Andru Volinsky has an Op-Ed (full piece after the jump) that is about “shared values”. Unfortunately, he’s not honest enough to say “these are Progressive values” and instead tries to hide them as “commonsense New Hampshire values” trying to make readers think “well, how COULD you argue with these?” as they cock their heads to the side going “huh – what?”. Sure, there are long term NH values, but they are summarized with our State motto – “Live Free or Die”; Volinsky, like all Progressives, is working to change those values in his run for the NH Executive Council. I’m not going to regurgitate the whole thing but outline a couple of wrong headed ideas as well as point out “He’s not from the traditional self-reliant leave-me-alone” community – instead, his guiding principle is more of the communitarianism that is foreign to this State (as well as traditional American values). Instead, he’s happy to further install that foreign European socialist political philosophy that socialist leaning Americans hide behind the “Progressive” facade”.
- There is one other point to consider when it comes to community values.
It’s always about the community – what about individual values? This is the main difference between the two philosophies – while our Founders were thinking about the whole, it was in terms of constraining government to keep it from impinging on the individual.
Here, Volinsky makes it quite clear that “the community” is “the government” and visa versa. Instead of the strict limitation of limited government, an expansive Civil Society (where most interpersonal “community” interactions were to exist and thrive) acts as a buffer between government and individuals, he is quite clear it is one in the same. Again, a Progressive value of blurring any possible difference between Society and government which can only lead to a strangled Society at the expense of an overarching Government.
- representing public employees trying to protect their pensions.
Right – promises made by politicians that can’t be kept must be maintained even as those that are forced to pay for these mistakes must shoulder these additional burdens even as they have hard times themselves. Private individuals have had to sacrifice these past 8 years, Mr. Volinsky – why must government employees be made “whole” – for Government will not (and cannot) make individuals “whole” can it? The only solution is to modernize the whole system to better protect the taxpayer, but that was NOT the intent of Volinsky. Instead, he, as all Progressives, puts Government ahead of those that pay for it (see above, individual rights) – Animal Farm, where some have more uber-Rights than others. Or, can you say “Hunger Games”?
- they worry about their financial security.
And a second shot at taxpayers – what about OUR financial security? Like I just said, we here in the private sector must not only take care of our own families but must sacrifice more BEFORE we can take care of our own? Each and every time we turn around, Government is demanding more to feed itself. How about taxpayers, Mr. Volinsky? Remember that “Live Free” bit? EVERY time any level of Government demands more (either financially or yet even more law or regulation), that “Live Free” that used to be in bold prints fades to white just that little bit more.
And those hackney phrases of “we’re all in this together”, “government is the one thing we all belong to”, and “government is what we all do together” don’t cut it. Enough of the papering over for just as increased taxes and regulations are a hangman’s noose around NH small businesses, they are to us as well in further taking us away from the “Live Free” and towards a “Just Pay” one.
And notice that his entire Op-Ed is protecting Government – that is where his “shared values” lies.
…first as the lead Claremont school funding lawyer
Ah yes, proof of the communitarian outlook – you WILL be forced to pay for other peoples’s need. “Cherish” now means higher property taxes for all even as those communities, like Claremont, made past decisions that kept it from having the robust commercial environments to have the tax environments they needed. But just like the Welfare State where no bad decision can go unmitigated, Mr. Volinsky turned entire communities into “the oppressed”. Progressives talk about corporate welfare – but he shows that government bailouts are perfectly fine (and “moral”).
And the next is the WORST “statement of fact” he makes:
- Access to affordable health care is a basic right and providing access is a value that I share with my community. Executive councilors must approve contracts to implement this right
Like all Progressives, Volinsky believes that just stating something is a Right makes it so – no it does not. A Right exists on its own, apart from anything or anyone else – a Right does not have to be “implemented”. Our Founders knew this to be true – a Right predates government or, in his case, funding. But then again, someone who follows in the pathway of abusing the language for political advantage has no worries in this (re: “Cherish”).
No sir, a Right does not have need of funding, it only needs Government to stay out of its way. Someone’s Right is not dependent on me or anyone else. Once it does, it is no longer a Right. To demand that I must give up something in order to fund someone’s Right proves that it is not a Right in the first place. My Right to Free Speech demands nothing of you nor anyone else. In fact, as is oft said, it doesn’t even require you listen.
But to seize my private property, either directly through taxes or indirectly via government policies on other private entities, proves it is not a Right.
But then again, you pander to those that want “free stuff”. This is the essence of Socialism / Progressivism – envy and greed for what others have.
- the contracts for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England
More baby killing, eh? More feigned ignorance that money is fungible? And you continue to make me and other complicit in their murders.
- Medicaid expansion remains fully in place so that hard-working Granite Staters do not have the added worry of health care insecurity
I’m hard working – and you add to my financial insecurity with policies like this. You’re supposed to be a smart person – which broad based tax will you institute on the rest of us to pay for the fiscal hole for this? After all, we all know that you will not, like most rational people, readjust State financial policies and drop off those at the bottom of the heap? Right? For Government can never be allowed to do less, only more. And more. And more.
- the state, through its contracting, should model exemplary behavior by demanding safe working conditions, equal pay for equal work and livable wages. Vendors who do not meet these standards should not be considered for state contracts
So, pushing the government responsibility for welfare? And we we also see the Progressives acting like King Canute in simply “wishing” away Economic Law of supply and demand. Oh, crap, not really – once again, taxes are the precipice of this as any private concern will adjust their contract price upward for this to account for the ideologically based idiocy that all work is worthy to support whole families.
They aren’t and Mr. Volinsky won’t or can’t be straight with us on this.
- Expanding commuter rail
Again, choo-choo train addicts of 19th Century technology. Tell me, Mr. Volinsky, where in the United States that ANY government rail system, light or heavy, makes a profit? Certainly not the Nor’easter on the coast, not the MBTA in Boston. Chicago, Denver…tell me, where does one exist in the public sector that does not require massive amounts of subsidies?
- For every dollar spent on infrastructure improvements, the local economy grows by more than two dollars.
Wow, a Keynsian wet dream! OK, Mr. Volinsky – the State is repaving parts of the Route 3 bypass here in the Lakes Region at no small cost. What is that cost and how to you plan on openly informing us of how this multiplier effect is going to be judged and justified?
This I really want to see!
- New Hampshire judges must reflect our diverse society.
And no, they don’t. Diversity should play NO role in adequately deciding law. FACTS determine law, FACTS of a case determine how the law is applied if it is blind. Making the call that Diversity is to be a main component in this is to defraud the entire idea of The Rule of Law, for the Progressive view of the Law is that it is malleable to fit the situation.
Which is to say, no Law at all.
By ANDRU VOLINSKY
The New Hampshire Executive Council may be the most influential governmental body that no one knows about.
The Executive Council approves all state contracts for more than $25,000, approves all state appointments and confirms all judges. I am running for Executive Council in District 2, which stretches from Dover and Rochester to Concord to Keene.
I am a bit of an unusual candidate. I have never held public office and much of what I know about state government I learned by suing it – first as the lead Claremont school funding lawyer, then representing public employees trying to protect their pensions.
These public employees are first-responders, teachers and state workers, and I have learned a lot from them as they worry about their financial security.
As a candidate, I spend a lot of time thinking about the values I share with these workers and my potential constituents across the district; it is these values that motivate me to run for office.
There is one other point to consider when it comes to community values. There really is no such thing as a vacuum. If we don’t elect candidates who share our commonsense New Hampshire values, opposing values will prevail. This is not a time to skip the election. Each of us must express our values by voting from the bottom of the ballot to the top in the upcoming primary on Sept. 13 and in the general election on Nov. 8.
Access to affordable health care is a basic right and providing access is a value that I share with my community. Executive councilors must approve contracts to implement this right and it is wrong for Councilors to play politics with health care funding, including the contracts for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, the Joan G. Lovering Health Center and the Equality Health Center in Concord.
It is equally important to ensure that Medicaid expansion remains fully in place so that hard-working Granite Staters do not have the added worry of health care insecurity. As a councilor, I will work hard to protect access to health care and continue the implementation of Medicaid expansion.
The state budget is about $5 billion per year. Whether we think this is too much or too little, the portion of the state budget spent on contracting with vendors must improve our local economies.
Vendors selected for state contracts should be local whenever possible and the state, through its contracting, should model exemplary behavior by demanding safe working conditions, equal pay for equal work and livable wages. Vendors who do not meet these standards should not be considered for state contracts. These contracting principles reflect important values I share with my community.
Expanding commuter rail is essential to moving New Hampshire forward by creating jobs and attracting younger workers and their families. Executive councilors must support commuter rail in the state’s 10-year transportation plan and must work to improve our failing infrastructure both for safety reasons and to create new jobs.
Infrastructure investments impact local economies. For every dollar spent on infrastructure improvements, the local economy grows by more than two dollars. This is a good use of our limited resources and councilors must insist upon the highest return for our job-creating dollars – yet another New Hampshire value that I support.
Finally, New Hampshire judges must reflect our diverse society. They must also be thoughtful participants in criminal justice reform.
Over-incarceration and incarceration without rehabilitation have worsened the current drug crisis and contributed to unemployment and the breakdown of involved families. The cost of incarceration must be viewed both as an investment in our safety and as an investment in returning those who are incarcerated to contributing useful lives as soon as possible.
We can do much better on this score, and I will work hard to make sure council decisions and appointments reflect a more reasonable approach to our criminal justice system.
Granite Staters need a strong advocate on the Executive Council who shares their values and will elevate their voices in State House conversations.
I would be honored to earn the trust, support and votes of District 2 residents in the Sept. 13 state primary.
(Andru Volinsky lives in Concord. For more information, go to VolinskyNH.com.)