News – Politics – Opinion – Podcasts
I think congratulations are in order. In February we reported on a bill to create what I called the Pet Czar. A law granting regulatory authority to an agency that would cost millions annually to boss pet owners and hobby breeders around. A gross act of overreach. An absurd abuse of power. A law that, “would create … Read more
For only the sixth time since 2000 CATO has ranked New Hampshire as the second Most Free State in the US. We were number one all the other times. Unfortunately, this is the third year in a row at number two, and while CATO examines that there is still plenty of good news (not that being #2 isn’t good news).
We have some work to do to get back to number one. But before we get to that let’s talk about this
I’m Keith Erf, candidate for state representative in Weare and Deering. I’m running for State representative to champion limited government. I’ve lived in Weare for 37 years. My wife, Louisa, and I raised four children here where they attended Weare schools.
I started my business, KyTek, in 1991 developing automated systems for the publishing industry. As a small business owner and member of the Weare Finance Committee, I’ve seen firsthand how NH business taxes, property taxes and expanding government negatively impacts our communities. We need representation in Concord that fights for our best interests, limiting government and taxation so current and future generations can afford to live and work in our community.
As a member of the Weare Finance Committee, I look to find a taxpayer-friendly balance between the needs of the town and schools and the costs to our residents. From the vantage point of the Finance Committee I have learned that we need representation in Concord that will avoid legislation that places costs on Weare and Deering requiring us to increase our local property taxes.
That would be “Administrative Law” – laws created and legally enforced (sometimes as felonies) by unelected, unaccountable, and unassailable bureaucrats. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has a report on how large of an impact this “extra-Constitutional” process of “legislating” has on the average American citizen who, if you haven’t been educated in government schools lately, our forefathers fought a war over “taxation without representation”). At least then, we knew who was doing what to us. Now, not so much – if at all. A sampling of the results:
New Hampshire’s Congressional delegation is unified in its defense of the Granite State from efforts to make online purchases taxable. Their primary objection, and I’ll use Senator Shaheen as my whipping donkey for this, is the burden it puts on small business owners.
As a former small business owner, I know that most small businesses operate on small profit margins and struggle to keep overhead low. That’s especially true for small online retailers. It is unacceptable to impose major new administrative costs on small businesses while making it harder to compete with big-box retailers.
I have long and often argued that Democrats, New Hampshire’s variety in particular, favor the top down model of governance. The power and the resources (money) must descend from the point farthest from the person who is taxed for the privilege of being governed by progressives.
A prime example or proof of this “theory” is the desire to “get back” tax dollars from Washington DC. Democrats argue that we need representatives to go to Washington who will work hard to get back the money we send to the nations capital as federal taxes. But they have it exactly backwards. We send representatives to the nations capital to do everything in their power to keep the money in New Hampshire in the first place.
The contrast between the two could not be more stark.
Similarly, the record of government planning in the United States is fraught with internal inconsistencies. The federal government both subsidizes tobacco growers and propagandizes against smoking. It pays some farmers not to produce grain products and, at the same time, subsidizes others with irrigation projects so they can grow more of the very same grain … Read more
From Hot Air, this absolutely lovely piece of datum. Amidst this current talk of raising taxes on Obama’s scapegoats (the rich) and the fiscal cliff, here is the Left hook: The Obama administration proposed at least 80 new regulations the day after Thanksgiving (go ahead and give ‘em a scroll-through for some good times), adding … Read more
In his first Annual Message to Congress in 1790, George Washington said:
”A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.”
Another example of Economic Freedom as measured by the crush of regulation without regard to cost – the story from Hot Air:
Gun microstamping could close American factories
I understand that gun owners’ rights and the Second Amendment haven’t really been a touchstone in this year’s elections, but that doesn’t mean that the battle isn’t still being waged. One story out this month hits pretty close to home for me, both figuratively and literally. It involves the Remington Arms plant located in Ilion, a village in upstate New York. They are currently battling a pending move by the state government which would force them to put laser etched microstamps on the firing pins of all their weapons, driving costs through the roof.
Microstamping, or ballistic imprinting, is a patented process that uses laser technology to engrave a tiny marking of the make, model and serial number on the tip of a gun’s firing pin to allow an imprint of that information on spent cartridge cases. Supporters of the technology say it will be a “game changer,” allowing authorities to quickly identify the registered guns used in crimes. Opponents claim the process is costly, unreliable and may ultimately impact the local economies that heavily depend on the gun industry, including Ilion, N.Y., where Remington Arms maintains a factory, and Hartford, Conn., where Colt’s manufacturing is headquartered.
“Mandatory microstamping would have an immediate impact of a loss of 50 jobs,” New York State Sen. James Seward, a Republican whose district includes Ilion, said, adding that Remington employs 1,100 workers in the town. “You’re talking about a company that has options in other states. Why should they be in a state that’s hostile to legal gun manufacturing? There could be serious negative economic impact with the passage of microstamping and other gun-control laws.”
It is hard to beat the annual burden of government regulation for keeping the economy down. It’s also a great way to keep unemployment up. If Businesses have to spend more money to comply with regulations there is less to invest in the business or more employees. And what’s even better is that this…(see chart on the jump)…is something the government did create. Forty-six billion dollars ($46,000,000,000.00) in new additional regulatory costs per year!, heaped on business owners–during a recession– thanks to Barry “Big Bureaucracy” Obama…in just three years.
(I wonder if the idea came out of one of those job summit break-out session?)
JP Morgan earned a $5.4 billion profit in the first quarter of 2012. It is on course for making a multibillion profit in 2Q2012 and a $20 plus billion profit for the year despite its recent $2 billion loss. Businesses take risks, and some risks do not work out. Businesses are at risk daily as they must win enough willing and able customers so companies can pay employees, taxes, fees, and other expenses.
This JPMorgan loss has again kicked off liberal demands for even more regulations on an already highly regulated industry. How are regulators supposed to prevent losses from business risks? Businesses like banks are in the business of risking money. To keep banks from taking risks, you must stop them from making loans.
In addition to seeking to be the next RNC Committeewoman, Pam Tucker has something that her opponent cannot claim to have: experience as the current Deputy Speaker of the NH House where she has been intimately involved with policy and the legislation. One of the claims this session is that the Republicans have been concentrating on fiscal matters and making NH more biz friendly even as the media is hyping the social issues (to which my retort is “there is ALWAYS a fiscal cost to every social issue!”). So, I challenged Pam: “show me the list!”
A couple days later, she sent the list – take a look after the jump!
Previous questions:
Well, look at the slope! Which one is trending upward faster? That would be the GREEN line. Oh look – what event happened in early 2009, I wonder…. (H/T: The Enterprise Blog)
Long story short, if the regs went into place the vitamin shelf at the store would be emptied until supplement makers submitting test results to the FDA and the products were approved. And the added for battling the bureaucracy and testing regime? You’d be paying that when they products went back on the shelf, if they did.
This morning NHPR had a program on RGGI. Senator Peter Bragdon spoke for keeping RGGI and Representative Jim Garrity spoke for repeal. I tried to call and comment but didn’t get on the air. They suggested that I send in my comments, so I sent the comments below. Some of my comments are reactions to Peter Bradgon’s comments supporting RGGI.
"I am for repeal of RGGI.
1. We have plenty of energy in this country in the form of coal and gas, and even oil if the government would let us get it. We do not need to import fuel from countries that want to kill us to generate the electricity we need. My understanding is that gas can be relatively easily burned in oil fired energy plants, we have lots of natural gas.
2. It is hard to believe that wood pellets burn more cleanly than oil or certainly than gas. While I understand the desire to buy locally, they should compete like other fuels.
3. If energy efficiency is beneficial to people, governments, businesses, etc., then why do the rest of us have to subsidize it for them?