Does Prohibition Work?

On the question of using gambling revenue to hide irresponsible democrat spending, State Senator Maggie Hassan was quoted in this mornings Union Leader saying.

"My question is, does prohibition work? I don't think it does."

It's quite entertaining, the things desperate people say when they are under the gun to cover their own ass. The left overspent again, overestimated revenue again, and now they have a cancerous deficit sucking away at them in an election year. So what do they do? They make an excuse for the state to embrace behavior people will (according to Maggie Hassan) participate in anyway, gambling. Gee Maggie, name for me one behavior the state has prohibited that no one participates in anymore? There are none. From double parking to premeditated murder the state has failed to stop people from exhibiting any flaws of the human condition.

So this is an interesting position for someone whose life as a legislator has been to prohibit and regulate things. All kinds of things. So we are at an interesting impasse. If prohibition doesn't work, what do we need Maggie Hassan for?

Well, I guess we need her to take campaign money from the gambling lobby to ensure that she can continue to be the kind of state Senator who prohibits behavior through taxes and legislation.

No contradiction there.

It's A Trap!

The idea of the variable rooms and meals tax for towns is a trap set by the democrat majority legislature.  I mentioned it here but let me reiterate how it works for those who may not have noticed or guessed for themselves.

Democrat run State government, in its quest for a broad based tax, spends money it does not have.  To justify this it then imagines revenues that will never exist.  The result is a perennial deficit problem with designs on new revenue solutions that will open the gates and flood the veins and arteries of our spendaholics in Concord with more of your money, which they will spend until--like any proper addict-- they need more.  Ask them how much is enough, and they can't answer you because government has no bottom.  But it does, and we've seen it.

Failing to get the tax they desire they shift gears.  Instead of cutting back state government they cram down on top of local government.  The cost burden is unloaded on the towns who must now directly tax the peoples property to offset the theft of their property by their bigger brother in Concord.  The goal here is to make the property tax burden appear unfair and excessive, motivating the people to revolt and beg for a broad based tax.

But that has not worked yet either.  So we get the variable rooms and meals tax option.  This retarded notion is sold by the Borg queen of the House financial Services committe, Marjorie Smith (D -Kaching!) as

“... an opportunity for cities and towns that choose to do so to add some additional revenue without having to increase their property tax,” she said. “As a control for that, it is completely in the hands of the cities and towns, and none of the money would come to the state.”

Let me translate.  You milk the cows, we'll drink the milk.  Watch out, they kick.

Here's the new trap.  The state's addiction is not going away as long as democrats are pulling the levers.  The new tax serves two opportunities for drunk leftist tax and spender in Concord.  First, it creates an opportunity for the state to ask for more because the towns have gone and done the heavy lifting for them already. Even if they havenot, some have, so deal with it.   It also gives them incentive to suggest that any new tax at the local level has become a burden and that to save the towns people from that and any additional increases in property taxes, the state should implement a broad based tax to offer relief to the struggling towns.

No matter how you slice this, the goal is more revenue for more spending at the State level. And there is no end in sight for that.  The only way to stop the cram-downs and the endless cycle of deficit dramas is to get the democrats out of controlling positions in the legislature, find a governor with enough of a spine to tell the House and Senate "no" on their rediculous budgets and revenue projections, and to cut-spending.

Wheel Of Misfortune

I’ve got mixed emotions about the variable rooms and meals tax (R&M).  On one hand it is the microcosm of federalism.  Every town would be the master of its own demise.  Durham would be like New York State, Keene might be like Michigan.  On the other, starting at 9% is way too high to begin with, raising taxes always means more government—which we simply do not need--and there is also the matter of the resulting confusion from having dozens of different rooms and meals taxes all over the state.  But like the story of the father who locked his son in a closet and made him smoke an entire box of cigars—to make him hate them enough to never smoke them again—sometimes hard lessons are the only ones learned. 

So let’s forget the confusion issue for the moment and accept that we have to have an R&M tax.  In that situation what if the state portion or the starting point was a much lower 2 or 3% instead of 9% with whatever protections you could manage to keep the state from raising the base rate for as long as possible.  (Not going to happen, which is why this actually a really bad idea, but lets play along).  Towns would then be free to set their own rates based on their proclivities with some striving to keep the rate much lower than the current 9% and others…well, when you cram more of the incompetence of government down to the town level all kinds of fun things become immediately apparent. 

A Rooms and Meals Tax is viewed as easy money.  Town councils or selectman looking for a way to offset the pressure of local unions that want a raise every year and liberals who love to spend and grow well beyond the ability of others to pay, could and would want to fall back on the R&M to balance their taste for excess without increasing property taxes. 

A liberal with an open ended tax is like a sex addict in a whore house.  They soon find themselves with no money—in this case your money—and out on the street. 

Towns with higher R&M’s would immediately become less attractive to existing business and employers and scare off any new ones as patrons of these businesses  drive an extra five feet to save a few bucks.   This eventually puts tax pressure on everyone else to cover the lost revenues.   A tax revolt ensues at the town level, all the tax and spenders are replaced with people who respect other peoples right to their own money, and someone finds a way to balance the town’s actual needs with revenue. 

Is it an expensive lesson?  Of course it is, and we would forever be left wondering when the big spenders in Concord would come for more, but the hardest lessons are the ones that are remembered.  And if that’s what it takes to get more people off their sofa’s and interested in what their local governments are wasting their earnings on, then maybe we shoul play ball. 

On a more realistic note, that's not how this will play out.  As much as the federalism idea appeals, towns will continue to see more costs crammed down as a result of Concord's incompetence.  This will  force towns to raise the R&M even more to deal with a succession of new "bad decisions" at the state level.  It will then also serve as an excuse to raise taxes at the state level to "protect the towns"  from raising their own even further.  So you just can't win.  No matter how you look at it you get screwed by the State.

And none of this gets better until we accept that democrats added 25% to the size of state government during a recession and the only way they can see to offset that stupidity is to shift costs to towns.  Giving them an excuse to collect extortion money for the states addiction is not a gift, it's a curse.  And the only cure is fewer tax and spenders in Concord, which means fewer democrats and their RINO accomplices.

SB 450 Anon...

SB 450 passed 182 to 173 with forty reps not voting.  Of all the votes to miss, or to dismiss, this is probably the one you should take a stand.  It’s about adding taxes, cutting some of the budget, and bonding debt.  It defines the nature of how New Hampshire does business its.  So is it just me or does 10% of the NH House voting present (or absent) on the bitter budget battle bill seem a bit high?  

Fourteen Republicans and Twenty-seven Democrats failed to cast a vote.  Skimming through the 15 or so floor amendments there are at least 30 reps absent throughout the day.  And while this is not unusual, sometimes you really want to be represented and this would be one of those times. 

Of the 15 measures proposed prior to passage, 14 from Republicans-all but one failed, and one was by the majority, which passed.  The move to separate the bonding and taxes failed 173 to 189 with 35 not voting.  Eleven of those not voting were Republicans, and Steve Vallincourt was the only representative registered as a republican to vote against the measure. 

The result of this days work now moves to confernce committee for reconcilation between the NH House and Senate.  The Senate is weary of the project so this could prove interesting.  It is likley we will get another Lynchensteins monster at the final hour. In caseyou've forgotten, this same process is what produced a slew of new taxes last year including the tent tax,(now gone) and the LLC tax which SB450 is supposed to have killed. 

Anybody else had enough of this democrat leadership yet?

Give It Back

From this morning’s Union Leader; the Legislature is looking at an insurance premium tax change.  Apparently someone was granted decreases in exchange for a promise of creating more jobs.  Jobs were not created to their satisfaction so the elected officials see no reason to continue to support the reduced taxation.  

Neal Kurk (R-Weare) was quoted in the UL about repealing the tax break. 

“The Legislature was led to believe we’d see big gains in jobs. We have not seen a large increase in jobs; indeed, the largest gain we had would have happened anyway.”  

Sure, it’s your money.  You earned it.  Had you not bothered to put up with the bureaucracy in the first place in an effort to create a better life for yourself and those you might employ we’d not be able to tax you at all so your reward for this?   “I hope you enjoyed having one less jack boot to the groin but we need that money so the parties over.”  That’s the message.   Not to pick on Neal--I think he’s just paraphrasing the general sentiment—but are you kidding me?   

It's a strange relationship political power and other people’s money.  Politicians have this idea in their heads that taxes are something the government is entitled to and it is only a matter of working out the terms by which you shall be separated from your property.  No dinner, no movie, no kiss--and they don’t even get you drunk first. 

This must be what happens when you spend so much time in a room full of democrats.   They are completely enamored of the idea that income is something the government permits you to have simply because they have not yet taxed it out of you.  Their class warfare rhetoric is built on the idea.  And they will use whatever words, arranged in any fashion necessary, to mislead you into thinking they are doing you a favor by taxing someone else--or even you directly, not that there is any difference. 

Every tax, on every "thing", finds its way into the wallets of people who are least prepared for the loss.  Taxes on businesses for example increase costs directly to the business which result in increased prices or decreased employment or wage growth.  Just because you don't see them, does not mean you won't feel them.   

Taxing utility companies makes energy more expensive.  Taxing services drives up costs.  Taxing insurance premiums is only going to make your insurance cost more.   It’s a universal cram down.  They are not taxing insurance companies, they are taxing you.  And for what?   To pay the cost of poor leadership.  And it is John Lynch’s poor leadership that has lead to an embedded political culture that tolerates the excesses of government under the most specious of terms.   

The only reason to tax is to pay for spending.  While there are going to be some unavoidable costs associated with shared interests within a common political boundary,  we must get away from allowing the wordsmiths in Concord to run roughshod over the concept of "General Welfare" to justify any expense and the taxes they must then levy to fund them.  And taxation on these terms?  Uh, we let you keep too much of you money, and uhhh, we need that back.  Maybe a little extra.

Makes you feel all warm inside, knowing we have these people in Concord who know better how much money we deserve to keep and on what it should be spent.  And do they know that increased taxes reduce jobs?  How do you spin that in this context?