News and Views

by Stephen Poschmann

Every time the media relentlessly hypes a troubling news story or worrisome trends, it becomes the latest crisis. As a result of the crisis of the moment, there is always a great hue and cry (usually fueled by the media) for the government to do something. And what does government do in response to such calls? Government, that omnipotent busybody, invariably creates new laws and policies intended to help solve the problem. Rarely, do the new policies actually solve problems. It is far more likely the government will make matters worse or create new problems.

Ethanol is a bio-fuel made from corn and other grains. Environmentalists hail it as a tool for fighting the crisis called global warming. The argument is that it reduces carbon dioxide emissions. So now, thanks to a new government policy, ethanol production has been mandated to increase from 6 billion gallons a year to 36 billion by 2022. What will result from this? Well, for one, carbon dioxide will not go down as anticipated; it will go up. Why? We need more farmland to grow corn, which will lead to a dramatic increase in deforestation. Not very green is it? In other words, it means the removal of forests that would have naturally removed the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. And, I think by now, we’ve all heard about and seen the spike in food prices, which will only continue to go up. When 28 percent of U.S. grains are being used in the creation of fuel instead of food, thereby diminishing the grain available for food production—while developing nations like China and India are demanding more food—food prices can only wildly inflate. What’s worse is that the government is subsidizing this boondoggle using your tax money. One has to ask: if ethanol makes so much sense, why does the government have to subsidize it or pass laws mandating its consumption?

Aid To Families With Dependent Children (AFDC), commonly known as “welfare”, was a federal program in place for sixty-two years beginning under FDR’s New Deal. All nanny-state laws and programs are initiated with the best of intentions, but how could the government allow this incredibly flawed program to continue for over sixty years? It is as if the program was conceived as a cruel joke on the nation. AFDC may have been intended as a temporary hand-out, but it had the effect of keeping recipients on the government dole permanently, even passing from one generation to the next. Because the benefits came with an open-ended timeframe and very little pressure to find work, the program incentivized recipients to remain on welfare. Besides, the welfare payments were more money than the recipients would earn from an honest entry-level job. What may have been the most insidious feature of this program was the effect it had on the families in the inner city (and the ultimately the entire nation) due to the impact of its policy on child birth. The program encouraged childbirth due to the additional and prolonged monetary benefits that would result, especially for single mothers. The result was generations of large fatherless families living in inhospitable environments, no male figure, little discipline and plenty of negative outside influences. The increase in violent crime since AFDC was implemented tracks remarkably with the increased rate of illegitimacy over the same time period. The Republican-led House and Bill Clinton reformed welfare in the 1990’s, but, unfortunately, the effects sixty years of welfare has had on society have been irreversible.

The list big government failures can go on and on. With the many societal and economic challenges unfolding in today’s world, politicians will promise big government solutions to each one of them, often (as with ethanol) running counter to the law of supply and demand. We will be assured that all will be better if we just vote for this person or get behind that government policy. But, just remember, government rarely fixes problems. Government is rarely the answer.

In the words of Ronald Reagan, “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

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.