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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)