Category: Fall 2002 Newswire
Welfare Caseloads Fall Nationwide, Increase in Mass. and N.H.
By Randy Trick
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26, 2002–Welfare caseloads have been dropping nationwide since the system’s reforms in 1995, but for the first time Massachusetts and New Hampshire are seeing increasing enrollments.
Nationwide, the number of families on welfare fell 2.6 percent from December 2000 to December 2001, according to statistics released earlier this week by the federal Health and Human Services Department.
From 1995 through the end of 2000, caseloads dropped 67.2 percent in Massachusetts and 51.7 percent in New Hampshire.
But now, human services departments in both states are seeing increases for the first time, just as the two states are seeing higher unemployment rates and a shrinking job market.
The increase in welfare cases is tied to the economy, said Marie Maio, administrator of transitional assistance in New Hampshire’s Department of Health and Human Services. Dick Powers, public information officer at the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA), echoed the sentiment and said the increasing number of assistance recipients reflects the poor job market.
In addition, the budget situation in Massachusetts presents a dilemma for welfare programs.
“The state is going through a fiscal crisis, there’s no doubt about that,” Powers said. But “when the economy sours, there is a greater need for our services.”
Of all the New England states, only Massachusetts and New Hampshire posted welfare increases during the December 2000-December 2001 period. Other New England states recorded decreases greater than the national average.
The number of families collecting federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in Massachusetts increased 9.5 percent, to 46,790 families. In New Hampshire, the number of families increased 2.6 percent, to 5,786, according to the federal report.
State statistics, which are more up-to-date than federal data, show that the trend has continued in 2002.
In Massachusetts, the number of family welfare cases reached 46,483 in August, up from 42,541 the previous August- an increase of 3,942 families, or 9.3 percent.
In New Hampshire, TANF numbers peaked in May, with 6,196 cases of families receiving welfare, 4 percent higher than for the previous December, the most recent federal figures available.
However, by August the caseload had decreased by 96 families to 6,100, according to Art Stukas, field operations manager in the New Hampshire division of family assistance, part of the Department of Health and Human Services.
“We’re not certain [the decline] is going to continue,” he said.
The increase from August 2001 to August 2002, however, was 6.4 percent, according to numbers from New Hampshire’s Department of Health and Human Services.
In Washington, Rep. Marty Meehan, a Democrat from Lowell, called the increase in caseloads “very disappointing.”
“It’s not too surprising given the state of the economy and the rise of unemployment,” Meehan said.
A bill in Congress to reauthorize welfare reform has hit a blockade, Meehan said, with House and Senate members unable to reach a compromise. Meehan said he hopes the bill will be debated soon.
To understand why the number of TANF recipients is increasing, Maio said her agency has started looking at migration into the state.
“New Hampshire has been publicized as a desirable place to live: housing is abundant and jobs are abundant,” Maio said. But many are finding that this is no longer the case, she said.
Both Maio and Lynn Winterfield, a TANF administrator with New Hampshire’s Department of Health and Human Services, pointed to rent prices increasing 30 to 40 percent and the loss of many jobs in the service industry, including high-tech jobs in Massachusetts and Southern New Hampshire.
Published in The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, in Massachusetts.
Meehan Pushes Bill Through to Give Citizenship to Fallen Veterans
By Randy Trick
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26, 2002--A classic case of a constituent asking a congressman for a new law played out here Thursday, as the House passed a bill by Rep. Marty Meehan to give posthumous citizenship to veterans of the Korean War.
Members of the Massachusetts chapter of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, an Irish American fraternal group, approached Meehan and two other Democratic congressmen from Massachusetts - Barney Frank of Newton and James McGovern of Worcester - asking if they could do something for Irishmen who died serving in the Korean War but were not yet citizens.
Now the Lowell Democrat has made his constituents proud.
"We're entirely grateful," said David R Burke, vice president of the Lawrence chapter of the Ancient Order of Hibernians. "We sure know this will bring comfort to the families."
It took little effort by the Hibernians to convince Meehan, Frank and McGovern to push the bill. After the bill was introduced, Meehan and the initial co-sponsors found over 60 other lawmakers to sign onto the bill, and it passed the House Thursday with over 400 votes. It has yet to see Senate action.
The bill is an important way to recognize the sacrifices made by foreign soldiers, Meehan said.
"Through this nation's history immigrants seeking a better life in America felt the call to serve our military," Meehan said. "It's very important recognition."
The legislation, which passed as part of the Department of Justice Authorization Act, would give families of any veteran killed without citizenship two years to apply for posthumous citizenship. A previous law expired in 1992, and Meehan's bill reopens the window for applications.
The law, if signed by President Bush, would apply to any veteran from anywhere, not just Ireland, and has the support of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion.
According to Burke, there are about a half-dozen Irish from Massachusetts killed in the line of duty in the Korean War who were unable to be given posthumous citizenship. Nationwide, 15 Irish families are expected to seek citizenship for their relatives, with hundreds more from other nationalities expected.
Published in The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, in Massachusetts.
Federal Money to Conn. May Be Delayed
By Marty Toohey
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26, 2002--Connecticut groups waiting for federal funding may not know until November if they'll get their money, thanks to a complicated congressional logjam involving, in part, a House disagreement over education funding and the Senate's inability to pass a federal budget resolution.
Requests for Connecticut include renovation money for a Waterbury hospital, cash for a Norwich transportation center and continued funding for a New Britain water treatment plant.
The water treatment plant will probably get its continued funding, several Republicans said, and the Congressional delay probably won't significantly affect projects if they're passed, as it usually takes several months of red tape before the money becomes available.
Still, some congressmen have grown edgy as they wait to hear which items from their wish-list will make it into the 13 spending bills that fund government programs.
Freshman Rep. Robert Simmons (R-2), eager to show voters what he can bring home, is waiting to hear about a parking garage for downtown Vernon, the transportation center in Norwich and a program to aid home ownership in New London - but he may not know if he can tout them until after the elections.
And St. Mary's Hospital in Waterbury is waiting to see if a $2 million request by Rep. James Maloney (D-5) will go through. That money would pay for renovations to the hospital's emergency department, which was built 10 years ago to accommodate about 30 percent less action than it currently handles. .
The congressional delay involves a myriad of factors, including debate about Iraq and the Department of Homeland Security, and also a pair of related reasons: First, House Republicans are stuck in a disagreement about education funding; and second, the Senate hasn't passed its version of the federal budget, so House members don't know how much money they have to work with.
Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-6) said the disagreement about education funding will be resolved shortly and blamed the Senate's lack of a budget resolution for the holdup.
"The lack of a Senate budget resolution is the real monkey wrench in all this," she said. "If we had a number, we could do this tomorrow."
House Republicans haven't reached an agreement about spending for portions of the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill), though. A group of about 30 moderate Republicans, like Johnson and Chris Shays (R-4), as well as House Democrats, say the bill is woefully underfunded.
Thus far a promise by House Republicans, who control the floor agenda, to conservative GOP members to approve Labor-HHS first has kept other appropriations bills from coming to the floor for a vote.
Labor-HHS is usually the most contentious of the 13 appropriations bills that make up federal government spending, and is usually dealt with last. It also usually ends up more expensive than lawmakers anticipate, and Republican leadership hoped dealing with Labor-HHS first would force Democrats to accept a more frugal bill.
With a tight economic outlook and significant military spending on the horizon, fiscally conservative Republicans felt Labor-HHS could easily include more spending than the government can afford, especially if the Senate hasn't passed its federal budget resolution.
Johnson and Shays have been working with party leaders on compromise Labor-HHS bill with more education spending, and they expect to introduce it within a few days. If they do, the other appropriations bills should pass in short order, and groups in Connecticut will know their money made it into the House version of the spending bills.
The House and Senate, as well as the President, must still agree before the spending bills are signed into law, though.
Eight appropriations bills had gone through committee markup as of Thursday morning.
Many Democrats are skeptical that Labor-HHS or other appropriations bills will come to the floor in the next few weeks, though. If those Democrats are right, it could be months before groups in Connecticut know if they'll receive federal money.
Some Democrats say the GOP leadership is blackmailing Congress by keeping other bills from a vote, and they doubt that the Republican leadership will allow a vote on Labor-HHS. They say the GOP fears a Democratic counterproposal with increased education spending.
"All we're asking is to let the bill come to the floor," said Dave Sirota, communications director for the House Appropriations Committee's Democratic members. "Let the vote speak for itself."
Congress will almost certainly recess in October until after the elections in early November, and if it does it will pass a so-called continuing resolution to keep federal spending at its current levels.
Published in The New Britain Herald, in Connecticut.
Sierra Club says Bush Administration Putting ‘Communities at Risk’
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26, 2002--The Bush administration is trying to fix something that isn't even broken, the Sierra Club said in a report released Thursday.
The report, "Leaving Our Communities at Risk," profiled 25 communities across the country, including Nashua, N.H., that will be affected by changes to the current Superfund policies and the Clean Air and Water Acts.
"This report is just the beginning of trying to hold the Bush administration accountable for their policies," said Deborah Sease, legislative director for the Sierra Club.
President Bush's administration has announced plans that the Sierra Club said in a statement "condemns many communities to more years of toxic contamination."
Sease said educating Congress, holding the Bush administration accountable and bringing public pressure to bear on the administration are additional steps being taken.
Currently, New Hampshire has 19 sites listed on the Superfund's national list for cleanup, said Catherine Corkery, a New Hampshire statehouse lobbyist for the Sierra Club. The Mohawk Tannery in Nashua, she said, has been proposed to be included on the Superfund's priority cleanup list.
According to Alice Kaufman, a spokeswoman for the New England regional office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Nashua Mayor Bernard Streeter lacks confidence that the Superfund is the right solution for cleaning up the tannery.
Although Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) wrote a letter in March of 2000 in support of a Superfund cleanup at the site, and Streeter initially agreed, he eventually requested that Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.) delay the request until alternative methods could be explored, said Kaufman.
Cleanup of the Mohawk Tannery could cost $15 million to $20 million and take 12 to 18 months to complete under the expedited appropriations request Nashua plans to make to Congress, Streeter said. The request to Congress would be made on the recommendation of the EPA.
"We want to try the expedited route first," Streeter said. "A Superfund designation is no guarantee that a project will get done, and it could take eight to 10 years"
Part of the president's plan, the Sierra Club report said, is to let the "polluter pays" tax die. High-polluting corporations have traditionally paid the tax. Although the tax lapsed in 1995 and has not been reinstated, Bush is the first president since the enactment of the Superfund law in 1980 who has not included the tax as part of his budget.
The lack of the tax means fewer and lengthier cleanups, along with a shift of the tax burden to the taxpayer at large, said John DeVillars, the New England administrator for the EPA under the Clinton administration.
DeVillars added that without the tax, the Superfund would be forced to compete with every other federal program for the limited dollars that are available.
The Superfund, funded with $3 billion in 1995 but only $28 million in the current fiscal year, will be financed solely by American taxpayers in 2004 if the tax is not reinstated, the report said.
Additionally, the report said, the administration has announced plans to allow 17,000 major polluters, including oil refineries and chemical plants, to increase their air emissions without installing modern pollution controls, as required by the Clean Air Act.
"When I look at case after case, the Bush administration has put pollution professionals in front of environmental concerns," Sease said. "The administration is more concerned about their interests than the public's, and we need to do everything we can to stop these actions."
According to the report, President Bush has proposed reducing the EPA's workforce by 200 people during the fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1, thereby curtailing the agency's ability to enforce the clean air and water laws.
"I think this is a statement about their priorities," DeVillars said. "It demonstrates a lack of will and resolve for environmental laws of the country to be enforced."
The national headquarters of the EPA did not return repeated phone call requests for comment.
"The strength and the kindness of caregivers that goes into cancer patients, the recognition of the whole system, the network and the great work is really why I'm here today," Boss said.
Rep. Charles Bass (R-N.H.), whose own mother died of breast cancer, met with Lewis and Boss during their visit on Thursday.
"I think probably everybody knows someone who has suffered from some form of cancer," Bass said in a statement. "Every effort should be made to prevent, diagnose, and provide access to affordable treatments for this difficult and often fatal disease."
Published in The Keene Sentinel, in New Hampshire.
Topfield Native Takes a Stand for Human Rights
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26, 2002--Facing her fourth trial in less than two years, Topsfield native and political activist Jackie Downing said she's not worried about her scheduled Oct. 29 appearance in a District of Columbia courtroom.
Downing is on trial after staging a sit-in near the U.S. Capitol to protest U.S. government involvement in Colombia and make people aware of the human rights situation in the South American country.
"When you've traveled to Colombia and seen the kinds of environmental destruction and the tearing apart of families from the war there that the U.S. is fueling, you really don't think about the fear," Downing, 23, said. "When you take a stand there's always consequences, but you still have to take a stand."
For the past several decades, a civil war between has been underway in Colombia. According to the U.S. State Department, kidnapping for ransom happens more often in Colombia than in any other parts of the world. In the last two years, 18 Americans were reported kidnapped. Colombia is one of the most dangerous countries in the world, with more than 27,800 murders last year. Its 1999 per capita murder rate of 77.5 murders per 100,000 inhabitants was more than 13 times higher than that of the United States.
Downing visited the country twice, both times in 2001.On both trips, she said, she witnessed human rights abuses by guerrilla groups and the effects of U.S. aid for the fumigation and destruction of coca crops, the primary source of cocaine.
"[We saw] the impacts of U.S. military aid, and we were able to document the impact of fumigation, which is basically the killing of legal food crops in addition to coca plants," she said. "We met all kinds of people who have lost family members because of the [guerrilla groups]."
"My experience in Colombia had been really powerful for me both times and motivated me a lot to take a stand."
After her first trip, Downing organized a rally in Washington in the spring of 2001.
"We snuck into a conference of the Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.--they sell Black Hawk helicopters to Colombia--and we locked ourselves to a pillar in the main conference room so they weren't able to meet for the first day," Downing said.
Downing spent 23 hours in jail. The case went to trial, and she was fined $75.
After her second visit to Colombia, then an undergraduate at Oberlin College in Ohio, Downing organized two other actions.
First, she and a group of students went to the office of Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, to try to discuss the situation in Colombia with him.
"We had been asking for a meeting with him for over two years, and he refused to meet with constituents or anyone who disagreed with him about Plan Colombia," she said, referring to the U.S. government effort to assist Colombia in its fight against drug trafficking. "We went to the office and asked for a meeting and kept trying to negotiate with them to give us one. Eventually, they just called the police and we spent 30 hours in jail," she said.
As a result of the media attention, Downing said, the charges were dropped and DeWine scheduled a meeting.
The most recent rally that Downing helped organize resulted in her forthcoming trial. She organized three groups of activists for a sit-in at three working entrances tothe Capitol. The police were called and Downing and her fellow activists were charged with obstructing passageways on U.S. Capitol grounds. They were held for seven hours in the headquarters of the Capitol Police.
This past summer, Downing went on trial for the Capitol grounds rallyDowning defended herself--as she had in her earlier trials--and it resulted in a hung jury. However, the prosecutors decided to retry the case.
"The goal is to raise awareness, and after going to Colombia and seeing the kinds of human rights abuses that I've seen, the idea of getting arrested is not that scary because I know the consequences for not speaking up," Downing said.
Currently, Downing works for Greenpeace, and intends to continue her fight for Colombia in her spare time.
She serves on the board of directors of the School of the Americas Watch, an organization that works to close the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly known as the School of the Americas, a U.S. Defense Department training school for Latin American military and law enforcement leaders.
Published in The Salem News, in Massachusetts.
Area Looks to Next Round of Base Closures
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26--The stakes are high.
Almost 4,300 jobs. More than $233 million in annual wages. Millions more pumped back into the local economy.
The seacoast community doesn't want to lose the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
Area leaders don't think the shipyard will face a serious threat in the next round of base closures, scheduled for 2005, but Defense Department officials say every base is potentially on the chopping block. Including the shipyard.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he wants to eliminate 25 percent of active bases - more than 100 of about 425 such installations - in what defense officials say could be the final and most contentious round of closures yet. "We know there are too many unnecessary bases out there," Pentagon spokesman Glenn Flood said. "But some people say what's left is the real meat of the infrastructure. So we have communities that are probably going to be very vocal."
He said that no base would be exempt from the process. "We're starting with a blank sheet," Flood said. "We're looking at every base."
Complicating matters in the next round are President Bush's war on terror and the unrest in the Middle East. In gearing up for the fight to save their bases, community officials and politicians cite these new threats as cause for avoiding or delaying any further closures.
"Proponents can make a populist sounding appeal that we need all the bases we can get because of homeland security and the war on terror. The counter argument from the Pentagon is that these are bases we've determined we don't need," said Peter W. Singer, a national security expert at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "What you have is a duel between military and political need."
Communities in an estimated 20 states have created organizations to protect military bases from possible closure, including Portsmouth's Seacoast Shipyard Association. The groups will be intent on lobbying congressional leaders to spare their bases as the Pentagon creates a new Base Realignment and Closure Commission that will decide on any new closings.
The Shipyard Association released a report earlier this year outlining the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard's economic impact on the region, stating that the shipyard last year accounted for a civilian payroll of over $233 million to almost 4,300 employees from Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
In response to the war on terror, the Bush administration has increased its 2002 defense spending by $33 billion and requested an additional increase of $48 billion for 2003. Analysts predict that defense spending is likely to be sustained at such levels for at least a few years, giving local officials hope that the Pentagon might postpone plans to close any more military bases.
But that isn't likely, experts say.
"After Sept. 11 everyone thought that base closures would be thrown out the window. That's not the case," said Tim Ford, deputy executive director of the National Association of Installation Developers, a Washington group that deals with economic development at military sites. "I think the thought from the administration is they want to be able to use resources to fight the war on terrorism and not support infrastructure that they're not using," he said.
Congress's General Accounting Office released a report earlier this year stating that the Defense Department has saved $16.7 billion a year by closing more than 350 installations in the first four rounds of closures. The report outlines expected additional savings of $6 billion a year.
Ford said those savings are hard to argue with from the Pentagon's standpoint, even in light of terrorist threats and the potential war with Iraq.
"The military has already been up front [by saying that] they feel they have a 25 percent excess capacity," he said. "I don't think there's any scenario that they would feel they could change that number."
An area member of the Shipyard Association said he's not overly concerned that the next round of base closings will present a major threat to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
"I guess I would be cautiously optimistic," said Russ Van Billiard, who is also a retired shipyard worker. "They should be in good shape but you never know."
In the last round of closures the Pentagon eliminated all but four of the nation's naval bases, leaving two on the East Coast and two on the West Coast, one of which is in Hawaii.
Van Billiard said that Portsmouth is the only shipyard that specializes in working on the Navy's 688-class nuclear submarine, which represents the vast majority of subs in the Navy's fleet. He said that the specialization probably saved the shipyard in the last round of closures in 1995 and should ensure its safety in the future.
Sen. Bob Smith, R-NH, a vocal opponent of base closings in the past, will step down in January as the state's senior senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee. A Smith spokeswoman said the senator has always fought closings. "He believes that our national defense should not be further reduced," Lisa Harrison said. "He believes the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is too integral a part of our nation's defense to even consider closure."
Sen. Judd Gregg, R-NH, said that as a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense he would also work to protect the shipyard. "I will continue to work with the shipyard and the community, as I have done in the past, to guarantee that the vital role of the shipyard in our national defense is properly presented, understood and evaluated," he said.
Analysts say that instead of arguing against closures on the basis of the war on terror, communities should focus on a base's uniqueness, such as Portsmouth's ability to work on submarines.
"I don't find the homeland security argument convincing," said Singer of Brookings. "I think a better plan is to focus on making the base relevant."
Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine, said that in addition to the shipyard's specialization, its workers make it invaluable.
"I'm very impressed by the way the Portsmouth yard has improved their productivity and performance," said Allen, who sits on the Armed Services Committee. "They're now starting to finish their projects on time and ahead of budget, and that's the most important thing they can do."
Published in Foster's Daily Democrat, in New Hampshire.
Sierra Club Report On Nashua Blames Bush
By Max Heuer
WASHINGTON, Sept 26, 2002--The Sierra Club Thursday used the Mohawk Tannery site in Nashua as an example of what it says is the Bush administration's failed environmental policy.
In a report entitled "Leaving Our Communities At Risk," the environmental group pointed to a Granite State site that has been a contentious issue for the Nashua community.
The Tannery site is near the Amherst Street School, and Nashua Alderman at-large Paula Johnson says she has heard reports of children playing on the polluted grounds.
The Tannery is loaded with hazardous substances, including chromium, that, according to the Sierra Club report, can cause convulsions, kidney and liver damage and death.
The Sierra Club reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has made a proposal to clean up the site, but there is no definite time frame for cleanup and it is not on the Superfund National Priorities List. There are currently 19 Superfund sites in New Hampshire.
But the city avoided the list because, Nashua Mayor Bernard Streeter said, because Nashua is trying to obtain direct congressional appropriations to expedite a process that can take 8 to 10 years through the Superfund.
Streeter called the Sierra Club's report "obviously a political press conference to embarrass the present administration in Washington."
The Bush administration did not include a reauthorization of the Superfund "polluters pay" tax in this year's budget. The Superfund was created to clean up environmentally hazardous sites around the country.
The "polluters pay" tax required businesses that created an environmental hazard to pay for the cleanup.
While the tax has not been reauthorized since 1995, Bush's decision marks the first time a president has failed to include it in a budget proposal to Congress, shifting the financing of the Superfund to the taxpayers at large.
"We've seen over the last several years a decrease in the amount of money that goes to Superfund," Sierra Club legislative director Debbie Sease said Thursday. But more importantly, Sease said, the burden for paying for Superfund is now on taxpayers, not polluting businesses.
"In 1995, taxpayers only paid 18 percent [of the cost of the Superfund]," Sease said, adding that in fiscal 2003, the general taxpayer would pay 54 percent and by 2004 "likely will have to pick it all up."
Sease also said electing Democratic Gov. Jeanne Shaheen to the Senate would be an important step in "pushing back" the Bush administration's policy because of Shaheen's superior record on environmental issues, adding that her policy is superior to that of her opponent, GOP Rep. John Sununu.
But Sununu said this simply wasn't true.
"The Sierra Club should spend some money hiring a new research assistant because they can't get their facts straight," Sununu said in a press release. "John Sununu is on record supporting reauthorizing the Superfund surcharges on chemical manufacturers and oil producers that expired in 1995."
Sununu added that he and Shaheen disagreed over the need to reform the program to soften its demands on small businesses.
The Shaheen campaign said Sununu's calls for reform would hurt New Hampshire.
"Governor Shaheen supports protections for New Hampshire small businesses, but she also supports making polluters clean up," said Shaheen spokesman Colin Van Ostern."Sununu's attempt to say that reforms need to be made before it's reauthorized is exactly why there are sites in New Hampshire that are not being cleaned up today, because there is no money in the Superfund."
On Tuesday, the Sierra Club announced it would be distributing information packets and sponsoring ads attacking Sununu's record on the environment.
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
Sunun Criticizes Shaheen over Taxes
By Riley Yates
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25, 2002--It could become a taxing question for New Hampshire voters tracking the Senate race: Is Gov. Jeanne Shaheen a pro-tax Democrat or a fiscal moderate?
Republican opponent Rep. John Sununu asserted the former in a telephone conference call Wednesday.
He highlighted several tax proposals Shaheen made while governor, including her failed proposal last year to institute a 2.5 percent sales tax, and her signature of a 1999 school budget plan that included New Hampshire's first statewide property tax.
"This is not an agenda that is good for New Hampshire's economy, and it's not good for New Hampshire's small businesses," Sununu said.
"The contrast with Jeanne Shaheen is sharp and needs to be made," Sununu added. "I have been a constant champion of the small business [need] to be protected. Jeanne Shaheen has not done so."
But Colin Van Ostern, Shaheen's communications director, said Shaheen is a fiscal moderate who has supported taxes only when they are necessary and often when they have bipartisan support
New Hampshire voters are familiar with her record, Van Ostern said in an interview Wednesday, and know "she's been a moderate for years now."
As an example of her bipartisan approach, Van Ostern said 75 percent of Republicans in the state house voted for the 1999 property tax before Shaheen signed it into law. CHECK FOR ACCURACY.
"For John Sununu to criticize that is to criticize three out of four Republicans in his party," Van Ostern said.
As for a sales tax increase, Van Ostern said that President Bush once proposed a similar increase in 1997 while governor of Texas, arguing it was necessary to ease property tax burdens - the same argument Shaheen has made, Van Ostern said.
But Sununu said his record is one of consistently voting to cut taxes, emphasizing his lead in the House effort to pass Bush's massive tax cut, which was signed into law in June 2001.
Sununu also noted his support for legislation making the repeal of the estate tax permanent, which passed the Republican-controlled House in June but has stalled in the Democratic Senate.
Shaheen supports Bush's tax cut as well, Van Ostern said. "If she had been in the Senate at the time," he said, "she would have voted for it."
She also wants the estate tax repeal made permanent, he said, but only for small businesses and family farms, not the superwealthy.
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
Latino Mentoring Program Receives $220 Grand
By Marty Toohey
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25, 2002--A New Britain mentoring organization has received a $220,000 grant from the Department of Justice to create a program for Latino students at three of the town's schools.
Nutmeg Big Brothers Big Sisters, which operates New Britain's Latino Initiative mentoring program, will use the grant to create a program for Latino children 6 to 14 years old, providing a few hours of mentoring a week.
Previous grants required Latino Initiative to target children 12 to 14 years old, and this is the first time Nutmeg has offered mentoring to younger Latino children. The Justice Department announced the grant last week.
Nutmeg program co-coordinator Susan McGann said the new program should further help in reaching New Britain's steadily increasing Latino population, adding, "There's definitely a need here."
Forty-eight percent of New Britain public school students are Latino, and 65 percent of those students live in non-English speaking homes, McGann said.
The new program will match children from Roosevelt Middle School, Smalley Academy and Smith Elementary with mentors to help with individual goals, like academic success, improved social skills and drug use prevention.
Teachers and social workers will nominate students for the program, and those students will go through an application process with their parents.
Nutmeg will mentor a minimum of 25 children, but McGann said she's hoping to take on more once planning is further along.
Nutmeg is also looking for mentors, who don't have to be Latino or speak fluent Spanish, to supplement student volunteers from Central Connecticut State University, McGann said.
The grant is part of $14 million administered by the Justice Department's Juvenile Mentoring Program, which the department estimates will serve 5,000 at-risk youths in 38 states.
Published in The New Britain Herald, in Connecticut.
Smith Back in Action
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25, 2002--Sen. Bob Smith, R-NH, has been a busy politician lately.
The lame-duck senator hasn't missed a Senate vote since last Thursday and attended all his committee meetings this week.
In the two weeks after losing the Sept. 10 primary, Smith missed the majority of Senate votes and all of his committee meetings.
A Smith spokeswoman had explained the absences by saying the senator's priorities had changed. "Last week's absences were due to some family circumstances and, as I indicated, right now his family comes before politics," Lisa Harrison said last Friday. "I can't tell you how many Little League games he might have missed over the years because of his job, but now his family is coming first."
Smith attended meetings of the Senate Armed Services and Environment and Public Works Committees on Monday and Wednesday. He also attended a top-secret briefing Wednesday with Vice President Dick Cheney.
The senator has cast a vote in all eight opportunities dating back to last Thursday.
Harrison said Wednesday that nothing has changed since last week.
"His priorities are still taking care of his New Hampshire constituents … and taking care of his professional and personal responsibilities," she said. "It's not that he wasn't back last week. It was just a matter of priorities, and things came up."
Published in Foster's Daily Democrat, in New Hampshire.
