Cross Border Tax Grab

I know the economic situation for the state government in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts isn't all that great, but it seems that in their zeal to maximize tax revenues to fill depleted state coffers they probably shouldn't be looking to force retailers in a bordering state (New Hampshire) to collect Massachusetts sales tax from Massachusetts customers.

Needless to say, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch is taking exception to that, moving to block any attempts by Massachusetts to collect Massachusetts sales tax in New Hampshire.

Gov. John Lynch said yesterday he will offer a new law to protect New Hampshire businesses from being forced to collect Massachusetts sales taxes.

"We need to send a clear message that Massachusetts and other states shall not impose their sales taxes on New Hampshire businesses," Lynch said.

How is it that one state thinks it can force a neighboring state to collect sales tax, particularly when the targeted state has none of its own? Times may be tough for Massachusetts, but do they really think they're going to get away with their move to impose Massachusetts taxes on New Hampshire? Such a move is ironic, considering Massachusetts' past in regards to taxes.

How ironic it is that the state that once had the gumption to start a war over unfair taxation imposed from afar is now trying to spread its tax tentacles beyond its own borders.

That's right: Massachusetts, the state that boldly took on the tax-happy British Empire, is now doing a little imperial number of its own. And instead of depending on musket-toting militiamen, this time we're using hapless store clerks as our frontline troops.

This isn't the first time the two states have clashed in regards to sales taxes. Back in the 1970's when Meldrim Thomson, Jr. was governor of New Hampshire, he had the State Police arrest and escort Massachusetts revenue agents sitting in the parking lots of liquor stores just over the New Hampshire border, tracking Massachusetts residents buying alcohol in New Hampshire. He knew they had no jurisdiction in New Hampshire and they were told to get out. (Maine tried to do the same thing in the 1990's, stopping cars with Maine registration and confiscating the liquor bought by Maine residents in New Hampshire once they crossed back into Maine.)

How far will they push this idiocy? As far as they possibly can.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts desperately needs the revenue and they seem to care very little where they get it, as long as they get it. If they win this legal challenge they stand to collect millions from New Hampshire retailers. (I have no doubt that should the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decide in the Commonwealth's favor that an appeal would be filed in the Federal Appellate Court.) Such an outcome would open up a host of other possible revenue grabs by Massachusetts. What would the folks running the People's Republic of Massachusetts plan next? Maybe demand a cut of New Hampshire's Rooms and Meals tax paid by Massachusetts residents vacationing in New Hampshire if they stay at a hotel chain that also has hotels in Massachusetts? What about a portion of the gas tax when Massachusetts residents buy their gasoline in New Hampshire from a gas station chain that also has franchises in Massachusetts? I certainly wouldn't put it past them. Never mind a little thing called the United States Constitution, and particularly the commerce clause.

It's no wonder that at one time New Hampshire's governor, the late Meldrim Thomson, wanted the New Hampshire National Guard to have its own nuclear weapons in order to protect us against the socialist predation of the People's Republic to our south.

It may have not been such a bad idea.

Are New Hampshire Taxpayers Being Sold A Bill Of Goods?

There's no doubt that the broad-based taxers in the Legislature are trying once again to saddle the residents of New Hampshire with an odious and regressive income tax, all in the name of “fairness”. There is no such thing.

The reasoning behind such a move sounds reasonable, until you look at the fine print as well as the history of every state in the union that has claimed the same motivation for introducing such a tax.

Much has been said and written about the tough fiscal times facing New Hampshire state government.

Many observers agree that budget cuts alone cannot solve the large and growing deficits. Revenues will lag behind currently approved expenditures this fiscal year by another $100 million, and there are credible predictions of a $500 million deficit, given current service levels provided by the state, for the biennium beginning July 1, 2009.

The current economic crisis amplifies the structural deficit in our state's tax system that thoughtful analyses, such as several papers published by the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies, have identified for many years.

As pressure grows to bring the state budget into constitutionally-mandated balance, there is only one significant way to maintain service levels, and that is to cost shift state obligations to the counties and local communities. When that happens, there is no choice but to raise county and local property taxes, which are already reaching confiscatory levels in most areas of the state.

Sounds like they have everything figured out, doesn't it. But the cause of the problem stated above is not a shortfall in revenue. It is a budget that overspends, outlaying more money than the state has available.

Of course the taxers' first response is to do something about the revenue problem, mainly jiggering with the tax code to wring more money out of the taxpayers, rather than taking a hard look at state expenditures. Oh, they couch it in terms of 'bringing tax relief to beleaguered property owners', but it is a lie. What's worse, it's a lie they believe. Here's one of the things they're proposing:

A statewide education property tax is set at $5.50 per thousand dollars of equalized valuation, with a homestead exemption of $200,000 provided for every principal place of residence. In other words, there is no tax on the first $200,000 of tax valuation.

A flat 5% education income tax is levied on New Hampshire taxable income, with exemptions of $15,000 for the taxpayer, taxpayer's spouse, and $10,000 for each dependent of the taxpayer. There is also a credit for the entire amount of the statewide property tax paid on the primary residence of the taxpayer. A renter's credit is also provided.

Proceeds of the statewide education property tax and the education income tax are dedicated to funding the state's obligation to public education.

Sounds great, doesn't it? But the revenues collected won't be spent for property tax relief. Instead, at some point the Legislature will look at those revenues and decide there's better uses for the money. Property taxes will not go down. Expenditures will go up. And the tax burden on the people of New Hampshire will be much higher with nothing to show for it. Also, the 'education' money doled out by the state will have so many strings tied to it that local control of our schools will disappear.

How is it I can say this? It's quite simple: history.

Every state that has tried this has ended up with no property tax relief, little additional funds for education, more state employees, and less capable schools. Every state. One of the most recent examples of this is New Jersey.

The income tax was being sold under the same banner as the taxers of New Hampshire are doing: property tax relief and more money for education. What they ended up with was higher property taxes, an income tax, not as much money for schools as was promised, more state control of the schools, and a lot more state jobs (most of the jobs created in New Jersey in the years since the income tax was imposed were state government jobs, not private sector jobs). Do we really want to do that here? (Yes, I know there are quite a few hoping for just that. After all it gives them more control over our lives and our money.)

It is time for the state to live within its means. The Legislature must roll back the 17.5% budget increase of the current biennial budget (which added ~$425 million in state spending with nowhere near the revenue to pay for it). Governor Lynch has already stated layoffs of state employees are 'unavoidable', meaning he's looking to cut more state spending. He's also vowed to veto any broadbased tax proposal that lands on his desk. (We'll see, assuming such a bill ever makes it off the legislative floor.)

A Response

From Jack Stephenson's letter posted at GilfordGrok, about the proposed geothermal HVAC system for the Gilford Police Station project:

To Gilford voters, Selectmen, and Police Facility Committee (FPC), 1-21-09.

I’ve been searching for information to justify using geothermal energy here in Gilford with the coldest ground in the USA. Can’t find any. The best data I can find says that if the ground water is at 45 deg F then the heat you get is only the heat of electrical energy you put into the pumps, and the ground water in Gilford is 40 deg F or less. It is thus easy to understand that our Selectmen rejected geothermal heat for the Town Hall when shown that just the interest on the investment to install it was double the cost of current oil heat.

How then is it possible that the FPC decided to use geothermal heating, when their big goal was to reduce costs? They have not shown us any data to justify that outrageously high cost. The new library has geothermal heating, and the only information we’ve gotten so far is that it is difficult to regulate. Absolutely nothing about cost versus return.

The Town hall uses hot water heating to radiators, the healthiest heating system, since it avoids blowing pollutants, dust, pollen, mold spores, etc thru the facility. The FPC shows using expensive heat exchangers, blowers, and steel ducting to distribute the heat. Where is the economic justification? Just "business as usual, damn the cost, full speed ahead"?

More amazing is the use of just one well, and return cold water going back side by side with the pipe for ground water (thus chilling it), and then back into same well. Seems like sci-fi magic. For less than 2% of the cost for geothermal installation they could insulate enough so they could heat for 5% of the geothermal operating cost!

Jack

NOTE: I must say up front that I am not responding to Jack's letter as a member of the Gilford Facilities Planning Committee. This is not a response sanctioned by nor known in advance by members of the FPC. This is my personal response to Jack's series of disparaging and misleading letters to the newspapers in the region.

*********

Unfortunately, Jack has got it wrong.

Since he seems to have trouble reading the “incomprehensible plans” for the police station project, let me enlighten you.

First, the geothermal system will not be using ground water as Jack defines it as the water source. The geothermal well will be a 1500 foot standing column well, not the shallower well as originally envisioned.

At 1500 feet the temperature of the surrounding rock, gravel and water is a balmy 50 degrees. At 200 feet the water temp might be 40 degrees, but not at 1500 feet. My proof? The geothermal wells at the library and at the Audubon Society's Prescott Farm. The same is also true of the geothermal wells at the Merrimack County Nursing Home. They run approximately the same depth and the temps at the bottom of those wells is about 50 degrees.

Second, in regards to the "ridiculously high costs", where does he get his numbers? The upfront costs are indeed higher. That was understood from the beginning. The payback period from the system was estimated to be 5-7 years based upon oil costs of $2.20 per gallon. The actual operating costs are a fraction of traditional combustion-based/external heat exchanger HVAC systems, like the one that presently exists at the town hall/police station. So are the maintenance costs. (Combustion systems require more maintenance, as does equipment exposed to the elements 24/7.)

Jack says it is difficult to regulate. Does he base this claim upon what was said by Katherine Dormody at the Board of Selectmen meeting on the police station bond? If so, he didn't listen very carefully. Because the library is using radiant heat and not a baseboard or fan-coil based system, it takes longer for the temp in the library to go up in the morning, meaning they've been trying to 'speed things up' by setting the thermostat higher than needed. The temperature then overshoots. They have since learned they should set it for the temperature they want and to leave it there. (BTW, this is not a problem unique to geothermal, but to radiant heating, regardless of the heat source.)

Third, the geothermal system will be using fan coils not all that different from those presently used, but they will be ducted into the various zones (the ducts don't run the length and breadth of the building). Each duct services one fan-coil, each services one room or area. This is not a central forced hot air/cooling system. It is more accurately a hydronic air system.

Upstairs will have 13 heating/cooling zones. Downstairs will have 9. Heating or cooling water will only be directed to the zone calling for it, not to all zones much like the present system.

For more comprehensive look at geothermal, go to the FPC website.

There are links to articles covering the concept, a presentation by Water Energy (a geothermal engineering firm) as well as a chart showing the heating/cooling cost differences between geothermal and conventional systems (oil, natural gas, propane, electric)

Read them yourself and make up your own mind.

Small Town Democracy In Action

It's that time of year again in New Hampshire, where budgets for towns, their schools, as well as the counties and state are being debated, gone over with a fine tooth comb by selectmen, school boards, budget committees, and legislators, and debated some more.

Next month town and school district meetings will start throughout the state, where the voters will once again have the opportunity to decide what their respective towns and schools will spend over the upcoming fiscal year.

In these hard economic times many towns are holding the line on spending, practicing austerity in order to lessen the tax burden on taxpayers, knowing many of them are having a tough time making ends meet.

While New Hampshire hasn't seen nearly as much economic disruption as other parts of the country, we're still seeing some. The only saving grace has been the fall of gas and heating fuel prices well below the prices paid last year. But still people are struggling.

One of the biggest issues in our small town is whether or not to spend the money necessary to renovate and expand our police station. While it is tempting to put it off another year or two, the department has been suffering with cramped quarters and insufficient storage space for over ten years now, and it's only going to get worse.

Does it make sense to commit to that kind of spending given the economic conditions? On the plus side is the lower cost of materials, lower construction costs (contractors are hurting for work with the collapse of the real estate market), and bond interest rates being quite low. The cost of the project may never be lower. On the negative side is the addition to the property tax rate to pay for the project. If the economy gets substantially worse it could hurt the taxpayers. (At least the town won't see the additional taxes to pay the bond until the fiscal year following this upcoming one.)

Our town is not the only one facing this dilemma. Plenty of others have to make similar decisions, putting off much needed work to roads and municipal buildings, cutting services and jobs in order to keep spending increases as low as possible, assuming they don't decrease it below their present budget.

All of this will be hotly debated at town and school meetings, with some going along with the austere budget proposals in order to keep spending in check and others fighting against budget cuts (or level spending) because they believe it will hurt their towns.

Part of the problem with some in the second group is they have a difficult time telling the difference between nice-to-haves and need-to-haves. When times get tough they have real problems cutting back or eliminating the nice-to-haves. It can make for heated discussions, side debates, and on occasion, hurt feelings. But in the end, the voters will decide what will be spent, what won't, and that will be that.

That's just the way it should be.

Concord Goes To Court To Fight Taxpayer Revolt

In these tough economic times is it any surprise taxpayers want the government, and more specifically, their local government to hold the line and spending and taxes? Apparently it is to one of the local cities here in New Hampshire.

The city of Concord, the state capitol, has gone to court in an effort to head off a taxpayer revolt, the revolt taking the form of a petition to get the question of imposing a tax cap on the November ballot. (No direct link available, but the December 3rd issue of the Laconia Daily Sun can be found here.)

Petitioners, led by the conservative New Hampshire Advantage Coalition, sough to place an amendment adding a tax cap to the city charter on the general election ballot this year, but the City Council, in a decision upheld by the Superior Court, chose to postpone the vote until the municipal elections in November 2009. At the same time, the council filed suit, appealing the opinion of three state agencies required by law to approve charter amendments – the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Commissioner of the Department of Revenue Administration – that the language of the amendment is consistent with the Constitution and state law.

The Concord City Council is taking the position that such a charter amendment is unconstitutional because it lies outside the “home rule” article in the state constitution. It seems the councilors don't like the idea of the taxpayers “gettin' uppity” and telling them how much they're going to be allowed to spend. By moving the ballot question to an off-year, the City Council knew voter turnout would be far lower than if the question had been on this year's ballot, giving the councilors a better chance of quashing the charter amendment.

A small number of other New Hampshire communities have already incorporated tax caps into their charters and they appear to be holding spending and taxes in check. However that could be in jeopardy should the Merrimack County Superior Court rule in Concord's favor. Such a decision could invalidate the tax cap portion of the charters of those municipalities, assuming such a decision isn't appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Tax caps have been a instrument to rein in profligate spending and rapidly increasing property taxes. They were enacted because the city or town governments weren't willing to do what was necessary to keep spending and taxes in check. For the most part the tax caps have been successful, forcing the cities and towns to keep a close eye on spending and make them better able to discriminate between nice-to-haves and need-to-haves. If Concord gets its way, all that will go out the window and the taxpayers will once again get the shaft...and the bill.

Is A Tax Revolt In New Hampshire Imminent?

With the economy slowing down and tax revenues down, towns, cities and states are tightening their belts. In some cases the taxpayers are trying to force their communities to live within their means by petitioning for and voting in tax caps, which limit the amount of tax increases, and in turn, spending increases.

Two cities in the Granite State have been fighting off the taxpayer initiatives, in some cases by ignoring ballot petitions or delaying them in an effort to quash them.

To listen from the rhetoric coming from Manchester and Concord you'd think it was selfish and irresponsible of the taxpayers to ask for controls on spending and taxes. Somehow they have come to believe the taxpayers should just shut up, pay up, and stop questioning the 'wisdom' of the aldermen/city council. After all, if such measures were put in place the cities might have to cut services, the ones usually mentioned being police and fire protection. It's one of the bludgeons used in the past to scare the taxpayers into inaction or capitulation. But in most cases it is a lie. The tax caps force the city governments into more careful and frugal spending, to make the hard choices, just as any of us make when money is tight.

One commenter to the article linked above thought that imposing more taxes would somehow solve the problem.

..[W]e trim everything we can in our town budgets to help offset the pain of onerous property taxes that squeeze us just so we don't implement a sales or income tax! The tourists will still come if we institute a sales tax; rich will still live here if we institute an income tax!

Oh, yeah! Let's raise taxes during a recession! Just what the New Hampshire economy needs.

My biggest problem with the solution is that it gives the legislature a blank check to spend like there is no tomorrow. The commenter also makes the assumption that a broadbased tax will lessen the property tax burden in the state. But as history has shown again and again and again, it doesn't. All that happens is new taxes are imposed and property taxes continue to rise. There is never relief from the property taxes. Every state that has used that as a reason for a broadbased tax has found that to be so. Spending does not go down, government expands, and the taxpayer ends up with even less money in their wallet. So much for property tax relief.

The only way to prevent higher taxes is to prevent higher spending. If money gets tight, spending cuts must be made. A number of services or programs are not need-to-haves, but nice-to-haves. Some duplicate the efforts of other services or programs. At times programs or services meet the needs of very few, yet are funded at the expense of other services that meet the needs of many. There are times when spending cuts must be looked at dispassionately, must use cost/benefit analysis to decide which ones do the most good for the most people.

Biden And Palin Square Off In St. Louis

Tonight's Vice Presidential debate may be the make or break point for John McCain's run for the White House. If Sarah Palin shows the spunk she did during the convention and campaign stops, the McCain/Palin ticket still has a chance. If, on the other hand, she acts like ABC and CBS News made her appear during heavily edited interviews, McCain will only see the inside of the Oval Office when he comes to visit President Obama.

As one of the local papers here headlined it, “Veep debate pits hockey moms against rail riders.”

Let's see how she does....

********************

Gwen Ifill laid down the rules and conditions of the debate before introducing the candidates.

The first question went to Senator Biden, asking him about the bailout and whether it was a good or bad idea.

His response was predictable: it's all the Republicans fault, and particularly President Bush.

Palin's response: ask the parents at a kids soccer game what they think. You'll get a more accurate response about the economy, the stock market, and the bank meltdowns than you'll get from Congress or the talking heads.

Both said partisanship should be set aside, but the question is who would better be able to deal with the situation.

********************

The next question dealt with the sub-prime lending meltdown, and who was a fault: the predatory lenders or the risk-taking borrowers?

Palin responded: “Darn right it was the predatory lenders who tried to talk Americans into thinking it was smart to buy a $300,000 house when they could only afford a $100,000 house. There was greed and corruption on Wall Street.” She played the Joe Sixpack/hockey mom card, too, sayign we should be smart and not live outside our means.

Biden: “Barack warned about sub-prime loans, and McCain promoted them.” Really? Yet there's plenty of video showing McCain speaking out against such practices and warning that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were out of control.

Palin's rebuttal: Obama had almost 100 chances to help cut taxes on the middle class, but didn't.

Biden: She didn't say anything about deregulation!

Palin: So what. I'm speaking to the American people. I know about cutting taxes and getting it back to the people.

********************

About taxes:

Biden: Taxes are about fairness. (Excuse me? Since when are taxes about fairness? Most of the middle class doesn't pay any taxes, so how can you cut them?)

Plain: Paying higher taxes is patriotic? Better that government get out of the way and let everyone keep more of their money. Government is more often the problem and not the solution. Redistribution of wealth is not the answer.

Biden: It's about fairness! No tax cuts for businesses. More taxes on the wealthy.

********************

Health care: I'm not sure. Biden's response jumped all over the place. He threw a lot of numbers around and I didn't record it.

********************

Energy:

Palin: Unlike Obama, I took on oil companies, broke up a monopoly and got oil companies to pay taxes they were trying to get out of. She isn't popular with oil company CEO's.

Biden: Oil companies got $4 billion in tax breaks. They make billions, which is obscene.

Palin: Obama voted for those tax breaks. We need to do everything we can to ensure our energy supplies. But East Coast politicians won't let us tap our own resources, energy we have in abundance.

********************

Climate change:

Palin: I do not attribute every change in the climate to man's activities, much of it is part of a natural cycle. But we still need to deal with it. Our energy policies have some effect on that, exporting our pollution to other countires.

Biden: Climate change is clearly totally man made. We should be investing money in alternative energy technologies, not drilling. Ten years until first well produces a drop of oil.

Palin: We want an 'all of the above' approach to energy independence.

Biden: McCain has voted against alternative energy technologies for 20 years.

********************

Gay rights:

Biden: I believe there should be no restrictions for gay couples when it comes to rights and privileges.

Palin: I have done what others only talk about. But I don't support gay marriage.

Biden: Neither do I.

********************

Iran/Iraq:

Palin: We cannot withdraw from Iraq prematurely, but we have been slowly dropping troop levels to below surge levels. Obama voted against the surge. He wanted a non-negotiable withdrawal timetable.

Biden: McCain voted against troop funding because of the timetable.

Palin: The 16 month withdrawal was nothing more than a white flag of surrender.

Biden: McCain voted against troop funding because of the timetable. (Yes, it's a repeat, but that's what he said, three times.) McCain has been wrong about Iraq (He repeated this four times).

********************

Bigger threat – nuclear Iran or an unstable Pakistan?

Biden: Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. Iran getting them would be very destablizing. McCain says center of war against terror is Iraq, but it's in Pakistan. Attack on US won't come from Iraq. 7000 madrassas built in Pakistan. Instead should be building schools. We should go after bin Laden no matter where he's hiding.

Palin: General Petraeus and the leader of al Qaeda both agree it was the center. A nuclear Iran is far too do dangerous and unstable. Meeting with Ahmahdinejad or Kim Jong Il without conditions is not a smart thing. Israel is in jeopardy, and that can't be ignored, particularly when Iran has stated they will see it destroyed.

Biden: We should meet with our enemies! Our allies are on the same page. Former Secretaries of State agree. John McCain won't even meet with Spain, a NATO ally. (Biden keeps trying to tie McCain to Bush, implying McCain is no different than Bush.)

Palin: How is it that McCain, who has gone against Bush on many levels, is no different than Bush?

********************

Use of nuclear weapons:

Palin: Rogue nations should not have such weapons. We should do what we can to deny them that type of weapon.

Biden: Afghanistan: Surge will not work in Afghanistan. We haven't spent nearly enough in Afghanistan as we have in Iraq. Nuclear: McCain voted against every anti-nuclear strategy.

********************

Interventionism:

Biden: Supported interventionism in Bosnia, thought going into Iraq a mistake but supported President, should go into Darfur to prevent genocide.

Palin: I guess I am a Washington outsider because I don't understand how you can vote for war before you voted against it. If you voted for it, explain why you did.

Biden: There is a line that must be drawn to prevent genocide. Iraq was wrong.

Palin: I disagree in regards to Iraq being wrong, but the handling of it was wrong.

********************

If had to take over presidency:

Biden: God forbid it should come to that, but I would carry out Obama's policies, including replacement of the Bush Doctrine. This is the most important election since 1932!!

Palin: Heaven forbid, indeed! What do you expect from a team of mavericks? I would continue to do his work, putting government back on the side of the people, and get rid of corruption in Washington and Wall Street. We need to bring a bit of reality from Wasilla's Main Street brought to Washington DC so that people there can understand how the average working class family is viewing bureaucracy and the federal government and Congress and the inaction in Congress. Get out of our way!

********************

At this point I was falling farther behind and couldn't keep up, so I didn't try.

My impression? I think Palin did well. As one of her Democratic opponents in Alaska warned Joe Biden, “She's in her element in debates, so do not underestimate her. She'll hand you your head and you'll wonder what happened.” She came across as the average American woman, the neighbor everyone likes, the type you want to invite over for a cookout.

Biden, on the other hand, came across as the 30+ year career politician he is. He was slick. He used many of the Washington buzz words and phrases we've all heard throughout darn near every presidential campaign. He was sincere, lawyerly, senatorial, even at times I believed he was wrong.

My call: Palin took this one, but she did not overwhelm Biden. But I think she proved she was “one of us” and not a Washington insider. I think we need someone from outside the Washington power elite to come to town, point out the things that seem stupid by saying, “Whoa! Look at that!s Isn't that silly?”

Credit Crisis? What Credit Crisis?

I keep hearing the media going on and on about how credit has dried up and loans aren't available for anyone, anywhere. That may be true in New York, Washington DC, and maybe host of other large cities throughout the nation. But it doesn't seem to be the case outside the big cities.

Most of the banks in smaller cities and outlying towns haven't seen the problems the bigger banks have been suffering. That's certainly true here in New Hampshire where local banks have reported they're not having any problems in regard to liquidity or providing credit.

As the national media continues to focus on what it is calling a credit crisis in the United States, local banks — which continue to lend money and grow their loan portfolios — are asking "what credit crisis?"

Neither Mark Primeau, president of Laconia Savings Bank, nor Sam Laverack, executive vice president of Meredith Village Savings Bank, denies that there is a problem on Wall Street — which Congress is currently attempting to fix through a $700 billion bailout.

But as they've been saying for weeks, Primeau and Laverack on Tuesday again stressed that "Main Street" banks are doing just fine, both in New Hampshire and especially here in the Lakes Region.

Those opinions are shared by New Hampshire Banking Commissioner Peter Hildreth, who pronounced that Granite State financial institutions are "safe and sound."

"When I talk to bankers and credit union folks, I hear a lot of them have been writing a record number of loans," said Hildreth, who is a Laconia native. "They're filling the voids left by some folks, the ones who caused the problems."

The local banks learned the lesson of overreaching themselves back in the early 1990's.

Back then the economy went into recession and the hot housing market collapsed, leading to the failure of five major New Hampshire banks when mortgages went unpaid and foreclosures were far more common than sales. During the housing boom, mortgages were seemingly handed out much like toilet paper by a bathroom attendant, and people were buying grossly overpriced houses and condos. When the recession hit, a lot of people with big mortgages, or even worse, were upside down on their mortgages, handed the keys to the bank and said “Good luck!” At its worse, some real estate values fell 60%, and the foreclosure rate climbed. During that time it wasn't uncommon to see twenty pages of foreclosure auctions in the Thrusday edition of the statewide newspaper. At one one point the Resolution Trust Company had over $1.3 billion (in 1992 dollars) of New Hampshire real estate to dispose of. They had to auction them off a few at a time, otherwise the already bad real estate market would have ceased to exist.

This time the local banks weren't so foolish. They didn't offer mortgages for 120% of the value of the home, didn't give sub-prime or interest-only mortgages, made sure the people applying for loans actually had the ability to pay them back, and very few, if any, borrowed money from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac in order to finance risky mortgages. In other words, they didn't gamble with their depositors' money.

It's not just here that's seeing plenty of credit available to borrowers. In this report from NPR, the local bank in Floyd County, Virginia is in the same condition as the banks around here, having been very conservative with their depositors' money. They didn't fall into the trap that pushed so many larger banks to the brink and beyond.

To prove the credit crisis and the status of the economy is being overblown by the MSM, and Nancy Pelosi's claim the economy is the worst shape than during the Clinton Administration, Bob Krumm put their claims to the test and found they must be talking about some other country. (H/T Instapundit)

To test Nancy Pelosi’s hypothesis that after eight years of President Bush the economy is in far worse shape than it was under President Clinton at a time of “budget surpluses,” I went to Lending Tree to see what kind of mortgage terms I could get to buy my first home today.

So what kind of offer did I get today in the midst of this horrible financial crisis? I got four offers, the lowest of which was a 15-year fixed-rate VA mortgage of 6.0%, zero points and zero down, yielding a monthly payment of $948.20. Yes, that’s right, as bad as everyone says the economy is today, I can get the same mortgage as I had twelve years ago for about $250 a month less than I was paying 12 years ago in the midst of a “great” economy.

First, he was able to find a mortgage with little problem. Second, it was with better terms than his original mortgage 12 years ago. Hmm. That doesn't sound like a credit crisis or bad economy to me. But then, I'm not an economist or a member of the MSM, so what do I know?

Obviously, a lot more than they do.

How To Ruin A State Economy In One Easy Step - Another Lesson

Back in May I wrote a cautionary tale about how easy it is to ruin a state's economy. The tale highlighted Michigan's efforts to drive the final nail in the coffin of their economy, raising taxes again and again to bolster falling revenues only to see revenues fall even further, widening an already horrendous budget deficit. Pro-labor/anti-business legislation didn't help things either. These things have had the effect of seeing twice as many people moving out of Michigan as are moving in, not something anyone in state government wants to see.

More than one state has fallen into that trap in the past and present. Some have done that more than once, proving Santayana right: ”Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.”

Connecticut is starting to feel the strain, as is Massachusetts, with incipient tax revolts brewing even as both states continue their profligate spending. Massachusetts should know better, having suffered through economic self-immolation back in the 1970's. But Governor Deval Patrick and the Massachusetts House and Senate seem bent on ensuring a return to those dire times. They've forgotten the lesson.

California is also in a mess, with a deficit measuring somewhere around $15 billion (that's “billion” with a “b”). Raising taxes will only deepen their problems, and businesses and taxpayers will soon start voting with their feet. It doesn't help that Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Democratic-controlled Assembly are at loggerheads, with neither side willing to budge on spending cuts and tax increases.

But the best object lesson anyone can offer is the state of New Jersey, which was once considered one of the most business friendly states because of its low tax burden. But those days are long gone. Between one of the highest tax burdens in the nation and more restrictive business laws and regulations making it more difficult for businesses to survive, is it any wonder the Garden State is turning into an economic basket case?

Jersey’s decline has been rapid and astonishing. Back in the 1960s, one study judged it among the country’s ten most business-friendly states because of its light tax burden, which allowed it to attract a steady stream of businesses and residents from New York. Though there were occasionally signs of trouble over the years—like the pension shenanigans of Governor Christie Whitman, in which government shirked its long-term obligations—the state’s real decline started with the election of Jim McGreevey and a Democratic-controlled legislature in 2001.

In the middle of a recession, McGreevey and the legislature raised taxes and fees an astonishing 33 times to raise $3.6 billion. The state also passed a heap of labor-friendly, antibusiness laws that rapidly worsened conditions. The McGreevey administration hammered an executive at one of the state’s biggest employers, Federated Department Stores, for announcing that the new taxes would force the company to reevaluate future growth plans in Jersey. In 2002, the Beacon Hill Institute rated Jersey 26th among the states in overall competitiveness, but by 2004 Jersey had plummeted to 44th, the largest decline of any state, noted the institute, which also ranked Jersey’s government performance next to last among the states—in case you were wondering what prompted the decline.

Yet Jersey’s leaders have learned little. In 2006, the state enacted several billion dollars of new taxes. And Governor Jon Corzine recently signed into law one of the most astonishingly anti-growth and simply foolish (there is really no other word for it) pieces of state legislation in memory. The new law requires towns hosting private-sector commercial or residential development to build subsidized affordable housing as well. Towns say that they will have to tax developers and raise property taxes to pay for this. If you knew nothing about New Jersey, you might assume that the state was prospering and that its developers were rolling in money. But the state’s commercial vacancy rate is a whopping 19 percent (by contrast, Manhattan’s is about 7 percent), and prospects for filling up that empty space are slim, considering that a recent national survey of corporate executives ranked Jersey as one of the least attractive places to expand. A state in desperate need of business just made doing business even more expensive.

It's always a recipe for disaster, pissing off the folks that actually create jobs by stealing even more cash from their wallets while at the same time tying their hands when it comes to how they will run their businesses. You'd think that no one in New Jersey government had ever taken (and passed) an economics course. If the state government can't get its act together, cut spending, cut taxes, and shake off the influence of organized labor and other special interests, businesses and taxpayers will leave the Garden State in droves, heading to more business and taxpayer friendly states that will gladly welcome them.

Is it a coincidence the states suffering the most from these kinds of problems are controlled by Democratic majorities in their legislatures? Is it any coincidence most of the states having the biggest problems of this type also have Democratic governors? It's something to think about as we approach Election Day this November.

These examples should be, if nothing else, a warning to New Hampshire legislators, the governor, and every working man and woman in the state. Should New Hampshire go down the same road as the others we can kiss our jobs, homes, and way of life goodbye. The Democrats in the state see the Triple Crown (majorities in the New Hampshire House and Senate, as well as the governorship) as a license to spend like there's no tomorrow. They already managed to increase state spending by 17.5% for the current state budget without figuring out a way to pay for it. Their revenue estimates were overly optimistic even before the economy softened and the housing bubble deflated. Because of that we face a $200 million deficit.

The governor has already taken steps to cut back state spending and instructed department heads to prepare two budgets, one that is zero-change from their present budget, and one that cuts back from their present funding level. The question is whether the department heads will comply, and whether the legislators will comply to the wishes of the governor (and the taxpayers). Hopefully they will be held in check and will not be able to send us down the path to economic ruination as has happened in so many other states.

If I were more cynical than I already am, I'd say this budget crisis was created solely for the purpose of forcing a broadbased tax upon the people of New Hampshire by those licking their chops at the prospect of being able to push forward their liberal agenda and all the control over people's lives it will gain them. After all, we not among the Anointed aren't smart enough to make decisions for ourselves. At least, that's what they'd like us to believe. But the rest of us know better, don't we?

Town And State Budgets Getting Tight

The upcoming budget season for towns and cities here in the Granite State is going to be a tough one. It will be no less difficult for the state, with the governor calling for department heads to draw up two budgets: one tight, and the other tighter.

The word is out across New Hampshire: money is tight and it's going to get worse. Town officials know their residents are having a tough time of it, with much higher fuel and food prices. The last thing the people need is to worry about paying higher property taxes or fees. It comes down to a choice of cutting budgets or raising taxes, and towns are looking very hard to hold the line on spending.

But even town officials are feeling the effects of higher oil prices, with the cost of heating fuel, gasoline, diesel, and asphalt going up. Even if the overall town budgets do not increase, the towns will need to change priorities, shifting funds from other programs and departments in order to cover the increased energy costs. Some towns will defer maintenance on roads or other infrastructure for a year, hoping energy prices will fall or that the economy will recover sufficiently to take the strain off of the individual taxpayer's budgets.

One challenge both the state and the towns will have to meet is declining revenues. Revenues from building permits and vehicle registrations have fallen off as the economy has tightened, meaning even more work needed for the budgeting process.

At the state level, revenue projections from the last bloated budget were woefully optimistic, with the revenue shortfall expected to be $200 million by the end of the biennium. (The State of New Hampshire runs under a two-year budget.) With the drop in revenues from the same decrease in vehicle registrations, as well as fuel taxes, cigarette taxes, and a host of other user fees and business taxes, the state must tighten its belt, too. The governor ordered some spending cuts to reduce that shortfall, but more cuts will be needed to erase the rest of the deficit even if those cuts are made for the upcoming two-year budget. At this point raising taxes would be a non-starter, particularly if state legislators want to be re-elected this November.

Some hard choices will need to be made.

At the state level, rolling back the outrageous 17.5% budget increase of the present budget would be a good start. Much of the state revenue shortfall can be blamed on the oversized budget and the unrealistic revenue estimates used to justify the increases. (The revenue projections for 2007-2008 were unrealistic even without the big boost in energy prices and softening economy, so the blame cannot be laid entirely on those two issues.)

At the town and city level, the choices will be harder. The effects of budget cuts and tax increases are felt and seen in very shortly after they take effect. When budgets are cut oft times they lead to lay offs of town employees, reduction in overtime, reduction of office hours, cutbacks in extracurricular activities at the schools, loss of tutors and teaching assistants, and so on. Tax increases, particularly during troublesome economic times, leads to loss of homes by taxpayers unable to pay their property taxes. Businesses will defer paying their property taxes in order to offset increase costs and decreasing income in other areas. This leaves the towns in the lurch because revenues fall off even more. It's a Catch-22, with everyone in town caught in between. The town budgeting process will have to balance the two needs, perhaps erring on the side of caution and making painful cuts to town spending. But it's something everyone can understand, something most of us have had to do with our own budgets when money is tight. Non-essentials, the want-to-haves, are put aside to meet needs. And so it must go with town spending.

It's going to be interesting times around here for the next few months.

Universal Broadband Needed In New Hampshire

Yes, there is broadband access throughout the Lakes Region. But the question is, is there enough? Unfortunately the answer is no.

While Metrocast, Time Warner , and Comcast offer video, data, and in some areas, phone service, too many people in the towns they serve are left without the services they offer. It isn't that they can't afford it, it's that it isn't available at all.

A few years ago I was living in Plymouth off of Fairgrounds Road. The late, un-lamented Adelphia had a cable trunk running right past the end of my road. Everyone along the Fairgrounds Rd. and most living on the side roads off of it had cable and Internet service. But not me. Even though I could see the cable from my windows, even though my next door neighbor on Fairgrounds Road had access, I did not. Nor could I get it unless I laid out thousands of dollars to Adelphia to run a line from the road to my home, a distance of 250 feet. Unlike telephone service, cable service is not required to be universal. This means the cable franchise can bypass potential customers if they deem it isn't worth their while to extend their optical fiber/coax cable to them.

FairPoint, née Verizon, must provide phone service to anyone wanting it. They are required to provide universal service (at least on the phone side of things), even if they can't yet provide anything other than dial up Internet service. But as they expand their DSL service, they will offer to a majority of their customers. But even they will bypass some of their customers in regards to broadband service.

Sadly, even as broadband service expands throughout the Lakes Region and the rest of New Hampshire, there's another question that must be asked: Will the broadband technologies being deployed today be adequate for the demands of tomorrow? While there are those groups looking into this question, there are too few of us knowledgeable about telecommunications and future demands saying the answer is “no”. This is an issue that must be addressed by business, educational institutions, and workers to ensure that our local/state economy will not be crippled by inadequate broadband access.

At the moment many of us with broadband service can expect between 1 and 6 megabits per second download speeds and 256 kilobits to 1 megabit per second upload speeds for residential cable modem service, and between 128 kilobits to 2 megabits per second upload/download speeds for residential DSL service. For business class accounts cable modem and DSL speeds may be higher and symmetric (upload and download speeds are identical). Those without broadband service are stuck with 56 kilobit per second upload/download speeds with dial up service. (My in-laws are lucky if they get 33 kilobits per second with their dial up ISP in their home town.) At best DSL service will provide between 20 and 25 megabits per second, a blazing speed for today's demand, but hardly future proof.

Even with the 'blazing' broadband speeds presently available in the area, they will be inadequate in 5 years as new services become more popular, with Internet video being one of the fastest growing and most bandwidth intensive applications at present. The demand and the required bandwidth will quickly blow past the capabilities of the present telecommunications infrastructure as more video and data services become available to users. Six megabits per second download speeds will be too slow. 10, 20, maybe 50 megabits per second will be required for such things as IPTV (Internet Protocol TV), teleconferencing, telepresence (particularly crucial for medical applications), peer-to-peer networking, and a host of other applications that have barely made it out of the media and computer labs. And as even newer services become available, even 50 megabits per second will be too slow.

The cable companies are working to increase the speed of their Internet service and they may be able to come close to what other services like FTTH (Fiber-To-The-Home) can offer, but they won't surpass it.

If the telephone companies and cable companies aren't willing to step up to the plate to provide the needed telecommunications infrastructure in New Hampshire, then perhaps it is up to us to promote it, if not find a way to provide it. There are already groups of towns in Vermont and New Hampshire forming coalitions to build out FTTH networks, making sure everyone in those towns will have access, in other words, providing universal service.

If we want to attract businesses, entrepreneurs, and telecommuters to the state, and particularly the Lakes Region, we need a 21^st Century telecommunications infrastructure. At best we have a late 20^th Century telecommunications system, and a barely adequate one. This must change.

Yankee Attitude

I stole the piece below from The Barrister over at Maggie's Farm. It pretty well explains the feelings of a lot of us Yankees up here in New Hampshire, particularly those wishing to maintain the N'Hampsha' way of life, the feeling of community that so many other places have lost and aren't likely to regain any time soon. (Note: The Barrister resides in Connecticut, but the same principals apply there as here. We've both seen seen changes in our respective towns that are not to the betterment of the townsfolk, or the town.)

Unless they happen to be in the tourist trade or the mini-mart business, the Yankee native does not tend to welcome visitors to his corners of the woods. Maybe this applies to all of small-town USA.

You get the feeling that the old families don't welcome out-of-towners, much less furriners. And whenever they see a New York license plate in town, they worry and grumble. I'm sorry, but it's just the way the folks are: "Please respect our space and our ways and we will try to tolerate yours as long as you keep them somewhere else."

City people might term it parochial, but it's actually a strong sense of proprietorship and protectiveness towards something valuable - "Our town."

I guess we like things as they are, or, preferably, as they were. The old-timers still refer to my place as "Peck's farm," even though old Amos Peck, the fourth generation on that land and a member of a founding family of the town, ascended to his reward in 1932 and his kids sold the old chicken and dairy farm to a dairy farmer down the road who was looking to expand his herd. One wonders whether there is a covert message in it: "You don't really belong there - you are just a transient with a mortgage."

It takes two to three generations at minimum, I think, to get past being a newcomer. To be an old family, I'd guess five generations minimum. (That makes sense to me. It is an indication that your family might be committed to the town, and not just passing by the way people often do these days, viewing land as real estate rather than as a place to anchor for your future generations.)

Yes, it's about different views of land and of "place". Ideally, your ancestors would have helped build our simple 1742 Meeting House/Congregational Church, which remains the only place of worship for seven miles.

That pretty well explains how it is up here in New England, and northern New England in particular.

I've lived in small towns where change comes slowly, and then only after lengthy discussions and deliberations. I've always been welcomed in every town I've resided, usually because some of the folks in town already knew me through business or other friends, and because of my reputation as a cheap...uh...frugal fellow, not wanting to spend what the town didn't have, and in some cases, didn't need. I've never been one for change for change's sake. But I've also been a proponent for change when it met the town's needs or saved the town money or made the town government or schools more efficient.

While I knew I'd never be a real 'native' in those towns, I was never seen as a “flatlander”, a title that can hang around a resident's neck like the proverbial albatross. No one takes flatlanders seriously, mainly because they bring too damn much of their city foolishness with them, wanting to fiddle with the way things are because they aren't like “back home”. That always beggers the question, “If things were so great 'back home', then why the heck did you come here?”

This gets me thinking I'm going to have to repost more of my instructional scribblings about how things are in small town America, particularly around here in northern New England (Well, more New Hampshire and Maine. Vermont has got problems of its own with all the silly New Yorkers moving in.)

Severe Weather Hits New Hampshire

While my home state of New Hampshire is rarely in the national news spotlight, we did make it into a number of the evening network news broadcasts today due to the severe weather that hit the state today.

Starting just before noon, a number of severe thunderstorms and tornadoes swept through four of the eastern counties, causing damage to over 100 homes, destroying six, and killing one person. Damage and power outages were reported in Epsom, Barnstead, Deerfield, Alton, and Wolfeboro.

Deb and I managed to miss the worst of the storms, traveling in and out of the areas hit before they arrived.

It's not often we see tornadoes in New Hampshire, yet twice in less than a week funnel clouds have formed and today they touched down. We've had weather stuck in a pattern of high humidity and late afternoon/early evening thunderstorms for more almost two weeks. I'm not surprised we've ended up at least a few funnel clouds.

Work Now For Lower Energy Prices Tomorrow

Will Congress actually do something about energy prices, or will they continue making bleating noises while pointing fingers, and in the end, accomplish nothing? Unfortunately it appears the former is more likely than the latter. At least on Republican knows this and is trying to do something about it.

Senaotr John Sununu (R-NH) brings up some interesting points about what's really needed, reminding us of what's come before and how little has changed over the years since the last energy crunch.

I remember the oil spikes of 1973, 1980 and 1990. Time and circumstances may have changed, but families and small businesses in New Hampshire feel it just the same. Higher prices for heating oil, gas, and propane drain budgets and hurt the economy. This challenge, like those past, can and must be overcome.

While the date has changed, the proposals from the far left have not: Increase energy taxes, start a lawsuit, ignore the potential of nuclear power, and above all, oppose all new production of American oil and gas.

And to top it off, they'll try to convince us it's for our own good, but not actually get around to explaining why, other than to say we wouldn't understand. I guess that shows us what it is they think of the rest of us. You know...the un-enlightened. Never mind that most of the so-called un-enlightened are far more intelligent than they are because we actually understand the problems most of us face and know how to solve them without the help of the government and, most important, without them.

Maybe it's time to give them a dose of reality.

USS New Hampshire Christened

For the first time since the beginning of the 20^th a US Navy vessel bears the name USS New Hampshire.

The Virginia-class nuclear submarine was christened at the General Dynamics Electric Boat shipyard in Groton, Connecticut on Saturday. The new submarine is the fifth in the new fast attack class and will be commissioned at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in New Hampshire this October.

Motorcycle Week Has Begun

The rumble of motorcycles have been heard all day as the 85th Annual Laconia Motorcycle week begins. Even with the increase in gas prices and a somewhat sluggish economy, almost 300,000 motorcycle enthusiasts are expected to visit New Hampshire over the next nine days.

Laconia is one of the Big Three motorcycle rallies, with Daytona and Sturgis being the other two.

While most of the visitors will focus on the Lakes Region of New Hampshire, a number of other areas of the state have been working to attract some of those visitors. Over the past few years they've succeeded, drawing a larger crowd every year.

About the only downside to all these motorcycles being here will be the constant rumble they create as they travel about the area. Even here at The Manse we'll hear them as they wend their way along the roads that follow the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee.

It is this event that I see as the true beginning of the summer season, one to which I look forward every June.

A Major Meltdown

It's been a while since I've posted. It's not that I've been too lazy. Quite the contrary.

My main blog, Weekend Pundit, suffered a major meltdown. The server which hosted the blog was in a server farm that suffered a devastating fire, destroying the server where Weekend Pundit abided. It's been a scramble to keep things running, switching operations to the Weekend Pundit Backup Site and making arrangements for Weekend Pundit at a new host and new domain. The link at the left now points to the new site, which is still a work in progress. At present it is a bare bones configuration as I work to move six year's worth of posts and images from my back ups to the new blog site. Needless to say there have been some teething problems, but I am getting them worked out. In the mean time I'm posting at both the new site and the backup site.

Now that most of the major work is done I can get back to post here as well. There are lots of issues I want to vent about that aren't necessarily aimed at an international or national audience, making them perfect for this blog.

Regular blogging will resume presently.

How To Ruin A State Economy In One Easy Step

Why is it the first thing government thinks of doing in case of a budget shortfall is to raise taxes? It rarely occurs to The-Powers-That-Be to cut spending in order to roll expenditures back enough to match what income there is. It happens at town, county, state and federal level all too often. What's worse is when there's also a soft economy and tax revenues fall off. Somehow government thinks that pulling even more money out of the economy will make things better. Every time government has done that it only makes the situation worse and revenues fall even farther. It sets up a vicious cycle. I've seen this before.

Back in the mid to late 70's, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was suffering from a growing tax burden and the erosion of its economy as a deep recession caused high unemployment. Every time the Commonwealth raised taxes, unemployment rose. Companies, large and small, left the state, looking for greener (and less expensive) pastures. The old joke back then went “Would the last person leaving Massachusetts please turn off the lights?”

We're seeing the same thing again, thirty years later, but this time in Michigan.

It's no fun to kick a state when it's down – especially when the local politicians are doing a fine job of it – but the latest news of Michigan's deepening budget woe is a national warning of what happens when you raise taxes in a weak economy.

Officials in Lansing reported this month that the state faces a revenue shortfall between $350 million and $550 million next budget year. This is a major embarrassment for Governor Jennifer Granholm, the second-term Democrat who shut down the state government last year until the Legislature approved Michigan's biggest tax hike in a generation. Her tax plan raised the state income tax rate to 4.35% from 3.9%, and increased the state's tax on gross business receipts by 22%. Ms. Granholm argued that these new taxes would raise some $1.3 billion in new revenue that could be "invested" in social spending and new businesses and lead to a Michigan renaissance.

Not quite. Six months later one-third of the expected revenues have vanished as the state's economy continues to struggle. Income tax collections are falling behind estimates, as are property tax receipts and those from the state's transaction tax on home sales.

Gee, they raise taxes during a weak economy, and what happens? Their revenues fall. No surprise there. Jobs and residents have voted with their feet, with twice as many people moving out of Michigan as are moving in. As taxes go higher the trend will only steepen. They're stuck in a vicious cycle, apparently unable to do the one thing necessary to turn things around: cut spending.

The same thing could happen here in New Hampshire. The legislature passed a biennial budget which included a 17.5% increase in expenditures. There's only one thing they forgot.

How to pay for it.

The budget's already over $50 million in the red, with a projected deficit of $200 million before the end of the biennium. The legislature did raise some taxes, but the revenues projected to be raised fell short. Other tax revenues have also been below projections. The governor did order a hiring freeze and directed all department heads to cut their budgets in an effort to stanch the slow of red ink.

A few tax-and-spend groups have been calling for a state sales or income tax to make up for the shortfall, but we all know the legislature will find new an interesting ways to spend the money and the budget will still be out of balance. So they'll raise them...and revenues will fall, leaving an even bigger revenue shortfall. It's that vicious cycle all over again.

The only answer is to cut spending and roll back the tax increases imposed at the beginning of the biennium. The only thing the state legislature here needs to do is look to Michigan to see how well its program of increasing taxes is working. Maybe they'll get the message. But that's not likely.

Memorial Day Weekend - Saturday

It's near the end of the first day of Memorial Day weekend and, despite reports in the media, it appears traffic and visits to the Lakes Region is heavy, though maybe not as it has been in past years.

The family was here at The Manse to celebrate my Dad's 75th birthday, and every one of my siblings said the traffic was quite heavy, particularly those making the trip up from the Boston area. Deb said the local supermarket was mobbed, as was the farm stand at the farm where BeezleBub works.

Tomorrow I will brave the waters of Lake Winnipesaukee, as I will be launching The Boat in the morning. It will be interesting to see if high gas prices will have any effect on boat traffic.

I'm betting it will.

A New Hope

It appears the state of New Hampshire is finally waking up to the problem the lack of workforce housing has been causing and doing something about it. Despite the housing boom that took place over the last few years, very little of the housing built over that time was for low and middle income families in towns and cities where they were needed. Without this kind of housing potential employees cannot find a place to live anywhere near where they are hoping to work. Employers are finding it difficult to fill jobs because affordable housing isn't available. With increasing oil and gas prices local housing is becoming even more important.

One of the roadblocks to such housing has been the cities and towns themselves, many of which made it difficult to build anything but senior housing or more upscale single family homes. The only way developers could build that type of housing was to take the municipality to court to force them to comply with the state's anti-snob zoning laws and court decisions. Most developers won't spend the time or money to do this, taking on less controversial jobs and developments. Unfortunately that leaves far too many people without a place to live and employers with jobs going unfilled. If the problem gets bad enough, employers will relocate to places where they can fill jobs. That's nothing anyone in New Hampshire wants. Now it appears the state is finally taking steps to alleviate this problem.

The New Hampshire Senate on Wednesday agreed to some improvements by the House to Senate Bill 342 that now goes to Gov. John Lynch for his signature.

"We have been working for years to pass this kind of legislation to remove barriers that have made it difficult to expand the availability of workforce housing," said Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, D-Portsmouth, the prime sponsor of SB342. "This bill is long overdue and we should all be proud of its passage."

SB342 embraces a major goal of the state's Business and Industry Association, which identified expanded opportunities for workforce housing as a top priority this year.

"The lack of varied housing poses a threat to our state's economy by making it difficult to expand our workforce or attract new businesses," said Senate President Sylvia Larsen, D-Concord. "Our workers are the backbone of our economy and we need to ensure they have decent and affordable options for housing."

This is something that was long overdue.

It's been a problem in the Granite State for the last 20 years or so, where one town after another enacted zoning ordinances making it difficult, if not impossible for developers to build the kind of housing needed. Too many towns believed the old canard about every family moving into town added two kids to the schools, and hence to the tax burden. Therefore senior housing and higher end homes were preferred because in the town's view they didn't burden them with more kids or could afford the higher taxes that more than offset the cost of more kids entering the school system. But the towns were wrong and in the long run they hurt themselves and the businesses located there and in nearby towns.

Now there's a chance to change that and make sure the Granite State's economic future is a good one.