News and Views

Controlling the State House
by Ray F. Chadwick

No Man’s life liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.”
That sentiment is attributed to (among others) a New York legislator named Gideon Tucker.

The Founders understood the risk presented by the unfettered growth of government, particularly at the expense of the liberties of the citizen. James Madison dealt directly with the concern that the legislature would be “likely to aim at an ambitious sacrifice of the many to the aggrandizement of the few.”

To combat and constrain the tendencies of the government to grow and usurp power, they devised a system of checks and balances between the branches of the government. They also relied on elections to (as Madison put it) “support in the members a habitual recollection of their dependence on the people.”

Finally, they relied on the wisdom and intelligence of the American people in order to constrain the government, using the electoral process to do so.

Thomas Jefferson wrote: “I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.”

James Madison: “If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.”

What would the Founders of this great nation think when reviewing the current status of our legislative bodies, and the breadth of the powers they (and the Courts) are attempting to hold over our citizens?

Alexander Hamilton wrote that “The principal purposes to be answered by union are the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.”

The government today has grown (metastasized?) and reached far beyond Hamilton’s description, into one that influences our lives, provides services that markets won’t support, regulates our speech and attempts to regulate our thoughts.

We’ve commented previously on some of these trends. Consider such examples as government mandates to eliminate certain fats in food and to mandate helmet use, subsidies for ethanol, the McCain-Feingold Act, diversity codes and hate-crimes legislation.

Coming soon will be a government-run market for carbon credits which will restructure the cost of energy, and create new Federal agencies to “regulate” (tax) energy.

Haven’t we learned from the government’s creation of an ethanol market? Again, is there any reason to think that the government will act with greater wisdom than free citizens and free markets?

In New Hampshire, 15 years after the 1993 Claremont School District decision, the Legislature and the Governor remain engaged in a constitutional conflict with the Supreme Court, unable to define either an adequate education and a funding mechanism or a constitutional amendment to return the responsibility for education funding to the Legislature. They also created a budget that willfully increased spending by double digit percentages, resulting in a deficit that will lead inexorably to calls for new taxes, further fueling the growth of the State government and its cost.

Meanwhile, our Legislature is also involved in dealing with:

• House Bill 1523: An Act relative to the use of clotheslines.
• House Bill 1616: An Act requiring the State University System to credit out-of-state students for the loss of financial aid caused by registering to vote in New Hampshire.
• House Joint Resolution 12: A Resolution urging support for additional funding for essential research on colony collapse disorder and urging that funds be allocated for regenerating the bee population.
• House Bill 1457: An Act allowing smoking in cigar bars.

What particular logic makes (for example) the plight of bees the responsibility of the New Hampshire General Court? Why wouldn’t those issues be appropriately, and best, dealt with by beekeepers?

Perhaps the citizens need to reinforce the idea that the legislature does not have to solve every problem, nor try to direct our behavior.

Perhaps we might insist on a more limited legislative agenda, one that leaves legislators with more time to read and understand each bill, debate it and reach an informed decision on voting.

Perhaps a reduced volume of legislation would require less effort in its generation and explanation, and thereby afford less opportunity for influence by advocacy groups and special interests.

A good start would be to limit each legislator to initiating only one piece of legislation during each two-year session.

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.