Almost no one defended Governor Sununu’s Granite State Paid Family Leave Program during two public hearings on separate bills seeking to repeal, including representatives of the governor and the three main state agencies that would administer the program.
“The reason nobody has heard about it is that nobody promoted it, and the reason it wasn’t promoted is that it’s a horrible program,” said Leonard Turcotte, R-Barrington, a co-sponsor of both repeal bills, including House Bill 1582, which he testified for Feb. 3 before the House Commerce Committee.
Turcotte noted pointedly, “There is nobody here to back it up.”
The only person seated behind him was Amanda Sears, director of the Campaign for a Family Friendly Economy. Sears also testified, urging lawmakers to repeal the program and replace it with one that would cover all employees, even though she acknowledged to the committee that the Legislature, considering its current makeup, would not pass such a bill.
Amanda Sears
The sole voice in support of the program came remotely, from the director of the NH Council on Developmental Disabilities who offered written testimony opposing both repeal bills, saying it would hurt the organization’s membership.
The program was put forth by Sununu as an alternative to the paid family leave program that Sears had supported, paid for via a payroll deduction of a 0.5 percent of wages, to cover 12 weeks paid leave at 60 percent of salary for those needing to remain home to take care of themselves or a family member.
Sununu vetoed that plan, calling it an income tax. The governor’s plan — which will only cover six weeks — would be a benefit for state employees in a program that private business and individuals could join on, subsidized by tax breaks and an insurance tax.
The state never offered a fiscal note on the cost of providing the benefit to state employees, since it was not proposed as a standalone bill.
“We passed it without knowing the cost,” said Turcotte, but he estimated that if 8 percent of the 11,000 state employees utilized the benefit, it would cost $9 million to $12 million a year.
It was Sears, not the program’s backers, who explained to the lawmakers how the program would work in the private sector.
Employers would contract with the same company that is providing the benefit to state workers at a premium that has yet to be determined. Whatever that premium is, private employers would get credit off their business tax bill for half its cost. For individuals, the $5 premium would be subsidized, if needed, by a 2 percent insurance tax on the provider. It is unclear where the money would come from if that isn’t enough.
At an earlier hearing that day on HB 1165 before the House Labor Committee, only Sears and the bill’s sponsor testified.
— BOB SANDERS
