From the Union Leader…
Tax caps are bad for building healthy communities. They are shortsighted attempts to stifle government spending regardless of purpose. They set arbitrary limits on community spending without addressing community need.
Without a doubt, a petition to amend the city charter, whether on a tax cap or any other question, when meeting the legal requirements to get on the ballot, should be placed on a ballot.
However, if it is important enough to residents and communities, it deserves a stand-alone election designation that focuses on local and or state issues. Presidential elections are so media-focused on presidential candidates and candidates for national office that important local issues do not get proper broad-spectrum attention by both the media and voters.
Historically, ballot questions are poorly worded, and the questions or statements are often manipulated to mislead voters and bias the issue. Many times voters are not even aware that such questions are on the ballot. Once voters get into the voting booth, it is too late to be educated on the issues or questions, and their votes become a “crap shoot.” Many do not even vote on the initiative.
Ballot questions deserve clear and unbiased wording and fair education on both sides of an issue before the community. Often supporters of ballot questions love uneducated voters to enter voting booths because they feel their side has a better chance of winning.
As for tax caps, they stifle community building. They suppress critical and creative thinking by immediately placing the priority on a dollar amount rather than how we intelligently and responsibly find solutions to socially responsible government.
Regardless of the needs of communities, particularly those most affected by an issue, a tax cap simply says “cut public spending.” It fails to take into consideration the priority of needs in a community and the particulars of an issue.
In tough economic times, “anti-taxers” come out accusing anyone of a differing opinion of being a “tax and spender,” and they offer their solution — a tax cap. This is a too-familiar scenario in New Hampshire. Community life and its needs are not so black and white; they are full of color and all shades of gray.
Responsible government should be directed by the common good of families, seniors, workers, schoolchildren and those unable to care for themselves. It must reflect sound policies that protect public health, public education, safety, community infrastructure as well as local business and not just the “tax base.” It must reflect a vision for healthy community building.
Tax caps polarize communities by unfairly pitting the needs of one constituency against the needs of another. Tough economic times require greater diligence by public officials because the numbers of vulnerable people often increase. In these times, budgets deserve more intense scrutiny rather than oversimplified solutions.
For as long as I have been a resident, a voter and a community activist of this state, New Hampshire has depended upon property taxation as its prime source of local and state revenue. Personally, I believe that there are better and fairer ways to raise revenue that are more shared by workers and families alike and that can alleviate the strains on citizens during tough economic tomes.
Nevertheless, given our unofficial motto of “live free or die before any new tax is enacted,” candidates for public office and officials are put to a litmus test pledging “no new taxes for New Hampshire!” To me, that is like burying one’s head in the sand or turning over and going back to sleep for another 20 years — Manchester Van Winkle!
Community budget and spending decisions must be based upon intelligent, conscientious assessment and evaluation of public good and what it takes for a community to provide for that good. If certain levels of taxation affect specific members of the community negatively, then it is up to local governing bodies to find a method of tax relief. Tax relief is not the same as tax cutting! It is determining how to redistribute the tax burden fairly without compromising the public good.
Linda Garrish Thomas of Manchester is a Democratic Party activist.
###
Note: CNHT fully supports the institution of a tax cap in the cities where it has been proposed. We include this article because it demonstrates the arrogance of anti-cappers. They do not seem to understand that there is not an endless supply of money for their pet purposes and that despite this fact, they deem their goals more important than the individual and collective fiscal health of the citizens.