I just responded to a question of sorts in another thread which I thought might warrant further discussion. A poster wondered why New Hampshire has such a large legislature with such a small population. It does raise the question - which is better - large or small? H ere’s the body of my reply:
As a proud citizen of New Hampshire, I thought I’d point out a couple of things about the large legislature of New Hampshire.
* It’s the 3rd largest legislature in the world. (by proportion of representatives to citizens)
* it’s a voluntary, part-time body. Members receive $100 per year plus mileage, plus a way cool license plate and discounts at Blockbusters :).
There are a number of reasons why a large, part-time legislature is beneficial.
* There is a more direct link between the electors and the elected. Most citizens either know a rep, or have acces to one. My friend’s college roommate was a state rep. Pretty neat! This makes the legislature very responsive.
* A large legislature is less corruptible and incestuous than a smaller one because the power of any one member is vastly diluted. You’d have to bribe lots of people to accomplish anything. This style of government has the added benefit of dissuading the power hungry from running for office.
* It provides a very balanced representation of the state’s population, including everyone from college students, housewives, the retired, self-employed, et cetera, but most of all - since they’re volunteers, Democrat or Republican, they’re committed to honest, responsible governance.
* Campaigns are homegrown with the average campaign costing between $500 and $1500 - well within the reach of your average Granite Stater. People aren’t buying power and influence, they’re running for the privilage of service.
I think NH’s record speaks for itself. It has limited taxation and small government, but an extremely high standard of living.
My impression of the NH Legislature as seen from “south of the border” is that it’s pretty much totally ineffective. For example: How many years have they been wrangling over, or generally avoiding, the school funding issue? How bad was it that the state Supreme Court had to order it to be fixed? How can anything that involved any difficulty or courage get accomplished in a body so large that few of them even know each others’ names?
Bear in mind that the state gov’t in NH does basically squat anyway - the towns have to do it all themselves, raising the money by real-estate taxes, fees on everything imaginable, and (that old standby) speed traps. All the Legislature seems willing or able to do is pass resolutions confirming their refusal to consider state income or sales taxes, and threaten reprisals against anyone who suggests such a revolutionary concept. But I’m sure those license plates are good for speed trap immunity for the members.
I have to chuckle a little at the people I know who are belligerently proud to live in Tax-Free New Hampshire while working in Taxachusetts. All that means is they pay both relatively-high Mass. income tax AND exorbitant NH town real-estate taxes. Suckers.
On the other extreme, in a reasonably-sized legislature without an effective opposition party, it’s too easy for the leaders to take over all effective power. The Mass. Senate and House are both virtual fiefdoms; ordinary members are ineffective, and the few Republicans might as well not bother showing up. While things can get done if those 2 gentlemen are both in favor, it’s not exactly democracy.
Might point out that the Ohio legislature is currently under not one, but TWO Ohio Supreme Court orders to reform school funding (99 in one house, 33 in the other, certainly not too big for a state our size).
And let’s not forget California with its very moderately sized legislature, which has failed in numerous instances to deal in a timely way with various hot-button issues, leading to legislation through initiative on such issues as taxation, auto insurance, welfare reform, etc. They STILL haven’t figured out how to pay for all the social programs they want after Proposition 13 took all the money away from local jurisdictions way back in 1978.
New Hampshire’s education funding “crisis” is not a result of an ineffectual legislature dragging it’s heels. In the past few years, we’ve seen a massive influx of people seeking a tax haven, better educational opportunities, or a quieter neighborhood. If you look at this demographic shift - it consists primarily of people relocating from massachusetts, young, with children, and non-property owners. They don’t contribute much to the tax base. If you live in an apartment complex (which we’ve also seen a boom in this type of contruction), the tax burden for that property is small in proportion to the number of residents entitled to government services. Additionally, and this doesn’t apply strictly to NH, many children are being classified as emotionally handicapped or learning disabled and require special programs and one-on-one aides at tremendous expense. When class sizes expand beyond a school’s capacity, the only solution is to lease portable classrooms at $60,000 a year, or build a new school for millions of dollars. Small town residents are understandably reluctant to saddle the town with debt for 20 years. The fact that NH hasn’t resorted to the quick-fix solution many states take i.e. raising the income tax and sales tax “temporarily” is a tribute to the legislature’s common sense and good judgement. Can you remember the last time a tax was redcued? I can’t. The always increase because they’re a great way for politicians to exercise their power.
evilhanz: *Can you remember the last time a tax was red[uc]ed? I can’t. *
Haven’t been paying much attention to your neighboring state of Massachusetts, have you? They just rolled back the state income tax from 5.95% to 5% this November 7.
evilhanz, interesting thoughts on education funding there, but I don’t understand how you can defend the state government’s continued inaction. The NHSC certainly doesn’t.
If neither the towns nor the state are willing to come up with the necessary funding for an adequate school system, then the funding isn’t going to be provided at all. The losers are the kids. Maybe that condition is so chronic that it can’t be called a crisis, but there’s no way to call it responsible. The problems you describe with drains on resources exist in all states, so no sympathy there.
Unless you believe there is going to be a demographic shift the other way that will keep future generations from having so many pesky kids in NH, then you have to accept that a permanent solution is necessary. There’s no point in calling such permanence a reason to be against doing anything. “Common sense and good judgment” go the other way, IMHO.
Incidentally, we just voted to phase out the income surtax here in Massachusetts. Granted, the Legislature (er, Finneran and Birmingham) wouldn’t do it, but they couldn’t make a good case against it.
I should have been more specific - legislatures don’t rollback taxes. After 10 years and three attempts at a referendum, maybe you can get your tax rate reduced by 0.95%. I think we know who the real winner was Hey, and why didn’t you folks vote for a deduction on tolls and excise taxes? It seems silly to keep paying for a bloated bureaucracy to manage roads and tolllbooths that were paid for 17 years ago.
I do agree that a permanent solution is in order. As long as taxes are low,jobs are plenty, and living standards high, people will naturally gravitate to the area. I just don’t think a quick fix without regard to long term consequences is proper. (The NHSC notwithstanding. We haven’t been too happy with their wayward ways.) Sales taxes would be devasting to cross-border retailers. Income taxes would be an unreasonable burden on those already paying property taxes. Difficult situations demand careful, reasoned solutions. It can’t be done overnight, like a legislative pay raise.
Anyway, this whole line of debate is way OT, but what the heck.
To wander further into the woods: The referenda on tolls and excise tax deductions failed because the amount of money wouldn’t be worth the paperwork for taxpayers, and the toll plazas would be further backed up if everyone asked for receipts.
It’s a little strange to be lectured on tolls by someone in The Shire, at any rate - been through Hampton or the Manchester-Concord stretch of I-93 lately? Amazing how NH keeps collecting at the funnel points for people just passing through from other states, even though the roads were paid for by Federal money long ago, huh? I also admire the state-sponsored “Don’t Drink and Drive” billboards right next to the state-owned liquor stores.
Of course, the above can be said of a lot of states - Delaware has just enough mileage on I-95 to fit their own toll plaza in, and they take similar smug pride in their own lack of a sales tax.
Back to the OP: There has to be an optimum size for a legislature between representativeness and efficiency, but damned if I know what it is, and the personal characteristics of the leaders probably are more important. Fair enough?
Hey, and why didn’t you folks vote for a deduction on tolls and excise taxes? It seems silly to keep paying for a bloated bureaucracy to manage roads and tolllbooths that were paid for 17 years ago.