By Mark Brighten and Ramona Charland
We are a truly blessed nation. The bountiful nature of this blessing is very easy to quantify. It is not done in quarterly reports or gross national product. The amount of blessing is directly proportional to the amount of navel gazing that a society does.
Every morning there are those who get out of bed and immediately stick their index fingers into their navels and starting whirling them about. Within a half hour they are stunned to realize that their bellybuttons are sore and they continue whirling, hoping to find the reason.
The latest objects of navel gazing are global warming and its cousin, sustainability. We never have been able to embrace the concept of human induced global warming as the beginning of the end. We are beginning to envy our early 17th century forbearers. They only had to worry about malnutrition, rickets, scurvy and hideous wasting deaths. All of which are a minor inconvenience when put up against a global warming lecture delivered by Al Gore.
But sustainability is interesting. In the interest of full disclosure, we ourselves have embraced this latest form of navel gazing wholeheartedly. The geek rating of sustainability is very high and we are self-admitted geeks. In addition we have assumed the necessary level of guilt to carry us through.
We are as green as green can be. We soak our clothes in baking soda on Friday and then walk them down to the Piscataqua's edge on Saturday and beat them on rocks. We bathe only on Saturday nights in anticipation of Sunday services. We have painted the roof of our house white, compost our toilet paper and turned off our central heat. On our 80-by-50-foot patch of prime Portsmouth real estate we grow sufficient crops for all our food and for weaving cloth. Like the Amish, we have reverted to horse and buggy, minus the horse. Some of the aforementioned cloth we have made into a sail and go about shopping on windy days.
Our carbon footprint is so low that we would embarrass a gnat, or so we thought. A new book has completely turned our world on end. Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale have a book out called "Time to Eat the Dog." The basic premise is that pets, dogs in particular, have a rather large carbon pawprint. "The eco-pawprint of a dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometers (6,214 miles) a year," according to these researchers. Since the typical American drives about 12,000 miles per year, this means one dog equals one SUV.
Upon reading this, our guilt level rose and the conflicted feelings began. We have a dog — all 24 pounds of her. We saw her picture in the paper as "Pet off the Week," drove to the Stratham shelter and fell in love. She was a Katrina survivor and had been in and out of kennels for 18 months, from Alabama through Ohio and then Stratham. Who could resist those eyes? We took her home and for three years she has resided contentedly with us. Now we find that we are guilty of perpetuating an ecological disaster.
Everywhere you turn in Portsmouth you will see an SUV with a golden lab in it. These profligates are doubly sinning. If our average-sized dog is equivalent to an SUV, these golden labs must be the same as a Sherman tank. And what does that say for the Newfie or Rottweiler? Are they equivalent to a Saturn rocket? Or perhaps they are equal to the size of Al Gore's SUV fleet and personal jet? In their defense, we would suggest that either type, at least, is far less somniferous than one of Al Gore's speeches.
Dogs are not the only ones on the hook. Cats apparently do as much eco-damage as a Volkswagen Golf. The villainous hamster takes up as much eco room as half a plasma TV. And just to raise the guilt level even more, the average human in a developed nation wreaks the havoc of six dogs.
Professors Vale and Vale are not actually advocating serving Fido for Thanksgiving. Annihilating the canine world to save some rare newt that no one has ever met defies all logic and is just plain stupid, but we can think of any number of activists who have already chosen the newt over humans. What passes for serious thought among true believers must now include canis familiaris along with humans as modern-day scurvy, rickets and wasting death for the planet. Another point of view, however, is that true believers are sucking sanity out of the planet and putting it at the mercy of a plague of hysteria. It's a working hypothesis.
We have reconsidered this carbon footprint thing. We are turning the heat back on and Fido stays.
Mark Brighton and Ramona Charland are residents of Portsmouth.
11.03.2009
11.01.2009
Business taxes hurt the economy.
By John Stephen
At the tax summit held by the New Hampshire Legislature last week, one critical nugget stood out. Scott Hodge, president of the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, offered tremendous caution about our business tax climate.
With New Hampshire's high 8.5 percent business profits tax coupled with a business enterprise tax, our state has one of the highest business taxes in the nation. This, in part, results in nearly 16 percent of our workforce working out of state, the third highest rate nationally.
Our low personal taxes are bringing people here to live, but our high business taxes are forcing people to work elsewhere. If we want a thriving economy with robust job growth to match our outstanding quality of life, we must get our business tax structure to look more like how we tax people: as little as possible.
While we learned at last week's tax summit that we need to cut business taxes to jumpstart our economy, it was this week's spending summit that we must focus on to make reducing taxes a reality. As Gov. Meldrim Thomson said over 30 years ago, "Low taxes are the result of low spending."
We can't have a serious discussion about cutting business taxes until we are prepared to do the hard work to cut spending and make New Hampshire government run efficiently.
Traveling across the country, I have had the opportunity to see what does and doesn't work. New Hampshire is falling behind every day as other states zoom by us, implementing best practices taken from the private sector, while our state government sits idle and maintains the status quo.
We need to employ a culture of change where we start treating taxpayer money as we would our own. For example, we need to stop tying the hands of our state department heads by requiring that they submit budgets that keep doing things exactly the same way we have always done them. This leads to the "tyranny of custom" that ruins new ideas. We should require them to use their knowledge and experience and come forward with good ideas to save money for the taxpayers through the budget process.
We also need to follow the lead of 43 other states and give New Hampshire's governor line-item veto authority to cut wasteful spending and make budgets more efficient. At the same time, we should take the lead of Louisiana and put all state expenditures online, so people can see exactly where their tax dollars are going.
Other states, like New York and Wisconsin, have moved to consolidate business functions, like human resources, finance and purchasing, while New Hampshire continues to operate inefficiently. Texas and Oregon have become leaders in bringing Medicaid costs down by implementing aggressive managed care for beneficiaries, while we have kept an outdated fee-for-service model. Indiana has created a balanced scorecard approach to management to set program benchmarks and eliminate services that can't produce results; we have done nothing but give taxpayers more government, regardless of how effective it is.
These are critical steps that could save hundreds of millions of dollars and allow us to give tax relief to New Hampshire companies that would let them grow and create jobs, which are so critical in today's economy.
If we could just play catch-up with the rest of the states, we would be able to get out of this recession faster and better than our neighbors. If New Hampshire could then take the next step and become a leader in state innovation, we would be the envy of the country in growth.
John Stephen was the Commissioner of Health and Human Services from 2003 to 2007.
At the tax summit held by the New Hampshire Legislature last week, one critical nugget stood out. Scott Hodge, president of the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, offered tremendous caution about our business tax climate.
With New Hampshire's high 8.5 percent business profits tax coupled with a business enterprise tax, our state has one of the highest business taxes in the nation. This, in part, results in nearly 16 percent of our workforce working out of state, the third highest rate nationally.
Our low personal taxes are bringing people here to live, but our high business taxes are forcing people to work elsewhere. If we want a thriving economy with robust job growth to match our outstanding quality of life, we must get our business tax structure to look more like how we tax people: as little as possible.
While we learned at last week's tax summit that we need to cut business taxes to jumpstart our economy, it was this week's spending summit that we must focus on to make reducing taxes a reality. As Gov. Meldrim Thomson said over 30 years ago, "Low taxes are the result of low spending."
We can't have a serious discussion about cutting business taxes until we are prepared to do the hard work to cut spending and make New Hampshire government run efficiently.
Traveling across the country, I have had the opportunity to see what does and doesn't work. New Hampshire is falling behind every day as other states zoom by us, implementing best practices taken from the private sector, while our state government sits idle and maintains the status quo.
We need to employ a culture of change where we start treating taxpayer money as we would our own. For example, we need to stop tying the hands of our state department heads by requiring that they submit budgets that keep doing things exactly the same way we have always done them. This leads to the "tyranny of custom" that ruins new ideas. We should require them to use their knowledge and experience and come forward with good ideas to save money for the taxpayers through the budget process.
We also need to follow the lead of 43 other states and give New Hampshire's governor line-item veto authority to cut wasteful spending and make budgets more efficient. At the same time, we should take the lead of Louisiana and put all state expenditures online, so people can see exactly where their tax dollars are going.
Other states, like New York and Wisconsin, have moved to consolidate business functions, like human resources, finance and purchasing, while New Hampshire continues to operate inefficiently. Texas and Oregon have become leaders in bringing Medicaid costs down by implementing aggressive managed care for beneficiaries, while we have kept an outdated fee-for-service model. Indiana has created a balanced scorecard approach to management to set program benchmarks and eliminate services that can't produce results; we have done nothing but give taxpayers more government, regardless of how effective it is.
These are critical steps that could save hundreds of millions of dollars and allow us to give tax relief to New Hampshire companies that would let them grow and create jobs, which are so critical in today's economy.
If we could just play catch-up with the rest of the states, we would be able to get out of this recession faster and better than our neighbors. If New Hampshire could then take the next step and become a leader in state innovation, we would be the envy of the country in growth.
John Stephen was the Commissioner of Health and Human Services from 2003 to 2007.
10.27.2009
The good, the bad, and the ugly!
By State Senator Jeb Bradley
A Little Good News, Some Mixed News But Even More Bad News in Concord: 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.
NH’s unemployment rate just jumped to 7.2% which means nearly 25,000 people have lost jobs this year. As bleak as that is, the national numbers are worse --- much worse. Since the federal stimulus legislation was enacted in February, 2.7 million Americans have lost their jobs and the national unemployment rate is at a 26 year high of 9.8%. The human toll of these numbers is staggering for individuals, families and businesses struggling to stay afloat.
Some pundits have tried to argue that things are getting better as only 263,000 Americans lost their jobs in September vs. 741,000 in January. While true, any signs that employers may be thinking of adding jobs in the future is at odds with the evidence. Job losses continue, while overtime and the average length of the work week both fell. Employers don’t need to hire anytime soon and consumer spending which drives our economy continues its retreat.
So NH Legislators who voted for huge spending increases --- not to mention the property tax hikes from cost shifting and 61 additional tax and fee hikes in the last two budgets --- are desperately praying for a rebound in the economy to produce the revenue they need to balance their budget. Voters should not hold their breath waiting for miracles.
Instead what Democratic Legislative Leaders are planning is a TAX SUMMIT to discuss new and innovative ways to separate taxpayers from their hard earned dollars. Will these leaders recommend an income tax, a sales tax, a tax on mortgage refinancing, an entertainment tax, or new levies on New Hampshire businesses? Every one of these taxes or others could be on the table at a time that 53,330 New Hampshire people are out of work.
After hiking spending 23% in the last two budgets, raising property taxes and 61 other tax and fee hikes one would think that Democratic Legislative Leaders appetite for new and varied taxes would be satiated. Most NH voters are shaking their heads wondering if a SUMMIT to REDUCE SPENDING is too much to ask for. Isn't it time for the Democrats to turn off the tax hike spigot and focus on fiscal discipline?
As tough as things are for families and businesses across NH, they will get much worse if taxes continue to climb to meet revenue shortfalls.
A Little Good News, Some Mixed News But Even More Bad News in Concord: 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.
NH’s unemployment rate just jumped to 7.2% which means nearly 25,000 people have lost jobs this year. As bleak as that is, the national numbers are worse --- much worse. Since the federal stimulus legislation was enacted in February, 2.7 million Americans have lost their jobs and the national unemployment rate is at a 26 year high of 9.8%. The human toll of these numbers is staggering for individuals, families and businesses struggling to stay afloat.
Some pundits have tried to argue that things are getting better as only 263,000 Americans lost their jobs in September vs. 741,000 in January. While true, any signs that employers may be thinking of adding jobs in the future is at odds with the evidence. Job losses continue, while overtime and the average length of the work week both fell. Employers don’t need to hire anytime soon and consumer spending which drives our economy continues its retreat.
So NH Legislators who voted for huge spending increases --- not to mention the property tax hikes from cost shifting and 61 additional tax and fee hikes in the last two budgets --- are desperately praying for a rebound in the economy to produce the revenue they need to balance their budget. Voters should not hold their breath waiting for miracles.
Instead what Democratic Legislative Leaders are planning is a TAX SUMMIT to discuss new and innovative ways to separate taxpayers from their hard earned dollars. Will these leaders recommend an income tax, a sales tax, a tax on mortgage refinancing, an entertainment tax, or new levies on New Hampshire businesses? Every one of these taxes or others could be on the table at a time that 53,330 New Hampshire people are out of work.
After hiking spending 23% in the last two budgets, raising property taxes and 61 other tax and fee hikes one would think that Democratic Legislative Leaders appetite for new and varied taxes would be satiated. Most NH voters are shaking their heads wondering if a SUMMIT to REDUCE SPENDING is too much to ask for. Isn't it time for the Democrats to turn off the tax hike spigot and focus on fiscal discipline?
As tough as things are for families and businesses across NH, they will get much worse if taxes continue to climb to meet revenue shortfalls.
10.21.2009
The Road to an Income Tax
By James E. Rivers
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.
James E. Rivers
House Republican Office
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.
James E. Rivers
House Republican Office
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)