After Failing To Pass CACR 13, The NH Legislature Introduces It Again As CACR1

(NHLN Post)

If at first you don’t succeed,  try try again.

This is the matra of the NH GOP in the 2013 legislative session.  After the two year battle over Right To Work (for less), former House Speaker Bill O’brien, once again submitted the Right To Work (for less) bill.  That is not the only bill making a comeback this year.

Last November Granite State voters rejected the idea of handcuffing the state budget in voting down CACR 13.

CACR13: [Art.] 5-c. [Income Tax Prohibited.] No new tax shall be levied, directly or indirectly, upon a person’s income, from whatever source it is derived. (1)

The bill would have mandated 3/5 majority to pass any tax or fee increases by the legislature.   Now in the 2013 session we have CACR 1:

[Art.] 5-c. [Increase in Rate of Taxation.] A 3/5 vote of the members present and voting in the house of representatives and the senate shall be required to pass a new tax or license fee or to increase a tax or license fee that has been levied by the state, or to authorize the issuance of State bonds.

I will tell again that this is a bad idea.  This was a bad idea last year, which is why voters rejected it.  I hope that this legislature rejects this amendment before it has the chance to be voed on again.

*    *   *   *   *

We have done a lot of research on CACR 13 and here are a few of the posts we put together in opposition to the Tax Change.

CACR 13 A Tax bill that will ultimately crush New Hampshire

CACR 13: Putting New Hampshire in a Financial Straightjacket

CACR 13: The Amendment To Stop Moving NH Forward


, , ,

5 Responses to After Failing To Pass CACR 13, The NH Legislature Introduces It Again As CACR1

  1. Chris Blodgett January 12, 2013 at 11:40 pm #

    It won’t pass the House. But be sure, this is one of Bully’s tactics. He’ll use the votes on this to launch attacks not only on Democrats, but especially those Rs in the House.

    Someone said earlier that we needed to keep an eye on Bully and they were right.

  2. Rob Hall January 13, 2013 at 12:06 pm #

    can you clarify why you consider CACR1 to be the same as CACR13?

    I may be missing something but they seem different to me:
    CACR13 – no income tax
    CACR1 – 3/5 house and senate “to pass a new tax or license fee or to increase a tax or license fee”

    • Michael Bellefeuille January 13, 2013 at 7:38 pm #

      It’s not the same idea–it’s a worse idea. If you want to see what it looks like when a government needs a supermajority to raise additional revenue, just look at the endless budget problems in California, or closer by at the school district in Manchester. Tax caps are foolish for any number of reasons, but especially because they embalm an arbitrary tax rate–whatever is in place at the moment–and make it very difficult to change it. It doesn’t matter if that tax rate is enough to cover the needs of the state going forward or, if like in New Hampshire, it represents chronic underfunding and neglect–that’s the base tax rate that will be maintained come hell or high water, unless someone gets a supermajority. In a democracy, the basic day-to-day functioning of government is based on respect for the minority, but majority rule. If 51 out of 100 state legislators and the governor determine that New Hampshire needs to raise taxes or fees in order to function, then they can do that. If, come the next election, the people disagree with them, they can vote them out. CACR would senselessly bind the hands of future lawmakers and voters, make the state vulnerable to credit downgrades, and severely restrict future economic growth.

  3. Marty Jack January 13, 2013 at 8:33 pm #

    Actually this is a refiled CACR 6 from the previous session.

    • Rob Hall January 13, 2013 at 8:47 pm #

      yes, good catch, so it’s going nowhere

Site maintenance and hosting by Hoeferweb