Live Free & Lead
Live Free & Lead with Joe Sweeney is a podcast about freedom, leadership, and the responsibility we all share to strengthen our communities and our country. Each week, Joe dives into the values that make America strong, sharing stories, lessons, and conversations that inspire listeners to live free and lead with purpose.
Live Free & Lead
Live Free & Lead - Episode 2
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Every election cycle, candidates promise no income tax. But promises don't bind future legislatures. Constitutional amendments do. In this episode, I make the case for our amended CACR 12 and take questions from the committee.
Thank you much uh so much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. For the record, Representative Joe Sweeney, I represent Rockingham 25, which is the town of Salem. I'm grateful to be here today. I think we've heard a lot of great testimony on both sides of the of this issue today. I am urging you to vote in support of the amendment to CACR 12. I think it's important that we give voters the opportunity to voice their opinion directly on the ballot whether or not they want to see New Hampshire having an income tax at any point in the future. I think that's important. Voters are what derive the ultimate authority of how this state is governed. The state constitution is our guiding document, not to restrain the people, but to restrain what the government can and cannot do. That is why we have a constitution, and that is why when we do want to make sure that we lock a policy in for the long term, a constitutional amendment, like the one presented via this amendment to CACR 12, is the proper vehicle to make sure that future legislators are bound to not have an income tax, not now, not ever. We did hear testimony from a previous speaker alleging previous legislators had broken their promises to the people of New Hampshire. And if we are to believe that the legislative body elected by the people is so prone and so predisposed to break the promises that they've made to the people, I've heard promises from legislative leaders on both sides that we would never support an income tax. I've heard promises made from party nominees for governor from both sides for the last 20 years that we would never support an income tax in the state of New Hampshire. Those are promises that we continue to make, leadership on both sides of the aisle. We had invited the uh leaders of the other party to come and testify today. I I guess they had a scheduling conflict that they couldn't make it out today to speak in support or opposition to this amendment. But we have heard those promises on the House floor when it's come in. We've heard those promises in the press. When an income tax was actually proposed just weeks ago, we heard those promises in the press that they would not support an income tax today or ever in the future. So let's make that firm promise to the people of New Hampshire to ban an income tax now and forever by voting yes on this CACR 12 so that the voters, our bosses, the people that sent us here, can vote up or down this November on whether or not that promise should be upheld and enshrined in our Constitution forever. Happy to take any questions you guys may have.
SPEAKER_05That's good. It looks like there's a couple questions. Great. And um I'm getting really good at figuring out who it is based on the back of their head now. Uh when I I'm usually in the committee room, I see the front uh face, so um Representative Elberger, you turned around so I could see you easily.
SPEAKER_00Thank you, Mr. Chair. You mentioned that you believe voters should have the right to make decisions on taxing. Do you believe voters should have the right to make decisions about other issues that we face in the legislature, or is it just taxes?
SPEAKER_02Well, thank you very much for the great question. Anytime that we in the legislature legislature decide we need a constitutional amendment for a long-term policy change to the state, we pass a CACR and we put that onto the ballot. We've had a CACR on the ballot for most of the last few election cycles. Some of them get passed through. I'm thinking fondly of the 2018 right to privacy that we put in. That had nothing to do with taxation, but we in the legislative branch decided we need to have a right to privacy enshrined in our state constitution. We put that on the ballot and voters pass that amendment. So it's not just on taxation, but the constitutional amendment process that we have in this state puts the question directly to the voters whether or not they want to amend the state constitution. That's the appropriate vehicle to do such a thing. We can't, as legislators, pass a single law or pass any rule that a future legislature can't just suspend or pass another law that says notwithstanding. Putting in a constitutional amendment really does put a bind on future legislative bodies. And that's the goal. We want to make sure that everybody that says we don't want an income tax, we're never going to propose an income tax, we don't support the income taxes that people are proposing. We want to make sure that that is ground in New Hampshire constitutional law that income taxes are not acceptable or not allowed in New Hampshire.
SPEAKER_00Representative, follow-up. So for example, we passed a bill this year about limiting uh increased taxation for municipalities. Should that go to the voters?
SPEAKER_02I think I think if the bill that you're referring to is HB 1300.
SPEAKER_00I don't remember the number.
SPEAKER_02So there's a bill that we voted on that's in the in the other body right now that would place a question on the November ballot to limit the growth of uh property tax spending as it relates to school spending locally. That is a legislative vehicle that we have put on the ballot, similar to other local tax caps that people can vote on in the March election. Uh we voted as a body, it was a split vote, it wasn't an overwhelming majority by any means, but it was a majority, voted to pass that bill to give voters the opportunity in November, every November, to put a local tax cap on their local spending. So we did do that earlier. It's in the it's in the state senate right now, uh, but that's just another example of a of a bill that we have passed.
SPEAKER_00Follow-up. One last follow-up. One last one. So every piece of legislation that we pass, or we don't do it, let's say that we pass here between us and the Senate, that somebody has a concern about, that could potentially be put into the form of a CACR. So if somebody doesn't like X, Y, or Z, somebody I'm trying to come up with silly things in my hand right now. Um it would seem to me that that would really slow down the wheels of the government if after even let's say five or ten percent of bills that get passed then go up to a constitutional amendment level, and at some point our citizens elect us to represent them. I'm confused as to why we don't trust that part, but somehow trusting them about a constitutional amendment is somehow different.
SPEAKER_02I'm gonna I'm gonna try to answer that the best way I can on the multiple points that were raised. Uh, first off, slowing down government sounds like a great idea, and we should do it as often as we can. I want government moving as slow as possible so that our people can succeed throughout the state. We have the system for constitutional amendments where if they reach the threshold in the House and in the Senate to pass on to the voters, it's a higher threshold than a simple majority, we pass those constitutional amendment questions onto the ballot, and then it takes a supermajority of the voters to actually put that into the constitution. So if there are policies in this chamber that are, you know, it could be mundane policy, we could change a letter, we could change a paragraph. If that constitutional amendment gets through this body, meets the threshold, gets through the other body and meets the threshold, and then the voters adopt it with the threshold that they need, that probably belongs in the constitution because that's the people's will. On a lot of things, a lot of legislation doesn't have to go to the voters. And I would agree with you on that point. That's why they elect us. They also elect us every two years. So if a body ever passes a ton of bills that the people don't want, that party changes. There's been party changes in this legislature frequently for the last 20 years. Some come in, some go out, everything changes. The people's voice is always protected. At the end of the day, the people in the state are the ones with the real power. We're just their servants and we're just doing their will. I have a feeling from my constituents and from what I've heard is that people in New Hampshire want to ban an income tax. And they want to see this in the Constitution. We should not deprive the voters of their opportunity to ban an income tax this November. We should pass this unanimously in bipartisan colors because we keep hearing on a bipartisan level from leadership that we're all opposed to an income tax. So we should put our money where our mouth is, and we should ban it now, and we should ban it forever. Thank you for the question.
SPEAKER_05Representative Schamburg.
SPEAKER_03Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Representative, for taking this question. Is it consistent with democratic self-government to let one generation lock in fiscal rules, not principles, fiscal rules, into the Constitution for all future generations?
SPEAKER_02It absolutely is. There's numerous provisions already in our state constitution governing what types of taxation we can have, what levels of tax, how we can do it, how it has to all be widespread, so you can never have the progressive dream of a tiered income tax. We already govern in our the Constitution, to get back to my original point, is the document that restrains the government from taking abuse of the people. This is, you know, to say it's one generation, we have a pretty wide amount of generations that serve in the House of Representatives and the State Senate and our government. And then the gener it would take more than one generation to vote this in on the November ballot. So to say it's just one generation binding the future, it's the people of New Hampshire putting the handcuffs on their government to say we're not going to have an income tax. Again, not now and not ever.
SPEAKER_05Representative Opal, followed by uh thank you, Mr.
SPEAKER_04Chairman. Um, and thank you, Representative Sweeney, for taking my question. Um knowing your background, and you and I have some similar backgrounds in terms of electoral politics, um, given what you do, I'm assuming you understand the impact of money in campaigns. And while there's been a lot of talk about allowing the voters of New Hampshire, do you honestly believe that there would not be a substantial amount of money coming from very well-resourced people who would naturally oppose an income tax and would use those donations to uh persuade?
SPEAKER_02I I am sure uh to reference parts of our New Hampshire Constitution and our federal constitution, that individuals who would like to indulge in their free speech rights and their rights to association and their right to engage in political activity, I am sure on both sides of the issue you will see organizations that organize and mobilize their voter bases around this issue, just as they do for every candidate that's on the ballot. Uh it looks like at this point, uh, I know the Republicans are going to have a candidate that's opposed to an income tax for governor. Uh the Democrat candidate right now claims to oppose it, but you I I haven't really seen that in writing or the pledge be signed. Uh, but it's likely that both candidates are going to run on opposing an income tax. Uh, the voters certainly will get to decide which candidate they trust more to actually oppose an income tax if we're ever to come across their desk. Um but certainly any constitutional amendment that we pass, any candidacy or races that are on the ballot for people to vote on between one side or the other, or potentially three sides if there's a new third party that I heard about that's being formed. Uh certainly individuals have the rights and the freedom to support those efforts, to organize, to associate. Uh, and there's I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I think that's the beauty of our Democratic Republic in New Hampshire that we allow the voters to have such a wide range of involvement in our electoral politics. Uh, and anyone that wants to support either side of it has the full right to do so.
SPEAKER_04Follow up, Mr. Chair.
SPEAKER_02Follow up.
SPEAKER_04Um so what you're saying is you think it's okay that rather than the principle of one person, one vote, it's okay that free speech now gets interpreted as one dollar, one vote. And if I have more dollars, I speak louder than you do?
SPEAKER_02Well, a billionaire can vote once and a poor person can vote once. They still have the same number of votes. Now, what they can do with their time and their energy in order to mobilize and influence others, that's up to them. But everybody has one vote. Everybody has the right to exercise that vote just as much as they have the right to exercise their free speech. This isn't uh a constitutional amendment about free speech, but there's no reason to limit individuals' right to free speech just because we might not like the outcome of what that speech might be.
SPEAKER_05Okay, I'm not sure if it's Representative Hack and Representative Tierney. Okay, Representative Tierney. You guys are sharing a microphone, so I wasn't sure.
SPEAKER_01Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for taking my question, Representative. Isn't it true that just as this CACR condemned an income tax and a subsequent one in five years, ten years, whatever, people could put it back in and say we want an income tax?
SPEAKER_02Absolutely. That's a phenomenal question. This is putting it in so that if a future government wants to take that step to have an income tax, they would just have to go through the process to undo it and make sure that the people of New Hampshire are behind it and want that income tax. So at the end of the day, great question. We're just empowering the voters to have their voice be heard.
SPEAKER_05Representative Hackman Phillips.
SPEAKER_06Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Representative Sunny, for taking my question. Um I'm just following up on my inquiry about um placing this amendment under Article 18, which pertains only to the House of Representatives. I'm wondering um what the efficacy of only having the ban apply to the House of Representatives adopting this ban and not um not also the Senate. And then I'm wondering um I guess I'll give stuff after that. Thank you.
SPEAKER_02Sure. Uh constitutionally, in our state, all tax bills have to originate in the House of Representatives. So if there's a Senate bill that wants to impose an income tax, it's automatically not constitutional because it has to originate in the House in the House of Representatives. So by putting it in the Constitution that the House of Representatives cannot adopt or pursue or propose a tax on income, earned wages, and what have you, that's a full and total ban in the constitutional law of the state of New Hampshire.
SPEAKER_06Um thank you for the explanation. I'm just wondering then, um, knowing the history of other constitutional amendments proposed as far back as 1992, um it did not limit their um adoption to singularly to the House of Representatives. So I'm wondering um as a follow-up, why would we need the Senate then to vote as well?
SPEAKER_02Why would we need the Senate to vote as well? Well, if you're not banning the Senate from also adopting, what is the efficacy of only sure and I appreciate the question in the history going back to 1992 that there have been other bill uh other amendments proposed to ban an income tax in the save New Hampshire? Uh despite overwhelming public opinion opposed to an income tax, there always seems to be an organized effort from one of the parties to tell people to hey, vote down that amendment. Um so this is a different tact, this is a different written amendment. Maybe this does the trick and gets everybody on board. Um, you know, if you have an amendment to this that would still ban an income tax, I am sure the committee would be well entertained to well endowed to entertain it uh and support it. I'd love to see the language. Uh if there was language from you and from your caucus that puts an income tax ban on the ballot for people to vote on, and we can all get together and sing kumbaya and do it, I'd love to see that amendment. Um, you know, I do know constitutionally the way the amendment is drafted does ban an income tax in the state of New Hampshire. So that's that is good for me to go on and support it. But again, if if the if the if your caucus wants to see slightly different language that still puts the question on the ballot, that would still ban income taxes in the state of New Hampshire. Uh speaking for myself, not any of my other colleagues, I would love to see it and I'd love to work with you all on getting that amendment to the people.
SPEAKER_05Any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much.
SPEAKER_02This is great, thank you guys.
SPEAKER_05Thank you.