Posts by Rep. David Preece
For years, New Hampshire conservatives and libertarians have wrapped themselves in the language of “local control.” They warn against government overreach, defend the authority of local communities, and condemn top-down mandates from Washington.
Two recent disclosures—one from the New Hampshire Office of the Legislative Budget Assistant and another from the office of Kelly A. Ayotte—give us an answer that should concern every taxpayer in this city.
At the State House, where I serve, we debate budgets, oversight, and fiscal responsibility every day. We review reports, question spending, and argue over priorities because taxpayer dollars demand accountability. But those conversations depend on a shared premise: that rules matter, and that they apply equally.
New Hampshire has always stood for something simple and powerful: local control, fiscal responsibility, and the freedom to make our own choices.
That’s exactly why a proposed constitutional amendment to permanently ban a state income tax is the wrong move—especially for cities like Manchester.
If you live in Manchester, you’re already feeling the pressure—higher property taxes, strained schools, and growing demands on local services.
HB 1793 would prohibit public colleges and universities from setting any rules governing firearms or even non-lethal weapons on campus. That means no local policies. No safety protocols. No ability to respond to the specific needs of a campus community.
Recently, Americans have heard calls from national leaders to pray for victory in explicitly Christian terms—language that suggests U.S. military action carries divine favor. That should concern all of us.
Governor Kelly Ayotte’s veto of HB 451 was not an act of fiscal discipline—it was an act of political deference that ignores both the needs of our communities and the realities of responsible environmental stewardship.
Members of the New Hampshire National Guard, including men and women who live and work in Manchester, could now find themselves deployed into a conflict whose purpose and duration remain uncertain. These are our neighbors. They coach youth sports, attend our churches, and work in our hospitals, construction sites, and small businesses.
When the state underfunds education, the difference must be made up locally. That means property taxes carry a heavier burden.
Before entering public service, I spent part of my professional career reviewing and drafting environmental and economic impact statements. Those documents shape major public decisions. They are supposed to present facts clearly, test assumptions rigorously, and weigh both benefits and costs honestly. I learned quickly that the most important question is not what an impact statement includes—but what it leaves out.
A year into Donald Trump’s second term, friends who live outside the United States still reach out in disbelief. Is it really that bad? Are you safe? I usually answer with a shrug. Not because things are fine — but because, like so many Americans, I’ve learned how quickly the unacceptable becomes routine.
New Hampshire has never believed in kings.
From the town meeting floor to the State House, we are a state that insists power must be earned, justified, and restrained. That is why what happened this weekend should alarm every Granite Stater—regardless of party.
When Governor Kelly Ayotte says New Hampshire is “number one across the board,” the line travels faster than fact. It looks great in national talking points — but it doesn’t match what families, teachers, and taxpayers feel every day in Manchester, Nashua, and communities across our state. Here, the gap between headline and reality is not abstract. It shows up in school budgets, tax bills, and choices families are forced to make.
This proposal is not simply about square footage and bathrooms. It is about whether New Hampshire wants to participate in a system that treats human beings as cargo — to be warehoused and moved around without due process.
New Hampshire taxpayers have every right to be angry. While we are told the state “cannot afford” to meet its constitutional obligation to public education, tens of millions of dollars are quietly being drained from the Education Trust Fund to subsidize private, religious, and homeschooling families who were never in our public schools to begin with.
Rep. Brian Labrie argues that the so-called “Public Employee Choice Act” is about freedom. But true workplace freedom has never meant forcing workers to negotiate alone against the power and resources of the state. In New Hampshire — a place where the middle class was built through solidarity, fairness, and collective voice — this proposal would undermine the very system that has delivered stability and economic mobility for tens of thousands of families.
New Hampshire’s transportation system does not run on back-room deals, campaign slogans, or eleventh-hour improvisation. It runs—when it runs well—on public process, engineering reality, and basic honesty with taxpayers. That is why the Executive Council’s latest clash over the Ten-Year Transportation Plan should concern every Granite Stater, and especially those of us in Manchester.
I will be opposing HB 639, the so-called “cryptocurrency freedom” bill now before the Senate. Despite its libertarian rhetoric of innovation and “financial opportunity,” the measure is a blueprint for deregulation that would invite precisely the abuses and inequalities that scholar Finn Brunton warns of in his recent New York Times essay on the true nature of cryptocurrency.
Manchester — Our city is caught in the crosshairs of a growing fiscal and constitutional crisis in public education. The state’s failure to fully fund its legal responsibilities is hurting students, taxpayers, and entire communities.