This NH Journal editorial frames the Republican-passed state budget as a win for Granite Staters and contrasts the GOP agenda with Democratic floor arguments it portrays as out of step with most voters. NH Journal highlights tax cuts, a ban on race-based classroom instruction and new limits on late-term abortion.
If there’s a voter in New Hampshire who likes higher taxes, hates White people, and supports abortion on demand until the day of birth, Granite State Democrats want you to know — they’ve got your back.
NH Journal
The piece turns the budget debate into a series of questions, per NH Journal.
Who is against cutting taxes, particularly taxes on retirees living on interest and dividend income? Who is for telling children they’re inherently racist or sexist just because of their skin color or gender? Who wants them reading books by radicals like Ibram X. Kendi telling them their parents are part of a white supremacist, racist establishment just because they’re White?
NH Journal
NH Journal answers its own questions by pointing to the floor votes.
Every Democrat in the New Hampshire House and Senate, that’s who. Every single one voted for these policies.
NH Journal
The editorial recounts additional Democratic positions it found notable.
Not to mention various other votes opposing the display of the Live Free or Die state motto in schools or trying to stop a paid family medical leave plan.
NH Journal
It also revisits an earlier line from the ACLU-NH, according to NH Journal.
The executive director of the ACLU-NH recently described the anti-Critical Race Theory (CRT) legislation first proposed by House Republicans as “crazy pants town.” At the time, many wondered where that place might be.
NH Journal
The editorial reviews the budget’s major provisions in turn, contrasting each with the arguments Democrats made during Thursday’s debate.
It argues the GOP package matched the priorities of most Granite State voters and ties the budget back to the agenda Republicans had campaigned on, NH Journal reports. The author characterizes the Democratic messaging as poorly suited to the state’s electorate.
The full editorial walks through each provision and the floor response in detail, available from NH Journal.
The editorial closed by tying each provision back to the choices Granite State voters made.
It argued the budget reflected mainstream priorities while the opposition’s arguments did not.
The piece used the floor debate as evidence of the contrast it drew between the parties.
It reviewed the budget’s tax, classroom and abortion provisions in turn.
The author characterized the Democratic messaging as out of step with most voters.
Readers can find the full editorial, including its treatment of each provision, at NH Journal.
The piece framed the budget as a clear win for the state’s residents.
The editorial pointed to specific Democratic votes as evidence for its argument.
It walked readers through the tax, classroom and abortion provisions in turn.
The piece argued the GOP package aligned with what most voters wanted.
It framed the Democratic floor arguments as a political miscalculation.
The editorial argued the budget matched the priorities of most Granite Staters.
It used the floor debate to drive home the contrast it drew.
The full piece is available from the outlet.
Read the full story at NH Journal.
