In my view, the way our legislators deal with the budget they received from the governor is out of whack. What is happening today, although fueled by conservative members and the residue of the Trump years, has been standard for a long time. Any talk of a state income tax invites a kiss of death for anyone with political ambitions. For some legislators, any tax is evil. The GOP rails about “tax and spend liberals,” while some Democrats criticize a mentality that serves short-term self-interests, not the community in the long term.
What is behind this division? “Taxation without representation is tyranny,” was the rallying cry of the English colonists. They did not object to taxes per se. In the founding of the republic (a clear rejection of monarchy), the enlightened framers of the constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 gave the Congress (the representatives of the people) the power to lay and collect taxes.
Taxation on the federal level was a good thing, solving practical problems, not the least that of raising an army and navy for defense. More significantly it promoted the idea of “commonwealth,” that is, a political body founded on law for the common “weal,” or good. Massachusetts, Virginia and other states are historic Commonwealths.
From the outset, citizens understood that the political body, the government, exists for protecting their lives and providing for their liberty and prosperity. The specific terms of prosperity in the agrarian and mercantile economy of the late 1700s took one form. The specific terms of prosperity in the post-industrial economy today take modern forms.
I believe most citizens today expect their elected representatives in Congress and the General Court of New Hampshire to advance measures for the common good. Those measures today are the multiple requirements in modern life and livelihood, from a vast intercontinental highway system that rapidly moves food and goods across the nation, to the timely development, production and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. For the common good, past generations of legislators funded measures that gave the nation an educated citizenry and an infrastructure that provided a foundation for every private economic enterprise and corporation.
Similarly, the state’s constitution, Part 2, Article 5, gives the general court the power to raise taxes for the common good. That becomes the work for our elected representatives and senators.
I submit the view that the common good has an explicit moral and ethical dimension. Article 83, in the state’s constitution, says that legislators have the duty to encourage people to care about neighbors, work hard, be reliable, that is “to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and economy, honesty and punctuality, sincerity, sobriety, and all social affections, and generous sentiments, among the people.” As I see it, Article 83 champions the general good and rejects naked self interest.
And there is more. I find in Article 83 the recognition that education and “learning, generally diffused through a community” is “essential to the preservation of a free government.” And further it is “the duty of the legislators and magistrates, . . . to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and . . . to encourage private and public institutions, rewards, and immunities for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and natural history of the country.” Public education should be funded to the utmost and any measure that takes funds away from public education harms the state and its citizens.
I find a gulf between legislation for the common good, especially as measured by Article 83, quoted above, and what is actually proposed in the budget. One reasons for this gulf, I suggest, is the notion, held by some, that the state, like a family, must live within its means. It is a false equivalency, and legislators holding that view limit what the state’s budget can do for the general good.
I believe that the state, unlike a family, has many elastic revenue streams. While state finance may not be easy to understand, it is fortunate that in both legislative chambers, the state has dedicated and experienced members, as well as a knowledgeable staff. And they, as well as the governor, also have access to the independent expertise, especially The New Hampshire Municipal Association.
Late last year it published a 20-page guide to municipal state aid and revenue sharing, pointing out ways for legislators to increase revenue, within the constraints of the pledge not to raise an income tax. I recommended it to one of my state House representatives. Alas, most distressingly, the representative dismissed it out of hand and referred me to a button on the House of Representative website that I could not access without a password that could not be shared.
With the discussion above in mind, every citizen should ask, Does the current budget promote the common good with proper funding for K-12 schools, for higher education and relief from student debt, for state agencies, such as health and welfare, the highway department for maintenance of roads and bridges, for veterans and state police, and for those suffering from drug addiction?
Or does the current budget cut back on reasonable sources of tax revenue, give tax breaks to out-of-state corporations, ignore the urgency of climate change, and seem deaf to the reality of race and economic inequalities? Does the budget once again download educational and pension expenses on cities and towns? Do bills come from outside lobbyists and the special interests of the Koch brothers, or do they emerge from the considered discussion in party caucuses and legislative committees? Who, one must ask, at the end of the day is calling the shots?
We entrust our elected representatives to make wise decisions for the commonwealth, the good for all. Do they? Or have they given way to the tyranny of the most narrow of domestic views as directed by outside interests?
(Kent Hackmann lives in Andover.)