Emphasis mine:
Nothing so epitomizes contemporary liberalism as unfunded mandates, in which the federal government establishes programs and forces the states to pay for them. The very need to weigh benefits against costs – the essence of economics – is evaded by this irresponsible exercise of arrogance. It is like impulse buying and charging it to somebody else’s credit card.
-Prof. Thomas Sowell (Thomas Sowell Reader)
He’s absolutely right, you know. The NH Constitution’s Article 28-A should be every NH Budget Committee’s favorite clause:
[Art.] 28-a. [Mandated Programs.] The state shall not mandate or assign any new, expanded or modified programs or responsibilities to any political subdivision in such a way as to necessitate additional local expenditures by the political subdivision unless such programs or responsibilities are fully funded by the state or unless such programs or responsibilities are approved for funding by a vote of the local legislative body of the political subdivision.
Should be – but it isn’t NH State Legislators – even Republicans. I have railed against SB142 , the bill that the NH House, NH Senate, and Gov Sununu passed to require School Districts to provide FREE menstrual products) since it was passed back in 2019. A blatantly unconstitutional bill as it clearly violated Article 28-a as no State monies were allocated to reimburse the School District for buying the dispensers, the supplies, and the labor to maintain them.
What’s worse was the rejection of the attempt to rectify this with this:
But it was Pravda on the Merrimack that actually had the story that had me thinking “Gosh, have I made a difference?” (reformatted, emphasis mine):
Republicans seek to roll back free menstrual products in public schools law
Two years after mandating that New Hampshire public schools provide feminine hygiene products in their bathrooms for free, some members of the New Hampshire Legislature are considering reversing course. Lawmakers on the House Education Committee heard testimony last week on House Bill 458, which would undo the requirement that schools provide tampons and sanitary napkins for free.
Instead, HB 458 would give school health departments the option to provide the products if it “determines that there are students in need of menstrual hygiene products within its school population.” And it would allow the schools to charge students for the tampons at “minimal cost.”
As I yelled at Doug Scamman, EVERY Social Issue has a financial cost. And each time the Right accedes to the Left on one Social Issue after another, the financial toll of taxes rises ever higher. And it removes Choice from every level beneath it.
SB142 was an all Democrat bill. And even with that, the Republicans helped to kill HB458. Thus, they proved me right: “each time the Right accedes to the Left on one Social Issue after another, the financial toll of taxes rises ever higher.”
Sowell is right – it is ARROGANCE that best describe legislators that deal with money as water flowing through their fingers. While on my hamlet’s BudComm, I ALWAYS told people “THIS IS NOT OUR MONEY!”; few ever adopted that philosophy. Too many of them, and legislators, look to take care of GOVERNMENT first. It matters not a whit what the economy was doing around them – in good times “Hey, everyone has money to give” and in bad times “People are hurting – Government has to help!”.
And they never acknowledge that in taking more from taxpayers/voters, they are pushing even more people below that financial-panic line, move them from being self-sufficient to themselves needing to be dependent on government.
Economics is the study, not of just money, but of trade-offs within the idea of scarcity: opportunity cost. If you do this, what happens to that. If you take more and more money from this set of people to do X,Y, and Z. If you spend so much on this, what do you have to remove money from others.
Hahaha! Silly me – government budgets rarely go go down – those in control of the money NEVER say “hey, we HAVE to move money around to fit priorities – and some department will do less with less money”. Such a foreign thought to the Government Firsters.
(H/T: Cafe Hayek)
