Taxes: March 2008 Archives
By Rep. Steve Vaillancourt
While Governor John Lynch and prospective Republican opponent Frank Guinta are engaged in a game of reefer madness one upmanship ("I'll see your veto threat and raise you by silencing a duly elected State Representative, Governor"), Democrats in the New Hampshire House tipped their hand to their true mission when they passed no less than five new or increased taxes or fees Wednesday.
Unlike Mark Fernald, the failed gubernatorial candidate who took pride in touting an income tax and is now out there trying to foist one on town meeting voters, House Democrats are employing stealth and obfuscation to make their case with a "Rope a Dope" strategy.
It's a two-pronged attack far more threatening to New Hampshire traditions than a joint here and there will ever be. "Get the Republicans to focus on phony issues like civil unions and marijuana decriminalization while we lay the groundwork for an income tax," they are whispering to each other behind the scenes. In fact, they are salivating at the prospect.
First, with the of compliance of Governor Lynch, they passed such a bloated budget, balanced with unrealistic revenue estimates, that only new taxes and fees can possibly fund it. When the chickens come home to roost and we realize we're $150 to $200 million short (not even including extra money for meeting the school funding mandate), depending on whether you accept Democrats' own estimates or the Republican numbers, the end game is clear.
Ways and Means Chair Susan Almy, of Lebanon, who has long championed an income tax, tipped her hand in committee last week. When Republicans spoke against the new taxes (she prefers to call them fees), she actually contended that we have no other alternative. Fees are the New Hampshire way of funding things, she stated.
The strategy is clear. Pile on enough fees, and the Democrats, bolstered by their media allies from Concord to Keene and the Seacoast, will give voice next year to they dare not utter now. "You know, if we only had an income tax, which is really the fairest tax of all, we wouldn't need all these fees," the Almyites will argue.
They lack the courage to say that now. In fact, after half the Ways and Means Democrats voted for a version of the Hager-Below-Fernald income tax in committee earlier this year, leadership panicked and tabled the bill so many in the caucus would not be on record supporting what is apparently still not a palatable alternative to the vast majority of New Hampshire voters, Fernald's best efforts notwithstanding.
Instead, House Democrats are voting overwhelmingly for such things as a milk tax, a beverage container tax, a surcharge (tax increase) on registry of deed filings, and motor vehicle registration tax increases.
That was last year, but Wednesday we were handed another six-pack: a gasoline tax increase, not even to fund road work mind you; a tavern fee 20 times what social clubs which now serve alcohol are assessed; a teen learners permit fee twice what it will cost to administer (which by some definitions makes it no longer a fee but in fact a tax); a particularly onerous tax on businesses for Hazmat clean ups when in fact we already have monies necessary to accomplish the mission; a $1000 fine with an 18 percent late payment penalty (from the very Democrats who battled against usury in the private sector earlier this year) on telephone companies; and a heating oil tax increase.
Democrats came to the session armed with their marching orders, written instructions on how to vote on each and every bill. They passed the first five bills and only failed on the heating oil bill by a five vote margin. One can only pause to wonder whether these outrages will survive a trip to the Senate and the Governor's desk.
House Democrats are led by those who point with pride to how they defied tradition and passed an income tax by a 194-190 margin in 1999. Almy, Finance Chair Marjorie Smith of Durham, and Majority Leader Mary Jane Wallner of Concord were all on the Finance Committee back then. Speaker Terie Norelli was championing the tax back then, and Democratic leader Peter Burling (now Senator Burling) was twisting arms to get it passed. Rep Raymond Buckley, currently recruiting candidates as Democratic Party Chair, voted for the tax back then.
In fact, all but seven Democrats got in line to vote for it. Of those seven, two are now dead; one has changed his mind and now supports the income tax; one has left politics; and one has changed parties.
Wake up, New Hampshire, it's later than you think. To quote the late Celtic announcer Johnny Most, Lynch and Republican leaders are "fiddling and diddling", focus on reefers, while the state is about to burn.
A six term State Representative from Manchester, Steve Vaillancourt, who serves on the Ways and Means Committee, is the former Democrat who voted against the income tax in 1999
While Governor John Lynch and prospective Republican opponent Frank Guinta are engaged in a game of reefer madness one upmanship ("I'll see your veto threat and raise you by silencing a duly elected State Representative, Governor"), Democrats in the New Hampshire House tipped their hand to their true mission when they passed no less than five new or increased taxes or fees Wednesday.
Unlike Mark Fernald, the failed gubernatorial candidate who took pride in touting an income tax and is now out there trying to foist one on town meeting voters, House Democrats are employing stealth and obfuscation to make their case with a "Rope a Dope" strategy.
It's a two-pronged attack far more threatening to New Hampshire traditions than a joint here and there will ever be. "Get the Republicans to focus on phony issues like civil unions and marijuana decriminalization while we lay the groundwork for an income tax," they are whispering to each other behind the scenes. In fact, they are salivating at the prospect.
First, with the of compliance of Governor Lynch, they passed such a bloated budget, balanced with unrealistic revenue estimates, that only new taxes and fees can possibly fund it. When the chickens come home to roost and we realize we're $150 to $200 million short (not even including extra money for meeting the school funding mandate), depending on whether you accept Democrats' own estimates or the Republican numbers, the end game is clear.
Ways and Means Chair Susan Almy, of Lebanon, who has long championed an income tax, tipped her hand in committee last week. When Republicans spoke against the new taxes (she prefers to call them fees), she actually contended that we have no other alternative. Fees are the New Hampshire way of funding things, she stated.
The strategy is clear. Pile on enough fees, and the Democrats, bolstered by their media allies from Concord to Keene and the Seacoast, will give voice next year to they dare not utter now. "You know, if we only had an income tax, which is really the fairest tax of all, we wouldn't need all these fees," the Almyites will argue.
They lack the courage to say that now. In fact, after half the Ways and Means Democrats voted for a version of the Hager-Below-Fernald income tax in committee earlier this year, leadership panicked and tabled the bill so many in the caucus would not be on record supporting what is apparently still not a palatable alternative to the vast majority of New Hampshire voters, Fernald's best efforts notwithstanding.
Instead, House Democrats are voting overwhelmingly for such things as a milk tax, a beverage container tax, a surcharge (tax increase) on registry of deed filings, and motor vehicle registration tax increases.
That was last year, but Wednesday we were handed another six-pack: a gasoline tax increase, not even to fund road work mind you; a tavern fee 20 times what social clubs which now serve alcohol are assessed; a teen learners permit fee twice what it will cost to administer (which by some definitions makes it no longer a fee but in fact a tax); a particularly onerous tax on businesses for Hazmat clean ups when in fact we already have monies necessary to accomplish the mission; a $1000 fine with an 18 percent late payment penalty (from the very Democrats who battled against usury in the private sector earlier this year) on telephone companies; and a heating oil tax increase.
Democrats came to the session armed with their marching orders, written instructions on how to vote on each and every bill. They passed the first five bills and only failed on the heating oil bill by a five vote margin. One can only pause to wonder whether these outrages will survive a trip to the Senate and the Governor's desk.
House Democrats are led by those who point with pride to how they defied tradition and passed an income tax by a 194-190 margin in 1999. Almy, Finance Chair Marjorie Smith of Durham, and Majority Leader Mary Jane Wallner of Concord were all on the Finance Committee back then. Speaker Terie Norelli was championing the tax back then, and Democratic leader Peter Burling (now Senator Burling) was twisting arms to get it passed. Rep Raymond Buckley, currently recruiting candidates as Democratic Party Chair, voted for the tax back then.
In fact, all but seven Democrats got in line to vote for it. Of those seven, two are now dead; one has changed his mind and now supports the income tax; one has left politics; and one has changed parties.
Wake up, New Hampshire, it's later than you think. To quote the late Celtic announcer Johnny Most, Lynch and Republican leaders are "fiddling and diddling", focus on reefers, while the state is about to burn.
A six term State Representative from Manchester, Steve Vaillancourt, who serves on the Ways and Means Committee, is the former Democrat who voted against the income tax in 1999
Union Leader:
So, you know that "economic stimulus" check coming in the mail to you? $1,600 a couple? Can you do the math?
What starts out a perhaps a nice idea (frankly, the money should be going to those that can actually create jobs which would create more lasting benefit than a one shot), turns into a Democratic flim-flam as this is a net $400 back to the government.
Such a deal by these retrograde New Dealers!
Tax hikes for all! Congress makes a budget
Sunday, Mar. 16, 2008
Whatever money you have left after paying for gas, home heating oil and groceries, you'd better start saving right now. You're going to need it to pay your huge new tax bill.
On Thursday and Friday, Democrats in Congress voted to hike discretionary spending by $300 billion ($700 billion in total spending) in the next five years alone. They would pay for that by passing gigantic new tax increases for virtually all Americans.
The $3 trillion budget resolution passed in the Senate would require $1.2 trillion in tax increases, Sen. Judd Gregg, the ranking Republican member of the Senate Budget Committee, calculates. ($1.2 TRILLION!!) And not just on "the rich," either.
"(Barack) Obama and (Hillary) Clinton both promise to reverse Bush's tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they'll be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more," The Washington Post reported on Thursday.
In the House, every single Democrat -- including New Hampshire Reps. Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes -- voted for a budget resolution that would officially raise taxes by $683 million, The Post reported. But this budget is a fantasy, too. It includes no Iraq war spending after next year. It will have to raise billions more than it anticipates.
Instead of cutting back, like most American families are doing, the Democratic majority in Washington is proposing to win election this fall by spending lavishly on key voter groups. And where are they getting the money? Straight from the pockets of Americans already struggling to make ends meet.
This is boilerplate New Deal liberalism. But the anti-wealthy rhetoric behind it does not match reality. The truth is, Hodes and Shea-Porter, Obama and Clinton all talk about raising taxes only on the rich, but they just voted to raise taxes on everyone from the rich to lower-middle class families struggling to survive. That means you.
So, you know that "economic stimulus" check coming in the mail to you? $1,600 a couple? Can you do the math?
...you will cough an average of more than $2,000 extra per year...
What starts out a perhaps a nice idea (frankly, the money should be going to those that can actually create jobs which would create more lasting benefit than a one shot), turns into a Democratic flim-flam as this is a net $400 back to the government.
Such a deal by these retrograde New Dealers!
