By David Scott
“Right to work” bill passed by the New Hampshire House (HB 474) with a large majority will be advantageous to the people of our state. It will make New Hampshire a more attractive location for both domestic and international manufacturing companies which will bring more jobs to our state.
It will also benefit residents because it will provide working men and women with freedom of choice in the work place. In “Right-to-work” states individuals are free to join or not join a union. It is illegal in “right-to-work” states for union membership to be a condition of employment.
Large international companies like Honda, Toyota, Mercedes, and BMW have made large investments in right to work states in the US where they have created thousands of new jobs. These companies have made their investments in the states that have right to work laws and have avoided states like Michigan, Illinois, New Jersey and Massachusetts.
Governor Lynch, has indicated that he will veto “Right to work” legislation when it reaches his desk. When that happens, Republicans who do not vote to override his veto will be held accountable for their part in keeping good jobs out of New Hampshire.
David Scott is a lifetime Dover New Hampshire resident and a former State Representative
2.27.2011
2.25.2011
Some thoughts
By Jerry McConnell
The old Establishment GOP, mostly silent in recent weeks since the new upstart conservative rookies have been making good on their promises to cut big spending, suddenly found their voices and as usual, sided with the liberal big-spending Democrats on February 16, 2011.
POLITICO’s reporter, David Rogers stated on the above date that House Democrats and, in his words, “centrist Republicans, joined forces in a series of spending votes scoring quick wins and sending the clearest sign yet of second thoughts in the GOP over the depth of reductions demanded by the party’s new tea party supporters.”
That was a mis-characterization of the events which saw some old GOP RINOs coming back to the types of actions that were primarily responsible for the evolution of the TEA Party, TEA an acronym for Taxed Enough Already. It was apparent that the TEA Partiers didn’t go far enough last November, but there will be another chance in November of 2012.
The people of America spoke in November 2010 and they said they were tired of seeing big government and big spending which always results in big taxes. By electing dozens of fresh-faced and eager to do the bidding of the conservative electorate a message was sent to the Democrats who are traditionally slow learners (if at all) and to the Establishment RINO
Republicans who cave too easily to the tax-and-spend socialist-liberal Democrats that enough was already too much.
The large number of non-conservative RINO Republicans that humbled themselves to the heavy handed lib-Dems siding to stop some very much needed spending reductions put the bull’s eye on their backs as the prime target for 2012. If they thought the TEA Party man-handled the RINOs in 2010, stick around and watch the faces change in 2012.
The White House-backed spending program to save at least some of the funding for legal aid to the poor was supported by sixty-eight Establishment RINOs to go against the wishes of their own party. Minutes later, Rogers added, “seventy Republicans joined 158 Democrats on a 228 - 203 vote that restored $280 million on the Joe Biden favorite initiative of Community Oriented Policing Services. And the firefighter lobby prevailed on 132 Republicans to back a Democrat amendment to restore $510 million for Homeland Security grants for first responders.”
Keep in mind that the House now has 243 Republicans to 193 Democrats a sizeable majority of fifty votes and they lost those and other measures because of RINOs who just can’t seem to remember what party elected them. I don’t think the voters will forget that come November 2012. The moral here is don’t trust an Establishment (long time) RINO Republican to cut or stop spending.
This is not to say that the new conservative rookies elected last November all stayed the course and voted for the funding cuts; no, there were some of the newbies who joined the liberal Democrats to spend more of our tax dollars, including in at least one vote for the restoration of $510 million for Homeland Security grants for first responders; both of my own state Representatives also collaborated with the lib-Dems. But the lure and righteousness of being for first responders probably overcame good fiscal sense.
Another factor that may have played a role in rushing to judgment on these spending bills was that it was done on Wednesday, February 16 the evening before the day of the President’s Day recess; yes, already they got a recess. For the newcomers it was a needed respite as they had put in many long hour days in their new and totally different from normal ‘back home’ living routines. A few days to go back home and chat with their neighbors and friends as well as to listen to many complaints, suggestions and long stories I’m sure has put them in a better frame of mind to come back and do some of our country’s work.
Now that you’re back and all rested up and looking forward to the next vacation, flexibly called a recess to disguise its proper status, how about you old timers looking at your crystal balls and seeing where working with the very productive young conservatives will pay off better for you in 2012 than pursuing a career-ending RINO course of trying to please the liberal
The old Establishment GOP, mostly silent in recent weeks since the new upstart conservative rookies have been making good on their promises to cut big spending, suddenly found their voices and as usual, sided with the liberal big-spending Democrats on February 16, 2011.
POLITICO’s reporter, David Rogers stated on the above date that House Democrats and, in his words, “centrist Republicans, joined forces in a series of spending votes scoring quick wins and sending the clearest sign yet of second thoughts in the GOP over the depth of reductions demanded by the party’s new tea party supporters.”
That was a mis-characterization of the events which saw some old GOP RINOs coming back to the types of actions that were primarily responsible for the evolution of the TEA Party, TEA an acronym for Taxed Enough Already. It was apparent that the TEA Partiers didn’t go far enough last November, but there will be another chance in November of 2012.
The people of America spoke in November 2010 and they said they were tired of seeing big government and big spending which always results in big taxes. By electing dozens of fresh-faced and eager to do the bidding of the conservative electorate a message was sent to the Democrats who are traditionally slow learners (if at all) and to the Establishment RINO
Republicans who cave too easily to the tax-and-spend socialist-liberal Democrats that enough was already too much.
The large number of non-conservative RINO Republicans that humbled themselves to the heavy handed lib-Dems siding to stop some very much needed spending reductions put the bull’s eye on their backs as the prime target for 2012. If they thought the TEA Party man-handled the RINOs in 2010, stick around and watch the faces change in 2012.
The White House-backed spending program to save at least some of the funding for legal aid to the poor was supported by sixty-eight Establishment RINOs to go against the wishes of their own party. Minutes later, Rogers added, “seventy Republicans joined 158 Democrats on a 228 - 203 vote that restored $280 million on the Joe Biden favorite initiative of Community Oriented Policing Services. And the firefighter lobby prevailed on 132 Republicans to back a Democrat amendment to restore $510 million for Homeland Security grants for first responders.”
Keep in mind that the House now has 243 Republicans to 193 Democrats a sizeable majority of fifty votes and they lost those and other measures because of RINOs who just can’t seem to remember what party elected them. I don’t think the voters will forget that come November 2012. The moral here is don’t trust an Establishment (long time) RINO Republican to cut or stop spending.
This is not to say that the new conservative rookies elected last November all stayed the course and voted for the funding cuts; no, there were some of the newbies who joined the liberal Democrats to spend more of our tax dollars, including in at least one vote for the restoration of $510 million for Homeland Security grants for first responders; both of my own state Representatives also collaborated with the lib-Dems. But the lure and righteousness of being for first responders probably overcame good fiscal sense.
Another factor that may have played a role in rushing to judgment on these spending bills was that it was done on Wednesday, February 16 the evening before the day of the President’s Day recess; yes, already they got a recess. For the newcomers it was a needed respite as they had put in many long hour days in their new and totally different from normal ‘back home’ living routines. A few days to go back home and chat with their neighbors and friends as well as to listen to many complaints, suggestions and long stories I’m sure has put them in a better frame of mind to come back and do some of our country’s work.
Now that you’re back and all rested up and looking forward to the next vacation, flexibly called a recess to disguise its proper status, how about you old timers looking at your crystal balls and seeing where working with the very productive young conservatives will pay off better for you in 2012 than pursuing a career-ending RINO course of trying to please the liberal
Sharia vs. the House of Cards
by Dave Buhlman
"If they do this while the tree is green, what will they do when it’s dry?" This was said by Jesus Christ to the women lining the Way of the Cross that led to Calvary where He was crucified.
He meant that He was right there - the tree was green - and they were putting him to death. Looking to the future, what will His followers do when His teachings and memory of Him have faded, when the tree is dry?
Answer - Not much.
This country was founded solidly on Judeo-Christian beliefs and ethics. Beginning in the 1960s, this foundation came under serious attack from the religion of Secular Humanism. The first significant crack was formed when the US Supreme Court ruling that prayer in government schools was unconstitutional. Then in 1973, this Court ruled that it was acceptable to kill babies in the womb. There were protests to both of these decisions, but they hold to this day despite their deep departure from the Judeo-Christian way. Religious leaders have, in essence, accepted the results and gone on preaching.
Then about twenty years ago, an assault began on government-sanctioned marriage being exclusively between one man and one woman. The people behind this assault detected how weak the founding ethic had become and went on the attack full bore. Today, the ramparts have fallen and state sanctioned marriage between members of the same sex is now the law in many states. When this effort began, most regular folks scoffed at the idea of same-sex marriage but, here we are.
The current assault on the country’s Judeo-Christian ethic is now underway. This assault seeks to impose Islamic Sharia law in the United States. Scoff at this effort at your peril.
The major negatives of Sharia law are fairly well know today. It calls for treating women worse than cattle, and killing all of those who do not agree with Islam. This is diametrically opposed to our laws and way of life as enshrined in the federal and state Constitutions and the Declaration of Independence. But a couple of judges have already given at least half a nod to recognition of Sharia, so the slope is starting to be greased. Many suspect that President Obama is a Muslim, and his bowing to the Saudi King did not help to negate this impression. We’re just not sure where he stands.
Amazingly, despite its abysmal treatment of women, many liberal progressives support Islam under the guise of multi-culturism. They feel we must accept different beliefs and cultures as long, of course, as these beliefs and cultures are not Christian based.
The rat line to the imposition of Sharia law will run through the courts, as these rat lines always do. It is imperative that as soon as a federal or state judge makes a ruling that supports or advances the horror of Sharia law, that impeachment/recall/address efforts against these traitorous jurists begin immediately.
The growth of the poisonous tree of Sharia must be nipped in the bud and our legislators, with their power to remove judges, are our sentinels. Let us be a house of cards no more.
Dave Buhlman is a former New Hampshire State Representative.
"If they do this while the tree is green, what will they do when it’s dry?" This was said by Jesus Christ to the women lining the Way of the Cross that led to Calvary where He was crucified.
He meant that He was right there - the tree was green - and they were putting him to death. Looking to the future, what will His followers do when His teachings and memory of Him have faded, when the tree is dry?
Answer - Not much.
This country was founded solidly on Judeo-Christian beliefs and ethics. Beginning in the 1960s, this foundation came under serious attack from the religion of Secular Humanism. The first significant crack was formed when the US Supreme Court ruling that prayer in government schools was unconstitutional. Then in 1973, this Court ruled that it was acceptable to kill babies in the womb. There were protests to both of these decisions, but they hold to this day despite their deep departure from the Judeo-Christian way. Religious leaders have, in essence, accepted the results and gone on preaching.
Then about twenty years ago, an assault began on government-sanctioned marriage being exclusively between one man and one woman. The people behind this assault detected how weak the founding ethic had become and went on the attack full bore. Today, the ramparts have fallen and state sanctioned marriage between members of the same sex is now the law in many states. When this effort began, most regular folks scoffed at the idea of same-sex marriage but, here we are.
The current assault on the country’s Judeo-Christian ethic is now underway. This assault seeks to impose Islamic Sharia law in the United States. Scoff at this effort at your peril.
The major negatives of Sharia law are fairly well know today. It calls for treating women worse than cattle, and killing all of those who do not agree with Islam. This is diametrically opposed to our laws and way of life as enshrined in the federal and state Constitutions and the Declaration of Independence. But a couple of judges have already given at least half a nod to recognition of Sharia, so the slope is starting to be greased. Many suspect that President Obama is a Muslim, and his bowing to the Saudi King did not help to negate this impression. We’re just not sure where he stands.
Amazingly, despite its abysmal treatment of women, many liberal progressives support Islam under the guise of multi-culturism. They feel we must accept different beliefs and cultures as long, of course, as these beliefs and cultures are not Christian based.
The rat line to the imposition of Sharia law will run through the courts, as these rat lines always do. It is imperative that as soon as a federal or state judge makes a ruling that supports or advances the horror of Sharia law, that impeachment/recall/address efforts against these traitorous jurists begin immediately.
The growth of the poisonous tree of Sharia must be nipped in the bud and our legislators, with their power to remove judges, are our sentinels. Let us be a house of cards no more.
Dave Buhlman is a former New Hampshire State Representative.
2.18.2011
To Concerned Taxpayers of North Hampton
Winter 2011
Dear Friend and Neighbor:
On March 8,2011 there will be a North Hampton School District election and there will be six money warrant articles for voter consideration. We support all but one. The purpose of this letter is first and foremost to urge you to become an informed voter and vote - in person or by absentee ballot. But we are also writing to inform you that we are opposed to the one warrant article to raise $2.55 million to
construct a 4-classroom addition at the North Hampton School. We believe now is the wrong time to propose an expenditure of this magnitude, that the proposal has not been carefully thought out and that it is not supported by the facts.
These are extremely difficult times. The economy is still in trouble, many people are out of work, and those living on Social Security are struggling to make ends meet. Closer to home, North Hampton is experiencing a steadily eroding tax base. Total valuation is now at 109o/o, which means that many properties are over valued; and this inevitably will generate an increase in the number and amounts of
legitimate abatement applications. Town revenues are significantly lower and the State is shifting more costs to municipalities (e.9. reduced share of Room and Meals Tax and increased mandated contributions to the State Retirement System). Finally, we may again become a "Donor Town", which means sending more North Hampton tax dollars to "less affluent" municipalities.
These distressing realities almost certainly mean significantly higher property taxes in the near future; and the days of reaching into the undesignated Fund Balance, or "Cookie Jar", to offset tax increases are coming to an end. This past year alone the Selectmen took $500,000 from the undesignated Fund
Balance to offset what would have been a tax increase of more than one dollar/1000, or 6.90/o, in a year when the official federal inflation rate was nil. Withdrawals of this magnitude are simply not sustainable.
We all know that the prices of gas and food have gone up substantially, yet retirees on Social Security have not received any increase for two years. This is the primary reason why we believe now is not the time to propose this $2.55 million dollar addition.
But there are additional reasons to oppose this proposal - namely that the School Board has not demonstrated a need for four new classrooms, two for kindergarten/preschool and two science labs.
Let's examine the Board's rationale and compare it to the facts. The Steering Committee Report which the School Board relied on as justification for this proposal claims that the quality of education will suffer if two new science labs are not built; but no empirical data was offered to support such a claim. Indeed, Principal Peter Sweet conceded in a recent meeting that no such data exists. This
unsupported claim from the Report is to be contrasted to School's "Report Card Academic Year 2009-2010" , dated February 2010 which contains the following comments on the performance of our students in the Sciences:
"In a composite of the 4th and 8th grade scores, we can report that we scored 13th out of 146 districts in Science, scoring better than 91% of the Districts in the state of New Hampshire. By comparison, last year we scored 24th of 149 districts in Science, scoring better than 84% of the other districts in NH." In other words, our students are performing a very high level and, indeed, are improving their
performance in Science, all without new science labs. Significantly, there is no mention in the Report Card of any need for new science labs or more classroom space.
The Report also cites the need for space to accommodate an "all day kindergarten" as a reason for the proposed expansion. While such an expansion would undoubtedly convenience some parents, we doubt that such a day long program is a compelling need, and it is not required by the state. Inexplicably, the School Board at its January 11th Public Hearing denied that all day kindergarten was being proposed at
all. lf so, why ask the taxpayers to fund two larger kindergarten classrooms?
The proposed addition sacrifices two classrooms for four classrooms, new bathrooms and storage space. The Steering Committee Report "...surmised (its term)that it is cost effective to create new restrooms rather than renovate existing ones." We strongly believe that decisions of this magnitude should not be surmised, or made based on conjecture and assumptions. With due respect to all of the members of the Steering Committee who worked on the Report and undoubtedly acted in the utmost good faith, we believe that the work was done hastily and did not give
sufficient consideration to other alternatives. While we do not dispute that there appears to be a need for more space in the School, given present enrollment, class sizes and special needs requirements, we do question whether all other alternatives were explored in depth. That the Steering Committee commenced its work in September 2010 and finished by early December 2010 suggests its work may have been rushed. Moreover, there is no mention of considering modular classrooms, renovations or
slightly increasing some class sizes as a means of freeing up additional space. We recognize that small class sizes are prized by educators, but like so many among us who have to get by with less, it may be appropriate to modestly increase class sizes for a few years. Our School enrollment peaked in 1999(538); it is now at 485. Some demographic projections for our state tell us that school populations
generally will decline because the "Baby Boomers" are now past child bearing age. The space issue may resolve itself.
One justification offered by the School Board for advancing this proposal now is that the current Bond, which financed the 1996 addition to the School,.is about to expire. Therefore, a new bond will not
increase our debt service. The annual debt service for the current bond is $332,827 -We suggest that instead of rushing to incur new debt, we give the taxpayers a "breather" for a few years in the form of lower taxes. Raising $333,000 every year means about thirty two cents on the tax rate. By not taking out another bond, we could all benefit from those savings.
We recognize and honor the need for excellence in our School and share the Town's pride in the many achievements of its Students and its fine Faculty and Administration. We are not necessarily opposed to an addition to the School; only the timing and what appears to have been a hurried analysis of alternatives. We believe that the test for all spending should be whether the proposed expenditure is
ESSENTIAL to maintain appropriate levels of Town and School services. A much more comprehensive analysis needs to be undertaken and all possible alternatives must be fully explored.
This proposal will appear on the School Ballot as a warrant article that needs 3/5 approval. It was approved by the Budget Committee by the narrowest of margins (5-4). Also, the School Board vote was not unanimous (4 to 1) with one of the four in favor expressing reservations about the wisdom of the project before finally voting in the affirmative. Again, we support the other warrant articles but for all of
the reasons cited above we cannot recommend approving this expenditure of $2.55 million for an addition to the School.
Voting will take place on March 8,2011 at the School. We urge you to vote in person or, if you qualify, by absentee ballot. An absentee ballot can be obtained from the Town Clerk by calling 964-6029, or by email,sbuchanan@northhampton-nh.gov. Once filled out, mail to: Town Clerk, 237 Atlantic Avenue, North Hampton, NH 03862. If you have any questions, or want to join our email list, or just wish to
discuss this with one or all of us, please feel free to contact us by email at CTNH@comcast.net.
Thank you for your consideration of our views and recommendation.
Charles A. Gordon ,Richard H. Stanton, Don Gould
Dear Friend and Neighbor:
On March 8,2011 there will be a North Hampton School District election and there will be six money warrant articles for voter consideration. We support all but one. The purpose of this letter is first and foremost to urge you to become an informed voter and vote - in person or by absentee ballot. But we are also writing to inform you that we are opposed to the one warrant article to raise $2.55 million to
construct a 4-classroom addition at the North Hampton School. We believe now is the wrong time to propose an expenditure of this magnitude, that the proposal has not been carefully thought out and that it is not supported by the facts.
These are extremely difficult times. The economy is still in trouble, many people are out of work, and those living on Social Security are struggling to make ends meet. Closer to home, North Hampton is experiencing a steadily eroding tax base. Total valuation is now at 109o/o, which means that many properties are over valued; and this inevitably will generate an increase in the number and amounts of
legitimate abatement applications. Town revenues are significantly lower and the State is shifting more costs to municipalities (e.9. reduced share of Room and Meals Tax and increased mandated contributions to the State Retirement System). Finally, we may again become a "Donor Town", which means sending more North Hampton tax dollars to "less affluent" municipalities.
These distressing realities almost certainly mean significantly higher property taxes in the near future; and the days of reaching into the undesignated Fund Balance, or "Cookie Jar", to offset tax increases are coming to an end. This past year alone the Selectmen took $500,000 from the undesignated Fund
Balance to offset what would have been a tax increase of more than one dollar/1000, or 6.90/o, in a year when the official federal inflation rate was nil. Withdrawals of this magnitude are simply not sustainable.
We all know that the prices of gas and food have gone up substantially, yet retirees on Social Security have not received any increase for two years. This is the primary reason why we believe now is not the time to propose this $2.55 million dollar addition.
But there are additional reasons to oppose this proposal - namely that the School Board has not demonstrated a need for four new classrooms, two for kindergarten/preschool and two science labs.
Let's examine the Board's rationale and compare it to the facts. The Steering Committee Report which the School Board relied on as justification for this proposal claims that the quality of education will suffer if two new science labs are not built; but no empirical data was offered to support such a claim. Indeed, Principal Peter Sweet conceded in a recent meeting that no such data exists. This
unsupported claim from the Report is to be contrasted to School's "Report Card Academic Year 2009-2010" , dated February 2010 which contains the following comments on the performance of our students in the Sciences:
"In a composite of the 4th and 8th grade scores, we can report that we scored 13th out of 146 districts in Science, scoring better than 91% of the Districts in the state of New Hampshire. By comparison, last year we scored 24th of 149 districts in Science, scoring better than 84% of the other districts in NH." In other words, our students are performing a very high level and, indeed, are improving their
performance in Science, all without new science labs. Significantly, there is no mention in the Report Card of any need for new science labs or more classroom space.
The Report also cites the need for space to accommodate an "all day kindergarten" as a reason for the proposed expansion. While such an expansion would undoubtedly convenience some parents, we doubt that such a day long program is a compelling need, and it is not required by the state. Inexplicably, the School Board at its January 11th Public Hearing denied that all day kindergarten was being proposed at
all. lf so, why ask the taxpayers to fund two larger kindergarten classrooms?
The proposed addition sacrifices two classrooms for four classrooms, new bathrooms and storage space. The Steering Committee Report "...surmised (its term)that it is cost effective to create new restrooms rather than renovate existing ones." We strongly believe that decisions of this magnitude should not be surmised, or made based on conjecture and assumptions. With due respect to all of the members of the Steering Committee who worked on the Report and undoubtedly acted in the utmost good faith, we believe that the work was done hastily and did not give
sufficient consideration to other alternatives. While we do not dispute that there appears to be a need for more space in the School, given present enrollment, class sizes and special needs requirements, we do question whether all other alternatives were explored in depth. That the Steering Committee commenced its work in September 2010 and finished by early December 2010 suggests its work may have been rushed. Moreover, there is no mention of considering modular classrooms, renovations or
slightly increasing some class sizes as a means of freeing up additional space. We recognize that small class sizes are prized by educators, but like so many among us who have to get by with less, it may be appropriate to modestly increase class sizes for a few years. Our School enrollment peaked in 1999(538); it is now at 485. Some demographic projections for our state tell us that school populations
generally will decline because the "Baby Boomers" are now past child bearing age. The space issue may resolve itself.
One justification offered by the School Board for advancing this proposal now is that the current Bond, which financed the 1996 addition to the School,.is about to expire. Therefore, a new bond will not
increase our debt service. The annual debt service for the current bond is $332,827 -We suggest that instead of rushing to incur new debt, we give the taxpayers a "breather" for a few years in the form of lower taxes. Raising $333,000 every year means about thirty two cents on the tax rate. By not taking out another bond, we could all benefit from those savings.
We recognize and honor the need for excellence in our School and share the Town's pride in the many achievements of its Students and its fine Faculty and Administration. We are not necessarily opposed to an addition to the School; only the timing and what appears to have been a hurried analysis of alternatives. We believe that the test for all spending should be whether the proposed expenditure is
ESSENTIAL to maintain appropriate levels of Town and School services. A much more comprehensive analysis needs to be undertaken and all possible alternatives must be fully explored.
This proposal will appear on the School Ballot as a warrant article that needs 3/5 approval. It was approved by the Budget Committee by the narrowest of margins (5-4). Also, the School Board vote was not unanimous (4 to 1) with one of the four in favor expressing reservations about the wisdom of the project before finally voting in the affirmative. Again, we support the other warrant articles but for all of
the reasons cited above we cannot recommend approving this expenditure of $2.55 million for an addition to the School.
Voting will take place on March 8,2011 at the School. We urge you to vote in person or, if you qualify, by absentee ballot. An absentee ballot can be obtained from the Town Clerk by calling 964-6029, or by email,sbuchanan@northhampton-nh.gov. Once filled out, mail to: Town Clerk, 237 Atlantic Avenue, North Hampton, NH 03862. If you have any questions, or want to join our email list, or just wish to
discuss this with one or all of us, please feel free to contact us by email at CTNH@comcast.net.
Thank you for your consideration of our views and recommendation.
Charles A. Gordon ,Richard H. Stanton, Don Gould
2.17.2011
North Hampton residents please read
Vote down the North Hampton school bond proposal in March
To the Editor:
I attended the North Hampton Budget Committee meting Jan. 11 dealing with the $2.5 million school renovation project which was approved by a 5-4 vote.
I must say that the meeting was handled in a most orderly and civil manner. However, facts are difficult to ignore.
The facts are that we are in the middle of the worst fiscal crisis on the federal, state and town level since the 1929 Great Depression.
Families are struggling to find ways to cut spending and some cities and towns are on the verge of bankruptcy. Senior citizens have had their Social Security cost-of-living increase eliminated and yet the School Board is seeking ways to increase spending.
The School Board, comprised mainly of members with schoolchildren, has skewed the vote to accommodate its special interests. As a senior citizen myself, I've tried to represent those who had no representation and therefore do not know all the facts. There has to be a sense of fairness in any community to make it viable and transparent. To say spending is "for the children" and therefore seniors can be penalized by higher taxes and cuts in income (is wrong).
This is just not the time to raise taxes, so I hope the North Hampton community will turn down the school bond in March, not out of spite, but out of fairness to all.
Alan Williams
North Hampton
To the Editor:
I attended the North Hampton Budget Committee meting Jan. 11 dealing with the $2.5 million school renovation project which was approved by a 5-4 vote.
I must say that the meeting was handled in a most orderly and civil manner. However, facts are difficult to ignore.
The facts are that we are in the middle of the worst fiscal crisis on the federal, state and town level since the 1929 Great Depression.
Families are struggling to find ways to cut spending and some cities and towns are on the verge of bankruptcy. Senior citizens have had their Social Security cost-of-living increase eliminated and yet the School Board is seeking ways to increase spending.
The School Board, comprised mainly of members with schoolchildren, has skewed the vote to accommodate its special interests. As a senior citizen myself, I've tried to represent those who had no representation and therefore do not know all the facts. There has to be a sense of fairness in any community to make it viable and transparent. To say spending is "for the children" and therefore seniors can be penalized by higher taxes and cuts in income (is wrong).
This is just not the time to raise taxes, so I hope the North Hampton community will turn down the school bond in March, not out of spite, but out of fairness to all.
Alan Williams
North Hampton
2.09.2011
You make the call
By Jerry McConnell
In a FoxNews.com article online February 07, 2011 titled, “Why Can’t Obama Do the Math On Jobs?” economist and author John R. Lott, Jr. showed that the
oft-reported and widely trumpeted super intelligence of Barack Obama is far off the mark.
Lott reported that in an address to the U. S. Chamber of Commerce on that date, Obama’s message was that the Chamber, concurrently with the business world, has an obligation to start creating jobs; claiming that “the government has done what it needs to do and any failure lies with the private sector.”
What a bunch of crapola, as Archie Bunker would say; Obama saying that the government has done what it needs to do” is exactly backwards. The government has done what has caused the problems of unemployment with its insane fiscal policies forcing gigantic layoffs and terminations of employment in the workforce raising unemployment numbers to historic levels.
And Obama saying “any failure lies with the private sector” is equally fallacious. For the past two years since his inauguration the unemployment numbers have been steadily rising from less than five percent to above ten percent and currently just a tad below that. If he can’t see that, he is more blind and uncomprehending than a third grade student competing in a Mensa exam.
Unemployment is so bad that over 1.5 million Americans have left the workforce since August, according to John Lott. Ironically, these departures of work seekers from the unemployment rolls work against them as it causes the unemployment percentage numbers to decrease.
Obama: Any failure to create jobs is the problem of businesses
Lott goes on to say, “It is simply unprecedented that 19 months into the recovery, more and more Americans keep on quitting the labor force. But to President Obama, the failure for this anemic job growth is clear. He believes that government programs have created the ideal conditions for economic growth, and any failure to create jobs is the problem of
businesses.”
What government programs? The “Stimulus” program, still being referred to as the “Stinkulus” program by the public sector due to its lack of accomplishments in providing jobs for the unemployed certainly doesn’t qualify. The takeovers of the auto industry, banks, and now the medical profession are great examples of inefficiencies in government programs. It is apparent that the only ones benefiting from those government programs are labor union bosses who have cut themselves into the profits picture of the auto industry and exemptions from unpopular provisions of the ObamaCare health program.
In Obama’s weekly radio address on Saturday, Feb. 5th, cited by Lott, the President states, “Now, I understand the challenges you face. I understand that you’re under incredible pressure to cut costs and keep your margins up. I understand the significance of your obligations to your shareholders. But, ask yourselves what you can do to hire American workers, to support the American economy, and to invest in this nation.”
After mentioning Obama’s references to “subsidizing the research in green energy to ‘win the future,’ we just need to make more efficient lighting and windows to heating and cooling…make buildings more energy-efficient… making windows and insulation and buildings that save more energy.”
Arrogance of socialist central planners
Lott added: “This is the arrogance of socialist central planners: Obama believes he and his administration know better than individual companies how they can earn the most money. He has blamed the financial crisis on greedy banks and ascribed almost every other problem—from
Chrysler’s bankruptcy filing to higher oil prices—to greedy speculators. Today he talked of how government must protect Americans from “harm or exploitation” by businesses. His regulations have tried to “fix” this problem of greed. He is now appealing to businesses’ civic duty to create jobs for the good of the nation. President Obama might deny that he is a socialist but that is the logical end result of many of his current policies.”
I am in total agreement with Lott’s insistence that Obama, who has never been a businessman nor even labored in a business atmosphere, just doesn’t understand the business community. In his speech to the U. S. Chamber of Commerce he stated that he would push for corporate profits to be shared by American workers. Again, his Socialist nature comes through loud and clear; take from the rich and give to the poor.
By doing this he is in effect placing a tax on the corporations just the same as if he designated these funds that he takes from the business and gives to the workers as a tax. You know, ‘if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.’ and as Lott says, “It is just another way of increasing taxes. American companies already face the highest corporate tax rates in the world.
And the man keeps insisting that he hasn’t raised taxes! Super intelligent? You make the call.
In a FoxNews.com article online February 07, 2011 titled, “Why Can’t Obama Do the Math On Jobs?” economist and author John R. Lott, Jr. showed that the
oft-reported and widely trumpeted super intelligence of Barack Obama is far off the mark.
Lott reported that in an address to the U. S. Chamber of Commerce on that date, Obama’s message was that the Chamber, concurrently with the business world, has an obligation to start creating jobs; claiming that “the government has done what it needs to do and any failure lies with the private sector.”
What a bunch of crapola, as Archie Bunker would say; Obama saying that the government has done what it needs to do” is exactly backwards. The government has done what has caused the problems of unemployment with its insane fiscal policies forcing gigantic layoffs and terminations of employment in the workforce raising unemployment numbers to historic levels.
And Obama saying “any failure lies with the private sector” is equally fallacious. For the past two years since his inauguration the unemployment numbers have been steadily rising from less than five percent to above ten percent and currently just a tad below that. If he can’t see that, he is more blind and uncomprehending than a third grade student competing in a Mensa exam.
Unemployment is so bad that over 1.5 million Americans have left the workforce since August, according to John Lott. Ironically, these departures of work seekers from the unemployment rolls work against them as it causes the unemployment percentage numbers to decrease.
Obama: Any failure to create jobs is the problem of businesses
Lott goes on to say, “It is simply unprecedented that 19 months into the recovery, more and more Americans keep on quitting the labor force. But to President Obama, the failure for this anemic job growth is clear. He believes that government programs have created the ideal conditions for economic growth, and any failure to create jobs is the problem of
businesses.”
What government programs? The “Stimulus” program, still being referred to as the “Stinkulus” program by the public sector due to its lack of accomplishments in providing jobs for the unemployed certainly doesn’t qualify. The takeovers of the auto industry, banks, and now the medical profession are great examples of inefficiencies in government programs. It is apparent that the only ones benefiting from those government programs are labor union bosses who have cut themselves into the profits picture of the auto industry and exemptions from unpopular provisions of the ObamaCare health program.
In Obama’s weekly radio address on Saturday, Feb. 5th, cited by Lott, the President states, “Now, I understand the challenges you face. I understand that you’re under incredible pressure to cut costs and keep your margins up. I understand the significance of your obligations to your shareholders. But, ask yourselves what you can do to hire American workers, to support the American economy, and to invest in this nation.”
After mentioning Obama’s references to “subsidizing the research in green energy to ‘win the future,’ we just need to make more efficient lighting and windows to heating and cooling…make buildings more energy-efficient… making windows and insulation and buildings that save more energy.”
Arrogance of socialist central planners
Lott added: “This is the arrogance of socialist central planners: Obama believes he and his administration know better than individual companies how they can earn the most money. He has blamed the financial crisis on greedy banks and ascribed almost every other problem—from
Chrysler’s bankruptcy filing to higher oil prices—to greedy speculators. Today he talked of how government must protect Americans from “harm or exploitation” by businesses. His regulations have tried to “fix” this problem of greed. He is now appealing to businesses’ civic duty to create jobs for the good of the nation. President Obama might deny that he is a socialist but that is the logical end result of many of his current policies.”
I am in total agreement with Lott’s insistence that Obama, who has never been a businessman nor even labored in a business atmosphere, just doesn’t understand the business community. In his speech to the U. S. Chamber of Commerce he stated that he would push for corporate profits to be shared by American workers. Again, his Socialist nature comes through loud and clear; take from the rich and give to the poor.
By doing this he is in effect placing a tax on the corporations just the same as if he designated these funds that he takes from the business and gives to the workers as a tax. You know, ‘if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.’ and as Lott says, “It is just another way of increasing taxes. American companies already face the highest corporate tax rates in the world.
And the man keeps insisting that he hasn’t raised taxes! Super intelligent? You make the call.
Change is needed!!!
By John Gibson
We need CHANGE in Olympia, are you with me?
As a former state legislator, I find it hard to stay away from the fray. It is hard when you look around and watch those given the public trust, squander opportunities to do what is the best interest of a community or a state. It frustrates me to watch our elected leaders avoid the obvious solutions to the fiscal woes for political gain with varies public interest groups and if we do not change the way government does business, we face a bleak future.
As a Washington State resident since 2007, I saw firsthand how an out of control legislature worked with a Governor who never hold employment outside the public sector, take a record state budget surplus and turn it into an $6.4 Billion deficit and raised taxes across the board to pay for these excesses (34% increase in state spending since 2006).
The private sector in Washington State has taken the brunt of these tax hikes and results has been predictable; 27 months of an unemployment rate of 9% plus. Washington State has a so-called "living" minimum wage law that is tied with the Consumer Price Index rate and youth unemployment is nearing 50%.
Washington State has one of the highest tax rates on gasoline and other fossil fuels. Billions collected and still the greater Seattle area has some of the worst traffic congestion in the country. Nearly a $1 Billion was spent on 12 miles of light rail that nobody uses while The Washington State Department of Transportation currently has no available resources to tackle highway and road congestion head on but they have an idea to raise more revenue; build toll booths.
Now, the legislature is considering legalizing marijuana and selling it out of state run liquor stores to raise revenues to continue the out of control state spending by a one party dominated state government. They say it will be a net positive for the state. What are they smoking?
We deserve better from our elected officials. We struggle each month to pay the bills and we make the tough choices. Should we expect our elected officials to prioritize state spending based upon realistic revenue estimates? Should we expect our elected officials to make tough choices on spending priorities based upon need, not pie in the sky thinking? The answer is obvious.
Higher taxes and legalizing marijuana is not the answer to long term fiscal solvency. It is time for Olympia to be a steward for job growth by standing on the side of small businesses across Washington State. We can show America how it is done by getting our house in order. We can do this but we need to bring change to Olympia. Are you with me?
John Gibson is a former N.H. State Rep who now lives and works in Washington state.
We need CHANGE in Olympia, are you with me?
As a former state legislator, I find it hard to stay away from the fray. It is hard when you look around and watch those given the public trust, squander opportunities to do what is the best interest of a community or a state. It frustrates me to watch our elected leaders avoid the obvious solutions to the fiscal woes for political gain with varies public interest groups and if we do not change the way government does business, we face a bleak future.
As a Washington State resident since 2007, I saw firsthand how an out of control legislature worked with a Governor who never hold employment outside the public sector, take a record state budget surplus and turn it into an $6.4 Billion deficit and raised taxes across the board to pay for these excesses (34% increase in state spending since 2006).
The private sector in Washington State has taken the brunt of these tax hikes and results has been predictable; 27 months of an unemployment rate of 9% plus. Washington State has a so-called "living" minimum wage law that is tied with the Consumer Price Index rate and youth unemployment is nearing 50%.
Washington State has one of the highest tax rates on gasoline and other fossil fuels. Billions collected and still the greater Seattle area has some of the worst traffic congestion in the country. Nearly a $1 Billion was spent on 12 miles of light rail that nobody uses while The Washington State Department of Transportation currently has no available resources to tackle highway and road congestion head on but they have an idea to raise more revenue; build toll booths.
Now, the legislature is considering legalizing marijuana and selling it out of state run liquor stores to raise revenues to continue the out of control state spending by a one party dominated state government. They say it will be a net positive for the state. What are they smoking?
We deserve better from our elected officials. We struggle each month to pay the bills and we make the tough choices. Should we expect our elected officials to prioritize state spending based upon realistic revenue estimates? Should we expect our elected officials to make tough choices on spending priorities based upon need, not pie in the sky thinking? The answer is obvious.
Higher taxes and legalizing marijuana is not the answer to long term fiscal solvency. It is time for Olympia to be a steward for job growth by standing on the side of small businesses across Washington State. We can show America how it is done by getting our house in order. We can do this but we need to bring change to Olympia. Are you with me?
John Gibson is a former N.H. State Rep who now lives and works in Washington state.
2.07.2011
Protecting Muslims
By Dave Buhlman
US PROTECTING MUSLIM MURDERERS
It is so obvious that Islamic terrorists are slipping over our Southern border that even Janet, "Big Sis", Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, is aware of it. And it takes a lot to get her attention, unless of course you're an American gun owner who believes in the Bible. Big Sis does not like that group. Not at all. So she made a list, has checked it twice, and sent a copy to US Attorney General Eric, "Let 'Em Go", Holder to confirm that being a good American is not nice.
The dangerous impacts of allowing illegal immigration to continue are best displayed by the signs installed in Arizona by the federal government that warn Americans to avoid certain areas of Arizona because of illegal activities perpetrated by foreigners. Thus has the federal government handed control over a section of the United States to foreigners. If Americans cannot go into this area, under the protection of the laws of the United States, this area is no longer ours, as allowed by the Obama Administration and its elitist supporters. It has, in essence, been ceded to Mexico.
This is just the way the elite want it, and all signs point to their intent to make things worse for American citizens, both in the de facto surrender of US territory, and in their encouragement of illegal entry into the United States. This is obvious.
The United States has the most powerful military force in the world today. Given this, it would be relatively easy to thwart illegal immigration of all kinds, but especially the Muslim terrorist variety, by deploying at least a Division of Marines on the border to bolster the brave Border Patrol agents. Why fool around when our country is under attack? This Division would secure our Southern border and then, to make things quite clear, conduct an incursion ten miles into Mexico to temporarily establish a new border to the south of the Rio Grande River. One of their missions would be to kill as many members of murderous drug cartels as possible. These slugs are good at murdering unarmed civilians. Let's see how they do when they face the United States Marines. Or run like hell from them, which is more likely. The United States has to do this to protect out country because it's ever so clear that the Mexican government is powerless to do much of anything. We cannot allow their ineptitude to put the territory and people of the United States in harm's way any longer.
Border Patrol agents, law enforcement officers, and other American citizens have been murdered by foreigners on American soil. That's an act of war, and one that is quietly sanctioned by both the Mexican government and elitists in this country.
If we do not send this clear signal to the world, we will be seen as so weak that we will not even defend our own land. That is not America. Not by a long shot.
Dave Buhlman is a former two-term New Hampshire State Representative.
US PROTECTING MUSLIM MURDERERS
It is so obvious that Islamic terrorists are slipping over our Southern border that even Janet, "Big Sis", Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, is aware of it. And it takes a lot to get her attention, unless of course you're an American gun owner who believes in the Bible. Big Sis does not like that group. Not at all. So she made a list, has checked it twice, and sent a copy to US Attorney General Eric, "Let 'Em Go", Holder to confirm that being a good American is not nice.
The dangerous impacts of allowing illegal immigration to continue are best displayed by the signs installed in Arizona by the federal government that warn Americans to avoid certain areas of Arizona because of illegal activities perpetrated by foreigners. Thus has the federal government handed control over a section of the United States to foreigners. If Americans cannot go into this area, under the protection of the laws of the United States, this area is no longer ours, as allowed by the Obama Administration and its elitist supporters. It has, in essence, been ceded to Mexico.
This is just the way the elite want it, and all signs point to their intent to make things worse for American citizens, both in the de facto surrender of US territory, and in their encouragement of illegal entry into the United States. This is obvious.
The United States has the most powerful military force in the world today. Given this, it would be relatively easy to thwart illegal immigration of all kinds, but especially the Muslim terrorist variety, by deploying at least a Division of Marines on the border to bolster the brave Border Patrol agents. Why fool around when our country is under attack? This Division would secure our Southern border and then, to make things quite clear, conduct an incursion ten miles into Mexico to temporarily establish a new border to the south of the Rio Grande River. One of their missions would be to kill as many members of murderous drug cartels as possible. These slugs are good at murdering unarmed civilians. Let's see how they do when they face the United States Marines. Or run like hell from them, which is more likely. The United States has to do this to protect out country because it's ever so clear that the Mexican government is powerless to do much of anything. We cannot allow their ineptitude to put the territory and people of the United States in harm's way any longer.
Border Patrol agents, law enforcement officers, and other American citizens have been murdered by foreigners on American soil. That's an act of war, and one that is quietly sanctioned by both the Mexican government and elitists in this country.
If we do not send this clear signal to the world, we will be seen as so weak that we will not even defend our own land. That is not America. Not by a long shot.
Dave Buhlman is a former two-term New Hampshire State Representative.
2.06.2011
Me and Ronald Reagan
By Ron Dupuis
Picture it. The year is 1966. A young battle tested (yet still boyishly good looking) recently discharged Marine is attempting to adjust to civilian life by matriculating college. The change is difficult. There are fraternities to pledge, social events to attend, and a whole array of organizations to join. The SBBS or “Students for Better Beer Society” is one that shows a lot of promise. To keep it all in perspective there are also courses to register for and classes to attend.
Every story needs a love interest. For this one it’s a California beauty named Sandy Nardella. Blonde, blue eyed, thin, and so tall her perfectly shaped leg’s seemed to go on forever. If not the inspiration of the Beach Boys 1965 hit song California Girls, she certainly could have been.
One day the California beauty invites a Political Science class to help out at a local campaign office. The young, yet still boyishly good looking, still adjusting student jumps at the opportunity without even asking who the candidate was or what the issues were. At the time he would have turned Democrat in order to impress the California beauty.
Stuffing envelopes for a gubernatorial candidate is a somewhat menial task. Especially for our young friend who had but a minimal interest in politics. If, however, accomplishing such a boring task would lead to a closer relationship with classmate “California girl”, the attitude was “so be it.”
It is amazing how quickly things can change. Suddenly the door opened and the candidate himself entered the room. He was a tall man in his mid fifties, wearing a dark business type suit buttoned in the middle. His shirt was white and crisply starched, and his stripped tie was in a Windsor knot. His rugged face was well tanned. Not the type of tan you see around Orange County, but instead the kind someone receives from spending a great amount of time outdoors. He moved about the room with not only an air of confidence, but also a touch of humility. He offered praise, but more importantly was not afraid to asked the lowest of minions what they thought of the literature they were working on and the campaign in general. He was sincerely interested.
Our young student friend did not get to speak to the candidate, or even shake his hand. He was introduced from across the room as “Sandy’s friend over there stuffing envelopes” and did receive a high wave, accompanied by a nod of the head that could only mean “thank you”. That was enough. This is not to say that our young friend experienced and epiphany that day. Dating Miss California long legs was still important. Enjoying collage life and all the social amenities that went along with it was still important. He did however realize for that one brief moment in time he was not only in the presence of greatness, but also received a sincere signal of approval from a man who was likely go on to do great things for not only the State of California, but also our country and the entire world. End of story.
I’m sure being President of the United States and gearing up for what most people belive to be a difficult re-election bid at best,would put a strain on the best of us. In order to capture the prize you have to do and say things in public that you would rather not do even in the most private of moments. Shameless pandering is the name of the game. Recently President Obama received rebuke for invoking the name of President Ronald Reagan. As well he should. Reagan was a staunch conservative in every sense of the word who felt that negotiating with our enemies should be done from a position of strength. Obama is exactly the opposite.
Mr. Obama, I’ve followed Ronald Wilson Reagan’s career, from his election as Governor in the sixties until his death in 2004, and I can truly say “Sir, you’re no Ronald Reagan”.
Picture it. The year is 1966. A young battle tested (yet still boyishly good looking) recently discharged Marine is attempting to adjust to civilian life by matriculating college. The change is difficult. There are fraternities to pledge, social events to attend, and a whole array of organizations to join. The SBBS or “Students for Better Beer Society” is one that shows a lot of promise. To keep it all in perspective there are also courses to register for and classes to attend.
Every story needs a love interest. For this one it’s a California beauty named Sandy Nardella. Blonde, blue eyed, thin, and so tall her perfectly shaped leg’s seemed to go on forever. If not the inspiration of the Beach Boys 1965 hit song California Girls, she certainly could have been.
One day the California beauty invites a Political Science class to help out at a local campaign office. The young, yet still boyishly good looking, still adjusting student jumps at the opportunity without even asking who the candidate was or what the issues were. At the time he would have turned Democrat in order to impress the California beauty.
Stuffing envelopes for a gubernatorial candidate is a somewhat menial task. Especially for our young friend who had but a minimal interest in politics. If, however, accomplishing such a boring task would lead to a closer relationship with classmate “California girl”, the attitude was “so be it.”
It is amazing how quickly things can change. Suddenly the door opened and the candidate himself entered the room. He was a tall man in his mid fifties, wearing a dark business type suit buttoned in the middle. His shirt was white and crisply starched, and his stripped tie was in a Windsor knot. His rugged face was well tanned. Not the type of tan you see around Orange County, but instead the kind someone receives from spending a great amount of time outdoors. He moved about the room with not only an air of confidence, but also a touch of humility. He offered praise, but more importantly was not afraid to asked the lowest of minions what they thought of the literature they were working on and the campaign in general. He was sincerely interested.
Our young student friend did not get to speak to the candidate, or even shake his hand. He was introduced from across the room as “Sandy’s friend over there stuffing envelopes” and did receive a high wave, accompanied by a nod of the head that could only mean “thank you”. That was enough. This is not to say that our young friend experienced and epiphany that day. Dating Miss California long legs was still important. Enjoying collage life and all the social amenities that went along with it was still important. He did however realize for that one brief moment in time he was not only in the presence of greatness, but also received a sincere signal of approval from a man who was likely go on to do great things for not only the State of California, but also our country and the entire world. End of story.
I’m sure being President of the United States and gearing up for what most people belive to be a difficult re-election bid at best,would put a strain on the best of us. In order to capture the prize you have to do and say things in public that you would rather not do even in the most private of moments. Shameless pandering is the name of the game. Recently President Obama received rebuke for invoking the name of President Ronald Reagan. As well he should. Reagan was a staunch conservative in every sense of the word who felt that negotiating with our enemies should be done from a position of strength. Obama is exactly the opposite.
Mr. Obama, I’ve followed Ronald Wilson Reagan’s career, from his election as Governor in the sixties until his death in 2004, and I can truly say “Sir, you’re no Ronald Reagan”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)