(CONTACT: Ellen Kolb, Cornerstone Vice-President for Government Affairs, 603-321-2703, ekolb@nhcornerstone.org)

Governor John Lynch should be seeing some important bills on his desk soon, after votes Wednesday morning in the New Hampshire House.

• Pro-choice and pro-life New Hampshire residents can agree that a woman who chooses to carry her child should have that choice respected. Governor Lynch should be seeing HB 217 soon,  and Cornerstone urges him to sign the bill into law. HB 217 updates New Hampshire’s homicide statutes to include fetal homicide. An individual, such as a drunk driver or abusive partner, who causes the death of a fetus against the will of the mother should have to answer for that action. The unanimous New Hampshire Supreme Court decision in the 2009 Lamy case illustrated the effect of the lack of an appropriate fetal homicide law, and the justices went so far as to invite the legislature to re-examine the statutes. Today, the House and Senate agreed on language to do just that.

• The House and Senate have each passed a bill establishing education tax credits for businesses that contribute to scholarship organizations. These scholarships would be for students attending any school of their families’ choice, up through high school. We hope Governor Lynch will help New Hampshire families by supporting a tax credit bill that will enhance opportunities for students all over the state.

• A majority of legislators in both chambers made it clear that New Hampshire is no place for partial-birth abortions. This barbaric abortion procedure blurs the line between abortion and infanticide, and we urge Governor Lynch to sign HB 1679 and ban this procedure. Only a single abortion method is affected by the bill. A woman’s right to choose abortion remains intact. We note that there was testimony during hearings on HB 1679 that partial-birth procedures are not done in New Hampshire. This is impossible to verify, since the state does not collect abortion statistics. In any case, we support closing the door on the procedure altogether.

• Finally, the House and Senate agreed today on a resolution commending the work of pregnancy care centers that provide alternatives to abortion for women in crisis pregnancies. This requires no action by the governor. Cornerstone has supported this resolution since its introduction, and its passage is a tribute to the people who provide an invaluable social resource by their work with women in crisis.

###

The U.S. Census Bureau recently released new data showing state and county population by major age groups as of July 1, 2011. This new data shows another slice of “Demographic Winter” in New Hampshire by looking at the overall age pyramid of the state. A healthy age pyramid, as the name suggests, is one where young folks form the large base and the oldest folks form the narrow top.

However, as we blogged previously, New Hampshire has  seen a steep drop in births in the state and three counties actually have more deaths than births. As a consequence, we would expect the percentage of folks under the age of 18 to become a smaller share of the population and those folks over the age of 65 to become a larger share. This new data confirms this.

As shown in the table above, as of July 1, 2011, 21.2 percent of New Hampshire’s population is made up of folks under the age of 18 (the 45th largest in the country) while 14 percent is made up of folks over the age of 65 (the 23rd largest in the country).

The rankings, especially for those over the age of 65, may not seem so bad until you  consider the sensitivity to an increase–a 0.5 percentage point increase in the “under 18″ group would only improve New Hampshire’s ranking by a mere two spots (to 43rd) while the same increase for the “over 65″ group would jump the ranking by 11 spots (to 12th).

Additionally, the data shows that two of New Hampshire’s counties already have an inverted age pyramid–Carroll and Coos. In Carroll County, 18 percent of the population was under the age of 18 while 21.4 percent of the population was over the age of 65–a deficit of 3.4 percentage points. In Coos County, 18.2 percent of the population was under the age of 18 while 20 percent of the population was over the age of 65–a deficit of 1.8 percentage points. Not surprisingly, both counties have more deaths than births.

Grafton County is likely the next county to suffer under an inverted age pyramid. Grafton has the smallest population of “under 18″ in the state at 17.9 percent with those “over 65″ making up 16 percent of the population–a small positive difference of 1.9 percentage points.

Hillsborough County has the healthiest age pyramid in the state with a population of “under 18″ at 22.9 percent (the highest in the state) and a population of “over 65″ at 12.2 percent–a positive difference of 10.7 percentage points.

contact: Ellen Kolb, Cornerstone Vice-President for Government Affairs, 603-321-2703, ekolb@nhcornerstone.org

Cornerstone commends the New Hampshire Senate for its passage this morning of HB 217, regarding fetal homicide. We recognize that the House and Senate versions differ and will need to be reconciled. We are confident that this can be done so that this long-awaited law can go into effect. The New Hampshire Supreme Court noted in 2009 that New Hampshire law has a gap where the death of a preborn child is concerned. Every New Hampshire woman who chooses to carry her pregnancy should have that choice fully respected under law. Any drunk driver or abusive partner who causes a woman to lose a wanted pregnancy needs to answer to the community for that loss of life.

In 2009, Justice Duggan, writing for a unanimous New Hampshire Supreme Court in the Lamy case, overturned the conviction of a drunk driver for causing the death of a child – a child who was in utero when the intoxicated driver struck the mother. The child had to be delivered two months prematurely, and the child died two weeks later as a result of injuries sustained in the collision. Justice Duggan pointed out that New Hampshire criminal law did not support a conviction for the child’s death. Duggan wrote, “Should the legislature find the result in this case as unfortunate as we do, it should follow the lead of many other states and revisit the homicide statutes as they pertain to the fetus.”

Today, the Senate has agreed with the House that the Court’s suggestion is well worth following. Cornerstone’s supporters are grateful to the many representatives and senators who are promoting this important bill.

###

Recently, Chief Executive Magazine released their “Best States for Business 2012″ which is based on a survey of 650 business leaders on questions such as tax and regulation, quality of workforce, and living environment.

Unfortunately, New Hampshire’s sterling reputation among the nation’s top business leaders is beginning to tarnish. In 2012, New Hampshire fell by 8 spots to land at number 26. More troubling, New Hampshire has been one of the largest losers since 2008  dropping 12 spots.

So the question is why? Looking more closely at the survey points to the culprit–not being a right-to-work state. In fact, one of the CEO comments on New Hampshire had this to say about right-to-work:

“New Hampshire is coming on strong. If they can ever institute “right-to-work” legislation, they could rise to number one.”

Additionally, this is what they had to say about right-to-work in general:

North Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia and Utah held their positions in the top 10, with Indiana moving up a notch to fifth. CEOs indicate that workforce quality is the state’s single greatest strength, and since it became the 23rd right-to-work state last year, the Hoosier State is likely to punch above its weight competitively in the future. “Indiana is like a breath of fresh air,” volunteered one manufacturing CEO. “I have operated on both coasts, the Southeast and Chicago, and Indiana is where I will keep my manufacturing operations.”

It may be no accident that most of the states in the top 20 are also right-to-work states, as labor force flexibility is highly sought after when a business seeks a location. Several economists, most notably Ohio State’s Richard Vedder and Harvard’s Robert Barro, have found that the economies in R-to-W areas grow faster than other states, have higher employment and attract more inward migration.

Speaking of Indiana, here is what one CEO had to say about their recent adoption of right-to-work:

“Indiana is centrally located, has a balanced budget and excess reserves on hand, is a low overall tax environment, is business friendly and is now a right to work state. If you want to locate in the Midwest, there is no other state in its class.”

So there you have it. New Hampshire does have a good business climate, but failing to enact right-to-work is causing us to slip-slide down the list. After all, 23 states now have right-to-work and it will be difficult, if not impossible, to ever reach the upper echelons of this CEO survey without it.

Recently we came across this article by Robert Stein, former deputy assistant secretary for macroeconomic analysis at the U.S. Treasury Department, on “Taxes and the Family.” The whole article is worth a read, albeit slow-going at times, because he makes a compelling argument that the federal tax code should be more friendly to families with children.

Why? Put simply, these households are engaged in production–creating human capital in their children. Arguably, this human capital is the most important form of capital in the entire economy. While the tax code recognizes capital investment by businesses, it is failing to do so for human capital. Robert Stein states the problem as such:

In particular, it is time to rethink how the tax code treats ­parents. Too many free-market economists still consider families an ­afterthought — ­arguing that the tax code should be “neutral” about raising children, as if parenting were merely one hobby among many. But raising children is hardly just another pastime: It is one of the most important services any American can perform for our country.

Even if we ignore the societal and cultural implications of parenting and consider economic factors alone, no government — especially not a government committed to an entitlement system like ours — can be neutral toward the very existence of future generations of taxpayers. Our nation’s long-term economic prospects are threatened by a declining fertility rate that, if it remains constant, will only barely manage to replace our current population. And even as Social Security and Medicare depend on large numbers of future workers, they have created an enormous fiscal bias against procreation, undermining an important motive for raising children: to safeguard against poverty in old age.

By targeting tax reforms to address these problems, policymakers would both offer meaningful relief to American families and create political opportunities to enact other pro-growth policies. Such reforms could eventually yield a much simpler tax code with lower top marginal rates on work and investment, as well as more favorable treatment for families with children. The result would be a tax-reform agenda with the right attitude toward families — and one with a chance to break the political logjam that has prevented serious change for a generation . . .

And in the end, it is right and proper to show some favor to parents. Our country is not comprised of individuals who simply fall out of the sky as fully grown citizens — and our civilization’s continued existence hinges on the willingness and desire of adults to raise children. Our public policy can no longer fail to reward those who do.

This Thursday the Senate Health and Human Services Committee will be voting on HB 1560, the Health Care Compact, in committee. Cornerstone strongly supports this bill for reasons listed below.

Cornerstone urges Senators Bradley and Lambert (both on the HHS Committee) to reject Obamacare and pass the Health Care Compact which is the first step to rejecting federal control of health care in New Hampshire and enlarging the universe of choices that New Hampshire citizens have for health insurance.

Some of our Senators seem to be persuaded that we may lose federal dollars if the compact passes. The threat of losing federal dollars was also taken to heart by those in Senate leadership last week when many Senators failed to vote in support of pro-life bills.

I hope our good senators will keep in mind that the prosperity we enjoy in New Hampshire as the state with the largest private sector share of personal income did not occur because we pursue policies that maximize the flow of federal dollars to the Granite State. Our prosperity was born by our focus on maintaining a low tax burden and aversion for intrusive regulations.

The federal government will not bring prosperity to New Hampshire. Please tell our Senators that we don’t want them to trade our state rights to Washington, D.C. in exchange for federal dollars like our neighbors in Maine and Vermont. New Hampshire is the beacon of hope for business owners and families in New England and they need access to a menu of competitive choices for health insurance, not a one-size-fits-all policy.

What will the Health Care Compact do for New Hampshire?

The Health Care Compact, HB 1560, will bring health care regulation and control of our tax dollars back to state government.

The Health Care Compact DOES NOT make any cuts to any existing Medicare or Medicaid programs or benefits.

The Health Care Compact will allow Granite Staters a greater voice in health care by bringing authority back to state government that is far more accountable to voters.

Medicare and Medicaid under federal control have become a massive fiscal liability and Medicaid is bankrupting our state. Between 2001 and 2011 Medicaid enrollment has gone from 83,500 to 163,000 recipients an increase of 98% and Medicaid spending by state government has grown from $878 Million in 2001 to 1.42 Billion in 2010 with federal funding decreasing from 56% to 50% this is an increase of 62%. Most of this growth is due in part to federal mandates and program expansion.

Passing the Health Care Compact will allow New Hampshire to join with other states to regulate healthcare and control health care dollars New Hampshire receives.

By returning Health Care to the authority of state government, citizens have a greater voice in health care policy and, as a result, will restore local control, greater fiscal accountability, and transparency to our health care system.

Please contact Senator Jeb Bradley (Chairman of the Senate HHS Committee) and Senator Gary Lambert (member of HHS Committee) today and courteously ask them to fight Obamacare by passing the Health Care Compact, HB 1560.

Dist. 3, Sen. Jeb Bradley, jeb.bradley@leg.state.nh.us, 271-8472

Dist. 13, Sen. Gary Lambert, gary.lambert@leg.state.nh.us, 271-2609

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ellen Kolb, VP Government Affairs, Cornerstone Action, 603-321-2703

The passage of a ban on partial-birth abortion opens a new chapter in advancing the life issues in New Hampshire. Despite Senator Kelly’s claim that the abortion-related debate was “resolved a long time ago”, thousands of New Hampshire residents know better. HB 1679 keeps intact a woman’s right to choose whether to continue or abort a pregnancy. It simply says that New Hampshire refuses to put out the welcome mat for practitioners of a gruesome procedure akin to infanticide. We hope Governor Lynch will let this bill become law.

New Hampshire moved one step closer to collecting abortion statistics through today’s Senate passage of HB 1680. We note that this was a voice vote; no senator was willing to go on record against it. This is a common-sense bill and it is long overdue. Governor Lynch should have no trouble with this one.

##

J. Scott Moody, Vice President of Policy for Cornerstone Policy Research, recently gave this presentation on why New Hampshire needs to enact Right-to-Work (Powerpoint). Check it out!

Anecdotally, it is a well-worn verse in New Hampshire that the state has been losing its young people. A new study from the U.S. Census Bureau confirms this.

The study titled “Historical Migration of the Young, Single, and College-Educated: 1965 to 2000,” (pdf) examined the past four decennial censuses to determine the net migration of this population among the 50 states. Based on a state’s net migration over these four time-periods, they classify a state as a “consistent gainer,” “inconsistent gainer,” “inconsistent decliner,” and “consistent decliner.”

As shown in the chart below, New Hampshire is classified as an “inconsistent decliner” because there was one time-period (1985-1990) where New Hampshire was a net in-migrant state. However, upon closer look at the data, that one time-period fell significantly short of reversing the out-going tide of young, single, and college-educated folks.

The 1965 to 1970 time-period was New Hampshire’s worst with 212.6 people for every 1,000 people between the ages of 25 and 39 leaving that state. The time-periods 1975 to 1980 and 1995 to 2000 were net out-migrant years but at a much lower level (-34.9 and -114.8, respectively). The one in-migrant time-period was 1985 to 1990 with 52.9 people per 1,000 coming into the state—a rate that is far short of off-setting the out-migration of other time-periods.

Overall, this is an important piece of the puzzle when it comes to understanding the underlying population trends that have contributed to New Hampshire’s Demographic Winter—where 3 counties now have more deaths than births. Put simply, these young people are the foundation of New Hampshire’s future families. So New Hampshire’s declining birth rate is, in part, due to having fewer families in their prime child-bearing years.

As such, if New Hampshire is going to reverse Demographic Winter then we will have to find a way to not only keep our young people in the state, but also to attract young people from other states. The best way to accomplish this goal is by enacting Right-to-Work (Powerpoint) which would boost jobs–the prime concern of young, single, college-educated folks.

Wendy Warcholik, Executive Director of Cornerstone, had the honor of speaking at the Tea Party Rally in Manchester on Sunday.  It was a beautiful day, the crowd was enthusiastic, and the line-up of speakers was incredible. Wendy’s talk was titled “Demographic Winter and Taxes” from which the following is excerpted:

The sad reality is that New Hampshire’s families are under a state of siege. This siege stems from no-fault divorce, the universal availability of contraception, the legalization of abortion, the rise of cohabitation and today’s debate over same-s*x marriage.

Now the consequences of the decline in the family are becoming clear.  Demographers are now tracking a new phenomenon that they have termed “Demographic Winter.” Demographic winter is the point where there are too few babies being born to support the current population level.

While it may be spring-like here today, more and more of New Hampshire is succumbing to Demographic Winter. In fact, just recently the U.S. Census Bureau released new population data for 2011 by county which showed that 3 counties are already in the red zone—Belknap, Carrol, and Coos—having fewer births than deaths. Five other counties—Grafton, Sullivan, Cheshire, Merrimack, and Strafford—are in the yellow zone with only a thin cushion of births over deaths.

So what does this have to with tax day? Put simply, a shrinking population base means the current tax burden will be spread over fewer people. As such, if the level of taxes doesn’t change, the tax burden we all pay will get higher.

In the long run, this is simply unsustainable since fewer people and a rising tax burden means that it will become much harder to generate economic growth. Without economic growth, Demographic Winter will be compounded by folks leaving to find greener pastures. This is a viscous cycle that we must start working to avoid TODAY–help Cornerstone’s efforts in avoiding this catastrophe by Donating Today.

One tax solution that Cornerstone supports is the enactment of what is commonly known as Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). New Hampshire’s version is embodied by HB 1607 which works via a business tax credit and is currently winding its way through Concord.

It goes without saying that education is the one of the largest expenses of raising a child. And New Hampshire already has one of the highest property tax burdens in the country.

And while we get decent returns for our money, it is simply not enough. ESAs would allow parents to decide the best form of schooling for their child—whether it’s a traditional public school, a charter school, a private school or, the biggest trend in education today, homeschooling—and would significantly help couples who desire to have a large family.

Additionally, ESAs would provide needed financial relief to current and future families. Under the status quo, any form of schooling beyond public schools comes at a steep financial penalty because families will always have to pay their property taxes in addition to their expenses for other options.

In the end, public policy must start recognizing the traditional family unit as the best and only way for the state to avoid the ills of Demographic Winter. Anything less will mean that we will leave our children a legacy of higher tax burdens and less economic prosperity.