GraniteGrok

Cost shifting, the act of forcing another part of overall government to pay for something it shouldn't, is one of the hot topic in NH in the race between Jeb Bradley and John Stephen in the Republican Primary  in the Congressional District 1.  A guest blog from John E. Poirier, President and CEO of the NHHCA, speaks to this issue:

Opinion Editorial:  August 22, 2008

John E. Poirier, President & CEO,  New Hampshire Health Care Association

Politics and Truth

Every political season brings claims of qualifications, past successes and promises for a brighter future.  There are always experienced, successful office holders past and present, some experienced at running and some newcomers.  This year’s 1st congressional district has an interesting race on the Republican side. 

There is an experienced former Congressman Jeb Bradley that has shown New Hampshire and the nation who he is and what he will do if re-elected.  And then there is a person who has run unsuccessfully in the past and chosen to pursue the bureaucrat path to office.  John Stephen is using his tenure in New Hampshire government to claim he is a conservative.  In his campaign literature he claims to have “saved” $143 million of taxpayer money.  Some think he is a conservative.  I beg to differ. 

I work for long term care providers including nursing homes.  The great majority of the people in nursing homes, both county and private nursing homes, are paid through the state Medicaid program.  During his tenure as Commissioner, Mr. Stephen intentionally paid the nursing homes less than the amount the legislature had decided nursing homes should be paid.  In other words, Mr. Stephen took it upon himself to override the legislature’s will.

What was the impact of Commissioner Stephen’s decision to override the legislature?

In private nursing homes, people paying privately had to pay more to balance the books.  In county nursing homes, the county taxpayer had to pay more to balance the books.  Either way, someone was paying the bill.  The 10’s of millions of dollars which Commissioner Stephen says he “saved” was actually paid for by others, much of it by county taxpayers.  And to make matters worse, at a time when the State has to count every penny, Commissioner Stephen’s decision not to spend the money which the legislature appropriated kept millions of matching federal funds in Washington, D.C.

When John Stephen chose not to pay these bills, the additional cost did not magically vanish.  Someone else had to pay the bill.  The money came from higher property taxes, higher costs to residents or their families or from nursing home operations.  Stephen will tell you the State paid more to nursing homes during his tenure and that is true.  But it is also true that nursing home costs, as with medical cost generally, escalated significantly more than Medicaid payments during this time. 
Is it conservative to leave money in Washington?  Is it conservative to pass on hidden taxes to citizens and local property taxpayers?  Is it conservative to override the policy decisions of the legislature?

It is easy to save other people’s money.  Claiming that makes you a conservative is disingenuous at best.

Posted by Skip at 3:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From our friends  at the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition, on the decision by the Manchester Board of Alderman NOT to place a spending cap question on the November ballot:

STREET FIGHT AT CITY HALL AND THE TAXPAYERS LOST

Gang of Eight Alderman Seek to Delay the Will of 4,000 Residents

Manchester, NH – The Manchester spending cap petition, which was lawfully collected by volunteer voters in Manchester, was narrowly rejected for placement on the November ballot by a "Gang of Eight" aldermen led by Mike Lopez. The "Gang of Eight" called the placement of the measure on the November ballot "too soon," and claimed "too many questions remain about it."  These alderman were Aldermen Mike Lopez, Bill Shea, Betsi DeVries, George Smith, Russ Ouellette, Mark Roy, Jim Roy and Dan O'Neil. The taxpayers may have lost on this night but a rematch is scheduled for this Friday at 4:00 pm.
 
"What we witnessed last night was nothing short of an affirmation of why we need a spending cap here in Manchester. The board had four months to get answers to their "questions." Four months to make their case to the voters of Manchester on why we shouldn't have a spending cap. Instead the "Gang of Eight" spent four months trying to figure out how to keep it off the November ballot." said Mike Biundo, Chairman of NHAC.
 
If Mike Lopez's "Gang of Eight" gets their way, Manchester taxpayers will have to spend $50,000 on a low turn-out high dollar special election which will need to be held during our holiday season.
 
"Shopping and sipping our egg nog; that's how Lopez and company are hoping to catch us, causing a wintery low turnout and high dollar holiday special election." continues Biundo
 
The New Hampshire Advantage Coalition appreciates the leadership displayed by Mayor Frank Guinta and Aldermen Mike Garrity, Kelleigh Domaingue, Ted Gatsas, Peter Sullivan, Ed Osborne and Real Pinard for holding back the tide of special interest talk and voting for the spending cap to be placed appropriately on the November ballot.
 
Will the voters of Manchester let eight residents stand in the way of the will of 4,000? We shall see…

 

Posted by Doug at 6:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

With the big spenders, that is:

We really DON'T need her down in DC doing for the country what she did to New Hampshire...

I'll git you my little pretties! Heheheheeeeee!

YIKES!

Posted by Doug at 11:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

To most conservatives, the Federal tax code should be used to raise money for the Federal government operations.  This Prez election matters because uber-Liberal Obama has said that he will use the tax code "to make it fairer". Let's set the context with this quote from 1787 from Scottish historian Alexander Tyler:

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

A gift does not have to be one that is given; it can also be one that is not taken.  In this case, voters have continued to vote for people that have saved them money at the expense of "the other".  What have we created for a society, as I have said repeatedly before on the 'Grok, when most of that society have no skinny in the game?  What is the long term result when people feel that society is "free" when it is demonstrably not?  Me?  My answer is more selfish children - "what's in it for me!"

My question is: "how much more change is he willing to do to make it more fair than it already is?" 

Now for the numbers from the IRS that prove that what we have is not fair (H/T: NTU via Thurber's Thoughts)

I echo Maggie's words:

Since Democrats, and liberals in general, are all about fairness, how is it fair that the top 5% pay 60% of the taxes? Shouldn't we all be paying a 'fair' portion? If we were really being 'fair,' wouldn't they have to pay only 5% of the federal income taxes?

And do people actually understand that if you make more than $64,702, you're in the top 25% of taxpayers? With this threshold, most public employees are 'rich.' And those good factory workers, like at Jeep and Hydromatic - good UAW union jobs - are probably in that group, especially if there are two wage earners in the family. These are the people who are already paying the vast majority of the taxes. So is it fair to make them pay more so that people who make less than $31,987 can pay less than the 3% they're currently paying?

Ok, Obama, let's hear the explanation! Tell me WHY this tax system is fair to all?  Tell me that by eliminating the financial sharing of the cost of government is good for society?

Continue reading ""Fairer" Taxes - they certainly are not!" »

Posted by Skip at 8:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I got the following from our friends over at the Moultonboro Citizens Alliance concerning how the looming budget deficit in NH.  Given the rise of 17.5% in the overall budget that the newly empowered Democrats engineered at the last session in Concord, here are a few things that the MCA folks found that the Dems are now trying to use to close the budget gap.

Of all the issues facing NH, the loss of the "NH Advantage" due to fiscal irresponsibility, is one of the most pressing. Over the last two years, spending has increased by $475 Million or 17.5%. To defray the costs of this overspending, taxes and fees have been raised on 20 separate items.

Below, you can see all the 2007-2008 increases.

Home and Personal:

• Repealed communications tax exemption, increasing residential phone rates (HB 2)
• Increase in motorcycle registration fee by 25% (HB 2)
• Increase in registration fee for all automobiles of at least $6 per year (HB 2)
• Increase on the tax on both diesel and regular gasoline for cleanup fund (HB 1426)
• Increase in certain motor vehicle fees (HB 1596)
• HB 2 shifts to the county taxpayers all future responsibility for all nursing home and Medicaid costs
  

Tobacco/Gambling:

• Increase in tobacco tax by $.28 per pack (HB 2, 2007)
• Increase in tobacco tax by $.25 per pack (if $50M is not raised by Oct-SB 321)
• New tax on cigars (HB 1309)
• Increase in tobacco licensing fees (SB 317)
• New tax on charitable gaming (HB 1509)
  

Sportsmen:

• Increase in the wild turkey fee from $5 to $15 for residents, and $5 to $30 for nonresidents (HB 2)
• Increase in the nonresident fee for moose permits too $450 (HB 2)
  

Business/Real Estate:

• Increase in tractor trailer registrations (HB 2)
• New fee for meals and rentals licenses (HB 599)
• New $25 fee assessed on each property transaction recording for LCHIP (HB 2)
• Increase of registration fee for mortgage servicing companies (SB 162)

Environment:

• Increase of fees for reviewing terrain alterations from $500 to $1250 (HB 2)
• Increase of fees for shoreline structure application from $100 to $200, plus impact fee increase (HB 2)
• Increase of fees for impact dredge and fill projects application from $100 to $200 (HB 2)
• Increase of fees for hazardous waste management by $2500 (HB 472)
  

Access to Courts

• New fees for certain cases in the judicial family court (SB 350)
• New $25 filing fee for court proceedings (HB 2)

Moultonboro Citizens Alliance (MCA)
PO Box 678
Moultonboro, NH 03254
email: moultonborocitizensalliance@yahoo.com
website: www.moultonborocitizensalliance.org

Posted by Skip at 8:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Regular readers understand that one of the issues that drives me nuts are the Liberals that are slowly redefining the word charity (here and here for starters) . In their eyes, no longer is it the case that charity is an individual act of will and kindness that drives a person, or a voluntary grouping of people, to give of their time and / or money to help another person or a particular cause.  Charity is that I decide when I give to someone else - it is my decision and not dependent on anyone else.

Liberals love to do charity too. Problem, they have no moral problem in taking money from you and I involuntarily to give to others.  They believe that they have the moral mandate, via government taxes, to carry out their choice of charity work, regardless of my feelings towards their causes. 

Think I'm kidding?  Our friend Maggie over at Thurber's Thoughts has the scoop of a Democrat spilling the beans:

Redfern explained that America needs to tax people to provide charitable services through the government because, without forcing people through taxation, most Americans wouldn't help take care of the 'least among us.' When Fred pointed out that Don would be happy to help 'the least among us' if government weren't taking so much of his money first, Redfern said:

"I suspect Don would, but unfortunately, most Americans would not - and if we remove that kind of support, strategem, then you remove the entire reason for having any kind of projects, programs, initiatives..."

Got that?  The Chairman of the OHIO DEMOCRATS believes that Americans, the most generous people in the world, are skinflints.  He believes that Democrats have the moral right to force you, via taxes, to involuntarily give charity. Which, by definition, is no longer charity.  And that you should then feel good  about it.

And then let's slip that if "Don" was able to keep more of his money and donate it as he would want to, there'd be no need for government horning in on charitable organizations.

Listen to the clip here.

Go to Maggie's where she rightly castigates the moral equivalence of Redfern trying to compare the Constitutional mandate to keep the country safe militarily at the national level and local mandates to provide safety and infrastructure to all of the charitable actions he wants government to usurp.

And why Redfern is wrong.

Posted by Skip at 9:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

from Dean Dexter:

The Empire Center for New York State Policy has loaded the salaries of all NY state employees on the web...
 
For years all state department head salaries were published by name in the Red Book every biennium, but that ceased in the 1970's...only the names appear (commissioner, deputiy commissioner, etc.). What a great idea it would be to set up a website dedicated to New Hampshire public salaries like this one. Unfortunately, however, due to the immense resources required to do it for all public workers (town, city, county state) it might be difficult, at first, to do here. Still, a good start could be to put up a website for state department heads in the spirit of the old Red Books...
 
It also might be a worthy project for local taxpayers groups and activists to put up such websites in their locales: town by town, city by city...
 
The importance, of course, is to keep it current...

Here's a story about the new New York site:
http://www.govtech.com/gt/383701
 
Here's the site itself:
http://www.seethroughny.net/

[Ed. note] Of course, regular readers know that in our little corner of the universe, this is being tried at the county and at the town level-- and is actually happening in some places here in the state. Several towns, such as Loudon still print them in the annual report, and elsewhere, like in Dover, there are websites much like Dean notes above. It has been said that the "transparency movement is sweeping the country." Perhaps this is further evidence of that. Thanks Dean...

Dean Dexter has long been active in local and state politics, having served in various elected positions. Visit his website, NHCommentary.com.

Posted by Doug at 2:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

For all those who seem to think that raising taxes will not alter behavior, they should pay attention to what happens in states that try to fund health plans by taxing cigarettes.

I have always thought it was a dumb extremely stupid idea to tax something that you wish to get rid of but target that tax to fund a high priority "something" (like healthcare).  PERHAPS, decent social policy, but rotten fiscal policy as sooner or later, that-which-is-taxed runs out, along with its tax money. 

If Nanny-State / Fascist politicians actually believed what they say they do ("we know what is best for you so we will force you to stop smoking"), they should just outright make it illegal (uh-huh that's not going to happen; maybe they haven't forgotten lesson is that was Prohibition). 

But, the taxers forgot that there are alternative reactions to high taxation on things like tobacco - not only might they get some cessation of the behavior ("too expensive for me!") such as this:

Guess what people do? As the WSJ writes today, they try to evade the tax. In Maryland they raised the tax to $2 a pack to fund health care plans and found that cigarette sales have fallen 25%.

Ah, people decided to quit the habit? Good news socially, but not fiscally, right? Er, not so fast.

People travel to Virginia to buy cigarettes.

Oh, those pesky citizens that just don't want to pay their fair share!  How DARE they?  So, what are we going to do?

And so Maryland politicians are trying to outlaw the free travel of consumers to buy a product in a different state.

The Maryland pols are so afraid this is true that they've made it a crime for residents to carry two packs of cigarettes that weren't purchased in the state. In other words, the state says it's legal to smoke, so long as you use cigarettes that the government can tax and thus become a financial partner in your bad habit. But if you dare to buy smokes across state lines, you can be fined.

Good luck with enforcing that law. Are they going to set up police barricades at the state border to make sure that no one is bringing back two packs? I thought that one of the motivations for our federal Constitution was to prevent one state from taxing another state's imports into that state. Barring those purchases entirely is an astounding reach of state power.

Betsy (and all good liberty minded people) rightly treat this idea with derision.  Problem is, it already is happening.  Like I said above, NH has no sales or income taxes.  Thus, no tax on alcohol or tobacco products.  If you travel north from MA, you can see the state owned "packies" at "rest areas" along Rt 93 so you see lots of MA license plates.

Problem is, not all of them are just MA citizens.  The Peoples' Republic of MA has state law enforcement has agents (think up to a couple of HOURS travel north) in these parking lots busily scribbling down plate numbers of cars going south.

For later inspection.  Which they will do.  In MA.

They do fine these rotten, miserable, unwilling-to-pay-their-fair-share citizens whose only crime is really to avoid paying confiscatory taxes set by politicians that can't keep their own hands in their own pants.

Posted by Skip at 6:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Is this in the US?

Nope!

‘Hoookah,’ ‘nargile,’ ‘hubbly-bubbly’ -- all names for the waterpipe, a smoking instrument typically found in the Middle East in which tobacco smoke is drawn through water and cooled before the smoke is sucked into the mouth through a tube.

For the last several years, U.S. taxpayers have spent more than $1 million to fund research on waterpipes and waterpipe use in studies being conducted at the Syrian Center for Tobacco Study, in Aleppo, Syria.

“We’ve done some studies in Syria just looking at the prevalence of it in the general population, and in average groups like college students,” researcher Ken Ward of the University of Memphis Department of Health and Sport Sciences, told CNSNews.com.

Ward and his associates in Syria have received a number of grants from the federal National Institutes of Health (NIH) over the years for research on waterpipes – $21,000 for a project that ended in 2007; $326,000 in 2006 to establish the Syrian Center for Tobacco Study; $334,000 for center projects in 2004; and $438,000 in 2005.

“Right now we’re doing an intervention study in Syria, looking at how to help people who are interested in quitting to actually quit permanently,” he said.

Got that?  In Syria - a country that is a laptop of Iran in supporting Hezbullah in trying to destabilize Lebanon and wipe Israel off the map.  Our NIH "experts" believe that hookah smoking here in the US is at such a level that it requires us to give money to a terrorist sponsoring government.

Ain't that just dandy!

It is no secret that we are in favor of both Jeb Bradley's (running to unseat Carol Shea-Porter in NH-1) and Grant Bosse's (running to unseat Paul Hodes in NH-2) lists of government programs that are just wasteful - I humbly submit that this program be joined to both lists.

WHY the heck to do have to pay to spend that kind of money on something like this?  We know smoking is bad.  We know that Syria is bad.  We know that hookahs, in concentrating that smoke and the nicotine that travels via it, is bad.

COMMON SENSE SAYS THIS IS A NO BRAINER!

Look, I'm not anti-science - I have a two degrees in the hard sciences.  My main concern is that why not let the Syrians study their own hookahs and trying to get government to understand that there are more things to do or study than money.  Please start using restraint, consider tax money a constraint, and stop using taxpayers as ATMs for dubious reasons such as this.

CNSNews.com asked Ward, if, given the fact that we know that cigarette smoke is harmful, do we need to study what we know intuitively to be true: that waterpipes likely are as harmful as cigarettes?

“That does make intuitive sense, and the research being done does support that – but that message doesn’t seem to be getting out to young people who are using it,” Ward said. “Some of the comments we hear is that, ‘If it was dangerous, they wouldn’t be selling it.’ Of course, that’s not true for cigarettes and it’s also not true for waterpipes.”

So instead of letting common sense work, instead of letting consequences of making bad decisions teach these folks a lesson that can be seen by others, once again, the Nanny State is going to insert themselves.  If you are that stupid, after listening to years of warnings (back to the '60s) and you are still going to take up smoking, anintervention by a researcher is probably not going to make you stop.  After all, their parents have, more than likely, said "Don't do this!" (listen to your Momma, she's generally right!)

Conservative taxpayer groups like Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) say that even if the research is a good idea, it is not necessarily something that U.S. tax dollars need to fund.

“Why is the federal taxpayer always the one who has to pay for this?” said CAGW Vice President David Williams. “We question whether this is a national priority to figure out the problems of other countries. Let’s figure out our problems and solve those.”

Part of the problem, Williams said, is that the NIH has access to many billions of dollars.

“What you have is a bunch of experts that sit around and they shake their heads, and they say, ‘Yeah, this is a good idea, let’s do research on this. Let’s have some blockbuster results,’” he said.

 The problem is that programs like this come about when government has too much money.  Instead of prioritizing correctly, instead of asking themselves the question "What is the proper role of government?" and asking "How does this affect taxpayers?", these researchers over at NIH just say "Hey, we got a budget - what's interesting to study?"

“Unfortunately, one of the truly blockbuster results (of the budget process) is that we have a huge deficit and national debt that taxpayers are saddled with,” said Williams.

All of these little things add up.  What's worse is the mentality and philosophy that it engenders that spending like this is nothing out of the ordinary.  In other words, it's ok to spend for this stuff. 

The Syrian studies have been funded through the NIH’s Fogarty International Center, a branch of the federal health service that has been paying for international scientific research for the last 40 years. In FY 2009, the Fogarty Center is slated to receive $66 million.

So, what's better - spending money on Hookah research or fixing a bridge somewhere - or better yet, supplying vouchers to poor families to send their kids to good, results-priented schools....
 

Posted by Skip at 8:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

“I’ve been workin’ on the railroad, All the live long day. I've been workin’ on the railroad, Just to pass the time away. Don’t you hear the whistle blowing? Rise up so early in the morn. Don’t you hear the captain shouting ‘Dinah, blow your horn?’”

Quaint words from a bygone era, no doubt. Unfortunately, not everybody leaves the choo-choos back in the memories of childhood long ago. Oh no, there are those, especially politicians, that can’t keep trains a fond remembrance. They feel the need to play with trains, and therefore, they end up with the ultimate set, all funded with OUR money. That’s right- we really ARE workin’ for the railroad, only, you probably didn’t know it, and Dinah isn’t in your kitchen cooking up some grub, and, sadly, there’s no one strummin’ on that ole banjo…

But seriously, there they go again—the railroad promoters, that is. As sure as the seasons change, they’re coming at us for our support—and money—for their long-held dreams of restoring rail service here in New England, looking to return it to its once-mighty seat at the top of our transportation system. To me, this is all well and good, except it doesn’t work out here in the country. I’ve long maintained that public transportation—especially rail-based— works in urban areas, and works well. Here in the sticks, not so. There’s a reason why rail fell out of favor with the advent of the modern automobile and truck, along with America’s awesome Interstate Highway System: FREEDOM.

The ability to go where we want, whenever we want, and with who we want is something that people have long recognized and appreciated. Until now, that is. With gas prices where they are, there are undoubtedly those thinking about trading their individual ride for so-called “public” transportation. Not me. They’ll have to pry the steering wheel from my cold, dead fingers. Count me as one American who is still mired in the midst of a love affair with my automobile. 

The July 14th Laconia Daily Sun carried a story (page 3) that stated,

“Given the high gas prices and the public’s desire for more transportation choices, New Hampshire’s rail enthusiasts are displaying ‘I think I can’ optimism when it comes to expanding passenger train service.”

The piece went on to announce a gathering of “rail advocates” that took place last week

“to discuss how increased passenger rail service could accelerate the state’s economy.”

Ooooh, doesn’t that sound exciting? And you just know it’s a good idea because, guess who’s pushing it? None other than that great and all-knowing leader that makes one immediately think of innovation and success: Michael Dukakis. I know what you’re thinking, “But Doug, Michael DUKAKIS? You mean the same guy that was the Governor of Massachusetts?” Yes, indeed. THAT Michael Dukakis.

Again from the Sun article:

Continue reading "Ridin' the rails. Clickety Clack... " »

Posted by Doug at 8:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

No matter whose interpretation you accept, you know that at the end of the day, Biundo's take is accurate, and most thinking persons will know this. What am I talking about? This video:

Here's what Michael Biundo, Chairman of the NH Advantage had to say about what was caught on tape:

As Chairman of the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition, I have made it my commitment to fight against higher taxes and keep spending to a reasonable level. Just this year we started spending cap drives in eight communities and instituted our "Defending the New Hampshire Advantage Pledge". The goal of the pledge and our spending cap proposals are to keep spending levels low enough that we do not need an income tax and that we do not lose our low tax advantage.

 These are not Republican proposals, these are not Democrat proposals, they are New Hampshire proposals. 

I have to be honest though, I am amazed that not one elected Democrat has signed our pledge and have found it even more amazing that their Chairman Ray Buckley and their  former Chairman Kathy Sullivan have spent time on progressive websites like Blue New Hampshire attacking our efforts. I guess what they don’t realize is that about 25-30% of the people who sign our spending cap proposals are in fact Democrats.  

Perhaps this video will shed some light on why they are attacking our efforts and  why spending in Concord under John Lynch and the current Democrat leadership has increased 17.5%.  Maybe if you listen closely, you will even hear what some Democrats leaders (including their Chairman) really think about an income tax.

To which NH Dem Party Chair Ray Buckley replied,

Continue reading "Granite State Dem Leaders: If you listen closely, you can almost hear them as they plot to tax us in ways unimagined only a short while ago..." »

Posted by Doug at 8:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

From the Americans for Tax Reform: Cost of Government Day!

Cost of Government Day (COGD) is the date of the calendar year on which the average American worker has earned enough gross income to pay off his or her share of spending and regulatory burdens imposed by government on the federal, state and local levels.

Cost of Government Day 2008

Cost of Government Day for 2008 is July 16.  Working people must toil on average 197 days out of the year just to meet all costs imposed by government.  In other words, the cost of government consumes 53.9 percent of national income.

Cost of Government: Trends

Cost of Government Day falls four days later in 2008 than last year’s revised date of July 12.  In 2008, the average American will have to work an additional 17 days out of the year to pay off his or her cost of government compared to 2000, when the COGD was June 29.

In fact, since 1977, COGD has fallen later than July 16 in only four of those 32 years - in 1982 and 1983, and in 1992 and 1993.  The driving factor for this development is the fact that all components of the cost of government – federal spending, state and local spending, and regulation – are now increasing faster than national income.

This is why I do my part to slow the rate of increase of taxes (at least at the local level).  I find it just absolutely nuts to think that for most of us, government believes that it should have the "first fruits" of our labor - that it should come before our family's needs.  

Is there a real reason that government should be financially treated better than your family members with your money?

(H/T: NRO)

For another take on this: Publius

Posted by Skip at 7:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

No doubt about it, we are behind both the Coalition of NH Taxpayers anti-tax pledge as well as the anti-spending pledge by the NH Advantage Coalition.  Low taxes are a results of low spending; it is up to the citizenry to watch over their government.  After all, our elected politicians govern only by the consent of the governed (that's us).

On the other hand, the Hippo Press and its publisher, Jody Reese, represent the opposite view of pro-government spending.  It matters not the economic environment with them - at all costs and with all arguments (however specious), they are always taking the side of the more and more taxes to be extracted from the taxpayers.  They say to trust the elected officials to watch the budget.  Remember, the Hippo has tried to influence this issue, as in the yellow press of yore, with obfuscation (see here)

What is cast aside from the main argument is this - the trust of the local taxpayer has already been lost by the fact that these movements exist.  Given that most towns and cities in NH voted down extra spending during Town Meetings and votes is an indication of that.

The foremost and basic question should always be - who exists for the benefit of who?  The answer - government exists ONLY for the benefit of the taxpayers.  Thus, taxpayers should ALWAYS come first.

I love this video - it shows that when confronted with the facts with able debaters, there is no winning for big government spenders.  Tammy Simmons from NHAC and Mayor Ken Merrifield of Franklin (that has had a tax cap for nearly 30 years) face down and embarrass Mr. Reese on Arnie Arneson's Political Chowder TV show.

I put the VIDEO after the jump (as it autoplays on some browsers and THAT is really annoying).

(H/T: Denis Goddard at the FreeState Project )

Continue reading "Hippo - once again, preferring government over families" »

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

A taxpayer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

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

.

Posted by Doug at 10:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When I visited the Post Office today here in beautiful bucolic Gilford, NH, this is what greeted me, tacked to the bulletin board near the wanted posters:

Note the handy "tear sheets" a girl could conveniently keep in her purse, you know, "in case":

Notice this:

Of course, "emergency contraception" is another term for the abortion pill. Yep-- the teen "family planning" includes abortions. Surely they would arrange for a more "tradional" type if "needed"...

And of course, it's really good because the "services" are made to be affordable for those trying to live on a teenager's salary:

Especially when they want to keep Mom & Dad out of the loop...

And guess who's paying for this, or at least making it affordable? Sadly, I was not surprised:

Continue reading "Helping to make certain things in "life" more affordable for the children. How sweet!" »

Posted by Doug at 4:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Our friends at the NH Advantage Coalition (NHAC) tell us that

Governor Lynch raised spending by 17.5% (1/2 of a billion dollars) during this last budget cycle. This spike in spending caused NH government to fall into a huge budget deficit crisis. The ramifications of this irresponsible spending triggered the need for kneejerk cuts, bonded borrowing from our children’s future, taxes and then some more taxes. Despite the hard lessons to be learned from not keeping spending in check, currently Governor Lynch continues to avoid taking NHAC’s Defending the New Hampshire Advantage Pledge. In addition, he has repeatedly  refused to discuss our spending cap proposals when asked about their merits from his constituents.

Here he is dodging the question:

You can see him giving the same "not-so artful dodge" a week ago if you click here. As you can see by these short videos, Governor Do-Nothin' Lynch seemingly has no interest in the subject of capping spending (like that was a surprise...) Again, writes the NHAC,

As of Monday, over seventy current office holders and candidates have signed the pledge to defend the New Hampshire Advantage. Later this week and periodically thereafter, the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition will be releasing the names of those who are serious about keeping New Hampshire from having to institute a broad based tax.

 “In addition to placing spending caps on local ballots this November, the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition will be very active in educating  voters on just who is willing to pledge to defend the New Hampshire Advantage. I find it unfortunate given the current budget crisis that we are facing,  that Governor Lynch neither feels the need to sign our pledge, nor discuss our spending cap proposals.” said Mike Biundo, NHAC Chairman.

Geez, Mike. You're tough! After all, he signed the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), thus raising our energy costs, hiked the minimum wage, potentially causing more unemployment, and strengthened laws against child predators- a really brave position to take. What more do you want?      

Posted by Doug at 1:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The following was written by Representative Greg Sorg. Can you imagine if the Republicans had pulled this stunt?

Citizens of New Hampshire who fail to follow the activities of their state government do so at the peril of their freedom and property. A stark demonstration why took place this week.

On Wednesday, June 4th, Governor Lynch invoked an obscure, nearly obsolete provision of the New Hampshire Constitution to call a “special session” of the Legislature, to convene that very day, a day in which the Legislature was already scheduled to meet in regular session and was in fact actually assembled in Concord and conducting business when his proclamation was officially issued. Why did he do this?

He did it because House and Senate rules prevent the introduction of new bills this late in their regular annual sessions unless authorized by a two-thirds vote of each chamber. Governor Lynch wanted a new bill introduced that would allow the borrowing of over $100,000,000 in order to cover the record budget deficit he and his fellow Democrats in the Legislature have run up. He realized that House Republicans, who comprise over one-third of its membership, would never accede to such a bill; that we would instead demand dealing with the deficit by rolling back the Democrat spending spree of the past two years that has created it. But if he were to call a “special session” of the Legislature, not only could a new bill be introduced, but new rules of procedure, stifling inquiry of and opposition to it and guaranteeing its immediate passage, could be adopted by simple majority vote.

And so it came to pass that immediately after completing the business of Wednesday’s regular session, we were called into special session, and all the normal safeguards to open government and mature consideration of proposed legislation were summarily jettisoned. The Governor’s bill, which few of us had even seen before we were required by our newly-adopted rules to debate and vote on it that very day, was not referred to a committee; was not given a public hearing; and was not discussed, voted on and forwarded to the full House with a committee’s written recommendation. So outraged were House Republicans by the resulting caricature of representative government that we staged a walkout that brought matters to a standstill for two hours, before yielding to the inevitable and watching the Undemocrats have their wicked way with Lady Liberty.

I had never expected to witness such an egregious, cynical display of raw political power in the Legislature of this state, and I hope never to again. The Lynch administration and legislative Democrats would do well to heed Alexander Hamilton’s warning:

“[N]o man can be sure that he may not be tomorrow the victim of a spirit of injustice by which he may be a gainer today. And every man must now feel that the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress.”

Hon. Gregory M. Sorg, (R) Easton
Grafton District 3

 

Posted by Doug at 7:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 4:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The NH Advantage hangs in the balance.

This is video of Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta at the unveiling of the Pledge to Defend the NH Advantage. Someone needs to take on John Lynch-- When you consider the whole budget mess brought to us by him and his Democratic Party comrades in the Legislature, Guinta presents a contrast for voters interested in frugal government...

Please do whatever you can to help me urge Mayor Guinta to give it a go. What other choice do those of us who love NH the way it is have? Who else is there that seriously has a chance at taking out Governor John Lynch, our do-nothing "leader" that is destroying our beloved Granite State?

New Hampshire needs Frank Guinta to run for governor!

Posted by Doug at 8:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

.

Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta and GOP gubernatorial hopeful Senator Joe Kenney at yesterday's New Hampshire Advantage Coalition's official rollout of their "Defending the New Hampshire Advantage Pledge" (photos by GraniteGrok)

The pushback begins... Yesterday morning in Concord at the Legisl