News and Views

Consistency & Predictions
by Ray Chadwick

Previous columns have explored several themes as follows.

• Political parties and candidates should state their intentions and the values that they would implement if elected, and should work together to deliver what they promise.
• How candidates and parties voted in the past, the values and principles they acted upon or tried to implement, and the clarity of their ideas, are important predictors of what we can expect in the future.
• Insanity consists of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Let’s now consider what to expect if New Hampshire voters return the Democrats to a majority in Concord in the next election.

Presently, Democrats represent about 60% of the members in each house of the Legislature and also 60% of the Executive Councilors.

As a consequence, the Democrats can implement whatever legislation fits their agenda.

We’ve previously observed that the Democratic Party Platform (www.nh-democrats.org) clearly identifies the initiatives that the Party proposes to implement, including the following:

“We recognize the value of early learning and believe the State must extend the benefit of kindergarten to all communities.”

“The State should meet its Constitutional requirements to adequately fund our schools considering all sources of revenue.”

“We believe that access to affordable and quality healthcare is a right that should be available to all citizens. We believe that this right should include, but not be limited to, preventive care, mental health services, and dental care. We further believe that universal access to healthcare in our country cannot be adequately achieved through market forces alone.”

Democrats, with the power of the majority, have been quite effective in working to implement the values and programs presented in their Platform. Establishing civil unions was one example where the Democrats gave the citizens of New Hampshire exactly what was promised in their Party Platform.

What can we expect from a new Democratic legislature regarding spending and taxes, assuming that it would be consistent with performance in the current session and also with the promises made on the NH Democrat Party website?

The current legislature has adopted a budget that increases spending by 17.5% (for the general revenue fund) over the prior budget. Revenue increases were forecast to balance the spending.

The revenue sources (fees and taxes on business profits, interest and dividends, rooms and meals, liquor, etc.) actually are coming in ahead of prior years, but unfortunately not high enough to meet the budget revenue projections.

The Governor is slowly acknowledging that the budget will be in deficit, even though revenues are running at record levels, and blaming the “revenue shortfall” on “the economy”.

The economy is good enough in New Hampshire to produce revenue to the State that is higher than ever. Budget deficits (in spite of record high revenue) are also found at the Federal government.

The Federal government also enjoys majorities of Democrats in each house of Congress.

Coincidence? You be the judge.

When revenue increases, and a deficit results, then spending is the problem.

Seriously, is there any doubt that a government (or group or business or family or person) that decides to spend 17.5% more than they did in the prior period MUST be counting on additional revenue?

Not just additional revenue (the current sources are already providing additional revenue) but additional sources of revenue. More cynically, they may be assuming that the deficit crisis will influence the voters to be more amenable to raising new taxes so as to reduce it.

Along that line of thought, there are some major expenses that aren’t fully included in the current State budget, particularly the impact of funding an adequate education.

The Democrats are clear in what they propose to solve that issue.

“The State should meet its Constitutional requirements to adequately fund our schools considering all sources of revenue.”

What would “all sources of revenue” include? Perhaps income and sales taxes?

We’ve seen in the last elections a coordinated initiative advocating that we drop “the Pledge”, asked of candidates, that they commit to not raise taxes. The Pledge was formulated by former Governor Meldrim Thompson, who also said “Low Taxes are the result of Low Spending.”

When asked in early April whether the budget deficit had changed his mind about tax increases or new taxes, Governor Lynch responded “Well, I’m going to be looking at everything.” Two days later, observing that critics are misinterpreting his remarks, he stated that he would veto a sales or income tax

With their current majority, the Democrats could easily implement an income or sales tax.

One of the few things constraining them is the concern that voters might punish them at the polls if they pass a broad-based tax (even presuming that the Governor vetoes it).

That constraint will disappear if Democrats return with a majority after the next election.

by Stephen Poschman

By now, it should be no secret to the average New Hampshire resident that our state government is facing a fiscal crisis. How did this happen? The problem cannot be blamed only on a faltering economy as Governor John Lynch has disingenuously attempted to do. In January of 2007, soon after the Democrats took control of the state legislature, the spending spree began. In the past year, state spending has increased 17.5%, which translates into almost half a billion dollars. Right now, the state has more revenues than it did one year ago, but because of the largest New Hampshire state budget in 20 years, our state is about $100 million in the hole this year. One may ask, if the Democrats in power knew that they were going way over-budget, then how did they expect to pay for it? Two ways: 1) Increases in taxes. Already a cigarette tax has been implemented, car registration fees have increased and tolls have been hiked up (and will likely be again). 2) The Democrats gambled, hoping the economy would continue on a skyward trajectory ad infinitum.

If this is not the pinnacle of irresponsibility, then what is?

Some may shrug at a cigarette tax, increased car registration fees or tolls, but those are peanuts compared to what is coming if the Democrats stay in power in Concord, and especially if they have sufficient votes to override a veto by the Governor (Republican or Democrat) on taxes. There is already an effort underway to clear a path for bringing a sales tax and/or an income tax to New Hampshire, starting with marginalizing the anti-tax pledge that New Hampshire politicians have traditionally been asked to take. Governor John Lynch took “The Pledge” in 2006 when running for re-election, but recently has refused to state unequivocally that he will oppose new taxes. (Later, after being challenged regarding having taken “The Pledge”, he reversed (pardon me, clarified) himself.) Whether there will be sales or income tax bills getting introduced in the state legislature or new or increased state fees, expect it to be more expensive to live in New Hampshire because of the incompetence of this Democratic governor and this Democratic legislature.

To longtime New Hampshire residents and those who recently moved here to escape from a tax-and-spend state: Please do not stand idle and let this great state be irreversibly damaged by those in office. Let’s save our state while we can.

Stresses still high on U.S. military
Bush announced Thursday that Army tours will be cut to 12 months.

By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the April 11, 2008 edition

The US military for the immediate future continues to face daunting arithmetic: continued war, and too few warriors to go around.

Shorter tours in Iraq could help. President Bush’s announcement Thursday that he is reducing Army combat deployments from 15 to 12 months for troops sent overseas later this year is aimed at reducing stress on soldiers and their families.

But 140,000 US troops will remain in Iraq at least through September, per the recommendation of top commander Gen. David Petraeus. Many military experts believe that stabilizing the situation there could require a substantial US presence for years to come.

The bottom line: Many ground units have deployed multiple times to Iraq, and “people are tired,” according to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen. Army leaders say the readiness of their brigades is down, their equipment is worn, and their ability to respond to any new contingency is questionable.

“We face a large and growing gap between our military commitments and our military capabilities. Something has to give,” Andrew Bacevich, a West Point graduate and professor of international relations at Boston University, said in a Senate hearing Wednesday.

By most accountings Iraq is now the third-longest conflict in US history, shorter only than Vietnam and the Revolutionary War.

More than 500,000 US troops have served in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. Almost 200,000 have been deployed there more than once.

In public appearances this spring, Army leaders have been blunt about the effects of this pace on their soldiers. In a recent speech Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey, for instance, said that his service “is not a hollow or broken force” but that there is no question it is “stretched and stressed.”

By the Army’s count, it has conducted five surges into Iraq, including the most recent addition of extra brigade combat teams to tamp down Baghdad violence.

The current surge “took all the stroke out of the shock absorber for the US Army,” Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. He meant that if a conflict breaks out anywhere else in the world, there are no fully ready Army units that could be sent to handle it.

Army leaders are quick to say that morale remains high. But there are multiple signs of the emerging effect of this pace on the nature of the all-volunteer force. Captains – crucial midlevel managers of the Army – are choosing to leave at a substantial rate. The percentage of recruits who enter the Army with waivers because of past misconduct has more than doubled since 2004, to 13 percent so far this year.

In 2001, 91 percent of Army recruits were high school graduates. Last year that figure fell to 79 percent.

With only 12 months at home between tours, active Army units do not have time to do much else but rest and gather themselves for their return to Iraq.

“Our Army is out of balance,” said General Cody.

The Army’s long-term plan to restore balance includes increasing in size by 74,000 troops. That has been approved by the Bush administration, but construction of new units – not to mention recruiting the extra personnel in a time of war – takes time, and the target date for the expansion is 2011.

Meanwhile, the strategy for Iraq, per General Petraeus, involves no further drawdowns after July. After that, force reductions would await an improvement in conditions – or a different political situation in the United States.

To some experts, Cody’s statements about the stresses in the force are a direct comment on Petraeus and the current course in Iraq.

“[The Army’s] complaints are significant – they show a rift is developing within the military over the current strategy,” says Loren Thompson, a military expert and chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va.

To others, they may represent the expectations of the Army’s leadership that it can operate in a time of conflict as it typically has in peacetime.

Today’s Army is far smaller than it was in, say, Vietnam. The fighting in Iraq understandably has strained it, says William Martel, author of the recent book “Victory in War” and an associate professor of international security studies at the Fletcher School at Tufts University in Medford, Mass.

“But in a war military, you have to cut corners to meet objectives,” he says.

Mr. Bush’s announcement that he is cutting the length of new tours in Iraq is a minor adjustment, adds Professor Martel, but also a welcome one.

It is intended to signal the military leadership that the Oval Office is at least listening to their deployment concerns, and to show troops that something is being done to ease their burdens.

“Progress comes in small doses,” says Martel

.