House Bill 590 became law without the Governor’s signature on June 29th, establishing a Committee to review NH’s participation in federal grant-in-aid programs, which on Nov 1; recommended NH should stop accepting federal grants. Rather than offer my perspective, here are the recommended policy changes for you to interpret firsthand. The full report can be found at http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/reports/2069.pdf.
“EDUCATION: This Committee is at a loss to understand why the general court ever thought that federal involvement in public education could ever be other than harmful both to the quality of education, the public fisc, and the independence of the state of New Hampshire within the federal system. Even before the Supreme Court’s Claremont series of education funding decisions attempted to impose centralized state control of education by oligarchic ukase, there was such a long tradition of local control and funding of education in this state that it would seem that our elected representatives would reflexively have viewed with the gravest misgivings so much further a removal of control as must inevitably be the result of opening the tent of New Hampshire to the camel’s nose of the first dollar of “assistance” from a federal Department of Education. By now, in the aftermath of 35 years’ experience with the federal Department of Education and 15 years experience with Claremont II, it must be clear to anyone not a member of or politically beholden to a teachers’ union that Thomas Jefferson, father of the University of Virginia, had it right when he declared in 1816 that the notion that schools would be better run by “any other general authority of the government than by the parents within each ward [is] a belief against all experience.” This Committee recommends that the general court extricate the state of New Hampshire from all manner of federal programs directly or indirectly affecting public education and the functioning and operations of public schools as soon as the expiration of current contractual commitments enable it legally to do so.”
“Nutritional Programs: It was through just such a program (the Act of November 23, 1921, 42 Stat. 224, c. 135, commonly called the “Maternity Act”), and the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to consider a challenge to its constitutionality (Massachusetts v Mellon, 262 US 447 (1923)), that the federal government was first enabled to breach, through grant-in-aid programs, the delineation of the separation of authority between the state and federal governments established by the federal constitution. If the state of New Hampshire considers the providing of nutritional programs for needful citizens of this state and the preservation of its sovereignty both to be worthwhile, it must provide and pay for such programs itself and cease accepting federal funding and the accompanying federal rules.”
“WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE: This federal program began – as so many do – as a “temporary” response to an emergency, in this case that created by the exponential increases in prices for crude oil and refined petroleum products following the OPEC embargo in 1973 in connection with that year’s Arab-Israeli War. It was intended to enable a smooth transition to the new reality of the cost of heating oil, but almost 40 years later it is still with us. Government subsidy encourages poor decision-making and dependency. The people of New Hampshire must be held competent to understand that every November, without fail, it gets cold at this latitude and that they must arrange their affairs so as to provide for this fact of life as a matter of personal responsibility. And again, if the state of New Hampshire considers assistance in the purchase of home heating oil for needful citizens and the preservation of its sovereignty both to be worthwhile, it must provide and pay for such assistance itself and cease accepting federal funding and the accompanying federal rules.”
“Grants for: Historic Preservation; Sexual Assault Services; Violence Against Women Prevention; Rural domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Stalking and Residential Substance Abuse Prevention; Prisoner Reentry Initiative; Safe Havens for Children; Delinquency Prevention; Crime Victim Assistance and Compensation; Community Policing; Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws; Senior Community Service Employment; Dislocated Workers Assistance; Promotion of the Arts: These and many other such federally funded activities, though each in itself undoubtedly a good thing, are subject to the same objections and contribute to the undermining of the federal system in the same manner as the educational, nutritional and/or weatherization assistance programs discussed above, and like them should as soon as possible either be discontinued or continued supported entirely with in-state sources of funding and control”
Some of the reasons given for this change are; “too many regulations – it’s not the fed’s job – people need to toughen up!” Please understand that no savings to the federal government will occur, as the funds will be re-allocated to other states. Also NH taxpayers won’t get a break on their income taxes; we’ll still pay our federal share. Imagine what the education impact will do to our local taxes. Of course we could just teach the 3 R’s – and prepare our youth for the 18th century! What’s next, a new motto Live Free - Freeze & Die!
