A New Hampshire Income Tax By Hook or By Crook

Today there is a hearing (10am - LOB 301) for HB 330. HB 330 would allow any county delegation in New Hampshire to adopt a 'County Income tax' to be administered by the New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration (DRA). HB330 sells its tax as money that would go toward paying for education (public education at government run schools) and who could possibly dare to be against dumping more money into government run education?

/steve raises his hand

This would also not be a 'state wide, broad-based,' income tax, as it is optional by county, but we would still need the collection mechanisms and apparatus just the same if even one county decided it wanted to do it.   We would need tax forms and filings and processors and handlers, auditors, collectors and even printers and mailers of refunds due.  Every one of them a state employees, siphoning off more tax dollars for wages, benefits, pensions, mileage reimbursements, buildings, supplies, phone, heat, electricity, (million dollar energy improvement projects to "green-up" their office space)....and who do you suspect pays for that?  Every one of us.

If just one county decides it wants an income tax, we all get to pay.

No one should be surprised that this bill was sponsored by Democrats. Reps Burridge and Robertson, our Cheshire County Cats, both of whom serve on the know infamous committee of Criminal Justice and Public Safety, home of chair Laura Pantelakos, are our "we'll find a way to take your money by Hook or by Crook" --you can decide for yourselves who is Crook and who is Hook.

HB330 is one of the longer Bills.  That alone should be enough to disqualify it.  There ought to be a rule that if the bill is greater than a certain length, is should be shredded and used as bedding for small rodents.

HB330's fiscal cost to the state is also not yet known.  And how could it be?  We are talking about adding an income tax collecting apparatus capable of handling from one to ten counties worth of tax calculating, collecting, and so on.  There is a point at which you only need so many bodies warming office chairs (and more than likely surfing the Internet to post comments on porn media or political sites like this one) but that point is always going to be one body higher than the number of bodies we have now at the DRA and that is one body too many.

HB 330 is supposed to collect revenues for distribution to public schools in that county.  As previously observed, there is plenty of tax money already available for schools...in existing taxpayer levies for benefits and pensions to public employees.  A "slight" adjustment that makes them more personally responsible for their own retirement --all still paid for with our tax dollars--would free up vast sums of money for any purpose be it schools, mental health waiting lists, or roads to get the teachers to the schools or mental health patients to their doctors and therapists.

There is also the question of how state government, in the face of a series of large layoffs across the state, resulting from corrosive federal regulatory and tax policy, can justify instituting this kind of additional tax pressure on its citizens?  How do you look across this economic landscape and say screw the people, we need more money to grow government?

It's easy if you are a Democrat; a government firster.  Government forced on the people, before the people, paid for by the people. ( That should be the liberal motto. )

Just say no to HB330.  It may not be the dumbest idea to come from the mind of the government first party but it's close.

You are reading  "A New Hampshire Income Tax By Hook or By Crook"   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012

Nashua NH Democrat lets Out of State Campaign Worker Register to Vote from Her Home

Nashua New Hampshire Democrat Cindy Rosenwald is back in the spotlight.  If you recall, she's the one who admitted that her party not only knew it had left an 800 million dollar hole in the budget, but they planned to cut spending to fix it.  Well, now we find out that she knew there were out of state voters voting in New Hampshire, because at least one of them has been voting from her Nashua Address since at least 2007.

Ed Nail, here at NH Insider, recently reported on the voting history of a professional Democrat Campaign lackey by the name of Paolo Cozzi.    Mr. Cozzi lived on Clement Street in Sommerville, Massachusetts (Update- He is now currently living in DC).  But they had more than enough Democrats living in MA, so in 2007, 2008 and 2012, Paolo Cozzi hopped on the commuter rail (hey, that's why Liberals want rail service to Nashua), or got in his Obama-mobile--(Cozzi is employed in the service of OFA)--and put his vote to better use by claiming to live at 101 Wellington Street in Nashua, New Hampshire, the home of Democrat House Rep. Cindy Rosenwald.

Cozzi did vote from his Massachusetts "home" in 2010--remember 2010?  That was the year that a Republican actually had a slim chance to win in Massachusetts.  So OFA campaign animal Paolo Cozzi voted where it mattered more that year (in MA), but he mostly votes in the Granite State, from the home of Cindy Rosenwald at ...where was that again?   101 Wellington St, Nashua, New Hampshire.

I wonder if Ms. Rosenwald has ever taken in any other "stray cats" from the liberal campaign apparatus and allowed them to claim residence in her home for "voting purposes."

I'll guess we'll have to keep looking into that.

So!  Given these developments what do you think Ms. Rosenwald's position and voting history could be on domicile and voter ID in New Hampshire?

Thanks to our good friends at Granite State Progress (yes I cached the page) we know exactly how she voted.  She voted to make sure that her domicile-mate of electoral convenience Paolo, could continue to live in Sommerville,  Massachusetts (or anywhere else), and still vote in Nashua, New Hampshire--whenever the urge struck him, without fear of in-state interference.

Voting Rights

• Rep. Rosenwald voted against requiring every registered voter to sign an affidavit and be photographed before being allowed to cast a ballot if they do not present a photo ID. This legislation was anticipated to discourage voter participation and create long lines at polling locations. *ALEC Model Legislation* (SB289, Roll Call #244, 5/15/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against placing potentially unconstitutional and certainly unfair restrictive prohibitions on the voting rights of individuals who serve in the military or pursue college course work, whether full or part-time. This bill also would not have allowed elected officials to move from their present domicile to another, even when that domicile is in the same district. (HB176, Roll Call #73, 3/15/2011)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against making it more difficult for college students, military personnel and visiting professionals to participate in the democratic process by limiting their access to the voting booth. *ALEC Model Legislation* (HB1354, Roll Call #80, 2/8/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against allowing a person to arbitrarily challenge a voter at the polls without reason. Previously, an accusation had to be accompanied by a signed affadavit (sic) attesting to the reason for the challenge. Election law experts testified against this bill, citing potential increases in challenges based on racial profiling or political gamesmanship; they also anticipated longer lines and wait times at polling locations as challenges are freely thrown around. (HB1301, Roll Call #99, 2/22/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted Not Voting/Excused eliminating open primaries, which are a key part of the first in the nation primary. An open primary allows undeclared voters to participate in either the Republican or Democratic Primary as they see fit. (HB1595, Roll Call #139, 3/8/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against limiting voting rights to those with particular forms of photo ID. For example, a person could use a Massachusetts or Maine driver's license as a valid photo ID to vote, but not a municipal photo ID issued by Raymond or Londonderry. The requirement would cause confusion and frustration at the polls and is bound to result in preventing some voters from casting their vote on Election Day. *ALEC Model Legislation* (SB129, Roll Call #214, 6/1/2011)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against placing language on voter registration forms that would intimidate students and other from voting in New Hampshire. *ALEC Model Legislation* (SB318, Roll Call #286, 6/6/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against requiring voters to show specific forms of photo ID when voting, a requirement that will disenfranchise voters who cannot meet those requirements (such as the elderly and disabled). This bill did not provide for any voter education of the new provisions, which could lead to people being turned away from the polls when they go to vote. (HB1354, Roll Call #306, 6/27/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against overriding Gov. Lynch's veto of a bill requiring registered voters produce photo ID before being allowed to cast a ballot. Voting rights advocates were opposed to this legislation. *ALEC Model Legislation* (SB289, Roll Call #307, 6/27/2012)

All very interesting.

So now we have to wonder...will Ms. Rosenwald take to the Internet to explain this to us?  What crazy story will she concoct?  Should we expect another "myth" post explaining away her complicity?  And will any of those "excuses" bring up questions that create new problems for the Democrat House Rep from Nashua?

We patiently await a response.

You are reading  "Nashua NH Democrat lets out of state OFA campaign worker vote from her home"   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012

A Bump On The Road To Unity

As a Blogger I am encouraged by the calls for unity from the NH-GOP leadership.  But I do not believe they have a clue about how to get there from here.  And blaming bloggers is clearly not the answer.  In fact, it is exactly the opposite of "the answer."  I make that quite clear in the status update I posted on Facebook this morning.

"...the NHGOP is very bad at messaging.  They are terrible at policy support during the session.  They are not aggressive at all when it comes to going after Democrats.  They never use the media resources at their disposal effectively.  And they do a poor job of supporting local candidates.  Meanwhile, 'Bloggers" are doing all of those things...for free.  But rather than thank me for the 1200 articles a year I might write attacking left wing policy, narrative, legislation, or commentary; or thanking me for supporting the platform, conservative principles, good legislation, or local Republican candidates, they piss and moan like children over the fifteen or so articles where I call out the GOP for acting like progressives."

The first step toward recovery is accepting that you have a problem.  The NH-GOP has a problem and it is not bloggers.

Until the NH-GOP accepts that it is bad at almost everything it is supposed to be good at, there can be no recovery.

Now I am more than willing to promote conservative and Republican principles, to provide policy support, promote small government, connect activists to local candidates, encourage discussion and debate, but let's be honest--I already do that.  I've been doing it for years and I do not need the good graces of the NH-GOP to continue doing it.  In fact, I will continue to do it regardless.  But I am willing to help them get on board with what we as bloggers already do and what we can offer.

We offer access and distribution of any message that we all support.  We provide an opportunity to get that message to rank better in search engines so that more people will see it.  We are adept at using social media and getting content on to upper level blogs with even larger, national audiences.  And we do not require a pound of flesh in return.  And the New Hampshire media...a lot of them check in to see what we are writing about.

But be warned. We are not the lefty media.

I, and I believe I can speak for everyone else at GraniteGrok,  am not going to report and support a candidate or idea simply because the party says so.  Principle comes before party.  If you can see your way past that bump in the road then there is hope.

But before we get there, the state Republican party had best give itself a thorough exam, top to bottom, and answer some questions honestly.  The most important of those is...who they are and why are they here?

I'm writing over 1000 articles a year attacking left wing policy, narrative, legislation, or progressive commentary while  supporting the ideas in the Republican platform, conservative principles, good legislation, and local Republican candidates--and I don't earn a dime or spend a dime to do it.

I know why I'm here.  I know why I blog.  Someone has to keep that message alive, try to reach out and share it in new and even entertaining ways.  And to do battle across the blogosphere for the heart and soul of the Live Free or Die State.

If you don't get up every morning and understand that the NH-GOP should be leading that charge in New Hampshire instead of a bunch of bloggers, then you are involved for some other purpose.  If that is true, fine, but have the spine to admit it--and then get the hell out of my way.

You are reading  "A Bump On The Road To Unity"   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012

Wayne Mac Donald ..”People who blog are those who are “ruining” the party”

Kathy Benuck was a delegate at the GOP State party Convention Saturday and has a nice write-up here (LondonderryPatch).  She has some great observations and asks some good questions.  But what caught my attention (naturally) is this…

After the meeting had been adjourned, I approached the outgoing party chairman, and I related that I was highly disappointed that the election results were not disclosed. I asked why they had not been. He impatiently told me that for “unity” purposes, there was no need to give the results of the vote. I stated that it sounded more like “secrecy’ to me, and that perhaps such things had something to do with people losing faith in the NH Republican party. He told me that he was not going to waste his time discussing the vote with me. Oh yeah … and he also said that people who blog are those who are “ruining” the party.

emphasis mine

Note to departing Chairman Wayne Mac Donald…assuming Ms. Benuck got the quote right, and I expect she did, if what passes for your idea of a state party is what Bloggers are ruining, then may we accelerate its demise so that it may be reborn Phoenix-like as something for the good of all Republicans, not just the important ones whose turn it is or who happen to know which hands to shake and which cheeks to kiss.

I congratulate her on her victory but I do not envy Ms. Horn her task if the rest of the old guard is of a similar mind.  Wayne MacDonald just shot Unity.  It is now in critical condition, its chances of survival…unknown.

Extinguishing Tobacco Revenue In Our Lifetimes

I told them.  If you want people to quit smoking, you had best not get used to the revenue from tobacco taxes.   Don't count on it for anything if you want to extinguish smoking in our lifetime.  You know, make it history?  But what did New Hampshire Democrats do when Republicans tried to back away from tobacco by lowering the tax just one thin dime?  They snapped like addicts in withdrawal.  They got the Democrat DT's and everything.

You can't cut the tobacco tax.  We're losing revenue.  We need that revenue.  I gotta have revvvaaaaannnooooo.  (Insert primal scream here.)

Their new plan?  Same as their old plan.  Raise the tax on a product they don't want around to tax.  Yeah, that will fix the wagon (actually it wont) ....until January2014 when a provision in Obama-Care delivers the coup de gras.

In January 2014 anyone who is still funding the tobacco tax with their 'habit!' is in for a surprise.  Obama Care has a provision in it that allows insurance companies to charge 50% more for individual health Insurance policies held by smokers.  That''' add thousands of dollars more per year to those people's premiums.  You think some folks will quit?

Might just be a big old beaver dam blocking the revenue stream.  But then, that was the goal.

So I think we can count on extinguishing tobacco tax revenue in our lifetimes.   At least in any form to which we've become accustomed.  And hey! maybe the insurance premium gang rape will finally be the thing that keeps kids from taking up the habit--lord knows the Democrats previous tobacco tax hike didn't have much effect.  Did I say we might want to back off that dead-end revenue stream if the goal?  I did.  So don't get too used to that money.  And while you are doing that you might want to ask about future funding for SCHIP.  Isn't the Children's Health Insurance Program heavily reliant on revenue from tobacco sales?

Say it with me. "We have to pass the bill so we can see what's in it."

You are reading  "Extinguishing Tobacco Revenue In Our Lifetimes"   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012