protect children from sexual predators. He invested in providing affordable health care to children and eliminated the ability of insurance companies to discriminate against sick workers.

[nicolem]

Originally Posted by buck naked

one reason Lynch is so popular is he eliminated a major budget deficit, without new taxes and still investing in education, health care and economic development. He put $50 million in the state’s Rainy Day Fund, and reduced the insurance premium tax.

Additionally, during his first term he passed one of the nation’s toughest and most comprehensive laws to protect children from sexual predators. He invested in providing affordable health care to children and eliminated the ability of insurance companies to discriminate against sick workers.

Key words "new taxes". While an income or a sales tax might not have been implemented, real estate transfer taxes were increased, tolls were increased, registration fees were increased as well as many other fees increased and some by a large amount. It is easier to raise fees-especially the hidden fees- because it fools the masses easier.

Plus the Insurance Premium tax reduction was proposed as bringing a lot of jobs here which it really did not. Any jobs that might have come -like the new Liberty building-were already in the works. Plus companies did not run out and change their domesticity to NH like was proposed either. They are actually considering increasing the tax back to where it was.

[nicolem]

Originally Posted by fishnfool

Actually, we are a republic, where we elect politicians that we feel represent out views and thoughts. We send them to the capital to act on our behalf, and if we feel they are not representing us well, we elect someone else. Obviously Lynch was re-elected, so it wasn't such a big issue to the electorate.

Our government is not set up to elect a robot who always bends to the whim of public opinion. If that was the case, we could run our entire government completely based on polling data and not need senators or representatives.

I hope I don't have to explain the principle of the tyranny of the majority here. Just because most people support it does not make it correct or legal. Slavery was once legal and supported by the overwhelming majority of this country. Women were not allowed to vote, we had in place Jim Crow laws and segregation.....all fully supported by the "majority". I doubt anyone would argue that those were good laws in their time because they were popular.


This country simply does not work on the notion of the majority being able to discriminate or oppress the minority....plain and simple.

I know that our country was formed as a republic and obviously-in haste- I was not clear in what I wrote when using the term democracy. Regardless, I still believe the will of the people is supposed to be heard and I am not quite sure the past few elections really mean anything other than people hate George Bush. I don't think that we are a true republic anymore either-certainly not what the framers intended. We are supposed to be a country of laws but many laws are ignored or thrown out by judges who refuse to uphold the law today or by our government who refuse to outright enforce certain laws. Other laws take away certain freedoms -but I suppose that is another debate altogether.

[BF66389]

Originally Posted by fishnfool

Administrative Services Budget Office

I'm not too sure how usable this is, but it's on that site. It's a little more complex than rolling out a number like 17.5%.....

Actually, the spreadsheet is pretty awesome- it shows the 2008 budget and the 2009 budget. I am going to try and fine the 2006 and 2007 to find out where cuts/growth were.

I want to do an analysis vs. OMB published inflation factors for like-type expenditures (since they are already weighted based on when the funds are typically spent) as well as CPI and perhaps some other like measures.

I'd love to be able to show the inflation adjusted growth/cuts in budgetary expenditures and WHERE the growth/cuts were located. That will really give an accurate picture of what type of decision making was occuring; vs. the shock-value mindset of using a non-adjusted lump-sum.

Not saying that the budget didn't increase, just saying its important to know the root cause and isolate judgement to specific cases (and also judgements as to why other areas were not scaled up properly).

FYI, the increase shown is 3.63% between 2008 and 2009. 2008's increase in CPI was 3.8% (on average). Assuming that remains the same for 2009; that would indicate the overall budget was reduced...
(again, CPI isn't necessarily the best measure, but I like it better than OMB's inflation indices)

I love how things are never as simple as they seem on the surface. The media enjoys keeping us "stupid" with shock-value news.

[BF66389]

Found it back to '05, but in .pdf.

Will post analyis when I get a chance.

I think this indicates I like my job too much (no I'm not an accountant, budget officer, or finance analyst)

[fishnfool]

BF66389....that's awesome. I took a quick look and didn't think anyone (myself included) would take the time to look through other than a quick brush through. Glad you are willing and I'm interested in seeing what you dig up.