Testimony Regarding Constitutional Amendment CACR13

A proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit any new tax on a person’s income all but guarantees lengthy court battles over state tax policy, according to NHFPI Executive Director Jeff McLynch, who testified against CACR 13 before the Senate Internal Affairs Committee on Wednesday, April 4.

McLynch also presented an analysis written by University of New Hampshire law professor Marcus Hurn, who is author of several scholarly articles on the N.H. Constitution and its taxing authority. According to Hurn, incorporating CACR 13 into the constitution “would start a cascade of constitutional questions that could take years to settle.”

McLynch’s testimony and a link to Hurn’s analysis follow:

Constitutional Limits on Taxes or Spending Would Increase Pressure on Local Property Taxes

Local governments across New Hampshire have received less aid from the state to meet the needs of local citizens and businesses in recent years. As a result, they have been forced to increase local property taxes to preserve the education, public safety, transportation, and other services that make New Hampshire’s communities desirable places to live, work, and visit. Competing versions of a constitutional amendment now before the Legislature risk adding to these pressures when New Hampshire already relies on local property taxes more than any other state.

Proposed Spending Cap Could Lock In Current Spending Cuts for a Decade

A proposal to rewrite the New Hampshire Constitution to cap the growth of state spending at the rate of inflation would create a new set of problems when it comes to developing a smart budget.

Capping Assistance Would Affect Few but Add to Economic Hardship for Some Children

In any given month in 2010, some 11,000 people looked to New Hampshire’s Financial Assistance for Needy Families (FANF) program for help in meeting everyday needs. Of that number, nearly three in four were children, many of whom are being cared for by relatives in the absence of a parent. The cash benefits available under FANF are temporary in nature, generally contingent upon meeting some form of work or education requirement, and fall well short of securing even the most basic of essentials. In fact, the average monthly FANF payment of $507 amounts to less than half the poverty level for a parent and child.