Volinsky has refused to take a pledge against broad-based taxes, such as an income tax or a sales tax.
“I think if you take the pledge, you shut down honest conversation,” he said. “We have some real problems in this state to address – income inequality, access to good educational programming around the state, paying for our infrastructure improvements. We can’t talk about any of those things if we take the pledge, so I’m refusing to take it.” WMUR
The primary on the Democrat side now will have to feature discussions about these broad-based taxes, which Governor Chris Sununu flatly opposes. “No Income Tax. Not Now. Not Ever.” was Sununu’s message on vetoed SB1, a bill that would have implemented a 0.50% payroll tax on every employee in the Granite State. Hard to believe any real discussion about an income tax would be at or lower than that rate.
Half of the NH Democrat State Senators have already jumped to back Feltes, Volinsky’s primary opponent. Some, like Senator Dietsch (SD-9), who actually proposed income tax legislation this year, have not endorsed anyone yet. Will Dietsch and others join Volinsky in calling for radical changes to New Hampshire’s tax structure and proposals to eliminate the New Hampshire Advantage?
On environmental issues, Volinsky takes his queue from his 2 year old grandson, according to an interview with WMUR.
“‘We don’t have long to reduce carbon use in a significant way, and I don’t think we should be building fossil fuel facilities,’ he said.” I wonder how long we do have, Councilor. 12 years?
Volinsky has so far this year been traveling the state holding “education forums.”
For the past year-and-a-half, Volinsky and attorney John Tobin, who was also a member of the plaintiffs’ legal team in the Claremont case, have been holding forums on school funding throughout the state, making the case that the state has failed to adhere to the 1997 state Supreme Court Claremont II ruling that the state must define K-12 education adequacy and fund it.WMUR
“People in the state need to be better able to make decisions, and to do that, they need to be well-informed,” Volinsky said. “And then they’ll make better choices and stop electing people who work for their own interests and who say that downshifting costs to property taxpayers is the solution, when it’s really the cause of more problems.”
There is another case currently ongoing, ConVal v NH, challenging the adequacy funding formula in New Hampshire and is essentially a “Claremont III” heading for the Supreme Court. ConVal is one of the most expensive districts per pupil in New Hampshire, due in large part to out of control spending (approved by the voters.)
Under a Volinsky plan, high earning residents in Bedford or elsewhere would be forced to not only pay for Bedford students, but through the income and sales tax they’d have to pay for ConVal’s out of control spending too. All in the name of fairness, of course.
It will be interesting to see how the party behind Feltes and Volinsky shifts. Will they go to the radical left on tax and education issues (among others) with Comrade Volinsky, or will they stay in the camp of the liberal left as we are mostly used it and stick behind Senate Majority Leader Feltes. Time will tell.