New Hampshire Taxpayer Tea Party on April 15th at Manchester’s Victory Park

Concord, NH- Yesterday, the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition  in partnership with the Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers, Granite State Taxpayers, Cornerstone Policy Research and the NH 9-12 Patriot Project, announced the NH Taxpayer Tea Party on April 15th, 2009 at 5:30 pm in Victory Park, Manchester, NH. This event is part of 200 plus tea … Read more

A letter to Representative Robert Thompson of Manchester regarding his ignorance of American history and the Constitution

Constitution

I sent an email to Rep. Thompson reacting to a post at Cornerstone Policy Research about a response Mr. Thompson gave to one of that group’s supporters. From Cornerstone:

So, it seems that once again one of our elected officials are of the opinion that we will just believe anything they write…

The latest case being State Representative, Robert Thompson of Manchester, who recently sent what appears to be a “stock” response to one of our Cornerstone supporters…

After our supporter sent Rep. Thompson an email urging him to not support The Bathroom Bill, HB415, as it would trample on religious liberties among other reasons, Rep. Thompson replied that not only does “religion have no place in government”, but that the founding fathers were so concerned about this, that they added a “separation of church and state” clause into the Constitution.

Click here to read the whole post, including Thompson’s offending note.

This is my response to him:

Rep. Thompson,
How could you be such a boob as to write the following false statement in an email:

"Secondly, I certainly feel that religion has no place in government. Our founding fathers, who wrote the constitution, were very concerned about religion interfering with law making and included a separation of church and state into the constitution. This is a very important part of our constitution that has seemed to have gotten away from us. The Judeo-Christian values our country were founded on are important but do not belong in government."

Robby, You’ve obviously never bothered to read the Constitution, or much of anything one might guess. The U.S. Constitution only refers to religion once in the 1st Amendment where it guarantees freedom OF religion, and that means religion of the public square. Your red-herring concept of a separation was first mentioned in a letter by Mr. Jefferson to the Danbury, CT Baptists who were complaining to him when he was POTUS years AFTER the Constitution had been written and ratified that they thought it was unfair that they had to pay taxes that went to support the CT state religion at the time which was Congregationalism, because contrary to your moronic lack of knowledge about American history, the respective states had official state religions well into the 19th century. That so-called "separation" Jefferson coined referred to government having no power over religious liberty among the various states, including their 10th amendment right to establish state religions which they did in fact have. You shouldn’t even be a legislator, you’re so ignorant of the laws governing this land and even the history of New England where you reside..  It’s uneducated buffoons like you that make our democracy as horribly fragile as it’s recently become.

Furthermore, on religion in "government" as you ridiculously call it, in your attempt to set up a straw man,…John Adams who knew a helluvalot more than I would dare say you do, especially when it comes to the documents he was involved in drafting and ratifying, but even more so on questions of wisdom…political, moral and otherwise, said the following:

Read more

Pickpocket

I know more than one person forced to work as a member of  a union that feels as though the weekly union dues are somewhat akin to having their pockets picked. Here is a story that shows that when it comes to some members of some labor unions, they’re picking your pockets coming and going. … Read more

“I’m confused…”

Our friends at Cornerstone Policy Research have released a new web ad urging viewers to contact at Gov. Lynch at 271-2121 and ask him to say "no" to HB 436, the the so-called "genderless marriage" bill…     Don’t you just love the "new" New Hampshire, brought to us by the majority Democrats? (And aided … Read more

Safe Shopping

Have you ever stopped to ponder the fact that most mass-shootings happen in places where guns are banned? As I have often stated here on the ‘Grok on this subject– the only real defense against such tragedies is for law-abiding, properly skilled people to carry, thus being able to shoot back. Here is a lighthearted … Read more

Democrats: “anti-energy, anti-growth, and anti-jobs.”

From the NHGOP: CONCORD – Today, former New Hampshire Governor and Republican State Committee Chairman John H. Sununu released the following statement on the Merrimack Station Power Plant:  “No matter how hard the Democrats try to sound like they have a constructive energy policy, their actions prove they are anti-energy, anti-growth and anti-jobs. The repeated … Read more

Guest Post: We don’t need new taxes, but who will tell Washington?

The road to economic recovery is not paved with new taxes. New Hampshire’s delegation in Washington needs to share that bit of cold New England logic with their congressional colleagues as they evaluate the Obama administration’s budget proposal.  That proposal includes a giant energy tax increase, although that’s not what the administration’s economic team is … Read more

“Excessive government spending will not bolster the economy”

March 11th, 2009, Fairfax, VA—Americans For Limited Government (ALG) today released an exclusive video interview with Republican Congressman Michael Burgess, M.D. (TX-CD26). Topics ranged from healthcare reform and the economic crisis to the commuter rail lines in Texas. Congressman Burgess also proposed tax cuts as a remedy for the nation’s economic woes. “[W]e’ve seen this … Read more

Five Out of Six Towns Pass Spending Caps. Town Meeting Taxpayers Send Clear Message…

 

Lower Spending = Lower Taxes.

Tax Cap

Nashua, NH – The call for controlled spending and efficient government from taxpayers across New Hampshire is getting louder and louder each election cycle. This year’s town meeting has proved to be no different. Tuesday’s resounding win in five of the six towns that spending cap warrant articles were on the ballot prove that taxpayers are tired of government continually reaching into their pockets and they are looking for relief. Spending cap warrants appeared on the ballot in the towns of Kingston, Hampstead, Allenstown, Salem, Hudson and Rindge. With only the Hudson warrant articles not passing.

“Taxpayers across this state are sending a clear message that an efficient government that spends their money wisely is the only path to lower taxes. We are facing very challenging times here in New Hampshire. The economy is down, property taxes are up, we have a record budget deficit on the state level and the federal government is spending at an unprecedented pace. Taxpayers are trying to control what they are closest to and that is their local government.” said Michael Biundo Chairman NHAC

The partnership between local taxpayers and local taxpayer associations, and the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition has been a successful one. With these results added to the impressive victory this past November in Rochester, the call for spending restraint and taxpayer relief from the grassroots’ can’t be ignored.

“The results of these warrant articles sends a clear message to elected officials at the local, state, and federal levels that people want controlled spending and lower taxes.” said  local Hampstead Taxpayer John McGrath

Former Deputy Speaker Ken Weyler of Kingston noted “In these fluid economic times, the public has clearly stated that spending must be capped at reasonable increases. …when the public, by two to one, tell you to cap your spending increases, you can expect further accountability, all of which you will ignore at your political peril.”

Here are the voting results by town:

 

Read more

Conservative Republican wins seat in Central NH race

OK, so it’s a budget committee position in the ‘Grok hometown, and the elections are "non-partisan," but still– let me repeat: A conservative Republican has won a seat in Central NH. Skip Murphy-GraniteGrok, MTNP radio As Tip O’Neill famously said, "all politics is local," and what happens in our happy little hamlet is simply a … Read more

Feds funding COBRAs. No, Carroll Shelby’s NOT in on the automakers’ bailout…

I got an email this week from the person that handles some of the benefit package offered by our company regarding changes to employee health insurance thanks to the recently passed bailout stimulus recovery law. Now if you’re like me, you’re probably wondering what health insurance has to do with economic recovery. Well, apparently, plenty. What’s also incredible is the fact that, despite the bill having been debated and discussed by Congress, nearly a month since its passage, people are STILL analyzing it to gauge its full meaning and what it requires. Of course, the fact that the federal government is going to basically go on the hook for 65 percent of the premium costs for every laid-off employee eligible to recieive health insurance continuation (COBRA) benefits is also of note as well.

Ray has given me permission to share this information with ‘Grok readers. I am including the email as written so that you can get the flavor of what just one little facet of a 1,000 page law can do. Can you imagine what all these "little" pieces must add up to in manhours and costs of analysis, forms creation, communication, and administration? What if all such manhours had been spent on something actually PRODUCTIVE instead of simply trying to comply with the law?

To My Valued Clients,

I am sending this e-mail to you, to discuss briefly what I know about the recent law changes that affect your group insurance. On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).  The law, in its final form, exceeds 1,000 pages length. Part of the law provides a subsidy for COBRA benefits.

COBRA Subsidy

Eligible workers will receive a 65% subsidy toward their COBRA continuation premium for up to 9 months.  The subsidy will begin March 1st and will be administered by the Treasury Department as a credit against payroll taxes.  The subsidy will terminate the date the individual becomes eligible for any new employer-sponsored health care coverage or Medicare.  The subsidy is also available for state provided comparable continuation coverage.

Eligible Individuals

An assistance eligible individual must meet the following qualifications:

 

Read more

Spending/Tax Cap Momentum Builds

Claremont and Somersworth File for 2009 Spending Cap Vote  Nashua, NH – Today, Claremont resident Cynthia Howard in association with the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition (NHAC) filed a petitioner’s committee affidavit with the Claremont City Clerk to begin the petition process for a spending/tax cap charter amendment for the city’s budget.  On Tuesday March 10th, … Read more

Left & Right Bloggers agree: There is nothing they agree on…

Once again, much like the old adage that "women are from Venus, men are from Mars," National Journal Online has polled left and right bloggers and, guess what? They’re polar opposites when it comes to the question of Obama and his administration’s performance. This week we were asked two questions. 1.) Did President Obama overreach … Read more

“Hope” and “change”… peeling away the phony veneer

When you consider the facts from a variety of places, the luster that seemingly coats the Magic Obama is quickly wearing off… Jen Rubin, writing at Contentions, notes the mess that is quickly becoming the Obama Administration and its approach to the economy, and the resulting "reporting" we’re getting from the so-called "mainstream" media: it’s … Read more

Hear! Hear!

The Chairman comes out swinging and challenges Governor Do Nuthin’ Lynch to be true to his word on the gas tax increase… From former New Hampshire Governor and Republican State Committee Leader John H. Sununu: “This week the ‘tax and spend’ Democratic leadership in the New Hampshire House passed a 15-cent per gallon tax increase. This … Read more

Watch the Magic Obama as he pulls an economic “fix” out of his hat…

Magic Obama

The FreeDictionary.com defines the word “bailout” as “a rescue from financial difficulties.” That was the term used to describe the initial government action and spending that occurred while Bush was still in office. We were told at the time that the $750 billion raised and appropriated by Congress at the behest of the President and his folks at the Treasury was to prime the pump so that cash-strapped banks and other institutions could begin lending again—entities deemed by the government “too big to fail.” And of course, it seemed plausible—and I only use that word with reservation—that because many of the lending institutions were in a jam due to failed mortgages and other similar loans (otherwise known as “toxic assets”) mostly due to government rules and regulations as dictated through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they (the government) help clean up the mess. Of course, when the government gives out money, it comes from you and me.

And once the financial industry got their hands on this “bailout” money, other industries—most noticeably the automobile industry—decided to follow suit and came calling with outstretched hand looking for some, too. A business model based upon endless credit to keep production going to pay for expenses incurred previously and no cushion to fall back on, coupled with labor unions unwilling to give the slightest concession, is nothing more than the proverbial “sword of Damocles,” ready to drop at the first wrinkle. In this case, when the credit markets dried up, so did auto sales, as many people suddenly lost the ability to borrow because there was no money left to lend. At this point, we know that a “small” amount “bailout” funds have been funneled to the automakers, but we still hear that several are on the brink and in need of much more. The question is whether more money will really help fix the problem, or simply perpetuate systemic problems for another day? The same question applies to the financial institutions noted above.

As we moved down the road from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration, it appeared that the word and notion of a “bailout” lost its luster. Time for a new word… The FreeDictionary.com defines “stimulus” as “something that acts as an incentive to (someone).” As you all know, following the bailout came the “stimulus” with a promise to “jump start” the economy. I guess it only seemed right—if “priming the pump” didn’t work, a “jump start” would come next. Of course, what came next was the stock market continued to tank and peoples’ money continued to evaporate—along with even more jobs. It seemed that the only good thing about “stimulus” was that it made for good fodder for jokes.

“Yo, Doug, feelin’ ‘stimulated’ today?” Of course the answer is, “Not really. But I AM getting bleeped…”

Uh-oh– Time for ANOTHER new word… and fast! Enter the term “recovery.” Ah yes, a much more positive word. Maybe this will be the one that gets the job done for Team Obama as they seek to “fix” the economy. Again, let us turn to the FreeDictionary.com, which defines “recovery” as “the regaining of something lost.” How perfect. As the government continues to dole out our children’s grandchildren’s great grandchildren’s money hand over fist, it can now claim to do so all in the name of going back to the way things were. Or something like that…

 

Read more

The. Worst. Moderator. Ever.

I got this from our friends at the CNHT. I used to think that George Roberts of Gilmanton was the worst Town moderator ever (He botched up the ballots at a vote so bad one year– the year that the Town of Gilmanton appeared to have passed SB2– that the vote total could never be … Read more

“A mortal threat to American freedom…”

As we have been warning for some time here on the ‘Grok, this US Senate session will include a fight over what we have long refered to as the "deceptively named" Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) or, as it is more commonly known– "card check." Noted in several prior posts and discussed on our Saturday … Read more

Guest Post: You don’t own the view, nor do you control it.

tax man
STOP THE UNJUST VIEW TAX
by Frank Handibode

    Like most people, I have an aversion to injustice. Here in the “Live Free or Die” state of New Hampshire, a glaring example of injustice is the levying of an odious view tax on property owners who have views from their property. It matters not to the Selectmen or contracted assessors that you neither own the view being taxed nor do you control it.

     Furthermore, they readily admit that determining a view’s value is subjective. I know this to be true. In October, 2008 in Grafton County Superior Court, Gary Roberge, Chief Executive of Avitar Associates of New England, who assessed the properties in Hebron, testified under oath that “regarding view assessments, yes, a lot about it is subjective but what isn’t?”

     What this means is that, hypothetically, if five non-collaborating tax assessors arrive at a given property on five different days to evaluate a view, it is not only possible but almost certain that five different tax values will result. The reason is simple. To this day, despite repeated requests from Tom Thomson and other Public Members of the Assessing Standards Board, the Department of Revenue Administration and the New Hampshire Assessing Standards Board have not issued a clear, concise definition of what constitutes a “view.” As Mr. Eugene T. Reed, Public Member of the ASB has told me, “Assessing properties with views is up to the assessing company or local assessors. There is no standard or guideline.”

     Widespread subjectivity has no place in fair taxation and that is clearly what we have today. Mad King George the Third of England would have rubbed his hands in glee at the thought of imposing such a tax on his subjects in the colonies.

      Adding insult to injury, the NHDRA claims that there is no separate view tax in New Hampshire. It is illegal. The DRA insists that it is a “view factor”, not a “view tax.” This is mere semantics. It makes no difference to any property owner, whether it is called a “view factor”, “view assessment” or “view tax”. The unalterable fact is that starting in 2005, the view’s assessed value is shown on a separate line on the tax assessment card, and it is assigned a very specific monetary value, which immediately translates into a higher property tax. Ergo, it is a view tax, period.

     Arbitrarily assigning an exact monetary value to a view that will vary widely depending on which assessor is doing the evaluating and what kind of a day it is, is wrong. It’s Un-American, and if it isn’t illegal and unconstitutional, it certainly ought to be.

    

Read more

Share to...
BufferCopyFlipboardHacker NewsLineLinkedInMastodonMessengerMixPinterestPrintRedditSMSTelegramTumblrVKWhatsAppXing