Strong Message From Taxpayers to Tax and Spenders

Franklin voters yesterday sent a strong message to the tax and spenders who wanted unlimited access to the wallets of tax payers and that message was NO!

Mayor Ken Merrifield and Councilors Bob Sharon and Glen Feener won their re-election.  Ken winning with 67% of the vote.

Tammy Simons sums it up quite nicely with her comment:

"67% of voters in Franklin re-elected the mayor who very openly supported their spending cap.....yet Keep Manchester Moving would like Manchester voters to beleive that the tax cap in Franklin has basically devastated that town. Sounds like the voters think differently!"

For those unfamiliar with the group Keep Manchester Moving there was a press release warning about them posted previously on NH Insider which you can find HERE.

Members of Keep Manchester Moving who are trying to silence the public include operatives from MoveOn, America Votes, Granite State Progress, and several city labor unions. Opposition funding comes from out of state progressive networks, but mainly from Progress Now, a Colorado-based group dedicated to changing the political environment of a dozen or more key states.

Progressives continue to push even outside their own comunities attempting to twist and manipulate government to use you to work for them and their supporters.  Franklin voters stood up to this and said NO.  They'll attempt to spin it but don't be fooled, this election was about one thing... taxes.  Those who wanted unlimited access to your money and those who will defend your right to your own money.

From the Concord Monitor:

Many voters who came through the Opera House on Central Street said taxes in town were the biggest - if not the only - issue that determined their vote.

Earlier this year, in the face of an accounting error and drop in revenue, councilors overrode the tax cap for the first time since it was establish in the 1980s. Merrifield, with the support of Feener, attempted to veto the budget, but they were thwarted.

Robert Desrochers Sr., 59, of Liberty Avenue, supported Merrifield.

"They should've left the tax cap alone," he said. "I have a business, and if I make a mistake, I can't go back and ask for another $2,000."

The lifelong resident was not bashful about his feelings: "The tax cap is the best thing that ever happened to Franklin."


Zach Miller, 25, of Bow Street, a computer teacher at Franklin High School, said more needs to be done with less in the city.


Their opinions echoed more than a dozen people interviewed after voting yesterday afternoon. Most said the combination of rising unemployment and taxes have meant painful sacrifices for residents.

Of course the progressives will have a different outlook on it.  They lie to win elections just as Obama lied to America claiming he would give larger tax cuts then McCain but in the end they spend and spend and spend all the while coming back to your wallet like it is some endless source that can be tapped without limit.

Read this editorial in the Concord Monitor where they attempt to spin in every which way to claim the tax cap is responsible for anything and everything they preceive as a problem.

Now comes a provocative new report by New Hampshire economist Brian Gottlob who argues that tax caps aren't simply an easy out for politicians. In fact, he says, they hold communities back, keeping municipal spending so low that the local economy suffers as a result. His prime example: Franklin, home of a 20-year-old cap.

Gottlob's report - "Are Local Government Tax and Expenditure Limitations A Race To The Bottom?" - was commissioned by anti-tax-cap groups in Manchester and Claremont whose members, no doubt, liked what he found.


According to the study, between 1990 and 2000, the percentage of people 25 and older with a bachelor's degree or higher increased only 1.5 percentage points in Franklin, to nearly 14 percent. Comparable communities saw a median increase of college-educated residents of 7 percentage points to a total of nearly 40 percent.

Businesses, Gottlob points out, rely on such residents as both employees and customers. Without them in the mix, any community is held back economically. According to his report, Franklin lost nearly 25 percent of its private sector employment between 1999 and 2007, more than any other comparably sized community.

Sure sounds damning doesn't it?  Of course if you read to the bottom of the editorial even when they attempt to blame lack of out of control government spending as the reason for this the true reason is slipped in...

Equally blunt, perhaps, would be drawing a conclusion that all of Franklin's economic challenges can be blamed on its tax cap - or that its repeal would make economic development there a cinch. After all, reviving a local economy in a city that's not near the interstate, not near the airport, not near Massachusetts, not a tourist destination, and not even close enough to the capital to be a logical bedroom community to Concord is tough.

You know what they say, location, location, location.  Of course the tax and spenders don't want you to consider that which is why that statement is buried ten paragraphs deep after they've built their case blaming the spending caps.

And of course they follow up that paragraph up with:

But if Franklin's tax cap has succeeded in restraining tax increases all these years, it may have also hurt the community in unanticipated ways.

This budget season, for the first time in 20 years, the Franklin City Council overrode the local tax cap and then overrode the mayor's veto of its action. Even in tough times, councilors saw the danger of too tight a noose on municipal spending. They rose to their job of balancing the community's real needs with its ability to pay. Their vote was both thoughtful and heartening.

And now the voters, ie the residence who actually live there and this editorial claim are the ones who might be harmed sent a strong message back saying they wanted the tax cap and they supported those who supported it, not those who overrode it and voted more money for their own mistakes.