Gov. Kelly Ayotte’s 2026 State of the State address can be summed up in seven words: New Hampshire wins by competing on freedom.
Leading with a list of eight No. 1 national rankings for the state—including economic freedom, economic opportunity and taxpayer return on investment—Ayotte noted that, overall, “U.S. News ranks us the #2 state in the nation.”
“Now, I’m not sure what they’re doing out in Utah,” she said. “But, Utah, we are coming for you because we can make a great case for number one!”
By aggressively competing for residents and businesses, she argued, New Hampshire can expand its workforce and grow its economy.
And unlike other New England states, we should compete by lowering costs, maximizing efficiency and improving services.
“Just look at what they are doing down in Rhode Island as we speak… They have a big budget deficit to fill as the Biden-era spending spree winds down. Rather than do what we did and take a hard look at spending and recalibrate, they are pushing a new Millionaire’s Tax instead, to cover their 50% growth in spending since the start of the pandemic.
“The last state in the country to enact an income tax just so happens to also be one of our neighbors, and we’re going to pick on our friends in Connecticut to make a quick point… Since Connecticut enacted an income tax, they’ve raised it four times. And where does Connecticut rank today in property taxes? Third highest in the country.
“Let this be a cautionary tale for New Hampshire’s future. There is no getting around the fact that our property taxes in New Hampshire are unsustainable. In my budget address last year I challenged our local officials to take our lead and take a hard look at spending, and stop relying on tax increases. Our towns and municipalities need to get serious about fiscal responsibility.
“But even more misguided, are those in this room who argue that the solution to high property taxes is to raise other taxes. Let me be clear about this… If your solution to high property taxes is to institute new taxes — new taxes that punish families and businesses, you can kiss the New Hampshire Advantage goodbye.
“The simple fact of government, is that government loves to spend your money, and raising taxes only ensures that the government gets more of your hard-earned money. That’s it.
“If we ever accept that argument in New Hampshire, it will be the end of our distinct advantage over all the other states in New England. An advantage that just in the last year brought six companies up from Massachusetts, and 500 jobs with them. You may have seen the news, but little New Hampshire has Massachusetts bragging about retaining a single company… imagine that conversation 10, 11, 20 years ago. Massachusetts is handing out millions in taxpayer dollars to stop companies from fleeing north, and we welcome them with open arms, not big giveaways like the Bay State doles out.”
The message there is clear:
- Low taxes, limited government and economic freedom reduce costs and generate prosperity.
- People and businesses flow to prospering, low-cost jurisdictions.
- When New Hampshire competes on these metrics, the state and its people win.
Massachusetts takes the opposite approach. Its leaders seek to maximize government revenue through high taxation, then use that revenue to provide lavish services.
The two approaches produce very different results. Massachusetts suffered a net loss of 33,000 people in 2025, excluding international migration, while New Hampshire had a net gain of 6,500, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.
With excellent timing, Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby last week illustrated the consequences of Massachusetts high-tax, high-cost governance.
“Outmigration doesn’t just shrink population; it erodes the tax base, strains public finances, and forces the state to lean harder on those who remain. It weakens political representation and dims the state’s competitive position. Eventually, the very amenities that defenders point to — world-class universities, hospitals, cultural institutions — become harder to sustain when fewer people are willing to pay the premium to live here.”
In December, a Boston Globe/Suffolk University poll found that 1/3 of Massachusetts residents were considering leaving the state. The cost of living was the top reason.
A decade ago, Gallup found that a state’s tax burden was linked to a desire to leave.
“Approximately a quarter (26%) of residents who live in states with the lowest tax burden say they would like to leave their state. And this rate generally holds for residents in the second and third quintiles. However, there is a three-percentage-point increase to 31% among fourth-quintile states and an even greater jump to 36% among the fifth quintile. Even after controlling for various demographic characteristics including age, gender, race and ethnicity, and education, there is still a strong relationship between total state tax burden and desire to leave one’s current state of residence.”
Gov. Ayotte wrapped up her speech by urging state action to lower costs for residents and businesses, particularly in the areas of housing, child care, energy, health care and education. But instead of raising taxes and increasing spending, she proposed finding ways to reduce tax and regulatory burdens.
She then proposed increasing the Department of Business and Economic Affairs’ out-of-state marketing activities to sell more businesses on the New Hampshire Advantage.
The speech was not a typical State of the State address, with a customary laundry list of spending requests. Instead, the governor articulated a strong philosophical framework for governing: Aggressively minimize tax burdens, improve the quality and efficiency of state services, remove regulatory barriers that raise private sector costs, then tell the world how much freer and more prosperous they’d be if they moved to New Hampshire.
In other words, maximize economic freedom, and watch New Hampshire thrive.
