Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Along with no income stream that's broad-based - like an income or sales tax - going to state coffers, there is also the fact the state's budget is kept at, as Rep. Margie Smith, the House finance chair, calls it, at a "structural deficit." This means that the Legislature approves projects that it has no ability to pay for when you add up the collective price tag.
So before anyone takes a look at the next budget and the liabilities, there is no way state revenues can pay for them all. The discussion begins with where do we cut versus what can we grow or what can we sustain.
"I have one message," [Rep. Timothy] Robertson said. "Our state is not in an overspending problem. It's in an under-funding problem," and that's because too many politicians, especially candidates for the governor's office, take The Pledge.
..."Republicans and Democrats have been locked into this position so tightly it is not even worth asking anymore," he said. "They don't even explain why. It's a knee-jerk reaction ... a negative promise ... that we won't equitably fund our schools, our government and our services."
The reliance on property taxes is a relic from the days the state relied on an agrarian economy where property dictated people's ability to pay, [Lauren Redden] and others say.
"We're left with vestiges of government that were developed with all the best intentions to address the problems of the past," said Durham Town Administrator Todd Selig, chairman of the board of directors for the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies.
Apparently I'm not the only one who views our pledge-locked revenue structure as an 18th century system for a 21st century economy.
Kudos to Adam for writing about the Granite State issue that dare not speak its name.
After the Concord Democrat [Rep. Jessie Osborne] saw her pro-income tax bill shot down in committee, she decided not to run for re-election this fall.
"The Democratic Party didn't come through on their promise to provide a revenue source based on ability to pay," she said.
Osborne said she is frustrated by cuts to state services and the governor's blocking of any consideration of a sales or income tax. With the growing property tax burden, Osborne, 67, and her husband are considering leaving Concord.
I don't know the particulars of Rep. Osborne's position, but I don't blame her one bit for not seeking re-election. Our "citizen" legislature is only possible for those with the means to serve, which basically ensures that it's not a legislature reflective of our citizenry.
But I will say this: Please do not give up hope. I find it impossible to believe that Governor Lynch would seek a fifth term after the 2010 election cycle. Moreover, if the economy starts to come back, the resulting rising property values will only serve to hasten the crisis that is our 21st century iteration of an unsustainable, 18th-century revenue system.
It is possible to have a Democratic nominee in 2012 who will refuse to uphold the destructive cycle that is Pledge Politics. Someone who will patiently and firmly ask us why it's okay for the wealthiest 1% in this, the greatest state in the union, to contribute only 2 cents on every dollar earned to it, while the bottom 20% give over four times that.
It appears the new talking point on gambling is: the budget numbers are so awful, we may not have a choice.
And so, once again, because both major parties in this state, tied to The Pledge, are unwilling to engage in a serious discussion about revenue fairness, we are on the path to fixing potholes with mud.
Really disappointing and sad: Senator D'Allessandro on the House prospects for his expanded gambling project:
"No question that the House has always been the sticking point," said D'Allesandro. "But, for the first time, we're seeing longtime opponents, some of them Republicans, coming over."
But, he said, "You also have a group in the House that says that we don't need it because (they) want a broad-based tax. But there is not any (widespread) sentiment for that."
This is Pledge Politics at its worst.
Translation: opponents of gambling aren't sincere. What they're really after is the tax that dare not speak its name.
(Said far better than I could. - promoted by Dean Barker)
This is an article I will be sending to our local on-line newspaper The Forum sometime in the next month, so that it appears just prior to the election in March. It was inspired by Dean's posts on the pledge and my friend Chaz, who has been working on this for years.
Our towns are so beautiful. They are filled with lovely landscapes, lakes and rivers, healthy forests and fields, historic homes and stone walls all over the place. We have deer and moose and bears and....an elephant? Yup, there's an elephant in the woods with us..."The Pledge".
Rep. Kurk has taken to heart Rep. Ulery's interpretation that the constitution ought to be "lyrical." He wants to enshrine Pledge Politics into our constitution, explaining his mission in verse:
I hope that we shall always ax
a bill for sales or income tax.
A tax whose broad-based mouth will suck
the vigor from New Hampshire's pluck.
A tax that kills the jobs we seek
but builds the psyche of the chic.
A tax that Reds do castigate
and use to seal the Blues' sad fate.
This bill must die so Reds can reign,
their issue still - to make their gain.
Poor Blues! Their 'yea' supports their cause
but puts them square within Reds' jaws.
I love this. Kurk is openly honest about the partisan underpinnings behind Pledge Politics, or: In versu veritas!
And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
On MSNBC this afternoon, deficit peacock Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) got into a heated exchange with anchors Contessa Brewer and Melissa Francis, challenging their "integrity" and calling them "irresponsible" and "duplicitous" after they tried to get him to offer specific ways he would cut spending to lower the deficit.
Oregon voters bucked decades of anti-tax and anti-Salem sentiment Tuesday, raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to prevent further erosion of public schools and other state services.
...The double-barreled victory is the first voter-approved statewide income tax increase since the 1930s.
Here in New Hampshire, the bottom 20% of earners contributes over eight cents on every dollar earned to the state, while the wealthy pay two cents.
If Oregon can break free of Pledge Politics, we can too.
* New Hampshire Republicans accuses New Hampshire Democrat of deviating from The Pledge.
* New Hampshire Democrat put on defensive over a Pledge he never broke.
* New Hampshire press delights in the fray.
Rinse. Repeat.
In other news, William Loeb and Mel Thomson are long gone, but their shadows are longer.
Make no mistake: It's no secret that Jeff Goley, from all accounts a really good guy and outstanding state rep, will be better than David Boutin by several orders of magnitude for the people of New Hampshire. Help him win this special election.
This post is really just a bookmark for the day when we have the courage as a state to get beyond the destructive cycle of Pledge politics, to address the regressive pre-industrial revenue system placed on our post-industrial citizenry. Because it will not be addressed during Gov. Lynch's tenure, or that of any GOP governor, now is the time to start planning for January 2013.
At the moment, both parties are committed to the "Pledge," which guarantees a pre-industrial revenue system for an increasingly post-industrial New Hampshire.
The Pledge isn't in place because we cherish the old-fashioned here (covered bridges, stone walls, etc...). It's here to conceal the unpleasant datum that the richest pay to the sate less than a quarter what the poorest pay for every dollar earned. The result, not unsurprisingly, is a New Hampshire perpetually hobbled with budget crises.
One selfish reason I'm so happy about Jennifer joining us on the admin side of BH is that it will give me time and space to look a little more closely into some of the more systemic challenges facing New Hampshire politics and policy.
After a decade of life in this great state, and a bit less than that observing political life, I think I'm finally ready to drill down into what I have come to believe is the single greatest obstacle to progress here - Pledge politics.
So long as the bottom income earners give over eight cents of their dollar to the state, while the richest give two, we will forever be lurching from one budget crisis to the next, while the GOP uses it at every point to hack away at government services. This is no way to forge a future for such a great place as this.
I think this is absolutely the right time to find a future beyond Pledge politics, and here's why:
* The odds are good that John Lynch, a hugely important, but transitional figure for Democrats, will be at the end of his fourth, and likely last, term on New Year's Day, 2013. So that basically gives progressives once cycle to articulate a vision beyond the Pledge, and find a candidate to carry that vision.
* The state demographics of 2010 are no longer that which had to endure the era of Thomson and Loeb. A revenue system developed for a pre-industrial age should not be acceptable to a post-industrial people, and would not be, if it were properly exposed for what it is.
So - long story short - I'm going to be spending time on this.
I know others have taken this on in the past. And I know they have been demonized for doing so.
But what's the point of having a forum such as this if we don't use it for the good?
If marriage equality, for example, can be a reality in New Hampshire today, then there is no reason we can't find a better and more sustainable future for our state's fiscal health tomorrow.
[HHS Commissioner] Toumpas submitted a report to the legislative Fiscal Committee at its December meeting, showing that the department faces an approximately $38 million shortfall, based on revenue numbers from the first quarter, which ended in September. "Within the next week, we'll have updated numbers that we don't expect are going to be dramatically better than whatwe're seeing right now," Toumpas said Thursday.
...The department's total caseload was up to 142,000 people, from 116,500 at the same time last year.
Medicaid caseloads increased by 10 percent compared to last year, to more than 114,000.
Caseloads for Aid to Needy Families (which includes TANF and other programs) grew by 25.8 percent.
Caseloads for Aid for Permanently and Totally Disabled grew by 14.8 percent, to more than 8,000.
Adding: A progressive revenue system, acknowledging that a loaf of bread is the same price for a rich as for a poor man, would strive to reverse that 8 to 2 cent ratio.
But I'd settle for far less than that. Simple fairness, such as in Vermont, would be a transformational improvement. Who, and from what party, will pick up this cause in the post-Lynch world?
A year after the election of Meldrim Thomson Jr., Thomson and William Loeb had things pretty much their own way...Although Loeb's newspapers trumpeted that "Thomson had kept his promise, no new taxes," there were other problems, notably in state services, and particularly, in matters relative to the New Hampshire State Hospital and the Laconia State School for retarded children. The hospital was in danger of losing accreditation and the school was nothing more than a place where these unfortunate children could receive room and board. But, it was a fact that there were no new taxes, and it was also a fact that tuition at the state university was flucuating between being the highest, or next to highest, in the nation.
(The tea party people, undoubtedly almost all of whom do not belong to the richest one percent, appear unconcerned with this.)
In New Hampshire, House Bill 642 (h/t NHFlatlander) would have addressed this gross inequity in the way we fund our state by reducing taxes for the bottom 80% of earners and raising taxes for the top 20% (1.7% or less in all income groups). It would have repealed a number of business taxes. It also would have added half a billion dollars to our state for education and other services.
Here's a clear visual example, using a graph of what we have now, and one of how HB642 would've modified it (NB: the data for each is one year apart:'07 and '08, respectively):
Perhaps because the bill accomplished this tax reduction for so many, while doing so much to balance our budget, by means of an income tax, (and therefore contrary to the "pledge" politics), HB642, with bipartisan sponsorship, was deemed "inexpedient to legislate" by the Ways and Means Committee of our Democratically controlled state house.
This visual bomb of the dysfunction of our state revenue system brought to you via this study (.pdf) (h/t here).
The bottom 20% of earners in New Hampshire give 8.3% of their income to the state.The top 1% of earners gives 2.0%.
This is the definition of a regressive taxation system. Dude, where's my tea party protest?
Adding: In Vermont, by way of a regional example, the bottom 20% and top 1% of earners both give a little over 8 cents of every dollar earned to the state (8.2% & 8.4%, respectively).
