The Left suffers from Desmondism

-- by Micheal

Listening to left-leaning media, ever since the election, one can still hear their disbelief that their candidate lost. "Inconceivable!" The shock of defeat is quite normal -- for a few days after the event. It's been two months now, and still they can't believe it.

They had their cozy alt-left world, their rose-colored glasses which saw only the good things about their cosmology. They had their leftist academics reassuring them that they were absolutely right.

Turned out, they were wrong after all. The entire nation did not love and approve of them. Their bull had not walked through the nation's china shop without toppling so much as a cup.

The Left's denial of reminded me of Norma Desmond. She is the character (played by Gloria Swanson) in that great 1950 film-noir "Sunset Boulevard." It's a great analogy for the Left today. If you haven't seen the film, here's a quick synopsis to illustrate Desmondism.

Norma Desmond was an over-the-hill silent film star in the age of "talkies". Hollywood had moved on since her glory days. She had not had a role in a film for years. Cloistered in her mansion, she watched private screenings of her old films, rhapsodic about the superiority of the good old days. "We didn't need voices," she scoffed. "We had faces." Desmond dreams of her dramatic return to the silver screen. She is shielded from reality by her butler-driver-exHusband, Max. Even though he's a castoff from Desmond's grace, he protects her by insulating her from reality. She earnestly believes Hollywood adores her and wants her back.

In one poignant scene, the phone rings. It is the office of Cecil B. DeMille, famous director. Desmond is ecstatic. They want her.  The crushing reality, which both Max and her writer shield her from, is that DeMille wanted to use her old car in a film, not her. Poor Desmond slips a bit further into her private world of delusion.

The bittersweet denouement is the scene in which DeMille and everyone on the set realize Desmond's delusion and play along. They let her have her comeback scene, filming her walking slowly down a majestic stairway. Everyone, but Desmond, knows the film will be thrown away. It was only an act of charity.

Listening to The Left, ever since the election, they sound like Norma Desmond. They wallow in their old 'glory days' and disparage the new world as so obviously inferior to 'their' world. The Left still cannot fathom why the nation is not in love with their "faces."

The mainstream media are like Max. They continually shield The Left from the harsh news that their faces are not so very loved.

Rather like the ending of the film, The Left got their slow walk down the majestic staircase, but the film the nation was making was not about them.  They still can't believe it.

---

20 Bucks and Backdoor Sexism

-- by Micheal

There is campaign afoot to replace Andrew Jackson's image on the twenty dollar bill with the image of a woman -- any woman. Apparently, it doesn't matter who, at this point.

Senator Shaheen has jumped on this bandwagon. This issue may be less substantial than the ill-fated Red-Tailed Hawk legislation on the Trite & Trivial scale. Given all the issues this nation has to grapple with, any effort spent on such triviality is proof of shirking.

The fact that the campaign does not care who the woman might be, is proof of sexism. It only has to be a woman to satisfy them. If what really matters is her sex, it's sexism. The fact that they're rooting for the pink team instead of the blue, doesn't change it.

Associate professor Stephen Mihum had an editorial in the Union Leader on this issue. He was just as sexist in his rooting for the pink team. Like a good academic, he cited history. Images of women had appeared on our money before, albeit in allegorical form (Lady Liberty, Columbia, etc.). He snarked at the fact that such allegories were young and shapely, implying that men liked the designs for libidinal reasons only. Stereotyping, anyone? Real women, apparently, cannot be young or shapely.

Allegorical women weren't enough. Mihum pointed out how real women's images had also appeared on money before too -- Susan B. Anthony, Sacagawea -- but that wasn't enough either. No explanation was offered for why.

Mihum's primary criticism for why Jackson, or any other former president, should have their image on our money, is because they are "dead white men". Academics have a particular dislike for dead white men -- perhaps because they can't fight back.

Once again, the deciding factor was gender. Jackson should be out because he's a man. He's being voted off the island because of his sex and nothing else. Why isn't this sexism?

The bottom line? Sexism is perfectly acceptable, as long as you're rooting for the pink team.

New Places to Fail

--- by Micheal

Liberal materialism has never yet succeeded, yet this current administration is eager to find a new place for it to fail. State Departments spokesperson, Maria Haft, said that the solution to ISIS brutality is job opportunity. They are only evil, apparently, because they can't get good jobs. Seriously. She meant it.

This is just the newest version of the old liberal materialist philosophy.  This thinking believes that people are really only animals. If their physical needs are sufficiently satisfied, the animal will behave. People-animals do bad things because their needs are not being met. Hungry, sick, bored. Therefore, the thinking goes, if we can just supply their physical needs, they will be docile and well-behaved. They'll be good sheep.

Such thinking was behind the LBJ-era's "Great Society" programs. It lurks beneath almost every liberal program. Poor people commit crimes because they're poor (i.e. cold, hungry, bored). If the state were to house them, feed them and give them plenty of entertainment, they would be well-behaved sheep. There is no inherent evil in people, only unmet needs -- unfulfilled desires.

That's how the mind-set goes, but has it ever worked? Over the forty years of Great Society "investment" -- trillions of dollars spent to supply needs -- not much has improved. The "poor" in this country are far better off than they were fifty or sixty years ago: materially. They are vastly better off than most other people on earth. A "poor" American would be middle class in most third world nations.  Yet, life is no more peaceful than it was fifty years ago. In many ways, it's worse.

Once people internalize liberal materialism -- "I am nothing but an animal seeking to satisfy my desires" -- there is no lasting satisfaction. No matter how much the state gives people for free, they will expect more. In fact, they will riot and loot and kill to get more. Why not? They're just animals.

Now the State Department seeks to apply this failed mind-set to Islamic Extremists: ISIS. They only want to kill us because they don't have jobs. If they had steady "living wage" jobs doing menial things, enough to buy a big TV and some nice clothes, they wouldn't hate so much. They don't have money to get the things they desire, so they hate and kill -- in very animalistic ways.

Give them a guaranteed minimum income. Give them food subsidies. Give them free phones and free healthcare. (Free healthcare is expected to solve almost everything.) Give them free community college and work programs. Make sure they're entertained. Oh, and surprisingly, fix Global Warming, and they will be happy. If we just give the extremists a cushy life, they'll be good sheep.

The reason classic liberal materialism has always failed, is that its foundation is wrong. People are not simply animals with needs. (ala B.F. Skinner, et al.) Human beings have a spirit, a soul, and an innate tendency to choose evil instead of good. (The "fallen man" principle)  As proof of this, even well-fed, well-entertained people have committed terrible crimes. Lack of cushy was not their problem.

Evil does exist. It has since the Garden of Eden. People are not simply material creatures with urges, needs and desires. People are spiritual beings and as such, can (and do) choose to be evil. Pretending that evil people are simply underfed or under-entertained or under-employed is delusional.

A lack of jobs is not the problem with ISIS. A jobs program will do nothing other than look like this administration is doing something. It's a new place to fail.

The Lie of Carbon Taxes

by Micheal

Every now and then, the Tax Zealots try floating a carbon tax by the public to see if they can get away with it or not.  The answer is usually: not.  So, being clever taxists, they don't push, but sink back into the shadows to bide their time and try the exact same sales pitch a little later to see if it will work that time.

I just heard the idea floated again on the radio. The sales pitch is that a carbon tax is only fair. Why? Because energy costs (such as the price of a gallon of gasoline) does not include the "cost" of carbon emissions.  So, the Tax Zealots propose that fairness dictates that we all pay for those unseen expenses we've been incurring.

The trouble is, they never point to those supposed carbon costs or how the government is already paying for those. There's never a number. It's never explained why the government should collect these carbon costs funds. How and where has the government been paying for "carbon pollution?"  They haven't, of course. That's part of the lie.

The politician quoted on the radio obliquely admitted that the funds raised from the carbon tax could do all kinds of nice (big government, nanny state) things.  Never, did any of them say they would use the funds collected to correct the supposed carbon pollution damage. They won't fix Global Warming. They won't stop the seas from rising. They won't reverse droughts. They'll let those things go on of their own accord, much as they always are anyhow. No taxes collected on carbon will go towards offsetting anything the carbon is lamented as doing.

The real goal is simply to find another tax revenue cow they can milk. This cow is even more ephemeral than how highway taxes or tobacco taxes are already collected for one (supposed) good work, yet funneled into general fund coffers for use in just about anything but the reason they were collected. Why, on earth, would something as vague as a carbon tax be magically different?

It would be like the Tax Zealots saying that adding a tax to, say, peanuts, is "only fair" to offset the costs of damage done to farmers' fields by elephants. Except, the government is spending no money to help those farmers to fix their fields. No Peanut Tax money would ever go to the farmers. It would simply enable the taxists to buy more of whatever shiny things have caught their eye.

The lie keeps being trotted out and tested on the public. The tactic is probably to wear the public down, or keep repeating the lie long enough that enough people are fooled into believing it.

When someone suggests that a carbon tax is "fair", ask them where the carbon tax money will go -- specifically. Their evasive non-answer should prove entertaining.

Toxic Narcissism

-- by Micheal

Okay, this blog has sat idle far too long. So, I'm going to post something even if no one reads it.

Why do people need to "See Themselves"? Why? Because modern liberalism has become racist.

A recent NPR story talked about the lack of diversity in the high-tech sector. It's still a lot of young white males. The same with venture capitalists. Mostly why guys. One black venture capitalist lamented to the journalist that as he walked around a VC conference, he did not see people like himself.

We're told that public schools have been quietly re-segregating themselves ever since the Grand Experiment of Desegregation forced mixing. But, the majority of school teachers tend to be white females. Kids of color "need" (we're told) to see teachers who look like them.

We're told that kids need story books have protagonists that look like the reader. Cereal boxes that show cartoon children enjoying the sugary breakfast need to depict an idealized racial mix. One black kid, one asian kid, one hispanic kid and maybe a white kid. Maybe. Why? Kids want to eat cereal with cartoon pictures that look like them.

For crying out loud! Why do we need to "see ourselves"? The people to follow, admire, eat cereal with -- must be of our own race! Isn't this the very "racism" we've been taught for decades to avoid?

Having come up through public school in the 60s and 70s, I had it beaten into me by the progressive liberal educational system, that I should be "color blind." It should not matter if a person is black or red or yellow or green. We were taught to treat the person as a person.

My teachers succeeded. I don't care what color a person is. I could watch The Jeffersons and laugh without being black or needing to "see myself" in the cast. I could eat cereal from a box that only had black and asian kid cartoon characters on it and still enjoy the cereal. I did not need to "see myself." I could admire a couple of my teachers for their dedication, wit and expertise without even thinking of what race they were. My personal heroes did not have to look like me. I was okay with that. I really didn't want to look like John Wayne anyhow.

Not content with color-blindness success, modern liberalism has become obsessed with superficial diversity. They assume that if kids can "see themselves" on TV or cereal boxes, they will somehow aspire to be more than an EBT user.

Instead, they are preaching the opposite of what my enlightened 60s teachers tried to do. They are subtly teaching that race really does matter. We somehow need to surrounded by people "of our own kind."  If seeing one black teacher is good for black kids, isn't a whole school full of black teachers BETTER for black kids?

This sort of racial narcissism is toxic to our society. We're poisoning the US with demands of ME.

Obama Slays Another Straw Man

-- by Micheal

In remarks during a speech in Maryland on Thursday, Obama attempts to make himself look progressive by besting a fake foe.  Obama claimed that president Rutherford B. Hayes failed to get his image carved on Mount Rushmore because he thought the new telephone technology was a waste of time.

Really? That's the best Obama could do? Dig up an obscure president from the 1870s to prove how forward-thinking HE is? That would be pretty lame, even if it were true, which it is not.

First off, there are only four presidents on Mount Rushmore. When it was begun in the 1920s, there had been 34 presidents. That meant that 30 of them did not make the cut. So how significant is it, really, to NOT be on Mount Rushmore? Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt were selected because they either protected the republic, or expanded it. Technophilia was never a criteria.

Second, there is no record that Hayes ever said 'It's a great invention but who would ever want to use one?'.  Like many a famous line, it's more urban legend than real history.  As a matter of fact, Nan Card, curator of the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center said there's no record Hayes ever said that, and that Hayes was actually the first president to have a telephone in the White House.

So, Obama tries to show how forward thinking he is, by citing a fake "failure" of a minor president from over 100 years ago, with false facts.

Lame as it is, it will probably work for Obama. To paraphrase Santayana: Those who are clueless about history, are doomed to be duped by politicians who fabricate it.

The OTHER 1%

--- by Micheal

When I walked to South Station in Boston on Monday, I noticed all the "Occupy Boston" folks, and tents and signs were gone. All there was were policemen, barricades and fresh green sod.  I'd seen the crudely made cardboard signs on my evening commute. "We are the 99%" some said.  Since they, the 99, seemed to have nothing to do with me, and I wasn't the evil rich 1%, I had to wonder what percent I was. Zero maybe?

The whole "Occupy" movement was crafted to resemble the popular uprisings in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt.  What was totally lacking, however, was any kind of a similar coherent message. As demonstrators, they had no demand that could be granted. The arab youth demanded that Ben Ali, or Mubarak or Kadafi be removed. The old anti-war protesters of the 60s had a demand: stop the war.  There was something the authorities to could do. Some action to satisfy the protesters. The Occupy groups, had no collective demand.  The could never be satisfied.

Instead, they seemed to have had a bunch of pre-existing demands -- Capitalism is Bad, Stop Greed, Free Healthcare For All, Legalize Marijuana, Stop Global Warming, End Nuclear Power, Stop Wars, Stop Supporting Israel, etc. etc.  Google "OWS Signs", and see some for yourself.  There is no coherence to them.  There is also nothing new to them.

It occurred to me, riding the bus back home, that these were all the old "Progressive" agenda items from the past forty years. These people have always been with us. There has always been some small percentage of our population which rants about something or other. 

They are the other one percent. Not the richest 1%, but the angriest 1%. 

They don't agree on what their issue d' jour is: whales, nukes, healthcare, war, weed, greed, whatever. What they agree on is that they're angry the world isn't doing things the way they want. These are the vocal, angry one percent who were sufficiently funded from somewhere, to camp in city squares, chant and hold cardboard signs.  When they held up their signs declaring they are the 99%, they were apparently very wrong.  They are not the 99%, They are just a different 1%.  The lack of any popular uprising, as in the Arab Spring countries, should prove this out. The real 99 did not rally behind this other 1%.

Speaking as one of the real 99, I don't mind that this other 1% are submerging again.

Who Is Responsible?

--- by Micheal

A recent article in the Union Leader titled "Suit dropped over defective deer stand" (11/22, p B1) raises the critical question of Who Is Responsible?  In the article, we learned that a man fell from a "defective" tree stand and was "permanently injured."

Tragic, right? Someone's got to pay for this injustice. Right? So, whether on his own gumption or pursued by lawyers eager to become the 1%, the land owner was sued. How dare he have defective personal property? How irresponsible. Make him pay!

Trouble was, the man who gave the hunter permission was not the property owner. In fact, the real property owner never installed tree stands. Oops. Sorry. Suit dropped. Nevermind.

But wait. If the land owner isn't responsible, who is? Someone has to be responsible, don't they? Whenever anything goes wrong (or at least not the way we wanted it to), someone (else) must be responsible and so should pay big-time.  That's what's made America what it is today!

Problem is, Mr. Jasmin is still "permanently injured" (whatever that means). Whose fault is it? By dropping the suit, the lawyers seem to be admitting that it might just be Jasmin's own fault. He climbed the tree. He sat in the stand. Did he check it out to see if it was sturdy enough first? Does Jasmin have a legal right to go hunting and never get hurt? What if he tripped and hit his head on a rock? Who do you sue then?

Admittedly, I don't have all the background facts, but simply dropping the suit is evidence enough. Mr. Jasmin was responsible for himself. His "permanent injury" is his own problem, no one else's.

This is a legal decision that needs to be applied all over our litigious quagmire of a culture. You are NOT a ward of the state. You are an adult, responsible for your own actions -- and the results of them. If you put hot coffee between your legs and get scaled, that's your problem.  If you use your lawnmower as a hedge trimmer and cut off your finger, that's your problem. If you are too obese to fit into a fast-food booth, that's your problem.

Want to stimulate the economy? Stop accepting the stifling culture of frivolous litigation. The law can protect us from swindlers and malice, but it should never be used as a substitute for our responsibility for ourselves.

Seeking Non-Romney

-- by Micheal

What is it about Romney that makes the larger GOP keep looking for anyone else to be their front runner?

First it was Bachmann. Best thing since sliced bread. Then she faded out. After some muddled anticipation that it might be Palin, Perry jumps in. Almost instantly, HE is acclaimed as Sliced Bread.

After a bit of exposure, and some foot-in-mouth trouble, Perry loses his Sliced Bread crown. Almost as if the GOP power brokers didn't want Romney grabbing it, they quickly bestow it upon Herman Cain. HE is the new Sliced Bread.

After a bit of exposure, and some pesky accusations, Cain had the Sliced Bread crown yanked from his hands too.  Again, there seemed to be an awkward silence in GOP land, as if trying to decide who else to crown. (but not Romney)  Now it seems like Gingrich is being given his turn as Sliced Bread king.

After a bit of exposure, will Gingrich have the crown yanked from him? Most likely.

The open question is, why is the GOP machine trying so hard to NOT pick Romney?

It all reminds me of 3rd grade and picking teams for softball. The pool of kids has narrowed to Robin, the fat girl who just could not run, Miller the special needs kid, and myself.  The two team captains squint long and hard at the three of us. Finally, the one captain picks Robin.  Then it's down to me and Miller. The other captain takes even longer to decide between me and Miller.

Seriously? It's that hard to decide? Miller, nice kid in his own way, but could not put his two hands together without a half-hour of practice with the teacher's aide. Catch a ball? Not a chance.

But the other captain picked Miller over me.  The "losing" captain rolls his eyes and whines that he got me. Solid leadership material, that captain.

I have to wonder if Romney feels like I did.  The GOP seems eager to pick ANYONE else but him, no matter how bad. Why? What bones does he have under HIS bed? Or is it that he's as charismatic as, say, a slice of bread?

If the GOP is forced to pick a slice of bread to run against Obama, it would seem Obama will probably win.

Where are the atheists?

--- by Micheal

They should be crawling out of the woodwork, but I'll just bet they won't.  Just this week I attended a ribbon-cutting ceremony to dedicate a new federal building. For the most part, it was your usual government "event." Agency managers and directors were on hand. A city official was there, as was the expected congressman and staff from other congressmen. Each gave the usual congratulatory speeches. Nothing for anyone to care much about.

It was the last part of the ceremony that should have spawned howls of violated civil rights, but did not.

A chief of a local native american tribe, and two of his cousins, conducted a "blessing" ceremony. After "cleansing" the two cousins and the drum with smoke, one cousin took the smoldering (whatever it was), walked around the group, then smudged the ribbon with smolder soot. The other cousin sang loudly a prayer of blessing and banged his hand drum. The words of the song, the chief told the crowd, translated to "Our Creator, we give thanks."

Now, I would venture that most of the assembled crowd did not believe that the tribe's Creator was real, nor share their native faith. I didn't share their faith, but was not particularly bothered or offended.

Where were the atheists feeling uncomfortable at someone pushing a faith on them? Where was the zealous ACLU lawyer bemoaning a government (apparent) endorsement of a religion?  Only time will tell, but I predict that will be no atheist outrage. There will be no ACLU action on this -- ever.

Can you imagine if the local manager (a good woman, really) had invited the pastor of a local church to give a prayer of blessing? If a local priest had sprinkled the ribbon with holy water? The outrage would rattle the rafters.

Of course, this local agency, being well steeped in political correctness, would never have even asked a pastor or a priest to speak, but what if they had? Some atheist in the crowd would have had their psyche wounded deeply. Some ACLU lawyers would have waved their pitchforks about the separation of church and state, blah blah blah.

The obvious truth is that the fragile atheists who run to their lawyers are not really atheists, but anti-God-ists. More particularly, they are anti-christian.  The proof of this, is exposed in what they complain about, and what is allowed -- without a peep of protest.

Stop political campaign contributions!!! What a great idea.

By Jerry McConnell

Just don’t count on it ever happening though; there are too many greedy fingers in that pot of lucre.

What prompted me to write this column advocating that well-intentioned people who start with an idea that they would like to serve their fellow citizens in a government position, elected or appointed and the next thing you know they are hardened political fixtures in a dog eat dog arena.

Whatever happened to the good thoughts and ideas of trying to help one’s neighbors by performing public service? It probably all started many years ago in a relatively small town that was in need of people to take the lead in gathering the groups of people who came to America to get away from foreign despots who ruled cruelly and uncivilly.



Eventually some did step forward, unsolicited and took charge of a situation that was for the benefit of all of the people who had gathered there, wherever ‘there’ may have been. Those who volunteered their own time to see to the needs of others were the first appearances of what we today call politicians.

But Oh Dear God; where did we go wrong? Was it when the first settler forced a few pennies into the palm of the unelected leader for doing such a service to his friends and neighbors; or was it when those settlers found that there was a great need for someone to lead them and show them how a community should operate? Or both?

At any rate, the politicians were born of those circumstances; they just didn’t know that they were politicians until someone else among the group decided that the first fellow who stepped forward seemed to be doing quite well with the small amount of gratuities that he received for “helping” his fellow man.



It was then that the lust for some of that gratuitous lucre, be it in pennies or other ‘in kind’ materials of value such as food, clothing or other hardware goods. And as custom would have it, those services became a standard part of daily living, so the spirit of competition got embedded in others to step forward and offer their services, as they preached that they could do a better job than that first fellow. Sound familiar?

Well you can see where this is going and you know where it went and how the politician was born. As is so hugely apparent today the dominating factor then as it is today was greed. Only today, it is totally out of control to the point where individuals become different people from what they were with pre-political persona.

On August 17, 2011 FoxNews.com published an online report titled “Starbucks Claims Widespread Support for CEO’s Call to Boycott Campaign Donations” authored by Judson Berger in which the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz claimed that the company has “rallied ‘hundreds’ of people to support a call by Schultz to suspend campaign contributions until Congress and the president produce a long-term deficit reduction plan.”

Now that’s what I call ‘high-level’ clear thinking and not just more of ‘let’s see just how much we can give this guy to do things our way’. Schultz has clearly become a leader in trying to “cut off the fundraising spigot.” Berger says Schultz even wrote in a memo, “This effort is not concerned with helping or hurting one party or another - it’s about applying pressure on all those now in office to compromise for the good of the country.”

Of course, the sticking point is that if both sides of the mess in Washington were to compromise, we would essentially be in the same sad and sorry spot as we are now. Looking at the big picture, the Democrats want more revenues coming in; that is exactly why they wanted the debt ceiling raised. To spend more money they HAD TO HAVE the debt ceiling raised. And to get more revenues they want to raise taxes.

Their compromise is to cut as little as possible of their spending habits, and raise taxes while continuing “business as usual” meaning, continued deficits and additions to the national debt.

The Republicans have nothing to compromise as they favor higher amounts of reduced spending and no increases in taxes. These are not compromises they are necessities. If they, the Republicans, compromise it has to be to agree to tax increases and no cuts in spending, both of which contribute to a continuation of a higher national debt.

Maybe Starbucks can convince the Democrats that excessive spending has to stop and taxes should not be raised as that takes a toll on businesses resulting in job losses.

The real answer is Term Limits; one term not to exceed six years. It would save money by not having to hold national elections every two years. And our Congress would not be mired down in reelection campaigning which, now in the House, is a continual process and the fountainhead from which corruption and greed are born.

No campaign funds are needed if there are no reelections. One six-year term and we have returned to the Founders dreams of a civilian legislature.

Why the Lust for Revenue?

--- by Micheal

Throughout the protracted debate of raising the debt ceiling, it became clear that the two parties disagreed most on the question of taxes. The Republicans -- especially the new Tea Party representatives, vowed to oppose any new taxes. The Democrats, Obama and the congressional leaders, were equally adamant that trimming the deficit required increased revenue. More taxes.

As Obama and the various Democrat leaders gave their speeches, they kept beating the old drum about making the top 1% of Americans "pay their fair share". That certainly sounds reasonable enough, but it presumes that they're not.

So, I did a little online research. Who is paying the bulk of the income tax in America. Are middle Americans shouldering the lion's share and the top 1% skating? The answer wasn't hard to find, but it was surprising. The top 1% pay about 38% of the nation's income tax revenue. The top 5% pay over half of it. The top 50% of income earners pay over 97% of the nation's income taxes. That means the bottom 50% pay less than 3%. What do we get to label as "fair"?

Now, from figures like this, it's hard to understand what the Democrats are so angry about regarding those top 1%. They ARE paying, and more (percentage of income-wise) than the lower 99%. What's the problem?

The problem, I think, is that the Democrat mindset just cannot abide by anyone having more money than they (the Dems) feel is proper. You may recall President Obama chatting (hypothetically?) about him having a hundred thousand he didn't need which he could use to put a poor student through school, etc. The revealing part of that comment was the notion that wealth above a certain line is "unneeded," and therefore ought to become property of the state. (The Dems don't speechify for more philanthropy, but for most taxes)

In reality, the Dems can't hate the top 1% like the pretend to. There are quite a few very wealthy Democrats, after all. Instead, this faux hate is a mask for an addiction. The Democratic leadership are addicted to spending. There just isn't a social program out there that they can't love and want to pour millions of your dollars into. Any program created simply MUST be continued and funding increased. To make ANY cut is bemoaned with dire "grandma in the snow" consequences.

But that's just tough. Imagine some average working 'stiff' going in to his boss to demand more money -- maybe double his previous wage. Not because he gets more work done, or landed a big contract. He comes with the excuse that he had run up huge credit card debt and needs more money to support the debt AND the lifestyle that keeps up the spending. "Well, stop spending so much," the boss might justifiably say. "That's cruel and insensitive," our stiff replies. "I HAVE to buy all those things and MORE! I just do. Give me more money or my grandma will have to sleep in the snow!"

No, this independent voter has come down on the side of the cutters, not the taxers. No revenue raise for YOU, Congress, just because you can't handle your credit card. Live within your means. I have to do it. You should to.

Kelly's corner

News from Senator Ayotte's Office


Dear Friends,

With the Senate in session this weekend, I write from Washington to share a quick update on the latest from Capitol Hill.

As you know, debate continues here regarding the nation's debt ceiling. With Tuesday's deadline just days away, members of the Senate and House are working to find a solution that can pass both houses of Congress and be sent to the president.

I thought it was unfortunate that Senate Democrats blocked consideration of the only two serious proposals - which had been passed by the House - to avoid default. We need to enact significant spending cuts and budget reforms to end business as usual in Washington, and prevent default and a downgrading of America's credit rating. I still firmly believe that this difficult moment provides an opportunity to place ourselves on a path to a balanced budget to preserve our country. We can no longer afford to kick the can down the road if we want to protect our economic future.

Last night, I appreciated the chance to discuss the debt ceiling debate on Sean Hannity's show. Click here to watch.

While America's fiscal crisis has been the main focus of attention in Washington this week, read on for additional news from my office.




Senator Ayotte: Pentagon Spending Must Be Scrutinized to Find Savings That Won't Undercut Readiness

During an Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee hearing this week, Senator Ayotte underscored the need to find savings within the Department of Defense (DoD) budget by identifying wasteful and duplicative spending at the Pentagon. The Senator, who serves as the panel's Ranking Member, noted that DoD is one of the few agencies in the entire federal government that cannot pass an independent audit of its finances; she expressed concern that DoD needs more reliable data and financial management processes necessary to fully evaluate areas of potential savings.

In her opening remarks during the hearing, Senator Ayotte emphasized the importance of obtaining reliable financial data to ensure that proposed spending reductions do not undercut warfighters or endanger military readiness.

"With our nation facing a serious fiscal crisis, we must closely scrutinize spending at every federal agency, including the Pentagon. DoD must be auditable to ensure that we're responsible stewards of taxpayer money," said Senator Ayotte. "However, as we reduce defense spending, it's critical to ensure that reductions don't undercut America's warfighters or compromise our military readiness. To distinguish between necessary defense budget cuts and reductions that would harm our troops and threaten readiness, we need reliable financial data and effective business processes and systems."


Senators Ayotte, Brown Renew Call for Stronger Contracting Oversight in Wake of Alarming Reports

Senator Ayotte and Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) on Monday renewed their call for strengthening oversight of U.S. funds for reconstruction projects in Afghanistan, following two recent reports that found U.S. taxpayer money had been indirectly funneled to corrupt powerbrokers and insurgents, including the Taliban.

Senators Brown and Ayotte introduced the "No Contracting With the Enemy Act" in February, aiming to make it easier for U.S. contracting officials to void contracts with contractors who funnel taxpayer resources to enemies of the United States, such as the Taliban. At a meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, General David Petraeus highlighted the urgency of legislation that would achieve the goals of the Brown-Ayotte bill, testifying that it was needed "the sooner the better."

"These reports highlight troubling shortcomings that must be addressed," said Senators Brown and Ayotte in a joint statement. "Our military in Afghanistan has taken steps to develop better oversight of contracting, but more must be done. With better oversight and with the authorities provided by our provisions, DOD contracting officials will be able to more effectively ensure our money does not end up in the hands of those attacking our troops. The Senate should move quickly to address this issue and pass our provisions that are critical to the mission in Afghanistan."

According to a report in Monday's Washington Post, a year-long investigation conducted by the U.S. military uncovered definitive evidence that taxpayer money intended to fund a $2.16 billion transportation contract in Afghanistan ended up in the hands of the Taliban through fraud, kickbacks, and money laundering. Another report released last week by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) found that, "While U.S. agencies have taken steps to strengthen their oversight over U.S. funds flowing through the Afghan economy, they still have limited visibility over the circulation of these funds, leaving them vulnerable to fraud or diversion to insurgents." Echoing General Petraeus' September 2010 Counterinsurgency Contracting Guidance issued to U.S. and alliance military forces fighting in Afghanistan, the SIGAR report called on all U.S. agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, operating in Afghanistan to improve visibility of subcontractors, integrate intelligence, plans and operations, and ensure that contracted funds are not used to empower insurgents.


Senator Ayotte, Colleagues Urge FCC to Conduct Cost-Benefit Analysis of Proposed Net Neutrality Rule

Senator Ayotte, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, this week urged the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the agency's proposed Internet regulatory rule before it goes into effect. In a letter to Chairman Julius Genachowski, Senator Ayotte, along with Republican colleagues on the Commerce Committee, requested that the agency conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis of its proposed net neutrality rule, pursuant to a recent Executive Order issued by President Obama.

Executive Order 13563, which the President issued on July 11, directs independent and executive agencies to conduct a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of proposed regulations prior to their adoption, with the intent of reducing onerous regulatory burdens on the business community and the public. Although the FCC approved the rules in December, the Senators are requesting a retrospective review, as the net neutrality rule is not federal law yet.

"All federal agencies, including the FCC, must weigh the economic impact of proposed regulations on America's businesses," said Senator Ayotte. "I have serious concerns that the pending net neutrality rule stands to discourage private sector investment and prevent cutting-edge products from reaching the marketplace. Government shouldn't get in the way of entrepreneurial innovation, and that's why I urge Chairman Genachowski to conduct a retrospective review of the rule."

Why Every American Should Receive an ObamaCare Waiver

By Michele Bachmann

Since its passage last year, over 1,300 ObamaCare waivers have been rewarded exempting nearly 3.1 million Americans out of the monstrous health care overhaul. With several hundred more waivers pending, the Obama Administration has decided it will no longer accept waiver applications after September 22 of this year. These waivers are extremely telling; if ObamaCare was truly the reform our healthcare system needs, why is the Administration allowing so many to opt out of the program?

It comes as no surprise that hundreds of companies are applying for waivers from ObamaCare. Business owners across the country continue to voice concern over how to implement the new ObamaCare rules without paying fines, laying off workers or even going bankrupt. As the book Why ObamaCare is Wrong for America points out, “ObamaCare will lead to slower wage growth, fewer job opportunities, and more businesses going under.”

Yet, the waiver-granting process became increasingly questionable as companies applied for exemptions. It seemed that ObamaCare regulators were passing out waivers mostly to friends of the Administration. For instance, of the 204 waivers granted by the Administration in April, nearly twenty percent went to some of the finest restaurants and businesses within House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s district. Even more jaw-dropping, of those 3.1 million individuals exempted from ObamaCare through waivers, over half – 1.55 million – are union members.

President Obama’s health care reform grows the size of government and increases its impact on our lives. According to Why ObamaCare is Wrong for America, ObamaCare sets in motion a massive federal bureaucracy with at least 159 new federal agencies, creates more than $500 billion in new taxes and will take $575 billion away from Medicare. In my view, it is time that every American, regardless of their relationship with the Administration, receives a permanent waiver from ObamaCare. I remain committed to working towards the complete repeal of this legislation.

Michele, My Belle

By Ron Dupuis

Granite Staters are fiercely independent when it comes to politics. That is one of the main reasons we get involved early. Of course protecting our first in the nation primary status is another.

Michele Bachmann, "in my humble opinion", seems to be on the side of every issue that concerns me. For example, Bachmann has stated that the number one issue in the coming Presidential election is the economy and job growth. Her plan is to reduce the role of government and "placing the trust in the real job creators, the private sector." This is something every small business owner in New Hampshire should applaud.

On the debt ceiling Bachmann has said " I will stand firm against an increase in the debt ceiling and as President, fight for a renewed vision of Constitutional government and reforms resulting in deep cuts in federal spending so that we never face this situation again." This is something our children, grand children and, believe it or not, our great grand children should be thankful for.

Obama care has been an unmitigated disaster and Congresswoman Bachmann has promised to repeal it. " As President, I will not rest until Obamacare is repealed, and will work to unleash the power of medical innovation and personal choice in producing better treatments and more cures that mean better outcomes at lower cost. And I will push for greater competition in the health care market - because competition both lowers prices and improves outcomes." Hear, hear, applaud applaud.

Bachmann's stated positions go on and on covering everything from national security to drilling for oil. All of which my agreements are wholehearted.

Since this is my column here are some of my thoughts that the Bachmann people should consider.
My feelings on:
Foreign aid; Not one dime to governments that are not representative or duly elected by the people. If Russia or red China want to support such entities let them do so. It has nearly destroyed us in the past and will do the same to them.
National Security; Pakistan is not our friend. President Bachmann should at the very least have our computer experts send a killer virus to affect their nuclear facilities and destroy their missiles. If that doesn't work, I understand Seal Team 6 is free.
Running mate; Ohio is an important state. Congressman Mike Turner (R) of Ohio's 3rd district would be a great choice. That way your theme could be
BACHMANN, TURNER IN OVERDRIVE
and the campaign song could be the Bachmann, Turner, Overdrive hit
"Taking care of business"

Obama and Holder show Supreme Arrogance

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Operation Fast and Furious


By Jerry McConnell
Friday, July 8, 2011
The unbelievable audacity of this Obama Administration is enough to rattle a man’s brain it is so brazenly full of chutzpah. It’s as if all of them from the Usurper-in-Chief on down think they not only can walk on water but they can use that water to cleanse all the dirt and mud that sticks to them from their dirty dealings.

They all feel that they are above any criticism or judgment for their nefarious or improper conduct; the order of the day is just forget and find someone to investigate for something else to take the spotlight off of them. It would be interesting to know just how many incidents or issues are being “investigated” by Congress into Obama accomplice miscreantic endeavors. Perhaps Congressman Issa can tell us.

Case in point: Our Secretary of the Department of Justice and Attorney General the highest appointed justice purveyor in our government, Eric H. Holder, was recently on a hot burner attempting to defend himself and his immediate superior, Barack Obama from involvement in the mass gun supply activity to criminals in Mexico who bring drugs into the United States and many other illegal activities.

To escape the heat emanating from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) launched Operation “Fast and Furious”—an illegal pipeline for shipping guns into Mexico Holder and his (un)Justice Department suddenly announced that they were going to launch criminal probes into CIA interrogations where alleged deaths were perpetrated during the Bush Administration.

That’s Slippery Ops 101; take the heat off yourself by aiming heat at someone else. I have a feeling Holder is an expert in dodging guilt or exculpation by deflecting it in another direction.

Much of what I have written here was derived from information gleaned at website FireHolder.com established by the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), from an article titled, “Help Stop the Conspiracy and Cover Up!” by Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President (NRA) and also FoxNews.com “Justice Department Launches Criminal Probe Into Deaths During CIA Interrogations.”

The LaPierre article contained a Petition circulating as a National Campaign to fire Attorney General Eric Holder and gives a detailed explanation of the BATFE program to assist Obama and Holder’s arguments that “your Second Amendment rights are to blame for the drug crimes and killings in Mexico.”

Obama is so intent on getting our Second Amendment gun rights taken away from us that they blamed the killings at the U.S.-Mexico border on the fact that “our Second Amendment rights are to blame for the drug crimes and killings in Mexico.

LaPierre continues, “Holder and other top-level Obama Administration figures—even the President himself—claimed that 90% of the guns used by violent drug cartels were coming from American gun dealers. In short, they blamed our Second Amendment rights for the violence of the Mexican drug cartels. But leaked U.S. State Department cables have exposed this as a bald-faced LIE.”

He further explained, “These Obama Administration cables proved beyond a shadow of a doubt what the Mexican government already knew: That the drug cartels were getting guns—along with fully-automatic weapons, grenade launchers, anti-personnel mines and other military hardware—through Central America, NOT THE U.S.”

But you’ll notice, Obama and Holder did nothing to let us know about the findings of the State Department and the cables that exposed them. They would rather lay a guilt trip on the good citizens of America in false accusation that their Second Amendment gun rights were to blame for the weapons.

The LaPierre report added, “While these leaked cables exposed the lies propping up Obama’s gun control agenda, administration officials at the highest levels pushed a strategy to fit their gun control aims.

“In a display of corruption and arrogance that’s shocking even for this Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) launched Operation “Fast and Furious”—an illegal pipeline for shipping guns into Mexico.

“With our government’s full knowledge and complicity, BATFE higher-ups ordered firearms dealers to sell these guns illegally to straw purchasers. And it wasn’t just a few guns… It was over two thousand.

This exercise in arrogance and impropriety in high government officials wound up costing the life of one of the BATFE men, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry who was shot and killed in a gunfight with a group of armed Mexican “illegal entrants. And when the bandits fled, they left behind two AK-style rifles that were traced to sales made under the Fast and Furious operation.”

As stated above, Congressman Darrel Issa ( R-CA) as well as Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) are holding Congressional hearing into Operation “Fast and Furious” the ID given to the expedited sales operations that BATFE forced on gun dealers with the Mexican criminals. During these hearings Senator Grassley questioned Holder according to LaPierre asking, “How did guns that were allowed to ‘walk’ our of gun dealer shops during Operation Fast and Furious end up at a U.S. Border Patrol Agent’s murder scene?” Holder’s evasive answer, “I frankly don’t know.”

This synopsis of potential career ending story of illegalities committed by Justice Department officials was covered more completely in The Examiner on July 06, 2011 that these guns that were being practically given to Mexican criminals were part of the idea that they would be traced to “higher-ups” in the drug cartel for stronger evidence in future investigations.

But as Republican Chairman of the House Oversight Panel discovered, the planned ‘Operation Fast and Furious’ didn’t work as intended.

Several of the weapons sold with ATF approval have been used in nearly two dozen murders on both sides of the border, including that of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. After that killing the program was shut down with Justice Department officials denying any knowledge of Fast and Furious. But ATF Director Kenneth Melson has described multiple oral and written communications he had with senior Justice officials about the program both before and after Terry was murdered emphasizing the relevance of the cover-up.

Chairman Issa’s panel has run into a solid wall of obstruction and resistance Justice Department on requests for information and documents. In a letter to AG Holder, Issa said that ATF Chief Melson told congress that ATF’s senior leadership would have preferred to be far more cooperative with our inquiry but Justice Department officials directed them not to respond and they took full control of replying to Congress.

Obstructing congressional investigations is illegal, as is threatening to discipline or otherwise hamper or prevent any federal employee from cooperating with a congressional inquiry. As The Examiner stated, “We look forward to hearing the explanations of Justice Department higher-ups who told Melson not to respond to the Issa panel’s requests and who, according to Issa, thereby “sent over false denials” and “distorted the truth and obstructed our investigation. We might also find out what they were so determined to keep Issa from learning.”

NOW can we get the impeachment proceedings started?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amessage from Kelly Ayotte

To help support breast cancer survivors and advance breast cancer research, I'd like to tell you about two events this week that I committed to supporting.

Last night in Washington, I played in the 3rd Annual Congressional Women's Softball game, which benefitted the Young Survival Coalition, an organization that supports young women who have breast cancer. For charity, I played on a bipartisan team comprised of women members of the Senate and House, and we squared off against female Capitol Hill reporters. It was a fun way to support a very worthy and important cause.

And this Sunday in my hometown of Nashua, I will run in "Rosanne's Rush for Research" - a 5K run/walk that will help benefit triple negative breast cancer research and treatment.

On Capitol Hill, I continued an effort of great importance to many North Country residents: getting the federal prison in Berlin up and running. Read on for additional news about my work this week in Washington on behalf of New Hampshire citizens.

During a meeting Wednesday in her Capitol Hill office with top officials from the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the Justice Department, Senator Ayotte reiterated her request for the department to activate the federal correctional facility in Berlin, which has been vacant since it was completed in 2010 despite the nation's federal prisons being 38 percent overcrowded.

Senator Ayotte discussed her request with the Bureau's Assistant Director, William Dalius, and other BOP and Justice Department officials. Mr. Dalius told the Senator that the Berlin Prison is a high priority, and that BOP officials are committed to working with her to ensure that the prison, which is the only existing federal correctional facility in Northern New England, is opened and staffed as soon as possible.

"I am encouraged by Mr. Dalius' comments that the Berlin Prison is a high priority for the Bureau and that he is eager to find a solution," said Senator Ayotte. "I will continue to work with BOP officials to ensure that the facility in Berlin is opened, providing needed jobs in the area, and helping address the dangerous overcrowded conditions at federal correctional facilities throughout the country."

Because of Congress' failure to pass a budget last year, the BOP is being funded under a Continuing Resolution that does not include funds for staffing the Berlin prison. As a result, the facility remains vacant and unstaffed, costing taxpayers an estimated $4 million a year. Senator Ayotte wrote to BOP officials and Attorney General Eric Holder last month, urging them to redirect sufficient funds within the Bureau's budget to allow for the opening and staffing of the prison.

Senator Ayotte, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, met this week with the commanding officers of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, and the Kearsarge Amphibious Ready Group, along with two pilots that participated in the F-15 pilot rescue in Libya. The Navy and Marine team provided a briefing of their nine month deployment, which began in August of 2010 and included humanitarian flood relief assistance in Pakistan, combat operations in Afghanistan, counter-piracy operations near the Horn of Africa, and support to operations in Libya.


Senator Ayotte's Statement on President's Plan to Withdraw Troops from Afghanistan

Senator Ayotte on Wednesday released this statement following the President's address to the nation regarding his plan to begin withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan:
"While our troops should not stay in Afghanistan a day longer than our interests require, I don't believe we should impose arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Such timetables encourage the terrorists to wait us out, and dissuade average Afghans from supporting their government and opposing our enemies."


Senator Ayotte Renews Call for Limiting Detainee Transfers Following Escape of Al Qaeda Militants from Yemen Prison

Following reports that as many as 60 al-Qaeda militants escaped this week from a prison in Yemen, Senator Ayotte renewed her call for a stronger U.S. terrorist detention policy that includes permanent limits on the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to foreign countries.
"While it is unclear whether any of the escapees are former Guantanamo detainees, this alarming news is further evidence that future transfers of detainees from Guantanamo Bay to countries like Yemen are unwise. Such transfers pose the risk of escape and recidivism, representing an unjustifiable security threat to our nation and the world," said Senator Ayotte, who personally inspected Guantanamo during an official visit in March. "Today's news also further underscores the urgent need for the U.S. to develop a responsible detainee policy that establishes Guantanamo Bay as the location for the long-term detention of current and future terrorist detainees."

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Ayotte has worked to keep open the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility, keep terrorist detainees out of the United States, and limit the transfer of detainees from Gitmo to foreign countries.

Last week, Senator Ayotte successfully worked to include in the Senate version of the Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Authorization bill a provision she authored that permanently prohibits funding for the construction or modification of facilities in the United States to house terrorist detainees. The measure was approved by the full Committee last Thursday.

In May, Senator Ayotte introduced the Detaining Terrorists to Secure America Act (S. 944), bipartisan legislation that would keep open the Guantanamo Bay facility for the detention and interrogation of current and future terrorists. The bill would also permanently limit the transfer of detainees to foreign countries.


Senator Ayotte Continues Efforts to Cut Federal Red Tape

Continuing her efforts to reduce burdensome federal regulations on New Hampshire's small businesses, Senator Ayotte this week introduced legislation that would protect employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) from a costly new regulation proposed by the Department of Labor (DOL). If implemented, DOL's rule would expand the definition of "fiduciary" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to include appraisers of all private ESOPs.

The proposed rule would result in new compliance and regulatory costs for private companies offering ESOPs (nearly all of which are small businesses) and could jeopardize the availability of these plans in the future. It also would force appraisers to purchase expensive fiduciary insurance, employ specialized counsel, and could expose private ESOP companies to frivolous litigation.

Senator Ayotte's legislation would reverse DOL's rule by explicitly exempting ESOP appraisals from the law's stringent fiduciary requirements.

ESOP Association President, J. Michael Keeling, said, "We're very pleased to see Senator Ayotte take the lead on this issue. The DOL needs to wake up to the fact that private company ESOPs have tremendous positive records of creating jobs that are locally controlled in high performing companies. ESOPs are good for employees, companies, and our communities."

Last night, Senator Ayotte played in the 3rd Annual Congressional Women's Softball game, which benefitted the Young Survival Coalition, an organization that supports young women who have breast cancer. Ayotte was a captain of the bipartisan, bicameral women members of Congress team, which played against a team comprised of women of the Capitol Hill press corps. Senator Ayotte went 1 for 2 with a line drive to right field in helping the women members of Congress win by a score of 5 to 4.

Tough choices

By Jeb Bradley:

On Wednesday, both the House and Senate passed a comprehensive two year budget that Governor Lynch has said he will not veto. Some have praised the budget’s fiscal responsibility while others have criticized the cuts it makes to services. From my vantage point, it is a budget that makes tough choices, establishes priorities, and makes long overdue reforms so that government services will be delivered in a more cost effective manner – all of which will enable NH’s competitiveness and future job growth.
Six months ago NH confronted a gaping $800 million projected budget gap. Despite a languishing economy, the previous two budgets had increased spending 23% from $9.36 billion to $11.5 billion. Prior budgets had relied on inflated revenue estimates that never materialized, borrowing for operating expenses, and one time federal stimulus dollars. Alarmingly, despite nearly 100 tax and fee increases, an $800 million gap loomed. Voters said enough last November.
The 2011 Legislature established two goals: NH would not raise taxes that would harm economic recovery and NH government would live within its means -- just as working families and small business owners have been forced to do in the current economic climate. Budget writers knew great caution was necessary in predicting future revenue and certainly the last six months have proven the wisdom of that caution as revenue has not met expectations. They also knew continued borrowing for operating expenses was unsustainable. Lastly, budget writers knew that with a $14 trillion dollar federal debt and trillion dollar deficits stretching as far as the eye can see -- federal largess was neither possible nor warranted.
Extraordinary tough choices had to be made and priorities established, which meant programs – many worthy -- were cut. Governor Lynch initially proposed significant reductions to hospitals for uncompensated care, cuts to programs that serve troubled youth, catastrophic aid for schools districts’ special education costs, Healthy Children, and to the Post Secondary Education Commission, as well as cuts to virtually every state agency except prisons. The Governor also proposed complete elimination of the 35% state assistance for cities and towns’ retirement costs which would have the effect of increasing property taxes by $85 million annually.
Governor Lynch also presumed that revenue growth would be a relatively healthy 3.5%. Unfortunately as winter turned into spring, revenue in the current budget was $42 million less than projected. Legislative budget writers had to make further spending reductions than those proposed by the Governor. NH has learned the hard way: spending that depends upon revenue that may never materialize is foolhardy.
When the budget reached the Senate, the chair of the Finance Committee, Chuck Morse, effectively established priorities. Senator Morse added funds back in to the budget for mental health programs, the developmentally disabled, Service Link, troubled youth, adoption initiatives, and catastrophic aid for special education. Morse proposed key reforms including allowing up to 600 inmates to be incarcerated at private prisons to create savings to pay for some of these adjustments. The Governor’s proposed elimination of retirement assistance to cities and towns was mitigated by pension reform legislation – benefitting hard pressed property taxpayers.
Given the significantly under-performing revenue, funding could not be restored for the University System or to hospitals. Some people have asked why then was the tobacco tax lowered and why were net-operating-loss provisions expanded. Supporters of the tobacco tax decrease believe there will be no net revenue loss as an increase in cross border sales will occur that will help small businesses. If there is a revenue loss, then the budget calls for the tax decrease to be removed in two years. The net-operating-loss provisions will only take effect in the next budget. These provisions allow business to better carry forward losses against future profits. This will improve New Hampshire’s business climate and has been an important priority for chambers of commerce across the state.
In total, spending has been reduced to $10.2 billion -- an 11% cut. Taxes have not been raised, borrowing for operating expenses has been eliminated, no federal bailouts have been assumed, and rosy revenue projections have been rejected. This budget does what small businesses, working families, and taxpayers have been doing for some time: making tough choices to live within their means.
While much has been written about the budget’s bottom line and the impact on particular programs, less discussed are the reforms that will enable state government to deliver services far more effectively and efficiently.
Medicaid – the largest cost item in our budget – will be delivered through managed care as a result of legislation I sponsored and Governor Lynch recently signed. Managed care will save millions without sacrificing quality. A new education funding formula maintains funding levels, holds communities harmless, eliminates donor towns, while mitigating large spending hikes in Concord. Bipartisan legislation I sponsored will curtail the practice of revenue auditors assessing what in essence is an income tax on the salaries small business owners pay themselves – a key reform to enhance NH’s competitiveness. I also sponsored bipartisan Shoreland Protection legislation which protects our shoreland while also simplifying the permitting process and helping homebuilders create jobs. Prison and retirement reforms will also clearly benefit taxpayers.
Voters sent a clear message last November – government had to live within its means and stop reaching ever further into taxpayers’ pockets. This budget makes the tough choices to do exactly that. By doing our job in the Legislature ending the climate of spending hikes, unsustainable borrowing, inflated revenue projections, and ever more tax and fee hikes; the stage is set for further job growth –and when job growth is sustained --- revenue will grow.
Tough choices, priorities, necessary reforms that will grow jobs -- or as President Kennedy said a rising tide that will lift all boats.

The Smell

By Jerry McConnell

The smell of partisan politics is in the air; must be getting close to election time again, if you can describe 18 months as being ‘close’.

Democrats are, as usual, up to their old tricks again; rolling out the ancient and war-weary clichés and charges that Republicans are racists and geared up to prevent the “poor blacks” from getting to the polls to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Only in these modern days, they now include the “depressed Hispanics” as well.



My God, what phonies they are. Election cycle after election cycle they trot out all the tired and disbelievable small-minded people like Donna Brazile, former DNC Chairman, one of the most bigoted racists ever to lie with a straight face. When it comes to politics the truth is such a stranger to this woman that she wouldn’t recognize it if it came directly from Barack Obama. Come to think of it, that’s not a good citation as I wouldn’t believe it either coming from him. But you get my point. :-)

Some people have dubbed Brazile as the female ‘Ragin’ Cajun’ in deference to James Carville the original at spreading the “Big Lie” with dripping venom, so adept that she rose all the way to the top of the Democratic National Committee, but only as an ‘Interim’ Chairman. But these days she appears relatively docile, particularly when compared to the ‘beast’ that copped the title of Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Wasserman Schultz is an elected Representative to the U. S. House of Representatives from Florida’s 20th District nominated to the DNC Chair by President Obama and assumed that position in May of this year. She has not been impressive in the early moments in her lofty position as DNC Chair.

In fact, as Ricky Kreitner of Business Insider – Politix “Democrats Are Already Fretting About Gaffes By Party Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz” states in his June 10, 2011, column: “Democrats are privately fretting after a rocky start by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz as chair of the Democratic National Committee.

“She has been called out repeatedly by non-partisan fact-checkers for stretching the truth on a number of points, Politico reports: ‘The congresswoman’s latest blunder came Sunday, when she said on television that Republicans ‘want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally — and very transparently — block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates.’

Kreitner explains it “The equating of state legislatures’ efforts to require voters to show identification with laws that required separate schools and water fountains raised hackles, particularly in racially sensitive Democratic circles, prompting a quasi-retraction from Wasserman Schultz. In a statement, she said, ‘Jim Crow was the wrong analogy to use. But I don’t regret calling attention to the efforts” of GOP legislators “to restrict access to the ballot box.’”

I wonder what she would say about the Black Panthers at the polls in Philadelphia in the 2010 elections. Now that’s what I would call REAL “restricting access to the ballot box.”

As Quin Hilyer of Center for Individual Freedom stated in his June 09, 2011 column DNC Race-baiting Camouflages Vote Fraud “Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Democrat, has ripped the scab from a deep wound in American politics. The Left has spent years slinging at conservatives the calumny that we want to block access to the polls by minority groups. The charge is a vile slander. Yet in the space of just two weeks, DNC chiefs have twice gone public with the allegation – race-baiting for all they are worth – in a raw attempt to foment racial tension. Beneath the surface, it’s also an attempt to provide a smokescreen for fraudulent voting.”

Hilyer reported that “She was parroting former DNC Chair Donna Brazile, who on May 17 wrote in USA Today that “from coast to coast, the GOP is engaged in what appears to be a coordinated, expensive effort to block voters from the polls. The motivation is political — a cynical effort to restrict voting by traditionally Democratic-leaning Americans. In more than 30 states, GOP legislators are on the move…. What the GOP is attempting to do is change the rules of the game, leaving only their players on the field.”

What both Brazile and Wasserman Schultz are referring to are the efforts of the Republican Party to require voter-ID at the polls in order to prevent the prevalent illegal voting that has taken place in recent elections fostered mainly by the Democrats – (think ACORN.)

Democrats are frightened and energized by the efforts of the Republicans to get voter-ID as a threat to their “vote early and often” campaign so effusively used by ACORN and other voter fraud groups. Frightened that they’ll lose all those extra votes they will not be getting, and energized to keep that sort of illicit operation in action at polls all across the country.

Just ask yourself which political party vehemently opposes the fair-mindedness of Voter-ID and why?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apocalypse Revised: Lemmings Beware

-- by Micheal

Harold Camping was wrong about the date of the Rapture, again. He let his overconfidence in his cleverness paint him into a corner. How could he now just admit he was flat-out wrong? True to form, he has fudged on the event that took place on May 21st, rather than admit his convoluted numerology was wrong.

Now, Camping claims that May 21st was the deadline for salvation. The world will be destroyed on October 21st. Anyone who wasn't saved by May 21st, is just plain doomed.

This is far from the first time that date-setters have spiritualized their (apparently) failed predictions. When William Miller's prediction of the Rapture occurring in 1844 didn't pan out, those Millerites who did not drift away in The Great Disappointment spiritualized it. Christ didn't return to EARTH, but he descended from one level of heaven to one closer to earth. See? The date wasn't wrong. Miller just misunderstood Christ's travel plans. Christ would make the next step closer to earth in the near future. Please stand by.

A disappointed former Millerite, Nelson Barbour regained his zeal for dates. He predicted that Christ would return in 1874. Christ did not appear. Instead, this "event" was spiritualized. Christ did not APPEAR, you see, but instead set up his invisible "millennial" kingdom in which he rules the earth -- invisibly. The Rapture, Barbour said, would occur in 1878. When this did not happen, there was yet another great disappointment among his Adventists.

Many fell away, including C.T. Russell, who, disappointed and angry as he was, carried on the doom banner with his new splinter group, later named Jehovah's Witnesses. Russell, keeping Barbour's date of 1874 as the start of Christ's invisible reign, figured it would last 40 years (not a thousand, per Revelation 20:2-7). Therefore, the world would end in October 1914. While 1914 was not a good year, the world didn't end. This date, too, got spiritualized. Something ended in October 1914. It just wasn't the whole world. Russell's successors would predict the end(s) many more times. 1925, 1941, 1975, etc. Something, we're told, really did happen on those dates. It just turned out to be spiritual (and invisible) and not fire falling from the skies, moon turning to blood, or ANY of the stuff in the Book of Revelation. Don't any of these guys read the whole book?

Now Camping is following in the tradition of failed date-setters. Keep the date, but move the goal posts. Now the date to watch is October 21st. He says it's the end of the world, but as we've seen, just what happens on a particular date is very much ripe for revision.

Doom For Dollars?

Fox News reported that Camping's organization took in $18 Million in donations in 2009. His organization has a stated worth of $104 million. $34 million of that is socked away in securities. If the world is going to end soon, why would Camping be buying stocks and securities? Think about it. How many thousands of hapless lemmings have given Camping their life savings (I mean, who needs it if the world is ending, right?) to pay for Camping's ad campaign?

Lemmings Awake! Turn back! Don't give Camping and his organization any more of your money. It smells like a cruel scam. Even if Camping were sincere, (and he's been sincerely wrong twice now), it's still pointless. If the world is going to end in October, your money won't do any more good in HIS stock portfolio than it will in your scanty checking account.

If you think the world is ending soon. and are truly worried about the lost souls around you, tell them what you know about Christ. That's what Jesus said to do (Matthew 28:19). Of course, now that Camping has made the gospel look incredibly stupid, this will be an even tougher job than it was before. Thanks Harold.

How many thousands has Camping actually convinced to stay aboard the train to hell because he made salvation look stupid?