Inside News From Last Week's Election
Wednesday, November 12, 2008 at 06:07AM I asked Fred Leonard of Rochester Concerned Taxpayers to throw together some thoughts about what happened with the spending cap vote there.
Hi Ed,
Good news indeed! After over a decade of banging away at the local liberals, we have a huge victory with the passage of the tax & spending cap. With 70% of the votes cast for the cap, Rochester's voters sent the message loud and clear to the City Council, city manager and the school board - no more out of control spending!
The Rochester Concerned Taxpayers Association, using the language provided by the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition, spent 5 months campaigning to put an end of spending and taxing that has outstripped the taxpayer’s ability to pay in Rochester. We used signs, letters to the editor, public input at City Council workshop meetings, press releases, our website (largely provided by our great friends at the CNHT!) and newspaper ads along with radio ads and a mailer supplied by the NHAC to wage a battle against the long entrenched liberal establishment.
Even though the public labor unions joined forces and threw everything they had at us for the last 2 weeks leading up to the election, Rochester taxpayers knew that the tax & spending cap was the mechanism that would help leave more money in their pockets. With an economy that is growing weaker by the day, sky rocketing food, home fuel, gas and other vital living costs rising faster than people can keep up with, taxes and the economy were the issues of the day on November 4th. Messages of the world crumbling and the sky falling from the IAFF and the AFT were no match for a taxpaying public worried about job lose and higher taxes.
This is truly a great victory in an otherwise gloomy conservative environment in NH. It appears that while the GOP has long been the stalwarts of fiscal conservatism, the democrats were able to put together a better ground game and steal the typical conservative vote. We want all conservatives in NH to know that they can take the battle to the big spenders and win.
The message is simply and it can even be accomplished with a small handful of people. We were able to sustain a 5 month multipronged approach with just 10-12 people meeting once a month, at first, and then once a week with 2 1/2 months before the election. We used countless phone calls and emails to communicate and strategize amongst our dedicated little group between meetings. And, in the end, 9,755 people of Rochester voted themselves one big tax relief!
It just might be that the way to take back NH is one city and town at a time with the most fundamental issue most near and dear to most taxpayers.
Fred Leonard
Reader Comments (12)
They are entirely two different things. A spending cap means that spending cannot rise over a certain percent - it doesn't address tax rates at all.
The spending cap will mean that if the state of federal government raise revenue sharing for education, homeland security etc... in order fo the community to accept such funds they would have to cut somewhere else.
As to taxes, you can have taxes go up even if spending flatlines or goes down. If property values drop, a large industry moves out of town etc... taxes on homeowners will go up without any additional spending.
Am I wrong?
This cap is a SPENDING cap which limits, with an economic formula, what the GOVERNING body (elected officials) can spend over the last general budget in their new budget.
Your property TAX bill in NH is your PORTION of the SPENDING approved by the LEGISLATIVE BODY (voters).
Your PORTION of the total tax burden of your community is based on the VALUE of your property on April 1 in the year it was ASSESSED by the town or city you live in.
School spending is part of the tax bill but the city or town ASSESSES property and collects taxes.
If you had a TAX CAP - as in a $25.00 limit per thousand dollars of property value, all the town would have to do is raise the ASSESSMENT on property to gain more revenue. That is what the VIEW TAX is. It is a revenue raiser outside of the public's control.
The TAX RATE is like an innocent bystander who gets the blame.
Like good old Mel Thomson used to say:
"Low Taxes Are The Result Of Low Spending"
He doesn't mention tax rates or assessments for a reason.
Cough, cough, your Aldermen were too scared to let it on the ballot in Manchester, cough, cough.
For the second time, cough, cough.
On October 16, Ed Naile writes:
"Bernie" and "Anon" are just now figuring out that I do not answer to anonymous commentors."
Yet he has no problem responding to "Some guy on the net." Bottom line is this: don't believe a thing he says.
Signed
Ray "you know WHAT I am"/Ed's bald spot
Once again you quote me - how cute:
"On October 16, Ed Naile writes:
"Bernie" and "Anon" are just now figuring out that I do not answer to anonymous commentors."
What, is this like the third time you didn't actually READ what you are complaining about?
I said "I don't answer TO anonymous commentors.
Remember? You were demanding I answer your moronic questions?
Very similar to the incident with Gold Star Mom Debbie Lee when you were barking at her "Prove it, prove it!".
Its a small-minded pattern of escape you use when backed into an argument you can't win.
Silly Ray. Shouldn't you be in Amsterdam about now?
Property tax payer asked two interesting questions, which Ed has addressed but I'd like to add my 2 cents...
"The spending cap will mean that if the state of federal government raise revenue sharing for education, homeland security etc... in order fo the community to accept such funds they would have to cut somewhere else." - Taxpayer
Not true. Every single version of the spending cap that has gone up included a loop hole for just such a situation. Selectmen or councilors can override it with a two third vote.
"As to taxes, you can have taxes go up even if spending flatlines or goes down. If property values drop, a large industry moves out of town etc... taxes on homeowners will go up without any additional spending." - Taxpayer
True. There are several outside factors that can impact what you see on your tax bill. For instance, if a town over collects one year and uses the money to lower the tax rate the following, the 3rd year when the rate stabilizes you'll see a larger then normal jump. The spending cap will not prevent things like that.
However, what it will prevent is towns who get extra revenue from outside sources such as the state one year increasing spending ten fold because it wont impact the tax rate right away. I've seen that happen quite a few times... extra money coming in means extra spending that people wont see creating unnecessary government waste. And then of course when times get bad and the funding goes away, no one can find places to cut without "impacting services".
I think those taunters should admit who they really are. It is not fair to play with Ed's emotions in such a manner.
I will outline our agreement one more time for first time visitors to my well written and researched blog.
History: You post nasty comments (and often, Nancy Boy type rants) anonymously.
You don't bother to read each word in every sentence and jump to stupid conclusions. This is common in all of your secret names.
You then demand I answer your stupid questions and "prove" every truth you do not want others to read.
So to me, in all your anon names, you are Ray. I assume that by responding with a silly name you agree with this deal.
If you don't like this arraingment (I certainly do) then use your real name.
Or use an appropriate one like Amsterdam Democrat.
Checkmate, stupid.
Ed says: "Remember? You were demanding I answer your moronic questions? You were demanding I answer your moronic questions?"
The moronic question he is referring to is when I asked him to give evidence to this gem: "You had TWO communists running in the Dem primary! No wonder your pals turned out in such large numbers."
BTW, Ed, if it makes you feel better, I'll agree that ALL the anonymous/bernie/scoonie/etc. posters are ME, "Ray." Although I am not Ray and I've only posted under Ed's Bald Spot...which means....either you can't multitask and it is easier for you this way OR there are many here who disagree with your "well researched" rantings.
Ed, I thought you were not there? See how silly you sound.
And even when Democrats refuse to out themselves it becomes quite clear of what their true views are when the Communist Party endorses them as it has done time and time again with many other Democratic candidates.