The House, Wednesday, March 9, 2005

Rep. Paul Mirski (R - Graf 10)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This proposed CACR gives me great pleasure of having the opportunity to address the members this morning, this is the best chance you are ever going to have to tell your constituents about how you feel about an income tax. We know from recent surveys that seven out of ten individuals in the state of New Hampshire oppose an income tax. Seven out of ten. That's staggering. The question will be how many of us agree with our constituents. Now the interesting thing about this income tax business is that most of us, our memory is only about 25 years old, we remember that Meldrim Thomson's an old guy who forced all subsequent governors to take the pledge to veto broadbased taxes, sales, income, whatever. We haven't had a gubernatorial race in the last 25 years where a candidate was initially elected without having taken the pledge. If that doesn't tell you something about the disposition of our constituents, really nothing will. Another interesting thing is, if you go back another 25 years, just outside the door is a portrait of a guy, you're not supposed to mention the name, but he's not here, Dan Healy from Manchester, who I'm told was the deciding vote back around 1948, a Democrat from Manchester - a deciding vote to kill an income tax in this House. Now we know that many of our friends on this side of the aisle, that many of their constituents support an income tax. We can't get the kind of votes we get on gubernatorial elections without Democrats and Republicans hating the idea of an income tax. That's the history. Now you wonder, why would this be? I think from the very moment of creation, we were formed with this hatred in our constituency. The shots that were fired back in 1774 were all about taxes. And incidentally, as opposed to Concord and Lexington, it was an assault on the Crown. Those folks were all subject to treason. Back in 1774, they put their lives and fortunes on the block against taxes. Sometime if you are perusing your little black book and want to look at the constitution, read Article 28. That will tell you how much we hate taxes. So voting for CACR 13 puts you in good stead with about 70 percent of the folks according to current polls. I'm sure some of the speakers who will speak against this idea for the committee report will like to tell you that prohibition on income tax should not be put in the constitution. In 1783, actually in the Constitutional Convention, the thirteen colonies got together and they prohibited all taxes, the federal government from collecting taxes from any sources, except excise, duties, tolls and fees. You couldn't have an income tax under the United States Constitution except by amendment which we passed in 1913, the 16th amendment. So to say you can't write this into a constitution just makes no sense to me. There's nothing wrong with prohibiting an income tax in our constitution, absolutely nothing at all. Someone else might say this is putting politics in the constitution. This is not putting politics in the constitution. This is placing an administrative constraint on government. That's what the constitution is supposed to do. It sets constraints on government so that they don't take your house, your property, your family, abuse you. It's all about restraint on government. So, it's not politics getting a prohibition on an income tax in our state constitution, the politics comes afterwards. It will come from April to November of 2006 when this issue gets debated. That's the politics. And those who want an income tax will argue against the adoption of this constitutional amendment, and those who don't will support it. That's the politics. That's what we deal with from signing up on primary day on through the November election. Now, with respect to language. Someone is going to say, " Oh, this means we are not going to have a BET, and an interest and dividends tax, and that sort of stuff." Those taxes presently exist in statute and historically when we adopt amendments where we have statutory provisions, they remain until they are repealed. Now if you decide to repeal the BET or you decide to repeal the interest and dividends tax, well, then you are not going to get them back. But when was the last time we repealed a tax? The likelihood of that is next to nowhere, next to nothing. So you can't fear in that context. Finally, for those of you who still may have the "woolies" you can take a look at page 391 in your calendar and there's an amendment. It just simply adds the word "new." So for those of you who worry about the BET or the BPT, which I think is no worry at all in the present language, we have an opportunity to amend the proposal to that add word and take that fear away. I would say for those of us assembled here, we have a great opportunity to get in step with 70% of the folks in the state, seven out of ten voters and I think we ought to take advantage of it, so I encourage you to oppose the committee report of ITL, to vote against it, and if we can overturn the report we will offer the amendment on page 391 and get on with the business of letting the folks in this state decide once and for all whether we're ever going to have an income tax imposed. Thank you very much.

Rep. John Alger (R - Graf 6)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Representative, for taking my question. Would you agree with me that for the length of time certainly that I've been here and you've been here that this has been an issue, that it's appropriate whether you're for the income tax or opposed to the income tax, to move it forward, have the debate and get it on the ballot and then if you're right about the 70%, it will pass. If you're wrong, it won't pass and it will kill the question and solve how we will proceed from there on. Do you agree with me that's a good idea? Thank you.

Rep. Paul Mirski (R - Graf 10)Well, obviously I absolutely do agree with you and I think that the people really ought to have the opportunity to restrict their legislature in this way. They've been doing it by vote after vote, after vote, after vote for more than 50 years. That's the memory of most of the folks in this House and I just think we need to affirm it. Thank you.

Rep. Robert Wheeler (R - Hills 7)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In New Hampshire I live a great deal south of you and perhaps the knowledge is more profound in the North Country. What gives you the confidence that an income tax ought to be outlawed now and forever?

Rep. Paul Mirski (R - Graf 10)One of my, little things I kind of do, I like to watch votes, and I like to see where people come from and how they vote on matters of taxes. I used to believe that all the hardcore tax votes were somewhere up in Coos and Grafton and Carroll Counties, and one day I did an assessment, and I looked at how representatives from the North Country were voting on taxes and then how the representatives from all the towns pretty much along the Mass border were voting. I want to tell you the votes against taxes were all right along the border and the folks way up north are thinking they are in the last century. The folks around you folks in all these southern towns are the ones who really, really, really, really, really, hate income taxes. So, it's sort of counterintuitive. It turns out to be just upside down, the more liberal votes are up north, the really anti-tax votes are down south.

Rep. Keith Hirschmann (R - Hills 17)Thank you, Speaker Pro Tem Weyler, good morning. Good morning, fellow legislators, it's an honor to be here. Why would a guy like Keith Hirschmann run for the House of Representatives? For one solemn reason. To protect the New Hampshire advantage, to solemnly come here today and say to you, "Put this question on the ballot before the people of New Hampshire. Let the question be answered by the people that would pay the tax." It's an honor for me to follow a scholar of the constitution, someone as the Representative from the North Country, Mr. Mirski. He's far well versed in this issue than I am, but I tell you today, there is a difference in an income tax. An income tax is an affront to the middle class and the lower class of our state. There is something called the "business class" in our state. The business class can expense their way out of an income tax. It's quite easy to buy a vehicle, to buy furniture, to expense an business. This would be an affront to people in unions that pay dues, that would pay an income tax, that should not see a tax come out of their pay check when their health costs are rising and other things in our state. There are a lot of people who can barely afford to live in the state of New Hampshire and we're the most affordable state to live in. That's quite ironic. I will leave you with one ditty from someone that we all love, our New England Patriots. At the Super Bowl you saw a commercial a hundred times saying, "Not today, not tomorrow, not in our House." Let's get this on the ballot for the right people, for the lower class, for the middle class, for all the citizens of New Hampshire, for the seniors, people are paying enough taxes. They don't need an income tax. Let the people have a solemn voice in what would effect them the most - an income tax in the State of New Hampshire. Thank you.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the committee's recommendation of ITL. Since it's a constitutional amendment, I brought the constitution with me once again today and thought we would talk a little bit about that. Harold Burns has never looked better, I guess this is an old book. The constitution has not changed since 1995. In fact, it hasn't changed since a lot longer before that, so this book is still valid and it talks very little about taxation. Because the founders of the constitution were wise enough to realize that they could not foresee the future, they could not determine what type of tax would be valid or best or most appropriate for a future generation. These were very wise men, and I suggest that we should attempt to be just as wise as they are in what we subscribe to and put in the constitution. When I talked to you about CACRs a couple of weeks ago, I talked about the basic principle and how they have to be approved by an overwhelming majority in order to pass. We've had several CACRs since then and I did a little more thinking about my general philosophy of how I view these constitutional amendments. I want to just quickly separate, before I talk about the income tax, three constitutional amendment ideas that might come before us that I would treat separately. One is a CACR that I not only would like to put on the ballot for the people to consider, but think that they should vote for and I would vote for. It's an election law CACR that talks about redistricting, a favorite subject of mine, so that every city or town with 3,089 people would have at least one representative. I think that's what the founders intended, that would be a CACR that I would vote for not only to put it on the ballot but when it gets to the ballot. There's another CACR that I think is very legitimate to go to the people because it deals with how we function. The constitution is our basic law, it spells out how we govern ourselves and our basic rights. This other CACR is something I would give to the people to decide, because it is legitimate, but then I would not vote for as a person. It is to increase the governor's term from two to four years. I don't think it's a good idea, but I think the people could well be given that to decide. Now this is a third type of CACR. This is one I don't think even meets the minimum requirements of putting on the ballot to the people because I do not believe we should be putting this kind of thing in the constitution. Now, my friend who is a distinguished scholar on the constitution, that's why I take so much surprise that I disagree with him so strongly on certain issues, my friend from Enfield referred to people who are for an income tax being against some people who are against an income tax before this. But that's clearly not true, Mr. Speaker. The vote in the Ways and Means Committee was 17 to 1. Now you're not going to tell me that all those Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee are for an income tax, that's why they voted against this. No, they're not at all. Most of the people in that committee, including myself that voted against this CACR are also adamantly against an income tax. When in one of the most august moments of this House in 1999, the income tax passed 194 to 190 on the illustrious day, when Donna Sytek welded the gavel, I was one of seven Democrats to vote against it. Two of them are currently dead. I was thinking of them last night, they used to sit in front of me, so I remember them very well. But I voted against that, my party put pressure on me, and I still voted against it. Now before our committee some people were saying, "Oh, this is a Republican position in their platform that we're against an income tax." I agree, that is a Republican position, but there's no Republican position that I can find that we are for mandating that in the constitution. The best way to maintain the New Hampshire advantage that my colleague from Manchester speaks of, is to do as we are doing right now. Continue sending representatives here who are against an income tax. This little pink sheet that was sent out by the Republicans, one of their coalitions, yesterday, it says, "This bill is your best opportunity to show your constituents how you feel about an income tax." I disagree. The best bill to do that was one we voted on yesterday, early in the day, which was the bill that would have mandated an income tax for this year, House Bill 622. You know what, it failed 246 to 45, a margin of about 83%. The last two candidates we had for governor that favored an income tax, I actually went into the Secretary of State's office on my way over, Arnie Arnesen in 1992 got about 40%, Mark Fernald got less than that in 2002. However, they got more than the one-third that would be necessary to block this CACR from passing. So if we would put this on the ballot, what we are doing is basically saying, "Let's have an opinion poll to see how many people, in fact, want to get rid of an income tax in the constitution." Well, I say to you my fellow legislators that the constitution is too sacred to be used as a referendum as we talked about a couple weeks ago and it's certainly too sacred to be used as an opinion poll. We have those who can do calls for that regard, but for this effect, I ask you to do what the majority of the Ways and Means Committee did, realize that although we are against an income tax, it's not the kind of thing that should be legislated in our constitution. Thank you very much.

Rep. Kevin Camm (R - Rock 8)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Honorable members of the House. Being on Ways and Means has its certain advantages. At the beginning of this session, we were briefed for days on national, regional, state and local economies. And I can tell you that New Hampshire ranks highest or very high regionally in numerous economic classifications. Percent of increase of personal and business income and or growth, percent of increase of real estate appreciation, our employment rate, our lowest overall tax burden. When it comes to recessions, we're the last one in and the first one out, etc. etc. These are some components of what is known as "the New Hampshire advantage." The duty of the Ways and Means Committee, I'll be brief, "It should be the duty of the Committee on Ways and Means to examine and consider the state of the treasury; to consider and report on all bills resolutions relating to raising money by a state tax and the apportionment of same, state, fees, and all methods of raising revenue for the state, and such other matters as may be referred to it." Now what do you suppose the chances are of a constitutional amendment limiting revenues coming out of Ways and Means with a favorable recommendation? Maybe somewhere around 1 to 17. Heck, with my Ways and Means cap on I was one of the seventeen. At one of the very first meetings I attended with the new Speaker, he suggested that we consider going back to the old constitutional and statutory reform committee. That committee existed during my first term. All constitutional questions went to that committee. I'm beginning to see the wisdom of that suggestion. After listening to my colleagues, constituents and others, with my Republican and anti-income tax cap on, I believe we should allow our citizens to vote on this important issue. Think of what this would do. It would energize the debate on both sides of the issue. It would provide a vehicle of getting an awful lot people to the polls to participate in the process, perhaps even a record turnout for a non- presidential election. Let's settle the income tax issue for the immediate future, and if passed, would certainly catapult the New Hampshire advantage like no one has ever envisioned. Let's enhance the New Hampshire advantage. Remember that our ultimate responsibility is to our constituents. Please vote against the ITL recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Rep. Itse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Honorable members of the General Court. A few moments ago Rep. Vaillancourt said that we don't have much about taxes in our constitution. But in the first part, The Bill of Rights, we do specify that all taxes must be uniform and proportional, a protection for the people. Most of what he considers to be appropriate amendments to the constitution deal with our form of government, how we do business. But what have we done in the last half century? Part I, Article 2, we amended it to provide equality before the law based on race, religion, sexual orientation. Part 1, 2A, when the federal government started diminishing our right to bear arms, we put the right to bear arms in our constitution, Part I, Article 6, we changed the language when defining what we considered high morality. No, we make a number of constitutional changes that are not dealing with the form of government. So what is our constitution. Part I, Article 1 of our constitution says, "All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good." Our government is founded with and only continues with the consent of the people. The constitution is the expression of that consent. James Madison put it this way, "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort, as well as that which lies in the various rights of individuals as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own. What is more his own than the fruit of his labor? His income. A tax on income is not mentioned anywhere in any founding American document. It does however appear in Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" right after abolishing private property and before eliminating inheritance. When the government tell you how much of your income they can take, they control your entire income. You will conform your behavior to their dictates in order to maximize what you can retain. Your are in effect a slave. The constitution is the people's constraint upon the government. It is their mechanism to restrain the ambitions and greed of those who make up their government - us. It is written down so that we have a known set of rules referenceable, less easily corrupted. Every one of you who has an "R" next to your name was a delegate to the Republican state convention at which the platform was unanimously adopted. Article IV of the New Hampshire GOP platform states that we will preserve and protect freedom from broadbased sales and income taxes. What better way to maintain that freedom than to prohibit income taxes in the constitution. Some of you have stated that you don't want to constrain future legislatures. But American government at all levels has demonstrated an insatiable appetite for the wealth of the people. What if the people want to constrain us in future legislatures, ought they be able to? Don't they have the right to? And don't we have the obligation to give them the opportunity to? This isn't about us constraining future legislatures, it is about the people constraining future legislatures. When New Hampshire elections have been about an income tax, the people of New Hampshire have turned out in record numbers and voted the pro-income tax candidates. Yesterday 60% of this House voted against an income tax. In my opinion, every person in this room who is a true representative of the people is obligated to vote against the committee recommendation. Allow the people to express their will on this matter which is most important to their future prosperity. When people see my license plate, they ask me if I work for the government. I tell them, "No, I work for the people." So tell me now, who do you work for? The government or the people?

Rep. Robert Dodge (R - Rock 9)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thank you for taking my question my fellow representative from Fremont. I sit here listening to the arguments about the constitution and what we should put in it and what we shouldn't put in it. Is it alright for the federal government to put in 1913, they passed the one for, 16 I think is was, Article 16, if they could do it why can't we?

Rep. Daniel Itse (R - Rock 10)That's absolutely correct. Rep. Jasper: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that I do represent my constituents and I think that's why they've elected me to this House six times over the last 20 years. And during those six terms I have always opposed an income tax and I will always oppose an income tax. I've heard people say that it's a fair tax. Well, the fact is that because you are a New Hampshire resident, if you work out of state you won't pay a dime, only New Hampshire residents who live in this state and work in this state pay that tax, to me makes it one of the least fair taxes. So why wouldn't I be in favor of putting this into the constitution and prohibiting it? We've heard a lot of good arguments, I think on both sides so I'm not going to go over those again. My reasons are a little bit different, and they are that I believe that it is important for us to have this debate each and every session. I believe that we will, as we have in the past, if it's not in the constitution because I believe it is very important for our constituents to know how the people in this chamber feel about the issue of taxation. I was against Tabor I spoke against that for essentially the same reason. I don't like taxes, I don't want to increase them, I don't like spending. I was one of 39 who voted against the budget last time. But I think it's important for our constituents, if they care, to be able to pull out the roll call from each session and look and see how we stand on a myriad of issues. Every time we lock something into the constitution, we take that debate away from our constituents. We take that record that we should be running on away from our constituents. The people who are elected here, their vision for what New Hampshire should be, becomes a little bit more clouded because the really important issues on how they feel may, in fact, not be in the public view. I think we need to have this debate. I think we need to stand here and go on the record as we did yesterday on the income tax, and on spending and let the people decide then, otherwise we may end up with a chamber full of people who no one really understands how they vote and when push comes to shove they may not like it. I stand here proudly against this bill and ask you to join with me in making sure this House continually goes on the record because I think what happened in 1999 had happened and the governor had signed the income tax into law, this chamber would have been cleaned out the next session and we would have had a lot of new people in here. I don't think the people of this state want an income tax. I think they would have reacted to what we did and I think that is very important for our form of government. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Rep. Robert Giuda (R - Graf 5)Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To the representative from Hudson, would it be reasonable to say that if an income tax was instituted by this chamber, that regardless of whether the voters removed it in its entirety, that the legacy would remain. That the taxation would stay in place regardless of who came in the next term and that that is what we are trying to avoid?

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)I absolutely disagree with you. We put laws on the books all the time and the legislature repeals them or not based on the membership in this House. I think if we enacted an income tax and this chamber were cleared out, the people coming in here would see that as a clear mandate and that income tax would probably never even have the opportunity to actually go into effect. Rep. Kurk. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For those of us who oppose an income tax isn't the most important reason to vote inexpedient on this, is so that we continue to have a wonderful issue to beat up our opponents?

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)That is certainly one way of looking at it and I wouldn't disagree with you, Rep. Kurk.