GraniteGrok

Continue reading "The Ruling Class Starts Beating the Drums..." »

Posted by Tim Condon at 6:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The first thing you have to understand is that to support Mr. Hodes position on letting tax cuts expire you have to be of the opinion that your property is only yours because the government allows you to keep it.   This is a pillar of democrat fiscal policy.  It explains why they berate anyone who dares allow a disfavored class to keep their own earnings.  The phrase "irresponsible tax cuts" or any similar rhetoric, proliferate throughout the lefts discourse.   So at its core the Hodes position is that the legal acquisition of wealth is little more than a royal indulgence that could expire at any moment.  Put more simply, democrats cannot believe in individual property rights which should be a problem for anyone running for elected office in a constitutional republic but for some reason has not been a significant impediment.

Continue reading "Yes Virgina, There Is A Tax Man" »

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 6:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The democrats economic agenda uses rhetoric and class warfare to get you to believe things that are not true.  The biggest of these sins regards taxes--it is the biggest because they cannot possibly run their huge government without your money.

And that's part one of the lie.  It is your money.  Weather you are a dishwasher or a CEO you made an agreement to do a job for compensation, whether it's sweeping a floor or creating wealth for a corporation.  Your work, your property.  So when the left talks about repealing tax breaks all they are doing is talking about resuming more theft of someone else's property.

The second part of that lie is that they can produce a method by which only the rich are taxed.  While the definition of rich will always change as the need for more of other people's property increases to pay for more and more government,  consider that every tax in a free market is a tax on everyone else.

Continue reading "This Tax is your Tax, This Tax is My Tax...." »

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 6:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

When something doesn't work, and you are a democrat, well you just keep doing it.  These graphs come to us courtesy of Andrew J. Coulson at Big Government.

Graph one Public education employees vs. student enrollment numbers.

Graph number two--on the jump--is the inflation adjusted cost of public K-12 education (that's taxpayer dollars spent) compared to achievement levels.  (I hope you are ready for this.)

Continue reading "The Cost Of Education" »

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 9:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

According to the Center for Fiscal Accountability, New Hampshire residents worked 226.8 days to pay for the cost of government this year.  So go ahead and celebrate.  Everything you earn after August 14th is technically yours to keep.

Who would have thought they'd let you keep 138.2 days worth of income from a years worth of work? What a bargain.  And in return you get....

Don't feel too bad.  Connecticut is the worst in the nation. They have to wait until September 15th (260 days).  But that's probably because they have all those casinos (That NH doesn't have) to help relieve the tax burden, and all those extra jobs to collect income and sales taxes from taxes (NH does not have)--which probably explains why their unemployment rate is only....well its....actually..... 8.9%. ... And why their budget deficit is only....well...about 734 million dollars.

(H/T Americans For Tax Reform)

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 7:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After posting this on Wednesday--the discovery that New Hampshire has the third highest number of welfare employees per 100,000 residents in the nation (More than California by the way which, if you noticed is a tiny bit bigger than New Hampshire)--it occurred to me that this may not be the only circumstance in which the Granite State has an excessive number of state employees involved in some activity related to the number of people who actually need or use a service.

And I'm not even broaching the subject of whether the activity is even necessary or a proper role for State Government, or even better left in local hands, or those of the private sector.  We do need to address that, but given the welfare employee numbers we've clearly lost track of the responsibility inherent in the relationship between taxpayers and state spending.

So where else will we find examples of over-staffing--opportunities to trim back what amounts to government waste? 

That would require us to have some understanding of how many people are actually employed by the state and in what capacities.  So  does anyone know exactly how many employees and contractors are working on the tax payers dime? And do we know where and what they are doing?

And if not, how do we find out?

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 10:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday Terie Norelli celebrated my Birthday by taking to the pages of the Keene Sentinel to talk about what a great job the New Hampshire democrat party has been doing with the state.  One of the things she’d like you to believe is that they have created (or saved?) a job friendly environment that has allowed the Granite State to recover more quickly than other states.  But is that really true, and do democrats have anything at all to do with it?

It is a matter of fact that under the left New Hampshire has grown the size of state government and its regulatory nature.  They have increased taxes and fees.  While Ms. Norelli opines all the additional regulations they have added to inspire growth in the job market—and thus the economy—this is like someone handing you a tiny cup of water to put out a raging fire they started and then expecting you to thank them.

About the only thing they can claim is having inherited an ages old State formula that used to create jobs and growth.  One they have tinkered with to the point of destruction.  And things are not--as Norelli would like you to believe-- heading in the right direction.

Continue reading "Under Norelli's Rule" »

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 8:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ann McLane Kuster, aside from having another one of those pretentious feminist names like Carol Seiu-Porter, has demonstrated to us that she is just another shill for the left wing narrative.  The road map to shill-dom (the most current public version at the very least) was printed in this morning’s Union Leader under the headline “Yes, The Bush tax cuts did harm our economy” in the Another View section of the editorial page.  Yes, it is another view, and while I'm no fan of GWB, her view just happens to be a biased view that is also wrong.

Before I explain why, let me get this out of the way.  I’m not writing ‘Ann McLane Kuster’ anymore. It is pretentious and annoying, it takes too long to write, so I’m just going to shorten it to McLuster.    And she should thank me.  Combining names is so “all the rage.”  Just think Brangalina! 

McLuster is also the first of a two–word phrase often used by McDonald’s mangers when everything suddenly comes off the rails.  And based on the way she “sees it,” it’s a short stumble from her rhetorical notion of economics to another full-blown federally-mandated McLuster- %$#@!

Continue reading "Ann McLane Kuster....Let's just Call Her McLuster" »

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 8:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Democrats raised the cigarette tax to raise revenue in their race to the bottom with neighboring states.  And back in April I pointed out what every conservative already knows; that raising the tax will cost the state money.

Raising cigarette taxes will reduce overall revenue from that tax, decrease visits, lower average purchases per visit, provide no secondary or tertiary retail advantages, and give people fewer reasons to visit our state to buy other items.   This will just exacerbate the deficit problem by eroding revenues further, just like the scores of the other tax and fee increases we’ve enjoyed under the tenure of the Lynch administration

In this mornings Nashua Telegraph, in one of those "not worth a whole article" News digest blurbs , we learn that the good people of Maine are smoking more and buying their cigarettes in New Hampshire less.  The theory goes that the increase in the New Hampshire cigarette tax has reduced the price benefit to the point where it is no longer worth making a special trip.  There's no way to know exactly how much it will cost New Hampshire but according to the blurb Maine sales are up 20%. (TWENTY PERCENT!)

Here's what else I said back in April...

Continue reading "Told You So" »

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 9:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

As we consider the economic and political situation some folks are clinging to the 'Blame Bush' rhetoric while others are focusing on blaming Obama.  While there is blame aplenty in varying amounts, the one consistent factor they share is the one we have the best opportunity to resove in November.

They Both shared a democrat majority legislature lead by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Given that we have three branches of government, and no president can do much of anything without their approval--though that has shifted as congress allows the executive to accumulate billion dollar slush funds and shadow cabinets--the legislature is easily the most responsible party for the current state of our nation.

In January 2007 unemployment was at 4.3% and the budget deficit was but a fraction of its current balance.  Since the democrats took over the legislature the economy has crashed, the deficit has soared into the trillions and millions have lost their jobs.   Trust in that legislature is at 11% and for good reason.  But we have a very real opportunity for a change in leadership.

By removing the democrat majority in both Houses of congress the people who have been at the wheel for two presidents and one common catastrophic failure are Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, will no longer be running congress.  But to remove them from leadership we need to remove all the complicit members of the democrat party who have championed their failure for the past four years. 

You can continue to Blame Bush.  You can continue to Blame Obama.  But if you don't make a change in congress, where the failure began and continues to perpetuate itself, odds are good that no matter who the president is, things will continue to stagnate and more thanlikely get worse.

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 10:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Can we even count how many times our New Hampshire congressional democrats claimed that we needed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?  Twice?  A dozen times?  Hundreds?  Is it safe to say that among the lot there has been enough rhetoric on reducing foreign dependence to fill the Verizon center?

So why then have the House Democrats, Carol SEIU-Porter, and Paul 'Sugar Daddy' Hodes voted in favor of legislation (The CLEAR Act) that would tax domestic oil and gas even more?  Has it occurred to them that this will give foreign oil a distinct price advantage over domestic oil?  Probably not.

Continue reading "Reducing Foreign Dependency On What?" »

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 3:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Senator Judd Gregg allows himself to be used by the dominant ruling party in Washington, DC? Is this why the GOP is called "the Party of Stupid"? Is this type of thing why the GOP has been called "the tax collector for the welfare state"? Sigh. This just in from Liberty Central via RedState.com:

Continue reading "Yesterday's GOP: Sen. Judd Gregg" »

Posted by Tim Condon at 5:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Paul Hodes is singing to his choir again. This time he’s over at HuffPo wielding the party rhetoric like a drunk man with a fireplace poker.  It's nice to see him so comfortable in his own ignorance.  You really get the feeling he believes it.

But it won’t do him any good.  Those people are already voting for him—and nothing he said approaches reality as we know it—so the odds are good this will just make him look less appealing to everyone else.

Here's a sample of what P-Diddy Hodes Boy genius has to say when he's surrounded by Nutroots.

"We are dealing with extremist, obstructionist, lying hypocrites who think you don't have to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest but are holding up help for the neediest," Hodes told HuffPost during an interview at the Netroots Nation conference in Las Vegas. "Believe me, I understand the long-term deficit crisis. We gotta get to address it. To get there, we have to focus on the short-term jobs crisis we've got and support the fragile economic recovery we're in."

Does "Hodes" mean "Stupid" in some other language?

Continue reading "Does 'Hodes' Mean Stupid In Some Other Language?" »

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 9:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 11:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

No one doubts that BP has a responsibility to clean up after themselves but Paul Hodes has taken the opportunity to play word games and politics. Yesterday he announced that because of BP's complicity in the release of the Lockerbie Bomber they are no longer entitled to the tax cuts the government gives them out of the goodness of its frozen black little heart. Hodes calls them 'Tax subsidies. '

That is lib-speak for money you legally earned that the government lets you keep. Imagine a mugger leaving you a twenty for cab fare after he takes everything esle including your car keys. That twenty is a subsidy provided by the mugger to you. Hodes is the mugger and he has decided that BP is not entitled to the money it legally earns--and likely needs to stay solvent to help pay for that mess down in the gulf.

Continue reading "Hodes + BP + Lobbyist + Rhetoric" »

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 5:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Independent voices might have some expectation of doing independent things.  Things like reading legislation or accessing resources outside the ones the people desperately selling a bill want you to stick to.  That kind of open mindedness would go a long way to demonstrating integrity and responsibility.  Or you could be Carol Shea Porter. 

Carol sold Health Care reform as instructed.  She shifted gears as instructed, spun when asked, and followed the talking points all the way to the bitter end like a clumsy dancer following on the fly choreography.

But now that the reality of what she has done is upon us, it sure would have been nice to have an independent voice instead Carol Shea-Porter.

Continue reading "Carol-(S)Care " »

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 6:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Carol Shea-Porter has always claimed to have some kind of commitment to the troops.  And you don’t have to look far to find some suitable rhetoric on veterans either.  But when CSP voted to maul health care, and then later deemed it passed so she wouldn’t actually have to go on the record again supporting something a majority of American’s were against, her “commitment” redefined itself in terms every liberal has got to love.  She passed a tax on prosthetic limbs designed to raise 20 billion on the arms and legs of the handicapped, many of whom were destined to be war veterans.

Nice job Carol. Way to support the troops.

Maybe next time you should actually read the bill first instead of just doing whatever the leadership tells you to do. Of course, you wouldn't be Carol Shea-Porter then would you?

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 12:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Carol’s good work keeps on rolling in like the smell of low tide on a salty breeze.  Maybe you recall that five ream masterpiece of brevity appropriately mislabeled as health care reform?  Well it came fully equipped with a manifold of other disasters buried inside, one of which was that anyone with business income will have to issue a 1099 for every entity with whom they spend $600.00 or more in goods and services in a calendar year.  And you thought the Health care Castration Bill wasted paper?

This creates several problems for small business the biggest of which is the regulatory burden of having to deal with all that extra paperwork.   It will take more time and cost more money just to comply with the rules ‘deemed’ by Section 9006 of Carol-Care.  That amounts to millions  more dollars in lost productivity on left wing busy work that Carol and her ilk have now released from America’s employment engine and diverted into the ice-rimmed, bottomless, suck-hole of the bureaucracy.

Continue reading "Carol...On Helping Small Business" »

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 8:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Listening to twenty or so people give political speeches in succession may well be worse than being water-boarded. Listening to twenty or so political speeches in an air-conditioned room with close to 300 people who (more or less) are on board with just about everything that is likely to be said at that kind of event is choir practice. But having that kind of access to that many candidates for three hours is priceless.

That is the CNHT annual picnic, in a nutshell--plus an all you can eat buffet of picnic fare, with P.J. Rourke as a guest speaker right in the middle of it all. From noon to three today, at the VFW hall in Hillsborough New Hampshire, the 12th annual Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers picnic attracted dozens of candidates for every level of office and hundreds of people who were looking for an opportunity to meet and talk to the candidates who want to represent them. It's like a House party for every candidate all at once, and if you missed it you missed a chance to get personal attention in a very important election year.

Continue reading "Choir Practice" »

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 5:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

The ONE campaign is back in New Hampshire and looking for fresh souls to trap in its twisted web of deception.  While liberals are always ripe for a sob story ONE is always looking for unsuspecting so-called conservatives and republicans to call friend.  And the GOP is easy pray.  After years of being framed by the media as cold-hearted war mongers who spend long days smoking cigars and oppressing the worlds poor for the gain of their corporate paymasters, nothing looks better to them than being seen with a group like ONE campaign. 

Unless of course you've seen the Black Widow waiting at the center of the ONE web.

Continue reading "ONE! Singular Deception..." »

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 6:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

According to Human Events late last night the Democrat majority Congress attached a document which 'Deemed as passed' a 1.12 trillion dollar budget.  The document was attached to the War supplemental bill and approved on partisan lines (despite bi-partisan objection) 215-210.

It will come as no surprise to New Hampshire residents that Both Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter voted to approve HR1500 and the 1.12 trillion dollar slush fund with which they apparently intend to continue the operation of the federal government.

This will allow appropriators to continue spending.  According to Rep Paul Ryan," with no priorities and no restraints the spending, taxing and borrowing will continue unchecked for the coming year."

The arrogance of this lot continues to exceed itself at every opportunity.  And it is quite clear that even if they lose the majority this Novemebr that they will ram through every part of their destructive agenda they can manage without any consideration for process or accountability.

So 215 House legislators appear to have given themselves a 1.12 trillion dollar earmark to appropriate as they see fit.  Somehow I don't think that is going to sit too well.  I also happen to think that thit is exactly the point.

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 9:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Hillsborough County delegation may be prepared to hand out a 3% rate increase to county employees and I'm trying to decide when it's a good idea to ask taxpayers who are potentially unemployed, may not have seen a raise in two years themsleves or have had to take a cut to pay or hours, to fork over a 3% increase to government employees in this economy?

So far I'm not finding one.

Nationally over the past 12 months the consumer price index has only risen 0.9%, with the added consideration that energy costs are down 1.4% and food rose only 0.2%.  Unemployment overall in Hillsborough county is higher than the state average of 6.4%, currently somewhere between 7 and 7.4%.   And inflation in 2009 actually went down so you might be wondering where the fire is that a 3% raise is meant to put out.  There isn't one.  Government employees just expect to get raises and democrats like to hand them out.  That's about it. 

My postion here has nothing to do with whether or not county employees are hard working.   Plenty of them probably are.  But it is imperative that the government of the people at every level reflect the limitations of those same people to sustain the staff established to undertake those few and limited tasks which are required for the general welfare.  When it becomes evident that they have exceeded our mandate or entered into agreements which have or will become fiscally untenable, the officials charged with representing the taxpayers interest must endeavor to introduce savings and efficiencies that limit the fiscal impact of those tasks before they overcome the ability of reasonable men and women to sustain them. 

Sometimes simply having a job has to be enough.  And when it's not, well I think we know where the door is.  With unemployment over 7% replacing good people with good people who will work for less  won't be terribly difficult.  I realize that's not what government employees are used to but then, why not, the rest of us are.  And there really are plenty of people who would be happy just to have work.

And you should know that the committee charged with the decision to raise the county payroll by 3% is overrun with democrats.  It has been their habit at the state level to spend well in excess of the economic conditions required to support them.  (look to 23% more government during a recession for evidence of this).  Should they desire to continue this trend at the county level the people of Hillsborough will have yet another fiscal burden to bear at the hands of democrat party rule, a burden the people are encouraged to relieve themselves of at the ballot box this November.

But you don't have to wait until November.  Let them know now before they decide to use your income as a parting gift.

Cross posted at NH Insider

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 10:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There are those who believe that a congressman or Senator has an obligation to get ours back—and then some.  That is, work hard to bring home the taxpayer bacon.  But the pork from DC comes with strings attached and recent research demonstrates that it may actually be worse to rely on federal money and contracts than to let private market forces drive local commerce. 

The focus of the paper by three Harvard Business School professors was on the affect of committee chairman and the requisite increase in pork they bring home—as much as a 40% increase by their calculations.  Using a wide ranging amount of data--different states, decades, and so on they discovered remarkable consistencies regardless of where or when the 'pork' was administered.

“We find that fiscal spending shocks appear to significantly dampen corporate sector investment activity. Specifically, we find statistically and economically significant evidence that firms respond to government spending shocks by: i) reducing investments in new capital, ii) reducing investments in R&D, and iii) paying out more to shareholders in the face of this reduced investment opportunity set. Further, we find that when the spending shocks reverse (through a relinquishing of chairmanship), most all of these behaviors reverse. Finally, we also find some evidence that firms scale back their employment, and experience a decline in sales growth.  Our findings demonstrate that new considerations may limit the stimulative capabilities of government spending.” 

So earmarks have a negative impact on corporate behavior just as entitlements do for individuals.  This makes perfect sense.  There is less incentive to act as a responsible steward if there is some guarantee of resources from a government entity.  This should easily apply to any amount of entitlement under almost any set of circumstances, if the recipient does not continue to accept a personal or professional obligation to secure other work for an unknown future. 

States, like people (and corporations as well), only work best when they secure first their own best interests through their own responsibility and labor.  And now we have a study that suggests the negative impacts of what should—to any responsible hard working American seem obvious—no one respects free money the way they do that which is earned through perseverance and hard work.  Free money makes you lazy.  Or  to quote George Will, no one washes a rental car.

And it seems like state governments learn to rely to much on federal handouts as well. New Hampshire democrats just "balanced" the state budget with more debt and millions in federal money that's not even there.   So now they'll have to get someone to put it back or their budget will not be "in balance,"  like some crack whore begging for another hit.

Nice image that.  Take it with you to the polls this November.

The state government under democrat rule has changed its behavior, and placed us in hock to the feds.  Excpet in these circumstances, you the tax payer will be the ones who have to pay when the spending shock is reversed.  The study shows that you can come back from the brink.

I think New Hampshire needs to go into rehab.  We need to wean ourselves off failed democrat leadership, get rid of the cash-crack whores writing the state budget,drop the spend first and look for revenue later mentality, re-build a foundation of self reliance and a commercial atmosphere that attracts business and commerce from across New England,  and tell the money pimps in DC, we're in charge of our own destiny again--if you want some of this, it'll be on our terms.

Short Review

Harvard Study (pdf)

Cross posted at NH Insider

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 10:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Departures from public service are not uncommon.  But how you depart says a lot about who you think you are and what you’ve really accomplished.  Take Kathy Sgambati for example.  She’s leaving the State Senate after only two terms, a paltry four years, but if you read her departure rhetoric it sounds as if she was the best thing to hit the scene since sliced bread.   

Sgambati served on the Senate Finance Committee and "was a key architect in the development of consecutive balanced budgets during challenging national and local economic climates. She also served as a member of the Public and Municipal Affairs Committee.  

Key Architect in consecutive balanced budgets? I think a reality check is in order.  This is the same balanced budget lie Lynch has been selling.  It’s based on the assumption that as long as you raise taxes or create debt (pass the buck) you can say you balanced the budget.  On these terms there can be no irresponsible act.   She could have authorized a trillion in debt and claimed to have balanced the budget.  So maybe we should start calling her Scambati? 

Scambati was a key architect in raising the cost of government 23% while economic and wage growth were heading the opposite direction.   She backed an energy tax that launders 11 million a year through power companies.  She supported illegal takings of property in the JUA grab.  She permitted taxes without public hearings and helped bond tens of millions of dollars in two successive deficit--ridden budgets because of her own criminally negligent revenue projections. 

So she paid the visa with the MasterCard, helped the state write a check to itself, and called it a day.  That would make her the architect of passing the buck.  And now she’s leaving the scene of the crime which might be the best thing she’s done for New Hampshire in four years.

Cross Posted at NH Insider

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 10:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We keep hearing that the "rich" do not pay their fair share in taxes - that is sheer nonsense unless one's notion of "fair" is an absolute confiscation of their money at the highest levels.

• 1st Quartile (start: $0) - running total: 0.0%
• 2nd Quartile (start: $18K) - running total:  40% income earners, 3.1% in taxes
• 3rd Quartile (start: $35K) - running total: 60% income earners, 13.1% in taxes
• 4th Quartile (start: $64K) - running total: 80% income earners, 32% in taxes

and on its own - the last 5th Quartile which starts $106K.  All by itself, it earns 54.5% of all the income but pays 67.9% of the income tax.

And what will the US do, as the the rich "Go Galt"?  New York is already wrestling with this problem, and so is California as some of their rich no longer are due to the economy and some are no more for strictly personal and voluntary reasons (like "why should I work that hard to simply have it taken from me?)

Many decry that "income inequality" is amongst the greatest problems we have in this country - nonsense!  This is nothing but mere class warefare by the "Gimme"-baiters.  If you have put in the years of effort, earned the degrees, sacrificed all (including loosing families in the process, as some have), and put THEIR capital, THEIR fortunes at risk, you don't deserve a high income, you have EARNED it.

Quick example of a Government sponsored reduction of "income inequality":  A local family risked all to build up an auto dealership.  With the bailout of Chrysler came the sale, for a buck, of those assets to Fiat.  The next shoe to drop was Chrysler sending out notices to otherwise profitable dealerships to say "we are no longer doing business with you" - overnight, the net worth of that dealership, and that family's well being, circled the drain.  Like many, they dutifully proclaimed "we'll still be here, just selling lightly owned cars but servicing all makes and models.

Drive by it today, and there's nothing: no cars, no people, no biz.  And, no money

Unlike Europe, there still is rapid velocity of movement between the quartiles - the above is one of going down, but there are those of moving up as well.  America is STILL the place to be if one wishes to make a fortune.  The problem is not income inequality - the last few months the growing problem is politicians and bureaucrats picking our economic winners and losers - otherwise known as crony capitalism.  

But Progressives will not be happy until everyone is exactly equal in income - regardless of capability or motivation.  For them, it is not the "pursuit of happiness" but the equal apportionment of such. 

Hillary Clinton famously proclaimed that she is not a Liberal but a Progressive: she's not admitting to favoring a "redistribution of wealth - it is just that the "rich don't pay their fair share.  Remember: Progressivism = incremental socialism.

Posted by Skip at 9:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have argued at great length on why relying primarily on local property taxes are the best mechanism for keeping government small.  But no matter how often I bring it up someone always tries to make the point that it’s not fair.  Why should the people who actually own the physical land in the state have to bear the burden of the costs associated with the governance of that land and the people who live on it? (That's not exactly how they say it, I'm just translating it into common sense.) 

I happen to think that question answers itself, and as I’ve stated before should act as a necessary mechanism for filtering out unnecessary spending and over aggressive revenue seeking by busy bodies at every level of government.  Yet I am still confronted with the issue of New Hampshire’s unfair property tax burden--to which I now respond, what burden? 

Who does not pay property taxes in New Hampshire?   I can't think of anyone.

Businesses factor in costs of goods and expenses into their operations of which a portion is property taxes.  The cheeseburger, the spa treatment, that coffee—every item or service includes the cost of property taxes.  That means residents, and tourists alike, even people just passing through are bearing that burden in everyday commerce already.  

Renters pay property taxes as part of their rent.  They are no more able to escape them than the guy or gal who owns the property—the same guy or gal who might improve the rent they charge (as a matter of competition for people who rent property) by running a more efficient business or by holding the government they pay taxes to more accountable for the cost of that government. 

Business and industry from phone to internet to electricity, all roll property tax costs into the prices we pay.  And home owners, most of whom make up the majority of registered voters in most towns, see the cost of government twice a year in two lump sums right where it needs to stay.  In their face. 

So we have a sales tax of sorts—embedded in the more obvious and visible property tax.

We also have an income tax, as property taxes affect how much business can pay employees, and in how much of your take home income you get to keep and how much of it you have to set aside for the cost of government .  

Regular Sales and Income taxes act upon you like the frog slowly boiled in water.  Property taxes are more like being thrown into a freezing lake  every now and again.  The latter allows you to see the shock of how much government really costs,--which is more likely to inspire you to ask questions and hold officals and bureacrats accountable,  the former strives to intentionally hide those costs and the revenue needed from you until it has fiscally killed you. 

So as you can see there is no such thing as an unfair property tax burden.  There is only "the tax burden."  "The tax burden" is the real cost of government.  The real cost of government reflects the desire of politicians to spend more and more of your money, and in the case of some politicians to then find ways to continuing doing that so that you are less and less inclined to notice either the taking or the spending of your hard earned dollars.

One is direct and more transparent.  The other is intentionally deceptive.  (And in case you’ve forgotten, the liberals and Democrats overwhelmingly prefer the latter.)

And yes, people who pay property taxes on their homes, also pay those tiny fractions of other peoples taxes in goods and services but this is not an undue burden.  It acts as an additional incentive to keep government smaller, limited, restricted to only what is really necessary.  It motivates free market competitors to find efficiencies that keep their costs down to attract your business.  Then there’s that whole New Hampshire advantage thing we’ve got going for us.  That didn’t happen because we have an additional sales or income tax.  It happened because we don't.

We should at every opportunity act to deprive government of more avenues for revenue, and your represntatives should promise to make this a priority.  Limiting government's primary revenue streams to local property taxes reigns in wasteful government because it is that much harder to hide the cost of that government.   They are not a burden, they are a godsend.

Cross Posted From NH Insider

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 9:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The idea of the variable rooms and meals tax for towns is a trap set by the democrat majority legislature.  I mentioned it here but let me reiterate how it works for those who may not have noticed or guessed for themselves.

Democrat run State government, in its quest for a broad based tax, spends money it does not have.  To justify this it then imagines revenues that will never exist.  The result is a perennial deficit problem with designs on new revenue solutions that will open the gates and flood the veins and arteries of our spendaholics in Concord with more of your money, which they will spend until--like any proper addict-- they need more.  Ask them how much is enough, and they can't answer you because government has no bottom.  But it does, and we've seen it.

Failing to get the tax they desire they shift gears.  Instead of cutting back state government they cram down on top of local government.  The cost burden is unloaded on the towns who must now directly tax the peoples property to offset the theft of their property by their bigger brother in Concord.  The goal here is to make the property tax burden appear unfair and excessive, motivating the people to revolt and beg for a broad based tax.

But that has not worked yet either.  So we get the variable rooms and meals tax option.  This retarded notion is sold by the Borg queen of the House financial Services committe, Marjorie Smith (D -Kaching!) as

“... an opportunity for cities and towns that choose to do so to add some additional revenue without having to increase their property tax,” she said. “As a control for that, it is completely in the hands of the cities and towns, and none of the money would come to the state.”

Let me translate.  You milk the cows, we'll drink the milk.  Watch out, they kick.

Here's the new trap.  The state's addiction is not going away as long as democrats are pulling the levers.  The new tax serves two opportunities for drunk leftist tax and spender in Concord.  First, it creates an opportunity for the state to ask for more because the towns have gone and done the heavy lifting for them already. Even if they havenot, some have, so deal with it.   It also gives them incentive to suggest that any new tax at the local level has become a burden and that to save the towns people from that and any additional increases in property taxes, the state should implement a broad based tax to offer relief to the struggling towns.

No matter how you slice this, the goal is more revenue for more spending at the State level. And there is no end in sight for that.  The only way to stop the cram-downs and the endless cycle of deficit dramas is to get the democrats out of controlling positions in the legislature, find a governor with enough of a spine to tell the House and Senate "no" on their rediculous budgets and revenue projections, and to cut-spending.

Cross Posted From NH Insider

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 6:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Hat tip out of the gate to fellow NHI front pager Richard Olsen Jr. for this fine bit or wordsmithing on Nashua Rep Seth Marshall's brief letter to the Nashua Telegraph about a pamphlet on the burden of property taxes.  Mr. Marshall (it appears) feels blessed as if the contents of this pamphlet revealed the answer to a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma (which he discovered in the shadow of some penumbra no doubt.)  What's the revelation?  That New Hampshire relies most heavily on property taxes.

That's quite a discovery for a General Court lurker from the Fish and Game committee whose been a rep since 2006.  Just figured that out Seth?  Oh, but not by himself--he's got a pamphlet.  Hard to believe it hasn't come to his attention in all those years.  I guess Nashua Rep Brian Poznanski doesn't invite him to the House parties--where it probably comes up all the time.  You know, drinking with minors, writing laws to get minors off if they get caught drinking, talking about property taxes.  Did you know New Hampshire apparently relies heavily on them?  (Property taxes, not drunk underage State Reps--well, actually have you seen the budget?) Did you also know that New Hampshire still has one of the lowest tax burdens in the country because it relies heavily on property taxes?  It's true.  That wasn't in the pamphlet was it?

Want to know why?  Because when people can see the taxes in a lump, they get pissed off and ask selectman, councilors, and even legislators like Mr. Marshall what the hell they think they are spending all of the peoples money on.  But when it gets hidden in dozens (or millions) of small almost unnoticeable places it piles up without anyone really knowing how much it is.  The government just spends it all, and keeps looking for more until we're New Jersey or New York.   It's actually that simple.  And it's not that surprising, several people new about this already and they didn't even need a pamphlet.  But they were just as inclined to hide the truth for political traction as you are.

John Lynch made note of this inequality/property tax thing  just last summer.  It was in the Telegraph. (I wrote about it here).  John Lynch is the governor of New Hampshire Seth, and he's a democrat, though not according to Tim Robertson from Keene.  (Keene is a city in New Hampshire Seth.)  And then the property tax things came up again in the Telegraph last September (which I wrote about here.)  You know, I bet we could probably make a safe bet that the Telegraph brings it up the property tax thing more often than Lou D'Allesandro brings up state run gambling.  Lou is a NH State Senator Seth.  He thinks gambling would be a great way to reduce the property tax burden, except that you and Lou already spent it all and then some so it really wouldn't help at all and Lou, and most of New Hampshire knows that as well.  Maybe he'll whip up a pamphlet for you.  One that suggests some kind of class warfare rhetoric as an excuse to promote an income tax then we can use that  to close the massive deficit that years of incompetent uninformed democrats actually created intentionally as a way to get a broad based tax.

Funny how the rest of your letter sounds like uninformed class warfare rhetoric.

Hope Seth doesn't have to dig a well anytime soon.  He might discover where the state nickname comes from.

Cross Posted at NH Insider

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 10:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This country is facing yearly deficits of epic proportions - and the nation's debt load is threatening to put us into Greece's fiscal territory.  So, what does Obama decide to do?  Start floating the idea that only a new tax - a VAT (Value Added Tax) - is our only salvation.  This is not an end-user tax - it is applied at every "boundary level".  It's only purpose is to raise revenues for the Government - beaucoup bucks - a massive new revenue source for Greedy Politicians

And why?  We are experiencing a huge "Politician-induced debt" storm (H/T: Paul Jacobs for the phrase); and will not take personal responsibility for causing it (e.g., Obama keeps blaming Bush for "inheriting" a huge deficit (true) but acts like quadrupling it is perfectly dandy).

And what do the general public feel about this?

Only 18% of Americans are willing to pay higher taxes to lower the federal budget deficit, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Sixty-nine percent (69%) are not willing to have their taxes raised to deal with deficits that are projected to rise to historic levels over the next decade. Thirteen percent (13%) more are not sure.

But most voters think President Obama’s new bipartisan deficit reduction commission is more likely to recommend tax increases than spending cuts to meet the growing deficit, and 78% expect Congress to raise taxes if the commission recommends it.

(Rassmussen)

The takeaway?  I believe that Joe and Jane Taxpayer are finally waking up to the fact that Big Government is not spending their hard earned money wisely - that Big Government is not being a wise steward on what it can do well and what it should be doing well.  And make no mistake, other recent surveys have shown that people are fine with Government doing less.

Sure, you hear the wails of the Big Govt / Progressives all dumping on TEA Party folks that "hey, they love Social Security, Medicare, the military, good roads, police, fire, and the like - they just don't want to pay for it!  They don't mind the subsidies for THEM - but not for others!"

And I would say that they are wrong - most Conservatives and TEA Party folks are NOT anti-Government - just anti-BIG Government and that is a huge difference.

Progressive knee jerk response to anything is "we need Government to do something about this" whereas I say "let's get a group of people together to solve it, fix it, and then disappear".  Many folks would be absolutely fine if Government did less - and trust me - any true "vacuum" would be filled quickly by the private marketplace (notice the word true does not mean just some twit that persuades a few politicians that taxpayer money needs to be spent in a certain way).

Oh yes - let me add the obligatory message to Progressives:  If you are so darn set on people paying more taxes - lead by example by having a press conference, wave the checks having lots of zeros to the left of the decimal point, and hand them over to the correct Treasury official.

In other words: put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is - instead of OTHER peoples' money.

Studies have shown that the vast majority of you are worse tightwads with the wallets than Conservatives - so I won't be holding my breath.

And oh, let's just show Social Security future debt projections, shall we?

yeah....those Progressive programs aren't worth spit if you can't afford them...

(H/T: The American)

Posted by Skip at 12:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I’ve got mixed emotions about the variable rooms and meals tax (R&M).  On one hand it is the microcosm of federalism.  Every town would be the master of its own demise.  Durham would be like New York State, Keene might be like Michigan.  On the other, starting at 9% is way too high to begin with, raising taxes always means more government—which we simply do not need--and there is also the matter of the resulting confusion from having dozens of different rooms and meals taxes all over the state.  But like the story of the father who locked his son in a closet and made him smoke an entire box of cigars—to make him hate them enough to never smoke them again—sometimes hard lessons are the only ones learned. 

So let’s forget the confusion issue for the moment and accept that we have to have an R&M tax.  In that situation what if the state portion or the starting point was a much lower 2 or 3% instead of 9% with whatever protections you could manage to keep the state from raising the base rate for as long as possible.  (Not going to happen, which is why this actually a really bad idea, but lets play along).  Towns would then be free to set their own rates based on their proclivities with some striving to keep the rate much lower than the current 9% and others…well, when you cram more of the incompetence of government down to the town level all kinds of fun things become immediately apparent. 

A Rooms and Meals Tax is viewed as easy money.  Town councils or selectman looking for a way to offset the pressure of local unions that want a raise every year and liberals who love to spend and grow well beyond the ability of others to pay, could and would want to fall back on the R&M to balance their taste for excess without increasing property taxes. 

A liberal with an open ended tax is like a sex addict in a whore house.  They soon find themselves with no money—in this case your money—and out on the street. 

Towns with higher R&M’s would immediately become less attractive to existing business and employers and scare off any new ones as patrons of these businesses  drive an extra five feet to save a few bucks.   This eventually puts tax pressure on everyone else to cover the lost revenues.   A tax revolt ensues at the town level, all the tax and spenders are replaced with people who respect other peoples right to their own money, and someone finds a way to balance the town’s actual needs with revenue. 

Is it an expensive lesson?  Of course it is, and we would forever be left wondering when the big spenders in Concord would come for more, but the hardest lessons are the ones that are remembered.  And if that’s what it takes to get more people off their sofa’s and interested in what their local governments are wasting their earnings on, then maybe we shoul play ball. 

On a more realistic note, that's not how this will play out.  As much as the federalism idea appeals, towns will continue to see more costs crammed down as a result of Concord's incompetence.  This will  force towns to raise the R&M even more to deal with a succession of new "bad decisions" at the state level.  It will then also serve as an excuse to raise taxes at the state level to "protect the towns"  from raising their own even further.  So you just can't win.  No matter how you look at it you get screwed by the State.

And none of this gets better until we accept that democrats added 25% to the size of state government during a recession and the only way they can see to offset that stupidity is to shift costs to towns.  Giving them an excuse to collect extortion money for the states addiction is not a gift, it's a curse.  And the only cure is fewer tax and spenders in Concord, which means fewer democrats and their RINO accomplices.

Cross Posted at NH Insider

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 9:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

SB 450, the omnibus, mix and match, fix and patch, how do we cover all that unnecessary spending democrats had to have, budgetpalooza bill, is up for a vote today.  But it poses an intentional problem for Republicans.  It would repeal the LLC tax, but while adding another boat load of taxes, fees, and if I’m not mistaken more bonding (which is borrowing, which is what Obama is doing and what Greece did before it turned into the post-fiscal, apocalyptic, pyrotechnic backdrop to another Die Hard Movie with a little Dawn of the Dead mixed in.) 

So how do you vote for this thing?  Think of it in terms of the liberal definition of “safe sex.” It’s not really safe.  There are risks.  You kill the LLC tax, but get pinged in press releases for voting for taxes.  If you vote for taxes, how bad can it be that democrats voted for taxes.  My suggestion--abstinence.  Don't vote for it.  You'll get AIDS.  (Accept Incompetent Democrat Spending).  Vote against it and then make them do it all again.  And again.  And again.  They added 25% we didn't have, make them cut it.

SB 450's nasty.  It's got $51,000,000.00 (that’s million) in restructured debt.  That’s when you take debt you created with previous irresponsible spending or to make it look like you balanced a previous budget (just say, as an example) and offer to pay even more later than you would have owed if the budgetary leg breakers just let you pay less in this “election” year.  

There’s another loan sharking deal—someone has even called it a Ponzi scheme I believe--to the State University System for $25,000,000.00 million. 

It looks like we’re going to borrow $11,000,000.00 (more millions) in anticipated 2011 stimulus dollars) to plug another democrat spending hole. This is a former governor Jon Corzine/New Jersey Turnpike Toll style revenue scam, or as I like to call it a “can I pay you next Tuesday for an 11,000,000.00 million dollar cheeseburger today.”  It’s prostituting the state out to the feds on a promise of 11,000,000.00 they now know we have to have.  That’s what democrats call “leadership” by the way. 

And we get more taxes. 

Tobacco tax (all tobacco but not cigarettes, at least for now) 

Electricity generation tax—you pay more every month because their other scams don’t make energy expensive enough already.   And it makes a nice metaphor all its own.  They have no idea how to manage the state to let it generate fiscal power on its own so...tax actual power to make up for the reckless spending Lynch lacked the equipment to stop.

There are estate taxes, higher pet shop licensing fees, increased wedding license fees (regardless of gender—it’s only fair), Vital records fee increases, and whatever else is buried in there that I have not heard about yet.

So. 

It’s a big messy bill that raises taxes, plays three card Monte with debt, crams down more costs to the towns, (which are more taxes you have yet to see as a result of SB450) and still fails to resolve the two interrelated fundamental problems with the New Hampshire State budget—spending, and democrats.  ! 

So what’s a Republican to do?  They’ll ask to vote on these issues separately, Norelli willcackle and say no, and the dems will have to round up the RINO's to get it passed.  And there are plenty of moderates willing to use the LLC tax repeal for cover.  But at the end of the vote they are still standing up for excessive spending and more taxes instead of responsible government and real leadership.  So take note.  SB450 is one for the record books.

Cross Posted at NH Insider

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 8:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Greedy Politicians .  Steve had a good post concerning how tax money is viewed by politicians:

Sure, it’s your money.  You earned it.  Had you not bothered to put up with the bureaucracy in the first place in an effort to create a better life for yourself and those you might employ we’d not be able to tax you at all so your reward for this?   “I hope you enjoyed having one less jack boot to the groin but we need that money so the parties over.”  That’s the message.   Not to pick on Neal--I think he’s just paraphrasing the general sentiment—but are you kidding me? 

It's a strange relationship political power and other people’s money.  Politicians have this idea in their heads that taxes are something the government is entitled to and it is only a matter of working out the terms by which you shall be separated from your property.  No dinner, no movie, no kiss--and they don’t even get you drunk first

Indeed.  It goes back to the debate I had with Jim Splaine where the operative question was "Who own who?" and it goes to the heart of the number one question that is now being debated in the political world:

What is the proper role of government?

It is obvious that the populist movement called the TEA Party (for Taxed Enough Already) has one idea and that the Progressive movement / Political Class have another for the answer to that question and the attendant philosophy of funding their version of the answer - simply, Progressives don't even feel shame for taking from you to give it to another purpose of government.  The former is taking no small amount of disparagement, grief, anger, and name calling

Sidebar: it seems that even President Obama, who made such a play for "civil discourse" this weekend at his commencement speech at the University of Michigan, is calling much of the opposition "teabaggers" - nice role modeling, you do, sir!  After all, he's made using mockery a serious tool during all of his political life as he lives Alinsky's Rules.

Which will be part of his downfall - community organizers of that style NEED to be able to demonize someone in order to be successful.  Ask yourself this - when ISN'T Obama's Administration putting their boot to the neck of the past, present, and future British Petroleums of political life?  The list is starting to become endless - is that being Presidential - or just unbecoming?

for just insisting on reviving  the Constitutional values of a limited government and limited taxation.  Yet, the Progressives only wish to ramp up the size, reach, and impact of Government - and the money it takes to run it.  Thus, why was I not surprised to see this old hackneyed phrase come out of Concord over the idea of letting more money stay with the folks that, you know, actually earn it:

But Rep. Bill Johnson, D- Gilford, said a cash-strapped state government couldn’t afford the cost of the bill that could amount to $100 million over the next decade.

There's much more tax talk in the article (and yes, he's my Rep), but it is that phrase " a cash-strapped state government couldn’t afford the cost" that sets my teeth on edge.  It shows mentality of willingness to grant entitlements to some with other peoples money.  It shows a mentality that Government's needs come first - and the folks that pay the freight come second.  It shows a lack of respect for the people's time and talent that were necessary to earn that money, and a lack of respect for those that took the risks to provide the opportunity to succeed.

Or fail.   Something that Government doesn't ever seem to worry about.  It is too Big to Fail - at least in the Political Class's eyes.  Me?

Continue reading "Whose money is it really?" »

Posted by Skip at 8:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From this morning’s Union Leader; the Legislature is looking at an insurance premium tax change.  Apparently someone was granted decreases in exchange for a promise of creating more jobs.  Jobs were not created to their satisfaction so the elected officials see no reason to continue to support the reduced taxation.  

Neal Kurk (R-Weare) was quoted in the UL about repealing the tax break. 

“The Legislature was led to believe we’d see big gains in jobs. We have not seen a large increase in jobs; indeed, the largest gain we had would have happened anyway.”  

Sure, it’s your money.  You earned it.  Had you not bothered to put up with the bureaucracy in the first place in an effort to create a better life for yourself and those you might employ we’d not be able to tax you at all so your reward for this?   “I hope you enjoyed having one less jack boot to the groin but we need that money so the parties over.”  That’s the message.   Not to pick on Neal--I think he’s just paraphrasing the general sentiment—but are you kidding me?   

It's a strange relationship political power and other people’s money.  Politicians have this idea in their heads that taxes are something the government is entitled to and it is only a matter of working out the terms by which you shall be separated from your property.  No dinner, no movie, no kiss--and they don’t even get you drunk first. 

And it spews a lot more of our precious resources than what BP does....yet, will the Liberals complain about this gusher too?

(H/T: Newsbusters)

Posted by Skip at 9:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Oh, I remember - that's a feature, not a bug.... 

Posted by Skip at 7:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the smoldering ruin of SB 489--this years gambling bill, even after a massive campaign by Millennium gaming and its big-money FixItNow NH campaign quarter-backed by their Public relations goo-roo Richard Killion, (whom I suspect is this guy), we get comments like this, from this morning’s Union Leader.

That would be Republican, self proclaimed Conservative, Fran Wendelboe.  Sad, real sad.  And she thinks this will help her in her run for the NH Senate?  And portraying herself as a conservative?  This is conservative....how?

In psychological babble, this is called "enabling" - while not agreeing with someone's behavior, doing something that allows the abuser to continue their bad behavior.  Why, given the recent examples given by the Republicans in the House and Senate (both in Concord and DC) would Fran Wendelboe being giving cover to Democrat John "Do Nuttin'" Lynch by making it legislatively possible to take money from others that the NH Supreme Court ALREADY ruled was not the Gov. Lynch's or the State's?

Is this not theft at the point of a pen?  Or, as former US Senator from NH said Thursday, tyranny at the point of a pen?  Is this not the hubris of:

"The State needs your money more than you do so we will pass a law so we can take it?"

My Gosh!  And she calls herself a conservative?  And does so by ignoring the Right to Private Property?  WHY DID SHE DO THIS??  And if you read the release below, she imposes a 25% TAX on the whole thing: 3 bucks for the folks that paid into the fund and $1 buck to the State for the privilege of receiving back their own money.  Neat, eh?  "We, your government, will allow you access to your own money - after, of course, you pay us our cut."

From Fran's Press release via the House Republican Office (emphasis mine):

Wendelboe Amendment to SB 450 to Add $25M to General Fund

Concord—When the House Finance committee gathered this morning in Concord for a hearing on SB 450, relative to costs and expenditures at the Department of Health and Human Services, they were handed an amendment that, if agreed upon, could result in millions of dollars in new revenue for the state’s General Fund.

Committee member Rep. Fran Wendelboe (r-New Hampton) submitted an amendment this morning that would authorize the board of directors of the New Hampshire Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association (NHMMJUA) to negotiate and enter into a settlement with a class of their policy holders from 1986 to 2009.  The agreement would stipulate a transfer to the General Fund one dollar for each three dollars distributed to policy holders, up to a total of $25M.  The monies received by the General Fund would then be used for the purpose of supporting programs that promote access to needed health care for underserved persons.

"Authorize", or a Demand Notice? 

Don't you think that if the policy holders wanted such an "agreement", or that the Directors wanted to do such, that they could do that without the "prompting" of a Legislative fiat?  Isn't this similar to Obama's slighting of the Chrysler bondholders (take from them to give to others)?

And of course!  The money would be used for the poor - yet case of "spreading the wealth" (as Obama told Joe the Plumber).  According to Rep. Wendelboe, since the new revenue is specific for use in the medical area, with federal match dollars it could also, in effect, result in as much as $60M dollars in health care services.

“My intent is for this money to supplant, and not supplement, other state dollars, thereby freeing up the General Fund from needing any new taxes to pay for cost increases at the Department of Health and Human Services,” said Wendelboe. “While this money will be helpful, we must still continue to look at government efficiencies, like combining programs and facilities.

In other words, this solves nothing except for the PR needs of Democrat Gov. Lynch - it solves no systematic problem, it does not shore up the long term spending, but it does give aid and comfort to the Democrat spenders in the short term as they try to slither  their way into filling the budget hole they created for themselves.

According to Rep. Wendelboe, since the new revenue is specific for use in the medical area, with federal match dollars it could also, in effect, result in as much as $60M dollars in health care services.

Oh, so just because it is slated for "helping the unfortunate", it is ok to take it from others, Fran?  It is now justified because "other's needs are greater" - and chasing the almighty Obama (and borrowed) matching funds is a good in and of itself?

She also reminded the committee that this is just one-time money and that we are still facing at least a half billion dollar deficit in the next budget cycle. “We must work to streamline government now.  This is an opportunity to pay part of our health care costs without increasing taxes.  It is just a small, but important step,” added Wendelboe.

Like I said, the only problem this solves is a short term political one for Lynch and the other socialist comrades of his leading the Senate and the House.  This taking of other peoples' money is not  "streamlining" anything. So Fran, so now your solution to an ever increasing budget is ever increasing revenues?

This helps achieve a smaller government....how?  Remember, from the taxpayer perspective, like me, looking upwards towards all government levels, it doesn't matter who is picking our pocket to redistribute our hard earned money - Feds, State, County, or local - it ALL comes out of the same pocket: ours!

I hope the other Republicans heap all the scorn they can muster upon this amendment they can - this helps no one but Fran and the Democrats.

Posted by Skip at 12:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Here in New Hampshire we’ve been at what Erik Erikson at Red State calls Tea Party 2.0 since day one.  Not a week goes by when the message from any one of the dozens of groups around the state who support the anti-tax rallies that define the Tea Party Movement is to get involved.  Learn something, join a group that shares your interests, and take action.  Support candidates, change the direction of your local GOP group, communicate, invigorate and activate.  Grab a weapon, and stand a post.  

But there is this underlying concern that the Tea Party rallies are not trying to hard enough to drive actual grass roots activism with a purpose and a goal.  That after the concert is over, people remember the lyrics but have no functional way to apply them.  And it's not an unreasonable concern.

Sure, a rally is a great thing, and there are plenty of them to go around.  They remind us that we are not the only ones who feel the way we do; that there are others who see the need for action and a new direction.   But you can’t just show up at anti-tax rallies and expect the government to back off.  You know you need to do more.  But maybe you are still not sure how or where to start.  And that concerns some people.

You start by talking to people at these gatherings.  They can show you how to work locally whether you have five minutes a week or all week.  There is a way for you to contribute.   And they can show you how to make contributions that matter.  This is as much about standing up to taxes and spending as it is changing the process that got us where we are.  That may require you at some point to get out of your comfort zone. But there is plenty you can do along the way.  You can read and comment on blogs or even start one yourself.  Write letters to the editor of your local paper, read bills and get familiar with how New Hampshire’s General Court does and reports its business.  You can learn to testify on legislation, engage your representatives locally and nationally, hold signs, do lit drops, and above all else educate yourself and your family about your state and federal constitutions.  

You also have to learn about how the oppostion works, and how to use that to your advantage.  But lets start by keeping it simple.

The left would have you believe that whatever policy it is of theirs you object to your objection is based on hate, or fear, or anger, or ignorance.  That's their beginning and end.  You are dumb, and mean spritied, and selfish, and greedy.   But you know the truth as it applies to you so do not beleive the lies they tell about others.    

As this applies to the tea party movement use basic common snese.  Taxes are someone else's property.  Every tax, no matter where applied, to no matter what purpose, denies someone of their legal property.   And that tax affects everyone in one way or another, inevitably hitting the pocketbooks of everyday Americans.  So do not believe the lies of the left.  Tax cuts are robberies not committed not privileges granted.  And taxing the rich, or big business, or tobacco, or energy, or anything that suits their fancy, is a tax you will inevitably pay, in higher prices, fewer choices, lower employment, and depressed wages; almost always for useless spending that is outside their authority, and that has well exceeded your ability to pay it.

But you have the power to stop the bloodletting of your tax dollars.   It is within your power.   This is your government.  But you can no longer sit by and hope that someone else will change it for you.  So you can’t just go to rallies.  You can’t just yell at your television or complain about it at the water cooler.  You can’t just scream at the darkness.  You have to be willing to light a candle.

And you also have to understand that the grow government liberals will do anything to snuff that candle out.  They do not want you questioning their government.  And they will smear you, lie to you, intimidate you, even frighten you, to keep you away.  They do not want you to carry that light.

Not to worry though.  There is strength in knowledge and numbers.  If your candle goes out you can learn to relight it yourself.  Until you learn how to do that, you can have someone close to you re-light it for you.  That's where the rallies come in.  They help you keep the candle lit.  You leave that rally or that meeting, and you take some ifnormation or an idea, and you learn to share that light with someone else.  That's what the Tea Party movement is about.  Sharing the light of liberty.  Helping people fight back the darkness of creeping tyranny one person at a time. 

So no matter how desperate the left gets, the more of us there are the harder it is to put all those lights out.  And as long as one still burns--somewhere in the darkness--we can relight them all again.

The idea of American exceptionalism is the movement.  Knowledge and experience are the weapons.  The desire for Liberty and freedom are the delivery vehicles.  Now go out and light a candle.

Cross Posted From NH Insider

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 11:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When I did my micro-interview with Jeanie Forrester, I mentioned NJ Gov. Chris Christie (R) who recently knocked off former Corzine (D) in a recent election.  I am following Christie as he is absolutely right on this issue - "When you are out of money and in a big money pit, you have to cut the spending" (here, here).

The title comes from the Wall Street Journal and Betsy of Betsy's Page has singled out the details of relevancy:

However quaint that may sound, when you have to cut nearly $11 billion in state spending to get there, you are going to get a lot of yelling and screaming. Most comes from the New Jersey Education Association, hollering that "the children" will be hurt by Mr. Christie's proposals for teachers to accept a one-year wage freeze and begin contributing something toward their health plans. What makes the battle interesting is the way Mr. Christie is throwing the old chestnuts back at his critics.

The children will be the ones to suffer from your education cuts. "The real question is, who's for the kids, and who's for their raises? This isn't about the kids. Let's dispense with that portion of the argument. Don't let them tell you that ever again while they are reaching into your pockets."

Your policies favor the rich. "We have the worst unemployment in the region and the highest taxes in America, and that's no coincidence."

Why not renew the 'millionaire's tax'? "The top 1% of taxpayers in New Jersey pay 40% of the income tax. In addition, we've got a situation where that tax applies to small businesses. I'm simply not going to put my foot on the back of the neck of small business while I want them to try to grow jobs by giving more revenue to New Jersey."

Budget cuts are unfair. "The special interests have already begun to scream their favorite word—which, coincidentally, is my 9-year-old son's favorite word when we are making him do something he knows is right but does not want to do—'unfair.' . . . One state retiree, 49 years old, paid, over the course of his entire career, a total of $124,000 towards his retirement pension and health benefits. What will we pay him? $3.3 million in pension payments over his life, and nearly $500,000 for health care benefits—a total of $3.8 million on a $120,000 investment. Is that fair?"

State budget cuts only shift the pain to our towns. "[L]et's remember this, in 2009 the private sector in New Jersey lost 121,000 jobs. In 2009, municipalities and school boards added 11,300 jobs. Now that's just outrageous. And they're going to have to start to lay some people off, not continue to hire at the pace they hired in 2009 in the middle of a recession."

Special Interests?  The Democrats are all over them - but usually the target is the private sector and NEVER the public ones and NEVER the union.

Sorry, but ANYONE that seeks favorable treatment from the Government is a special interest, be they public workers, pet projects, advocacy groups, or public sector unions.  

Christie is simply doing what an adult should say to all these whiny little "children": you spent you allowance, the wallet is empty, there is no more.

Posted by Skip at 12:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Some scary stats from an Economics student perspective:

Yikes?  And then you wonder why it is called Taxed Enough Already (TEA) Parties????

And if you are part of the Political Class that believes that Government is a benign, beneficial agent whose role is to make our lives better and lead us to being better people, I have seven words for you:

Then You Pay It All For Us!

And leave the rest of us alone and stop acting like most of Obama's tax cheating advisors - like Timmy Geithner (for starters).

(H/T: Instapundit)

Posted by Skip at 10:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In an April 10th press release the NHDP bases its budget management prowess on the fact that Norm Major said, "I don't see any exaggeration in the revenues at this point in time."  Of course they leave out the part where he mentions that...(quoting from the same Union Leader Article)

But when he looks two years ahead, he gets nervous.

"This is the easy one," he said, estimating the 2010-2011 plan uses roughly $600 million in one-time money -- federal stimulus, medical malpractice fund surplus, and other non-recurring funds.

I'm not suggesting he's right to think that we can suffer any revenue estimate based on the idea that there is federal money shoring up parts of the budget, but the NHDP never goes there because it softens their argument.  Here's something else that softens it.  They are taking a shot at one Republican out of hundreds on revenue estimates that were supported by hundreds of democrats.

And I'm not positive but I suspect that there were not too many nervous democrats, except when it came to not passing enough new tax burdens on the people of New Hampshire.

The thrust of the press release, if it even matters, is that based on a cautious generalization by one republican out of hundreds, in the rush to push a budget through, that all Republicans are hypocrites for complaining about revenue now?  Well, no.  Maybe Norm Major is, but is that all you've got?

What about the weeks of objections by republicans, or the rally outside the state house to object to the excessive spending and revenue estimates--a rally devoid of democrats; except for a handful the NHDP hired from out of state to parade around in chicken suits.

So yes I remember June 2009.  Democrats increased spending, and raised taxes in the middle of a recession, and since then have had to back off on most of them because they miscalculated public outrage.  The budget is still out of wack.  The spending is still out of control.  And it's all a product of the the New Hampshire Desperation Party's efforts to drive us into a broad-based tax by repeatedly busting the budget.  No amount of spin can chage that

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 9:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The solution to irresponsible spending is always irresponsible taxation.  They go together like Peanut butter and Jelly, Root beer and Ice, like rama lama lama ke ding a de dinga a dong.  And to get them the liberals in New Hampshire do the same thing as the liberals in Washington.  They expand every department—in the case of DC some budgets more than doubled—pile on a few more social programs, and then claim it would cripple “services” you never knew you needed if they were to cut anything. 

When the unwashed masses complain, the liberals troll out useful idiots, well paid experts, or stage props in wheel chairs, homeless mothers, or parentless children, and plead for empathy.  And then they tell you they’ll have to cut cops, fireman, and teachers.  (Imagine if the only thing you had to pay for was cops, fireman, and teachers?)  The goal is to never, ever let you have your way.  They must spend.  You must pay.  No amount of taxation will ever be enough. 

Locally, we’re at a cross roads.  Like most crossroads there is a devil standing there ready to make a deal.  And since we’re letting greedy spendaholic politicians do the talking kiss your fiscal soul good buy. 

Nationally, we are plummeting off a cliff, pushed from behind by the Obama Administration after being called over to the edge by a charlatan with a promise of a new view.  The golden parachute we are now told we must embrace (or else!) —maybe pay for is a better term--is the Value Added Tax. 

For those unfamiliar, in any manufacturing or distribution chain there are steps at which value may be added to something.  Sometimes they are few, and some many.  The VAT proposes to apply a tax to every one of them, with the added option of massive lobbying (which you pay for in the cost of goods sold) to seek favoritism, exclusions, limitations, or other favors from the government in an effort to avoid the VAT or to tweak the code in a way so that it punishes competitors. 

The end result is that everything costs more.  In some cases a good deal more.  And you pay that more, every day diminishing your income, and your potential income, as businesses compete for price by reducing wage growth, benefits, and employment opportunities, which we must assume the government intends to pick up the cost of with it’s big tax-collecting heart.  No, The VAT is not a jobs bill, it is an anti jobs bill. 

And the VAT will not replace any other tax.  When you argue that you have to have more money, how can you then suggest you are really only replacing one tax with another? 

 The VAT also reduces competition by creating a new mechanism by which social corporatists (big business and government) can weed out choice and innovation in deference to wealth and power.  Companies that can’t run lean to compete on price, or lobby for exceptions, will go out of business.  

So while liberals claim to be all about redistributing wealth and power to the lower classes that is just another lie.  They actually want to distribute it, like any good third world tyrant, to their friends and family—who for future reference are to be referred to as ‘The Experts’ who will be telling us all how to live.  And you, you get the VAT, which will have no affect on their standard of living, and forever change yours.

Cross Posted From NH Insider

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 6:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From a loyal reader that sent this comment to me after reading this:

It's sad to see the mindset of some "Liberal People" To think of better uses of $150,000 like paying down the deficit verses trying to protect salamanders which have survived this long and probably flourish in other parts of the town and state. And they call the right wing nutjobs.

I looked at the article From the Burlington Free Press:

Salamander crossing in Monkton wins $150,000 grant

Unwitting motorists squashed nearly 100 salamanders, spring peepers and wood frogs Tuesday night on a single stretch of Vergennes Road in Monkton, but help for the migrating amphibians is on the way.

The Monkton Conservation Commission announced Thursday that it has won a $150,000 state grant to install at least one, possibly two, culverts under the road so at least some amphibians, reptiles and small mammals can safely pass between uplands southeast of the road and an important swamp northwest of the crossing.

When completed in 2011, the project will be the first wildlife-crossing retrofit of a Vermont highway.

“We are absolutely thrilled,” said Chris Slesar, chairman of the conservation commission. “We understood that funds were limited, and competition would be fierce. I couldn’t be happier.”

That would be $1,500 / amphibian for that one night....we couldn't pay a person to do it cheaper?  My gosh - what a waste!  Does this person expect that a lil 'ole peeper to look both ways before crossing the street to see if there is a handy-dandy culvert crossing nearby FIRST??? 

I would not be surprised if follow on grants (heh!) are set up to have animal trainer on hand to teach the "newbie" critters "Now, listen children, this is a hole under the road....it is your friend."

Now for the next question - see if you can think of it before I spell it out for you:

Continue reading "Elitest Enviros waste more taxpayer money - should have done it themselves" »

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Liberalisms, like “this won’t increase the deficit,” or “this will reduce the deficit,” or “John Lynch will never leave a deficit” are misleading regurgitations whose success as a political tool rely entirely on the electorates inability to ask the follow-up question.  How?   

Here’s an example. 

John Lynch has 100 apples to use.  The left wing spendocrats in his legislature say they need 115 apples.  To justify this they imagine more apples and then John Lynch lets the spendocrats take fifteen more apples from your basket when no extra apples show up.  They all smile, pat each other on the back, and announce that there is no deficit.  And this process repeats every two years for as long as we allow Lynch to keep the governor’s office and let liberal spendocrats run state government.  

The beauty of this formula is it can be millions (or in Obama’s case Trillions) and as long as they imagine revenue or simply (and eventually) tax you to cover the cost, they can claim it’s deficit neutral; or better yet—overestimate the taxes or revenues and claim it actually reduces the deficit—again to be later covered by the sweat of your brow and the reduction of your lifestyle for whatever victim class or favored constituency the liberals have decided deserves  your money more than you do. 

So the other night when Ray Buckley opined about how John Lynch will never leave a deficit, he’s right.  He’ll just raise taxes.  No matter how much the legislature spends, he’ll raise more taxes.  Because that is what leadership means to democrats.  The hard choices—who to tax more and how much.   

And as soon as the election year is over, if John Lynch is still squatting up in Concord, he’ll abandon his budget cutting, election year tactics and go back to doing whatever the liberals tell him to do.

Cross Posted from NH Insider

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 8:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The JUA money grab is back in the news.  A group is blasting Kelly Ayotte and John Lynch for trying to balance the budget with 110 million from a fund created by the state but filled with money from the pockets of doctors who were forced by law to contribute to it.  The thinking goes that because the state forced them to pay in, the state has rights to the money because it (the state) created the underwriting fund.

That's like buying a big cookie jar, forcing people to put their money in it, and then insisting that money is now yours because it's your jar. 

Jar owner Lynch and AG Ayotte still beleive they were wronged by the State Supreme court when it said "you can't have the money" which is not unexpected.  They also insist that an injustice was done based on the judicial dissent which claims the state has a right to that money. 

I'm not a lawyer so let's skip all that for a moment and boil this down in simple terms.

The state forced someone to put their property in a fund so that the state could then claim ownership of that fund?  Did they know this up front? 

If the law can be demonstrated to justify such a taking is there not something then wrong with the law?

I think a governor and AG have a commitment not just to execute the laws that are written but to protect us from the ones that are written badly.  But that would require more leadership and less of a desire to hide poor management skills by robbing others to cover irresponsible governance.

This is like being mugged.  The mugger (the state) sees the money, decides you can part with it because they need it more and feel entitled to it, so they then go about the business of depriving you of it by any means necessary.  Hiding behind legal interpretation does not make it right.

And while the NH Supreme court left a backdoor in their decision for new legislation that could change the law, presumably to allow the legislature to legally rob the JUA, wouldn't it be an encouraging sign if the legislature instead wrote a law that removed the states right to take that property?  And wouldn't it be encouraging to have a governor who was more interested in what was right for New Hampshire than whatever he could justify to cover his and his democrat legislatures collective ass?

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 8:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here in NH, the Democrats shoved a radical change to how LLCs are taxes - and to have Government determine how much the owners could take as "reasonable compensation" before it could kick in.  Regular readers have seen updates as small business owners have started a rebellion (thanks to Andy Sanborn and Andrew Hemingway) Tag that along with the proposed MaggieCare which would have Government determine if a hospital is charging "equitable" fees (and getting taxed to boot for the "opportunity"), you can see that the Progressives agenda here in NH is the same as it is in DC - putting Government into charge of everything (after all, we individual schlubs just aren't capable of running our own lives and affairs!).

Jack Kimball is running for Governor here in NH and has a take on the LLC tax flip-flop by Governor John "Do Nuttin'" Lynch (D):

A few days ago, Governor Lynch decided to reverse his position on the controversial LLC tax. While I could not be happier with this position, Gov. Lynch’s advocacy shows his true colors.

The LLC tax was a last-minute change to the budget, created at 10:00 pm on the last day of negotiations, without even a public hearing. The tax places an additional 5% levy on interests and dividends of corporations, on top of the 8.5% business profits tax. It was supposed to bring in another $15 million dollars a year to state coffers.

So why the flip-flop? Gov. Lynch is now worried that larger corporations will be able to get out paying their share of the taxes with the help of tax professionals. This means that for all the political trouble the LLC tax has caused, Gov. Lynch will be getting even less money out of the deal than he hoped.

But Gov. Lynch is still getting all he can out of it. He waited until the legislature had already voted to implement the tax rules for 2009 before beginning talk of repeal. This means that even if the tax does get repealed, businesses are still forced to pay it this year. If Gov. Lynch really does care about the well-being of small businesses in the state, why did he not repeal the tax a week earlier?

Even the “talk of repeal” process is political. Rather than coming straight out and sponsoring a bill for repealing the tax, high-level Democrats are strategizing with the Governor about their plan for repealing the bill. In secret, of course. Repealing a bill does not need a strategy session, and it certainly does not need to be done in secret. Unless, of course, you want to replace the LLC tax with some equally unpopular way of raising revenue.

This gets to the heart of Governor Lynch and the Democrat’s real problem: New Hampshire has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

New Hampshire needs a balanced budget, but this will never happen by raising taxes. All raising taxes will do is hurt our economy by driving away businesses and giving people less spending power. This will in turn decrease the tax base.

If elected Governor, I will address New Hampshire’s spending problem.  Cutting down the size of government and increasing efficiency will get rid of government waste. Creating economic incentives and a favorable climate for small businesses will broaden our tax base. Lowering taxes will put more money in citizens’ pockets, which will in turn help our economy rebound. Only then will we see state revenues–and prosperity–going up.

Lynch tried to fiscally help cover for the House and Senate Democrat leadership - but when the buzz saws turned from being on the LLCs to being wielded by those same LLCs, Lynch caved.  He gave up.  He's swinging in the political winds.

And now, he's getting caught.....imagine, such a "popular" Gov with historical approval rates of 60-70% is down around 50%??  And Jack, a new comer to politics THIS YEAR, is in the 30s?

Hah!  Wait until Lynch has to start laying off more SEIU union members!

Glub, glub, glub.....

Posted by Skip at 8:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What do you get when you mix 124 Donkeys and one RINO?  A list of NH House reps on the wrong side of a bill to repeal another stupid tax.

The House voted to ax the tent tax, (HB 1445) and repeal the 9% 'rooms and meals' tax for people who go to a camp site and provide their own room and their own meal.  The bill still needs to pass the state Senate, which has a similar bill all its own, and then get past fence-sitter Lynch whose positionwe can  never know from day to day, not that we can rely on what he says as an indication of how he'll act once an actual bill is on his desk, but it's got momentum, even if some of it represented by legislators who are afraid to touch it.

HB1445 did still have its supporters.  Margie Smith tried to table it, but that lost 153 to 171.  The tax and spenders then tried to ITL it but that failed 145 to 181.  Then when Sherm Packard managed to get an OTP roll call vote to pass the repeal, it succeeded  202 to 125.

68 House reps did not vote on this bill. A list for another time perhaps.

But 124 democrats and 1 Republican (Rock 5  Kenneth Gould) tried to keep the tax alive  and were more than happy to do it for the record.  So here's the record on the jump

Continue reading "The Tent Tax Party" »

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 6:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The liberals have never been too concerned with public outrage if they thought they could ram something through.  And since the LLC tax was already on the books--lacking only the bureaucratic accouterments needed to open the spigot and get the money flowing--the only reason to back off abruptly is if there is something more sinister at hand.  Remember, the spice must flow.

Arlinghaus iterates the blatant secrecy of the current effort and compares it appropriately to one of the major issues with the previous incarnation; that it never saw the cleansing light of day before becoming law.  But I don't think that's going to be as much of an issue in the long run. I believe that the "fix" will be a seminal business tax scheme that unfairly taxes every business for the sole purpose of somehow encouraging companies of all sizes to side with the tax and spenders to advance a broad based alternative; and they will use the Scylla of the state deficit with the Caribdus of potential job loss from that more pervasive business tax to make a case for a sales or income tax instead.  A broad based tax is the ultimate goal and much like the Liberals in DC, NH lefties have to know this may be their last shot at this before November.

Now they may try to get both, but I'm more inclined to consider some sort of game.  They spent us into a revenue problem for a reason.  So whatever they are brewing, something wicked this way comes.

Cross Posted From NH Insider

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 8:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It takes commitment to vote for a new tax, even one whose cover story was as unlikely to have any affect as HB 1679.  But there are those who like to tax and those who love it, and the supporters of the 'Soft Drink Tax' drew a line in the High Fructose Corn Syrup and stood their ground.

Continue reading "Taxaholics" »

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 8:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last week the New Hampshire House voted against a bill to let tax payers adopt charter provisions establishing limitations on the growth of budgets and taxes.  The actual short text reads as follows:

This bill authorizes cities and towns to adopt charter provisions establishing limitations on the growth of budgets and taxes.

For those not familiar with New Hampshire, residents can already adopt provisions to limit growth and taxes, but the teachers unions and the pro-government folks don't like it.  So they do everything in their power to make it as difficult as they can.  They gum up the petition process.  They try to intimidate people, mess with them about the procedure or the number of good signatures, or anything else they can think of.  All this just to keep the thing from getting (what does Obama call it?) and up or down vote, in this case from the people (see also-taxpayers) who live in that particular town.

They can't even trust the people to let them vote on it. 

If that doesn't work, the town selectman, councilors, alderman, will try to keep it off the ballot, or schedule it when it has the best possible chance of failing.  If that doesn't work a well funded national union pr some faux-local non-profit NGO pretending to be a taxpayer advocacy group (as in they actually advocate taxpayers paying more taxes but won't admit as much), files a lawsuit that no average bunch of citizens could possibly hope to fight.  It's all very burdensome.

So much so that at the end of the day the mere weight of the process scares most people from even trying which is exactly the message the tax and spenders want to send.  So its actually a form of intimidation to keep people from trying to limit the size and scope of government at it's lowest level.

Such is the nature of man versus the machine.  Town politics are not really any different from national.

Continue reading "Low Hanging Fruit" »

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 7:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

You think? 

I don't buy the "no one likes rasing revenue part," mostly because were it true, they'd have avoided the spending in the first place.  They like the spending.

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 10:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

NEA New Hampshire is a-gush over the anniversary of the Stimu-less bill and they are not afraid to show it.  According to NEA-NH Insider the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)…

…represents a huge win for education thanks to unprecedented funding increases targeted to local districts.  ARRA also included increases for Title I, stabilization funding, and school construction bonds. This adds up. The US Dept. of Education saw funding increase $159.4 billion - an increase of 169%.

That’s a 169% funding increase to a department President Reagan wanted to eliminate.  And more proof of what we already knew; the stimulus was a hand out to prop up government employees at every level regardless of the taxpayers (or their children or grand childrens) ability to pay for it. The NEA NH Insider continues…

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has saved approximately 325,000 education related jobs nationwide. Dr. Christina Romer, head of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), stated that state stabilization funding to states has been "one of the triumphs" and has had "more bite than we would have thought." Dr. Romer’s observation affirms the economic value to the nation of what was one of NEA's major priorities in the stimulus package, and reinforces our argument in favor of continuing such aid through an Education Jobs Fund.

Translation: Your tax dollars laundered into Union dues payments that go back into the pockets of liberal legislators like Hodes and Shea-Porter so they can continue to vote more public sector payroll initiatives.

It’s a viscous cycle that can only be broken by breaking the back of public sector unions, something no democrat will ever condone, which highlights the profane hypocrisy of the left.  Unions are big business.  But unlike industry they are funded and paid for by taxpayers through acts of government that then protect and entrench them like a bulwark between incumbents and the electorate.  And while government has and does use its power to benefit business, (and both parties are culpable on various counts of enriching themselves as part of that process) public sector unions are the part of the government the voters can’t get out of office.  They are the bureaucracy that consumes vast chunks of every dollar of taxes, even before it gets to the teachers or some other favored sector.

So for the indefinite future taxpayers who lacking the resources of large national unions like the NEA, will never be able to face them equally on any issue, not with money, not with ground troops, and not with public relations; but that is no reason to stop trying.  And at the first opportunity, we need to use the power of the people to roll back the stranglehold of public sector unions.

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 7:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 8:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Continue reading "The Real "Third Rail" For Commuter Rail" »

Posted by Steve MacDonald at 9:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Listening to Mark Levin's radio program last night, I heard a guest describe the massive debt being foisted on future generations of Americans due to the current government spending spree rightly as

"taxation without representation."

How else would you describe what is happening? Our children and their children's children are going to get stuck paying the bill for the present profligate borrowing and spending while actually "enjoying" little to no benefit in return. And what happens to their America if they won't pay, or, as is going to be more likely the case, CAN'T pay?

Oh, and here's the other thing, China has now taken to telling the president who he can and cannot see. How can that be? Because they CAN...

Posted by Doug at 9:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Ruling 3 - 2 against the State in their grab for the $110 million from the medical malpractice fund known as the JUA.

So, what's Governor "Do Nuttin'" Lynch going to do?  He just cashiered the Rainy Day fund - there is hardly a backup worth spit.  And with the Dems (who haven't a spit's sense of a dollar) spending it faster than a windmill in a hurricane, will he break his promise of always rejecting a broadbased tax?

Stay tuned...

(Filed under Taxes, 'cause you KNOW they're coming...)

Posted by Skip at 8:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Remember, every time that Government wants to GIVE you something (having nationalized student loans, he wants to limit the payback not to the amount of the loan but to the limit of income, which means just about free college for anyone), Government will not decrease spending somewhere else. 

Unlike the non-profit budget, the corporate budget, or the family budget, Obama will be raising taxes.

Ergo: more of the phony facade of bribing you with your own money to make you feel good about getting something for nothing....except, the cost is NEVER nothing...

Posted by Skip at 12:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

• Rental Income
• Operational Business Profit
• Interest Income
• Royalties
• Short Term Capital Gains
• Long Term Capital Gains
• Gains on the sale of Collectibles (yes they are going to TAX your Red Sox baseball card collection....)
• Tax-exempt income
• 1250 gains
• "other income"

• This is a new tax that when combined will be 13.5% on our personal income
• Record keeping for small businesses to try and defend ourselves will cost $500-5,000/yr
• We are being faced with double taxation - which is unconstitutional
• The 5% tax on refinancing (although is out of the rules), still is in the new law passed

Posted by Skip at 1:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Continue reading "WELCOME TO "NEW TAX-SHIRE"" »

Posted by Skip at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Our friend, Grant, is running a poll over at NH Watchdog.  To be truthful, it just went up so few folks as of now have voted but hey, let your voice be heard!

Posted by Skip at 12:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It's getting worse!

Stop The LLC Tax Update

Do you want the State Determining How Much Money You Can Make?

Please come to the Public Hearing on
Thursday at 9:00am in Concord

New Law HB1607 will allow the State to determine your reasonable compensation
and trigger the 13.5% tax

Hello Everyone!

Again, thank all of you for joining in this fight against the 13.5% Small Business Income Tax.  As we have discussed, this new tax on small business owners income is the result of 2 separate laws that come together and attack our income.  All of this is based upon the State of NH, through the Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) being able to tell Small Business Owners how much money they can make.  Last week, the DRA and the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee brought forth a new Bill (HB 1607), to expand just how much they can limit us and establishing rules to cost us significantly more money in reporting.

On Thursday, the State will hold the only public hearing on this issue, so PLEASE make every effort  to come and help us tell the State, that it cannot continue to attack Small Business Owners!

It is actually this Bill HB1607 that triggers all the stuff.  We need to fight for an outright repeal of this Bad, anti business legislation, so we can create jobs and expand our economic base in New Hampshire.

So, how will this Bill Affect you?

 
There a number of things, but in general:

1. First the Bill gives the DRA the power to say you make too much money
2. Bill requires you to keep a massive amount of new record keeping to fight back
3. The State is trying to eliminate "loss carry forwards" or allowing you to recoup your investment for creating things
4. The Bill requires significant new record keeping if you or your company makes over $50,000.
5. The State mandates that you are not allowed to loose money......
6. The State is dictating a "percentage" on the sale of assets, as to the limit you can claim, all up to the DRA determining it.
7. They offer a paperwork safe harbor then a paragraph later take it back at their discretion

This Bill only effects LLC's, Partnerships, and now Sole Proprietorships too!

Even the DRA, in a letter we have obtained states that they will be very aggressive and conservative in what they allow.

Ladies and gentlemen, this Bill is what we are all fighting for and against.  If this Bill is repealed, we will be able to work hard, reward ourselves, create jobs and help this great State  pull out of the recession.  We can do this, but everyone needs to participate.

Please show up Thursday 9:00am, LOB (the building behind the Capitol)

Again, thank you all for your efforts!
Andy Sanborn
Laurie Sanborn
Andrew Hemingway

Posted by Skip at 1:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Chamber will start with one bus, but will look into getting more if there is a large response to their offer.

Posted by Skip at 8:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Who has first dibs on my money - me or the State? 

• If the answer is "me", then ask them "then way are you so dead set in raising my taxes so that I can't keep more of it?"

• If the answer is "the State", then ask them "when did I become an indentured servant (at best) or a slave to the State (at worst)?"

• Then lighten it up a bit and ask - why are you so insistent on taxing income instead of wealth (and press them on what wealth is - go ahead, make it hard for them!)
  

• If you're in a really foul mood (which I am approaching) demand why they think it is such a flipping fantastic idea for them to take your money to just "spread the wealth around" instead of allowing you to do it yourself.
  

Like I said, you have to be in an ornery mood to make it the least bit fun.  Which I am.

Have fun. Report back to me what happened.

Posted by Skip at 9:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Hello!

First, Laurie, Andrew and I want to thank each and everyone one of you for adding your names to our Petition, asking Governor Lynch to use his executive powers to stop this Small Business Personal Income Tax. So far we have just under 1900 signers! We all know that implementation of this tax will hurt the State’s ability to create jobs and economic expansion to bring us out of the recession. Again, we can’t thank you enough.

As an update to the public hearing for those who were not there, I am here to report that your voices were heard! The room was filled to capacity (I counted 250 chairs, standing rows of 2-3 deep around the room) and about 40 people signed up to speak about the damage this tax will do to our State. Testimony was firm, yet polite and the message was clear.

As a result, the DRA (Department of Revenue Administration) has agreed to 3 more public hearings in January. The upside is there are 3 meetings. The downside is they are all being held in the North Country . I believe that hearings should be heard in all 4 corners of the State, but we can get to that later. I cannot stress how important it will be to reach out to your neighbors, friends and co-workers, and get to all three of these meetings. Waning attendance will show compliance and hurt our ability to stop this tax. The meetings will be held as follows:

January 5th 1:00pm Berlin . White Mountain Community College 2020 Riverside Drive , Berlin

January 7th 6:00pm Plymouth . Plymouth State University – Hyde Hall 17 High St. , Plymouth

January 9th 10:00am Conway . Kennett High School Auditorium 409 Eagles Way , Conway

To sign up to speak (registered speakers will get first priority) please register here:

Concerning having a hearing in your area, we believe there should be hearing in the eastern, western and southern areas of the State. If you believe a hearing process should include all for corners, Please contact the DRA at:

COMMISSIONER: Kevin A. Clougherty (603) 271-231

Additionally, below I have provided links to find your NH Legislators so you can send them an email, asking for both a hearing in all corners of the State and frankly, to Stop this tax!

House Members

Senators

...Finally, we want to give a shout out and huge thank you to all of the small business owners who are helping in this process. I also want to thank the business associations who have also stepped up to help this cause. These associations represent the small businesses in their respective industries and so far they include (in no particular order):

• The Small Business Small Industry Association
• New Hampshire Auto Dealers Association
• New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association
• Steward for Prosperity
• New Hampshire Grocers Association
• NH Retail Merchants Association
• National Federation Independent Business Owners
• Cornerstone Policy Research
• Americans for Prosperity
• New Hampshire Property Owners Association
  

We are adding more everyday!

And we are being supported by Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

OK, thanks for your time, please participate and then go out, shop local and help our New Hampshire economy grow!!Also, Please spread the word and email everyone you know in New Hamsphire to join our Petition to ask Governor Lynch to stop this job killing tax!

As Always

Andy Sanborn
Laurie Sanborn
Andrew Hemingway

www.stopthellctax.com

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Obama promised that he was going to transform America; he was not kidding. 

A conversation with Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) and NRO (emphasis mine)

Gregg: Welcome to a New America

American government changed last night. “We are now functioning under a parliamentary form of government,” says Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.) in a conversation with NRO. “An ideological supermajority in Congress, along with a government run by community organizers, has taken over.”

“They’ve taken over the student-loan program, they’ve taken over the automobile system, and now they’re taking over the health-care system. There is no limit to their belief that people should be controlled by smart bureaucrats in Washington,” says Gregg. “They’re putting our country on a path that will reduce the quality of life for the next generation, undermine our nation’s wonderful exceptionalism, and Europeanize our economy to curb its growth.”

Harry Reid’s health-care bill “was purchased,” says Gregg. “Our system of checks and balances is gone. We now have a government that lurches with great speed even though our system is founded upon incremental change.” And don’t hope that the House stops the runaway train, he says. “I think the House is ideologically even further to the Left than the Senate. There are many people there who are committed to taking us down the road toward nationalization.”

“In the future, discretionary dollars won’t be able to be spent on college or a new house, but on this massive new burden for Americans,” says Gregg. “Eventually, at some point, the pressures on the private sector will tip the scales so that employers offering private insurance send people over to the health-care exchange. It’s all part of their ultimate goal to get a vast amount of people subsidized by the government.”

This is an “unsustainable course for our nation,” says Gregg. “We can’t sustain the debt we’re adding. Soon we’ll reach banana-republic status.”

Posted by Skip at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."

- President Barack Obama, Inauguration, 1/20/09

At issue: $100,000.

OK, I will admit - this is Friday Fare - a small nitpick, a missing state name - and it doesn't even amount to a rounding error of a rounding error of a rounding error in the largest, most deficit ridden budget the world has ever seen.

Oh yeah, that IS the point! From the Washington Times:

When he earmarked $100,000 in taxpayer spending to go to Jamestown's library, Rep. James E. Clyburn meant for it to go to the library in Jamestown, S.C., which is in his district.

But in the bustle to write and pass the $1.1 trillion catchall spending bill, Congress ended up designating the money for Jamestown, Calif. - 2,700 miles away and a town that doesn't even have a library.

"That figures for government, doesn't it," said Chris Pipkin, who runs the one-room library in Jamestown, S.C., and earlier this year requested $50,000, not the $100,000 that Congress designated, to buy new computers and build shelves to hold the books strewn across the room.

The library is just one of more than 5,000 "earmarks," or pork-barrel spending projects, totaling $3.9 billion, tucked inside the report accompanying the catchall spending bill Congress sent to President Obama this week. Mr. Obama signed the $1.1 trillion bill Wednesday, violating his own pledge to allow the public five days to comment on bills before he signs them.

Nice - borrow the money from China and abroad, continue to put the taxpayers further into debt, and then send that money to somebody else that hasn't asked for it nor has a place to use it.

When Government gets too big, when lawmakers "don't read the bill" (heck, when lawmakers don't even read what they wrote!"), this is what you get.  Rushing pell-mell to simply "pass something" is not the answer.

Again, a minor nit - but there are others that the WT reported on:

• $200,000 to study elderly Irish immigrants in New York
• $1 million to add plumbing to houses in Maryland
• $487,000 to build office space so Winston-Salem, N.C., can try to attract businesses to a blighted area.
  
• $100,000 to build bus shelters in the wealthy community of Bal Harbour, Fla., but Congress more than doubled that amount to $250,000.
• The bill has $155,000 - $1,000 more than Rep. Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin Democrat, requested - for Diverse and Resilient Inc. The group runs a program "to improve the response to intimate partner violence" between members of lesbian or gay couples.
  
• Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's hometown of Wasilla is getting $500,000 to expand airplane parking space at the airport.
• The bill spends slightly less than $5 million to fund six separate studies of how climate change will affect different places, from the Chesapeake Bay to the White Mountains of New Hampshire.
  

Here's my problem -

Continue reading "Government - watching over your money!" »

Posted by Skip at 10:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest post by Andy Sanborn.

With over 55,000 people unemployed and hundreds of thousands underemployed, the current leaders of our State are trying to institute a new, Personal Income Tax  on 30,000 small  business owners in New Hampshire.  At a time when even the ultra spending President Obama is suggesting creating small business incentives to spur job growth, our current State Government is trying to institute new taxes in an all out assault against an economic recovery.  If passed, these new tax rules will be the most crushing in decades.

Our State is based on small business.  It is who we are and how we live, grow and feed our families.

At issue is an attack on New Hampshire small business owners, which, if approved, will send our great State to the back of the pack in its ability to come out of the recession by creating jobs and economic opportunities.  The State is now enforcing legislation that allows the Department of Revenue Administration to come into any New Hampshire business and determine whether the owner is making too much money.  If so, they will enact additional taxation, that will result in a new 13.5% tax to their personal income.  It is the DRA's sole discretion to determine how much is too much.

The State is trying to impose this new 13.5% tax (through a 5% “Dividends" Tax combined with a 8.5% "Business Profit’s" Tax) on all individuals who own LLC’s and Partnerships in New Hampshire.  LLC’s or Limited Liability Corporations, the foundation of New Hampshire small Businesses, are small neighborhood operations that have some legal liability protections similar to “Real” corporations, while being taxed as individual operators.  Think of your local convenience store, roofer, car mechanic or restaurant.  The “Net Profit” of LLC’s and Partnerships are actually the personal incomes of these operators, and already  taxed through the K1 portion of the Federal Tax Return.  It is the State’s intent to “claim” business owners are making too much money and  impose taxing the personal income of the estimated 30,000 New Hampshire residents operating these small businesses around our State.

In addition, the State is trying to impose a 5% Personal Income tax on the owners of LLCs or Partnerships that borrow money to grow or expand their business.  How will that act help to encourage economic growth and adding employees?  As a business owner, if I borrow money or remortgage my property to start a new operation or expand my business, the State feels that it is now entitled to 5% of that mortgage as a tax, claiming that it is actually income and not an investment in my company.

This new Tax isn’t closing a loophole; it’s squeezing the remaining blood from the stone.  Our current State Legislators fail to understand that money does not grow on trees.  Like a teen with an open hand to their parents’ wallet, they obviously have no understanding where money comes from.   They are in fact trying to take the money that should be being used to stop layoffs and to  provide raises, health insurance and other benefits.

The Federal Government is not going to pull us out of the recession.  We are.  Our ability to kick start the New Hampshire economy will come directly from small businesses in New Hampshire who create opportunities that will lead to job growth.  Now, more than ever, the State should be doing all in its power to encourage economic growth and job creation, not inhibit it.

If you are concerned  about getting a job, or keeping the one you have, please contact your legislator, the Governor or better yet, show up to the public hearing on December 16th in Concord.

Andy Sanborn

Interested in signing the Stop the LLC Tax petition?  Head on over here!

Posted by Skip at 8:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Democrat leadership here in NH (Governor, Executive Council, House, Senate) have increased the spending here in NH by $1.2 Billion the last two budgets -> 17.5% the first time and an additional 12% this last time around.  Not only did they crow about a "responsible budget" but had no qualms about revenue projections that, to be tame, are just simply out of this world (I had other words in mind, but this is supposed to be a family friendly blog).

One of the folks in the State that know the Budget best is Charlie Arlinghaus - the President of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy.  NH Watchdog posted his latest thought; I've set up a summary of the "no good news at all" here:

• Their "balanced budget" they passed is now out of balance by $250 million.
  
• Their "money grab" of $110 million from the JUA (medical malpractice trust fund) they were counting on got stopped dead by the Courts.
• STIMULUS MONEY - but of course!   $18 million worth - plugging holes and STIMULATING nothing.
• "Finally, revenues are coming in well below the amount needed to balance the budget."- " on pace to be $60 million to $70 million less than budgeted"
• Layoffs filled a $25 million
• Education funding - staring at the budget with a very evil eye
• How much is that HealthFirst going to work out?
  

The Dems have already started the play with a "tax summit" - you know that they know they're in deep sneakers and will be looking for the eternal easy way out for them: taxpayers?  Money?  Sure - ATM time!  Thanks Gov. Lynch (D), House Speaker Norelli (D), and SenatePresident Larsen (D)

Unlike companies that cannot just up prices to meet shortfalls, these chuckleheads won't think of reducing overhead - instead, any cuts will be to direct taxpayer services to get the howling up.  Apologize for mismanagement - not these clowns!

Like Glenn Reynolds oft times says: "We're in the BEST of hands"!

Charlie, thanks for spreading the gloom and doom and giving us the dreadful outlook.....

Oy!

Posted by Skip at 6:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Over at Forbes, Richard A. Epstein (ames Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law, The University of Chicago, The Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, and a visiting professor at New York University Law School) has the economic policies of Obama pegged - and not for success either.  In this piece, he takes on Christine Romer's latest column in the WSJ "Putting Americans Back to Work" (emphasis mine) :

High on its agenda was an investigation of public-private partnerships that could, at best, only usher in yet another round of economic gimmicks. No credible economist could think that "direct incentives of homeowners to retrofit their homes to improve energy efficiency" could place a dent in the ranks of the 15.4 million unemployed. Far more likely is a replay of the older story: subsidies for these programs sop up wealth and thus kill sensible job opportunities elsewhere.

Instead of her presidential genuflection, Romer should have given this blunt advice to the president:

You can only improve labor markets by freeing them up. Scrap the talk about goofy ad hoc subsidies, and tell the president, for the first time in his life, to think hard about deregulation. Roll back the three recent minimum-wage increases that have blunted job creation for low-skilled workers in a stagnant labor market. Announce he will veto any effort by Congress to pass the Employer Free Choice Act, whose uncertain threat of compulsory unionization has prompted many businesses to shelve any plans for expansion. Abandon the monstrous health care bills winding through Congress, whose panoply of taxes, subsidies and regulations are job killers of the first magnitude. Put a halt on legislation for carbon caps and taxes until the science gets sorted out. Don't let the EPA make a hasty endangerment finding on carbon dioxide.

Deregulation costs nothing to administer, increases jobs and adds to the tax base. It is only an added benefit that sound economics reduces presidential power.

A lesson that our NH Democrat leaders need to learn as well.  They, and Obama, keep crying that employers are not hiring - why the heck should they?  These twits (the Democrats, that is) seem to want to force employers into being proxies for social service agencies.  They just don't seem to understand that companies do not exist to just hand out jobs or benefits or anything else.  

Look, let's be blunt - employer employ employees for one reason - create profit. When it becomes more costly to hire those resources - either through direct costs of wages (think unions and govenrment), mandated benefits (think government), regulations (think government),  and taxes (think government), they will NOT hire additional people that may well become "cost centers" instead of "profit centers".

Look at what I just wrote - in each area, the word "government" appears as a negative.  In this age, another area to add is instability (think government). Owners and managers of businesses hate instability - from personal experience I KNOW how hard it is to plan when one sees that the "rules of the road" are changing underneath one's feet. 

We have taxes changing (or the threat of such) almost daily at the national level or here in NH.  We have state mandates and national mandates coming up over the hill in the area of healthcare - who would hire that "next person" if it runs up costs that may well be non-linear?  With the EPA now ruling that CO2 is a pollutant that has to be regulated (which is not even the most potent of the Green House Gases!), changes are coming that will highly affect the cost of materials and energy needed for businesses. 

So, they sit.  And will continue to sit.  The only growth in jobs is in the Public Sector which is no answer at all (those two Stimulus efforts have worked just so well so far, eh?) as we can only borrow so much until the well runs dry and without constant priming from taxes from the private sector (and that well is drying up as the pump is broken), those jobs will soon be at risk as well.

At some point, Obama and the NH Dems are going to have to admit their policies are wrong - their out would be to follow the policies of another Democrat in history - JFK (shhhh - we just won't tell them that it has also worked for Republicans multiple times as well)

What Tigerhawk said about  national level (Dept of Labor Solis just announced ANOTHER 90 rules and regulations to be applied against companies):

Just when you think "they can't keep making it harder," they do

Applies here in NH - they just keep making it harder and harder here in NH.  Say they want one thing (more job, please), do another (regs to make it more expensive to do the former).....sheesh.....

Posted by Skip at 1:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Who owns the fruits of your labor?

• Top 1% of all income earners pay 40.42% of all income taxes
• The bottom 95% of all wage earners pay 39.37%

The graph comes from The American Enterprise Institute; they have another

• Is it good for society to punish people for being productive? Is that FAIR?
  
• Is it  good for society for the vast majority of citizens to have a free ride?  Is that EQUITABLE?

Posted by Skip at 10:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From the TaxProf:

GOP Introduces Geithner Penalty Waiver Act

Congressmen John Carter (R-TX) and Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) yesterday introduced the Geithner Penalty Waiver Act, requiring that the IRS assess the same penalty against U.S. taxpayers that came forward in the UBS tax fraud investigation as paid by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for failing to pay taxes on his IMF income -- zero.  From Congressman Carter's press release:

Carter says the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates equal penalties for similar offenses, and that the failure of the IRS to assess any penalties against Geithner demands similar penalties for all taxpayers with substantially equivalent cases. “This bill seeks to codify what is now established by the law of precedent,” says Carter. “The Geithner case has established a legal precedent for the determination of penalties by the IRS, and that precedent can be cited in all federal tax courts. The penalty is now set at zero.” “Taxpayers who willfully attempt to evade paying their fair taxes should pay a penalty, or our tax code becomes unenforceable,” says Carter. “This bill is not to reward tax evaders, but to defend the Rule of Law itself. If we as a nation choose not to enforce the law against the politically privileged, then we cannot enforce the law against others without undermining respect for the law

It seemed that when Obama took office, one couldn't fire up a system without hearing about the next appointee that had tax problems.  Certainly, many on the Right who would consider themselves part of the "Little People" politically had much angina over the fact that wrists were slapped vs. hearing handcuffs being slapped on such wrists.  You and me with such behavior? 

Yeah, we'd be meeting our very new BFF, Bubba in our steel rod equipped "spa".

Timmy, the head honcho for taxation and its enforcement, got off pretty much scot-free; would we?

Let's see, the Democrats are always crying out that things should be "equal", right?

Actually, that IS the intent of living under the Rule of Law!

(H/T: Instapundit)

Posted by Skip at 8:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I received this email from a Left leaning person (supposedly a NH resident but I'm not totally sure; any NH person with any worth wouldn't take such a position!) complaining that because we do not have an income tax here in NH, people are SUFFERING!  Because the State refuses to tax people more, problems will continue to abound:

Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:32:47 -0500
From: <redacted>
Subject: New NH Parks Plan

I have just returned from Thanksgiving and had not heard about this...my real concern is that the current lack of a Fair Tax System in NH bars any new outlays of funding regardless of how worthy they may actually be..I am thinking of the closure of long -term care beds for brain injured patients and lay offs of last few months.  Reduced funding for Medicaid, --ahh the list goes on.. In my opinion our governors and legislators have hoodwinked NH citizens for years pretending to pass balanced budgets by shortchanging both obvious (state commitment to employee retirement promised for years) and hidden costs (mental health, etc)  If we are to maintain the outdoor culture of this state we of course need an ongoing commitment to our parks - but to do this we must have a Fair and Equitable Tax system that does not put all its reliance on property tax.

The post from <redacted> uses a common technique that induce sympathy and support for her argument. By highlighting sympathetic examples that induces reflexive support, and ignoring the overspending, waster, and irresponsibility of the Democrats who have controlled NH government for the past six years, she paints a false picture of the options we will face in cleaning up the mess the Democrats have left the Republicans.

First things first: All the new taxes and fees that the Democrats have raised in the past several years in order to create ever larger spending pressure and state government must be reversed and reduced.

The time-honored ruse of the Democrats is to say "Show us where you will cut!". They do this so that they can then generate hysterical opposition from the narrowly focused interest-groups who benefit from that particular state spending (mainly government employees and their unions mainly, but also anyone else who directly benefits); in addition, the government-spending interest groups then maneuver to threaten, and cause, as much havoc, pain, and disruption to the public as they can, in order to "prove" that reducing spending on their department is ill-advised. Causing such disruption is easy, when we think about it, because government is a monopoly; that is, the public has no alternative.

This problem is endemic to almost all government, because our "services" are being provided by a monopoly, and one that very jealously protects its monopoly (by force of law). A solution to this problem is a puzzle that faces all who attempt to reverse the ever-widening spiral of more taxing and more spending by government and those who benefit from such irresponsibility. A solution to this problem is one of the main issues that will face Republican leadership after next year's elections.

Posted by Tim Condon at 11:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

(The tea party people, undoubtedly almost all of whom do not belong to the richest one percent, appear unconcerned with this.)

I note the sarcasm "undoubtedly" - first, I'd love to see you back THAT statistic up - and since I am one on of the co-Founding Members of the NH TEA Party Coalition (although I speak for the 'Grok here and not for the Coalition as a whole), I can tell you that you're all wet behind the ears.  I am far from being in that one percent, most of the rest of the group I can probably say ditto, and I know that the families that have been coming out to the NH TEA Party events are just ordinary Jane and Joe SixPack type of folk like us.

Dean trots out a graph with that challenge (go ahead, click on over - we'll link but they refuse to link back) -  it seems that the BH gang has so been mislead by their ideological blinders that they can't even believe that there might be another explanation, an EASY one, for the graph.

So Dean, I'm willing to debate - ready to step into the ring?  I've offered before - you've always backed off in silence.  Is this issue important enough to you to take on a TEA Party person who is willing to mix it up in the arena of ideas? 

At least Rep. Jim Splaine has had the courage to comment here on the 'Grok (which will be promoted a bit later on to the front page as another post) - will you accept this challenge?

After all, you issued it...

Posted by Skip at 9:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Voters Want Green… In Their Wallets
Guest Post By Howard Rich

As the fallout continues to settle from the 2009 elections, among the more overlooked results was a ballot issue in Boulder County, Colorado that would have extended an existing sales tax to fund the acquisition of additional "open space."

Obviously, this regional issue didn't garner as much national interest as the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, or the mayoral races in New York, Atlanta and Houston, or a surprising near-win by an unknown third party challenger in a hotly-contested New York Congressional race. Nonetheless, it stands out as another compelling affirmation of the new direction America is taking – if only American politicians would listen.

Approval of this "open space" tax in Boulder, set to expire in 2019, seemed like a perfect storm –even in this bitter economic climate. After all, it wasn't technically a tax increase – it was a future extension (a decade down the road) of an existing tax, and not a particularly large tax at that. On top of that, it was expressly devoted for the purpose of land conservation, something Boulder voters have supported at the polls for the past two decades.

In other words, this was precisely the sort of referendum that routinely wins by landslide margins in the suburbs of Denver, where "green" voters dominate and Republicans have been virtually extinct since the Reagan revolution.

And yet amazingly, the "open space" ballot issue was narrowly defeated by Boulder voters.
To put that outcome in perspective, Barack Obama won Boulder County with a whopping 72.3% of the vote a year ago. In 2004, Boulder voters supported Democrat John Kerry 2-to-1 over George W. Bush. Four years before that? Al Gore got fifty percent of the vote – but only because 12% of Boulder residents voted for Ralph Nader.

"It's disappointing, but we knew going in that this would be a tough sell in this economic climate," the local County Commissioner said after the tax extension went down in defeat.
Really? Because it's never been a tough sell before.

An editorial in the Denver Post a few days after the election managed to muster the appropriate shock."When Boulder voters reject a tax increase meant to create more open space, it's clear there has been a sea change in political moods," the editorial stated.

Indeed there has been a "sea change," even if Obama and his allies refuse to acknowledge it.

In a related vote, Boulder County voters also rejected a measure that would have expanded low-interest loans to property owners making energy-efficient upgrades to their homes and businesses. Like the "open space" tax, the vote to authorize these loans wouldn't have immediately raised taxes or fees – but it would have expanded the debt obligation of the local government by $85 million.
Once again, Boulder voters weren't hearing it – and they weren't alone among historically left

leaning Coloradans when it came to rebuking these comparatively feeble efforts by local governments to dip into their wallets and pocketbooks.

In Aurora, another pro-Obama stronghold just east of Denver, voters shot down a tax that would have kept open four local libraries. Meanwhile in Denver – which Obama won a year ago with 75.4% of the vote – a tax increase for infrastructure improvements at a local school district was rejected.
Like the twenty-point electoral shifts in Virginia and New Jersey, these ballot issue results in Colorado are both shocking and uncomplicated.

From the suburbs of Denver to the banks of the Delaware, voters are in the mood for more "green," alright … in their wallets.

Howard Rich is the Chairman of Americans for Limited Government

Posted by Doug at 9:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest post by Bill Wilson

Call it a conservative conundrum.

Taxpayers who went to the polls last night are clearly outraged by a year filled with massive financial bailouts; the nationalization of the banking, mortgage, and auto industries; and proposed takeover of the energy and health care industries. On their way out of polling stations, they told pollsters across the country that they were overwhelmed by the economy, lost jobs, taxes, and reckless government spending.

However, in Maine and Washington, while voters were saying they want to rein in government, referenda restricting the growth of government and excess taxation were defeated soundly. Why?

Question 4 in Maine and Initiative-1033 in Washington would have capped the yearly growth of government spending and tax increases to no more than the yearly increase in population plus inflation. In order for the politicians to spend more, state residents would have had to approve it by ballot.

However, because the public sector unions are so powerful, they can strong-arm any attempt to limit their stranglehold on taxpayers through lies, fear, and distortions. Residents were threatened with chaos and destitution if taxpayers refused to continue to pay exorbitant protection money that they demand.

They are bankrupting cities and states across the country like California and New Jersey. So unsustainable are these public sector unions that they are even on the federal dole, receiving tens of billions in subsidies from the $787 billion "stimulus". They are a potent political force.

However, there is hope. In a local election where the stakes are plainer to see when government grows out of control, a city charter amendment passed in Manchester, New Hampshire that caps spending and taxes to no more than increases in inflation. It would require a two-thirds vote in by the city's elected aldermen to override the limitation.

According to the Union Leader, "The day was about a year and a half in the making. Proponents, led by a conservative group known as the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition, spent the summer of 2008 collecting thousands of signatures in hopes of securing a spot on the ballot that November. Their effort was thwarted by a narrow majority of aldermen, who argued that voters would need more time to familiarize themselves with the issue."

But not even the delays were enough to stop this amendment, and the drawn-out fight crystallized the issues involved. Even in this largely Democrat-controlled city, limiting the unbridled expansion taxes and spending was on the minds of voters. It did not drive Democrats from power, either. They retained control of the city's aldermen.

It was an issue that drove voters to the polls in 2009 nationwide: the unsustainable growth of government. The American people are, rightly so, shocked at the explosion of the federal debt now at $12 trillion, the record-setting $1.4 trillion budget deficit, and unprecedented expansion of the nation's money supply, which has more than doubled in a year.

To make matters worse, by 2011, the national debt will equal the annual Gross Domestic Product. And in 2020, the debt will surpass $20 trillion. It is a trend that if not reversed will leave the nation in financial ruin.

But it's deeper than that.

2009 is a year where the political landscape of the nation has been shifted. Politically, it turns out that the chief beneficiary of the spending binge was not the party responsible for the handouts, kickbacks, and bailouts, but the out-party: Republicans.

It was a night that saw Republicans gain two governorships—a landslide in Virginia and a stunning upset in Jersey—and the political establishment was shocked to its core as the Conservative Party came within a hair's breath of taking New York's 23rd Congressional District.

It is a trend that has national implications. If vulnerable and Blue Dog members of the House of Representatives were feeling queasy about voting for the $2.1 trillion government-run socialized medicine scheme before last night, surely by now they are carsick as the American people rebel against the Obama regime.

On the Senate side, the legislation may be slowed until 2010, at least. The national energy cap and tax could be all but dead if national Democrat leaders make course corrections to avoid electoral collapse a year from now.

Taxpayers, however, need not wait for Congress to solve the national debt and save the dollar.

A national plan offered by lawmakers would be good news for the American people, for taxpayers, and for limited government. The opposition may want to look to the model of Manchester, New Hampshire, where they are limiting by law the growth of government.

Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government.

Posted by Doug at 11:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest Post by State Senator Jeb Bradley 

On Tuesday, October 27 the Republican Leadership in the New Hampshire House and Senate sponsored a SUMMIT ON SPENDING in Concord.

There were three excellent presentations from Steve Norton of the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies, Charlie Arlinghaus of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy and John Stephen, former Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services.

Mr. Norton outlined historical trends in State Spending, placed NH in the context of national trends, and described large sources of NH expenditures consisting of Education Funding, Medicaid, Corrections, and the Retirement System.

Mr. Arlinghaus detailed State Spending over the last 20 years. But more importantly he predicted a budget shortfall in the current budget of $208 million and in the next budget a staggering $627 million deficit.

Commissioner Stephen not only depicted several excellent ideas for NH to slow spending, but also showed NH’s Medicaid spending to be significantly above the national average. Some of his recommendations included:  specific authorizations for department heads to propose a 5% reduction in their budgets as well as the already required program maintenance budget; a line item veto for the Governor; and moving toward a “managed care” model for delivering Medicaid health care services for eligible New Hampshire residents.  Several Legislators including myself will be working with Commissioner Stephen to incorporate these spending reduction ideas into legislation for the 2010 session. I will blog more on this subject as the draft legislation is finalized.

All three presentations are available at: http://www.nhhousegop.com .

Meanwhile on Tuesday November 3rd there will be several elections that are important to New Hampshire’s future. I urge consideration of the following three candidates.

Lynne Blankenbeker is running for State Representative in a special election in Concord. Lynne is a naval officer, attorney, nurse and Desert Storm Veteran. She has been going door to door throughout the election asking Concord residents to send her to the Statehouse so that she can work to lower spending and cut taxes. (Listen to her on MTNP radio here: Part 1, Part 2)

Ken Smith is a successful small business owner in Portsmouth who has served on the Portsmouth City Council and is running for mayor in Portsmouth.  Ken has been very involved in Portsmouth for years and wants to work for economic development, fiscal discipline and lower property taxes in the city.

Senator and Manchester Alderman Ted Gatsas is running for Mayor of Manchester. Ted is a Manchester native who has long been heralded for his civic and charitable work, and is an extremely successful business person. I have worked with Ted for a number of years as a member of the Legislature. Ted is respected for his hard work, attention to detail and problem solving abilities. He too will be a strong voice for job growth, spending restraint and lower taxes in New Hampshire’s largest city.

Lastly, after the TAX SUMMIT, that organizers hoped would lay the groundwork for an income tax, I debated the SUMMIT with one of the organizers, Representative Susan Almy on “The Exchange”  -- the always thought provoking program hosted by Laura Knoy.  Here is the link to the audio version: http://www.nhpr.org/archive/2009/10/23/term/15001.

Please listen and I think you will agree with me that Tuesday’s elections are critical for New Hampshire.

DON'T FORGET TO VOTE ON TUESDAY!!

Jeb Bradley represent's NH's 3rd Senate District.

Posted by Doug at 5:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

My friends in California are beside themselves as to what is going on in their state with respect to taxes, spending, and impending doom and bankruptcies due to clueless Legislative efforts to bollix up the works.

Anyways, how much would it cost to have the California Treasurer come to NH and yell at the Governor, the Senate, and the House (controlled, as in CA, by the Democrats)?

Posted by Skip at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest Post by State Sen. Jeb Bradley 

Last week’s TAX SUMMIT organized by Representative Susan Almy reaffirmed that New Hampshire’s lack of a general income or sales tax has enhanced our competitive position compared to other states. But the SUMMIT also warned that business taxes are too high and may be hurting our ability to attract high tech jobs to the state.

Unfortunately the TAX SUMMIT focused exclusively on taxes with nary a question raised by the organizers about the other half of the equation -- state spending. This isn't surprising however, given that spending has increased from $9.36 billion to $11.49 over two budgets --- a startling increase of 23%! And this is happening at a time when state spending around the nation has decreased over the last two years.

Nevertheless the SUMMIT was instructive. To her credit, Almy, an income tax supporter, insured that witnesses represented a wide variety of viewpoints including opposition to an income or sales tax.

Naturally several speakers supported adopting a sales or income tax. Jeff McLynch of the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy argued for an income tax based primarily on the need for additional revenue and equity. Laurel Redden of the Granite State Fair Tax Coalition argued for unspecified new taxes to mitigate rising property taxes.   No one likes the property tax and most people believe the fairest tax of all is the tax someone else pays! If our tax system is so unfair – why does NH continually rank at or near the top of nationwide surveys that rank states' livability conditions?

Two of the most compelling witnesses drew clear distinctions between New Hampshire’s tax policy and those of other states. Scott Hodge, President of the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, stated that most states garner the majority of their revenue through general income taxes, sales taxes and business income taxes which he termed a “three legged stool.” Without either tax, New Hampshire relies heavily on an 8.5% business profits taxes and a .75% payroll tax paid by employers. Hodge warned that enacting an income tax would be a “huge mistake.” He made the emphatic point that “states that are in the biggest financial trouble are the three legged stool states such as New York, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Connecticut.”

Continue reading "Sen Bradley: "The rush of new spending and rash of higher taxes may well be eroding our competitive position before our eyes"" »

Posted by Doug at 5:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

 Republicans Respond to Democrats’ “Income Tax Summit”
With a Session to “Stop the Spending”

OCTOBER 27 -  GRAPPONE CENTER in CONCORD

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Join fellow taxpayers from across New Hampshire as they descend onto Concord to discuss the current legislative budget spending priorities and the effects on our local taxes.

WHEN: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 8:30 AM

WHAT: Joint House and Senate Republican Stop the Spending Summit

WHERE: The Grappone Conference Center, 70 Constitution Avenue, Concord NH 03301

Beginning with coffee and donuts at 8:30 AM, we anticipate that the summit will continue until noon.

So, please set aside the morning of the 27th for this important discussion about the spending problems facing the NH Legislature. It will be open to the public and a Q&A session will follow each speaker. It's not a revenue problem that we face.....it's a spending problem!

[This is the response to the recent pro-income tax Tax Summit that was held on Oct 21-22]

From the NH House Republicans:

With the future of the New Hampshire Advantage and our quality of life in the state at stake, State House Republicans today announced plans to hold a public forum to discuss ways to cut state spending and the positive impact any cuts would have on future state budgets.
 
“We have seen nearly a 25% increase in General Fund spending since Democrats took control of the State House three years ago,” said House Republican Leader,  Rep. Sherman Packard (r-Londonderry).  “But instead of trying to live within our means and looking for ways to cut spending, Democrats increased or created more than 40 taxes, downshifted millions to our cities and towns, and used $400M in one-time money to cover their spending spree. Now they are holding a summit under the guise of a ‘Revenue Structure Informational’ session when, in reality, their goal is to study and eventually pass an income tax.”
 
The “Stop the Spending” forum will be held on Tuesday, October 27 from 9:30 am until noon at the Grappone Conference Center in Concord.  It will bring together a panel of experts to discuss ways that state government can cut spending and return fiscal sanity to the State House. Included in the group are Steve Norton, Executive Director of the NH Center for Public Policy Studies, whose mission is to raise new ideas and improve policy debates through quality information and analysis on issues shaping New Hampshire’s future.; former Health and Human Services Commissioner John Stephen; and Charlie Arlinghaus, president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a non-partisan, independent think tank focused on state and local public policy issues that affect the quality of life for New Hampshire's citizens
 
"The problem with the Democrats' income tax summit is they are not getting to the root of the problem, which is spending.  We should be sitting at the table discussing how we can hold the line on spending, not where we can raise taxes.  Raising taxes during these difficult economic times is a horrible idea and would balance a bloated budget on the backs of the taxpayers," stated Senate Minority Leader Peter Bragdon (R-Milford)
 
According to Rep. Norm Major, the Republican Policy Leader for the House Ways & Means committee, New Hampshire continues to lead the way in a number of categories both nationally and here in New England because of the quality of life that we enjoy.  “The current tax structure is a diversified portfolio of taxes and fees—that does not include a broad based tax.  As a result, when the economy goes into a downturn as we are currently experiencing, the New Hampshire does not witness such a large swing in our revenue stream, as do those states that rely heavily on broad based taxes,” said Major.  “We simply don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem and that’s what we should be looking at.”
 
The program will conclude with Rep. Neal Kurk (r-Weare) and former Speaker Doug Scamman (r-Stratham), both veterans of the House Finance committee, who will discuss the excessive spending in the last two budgets and the impact on the New Hampshire Advantage.
 
The forum will be open to the public and, unlike the Democrats’ “Income Tax Summit” being convened in Concord this week, the panel will take questions from the general public.
 

Posted by Doug at 1:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Leslie Carbone is a friend of ours that has appeared a number of times on our show, the last being to talk about her new book " Slaying Leviathan, The Moral Case for Tax Reform"

She had the chance to talk about it in more detail during a speech sponsored by the Accuracy in Academia:

Once again, Leslie, well done!

Posted by Skip at 10:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest Post by State Senator Jeb Bradley 

The recent release of New Hampshire’s revenue receipts simultaneously offers glimmers of hope while raising even more concerns about the State Budget enacted in June.

First the good news: The “Rainy Day Fund” which is the State’s hedge against economic downturns ended the fiscal year with $56 million more of a cushion than anticipated. Governor Lynch froze new hiring, deferred equipment purchases, and curtailed out of state travel to produce these savings. 

Despite the fact that Governor Lynch and Democratic Legislators approved an overall spending increase in 2007 of 11.17% and in 2009 of 10.48%, the Governor’s executive orders curbed the worst excesses of the Legislature’s spending blitz that has increased expenditures from $9.36 billion to $11.5 billion during that time.

This $56 million in the Rainy Day Fund will be a critical one-time buffer if the State loses its NH Supreme Court appeal of the JUA (Joint Underwriting Association) lawsuit. This lawsuit comes from a budget provision attempting to simply “take” $110 million from a fund designed to keep a lid on physician’s medical liability insurance costs. The State’s attempted money grab has already been ruled in violation of both the State and Federal Constitutions by the Superior Court.

The mixed news is that business tax revenues were only 4% lower than expectations. While it is preposterous to call any shortfall good news, in comparison to last year’s business tax receipts that were off by 25%, being 4% below expectations is a slim glimmer of hope. However, it's also a warning that if the trend continues the State will face a nasty budget deficit.

Despite the good and the mixed news, NH is far from out of the budget woe woods as the bad news dwarfs the good. Other revenue sources are badly underperforming, despite many taxes being increased in the budget. Receipts from the rooms and meals tax, communication tax, and real estate tax are all down by about 9%. The interest and dividend tax is down a whopping 25%. Even tobacco taxes are down slightly.  In the three months since the budget was enacted revenues are down a total of $26 million or 6.4%. Should this trend continue the deficit will only grow.

Now that the state employees union has rejected the proposed contract that would have implemented 19 furlough days, Governor Lynch must begin a series of layoffs to save a mandated $25 million. Whether he will run into roadblocks if the union files a grievance for each position eliminated or political roadblocks from his allies in the Legislature – these savings may be questionable. 

So with all these budget monkey wrenches, it is certainly understandable that its authors are quick to claim that the national economy is to blame and that revenues are likely to rebound when the economy turns around. But that is a cavalier attitude based on wishful thinking rather than rational evidence.

Continue reading "A Little Good News, Some Mixed News But Even More Bad News in Concord" »

Posted by Doug at 7:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest Post by Rep. David Hess

Years from now if the citizens of New Hampshire are seeing income taxes taken out of their paychecks, they will be able look back to the week of October 19, 2009 in “tax history” as the turning point—a time when the foundation for a broad based tax was laid.  House Ways & Means committee Chair Susan Almy, a Lebanon democrat who has long been a strong advocate for any tax, but especially an  income tax, has put together a legislative “summit”   that will convene this week to, “consider changes to the state’s tax laws.” 
 
Rep. Almy first tried to keep this gathering of legislators a secret to avoid having the voters learn that an income tax would be included on the agenda.  When the news of a “tax summit” was leaked to the media, Speaker Norelli told us not to fret because Gov. Lynch had pledged to veto an income tax.  That’s comforting. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t he the same governor who, after telling us that marriage should be between a man and a woman, turned around and signed the gay marriage bill into law? 
 
It is curious that one of the main speakers being brought to the table by Rep. Almy is Jeff McLynch, the Northeast Regional Director for the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy--an advocate for an income tax.  In fact, in March he appeared before the House Ways & Means committee to testify in support of a bill that would establish an income tax.  “I am here today to offer testimony on House Bill 642, which would improve New Hampshire’s tax system, both by generating additional revenue and by shifting greater responsibility for such revenue onto those state residents with a greater ability to pay,” he told the committee.
 
This “summit” should come as no surprise. Democrats actually been “laying the groundwork for an income tax” the moment they took control of the State House three years ago.  Rather than controlling spending and forcing the state to live within its means, they chose instead to create the first $10B budget based on over zealous revenue figures.  When the state’s income failed to meet their lofty projections to pay for their 25% increase in general fund spending over two budgets, they chose instead to create, or increase, more than 40 taxes and fees, and used more than $400 million in one-time money while downshifting millions of dollars to the local property tax payer.
 
In response to their fiscal missteps over the past three years, the Democrats’ answer is to hold a “tax summit” to try and find more sources of revenue to match their out-of-control spending.  In fact, it was House Democratic Majority Leader Dan Eaton of Stoddard who best explained the Democrats’ position on the floor of the House last session when he told his colleagues “…it makes sense to know how much you’re spending before you decide how much money to raise.”
 
The beloved poet Robert Frost, in his poem The Road Not Taken, urged us all to ignore the “safe,” risk-free options and to make choices that offer greater risk and greater rewards.  The State of New Hampshire has reached that fork in the road.  The question remains, do we take the easy way out and follow other states by enacting broad based taxes to cover the over-spending, or do we continue to take the road less traveled and strive to become more fiscally responsible with our spending?  The Democrats have spent the state into a huge deficit and now they are asking us to “study” an income tax.  Hopefully the voters of this state are paying attention.

David Hess, a Republican, is a member of the General Court, representing District 9 in Merrimack.

Posted by Doug at 12:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest Post by Howard Rich 

As much as the Beltway chattering class refuses to admit it, Barack Obama’s electoral victory last year had nothing to do with his oft-repeated, generic pledge to bring “hope and change” to Washington, D.C. Sure it sounded good at the time, but Americans have always voted based on their wallets and pocketbooks – not lofty-sounding campaign promises or rhetorical flourishes.

The real key to Obama’s victory a year ago – indeed his “signature” issue – was his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class.

“You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime,” Obama promised tens of millions of Americans making $250,000 or less. In fact, candidate Obama promised the middle class billions of dollars in tax cuts, part of his whole “spread the wealth around” plan.

“If you’re a family that’s making $250,000 a year or less, you will see no increase in your taxes,” Obama promised. “Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your personal gains tax, not any of your taxes.”

Never mind the fact that Obama’s plan would have hit income and payroll providers especially hard, rendering “middle class tax relief” irrelevant to the millions of workers heading toward already-crowded unemployment lines.

No matter how you look at it, though, what a difference a year makes.

Continue reading "Obama's great middle class betrayal: It's the taxes, stupid!" »

Posted by Doug at 10:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

STEWARD STUDY: HEALTH CARE OVERHAUL PLANS INCLUDE HIDDEN COSTS FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE’S BUSINESS COMMUNITY

Economists’ Report Tells Granite State Businesses to Brace for Hundreds of Millions in New Taxes

CONCORD, NH – New Hampshire businesses would have to pay as much as $229 million to comply with Democrat plans to overhaul America’s health care system, according to a report released today by Concord-based STEWARD of Prosperity. Additionally, the creation of three new marginal tax rate brackets could result in Granite State businessmen and women facing a 47.25% federal income tax rate – putting the state behind European countries like France and Italy in terms of competitiveness.
 
“We all know that Democrat health care proposals are bad for patients, but this report reveals how ruinous their plans would be for Granite State businesses,” said Fred Tausch, of Merrimack, STEWARD of Prosperity’s founder. “Imposing expensive federal mandates and higher taxes on New Hampshire business owners would discourage job creation at a time of high unemployment. Moreover, legislation that would make New Hampshire’s business climate less competitive than France’s is unacceptable.”
 
The report, produced by Haverhill, NH-based economists J. Scott Moody and Dr. Wendy P. Warcholik, examines the “play-or-pay” mandate and income tax surcharges included in “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act” (H.R. 3200) – health care reform legislation currently pending in the U.S. House of Representatives. Their warning: “New Hampshire’s Congressional delegation should reflect long and hard before working against the long-term efforts of New Hampshire’s state and local governments to keep the state economically competitive… higher income tax rates at the federal level will harm New Hampshire’s international economic competitiveness.”
 
Highlights of the report, entitled “Federal Health Care Reform Includes Hidden Penalties for New Hampshire Businesses,” follow:

• The “play-or-pay” health insurance mandate for employers being considered by Congress would cost Granite State businesses $215 million to $229 million.
• As a result of a proposed income tax surcharge that would create three new marginal tax rate brackets, New Hampshire businesses that file through the individual tax code would face a combined income tax rate of 47.25%
• In a survey of American states and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations, this higher tax rate (47.25%) would place New Hampshire behind Canada (46.41%), France (45.8%) and Italy (44.9%) in terms of combined federal, state and local income tax rate burdens.

Posted by Doug at 9:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

So says Andy Demers: 

MANCHESTER, N.H. - New Hampshire Citizens for Sensible Legislation today strongly condemned the actions of the progressive group Keep Manchester Moving and its spokeswoman Zandra Rice Hawkins, who is tryingevery political trick in the book to thwart the will of the people in Manchester.

Leading up to the November 2008 election, more than 4,000 Manchester residents signed a petition to put a spending cap question on the ballot. Because of the petition, Aldermen are required by law to give voters theirsay on the matter.

If passed, the cap would amend the city charter to prevent aldermen from spending more than they did the prior year, plus inflation as measured using the National Consumer Price Index. Aldermen could override the cap with a two-thirds vote, but the effort is expected to force discipline on a board that typically does not exercise any when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars.

Now, Zandra Rice Hawkins, who is also the executive director of Granite State Progress, is behind a lawsuit filed by attorney Bob Backus for Keep Manchester Moving in an effort to disenfranchise voters. Rice Hawkins, who lives in Goffstown, has also organized an anti-spending cap forum that will be held tomorrow from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. in the Manchester Aldermanic Chambers at City Hall.

“The tactics of these outside interests are clearly designed to disenfranchise the voters of Manchester and to disrupt the Democratic process,” said Andrew Demers, chairman of Citizens for Sensible Legislation. “It's really quite shameful what they're doing.”

Members of Keep Manchester Moving who are trying to silence the public include operatives from MoveOn, America Votes, Granite State Progress, and several city labor unions. Opposition funding comes from out of state progressive networks, mainly from Progress Now, a Colorado-based group dedicated to changing the political environment of a dozen or more key states.

“This organization is headed by people who aren't from New Hampshire,” Demers added. “Their spokeswoman has been in the state for only a couple of years, and she doesn't even live in Manchester. Clearly, these people support outside special interests, and not the voters and citizens of Manchester.”

New Hampshire Citizens for Sensible Legislation urges residents who signed the petition to show up at the anti- spending cap rally to make sure their voices are heard.

Citizens For Sensible Legislation is a volunteer coalition of residents committed to educating the people of New Hampshire about candidates, legislation and issues that affect individual and economic liberties.

Posted by Doug at 3:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Just in from Paul Jacobs, who notes in the latest edition of Common Sense:

Connecticut used to be one of the go-to places for escaping state income taxes.

But in 1991, Governor Lowell Weicker hatched the novel idea of burdening Connecticut residents with the same direct tax on income with which Americans have been saddled in so many other states. Despite the deep unpopularity of his proposal, Weicker rammed it through. That meant sacrificing any chance at re-election. But he was hailed as a hero by all fans everywhere of government bloat and flattened economies.

The Constitution State has indeed suffered a flatter economy in the years since. The Yankee Institute points out that since 1992, Connecticut businesses have hired no new workers on net. Even as the country added more than 20 million jobs. Over the last decade, Connecticut suffered a net loss of some 113,000 residents. If your tax policies tell productive people to get lost . . . they do.

Connecting the dots between higher taxes and stalled growth may be easy for most graduates of Economics 101. Even most politicians probably grasp the connection. But many just don’t care.

In 1991, residents were told that the income tax burden would never exceed 4.5 percent. But in 2001, it jumped to 5 percent. Now the current governor, Jodi Rell, wants to hike the top rate to 6.5 percent.

What the . . . Rell? Folks aren’t leaving the state fast enough for you?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Meanwhile, the ruling majority, aided and abetted by numerous RINOs, are working overtime to destroy the New Hampshire Advantage. I know-- when we do it, we'll do it RIGHT. Oh, and one more thing-- I thought the gambling at mega-casinos located in Connecticut was going to fix everything? Let this be a warning, New Hampshire!

Posted by Doug at 11:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Leslie Carbone’s book, Slaying Leviathan: The Moral Case for Tax Reform has just been released.

In Slaying Leviathan, Carbone argues that since the early twentieth century, U.S. tax policy has been designed to mitigate the natural economic results of both virtue and vice. When the government disrupts the natural order through taxation by creating incentives and disincentives that overturn these natural consequences, the government perverts its own function and becomes part of the problem-a contributor to social breakdown-rather than part of the solution or an instrument of justice.

Slaying Leviathan envisions an approach to tax policy rooted in natural justice. To achieve this goal, Carbone first traces the historical evolution of U.S. tax policy, from the 1765 Stamp Act to the 1997 tax cut. She then assesses the current American tax burden and George W. Bush’s tax cuts and explores the fundamental problems with U.S. tax policy. After providing a historical analysis of federal spending and of expanding governmental expectations, she offers a set of over-arching principles and instructions on how to apply them to tax policy proposals.

The late Jack Kemp called it “a devastating indictment of the absurdity that has masqueraded as tax policy for the last century.”

“With government foolishly trying to plunder America’s way back to prosperity, I’m hopeful that my book will make an important contribution to our national discussion over the moral hazards of wealth redistribution,” said Carbone.

Leslie Carbone served as the director of Family Tax Policy at the Family Research Council, chief of staff to the late assemblyman Gil Ferguson of California, and a speechwriter for U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao. Her writing has been published in the Weekly Standard, the American Enterprise, the San Francisco Chronicle, and numerous other magazines and journals. She has lectured on more than 100 college campuses and has been interviewed on more than 250 radio shows, including GraniteGrok's MTNP. She lives in Fairfax, Virginia.

NOTE: Leslie will join us this Saturday during the second hour of MTNP radio. 

Posted by Doug at 11:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 

NH Dems "attacking" budget woes with great vigor...

The NHGOP rightfully pans the great "leadership" we are witnessing by Gov Do-Nuthin' Lynch and his fellow majority Democrats:

CONCORD – Six days after a Superior Court ruling blocked the attempted theft of $110 million from the New Hampshire Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association (JUA), Governor John Lynch, Senate President Sylvia Larsen (D-Concord), and House Speaker Terie Norelli (D-Portsmouth) are refusing to address, or even acknowledge, the state’s critical budget crisis. According to published reports, Lynch and the Democrats are rejecting calls to develop a “Plan B,” and are pinning their hopes on the unlikely scenario that the state will somehow be allowed to steal the private funds to balance the state budget.

“No one is talking about how to fix a problem, because none of them acknowledge one exists,” reports the Union Leader (8/2).

“John Lynch and the Democrat Majorities are failing the people of New Hampshire by refusing to acknowledge – much less address – the serious budget crisis facing the state,” said NHGOP Communications Director Ryan Williams. “It’s time for the Democrats in power to swallow their pride, admit that they made a serious error in proposing this irresponsible and unconstitutional revenue scheme, and work with Republicans to fix this problem immediately.” 

Republican leaders in the House and Senate repeatedly warned Governor Lynch that his attempt to steal private money to balance the state budget was unconstitutional and would likely be overturned by the courts. After the Superior Court initially froze the JUA money on June 29, 2009, Republican senate minority leader Peter Bragdon immediately called on the Governor to veto the budget and work on a new plan that excluded the disputed funds. Lynch ignored Bragdon’s warning and signed the Democrats’ irresponsible budget on June 30 – knowing full well that it would be out of balance on day one. Senate President Larsen has also brushed off calls for a special session to address the crisis, saying that she sees “no immediate need,” for it (Larsen Statement, 7/31).

Lynch has “deflected repeated questions from reporters about contingency plans,” (AP, 6/30) in the event that the court would halt his irresponsible revenue scheme. Despite obvious indications that the state wouldn’t be able to claim the surplus funds, Lynch has “repeatedly declined to detail alternatives and instead emphasized his belief in the rightfulness of the state's claim to the money.” (Concord Monitor, 7/30) Since the decision was announced, Lynch has continued to dodge questions about how he plans to address the staggering deficit and has merely stated that he hopes the State Supreme Court would overturn the Superior Court’s decision. 

“John Lynch needs to realize that while ‘hope’ may be a successful Democrat campaign slogan, it’s not an effective or responsible governing strategy,” said Williams. “The State of New Hampshire cannot afford for this Governor to sit on his hands and avoid developing a contingency plan while the court reviews his risky revenue gambit. That’s the same failed approach that got us into this budget mess in the first place.”

Posted by Doug at 8:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Because when it comes to taxes, Progressives never accept the fact that money earned is Private Property.  Oh, they may give it [mere] lip service, but when it comes right down to it, they have no problem in advocating for taking that money for what they feel is right:

Meanwhile, how dare those House Democrats revive their crazy ideas about having the well-to-do pay their fair share?

- Dean Barker, Blue Hampshire

..more is never enough (as he doesn't bother to bring up the sequential Democrat budget "busts" of 17.5% rise in the last budget and about an 11% or so rise in this subsequent budget.

Problem is, until EVERYONE has only the same will these "taker" (a la "Atlas Shrugs") who truly believe they have better uses for other peoples' private property than those actually earned it ('specially when it is time for Government to do what was once called "charity").

Hey Dean, when IS equitable, you know, equitable?  THIS doesn't show a "fair" share?

And for context, how's this summarization:

OK, I'll say it - anytime Dean wants to come on the show and defend himself - he is welcome!  Problem is, he never seems to accept - c'mon Dean, we'll be nice...

We can even discuss the definitions of charity and justice, just to make it more fun....

(H/T: Americans for Tax Reform)

Posted by Skip at 3:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Has Gov Do-Nuthin Lynch finally met his Waterloo? This presser from the NHGOP reports on the rock and a hard place in which the NH Governor presently finds himself...

CONCORD – One day after a Superior Court ruling blocked his attempt to steal $110 million from the New Hampshire Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association (JUA), Governor John Lynch is frantically scrambling to address the state’s latest budget crisis. Despite repeated warnings that the court would rule against the state’s claim, Governor Lynch has failed to develop a contingency plan since the court initially froze the funds in June. 

“Its time for Governor Lynch to finally stand up and take responsibility for his failure to produce a balanced and fiscally responsible budget. The Governor was fully aware that his attempted theft of the JUA funds would likely be blocked by the courts - even before he approved this disastrous budget,” said NHGOP Communications Director Ryan Williams. “His irresponsible actions further prove that during these challenging times, John Lynch is incapable of providing responsible and effective leadership for the State of New Hampshire.” 

Republican leaders in the House and Senate repeatedly warned Governor Lynch that his attempt to steal private money to balance the state budget was unconstitutional and would likely be overturned by the courts. After the Superior Court initially froze the JUA money on June 29, 2009, Republican senate minority leader Peter Bragdon immediately called on the Governor to veto the budget and work on a new plan that excluded the disputed funds. Lynch ignored his warning and signed his irresponsible budget on June 30 – knowing full well that it would be out of balance on day one. 

Lynch has “deflected repeated questions from reporters about contingency plans,” (AP, 6/30) in the event that the court would halt his irresponsible revenue scheme. Despite obvious indications that the state wouldn’t be able to claim the surplus funds, Lynch has “repeatedly declined to detail alternatives and instead emphasized his belief in the rightfulness of the state's claim to the money.” (Concord Monitor, 7/30) 

Lynch’s silence has drawn criticism from non-partisan budget watchers including New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies executive director Steve Norton, who said that as a result of the court ruling, “Plan B needs to be developed, and to date, we haven't heard any Plan B," from the Governor. (Concord Monitor, 7/30) Since the decision was announced, Lynch has continued to dodge questions about how he plans to address the staggering deficit and has merely pledged to appeal the decision to the State Supreme Court. 

“John Lynch’s only solution to this budget crisis is to cross his fingers and hope that it will somehow fix itself. That’s not leadership – that’s a dereliction of his duties as New Hampshire’s chief executive,” said Williams. “During these tough economic times its becoming increasingly obvious that now more than ever New Hampshire needs a new governor.” 

Governor Lynch’s crumbling state budget faces additional challenges as even more lawsuits threaten to unravel his irresponsible revenue schemes. Local government leaders are moving forward with a separate lawsuit to stop the Governor from reducing the state’s share of the retirement contribution rate for municipal employees and downshifting costs to local taxpayers. A court has also issued an injunction requested by the New Hampshire Health Care Association that halts Lynch’s attempt to rescind an $8.8 million dollar payment to Granite State nursing homes.

As a result of his failed leadership and fiscal mismanagement, Governor Lynch’s favorability ratings have plummeted in recent months and his disapproval ratings have reached all time highs. Governor Lynch’s problems only look to get worse in the future as he begins to make plans for the FY 2012-2013 budget. This budget will start off with an immediate $500 million deficit due to his irresponsible use of one-time money in the current budget, and will present the Governor with an even worse fiscal crisis than the one he currently faces.

Hey Governor... HOW ABOUT SOME LEADERSHIP? Oh, that's right-- he's "untested" when it comes to THAT!

Posted by Doug at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

At least, that seems to be the philosophy of almost all Democrats (and a sizable number of Republicans).

ATLANTA (AP) - Colin Daymude was out of work last year after his business failed and eagerly filed his taxes in mid-January, figuring he'd get his refund sooner. He was wrong.

It took the 44-year-old entrepreneur more than six months to get his $1,300 check—money that he needed to pay living expenses while he worked a few side gigs.

Tax day—April 15—has long since come and gone, but sharp budget cuts and falling revenues have forced many states to delay income tax returns for months—and left taxpayers longing for their money.

"I'm just trying to get my money back," said a frustrated Daymude. "It's my money anyways."

It seems that politicians of all stripes have forgotten that this country was built on taxation without representation.  While there would be some that would pooh-pooh that ("but we DO elect our representatives!"), I do posit and believe that many are either ignorant of, or willfully ignore, the fact that we were also formed of the idea of limited government. 

They fail to realize that "it isn't their money" and use other peoples' money to curry favor with special interests' projects or buying votes of other politicians with taxpayer money (like here).

To many, sadly, it won't be big enough until it has put its tendrils into every crack of everyone's life - and then it will probably too late. At that point, with Government dictating or regulating all, freedom will be a mere abstract idea...

(H/T: Citizens for Reasonable and Fair Taxes - Croyden)

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From the office of Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta:

Mayor Guinta decries yet another effort by Aldermen to subvert the will of the people

MANCHESTER (July 8, 2009) – Mayor Frank Guinta blasted members of the Board of Aldermen for “yet another effort to subvert the will of the people” with their vote to send the spending cap referendum to court. Despite the legal efforts of petitioners last year and the ruling of three state agencies (Attorney General’s Office, Secretary of State; and Department of Revenue Administration) attesting to the legality of the referendum’s language, seven aldermen are continuing their efforts to deny the people of Manchester a vote.

“It is unbelievably disappointing that aldermen continue to subvert the will of the people,” Guinta said. “Last year, they did everything in their power to get this pushed from the 2008 to the 2009 ballot. Now, they are pulling out all the stops to get the courts to do their dirty work and throw the referendum off the ballot all together. So far, seven aldermen are winning; the people of Manchester are losing.”

On July 7, the aldermen voted, 7-5, to reject a request to withdraw a court case that could potentially throw the spending cap off the 2009 municipal ballot. On Sept. 5, 2008, eight aldermen blocked efforts to have the spending cap initiative on the 2008 ballot, despite an eight-hour marathon session in which Mayor Guinta tried to get the initiative placed on the ballot.

“The argument the eight aldermen made was that the people needed more time to learn the pros and cons about the referendum. At that time, they promised public hearings and information sessions. Instead, in the last 10 months, these aldermen have worked with special interests to get this thrown off the ballot,” Guinta said. “Even today, we’ve read about how the spending cap works in Franklin and, in an emergency, can be overridden. This process gives power to the people; policymakers retain their ways and means authority. The process works.”

Guinta states that he respects those that oppose the spending cap and looks forward to having a vigorous and informative debate on the issue. “However, I am staunchly opposed to the actions of a small group of lawmakers disenfranchising the voters of Manchester.”

Posted by Doug at 10:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

And you thought they wanted to protect the environment for the polar bears and the snail darters, eh?  Not only do they want to make our energy (gas, oil, coal, electric) MUCH more expensive all for the sake of about a 0.18 degree less warming over the next 100 years, have I got ANOTHER SURPRISE FOR YOU!!

The Republicans (when they weren't being stupid back in 1993 / 1994) helped to smarten up the welfare laws that were paying more and more for bad decisions and bad behavior.  We saw those just rolled back with the Porkulus passed by both Dems and Repubs (e.g., instead of giving a set amount of welfare money to the states, the Feds will pay MORE as more welfare cases are signed up - are you ready to go back to the "cash for babies" era?).

Well, this so-called energy bill has some just DANDY welfare clauses in it - to help the poor pay for the spike in energy prices that Congress and Obama want to foist on the country.

HEY, MIDDLE CLASS - start bending over now; its gonna last for decades!

The sad news summary - not only are the poor going to get a "wealth transfer payment", it is going to be indexed, not on the inflation rate, but on the ENERGY increase rate.  Such a deal!

"The higher energy costs kick in as soon as the bill's provisions take effect in 2012. For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000,” Lieberman said.

To compensate for higher energy prices brought about by the “cap-and-trade” system that the energy bill creates, the bill lays out an Energy Refund Program that will offer cash compensation for low-income households to mitigate their losses.

While virtually everyone’s energy bills will rise, the Energy Refund Program is essentially a welfare program that will only help households treading near the poverty line.
 
According to Section 431 of the Act, “The Secretary (of Health and Human Services) shall formulate and administer the program provided for in this section, which shall be known as the ‘Energy Refund Program’, and under which eligible low-income households are provided cash payments to reimburse the households for the estimated loss in their purchasing power resulting from the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.”

Get that?  "...to mitigate their losses".  Once again, another protected class has been created.  As "victims" (created by the way, buy this new Democrat policy), the Feds will make sure that more money will come their way.  So who is going to help the rest of us?  What about our "loss in purchasing power">

Once again, Government is going to determine winners and losers...and this time, it isn't just companies.

It continues:

Continue reading "Did you know that Waxman/Markey "Cap N Tax" is also a massive new WELFARE bill?" »

Posted by Skip at 6:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Remember - when you hear the phrase Cap and Trade" it has NOTHING to do with protecting the environment - it has EVERYTHING to do with mere taxes.  Remember, the way that this bill is structured, even its authors admit it will do little to nothing in the way of having any real effect (0.18 degree over the next 100 years?  WHO IS FOOLING WHO??).

Watch this entertaining video - and watch who is really "getting the green"!

H/T: Hot Air who adds:

Someone’s going green, all right. Congress wants to skim off the top of the energy industry to fund its pet projects, and keep on picking winners and losers just like they did in the housing industry.

Update: Don’t forget to go to the Tax Foundation’s site to see how cap-and-trade will affect you.

Posted by Skip at 9:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

(Concord) According to a report released today by the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, the legislature has so far passed 38 tax and fee increases costing $318 million. The number of tax and fee increases has risen dramatically in recent years from a low of nine increases in 2003-04.

The report, "A Rising Tide of Taxes and Fees" found that the number of tax and fee increases has grown in each of the last three budget cycles. According to Center president Charlie Arlinghaus, "A study