Articles tagged as

Taxes

Bud Martin – leading the charge to raise taxes in Belknap County

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."

Read more

Judd Gregg: The budget of the President spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much.”

Judd Gregg

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.

 

Read more

New Hampshire Taxpayer Tea Party on April 15th at Manchester’s Victory Park

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 … Read more

Guest Post: We don’t need new taxes, but who will tell Washington?

The road to economic recovery is not paved with new taxes. New Hampshire’s delegation in Washington needs to share that bit of cold New England logic with their congressional colleagues as they evaluate the Obama administration’s budget proposal.  That proposal includes a giant energy tax increase, although that’s not what the administration’s economic team is … Read more

Five Out of Six Towns Pass Spending Caps. Town Meeting Taxpayers Send Clear Message…

 

Lower Spending = Lower Taxes.

Tax Cap

Nashua, NH – The call for controlled spending and efficient government from taxpayers across New Hampshire is getting louder and louder each election cycle. This year’s town meeting has proved to be no different. Tuesday’s resounding win in five of the six towns that spending cap warrant articles were on the ballot prove that taxpayers are tired of government continually reaching into their pockets and they are looking for relief. Spending cap warrants appeared on the ballot in the towns of Kingston, Hampstead, Allenstown, Salem, Hudson and Rindge. With only the Hudson warrant articles not passing.

“Taxpayers across this state are sending a clear message that an efficient government that spends their money wisely is the only path to lower taxes. We are facing very challenging times here in New Hampshire. The economy is down, property taxes are up, we have a record budget deficit on the state level and the federal government is spending at an unprecedented pace. Taxpayers are trying to control what they are closest to and that is their local government.” said Michael Biundo Chairman NHAC

The partnership between local taxpayers and local taxpayer associations, and the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition has been a successful one. With these results added to the impressive victory this past November in Rochester, the call for spending restraint and taxpayer relief from the grassroots’ can’t be ignored.

“The results of these warrant articles sends a clear message to elected officials at the local, state, and federal levels that people want controlled spending and lower taxes.” said  local Hampstead Taxpayer John McGrath

Former Deputy Speaker Ken Weyler of Kingston noted “In these fluid economic times, the public has clearly stated that spending must be capped at reasonable increases. …when the public, by two to one, tell you to cap your spending increases, you can expect further accountability, all of which you will ignore at your political peril.”

Here are the voting results by town:

 

Read more

Spending/Tax Cap Momentum Builds

Claremont and Somersworth File for 2009 Spending Cap Vote  Nashua, NH – Today, Claremont resident Cynthia Howard in association with the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition (NHAC) filed a petitioner’s committee affidavit with the Claremont City Clerk to begin the petition process for a spending/tax cap charter amendment for the city’s budget.  On Tuesday March 10th, … Read more

Hear! Hear!

The Chairman comes out swinging and challenges Governor Do Nuthin’ Lynch to be true to his word on the gas tax increase… From former New Hampshire Governor and Republican State Committee Leader John H. Sununu: “This week the ‘tax and spend’ Democratic leadership in the New Hampshire House passed a 15-cent per gallon tax increase. This … Read more

Guest Post: You don’t own the view, nor do you control it.

tax man
STOP THE UNJUST VIEW TAX
by Frank Handibode

    Like most people, I have an aversion to injustice. Here in the “Live Free or Die” state of New Hampshire, a glaring example of injustice is the levying of an odious view tax on property owners who have views from their property. It matters not to the Selectmen or contracted assessors that you neither own the view being taxed nor do you control it.

     Furthermore, they readily admit that determining a view’s value is subjective. I know this to be true. In October, 2008 in Grafton County Superior Court, Gary Roberge, Chief Executive of Avitar Associates of New England, who assessed the properties in Hebron, testified under oath that “regarding view assessments, yes, a lot about it is subjective but what isn’t?”

     What this means is that, hypothetically, if five non-collaborating tax assessors arrive at a given property on five different days to evaluate a view, it is not only possible but almost certain that five different tax values will result. The reason is simple. To this day, despite repeated requests from Tom Thomson and other Public Members of the Assessing Standards Board, the Department of Revenue Administration and the New Hampshire Assessing Standards Board have not issued a clear, concise definition of what constitutes a “view.” As Mr. Eugene T. Reed, Public Member of the ASB has told me, “Assessing properties with views is up to the assessing company or local assessors. There is no standard or guideline.”

     Widespread subjectivity has no place in fair taxation and that is clearly what we have today. Mad King George the Third of England would have rubbed his hands in glee at the thought of imposing such a tax on his subjects in the colonies.

      Adding insult to injury, the NHDRA claims that there is no separate view tax in New Hampshire. It is illegal. The DRA insists that it is a “view factor”, not a “view tax.” This is mere semantics. It makes no difference to any property owner, whether it is called a “view factor”, “view assessment” or “view tax”. The unalterable fact is that starting in 2005, the view’s assessed value is shown on a separate line on the tax assessment card, and it is assigned a very specific monetary value, which immediately translates into a higher property tax. Ergo, it is a view tax, period.

     Arbitrarily assigning an exact monetary value to a view that will vary widely depending on which assessor is doing the evaluating and what kind of a day it is, is wrong. It’s Un-American, and if it isn’t illegal and unconstitutional, it certainly ought to be.

    

Read more

A view on the economy from an ordinary guy in central NH…

 

Please note that while I don’t claim to be an economist, I have enough of an understanding of basic economic theory to know that we face some clear dangers if we are not careful.

It is easy to see on the one hand that things in certain sectors seem pretty much unchanged. Some businesses appear to be functioning at or near normal levels, while others, less so. Many folks believe that after a period of time, things will bounce back the way they usually do. This leads to, for most I’d bet, token belt-tightening. “Sure, things are tough,” they say, “but not for me. I’ll cut back a little and wait and see what happens.” Believe me, I hope that this is indeed the case—that we’re simply in a wrinkle that will soon iron itself out.

But on the other hand, what happens if, despite the relative health of those businesses with plenty of work and people that still have money, other forces come together to destroy even that? Then what?

I maintain that a good chunk of the current economic drawdown and cutbacks is nothing more than the natural cycle of the marketplace, with ups and downs being the so-called correcting factors that ultimately keep things in balance. What seems to have made things different in this latest go-around, however, is that it was greatly exacerbated by too much credit issued that in another time would have been denied. People were buying stuff—lots of it, including cars and houses—on credit that they should have never been given, because they could never realistically pay it back. And now, banks and other lending institutions are left holding the proverbial bag.

While nobody decried the good times as they lasted, the market was producing an excess of goods and houses that created a “bubble” that expanded far and above the norm. The natural result was that the economy of nearly the whole world ended up growing to fill it, and, when the end came, well, we’ve seen the results with the further cutting of manufacturing jobs, joined in full force by the former denizens of the overheated construction industry. There is much truth to the old adage, “what goes up, must come down.” I have always believed that—perhaps it’s the cynic in me, but I’ve yet to really see it otherwise. Sadly for those very real people whose lives are affected, this is the normal cycle of life. Thankfully, history further tells us that things must also go up. The big question, then, is how long?

 

Read more

Ron Paul on “stimulus”

While he tends to lose me on some aspects of the war against Islamofascism, Ron Paul nails it when it comes to the present economic situation. Says Congressman Paul in a Youtube video for CampaignForLiberty.com, "Free markets work. Property rights work. Capitalism works. It’s not the fault of capitalism and sound money that brought us to … Read more

Every dollar’s sacred. Every cent is good…

Well, it took a few years, but Governor Lynch has finally acknowledged that if something isn’t done about spending at the state level, we will finally reach a true crisis point. Since he is still somewhat surprisingly committed in his opposition to new broad-based taxes here in the Granite State, what other choice does he have? Because of the revenue streams as they are presently structured, there is a limit to how much government can grow—which is exactly the point. With people writing actual checks to the government, whether to pay taxation on real property, business profits, interest dividends, or the meals and rooms tax, they are more keenly aware of how much monies they turn over than if they paid 52 weekly installments via their paychecks. In this atmosphere, it is much more difficult to ratchet up spending, as it is experienced in a more direct fashion. When politicians do so, therefore, it leaves them more vulnerable to angry public reactions. This is the essence of our smaller, slightly more limited government here in New Hampshire.

At least that’s the way it is at the state level. And with the economy in the tank as it is at present, causing the rosy revenue projections upon which the existing state budget is based —as crafted by the Democratic majority—to be way off the mark, spending MUST be reduced. And certainly, like in the “real world” of the private sector, this means reducing the number one driver of costs: payroll. As reported last Friday by the AP,

“Gov. John Lynch says layoffs will be unavoidable in the budget he is preparing for the next two years. Lynch said Thursday he is looking at every dollar the state spends to determine what spending is necessary and what services can be cut or delayed. He said some state programs will be eliminated which means there will be layoffs.”

What other choice does the Governor have? With unionized state employees unwilling to forego this year’s raises of over five percent, he has few other options. Oh sure, there have been other cuts passed, such as yesterday’s $16 million round of reductions passed by the NH House, but that still leaves the budget with a huge deficit hole to be filled –by some estimates, $65 million by the year’s fiscal end on June 30. With personnel being among the largest cost drivers in any budget, there is no other alternative.

It’s too bad, however, that when it comes to lesser level government down the food chain, the attendant “leaders” and their usual water carriers and cheerleaders can’t follow Lynch’s example.

 

Read more

With all eyes on Obama, closer to home, the spending continues apace..

.. Most regular readers are probably not surprised to hear that many people I’ve come in contact with in the last couple of days have all asked me the same question: “So Doug, how do you feel about the new President?” And of course, some ask it in a truly compassionate and sympathetic way while … Read more

Manna from Heaven, perhaps, but no dollars…

In your dreams… It is no secret that Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta is one of our favorite Republican leaders in the state. While others pay lip service to the basic tenets of the Party’s platform that includes fiscal restraint, Guinta is actually putting such notions into practice, noting, "We’re not here to fleece the taxpayers." … Read more

2 “Bailout” Proposals we could support: A 30% marginal rate cut, or a “tax holiday”

I cannot help but feel uneasy about the federal government doling out tax dollars like there’s no tomorrow to people who have already demonstrated a failure to adapt and change within their chosen marketplace. It is said that the definition of lunacy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  The same goes for giving people money in the face of future high risk of failure. If the private sector– either through loans or outright purchase offers– fails to demonstrate interest in a business entity, why should the government, in the name of its shareholder/taxpayers, be any different?

I have come to the belief that the only true way to “stimulate” the economy without building more credit debt (adding more levels to the “house of cards” that has been the economy to a certain extent) is by doing it with “real” money. And the only “real” money, when you stop and think about it, is what one has in hand. Instead of printing money–setting the stage for inflation– or taking even more from working and investing Americans and giving it to who Congress and its influence peddlers see fit, how about if they instead simply let working people keep more of what they make each and every week for a period of time?

Take a look at your pay stub. Compare the “gross” pay versus the “net”– your take-home portion. Do the simple subtraction and just imagine what you could do if you were allowed to keep a substantial portion of the difference.

Instead of Senator Windbag taking your money, or mortgaging your great-grandchildren’s futures, and giving it to his favorite banker buddies so they may continue their lavish “hot-tubs and champagne” lifestyles, wouldn’t it be nice to instead use it to purchase something you’ve long wanted? Rather than send that sizeable chunk of your paycheck to states, cities, and counties that refuse to eliminate waste, your money, spent as YOU see fit might be just the “stimulating” boost the manufacturer and retailer of your desired product needs.

Why, given the right incentive, some people might decide to save a little for a down payment on a house or that shiny new Chevy truck that catches their eye in the lot of the neighborhood dealer. Who knows? But one thing’s for certain– more money, if people were allowed to keep more of their “gross” weekly earnings– would be instantly and immediately moving around. Some people might pay off debt, thus infusing badly needed dollars to cash-strapped lending institutions. And yes, some others might simply SAVE the money for future needs- nothing wrong with that, either—and would that not help banks, too? 

The bottom line is that the more the free wheels of the economy spin while satisfying the needs and desires of people with cash, the more it should rise. And you don’t have to take my word for it, all you have to do is take a look back to some fairly recent history, and let it be your guide. I’m talking, of course, about the Reagan era—that brief moment in time when we truly were a “shining city on a hill.” Rather than “redistributing the wealth,” prosperity happened for many people who, following years of high taxation, got to keep more of the fruits of their labor. And, like wildfire, the newly kept dollars made their way across the economy. Oh, and we managed to win the Cold War during that time as well.

To that end, I have discovered two possibilities that could go a long way towards reinvigorating the Reagan economy’s successes.

 

Read more

The gig is up… Will Strafford County be able to do what Belknap County could not?

In what is an interesting rerun of events already taking place here in Belknap County, Fosters.com is reporting that the Strafford County Commissioners are proposing cuts of funding for most of the so-called "outside agencies" it presently supports. The county will cease funding several programs it has provided partial funding to for several years, including … Read more

Reagan 2.0 The Petition. Tell Congress: No bailouts! Tax rate cuts! Bring Prosperity Back.

Ronald Reagan

Just got this. Even though there are some things to like about Obama’s 310 billion dollar tax cut proposal, I like the following idea from William Collier better:

Remember 1980?

The Dow Jones Industrial Average at 759. Less than 10% of its current value.

The unemployment rate around 7%. Almost 40% higher than today.

Inflation rate? 13%. Around triple of today’s.

A misery index of 20%. More than double today’s.

In the White House: Jimmy Carter. Hectoring America for its “malaise.”

Then what happened? We elected Ronald Reagan president.

Reagan cut the income tax rate 30% across the board. And stood behind Paul Volcker’s strengthening the dollar.

What happened next? Prosperity happened.

America took off and never looked back. Now, looking back, we remember the recipe for Prosperity. We appreciate the need to assist ordinary citizens in their time of hardship. The best way to do that is by using the bailout money to bring back Prosperity.

The $700 billion appropriated for bailouts more than covers the costs of A renewed 30% across-the-board tax rate cut. AND a payroll tax cut.

We know this works. We did it before. It worked. It will work.

Reagan 2.0: a 30% across-the board tax cut. And a payroll tax cut.

Sign this petition for Congress. Make your voice heard now. No bailouts! Tax rate cuts! Bring Prosperity Back.

The Petition To the Congress of the United States of America:

Read more

Democrats “ruining” our state… Really?

Today’s Laconia Daily Sun reports on it’s front page that a legislator (a Republican from Hollis) has filed legislation on behalf of the Marine Patrol effectively doubling registration fees (New Hampshireese for "tax") for all boats and vessels in NH. Reporter Michael Kitch notes that the head of the Marine Patrol hastened to stress that … Read more

Self Government in Danger?

The following guest post is by Americans for Limited Government’s Bill Wilson, who also supplied the cartoon. The City of Concord does not want its residents—or those of any other city in New Hampshire—to be allowed to vote to limit taxes and spending. That is the real truth. It is the only real reason the … Read more

New Hampshire Advantage Coalition Vows to Fight for Tax Cap

Our friends at the NH Advantage Coalition forwarded their reaction to the news that the City of Concord wants the Courts involved in the successfully petitioned tax cap proposal: Concord, NH-Despite being reviewed and approved by 3 state agencies, and the ballot group who put the initiative up for referendum bending over backwards to oblige the … Read more

Share to...
BufferCopyFlipboardHacker NewsLineLinkedInMastodonMessengerMixPinterestPrintRedditSMSTelegramTumblrVKWhatsAppXingYummly