On Tuesday, the long-anticipated first-in-the-nation New Hampshire Presidential Primary will lend its voice of support to one Republican who will hopefully go on to challenge the current commander in chief come November. Foster's Sunday Citizen and Foster's Daily Democrat after many editorial board meetings and covering countless campaign events ח has endorsed Mitt Romney. We could spend the words that follow here listing nearly endless reasons why Granite State Republicans should give Romney their own endorsement on Tuesday. But the primary season has been long, and to some extent we agree with readers who believe it is time for New Hampshire to have its say and quickly move along the process of choosing a challenger to the president. With that said (or written, as the case may be), here are our top ten reasons for supporting Romney: With that said (or written, as the case may be), here are our top ten reasons for supporting Romney: 10 He can win the White House. This is lowest on our list because, while important, the substance of his policies and what they will do for the nation are more critical. 9 ח He has been endorsed by a cross-section of the GOP from a more moderate John McCain to Tom Thomson, son of a very conservative New Hampshire governor, Meldrim Thomson. 8 ח As a candidate, Foster's has seen him grow and mature, making this time his time to be the nominee. 7 His faith in family, God and country is rock-solid. 6 ח He has built businesses. 5 He has suffered the slings and arrows of failed businesses. 4 ח He has had to meet a payroll. 3 He has led as a large-state governor and chief executive. 2 ח He has a well spelled-out plan for the economy. 1 Finally, the former Massachusetts governor has been Reaganesque in his ability to stay the course and keep his eye of the prize ח the White House and leader of the free world. One of President Ronald Reagan's greatest strengths was to see the big picture. This allowed him to define a problem, focus on it and accomplish his goals as president no matter how long that took. Take for example, the fall of the Russian bear. The seeds of Reagan's success that led to the Berlin Wall coming down were sown decades before as Reagan came to understand that the Republican Party not the Democratic Party ח should be his home. Readers will note that in compiling this list and urging you vote for Romney, Foster's has not taken to task any other candidate in the GOP race. That is not because we lack concerns about their policies and convictions. It is because we don't have to draw and quarter another Republican in order to endorse Mitt Romney. Romney's credentials and his character stand on their own. This devoted father, husband, businessman and former governor offers the stuff great presidents are made of. When all is said and done, there are plenty of reasons to vote for Romney, not against someone else. On Tuesday, Foster's Sunday Citizen and Foster's Daily Democrat respectfully ask you our readers to vote for Mitt Romney, someone who will proudly and ably represent the Republican Party come Election Day

In passing the 2011 budget, the Legislature made tough decisions and difficult cuts to stabilize NH finances while also laying the groundwork for economic recovery. Judging the 2011 budget must be made in the context of the previous two budgets which increased spending 23% from $9.36 billion to $11.5 billion. In those prior budgets, when tax revenue underperformed, Legislators resorted to unprecedented borrowing for operating expenses and Stimulus funds to close growing deficits. That gap from prior budgets was at least $800 million when current legislators began formulating the 2011 budget. Difficult choices could not be avoided! Those of us tasked with producing a balanced budget also recognized that New Hampshire taxpayers, working families, and small business owners were still reeling from nearly 100 new or increased taxes and fees passed in the previous four years. Those new levies included the job killing LLC business owner income tax and the camping tax that proved to be so odious they were repealed. Given the negative impact that higher taxes would have on job growth and hardworking Granite Staters, higher taxes were an obvious non-starter. Two of the more difficult decisions involved funding for hospitals and the University System. Due to the fact they are both large expenditure items, cuts in these line items could not be avoided if the budget was to be balanced. Very few legislators wanted to make these cuts, but unfortunately they were necessary. Due to their not-for-profit status hospitals pay no business taxes and very little property taxes. Over the years these hospitals have absorbed numerous private physician practices that had previously paid taxes, but now dont, because they are under the hospital umbrella. Meanwhile, some of these not-for-profit hospitals act like large businesses by engaging in expensive advertising wars fighting for market share. Nevertheless, a provision in the budget allows some future funding for hospitals should revenue become available. While virtually all state departments received less funding, the Senate retained funding for the mental-health system and for families that have disabled children. Other budget cuts that generated much discussion were in the Department of Transportation and were made necessary by the expiration of the $30 (and in many instances higher) surcharge on motor vehicle registrations. The surcharge was enacted in the 2009 budget and promised to be a temporary measure. New Hampshire residents complained about this surcharge as much as any of the nearly 100 taxes or fee increased in the previous four years -- rightly viewing it as a ғfee to get to work. Allowing it to expire as promised does have consequences in the Transportation budget however. Initially the Department proposed snow plowing cuts on secondary roads. Several legislators led by Sen. Chuck Morse and Rep. Gene Chandler objected and the newly appointed Transportation Commissioner announced an alternative plan that will ensure the same level of plowing as in past winters. Instead, reductions will be made in maintenance, mowing, road sweeping, tree trimming, and pavement markings in 2012 and the Department will work with the Legislature to meet budget constraints. In my view, we must prioritize necessary maintenance over most new construction with the exception of projects such as Route 93 expansion, the Little Bay Bridge or Conway bypass that have state-wide traffic significance. There also must be recognition that maintaining our roads and highways costs money. Because of realistic and conservative projections, revenue is somewhat ahead of expectations -- welcome news indeed. Business taxes, the most important revenue source, are 12% above predicted. The rooms and meals tax, the communications tax, and the real estate transfer tax are all slightly ahead. It is a hopeful sign of possible light at the end of the recession tunnel, when business, real estate, and tourism revenue are improving. A key priority, especially for the Senate, has been enacting legislation that improves the business climate for job creation. We passed bipartisan legislation (SB 125) that dramatically curtails the ability of the Department of Revenue to foist a de-facto income tax on the salary a business owner pays him or herself. We passed legislation (SB-86) that restricts the Department of Labor from imposing large fines on business owners for rather minor paperwork violations without first warning the business. We expanded net operating loss provisions to encourage start-up businesses and job creation by wrapping SB-126 into the next budget. Also included in the budget, SB-154 made changes to development rules near rivers and lakes that will encourage a depressed home building industry by easing requirements while still protecting the environment. Furthermore, the Senate sought to relieve future pressure for tax increases through a number of government reform efforts. A new education funding formula sponsored by Senators Jim Rausch and Nancy Stiles ended donor downs and prevented unsustainable future cost increases while ensuring the cities and towns received the same level of funding in these difficult times. SB-147 reforms Medicaid, the largest cost center in our budget, saving significant present and future costs while maintaining quality services for those in need. And finally pension reform will save property taxpayers from skyrocketing costs. This Senate legislation Ԗ much of which I was the primary sponsor of -- will pave the way for more cost effective, efficient government and a demonstrably improved business climate. New Hampshires unemployment rate -- while still too high -- has dropped from 5.7% in November 2010 to 5.3% today. However, the fact that nearly 40,000 of our friends and neighbors remain out of work gives added urgency to these measures. There are also budget storm clouds on the horizon. The federal government seeks to recoup $35 million of excess Medicaid payments made to New Hampshire several years ago. This calls for continued careful budgeting and living within our means. Governor Lynch was able to save $26 million from the previous budget through carefully managing each departmentҒs expenditures. A budget provision supported by Governor Lynch as well as Senate and House budget writers would curtail welfare eligibility saving $8million per year. Though almost most legislators agree with this change, a drafting mistake was made and the language was not reflected in the final budget. Realizing this, the Senate met in early September to pass fix-it legislation before more money was spent. Unfortunately, the House waited for a month to address the issue which cost nearly a million dollars. The House then added a non-germane amendment that will foolishly cost another two million dollars. The State needs to continue to practice frugality to protect hard pressed New Hampshire taxpayers and to help our economy weather the national recession.

On Wednesday, both the House and Senate passed a comprehensive two year budget that Governor Lynch has said he will not veto. Some have praised the budgets fiscal responsibility while others have criticized the cuts it makes to services. From my vantage point, it is a budget that makes tough choices, establishes priorities, and makes long overdue reforms so that government services will be delivered in a more cost effective manner Җ all of which will enable NHs competitiveness and future job growth. Six months ago NH confronted a gaping $800 million projected budget gap. Despite a languishing economy, the previous two budgets had increased spending 23% from $9.36 billion to $11.5 billion. Prior budgets had relied on inflated revenue estimates that never materialized, borrowing for operating expenses, and one time federal stimulus dollars. Alarmingly, despite nearly 100 tax and fee increases, an $800 million gap loomed. Voters said enough last November. The 2011 Legislature established two goals: NH would not raise taxes that would harm economic recovery and NH government would live within its means -- just as working families and small business owners have been forced to do in the current economic climate. Budget writers knew great caution was necessary in predicting future revenue and certainly the last six months have proven the wisdom of that caution as revenue has not met expectations. They also knew continued borrowing for operating expenses was unsustainable. Lastly, budget writers knew that with a $14 trillion dollar federal debt and trillion dollar deficits stretching as far as the eye can see -- federal largess was neither possible nor warranted. Extraordinary tough choices had to be made and priorities established, which meant programs Җ many worthy -- were cut. Governor Lynch initially proposed significant reductions to hospitals for uncompensated care, cuts to programs that serve troubled youth, catastrophic aid for schools districts special education costs, Healthy Children, and to the Post Secondary Education Commission, as well as cuts to virtually every state agency except prisons. The Governor also proposed complete elimination of the 35% state assistance for cities and townsҒ retirement costs which would have the effect of increasing property taxes by $85 million annually. Governor Lynch also presumed that revenue growth would be a relatively healthy 3.5%. Unfortunately as winter turned into spring, revenue in the current budget was $42 million less than projected. Legislative budget writers had to make further spending reductions than those proposed by the Governor. NH has learned the hard way: spending that depends upon revenue that may never materialize is foolhardy. When the budget reached the Senate, the chair of the Finance Committee, Chuck Morse, effectively established priorities. Senator Morse added funds back in to the budget for mental health programs, the developmentally disabled, Service Link, troubled youth, adoption initiatives, and catastrophic aid for special education. Morse proposed key reforms including allowing up to 600 inmates to be incarcerated at private prisons to create savings to pay for some of these adjustments. The Governors proposed elimination of retirement assistance to cities and towns was mitigated by pension reform legislation Җ benefitting hard pressed property taxpayers. Given the significantly under-performing revenue, funding could not be restored for the University System or to hospitals. Some people have asked why then was the tobacco tax lowered and why were net-operating-loss provisions expanded. Supporters of the tobacco tax decrease believe there will be no net revenue loss as an increase in cross border sales will occur that will help small businesses. If there is a revenue loss, then the budget calls for the tax decrease to be removed in two years. The net-operating-loss provisions will only take effect in the next budget. These provisions allow business to better carry forward losses against future profits. This will improve New Hampshires business climate and has been an important priority for chambers of commerce across the state. In total, spending has been reduced to $10.2 billion -- an 11% cut. Taxes have not been raised, borrowing for operating expenses has been eliminated, no federal bailouts have been assumed, and rosy revenue projections have been rejected. This budget does what small businesses, working families, and taxpayers have been doing for some time: making tough choices to live within their means. While much has been written about the budgetҒs bottom line and the impact on particular programs, less discussed are the reforms that will enable state government to deliver services far more effectively and efficiently. Medicaid the largest cost item in our budget ֖ will be delivered through managed care as a result of legislation I sponsored and Governor Lynch recently signed. Managed care will save millions without sacrificing quality. A new education funding formula maintains funding levels, holds communities harmless, eliminates donor towns, while mitigating large spending hikes in Concord. Bipartisan legislation I sponsored will curtail the practice of revenue auditors assessing what in essence is an income tax on the salaries small business owners pay themselves a key reform to enhance NH֒s competitiveness. I also sponsored bipartisan Shoreland Protection legislation which protects our shoreland while also simplifying the permitting process and helping homebuilders create jobs. Prison and retirement reforms will also clearly benefit taxpayers. Voters sent a clear message last November government had to live within its means and stop reaching ever further into taxpayers֒ pockets. This budget makes the tough choices to do exactly that. By doing our job in the Legislature ending the climate of spending hikes, unsustainable borrowing, inflated revenue projections, and ever more tax and fee hikes; the stage is set for further job growth and when job growth is sustained --- revenue will grow. Tough choices, priorities, necessary reforms that will grow jobs -- or as President Kennedy said a rising tide that will lift all boats.

More Retirement Questions and Answers Many folks have written me, attended forums I have held or called with more questions on retirement reform. In particular people always ask what has caused the New Hampshire Retirement Systems (NHRS) $4.7 billion unfunded liability and how significant is this under-funding. In a previous column I answered how the NHRS got into the current predicament. But it bears repeating, as some folks maintain the fault is exclusively employers (cities, towns, counties, and the state) for underpaying retirement costs. Here's what I previously wrote: ғIn the early 1990s during another difficult recession, an actuarial accounting methodology was put in place to save employer costs. Its intent was temporary. Unfortunately this methodology remained in place until 2006 and when changed, the true picture of a $2.75 billion unfunded liability was revealed. During that period employers significantly underpaid retirement costs, though the rates were set by the NHRS and Legislative policy. Please note that the $2.75 billion unfunded liability of several years ago has grown to todayԒs $4.7 billion. There is no question that public employers who after all consist of taxpayers --- underpaid retirement costs for a lengthy period due to an accounting methodology adopted by the Legislature years ago in my first term. No one denies it֒s a major cause of todays problems and that accounting methodology has subsequently been changed by the Legislature. Many people simply want to blame employers for the current ills of the NHRS --hoping that alone will kill retirement reform. But they ignore two other major factors that produced the $4.7 billion unfunded liability. As Paul Harvey used to say --- And Now The Rest of the Story. First, according to the most recent Summary Annual Financial Report of 2010, approximately $900 million was transferred from the main pension account to ғsupport extra benefits for members. The report continues ԓthose transfers totaled approximately $900 million substantially reducing the ability of the NHRS to cushion significant market declines such as those in 2000 and 2009. www.nhrs.org/documents/summaryreportfinal.pdf (page 8) The effect of these transfers cannot be underestimated. Given the compounding nature of $900 million, these dollars transferred from the main pension account represent much more than $900 million. Thankfully Governor Lynch signed legislation several years ago that curtailed further transfers. However, labor officials have sued to allow continued transfer of funds --turning a blind eye to the damage done to the pension system upon which retirees depend. Secondly, while money was being diverted to support extra benefits, the investment return assumptions of the NHRS did not match expectations. Investment assumptions set by the NHRS Board have been 8.5%. However the 20 year actual returns have been 7.8%. More alarmingly, the returns of the last 10 years have been a paltry 2.3%. While the investment assumptions have recently and correctly been lowered, the long term under performance of investments in the NHRS has also had a major impact on NHRSԒs current predicament. These two factors cannot be glossed over or wished away by those who are primarily blaming the cities, towns, counties and the state. Furthermore, blame is not going to solve the reality of the $4.7 billion under-funding confronting the NHRS. How big are the problems of a $4.7 billion unfunded liability? Some people claim that the unfunded liability is significantly lower than $4.7 billion. This is just not true. The $4.7 billion figure comes from the most recent 2010 Actuarial Valuation Report of the NHRS actuaries Gabriel Roeder and Smith: www.nhrs.org/documents/2010_actuarial_valuation_final.pdf (Page 1 & 2 of the Executive Summary). The current pension liability is $3.72 billion and the medical subsidy liability is $976 million for the total NHRS unfunded liability of $4.7 billion. The NHRS unfunded liability in the previous year was $4.03 billion, consisting of a pension shortfall of $3.54 billion and medical subsidy shortfall of $496 million. The pension liability alone is projected to grow next year by $164 million and projected to continue to grow for another 12 years. (page 17) Most importantly, this unfunded liability is having a profound impact on cities, towns, counties and the state. How? Just as retirement costs for employers were artificially low for years they are now spiking and will continue to further spike. In two years employers, and that means taxpayers who are primarily property taxpayers, will pay retirement costs that are 13.61% of salary for teachers, 29.2% for police officers, and 33.9% for firefighters. When lower investment assumptions are accounted for, rates will climb another 10% to 16% depending upon employment category. These spiking rates along with higher health care costs have dramatically driven up the cost of public employment. Cities and towns have been forced to make painful decisions. In my area, Governor Wentworth Regional School District teachers and administrators agreed to salary reductions of five less paid days to prevent job losses. They should be commended! Nashua has cut its budget by $1.7 million and sent layoff notices to 20 teachers. Manchester has proposed eliminating 200 paraprofessionals from classrooms, 17 firefighters, and has 20 vacant positions in the police department. While retirement costs are not the only factor driving up budgets, they are a major factor. Lastly, how bad are NHs problems relative to other states? According to an April 29th article titled ғ10 States Where Pensions Are Running Out of Money published by 24/7 Wall Street, New HampshireԒs Retirement System ranked third worst in the nation. This retirement debate is occurring against the backdrop of beleaguered taxpayers and continued economic anxiety. I always ask opponents of retirement reform what is their answer to the steep and long term increases looming for property taxpayers and the impact these higher costs will have on job growth and possibly the states bond rating. Thus far I have not heard any answers. Complaining is easy, but itҒs still not a solution.

Over the past three months members of the New Hampshire Senate have focused on passing legislation that will bring expenditures into line with revenues, reform antiquated programs, enhance public safety, protect both the environment and property rights, and improve the business climate. Noteworthy legislation includes: Senate Bill (SB)-183 introduced by Senator Jim Rausch and Senator Nancy Stiles reforms the current education funding formula that pits town against town and has growing unsustainable costs. Senators Rausch and Stiles devised a new formula that assures that every community receives the same level of education funding next year, prevents funding decreases to nearly 125 towns, and blocks the return of donor towns. It will also reduce state expenditures by $140 million by level funding the formula. This critical legislation passed the Senate on a bi-partisan voice vote and enjoys the support of Governor Lynch. I sponsored SB-3 which addresses the New Hampshire Retirement System’s dangerous unfunded liability of $4.7 billion. It will ensure that the pension system is viable for current and future retirees, while lowering skyrocketing rates that cities and towns (taxpayers) must pay for employees, teachers, police and firefighters. Current retirees will not be affected. Employees close to retirement will in most circumstances only experience increased contribution rates. Some younger employees may have to work one to four years longer and be unable to add items such as unused sick and vacation time to pension calculations. While most employees affected by these changes have concerns and many have expressed those concerns to me personally, everyone realizes the current unfunded liability and corresponding increase in property taxes is unsustainable. No one understands this reality better than struggling taxpayers. SB-3 passed the Senate 19-5. Senator Chuck Morse sponsored CACR-5 (a Constitutional Amendment) to give New Hampshire governors line-item veto power. New Hampshire is one of a handful of states whose governor does not have the ability to veto extraneous spending. The proposal would include a 2/3rd override provision by the Legislature and could only be used to eliminate spending items – not language in legislation. Given that spending increased 24% over the previous four years, the line-item veto would have proven a useful tool. CACR-5 passed the Senate 19-5, must still be adopted by the House and then approved by 67% of voters in November 2012. Senator Bob Odell sponsored SB-1 which restores parity between public employees and employers in contract negotiations by repealing the so called “evergreen” law. “Evergreen” allowed step pay increases to continue even after the expiration of a contract. This provided a powerful disincentive against employees negotiating new contracts. Cities and towns can still agree on an “evergreen clause” if local voters approve it. SB-1 passed 19-5 in the Senate, 282-70 in the House, and Governor Lynch allowed it to become law without his signature. It should be noted, amidst all the recent controversy about collective bargaining, the focus of SB-1 is very limited and does not undermine public employee’s rights to organize collectively in a union. Senate President Peter Bragdon sponsored SB-52 which corrects the ill-fated provisions of SB-500 which allowed early release of violent offenders and took away discretion of the Parole Board by limiting parole violations to no more than a 90 day return to prison.  Bragdon’s legislation gives the Parole Board the ability to block early release and allows the board far greater latitude to return repeat offenders to prison for more than a 90 day “slap on the wrist.” This legislation ends the minimal administrative supervision for high risk sexual predators that have completed their prison terms and replaces it with active supervision. SB-52 passed the Senate on a bi-partisan voice vote. I sponsored SB-154 to clarify the Shore Land Protection Act. SB-154 maintains important environmental and water quality protections while also respecting the rights of property owners. It is supported by the NH Lakes Association, the Department of Environmental Services, home builders and property rights advocates. It passed the Senate on a bi-partisan voice vote. If enacted into law SB-154 will simplify the permitting process and give a boost to the depressed construction industry in the Lakes Region. I also sponsored SB-147 which will implement managed care for Medicaid eligible residents. Managed care has been utilized by many states to lower the cost of Medicaid (the largest cost center in NH government) while maintaining quality services. A private entity such as an insurance company competitively bids to serve the Medicaid population and assumes the financial risk. By creating a medical home for patients and better management of chronic conditions, quality care is maintained while costs are curtailed. Governor Lynch has embraced managed care and estimated $33 million in savings in his budget. Savings over time could be far more significant. SB-147 has passed the Senate on a bi-partisan voice vote. Lastly, I have sponsored SB-125 which would give business owners protection from intrusive Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) audits which often result in assessing the 8.5% Business Profits Tax on much of the compensation a business owner pays him or herself. These audits have increased in scope and frequency, have become an income tax on business owners, and are undermining the ability of NH to attract and retain successful and job producing small business owners. An amendment was added to delay implementation pending resolution of the budget. SB-125 passed the Senate with a bi-partisan 24-0 vote and will, I expect, be supported vigorously in the House.

While Concord headlines often focus on and highlight legislative controversies, the Senate continues to work diligently on the major challenges facing our state, and often in a bi-partisan manner. That is what New Hampshire voters want and expect. It is our job to keep those promises.

Several weeks ago I wrote a blog: “The New Hampshire Retirement System’s (NHRS) Day of Reckoning" which has elicited a lot of response. Opinions run the gamut. Virtually everyone agrees promises made to present retirees must be kept. Many believe reform is long overdue and that avoiding today’s tough choices increases future problems. Unions contend retirement benefits are locked in the instant someone completes their probationary period and no changes can be made.  Lastly, some feel this legislation is “alarmist”.

Regardless of one’s views, what no one can escape are the implications of the numbers and what they mean. Consider the following facts:

             1.       The current unfunded pension liability is $3.72 billion.

             2.       The current unfunded medical subsidy liability (a pension adjunct) is $976 million -- leaving a total unfunded liability of $4.69 billion.

            3.       Only 58.5% of the assets needed to fund future pension commitments are available. 80% funding is considered healthy.

            4.    According to a September 2010 Bloomberg survey, NHRS’s 58.5% funding ranks fourth worst in the nation.
Furthermore, pension systems rely heavily on investment earnings to pay benefits.  The NHRS assumes an 8.5% return, but the NHRS average for the last 20 years has been 7.8% and, more alarmingly, only 2.3% for the past 10 years. Under-performing investments didn’t overcome two terribly shortsighted public policy choices made by previous Legislatures that went unchallenged for years by the NHRS Board. An accounting methodology understated employer costs for over a decade and $900 million was skimmed from the pension plan to pay higher employee benefits than required.

These shortsighted choices, combined with recent stock market losses, have dropped the NHRS funding level from 90% in 2000 to today’s precarious 58.5%. If the NHRS board accepts actuary recommendations on investment assumptions, the unfunded liability would grow -- dropping NH’s rank to second worst in the nation.

While those claiming the NHRS is solvent are correct, what they ignore is that taxpayers, primarily property taxpayers, are getting walloped with the bills.

Here’s how the unfunded liability will clobber taxpayers.  Employees such as teachers and municipal workers pay 5% of their salary to the NHRS. Police and firefighters pay 9.3%. Employers / taxpayers -- making up for past mistakes – now pay 10.7% of salary for teachers, 19.51% for police and 24.69% for firefighters. In 2014 those costs are projected to escalate to 13.61% for teachers, 29.20% for police, and 33.90% for firefighters.   When investment assumptions are lowered to reflect reality, the costs to property taxpayers will explode again and stay high for a long time.

 Meanwhile, retirement benefits paid are growing by $40 million in 2010 alone. Much is made of the average pension for every retiree in the system being $18,650.  That’s accurate but doesn’t portend the future.  For teachers who retired in 2010 their pensions averaged $29,800, for police $49,200 and firefighters $59,100.
Teachers must work 30 years, police and firefighters 20 years. Just using 2010 snapshots for the average salary, employee pension contributions and pension benefits; a teacher should recoup their 8% compounded contribution in about 10 years and police officers and firefighters in about 5 years.

Perhaps that’s why the two sides are at loggerheads with taxpayers demanding reform and employees threatening to go to court to prevent any reform. That’s why I filed SB-3: to equitably share this $4.69 billion unfunded liability.

Under SB-3, public safety employees with less than 10 years of service would be expected to work 25 years rather than 20, be eligible to retire at 50 not 45, have pensions determined by the highest 5 years of pay rather than 3, and could not count unused sick time, vacation, or career buyouts to increase their pension. For employees like teachers, 30 years of service would remain but the other provisions would apply. No one would be able to supplement pensions through special details outside the scope of their jobs.  Newly hired employees would contribute more to the NHRS. The Legislature will study implementing a defined contribution plan for new employees and the NHRS board would be balanced between employers and employees.  SB-3 reforms will not impact current retirees!

These changes are equitable to employees and taxpayers and are long overdue.  These reforms will reduce the unfunded liability and the crushing property tax burdens, and for employees ensure a viable retirement system.

 Only with compromise and each side walking in the other’s shoes will this result be possible.   Postponing the day of reckoning only makes the medicine much worse.

Taxpayers are on the hook for the entire unfunded liability right now and those costs are unsustainable.   Employees can claim unfairness and threaten litigation all the way to the court house door – but they miss the bigger point --- they will have priced themselves out of jobs.