Gov. Kelly Ayotte speaks with reporters on Election Day, Nov. 5, 2024. (Will Steinfeld | New Hampshire Bulletin)
I’ve always been kind of a sucker for “we’re all in this together” political speeches. Even though I know I’m being manipulated, I can’t resist the emotional high of perceived unity. In my lifetime, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama always seemed particularly skilled at the delivery, and in Hollywood it’s hard to beat New Hampshire’s own President Jed Bartlet.
Our most inspiring leaders, real and fictional, elevate not only how we see our communities, state, and nation but ourselves. More importantly, they help us connect with each other, if briefly, even when the policies being touted are divisive in nature.
During Kelly Ayotte’s inaugural address on Thursday, there were moments when New Hampshire’s new governor seemed intent on striking that golden balance – bringing people together in spirit even as the proposed policies hammer away at the wedges.
Addressing House and Senate Democratic leaders specifically, Ayotte said, “Good government knows no party, so let’s show the folks that when partisanship is at a fever pitch we can set a different example.”
I believe that olive branch and the others she offered across the aisle on Thursday were heartfelt and represent one of the ways she is different from, say, President-elect Donald Trump, who thrives on confrontation and blame. She does not, nor has she ever, struck me as one of the tear-it-all-down, far-right fomenters so prominent in her party these days.
But in regard to policy, there was plenty in her address to suggest that any bipartisan honeymoon will be short-lived.
The big problem is that the way Ayotte and many in her party talk about fiscal math often doesn’t make much sense, and it’s difficult to tell whether that’s intentional.
Here’s what I mean:
In her speech, Ayotte applauded the elimination of the state’s interest and dividends tax, a move that disproportionately benefited wealthy taxpayers. The loss of that revenue means the state is out, conservatively speaking, north of $150 million annually.
Republicans have been touting that one quite a bit lately, calling it a win for taxpayers (although more than half of it was paid by the top 1 percent of households), and so it’s no surprise that Ayotte joined the chorus. But if Republicans were really interested in helping out all taxpayers instead of just the wealthiest ones, they would have just raised the threshold of who pays the I&D tax and taken half the revenue hit, at most. And that’s exactly what Democratic gubernatorial candidate Joyce Craig proposed during the campaign, but in the end the GOP’s trickle-down whimsy carried the day.
I don’t mean to beat a dead horse – the repeal is done and over. But what isn’t done and over is the daily price we’ll pay for that repeal even as we are scolded for not recognizing the theoretical “advantage” we have just gained.
That’s not me trying to be a nattering nabob of negativism, either. Ayotte was clear in her speech that there’s belt-tightening in our future because revenues are down. To deal with that hard fact, she has asked millionaire former one-term Gov. Craig Benson to channel billionaire Elon Musk for a New Hampshire version of “DOGE” called (groan) “COGE” – the Commision on Government Efficiency.
To make matters even more challenging, all the federal American Rescue Plan money has now dried up, and so between that and the business tax cuts of recent years, and the repeal of the I&D tax, the “New Hampshire Advantage” is feeling less advantageous by the day.
And here’s where the integrity of the numbers really starts taking a beating.
Ayotte says no income tax ever – shocker! – and she brags about New Hampshire being in the top 10 in total education funding per pupil in the nation. “I think that’s wonderful,” she said, “and we need to keep it up.”
But, she also supports the expansion of “education freedom accounts,” a program that siphons off public education dollars from local property taxes in the name of “school choice” (which really means “rest stop on the way to public school privatization”). And here’s the kicker – she then pleads with local communities to keep property taxes as low as possible because they are too high already.
So, if you’re keeping score:
Millions upon millions of dollars in lost revenue from tax cuts and repeals primarily benefiting corporations and the wealthy.
Far less federal money coming into the state.
Even more public money from the Education Trust Fund redirected to cover the rising cost of an expanded school voucher system.
And, with all of that, we are told there will never be a progressive tax, but local communities shouldn’t increase property taxes.
How, then, is New Hampshire going to make all of this work? Apparently that’s going to depend on whatever austerity measures are dreamed up by Benson and his COGE partner, New Hampshire Lottery Commissioner Andy Crews. Ayotte promises those cuts won’t harm the state’s most vulnerable people – “this is nonnegotiable,” she said. I don’t know, however, if she’s being honest with herself because it’s difficult to imagine how it can be avoided. Maybe we’ll see a new definition of the word “vulnerable” to help massage the math.
I hope my concerns prove to be unfounded and that it’s my math skills that are lacking. Policy failures may cost politicians their seats come election time, but that’s nothing compared to the price the rest of us pay today, tomorrow, and all the tomorrows to come. So, if you are to take Ayotte at her word, a win for our new governor means a win for all. And I’m rooting for us, always.
But when the promised cuts start coming and public services suffer, Republicans are going to have to do a better job explaining their back-of-the-napkin calculations. If we are truly on the cusp of a new era of austerity, we’ll all need more than another slogan about how terrific things are in theory.