Joke: Three NH Democrats for Governor Walk Into A Debate…

Three NHDP stooges for Governor Maggie Hassan, Jackie Cilley, Bill Kennedy…all three of them want to raise your taxes.  But seriously folks….they do.  They all want to empower the state to take more of your money.  So what is there to debate? …How they disguise that desire.  But it is a distinction without a difference, or is that a difference without a distinction?

Whichever stooge you choose, Bill “No DGA if No Va-Jay-Jay” Kennedy, Maggie ‘Louisville Slugger’ Hassan (aka Bat Gurl), or Jackie “Tax and Spend us” Cilley, they all want to grow government right now, regardless of any economy, at your expense.

So Democrats need the debate to figure out which stooge will be the best liar?

Read more

Pledge Zombie Apocalypse

Taxes and Democrats The pledge politics lie and broad based taxesDemocrat Candidate Jackie Cilley is trying to rally the extreme left of the already extreme left in the New Hampshire Democrat party by pretending to be a moderating voice for tax policy.  Her distinction without a difference (other than that she is being direct about her desire for a broad based tax) is that the idea of taking a pledge to veto (or vote against) any sales or income tax is unfair.  That every option should be on the table.

As pointed out here, this is extremely disingenuous because this is the only policy in which she or any of her supporters (or any Democrat) wants to “have a conversation.”  But it is worse than even that.  The facts behind the pledge zombie antics on the lefts left are, as in most cases when dealing with Democrats, lying by omission.

Read more

Paul Ryan it is: “Hiding Spending Does Not Reduce Spending” (see below)

Bottom line: “We dont’ think government should be in control of all this. We think the people should be in control.” Watch this video; look at the facial expressions and body language of the two politicians to his left; look at the fear and loathing emanating from the other political class pigs around that table! YES!

The NH Democrat’s Dishonesty About Tobacco

On 6-6-12 I provided an update on the state of tobacco tax revenue in New Hampshire.  Buried in that post were some observations about how hypocritical and dishonest Democrats in the Granite state are about tobacco and their obsession with taxing it.  A hypocrisy they themselves may not even grasp.  So I wanted to excerpt that portion separately with a few minor edits.  Here it is.

Democrats complained publicly and often about lower tobacco revenue after the tax was first lowered.  But isn’t that the point of the tax?  To lower consumption and therefore revenue?  To end a practice many in government, and more so in the nanny wing, argue adds to the long term cost borne by the public?  Is that not the goal?  To make smoking history?

And we know that raising the tax reduces consumption, and lowers traffic into New Hampshire to buy tobacco (and anything else) because we’ve seen it happen.  So less tobacco revenue always had to be the goal for Democrats if they are being even remotely honest about it.   This means that at some point New Hampshire was going to have to look someplace else for that revenue–or  were NH Democrats planning on increasing the tax per pack on the last smoker to $30 million (or whatever it is) to make up for everyone else who had quit at their urging?

Do you see how stupid that logic is?

Read more

Congressional Stalemate is better than Financial Disaster

Is Congress at a stand-still?  If so, is that good or bad?

Americans elect representatives whose views, they believe, are best for our country and our people.  Since Americans disagree about these things, there will be disagreements, conflicts and even stalemates in Congress.

Our nation’s founders wanted to ensure that extreme legislation, violating their principles, customs, and beliefs, is not imposed on the American people.  So, the founders created a system which typically forces compromise to ensure that legislation is acceptable to most Americans.

Read more

Barry Needs Some Walking Around Money…

Let’s say your brother in law, Barry, comes to you for a loan. He needs a little extra money for this big idea he’s got brewing. All he needs is $4500.00 dollars.

Response to Attacks on Republicans for PAYGO

To the Editor:

Apparently I can read better than Mr. Veverka can hear.  In his October 6th letter in the Laconia Daily Sun, Mr. Veverka adamantly assured us the term “TEA Party” did not exist in the Hightower article referenced by my letter.  “TEA Party” can found near the beginning of paragraph 8.  

The focus of my letter was on the TEA Party, what it is and isn‘t, its criticisms of both parties and wasteful government operations, and its focus on principles, not political party.  My letter was inspired by the Hightower column, the most recent (at the time) attempt to malign the TEA Party and its principles.  

Hightower’s article and Veverka’s letter are just partisan attack pieces.  It is  a common liberal technique to attack anyone who tries to stop or even slow the growth of government.  Anyone who won’t cave to whatever liberals demand will be smeared.  It doesn’t matter whether the program works, is worth the cost, is counter-productive, or is affordable.  

Read more

Would You Suck Twice as Hard for Half as Much?

I appreciate it when democrats give you the rope with which to hang their half baked ideas.  Take Mark Fernald for example.  Mr. Fernald is a sometime New Hampshire Democrat candidate for this or that, and prominent member of the left wing Granite State Fair Tax Coalition (GSFTC).  He recently (sorry, frequently) forwards  partisan, left wing economic spin, to justify his pet obsession with rising taxes and class warfare. 

This most recent email to the arm chair central planners in his fan base is just another in a string of left wing editorials that attempts to contrast democrat spending against that of our previous president. It is typical Fernald; an oranges to rotten apples comparison that uses incomplete data, wild assumptions (about Obama’s future affect in every case), misleading graphs, cherry picked data, and resulting percentages that stretch the fabric of reality so thin that you could easily pass into the alternate dimension in which Democrats and faeries dance widderershins around the deficit mound, as money appears out of nowhere to pay for whatever theirr tiny, narrow, Marxist minds can imagine.

donkey with hed up assThis particualr faerie story centers around three graphs from the Government Printing Office (GPO).  Not the fed, the treasury, or even some fruit-loop left wing think tank, but the GPO.  The GPO prints stuff, and answers to the Executive branch.  So right out of the toy-box we have to question these partisan stills, presented as they are in a partisan manner, bearing guestimated facts and assumptions, with no basis in reality any greater than anything that has ever escaped Mr. Obama’s teleprompter; you do recall all the Obama the non-partisan, deficit cutting, cost reducing, globe saving, health care giving, unifying, auto company saving, mortgage rescuing, goodness?  How about the transparent lobbyist-less,  open to ideas, new tone, we need to work together Obama?  No?  You probably remember the we won, closed door, partisan, hate those bankers, Tea Partiers are terrorists,  intimidation tactics, don’t interrupt my vacation, Arrest Ron Paul supporters, dozens of lobbyists, shadow cabinet, Attack Arizona, hunt down my enemies, anti-free speech, black panthers can scare away voters, give guns to Mexican drug lords, nohting is my fault Obama with the double action golf-club grip?  Well his printing office is the source.  Are we surprised it tries to make him look good?

So what can we glean that goes beyond the objective of showing your Republican friends that they are wrong about Obama?  How about using facts to show that those Republicans are actually right?

Read more

Bernanke’s Bender

Bernanke sober- or so it seems(Note:This arrived in my mail box unattributed, but I have discovered that it is from The Onion.  I have edited any questionable language by replacing letters with asterisks.  This image is not associated with the article at The Onion.)
 
SEWARD, NE—Claiming he wasn’t afraid to let everyone in attendance know about "the real mess we’re in," Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke reportedly got drunk Tuesday and told everyone at Elwood’s Corner Tavern about how absolutely f****d the U.S. economy actually is.
 
Bernanke, who sources confirmed was "totally sloshed," arrived at the drinking establishment at approximately 5:30 p.m., ensconced himself upon a bar stool, and consumed several bottles of Miller High Life and a half-dozen shots of whiskey while loudly proclaiming to any patron who would listen that the economic outlook was "pretty goddamned awful if you want the God’s honest truth."
 
"Look, they don’t want anyone except for the Washington, D.C. bigwigs to know how bad shit really is," said Bernanke, slurring his words as he spoke. "Mounting debt exacerbated—and not relieved—by unchecked consumption, spiraling interest rates, and the grim realities of an inevitable worldwide energy crisis are projected to leave our entire economy in the sh****r for, like, a generation, man, I’m telling you."

Read more

The Empty Podium

The Pawlenty Campaign has just rolled out an ad worth watching.   

545 People Are Responsible For The Mess, But They Unite In A Common Con

“Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.”~Plato, Ancient Greek Philosopher

Charley_Reese_Grok.jpg

Charley Reese retired July 29, 2001. Who was Charley Reese? He was a columnist, serving 30 of those years at the Orlando Sentinel.  Characterized best by his plainspoken manner and conservative views,  he was with the Sentinel from 1971–2001, serving as  a writer and other such editorial capacities. King Features Syndicate distributed Charley’s column, which published up to three times a week.

 On February 3, 1984 Charley originally published the column below. This column additionally republished as his final column. Rightfully so and despite being 27 years removed from its orignal publish date, it is no less relevant. 

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

Read more

Teri Norelli Cries Foul on the Budget: Insert Yawn Here

“If you put the government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.” ~Milton Friedman, Economist Democratic leader Terri Norelli takes pen to the Union Leader this morning to decry the Republican budget. Norelli does a masterful work in her use of descriptors and categorizations demagoguing the Republicans … Read more

Guinta and Bass must be replaced. We’ll now see how good Ayotte is….

This from today’s Union Leader (article has since been pulled from UL site): House votes to raise debt ceiling; 3 of 4 NH lawmakers support plan By MARK HAYWARDNew Hampshire Union Leader Published Aug 2, 2011 at 3:00 am (Updated Aug 1, 2011)        ShareThis The U.S. House voted to raise the country’s debt limit by $2.1 … Read more

Why You Should Run Screaming From A Balanced Budget Amendment

Run away -Photo Credit UK Daily MailI’ve never understood the Republican-conservative, Libertarian, Right-Wing-in General, love affair with the idea of a balanced budget amendment.  And it is not just my fear of letting the same modern Americans who think doing away with the electoral college is a good idea have a whack at the US Constitution.  It’s actually much simpler than that. A balance has two sides, and all things being equal, the side paying will get screwed.

And yes, I understand that almost every state has to balance it’s budget.  Even New Hampshire–despite what former governor (and dopey US Senator) Jeanne Shaheen thinks–must do this by law.  But this is no guarantee that a government will not spend more than it takes in.  The same government that decides what it spends will decide what it takes in.  And  unless you are a Granite Stater with a severe case of ADD, or just a very short memory, you may recall that balancing the budget need not have a single thing to do with austerity, control, or concern for the people who pay for government.  It merely requires you to find revenues to equal your spending.

For a quick review of how bad that scenario is, lets grab Simon and Mr. Peabody and jump into our way-back machine to the halcyon days after the 2006 elections when Democrats had complete control of the New Hampshire government for four years. " Balanced Budget" meant 100’s of new taxes and fees, many of them forced through at the last possible minute.  There were taxes that were enacted without a single hearing (in violation of other portions of New Hampshire law).  Land would be sold to raise revenue without anyone knowing what land or who might buy it, for how much, or if we could even sell it.  There was one time money, imagined cost shifting, raiding of dedicated funds, transfers from future years, and all manner of dark accounting magic used to create the illusion of a ‘balanced’ budget," perched in a Rube Goldbergian maze, upon a pedestal,  in a pentagram, guarded by straw men arranging goat entrails, scrying into alternate fiscal dimensions to hold off the demons of structural deficits yet to be.  To put a finer point on it, revenues were imagined to cover desired spending, without the revenue every actually being there to begin with, and when it failed to appear, someone had to pay for it to balance the budget. That or cut programs and spending. Typically, it is not the latter.

So having witnessed this abuse in one of the most politically active states, under some of the most withering scrutiny, with the benefit of the third largest representative body in the world, makes me wonder why anyone who lived through it would even suggest that things would be just ducky if we let distant, professional legislators, have a whack at it along the shores of the Potomac?

Sounds scary.  But could it get worse? Of course it could.

Read more

John Boehner’s plan: THERE ARE NO CUTS. Thus, the question is this:

Is Boehner stupid, blind, ignorant, or perfidious? (I believe it’s #2: He has been blinded by the pervasive corruption of thought, language, deed, and outlook of Washington, DC.) 

This from Dr. Jerry Pournelle’s blog:

There Are No Cuts

Everyone is talking about Draconian cuts to the budget. The President won’t sign the Boehner Plan because of the cuts. Yet there are no cuts in that plan or in any plan proposed.

There are no cuts. None. Zip, Nada, Bupkis, Zero. None.

We need to understand how “budget cuts” are measured. The base line budget projects a $9.5 Trillion Dollar increase in spending over the next ten years. Any reduction in this increase in spending is officially a “cut.” Thus the Republican Deficit Plan mandates an approximate “cut” of $1 Trillion over the next decade in exchange for a rise in the Deficit Limit of $2 Trillion. Note that the $1 T “cut” isn’t assured, since it takes place in the future, and one Congress cannot bind another. (Note that. One Congress cannot bind a future Congress. It might be well to remember this.) But even if the $1 Trillion “cut” is faithfully carried out, the effect is that there will be an $8.5 Trillion increase in spending (and thus in Debt) over the next decade.

Put it this way. If Congress were to freeze spending: we will spend next year precisely what we spent this year on each project, none of them increased and none decreased – if Congress were to do that, the result would officially be a $9.5 Trillion cut. It would be a cut in government pay, in school lunches, in Medicare and Medicaid, to the Army and Navy, to the DOE SWAT team and the Department of Agriculture Pet Bunny Inspectors, a cut to Head Start, a cut the FDA, a cut to – well, you get the idea. Not spending more money every year is a cut, and a freeze on spending is a $9.5 Trillion Cut in Federal Spending. Cuts to school lunches, Medicare, Medicaid – well, we’ve said all that. Not spending more is a cut.

It hasn’t always been this way. Back in the 1960’s a “cut” was actually a cut; if a department’s budget got cut it meant that it got less money. But since the budget acts of the 70’s Federal spending automatically increases year after year and any reduction in that increase is scored as a cut.

So: if we adopt the Boehner Plan, we get what amounts to a $10 Trillion increase in spending over the next decade. And that, we are told, is the best we can hope for, and we ought to wheedle the Democrats and the President graciously to concede to give it to us good and hard.

Let me repeat that because while most of you know it, some don’t, and those who haven’t thought of it will find it hard to believe. A freeze in spending: a mandate that no department of government spend more next year than it spent this year; will be reported as a $9.5 Trillion cut. If Boehner gets all he asks for and then some, say a $1.5 Trillion cut over the next decade, he will have locked in an $8 Trillion increase in government expenditures (and thus the Deficit) over the next ten years. And the Democrats will decry the Draconian cuts in school lunches, education spending, Medicare, etc., etc. And at the moment the “non partisan Congressional Budget Office” believes that Boehner Plan would only “cut” $0.85 Trillion over ten years, meaning $850 Billion, meaning $85 Billion/year. The United States borrows $100 Billion a month.

There are never any actual cuts in spending. No one is proposing any. There are only temporary reductions in spending increases. No Plan by either Party contemplates any actual cut in spending. We are arguing over how much more we will let the deficit rise: $8 Trillion or $10 Trillion. If it only rises by $8 Trillion that will be counted a great victory with a $2 Trillion cut. Be prepared to pay.

Read more

Your Tax Dollars Hard At Work!

“It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare.” ~Edmund Burke And when older people are yelling, “Don’t cut my Social Security!” Do you think they know about this community in Tacoma Washington? SO here you have it….Obama pimping the old people to keep … Read more

Americans Deserve Better

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, ‘the buck stops here’. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

A Brief History of President Obama’s Fiscal Record

Setting the Record Straight
July 15, 2011

 
 

Despite newfound concern with the debt overhang stifling economic growth, President Obama’s record falls far short of his rhetoric.  Let’s review the decisions made by President Obama and Congressional Democrats over the past couple of years, and the disappointing results of their policy choices:

January 20, 2009 
President Obama sworn into office

  • President tells the American people in his Inaugural Address: “Those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.”

  • Debt Held By Public = $6.31 trillion

February 17, 2009
President Signs into Law the Spending Stimulus

  • The stimulus adds $821 billion in new spending according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

  • The White House promises this infusion of spending and borrowing would keep unemployment rate below 8%.  As millions of Americans are painfully aware, that promise was broken.

  • Debt Held by Public = $6.48 trillion

February 26, 2009
President Issues FY2010 Budget

  • The President’s budget adds $2.7 trillion in new debt in FY2010 and imposes $1.4 trillion in new taxes.

  • Debt Held by Public = $6.58 trillion

March 11, 2009
President Signs FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act

  • The massive spending bill includes 8,696 earmarks at a cost of $11 billion.

  • The spending bill adds $19 billion in new spending above the baseline – an 8.6% spending increase.

  • Debt Held by Public = $6.66 trillion

April 29, 2009
Congressional Democrats Pass FY2010 Budget

  • The Congressional Democrats’ budget calls for a $2 trillion debt increase in 2010, and another 8.9% increase in non-defense discretionary spending.

  • The reconciliation process is abused to later pave the way for health care overhaul to be jammed into law.

  • Of note: this is the last time Congressional Democrats will bother budgeting.

  • Debt Held by Public = $6.85 trillion

continued on the jump…

Read more

House Republicans: Cut, Cap, and Balance Act has passed

U.S. REP. FRANK GUINTA STATEMENT ON THE PASSAGE OF ‘CUT, CAP AND BALANCE’ “Granite Staters know that Washington is broke and broken.  The House seized an opportunity tonight to correct both problems.” (WASHINGTON– July 19, 2011)  U.S. Rep. Frank Guinta (R, NH-01) released the following statement after this evening’s passage of H.R. 2560, the Cut, … Read more

Bar Stool Economics

Left wing tax policy and the class warfare rhetoric they use to advance it crumbles in the face of even the most simplistic analysis.  Take the left wing war on the wealthy.  They argue that the rich do not pay their fair share even though the rich pay most of the taxes.  Here in New Hampshire the Mark Fernald wing of the democrat party apes this ridiculous technique on the matter of New Hampshire property taxes, a notion upon which the social justice mavens and the Granite State "Fair Tax" Coalition are meant to agitate.  But neither claim holds water and this cross post from CNHT explains why.
 
Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100 and If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

Read more

Share to...