Amherst Republican Committee

New Hampshire residents weary of dreary summer rain received a frightening jolt of lightening when a Judge blocked Governor John Lynch’s attempt to transfer $110 million dollars of private funds to State coffers. Belknap County Superior Court Justice Kathleen McGuire ruled that an extremely controversial provision in the recently enacted New Hampshire Budget, which transferred $110 million from a fund controlled by the Joint Underwriting Association (JUA) to the State’s General Fund to balance the budget, is unconstitutional. Justice McGuire’s well researched, clearly written and completely unambiguous ruling, held that Governor Lynch and members of the Legislature who supported this proposed $110 million transfer, are in violation of both the ‘takings’ and ‘contracts’ clauses of the New Hampshire Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Governor Lynch has already indicated the State will appeal the decision but it is hard to imagine, given McGuire’s opinion, that the Supreme Court will overrule her.

The JUA was formed in 1975 to provide medical liability insurance to physicians and currently provides over 20% of the medical liability coverage in New Hampshire. The Judge ruled the JUA is independent from the State. More importantly, physicians, not the State, contribute to its funding and when the JUA faced a deficit in 1985 a surcharge on doctor’s policies was assessed to cover the gap–not State funding. Twice in the past, the JUA distributed surplus funds to policy holders–not the State. Given these facts, it’s political hubris and arrogance seldom seen in our State, for the Democratic supporters of this budget to simply expropriate $110 million. These unseemly political shenanigans, now defy both our state and federal constitutions.

The sanctity of contracts is one of the underpinnings of our society, as is the prohibition of the government taking a person’s property without just compensation. Good for Justice McGuire for upholding constitutional principles and shame on politicians who believe the State can simply break contracts and take property it doesn’t own, to enable the gravy train of a 10.5% state spending increase.

What does this $110 million hole mean for the New Hampshire Budget? First, the budget hole is not just $110 million. Recently Superior Court Justice Diane Nicolosi ruled in favor of the New Hampshire Health Care Association and blocked the State from garnering $9 million that nursing homes claim they are entitled to. Furthermore, the New Hampshire Municipal Association is set to file suit against the State for changes to pension contributions made in the recent budget. The State has historically contributed 35% of the cost of pensions for police, firefighters, teachers, and other employees. Under the recent budget the State’s contribution will drop to 25%, costing property taxpayers an estimated $27 million. Thus far, 143 towns and 53 school districts have agreed to join the Municipal Association lawsuit displaying the depth of anger at the Democratic leadership’s hike of property taxes.

In total, the State could be looking at a nearly $150 million litigation shortfall. As if misery did not already have enough company, when the budget was passed in June, its authors inflated revenue projections by $75 million to give the appearance it was in balance, at least on paper. The question now is if this budget, passed only a month ago, is even worth the paper it is written upon?

New Hampshire residents may quickly lose sight of the interminable Washington debate on new bureaucracies, taxes, and regulations involving global warming and government run health care and soon be consumed with the budget wildfire in Concord that not even all this rain will stamp out.

So where does the State go from here? The option I support would be to cut spending to balance the budget with available revenue. Spending reductions of about 3.5% would be necessary to make up the $110 million gap. During budget debates, Republicans in the House and Senate proposed larger spending reductions and unfortunately each and every one were rejected on largely party line votes. If Democrats won’t cut spending, then what other options will they pursue?

Are new taxes on the horizon? Unfortunately, that is more likely. The budget Governor Lynch signed increased tobacco taxes, taxes on rooms and meals, and numerous fees all while adding new taxes on gambling winnings, camping and owners of limited liability companies — the latter two new taxes without even the courtesy of a public hearing. The House earlier voted to increase gas taxes and implement new taxes on capital gains and estates. The Senate earlier voted to increases taxes on New Hampshire businesses small and large. At a time that the New Hampshire unemployment rate stands at 6.8% and families are struggling to pay their bills, there is no shortage of Democrats in the Legislature ready, willing, and almost gleefully able to raise taxes.

What about gambling? There is little question the prospects for gaming just improved. The Senate already voted for gambling (though I voted in opposition). Would the House reconsider? Even if the House does reconsider, and gambling fills this $110 million crisis of today, larger budget problems loom in the near future.

The budget that just passed included $500 million of one-time funding sources—much of it federal stimulus money. Given that the federal budget deficit this year will approach an unheard of $2 trillion and federal budget deficits are estimated to top $1 trillion per year for the next 10 years (before health care reform), no state should expect more federal largess any time soon.

So, today’s crisis involving an unconstitutional attempt to simply grab $110 million will quickly become an even larger problem that gambling revenue will not fill. Bottom Line: our State is hurtling headlong towards an income or sales tax, possibly both, unless we meet the challenge of reducing state spending.

Jeb Bradley is a NH Senator serving District 3

Members of Congress (particularly those of the Democrat variety) have a problem. Real people are starting to show up at their “Town Hall” meetings and (gasp!) ask questions! It’s really inconvenient for them. They would prefer the sheep stay home and watch American Idol for the most part and perhaps send them a thank-you note once in a while for the latest “program” or “service” they have voted for. Let’s face it – these folks really aren’t much for an honest exchange of ideas. And the last thing they want is the hoi polloi armed with actual facts about the legislation Nancy tells them to vote for. I mean, they don’t actually read these bills – why should you?!
So this presents us, the informed electorate, with a great opportunity. Congresspeople are on their way back home to hear from you. Let your voice be heard. Here’s a great list of questions for them as well as some pieces of the actual legislation being considered. Take it with you to a town hall meeting, call these folks, write a letter. Better yet – write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Unless you want an elitist bureaucrat (who is on a gold-plated private insurance plan) to decide whether you, your children, your parents and grandparents live or die, the time to stand up and be heard is NOW!

Health Care Questions

The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy has come out with a report that outlines the State Budget featuring 38 new taxes and fees.

Josiah Bartlett Report – Click Here for PDF File

Ken… I am forwarding to you a copy of an email I received from Brad Dayspring. Brad is the PR guy for Rep. Cantor, VA. who is the GOP Whip. I was so mad after I read in this morning’s newspaper about the House and Senate Bills on Health Care, and how the President intends, once again to ram his bill through the House and Senate within the next 2 weeks, I called Brad. He emailed me this article. Please get the word out to our GOP committee members. We have to let the world know what is going on, also to call our Rep. Hodes to let him know we are against House Bill and our two Senators as well.

Regards,
Bill Modis

A Reckless Congress
Democrats want to ram through one of the greatest raids on private income and business in American history.

Say this about the 1,018-page health-care bill that House Democrats unveiled this week and that President Obama heartily endorsed: It finally reveals at least some of the price of the reckless ambitions of our current government. With huge majorities and a President in a rush to outrun the declining popularity of his agenda, Democrats are bidding to impose an unrepealable European-style welfare state in a matter of weeks.

Mr. Obama’s February budget provided the outline, but the House bill now fills in the details. To wit, tax increases that would take U.S. rates higher even than most of Europe. Yet even those increases aren’t nearly enough to finance the $1 trillion in new spending, which itself is surely a low-ball estimate. Meanwhile, the bill would create a new government health entitlement that will kill private insurance and lead to a government-run system.

Hyperbole? That’s what people said when we warned about this last fall in “A Liberal Supermajority,” but even we underestimated the ideological willfulness of today’s national Democrats. Consider only a few of the details:

A huge new income surtax. The bill’s main financing comes from another tax increase on top of the increase already scheduled for 2011 under Mr. Obama’s budget. The surtax starts at one percentage point for adjusted gross income above $350,000 in 2011, rising to two points in 2013; a 1.5 point surtax at incomes above $500,000, rising to three in 2013; and a whopping 5.4 percentage points in 2011 and beyond on incomes above $1 million.

This would raise the top marginal federal tax rate back to roughly 47% or 48%, if you include the Medicare tax and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. With the current top rate at 35%, this would be the largest rate increase outside the Great Depression or world wars.

The average U.S. top combined state-federal marginal tax rate would hit about 52%. This would be higher than in all but three (Denmark, Sweden, Belgium) of the 30 countries measured by the OECD. According to the nearby table compiled by the Heritage Foundation, taxpayers in at least five U.S. states would pay higher marginal rates even than Sweden. South Korea, which Democrats worry is stealing American jobs, would be able to grab even more as its highest rate is a far more competitive 38.5%.

House Democrats say they deserve credit for being honest about the tax increases needed to fund their ambitions. But then they also claim that this surtax would raise $544 billion in new revenue over 10 years.

America’s millionaires aren’t that stupid; far fewer of them will pay these rates for very long, if at all. They will find ways to shelter income, either by investing differently or simply working less. Small businesses that pay at the individual rate will shift to pay the 35% corporate rate.

When the revenue doesn’t materialize, Democrats will move to soak the middle class with a European-style value-added tax.

Phony numbers. Democrats will have to come up with something, because even the surtax puts their bill at least $300 billion short of honest financing.

The public insurance “option” doesn’t even begin until 2013 and the costs are heavily weighted toward the later years, but the tax hikes start in 2011. So under Congress’s 10-year budget window, the House bill is able to pay for seven years of spending with nine years of taxes. Andy Laperriere of the ISI Group estimates the bill would add $95 billion to the deficit in 2019 alone.

Then there’s yesterday’s testimony, from Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf, that ObamaCare’s cost “savings” are an illusion.

Mr. Obama claims government can cover more people and pay less to do it.

But Mr. Elmendorf told the Senate Finance Committee that “In the legislation that has been reported we don’t see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs.”

Further on the public plan: “It raises the amount of activity that is growing at this unsustainable rate.”

No matter, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is whisking the bill through House committees even before CBO has had a chance to score it in detail. As Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan put it to us, “We will not have read it, and we will not have a score of it, but we will have passed it out of committee.”

A new payroll tax

Unemployment is at 9.5% and rising, but Democrats will nonetheless impose a new eight percentage point payroll tax on employers who don’t provide health insurance for employees. This is on top of the current 15% payroll tax, and in addition to a new 2.5-percentage point tax on individuals who don’t buy health insurance. This means that any employer with more than $400,000 in payroll would have to pay at least 25% above the salary to hire someone. Result: Many fewer new jobs, with a higher structural jobless rate, much as Europe has experienced as its welfare states have expanded.

Other new taxes, including an as yet undetermined levy on private health plans. This tax, which Democrats say could raise $100 billion or so, would make it even harder for private plans to compete with the government plan, which would already benefit from government subsidies and lower capital costs. For good measure, the House bill also gets the ball rolling on tax increases on foreign-source corporate income.

We could go on, and we will in coming days. But the most remarkable quality of this health-care exercise is its reckless disregard for economic and fiscal reality. With the economy still far from a healthy recovery, and the federal fisc already nearly $2 trillion in deficit, Democrats want to ram through one of the greatest raids on private income and business in American history. The world is looking on, agog, and wondering why the United States seems intent on jumping off this cliff.

Higher than France?
Veronique de Rugy

The Wall Street Journal has a very good article about what America’s top marginal tax rates would end up being if Congress and president Obama have it their way with health-care reform.

Mr. Obama’s February budget provided the outline, but the House bill now fills in the details. To wit, tax increases that would take U.S. rates higher even than most of Europe. Yet even those increases aren’t nearly enough to finance the $1 trillion in new spending, which itself is surely a low-ball estimate. Meanwhile, the bill would create a new government health entitlement that will kill private insurance and lead to a government-run system.

And this is even confirmed by CBO:

Then there’s yesterday’s testimony, from Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf, that ObamaCare’s cost “savings” are an illusion.

Mr. Obama claims government can cover more people and pay less to do it.

But Mr. Elmendorf told the Senate Finance Committee that “In the legislation that has been reported we don’t see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs.

Further on the public plan: “It raises the amount of activity that is growing at this unsustainable rate.”

Brad Dayspring
Press Secretary
Office of the Republican Whip
Congressman Eric Cantor
(202) 225-2402
www.republicanwhip.gov