While I haven’t talked with Arnie Arnison for years. I have to say that she is an honest Democrat operative/pundit/politician. She believes what she believes and keeps to her principles. I just completely disagree with her – like in this LTE (Letter to the Editor) in the Concord Monitor.
First, she plugs into the “can’t let a crisis go to waste” schtick in setting the stage for her ask (reformatted, emphasis mine):
Letter: ‘The pledge’ revisited
Our national and state populations are absorbing stunning events and information at warp speed, so let’s take a moment to assess. Given the cocktail of failure we have been served, we are exhausted, overwhelmed, and frightened about our future. The conclusions we make now will show up in the ultimate test of our values: the 2020 elections.
Well, maybe she is, maybe a lot of her friends and acquaintances are, but a lot of mine must be a whole lot more resilient than her’s. While her’s may be shaken in their boots from fear, mine are shaking, too – mostly in anger. I’m thinking that her folks may well be too emotional while mine are going “ok, deal with it”.
And no, the “ultimate test of our values” is not in an election – it is how one comports themselves when one thinks no one else is looking. It is how you treat other people, especially those on “lower rungs” of Society’s ladder. It is how you treat your friends and family. In short – how you treat those that can give you no boost in life. In short, values are ultimately an individual inner being and are shown in their actions. Not in an election.
And immediately, we see HER value is in attacking those and calling them, for the lack of a better phrase, utterly selfish. Nice, eh? Emphasis on a Collective action above and emphasis on that
What better time than now to question New Hampshire’s political shackle known as “the pledge”? The 50-year-old tax pledge, concocted by two reactionary conservatives, represents the “for me not you” mentality that prohibits healthy and constructive growth.
As opposed to “mo money, mo money” by the “Government over People crew such as yourself? I am assuming that her mention of “two reactionary conservatives” were former NH Governor Meldrim “Low taxes are the result of low spending” Thomson and then Publisher William Loeb of then conservative Union Leader. Both promoted conservatism of which a major pillar is Limited Government. Which is exactly the opposite of Arneson’s Liberal tendency in having an expanding and activist Government which has no problem with inserting itself into everyone’s lives (and into more parts thereof).
Here’s the current pledge (guarded by the Coalition of NH Taxpayers (or CNHT) for years and years)” – in a State that has to live within its means, keeping new revenue streams from Government is a way to keep it limited:
A Government that has limitations harshly put upon it, as our Founders knew, meant that it couldn’t meddle with we Individual and thus enjoy an expanded amount of Liberty from its meddling. I used to think that “healthy” people would be perfectly fine with that – self-reliant, self-sufficient. Instead, the more I did this political blogging, I found that there is another set of folks that:
- either can’t exist without Government, having a sense of dependency on it
- enable the above; sometimes for a sense of altruism or mostly, a sense of control over others (plain and simple).
So the basic question that MUST be answered is who IS the selfish one? Is it the one that has earned their wealth (to the extent that it is wealth) or the one that DIDN’T earn someone else’s wealth but still demands to have control of it (and sees Government as a convenient tool with which to take it)? This is the reason I came up with “Government over People.” At least a common thief is honest – s/he is stealing someone else’s valuables for strictly selfish reason – they don’t have it so they have no compunction in stealing it to have for themselves.
Throughout the years, New Hampshire folks have witnessed the slow and steady destruction of community within our towns and institutions. The pledge consistently undermines our state’s ability to address educational inequity, forces an over reliance on unconscionably high property taxes, delays necessary infrastructure investment and reinforces the pattern and practice of rural disinvestment.
Change is a constant and for places that are in decline there are others that rising up. Capitalism is described as “creative destruction” – unfortunately, bad policies by politicians (which Arnesen DOESN’T mention) can also result in similar kinds of destruction both at the community level and at the person (where either one is the primary reason and then the second form is the secondary outcome. E.g., the Great Society “incentivized” men to leave their families in order for wives/children to receive Government assistance – which is primary and which is secondary destruction?).
Secondly, Arnesen concentrates ONLY unconscionably high property taxes without letting people know that there are other States that have even higher property taxes than NH has. Her inference is that
“if we only had OTHER kinds of taxes laid upon People, Government would have more money”.
So, Government over People. Simply because people aren’t spending it the way she believes it should be?
At this moment of calamity, we must give ourselves, and our next governor all the tools available to create a society consistent with our new reality.
Let’s get to brass tacks – “all the tools” means YOUR money. Let’s stay at brass tacks – she wants more revenue sources and she wants them now. She believes she, as a Communitarian (the guiding principle being that the Individual must, by necessity, be subjugated to the Community / Collective when ever necessary) that broadbased taxes would be the easiest and most “efficient” way for Government to have “all the tools” it needs.
Or wants. That’s the problem with an unshackled and unfettered Government – if it needs something, it will get it. And you will pay for it – even if you are on a fixed income, disabled, or just in a rough patch. Government, writ large, doesn’t care as there will ALWAYS be those that have no problem in spending other peoples’ wealth with nary a second fault. After all, there’s a reason why the phrase “pet project” exists, right Arnie?
The two men who demanded we genuflect to their political experiment are long dead; they never envisioned a time like this and neither does their pledge.
D. ARNIE ARNESEN
She who would dismiss the past wants to control YOUR future. Sorry but “a time like this” has always been with us with very few exceptions in our past. No, it hasn’t been the Wu Flu, but we did have the Spanish Flu, polio, smallbox, and others. We’ve had the meth, the crack, the cocaine, the heroin problems. Name it – we’ve had it and if we didn’t, other cultures have. Black Lives Matter, racism – compared to most nations and almost ALL of the world’s history, that’s been around, too, and much more intensive as well.
Sorry, I’d rather continue this experiment than try yet again, the failed “Collective” experiments of the past. How many communes started up and failed here in the US (including the Shakers here in NH)? Why would we want to move backwards to Socialism and Communism that failed spectacularly in the past with not just monetary costs but in the costs of 100 million lives killed by their own Governments?
And let’s not forget that Communism
conquered stole other peoples’ entire countries – the reason for the phrase “Iron and Bamboo Curtains” (for all the yammering that the US “stole” the same) but those are never brought up either.
Now, if Arnie wants to respond, here’s the invite. Skip@GraniteGrok.com