From My friend DJ:

New Hampshire citizens know better than most that the 2008 election buzz word will be the nebulous term of “change.” Until a few weeks ago dialogue about “change” filled our mailboxes, disturbed us on the phone during dinner time, and was stuffed under our doors and windshield wipers. Democratic presidential candidates have invoked “change” as often as Republicans have cited Ronald Reagan. Even Mitt Romney has found primary electoral success by pitching “change.”

On the surface this fixation on “change” is easily understood. After
roughly eight years of the Bush administration, New Hampshire and
America are yearning to move on. This desire is positive and healthy.
It is time for fresh and innovative ideas to be advanced in the White
House. However, before we overhaul all that is old and herald in all
that is new, I believe it is essential to fully explore the concept of
“change” and its recent disturbing ramifications in New Hampshire.
Last week Governor John Lynch continued the customary practice of
welcoming back the House Finance committee from holiday break, but this particular visit would prove to be hardly routine. Lynch advanced beyond pleasantries and announced that no supplementary spending or new state positions would be approved by his office.

Were this not startling enough Lynch disclosed that New Hampshire is facing a $50 million revenue shortfall with the potential to run upwards of $175 million in the red. This is obviously not desirable “change.”

Lynch hastily attributed the development to the “national economic
downturn.” In essence Lynch was resorting to the gimmick liberals
always utilize when something goes awry: fault President Bush. But in reality the seeds of this crisis were sewn long before the national
economy began decelerating. It began with “change.”

During the budget process last year, newly elected Democrats on the House and Senate Finance and Ways and Means committees heedlessly scrapped longstanding budgetary practices. Traditionally, state revenues were projected guardedly, carefully building a budget around revenues. Spending was maintained at a responsible level to allow for future needed expenditures, while protecting against unforeseen circumstances, which could impact revenue performance. Democrats opted to project revenues around their already constructed budget. At the time, Plaistow Representative and budget veteran, Norm Major, cautioned that revenue projections were irrationally exuberant and unrealistic. Governor Lynch and his Democrats ignored those now prophetic warnings, and instead, pushed forward with their faulty projections and $100 million worth of raised taxes and fees to sustain their spending hikes. At the end of the day, a 17.5% budget increase was authorized, the largest in state history. Democrats chose to spend $475 million more in the 2008-2009 budget, than in the 2006-2007 budget and spending outstripped revenue. These are obviously not desirable “changes.”
In retrospect, our conundrum should hardly have been astonishing.

The final budget passed was only able to be “balanced” because Democrats got lucky and spent $85 million dollars of revenue that fortunately materialized later in the fiscal year ($18 million in one-time money, $5 million in funds not dispersed, and $5.7 million due to the timing of January securities receipts). But even then, the budget was actually more than $100 million in the hole, but was camouflaged by a raid of the rainy day and education trust funds. In years past, such behavior would have triggered a gubernatorial veto. Instead, Governor Lynch signed the budget and labeled it “fiscally responsible.” This is obviously not desirable “change.”

At no time during the budget process did Governor Lynch take a stand against unrealistic revenues or excessive spending. He will now have to save himself from a crisis largely of his own making. In fairness, he is pursuing the proper course by restraining spending and probing for cuts in the budget. But his announcement, carries with it
significance beyond finances. It hamstrings the legislature from
advancing meaningful bi-partisan legislation, could halt the process
of costing education, and sets Governor Lynch to withdraw his
opposition to a sales and income tax. It is essential to reiterate
that this would not have transpired had budgetary traditions not been carelessly discarded in favor of “change.” As the saying goes, it may be the “economy stupid” and some change is always necessary but it’s also about leadership. Leadership from Governor Lynch would be an obvious change we could all embrace.