On March 5, New Hampshire Republicans brought forward a constitutional amendment that would have permanently banned a state income tax.
While we may disagree on many issues, both big and small, no greater distinction exists between the representatives you send to Concord. None.
A vote on whether New Hampshire should impose a state income tax on you is all the clarity you should require.
All five of Bedford’s Republican representatives supported the amendment. Bedford’s two Democratic representatives did not. I was one of the five Republicans from Bedford who voted to support CACR 10, a constitutional amendment that would have banned the imposition of a state income tax at any time in the foreseeable future.
Not supporting CACR 10 effectively keeps open what amounts to a permanent call option on your income. In other words, it preserves the ability of the state, at some future time, to impose an income tax on the people of Bedford and New Hampshire for the first time in our history.
The two Bedford Democratic representatives support such a tax. I do not point this out to be combative toward my Bedford Democratic colleagues, whom I count as friends. I simply believe it is important for voters to understand where their representatives stand on this fundamental question.
The majority of taxes we pay in this state are levied at the local level, as the authors of our state Constitution intended. Seventy-three percent of that levy in Bedford is currently allocated to our schools. We can, should, and do debate whether that amount is appropriate and how it is spent.
In my opinion, however, our state representatives should not support an effort to create a broad-based state income tax, hoover your money back to Concord, and hope most of it will be spent efficiently, in our town’s best interest, on schools or otherwise. It won’t. I see that reality every day in Concord.
As House Majority Leader Jason Osborne rightly noted in his recent Union Leader column, we must not confront rising education costs by levying a new, broad-based tax. Rather, we should support improvements through local innovation, decided at the local district level.
Imposing a permanent income tax on the hardworking men and women of the Granite State would simply allow Concord bureaucrats to engorge themselves and the system with expanded, bloated government inefficiency.
In Bedford, we just voted to reject the school budget and send it back for retooling with no increases. Some viewed that vote as catastrophic. Others saw it as prudent restraint and a call for innovation.
Passing a constitutional amendment to prevent a state income tax would, at minimum, keep more tax decisions in our local hands for an open debate, as we just experienced.
I believe taxpayers across the Granite State should simply ask themselves: “Should I vote for someone who supports a new and permanent tax that is indefinitely large, for an indefinite amount of time?”
I will not, under any circumstances, vote for such a tax in the state of New Hampshire. I signed a pledge to that effect. As long as Bedford voters send me to Concord to represent Bedford taxpayers, I vow, with absolute certitude, to keep that promise.
Has your representative made the same promise?