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.

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.

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."

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?

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.

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."