My last post covered the about half of my response to Skip Murphy’s rebuttal of a previous post. Click this link to read his rebuttal. The Debate will NOW Resume.

About halfway through his post Skip quotes me and provides his rebuttal:

“It was mentioned that the Commissioners and Convention should have taken the shortfall in revenues into account when preparing the budget.”

That would be me....and Doug!  Over and Over, Commissioner Daigneault repeated "revenues are not keeping up with expenditures", "revenues are not keeping up with expenditures"

As I tried to point out during the meeting - if you know that revenues are not up to expectations, then why the heck are you still spending more than you take in and forcing taxpayers to pay for your mistake?  It is automatic that when one gets elected that the basic laws of supply and demand are suspended?

I did report in my post what you and Doug were saying, but I heard other people mentioning this same thing. I didn’t give credit to anyone in particular because there were so many people emphasizing this point.

I did hear Commissioner Daigneault say a few times that “the problem is that revenues aren’t keeping up with expenses” but I am not sure how many people picked up on the real intent of this statement. My translation is “we got the shaft from the state budget and HB2. We want to make sure people know it. This will outrage people enough to vote those fools out in November.”

As I stated in the first part of my response, the Commissioners and Convention didn’t see any problem with emphasizing their point, regardless of cost. They didn’t realize just how far they had gone until they were notified that this budget could cost jobs in Laconia. This is just more proof that the Spending-Tax-Cap in Laconia provides some benefit to people beyond our city limits. It doesn’t have the same effect to the County residents as it does on Laconia’s residents, but all of the town budgets in this county will benefit from the $351,000 increase in revenues.

I really feel that the revenue projections are still seriously understated, even when the revised numbers are taken into account. I believe that, because of the understated revenues we will see a great reduction in the amount to be raised by property taxes at the county level by December. I wonder if the Convention is thinking that the large sum of money they are asking from the municipalities isn’t so bad if they will get a reduction by the time the bill actually comes in.

Skip continues in his post with the following quote from me and his questions:

“With increases in prices for goods and services (fuel, repairs, etc…) and contractual agreement increases for wages it would be extremely dangerous for the county to run a flat line budget equal to 2007.”

Absolutely not.  We ALL face the same thing - why does government get first pick?  Why do they  receive top priority? What too many people forget is the reason for government - it is to do things that are not possible for us as individuals but also to exist for our benefit.

Again my statement is true in that the increase in the budget problem was purposefully done on the revenue side and it would be dangerous to make serious cuts on the expenditure side to compensate. This does not mean that the expenditure side shouldn’t be reviewed and trimmed. It only means that the impact on the county would be greater by eliminating needed services.

I don’t feel that I am giving the county “top priority” and I am not forgetting the reason for government, I am only stating what should be obvious to everyone that understands how this mess was made. Skip states at the start of his post about the budget increase that came from the Convention over the budget that was proposed by the Commissioners. I see this as more evidence supporting my belief in the true problem with this budget.

Skip continues this train of thought as follows:

The sensible thing would be to ask yourself "what is the proper role of government at the County Level"? and prioritize those things that are the main responsibilities.  In this case - Sheriff, Deeds, Corrections.  A lesser degree would be the Nursing Home.  Anything after that should be examined closely for elimination.

Note: there are always things to spend more on - those are wants.  It is the easy road to "go along and get along" especially with other peoples' money.  It takes a courageous person in politics to be able to say "no" and protect the ordinary taxpayer.

I agree with this statement and it is something that should be debated prior to the November elections so we know what our elected representatives feel is “the proper role of government at the County Level” and how they will prioritize those things.

Again I point to Arizona in regards to the Sheriff and Corrections. In Arizona the County Sheriff is also responsible for corrections and the County Jail. When Sheriff Joe Arpaio was elected in Maricopa County he was facing a budget shortage of over $1 Million and was under a court order to find revenue or release prisoners. He did neither one of these things. Through some “out-of-the-box” thinking he was able to keep the prisoners incarcerated and reduce expenses. He instituted the “Tent City” for housing prisoners, the change in meals (bologna sandwiches and fruit) and the “Chain-Gang” to curb costs and expand the jail facilities. That is why he is called the Toughest Sheriff in America and the prisoners complain on national TV that they are “treated like prisoners”.

I am not saying that his methods would work here but they could be looked at and with some other “out-of-the-box” thinking we should be able to reduce costs for the Corrections Department.

The Nursing Home is a responsibility that comes from the federal level. I have previously stated that I believe the feds should be following through on their promise and commitment more but, unfortunately we have no control over this. It is set by the State and Federal government, who pass the costs down to the local taxpayer.

It does take courage to say “no” and protect the ordinary taxpayer and we need to ask ourselves before we go to the polls in November “what type of courage have we seen?”

Skip quotes me as saying “That being said it is important to take the revenue side into account when determining expenses when preparing a budget. There is nothing to suggest that this wasn’t done with this budget,”

I return to my argument that this budget crisis was intentionally created and that the expenditure increase is “fairly reasonable”. More examination should have been done but there is no “large increase” in the overall expenditure side to suggest that this wasn’t looked at, even if it was minimally done.

You quote me talking about the issues concerning HB2 that were discussed at the meeting. You state in your post:

“you spent a lot of time on this - and I believe it to be a "red herring".  This is nothing more than account transfer gooble-dee-gook from the individual taxpayer level.  No matter what, the taxpayer still has to ante up lots more, one way or another.  

I stated my thoughts on this before and that hasn’t changed. The only thing I will remind you is that this cost-sharing program was set up in Washington D.C. and we have to live with the state’s take on it (HB2) until we get representatives with enough courage to lookout for the ordinary taxpayer. The “account transfer” you refer to is just that, but remember that the transferred funds are paid through a variety of taxes and not just property taxes at the local level. At least until the state gets a hold of it.

I don’t believe the “red-herring” is in HB2. This bill has some to do with the reason this scare tactic was tried. The rest of the reason for our County Representatives to try this tactic on us is because they are upset over the rest of the state budget and school funding.

Unfortunately I feel that they are trying this as a partisan method to get the Dems out of control at the state level. If we had true conservatives in office we wouldn’t have to resort to these measures.

True conservatives know how to lead, make positive changes and more importantly protect the taxpayers. An example of true conservatism would be taking the announcement Gov Lynch made about incentives for jobs in the North Country and turning that around to other areas of the state to increase jobs for the taxpayers and the revenues received from businesses across the state.

New Hampshire has a unique tax structure and there are some out there who can’t think of how to work within that structure to affect positive change and would rather apply more taxes to the ordinary taxpayer. This is definitely a hot button for me because it doesn’t take much to make the changes needed, increase revenues and reduce the property tax rate we have to pay.

I suppose this can be left to another debate, hopefully before November. The main thing to remember when we go to the polls in November is “what courage have we seen”, “what new ideas are being put forward”, “are these ideas outside the box” and “are we going to be protected”. Hopefully we can find candidates with positive answers to these questions.