New Hampshire State Budget New

New Hampshire State Budget New Hampshire's State Budget The New Hampshire State Budget office provides fiscal, budget and administrative oversight to all State Agencies and ensures compliance with RSAs, Administrative Rules, Federal laws and regulations as required for each individual agency. During the General Court's annual sessions and throughout the year, the Office of Legislative Budget Assistant (LBA) Budget Division provides technical staff assistance in the areas of finance, accounting, and budgeting to members of the Legislature and its committees. It also assists in preparing the operating and capital budgets.

The LBA staff provides aid and information to special study committees and commissions. It also reviews all programs or activities of state government which are required by statute to determine discretionary and non-discretionary State spending (State p 2). In New Hampshire over the past twelve years a change in state spending and income has been noted that has alarmed tax-payers and businessmen alike.

Tax increases have only covered certain programs, while other programs have, of necessity, been cut, as a result of vested obligations which the state has toward certain federal programs. The New Hampshire Banker's Association released a study in 2002 on the economic impact of increasing business taxes, recognizing that increases in business taxes from 1998 through 2002 were significant, and in the case of the Business Enterprise Tax (BET), rose over 300% and was among the highest in the country.

This increase was attributed to the state's school funding obligations, as set out in Claremont I and II. 2003 study by the Public Policy Center on the New Hampshire budget findings also determined that actual general-fund appropriations for many state government programs declined during the 10 years from 1993 to 2003, rather than increased in dollars adjusted for inflation and for population growth. Meanwhile, funding for six programs in New Hampshire grew significantly faster than inflation, consuming all of the real increase in general-fund revenues that the economy generated, including the state's population.

The six programs were: 1. Basic aid to public school districts 2. Medicaid payments to doctors, hospitals, and other providers of health care for the poor 3. The NH Department of Corrections 4. Payments to nursing homes and home-health nurses caring for the elderly poor 5. Municipal aid 6. Payments to the state's retirement system for state and local government employees.

During the 10-year period between 1993 and 2003, New Hampshire increased its general-fund appropriations from $720 million in 1993 to $1,234 million in 2003, an increase of $514 million or 71% in current dollars, or an increase equal to an average increase of 5.5% compounded for each of the 10 years. However, general-fund spending has been less than the state's economic growth. The 71% rate of growth of general-fund appropriations was considerably less than the growth of personal income in New Hampshire (81%) or gross state product (93%) over the 1993-2003 period.

Appropriations for AFDC/TANF welfare declined more than any other function, largely because of the change from a federal matching grant to a block grant during a period of declining caseloads, according to the Public Policy studies. It was estimated that future attempts to hold state general-fund spending increases below 5.5% annually would probably require changes in state laws or federal regulations that caused high rates of growth. Agreement on general budget growth targets will not be sufficient alone (Hall p. 1).

On the other hand, between 1997 and 2007, General fund appropriations grew approximately $500 million. This is an average rate of 4.5% per year, slightly more than inflation and the increase in New Hampshire's population combined. Overall growth in general fund spending was less than the state's economic growth. The growth rate of general fund appropriations, 55.4%, was much less than the growth of personal income in New Hampshire (72.9%) or gross state product (69.2%) between 1997 and 2007. Healthcare costs remained a primary expense in the state budget.

The top two budget expenses are driven by growth in the number of people receiving health care, the types of care being provided, and the payment levels for health care. Again, the five activities experiencing growth rates much higher than inflation and changes in population growth were: 1. Medicaid payments to doctors, hospitals, and other providers of health care for the poor and disabled (a 103% increase in nominal appropriations). 2. Payments to the state's retirement system for state and local government employees (244%). 3. Payments to local school districts for special education costs (264%). 4.

Payments to local school districts for the costs of new construction (155%). 5. The NH Department of Corrections (83%). (Norton p. 1) What this meant in terms of these five programs combined with constraints on revenue growth, was a reduction in funding for all other state services combined. These top five budget expenses took the remainder of the state's general fund appropriations, considering changes in population and inflation over this ten-year period from 1997 to 2007. The growth in general fund expenditures had slowed since the analysis of the budget between 1993 and 2003.

It appears that increased competition for revenues crowded out expenditures in non-education state services. General fund appropriations growth rates and maintaining their programs requires significant new policy on the state level. Because these five programs are entitlements -the state is obligated to pay for the services within the programs' eligibility requirements -changes in program eligibility requirements will have to be made, along with the benefits offered or reimbursement for direct care services.

or, growth in the entitlement programs might be funded either by offsetting reductions in other, non-entitlement portions of the budget, or by increasing revenues from current taxes or by instituting new ones (Norton p. 1). In 2005, President George W. Bush issued the following mandate to New Hampshire, since the President's Budget built on his first term's progress by focusing resources on the Nation's priorities, exercising prudent spending restraint in order to achieve the President's goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009.

On top of the dramatic funding increases for key K-12 programs since 2001, the President's Budget provided continued support for No Child Left Behind. Under the President's Budget, New Hampshire would receive more than $34 million in Title I funding for the No Child Left Behind Act in 2006, a 5.2% increase over 2005 and a 55% increase since the President took office. However, this did not cover the total in expenditures provided for in the New Hampshire budget.

The 2006 federal budget also provided more than $45 million in special education funding for New Hampshire through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), a 4% increase over 2005 and a 67% increase since the President took office. The federal budget provided over $11 million to New Hampshire for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children - more commonly known as WIC - a 6.4% increase over 2005. WIC serves the nutritional needs of low-income pregnant and post-partum women, infants, and children up to their fifth birthday.

The 2006 federal budget also included $9.5 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to implement the President's plan to provide the United States with nearly 100% detection capability for a U.S. coastal tsunami. The new system would also expand monitoring capabilities throughout the Pacific and Atlantic/Caribbean basins, providing tsunami warnings for regions bordering half of the world's oceans. (President paras. 1, 11-15) Federal obligations through programs implemented by the administration drew taxes that would have gone to other programs into obligatory educational, environmental and welfare funds.

And the funds for these programs would of necessity, mean that other programs implemeneted by the state would be cut. Governor Benson stated on July 24, 2003 on state radio: think we need to make sure that we push as hard as we possibly can to insure that we don't fall back into the old ways of doing things. That's our job I think.

So if we're not pushing as hard as we possibly can we will never realize the changes that we can make to find better ways of doing things (Rogers para. 6). The governor's plan for funding of these 2004-2005 changes included cutting 5 million dollars from the budget of the Department of Environmental Services and extending the state's hiring frees, including 57 positions at Health and Human Services.

Rochester Senator Dick Green, chairman of the senate finance committee said that he was frustrated with Benson's plans for Health and Human services, and doubted the governor's focus on change was in the public interest. His remarks reflected the frustration that he, and possibly the Governor himself, felt in the face of mounting federal obligations, the needs of the people in New Hampshire and stress put upon the individual taxpayer and businesses in the state in 2005, which has only grown over the past two years (Rogers para.

9) There are six categories which the state budget oversees from Concord. They are General Government, Administration of Justice and Public Printing, Resource Protection and Development, Transportation, and Health and Human Services.

The Category Totals for the 2006-2007 Biennial State Operating Budget, found in Chapter 176, Laws of 2005, are as follows: Chapter 176 - Laws of 2005 - NH Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2006 Fiscal Year 2007 Total Appropriation for Category 01 GENERAL GOVERNMENT AS INCLUDED in SECTION 1.01-403,003,676 416,233,183 ESTIMATED SOURCE of FUNDS for CATEGORY 01, GENERAL GOVERNMENT AS INCLUDED in SECTION 1.01 FEDERAL FUNDS 17,924,517 17,918,180 OTHER FUNDS 106,867,295 105,489,779 GENERAL FUND 278,211,864 292,825,224 TOTAL 403,003,676 416,233,183 Total Appropriation for Category 02 ADMIN of JUSTICE & PUBLIC PRTN AS INCLUDED in SECTION 1.02-420,003,205 424,638,566 ESTIMATED SOURCE of FUNDS for CATEGORY 02, ADMIN of JUSTICE & PUBLIC PRTN, as INCLUDED in SECTION 1.02 FEDERAL FUNDS 52,837,182 50,445,675 OTHER FUNDS 152,998,319.