What are we getting from our representation?
Politicians frequently tell us they’re protecting taxpayers. But how often do we ask a more basic question: What are we actually getting from our elected officials?
I recently tried to answer that by examining the record of my own state representative, Rep. Margaret Drye (R-Sullivan District 7). I wasn’t looking for another partisan scorecard. I wanted to follow the money: What did a policy cost? Who benefited? Did it save taxpayers money, or simply move the bill somewhere else?
Consider public pensions.
In 2026, HB 197 would have restored a 7.5% state contribution toward retirement costs for teachers, police and firefighters. The state’s fiscal analysis estimated about $28 million annually in additional state spending, but that same amount represented costs currently borne by municipalities and school districts.
Drye voted against it.
That’s a savings on the state budget. But the pension obligation doesn’t disappear. Local governments still have to pay it, largely through property taxes. Is that really a savings, or just a different bill?
Then consider Education Freedom Accounts.
The expanded EFA program is projected to cost roughly $51.6 million this school year for about 10,510 students. Yet only 343 recipients attended public school the previous year, about 3.3%.
There are legitimate arguments for school choice. But if nearly 97% of recipients were already outside public schools, most EFA spending cannot reasonably be called savings from students leaving the public system. It is a new public expenditure.
Drye supported the expansion.
Drye also supported eliminating New Hampshire’s centralized vaccine purchasing system. Lawmakers heard evidence that pooled purchasing produced discounts of roughly 30%. The repeal failed, but the proposal illustrates the same problem: eliminating a government expense doesn’t necessarily eliminate the cost.
None of this produces a neat dollar figure declaring Drye a good or bad investment. Legislating doesn’t work that way.
But voters can demand something more useful.
When politicians say they saved us money, ask where the cost went. When they spend more, ask what we’re getting in return. And when Concord cuts its budget, ask whether the expense disappeared or simply landed on our property-tax bill, insurance premium or household budget.
That’s a standard I’d apply equally to Republicans and Democrats.
Don’t just tell us you’re protecting taxpayers.
Show us the return.