Social Security: If The Rich Paid Taxes Like You And Me...Problem Solved

by: fake consultant

Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 00:18:32 AM EST

Today we take on another bite-sized chunk of economic analysis: how can you get to a situation where Social Security is financially stable for the next 75 years?

We'll describe some proposals that are out there-but the big focus of this conversation will be to look at one change that, all by itself, could not only solve the entire funding problem, but could actually allow us to lower the Social Security tax rate, immediately, and still achieve fiscal balance.

"Well, if that's such a bright idea" you might ask, "why haven't we adopted it already?"

That's a great question-and after you hear the proposal, you may well have explanations of your own.

Some good news: Governor says "State Budget Surplus Hits $70 Million"

by: TimothyHorrigan

Mon Oct 04, 2010 at 13:30:24 PM EDT

$20 million of the surplus comes from larger than expected lapses: the last budget anticipated $23.6M in lapses, but there were $44M.  Lapses are money which is appropriated but not spent when (for example) a worker leaves his or her job and the state doesn't have to pay the salary while a replacement is being recruited.

Doublespeak Doesn't Make a Lot of Sense in Plain English

by: Gary Patton

Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 15:15:06 PM EDT

"Mr. Hoodwinker says that he's going to lower government spending and reduce the deficit. Republicans always make this claim. Somehow, it doesn't necessarily turn out that way. During the George W. Bush administration, the Republican president initiated two unfunded wars and an unfunded Medicare prescription benefit. As a result, both spending and the deficit shot through the roof."

"Presently, the GOP fervently opposes the health care reform law, even though the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office affirms that the new reforms will save $143 billion over the next 10 years."

"Aha, now Mr. Hoodwinker is upping the bet; now he is saying that he will both lower your taxes and the deficit at the same time. That's going to be quite a trick. The Bush tax cuts, enacted in 2001, are designed to expire at the end of this year. President Obama wants to keep them for middle class folks; individuals earning less than $200,000 per year and couples making less than $250,000. That's 98 percent of Americans. He claims that during this economic downturn, the middle class will immediately spend the money on necessities - food, clothing, shelter, and schooling. By spending money right away, the middle class will stimulate the economy and create jobs."

"In addition, Republicans want to keep the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent. However, wealthy people don't undertake new business ventures in a stagnant economy. They play it safe, and invest their extra money in their portfolios. No jobs are created that way. Moreover, keeping the tax cuts for the wealthy will deprive the federal government of revenue and increase the deficit by $31 billion a year."

"Don't pity the rich. Federal taxes on the wealthy are the lowest they've been in 60 years. In 1944, the top tax bracket was 94 percent, and it remained above 82 percent until 1964. Ronald Reagan cut taxes, but only to 69 percent for the top bracket. The Bush tax cuts helped lower the top rate to 35 percent, but deprived the federal government of so much revenue that the deficit exploded. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse for the top 2 percent would push their rate from 35 percent to 39.5 percent, not exactly a death blow. I don't think I'll see them rummaging through dumpsters. Well, I digress. Let's go back to Mr. Hoodwinker's speech."

"Mr. Hoodwinker claims that the Republicans are long-time and true friends of small businesses. As the old saying goes, 'with friends like that, who needs enemies.' The New York Times reports that Republicans have voted against eight new tax cuts for small businesses so far this year and they called for the repeal of small-business tax cuts in the healthcare bill."

"Mr. Hoodwinker says that, if elected, Republicans will get things done. That doesn't pass muster with me. Republicans in the Senate blocked 335 bills that were first passed by the House. Republicans used the filibuster rule 223 times in the Senate to prevent legislation from coming to an up-or-down vote. Funny, that sounds like obstruction, not progress, to me. That's The Party of No bringing the legislative process to a halt."

"Now, Mr. Hoodwinker is claiming that if he is elected, he will be an independent voice for New Hampshire. No party bosses will tell him what to do. Well, in order for a minority of 178 Republicans in the House and 41 Republicans in the Senate to stop all that legislation, they often voted as a bloc. No dissenters were allowed. Everyone followed the party leader's orders or else."

"In a large number of votes, Republicans unanimously opposed bills. If they didn't play follow the leader, members were punished - bad office locations, poor parking spots, undesirable committee assignments, no monetary contributions from party sources. They went along to get along. The idea that a Republican legislator will be an independent voice in Congress, that is, is free to do as he or she pleases, is sheer nonsense."

"Oh, you're wondering why the things Mr. Hoodwinker is saying differ so much from what I say. Well, sometimes things don't translate very well from one language to another. Things Republicans say in Doublespeak just don't make a lot of sense in plain English."

This column first appeared in The Forum. It appears here with the permission of The Forum.

Inconvenient Truths: Taxes, Deficits and the Republican Line

by: cliffNH

Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 13:20:30 PM EDT

The fiscal 2010 deficit will be about $1.4 trillion.  Where does it come from?  Not financial bailouts.  TARP (which, it is hard to remember, was enacted under Bush with the full and aggressive support of the entire Republican leadership: McCain, Palin, Boehner, McConnell and Gregg) plus relief to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage companies was actually $32 billion in the black in 2010, thanks to so many banks paying back their loans with interest.  Not the auto industry bailout (which also began under Bush), which is now estimated to cost a total of no more than $12 Billion, and then there is the likelihood that the government will make a big profit from the GM public offering.  Health care reform had a negligible effect on the budget in 2010, and is actually projected to decrease the deficit over time as the cost-cutting measures take force.

The biggest culprit by far is the economic downturn, which cost $455 billion in lost receipts and increased cost of existing safety net programs like unemployment and food stamps.  We can all have opinions as to whether the Republican policies were good or bad, but the fact is that the economy collapsed under Bush's watch, after 8 years of Republican-dominated policy, and has been too slowly but steadily improving  under Obama.

The Bush tax cuts cost $336 billion in 2010 (and by the way, if they are extended, will cost a total of $4.8 Trillion over the next 10 years).  The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $191 Billion, and Bush's Medicare drug plan cost $68 Billion in 2010.  Obama's stimulus packages cost $412 Billion in 2010.  The Republicans all claim it was a failure, but look at the facts:  Often ignored is the fact that the single biggest part of the stimulus (38% overall, a much higher proportion in 2010)) was tax relief - mostly for individuals as payroll tax credits and a reduction in the Alternative Minimum Tax.  And the non-partisan CBO estimates that in the second quarter of calendar year 2010, it raised real  gross GDP by between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent, lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points and put 3.3 million people to work.  Those are calculations based on fact, not political opinion.

So the fact is that without the effects of Bush's economic collapse and the stimulus it fostered, his wars, tax cuts and Medicare expansion, Obama's policies alone would have yielded a budget surplus in 2010.  Even if you argue that the spending part of the stimulus was unnecessary and keep only the tax cuts, they plus the Bush-era economic collapse and programs alone represent about 90% of the deficit.  These are the facts.  It's just arithmetic.  Nothing here to argue with.

Is Obama's spending out of control?  Obama's total 2011 spending proposal is up 3% over 2010.  There are increases in defense, homeland security and energy research.  50% of the remaining departments saw their budgets cut.  By comparison, Ronald Reagan's 1985 budget increased 11%.  G. W. Bush's last budget increase was 18%.  Even his first budget - before 9/11 happened - was up 8%.

What about pork?  What about some perspective.  The total cost of all earmarks in fiscal 2010, from all senators and members of congress combined, was $15.9 Billion.  As bad as they are, earmarks add up to less than one half of one percent of the budget, only 1% of the deficit.  What if we eliminate some of the Tea Party's favorite targets?  Department of Education?  1.3% of the budget.  EPA?  Less than one-third of one percent of the budget.  The fact is that 81% of the budget goes to mandatory programs (social security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt- nothing Obama or the current congress has anything to do with) plus the departments of defense and homeland security, where the Republicans are pushing to spend more, not less.

The total public debt is about $13.4 trillion.  Where did it come from?  Obama has added about $1.5 trillion to it so far.  The total debt was $5.8 trillion before Bush's first budget and $11.9 trillion after his last - so he added $6.1 trillion.  Clinton added $1.4 trillion over 8 years and ended up with a surplus.  Bush 41 added $1.6 Trillion, and Reagan almost tripled the debt from when he took office, adding $1.9 trillion.  So 93% of the debt that has been added in the last 30 years has been added by Republican administrations.  Those are just the facts.

Finally, the Republicans complain that Obama's taxes are too high, and that we should reduce taxes to increase job growth.  There is lots of political opinion, but absolutely no evidence that further tax cuts for the wealthy will spur employment.  Remember that Obama actually decreased taxes substantially in the stimulus, and has proposed decreasing them further on small businesses this year.  In fact, taxes are right now just about as low as they have been in decades.  Throughout the 1950's, the top marginal tax rate was 91%.  By the 70's, it dropped to 70%.  Reagan dropped it to 33%, it was 40% for most of the Clinton years, and it is currently 35%.  Our biggest boom years, under Eisenhower and Clinton, were when taxes were higher, and when taxes were dropped, under Reagan and Bush, we had economic stagnation.  The nonpartisan CBO just analyzed the short-term effects of 11 policy options and found that extending the tax cuts would be the least effective way to spur the economy and reduce unemployment. The report added that tax cuts for high earners would have the smallest "bang for the buck," because wealthy Americans were more likely to save their money than spend it.

I just wonder what the Republican candidates would say if their opinions and rantings were challenged with these facts.  It's unfortunate that we never get to see that.

Cliff Conneighton
Hollis, NH
cliff@conneighton.com

The pain of an old fashioned Republican

by: Lucy Edwards

Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 10:30:48 AM EDT

Shea-Porter Represents Her Constituency

by: Gary Patton

Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:29:18 AM EDT

"Swimmingly, swimmingly, my man," he replied. "Everything is going my way. My errand boys, the Republicans in Congress, are working hard to extend the Bush tax cuts of 2001. If they can do that, because I earn more than $1 million per year, I will save $103,000 in taxes in 2011. Bully!"

"But wait a minute, sir," I responded, "the Bush tax cuts of 2001 were intended to expire in 2011. If they are made permanent for the wealthiest Americans, $36 billion would be added to the deficit in 2011. President Obama has a fairer plan; he would retain the tax cuts for individuals who make less than $200,000 and couples who earn less than $250,000. That's 98 percent of workers. Only the wealthiest 2 percent would be affected by the end of the Bush tax cuts."

"Nobel-winning columnist Paul Krugman wrote," I continued, "according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years." (New York Times, 8/23/10)

Bedford-Amherst turned red with anger. His monocle popped out of his eye. "I take offense, sir. Wealthy people pay unconscionably high taxes. Soak the rich. Soak the rich. It's always the same - the rabble always soaks the rich."

"I beg to differ, sir," I replied. "Do you know that the top tax bracket was 94 percent in 1944, and it remained above 82 percent until 1964? Ronald Reagan cut taxes, but still the top tax bracket was 69 percent during his presidency. (Mutual Funds, March, 2002) The top bracket continued to decline to 35 percent partly as a result of the Bush tax cuts. The end of Bush's tax cuts would increase the top 2 percent's rate only 4.5 points to 39.5 percent, far less than the top bracket has been in the recent past.

Now, Bedford-Amherst was truly annoyed. He impatiently tapped his riding breeches with his crop. "Lord knows, we wealthy people are doing all we can for the lower classes. Our servants, the Republicans in Congress, stoutly maintain that tax cuts for the rich stimulate economic growth."

"Again, sir," I offered, "I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office calculated that each $1 million in tax cuts would create between 1 and 4 additional jobs; compared with 6 to 15 jobs from increasing unemployment assistance; 3 to 9 jobs from providing aid to states, and 4 to 10 jobs from investing in infrastructure. (Washington Post, 7/28/10)

"Moreover," I continued, "when Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve for nearly 20 years, was asked if he agrees with Republicans who say that tax cuts pay for themselves, he said simply, 'They do not.' (Reuters, 8/2/10) If tax cuts were magic stimulators of the economy and generators of tax revenue, then why have the Bush tax cuts of 2001 left the nation with such a huge budget deficit? However, I can see that we don't agree on tax cuts, sir. Can we turn to another topic? Who do you favor in the race for member of Congress from the 1st Congressional District?

"No doubt in my mind," answered Bedford-Amherst, "no doubt at all. I support the Republican candidates - they're from my class you know. According to public records, Shawn Mahoney lists diversified investments valued between $11.4 and $35.6 million; Rich Ashooh earned $391,213 last year as a lobbyist for BAE systems, and has a savings account holding between $100,000 and $250,000. Bob Bestani received $116,835 last year from a pension and consulting fees. Bestani lists investments worth between $726,000 and $1.366,000."

"Finally," Bedford-Amherst went on, "Frank Guinta has between $89,000 and $355,000 invested; owns two properties assessed at a total of $758,700; and has somewhere between $267,000 and $580,000 in savings. The incumbent, Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter? Tut-tut. She's a ragamuffin. Shea-Porter lists savings and investments totaling less than $30,000. Oh, my."

"Excuse me, sir," I responded, "but we have a representative form of government. That is, elected representatives are expected to be like the people they represent. That way, elected officials can understand the problems of their constituents and act effectively in their best interests. Carol Shea-Porter experiences the same economic conditions as the vast majority of people in her district. She has walked a mile in their shoes and knows the challenges they face. Her modest financial condition is an advantage, not a disadvantage."

"One other thing," I added. "As Harry Truman said, 'You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook.' I guess we can be pretty sure that Congresswoman Shea-Porter is honest."

This column first appeared in The Forum. It appears here with the permission of The Forum.

Focus... repeat after me "We don't have a revenue problem"

by: Mike Hoefer

Tue May 11, 2010 at 16:19:32 PM EDT

Federal, state and local taxes - including income, property, sales and other taxes - consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports
USA Today

(Yes, this is Snark)

Jack Kimball says he was raped!

by: rambler american

Mon Apr 19, 2010 at 17:17:14 PM EDT

In Case You Missed It: Numbers Tell the Story on Tax Day of Republican Fiscal Irresponsibility

by: HarrellKirstein

Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 14:11:11 PM EDT

Foster's Daily Democrat: Numbers tell the story on Tax Day

New Hampshire Republicans have expertly spread the myth that their party is the party of fiscal responsibility and low taxes. The problem is that this claim is only that - a myth. The numbers don't lie.

According to the right wing think tank the Tax Foundation, when Republicans are in control in New Hampshire taxes go up. Over the last three decades, when a Republican was in the corner office, taxes increased by an average of 7 percent per person every year.

This is an astronomical sum compared to Gov. Lynch's record of fiscal responsibility and low taxes. Under Gov. Lynch, New Hampshire has the second lowest state tax burden per capita in the country.

And the Republican record on spending is as dismal as their record on keeping taxes low. Cutting general fund spending is something that John Sununu, Judd Gregg, and Craig Benson never did as governor, but it is something Gov. John Lynch has already done. Twice.

Over the past 30 years, Republican governors in New Hampshire have increased spending by an average of 17 percent per biennium - more than double the rate of Democratic governors.

And many of the most prominent members of today's Republican Party are the worst offenders. Current Republican chair and former Governor John H. Sununu increased spending by an average of 22 percent per biennium as governor and left the state budget in deficit.

John Stephen, the leading Republican candidate for Governor, has been just as irresponsible with the state's finances as his mentor John H. Sununu. Stephen asked for a half-billion dollar increase in his budget when he served as Health and Human Services commissioner. Stephen also double-counted revenue, creating a $70 million budget hole, and today the state is facing a federal audit from his years as commissioner.

The New Hampshire Republican Party's lack of fiscal responsibility shouldn't come as a surprise. We've seen the same thing on the federal level. President George W. Bush took the largest surplus in U.S. history and turned it into the largest deficit we have ever seen. He then ignored all the warning signs and drove the economy into the ground creating the worst recession and highest unemployment levels since the Great Depression.

Since the moment he took office President Obama has been working hard to fix these problems. Over the past 14 months, the job market has improved dramatically. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month when Bush left office, but just last month over 160,000 new jobs were created. He's done this while also passing a series of tax cuts targeted to help middle class families and those struggling to stay afloat in these difficult economic times.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included the largest tax cut for the middle class in United States history. It contained 25 individual tax cuts for American families - from the 'Making Work Pay' refundable income tax credit, to the 'American Opportunity' tax credit for education costs, to the giving three quarters of small businesses relief from the Capital Gains Tax. And it was passed despite the support of only three Republicans in the Senate and no Republicans in the House of Representatives.

We can't afford the Republican ideas of fiscal responsibility - turning surpluses into deficit, 22 percent increases in state spending, and taking money away from middle class tax cuts to provide corporate tax breaks. The myth that Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility should end today.

Ray Buckley is the Chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party.
Link: http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100415/GJOPINION_0102/704159765/-1/FOSOPINION

Key Facts on Democrats' Record of Fiscal Responsibility and Republican Recklessness

Nearly all the taxes in New Hampshire were created by Republican governors and Republican legislatures.

Unlike how Democrats are responsibly handling the budget today, in the last major recession Republicans imposed a 3 percent communications services tax, increased the Real Estate Transfer Tax from $4.75 to $6 per thousand, imposed a 2 cent per gallon tax on all motor fuels, plus a $5 process fee for diesel fuel users and hazardous waste transporters.  And these are just a few of the dozens of taxes and fees that were increased that year.

Over the past 30 years Republican governors have increased spending more than twice as much as Democrats.  And more than three times the rate of Governor Lynch.

Republican governors increased spending by an average of 17% compared to less than 8% for Democrats. And 5% for Governor Lynch.

One of the worst offenders is Governor Sununu who increased spending an average of 23% per biennium and almost doubled state spending during his time as Governor, increasing it by 87.2%.

Governor Lynch and Governor Shaheen, have been the two most fiscally responsible governors in New Hampshire history.

Cutting general fund spending is something that John Sununu, Judd Gregg, and Craig Benson never did as governor, but it is something Gov. John Lynch has already done. Twice.

New Hampshire has the fourth lowest spending of any state government per capita.  And New Hampshire's current tax burden ranks 5th lowest in the nation, 3.1% lower than the national average.

Under Democratic Leadership Granite Staters get the best bang for their buck.  New Hampshire is the safest state in the nation according to the FBI, ranks among the top five states in key measures of reading and math, New Hampshire is the number one place to raise a family according to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, and CQ Press Ranked New Hampshire as the most livable state in the nation for the fifth year in a row.

President Obama and Democrats in Congress cut individuals' federal tax bills for this year by approximately $173 billion. And over the life of the Recovery Act, Americans can expect to save around $300 billion in taxes.  Families are receiving record tax refunds - on average $266 more than last year.

John Stephen's Record of Fiscal Incompetence

During his five years at the Department of Safety, that agency's budget more than doubled,  increasing 103 percent - or over 12 percent a year.

In 2004, in his first budget as Health and Human Services Commissioner, John Stephen asked for an 11 percent increase in general funds.  
Just weeks before the budget was to be presented to the legislature in 2005, John Stephen confessed that he had double-counted $70 million in federal funds - opening up a huge new hole in his department's budget.

In his second budget as Health and Human Services commissioner, John Stephen requested a 13 percent increase in his budget.  

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the Inspector General is demanding the state repay $35 million from 2004, claiming improper use of federal funds during the time John Stephen was commissioner.  

Former Republican Congressman and current state senator, Jeb Bradley called John Stephen, a "big spending bureaucrat."

(Posted by Harrell Kirstein, deputy press secretary for the New Hampshire Democratic Party.)

Looting - UPDATED

by: bloomingpol

Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 20:11:42 PM EST

First

The Roadmap would give the most affluent households a new round of very large, costly tax cuts by reducing income tax rates on high-income households; eliminating income taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest; and abolishing the corporate income tax, the estate tax, and the alternative minimum tax. At the same time, the Ryan plan would raise taxes for most middle-income families, privatize a substantial portion of Social Security, eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance, end traditional Medicare and most of Medicaid, and terminate the Children's Health Insurance Program. The plan would replace these health programs with a system of vouchers whose value would erode over time and thus would purchase health insurance that would cover fewer health care services as the years went by.

"To Hell With the Kids"

by: bloomingpol

Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 16:35:01 PM EST

Driving America off a Cliff with Ryan's Republican Roadmap

by: Jennifer Daler

Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 14:24:52 PM EST

TPM's Christina Bellantoni

The roadmap has a GOP grab-bag of tax cuts, eliminating capital gains taxes, interest income taxes, the alternative minimum tax and estate tax Republicans dubbed the "death" tax. It also increases the standard deduction for tax filers.

It also eliminates the top three tax brackets for the wealthy.

"These are very, very dramatic changes in the tax code ... likely to lose a tremendous amount of revenue," said Jim Horney, director of federal fiscal policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBBP).

It tries to replace these with an 8.5 % "consumption tax", which according to Bellantoni, experts have said would increase the burden to the lower and middle classes by taxing all goods and services. Also, the revenue raised by this tax would not offset the revenue lost by the tax cuts.

CNN Explains its Own Poll

by: Dean Barker

Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 05:47:31 AM EST

Nearly three out of four Americans think that at least half of the money spent in the federal stimulus plan has been wasted, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday morning also indicates that 63 percent of the public thinks that projects in the plan were included for purely political reasons and will have no economic benefit, with 36 percent saying those projects will benefit the economy.

Indeed, the largest single item in the package--$288 billion--is tax relief for 95% of the American public. This money is that magical $60 to $80 per month you've been finding in your paycheck since last spring. Not a life changing amount, but helpful in paying the bills.

...It is very difficult to have a democracy without citizens. It is impossible to be a citizen if you don't make an effort to understand the most basic activities of your government. It is very difficult to thrive in an increasingly competitive world if you're a nation of dodos.

But political analyst Jennifer Donahue thought the [SOTU] speech was "very underwhelming."

...Donahue said the speech would have resonated better if it focused more on "tax cuts that have teeth" instead of deficit reduction over the next 10-20 years.

The NH Advantage! (Only for the Richest 1%, That Is)

by: Dean Barker

Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 18:29:15 PM EST

Poorer people pay more in New Hampshire.

...According to the study, New Hampshire families earning less than $25,000 pay 8.3 percent of their income in state and local taxes.

...The top 1 percent of earners, making more than $480,000, pay 2 percent.

Sunday Columns: Benson Protege Ayotte, Taxes, Vetoes, and More!

by: Jennifer Daler

Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 08:26:57 AM EDT

Fahey opens with a report on unemployment benefits. The amount the state pays out will be higher, due to higher unemployment. Employers will also have to pay more into the system in 2010, while laid off employees will have to wait a week to collect.

Landrigan was following the money this morning. The link between Kelly Ayotte and the epic-failure- as-Governor Craig Benson was brought into focus. Well, he did give her her start as AG, which is her platform for her Senate run.

Reporting that most of Ayotte's money was raised from out of state political PACS, many donors have already maxed out, and much of her money can only be used in the general (optimistic!), Landrigan writes:

There was barely a member of the extended Benson-allied family (read campaign $$$) whom Ayotte missed in her maiden fundraising voyage.

Landrigan goes on to list them.

Ghost of Meldrim Makes Appearance in NHDP Strategy

by: Dean Barker

Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 06:03:13 AM EDT

"When beginning any discussion, letter to the editor, or interview with a reporter, House members need to first frame the debate using the following terms:

'In these tough economic times, House Democrats have worked hard to create jobs and fix our economy without a broad-based tax.'"

Brunelle says that "voters care about representatives that are going to do everything they can to better our current economic conditions without implementing a broad-based tax. Thus far, the House Democratic Caucus has done just that. Also, if nothing else is printed in a newspaper other than our lead point, we win."

Someday.

Adding: an interesting general question for state or national matters.  If one's party controls the executive branch, does the party's strategy reflect the executive's policy? If policy began to shift on, say, Afghanistan, among the US House in sizable numbers away from POTUS, what does the DNC do?

The Tax Cutting Mayor of Manchester

by: Dean Barker

Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 21:44:32 PM EDT

Let me see if I can get this right:

* Mayor Guinta is present at bar during brawl.  Man in bar gets leg broken in seven places.  Mayor fails to talk to the authorities until days later. Bad national press.

* Candidate Guinta, paraded as a top tier pickup by the NRCC, can't break six digits in his first fundraising quarter, and has to front his own campaign 20K just to get over that hurdle.  The UL does its best to spin it as a great quarter, but the national political press notices the lackluster progress.

* Frank Guinta fails to pay his tax bill... again.  (This is not the first time this has happened!)

* Team Guinta responds, in part:

The Mayor paid his bill before the Democrats even thought of making this false charge, so perhaps they should check their facts

* Kathy asks for some clarification about what exactly is the false charge, and we get a more revealing story:

The bill was paid in full yesterday, prior to today's attacks and prior to us having or knowledge they were imminent. It amounted to nothing more than a simple oversight that was corrected. I am sure most families can relate to this type of occurrence.

Now earlier in the day, I asked the NHDP if they had screenshots of the deliquent tax bills. They did, and they sent them along to me with the additional information that that's how they looked "this morning."  The screenshots are below the fold, with tax id and address redacted (even though the Manchester tax records are a matter of public record, and Google-able).

The screenshots are to underscore the delinquency date, April 23, 2009. If it became delinquent at that time, how long in total was the bill overdue before then?

Here's the thing: Team Guinta claims this is a "simple oversight" that "most families can relate to." It's true! There are times when, even with the best intentions, bills don't get paid for one reason or another, including, yes, simple oversights.

However, I don't know any families that leave tax bills to go delinquent for several months while at the same time loaning 20,000 dollars to one's own campaign.

If those are the kind of spending priorities we can expect from a Congressman Guinta (added to the kind of accountability we can expect from him through the lens of the bar brawl incident), New Hampshire's choice in 2010 ought to be crystal clear for Carol Shea-Porter, perhaps the most genuine, modest, and pennywise person I've ever had the good fortune to meet.

VNews Editorial on "The New Hampshire Disadvantage"

by: Dean Barker

Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 10:17:26 AM EDT

The $11.5 billion two-year spending plan, which takes effect July 1, exemplifies what happens when a state has no place to turn for revenue because it refuses to adopt an equitable, broad-based tax. Not only do programs and services suffer; the hunt for alternative revenue sources becomes an exercise in desperation, bordering at times on absurdity. Call it the New Hampshire Disadvantage.

...The bottom line: Even with new fees and taxes, the 2010-2011 budget relies heavily on non-tax revenue to pay for vital programs, including K-12 education...

...The use of one-time revenue sources is an old trick. But old tricks won't solve the state's structural deficit. What will lawmakers do next time around?

Nine Modest Taxation Propsals

by: robsprague

Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 16:48:58 PM EDT

The New Hampshire Senate has decided that by placing 13,000 slot machines in three race tracks and by skimming 49% off the top of the take, $205,000,000 of the State's budget shortfall will go away.  It's an insider's game of course, with the usual cabal of silk-suited lobbyists greasing their way around the State House, successfully pushing the Senate to a 16-8 vote in favor of the slots scheme.  

But now the NH House - traditionally more anti-gambling than the Senate - must be "convinced" to go along.  

Let's get real here: New Hampshire enjoys a long and proud tradition of paying its bills by taxing its sinners.  The State makes big money on its lottery, its liquor stores,  its cigarette tax, it's additional alcohol taxes on beer and wine sold by private stores, it meals & lodging tax  (a big part of which includes alcohol sold at lunch and dinner).   So it seems just a wee bit theatrical and disingenuous when Members of the NH House get in a tizzy fit about a few thousand slot machines.  

Meanwhile, income from 13,000 slots won't really pay all the bills, provide all the services.   So, my idea...instead of limping in with this modest slots proposal is to do it right.  Let's go all the way...let's immediately legalize - AND TAX - the following:

1. Slot machines (a maximum of 131,580 individual machines)...with machines located in every town hall and city hall in the State.  These buildings are already closely monitored by the police so it would be safe. One machine for every 10 NH residents.

2. An electronic Sports Book, including gambling on all professional, college, high school and middle school varsity games and - seasonal - on grammar school field day events.  All sports books to be located in SAU administrative offices.

3. Poker Parlors that would actually be located in people's PARLORS!  Anyone with an old-fashion home that included a parlor with transparent plastic still covering all of the couches could host these games of skill.

4. Internet Gambling, to be hosted by - get this absolutely brilliant idea - to be hosted by our state's daily newspapers on their internet sites (thereby saving all daily papers from extinction).  

5. Medical Marijuana Stores, to be run exclusively by Doctors who are General Practitioners or pediatricians (this plan would close the pay gap between family doctors and the more highly-paid specialists).

6. A No Helmet Tax.  It's New Hampshire.  Motorcyclists should never be forced to wear a helmet.  But they should be taxed for being so hopelessly dim-witted...  a $125 annual tax for these mouth-breathing morons.

7. Seat-Belt Exclusion Tax.  We should be free to refuse to buckle up for safety.  But a modest tax, maybe $25, would help defer the costs of extra body bags.

8. Granite State Death Penalty Reduction Club.  If convicted and sentenced to death by a New Hampshire jury, a death row inmate could pay - I don't know - maybe $100,000 to have his sentence commuted to life without parole or for an additional $10,000, he could spin the GIANT WHEEL OF LIFE for the chance to win the possibility of parole in 20 years.  There's network tv possibilities here.  

9. A Bankruptcy Tax:  As we all know, the Governor and others are licking their chops over a real estate refinancing tax.  So what if it hurts people who are trying to reduce their housing expenses and retain their homes... Too damned bad for them!  So, OK, how about going a step further and taxing Granite-State residents who are forced into bankruptcy because they lose their job or - sans health insurance - they become terminally ill.

Are we clever or are we clever?

Because in New Hampshire we will never need to impose a broad-based tax of any kind, because we will keep inventing new taxes that punish specific lifestyles.

And we will keep placing the majority of the financial burden on the working poor, the lower middle class, senior citizen homeowners and...and everyone else...except, of course, the rich,  the well-to-do. It's the New Hampshire Way.

Gambling Out--Budget Negotiations Go On

by: Jennifer Daler

Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 09:09:32 AM EDT

"I have no problems with gambling. What I do have a problem with is that I do not believe that gambling is a reliable funding source," Smith said, adding that her preference is an income tax.

Representative Dan Eaton (D-Stoddard) confirmed the votes in the House are not there.

I cannot count to 201," he said, praising D'Allesandro's dedication.

For their part, the Senate refused to allow the estate tax and the capital gains tax to move forward.

According to Fahey, the state will tap into the "Rainy Day Fund" and then still have to close a $30 million hole in the present budget.

Plans waiting in the wings when talks resume today would close a key business tax loophole, set a new tax on mortgage refinancing, boost the Rooms and Meals tax rate and possibly create a tax on entertainment.

If you feel strongly about the refinancing tax, call the Governor and your State Senator and Reps and register your opinion. Once it's put in, it will be very difficult to change down the road.