GraniteGrok

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 at 7:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

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

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

Posted by Steve 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 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 of the total number of tax and fee increases over the last decade shows a consistently high number with the exception of the 2003-04 legislature. The current total so far is 38, nearly double the 19.5 average of the four previous budget cycles."

The report shows the number of tax and fee increases declined from 20 in 2001-02 to 9 in 2003-04. Since then, the number has increased to 20 in 2005-06, 29 in 2007-08 and 38 this year, with more to come in the next 18 months.

Arlinghaus delineates the 38 tax and fee increases passed this year and the budgeted cost of each. Over two years, the budget cost is $318.64 million.

The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy is a free market think tank based in Concord, New Hampshire.

Read the full report by clicking here.

Posted by Doug at 2:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest post by Fred Tausch

“We must push to bring fiscal responsibility to Washington”

LIKE MOST Americans, I’ve always believed hard work, self-reliance and integrity are all you need to succeed in America. We don’t believe government owes us a living, just the opportunity to succeed or fail by our own initiative, hard work and talent.
 
We want a government that shares our convictions; that does its work, not ours, and does it competently; that manages its budget as responsibly as we manage our own budgets; a government that doesn’t play favorites or use our money to reward the failures of others; a government that earns our trust by trusting us and leveling with us about the cost and performance of its programs.

All we ever seem to get, though, is a government that increases its own prerogatives and power rather than the liberties and opportunities of the people it serves; a government with little accountability and less transparency; a government that tries to do things it was not intended to do and has no idea how to do. And many of the things it must do, it does not do well.

The Republican Party is the party of fiscal discipline, the party that trusted Americans to make their own decisions about how to use their money to build their dreams.  But, when Republican leaders lost their way, they lost me. I voted for George Bush in 2000 because I believed he would be a careful steward of our prosperity. Instead, he and Republicans in Congress turned a budget surplus into a huge deficit. They cut taxes but didn’t make the spending cuts necessary for the government to live within its means. They spent record sums on a bailout of the financial industry that I knew from the outset would be an expensive failure, without giving us any clear idea what the money could be used for and how it would be paid back.

Barack Obama promised to change that, and I hoped he would. He promised to put government on a budget that didn’t exceed its revenues, to be as careful with our money as we are and to take the best ideas from both parties and offer new solutions to the challenges of our time. But as soon as the applause at his inauguration subsided, he began to break his promises.

Continue reading "ATTENTION! Message of "change" ends up meaning what it always has: Government knows best" »

Posted by Doug at 6:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Congressman Waxman (D-CA) has been pulling out all the stops in trying to get more Democrats to sign onto this monstrosity - now up to 1,200 pages. Shades of the Porkulus bill - which is pretty much what it is!  The Porkulus is going to tax us way beyond belief as the debt kicks in.  This bill is going to be a second KO  in the future as well!

Once again from Hot Air and once again, our Congress Critters are about to lay down a foundation by which they will control our energy usage (think behavior modification vs taxes).  And it is going to SLAM the middle class (as always, the rich can afford it and the poor will have it paid for by taxpayer money - poor middle class gets to pay for their neighbor's energy use; emphasis mine):

Democrats have hailed the CBO estimates of the costs per family of their new cap-and-trade carbon-emissions scheme, which show an impact of only $175 annually.  What they don’t tell voters, the Wall Street Journal explains, is that those costs begin to sharply escalate in ten years.  Democrats also fail to mention that the cost estimates of the CBO come just from the trading mechanism and nothing else:

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO’s analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to “offset” their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: “The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap.”

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Yup we will all end up as wards of the state.  Free choice?  Self-determination?  No problem, Obama and the Dems have your choices all mapped out fer ya!  Silly little people, thinking they elected people that would watch out for them.  This is all about Statism - Government being in control and not the individuals.  This is all about bigger and bigger Government. 

You don't like this?  Consider this as an action item:

NoWaxman-Markey will get a vote, perhaps as early as tomorrow, in the House.  Call your Congressman and explain that we don’t want to throw away our economic future for the pleasure of a few statists exploiting an unproven theory as a means to gain control of energy production.  This fight, though, will be won or lost in the Senate.

Posted by Skip at 5:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

According to this study, blacks aren't all that with it concerning Cap and Trade.  It seems that the rush to vote on this 1,200 page bill (why are all of the anti-freedom bills ALL this size??) is because the longer they get looked at, the more they smell....and they want to vote on this by Friday!

Go call your Congress Critters!

Blacks vs. Cap and Trade   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

A new study from the the National Center for Public Policy Research "shows an overwhelming majority of African Americans are opposed to the [cap-and-trade] bill based on the potential impact on the economy and minority households."

Key findings include:

* 76 percent of African American adults believe that securing America’s economic recovery should be the top priority, even if it means delaying action in climate change.

* 56 percent of African American adults think our federal and state policy makers fail to adequately take into account economic and quality of life concerns when considering new anti-global warming laws.

* When asked if the federal action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could increase unemployment, 38 percent of survey respondents said they felt African Americans would proportionately lose more jobs while 49 percent felt that federal action to reduce greenhouse gas emission would hit all races equally.

* Only 15 percent of survey respondents said they would be willing to pay one dollar more for gasoline due to greenhouse gas legislation. The numbers dropped to 5, 3, and 4 percent if gas prices increased by two, three or four dollars a gallon. 

* Only 11 percent of survey respondents said they would be willing to pay one hundred dollars more a year for electricity in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The numbers dropped to 6, 4 and 1 percent when respondents were asked if they would be willing to pay an extra two hundred, three hundred, or six hundred dollars a year for electricity.

* More than one out of every three African American adults surveyed said that greenhouse gas emissions should not be reduced if doing so would cause price increases and unemployment.

(H/T: NRO)

Remember, we are about to be taxed TRILLIONS!  And you know what all that will get us?  Just about a 0.18 degree C less warmer temperature than if we did nothing.  Our "masters" in Congress are about to put the Big Hurt on the American Economy...and India and China will just laugh as these Congressmen, greedy with a lust for power to control what used to be a free people, enslave their own.  They will pollute regardless, and produce at a lower cost.

You think unemployment is high now?

Posted by Skip at 11:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Dems taking GOP input?

At a press conference held yesterday, Minority Leader Sherm Packard, along with a large group of fellow NH House Republicans, released the following document outlining a proposed series of budget cuts totalling $181.9 million that they will introduce should the budget fail to pass today.

“House Republicans Offer Cost-Saving Budget Alternatives”

Concord-House Republican Leader Sherm Packard (Londonderry) stood with HB 1 & HB 2 Republican House Conferees today to discuss the impending budget vote and to propose  several alternatives.

“Representatives Kurk and Scamman offered several spending reductions in the conference committee budget, some were accepted and most were ignored,” stated Packard.  “The fact of the matter is that budgets across the country have seen an average 2% decrease in their state spending and the Democrat majority in Concord has increased state spending by an unconscionable 7.7%.”

“Republicans were not fully involved in this budget process and while a suggestion or two may have been accepted, there are no significant and meaningful cuts in state spending which would defer the need for the additional taxes and fees that Democrats added in the last hours of conference,” added Republican Conferee Representative Neal Kurk (Weare).

No less than a dozen fees were increased, in some cases doubled, with the implementation of several tax plans including tightening belts for LLCs, increasing the Rooms & Meals tax, increasing the tobacco tax for the fourth time in five years and adding a new tax on gambling winnings.

“I am disappointed by these tax and fee increases,” said Republican Conferee Alternate, Rep. Doug Scamman (Stratham).  “We hurt businesses and we hurt the cities and towns of our state.  This is not the New Hampshire way.”

Republicans will be offering a continuing resolution to keep state government going at a fiscally responsible level, should the massive spending and taxing increases contained in House Bills 1 & 2 fail to pass the House in session on June 24 and call on all their colleagues to support this plan. 

 Here are the specific proposed cuts:

Continue reading "GOP members of the NH House ready budget cuts" »

Posted by Doug at 8:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Leaving no media aside, Fred Tausch's STEWARD of Prosperity fiscal restraint message machine now hits the TV airwaves. If there was anybody left in the state of New Hampshire that HASN'T heard the anti-stimulus, anti-spending, pro-transparency, anti-Obamanomic perspective being delivered with the cold hard economic facts and reasoning combined with a somewhat biting sense of witty sarcasm, a new TV ad set to hit the Granite State starting tomorrow will seek to change that.

Building on a series of mail pieces and a recent flood of radio ads [Full disclosure: STEWARD has purchased ad space here on the 'Grok and on MTNP radio], Nashua businessman Fred Tausch, through his grassroots organization, STEWARD of Prosperity, as reported on WMUR TV, will air an ad entitled Taxpayers First. Here is the WMUR report:

And this is the ad itself that will be broadcast:

I know that the mmessage is getting out there, as I have been running into people here and there that ask me, "Hey Doug, what do you think of that Steward guy... what's his name, Fred Tausch, or something?" And then they usually tell me how much they agree with what he's been saying...

Posted by Doug at 7:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The following is a Letter to the Editor from a gentleman that I admire a lot for his writings and thoughts here in NH, Paul Mirski - a warning that the increasing meddlesome nature of NH government by the ruling Democrats is having a material affect on the State's economy (and future - emphasis mine):

Dear Editor,

In the June 18 edition of New Hampshire Business Review, Jim Roche, President of the Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire, warned that "recent (legislative) policy decisions (in Concord) are resulting in growing unease among business people."  

Too late.  The horse is already out of the barn.

New Hampshire, which ranked # 20 nationally for economic potential before our legislative tilt to the left in 2006, now ranks 37th - a loss of seventeen positions among the states.

New Hampshire which ranked #1 among the New England states and including New York and New Jersey, for growth and opportunity before Democrats took control of the levers of state government, has now fallen to third in New England and the greater region, behind Massachusetts and Connecticut, as a place to consider locating a business and as a place to create jobs.

After the NH House's embrace of capital gains and death taxes this legislative session, individuals of wealth are now openly considering establishing a formal domicile elsewhere, in more accommodating places like Wyoming and Texas for example, because they're convinced that no matter what Governor Lynch says and no matter the degree to which current legislative leaders demur, an income tax is surely around the corner.

Businessmen and entrepreneurs are experiencing similar fears.

By frivolously growing state government, increasing regulation and by imposing whopping increases in spending, taxes and fees, our last and current legislatures have convinced many residents, businesses and entrepreneurs that it’s time to leave and for the first time in decades New Hampshire has begun to lose population.

In just three short years, Democrats in control of New Hampshire government have irresponsibly informed the entire country that New Hampshire is no longer either a tax haven or a friendly place to do business.

New Hampshire was once considered to be the best place in the country to live.

It takes a long time to recover a lost reputation.

Unless political control of the legislature and corner office changes dramatically in the next election, ever increasing decline and lost opportunity will become NH hallmarks for decades to come.

• Did your family income rise as much as the Democrats have raised the State's
• Do you really think this is good for the State's economy going forward?

I thought so...

Posted by Skip at 12:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

GraniteGrok has learned that a "sense of the council" resolution-- a test vote on the budget-- taken during last night's Franklin City Council meeting that would bring new taxes in excess of what that city's Tax Cap would allow, has passed.

According to a message posted on Facebook by Franklin Mayor Ken Merrifield, the council overrode the Tax Cap, overrode the Mayor's veto, and approved $563,449 in increased taxes and fees. This is the first time in 20 years that the Tax Cap has been broken.

This is not, however, the final word. Members of the public and taxpayers will still have a chance to be heard during the required Public Hearing, which has not yet been set. The budget cannot become final until after that takes place.

Said Mayor Merrifield on the bad news for taxpayers:

"I've done everything I could."

Sounds like it's Tea Time for Franklin. We'll keep an eye out for that Public Hearing. I cannot believe that politicians would dare do this during the down economy, or, for that matter, anytime, really. Don't they get it? The people WANT their taxes capped!

Posted by Doug at 9:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Balanced Budget... Or House of Cards?

Guest post by State Senator Jeb Bradley

After two marathon weeks of discussions between House and Senate members charged with negotiating a budget, early Friday morning a package emerged.  Its fate is uncertain as the full House and Senate must pass it before it reaches Governor Lynch for signature. Counting votes before the June 24th Session will be almost as daunting as reaching this compromise -- anything can and may well happen.

Let's first focus on what is in this package and what is not, then on the impact it will have on people and businesses, and lastly how this budget will affect New Hampshire’s future.

Like any compromise, this budget is a mixed bag of good news and bad news.  Several very controversial new taxes and tax hikes that had previously been approved by either the House or Senate, were dropped. These include the capital gains tax, death tax, gas tax, insurance premium tax, and a specific increase in business taxes by loss of a tax credit. All of these taxes would have directly undermined New Hampshire’s ability to attract businesses, investors, or visitors to our state. Also dropped from the final package were expanded gambling and a controversial plan to use toll revenue for highway improvements all over the state. Several taxes rumored for late consideration never made the final package including an entertainment tax and a tax on mortgage re-financing.

There are new taxes galore however.  The tobacco tax will go up by 45 cents -- the fourth hike in five years.  Non-smokers may generally be callous to the impact this tax has, but smokers, especially low income people, justifiably believe they are carrying far more than their fair share of the tax burden.  This increase will also undermine the cross border advantage New Hampshire has long enjoyed – attracting visitors to purchase tobacco products here and fill our revenue coffers. Convenience stores near the borders will be impacted, and meeting our revenue goals with this tax hike is questionable.

Any gambling winnings will be taxed at 10% including those garnered outside of New Hampshire. Will we be sending auditors to Foxwoods and Las Vegas -- or charitable events in New Hampshire -- to guarantee tax collection?  Under those circumstances, is the $14 million of anticipated revenue farfetched?

Continue reading ""New Taxes Galore"" »

Posted by Doug at 12:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Our friends at CPR Action remind us that this week is an important one down in Concord. After all the lengthy debate and careful consideration, arm twisting and deal making... oh, wait, that's the gay marriage process. Never mind. The big news is that this week the NH House and Senate will make final votes on a new budget. Sadly, they seemed to have put more effort into passing the gay agenda than in seeking ways to tighten the belt in these times of economic stress...

Wednesday, June 24th (June 25th has also been reserved if a majority vote is not met).

HB1 & HB2 - The budget bills.  This week, the NH House and Senate will be voting on the final versions of the budget bills.  HB1, the spending portion, still increases overall spending by nearly 11%.  HB2, while not containing any of the "boogey man" taxes and gambling, still increases the rooms and meals tax to 9%, doubles the car registration fee, and inflates revenue estimates so that overall revenue "balances" with the spending.

CPR-Action encourages you to call your legislators to remind them that voting for any budget that increases spending by 11% is unwise and fiscally irresponsible!  Why, when most families are cutting their spending, is the legislature increasing their spending of taxpayer dollars by 11%!

And of course, don't forget the Tea Party conveniently taking place on the State House lawn about the same time legislators take up the massive spending bill...

'It's the Spending, Stupid!'  Rally

June 24th, 12 noon - 1pm

RAIN OR SHINE!!

Don't miss your chance to let our legislators and the Governor know that you do not approve of their reckless, out-of-control spending - it's time to budget like our families do!

Posted by Doug at 7:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, that's not what they're calling it, but it's what they might as well call a tax that basically seeks a cut of anything that ordinary people might consider "fun."

From James Pindell's NH Political Report:

State House abuzz over 'entertainment tax' concept

CONCORD -- Lobbyists and budget writers are abuzz over a last minute idea to establish an "entertainment tax" to the state budget that some are already suggesting would basically be a back-door sales tax.

In a statement late this afternoon, NH GOP CHair John H Sununu said

“The Democrats’ believe it’s OK to break ‘The Pledge’ to oppose a sales tax and an income tax - as long as they only break their promise a little bit. But a sales tax on ‘entertainment’ is in fact a sales tax, and an income tax on capital gains is in fact an income tax."

 “Once again the Democrats are showing us that you can’t believe any campaign promise they make.”

And so the beat goes on. The State of NH, led by the majority Democrats, not satisfied with a budget they passed the last time already deep in the hole, continue to dig in the upcoming budget. Because of their innate inability to stop spending, they are creating a crisis that ultimately seeks to create a crisis so big that "only a broadbased tax will fix."

Will the last person benefitting from the NH Advantage please shut out the lights...

Posted by Doug at 4:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Disaster in Concord

Guest post by Karen Testerman

NH's General Court is proposing to tax anything that is moving or breathing.  However, you the taxpayer know their focus is misdirected.  The whole of the current administration is looking at the symptoms, what they term, "a lack of revenue."

However, the current economic disaster with a growing $150 million deficit is in reality a SPENDING problem. 

It is a sad commentary that the Governor continues to speak out of both sides of his mouth.  On the one hand he told the residents of this great state that we are facing a budget deficit and he would not approve further spending.  Oh, by the way that was several months ago while the corner office worked with both houses to make social reconstruction the number one issue in our state. 

Taking advantage of a self-created "crisis" to re-engineer the foundational institution of society to divert your attention, while the General Court passed spending measure after spending measure to create the current $150 million disaster.  One wonders what underlying activities are taking place while the attention is now focused on the self created "spending spree" crisis.

And now, to address the created budget deficit, the Governor and both houses are proposing tax increase after tax increase and other potential ONE TIME revenue resources like gambling to make up the difference.

However, any of you who sits at the kitchen table knows that if there isn't enough coming in (revenue) then some how the spending (proposed budget) must be reduced.

Continue reading "Recovery from the disaster in Concord IS possible, but it depends on good people getting active." »

Posted by Doug at 9:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Hmm, do you think that this *might* be the time that he turns from the Dark Side (heh!)?  Maybe not, but there are a few things that both the Conservative and the Liberal can agree on - perhaps for different reasons, but I'll take it.

The Re-Fi Tax: A Lose-Lose Idea

I'm finding it hard to believe that the tax on home refinancing is moving past the trial balloon stage.

Can someone explain to me the wisdom of this?  And that's not a snarky question...

This idea is a political loser. These same families, who in New Hampshire are already burdened with a perverse revenue system aimed squarely at their property, vote.

When the NHGOP and I are in agreement, something has got to be wrong...

Is this all happening because the Democratic majority Senate couldn't stomach a capital gains tax?

No, Dean, it is because they can't stop acting like teenagers with Daddy's open-ended credit card who learned to forge his signature. Trust me, the bill will come due - soon.

With this new NH State Budget looking like another double digit increase (which means a State Budget increase of 23% in 6 years), it is easy to explain - the wisdom is that when you write budgets from the standpoint of spending first, you end up scrambling for income second.  Dean, do YOU do your family budget that way?  I certainly don't - and can't.  So why should Government?

The only snag here, is that Government CAN arbitrarily raise its income by raising taxes.  Which the Dems are trying to do.  Stupidly, as well.  Dean is as far to the Left as I am to the Right - and if we both agree on this - it is STUPID!  

I did like the reasoning by a commenter he highlighted (emphasis mine) and she brings out the actual fact of the matter:

Beverly:

It's a tax.

On a loan.

Far be it from us to tax income. That would be money you have. This is NH, so for astounding and mystical reasons, we cannot tax that.

But money you don't have, money you have to borrow, and will have to pay back: money that is not even yours: That we can tax!  

This is what happens when politicians monkey with tax code - remember, what you tax you get less of.  It also, when multiple streams of revenue are considered, it is amazingly frustrating to figure out "where'd all my money go".

Like Dad, when the credit card bill finally comes into the mailbox.

In another related post, he opines:

I don't actually fault the DRA for coming up with this option.  It's their job to look for revenue when asked by the "Governor and Legislative leadership."

But it's also the job of the "Governor and Legislative leadership" to weigh how awful and unfair it is to balance the budget on the backs of responsible homeowners looking to do the right thing*.

Dorgan has lots more in the Monitor today, including the depressing and predicatble momentum of a Well, It's Either Re-fi or Gambling meme, with little mention of the capital gains tax. 

Hmm, look at the "dog not barking".  One would think that when the shaken piggy bank rings silent, one might think "guess I'm not going to spend any more". I guess we'll have to keep working with Dean on this a while longer....he's starting to see some of the light, I think....

Posted by Skip at 9:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Grant Bosse reporting...

Click here to read the 11 new tax proposals as presented to lawmakers. When are they going to get 11 proposals to CUT SPENDING? Outraged? Had enough? Make sure you bring that anger and present it to lawmakers at the next Tea Party Wednesday the 24th of June on the State House lawn. Tell them,

It's the Spending, Stupid!

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

Eugene Van Loan, Chairman of the Josiah Bartlett Center writes, on the state budget:

Oh, gosh, another crisis in Concord. The Governor says we need to steal another $150 Million to plug the hole in the budget. Otherwise, we will have to plug it with gambling (the Senate’s preference) or a capital gains tax (the House’s preference). What are we to do?

We have already robbed from multiple Peters to pay poor Paul. For example, we have stolen $110 Million from New Hampshire’s hospitals and doctors who naively thought that the surplus they had built up in the so-called Joint Underwriting Association due to their overpayment of malpractice insurance premiums was their money. Also, as Charlie Arlinghaus of the Josiah Bartlett Center recently pointed out in one of his columns, we are probably going to steal millions more from the payers of turnpike tolls to finance repairs to roads driven by people who don’t have to pay tolls. And then there is the State’s theft from our own towns and cities of some $ 50 Million in revenue sharing monies. And finally, our friends in Washington are sending us approximately $160 Million in one-time “stimulus” funds which they have stolen from the next generation of federal taxpayers (our children). And on, and on, and on.

But, as T.S. Eliot said, “Everyone steals; it’s what you do with what you steal that counts.” So, what are we doing with all this loot? Are we at least spending it wisely?

Unfortunately, posing such a question in the halls of the Statehouse – particularly to Democrats - would be an exercise in futility.

Click here to read the rest...

Posted by Doug at 11:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest post by State Senator Jeb Bradley

The Great Tax Debate

The legislative session may be winding down rapidly but the greatest issue of all, the budget, is far from being resolved. The budget debate comes against the backdrop of a distressed economy with high unemployment rates and families and businesses struggling to make ends meet.  Will the conference committee on the budget make this situation worse?

Unfortunately, despite our Live Free of Die motto, this debate is not between those who would frugally limit government and those who would inexorably allow it to grow. Rather, it could be called the Great Tax Debate as various factions of the legislature seek to add their preferred tax hikes to a budget bursting with higher taxes and fees.

Why is New Hampshire in such a tax predicament? Some would argue the recession and falling revenues to state coffers is to blame. That's only part of the story however, as Paul Harvey would say ‘the rest of the story’ is that spending in New Hampshire has increased dramatically.

New Hampshire’s current budget allowed total spending of $10.4 billion up from $9.36 billion in the prior budget. The budget the Senate recently passed proposes total spending of $11.6 billion and the House passed budget was only marginally lower. Bottom line: if this spending plan is ratified, total spending will have increased 23.8% over 3 budgets. It is hard to imagine that the average family or business in New Hampshire has seen their income increase by anything approaching that figure…..that is if they have any income left.

What makes these increases even more staggering is that spending is going down in other states around the country. The bi-partisan National Governor’s Association (www.nga.org) recently released a study that highlights an average 2.2% decline in state spending around the nation in 2009. Furthermore, our nation’s governors are recommending additional spending reductions of 2.5% this year.  But, not New Hampshire, as there is little disagreement among Democratic conference committee members that total spending should increase by $1.2 billion.

With the exception of a few spending reductions such as closing the Laconia State Prison,  the budget debate focuses almost exclusively on new or increased taxes. The House has passed a new tax on capital gains and estates, as well as increases on tobacco products, rooms and meals, insurance premiums, gambling winnings and gasoline.  The Senate has passed expanded gambling for additional revenue, as well as increased taxes on tobacco, rooms and meals, and new onerous business taxes. Both budgets have numerous fee increases. Both budgets raid a fund paid into by doctors designed to keep medical malpractice rates in line. The $110 million raid of this fund will trigger an all but certain lawsuit which doctors stand an excellent chance of winning – because in reality it’s their money.  More cynically both budgets underfund to varying degrees the state’s historic commitment to assisting towns and cities. So property taxpayers are going to be left out in the cold without a seat in this game of musical tax chairs.

Sound chaotic and controversial? It is and deadlines are looming.

Continue reading "Jeb Bradley: "Rumors swirl of a third tax stalking horse waiting in the wings..."" »

Posted by Doug at 10:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (1)

Posted by Doug at 5:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 10:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Democrats here in NH (and in DC) are taking the tact of "The Republicans are the Party of No!" as they increase spending, all but drunk on the absolute power to pass any spending and taxes they want.  Pretty much, like teenagers who found Mom's credit card to be "live" on all of their 'Net shopping sites...WHeee!

Admittedly, most Republicans have shown to grudgingly gone along with much of it while Bush was in power (and only slowed down increase rates here in NH).  A Pox on both.

Here in NH, we are "in the hole" big time as far as State spending is concerned.  Don't you think that the fiscally appropriate thing to do would be prioritize things?  You know, determine all the things that  government should do (not everything you want it to, mind you) and then decide "here's the most important thing, and here's the second, and the third...." and when the things are listed and there's no more money, all of the rest of the stuff goes away.  I'm on my town's Budget Committee - you can bet that's what I do when reviewing the budget.  I can tell you that some departments believe that they are "more special" than the rest (like the Library) and deserve more - sorry, but its DPW for the streets, Police / Fire for safety, Town Clerk (somebody has to collect the money to pay for this stuff) and Schools; it rolls rapidly downhill from there...and yes, I believe most towns can live and exist well without Libraries and Parks N'Rec if they had to draw a line.

Drew Cline shows how the fine fiduciary folks in our State Legislator, who put us in this hole in the first place, haven't learned this lesson.  Democrats believe that they can have it all - after all, it is somebody else's money (emphasis mine)!

$20,000 more for wildflowers

In the current two-year budget, the state spent $90,000 on the lilac program, which pays to plant wildflowers along state highways. Both the House and Senate budget proposals for 2010-11 raise that figure to $110,000.

Yes, during this recession, when we are told that the state is so strapped for cash that we have to close district courts and find entirely new sources of revenue, the state is increasing spending to plant wildflowers (which, by definition, grow naturally all over the state) by 22 percent.

Speaking of flowers over The Courts, Grant over at NH Watchdog fills us in some more of this stupidness (emphasis mine):

Continue reading "Politicians seem to be clueless on the word "prioritization"" »

Posted by Skip at 9:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest post by State Senator Jeb Bradley

Last week I titled my blog: Time to Talk Taxes. This week’s title is unfortunately: Time to Pay Taxes.

Just as easily it could be:  New Spending  = New Taxes = Job Losses.

The budget approved by the majority of the New Hampshire Senate proposes to increase total spending by $1.2 billion! That’s on top of a similar spending increase from the prior budget to the current budget of $1 billion. It's noteworthy these precipitous spending increases coincide with one party political rule in Concord.

Efforts were made to trim this spending on the Senate Floor by Republicans.  We proposed four separate amendments to make across the board cuts totaling 8.4%. These amendments, which I supported, would’ve eliminated the need to increase business taxes, hospitality taxes, and tobacco taxes. The fourth amendment would’ve cut state spending so that New Hampshire’s historic commitment to assist towns with Revenue Sharing is maintained.  Revenue Sharing means $50 million to cities and towns which helps lower property taxes. Not surprisingly, all four of these amendments failed ---  largely on partisan votes ---  which means property taxes, business, hospitality, and tobacco taxes will all go up!

The proposed increase in business taxes is particularly disturbing. Not one Senator could defend it as either good or fair tax policy. Rather, those that voted to increase business taxes were of a mind that taxes had to be raised to enable new spending; even though those who voted for higher business taxes would likely acknowledge this tax hike will cost New Hampshire jobs.

These were not the only discouraging votes for those who want to see New Hampshire jumpstart its economy, keep the cost of government low, and ensure government accountability and educational opportunity for New Hampshire students.

Two amendments which I supported were presented to ensure that local voters could continue to adopt property tax caps in their cities and towns.  A number of communities have, by a popular vote of their citizens, successfully implemented property tax caps. They are now threatened by lawsuits in court. These amendments to protect the local option to pursue a tax cap were defeated on straight partisan votes. Now property taxpayers are confronted by the grim reality that the courts in New Hampshire may be determining property taxes instead of local voters.

The Senate Finance Committee recommended capping the number of students that could enroll in charter schools. Charter schools, which receive public funding and which are part of our public school system, have proven to be very successful. They are allowed by their charter to be more creative and innovative than traditional public schools.

Continue reading "NH Senate Update by Jeb Bradley: Time to Pay Taxes" »

Posted by Doug at 10:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Time to Talk Taxes

Guest post by Senator Jeb Bradley

The Senate Finance Committee last week reported its version of the state operating budget.  It increases overall spending by about a billion dollars or approximately 10% after similar increases in the last budget enacted two years ago.  This budget depends upon $185 million of direct revenue from slot machines as well as hefty tax hikes on businesses in the middle of a deep recession.

Slot machines at race tracks in Salem, Seabrook, and Belmont is a proposal that has been around a long time. The Finance Committee approved up to 13,000 slot machines and two north-country facilities that are estimated to produce $185 million in revenue.  Gambling is not a partisan issue and has determined support because of the added revenue, and determined opposition because of social implications and the change in the fabric of our state it could create. I continue to have concerns about gambling.

While bettors may be laying long odds that gambling will ultimately pass, it is almost certain that taxes are going up.  These looming and precipitous tax hikes are due to the majority party in control of both the House and Senate which has shown no willingness to cut spending as families and businesses are doing to survive the harsh economy.

Here are the major tax proposals being bandied about in Concord:

Continue reading "NH Senate Update by Jeb Bradley: Slots & Tax Hikes" »

Posted by Doug at 4:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

With the vote earlier this week, California taxpayers sent a resounding "NO FURTHER - NO MORE" message to the politicians. Think of it as "Tea Parties writ LARGE".  No longer do taxpayers want to subsidize everything under the sun; no more spending other peoples' money for their bright (hmm, I may want to rethink that adjective) ideas and glorious policies - which have the Law of Unintended Consequence results that we all expect...

...because most politicians aren't thinking policies through (er, "read the bill" should really be "study the bill and figure out how it can be gamed..."). Gina Cobb over at RightWingNews has an example of what I have said for years from owning a day-care center that accepted state subsidized / supported clients:

I've seen it with my own eyes.  I've seen an illegal alien and legal immigrants who qualify for benefits due to low income pool their funds to buy a $700,000 home -- while some of them are collecting free medical care for their children from "Healthy Families" and paying reduced rates for their utilities based on their "low income."  I've seen middle-class families struggling to afford college, while children of the poor get a free ride.  I've seen the college tuition and fees of the struggling middle-class families increased to provide even more free college for the poor.  The distortions, waste, and unfairnesses created by one well-meaning social program after another have added up to a real mess for California.

It's time to get real.  It's time to let able-bodied people -- gasp!  -- provide for their own routine essential needs like regular doctor's appointments and college expenses.

Go read the post for the background.  Moral: the rich can afford to pay (no brainer).  The middle class suffers in providing for itself and its children, often going without.  The poor gets subsidized by the State in all sorts of areas of life (known fact) and as seen above, takes advantage (as in abuses) of the money taken from others to give to the poor.

A good reason why to stop government sponsored charity and revert back to when it was voluntary....

Posted by Skip at 3:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Tweet from Bill Smith from ARRA came across - the Georgia Republican Party has officially endorsed the FairTax!  The resolution is as follows (emphasis mine):

The best news of all came during the resolutions portion of the program. Under the "Government Reform" resolution, we finally were able to put the Fair Tax as the answer to fundamental tax reform. A copy of the resolution is as follows:

Government Reform

WHEREAS the purpose of civil government is to preserve the fundamental rights of its citizens, not to control the private marketplace; and

WHEREAS in founding our Republic, the states gave the federal government only those limited powers that are specified in the US Constitution;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Georgia Republican Party affirms its opposition to the taxpayer funded bailout of US businesses, the unprecedented level of federal deficit spending, and the federal government’s unconstitutional assault on state sovereignty.

LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED the Georgia Republican Party opposes government involvement in the private marketplace that is not specifically provided for in the US Constitution and supports full Congressional oversight of the Federal Reserve including passage of HR-1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009.

LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED the Georgia Republican Party affirms that the United States of America is a constitutional Republic and that the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution clearly affirms that all powers not expressly given to the federal government in the US Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. We hereby affirm Georgia’s state sovereignty and commit ourselves to principles that maximize the freedom and liberty of all Georgians.

LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED the Georgia Republican Party supports fundamental tax reform by the federal government that will maximize personal freedom and allow the engine of America’s private marketplace to thrive. We further believe that the most favorable opportunity to achieve these goals is to repeal the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution and enact the Fair Tax, HR-25/S-296.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the President of the United States, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, the President of the US Senate, the Governor of Georgia, each member of Georgia’s congressional delegation, and each member of the Georgia General Assembly.

My take on this is that the FairTax would remove the worst weapon from the hands of ANY politician - the tax code and the threat of an IRS audit (which Obama jokingly threatened the ASU staff with last week - if he were an IRS employee, he would have been fired). The tax code has been the whipsaw for years - the Stick of the Nanny State.

At this time of this Republic, yanking the tax code away from the Dems may just well be what we need.  While it may not be everyone's cup of tea, it will return taxes to a way to fund government rather than as the behavior modification tool as now implemented

And I'm all for that.  Would the Republican Party here in NH be as bold?

Posted by Skip at 7:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Fred Tausch, the leader of the STEWARD of Prosperity grass roots movement-- who happened to support Obama for president-- took NH Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley to task for his recent insults aimed at Tea Party attendees today while appearing on WGIR radio:

I just love this quote from Fred on how HE characterizes the Tea Partiers:

The cause they believe in is wanting their country to be economically healthy.

Posted by Doug at 6:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I mailed this yesterday...

May 1, 2009
US Senator Jeanne Shaheen
520 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Jeanne Shaheen:

In a March 12th article published on my website www.GraniteGrok.com, there were many points I am sure you have missed by former State Representative Mike Biundo (R-Manchester) on domestic energy strategy.  In taking this opportunity I hope you consider New Hampshire common sense in applying your support and vote while our member to the United State Senate.

Biundo points to three key factors in determining a successful outcome in strategizing a responsible energy policy;

A) Employment concerns
B) Unfair tax policies
C) Economic impact

In fact, his analysis concludes that "The Congressional Research Service found that the changes proposed to Section 199 would "adversely affect domestic (oil) production and increase imports. We would also be passing up the 1.2 million good-paying jobs that expanded offshore drilling would create long-term, along with $8 trillion in economic growth that would produce an additional $2.2 trillion in new tax revenue."

We should look long and hard at policies that produce such economic and emotional distress upon New Hampshire's families.  With the 'giant increase' in taxes that Mike Biundo points to we should wonder what President Obama's freshman economic team is thinking.  As the product of a frugal state it is all our hopes you import granite state sense into the Washington equation when determining tax policies.

Does it not make sense to avoid harming middle class families with even higher energy costs?  It is well known that any and all taxes Washington applies to industrial sectors will be passed to consumers as the cost to energy production.  That means families will bear the burden of higher industrial taxes, period.

Does it not make sense to encourage energy discovery and maintain American energy supplies?  Why then is Congress considering a tax that is not fair as it is not targeted to overall carbon footprint but rather motivated by some ideological hatred from green backed policy advocates upon investors and captains of industry in American gas and oil?

Does it not make sense to reduce our dependence on foreign oil markets?  Why then did Congress consider alternative energy plans to President Obama's own that advocated expanded offshore drilling to increase our domestic energy supply, and thereby reducing our reliance on foreign oil? Section 199 will raise taxes on offshore drilling and add to the already substantial cost of installing new drilling operations.

Cold facts mean hard realities; offend domestic markets with taxes, ignore taxpayer protests nationwide, continue to support bloated government programs and our recession will get worse and reliance on foreign oil will be the result. 

Please reconsider your position and help investors have a reason to believe in the American economy once again.

Regards,

Doug Lambert
XX Xxxxxx Xx.
Gilford, NH 03249
(603)xxx-xxxx

Posted by Doug at 12:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Given what has been going on here in NH the last couple of weeks, I didn't want to take the time to respond to this nuttiness from Dean over at Blue Hampshire (where the post was really about Healthcare):

My favorite part of this is not how he skillfully and willfully ignores how his buddy Judd used reconciliation to jam tax cuts for the wealthiest down the throats of the rest of us.

The "Progressives" keep throwing that around as if it were true - I have YET to see one of them, including Dean, actually show that this is true. The best they can do is to say "the rich got $xx,xxx back per year.  Of COURSE they did - the ABSOLUTE dollar number is higher on the same percentage of taxes if you are rich than if you are poor (10% of $20K is $2K; 10% of $2,000,000 is $200,000).

And Dean should know better - he's a teacher (and I assume they can still do simple math correctly).

I've been blogging about taxes for a long time (try this and that and that for starters); the actual number to look at, review, study, and analyze are not hard to get...

But here's the questions for Dean and all of the other Progressives that have been whining forever about who pays taxes:

Who earned the money in the first place?  And why are you so envious of those who earn more than you in the first place - why do you want to punish them by taking away THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY?

For that is what is being done - the money they earn is theirs, first and foremost.  Why can't we all be equal and all pay the same percentage to the government?  Why do you want to discriminate against a special class of people (heh!)?

Anyways, since Dean doesn't want to listen to me, In My Copious Free Time has another way of putting it (was actually responding to the slam that Obama gave to the Tea Party participants, but it fits here as well and emphasis is mine):

And while we're at it, let's stop pretending that your $400 tax cut is actually a "tax cut." Because a tax cut means taking less of someone's money. It doesn't mean refunding money to people who don't even owe any income tax, which your $400 "tax credit" does. Even if you justify giving out this money by saying that those people still owe payroll tax, this is still a transfer payment, not a cut in their payroll tax, and transfer payments need to be paid for -- either by raising taxes in some other area or by borrowing still more money. Even the Congressional Budget Office scores these credits as "direct spending." A serious conversation would admit this.

Let's also stop justifying your policies by pretending that under the Bush administration, only the wealthy received tax cuts. Millions of people who previously had owed federal income tax each year ended up owing no federal income tax at all after the Bush tax cuts. Middle-income earners paid lower federal taxes under President Bush than they did under President Clinton. I know I did, and I'm far from wealthy. Not to mention that lowering the bottom rate from 15% to 10% is hardly a tax cut for the wealthy. If you want to argue that the wealthy got more than their share, then go ahead and make that case, but frankly, I'm tired of being told by any member of the "reality-based community" that I never received a tax cut under the Bush administration. And a serious conversation wouldn't ask me, "Who are you going to believe? The words on my teleprompter, or your lying checkbook?"

Let's also note the irony of touting a $400 tax credit as a major boost to families and the economy, Mr. President, when during the campaign, your own wife dismissed the $600 stimulus payments with the phrase "What can you do with that?" A serious conversation might include some explanation about how a payment of $200 less suddenly became so much more effective and meaningful.

(H/T: Instapundit)

Posted by Skip at 6:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Individual (not household) Income level  and Income Taxes paid

The "top 1%" of earners in this country, is everyone who makes over about $180,000 a year.  They paid about 39.89% of all income taxes.

The top 5% is everyone who makes over about $152,000 a year.                            They paid about   60.14 of all income taxes.

In case you were interested, $100,000 is the top 5.63%

The top 10% is everyone who makes over $76,000 per year.                                  They paid about 70.79% of all income taxes.

The top 15% is everyone who makes over about $64,000 a year.

The top 25% is everyone who makes over about $46,000 a year.

The top 50% is everyone who makes over about $32,000 a year.                            They paid about  2.99% of all income taxes.

(H/T: Chuck - nice video from Reason TV there too)

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

Mere days after the largest nationwide anti-tax rallies the likes of which haven't been seen since prior to the start of the American Revolution, the City Council of Woonsocket, RI (Yes, THAT RI, with a sales, income, AND property tax, basically the highest in the country...) stood poised to stick the taxpayers with a "supplemental" tax bill to fund a budget shortfall in it's school department. Essentially, the property taxpayers-- with commercial owners paying 2-1/2 times the rate-- would be sent a so-called "5th Quarter" tax bill. Normally, taxes are billed and paid in quarterly payments in the year.

The citizens of that fair old city in Northern Rhode Island have apparently decided that enough is enough and they weren't going to sit by any longer and get steamrolled with yet another tax. Faced with a new "fee" on trash pickup and steep increases in water and sewer bills, the step of a supplemental tax bill was just a bridge too far. With a head of steam generated at the eleventh hour by angry business people, residential homeowners, and plain citizens, fired up by a spirited local talk radio program a few scant hours before, suddenly,

A TEA PARTY BROKE OUT...

The local paper, The Woonsocket Call described the events:

Harris Hall was so packed that admittance was closed after about 130 spectators filled the room. People were standing against the back walls because there weren't any more seats left and there was a line of speakers behind the lectern waiting to address the council that snaked out into the foyer. More than two hours after the session began, people were still waiting for their turn to speak, and the council hadn't even recited the Pledge of Allegiance to mark the formal start of the agenda.

But, points out, it didn't start there...

[T]he tenor of the meeting actually began on the sidewalk outside, where a gathering of homeowners and proprietors of small businesses waved signs as they waited, before the meeting, for council members to arrive at City Hall. The signs bore slogans that included, “No Supplemental Tax Bill,” and “We Follow Our Budget.”

A sign-toting Jeanne Budnick, proprietor of Pepin Lumber, a family-owned business for generations, said the city should be forced to live within the constraints that everyday property owners and merchants deal with. In difficult economic times like these, Budnick said, another bill for the owners of businesses and homes will only make things worse for people struggling with unemployment, cuts in hours and higher health care costs.

“We all know these are difficult times,” Budnick said . “We're making cuts left and right. I think it's time the city lived within its means. We have to live within our means and this supplemental tax bill is the easy way out. It's one more thing to make people lose their homes and businesses.”

I was able to listen to City Council meeting itself, thanks to the Internet and a local radio station (the City Council stopped simulcasting it's meetings live-- gee, I wonder why? ). What a meeting! Many people spoke their piece, the likes of which hasn't been heard for quite some time. One business owner stated that this unplanned, unexpected, and unbudgeted action means a $3,000 tax bill. Said another hapless taxpayer,

"Too often I've sat down and shut up. No more. Now I'm gonna stand up and speak out... I'm angry. I'm frustrated."

Prior to the meeting, the scuttlebutt was that the supplement was a done deal, with a strong majority expected to vote for it. A councilor was heard on the radio one day last week saying the people can come, but it won't matter. "It's all just noise."

Really? As the "noise" unfolded, one Councilor changed his mind:

Continue reading "Tea Party stops tax increase in its tracks. Unplanned, unscripted, and NOT orchestrated from on high... Ladies and gentlemen, THIS is the Tea Party movement and it's potential!" »

Posted by Doug at 10:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

Ted Nugent for President!

Man, just how many great speeches WERE given on Tea Party Day, anyway? Wow!

Posted by Doug at 4:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We don't often engage in shameless self-promotion, except when circumstances warrant. Both Skip and I were honored to have been asked to address the Tea Party this past Wednesday in Manchester. All my life I've wanted to announce the start of a revolution in front of several thousand people. If only I had brandished my firearm as I did so. Oh well, next time...

Here's me:

and Skip:

Viva la revolucion!

Posted by Doug at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The road to economic recovery is not paved with new taxes.

And yet, Congress is set to end the tax-free Internet. As our friend Jack from the Granite State Patriots noted in an email:

Well, we just finished our Tea parties and here comes another outrage.

He accompanied it with a link to a FoxNews.com story reporting that 

The free ride may soon be over.

For the past decade and a half, most Internet shoppers haven't been forced to pay sales tax while buying goods online.

But now, according to CNet News, an alliance of "brick-and-mortar" retailers and state governments has teamed up to end that — and they've crafted federal legislation that may be introduced in Congress as early as next week.

Just what the economy needs right now... more taxes. Says one of the online taxation proponents:

 "We're very optimistic about Congress this year."

Not me.

And shame on all of you that have been getting this "free ride." The Magic Obama and his minions will make you pay!

Posted by Doug at 5:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The son of the late great Governor Meldrim Thomson, Jr. gives Manchester Tea Party attendees a reminder that taxes and spending are directly related to each other. He warns the present spending by both the state and federal governments are "unsustainable." He also offers Governor Lynch the use of a special tool used by his father to help keep taxes in the Granite State among the lowest in the Nation.

He refuses to become a servant to the government. Me too...

Posted by Doug at 5:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This is some nice video shot from the parking garage to the rear of the main stage of the rally. It was taken just at the start time of 5:30. The crowd kept growing as the event rolled on...

[H/T Now!Hampshire.com]

Posted by Doug at 6:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the bedrock principles our Nation was founded upon is the ability to criticize the government without fear of redress. Many of the folks in attendance at yesterday's Tea Party in Manchester took full advantage of this basic right...

.

.

.

.

.

CAN YOU HEAR US NOW?!!

More great pics here.

Posted by Doug at 5:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a news report you WON'T see in the mainstream. Heh, who needs 'em when we've got our "watchdog" on the scene. From the NH Watchdog, AKA Grant Bosse:

Posted by Doug at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Doug & Skip address the crowd. Reports are there were upwards of 3000 people!

More later. Stay tuned for vids...

Posted by Doug at 10:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

NHAC to hold Taxpayer Tea Party with 700 hundred of their closest friends

Continue reading "Taxpayer Tea Party Agenda Update" »

Posted by Doug at 7:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

In addition to being in the company of like-minded people fed up with seeing their tax dollars taken and wasted with reckless abandon, there will be several activities to help ramp up the message being sent to the big-spending politicians and an opportunity to help your fellow man...

• Don't forget-- Bring some tea to "dump"

• Food Drive-- Bring non-perishables and disposable diapers to be delivered to the New Horizons.

• GraniteGrok Best Rant Contest. Come to our tent and the 'Grok staff will record (35 seconds max) you and your friends 

• Belting out your best anti-tax rant
• Picking a particular politician and sending a specific message.
• Issuing the rally cry to your fellow citizens.

The winner will receive a $50 gift certificate to a popular area restaurant and will be featured on a GraniteGrok Youtube. Who knows-- this could be your big chance (or the king might issue a reward for your arrest)!

It has been said that following the original Tea Party of December 16, 1773, the Masons sang at the Green Dragon:

"Rally, Mohawks, Bring out your axes

And tell King George, we'll pay no taxes!"

In that vein, here's ours for April 15th 2009 video competition:

Rally, citizens, bring your rant

Tell the politicians, NO YOU CAN'T!

• Best sign contest. The top three best signs will recieve $100, $50, and $25 prizes!

• Meet activist group representatives. Get involved. Stay connected!

Have you had enough? Are you tired of simply shaking your head in disgust. Sick of being a member of that "silent majority" that lately always seems to get screwed?  Come Wednesday and tell the politicians:

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!

If you haven't signed up yet, click here. If the crowd is large enough,the politicians will HAVE to take notice!

Posted by Doug at 7:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

[H/T Instapundit]

Posted by Doug at 9:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Pondering the Obama presidency, I cannot help but recall the immortal words of Marvin the Martian:

“Oh! That wasn’t a bit nice! You have made me very angry! Very angry indeed!”

Try as I may, there is little I can find to like about the new Administration to this point. It seems that almost every day since he started, he’s promoted policies I believe to be wholly wrong, or saying something that completely flies in the face of credulity.

The budget he has proposed, which spends money we don’t have like there’s no tomorrow, seeks to focus on three items above all else: so-called “green” energy, education, and expanding socialized medicine. Added to the previous “bailouts” and “stimulus” spending, the President is most assuredly saddling future generations of Americans with debt the likes of which have never before been seen in the history of the world… and he’s only just begun!

While I admit the present mindset that economic cycles can somehow be altered by increased government spending and growth began under the tail end of the Bush Administration, he’s a piker compared to his successor, who has taken such policies to new heights. Plus, Obama has added in a large measure of anti-private sector, “capitalism is the boogeymen” rhetoric the likes of which that haven’t been seen since the halcyon days of the Bolshevik revolution. This is not good in a country where liberty is mostly based on private property rights which are the basic fruits of our labors. Once we break the work ethic, and people no longer have incentive to do much of anything for lack of any real return or reward, then what?

Make no mistake about it—we are living in times where a large number of people have been led to believe that we can borrow our way out of debt and simply print money and spend ourselves into prosperity. You’ve all seen the letters in the papers extolling the use of stimulus money for things that people would otherwise not pay for themselves, a good example being the Gilford police station project. People you would think should otherwise know better think we should simply take this money “because if we don’t, someone else will get it.” This is the very attitude that has brought America to the economic brink.

Who is footing the bill?

Continue reading "Very angry indeed! I can't wait till Tea Time..." »

Posted by Doug at 9:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

During his campaign seeking the Republican nomination for NH's 2nd Congressional District seat, one of the things that impressed us about Grant Bosse was his use of new technology and the new media. He continues to do so in his position as Lead Investigative Reporter at the Josiah Bartlett Center and the resident NH Watchdog:

(CONCORD) The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy has entered the world of video podcasting, launching a web video project through its investigative branch, New Hampshire Watchdog. Veteran reporter Grant Bosse posted the first two video reports about the dueling state budget plans presented by House Democrats and Republicans. Both plans will be considered by the full House later this week.

Part I: House Finance Committee Budget Presentation

Part II: House Republican Caucus Alternative Budget

“The Josiah Bartlett Center is well known for its reliable analysis of New Hampshire issues,” said Center President Charlie Arlinghaus. “Now we can use new tools like YouTube, Facebook, and our NHWatchdog blog to spread that work across New Hampshire.”

Bosse brings both journalistic and State House experience to his new assignment, having worked for the New Hampshire House and U.S. Senate, as well as being an award-winning reporter at radio stations WGIR and WTSL.

“TV, radio, and newspapers have time and space constraints that make it almost impossible to provide in-depth coverage of complex issues like the state budget,” Bosse added. “But with just a digital video camera and a laptop, the Josiah Bartlett Center can provide in-depth coverage to both policy makers and the public.”

NH Watchdog on Facebook
NH Watchdog on YouTube

"Just a digital video camera and a laptop." Indeed... For less than a thousand bucks, an individual can now have the full capability of what was only in reach of the elite main stream media no more than a decade or so ago. Go get 'em, Grant!

Posted by Doug at 8:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If you haven't signed up yet for next Wednesday's big Tea Party in Manchester, now is a good time to do so by clicking here.

In addition to being in the company of like-minded people fed up with seeing their tax dollars taken and wasted with reckless abandon, there will be several activities to help ramp up the message being sent to the big-spending politicians and an opportunity to help your fellow man...

• Food Drive-- Bring non-perishables and disposable diapers to be delivered to the New Horizons.
• GraniteGrok Best Rant Contest. The 'Grok staff will record you and your friends  putting forth your best anti-tax (or similar themed) rant in 35 seconds or less. The winner will receive a $50 gift certificate to a popular area restaurant and will be featured on a GraniteGrok Youtube. Who knows-- this could be your big chance (or the king might issue a reward for your arrest)!

It has been said that following the original Tea Party of December 16, 1773, the Masons sang at the Green Dragon:

"Rally, Mohawks, Bring out your axes

And tell King George, we'll pay no taxes!"

In that vein, here's ours for April 15th 2009 video competition:

Rally, citizens, bring your rant

Tell the President, NO YOU CAN'T!

• Best sign contest. The top three best signs will recieve $100, $50, and $25 prizes!

Posted by Doug at 6:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

You know, Doug has been doing yeoman's work on his posts on Willard “Bathroom Bud” Martin.  Not having a heck of a lot of time, but not wishing to miss any of the fun, I figured that I'd go back through some of my "Recountings from the County" posts, as Mr. Martin was directly or indirectly responsible for many of them.  While my original intent was showing Republican actions, it was he that almost single handedly, with his political theatrics, raised my taxes.

And he doesn't even live in my NH Senate District or my County (he lives in Carroll County)!  So ask yourself – if he was willing to come into Belknap County to advocated (nay, demand) for higher spending than the Commissioners wanted to spend, what will he do at the NH Senate level?  Can he toe the line at a reasonable budget?  I think not.  Can he hold fast against the ever-present flood of well intentioned people always asking for money for their pet projects that will “save the citizens X amount of money later if we spend Y amount now?” knowing that the State is already broke?  I think not.

How DO we know how Mr. Martin will vote? The answer is, we don't.  As Doug showed, Mr. Martin refused to answer questions on WMUR's Close Up when asked specific questions.  No, not a blank slate does he present; rather, a large, heavy curtain hiding all from view according to that interview.  Jeb Bradley, on the other hand, is an open book – ask and he will tell you exactly what he will do, think, or vote.  We may be supporting him, but we have put him on the hot spot too – he has given us answers that have not always overjoyed us, but answered he has – a credit that Mr. Martin cannot share.

Given his predilection to raise taxes, do we want to give him a chance to advocate a mini-version of the ginormous debt that is being racked up by Obama's Administration?  Do we want the continuation of the remaking of the social fabric that the Democrats are doing?  Not me...

Anyways, let me retell an abridged version of Recountings from the County to show how “Bathroom Bud” orchestrated bigger spending.

=======================================================

This all started last year with the Belknap County Convention on two issues:

• After much complaining by local citizens and local towns, the County Convention decided last year that a 8.8% rise in taxes to be collected from their ATM machine (er, us) was viable.
• It also decided that following the laws pertaining to open and transparent government (RSA 91A and its subclauses) either not needed to be followed or they had a different interpretation than many out side of that Convention.

Thus, they prominently ended up as "the news" locally in the radio, blogs, and newspapers for quite some amount of time.  Frankly, it was a Public Relations disaster, overall, for the Republicans. Instead of being for less government with lower taxation, they circled the wagons, lawyered up, and resisted all attempts to back down or back off.

So, here's a case of great words at the start of the annual budget process when Christopher Boothby talked about county government:

"...what is the proper and legal role of the county?"

"The decisions we're making on outside agencies are not reflective of need or performance," said Boothby, but rather part of an overall discussion about the future of Belknap County government. "We want to be sure outside agencies match with our core goals."

Continue reading "Bud Martin - leading the charge to raise taxes in Belknap County" »

Posted by Skip at 11:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

[The following is a guest post by Terry Stewart of Gilford]

Dear Mayor Lahey,

I read on the front page of today's Laconia Daily Sun (PDF) that you’re going to seek help from the State’s legislature to get more State funds. Sorry Mayor, your legislators have been very busy on much more important things like a boating speed limit, smoking laws, seat belt laws, civil unions, same sex marriage, repealing capital punishment for cop killers, eliminating health insurer competition to keep our premiums high, extending health insurance benefits to those that can already afford it and assuring more expensive energy costs for all. The latest bill that has their undivided attention is to maintain the protection of transgendered people by allowing them to use either sex restrooms (known as the bathroom bill). These would include the bathrooms in the park where your children often play.

Meredith’s representative, Kate Miller, says it all with this quote. “I am humbled to be a part of our State’s history.” This is quite a record to be proud of Ms. Miller; are these Meredith’s values you are representing?

Our legislators are obviously way too busy to deal with your silly little funding problems, Mayor Lahey. They’ll get back to you when they get through with their social engineering projects. Please be patient because when they come out of the ether, they’ll have to address a little problem called a $500 million deficit they’ve racked up. Not to worry-- you can tell your constituents they can count on an income tax to straighten this whole mess out.

Why not? By imposing more taxes we can’t afford, they can create more programs we can’t afford to help you when you can’t afford to pay for them. It’s exactly the convoluted cycle of life that gives these politicians purpose…

Terry Stewart

(This was originally posted at GilfordGrok)

Posted by Doug at 8:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

US Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH)

Regular readers know that from time to time, we have been quite critical of Senator Judd Gregg's performance both as a Republican and as a supposed conservative. We're happy to note that in the short time since his flirtation with the Magic Obama, the Senator has regained his footing and has been as strong in his criticism of the proposed taxpayer-busting budget as anyone. This week, our senior Senator provided the Republican weekly radio address and provided some much-needed detail and words of caution regarding the Magic Obama's budget. I appreciate this, and would further add that, given Gregg's attempts at bipartisan cooperation with the Democrat-led Executive Branch, he has a degree of credibility on these fiscal issues that cannot be tagged simply as partisan rhetoric...

GREGG: Hello, I’m Judd Gregg , Senator from New Hampshire. We all know these are difficult times. People are worried about keeping their jobs, paying their bills, the value of their homes and the cost of sending their kids to college. It’s hard.

Thus I appreciate, as do all Americans, the efforts being made by our President and his seriousness about addressing these issues.

But what concerns many of us are his proposals in the budget he recently sent to the Congress that dramatically grow the size and cost of government and move it to the left.

It is our opinion that this plan spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much.

You may have heard this before that the budget of the President spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much.

What do we mean? Well, let me give you a few examples.

 

Continue reading "Judd Gregg: The budget of the President spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much."" »

Posted by Doug at 10:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 5:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Concord, NH- Yesterday, the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition  in partnership with the Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers, Granite State Taxpayers, Cornerstone Policy Research and the NH 9-12 Patriot Project, announced the NH Taxpayer Tea Party on April 15th, 2009 at 5:30 pm in Victory Park, Manchester, NH. This event is part of 200 plus tea parties scheduled across the United States. NHAC Chairman Mike Biundo stated

“these tea parties are a direct result of a runaway government on all levels. People are frustrated with the spending spree that is going on and they are looking for way to express that frustration”.

Matthew Murphy, director of the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition added

"New Hampshire citizens are troubled by what is happening with the federal government’s continued reckless spending in the form of government bailouts, more government involvement in the private sector and increasing levels of regulation on the free market. Even at the state level, our elected leaders are creating a situation that asks more of the New Hampshire taxpayers’ already shrinking personal budgets and stifles the opportunity for economic growth by increasing taxes and fees in order to pay for the excessive government spending.” 

Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers Director Ed Naile noted,

“This event is a chance for New Hampshire citizens’ to express the need to control taxes by controlling government spending, end the continued expansion of government into the free market, and reduce the tax burden on citizens’”.

Granite State Taxpayers Chairman Stephen Stepanek agreed,

“The taxpayers tea party is an event occurring throughout the country that is a grassroots, citizens’ revolt against the out of control spending occurring in Washington and Concord. It is an opportunity for citizens to tell their elected officials that is our money you are spending not yours, that this is our children’s and grandchildren’s future you are mortgaging”.

Kevin Smith of Cornerstone Policy Research stated

“The tea party is for citizens who concur that our nation and state has placed too heavy a burden on New Hampshire families and that a dramatic change of course is needed in Washington and New Hampshire”.       

Victory Park in Manchester is located at the corner of Chestnut and Amherst streets. Attendees are asked to bring tea bags to be sent to their representatives. For more information or directions to Victory Park email mmurphy@thenhadvantage.com or call 603-475-8435.

Posted by Doug at 8:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

The logical result: property taxes do not go down for long.  In fact, both income and property taxes will go up.  Such a "solution", eh?  You really know in your heart of hearts why, dontcha!

Of course, it's from one of the States that are the poster children of "Don't ever do this at home (for it will cost you your home!)":

One week after Gov. Jon Corzine stunned taxpayers by declaring he planned to eliminate the property tax deduction on state income taxes for everyone but senior citizens, he told a group of residents at a neighborhood meeting in Eatontown that he was rethinking his position because he was getting a lot of "pushback."

The next day, he formally announced the deduction would be restored for homeowners earning less than $150,000 a year. On Thursday, he announced he would compensate for the lost revenue by — you guessed it — raising taxes elsewhere. He wants to jack up the "one-year" income-tax surcharge on households with incomes of more than $500,000 an additional 0.5 percent higher than he proposed in his budget address two weeks ago. That will push New Jersey's top income tax rate from 8.97 pecent to 10.25 percent. Only California has a higher top rate — 10.3 percent — but it kicks in only for incomes of more than $1 million. Now, New Jersey will not only have the highest property tax rate but the highest income tax rate for households with incomes of $500,000 to $1 million. Swell.

Over the past few years, Corzine hasn't worried much about pushback. With the election less than eight months away, he's starting to pay more attention to what fed up taxpayers are thinking. It is likely no coincidence that his change of heart about the property tax deduction came just days after a Quinnipiac Poll showed that Republican gubernatorial front-runner Chris Christie had extended his lead in a hypothetical matchup with Corzine to 9 percentage points.

NJ added an income tax so as to lower the property tax.  How's that working for ya, NH?  The problem is that some nitwit by the name of Jessie Osborne (D-Concord) here in NH has submitted a bill, NH HB 642 that will "solve" high property taxes by creating an "educational income tax" at 5.5 % and have all teachers become state employees.

No, it won't solve anything.  Remember the "dontcha!" from above?  This exists ONLY to get the camel's nose under the tent to get an income tax into the State.  And as you can see from the example in NJ, it won't work. Know why?  Because Liberal politicians can't help themselves; they are like addicts - they can't say no!

Just great.  NH residents, you think you are losing local control now?  Once again, a dimwit Dem wants to "relieve" you of that odious responsibility of thinking as an adult to control your own local affairs.  If this bill gets implemented, kiss ANY local control of a good chunk of your money good bye.  And your educational costs will go up as now teachers will, as all unionized employees, only have to deal with Concord and no longer with all those pesky residents voting their own self-interest...

Posted by Skip at 7:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)