Talk:Government of New Hampshire

Under construction

Excuse the page for now, it's still under construction --Karmafist 06:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Governor shares power

I'm sure the editor is correct about being unusual for a governor to share power with the cabinet. However, in Florida, they do the same thing. This may imply that there are other states that do this. It would be of interest to know who they are. Student7 (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Cabinet? A "cabinet" is usually appointed by the governor, although the legislature may have to OK the choice. The Executive Council is rare, perhaps unique, in that it is a directly elected executive body, not an appointed one. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• David's right. Many governors appoint their own cabinet (Sec of State, Attorney General, etc.) with the legislature concurring. In Florida, these officers are elected directly by the voters, and in NH, the Executive Council (dating back to the 1600s) approves these appointments, and acts as a "check" on the governor. It is also true that this body isn't truly a "cabinet." It's a bit surprising that they aren't directly elected, but we value tradition here! It also appears to be true that NH is among the only US states with an Executive Council, although the WP article doesn't name the other ones. - Nhprman 19:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Improvements to the page

I'm editing this page, along the lines I discussed with Ken Gallager in the entry for New Hampshire (Discussion, Sec.48, "Law and government (Claremont lawsuits)"). The goal is to put it in a hierarchical order from the most permanent (state constitution) to the least, and to harmonize differences with the "Law and government" section of the New Hampshire entry. Ideally, there should be no duplication. Elected office-holders should probably be listed on this page only. I am too new to Wikipedia to know if the "Law and government" section of New Hampshire should be an overview of this entry or totally moved here. --24.60.78.79 (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There should still be an overview of law and government on the NH page, so there will probably be some duplication - though less than now.--Ken Gallager (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the {{unreferenced}} tag that a user at 74.92.38.137 added ten days ago. I asked for discussion in Talk:New Hampshire#(Law and government) Claremont lawsuits but there has been none. I've tightened up and merged the first two paragraphs of the section on "Idiosyncracies" but remain convinced that New Hampshire's libertarianism, including the debate on broad-based taxation, is a defining phenomenon and that I have described it impartially. I'll do further work if anyone would like to make specific suggestions, or better yet, provide the desired citations. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability says that any material challenged or likely to be challenged should cite reliable sources for support. The libertarian tendencies of New Hampshire certainly fall into that category. -- Beland (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Financials

I just added a bunch of information about taxes and the budget. It would be interesting to add numbers for each of the taxes listed showing how much money they raise. -- Beland (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, your additions have taken something away. The story I was telling in this section was the nature of the political debate in the state. One example is the perennial controversy over broad-based taxes, to which I noted that New Hampshire does have broad-based taxes, which I listed. Your substitution, a complete list of NH taxes, now fails as a counterexample, as there is no significant movement in the state for there to be no taxes at all, and blurs the point about broad-based taxes. In addition, the new start of the section refers to deleted text.

I accept your change to the title of the section, but will respectfully revert the text of this section. The complete list of taxes in New Hampshire is easily retrievable from the archive and may belong in this article, or the fact that New Hampshire has a gravel tax may be too trivial to be relevant. I agree that the "libertarian" nature of the state's politics is an open question and will monitor this page for further discussion. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the "Government" sections should describe the way NH does work. The "Politics of New Hampshire" article would get (not into campaigning) but things like libertarian proposed initiatives. I am not clear on where a budget would go here, but last years budget could be justified in "Government" I think. Controversies over broad-based taxation are definitely "Politics of New Hampshire" and should go there instead. Student7 (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You can safely ignore or delete what is in Politics of New Hampshire right now. It belongs in Elections in New Hampshire or a related article. Student7 (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about getting down into "gravel tax" but that sort of thing can be perfect for this article OR Politics since it involved statutes. Spike's stuff is definitely Politics of New Hampshire material. One of the reasons you are arguing over it! If it truly belonged in Government, you wouldn't be arguing over it, you would be asleep! :) Just kidding, but "Government..." is or should be way less controversial than it is (for that reason). Student7 (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the conversation. I concur that Politics of New Hampshire is a preferable place for the broad-based taxation subject. It might also hold the text on our lack of a (broad-based) seat-belt and motorcycle-helmet law, which may say more about our politics than it does about our statutes. I'll gladly do the editing--but first, more discussion, please, on the assertion by User:Student7 that that article should go away entirely.

Now a separate issue with the additions by User:Beland: His table about the amount of money that comes out of each "fund" is very Inside-Baseball. The General Fund, for example, is a legislative creation and the amount taken from it tells you very little about anything. Likewise, the right side of the table, on state expenditures by category, is arbitrary. We know that "Education" includes UNH, its bus system, its broadcasting stations, and its community agitators, and is only a category so that legislators can scare one another about what the state would be without any "Education." Beland himself proposed, and I think it would be more instructive, to obtain data on the amount of money that each state tax raises. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to break "Education" down into UNH vs. K-12, etc., that's fine with me, though the total spent on "Education", including support services does to me make a coherent and useful category. Certainly "Health and social services" and "Resource protection and development" are really vague and could use further breakdown, but these are the official budget categories; other categorization schemes would require the location of additional sources. -- Beland (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've mentioned this conversation on Politics of New Hampshire, and that the material here on broad-based taxation, the state motto, and maybe the driver-safety laws, be moved there. I'll do the work but will wait until the weekend to see if any more comments emerge. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I just did the move and restored the list of taxes since I had a few spare minutes. -- Beland (talk)

Left to do

• Add numbers for each of the taxes listed showing how much money they raise.
• Integrate this into the revenue side of the "budget" section to replace/complement confusing "Funds".
• Break out overly broad categories like Education (K-12, UNH, etc.), "Health and social services" and "Resource protection and development"

-- Beland (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Senator Gregg's resignation

Bonnie Newman is not Senator yet, don't replace Judd Gregg in federal officials until he resigns and she takes office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.29.13 (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! as Senator Gregg did not go through with his resignation, cancelling his plans to become President Obama's Secretary of Commerce, reportedly over fears that the White House would supervise the management of the 2010 Census. Spike-from-NH (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Local government balance

What powers do counties and municipalities generally have? Which taxes do they generally levy? -- Beland (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The article's "Local government" section is now lengthened to answer these questions. Spike-from-NH (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Spike. The key question here is whether the county government is self-supporting or not. Vermont, too, has "county" functions, but they are all supported by the state government, which is why the state can threaten their dissolution or merger at any time. No true political foundation for county government except maybe an elected (?) board. No power of taxation, for example. Student7 (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

In New Hampshire, county government is tax-supported, and is called out as a line item on the property-tax bill. But this does not mean it has a "true political foundation," as "Dillon's Rule" still applies; despite elected officials and even though two minor aspects mentioned in the state constitution, counties are a construct of the state. Spike-from-NH (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)