Erle Pierce, Sheehan Phinney Capitol Group

The New Hampshire House this past Wednesday took up three proposed constitutional changes and they were all defeated. These are known as Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolutions or CACRs for short.

CACR1 would have provided that 3/5 vote is required to pass legislation imposing new or increased taxes or license fees, or to authorize the issuance of state bonds and providing that the general court shall appropriate funds for payment of interest and installments of principal of all state bonds. This bill was very similar to what was introduced last year but unlike last year, this bill did not pass the House. The entire House supported the committee recommendation of Inexpedient to legislate by a vote of 206 to 149.

The primary reason this bill failed was its opponents were able to convince the majority that it would create havoc in trying to prepare useful and timely, future state budgets.

CACR2 would have required that taxes imposed by the state of New Hampshire or its subdivisions may be graduated. There was much confusion how such a change would affect the collection of all taxes not to mention how it would be explained to the electorate when it would become our chance to vote on changing the State Constitution.

The House agreed 302-38.

CACR4 Related to the Supreme Court. It would have required that rules made by the chief justice of the Supreme Court governing the administration of the courts in the state and the practice and procedure to be followed in all such courts shall not have the force and effect of law. A similar CACR was defeated last year and this year's bill sponsor, Rep. Lars Christiansen had originally requested a bill be written, not a CACR. 

Regardless of the confusion, the House agreed to kill this CACR on a voice vote.

Perhaps the idea of managing taxes through the use of our State Constitution has seen its day.

Time will tell.

Attack on the arts or eating the seed corn:

For a second year in a row, House Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, (R) Manchester, introduced a bill to abolish the State Department of Cultural Resources (DCR). In his testimony on the bill (HB 561), Rep. Vaillancourt stated that he would rather see the state dollars spent on public funding for the arts be diverted to programs that would directly benefit more needy citizens of New Hampshire.

The more than a dozen people testifying after Rep. Vaillancourt strongly disagreed with his assessment of the financial impact of the arts on the New Hampshire economy as they spoke of the collaboration and guidance received from DCR as a focal point for convening this important community.

Testimony came from Chamber executives, non-profits, restaurateurs and entrepreneurs who annually collect millions of dollars in the rooms and meals tax for those coming to New Hampshire to attend cultural events, many of which put on by those who have been funded through grants from the New Hampshire State Council on the Arts.

Not only does DCR give direct grants through their legislative budget (via the New Hampshire State Council on the Arts), they also have the responsibility to distribute $600,000 to $1,000,000 in federal funds to local artisans and non-profits. That federal funding would also go away if DCR were to be dismantled.

As you might know, in addition to being overseer to the New Hampshire state Council on the Arts (this author is a Councilor) DCR also has responsibility the State Library, the Division of Historical Resources, and the New Hampshire Film and Television Commission. Other than the New Hampshire Arts Council (which would go away), the other mentioned divisions of DCR would be farmed out to other state agencies such as the Secretary of State and the Division of Economic Resources.

HB 561 is scheduled to voted out of the House Executive Departments and Administration next week, hopefully with a recommendation for HB 561 to be killed.

Suds are Safe

On Wednesday, the House killed HB 168, a bill that would increase the beer tax and designate the increase to the alcohol abuse prevention and treatment fund.

This bill would raise the beer tax in New Hampshire from thirty 30 cents to 40 cents a gallon, paid at the wholesale level, with all additional proceeds going to a dedicated alcohol abuse prevention and treatment fund. 

The bill was killed on a vote of 308 to 45 primarily based on the arguments that with this increase New Hampshire would now have the highest beer tax in New England and almost four times that of Massachusetts (11 cents) and it would harm sales of beer in border communities.

While the beer tax has been relatively flat (no pun intended) for the last 20 years or so, it still raises about $12.4 million a year in revenue.