The chart that follows is from that NHPR story. Clearly the state has a heavy reliance on business taxes to feed the general and education funds. Why then reduce revenue by cutting a tax that hasn't increased in 10 years? The answer as some speculate is that the tax cut will improve our business climate. Maybe, maybe not. The thing is, its any body's guess what effect it will have in the long run
Much easier to predict is the impact of not continuing funding of the New Hampshire Health Protection Act. Sen. Forrester's article only briefly mentions the New Hampshire Health Protection Act, which is not funded by the proposed budget. She mentions it in the next to last paragraph as something that will be handled "outside the budget process ( just as we did in the last budget.)" Translating this political speak, she is saying "we side stepped the issue because we don't know what to do about it."
How this all comes together for me, is that while we seem to have the will in NH to provide additional revenue to businesses ( around $80 million give or take) we do not have the will to include $12 million to fund Medicaid expansion beyond 2016 to benefit 40,000 plus citizens and reduce the burden on the health care system of nearly $400 million in uncompensated care.