NH House Leaders on Passage of CACR 13, Ban State Income Tax

House Leaders Statement on Passage of Constitutional Amendment to Ban State Income Tax

CONCORD – House Speaker William O’Brien and House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt today offered the following statement on the passage of Constitutional Amendment 13, which would ban an income tax. Passage of a constitutional amendment requires 3/5 of the membership of the House, meaning with 397 current members, 239 must vote to support the measure. CACR 13 passed 257 to 101. If CACR 13 passes in the Senate it will then go on the ballot and will need to be approved by 2/3rds of those voting in the election.
 
House Speaker William O’Brien
 
“New Hampshire was spared the fate of an income tax because of our hard work to make difficult spending reductions this legislature, including an historic budget that included an 18% reduction in state spending.  Passage of an income tax now or in the future would destroy the special economic fabric of our state and kill the New Hampshire Advantage.  We can prevent this from happening once and for all with a measure that will allow our citizens to make their voices heard on this critical issue. The passage of CACR 13 is a great protection against future generation big spenders and ensures the state's tradition of frugality and local control. We must remain good stewards of taxpayers’ money.”
 
House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt
 
“In the four years Democrats were in charge before Republicans took over, they raised or enacted 100 new taxes and fees, spending New Hampshire to the brink of an income and/or sales tax. CACR13 is a critical safeguard against future irresponsible spending. Good government is one that serves the people and is limited and fiscally prudent.”

Comments

[Troll]

You know, for such a sacred and defining document, you people are awfully keen on changing it. Property rights, gay marriage, income taxes; is there anything you wouldn't change in it? Maybe we should just throw it out and start over? You can't have it both ways. Either it is the document that defines the state of New Hampshire (like you all claim) or it is a doormat that you walk all over on the way to support your cause. Which is it?

[C. dog]

Troll –
You lost me on this one. Just where in the hallowed parchment does it mention gay marriage, or marriage at all for that matter. And property rights, what's up with that? Did I miss something about that being a cause vs. an inherent right? Finally, taxes; the lifeblood of the vampire. Now what's the problem with capping the amount of vials Nanny Drac can access?
– C. dog lost in the weeds or tall grass

[Troll]

"This constitutional amendment concurrent resolution provides that the state shall only recognize the union of one man and one woman as marriage."
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/CACR0028.html

"New Hampshire voters adopted a constitutional amendment in November 2006 that specifically prohibits the use of eminent domain by private developers for private development projects of any kind."
http://nonorthernpassnh.blogspot.com/2011/12/new-hampshire-property-rights-at-risk.html

"New taxes on personal income would be banned New Hampshire, a state with no income tax, under a proposed constitutional amendment passed by the state House on Wednesday."
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2012/01/18/nh_house_voting_on_income_tax_amendment/

I'm not disputing that one or more of these ideas might be good LAWS. To change the constitution over these matters I think harms the prestige of this document and to say one is a "constitutionalist" really has no meaning if you can just change the constitution whenever you want to.

[C. dog]

Yo Troll –
Constitutions can be good, ehhh, they can be bad. Are they a parchment shackle enabling peons and bureaurats to take control, or keep them at bay? So, as with all things Stately, we must render the fat to find if any meaty substance remains. But first, we need to clarify a little butter, shall we?

I infer from what you insinuate via all caps, "LAWS" is somehow different than Constitutions. Might I point you in the direction of some text book, or historic novella to discover that, in fact, Constitutions are the supreme LAWS of the land, under which, nominally, all lesser laws must abide. Of course, between you, me, and the hoards of the cloven footed, we know that to be a bunch of bunk.

Moving on. So, these supreme laws either handed to us by divining the intent of supreme beings, or conjuring what is the inherence essence of a naked ape should, in theory, provide the template of principles that both ordinary humans can understand, and live by. Now here in the State of Granite, the overarching principle is freedom, and all that hinders that would be bad, very bad. This, therefore, becomes our little measuring stick. So let's take a look at the evidence you so cordially invited into our discussion, shall we, and let's start with a layup.

Marriage. So far, not in the Constitution of the Grate State of NH, nor the USA version either for that matter. I suspect the wig-heads did this on purpose because they didn't want The State meddling in the affairs between man and woman, or any other combo. Render onto the churches what are the church's! Clearly the problem here is that the little laws pertaining to such affairs have no Constitutional basis, and the remedy should be removing such immediately from The State's purview, it's prying fingers, and its prurient eyes. It's time to take out the trash on this one on grounds of equal protection under the law.

Now onto Amendment 12-A. Admittedly, it seems redundant that The State has no business taking one's business to sate the craven appetite of another's business, but hey, we can't ignore what went down with the black-robed pervs on the Potomac. So we're buyin' a little insurance here. What's the harm? Admittedly, a Free State wouldn't have the Eminently Insane provision at all, and it's admittedly a vestige from more kingly times of Father Knows Best. So clearly, the solution is: lance this boil once and for all.

Let's see, what's left or right. Ah yes, how to feed this beast we have created ostensibly to protect our freedoms. Well, as with any beast of burden, we want to make sure we take the necessary precautions to make sure we put in place bars of sufficient strength to keep the damnable thing in its cage. Surely you recall how they provided for the feeding of Uncle Sammy in the USA constitution via tariffs, and pittances here and there. Oddly, no income tax. Go figure, and refigure, maybe a little conjuring to the devils in the details?

Now, the folks living in NH, being a far sight brighter than most that live elsewhere on the fruity plains, clearly see how wonton this beast becomes both at the federal level, and closer to home just across our southern border in MA-MA Land. And they also have good memories. Why just a sun-cycle or two ago they recall how big and fat the beast got when overfed by the Dumbocrats. Well, they couldn't have this anymore, as the feral thing was now ruling the roost.

So what to do? Lo and behold, common sense kicked in and they realized you stop feeding the bloody thing so much; diet restriction really works, it really does. But they also realized ordinary laws weren't sufficient, because the beast and it lackeys keep eyeing the pantry, seeing that big ol' cake of income tax just sittin' there. Well, as any dietician worth her Sodom salt knows, the best way to stop a sinner from committing acts of gluttony is by removing temptation from the pantry. Hence, put in place a Constitutional provision for the proper feeding of the beast so as to preserve its natural place in the order of things.
– C. dog chants "this is how we do it now" to lay himself down to sleep, perchance to dream