An excellent object lesson makes the point!*
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very Liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to Higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends, because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked , 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' she replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'
Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA, and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.'
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back
'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican party.'
If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Republican and Democrat I'm all ears. If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh. A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".
11.16.2010
10.27.2010
4 Options
by Charles Arlinghaus
Only 4 budget options: borrowing, begging, taxing, cutting
THE CURRENT election campaign for state of fices has focused on the extraordinarily difficult fiscal situation the state finds itself in. Balancing the state budget without another federal bailout seems nearly impossible at first glance. This year, no one will come to our rescue and allow us to put off difficult decisions, so we have three basic choices: raise taxes, cut spending or borrow the money.
Over the last two budget cycles, New Hampshire’s tax revenues have been flat. In the 2006-2007 biennium, tax and fee revenues for the general and education funds were $4.47 billion while the current 2010-2011 budget is projected to be $4.45 billion. Despite that tiny drop, spending increased at historically average rates, growing from $4.4 billion to $5.1 billion.
That gap and the projected deficit are the same problem.
My estimate of the starting gap between spending and revenue is $691 million. The gap still exists because instead of solving the problem and bringing taxes and spending into line with each other, we borrowed $156 million and used a $351 million federal bailout and other onetime revenues, like the sale of state property for $90 million.
Can we just grow our way out of the deficit? As everyone understands, economic growth helps our financial picture. If general revenues, aside from the ones that are fixed payments, were no longer flat, but grew at a historically reasonable rate of 3 percent per year, we would shrink the deficit by $166 million. Similarly, spending growth of the same 3 percent per year (a bit less than the growth over the last four years) would add $232 million to the shortfall.
My estimate of $691 million in the hole assumes no spending or revenue growth. So if we did have reasonable economic growth, even if we held spending to a zero increase for two straight years, a feat achieved only once in the entire post-World War II history of the state (Steve Merrill’s second term), the remaining hole would still be $525 million.
Elected officials and wouldbe elected officials should be asked about the four choices they have. First, will you borrow more money to pay operating expenses? In the last budget, we borrowed money to pay the state’s building aid program, and we borrowed from the future to pay for debt service.
Ask them if more borrowing is on the table, or if we can, as we should, dismiss it as a one-time bad idea.
The second option is to beg the federal government to borrow more money to send us another bailout. At this point, I don’t think anyone honestly believes another bailout dime is coming from a federal government one step removed from bankruptcy. So assume begging Washington is off the table.
That leaves us with taxes and spending. I think we all agree that whatever recovery we’re in is precarious. Taxes are essentially a price on economic activity. And while we all pay some price, few of us are prepared to raise the price of any economic activity right now. If your favorite official is unwilling to rule out raising the price of economic activity, ask which ones they are considering.
The final choice is spending cuts. At this point, every politician of any stripe is at least talking about cutting spending.
Of course, it being election season, my cuts are reasonable and prudent. Yours are the height of insanity.
Across the country, 37 states cut their spending in response to the decline in tax revenue.
New Hampshire was not among them. It is reasonable then to think we can make some of the tough decisions the other 37 have made.
One objection to cutting is that about 45 percent of general and education fund spending is some form of municipal or school aid. My deficit estimate includes about $120 million of municipal aid reductions that are scheduled to come back next year. When politicians say they won’t cut local aid, are they counting that $120 million? By the way, if those cuts were continued and we had the revenue, but no spending as we talked about above, then flat spending otherwise would leave us “only” $400 million short.
For those of you keeping score at home, $400 million is 8 percent of the total general and education fund spending in the last budget. If we cut every department and program by an average of 8 percent — some more, some less — the budget is balanced. If you won’t cut spending that much, you must either tax or borrow; those are the choices.
But now is the time to ask when politicians are listening to you, not the lobbyists. Will they borrow again? Will they raise taxes? Will they cut spending?
Or are they just hoping for the best?
. Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a freemarket think tank in Concord.
Only 4 budget options: borrowing, begging, taxing, cutting
THE CURRENT election campaign for state of fices has focused on the extraordinarily difficult fiscal situation the state finds itself in. Balancing the state budget without another federal bailout seems nearly impossible at first glance. This year, no one will come to our rescue and allow us to put off difficult decisions, so we have three basic choices: raise taxes, cut spending or borrow the money.
Over the last two budget cycles, New Hampshire’s tax revenues have been flat. In the 2006-2007 biennium, tax and fee revenues for the general and education funds were $4.47 billion while the current 2010-2011 budget is projected to be $4.45 billion. Despite that tiny drop, spending increased at historically average rates, growing from $4.4 billion to $5.1 billion.
That gap and the projected deficit are the same problem.
My estimate of the starting gap between spending and revenue is $691 million. The gap still exists because instead of solving the problem and bringing taxes and spending into line with each other, we borrowed $156 million and used a $351 million federal bailout and other onetime revenues, like the sale of state property for $90 million.
Can we just grow our way out of the deficit? As everyone understands, economic growth helps our financial picture. If general revenues, aside from the ones that are fixed payments, were no longer flat, but grew at a historically reasonable rate of 3 percent per year, we would shrink the deficit by $166 million. Similarly, spending growth of the same 3 percent per year (a bit less than the growth over the last four years) would add $232 million to the shortfall.
My estimate of $691 million in the hole assumes no spending or revenue growth. So if we did have reasonable economic growth, even if we held spending to a zero increase for two straight years, a feat achieved only once in the entire post-World War II history of the state (Steve Merrill’s second term), the remaining hole would still be $525 million.
Elected officials and wouldbe elected officials should be asked about the four choices they have. First, will you borrow more money to pay operating expenses? In the last budget, we borrowed money to pay the state’s building aid program, and we borrowed from the future to pay for debt service.
Ask them if more borrowing is on the table, or if we can, as we should, dismiss it as a one-time bad idea.
The second option is to beg the federal government to borrow more money to send us another bailout. At this point, I don’t think anyone honestly believes another bailout dime is coming from a federal government one step removed from bankruptcy. So assume begging Washington is off the table.
That leaves us with taxes and spending. I think we all agree that whatever recovery we’re in is precarious. Taxes are essentially a price on economic activity. And while we all pay some price, few of us are prepared to raise the price of any economic activity right now. If your favorite official is unwilling to rule out raising the price of economic activity, ask which ones they are considering.
The final choice is spending cuts. At this point, every politician of any stripe is at least talking about cutting spending.
Of course, it being election season, my cuts are reasonable and prudent. Yours are the height of insanity.
Across the country, 37 states cut their spending in response to the decline in tax revenue.
New Hampshire was not among them. It is reasonable then to think we can make some of the tough decisions the other 37 have made.
One objection to cutting is that about 45 percent of general and education fund spending is some form of municipal or school aid. My deficit estimate includes about $120 million of municipal aid reductions that are scheduled to come back next year. When politicians say they won’t cut local aid, are they counting that $120 million? By the way, if those cuts were continued and we had the revenue, but no spending as we talked about above, then flat spending otherwise would leave us “only” $400 million short.
For those of you keeping score at home, $400 million is 8 percent of the total general and education fund spending in the last budget. If we cut every department and program by an average of 8 percent — some more, some less — the budget is balanced. If you won’t cut spending that much, you must either tax or borrow; those are the choices.
But now is the time to ask when politicians are listening to you, not the lobbyists. Will they borrow again? Will they raise taxes? Will they cut spending?
Or are they just hoping for the best?
. Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a freemarket think tank in Concord.
10.19.2010
New Hampshire's precarious fiscal state.
BY Charles M. Arlinghaus
In the midst of ongoing political debate over deficits, shortfalls and fiscal management, one important truth about New Hampshire's fiscal state of affairs is impossible to obscure. We're a mess and it's getting worse not better.
The governor and his opponent spout dueling budget histories and have defenders of their numbers. The governor's tells us correctly that what is labeled general fund in the current budget is a smaller number by 1 percent than the items labeled general fund in the last budget.
What gets left unmentioned is that $248 million that was labeled general fund in the last budget has been moved off-budget to make it appear to be cut even as we continue to spend the money.
A good example: liquor spending was called general fund in the last budget. This year we still spend $90 million but we label it as liquor fund. If you consider relabeling a spending cut, then the general fund is down. If not, it's up.
Avoiding some of those games, challenger John Stephen proclaims total spending is up 24 percent over the last two budgets. Former candidate Mark Fernald has criticized the number for not including cuts and for including a lot of spending that he wouldn't count (retirement contributions or federal funds for example). But again, if you compare apples to apples and back out of each number spending reductions, lapses and other budget deductions, the increase is 23.7 percent not 23.6 percent.
But at the end of the day, bickering over the precise number is much less important than explaining the problem. Let's go ahead and leave out all the federal dedicated funds and state dedicated funds that the governor and Mark Fernald want us to. How then does the state operating budget look, the programs supported with general tax and fee revenues?
In New Hampshire, as in most states, state spending be paid for by hook or crook. Once we spend we must tax, borrow, or do something else to find the cash.
Because taxes have been flat the last few years, the government was only able to increase spending by finding the money through borrowing and bailouts.
The current budget uses $156 million in borrowing to pay for operating expenses, mostly school building aid grants and to pay the interest on debt.
In addition, we used $351 million in federal bailouts. One kind of stimulus money went to specific projects like a bridge or road paving but another pot of money was a bailout for state governments to put in their operating account. New Hampshire's total was $351 million.
Finally, we used another $90 million of one-time revenues like the money the state hopes to reap from selling off unused or unwanted state assets — not a bad idea but you can only sell something once.
Those three categories of special revenue total $600 million and won't happen again. We can't sell a second time, there won't be another state bailout, and borrowing again is regarded as insane across party lines.
So when people speak a deficit next year, they mean that the starting point for the next is a gap between revenues and existing spending that must be closed.
That $600 million won't recur so it must be replaced or spending cut to a lower level.
In addition to that $600 million one-time revenues, the legislature made some temporary cuts.
For example, aid to municipalities under a program that began when the business profits tax took over local revenue sources in 1970 was suspended. But we told towns not to worry that it was just for two years. Get through this budget and the program returns.
A series of similar temporary reductions that are by law scheduled to come back amount to $159 million in the current budget.
Because of implementation, revenue growth, and differences between the first and second year of the budget, my own estimate of the starting deficit is about $691 million. Some analysts are 10 percent higher or lower, but at the same order of magnitude.
The point is not to argue about the precision of the number to three decimal points. Rather we need to understand that we are in a bad place. While the majority of the states cut spending to close a gap, we used borrowing and a federal bailout. It means that the most difficult decisions are still to come.
Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank based in Concord. He can be reached at Arlinghaus@jbartlett.org
In the midst of ongoing political debate over deficits, shortfalls and fiscal management, one important truth about New Hampshire's fiscal state of affairs is impossible to obscure. We're a mess and it's getting worse not better.
The governor and his opponent spout dueling budget histories and have defenders of their numbers. The governor's tells us correctly that what is labeled general fund in the current budget is a smaller number by 1 percent than the items labeled general fund in the last budget.
What gets left unmentioned is that $248 million that was labeled general fund in the last budget has been moved off-budget to make it appear to be cut even as we continue to spend the money.
A good example: liquor spending was called general fund in the last budget. This year we still spend $90 million but we label it as liquor fund. If you consider relabeling a spending cut, then the general fund is down. If not, it's up.
Avoiding some of those games, challenger John Stephen proclaims total spending is up 24 percent over the last two budgets. Former candidate Mark Fernald has criticized the number for not including cuts and for including a lot of spending that he wouldn't count (retirement contributions or federal funds for example). But again, if you compare apples to apples and back out of each number spending reductions, lapses and other budget deductions, the increase is 23.7 percent not 23.6 percent.
But at the end of the day, bickering over the precise number is much less important than explaining the problem. Let's go ahead and leave out all the federal dedicated funds and state dedicated funds that the governor and Mark Fernald want us to. How then does the state operating budget look, the programs supported with general tax and fee revenues?
In New Hampshire, as in most states, state spending be paid for by hook or crook. Once we spend we must tax, borrow, or do something else to find the cash.
Because taxes have been flat the last few years, the government was only able to increase spending by finding the money through borrowing and bailouts.
The current budget uses $156 million in borrowing to pay for operating expenses, mostly school building aid grants and to pay the interest on debt.
In addition, we used $351 million in federal bailouts. One kind of stimulus money went to specific projects like a bridge or road paving but another pot of money was a bailout for state governments to put in their operating account. New Hampshire's total was $351 million.
Finally, we used another $90 million of one-time revenues like the money the state hopes to reap from selling off unused or unwanted state assets — not a bad idea but you can only sell something once.
Those three categories of special revenue total $600 million and won't happen again. We can't sell a second time, there won't be another state bailout, and borrowing again is regarded as insane across party lines.
So when people speak a deficit next year, they mean that the starting point for the next is a gap between revenues and existing spending that must be closed.
That $600 million won't recur so it must be replaced or spending cut to a lower level.
In addition to that $600 million one-time revenues, the legislature made some temporary cuts.
For example, aid to municipalities under a program that began when the business profits tax took over local revenue sources in 1970 was suspended. But we told towns not to worry that it was just for two years. Get through this budget and the program returns.
A series of similar temporary reductions that are by law scheduled to come back amount to $159 million in the current budget.
Because of implementation, revenue growth, and differences between the first and second year of the budget, my own estimate of the starting deficit is about $691 million. Some analysts are 10 percent higher or lower, but at the same order of magnitude.
The point is not to argue about the precision of the number to three decimal points. Rather we need to understand that we are in a bad place. While the majority of the states cut spending to close a gap, we used borrowing and a federal bailout. It means that the most difficult decisions are still to come.
Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank based in Concord. He can be reached at Arlinghaus@jbartlett.org
10.18.2010
Man of the people? I think not.
By Jerry McConnell
Whenever I see a poll showing Obama’s popular support, I seethe a little bit at his audacity, and frankly his attitude of taking people for granted is narcissistic to the extreme. This man is so sure that he is a ‘man of the people’ and loved by all but a few malcontent Republicans that he can do no wrong.
I know he gets his news from the biased and also deliberately under-informed Mainstream Media, (MSM) which is so slanted in his favor that he actually believes he is adored instead of the pariah that he really has come to be.
This case of self love and imagined adoration of a fawning public is strictly in his own narrow mind as poll after poll proves on a daily basis. Take the Rasmussen poll of January 2009 when he first took office he had a 62% Approval rating. But by September 2010, it reported that 44% of the nation’s voters Strongly DISAPPROVE of Obama’s performance, while only 27% Strongly APPROVE. In poll terms, that indicates Obama to have a negative Presidential Approval Index rating of Minus 17.
That is a negative rating in ANY person’s opinion and it is an opinion from a professional and well qualified polling service, not a part of the MSM. Yet he keeps on smiling and going against the majority of the country’s citizens. I didn’t say the ‘country’s residents’ because that would include the 20 or more million illegal aliens within our borders who now reside here without proper permission and are not included in the poll numbers.
Obama has a history of being on the wrong side of important issues with regard to a great majority of our country’s citizens. Phyllis Schlafly of EagleForum.com in her August 27, 2010 column states that “the Democrats wring their hands over Barack Obama’s tone deafness about political reality.” She added that while it is entertaining to Americans “their despair about Obama is so painful that they are even calling on George W. Bush to come back and rescue Obama from his own mistakes.”
But he has given this country so much negative leadership as to even call it ‘no leadership at all’. His zealous desire to spend money is becoming legend. It’s as though he has come into money for the first time in his life and he is going to spend every dime of it not matter what.
He is enjoying being the lucky guy who just won the multi-million dollar lottery, or in his case, the multi-TRILLION dollar lottery, perhaps more precisely the LOOTERY of taxpayers’ dollars, probably little of which had been paid in taxes by himself. He is looking to buy out just about any major corporation or financial system or healthcare organization and under the guise of “reforming” or “restructuring” it, bring it to the brink of Destruction and bankruptcy.
Job losses in the multi-millions are just a small nuisance factor and another reason to blow away more millions and billions trying to adjust to a more favorable level. But like his campaign rhetoric looking for change, it is not happening except in a negative way. Not very bright.
Or as Phyllis Schlafly stated in her EagleForum.org article “Obama Versus Majority Public Opinion” on August 27, 2010, “The Democrats are reluctant to admit the truth that Obama is not a smart politician.
Obama is a radical ideologue determined to “transform America” into the socialist mold regardless of voter retaliation against Democratic candidates.”
Schlafly cites his unpopular moves that have caused his plummeting ratings such as his unprofessional version of medical healthcare that according to the latest polls is disapproved by about “60 percent of the people and various states are opting for legislation that would make any mandatory provisions of the healthcare bill invalid.”
And Obama’s strong desire to get Congressional action for a law granting amnesty to the roughly estimated 20 million illegal aliens who are burrowed in here in the United States is another example of his flying in the face of the public which is against such action. In fact, even a “CBS poll found that 57 percent of Americans think the Arizona immigrant law was “about right” while Rasmussen polled and found 65 percent of Americans favored the law. A Zogby poll found that 58 percent of Americans nationwide want their own state to adopt a law similar to Arizona’s.”
Schlafly points out another area where Obama and the country are at great odds and that is on the subject of a Muslim mosque being built near the site of Ground Zero in New York City “even though 61 percent of Americans are against it.”
This litany of so many incidences of flaunting his assumed authority and disdain for the people who elected him, and believe me, there are many more that could be shown, has to make a person wonder if he is in the same world as the rest of us. Has the grandeur and glitz of the “rich life” gone so far to his head that he actually now BELIEVES that he is some anointed savior of mankind?
No wonder the Democratic Party is in freefall and knows not where they will land after November 02, 2010. That’s what comes from placing too much trust in an unknown factor.
Whenever I see a poll showing Obama’s popular support, I seethe a little bit at his audacity, and frankly his attitude of taking people for granted is narcissistic to the extreme. This man is so sure that he is a ‘man of the people’ and loved by all but a few malcontent Republicans that he can do no wrong.
I know he gets his news from the biased and also deliberately under-informed Mainstream Media, (MSM) which is so slanted in his favor that he actually believes he is adored instead of the pariah that he really has come to be.
This case of self love and imagined adoration of a fawning public is strictly in his own narrow mind as poll after poll proves on a daily basis. Take the Rasmussen poll of January 2009 when he first took office he had a 62% Approval rating. But by September 2010, it reported that 44% of the nation’s voters Strongly DISAPPROVE of Obama’s performance, while only 27% Strongly APPROVE. In poll terms, that indicates Obama to have a negative Presidential Approval Index rating of Minus 17.
That is a negative rating in ANY person’s opinion and it is an opinion from a professional and well qualified polling service, not a part of the MSM. Yet he keeps on smiling and going against the majority of the country’s citizens. I didn’t say the ‘country’s residents’ because that would include the 20 or more million illegal aliens within our borders who now reside here without proper permission and are not included in the poll numbers.
Obama has a history of being on the wrong side of important issues with regard to a great majority of our country’s citizens. Phyllis Schlafly of EagleForum.com in her August 27, 2010 column states that “the Democrats wring their hands over Barack Obama’s tone deafness about political reality.” She added that while it is entertaining to Americans “their despair about Obama is so painful that they are even calling on George W. Bush to come back and rescue Obama from his own mistakes.”
But he has given this country so much negative leadership as to even call it ‘no leadership at all’. His zealous desire to spend money is becoming legend. It’s as though he has come into money for the first time in his life and he is going to spend every dime of it not matter what.
He is enjoying being the lucky guy who just won the multi-million dollar lottery, or in his case, the multi-TRILLION dollar lottery, perhaps more precisely the LOOTERY of taxpayers’ dollars, probably little of which had been paid in taxes by himself. He is looking to buy out just about any major corporation or financial system or healthcare organization and under the guise of “reforming” or “restructuring” it, bring it to the brink of Destruction and bankruptcy.
Job losses in the multi-millions are just a small nuisance factor and another reason to blow away more millions and billions trying to adjust to a more favorable level. But like his campaign rhetoric looking for change, it is not happening except in a negative way. Not very bright.
Or as Phyllis Schlafly stated in her EagleForum.org article “Obama Versus Majority Public Opinion” on August 27, 2010, “The Democrats are reluctant to admit the truth that Obama is not a smart politician.
Obama is a radical ideologue determined to “transform America” into the socialist mold regardless of voter retaliation against Democratic candidates.”
Schlafly cites his unpopular moves that have caused his plummeting ratings such as his unprofessional version of medical healthcare that according to the latest polls is disapproved by about “60 percent of the people and various states are opting for legislation that would make any mandatory provisions of the healthcare bill invalid.”
And Obama’s strong desire to get Congressional action for a law granting amnesty to the roughly estimated 20 million illegal aliens who are burrowed in here in the United States is another example of his flying in the face of the public which is against such action. In fact, even a “CBS poll found that 57 percent of Americans think the Arizona immigrant law was “about right” while Rasmussen polled and found 65 percent of Americans favored the law. A Zogby poll found that 58 percent of Americans nationwide want their own state to adopt a law similar to Arizona’s.”
Schlafly points out another area where Obama and the country are at great odds and that is on the subject of a Muslim mosque being built near the site of Ground Zero in New York City “even though 61 percent of Americans are against it.”
This litany of so many incidences of flaunting his assumed authority and disdain for the people who elected him, and believe me, there are many more that could be shown, has to make a person wonder if he is in the same world as the rest of us. Has the grandeur and glitz of the “rich life” gone so far to his head that he actually now BELIEVES that he is some anointed savior of mankind?
No wonder the Democratic Party is in freefall and knows not where they will land after November 02, 2010. That’s what comes from placing too much trust in an unknown factor.
10.01.2010
ALIUN
By Dave Buhlman
In the link below is a story that the United Nations has appointed an ambassador to deal with visitors from out of space.
With apologies to "Star Trek": Space the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starry-eyed UN-ers whose 65 year mission is to destroy national sovereignty, destroy life, and to boldly go where no elitists have gone before.
Having fouled up about everything it has been involved with in its checkered 65 years history, the UN leaders figure it's time to look elsewhere, to look to the stars for friendly faces, to present to the universe the best that mankind has to offer. I wonder if they are actually expecting a visit? There has been speculation that one will occur on October 13, 2010. Maybe they're onto something. Holy Jedi!
I can picture the scene with Algore, Bill, and Obama being introduced to representatives of the Kodi race, hailing from the far reaches of the Milky Way Galaxy. Each earthbound leader gives a fifteen minute speech filled with self praise for their accomplishments. In essence it's Moe, Larry and Curly meet the funny beings - "What's Spring Like on Jupiter and Mars?". The Kodi are perplexed and ask to be taken to our real leaders.
"These are our real leaders", the embarrassed ambassador replies with her pretty face flushing red. In response the Kodi roll their eyes at each other, get in their ship and zoom off toward the sun. About halfway there, they send a laser bolt to completely destroy the planet.
"Clearly they're better off," the Kodi leader says to his team of space travelers who are nodding in agreement. "With leaders like those, a quick death is surely better than listening to an endless stream of pompous babbling. It matches the worst we have seen in all of our many millions of miles traversing the stars."
As the colorful hot bolt approaches, Algore, Bill, and Obama look up smiling. "They must have really appreciated our insights to send such a beautiful memento," Obama says, as the ocean waters start to recede. Algore wondered about how warm the bolt might be. Bill was making a move on the UN ambassador. "Not sure what that bolt means, but sure do want to go out with my best...."
In the link below is a story that the United Nations has appointed an ambassador to deal with visitors from out of space.
With apologies to "Star Trek": Space the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starry-eyed UN-ers whose 65 year mission is to destroy national sovereignty, destroy life, and to boldly go where no elitists have gone before.
Having fouled up about everything it has been involved with in its checkered 65 years history, the UN leaders figure it's time to look elsewhere, to look to the stars for friendly faces, to present to the universe the best that mankind has to offer. I wonder if they are actually expecting a visit? There has been speculation that one will occur on October 13, 2010. Maybe they're onto something. Holy Jedi!
I can picture the scene with Algore, Bill, and Obama being introduced to representatives of the Kodi race, hailing from the far reaches of the Milky Way Galaxy. Each earthbound leader gives a fifteen minute speech filled with self praise for their accomplishments. In essence it's Moe, Larry and Curly meet the funny beings - "What's Spring Like on Jupiter and Mars?". The Kodi are perplexed and ask to be taken to our real leaders.
"These are our real leaders", the embarrassed ambassador replies with her pretty face flushing red. In response the Kodi roll their eyes at each other, get in their ship and zoom off toward the sun. About halfway there, they send a laser bolt to completely destroy the planet.
"Clearly they're better off," the Kodi leader says to his team of space travelers who are nodding in agreement. "With leaders like those, a quick death is surely better than listening to an endless stream of pompous babbling. It matches the worst we have seen in all of our many millions of miles traversing the stars."
As the colorful hot bolt approaches, Algore, Bill, and Obama look up smiling. "They must have really appreciated our insights to send such a beautiful memento," Obama says, as the ocean waters start to recede. Algore wondered about how warm the bolt might be. Bill was making a move on the UN ambassador. "Not sure what that bolt means, but sure do want to go out with my best...."
9.25.2010
9.21.2010
Let's find out
By Dave Buhlman
The president of Iran and other Muslim leaders have declared that Israel doe not have a right to exist. It is the stated position of some Muslims that every Jew in Israel should be killed and the bodies tossed into the Mediterranean Sea. That's a lot of killing being called for, including the murder of children.
Regarding the construction of a mosque near the Twin Towers site, where does the Imam leading this effort stand on Israel's right to exist, on the right of Israelis to live? The Obama administration recently sent this imam on a some sort of a goodwill mission to Muslim countries. But has anyone asked him where he stands on Israel? As a purported moderate Muslim, has he, or will he, denounce the bizarre positions held by fellow Muslim leaders regarding Israel? If he will not denounce these hate-mongering views then he should not be taken seriously, and certainly should not be sent out on a mission representing America. Has anyone in the administration or the media bothered to find out his views on Israel? Is he really a moderate? What is his position on the abysmal treatment of women in most Muslim countries? Does he favor honor killings, death by stoning, and complete cover-up clothing?
Then there is New York Governor Patterson offering state-owned land for the mosque. The state cannot constitutionally give this property for a religious purpose, so does he mean to sell it to them? Has anyone in the media asked?
What a breath of fresh air it would be to have our leaders stand up and state clearly that building a mosque at this site is deeply hurtful to survivors of the 9-11 attack, to the families of the victims, and to most Americans, and simply should not be done. Instead we have leaders who care more for certain people than for others, and they have no qualms about standing in public and proudly proclaiming their bias. With leaders like these, watch out for the cliff.
The president of Iran and other Muslim leaders have declared that Israel doe not have a right to exist. It is the stated position of some Muslims that every Jew in Israel should be killed and the bodies tossed into the Mediterranean Sea. That's a lot of killing being called for, including the murder of children.
Regarding the construction of a mosque near the Twin Towers site, where does the Imam leading this effort stand on Israel's right to exist, on the right of Israelis to live? The Obama administration recently sent this imam on a some sort of a goodwill mission to Muslim countries. But has anyone asked him where he stands on Israel? As a purported moderate Muslim, has he, or will he, denounce the bizarre positions held by fellow Muslim leaders regarding Israel? If he will not denounce these hate-mongering views then he should not be taken seriously, and certainly should not be sent out on a mission representing America. Has anyone in the administration or the media bothered to find out his views on Israel? Is he really a moderate? What is his position on the abysmal treatment of women in most Muslim countries? Does he favor honor killings, death by stoning, and complete cover-up clothing?
Then there is New York Governor Patterson offering state-owned land for the mosque. The state cannot constitutionally give this property for a religious purpose, so does he mean to sell it to them? Has anyone in the media asked?
What a breath of fresh air it would be to have our leaders stand up and state clearly that building a mosque at this site is deeply hurtful to survivors of the 9-11 attack, to the families of the victims, and to most Americans, and simply should not be done. Instead we have leaders who care more for certain people than for others, and they have no qualms about standing in public and proudly proclaiming their bias. With leaders like these, watch out for the cliff.
9.04.2010
Everyone should read!!
By Sens. Jack Barnes and Bob Letourneau
New Hampshire Union Leader
Friday, August 27, 2010
LIBERAL BILL Binnie has spent millions trying to buy one of New Hampshire’s seats in the U.S. Senate. But with his campaign down in the polls, Binnie appears to have decided that his only hope is to use a registered lobbyist to make false accusations against conservative Kelly Ayotte.
It’s important for GOP primary voters to separate fact from Binnie’s fiction. We served in the state Senate when Kelly was our attorney general. Take it from us: We know that Kelly was a tough, conservative attorney general – and we know she will be a strong conservative voice in Washington. That’s why we’re supporting her.
You may have seen a TV ad Bill Binnie’s campaign is running that uses Bob Clegg to falsely attack Kelly Ayotte. We served with Bob in the state Senate and know him well. He’s a paid lobbyist now, representing the special interests in Concord.
It’s disappointing to see Bill Binnie and Bob Clegg make these ridiculous accusations against Kelly. Having served with Bob, we don’t recall him making a peep about either of the two issues he references in Binnie’s attack ad.
In fact, just a year ago, Bob made a $500 contribution to Kelly’s campaign. And he lavished praise on Kelly, saying: “I think she’s one of the most thoughtful people on the political spectrum.”
Here are the facts. Kelly Ayotte is the only candidate in the GOP primary who has a record of standing up for our Second Amendment rights. As attorney general, she cleared individuals who used deadly force to protect themselves. She also received praise from the National Rifle Association for being the only attorney general in the Northeast to oppose reinstatement of the federal ban on semi-automatic assault firearms.
And when Second Amendment cases went to the U.S. Supreme Court, Kelly stood on principle. She joined briefs filed with the high court supporting gun owner rights in two key cases – District of Columbia v. Heller and National Rifle Association vs. Chicago.
Contrary to Binnie’s false claim, Kelly pursued every avenue within the law to address our illegal immigration crisis. Everybody knows Kelly was a tough Attorney General who stood firm for law and order. That’s why she has the support of nearly 60 police chiefs, 31 police advocacy groups and the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire. When Kelly gets to Washington, she’ll roll up her sleeves to secure our borders and strongly enforce immigration laws.
Binnie is falsely attacking Kelly to hide his own liberal views on immigration. Bill Binnie has publicly stated that he opposes Arizona’s new law to crack down on illegal immigration. And earlier this year the Washington Post reported that Bill Binnie supports a “path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants. Conservatives know what that’s code for: amnesty.
No matter how much money liberal Bill Binnie spends, he will never be able to buy Kelly’s record of tough conservative leadership. To the contrary, the only thing Binnie’s record shows is that he closed a California factory – which had hundreds of workers – and moved those American jobs to Mexico. Based on recent news accounts, he has a lot of explaining to do on his own background.
It’s sad to see Bill Binnie and Bob Clegg stoop to this level. This is an important election and we need to elect the most conservative candidate in the race. That’s Kelly Ayotte: a tough leader who we know will stop illegal immigration and protect our cherished Second Amendment rights.
That fact won’t change, no matter how many lobbyists liberal Bill Binnie puts on TV.
Jack Barnes is a Republican state senator from Raymond. Bob Letourneau is a Republican state senator from Derry.
New Hampshire Union Leader
Friday, August 27, 2010
LIBERAL BILL Binnie has spent millions trying to buy one of New Hampshire’s seats in the U.S. Senate. But with his campaign down in the polls, Binnie appears to have decided that his only hope is to use a registered lobbyist to make false accusations against conservative Kelly Ayotte.
It’s important for GOP primary voters to separate fact from Binnie’s fiction. We served in the state Senate when Kelly was our attorney general. Take it from us: We know that Kelly was a tough, conservative attorney general – and we know she will be a strong conservative voice in Washington. That’s why we’re supporting her.
You may have seen a TV ad Bill Binnie’s campaign is running that uses Bob Clegg to falsely attack Kelly Ayotte. We served with Bob in the state Senate and know him well. He’s a paid lobbyist now, representing the special interests in Concord.
It’s disappointing to see Bill Binnie and Bob Clegg make these ridiculous accusations against Kelly. Having served with Bob, we don’t recall him making a peep about either of the two issues he references in Binnie’s attack ad.
In fact, just a year ago, Bob made a $500 contribution to Kelly’s campaign. And he lavished praise on Kelly, saying: “I think she’s one of the most thoughtful people on the political spectrum.”
Here are the facts. Kelly Ayotte is the only candidate in the GOP primary who has a record of standing up for our Second Amendment rights. As attorney general, she cleared individuals who used deadly force to protect themselves. She also received praise from the National Rifle Association for being the only attorney general in the Northeast to oppose reinstatement of the federal ban on semi-automatic assault firearms.
And when Second Amendment cases went to the U.S. Supreme Court, Kelly stood on principle. She joined briefs filed with the high court supporting gun owner rights in two key cases – District of Columbia v. Heller and National Rifle Association vs. Chicago.
Contrary to Binnie’s false claim, Kelly pursued every avenue within the law to address our illegal immigration crisis. Everybody knows Kelly was a tough Attorney General who stood firm for law and order. That’s why she has the support of nearly 60 police chiefs, 31 police advocacy groups and the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire. When Kelly gets to Washington, she’ll roll up her sleeves to secure our borders and strongly enforce immigration laws.
Binnie is falsely attacking Kelly to hide his own liberal views on immigration. Bill Binnie has publicly stated that he opposes Arizona’s new law to crack down on illegal immigration. And earlier this year the Washington Post reported that Bill Binnie supports a “path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants. Conservatives know what that’s code for: amnesty.
No matter how much money liberal Bill Binnie spends, he will never be able to buy Kelly’s record of tough conservative leadership. To the contrary, the only thing Binnie’s record shows is that he closed a California factory – which had hundreds of workers – and moved those American jobs to Mexico. Based on recent news accounts, he has a lot of explaining to do on his own background.
It’s sad to see Bill Binnie and Bob Clegg stoop to this level. This is an important election and we need to elect the most conservative candidate in the race. That’s Kelly Ayotte: a tough leader who we know will stop illegal immigration and protect our cherished Second Amendment rights.
That fact won’t change, no matter how many lobbyists liberal Bill Binnie puts on TV.
Jack Barnes is a Republican state senator from Raymond. Bob Letourneau is a Republican state senator from Derry.
8.17.2010
A true conservative
This is not about my own campaign for State Representative in North Hampton, but in support of Sean Mahoney’s campaign for Congress.
I just agreed to serve as the town chair for Sean Mahoney’s campaign and I want to let you know why and encourage you to join me.
Sean Mahoney is a true conservative. And he’s not a career politician. In fact, Sean has never held elective office. Instead he has spent his career as a small businessman creating jobs. In Congress, Sean Mahoney will focus on getting our economy moving again by cutting taxes, reducing government spending and eliminating job-killing government regulations.
I encourage you to visit Sean Mahoney’s website and research his positions for yourself. If you agree that Sean Mahoney is the conservative we need in Congress, please sign-up today to help his campaign. You can sign-up online to post a yard sign, agree to make phone calls on Sean Mahoney’s behalf or help out in a variety of other ways.
Or you can simply contact Brad Blais at Sean Mahoney’s campaign at brad@mahoney2010.com or (603) 658-2010.
Many thanks for your time,
Ron Dupuis
North Hampton, NH
I just agreed to serve as the town chair for Sean Mahoney’s campaign and I want to let you know why and encourage you to join me.
Sean Mahoney is a true conservative. And he’s not a career politician. In fact, Sean has never held elective office. Instead he has spent his career as a small businessman creating jobs. In Congress, Sean Mahoney will focus on getting our economy moving again by cutting taxes, reducing government spending and eliminating job-killing government regulations.
I encourage you to visit Sean Mahoney’s website and research his positions for yourself. If you agree that Sean Mahoney is the conservative we need in Congress, please sign-up today to help his campaign. You can sign-up online to post a yard sign, agree to make phone calls on Sean Mahoney’s behalf or help out in a variety of other ways.
Or you can simply contact Brad Blais at Sean Mahoney’s campaign at brad@mahoney2010.com or (603) 658-2010.
Many thanks for your time,
Ron Dupuis
North Hampton, NH
8.14.2010
Who is Sarah Palin
By Dewie Whetsell, Alaskan Fisherman.
The last 45 of my 66 years I've spent in a commercial fishing town in Alaska . I understand Alaska politics but never understood national politics well until this last year. Here's the breaking point: Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it. It's not about persona, style, rhetoric, it's about doing things. Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I'm about to mention here.
1. Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the Governor's office away from a fellow Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican's "Corrupt Bastards Club" (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange jump suits The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard, throwing confetti and singing, "la la la la" (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done anything similar.
2. Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called "ACES." Exxon (the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them, "don't let the door hit you in the stern on your way out." They stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich. Of course, the other huge international oil companies meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in the country that has done anything similar.
3. The other thing she did when she walked into the governor's office is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for projects, known as "pork." She went through the list, took 85% of the m and placed them in the "when-hell-freezes-over" stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we'll pay for it ourselves. Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the previous governor's jet because it was extravagant.
Maybe she could use the money she saved by dismissing the governor's cook (remarking that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing her State provided security force (never mentioning - I imagine - that she's packing heat herself). I'm still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.
4. Now, even with her much-ridiculed "gosh and golly" mannerism, she also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America. No one else could do it although they tried. If that doesn't impress you, then you're trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand.
5. For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why they couldn't start drilling. In truth they were holding it like an investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started. Then, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and reminded them that she knew the way to the court house. Alaska won again.
6. President Obama wants the nation to be on 25% renewable resources for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the legislature and submitted her plan for Alaska to be at 50% renewable by 2025. We are already at 25%. I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style and persona. Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But that's just a cover-up. I'm still waiting to hear from liberals the names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a half years. I won't be holding my breath.
By the way, she was content to return to AK after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn't let her. Now these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. Shoulda known better.
You have just read the truth about Sarah Palin that sends the media, along with the democrat party, into a wild uncontrolled frenzy to discredit her. I guess they are only interested in skirt chasers, dishonesty, immoral people, liars, womanizers, murderers, and bitter ex-presidents' wives.
So "You go, Girl." I only wish the men in Washington had your guts, determination, honesty, and morals.
I rest my case. Only FOOLS listen to the biased media.
The last 45 of my 66 years I've spent in a commercial fishing town in Alaska . I understand Alaska politics but never understood national politics well until this last year. Here's the breaking point: Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it. It's not about persona, style, rhetoric, it's about doing things. Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I'm about to mention here.
1. Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the Governor's office away from a fellow Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican's "Corrupt Bastards Club" (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange jump suits The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard, throwing confetti and singing, "la la la la" (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done anything similar.
2. Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called "ACES." Exxon (the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them, "don't let the door hit you in the stern on your way out." They stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich. Of course, the other huge international oil companies meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in the country that has done anything similar.
3. The other thing she did when she walked into the governor's office is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for projects, known as "pork." She went through the list, took 85% of the m and placed them in the "when-hell-freezes-over" stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we'll pay for it ourselves. Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the previous governor's jet because it was extravagant.
Maybe she could use the money she saved by dismissing the governor's cook (remarking that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing her State provided security force (never mentioning - I imagine - that she's packing heat herself). I'm still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.
4. Now, even with her much-ridiculed "gosh and golly" mannerism, she also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America. No one else could do it although they tried. If that doesn't impress you, then you're trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand.
5. For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why they couldn't start drilling. In truth they were holding it like an investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started. Then, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and reminded them that she knew the way to the court house. Alaska won again.
6. President Obama wants the nation to be on 25% renewable resources for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the legislature and submitted her plan for Alaska to be at 50% renewable by 2025. We are already at 25%. I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style and persona. Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But that's just a cover-up. I'm still waiting to hear from liberals the names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a half years. I won't be holding my breath.
By the way, she was content to return to AK after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn't let her. Now these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. Shoulda known better.
You have just read the truth about Sarah Palin that sends the media, along with the democrat party, into a wild uncontrolled frenzy to discredit her. I guess they are only interested in skirt chasers, dishonesty, immoral people, liars, womanizers, murderers, and bitter ex-presidents' wives.
So "You go, Girl." I only wish the men in Washington had your guts, determination, honesty, and morals.
I rest my case. Only FOOLS listen to the biased media.
7.24.2010
A Ronald Reagan Republican???
By Ron Dupuis
One of the most personable people running for office here in New Hampshire is Republican U.S. Senatorial candidate Bill Binnie. Bill is a wildly successful business man that once said that he models his political philosophy after one of my hero's Ronald Reagan.
Lets take a closer look at Mr. Binnie.
He has made monetary donations to numerous Democratic candidates such as Martha Fuller Clark right here in New Hampshire and Marty Meehan Democratic Congressman of "Taxachusetts". He also closed an arm of his plastics company in California because of a labor dispute and moved the entire operations to Tijuana Mexico putting 450 California workers on the street. Venial sins compared to violating Ronald Reagans 11th Commandment of "not speaking ill of fellow Republicans" by launching a negative T.V. ad campaign directed toward one of his Republican oponents.
Bill Binnie is a personable, hard working, sucessfull business man who will say anything, spend any amount of money and attack any Republican in his way in order to achieve his goal.
Hardly a "Ronald Reagan Republican"
One of the most personable people running for office here in New Hampshire is Republican U.S. Senatorial candidate Bill Binnie. Bill is a wildly successful business man that once said that he models his political philosophy after one of my hero's Ronald Reagan.
Lets take a closer look at Mr. Binnie.
He has made monetary donations to numerous Democratic candidates such as Martha Fuller Clark right here in New Hampshire and Marty Meehan Democratic Congressman of "Taxachusetts". He also closed an arm of his plastics company in California because of a labor dispute and moved the entire operations to Tijuana Mexico putting 450 California workers on the street. Venial sins compared to violating Ronald Reagans 11th Commandment of "not speaking ill of fellow Republicans" by launching a negative T.V. ad campaign directed toward one of his Republican oponents.
Bill Binnie is a personable, hard working, sucessfull business man who will say anything, spend any amount of money and attack any Republican in his way in order to achieve his goal.
Hardly a "Ronald Reagan Republican"
7.19.2010
The year of strong women!!
GIRL TALK
By Sarah Palin and Kelly Ayotte
Dear Friends,
I am so pleased to let you know I received the endorsement of Governor Sarah Palin earlier today. She is a conservative champion who has brought enormous energy to our Party. As Governor, she took on the entrenched special interests to deliver results. Governor Palin is a reformer in every sense of the word, and she has always stood firm for the conservative principles of low taxes, less spending and personal responsibility.
I am very honored to have her endorsement.
On her facebook posting earlier today Gov. Palin said
“It’s my honor to endorse a Granite State “mama grizzly” who has broken barriers, fought off and locked up criminals, and battled all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the rights of New Hampshire parents – and won!
New Hampshire is lucky to have Kelly Ayotte as a candidate for the U.S. Senate this year. Kelly is a daughter of the Granite State, a product of its public schools, and its first female Attorney General. In her impressive five years in the AG’s office, Kelly earned a reputation for being tough on crime, supportive of law enforcement, and tireless in the defense of the rights of the people of New Hampshire. When Planned Parenthood challenged New Hampshire’s parental notification law, Kelly fought them all the way to the Supreme Court and won.
Kelly is the strongest commonsense conservative who can win in the fall. I knew I liked her when I met her earlier this year, and I know this Granite Grizzly will represent New Hampshire with distinction in Washington.”
You have been a loyal supporter of my campaign and we have accomplished so much! I thank you for getting our campaign to where we are today. And with people like Sarah Palin standing behind us, I know we will carry our message all the way through Se ptember and November and win this race!
By Sarah Palin and Kelly Ayotte
Dear Friends,
I am so pleased to let you know I received the endorsement of Governor Sarah Palin earlier today. She is a conservative champion who has brought enormous energy to our Party. As Governor, she took on the entrenched special interests to deliver results. Governor Palin is a reformer in every sense of the word, and she has always stood firm for the conservative principles of low taxes, less spending and personal responsibility.
I am very honored to have her endorsement.
On her facebook posting earlier today Gov. Palin said
“It’s my honor to endorse a Granite State “mama grizzly” who has broken barriers, fought off and locked up criminals, and battled all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the rights of New Hampshire parents – and won!
New Hampshire is lucky to have Kelly Ayotte as a candidate for the U.S. Senate this year. Kelly is a daughter of the Granite State, a product of its public schools, and its first female Attorney General. In her impressive five years in the AG’s office, Kelly earned a reputation for being tough on crime, supportive of law enforcement, and tireless in the defense of the rights of the people of New Hampshire. When Planned Parenthood challenged New Hampshire’s parental notification law, Kelly fought them all the way to the Supreme Court and won.
Kelly is the strongest commonsense conservative who can win in the fall. I knew I liked her when I met her earlier this year, and I know this Granite Grizzly will represent New Hampshire with distinction in Washington.”
You have been a loyal supporter of my campaign and we have accomplished so much! I thank you for getting our campaign to where we are today. And with people like Sarah Palin standing behind us, I know we will carry our message all the way through Se ptember and November and win this race!
6.22.2010
"A Wish- A Prayer- And A Credit Card"
By State Senator Jeb Bradley
So said the Concord Monitor in their June 13th Editorial titled “Not a State Budget to be Proud Of.” How did the Democratic controlled New Hampshire Legislature get into such a predicament?
Spending has jumped by 10.5% while revenues fell through the floor --- $102 million behind the estimate for the first eleven months of this fiscal year. Leading the revenue plunge are business taxes – off $43 million, rooms and meals taxes ---off $20 million, and interest and dividends taxes --- off a whopping $27 million. With the economic recovery anemic at best, revenues are not likely to improve any time soon.
On top of that, the effort to simply expropriate $110 million from a doctor’s medical liability fund (JUA) was deemed to be an unconstitutional taking of private property. All of which created a budget deficit estimated at $300 million by June 2011 when books close – up from a $220 million projection just in April.
Governor Lynch recently called a ‘Special Session’ of the Legislature to confront this alarming deficit – about 10% of the state’s General Fund. The package that emerged from the Special Session includes unprecedented borrowing and one-time revenue sources, uncertain receipt of federal funds, and unspecified sale of State property: The Credit Card.
The non-partisan Legislative Budget Assistant projects one-time revenue sources in the original budget and in the recent deficit package exceed $1 billion. Even excluding the $110 JUA raid and a $50 million reduction of funds that traditionally has gone to cities and towns to lower property taxes – this combined budget package relies upon a whopping 27% of one-time revenue for the General Fund. Nearly $200 million of that amount is unprecedented borrowing for operating expenses rather than capital investments such as buildings or bridges. Much of the balance of one-time revenue was federal stimulus funds.
Even stimulus funds may have reached their limit. Americans, fearful of a Greece-like debt crisis have sent Congress a message. Several incumbents have lost or barely survived recent primaries so Congress has yet to authorize more state aid. Thus $48 million of even more one-time federal money Legislators counted on is in limbo. Whoops – the check is not in the mail even though desperate Legislators are declaring it will be.
The deficit package also relies on unspecified sale of State property. While this idea may make sense, in a very soft real-estate market how likely is the State to receive reasonable value? When this idea was first proposed several weeks ago the estimated revenue proceeds were $50 million. Like magic, the revenue projections just jumped to $60 million. Presto: revenue grows when Legislators simply deem the real estate market has improved.
What about cuts? There were some cuts totaling $52 million but only 1.6% of the General Fund. This so-called $300 million deficit fix in reality is limited cuts, huge borrowing, and one-time revenue --- some of which may not even be real.
Where do all these maneuvers leave the budget? The authors claim the budget is now balanced, precisely what they predicted a year ago before it became a $300 million deficit. For the budget to balance now, they are counting on the unlikely prospect of revenue recovery.
The Prayer: what all the borrowing and one-time revenue does is allow the budget’s authors to cynically claim it is balanced for political purposes in November and pray they avoid the voter’s wrath for their spendthrift ways. But next year---facing nearly a billion dollar one-time revenue shortfall, New Hampshire will confront a fiscal train wreck.
While spending soared and the deficit grew, the numerous tax hikes over the last four years have hurt struggling families, besieged small businesses, while leaving New Hampshire less competitive for job growth or able to confront this looming deficit. In the previous budget, 29 taxes or fees were hiked. In this budget, 38 taxes or fees were raised including the job killing LLC Tax -- nothing more than an income tax on small businesses. The LLC Tax turned out to be so toxic to both small businesses and the Democrats who voted for it, that it was repealed. Even with the repeal, New Hampshire still has the worst corporate tax laws in the nation according to the non-partisan Tax Foundation.
Other warning signs from the Tax Foundation for our State include one of the highest levels of state debt per capita, being only slightly below the national average for state and local tax burden, and having among the higher levels of property taxes in the nation.
All these new taxes and warning signs in terms of national rankings are against the recent backdrop of 50,080 New Hampshire people being unemployed and the national pace of job growth anemic at best.
Four short years ago when change came to both Concord and Washington, the unemployment rate in New Hampshire was 3.6% and 26,865 people were unemployed. In April, the unemployment rate had soared to 6.7% and 50,080 were out of work. Having the worst corporate taxes and a Legislature willing to levy an income tax on small business owners is no way to get people back to work.
There are those legislators -- and now candidates -- who want to ignore the taxes, spending hikes, and deficits of the last four years and claim their stewardship of New Hampshire has been responsible. They point to other states in worse shape than New Hampshire, but ignore the fact that these other states have even higher levels of spending and taxation. Comparing New Hampshire to even more profligate states is no way to govern or help struggling families and small businesses.
The Wish: many of these same folks have always wished for income and sales taxes. Next year they will likely propose an income tax and a sales tax to close the budget hole they created. There could not be a clearer choice in November or a more important election for our State’s future
So said the Concord Monitor in their June 13th Editorial titled “Not a State Budget to be Proud Of.” How did the Democratic controlled New Hampshire Legislature get into such a predicament?
Spending has jumped by 10.5% while revenues fell through the floor --- $102 million behind the estimate for the first eleven months of this fiscal year. Leading the revenue plunge are business taxes – off $43 million, rooms and meals taxes ---off $20 million, and interest and dividends taxes --- off a whopping $27 million. With the economic recovery anemic at best, revenues are not likely to improve any time soon.
On top of that, the effort to simply expropriate $110 million from a doctor’s medical liability fund (JUA) was deemed to be an unconstitutional taking of private property. All of which created a budget deficit estimated at $300 million by June 2011 when books close – up from a $220 million projection just in April.
Governor Lynch recently called a ‘Special Session’ of the Legislature to confront this alarming deficit – about 10% of the state’s General Fund. The package that emerged from the Special Session includes unprecedented borrowing and one-time revenue sources, uncertain receipt of federal funds, and unspecified sale of State property: The Credit Card.
The non-partisan Legislative Budget Assistant projects one-time revenue sources in the original budget and in the recent deficit package exceed $1 billion. Even excluding the $110 JUA raid and a $50 million reduction of funds that traditionally has gone to cities and towns to lower property taxes – this combined budget package relies upon a whopping 27% of one-time revenue for the General Fund. Nearly $200 million of that amount is unprecedented borrowing for operating expenses rather than capital investments such as buildings or bridges. Much of the balance of one-time revenue was federal stimulus funds.
Even stimulus funds may have reached their limit. Americans, fearful of a Greece-like debt crisis have sent Congress a message. Several incumbents have lost or barely survived recent primaries so Congress has yet to authorize more state aid. Thus $48 million of even more one-time federal money Legislators counted on is in limbo. Whoops – the check is not in the mail even though desperate Legislators are declaring it will be.
The deficit package also relies on unspecified sale of State property. While this idea may make sense, in a very soft real-estate market how likely is the State to receive reasonable value? When this idea was first proposed several weeks ago the estimated revenue proceeds were $50 million. Like magic, the revenue projections just jumped to $60 million. Presto: revenue grows when Legislators simply deem the real estate market has improved.
What about cuts? There were some cuts totaling $52 million but only 1.6% of the General Fund. This so-called $300 million deficit fix in reality is limited cuts, huge borrowing, and one-time revenue --- some of which may not even be real.
Where do all these maneuvers leave the budget? The authors claim the budget is now balanced, precisely what they predicted a year ago before it became a $300 million deficit. For the budget to balance now, they are counting on the unlikely prospect of revenue recovery.
The Prayer: what all the borrowing and one-time revenue does is allow the budget’s authors to cynically claim it is balanced for political purposes in November and pray they avoid the voter’s wrath for their spendthrift ways. But next year---facing nearly a billion dollar one-time revenue shortfall, New Hampshire will confront a fiscal train wreck.
While spending soared and the deficit grew, the numerous tax hikes over the last four years have hurt struggling families, besieged small businesses, while leaving New Hampshire less competitive for job growth or able to confront this looming deficit. In the previous budget, 29 taxes or fees were hiked. In this budget, 38 taxes or fees were raised including the job killing LLC Tax -- nothing more than an income tax on small businesses. The LLC Tax turned out to be so toxic to both small businesses and the Democrats who voted for it, that it was repealed. Even with the repeal, New Hampshire still has the worst corporate tax laws in the nation according to the non-partisan Tax Foundation.
Other warning signs from the Tax Foundation for our State include one of the highest levels of state debt per capita, being only slightly below the national average for state and local tax burden, and having among the higher levels of property taxes in the nation.
All these new taxes and warning signs in terms of national rankings are against the recent backdrop of 50,080 New Hampshire people being unemployed and the national pace of job growth anemic at best.
Four short years ago when change came to both Concord and Washington, the unemployment rate in New Hampshire was 3.6% and 26,865 people were unemployed. In April, the unemployment rate had soared to 6.7% and 50,080 were out of work. Having the worst corporate taxes and a Legislature willing to levy an income tax on small business owners is no way to get people back to work.
There are those legislators -- and now candidates -- who want to ignore the taxes, spending hikes, and deficits of the last four years and claim their stewardship of New Hampshire has been responsible. They point to other states in worse shape than New Hampshire, but ignore the fact that these other states have even higher levels of spending and taxation. Comparing New Hampshire to even more profligate states is no way to govern or help struggling families and small businesses.
The Wish: many of these same folks have always wished for income and sales taxes. Next year they will likely propose an income tax and a sales tax to close the budget hole they created. There could not be a clearer choice in November or a more important election for our State’s future
6.15.2010
A message from Kelly
Dear Friends,
Today I voluntarily appeared before a legislative panel in Concord that is reviewing the state’s oversight of Financial Resources Mortgage. I did so to help prevent future white collar crime from ever happening again in New Hampshire.
My heart goes out to the victims of this horrible criminal fraud. Let’s be clear: what happened to the victims of this criminal Ponzi scheme should never have happened – and must be stopped in the future.
As I have said previously, I had no personal knowledge of FRM. Had I known this type of financial crime was being committed in the state, I would have moved quickly to stop it – just like I did with other criminal cases.
In my view, jurisdiction – who was responsible to act – was a significant factor in this matter. I strongly believe that in 2002 the Legislature should not have taken jurisdiction for unfair business and trade practices for matters involving banking and securities from the Consumer Protection Bureau of the Attorney General’s Office.
As a result of the changes in 2002, and further changes in 2004, which were opposed by the Attorney General’s office, the Legislature removed the authority of the Attorney General to pursue actions under the Consumer Protection Act for matters regulated by Banking and Securities. The Legislature also removed a consumer’s private right of action under the Consumer Protection Act for any matters regulated by Banking or Securities.
That means the Attorney General’s Office lost jurisdiction – the ability and responsibility to act on consumer complaints – and that others gained that jurisdiction. That should not have been done. You can’t tie the hands of the Department of Justice behind its back and then expect it to roll up its sleeves and get to work. That’s exactly what happened by taking away jurisdiction from the Consumer Protection Bureau.
Because jurisdiction was removed from the Attorney General’s Office, the Department of Justice referred the consumer complaints it received regarding FRM to the Banking Commissioner in accordance with the law.
To improve financial regulatory oversight in the state, I suggested that legislators take the following actions:
· Reinstate jurisdiction to the Consumer Protection Bureau of the Attorney General’s Office for matters related to banking and securities;
· Allow consumers the right to seek relief under the Consumer Protection Act;
· Establish clear central reporting requirements to ensure communication and coordination across state agencies, so bad actors can’t use jurisdictional exemptions to avoid detection and accountability.
It is my sincere hope that my appearance today will help lawmakers and regulators better protect consumers in New Hampshire. Please know that I remain grateful for your support and look forward to seeing you on the campaign trail soon.
Sincerely,
Kelly Ayotte
Today I voluntarily appeared before a legislative panel in Concord that is reviewing the state’s oversight of Financial Resources Mortgage. I did so to help prevent future white collar crime from ever happening again in New Hampshire.
My heart goes out to the victims of this horrible criminal fraud. Let’s be clear: what happened to the victims of this criminal Ponzi scheme should never have happened – and must be stopped in the future.
As I have said previously, I had no personal knowledge of FRM. Had I known this type of financial crime was being committed in the state, I would have moved quickly to stop it – just like I did with other criminal cases.
In my view, jurisdiction – who was responsible to act – was a significant factor in this matter. I strongly believe that in 2002 the Legislature should not have taken jurisdiction for unfair business and trade practices for matters involving banking and securities from the Consumer Protection Bureau of the Attorney General’s Office.
As a result of the changes in 2002, and further changes in 2004, which were opposed by the Attorney General’s office, the Legislature removed the authority of the Attorney General to pursue actions under the Consumer Protection Act for matters regulated by Banking and Securities. The Legislature also removed a consumer’s private right of action under the Consumer Protection Act for any matters regulated by Banking or Securities.
That means the Attorney General’s Office lost jurisdiction – the ability and responsibility to act on consumer complaints – and that others gained that jurisdiction. That should not have been done. You can’t tie the hands of the Department of Justice behind its back and then expect it to roll up its sleeves and get to work. That’s exactly what happened by taking away jurisdiction from the Consumer Protection Bureau.
Because jurisdiction was removed from the Attorney General’s Office, the Department of Justice referred the consumer complaints it received regarding FRM to the Banking Commissioner in accordance with the law.
To improve financial regulatory oversight in the state, I suggested that legislators take the following actions:
· Reinstate jurisdiction to the Consumer Protection Bureau of the Attorney General’s Office for matters related to banking and securities;
· Allow consumers the right to seek relief under the Consumer Protection Act;
· Establish clear central reporting requirements to ensure communication and coordination across state agencies, so bad actors can’t use jurisdictional exemptions to avoid detection and accountability.
It is my sincere hope that my appearance today will help lawmakers and regulators better protect consumers in New Hampshire. Please know that I remain grateful for your support and look forward to seeing you on the campaign trail soon.
Sincerely,
Kelly Ayotte
6.11.2010
Beware
By Jerry McConnell
In today’s mail I got this very official looking envelope from the Department of Health & Human Services, complete with a note above my name and address stating, “Important Information from Medicare. (But also the Spanish version; I couldn’t find the French, Greek or even the Muslim version) Informacion Importante de Medicare.” How nice of them to waste my tax dollars to add that importante note in Spanish when the English version is almost perfectly identical. Even a liberal could understand the English version.
But I guess this is the Obama and company idea of letting us know that they are pushing for more Spanish illegal aliens who haven’t a clue or scintilla of the English language (except when they want to protest or sue some Americano.) What’s next? Farsi?
However, getting back to the mail I received from the illustrious Madam Secretary Kathleen Sebelius telling me what a lucky guy I am that the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) passed by Congress (with the help of some turncoat Blue Dog Democrats who were “bought” off) and signed by President Obama that will “provide you and your family greater savings and increased quality health care.”
That’s interesting in that so many others are saying just the opposite – that the new health law will cost more money and a great deterioration in health care quality, even the Congressional Budget Office. But hey, what’s a little fib between friends, right? We forgive you Kate; we know who you work for, and his truth-telling is also very suspicious and rare.
Well, this brochure that came in the official envelope was a four-page, glossy paper in full color and was just full of so many gushy and wonderful things that it almost made me forget that when this bunch also get the Congress to vote to give somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 million non-insured, by choice and not by choice, along with free coverage for untold millions of illegal aliens who are in this county illegally and have broken our laws to get here, there won’t be enough doctors or other medical personnel to treat all of us.
Every country in the world that has this gem of socialism for their medical care has waiting lines and lengthy times for extensive treatments to the point that those country’s citizens have been coming to America to get medical care. So how is all that going to help us?
“The law increases the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and physician assistants…”
Probably the most deceitful or deceptive statement in the brochure says: “The guaranteed Medicare benefits you currently receive will remain the same.” If you believe that than you will probably also believe it when they say: “The law increases the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and physician assistants…”
We keep hearing and reading that we already have a shortage of these medical types and also that many doctors are just going to opt out of the profession due to the many negative factors they face in this law. (See NCPA article below.) Do you want to be treated by a medic that was rushed through medical school and training? That will be a big help, won’t it?
Ironically, on this same day when the above “jubilation” document was received, the National Center for Policy Analysis posted online (June 02, 2010) another document titled, “SENIORS WILL LOSE BIG UNDER OBAMACARE” authored by Kathryn Nix, dated May 24, 2010, and by Obamacare, they of course mean the aforementioned Affordable Care Act.
The NCPA article quotes a Heritage Foundation health policy expert named Robert Moffit who says: “Passage of ObamaCare will have negative consequences for practically all Americans. However, it is the nation’s senior citizens who will get the short end of the stick…”
NCPA also quotes Heritage Foundation‘s Kathryn Nix who states that “For the next generation of senior citizens, finding a doctor will be more difficult and waiting times for appointments are likely to be longer.” She continues, “The American Association of Medical Colleges projects a shortage of 124,000 doctors by 2025. ObamaCare does nothing to reverse this worrisome trend, instead making it worse.”
NCPA also says that doctors who have a large part of their business with Medicare patients could find it difficult to remain profitable, ending their participation in the program; somewhat due to higher taxes that will be placed on drugs (effective in 2011) and medical devices (effective in 2013) especially affecting seniors due to their heavy dependency on those products.
So dear readers, believe who you will, but remember, you once believed in the man currently in the White House that promised “CHANGE”; well he certainly has brought change, but not the sort that he envisioned for us as he campaigned for the presidency.
So far, the changes have been favorable to foreigners, particularly the law-breaking illegal aliens and also to the radical Islams of the world and in this country and the non-working, government bottom feeders that our government has become ‘nanny’ to in their daily living. These changes have come at the expense and detriment to the lawful and taxpaying citizens of the United States of America.
An old saying tells us: “Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it.”
In today’s mail I got this very official looking envelope from the Department of Health & Human Services, complete with a note above my name and address stating, “Important Information from Medicare. (But also the Spanish version; I couldn’t find the French, Greek or even the Muslim version) Informacion Importante de Medicare.” How nice of them to waste my tax dollars to add that importante note in Spanish when the English version is almost perfectly identical. Even a liberal could understand the English version.
But I guess this is the Obama and company idea of letting us know that they are pushing for more Spanish illegal aliens who haven’t a clue or scintilla of the English language (except when they want to protest or sue some Americano.) What’s next? Farsi?
However, getting back to the mail I received from the illustrious Madam Secretary Kathleen Sebelius telling me what a lucky guy I am that the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) passed by Congress (with the help of some turncoat Blue Dog Democrats who were “bought” off) and signed by President Obama that will “provide you and your family greater savings and increased quality health care.”
That’s interesting in that so many others are saying just the opposite – that the new health law will cost more money and a great deterioration in health care quality, even the Congressional Budget Office. But hey, what’s a little fib between friends, right? We forgive you Kate; we know who you work for, and his truth-telling is also very suspicious and rare.
Well, this brochure that came in the official envelope was a four-page, glossy paper in full color and was just full of so many gushy and wonderful things that it almost made me forget that when this bunch also get the Congress to vote to give somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 million non-insured, by choice and not by choice, along with free coverage for untold millions of illegal aliens who are in this county illegally and have broken our laws to get here, there won’t be enough doctors or other medical personnel to treat all of us.
Every country in the world that has this gem of socialism for their medical care has waiting lines and lengthy times for extensive treatments to the point that those country’s citizens have been coming to America to get medical care. So how is all that going to help us?
“The law increases the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and physician assistants…”
Probably the most deceitful or deceptive statement in the brochure says: “The guaranteed Medicare benefits you currently receive will remain the same.” If you believe that than you will probably also believe it when they say: “The law increases the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and physician assistants…”
We keep hearing and reading that we already have a shortage of these medical types and also that many doctors are just going to opt out of the profession due to the many negative factors they face in this law. (See NCPA article below.) Do you want to be treated by a medic that was rushed through medical school and training? That will be a big help, won’t it?
Ironically, on this same day when the above “jubilation” document was received, the National Center for Policy Analysis posted online (June 02, 2010) another document titled, “SENIORS WILL LOSE BIG UNDER OBAMACARE” authored by Kathryn Nix, dated May 24, 2010, and by Obamacare, they of course mean the aforementioned Affordable Care Act.
The NCPA article quotes a Heritage Foundation health policy expert named Robert Moffit who says: “Passage of ObamaCare will have negative consequences for practically all Americans. However, it is the nation’s senior citizens who will get the short end of the stick…”
NCPA also quotes Heritage Foundation‘s Kathryn Nix who states that “For the next generation of senior citizens, finding a doctor will be more difficult and waiting times for appointments are likely to be longer.” She continues, “The American Association of Medical Colleges projects a shortage of 124,000 doctors by 2025. ObamaCare does nothing to reverse this worrisome trend, instead making it worse.”
NCPA also says that doctors who have a large part of their business with Medicare patients could find it difficult to remain profitable, ending their participation in the program; somewhat due to higher taxes that will be placed on drugs (effective in 2011) and medical devices (effective in 2013) especially affecting seniors due to their heavy dependency on those products.
So dear readers, believe who you will, but remember, you once believed in the man currently in the White House that promised “CHANGE”; well he certainly has brought change, but not the sort that he envisioned for us as he campaigned for the presidency.
So far, the changes have been favorable to foreigners, particularly the law-breaking illegal aliens and also to the radical Islams of the world and in this country and the non-working, government bottom feeders that our government has become ‘nanny’ to in their daily living. These changes have come at the expense and detriment to the lawful and taxpaying citizens of the United States of America.
An old saying tells us: “Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it.”
6.02.2010
Dover doings
By former State Representative, and my friend
David Scott
On the 10th of June in the year 1215 the first tax cap was signed. In a meadow at Runnymeade a group of Barons confronted King John and his councilors. They said “ enough of your excessive taxation. Our taxes have been increasing at over 3 times the consumer price index - you are running us into bankruptcy”.
Seeing that he was outnumbered the king signed the Magna Carta.
Pope Innocent the third was disturbed, because if the King had to operate within a tax cap, less money would flow to Rome. In response to a request of the king, the Pope declared the Magna Carta null and void. He called it and I quote “unlawful, unjust, base and shameful”. He threatened to excommunicate the GADFLYS that support A Tax Cap.
The Pope added any person arguing for a tax cap was “a cancer on the body politic”
The barons realized that King John was bad and 2/3rds of them transferred their allegiance to Prince Louis of France. This gave King John a stomach ache and he died.
Dover passed its Magna Carte (great charter) in November of 2007. Dover’s mayor, City Manager and some councilors were against a tax cap. Some today want to override it now and permanently eliminate it.
Their plan is to hold Dover’s children as hostages in their battle to punish those that organized and voted for a tax cap. They have issued this ultimatum - Either accept an override or the swimming programs for Dover’s children will be eliminated.
In the budget presented by the City Manager and its passage encouraged by the Mayor the funding for the swimming programs has been virtually eliminated.
The tax cap is not the reason to eliminate funding for the Jenny Thompson pool and Indoor Pool. The wrong priorities of the city manager and the Mayor are the problem.
Does it make sense to eliminate funding of over $500,000 from the Dover’s two pools.
In its place is it good budgeting to insert a new item of $230,000 for a parking garage.
This allocation of funding will benefit owners of a few large office buildings.
If a parking garage is a benefit to a few property owners they should come up with their own funding. Don’t divert money from our pools used by 3,000 children for the benefit of 3 property owners.
Another wrong spending priority is the enormous increase of spending of Dover’s Computer department. Last year $440,000 was spent by this department. This year the budget is $550,000 and next year a budget of $820,000 is proposed. This is an 85% increase in two years.
If the garage is eliminated and the computer department level funded both pools will have the funds to continue with funding of the for the past few years.
There is a third source of money available – fund balances.
Dover has cash balances of $5 million. The bonding agencies tell us we need $4.2 million in cash balances to maintain our double AA bond rating. We have $800,000 which is more than needed to fund both pools
Fund balances have been used before.
In 2003 over one million dollars of fund balances were used to fund the huge bonuses paid to a few municipal employees. At that time the city refused to disclose who got those bonuses. A law suit forced the city to reveal the names of the recipients.
Then there is the Coast bus service. The budget shows $120,000 of cost and no revenue. Dover taxpayers deserve an accounting of this activity. Where is all the revenue to offset this cost.
The problem is not the tax cap but poor spending decisions. Dover can live within its spending cap and keep our pool programs open.
The council should delay the vote until the end of June. What is the problem if the budget vote is taken in the last week of June?. Two more public hearings could be held on the 2011 budget and public input on the above issues and many other issues raised by the public could be analyzed.
The popularity of King John and his councilors plummeted after he and the Pope tried to destroy the original magna carta.
Dover’s Magna Carta must not be overridden. We must not burden our senior citizens and those laid off, or working part time with higher taxes. Our children should not have their swimming pools closed.
Councilors don’t be a scrooge and take away our children’s fun for lower priority spending.
The public will be watching to see which councilors will vote for a budget that punishes the children. The elderly will be watching to see which councilors will vote to increase their taxes. .Reject this budget and Vote no for an override.
David Scott
On the 10th of June in the year 1215 the first tax cap was signed. In a meadow at Runnymeade a group of Barons confronted King John and his councilors. They said “ enough of your excessive taxation. Our taxes have been increasing at over 3 times the consumer price index - you are running us into bankruptcy”.
Seeing that he was outnumbered the king signed the Magna Carta.
Pope Innocent the third was disturbed, because if the King had to operate within a tax cap, less money would flow to Rome. In response to a request of the king, the Pope declared the Magna Carta null and void. He called it and I quote “unlawful, unjust, base and shameful”. He threatened to excommunicate the GADFLYS that support A Tax Cap.
The Pope added any person arguing for a tax cap was “a cancer on the body politic”
The barons realized that King John was bad and 2/3rds of them transferred their allegiance to Prince Louis of France. This gave King John a stomach ache and he died.
Dover passed its Magna Carte (great charter) in November of 2007. Dover’s mayor, City Manager and some councilors were against a tax cap. Some today want to override it now and permanently eliminate it.
Their plan is to hold Dover’s children as hostages in their battle to punish those that organized and voted for a tax cap. They have issued this ultimatum - Either accept an override or the swimming programs for Dover’s children will be eliminated.
In the budget presented by the City Manager and its passage encouraged by the Mayor the funding for the swimming programs has been virtually eliminated.
The tax cap is not the reason to eliminate funding for the Jenny Thompson pool and Indoor Pool. The wrong priorities of the city manager and the Mayor are the problem.
Does it make sense to eliminate funding of over $500,000 from the Dover’s two pools.
In its place is it good budgeting to insert a new item of $230,000 for a parking garage.
This allocation of funding will benefit owners of a few large office buildings.
If a parking garage is a benefit to a few property owners they should come up with their own funding. Don’t divert money from our pools used by 3,000 children for the benefit of 3 property owners.
Another wrong spending priority is the enormous increase of spending of Dover’s Computer department. Last year $440,000 was spent by this department. This year the budget is $550,000 and next year a budget of $820,000 is proposed. This is an 85% increase in two years.
If the garage is eliminated and the computer department level funded both pools will have the funds to continue with funding of the for the past few years.
There is a third source of money available – fund balances.
Dover has cash balances of $5 million. The bonding agencies tell us we need $4.2 million in cash balances to maintain our double AA bond rating. We have $800,000 which is more than needed to fund both pools
Fund balances have been used before.
In 2003 over one million dollars of fund balances were used to fund the huge bonuses paid to a few municipal employees. At that time the city refused to disclose who got those bonuses. A law suit forced the city to reveal the names of the recipients.
Then there is the Coast bus service. The budget shows $120,000 of cost and no revenue. Dover taxpayers deserve an accounting of this activity. Where is all the revenue to offset this cost.
The problem is not the tax cap but poor spending decisions. Dover can live within its spending cap and keep our pool programs open.
The council should delay the vote until the end of June. What is the problem if the budget vote is taken in the last week of June?. Two more public hearings could be held on the 2011 budget and public input on the above issues and many other issues raised by the public could be analyzed.
The popularity of King John and his councilors plummeted after he and the Pope tried to destroy the original magna carta.
Dover’s Magna Carta must not be overridden. We must not burden our senior citizens and those laid off, or working part time with higher taxes. Our children should not have their swimming pools closed.
Councilors don’t be a scrooge and take away our children’s fun for lower priority spending.
The public will be watching to see which councilors will vote for a budget that punishes the children. The elderly will be watching to see which councilors will vote to increase their taxes. .Reject this budget and Vote no for an override.
5.29.2010
A Stranger in Our Midst
By Robert Weissberg
As the Obama administration enters its second year, I -- and undoubtedly millions of others -- have struggled to develop a shorthand term that captures our emotional unease. Defining this discomfort is tricky. I reject nearly the entire Obama agenda, but the term "being opposed" lacks an emotional punch. Nor do terms like "worried" or "anxious" apply. I was more worried about America's future during the Johnson or Carter years, so it's not that dictionary, either. Nor, for that matter, is this about backroom odious deal-making and pork, which are endemic in American politics.
After auditioning countless political terms, I finally realized that the Obama administration and its congressional collaborators almost resemble a foreign occupying force, a coterie of politically and culturally non-indigenous leaders whose rule contravenes local values rooted in our national tradition. It is as if the United States has been occupied by a foreign power, and this transcends policy objections. It is not about Obama's birthplace. It is not about race, either; millions of white Americans have had black mayors and black governors, and this unease about out-of-synch values never surfaced.
The term I settled on is "alien rule" -- based on outsider values, regardless of policy benefits -- that generates agitation. This is what bloody anti-colonial strife was all about. No doubt, millions of Indians and Africans probably grasped that expelling the British guaranteed economic ruin and even worse governance, but at least the mess would be their mess. Just travel to Afghanistan and witness American military commanders' efforts to enlist tribal elders with promises of roads, clean water, dental clinics, and all else that America can freely provide. Many of these elders probably privately prefer abject poverty to foreign occupation since it would be their poverty, run by their people, according to their sensibilities.
This disquiet was a slow realization. Awareness began with Obama's odd pre-presidency associations, decades of being oblivious to Rev. Wright's anti-American ranting, his enduring friendship with the terrorist guy-in-the-neighborhood Bill Ayers, and the Saul Alinsky-flavored anti-capitalist community activism. Further add a hazy personal background -- an Indonesian childhood, shifting official names, and a paperless-trail climb through elite educational institutions.
None of this disqualified Obama from the presidency; rather, this background just doesn't fit with the conventional political résumé. It is just the "outsider?" quality that alarms. For all the yammering about George W. Bush's privileged background, his made-in-the-USA persona was absolutely indisputable. John McCain might be embarrassed about his Naval Academy class rank and iffy combat performance, but there was never any doubt of his authenticity. Countless conservatives despised Bill Clinton, but nobody ever, ever doubted his good-old-boy American bonafides.
The suspicion that Obama is an outsider, a figure who really doesn't "get" America, grew clearer from his initial appointments. What "native" would appoint Kevin Jennings, a militant gay activist, to oversee school safety? Or permit a Marxist rabble-rouser to be a "green jobs czar"? How about an Attorney General who began by accusing Americans of cowardice when it comes to discussing race? And who can forget Obama's weird defense of his pal Louis Henry Gates from "racist" Cambridge, Massachusetts cops? If the American Revolution had never occurred and the Queen had appointed Obama Royal Governor (after his distinguished service in Kenya), a trusted locally attuned aide would have first whispered in his ear, "Mr. Governor General, here in America, we do not automatically assume that the police were at fault," and the day would have been saved.
And then there's the "we are sorry, we'll never be arrogant again" rhetoric seemingly designed for a future President of the World election campaign. What made Obama's Cairo utterances so distressing was how they grated on American cultural sensibilities. And he just doesn't notice, perhaps akin to never hearing Rev. Wright anti-American diatribes. An American president does not pander to third-world audiences by lying about the Muslim contribution to America. Imagine Ronald Reagan, or any past American president, trying to win friends by apologizing. This appeal contravenes our national character and far exceeds a momentary embarrassment about garbled syntax or poor delivery. Then there's Obama's bizarre, totally unnecessary deep bowing to foreign potentates. Americans look foreign leaders squarely in the eye and firmly shake hands; we don't bow.
But far worse is Obama's tone-deafness about American government. How can any ordinary American, even a traditional liberal, believe that jamming through unpopular, debt-expanding legislation that consumes one-sixth of our GDP, sometimes with sly side-payments and with a thin majority, will eventually be judged legitimate? This is third-world, maximum-leader-style politics. That the legislation was barely understood even by its defenders and vehemently championed by a representative of that typical American city, San Francisco, only exacerbates the strangeness. And now President Obama sides with illegal aliens over the State of Arizona, which seeks to enforce the federal immigration law to protect American citizens from marauding drug gangs and other miscreants streaming in across the Mexican border.
Reciprocal public disengagement from President Obama is strongly suggested by recent poll data on public trust in government. According to a recent Pew report, only 22% of those asked trust the government always or most of the time, among the lowest figures in half a century. And while pro-government support has been slipping for decades, the Obama presidency has sharply exacerbated this drop. To be sure, many factors (in particular the economic downturn) contribute to this decline, but remember that Obama was recently elected by an often wildly enthusiastic popular majority. The collapse of trust undoubtedly transcends policy quibbles or a sluggish economy -- it is far more consistent with a deeper alienation.
Perhaps the clearest evidence for this "foreigner in our midst" mentality is the name given our resistance -- tea parties, an image that instantly invokes the American struggle against George III, a clueless foreign ruler from central casting. This history-laden label was hardly predetermined, but it instantly stuck (as did the election of Sen. Scott Brown as "the shot heard around the world" and tea partiers dressing up in colonial-era costumes). Perhaps subconsciously, Obama does remind Americans of when the U.S. was really occupied by a foreign power. A Declaration of Independence passage may still resonate: "HE [George III] has erected a Multitude of new Offices [Czars], and sent hither Swarms of Officers [recently hired IRS agents] to harass our People, and eat out the Substance." What's next?
Robert Weissberg is Professor of Political Science-Emeritus, University of Illinois-Urbana.
As the Obama administration enters its second year, I -- and undoubtedly millions of others -- have struggled to develop a shorthand term that captures our emotional unease. Defining this discomfort is tricky. I reject nearly the entire Obama agenda, but the term "being opposed" lacks an emotional punch. Nor do terms like "worried" or "anxious" apply. I was more worried about America's future during the Johnson or Carter years, so it's not that dictionary, either. Nor, for that matter, is this about backroom odious deal-making and pork, which are endemic in American politics.
After auditioning countless political terms, I finally realized that the Obama administration and its congressional collaborators almost resemble a foreign occupying force, a coterie of politically and culturally non-indigenous leaders whose rule contravenes local values rooted in our national tradition. It is as if the United States has been occupied by a foreign power, and this transcends policy objections. It is not about Obama's birthplace. It is not about race, either; millions of white Americans have had black mayors and black governors, and this unease about out-of-synch values never surfaced.
The term I settled on is "alien rule" -- based on outsider values, regardless of policy benefits -- that generates agitation. This is what bloody anti-colonial strife was all about. No doubt, millions of Indians and Africans probably grasped that expelling the British guaranteed economic ruin and even worse governance, but at least the mess would be their mess. Just travel to Afghanistan and witness American military commanders' efforts to enlist tribal elders with promises of roads, clean water, dental clinics, and all else that America can freely provide. Many of these elders probably privately prefer abject poverty to foreign occupation since it would be their poverty, run by their people, according to their sensibilities.
This disquiet was a slow realization. Awareness began with Obama's odd pre-presidency associations, decades of being oblivious to Rev. Wright's anti-American ranting, his enduring friendship with the terrorist guy-in-the-neighborhood Bill Ayers, and the Saul Alinsky-flavored anti-capitalist community activism. Further add a hazy personal background -- an Indonesian childhood, shifting official names, and a paperless-trail climb through elite educational institutions.
None of this disqualified Obama from the presidency; rather, this background just doesn't fit with the conventional political résumé. It is just the "outsider?" quality that alarms. For all the yammering about George W. Bush's privileged background, his made-in-the-USA persona was absolutely indisputable. John McCain might be embarrassed about his Naval Academy class rank and iffy combat performance, but there was never any doubt of his authenticity. Countless conservatives despised Bill Clinton, but nobody ever, ever doubted his good-old-boy American bonafides.
The suspicion that Obama is an outsider, a figure who really doesn't "get" America, grew clearer from his initial appointments. What "native" would appoint Kevin Jennings, a militant gay activist, to oversee school safety? Or permit a Marxist rabble-rouser to be a "green jobs czar"? How about an Attorney General who began by accusing Americans of cowardice when it comes to discussing race? And who can forget Obama's weird defense of his pal Louis Henry Gates from "racist" Cambridge, Massachusetts cops? If the American Revolution had never occurred and the Queen had appointed Obama Royal Governor (after his distinguished service in Kenya), a trusted locally attuned aide would have first whispered in his ear, "Mr. Governor General, here in America, we do not automatically assume that the police were at fault," and the day would have been saved.
And then there's the "we are sorry, we'll never be arrogant again" rhetoric seemingly designed for a future President of the World election campaign. What made Obama's Cairo utterances so distressing was how they grated on American cultural sensibilities. And he just doesn't notice, perhaps akin to never hearing Rev. Wright anti-American diatribes. An American president does not pander to third-world audiences by lying about the Muslim contribution to America. Imagine Ronald Reagan, or any past American president, trying to win friends by apologizing. This appeal contravenes our national character and far exceeds a momentary embarrassment about garbled syntax or poor delivery. Then there's Obama's bizarre, totally unnecessary deep bowing to foreign potentates. Americans look foreign leaders squarely in the eye and firmly shake hands; we don't bow.
But far worse is Obama's tone-deafness about American government. How can any ordinary American, even a traditional liberal, believe that jamming through unpopular, debt-expanding legislation that consumes one-sixth of our GDP, sometimes with sly side-payments and with a thin majority, will eventually be judged legitimate? This is third-world, maximum-leader-style politics. That the legislation was barely understood even by its defenders and vehemently championed by a representative of that typical American city, San Francisco, only exacerbates the strangeness. And now President Obama sides with illegal aliens over the State of Arizona, which seeks to enforce the federal immigration law to protect American citizens from marauding drug gangs and other miscreants streaming in across the Mexican border.
Reciprocal public disengagement from President Obama is strongly suggested by recent poll data on public trust in government. According to a recent Pew report, only 22% of those asked trust the government always or most of the time, among the lowest figures in half a century. And while pro-government support has been slipping for decades, the Obama presidency has sharply exacerbated this drop. To be sure, many factors (in particular the economic downturn) contribute to this decline, but remember that Obama was recently elected by an often wildly enthusiastic popular majority. The collapse of trust undoubtedly transcends policy quibbles or a sluggish economy -- it is far more consistent with a deeper alienation.
Perhaps the clearest evidence for this "foreigner in our midst" mentality is the name given our resistance -- tea parties, an image that instantly invokes the American struggle against George III, a clueless foreign ruler from central casting. This history-laden label was hardly predetermined, but it instantly stuck (as did the election of Sen. Scott Brown as "the shot heard around the world" and tea partiers dressing up in colonial-era costumes). Perhaps subconsciously, Obama does remind Americans of when the U.S. was really occupied by a foreign power. A Declaration of Independence passage may still resonate: "HE [George III] has erected a Multitude of new Offices [Czars], and sent hither Swarms of Officers [recently hired IRS agents] to harass our People, and eat out the Substance." What's next?
Robert Weissberg is Professor of Political Science-Emeritus, University of Illinois-Urbana.
5.27.2010
US Government: Panhandler
--- by Micheal
It just came to my attention that the US government has a website where people can contribute to paying down the national debt. That debt is in the neighborhood of 13 TRILLION dollars thus far. Citizens are encouraged to donate what they can (or want to) to help poor old Uncle Sam. They will accept checks, but also credit card donations online. Check it out at www.pay.gov.
Uncle Sam has become a street person! He stands on the sidewalk with his empty cup and a cardboard sign saying "Help me pay my bills."
Now, I regularly pass beggars on the streets of Boston. Some are blatantly honest, with signs that read, "Help me get drunk," (which they usually look like they already are). Some try to sound like honest folk on hard times. "Out of work. Need food." Yeah, right.
Their problem is not necessarily a lack of money, but a lack of fiscal wisdom. Whatever money they get, they waste. In the Boston beggars' case, on booze. Even buying them a cheeseburger would not help. It would only free up a bit of their resources for more booze.
That's how I feel about Pay.gov. Our government has a totally irresponsible approach to spending. There doesn't seem to be a single stupid program they aren't eager to borrow BILLIONs to fund. If I put money in their cup, I'm only encouraging such bad behavior.
We, as a country, need to stop thinking that every personal deviation from the imagined Norman Rockwell idealized life, is the responsibility of the US Government to subsidize. It is not the government's job to make sure everyone is comfortable and happy.
The Declaration of Independence states that one of our inalienable rights is the pursuit of happiness. OUR right, not the government's obligation to provide whatever I think will make me happy. If I don't feel like working, my hunger is not the responsibility of the rest of the nation. If I just want to spend all my money on getting drunk, it is not the government's job to keep me fed and housed and healthy while I drink myself to death.
I am already subsidizing the US government's irresponsible spending habits, (through no choice of my own) through taxes. I am sure not going to encourage their lack of discipline with donations.
It just came to my attention that the US government has a website where people can contribute to paying down the national debt. That debt is in the neighborhood of 13 TRILLION dollars thus far. Citizens are encouraged to donate what they can (or want to) to help poor old Uncle Sam. They will accept checks, but also credit card donations online. Check it out at www.pay.gov.Uncle Sam has become a street person! He stands on the sidewalk with his empty cup and a cardboard sign saying "Help me pay my bills."
Now, I regularly pass beggars on the streets of Boston. Some are blatantly honest, with signs that read, "Help me get drunk," (which they usually look like they already are). Some try to sound like honest folk on hard times. "Out of work. Need food." Yeah, right.
Their problem is not necessarily a lack of money, but a lack of fiscal wisdom. Whatever money they get, they waste. In the Boston beggars' case, on booze. Even buying them a cheeseburger would not help. It would only free up a bit of their resources for more booze.
That's how I feel about Pay.gov. Our government has a totally irresponsible approach to spending. There doesn't seem to be a single stupid program they aren't eager to borrow BILLIONs to fund. If I put money in their cup, I'm only encouraging such bad behavior.
We, as a country, need to stop thinking that every personal deviation from the imagined Norman Rockwell idealized life, is the responsibility of the US Government to subsidize. It is not the government's job to make sure everyone is comfortable and happy.
The Declaration of Independence states that one of our inalienable rights is the pursuit of happiness. OUR right, not the government's obligation to provide whatever I think will make me happy. If I don't feel like working, my hunger is not the responsibility of the rest of the nation. If I just want to spend all my money on getting drunk, it is not the government's job to keep me fed and housed and healthy while I drink myself to death.
I am already subsidizing the US government's irresponsible spending habits, (through no choice of my own) through taxes. I am sure not going to encourage their lack of discipline with donations.
5.25.2010
New Hampshire-A Banana Republic???
MANCHESTER, NH- John Stephen, Republican candidate for Governor, today blasted the efforts of Governor John Lynch and his Insurance Department (DOI) to absorb the Joint Underwriting Association (JUA) through the rulemaking process. Lynch had planned to take $110 million from the fund, created with private money to stabilize medical malpractice rates, to balance the state's budget for fiscal years 2009, 2010 and 2011. However, in January, the Supreme Court ruled that the state did not have a right to take the money. Since then, Lynch has continued to suggest that, despite the Court's ruling, the state should still be able to take the funds from medical professionals, culminating with yesterday's move to have the DOI take control of the JUA.
"Governor Lynch's bold cash grab of the funds belonging to JUA policyholders is an outrage," Stephen said. "He is ignoring both the Supreme Court's ruling as well as the property rights of the many doctors and nurses who have paid into this fund in his effort to get his hands on this money by any means necessary. This is the type of behavior we would expect from some banana republic like Venezuela, certainly not from the 'Live Free or Die' state. Every citizen ought to be as outraged over Governor Lynch's cavalier attitude and unvarnished contempt for both the rule of law and the integrity of private property rights. We need leaders who respect property rights as well as the rule of law."
Stephen said that New Hampshire voters spoke loudly and clearly about their opposition to government taking of private property with the passage of a constitutional amendment in 2006 that restricted the state's ability to take private land. The amendment received the support of 86% of the state's voters.
"New Hampshire voters will not tolerate the heavy hand of government taking away our private property," Stephen added. "The voters spoke clearly in 2006 that government needs to keep its hands off our property, but Governor Lynch, in his unbridled obsession to get money wherever he can, seems to have missed the voters' message from just four years ago. In November, our citizens will remind him that it is still wrong to take other people's belongings."
"Governor Lynch's bold cash grab of the funds belonging to JUA policyholders is an outrage," Stephen said. "He is ignoring both the Supreme Court's ruling as well as the property rights of the many doctors and nurses who have paid into this fund in his effort to get his hands on this money by any means necessary. This is the type of behavior we would expect from some banana republic like Venezuela, certainly not from the 'Live Free or Die' state. Every citizen ought to be as outraged over Governor Lynch's cavalier attitude and unvarnished contempt for both the rule of law and the integrity of private property rights. We need leaders who respect property rights as well as the rule of law."
Stephen said that New Hampshire voters spoke loudly and clearly about their opposition to government taking of private property with the passage of a constitutional amendment in 2006 that restricted the state's ability to take private land. The amendment received the support of 86% of the state's voters.
"New Hampshire voters will not tolerate the heavy hand of government taking away our private property," Stephen added. "The voters spoke clearly in 2006 that government needs to keep its hands off our property, but Governor Lynch, in his unbridled obsession to get money wherever he can, seems to have missed the voters' message from just four years ago. In November, our citizens will remind him that it is still wrong to take other people's belongings."
California is Ceded to the Mexican Government
By Jerry McConnell
To Mexican President Felipe Calderone:
OK. As a party of one individual American citizen, I give up! You can have California. I am sure there are MILLIONS more citizens who will agree with me.
But we reserve the right to erect a tall fence complete with triple rolls of barbed razor wire and post armed security forces at our border lines to prevent admittance of any illegal aliens into the United States.
Consider this as a warning; we will take all measures necessary to keep our country free of any intruders. You might reconsider any attempts as we are planning to copy the Mexican laws that deal with illegal aliens who try to cross into YOUR country and we WILL use them against you.
To my fellow countrymen: This could be a wonderful opportunity to really do something wonderful for our country. Imagine the benefits! Sure we might lose a bit of income taxes, but think of the HUGE amounts of tax dollar outlays we will save by not having to pay for all of these non-income producing, parasites that want EVERYTHING handed to them for FREE. We will end up saving literally billions of dollars.
Another HUGE benefit that will accrue to the newer, more streamlined, California-less United States, and that is the fungus or plague called Hollywood, with its anti-American and blaspheming morally corrupt, erroneously called “stars” that bleat and condemn and incorrectly apologize for our country for transgressions that are mostly of their own making.
What a burden that will be to get that piece of trash jettisoned from our borders without having to fire a shot. Goodbye and God Bless, Arnold, and be sure to keep another of the Kennedys with you. And won’t it feel good not to have to listen to the deranged mouths of Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Henry Waxman, Jerry Brown; oh, I could go on and on? In fact, the more I think of this idea, the better it gets.
To Governor Arizona Governor Jan Brewer: You can keep your water if you think it might be needed in your own state. Those Californians are so quick to condemn you and your wonderful plan of enforcing illegal immigration into your state, maybe when they get their way and are being run (or over-run) by the illegal aliens (who won’t be aliens anymore) they can make their own water from the sea or buy it from Mexico.
This is probably a little too much to hope for, but it sure would be nice to accomplish. Consider the trade-off: We get rid of one of the most troubling states that will soon have no money with which to pay any taxes to the federal government; a state that will have many more millions of mouths to feed; bodies to provide healthcare and insurance to; people to house and clothe and educate and less illegal uprisings against the government.
All we lose is a whole class of troublesome and discontented complainers who don’t like the United States anyhow.
How could it go wrong?
To Mexican President Felipe Calderone:
OK. As a party of one individual American citizen, I give up! You can have California. I am sure there are MILLIONS more citizens who will agree with me.
But we reserve the right to erect a tall fence complete with triple rolls of barbed razor wire and post armed security forces at our border lines to prevent admittance of any illegal aliens into the United States.
Consider this as a warning; we will take all measures necessary to keep our country free of any intruders. You might reconsider any attempts as we are planning to copy the Mexican laws that deal with illegal aliens who try to cross into YOUR country and we WILL use them against you.
To my fellow countrymen: This could be a wonderful opportunity to really do something wonderful for our country. Imagine the benefits! Sure we might lose a bit of income taxes, but think of the HUGE amounts of tax dollar outlays we will save by not having to pay for all of these non-income producing, parasites that want EVERYTHING handed to them for FREE. We will end up saving literally billions of dollars.
Another HUGE benefit that will accrue to the newer, more streamlined, California-less United States, and that is the fungus or plague called Hollywood, with its anti-American and blaspheming morally corrupt, erroneously called “stars” that bleat and condemn and incorrectly apologize for our country for transgressions that are mostly of their own making.
What a burden that will be to get that piece of trash jettisoned from our borders without having to fire a shot. Goodbye and God Bless, Arnold, and be sure to keep another of the Kennedys with you. And won’t it feel good not to have to listen to the deranged mouths of Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Henry Waxman, Jerry Brown; oh, I could go on and on? In fact, the more I think of this idea, the better it gets.
To Governor Arizona Governor Jan Brewer: You can keep your water if you think it might be needed in your own state. Those Californians are so quick to condemn you and your wonderful plan of enforcing illegal immigration into your state, maybe when they get their way and are being run (or over-run) by the illegal aliens (who won’t be aliens anymore) they can make their own water from the sea or buy it from Mexico.
This is probably a little too much to hope for, but it sure would be nice to accomplish. Consider the trade-off: We get rid of one of the most troubling states that will soon have no money with which to pay any taxes to the federal government; a state that will have many more millions of mouths to feed; bodies to provide healthcare and insurance to; people to house and clothe and educate and less illegal uprisings against the government.
All we lose is a whole class of troublesome and discontented complainers who don’t like the United States anyhow.
How could it go wrong?
5.24.2010
Flip a coin
Either way, New Hampshire loses
HEADS & TAILS MEAN NEW TAXES!
By Sen. Jeb Bradley
In what can only be called a bizarre turn of events in the Statehouse last week, a coin flip was needed to break childish chest thumping between the Democratic House and Senate Leadership. At issue was how to begin negotiations over dueling pieces of legislation purporting to reduce a dangerous and growing budget deficit. The Department of Revenue estimates the deficit is $290 million. Just in April, Governor Lynch pegged the deficit at $220 million. But Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee believe it could reach $360 million.
With that stark reality echoing through the Statehouse, a coin flip was necessary to determine the size of the negotiating table and initiate diplomatic talks. Mercy! Please!
How did we get here? In June 2009 the Legislature passed and Governor Lynch signed a budget that proposed to increase total state spending by $1.1 billion or 10.5% according to the non-partisan Legislative Budget Assistant. This increase was on top of an increase in the prior budget of $1 billion or 11.2%.
Almost immediately revenue underperformed expectations despite 43 new or increased taxes and fees. Next, the State was blocked by the Supreme Court from raiding $110 million of a fund paid into by physicians for medical liability coverage. Revenue continues to implode. In April -- one of the most important months -- the Business Profits Tax was off 27%, and the Business Enterprise Tax was off 21.5%. These are not only two of the largest taxes but also a barometer of future economic weakness. Rehiring has slowly started to occur with the unemployment rate inching downward to 6.7% but 50,080 people remain unemployed. The discouraging tax numbers are symptomatic of continuing economic pain that working families and small business owners are facing. Now that pain has metastasized in Concord.
But that’s not all. The Interest and Dividends Tax – another barometer of economic health was off 26.7%, the Communications Tax off 16.2%, and the Rooms and Meals Tax off 4.5%. The few hopeful signs among the tax revenue carnage were slight increases in liquor, beer, and tobacco sales. Whether that’s hope is questionable.
The first year of the budget will conclude on June 30. This means that as the budget deficit explodes the ability to fix it diminishes like sand in an hour glass -- each passing day lessens the time to deal with a growing problem. Republicans warned that this is precisely what would happen a year ago. But now, confronting the results of decisions made a year ago, tempers of top Democrats are fraying, accusations are flying, and coin flips are a proxy for leadership.
The House position is a potpourri of borrowing, shifting costs to cities and towns, limited spending cuts, and increased taxes. Tax hikes include more levies on tobacco, a new tax on electricity, hikes in taxes on insurance premiums, and a new estate tax. The tax hikes exceed $25 million, new costs to cities and towns of $20 million, borrowing of $65 million, and spending cuts of $34 million.
The Senate relies on the same borrowing which restructures $40 million of existing debt and turns $25 million of operating expenses for UNH into future debt. While borrowing $65 million maybe be an alluring antidote to short term pain, New Hampshire’s borrowing will soon be unsustainable and a costly long term migraine.
The Senate cuts total $32 million – like the House barely 10% of the overall deficit. The Senate continues to load costs onto property taxpayers -- though less than the House. The Senate raises taxes on tobacco products but avoids other tax hikes. Instead the Senate relies on $80 million of licensure fees from new gambling and $50 million from the sale of unspecified state assets.
Regardless what one may feel about gambling, the recently released gambling study warns that appropriate regulatory infrastructure must be in place before proceeding. If the Governor relents from his veto threat and the necessary time is taken to get the regulations right, garnering the $80 million licensure fee in this budget cycle is highly questionable.
The $50 million sale of state assets is almost laughable as the only detail provided is a study committee to make it happen. Toss in the $65 million of unsustainable borrowing and the Senate has produced almost $200 million of what can easily be termed voodoo budgeting.
While hard to believe it actually gets worse -- in fact much worse. After being stung by criticism from local officials who have strenuously objected to Concord Democrats cost-shifting of nearly $100 million to property taxpayers, Democratic leaders have offered a fig leaf. Only problem is that this fig leaf is a frontal assault on one of the largest group of employers in New Hampshire – the hospitality industry.
Legislative leaders would give communities the ability to tax rooms and meals over and above the 9% statewide tax. This local option is just more happy tax talk. Towns would be pitted against each other and our state would be far less competitive for tourism, conventions, functions, tours and weddings to say nothing of working families in our state who would pay more to eat out.
I have been flooded with calls from restaurant and hotel owners many of whom are barely surviving the recession and the recent increase in the Rooms and Meals Tax from 8 to 9%. They tell me diners are much more price conscious, curtailing orders, and tipping wait-staff less. These small business owners believe this local tax may be the straw that breaks their backs.
Small business owners are also appalled that like the LLC Tax and Camp Ground Tax, they had little chance to comment on the Local Rooms and Meals Tax. The LLC Tax and Camp Ground Tax led to a raucous revolt. Even the Democrats, who voted for those taxes without a public hearing, now disavow them as loudly as possible. These same Democrats now confront their inability to cut the spending they voted to raise just a short time ago and are reduced to flipping coins to determine what to do next.
The rest of us know where this is heading --- Welcome to NEW TAXSHIRE.
HEADS & TAILS MEAN NEW TAXES!
By Sen. Jeb Bradley
In what can only be called a bizarre turn of events in the Statehouse last week, a coin flip was needed to break childish chest thumping between the Democratic House and Senate Leadership. At issue was how to begin negotiations over dueling pieces of legislation purporting to reduce a dangerous and growing budget deficit. The Department of Revenue estimates the deficit is $290 million. Just in April, Governor Lynch pegged the deficit at $220 million. But Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee believe it could reach $360 million.
With that stark reality echoing through the Statehouse, a coin flip was necessary to determine the size of the negotiating table and initiate diplomatic talks. Mercy! Please!
How did we get here? In June 2009 the Legislature passed and Governor Lynch signed a budget that proposed to increase total state spending by $1.1 billion or 10.5% according to the non-partisan Legislative Budget Assistant. This increase was on top of an increase in the prior budget of $1 billion or 11.2%.
Almost immediately revenue underperformed expectations despite 43 new or increased taxes and fees. Next, the State was blocked by the Supreme Court from raiding $110 million of a fund paid into by physicians for medical liability coverage. Revenue continues to implode. In April -- one of the most important months -- the Business Profits Tax was off 27%, and the Business Enterprise Tax was off 21.5%. These are not only two of the largest taxes but also a barometer of future economic weakness. Rehiring has slowly started to occur with the unemployment rate inching downward to 6.7% but 50,080 people remain unemployed. The discouraging tax numbers are symptomatic of continuing economic pain that working families and small business owners are facing. Now that pain has metastasized in Concord.
But that’s not all. The Interest and Dividends Tax – another barometer of economic health was off 26.7%, the Communications Tax off 16.2%, and the Rooms and Meals Tax off 4.5%. The few hopeful signs among the tax revenue carnage were slight increases in liquor, beer, and tobacco sales. Whether that’s hope is questionable.
The first year of the budget will conclude on June 30. This means that as the budget deficit explodes the ability to fix it diminishes like sand in an hour glass -- each passing day lessens the time to deal with a growing problem. Republicans warned that this is precisely what would happen a year ago. But now, confronting the results of decisions made a year ago, tempers of top Democrats are fraying, accusations are flying, and coin flips are a proxy for leadership.
The House position is a potpourri of borrowing, shifting costs to cities and towns, limited spending cuts, and increased taxes. Tax hikes include more levies on tobacco, a new tax on electricity, hikes in taxes on insurance premiums, and a new estate tax. The tax hikes exceed $25 million, new costs to cities and towns of $20 million, borrowing of $65 million, and spending cuts of $34 million.
The Senate relies on the same borrowing which restructures $40 million of existing debt and turns $25 million of operating expenses for UNH into future debt. While borrowing $65 million maybe be an alluring antidote to short term pain, New Hampshire’s borrowing will soon be unsustainable and a costly long term migraine.
The Senate cuts total $32 million – like the House barely 10% of the overall deficit. The Senate continues to load costs onto property taxpayers -- though less than the House. The Senate raises taxes on tobacco products but avoids other tax hikes. Instead the Senate relies on $80 million of licensure fees from new gambling and $50 million from the sale of unspecified state assets.
Regardless what one may feel about gambling, the recently released gambling study warns that appropriate regulatory infrastructure must be in place before proceeding. If the Governor relents from his veto threat and the necessary time is taken to get the regulations right, garnering the $80 million licensure fee in this budget cycle is highly questionable.
The $50 million sale of state assets is almost laughable as the only detail provided is a study committee to make it happen. Toss in the $65 million of unsustainable borrowing and the Senate has produced almost $200 million of what can easily be termed voodoo budgeting.
While hard to believe it actually gets worse -- in fact much worse. After being stung by criticism from local officials who have strenuously objected to Concord Democrats cost-shifting of nearly $100 million to property taxpayers, Democratic leaders have offered a fig leaf. Only problem is that this fig leaf is a frontal assault on one of the largest group of employers in New Hampshire – the hospitality industry.
Legislative leaders would give communities the ability to tax rooms and meals over and above the 9% statewide tax. This local option is just more happy tax talk. Towns would be pitted against each other and our state would be far less competitive for tourism, conventions, functions, tours and weddings to say nothing of working families in our state who would pay more to eat out.
I have been flooded with calls from restaurant and hotel owners many of whom are barely surviving the recession and the recent increase in the Rooms and Meals Tax from 8 to 9%. They tell me diners are much more price conscious, curtailing orders, and tipping wait-staff less. These small business owners believe this local tax may be the straw that breaks their backs.
Small business owners are also appalled that like the LLC Tax and Camp Ground Tax, they had little chance to comment on the Local Rooms and Meals Tax. The LLC Tax and Camp Ground Tax led to a raucous revolt. Even the Democrats, who voted for those taxes without a public hearing, now disavow them as loudly as possible. These same Democrats now confront their inability to cut the spending they voted to raise just a short time ago and are reduced to flipping coins to determine what to do next.
The rest of us know where this is heading --- Welcome to NEW TAXSHIRE.
5.12.2010
Tax and fee increases/YDC prison movement
By John Stephen
MANCHESTER, NH - John Stephen, Republican candidate for Governor, today offered the following statement on the passage of the Finance Committee amendment to Senate Bill 450. The House of Representatives passed the amendment 187-182 today. The legislation includes a number of tax and fee increases, as well as the relocation of the Goffstown Women's Prison to the Sununu Youth Center campus (YDC) in Manchester. Those children from YDC would then be moved to the Laconia State Prison grounds.
"This bill knocks New Hampshire's economy on its knees, at a time when our employers are struggling to get back on their feet. The absolute last thing we need is a bevy of tax and fee increases on our residents, our businesses and our local communities. This legislation is a job-killer that will leave the state poorly positioned to recover from the recession. Creating a death tax, downshifting more costs to our cities and towns and adding new business taxes at a time when we already have the highest business tax rate in the nation make no sense and undermine the New Hampshire Advantage. Governor Lynch should offer an immediate veto threat to this ill-conceived legislation."
"Furthermore, moving the Goffstown Women's Prison to YDC without a public hearing is an affront to the citizens of Manchester who were promised that this facility would not become a state prison. The legislature is making the same mistake they did during the LLC tax fiasco by not allowing the citizens to have their voices heard. The neighbors and employees of the YDC have spoken loudly that they do not want this prison.
"This bill also break faith with the residents of Laconia, who were promised that the prison there would be closed and reused to grow the local economy, not used for a juvenile detention center. This is a terrible idea that breaks the state's word with two separate communities, while it also moves the juveniles in YDC from an environment where they can receive rehabilitation to a prison. We are abandoning the state's focus on turning around the lives of these children in order to relocate the women's prison. This is an outrage."
"I will continue to work with the residents of Manchester to give them a chance to speak out against this poorly thought out idea. In addition, I will work with the Laconia community to give them an opportunity to voice their concerns with this legislation. There is no excuse for this shameful lack of public input."
MANCHESTER, NH - John Stephen, Republican candidate for Governor, today offered the following statement on the passage of the Finance Committee amendment to Senate Bill 450. The House of Representatives passed the amendment 187-182 today. The legislation includes a number of tax and fee increases, as well as the relocation of the Goffstown Women's Prison to the Sununu Youth Center campus (YDC) in Manchester. Those children from YDC would then be moved to the Laconia State Prison grounds.
"This bill knocks New Hampshire's economy on its knees, at a time when our employers are struggling to get back on their feet. The absolute last thing we need is a bevy of tax and fee increases on our residents, our businesses and our local communities. This legislation is a job-killer that will leave the state poorly positioned to recover from the recession. Creating a death tax, downshifting more costs to our cities and towns and adding new business taxes at a time when we already have the highest business tax rate in the nation make no sense and undermine the New Hampshire Advantage. Governor Lynch should offer an immediate veto threat to this ill-conceived legislation."
"Furthermore, moving the Goffstown Women's Prison to YDC without a public hearing is an affront to the citizens of Manchester who were promised that this facility would not become a state prison. The legislature is making the same mistake they did during the LLC tax fiasco by not allowing the citizens to have their voices heard. The neighbors and employees of the YDC have spoken loudly that they do not want this prison.
"This bill also break faith with the residents of Laconia, who were promised that the prison there would be closed and reused to grow the local economy, not used for a juvenile detention center. This is a terrible idea that breaks the state's word with two separate communities, while it also moves the juveniles in YDC from an environment where they can receive rehabilitation to a prison. We are abandoning the state's focus on turning around the lives of these children in order to relocate the women's prison. This is an outrage."
"I will continue to work with the residents of Manchester to give them a chance to speak out against this poorly thought out idea. In addition, I will work with the Laconia community to give them an opportunity to voice their concerns with this legislation. There is no excuse for this shameful lack of public input."
4.30.2010
Can you believe it???
By State Senator Jeb Bradley
Joe Castiglione, the inestimable radio play-by-play announcer of the Boston Red Sox, has called two World Series victories. When the last out was recorded, Joe finished his play-by-play with words that rang through all of New England: “Can You Believe It?”
The “unbelievabilty” of the Red Sox winning two World Series has passed, but the unbelievability of what is happening in Concord and Washington continues to grow – the polar opposite of Red Sox Nation’s joy.
In Washington, spending escalates unchecked, the deficit hemorrhages red ink, and the overall debt frighteningly approaches unsustainablity. The 2009 deficit was $1.42 trillion. It is likely to grow in 2010 and is estimated to average nearly a Trillion Dollars for the next ten years. The total debt hit $12 Trillion, an eye popping $39,000 for every American man, woman, and child.
Taxes are also set to go through the roof. Unless Congress acts before year’s end, each tax bracket for individual Americans will climb, the marriage penalty reappears, and small business expensing provisions disappear. Taxes on investment income – particularly tough on seniors, will jump precipitously and the death tax will come roaring back. In 2013 a new .9% increase in the Medicare payroll tax goes into effect as well as a 3.8% tax on investment income. In 2014 a federal tax on health insurance will be added to the tax-soup. Meanwhile, Washington is abuzz with talk of a staggering new Value Added Tax.
All of this is against the backdrop of the Unemployment Rate hovering near 10%.
The view from Concord is similar. Spending increased by 23% over the last two budgets and the State now faces a $220 million deficit despite nearly draining the so-called Rainy Day Fund. The next budget gets even worse as one-time federal money disappears and the deficit explodes past $600 million. These deficits are despite the 38 new or increased fees and taxes including the job-killing income tax on small business owners known as the LLC Tax. Now Governor Lynch is proposing new taxes on tobacco products and higher property taxes as the State shifts ever more costs to cities and towns.
While Congress and Concord flounder with deficit spending and taxes, 52,508 of our New Hampshire friends and neighbors are out of work and scant progress has been made to reverse the hardship of job loss.
Just when one would think conditions could not get much worse --- they have. Despite the overwhelming need to create jobs for Americans, Washington has spent the last year concentrating on health care reform. Unquestionably, insurance reforms dealing with pre-existing conditions, insurance cut-offs during illness, and life-time limits were overdue. However, what Congress produced is “reform” that will cost at least $1 trillion over ten years, drive up costs for states, reduce choices for consumers, increase taxes, cut Medicare for seniors, increase insurance costs, further increase the deficit and debt, and lead to more government take-over of health care in America.
Given health care reform problems, the flawed political process used to pass it, and the significant majorities of Americans fundamentally opposed to the federal legislation, why would New Hampshire Democrats eagerly follow their Congressional brethren and attempt to pass New Hampshire’s version of health care reform? Unbelievable perhaps, but that’s precisely what Concord Democrats are proposing.
In a little noticed move late last week a non-germane amendment was scheduled for a hearing on Tuesday April 27th to ostensibly be added to legislation that had previously passed the Senate: SB-455. This amendment will give the New Hampshire Insurance Department (NHID) virtually carte-blanche authority to adopt any and all rules to implement health care reform in New Hampshire per the federal legislation. This type of unfettered authority for the NHID would leave the Legislature almost totally devoid of any say over health care policy in New Hampshire – an almost unprecedented transfer of power from elected officials to an unelected government agency.
Federal health care reform is now the law of the land. But, before Concord Democrats kowtow to an all knowing federal government and cede control of health care policy to the Insurance Department, consider the following:
The most significant federal mandate --- that states show progress creating so-called health exchanges --occurs in January 2013. Exchanges must be implemented by January of 2014. This amendment does not need to be jammed through now without proper scrutiny, and --- if even necessary --- can and should be fully vetted in the next Legislature.
Furthermore, the NHID would have authority to commit taxpayers to more generous Medicaid benefits than required under the federal law. This decision must be left to elected officials more accountable to taxpayers.
Twenty one states have joined the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of key provisions of health care reform. Shouldn’t New Hampshire wait for the outcome of this challenge before simply blessing the new federal law?
Lastly, national elections will be held in just six months. There could well be a political shift in Washington that may dramatically impact the status of the federal law. Yet, another reason to wait!
Regardless of whether the new federal law is good or bad or some combination– it is simply unfathomable that Concord Democrats would transfer all implementation of the law to an unelected bureaucracy.
Governor Lynch had previously – and correctly -- spoken out against unfunded mandates in the federal law that will substantially increase costs to New Hampshire taxpayers. Now however, executive agencies indicated these new costs are apparently acceptable.
Just as apparent, Concord Democrats are simply falling into line and embracing whatever decree and judgment Washington orders.
Thus Concord Democrats are hoping to slip this unprecedented amendment through quickly with at best cursory review. Given their record on taxes, spending, deficits, and a faltering economy it’s no wonder they would want to push this through before anyone notices.
Can you believe it? Unfortunately---Yes We Can!
Joe Castiglione, the inestimable radio play-by-play announcer of the Boston Red Sox, has called two World Series victories. When the last out was recorded, Joe finished his play-by-play with words that rang through all of New England: “Can You Believe It?”
The “unbelievabilty” of the Red Sox winning two World Series has passed, but the unbelievability of what is happening in Concord and Washington continues to grow – the polar opposite of Red Sox Nation’s joy.
In Washington, spending escalates unchecked, the deficit hemorrhages red ink, and the overall debt frighteningly approaches unsustainablity. The 2009 deficit was $1.42 trillion. It is likely to grow in 2010 and is estimated to average nearly a Trillion Dollars for the next ten years. The total debt hit $12 Trillion, an eye popping $39,000 for every American man, woman, and child.
Taxes are also set to go through the roof. Unless Congress acts before year’s end, each tax bracket for individual Americans will climb, the marriage penalty reappears, and small business expensing provisions disappear. Taxes on investment income – particularly tough on seniors, will jump precipitously and the death tax will come roaring back. In 2013 a new .9% increase in the Medicare payroll tax goes into effect as well as a 3.8% tax on investment income. In 2014 a federal tax on health insurance will be added to the tax-soup. Meanwhile, Washington is abuzz with talk of a staggering new Value Added Tax.
All of this is against the backdrop of the Unemployment Rate hovering near 10%.
The view from Concord is similar. Spending increased by 23% over the last two budgets and the State now faces a $220 million deficit despite nearly draining the so-called Rainy Day Fund. The next budget gets even worse as one-time federal money disappears and the deficit explodes past $600 million. These deficits are despite the 38 new or increased fees and taxes including the job-killing income tax on small business owners known as the LLC Tax. Now Governor Lynch is proposing new taxes on tobacco products and higher property taxes as the State shifts ever more costs to cities and towns.
While Congress and Concord flounder with deficit spending and taxes, 52,508 of our New Hampshire friends and neighbors are out of work and scant progress has been made to reverse the hardship of job loss.
Just when one would think conditions could not get much worse --- they have. Despite the overwhelming need to create jobs for Americans, Washington has spent the last year concentrating on health care reform. Unquestionably, insurance reforms dealing with pre-existing conditions, insurance cut-offs during illness, and life-time limits were overdue. However, what Congress produced is “reform” that will cost at least $1 trillion over ten years, drive up costs for states, reduce choices for consumers, increase taxes, cut Medicare for seniors, increase insurance costs, further increase the deficit and debt, and lead to more government take-over of health care in America.
Given health care reform problems, the flawed political process used to pass it, and the significant majorities of Americans fundamentally opposed to the federal legislation, why would New Hampshire Democrats eagerly follow their Congressional brethren and attempt to pass New Hampshire’s version of health care reform? Unbelievable perhaps, but that’s precisely what Concord Democrats are proposing.
In a little noticed move late last week a non-germane amendment was scheduled for a hearing on Tuesday April 27th to ostensibly be added to legislation that had previously passed the Senate: SB-455. This amendment will give the New Hampshire Insurance Department (NHID) virtually carte-blanche authority to adopt any and all rules to implement health care reform in New Hampshire per the federal legislation. This type of unfettered authority for the NHID would leave the Legislature almost totally devoid of any say over health care policy in New Hampshire – an almost unprecedented transfer of power from elected officials to an unelected government agency.
Federal health care reform is now the law of the land. But, before Concord Democrats kowtow to an all knowing federal government and cede control of health care policy to the Insurance Department, consider the following:
The most significant federal mandate --- that states show progress creating so-called health exchanges --occurs in January 2013. Exchanges must be implemented by January of 2014. This amendment does not need to be jammed through now without proper scrutiny, and --- if even necessary --- can and should be fully vetted in the next Legislature.
Furthermore, the NHID would have authority to commit taxpayers to more generous Medicaid benefits than required under the federal law. This decision must be left to elected officials more accountable to taxpayers.
Twenty one states have joined the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of key provisions of health care reform. Shouldn’t New Hampshire wait for the outcome of this challenge before simply blessing the new federal law?
Lastly, national elections will be held in just six months. There could well be a political shift in Washington that may dramatically impact the status of the federal law. Yet, another reason to wait!
Regardless of whether the new federal law is good or bad or some combination– it is simply unfathomable that Concord Democrats would transfer all implementation of the law to an unelected bureaucracy.
Governor Lynch had previously – and correctly -- spoken out against unfunded mandates in the federal law that will substantially increase costs to New Hampshire taxpayers. Now however, executive agencies indicated these new costs are apparently acceptable.
Just as apparent, Concord Democrats are simply falling into line and embracing whatever decree and judgment Washington orders.
Thus Concord Democrats are hoping to slip this unprecedented amendment through quickly with at best cursory review. Given their record on taxes, spending, deficits, and a faltering economy it’s no wonder they would want to push this through before anyone notices.
Can you believe it? Unfortunately---Yes We Can!
3.28.2010
Is it covered???
By Dave Buhlman
Former State Rep.
Our congressmen, Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter, have decided to ignore the clearly expressed will of the vast majority of their constituents and stated they will vote for a health care bill that will lead to rationed care and, generally, a real confusing mess in a vital aspect of our lives.
No amount of letters, phone calls, demonstrations or lawsuits planned by more than 35 states has distracted them from their mission to increase statism.
This arrogance on the part of our elected representatives should disabuse us of the quaint notion that we have a representative republic undergirded by democratic principles.
If Hodes and Shea-Porter want to be members of the elite, some-are-more-equal-than-others vanguard of the proletariat, then perhaps we should just go along with that.
Let's accept this and put aside the passe notion that they work for us. Let us assume the role that they, and many others that haunt the corridors of power in Washington D.C., prefer is that of us as peasants bowing to their awesome noble status.
This subservient demeanor may be difficult to swallow for some, but don't worry about such angst. Maybe treating it will be covered under their nationalized program.
Dave Buhlman
Litchfield
Former State Rep.
Our congressmen, Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter, have decided to ignore the clearly expressed will of the vast majority of their constituents and stated they will vote for a health care bill that will lead to rationed care and, generally, a real confusing mess in a vital aspect of our lives.
No amount of letters, phone calls, demonstrations or lawsuits planned by more than 35 states has distracted them from their mission to increase statism.
This arrogance on the part of our elected representatives should disabuse us of the quaint notion that we have a representative republic undergirded by democratic principles.
If Hodes and Shea-Porter want to be members of the elite, some-are-more-equal-than-others vanguard of the proletariat, then perhaps we should just go along with that.
Let's accept this and put aside the passe notion that they work for us. Let us assume the role that they, and many others that haunt the corridors of power in Washington D.C., prefer is that of us as peasants bowing to their awesome noble status.
This subservient demeanor may be difficult to swallow for some, but don't worry about such angst. Maybe treating it will be covered under their nationalized program.
Dave Buhlman
Litchfield
You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out.
By former State Rep. Lee Quandt
It certainly has been an interesting past couple of weeks. We not only reformed health care, or was it, health insurance. It is hard to understand just what we did and the congress doesn’t have any idea what they did either and they are the ones who actually did it.
It is so bad congress has been given extra protection because some are being shot at and others have had rocks thrown through their windows. Now the democrat party has decried this violence and encourages their supporters to fight back by sending the party money.
I have to hand it to them, I never would have thought of using violence as a fund raising tool. What will they think of next? Those little rascals are always thinking of ways to get a head. The question arises that how do we know they are not promoting it for financial gain?
I don’t think the tea party supporters are violent; they have been praised by the police that go to their rallies as decent law abiding and non-violent people who are just protesting what the government does.
God bless them; but, how do you protest what congress and government is doing when congress and government does not know what they are doing? I’m still trying to process this so I can give you a better understanding of what is going on.
It is even more comical on a state level where we have legislators who want to cut spending, then a group that wants to institute a sales and income tax, and then we have the pro gambling. Actually, it is the pro gambling legislators that have been paid well for their position and support of the gambling industry. They are now saying how slots are the panacea out of our budget debt. I don’t really care one way or another; but, I don’t support slots or expanded gambling.
First of all the money touted as coming to the state coffers is way over blown. We may get a big chunk of change initially; but, sustainable revenue is way over blown. The word is that the governor is concerned about the amount of money being thrown around the state in the promotion of expanded gambling and because of that has gained political influence.
Unfortunately the democrats, which is the majority party for the time being, have drank the so called political cool aid and follow their leadership blindly and made some stupid votes. The LLC tax which they did with little or no real input from the tax payers and businesses, passed and signed into law by the governor. The governor now wants to repeal it and it has only been in effect for about a year. The campground tax repeal they are still fighting over.
The so called budget cuts and state employee layoffs is a good one; what they did in many cases is simply laid off state workers and contracted out the services for the same cost, or close to it, to the private sector. There are no savings only smoke and mirrors. Then our local senator put in a bill to have a commission to oversee and regulate what hospitals charge. She took so much heat she backed off and is now trying to figure how she is going to save face for looking like a green horn rookie after getting beat back for trying to socialize health care delivery with price controls. My, my, stupid is as stupid does; run Forest, run.
There are some poling numbers that shows congress and certain members in the single digits and low teens; and all this time some of their parents probably told them (as youngsters that they probably wouldn’t amount to much), well they sure showed their parents.
If we the voters do not take back our government and our country, right now in the next election, we will have a new generation of young people who will grow up thinking this is how life should be: high taxes, government running our lives not us running our government, not questioning what is going on in our government and why.
The easiest way to allow this to happen is simply to do nothing. Stay home, do not vote, do not par take in the voting process and then complain about your taxes or the changeover to socialism, the open promotion of the deterioration of the family structure (why listen to your parents government is the answer). There is no questions that if you want to take back our government and country we have our work cut out for us.
DON’T EVER FORGET, “YOU CAN’T FIX STUPID BUT YOU CAN VOTE IT OUT OF OFFICE”.
It certainly has been an interesting past couple of weeks. We not only reformed health care, or was it, health insurance. It is hard to understand just what we did and the congress doesn’t have any idea what they did either and they are the ones who actually did it.
It is so bad congress has been given extra protection because some are being shot at and others have had rocks thrown through their windows. Now the democrat party has decried this violence and encourages their supporters to fight back by sending the party money.
I have to hand it to them, I never would have thought of using violence as a fund raising tool. What will they think of next? Those little rascals are always thinking of ways to get a head. The question arises that how do we know they are not promoting it for financial gain?
I don’t think the tea party supporters are violent; they have been praised by the police that go to their rallies as decent law abiding and non-violent people who are just protesting what the government does.
God bless them; but, how do you protest what congress and government is doing when congress and government does not know what they are doing? I’m still trying to process this so I can give you a better understanding of what is going on.
It is even more comical on a state level where we have legislators who want to cut spending, then a group that wants to institute a sales and income tax, and then we have the pro gambling. Actually, it is the pro gambling legislators that have been paid well for their position and support of the gambling industry. They are now saying how slots are the panacea out of our budget debt. I don’t really care one way or another; but, I don’t support slots or expanded gambling.
First of all the money touted as coming to the state coffers is way over blown. We may get a big chunk of change initially; but, sustainable revenue is way over blown. The word is that the governor is concerned about the amount of money being thrown around the state in the promotion of expanded gambling and because of that has gained political influence.
Unfortunately the democrats, which is the majority party for the time being, have drank the so called political cool aid and follow their leadership blindly and made some stupid votes. The LLC tax which they did with little or no real input from the tax payers and businesses, passed and signed into law by the governor. The governor now wants to repeal it and it has only been in effect for about a year. The campground tax repeal they are still fighting over.
The so called budget cuts and state employee layoffs is a good one; what they did in many cases is simply laid off state workers and contracted out the services for the same cost, or close to it, to the private sector. There are no savings only smoke and mirrors. Then our local senator put in a bill to have a commission to oversee and regulate what hospitals charge. She took so much heat she backed off and is now trying to figure how she is going to save face for looking like a green horn rookie after getting beat back for trying to socialize health care delivery with price controls. My, my, stupid is as stupid does; run Forest, run.
There are some poling numbers that shows congress and certain members in the single digits and low teens; and all this time some of their parents probably told them (as youngsters that they probably wouldn’t amount to much), well they sure showed their parents.
If we the voters do not take back our government and our country, right now in the next election, we will have a new generation of young people who will grow up thinking this is how life should be: high taxes, government running our lives not us running our government, not questioning what is going on in our government and why.
The easiest way to allow this to happen is simply to do nothing. Stay home, do not vote, do not par take in the voting process and then complain about your taxes or the changeover to socialism, the open promotion of the deterioration of the family structure (why listen to your parents government is the answer). There is no questions that if you want to take back our government and country we have our work cut out for us.
DON’T EVER FORGET, “YOU CAN’T FIX STUPID BUT YOU CAN VOTE IT OUT OF OFFICE”.
3.27.2010
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
By Sen. Jeb Bradley
N.H. Dist. 3
Listening to the supporters tout the benefits of federal health care reform during the day long debate, I was struck by the saying ‘if it sounds too good to be true – it probably is. For 219 Democrats who voted for passage, it sounds wonderful: access to health care improves, the patient-doctor relationship is strengthened, insurance premiums drop, and deficits decline.
219 Democrats may be true believers or "incentivized" into voting yes, but the American people clearly do not believe this happy talk. Just as noteworthy, Americans witnessed a totally partisan vote for passage, and significant bi-partisan opposition.
Let’s examine the Democratic spin.
Access to health care -- does it deteriorate or improve? Physicians are already reluctant to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients because of low reimbursement rates. Over $500 billion of Medicare cuts only exacerbates this trend. 32 million people will be newly insured – nearly half covered by Medicaid. How the current medical establishment can absorb 32 million new people without creating long waits is an unanswered question. Ominously, the New England Journal of Medicine recently wrote that one third of physicians “will want to leave medical practice after health reform is implemented.”
For anyone imbued with the hope that access to healthcare will improve consider this: the Mayo Clinic announced in January it will no longer treat Medicare patients at one of its facilities in Arizona as the Clinic considers whether to drop coverage for 500,000 more Medicare patients it currently serves. This should not be a surprise as government-run health care in Canada and England has excruciatingly long waits. Where exactly will Americans go when they can’t get life saving treatments at home?
Will medical decisions be made by doctors and patients? Consider the following: a health czar will determine the parameters of health insurance policies, approve insurance rates, and the extent of reimbursement for medical service. Government mandates and bureaucracy will only lead to fewer patient choices as government controls increase.
Insurance premiums will increase despite the President’s promise that American families would save $2500. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that insurance premiums will be 10% to 13% higher as a result of the bill. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services – the people who actually run these programs and the CBO have both estimated that overall health care spending will increase as a result of the reform.
The real world however, is more instructive than any prediction. Massachusetts mirrors provisions of the federal legislation, in particular the requirement to buy insurance. They have the highest health insurance costs in the nation, major budget problems, and Governor Patrick has proposed price controls. The rest of the country will learn soon enough. Massachusetts already has – it's no accident that an overwhelmingly Democratic state elected Republican Scott Brown primarily because of his opposition to the national healthcare legislation.
Supporters claim the deficit will drop, accomplished through nearly $600 billion of new taxes and over $500 billion of Medicare cuts and accounting shenanigans. Tax hikes will be immediate while the majority of the new spending does not occur for four years. That’s how Democrats miraculously reduce the deficit.
Congress also deferred over $200 billion for physician reimbursement under Medicare so this legislation appears – for now – to be budget neutral.
The real world is again instructive. When Medicare was first implemented in 1965 the annual projected costs were $9 billion by 1990. Instead its costs were nearly $70 billion and the unfunded future liability for Medicare is now a staggering $37 trillion. With deficits as far as the eye can see—what is really at risk is the health of our nation’s financial system and our children’s future.
Health care reform is necessary. That's why we should develop better high risk pools to resolve coverage denial for pre- existing conditions. We need to allow across state border health insurance purchasing to create competitive markets that will lower costs for business and individuals. We need to change the tax code to give individuals the same preferential treatment as businesses. Most importantly, we need to let individuals be in charge of their own care so they can make their own choices when utilizing services. Lastly, tort reform could curtail $80 to $150 billion of defensive medicine costs making health insurance much more affordable. All these measures will significantly improve access to affordable health care --- without a government takeover.
If health care reform was everything its supporters claim -- why in the world did they need a second piece of legislation fixing the first legislation an hour after they passed it? If the legislation is so good – why will the IRS need to hire nearly 17,000 agents to enforce it? And if the legislation was so good then why do its supporters seek to exempt unions from the new tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans the rest of us will pay?
Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes may drop by New Hampshire in April to campaign for their election in November. They should start thinking now about how to explain to constituents that their vote is unfortunately no April Fool's joke.
N.H. Dist. 3
Listening to the supporters tout the benefits of federal health care reform during the day long debate, I was struck by the saying ‘if it sounds too good to be true – it probably is. For 219 Democrats who voted for passage, it sounds wonderful: access to health care improves, the patient-doctor relationship is strengthened, insurance premiums drop, and deficits decline.
219 Democrats may be true believers or "incentivized" into voting yes, but the American people clearly do not believe this happy talk. Just as noteworthy, Americans witnessed a totally partisan vote for passage, and significant bi-partisan opposition.
Let’s examine the Democratic spin.
Access to health care -- does it deteriorate or improve? Physicians are already reluctant to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients because of low reimbursement rates. Over $500 billion of Medicare cuts only exacerbates this trend. 32 million people will be newly insured – nearly half covered by Medicaid. How the current medical establishment can absorb 32 million new people without creating long waits is an unanswered question. Ominously, the New England Journal of Medicine recently wrote that one third of physicians “will want to leave medical practice after health reform is implemented.”
For anyone imbued with the hope that access to healthcare will improve consider this: the Mayo Clinic announced in January it will no longer treat Medicare patients at one of its facilities in Arizona as the Clinic considers whether to drop coverage for 500,000 more Medicare patients it currently serves. This should not be a surprise as government-run health care in Canada and England has excruciatingly long waits. Where exactly will Americans go when they can’t get life saving treatments at home?
Will medical decisions be made by doctors and patients? Consider the following: a health czar will determine the parameters of health insurance policies, approve insurance rates, and the extent of reimbursement for medical service. Government mandates and bureaucracy will only lead to fewer patient choices as government controls increase.
Insurance premiums will increase despite the President’s promise that American families would save $2500. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that insurance premiums will be 10% to 13% higher as a result of the bill. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services – the people who actually run these programs and the CBO have both estimated that overall health care spending will increase as a result of the reform.
The real world however, is more instructive than any prediction. Massachusetts mirrors provisions of the federal legislation, in particular the requirement to buy insurance. They have the highest health insurance costs in the nation, major budget problems, and Governor Patrick has proposed price controls. The rest of the country will learn soon enough. Massachusetts already has – it's no accident that an overwhelmingly Democratic state elected Republican Scott Brown primarily because of his opposition to the national healthcare legislation.
Supporters claim the deficit will drop, accomplished through nearly $600 billion of new taxes and over $500 billion of Medicare cuts and accounting shenanigans. Tax hikes will be immediate while the majority of the new spending does not occur for four years. That’s how Democrats miraculously reduce the deficit.
Congress also deferred over $200 billion for physician reimbursement under Medicare so this legislation appears – for now – to be budget neutral.
The real world is again instructive. When Medicare was first implemented in 1965 the annual projected costs were $9 billion by 1990. Instead its costs were nearly $70 billion and the unfunded future liability for Medicare is now a staggering $37 trillion. With deficits as far as the eye can see—what is really at risk is the health of our nation’s financial system and our children’s future.
Health care reform is necessary. That's why we should develop better high risk pools to resolve coverage denial for pre- existing conditions. We need to allow across state border health insurance purchasing to create competitive markets that will lower costs for business and individuals. We need to change the tax code to give individuals the same preferential treatment as businesses. Most importantly, we need to let individuals be in charge of their own care so they can make their own choices when utilizing services. Lastly, tort reform could curtail $80 to $150 billion of defensive medicine costs making health insurance much more affordable. All these measures will significantly improve access to affordable health care --- without a government takeover.
If health care reform was everything its supporters claim -- why in the world did they need a second piece of legislation fixing the first legislation an hour after they passed it? If the legislation is so good – why will the IRS need to hire nearly 17,000 agents to enforce it? And if the legislation was so good then why do its supporters seek to exempt unions from the new tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans the rest of us will pay?
Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes may drop by New Hampshire in April to campaign for their election in November. They should start thinking now about how to explain to constituents that their vote is unfortunately no April Fool's joke.
3.18.2010
Tea party rally
Sen. Humphrey asked me to send this out.
Former State Rep Phyllis Woods
Subject: Join Sen Humphrey on Thurs. in riding Congress out of town on a rail
Following his fiery speech in Rochester last night, former U.S. Senator Gordon Humphrey has called upon all Tea Party patriots and concerned citizens to join him in an emergency rally at the Manchester City Hall Plaza on, Thursday, Mar 18 at 4:00 PM. The purpose of tomorrow's rally in Manchester is to protest the attempt by left wing radicals in the Obama Administration and the Congress to take over the nations entire system.
The main attraction will be the "riding of Congress out of town on a rail." "We've gotten hold of a mannequin and dressed him like a Member of Congress -- well let's call him a dummy, since he looks like a Congressman," said Andrew Hemingway, an assistant to Senator Humphrey.
Last night at tumultuous Tea Party rally in Rochester, in a speech described by Foster's Daily Democrat as "fiery," Senator Humphrey accused the President of lying about the true cost of Obama care and lying about preserving choice of doctors. "The far left is trying to ram down our throats a massive new federal bureaucracy that will run up trillions of dollars in deficits and destroy the finest health care delivery system in the world, subjecting us all to rationing of health care, long waiting lists, and third-rate medicine," Humphrey says.
"The Tea Party movement has rallied public opinion across the nation, but some members of Congress still refuse to listen. Government that ignores the majority is a government of thugs and tyrants,," Humphrey says. "We need to go all out in the next few days to force Reid and Pelosi to back down. To that end, I implore every last concerned citizen to rally with us at the Manchester City Hall Plaza tomorrow. Following remarks, we'll mount up the dummy on a rail and ride him out of town, treating him to the same contempt with which our forbears treated the despised agents of the tyrant King George!"
Riding Congress out of town on a rail will make great television footage that can help swing the last needed votes in Washington. Be a part of history. Join us at Manchester City Hall Plaza, tomorrow, Thursday, March 18, at 4:00 PM.
If you have any "Don't Tread on Me Flags" or appropriate signs or banners, other Tea Party paraphernalia, or colonial costuming, bring 'em or wear 'em.
Former State Rep Phyllis Woods
Subject: Join Sen Humphrey on Thurs. in riding Congress out of town on a rail
Following his fiery speech in Rochester last night, former U.S. Senator Gordon Humphrey has called upon all Tea Party patriots and concerned citizens to join him in an emergency rally at the Manchester City Hall Plaza on, Thursday, Mar 18 at 4:00 PM. The purpose of tomorrow's rally in Manchester is to protest the attempt by left wing radicals in the Obama Administration and the Congress to take over the nations entire system.
The main attraction will be the "riding of Congress out of town on a rail." "We've gotten hold of a mannequin and dressed him like a Member of Congress -- well let's call him a dummy, since he looks like a Congressman," said Andrew Hemingway, an assistant to Senator Humphrey.
Last night at tumultuous Tea Party rally in Rochester, in a speech described by Foster's Daily Democrat as "fiery," Senator Humphrey accused the President of lying about the true cost of Obama care and lying about preserving choice of doctors. "The far left is trying to ram down our throats a massive new federal bureaucracy that will run up trillions of dollars in deficits and destroy the finest health care delivery system in the world, subjecting us all to rationing of health care, long waiting lists, and third-rate medicine," Humphrey says.
"The Tea Party movement has rallied public opinion across the nation, but some members of Congress still refuse to listen. Government that ignores the majority is a government of thugs and tyrants,," Humphrey says. "We need to go all out in the next few days to force Reid and Pelosi to back down. To that end, I implore every last concerned citizen to rally with us at the Manchester City Hall Plaza tomorrow. Following remarks, we'll mount up the dummy on a rail and ride him out of town, treating him to the same contempt with which our forbears treated the despised agents of the tyrant King George!"
Riding Congress out of town on a rail will make great television footage that can help swing the last needed votes in Washington. Be a part of history. Join us at Manchester City Hall Plaza, tomorrow, Thursday, March 18, at 4:00 PM.
If you have any "Don't Tread on Me Flags" or appropriate signs or banners, other Tea Party paraphernalia, or colonial costuming, bring 'em or wear 'em.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)