GraniteGrok

Senator John McCain, once the Republican front-runner for the White House, has been forced to deny rumours that he is poised to drop out of the race because he is struggling to raise funds.

Posted by Doug at 8:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 

• Dawn Lincoln of the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance will discuss that group's annual legislative report cards for the NH House and Senate. If we have time, we'll get her take on the Free State movement and a wrap on last week's gathering of the group at the Porcupine Festival.
• John Hawkins of RightWingNews, Conservative Grapevine, Townhall.com, and the Duncan Hunter campaign (John is, like our Pat Hynes, a man of many hats) joins us once again this week. We'll discuss his liveblogging the final Illegal immigration amnesty vote and the pressure brought upon the politicians by the people that brought the whole mess down. He'll talk about what he terms the "Chamber of Commerce Crowd's" interest in maintaining porous borders. He'll tell us what he thinks we need to do with Iran, too.
• We'll discuss wind power a little and the state of the proposed Gilford energy study committee if time allows.
• Your phone calls at 603-527-1490

 

Posted by Doug at 7:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Skip at 7:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I got a heads up from a loyal reader (H/T: Michael) that there is a bill in the NH house, HB 404, that would declare the entire state of NH to be a sanctuary state.  I have replicated the text of the bill after the jump (bolded is my emphasis).

This bill is being sponsored by Lilly Mesa, a Democrat.  I have sent her an email inviting her to discuss  her bill on Meet The New Press radio show.  At the time of this writing, she has indicated that she will come on Meet The New Press a week from today.

What this bill would mean is that no law enforcement agent - State, county, or local - could ask if a person "of suspicion" is here legally in the country.

As far as I know, there are several schools of thoughts on this:

• Let's punish / embarrass the Feds by not enforcing immigration law at their level (hey, the Feds aren't enforcing the border and going after folks the way they should - we should not be doing their jobs.
• This is an unfunded mandate to NH - if we aren't getting paid to do this, why should do your work?
  
• Hey, illegal immigrants (er, undocumented migrants) are here only to make a better life for themselves - who are we to deny them?  And it is the Christian, humane thing to do!  No person is illegal, and there should not be borders that restrict people from getting a better life.  After all, it's a right, right?
  

The first is rather silly - a petty turf battle.  Frankly, the outcome of this is zip - the Feds haven't effectively  enforced our border since the last "comprehensive immigration reform" back in '86 when the problem was only 3-4 million illegals.  Who in their right mind would think that this line of action would actually work?  This attitude will only make things worse.

The second is merely a variation of the first - let's dig in our heels a bit more and yelp louder.  Empirical results are? The same - do nothing and nothing gets down.  Problem gets worse and festers, gets more expensive to solve later, but hey, who cares....it's somebody else's job!

Both of these are wrong - it takes the most fundamental tenet that has made this country the envy of the world and throws it in with the other garbarge that illegals leave on our southern border as they tresspass. 

I have come to recognize that more and more, people believe that it is only the "professionals" that are supposed to do one thing or another.  They are the ones that are trained for a given job or responsibility - get out of the way and let them do it.  The problem here is that there are generally not enough of the "professionals" to do the jobs right. And I have observed that as government becomes larger and larger, this compartmentalization only increases as well.

In this area, the rule of law, I believe that we all, even as "mere" citizens, have the moral obligation to obey ALL laws.  Add to that, when we see that laws are being broken, we should let those in charge know when laws are being broken.  

The third is the real problem - it is wrong on a lot of different levels:

• We lack the political will
• We should not have sovereigty
• Emotions overrule the law
• We value other cultures more than our own
• We refuse to face up to our problems and take the tough action

What kind of society do we become when it becomes common place to pick and choose what laws we will and will not obey?  Right now, it seems fine for our political leaders to ignore some when it is politically expediant or when it fits their philosophical needs. 

Let's consider all of them from a single perspective - we are supposed to be a country where the "rule of law" rules. Without this philosophy, without adherence to this most basic tenet of our democratic system (arising from protection of private ownership), we will become very much like the dysfunctional and corrupt governments from which many of these illegals come.

What happens when it is another set of laws that others wish to ignore?  What kind of leadership and authority figures do we represent to our youth - that laws don't matter?  Taken to the extreme, this leads to anarchy.

Hey, when does state law get to overrule federal law? When those in charge make that proclaimation and when those in charge of those "superior" or "overriding" remain silent.

 

This is a dangerous law...

The most important and highest purpose of government at any level is to protect its citizens.  At the national level, this is supposed to prevent our shores from being invaded - while not a military style invasion, when 1 in 10 workers of a foreign nation leave their nation and  illegally enter another, that is an invasion (we'll put aside the feckless irresponsiblity that has been committed in this area for now). 

States are the second barrier in protecting its citizens and while not military in outlook, it does provide protection via its law enforcement officers.  This law would make this all important mission of the state moot.  Ditto for the local police departments.

More in another post.... 

Of COURSE I'm going to comment.... 

 

HB 404-LOCAL – AS INTRODUCED

2007 SESSION

07-0991

09/01

HOUSE BILL 404-LOCAL

AN ACT prohibiting state and local law enforcement agencies from enforcing federal immigration laws.

SPONSORS: Rep. Mesa, Hills 17; Rep. Nord, Rock 1

COMMITTEE: Criminal Justice and Public Safety

ANALYSIS

This bill prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from enforcing federal immigration laws.

In other words, the State of NH will allow lawbreakers, many of them criminals in their own countries (think gangs like MS-13) to roam among us, freely and without fear of deportation by ICE.  It codifies, at the State level, that breaking the law is fine.

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

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

07-0991

09/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Seven

AN ACT prohibiting state and local law enforcement agencies from enforcing federal immigration laws.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Chapter; Federal Immigration Laws. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 106-K the following new chapter:

CHAPTER 106-L

FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS

106-L:1 Prohibition on Enforcement by State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies. No law enforcement agency of the state or its political subdivision shall use state funds, equipment, personnel, or resources or accept or utilize federal funds, equipment, personnel, or resources for the purpose of:

That's right, let's make this stick!  Not only cannot State resources be used in any fashion, we cannot even notify the Feds.  

You know, many illegal immigrant rights groups hate and fear the Minutemen Project.  If this goes through, I bet that a number of chapters of law abiding citizens will indeed be formed.  And these folks will apply political pressure as well.

I. Detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship who have entered or are residing in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws in Title 8 of the United States Code.

Well, why stop there?  Why not give them a pass on identity theft as well?  I keep seeing stories of illegals without drivers licenses, without insurance, who disobey our road laws, and then take the lives of citizens in drunk accidents (at rates far higher than those of citizens). 

Should we excuse those?  How about the illegals that take up about 1/2 of prison beds in California alone?  Should we just free them too?

No.  Back to the maxim of "the rule of law".  It matters not a whit whether a law is big or smal in stature - break it and you are guilty.  

What this is asking is to turn our eyes to lawbreakers.  Do that, and others will begin to ignore other laws. 

II. Investigating or enforcing any violation of federal immigration laws in Title 8 of the United States Code.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2008.

 

This law is born of a belief that the rule of law can be ignored just because it fits their sense of "social justice" (one of the stupidest phrases that have ever been cooked up). 

It fits a belief that those that do not have a decent government (that will protect them and structure itself and its laws so as to better it's citizens) should be allowed to break another country's laws.   - It allows these do-gooders to disregard the long term ramifications as they bask in the short term glow of "feeling good" about their sense of morality and collective sense of being. 

It rewards those willing to steal goods, services, and jobs from those citizens that need them just as badly. 

This is a dangerous law, promulgated by those that do not believe in borders, that do not trust and embrace the spirit of the rule of law, but do believe the multiculturalism and emotions should hold sway over public policy.

and do not believe that our customs and our cultures should be put above those from others countries - non-assimilation.

Posted by Skip at 7:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

 

I used to watch The View once in awhile...well, until Rosie came on board and spouted her many over-the-top, completely implausible theories and became more and more obnoxious by the minute.

Read about possible Rosie replacements for the much-coveted empty spot on The View here.

Are people that starved for entertainment that they actually enjoy watching shock TV? Apparently so, since ratings on The View sky rocketed after Rosie joined it.

What is it that attracts people to this kind of TV? Is it that it takes their minds off of their otherwise mundane daily lives or what? Or, is it that many Americans just don't have any taste anymore?

Whether gay or straight, this woman was about the most repulsive person ever to be put on TV. Personally, I believe she suffers from some serious mental disorder way beyond her admitted bouts of depression. She is a very needy person who craves attention and her stunts just seem to get more insane as the days go by....her latest involving letting her 4-year old dress up with an ammo belt, military attire and  playing war then parading her picture on the internet for the world to see....even though it's well known supposedly that Rosie herself hates guns.

In typical fashion, Rosie blames Bush, the war in Iraq and images of soldiers streaming constantly from tv for the evolution of her daughter from princess to soldier. What's it all mean? I personally think that Rosie has a serious victim's mentality. It's never her fault for much of anything. It's all those other people out to get her because she's a lesbian, fat, a loud mouth, etc.

Sorry Rosie, you're not the victim here, but you did victimize your innocent child and use her to meet your sick needs. As a parent sometimes you have to make sure your vulnerable children watch age appropriate TV. Sometimes you even have to tell your children "no" and mean it and follow through and be consistent about things. It's a tough job and putting your children's needs first means not parading them on the internet dressed as a warrior because you yourselve are so starved for some media attention. 

But who's sicker ya think? Rosie or the people who actually enjoy watching her? There's just no accounting for some people's poor taste I guess. I hope they replace her with a sane person myself, but I'm guessing they'll go for another loud-mouth obnoxious pick. After all, it's about ratings not responsible TV or any semblance of actual healthy entertainment.

Oh, how I long for the days of innocent TV....The Donna Reed Show, Father Knows Best and Mr. Ed! Unfortunately instead many people put garbage in so is it any wonder that garbage comes out?

It says alot about Barbara Walters as well that she would pick Rosie in the first place. I've completely lost respect for Walters and while she had a somewhat stellar career as a real journalist, I can barely control my gag reflex when I see her anymore and I think she has forever sullied her reputation. Just like I do with The View, I change the channel when Walters comes on anything anymore. She has absolutely no credibility left for me....and yep, there's alot wrong with people today who substitute healthy TV to get their daily fix of shocking, obnoxious TV. 

Posted by Judy at 5:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 8:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This morning I rear-ended a car at some light while not really paying
attention.

Anyway the fella who was driving got out...and he was a dwarf!

He said "I'm not happy"

I said "Well, which one are you then?"

 

(H/T: Sue)

Posted by Skip at 8:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

UPDATE: 

Well, Senator Gregg has his statement ready to go:

WASHINGTON– U.S. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) today made the following statement regarding today’s cloture vote on the immigration bill. 

 U.S. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) stated, “The immigration situation in this country is a mess and this bill, which was a work in progress, was our last opportunity in the foreseeable future to take the action necessary to fix this acute problem.

Bullcrap....the only thing that would make that statement true is a lack of political will.  Frankly, the only thing that has to be done to "fix" this problem is if our political leaders had HAD the political will to make sure that the CURRENT laws had been enforced....and Senator Gregg has been around long enough to have helped out. 

It is critical that we get control of our borders, and as a result of language that I included in my amendment, this bill would have dramatically increased the number of border patrol agents and detention beds, and expanded the fencing at the Southern border at a level that would allow us to gain control there.

Fine and dandy.....why cannot he take that now-boilerplate and submit that as a brand new bill?  Is there a rule that says once words have been used, they are automatically unusable in the future (oh wait, they just TRIED that!)? 

 “In addition, we need a functioning guest worker program that allows people to come here and work in jobs that Americans are not available to do, without becoming U.S. citizens.

I only have to bring up the Swift meatpacking plants where illegals were rousted to prove this straw man toast.  THE NEXT DAY, legal American workers were lining up to apply....and the plants were forced to pay higher wages to boot (notice: higher wages - didja get the clue?). 

We also need an employer ID system that makes it clear that when an employee is hired, he or she is here legally.

 Tell you what....start fining (we're talking BIG fines) businesses that break the laws like the illegals they employ, and this will start to be a non-problem.  Make them big enough to bite into profit margins and presto!  Problem gone.

Jail time wouldn't hurt either.....in terms of years, not days. 

Also critical, this legislation would have moved our immigration system forward to encourage capable and highly trained individuals to come to America and contribute to strengthening our economy and culture.  Each of these issues was taken up and addressed in this bill.

We already have that in our current laws.....just stop letting people wade across the Rio Grande and the percentages will flip to the highly educated and skilled workers.

 “That said, I would have opposed the bill as currently drafted because it still had some serious flaws, and it had a long way to go before it was in an acceptable form that could have been passed.  I was hopeful that we could continue to work to make improvements to this bill and move this important debate forward through the amendment process.  However, this approach is no longer available and we will need to find other means to secure our borders and create a workable immigration system.” 

This is the most egregious part - "I was for this war before I was against it....er, against it...for it...".   Even if Senator Sununu was personally in favor of this bill, at least he had the courage of his political convictions to vote straight through.  I'd also say the same for McCain and Graham (although they are both DESPERATELY wrong on this issue, IMHO).

Stand up, take it like a man, and stop the flip-flopping....it makes you sound like Senator Kerry. 

 

========================= 

Well, this battle is over, but the war is probably not.  The vote for cloture (to close off debate) failed.  With that, Majority Leader Reid has said he will pull the bill.  The shamnesty is dead.....for now.

How did our Senators from NH vote?  Well, here's the complete list, but for Gregg and Sununu:

Senator Gregg (R-NH)      Yea

Senator Sununu (R-NH)   Nay

Translation - Sununu effectively voted to kill the bill.  Gregg voted to keep the amnesty bill alive.

 

Our motto at the 'Grok is to spank them when they're wrong and thank 'em when they're right.  Thus:

THANK YOU SENATOR SUNUNU!!!!!

Now, where's that paddle.....

Note:  I found it amusing that the Senate phone system crashed from all of the incoming calls.  I tried calling Gregg's office a couple of times, then switched to NH offices....I had to call three of his offices before I got through.  I was polite (no need to be otherwise) and told the lady who answered that I would appreciate the Senator to vote to kill the bill.  I asked if he announced his decision (this was about a half hour before the vote) and she said that he had not told them what he was going to do.

I'm quite sure that we'll talk about this on Meet The New Press this Saturday - consider this an open invitation to both Senators Gregg and Sununu to call in (or, better yet, come to the studio) for the show!

 

Complete list, last name alphabetical order, after the jump

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Yea Alexander (R-TN), Nay Allard (R-CO), Nay Barrasso (R-WY), Nay Baucus (D-MT), Nay Bayh (D-IN), Nay Bennett (R-UT), Yea Biden (D-DE), Yea Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Bond (R-MO), Nay Boxer (D-CA), Yea Brown (D-OH), Nay Brownback (R-KS), Nay Bunning (R-KY), Nay Burr (R-NC), Nay Byrd (D-WV), Nay Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Cardin (D-MD), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Yea Chambliss (R-GA), Nay Clinton (D-NY), Yea Coburn (R-OK), Nay Cochran (R-MS), Nay Coleman (R-MN), Nay Collins (R-ME), Nay Conrad (D-ND), Yea Corker (R-TN), Nay Cornyn (R-TX), Nay Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Nay DeMint (R-SC), Nay Dodd (D-CT), Yea Dole (R-NC), Nay

Domenici (R-NM), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Yea Ensign (R-NV), Nay Enzi (R-WY), Nay Feingold (D-WI), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Nay Gregg (R-NH), Yea Hagel (R-NE), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Nay Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Kennedy (D-MA), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea Kyl (R-AZ), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Nay Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Yea Levin (D-MI), Yea Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Lott (R-MS), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea Martinez (R-FL), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay

McConnell (R-KY), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Nay Murray (D-WA), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Nay Obama (D-IL), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Nay Reed (D-RI), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay Salazar (D-CO), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Nay Smith (R-OR), Nay Snowe (R-ME), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Nay Sununu (R-NH), Nay Tester (D-MT), Nay Thune (R-SD), Nay Vitter (R-LA), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay Warner (R-VA), Nay Webb (D-VA), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea

Posted by Skip at 11:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 

 

 

Posted by Doug at 8:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 8:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

You go girl! It seems Rep. Hodes may have met his match in a 16-year old's insistence on answering her question:

"So you favor a woman's right to kill her unborn child?" 

Read the story first, click here, and then let's talk about things, ok?

So, did Hodes answer the yes or no question with a yes or no....uh, no, he answered in his politically correct way which is really not to answer it at all now is it?

Courtney Carter of Hudson, a student at Alvirne High School, has got chutzpah for sure. I like that in a kid, or anyone really, who obviously came well prepared and wasn't afraid to challenge Hodes' answer to the question about his stance on abortion:

"not in favor of abortion, but strongly supports a woman's right to choose. I think abortion ought to be safe, legal and rare".

Yeah, this gal is one of the new media that Hodes discussed...the emergence of new media as a force in political campaigns...

Carter said she felt compelled to press Hodes on his answer and she did but she added,

"I don't really think he answered it that well."

Me neither Ms. Carter...plus he tried to turn the tables on Carter, unsuccessfully however, by stating:

"I understand the deep emotions, and I think what you've done is a very good job of trying to frame the question in an inflammatory way"

Duh! It's lil' Ms. Carter's fault that Hodes can't answer a simple yes or no question?

Well, he just doesn't see it in the same way he states. Hey, Mr. Hodes, killling the unborn human is killing the unborn human isn't it? If it isn't killed doesn't it grow up to be a human not a chicken?

I mean, come on now Hodes, you're gonna have to explain yourself a bit better than that you just don't see it the same way! If you can't answer a question from a 16 year old and then want to blame her for your inability to answer, you may be in the wrong line of work...oh, wait a minute...you're a politician....so derrrrr....I guess you are in the right line of work to avoid answering questions. Too bad though that you're obviously not a statesman but a mere politician.

I'm guessing Hodes may just change his stance on meeting with the new media since it appears he really doesn't want to answer yes or no questions, but he wants to keep spinning his yarns which are much more acceptable to the old left-wing media since they too are more concerned about appearing to be politically correct rather than being honest!

Hey, Courtney, keep up the good work! Skip, Doug & Patrick: Should we get this kid on Meet the New Press or blogging on the 'Grok? 3 men, 1 woman and 1 gutsy teen might be a good balance. Yep, I'd say that the new media is a force in political campaigns since we insist on answers rather than the same ole rhetoric. May the force be with you!

 

-Judy 

Posted by Judy at 11:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 8:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 

 

The only word for the current crop of Democratic Presidential candidates - pandering.

Why?  Among other things, they are almost all promising voters universal healthcare.  People understand that healthcare is not cheap.  It can bankrupt a family in a flash.  A simple appendectomy can be $10,000 in an afternoon.  To those not well off, this can be a very powerful message - something for nothing - I wonder if it hits them that someone ALWAYS has to pay.

For the socialists in our society, this is just another nail in the coffin, enforcing a 'we are in this all together' mentality.  What they forget is that while groups of people have historically banded together in this country for specific problems, those collective acts generally do not last for long.  After all, this nation was not built on a collective idealism but on individuals acting to better themselves and their families - hardly socialistic tendancies to be claimed. 

And even if universal healthcare is put into practice, it will be a losing proposition - the only question is how long will it take before it fails AFTER it becomes a money pit.  All one has to do is look at Canada and the UK to see how that model performs.  At its best, it can be described as "rationed healthcare" where patients, even those critically ill, can wait months for necessary procedures and the most advanced technologies and medications are not available at any price. Why?  When something is touted as "free" (when it really is not), demand for it goes up - why not, it doesn't cost ME anything!.  At some point, those in charge realize that the real costs cannot be contained and there are few options available - raise the "income" of the program via fees and taxes or cut the benefits (which causes howls from the "deprived").

Once again, government distorts (or further distorts) the marketplace.  Once that happens, competition is stifled and innovation dries up.  Result?  Things get worse.

Here in the States, we only have to look at what Tennessee did with what was TennCare - basically universal care for its older and poorer citizens.  While it ran well in the beginning, the typical things happened - costs spiraled, the managed providers started to fail, the lawyers got into the act, and so on.  While it still exists, it started to fail badly enough that it became the focus of the governor's campaign race.  Even now, efforts are on-going to salvage things and to save face.

The problem now is that Colorado and California political and advocacy elites are trying to push this collective answer to what should be a free market and individual choice.  However, being what they are, politicians are going to show that they are "concerned" and have "good ideas" and that they will "solve" the problem.  As with many things of this nature, they would be wrong.

At least the Dems are being honest - we will tax everyone to give a little to all.  Make no mistake, it may sound good, it may look great in the beginning, but it will be a slow motion disaster.  No, the current level of care (and we can argue all day long about the quality of it) will go down if these are put into place.

More insidious are those Republicans that are touting programs that provide "private insurance for all" as an alternative to universal healthcare.  I include both the Governator Arnold and Governor Romney in this category. 

In my opinion, when something is made mandatory by government that has an identifiable cost associated with it, it is a tax from a philosophical standpoint (albeit, perhaps not a legal one as the money does not go to government coffers).  Certainly car insurance lies in this category - in most states this is mandatory and is punishable for its lack with fines and/or jail time.  It therefore is money that must be spent by individuals that might not ordinarily be spent.  Foolishly if not, but it is no longer an individual's decision.

Governor Romney's stab at this, sometimes referred to as MassCare or RomneyCare, incorporates this notion of mandated expenditures by individuals upon pain of legal retribution. It mandates that all people be covered by medical insurance. 

If you are financially capable, you are legally responsible to have a policy and can only use an HMO plan. This could cost you up to $3,600 / year if you earn $29,000.  And a high deductible no-frills policy can only be obtained by those 27 years old and younger - older than than, fork it over.  Those that are 300% of the poverty level or below will be subsidized by everyone else.

It is even rougher on businesses - all employers with 10 or more employees have to provide financial coverage.  If they do not offer insurance, they will have to pay a fee of $299 / employee / year to the State.  That might sound like a great deal until you consider that these same businesses will then be responsible for ALL financial obligations of its employees and their families with no caps. 

Talk about a business killer!  Why in the world would a small to mid sized company want to put themselves at so much risk?  As a former business owner in a business with extremely low margins (day care), I would have closed up shop immediately as I could neither afford health insurance for my employees (go ahead, double or triple the cost to your customers and see what happens!) or afford that kind of financial risk 

Now that it has started, the obvious has started to become obvious!  What was touted as being low cost is rapidly turning out to much higher - try doubling or tripling the early estimates that were used to sell it (gee, what a surprise!).

When it all comes down to it, RomneyCare, CoCare, and GovernatorCare (which I believe will kill off small buisnesses in CA), are universal healthcare dressed up in other garb.  The Dem versions of universal healthcare will be even worse - instead of universal healthcare, I predict that long term, it will bring the same universal misery that we now see in scloretic Europe and that did hardly anything in the Communists regimes except keep the appararatchiks well.

That's the problem.  What's the solution?  In the grand scheme of things, make people more responsible for their own healthcare costs.  The main thing that most people worry about are the big high ticket items that people believe that are necessary - that's what insurance should be.  More minor things - out of pocket (trust me, my family's on-going medical costs would cost a pretty penny every month) expenses should be taken care of at the individual basis.

This is what Health Savings Accounts with high deductible insurance plans can do.  The next part is where the two things have to intersect - the Internet and the publishing of health costs.  The first is easy and I bet there are people chomping at the bit to provide sites to for the next bit - the costs.

The philosophy among healthcare providers, in general, is not to make well known their costs.  This will need to change in order for patients to be good consumers. And that, in a free marketplace, will bring down the constant rise in medical costs. 

But getting to that point, publicly available costs and consumers making decisions with that information, will take time and take a lot of arm twisting.  The current environment is not conducive to this new way of approaching care, thus the problem of change management on a massive scale will be needed.  Newt is leaning in this direction and I believe that it will, if accomplished, will make for higher quality care at lower cost. 

After all, competition (what Republicans should always be trumpeting!) is good - more competition is even better for consumers.

Not universal healthcare - or it's shame work-a-likes.

 

Posted by Skip at 8:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

You know, just a little while ago the Republicans excoriated the Democrats over porking up the supplemental Defense bill (mostly for the Global War on Terror, especially Iraq).  They decried that votes were bought via $24 Billion worth of pork (some of which is being brought home by our Dem congressional Reps Hodes and Shea-Porter - both of which vigorously defend their actions).

Pork is pork, whether for vote buying or for secret / hidden earmarks.

Question for you - this Senate bill was made $4.4 Billion more expensive just to get cloture to pass. 

Does the phrase 'glass houses" have any ring for the amnesty favoring Republican Senators?  Go ahead, YOU try to convince people that the Republican Party is any better than the Dems after this vote purchasing fiasco in the making. 

Are we ordinary citizens going to get any more value out of this higher expense?  Hardly - the wall that was passed into law still is not built (not even much of an effort being done) and the only thing that is value added is 370 extra pages of amendments being handled in a most un-Senate type way.

No, once again the Republicans, including our own Senator Gregg, have let we common folks down.  Almost instant protection from deportation, no back taxes due to the IRS, cheaper tuition at state universities than I can get, less qualification for Social Security than I (16 quarters for them vs 40 for me), the ability to cross the borders without repercussions and I would be denied if I don't have the proper paperwork - what's not to like if you are an illegal alien?

And the national GOP and its leaders cannot understand why we at the local level are boiling mad?  Mark my words - there is going to be a heavy fine to be paid - both monetary and voting wise - by Republicans for a long time to come.  I, along with many, will not lift a finget to help those that hurt us. 

Primary time here in NH should be an interesting time.....

Posted by Skip at 8:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, I guess that the "uncampaign" of Fred Thompson is going to venture a tad more into the physical world (gotta tell you, that come back to Michael Moore while smoking the cigar immediately comes to mind - more please!).

 

Like the rest of the hopefuls, Fred will be "in state" soon.  He'll be at the Senate Republican VictoryPAC Reception in Bedford this Thursday at 5:15pm at the Wayfarer Convention Center.  Guess there's a private meet-and-greet first, then thrown open a bit more at a reception at the same spot - Fred will be yakking.

Wonder if he's flying in the red pickup.....wish I could be there....

 

Posted by Skip at 11:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here are my rough notes - I will be editing them a bit later on to "polish them up".  Also, there may be a link to the actual audio a bit later on as well on the Huckabee site.

Impressions - well spoken, conducted himself in a low key manner, but pretty much addressed all the questions asked of him.  I would have rather not had the two gentlemen, Dr. James Robinson and Michael Farris, join him so as to allow more time for blogger questions, but hey, not my call.

Hopefully, the 'Grok will be invited to more and more of these.

Again, these are raw notes:

=================================== 

Huckabee blogger conference  Tues  6/26

Huckabee started the conference by thanked the number of folks on the line.  "One of the most important information sources" for electing a president - bloggers will be seen as the most important points in the campain history

Intro'd Dr. James Robinson - ministry that serves poor all over the world

Michael Farris - Pres of Patrick Henry college (Christian) and HomeShool Legal Defense Fund.

Huckabee had his own kids in public school but was first to have a homeschooler on the Ark Board of Ed.  Believes in parental choice for their kids education.

Dr. James Robinson comments
    Talked about his TV show and the channels it is on.  Importance of time tested principles that have kept people free and made us great nation.  Our next leader must be of conviction and character, must understand what has made us great and be willing to protect those principles.  He has to be able to deal with the media and get his message out to the people.  He believes that Huckabee is that person.  He captured most of the black vote and was voted as Governor 4 times as a Republican in a Democratic state.

Mike Ferris
    Would have said pretty much the same things.  Is the most able communicator he has met in his life - period (even in his long period of time in DC).  Need a person who has principles, and believes that Huckabee is the most principled person running.  Pointed out (in the post Nixon era) that when Republicans run as conservatives, they win; moderates running as moderates do not.  He believes the front runners are moderates, not true conservatives.  Huckabee is a Reagan-like conservative.

Questions
(announcer is garbling the blogger names and where they blog - hard to hear what she is saying)

Jeff - PoliticsInAlabama.com:  lost him

Rath of  Above the Hook.com - in 2000 McCain throttled Bush in NH and lost later.  Huckabee, you are moving up 5-6 points - what do you atribute this to?  THe debates - folks had the chance to listen to real ideas.  He is not just a fiscal conservative but also a social one.  Still trying to raise money - see web site.

Robert Bluey of RedState - in the last 2 weeks - immigration bill - anything that makes it better?  Folks are not seeing the primary focus - border security.  Folks see that aliens that are already here and now will be earning what they are already getting from us (it should be the other way around - earn entry and then receive the benefits).  We are not addressing the physical border - they come in without the paperwork that we have to show just to get on a plane - there is nothing to show.  He is not supporting the bill.  For $2K the IRS will forgive you for your forgiven for the last two years for aliens in this bill - how come citizens cannot get this deal?

Jeff - PoliticsInAlabama:  back - what should we be expecting from your campaign finance results - how will you stack up against the others.  He says he will be happy, better than expected, but not the numbers that the front runners will have.  He will be competing int he Iowa straw poll.  Q2 will be better than Q1, and Q3 should be better than Q2.  He is going for the folks and not for the MSM.

    Followup - McCain et al are pulling out of the Iowa caucas - will that hurt them?  He thinks that they were not going to do well, shows their unwillingness to play the game of organizing.  Not sure of the result.

Skip of GraniteGrok - What do you think of the FairTax and what would you do as President to get it implemented and throwing away the IRS income tax?
We have to do something drastic ("an evangelical support of the FairTax" - small joke intended and taken as such).  Present system taxes productivity - the very thing we need for our economy needs to grow (more you work, the better you do).  It is so complicated now that the IRS doesn't even understand the rules.  It costs corporations about $500 billion/year  just to comply - what would happen if all that money was freed up to better the buisness processes, how would that do in use of R&D?  Would free up capital for our shores instead of going off-shore.

If we through the FairTax out into Congress, it will not pass - too many lobbyistswill fight against it.  It has to be a grassroots  effort - get them to talk to the Reps / Senators and threaten them. 

Steve from Colorado for Huckabee - energy independance plan - total energy by end of your second term - what is the key of your plan and how do we hold you accountable?  So far, we talk about it and nothing is been done.  FairTax helps, as it does away with tax stratagies and can concentrate on energy strategies.  We should drill for more and get things like wind power "freed up".  Conservation has to be a part of it, have folks do simple things.  Come up with an incentive program for companies like tax free et al (huh?  FairTax here?)  to get them acting.  We can do this if we REALLY set it is a REAL policy

MichiganRedNeck (missed her name) - Education - People going to Food Banks get flour, sugar, et al, and the folks ask "what do I do with this"?  Should we be better educating our folks in simple Home Ec?
Mike stumbled through his answer, saying that he really didn't have the expertise to do so and passed it back to Huckabee.  He went back to education of "caught not taught" and talked about the change in education in the character education courses (manners, ettiquiete, etc.).  Results - less discipline problems as structure and order appeared (contrasted that with gangs offering a place "to be" and structure).

Posted by Skip at 9:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 

 

Former Commission Carol Murray, who led the department for seven years, says sometimes workers' focus to get the job done means they turn a blind eye to environmental violations. Former Commissioner Leon Kenison says he remembers ordering workers to stop illegal dumping, only to be ignored.

 

By Doug 

 

Posted by Doug at 8:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 

 

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) -- Current and former commissioners of the state Department of Transportation say culture is the underlying cause behind years of illegal dumping of hazardous waste.

.

[snip]

.

...interim commission Charles O'Leary has called the actions "stupid and "lazy."

"I don't give a *bleep*. I'm just waiting to retire..."

That is why the answer is not giving them more money. Or power. Or responsibility. Fire the whole bridge crew and give all the work to private contractors. Period. And then look at every last department, employee, boss, peon, whoever. If government made as it's goal the elimination of waste and increasing its effectiveness, while following the same rules and laws as people in the "real world," the state would be an even better place to live.

Other news related to this matter now reveals that all abutters to contaminated sites have been given a clean bill of health by inspectors... from the state. Wow! It took less than two weeks to determine that they, the government through their actions, have harmed nobody. There. The state says so. Doesn't everybody feel better now?

 

 

By Doug 

Posted by Doug at 11:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)