Democrat Values Vs. TEA Party Values

by Steve MacDonald

The Entire New Hampshire Democrat party is running against the TEA Party.  They claim that they stand for New Hampshire values, not TEA Party values.  Well I can see why Democrats would object to TEA Party values but are they sure they can lay claim to New Hampshire Values?

Tea party originalFor the novices in the audience the TEA Party stood up to object to excessive spending and the taxes that spending would inevitably require.  (If your president spends 5 trillion dollars in just three years and you don’t make a peep in objection, that is a Democrat party value–someone has to pay for that, and it is the middle class and everyone else and suggesting otherwise it a bald-faced lie; another Democrat party value?)  Americans saw that for what it was when it started in 2009 and rose up in opposition.  T.E.A = Taxed Enough Already.

Knowing what we know about New Hampshire Democrats do you really want them speaking for your values?  I don’t think you do.  But here are a few examples of New Hampshire Democrat Values to help you decide.

New Hampshire House Democrats actually passed a law that could have allowed people to use any public facility they wanted, based on the gender they felt like.   Do your values allow strange men to share public restrooms, locker or shower facilities with your daughters?

New Hampshire Democrats promised a budget to address New Hampshire’s priorities without raising taxes.  They then proceeded to add billions in new spending and about 100 new taxes and fees, leaving behind an 800 million dollar deficit when they were done.  Do you run your household like that?  Are these the kinds of money management habits you teach to your children?

New Hampshire Democrats added those taxes and fees to your wallet, during what they themselves first called “The Worst Recession In History.”  So when you needed the money the most, they spent more of it than any legislature in New Hampshire history.

New Hampshire Democrats outsourced the taxing power to an unelected, unaccountable board (RGGI), with the authority to add, oversee, and manage fees with the equvelnt force of law (taxes) that would increases the cost of your energy bill, without any elected Democrat ever having to cast a vote or be held accountable for the money that RGGI laundered into state coffers. (Isn’t that taxation without representation?)

State law require public hearings before any new tax can be voted on and enacted.  But New Hampshire Democrats repeatedly ‘skipped’ this requirement, to enact last minute crisis budgeting taxes on campgrounds, and small business owners (to name but two) in the middle of the night, when no one was supposed to be watching. Taxes that would make the cost of goods and services rise at your expense.

Democrat John Lynch, the highest elected official in the state, said parents needed to play a part in any discussion where their underage daughters were seeking an abortion, and then signed  a law that cut parents out of that loop completely. (In the TEA Party we call  this lying, and Lynch did this on several other issues as well.)

New Hampshire Democrats repeatedly looked the other way when their own House reps were accused of legislating for their own benefit, manipulate department heads and inside influence, and even underage drinking.

Then Chairman of the Democrat Party, Kathy Sullivan, who to this day insists there is no vote fraud, actually housed an out of state campaign sign stealer, who voted illegally in Manchester before fleeing the state.

Democrats Sylvia Larsen (Senate President) and Terri Norelli (House Speaker), at the start of the Great Recession, spent $72,000.00 of your money to remodel their bathroom in the state house.

New Hampshire Democrats work very hard to accumulate power in Concord while cramming costs down on towns and cities.

There are literally dozens of other examples where New Hampshire Democrats were irresponsible stewards of your state budget, and your tax dollars, at a time when you needed them most; of where they side-stepped the system for their own benefit; of cases of outright lying.   So yeah, I can see why they object to TEA Party values–the TEA Party wants things no New Hampshire Democrat would ever want.

The Tea Party supports lower taxes, fewer meddling government bureaucrats, more local control,  and free markets that allow for more choices and more personal responsibility.   So whose values are more like New Hampshire, a state with a small accountable government, no broad based taxes, and a history of local grass roots activism?

I’ve only lived in New Hampshire for about 22 years but TEA Party values sound a lot more like New Hampshire Values to me.

 

 

Leave a Comment

  • Hunter Dan

    Here’s a chilling example from the recent NH GOP shindig:

    Chris Lawless, a delegate from Hopkinton, proposed the amendment,
    saying that opposition to gay marriage doesn’t make sense for a party
    that touts small government. The state, he said, has no business
    interfering in personal relationships, especially if they don’t affect
    their neighbors’ lives.
    “In the three years that gay marriage had
    been legal in New Hampshire, I can tell you that my marriage has not
    been affected with my wife,” he said to scattered applause. “It actually
    gave me the opportunity to talk to my children about people who are
    different.” ”

    Here we have a sensible Republican, who cares about what it means to be a Republican(i.e. less govt. intrusion into people’s lives) proposing a sensible addition to his party’s platform. But alas, in true hypocritical tea-party fashion – the majority of his colleagues table the idea.

    I have a new word for the “TP-controlled GOP in this country: Hypocrats.

    Democrats are for some Govt. intrusion in the form of legislation, regulation, etc. If you ask them that, they’ll say so. And their deeds also show that.

    Hypocrats, however, CLAIM to be for smaller govt. when you ask them about it. Yet, their actions reveal just the opposite to be the case(i.e. anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage stances.)

    Hypocrats are LIKE Democrats, with one big difference:

    • C. dog e. doG

      Hey dannyboy –
      If he were a real small government kinda guy, he would realize adding government licensing to homosexual hookups only adds to the size of Nanny’s BFA, not reducing it. But that’s a difficult concept for prattling pols to understand, and the minions who carry their water.
      – C. dog on point during fall paatridge season

  • Once again, the famous $72,000 bathroom was a PUBLIC bathroom on the 3rd floor of the State House. It is open to any woman who finds herself on the 3rd floor of the State House. It was NOT, NOT, NOT a private bathroom for legislative leadership. You are spreading easily refutable misinformation— or you are simply telling a lie.

    You could argue that it is wasteful to be upgrading any facilities at the State House, but O’Brien & Bragdon have also allowed capital expenditures to go forward under their watch. Under Republican leadership, new roofs were put on both the State House and the Legislative Office Building— and this fall the Senate is getting new carpeting.

    • Tom Humphreys

      And just how many female members of the public would have the opportunity to use, or even know about this facility?

    • C. dog e. doG

      Hey Timmy –
      If I put on sum lipstick, and sashay to that gilded non-male gender toilet room on the 3rd floor, can I get in to squat and pee with the big ladies?
      – C. dog lifts rear leg to solute a real democrat

      • hunter dan

        I hope you make a better-looking’woman than you do a man – but I ain’t holdin’ my breath!

        • C. dog e. doG

          I hope when your firing your pea-shooter your more on point.
          – C. dog taking aim while in the girls room

  • Pingback: Democrat Values Vs. TEA Party Values – Part Deuce (the middle class are ALL Unionists??) — GraniteGrok()

  • Pingback: Democrat Values Vs. TEA Party Values: Technocrats or elected officials – who should actually govern? — GraniteGrok()

  • DiverDuck61

    Minor clarification. Obama didn’t just spend $5 trillion, he spent about $12 trillion, he had to borrow $5 trillion of the $12 trillion to fund his excessive spending.

  • Hair

    Nice job reelecting the spender in chief. Why? More layoffs. More rising energy prices which means that ANYTHING that is transported will also get more expensive! More ‘rights’ for lllegal immigrants at YOUR expense. Elimination of 2nd amendment rights which affects EVERYONE irregardless of sex or sexual preference!
    Nice. Alot to think about as the nation continues to tank

Previous post:

Next post: