Carol Shea-Porter - Yes, the Issue is Fairness

Mitt Romney’s statement about the “47%” has gotten Americans debating  “fairness.” Many families are struggling to pay the rent or mortgage, and many are unable to send their kids to college or save for retirement.  When they read about how income has soared for the top 1% and stayed flat or dropped for them, they wonder who decides fairness.

Until recently, if anyone voiced concerns about fairness, they were accused of  “class envy.” Then Warren Buffet, the third richest man in the world, made his now-famous statement about how he got the tax breaks, and it was not fair to his secretary. And when Buffet was challenged to prove she paid twice the tax rate he did, Buffet released his 2010 tax returns and proved the unfairness.

Buffet turned the conversation to exactly the one we need to have in this country – what’s fair.  He told ABC News, “If this is a war, my side has the nuclear bomb... We have K Street. … We have Wall Street. Debbie doesn’t have anybody. I want a government that is responsive to the people who got the short straw in life” (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/01/warren-buffett-and-his-secretary-talk-taxes/).

Wealth creation is good. People want to be able to take care of their children. It’s a lot better to live in a nice house or apartment in a safe neighborhood than in a run down neighborhood.  It’s a lot nicer when a community has the money it needs to offer quality services to its citizens. There are more civic organizations and opportunities for economic success in a community that is not poor.

The issue is not wealth creation.  It is not class envy either.  It is about fairness, about people and corporations paying their fair share.

Americans realize that the very wealthy and corporations have been very effective at lobbying, and that tax codes favor the rich.  Oklahoma Senator Coburn, a very conservative Republican, has written a report called “Subsidies of the Rich and Famous” to show how unfair it is.

People are unhappy enough when they find out they pay a higher percentage of their income than Warren Buffet. They are even unhappier when they find out that, according to CNN Money, two-thirds of US corporations paid zero income taxes.

They are upset that Mitt Romney paid 13.7% and 14% on the only two years of income taxes that he would show.

But then Romney said that 47% of people think they are victims, "entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

That was just too over the top.  Apparently, Mitt Romney and Frank Guinta, who refused to refute it, think that the government is not being fair... to the well off!

Some Republican leaders, to their credit, disavowed those remarks.  But Congressman Guinta stood by Romney and called the comments just “a distraction.” 

Frank Guinta has stood up for fairness for oil companies also.  In Conway, when somebody said it wasn’t fair that oil companies get subsidies, Frank Guinta said if we take that away, to be fair, we have to give oil companies rent-free leases. Congressman Guinta's exact words were, "… the simple point on that issue is if you’re going to get rid of that tax benefit to those 5 companies, let’s also eliminate the lease payments and make it fair…"  (at 9:13: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGdctx1na5A) How is taking away taxpayer subsidies from oil companies so unfair that Americans need to give them free leases to take our oil on our public lands? And why does he now deny that there are subsidies to oil companies, after admitting it in Conway?  I guess he now worries that the rest of us don't find that very fair.

I think this story is emblematic of the selfish thinking of the right wing today.  It used to be “I got mine and will hide it so you have to pay your fair share and mine.” Now it is “I’ve got mine and want yours too.”

This election is about fairness for “the rest of us.” It’s about refusing to allow the right-wing in Washington and Concord to dismantle programs that we all paid into and earned – Medicare and Social Security.

 Is it fair to hire lobbyists to write tax code for politicians to insert into bills to benefit the richest, so they can deduct yachts and horses?

Is it fair for those who claim tax deductions for everything to then turn around and insult the 47% who are really struggling?

It’s not fair, but we can make it fair.

####

Former Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter represented New Hampshire’s First District from 2007-2011, she is seeking a third term in the November, 2012 election.  She wrote the proposal for and established a non-profit, social service agency, which continues to serve all ages.  She taught politics and history and is a strong supporter of Medicare and Social Security.

Cory Lewandowski - End of Session: Conservative Accomplishments!

In 2010, New Hampshire voters sent a clear message.  Concord was spending too much money and it was time for a change. Voters wanted lower taxes, less regulation and smaller government. With the two-year legislative session ending and all the members of the New Hampshire House and Senate up for reelection this fall, it’s an appropriate time to grade how well the legislators responded and adhered to that message.

While this biennial session was marked by several major accomplishments; there were also missed opportunities to increase economic prosperity for New Hampshire businesses and residents.

First, the budget passed in 2011 reduced spending by more than $1.2 billion and was 11% smaller than the previous budget. All without raising any taxes or fees. This is a significant step toward making government smaller and more accountable to the people it represents.

This legislature also passed a first in the nation tobacco tax reduction to help retailers in border communities remain competitive with other states, made comprehensive changes to the state retirement system and passed a law allowing local governments to enforce tax and spending caps within their communities.

In a victory for all New Hampshire private property owners, legislation prohibiting for profit companies from using eminent domain to take private land or property rights from landowners passed.    

The House and Senate reached agreements on two proposed constitutional amendments; CACR 6 and CACR 13. CACR 6, known as super-majority legislation, is a proposed constitutional amendment that would require a 3/5^th majority vote of the legislature to approve any new taxes or fees while CACR 13 would amend the state constitution so that state personal income taxes are prohibited. Both will now likely head to the voters for their consideration in November.

Unfortunately, other pieces of legislation aimed at reducing taxes and regulation are unlikely to become law. 

Republicans, with super-majorities in both the House and Senate, should have been able to render a Democrat Governor useless. However, in-fighting amongst Republicans led to the demise of important legislative priorities.

For example, the House and Senate passed Right-to-Work legislation in 2011 that would have increased freedom for New Hampshire workers and attracted more large businesses to the state.  Unfortunately, the House was unable to override Governor Lynch’s veto in November. This year the House passed Right-to-Work legislation again before the Senate chose to kill the bill under threat of another veto from Governor Lynch.

The Senate also failed to pursue legislation that would have moved health care decisions back to the state by allowing New Hampshire to join with other states and form a healthcare compact. Additionally, the Senate killed a reform bill designed to make the antiquated Bureau of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA) more accountable to state taxpayers and save over $1 Million. 

Lastly, the House consistently supported removing NH from the failed cap-and-trade scheme known as RGGI.  Removing NH from RGGI would have provided ratepayers relief in their monthly electricity bills. However, the Senate made removal from this program contingent on what MASSACHUSETTS does, effectively killing the bill. I thought this was the “Live Free or Die state.”

This summer, AFP Foundation will release its annual score card detailing how your legislators voted on issues impacting economic prosperity. The score card will be available online at americansforprosperity.org/new-hampshire. Further, our Honorary Chairman, Tom Thomson, will distribute his anti-tax pledge to candidates.  This information will provide voters an unbiased assessment of the true successes and failures in Concord over the last two years.

As the House and Senate complete their work for the session, the only grade that matters is the one that voters provide. 

#######

Corey R. Lewandowski is the State Director of Americans for Prosperity in New Hampshire and a Windham resident.    

Jackie Cilley - CACR 13 Income Tax Ban and CACR 6 Super Majority to Tax Amendments

At a time when New Hampshire is falling behind other states in its ability to attract new businesses with good jobs for our citizens, the Free State/Tea Party legislature in Concord is putting our economic future at even greater risk.  On Wednesday, May 30 a legislative committee of conference passed CACR 13, a constitutional amendment that, if approved by the voters in November, will forever ban taxes on incomes.

One doesn’t need to be in favor of an income tax, something I’m sure to be accused of, to understand that a constitutional amendment of this nature may well be easy to sell and far harder to explain its long term damage to our state. 

However, unless the business community is willing to settle for rising business profits taxes, as well as getting less for their money to boot from a deteriorating infrastructure and educational system, and unless property taxpayers are willing to see their property taxes rise faster and by greater percentages, folks better take a long hard look at where this simple sounding solution to all of our fiscal woes will actually lead.  

In their cynical ideological rush to tie the hands of future generations’ ability to consider any alternative to rising property and business taxes, the legislature has managed to pass a badly flawed bill that experts say will involve years of court battles and whole new bodies of constitutional law. 

For example, Professor Marcus Hum of UNH's School of Law points out this amendment could put nearly all taxation issues into the hands of New Hampshire's courts. CACR 13 would, says Hum “start a cascade of constitutional questions that could take years to settle” and “inescapably require the Supreme Court to develop whole new bodies of constitutional law and … to make judgment calls where clear or even workable definitions are probably impossible.”

But the legislature didn’t stop at just passing a constitutional amendment to forever ban consideration of taxing someone’s income (poorly defined though that may be), they also passed another amendment CACR 6, that requires a two-fifths majority to pass any new or increased fee or tax – double whammy and boatloads of additional damage. 

Unfortunately, in today’s halls of power one can’t get two-thirds to agree on whether the sky is blue.  There is far greater loyalty to partisan ideology than anything remotely akin to what might be best for our citizens or our long-term sustainability as a state. 

Since the beginning of my campaign for governor, I've made clear that we must have an adult discussion about how we fund the investments that make New Hampshire strong – quality education, robust public and private sectors, and the infrastructure needed for our state to compete in the 21^st century marketplace.

Our state is already not making sufficient investments in these areas, the very investments that attract good businesses with good jobs.  Businesses are now reluctant to relocate or start up in our state.  Last year alone, New Hampshire lost 3,800 jobs while Massachusetts and New York created jobs.

CACR 13 and CACR 6, linked together, fail to do anything to meet these needs to revitalize our economy and attract businesses to our state and they will significantly impede our ability to fund such priorities in the future.   In fact, there is every likelihood that the combination of the two will make the North Country, that has been losing jobs for more than five decades, seem to be a beehive of economic activity.

If the voters of the state care about its future, they need to swiftly defeat these destructive amendments in November and vote out the ideologues that passed them.

The Road to an Income Tax

By Rep David Hess

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.