Trump wins in presidency, GOP pressured

This column is being written the day after the national and state general elections. We all arose to a significantly rearranged political scene, to say the least. I will spare readers the description of my physical reaction to reports of the election results, and stick to political observations.

On the national scene, a return to a Trump presidency will be radically different, with all the disruption, erratic behavior and cheap drama of the first term, I fear. The election results were clear and decisive, and demonstrated the ability to motivate first-time voters for Trump effectively, if commentators are to be believed. He also apparently demonstrated strength in demographic groups thought to be strong for Democrats.

Vice President Harris apparently was hobbled by the circumstances of her nomination, as well as an inability to have voters know who she is, or effectively communicating her capacity to do the job. Undoubtedly, there will be much consternation, second-guessing and finger-pointing among Democrats.

In NH, a Republican sweep occurred when observers were wondering how large the Democratic gains would be from a predicted large Harris win. While Harris won the electoral votes, it was by a smaller margin than predicted, apparently due to new Trump voters in a record turnout, and the Trump voters also helped elect Kelly Ayotte as governor, and, according to incomplete and unofficial results, four members of the Executive Council and a large majority in the Senate and House. Democrats retained the congressional seats, although some wondered if Chris Pappas and Maggie Goodlander might ask for recounts in the face of the Trump victory.

The GOP victory creates a united government dominated by that party, resulting in the need for bipartisan negotiation that dominated the last two years is gone. The GOP has no place to hide, and no one to blame if things go bad. On the other hand, it has the opportunity to act in a concerted way, testing the leadership of the new governor.

As previously noted in this column, any new administration will face challenges not faced by the Sununu administration at least in its final term. Federal funding available from COVID-related economic development and infrastructure programs has ceased. Budget surpluses created by a strong economy and the existing taxes are threatened by a weaker economy and changes to the tax structure made by recent legislative action.

One of the most thoughtful ads run in the late election season, by Dave DePuy, candidate for representative from Rockingham District 31, in the NH Sunday News of Nov. 2/3, discussed the ramifications of recent tax changes. He wrote: “The New Hampshire legislature continues to raise property taxes by suspending legislated revenues to be paid to the towns while it cuts or eliminates taxes to national corporations and the ultra-wealthy — and brags about it.

“The state by law was to pay 40% of the Meals and Rooms Tax to the municipalities but failed to comply with that law … The defaulted amount owed to the municipalities is now over $98 million.

“The municipalities, likewise were to receive $25 million per year of the Business Profits Tax … but in 2010 the state suspended those … resulting in an unpaid balance due municipalities of over $300 million.

“Despite these obligations, the Legislature cut the BPT from 8.5% in 2001 to 7.5% in 2023, cut the BET from 0.75% ... to 0.55% … and cut the Meals and Rooms Tax from 8.5% to 7.5%, all while failing to pay over $400 million owed to municipalities.

“The Business Profits Tax is principally paid by big corporation. A total of 99.6% of the tax was paid by larger corporations … $33.66 (is) the average amount small businesses paid. The Meals and Rooms Tax is in large part paid by tourists.

“The state is now eliminating the Interest and Dividends Tax, which brought in revenue over $180 million this year. The fact is that 52% of that tax was paid by 1,723 tax filers who earned over $200,000 in interest and dividends in 2020. The state’s preference is to reduce taxes on out-of-state corporations and high-echelon earners, while it owes the municipalities over $400 million.

“Moreover, for 15 years, from 2008 to 2023, state aid to public schools increased by only 12.3%, while the cost of living rose over 41%.

“This year, the state abolished the communications tax, which will further reduce revenues by $30 million. Together with the elimination of the Interest and Dividends tax, this results in lost revenue totaling $210 million.

“While no one likes taxes, someone has to pay them. The state is targeting the homeowner who can least afford them, while reducing taxes on those with the greatest ability to pay. The result is that an incredible 60% of total state and local taxes is paid by property taxpayers.”

DePuy goes on to note that this September, state revenue was 18% less than last year, and 15% under budget. If this is part of a trend, those elected to office grappling with the state budget come January, may question the wisdom of the tax reductions enacted at the state level, as their hands are tied by reduced revenues and the pledge not to raise any taxes.

Mr. DePuy's policy questions are worth consideration by citizens and newly elected representatives. Things are not always what they seem.

Brad Cook is a Manchester attorney. The views expressed in this column are his own. He can be reached at bradfordcook01@gmail.com.