I imagine that one has to take a hard look at programs and make cuts where necessary, even if they are painful. And in order to further balance the budget, I imagine that it's necessary to find ways to bring in more revenue.
The current legislature did not BALANCE the budget, they CUT the budget, sacrificing programs and services and downshifting costs to towns like Newmarket.
One example of this is reducing the cigarette tax. The legislature planned on an increase in sales which would offset the decrease in taxes even though it was ill-advised and hadn't worked in other states as reported in this article in the NY Times.
It didn't work. According to this article in The Eagle Tribune, the Department of Administrative Services show a $20.1 million drop in tobacco tax revenues. But to me, the kicker comes at the end of the article:
"But within 24 hours of the tax cut, manufacturer's raised prices 10 cents a pack--negating the benefit."
Adam Schroadter and Josh Davenport supported reducing the cigarette tax--forgetting all about balance.
According to the Times article, "the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids estimates that if the New Hampshire cut were enacted it would mean more than $21 million in long-term health costs. The campaign also estimates a 10-cent drop per pack would result in 1,000 new young smokers in New Hampshire."
There was talk at last night's candidate's forum about being pro-business.
I just wonder at whose expense?
No comments:
Post a Comment