The Sullivan County NH Republican Committee

Tag: charter schools

  • Fighting Parental Rights Via Local Control

    There is a particular kind of political jiu-jitsu that shows up every session in Concord: take a word conservatives like, twist it 15 degrees, and use it to do something conservatives should hate.

    HB1512 is that move.

    The bill would let a town hold a referendum to decide whether families in that town may access Education Freedom Accounts (EFAs). Vote “no,” and even otherwise-eligible families get blocked. Not by their own choices, not by program rules, not by funding caps, but by the local majority.

    This is being sold as “local control.” It is not. It is a municipal veto over parental rights.

    “Local control” is not the same thing as “local veto”

    Genuine local control means towns manage what towns are responsible for: budgets, policies, operations, and how they run their public schools.

    HB1512 goes past that line. It says your neighbors can vote on your kid’s education options.

    That is not local control. That is local coercion.

    A conservative movement that believes parents are the primary decision-makers for their children should be allergic to this concept on contact.

    Rights by zip code is not liberty, it’s arbitrary rule

    A statewide program with statewide eligibility becomes a patchwork of political fiefdoms:

    • Same income, same student, same eligibility.
    • Different town line.
    • Different rights.

    That is not “federalism.” It is not “subsidiarity.” It is not “community values.”

    It is a government-granted permission slip, revocable at the ballot box, based on where you live.

    Liberty does not mean “the majority gets to vote on your family’s choices.”

    The bill weaponizes school choice into a permanent town-level culture war

    If you want to ensure that every town meeting turns into a screaming match, this is a fantastic way to do it.

    Instead of families quietly making decisions and scholarship organizations administering the program, HB1512 drags EFA students into annual political combat. It turns ordinary parents into campaign targets and their kids into talking points.

    Conservatives should be reducing the number of things subject to political warfare, not creating a new town-level battlefield.

    It does not solve the “taxpayer concern”; it pretends to address

    You will hear: “Taxpayers should decide!”

    But HB1512 does not cut your school tax bill. It does not change your town’s education spending. It does not create transparency. It does not create efficiency.

    What it does is block families from accessing an option that often costs less than the public system per pupil.

    So if your goal is fiscal restraint, the bill is confused.
    If your goal is to make school choice harder, the bill is perfectly designed for that.

    It’s anti-parent, wrapped in the costume of civic virtue

    Here is the tell: the bill is not letting parents opt out. Parents already opt out by choosing a different option for their child.

    The bill lets other voters opt parents out.

    That is the inversion. That is the point.

    You do not defend parental rights by deputizing the town to overrule them.

    Conservatives should oppose HB1512 for one simple reason

    Because it treats educational choice as a privilege granted by local politics rather than a right exercised by families.

    If you believe parents, not government, are responsible for raising children, then you do not let the town vote on whether a family is allowed to choose a different educational path.

    HB1512 should be voted Inexpedient to Legislate.

    Not because local control is bad, but because this bill is not local control at all. It is a neighborhood-level veto on freedom, with “community” scrawled on the label in marker.

    And we are supposed to applaud because the boot is locally sourced.

    Disclaimer: The views, opinions, and statements expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or positions of the publisher, editors, staff, affiliates, or any associated organizations. The publisher makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the information presented and assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions. This content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal, financial, medical, or professional advice.

  • Insufficient and Unfair, or Just Misdiagnosed?

    The Democratic case in brief

    The argument starts with a moral contrast. New Hampshire is a wealthy state, yet its budgets allegedly underfund core needs such as housing, clean energy, public safety, and education. Four points drive the claim.

    1. Leaders say “no funds available,” which is presented as a choice rather than a constraint.
    2. High local property taxes are displacing homeowners and renters.
    3. The tax code is regressive, with lower-income households paying a higher share of income in state and local taxes than top earners.
    4. Public education funding is described as constitutionally inadequate, which forces property-poor towns to raise unsustainable local taxes.

    From there comes the prescription. Shift away from heavy reliance on local property taxes and raise more money from high earners and corporations. The goal is a bigger, more centralized revenue base that can stabilize services statewide.

    “A wealth-rich state with cash-poor towns needs a broader tax base so the wealthy and corporations pay a larger share.”

    The conservative/libertarian critique

    Start with first principles. New Hampshire’s tax structure reflects a deliberate choice for local control, transparent taxation, and restraint on broad income and sales taxes. That choice limits state growth, forces tradeoffs, and keeps government legible to voters. Centralized taxes create a ratchet. Rates rise, programs multiply, baselines harden, and the promised reversals never arrive.

    “No funds available” is responsible budgeting, not a moral failure. Budgets exist to force priorities. More dollars are not reform. Results are reform. If a housing or energy program underdelivers, the fix is design, governance, and permitting, not an open spigot.

    Property taxes are imperfect but accountable. They are visible and adjustable at the local level. The real pain points are predictable. Seniors on fixed incomes and working families in fast-appreciating markets. Use targeted relief. Circuit breaker credits tied to income. Larger veteran and elderly exemptions. Homestead adjustments for primary residences. Then fix the supply. Zoning and permitting reform will do more to ease property tax pressure than a statewide income tax that never sunsets.

    Regressivity claims need context. Incidence studies rarely net out the value of services received. A low-income family with children in public school receives an enormous in-kind benefit that does not show up as a tax offset. They also treat taxpayer behavior as static. New Hampshire attracts people and investment precisely because it does not tax wages. Import an income tax and you import slower growth.

    Education funding is a structural problem, not a slogan problem. Courts can define a floor, but they cannot produce learning by decree. Spending is a weak proxy for quality. Reform the structure. Expand charter seats where waitlists exist. Keep Education Freedom Accounts available to lower and middle-income families. Tie aid to students and transparent outcomes. Negotiate benefit costs with real discipline. Empower principals on staffing and procurement. These are levers that move achievement without promising miracles from new taxes.

    “Make the wealthy and corporations pay more” often shrinks the base you need. High earners are mobile. Capital is more mobile still. New Hampshire’s regional edge is the absence of a wage tax. Protect the edge. Grow the base. Do not chase a headline rate that erodes the future you intend to fund.

    “You can raise the rate and watch the base leave, or you can keep the edge and watch the base grow.”

    A forward plan that respects tradeoffs

    This is not do nothing. It is do the hard things first.

    • Radical transparency on costs and outcomes. Publish unit costs and results for every state grant stream and local line item in plain language. Per pupil spending next to proficiency. Special education outlays next to compliance and progress. Housing dollars next to units delivered and time to permit. Use multiple measures so no single metric becomes a gameable target.
    • Targeted property tax relief, not a new income tax. Strengthen circuit breakers for homeowners and renters with low to moderate incomes. Expand elderly and veteran exemptions. Make the application fit on a phone. Fund it by reprioritizing existing spending, not by creating a permanent statewide tax.
    • Grow supply and the tax base. Time limits on permits. By proper approval for conforming projects. Predictable stormwater and driveway standards. The carrying costs of delay are a hidden tax. Cut that tax.
    • Tackle school cost drivers. Health and retirement benefits, staffing rules, and procurement inflate local levies. Bargain in the open. Cap employer premium shares at sustainable levels. Standardize plan designs. Share services across districts to save real money and preserve quality.
    • Fund students, not systems. Expand family-directed funding where it works. EFAs and charters increase bargaining power for parents and pressure all schools to improve. Align state dollars with students, not just with static district formulas.
    • Safeguard the competitive tax climate. Keep the no-income-tax advantage. If a narrow, high-value priority truly needs new revenue, tie it to an automatic sunset and an off-ramp. Do not let “temporary” become baseline.

    What this means for justice and prosperity

    The Democratic case is correct that tradeoffs are real and that many towns feel squeezed. It goes wrong when it treats the revenue mix as the master variable. New Hampshire’s strength is a culture of local control, visible taxation, and pro-growth discipline. Fix the structures that waste dollars. Aim relief where it is genuinely needed. Grow the base by making it easier to build, work, invest, and educate. Do those things and you will deliver more justice and more prosperity without importing a tax ratchet that erodes the very edge New Hampshire uses to win.