News – Politics – Opinion – Podcasts
Mike Hoefer is skipping his Lunch for Lynch and he’s asking the folks at Boo Hoo Hampshire to do the same. He figures, rather than spend $9.68 at Panera bread he’s donating that money to Lynch for Governor to help fight back against the attacks by NOM. Well Mike, I have a few thoughts. Panera … Read more
He lied about the confab being for campaign contributions, he lied about the deficit and spending, he lied about balancing the budget, the "surplus" meme is a lie in the context with which he’s applied it, he stood for parental rights then shot them down, he said he was against broad based taxes but signed … Read more
The economic slowdown has reduced electricity consumption and with it, the cost of carbon credits, but that is temporarily keeping the current Lynch broad-based energy tax low.
Why Shea-Porterian and Hodesian Economics Fails
In the long and undistinguished line of left wing rubber stamps milling about the State House like zombies, you can find Kevin Hodges of Hillsborough 7, perhaps better known as Kevin "Awesome Cool" Hodges, among the undead. Kevin garnered a small measure of fame after an encounter with a young lady in his district who took umbrage with his casual use of vulgar language and his insults of experienced Republican legislators.
One editorial (and this blog post) later and Kevin was destined for a followup–so here it is.
The Granite State Fair Tax folks are back trolling for a broad based tax on the idea that it is more fair? Fair to whom? That’s always the question but it never tries to address why we need a tax, and why we need to control how much of it the government can collect, or how easily they can grow it.
And back in May of 2010 I once again tried to make the case for property taxes as better way to control the flow of revenue into the government. It may or may not be my most persuasive but it is my most recent.
May 25 2010 ‘Why Property Taxes’
I have argued at great length on why relying primarily on local property taxes is the best mechanism for keeping government small. But no matter how often I bring it up someone always tries to make the point that it’s not fair. Why should the people who actually own the physical land in the state have to bear the burden of the costs associated with the governance of that land and the people who live on it? (That’s not exactly how they say it, I’m just translating it into common sense.)
I happen to think that question answers itself, and as I’ve stated before should act as a necessary mechanism for filtering out unnecessary spending and over aggressive revenue seeking by busy bodies at every level of government. Yet I am still confronted with the issue of New Hampshire’s unfair property tax burden–to which I now respond, what burden?
I normally do not put up entire posts from other folks, but Neal Boortz has this one down pat. In it, he demonstrates the absurdity of the what Federal Govt does by taking away, via taxes, that is a good sum of money that for most middle class Americans. It demonstrates the angst of the phrase:
"Do you REALLY think that Government can spend YOUR money better than YOU can?"
Boortz (emphasis mine):
OK so this is a miniscule example, but hear me out. The average family tax burden in America is $10,000. Now imagine that Barack Obama gathered you and five of your neighbors into a backyard, sat you down and said: OK, folks. Now I know that the tax burden for each of your families was probably around $10,000 this year. That means that collectively, you as neighbors have contributed about $60,000 to mandatory federal collection plate. I understand that you probably have a few ideas of what you could do with this $10,000 that my imperial federal government has now taken from you at the point of a gun. But as your ruler, I have decided that I am going to take this $60,000 and give it to some students at the University of Southern California. No, no no .. just hear me out! Look, these kids came up with some really cool
Capital Briefs in this weeks edition of Human Events, reminds us that it took over 200 years for the US government to accumulate a national debt of 2.19 Trillion. Mr Obama exceeded that sum in just 19 months by adding another 2.56 Trillion to the national debt….and neither Paul Hodes, nor Carol SEIU-Porter, did anything … Read more
If you believe the rhetoric Carol Seiu-Porter and Paul ‘Hot Dog’ Hodes are bulwarks of the middle class lifestyle and protectors of the elderly. So what would they make of this, from a letter sent to Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday?
A number of tax cuts enacted in the past decade are due to expire at the end of this year. Our fiscal policy should be one that maximizes economic growth and private sector job creation. That is why we strongly believe that Congress should extend the current tax rates for dividend and long-term capital gains taxes…We [] have a responsibility to protect middle class families and seniors from harmful tax increases and their economic impact…
Many seniors depend on this income to supplement their fixed retirement income. A recent study found that in 2007 over 27 million tax returns had dividends qualifying for the reduced tax rate reduction. Of those returns, 61 percent were from taxpayers age 50 and older and 30 percent were from taxpayers age 65 and older.
Would they say it’s just a ploy by the authors to excuse an extension on tax cuts for the wealthy? Could we expect promises to fix it, whatever it was that needed fixing, after the fact? Or would they simply dismiss it and ignore the consequences to the elderly and those nearing retirement like they did with health insurance reform?
So what would they say if the letter was sent to Nancy Pelosi by 47 House democrats?
A balanced budget is a technical term for making the numbers add up. The amount you say you have to spend simply matches what you claim to have spent. So if you borrowed some millions that you would later have to pay back, and you found a few hundred million more on the sidewalk (maybe in Washington DC), if it added up far enough to cover how much you spent, you could claim to have a balanced budget.
The difference is that being at zero, and owing tens of millions you never had is not balanced. Add to that the reality that you now have a larger bill to pay every year but can’t expect to just find a few hundred million laying around every year, and you have what is called a structural deficit. Your political lifestyle vastly exceeds your expected revenue. Call it a state wide mortgage that exceeds our ability to pay it by hundreds of millions annually.
This is called incompetent. It is also the Lynch budget. And even though an account or two may have pulled in more revenue than expected, there is still a massive debt due in the next budget, created by democrats, and signed off on by John Lynch, with no money to pay for it..
Why else proceed in contradiction to the supreme court, on the politically poisonous path of robbing $110 million in private property unless you really need that 110 million to start stuffing the sink hole of a massive structural deficit. And even if you get this one time money, where’s the line of suckers you plan to screw after you are done with them?
If we had a real surplus they wouldn’t need to rob the JUA fund. They would drop the idea of selling off 60 million in state land. In fact, they’d stop all the hand-wringing about the budget. They have not. The deficit is real. And the democrats are to blame, and John Lynch and it is one more reason why John Lynch has been the governor for too long.
Thirty nine democrats voted with republicans to hold off the adjournment, but the vote fell short, leaving the tax hikes on the books as the House leaves to defend two years of excessive spending, massive debt, the democrats unpopular health care plan, the failure to utilize Pay-Go as promised, the inability to even try and form a budget, repeated ethical lapses by liberal law makers, and a host of other ills that have driven their approval rating to historical lows.
Don’t expect ShaHodeSheaPorter to wrestle with this conundrum; while running for office in 2008 they insisted that the Bush Tax cuts were "for the rich," or "the wealthiest Americans." The class warfare rhetoric made the case that Republicans didn’t provide tax relief for anyone else, and the democrats promised to remedy this the moment they were elected. The result was to embark on a multi-trillion dollar spending binge that cannot possibly be paid for without taxes on everyone and everything–though they still insist otherwise.
The arrogance of the Carol Shea-Porter’s, heck all democrats for that matter, can be summed up in the liberal core belief–recently parroted by Paul Hodes–that we can’t afford to let people keep the money they earned because it will balloon the deficit.
Democrats are trying to frighten people by insisting that we can’t go back to how things were when Republicans were running things. And I can see their point. They will certainly need to do better. But how wise is it to frighten people with the risk of 5% unemployment and budget deficits under 500 Billion … Read more
Paul Hodes is trying desperately to change his image to that of a fiscal hawk and independent voice, but Paul has some monumental hurdles to get that line past the party base and into the general populace. First, if he want’s anyone without Kool aid stained lips to buy into the fiscal song and dance … Read more
(H/T Biggeekdaddy) (H/T to one of my facebook friends for the link–I lost you in the feed.)
Separation of powers was meant to divide the authority so that a process of checks and balances was created to protect the people from abuses of power. This simple reality makes two things the democrats want you to believe impossible.
Paul Hodes is trying to restyle himself as a fiscal conservative. As a Washington outsider. But Washington outsiders don’t get huge campaign donations from the left wings senatorial elite Like Dan Inoyue, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Bob Menendez. Paul Hodes does.
Fiscal conservatives don’t manage to come in 45th out of 435 in 2010 earmark requests. Hodes did, then played at fiscal prudence, calling for reform only after having racked up more earmarks than 390 other House members.
In 2008 Hodes took a 10,000.00 dollar contribution from American Crystal sugar–a business looking for a way to break into ethanol production without burdensome upfront costs–the same year Hodes passed masive Ethanol hand-out farm bill mandates which he voted for, then overrode a veto to make it the law of the land.
Mr Hodes has the distinction of being in congress and voting for a budget and spending that resulted in a 400 billion dollar deficit, then campaigning as if he had nothing to do with, and then voting to triple that deficit to 1.4 trillion in the very next budget.
If you can believe it…there’s more on the jump.
We’re all going to hear a lot about this in the months ahead….
The first thing you have to understand is that to support Mr. Hodes position on letting tax cuts expire you have to be of the opinion that your property is only yours because the government allows you to keep it. This is a pillar of democrat fiscal policy. It explains why they berate anyone who dares allow a disfavored class to keep their own earnings. The phrase "irresponsible tax cuts" or any similar rhetoric, proliferate throughout the lefts discourse. So at its core the Hodes position is that the legal acquisition of wealth is little more than a royal indulgence that could expire at any moment. Put more simply, democrats cannot believe in individual property rights which should be a problem for anyone running for elected office in a constitutional republic but for some reason has not been a significant impediment.