×
×
homepage logo
LOGIN
SUBSCRIBE

Many deserve credit for budget surplus

By Staff | Oct 10, 2013

Who deserves credit for last week’s news that the state of New Hampshire ended the 2011-13 biennium with a $76 million surplus?

There seems to be no shortage of candidates.

Partisans of Gov. Maggie Hassan would like you to believe that, since the news was announced on her watch, the surplus demonstrates that the first-term chief executive is a sound fiscal manager.

But the governor had been in office for just six months when the biennium came to a close at the end of June and she was on the sidelines when the budget was crafted. It helped that Hassan kept in place the hiring freezes and other measures implemented by her predecessor, Gov. John Lynch, but she played virtually no role in the crafting of the budget or the state’s fiscal fortunes prior to taking office.

Lynch, as governor for the majority of the biennium, can rightfully claim to have had a hand in the outcome, though he refused to affix his signature to the budget.

Republicans also claimed credit for the surplus.

“This surplus is the result of the responsible budget passed by the fiscally conservative Republican Legislature during the last session,” said state party spokesman Ryan Williams.

It’s telling, perhaps, that Williams chose not to name former House Speaker William O’Brien, of Mont Vernon, who may be considered too politically radioactive even within his own party – a result of the widespread negative karma he engendered during his time leading the House in the 2011-12 session. But it would be unfair to deny O’Brien credit for the surplus. He and his followers may have gone overboard, in the opinion of many, for the way they attempted to cut state services, but there’s no question they played a significant role in limiting state spending and, therefore, in the final outcome.

Williams, the GOP spokesman, singled out the work of Sen. Chuck Morse, the current Senate president who was Finance Committee chairman when the budget was put together in the 2011 legislative session. The bandwagon should also include Sen. Peter Bragdon of Milford, who was Senate president when the budget was assembled. In fact, Senate Republicans served as a check on the perceived excesses of their House colleagues and restored some of the most draconian cuts in the budget that came over from the House.

What about Democrats in the House and Senate? Don’t they deserve credit, too, some may ask? Not much, we think. Democrats in the House were steamrolled by the aforementioned O’Brien and had virtually no voice in the process, while Democrats in the more collegial Senate may have had a little more input, but, as part of a 19-5 minority, it was muted, to say the least.

As Hassan herself pointed out in her statement announcing the surplus, an improving economy had much to do with the turnaround in state fortunes. Good timing also played a role, as the state enjoyed several one-time windfalls from legal settlements.

Now that the state leaders are feeling a little flush, Hassan and House Speaker Terie Norelli suggested that the money be used to shore up spending in the state’s social safety net and put some of it in the nearly depleted Rainy-Day Fund.

Given the cyclical nature of the economy, it’s hard to argue against putting money in the Rainy Day Fund when everybody knows there’s another downturn coming at some point in the future.

With a budget surplus almost $20 million higher than officials predicted even as late as this past June, it makes sense to set some of it aside.

Those are good ideas. Here’s another one: Hassan and Norelli should ask Republicans what they think. Not because they have all the answers, but it would be a shame to pass up an easy opportunity to foster a little bipartisanship. Doing so can be like putting money in the bank.

Newsletter

Join thousands already receiving our daily newsletter.

Interests
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *