Our Tax and Spend Friend To people who think Social Security is some kind of pension plan in which we’ve been investing for years… forget about it. It never was that. More importantly it isn’t going to be that in the future. The system works this way. Current retirees get their money from payroll taxes … Read more
Tomorrow there is a hearing (10am – LOB 301) for HB 330. HB 330 would allow any county delegation in New Hampshire to adopt a ‘County Income tax’ to be administered by the New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration (DRA). HB330 sells its tax as money that would go toward paying for education (public education at government run schools) and who could possibly dare to be against dumping more money into government run education?
/steve raises his hand
The left has tried to turn the Tea Party into their boogeyman. But you know what the Tea Party wants? They think we are taxed enough already. Stop adding taxes. Stop spending more money than we take in. Stop making government cost so damn much that small business can’t hire to pay for what government we actually need.
And the Free Staters just want New Hampshire to keep its small government character. They, like the Tea Party, prefer local control to being lorded over by the state or federal government. Government, yes – but as local as it can be and small and efficeint. And what’s truly funny about the Democrats attacks on the Free Staters is that many of these folks actually agree with Democrats on several issues. Some of them are Democrats.
Which brings us to Democrats.
Democrats are easy. More central government, more spending and growth of central government, more command and control, less local control and more taxes and fees to pay for it.. So what do you think? From now on should we just refer to New Hampshire Democrats as “Fee” Staters?
Maggie Hassan keeps saying we need to have a conversation about taxes. We have them all the time. The difference is that Democrats talk about raising them (hundreds of them), and Republicans talk about controlling or lowering them. And then there are the conversations about taxes that slip out when you are least expecting them to.
We get just such an example from the September 19th Gubernatorial debate on business and the economy; when asked about RGGI, the Regional Greenhouse Gas initiative, Candidate Hassan said this…
I was proud to be a sponsor of that tax, eh, the energy efficiency program because it has saved businesses millions and millions of dollars and created over 400 jobs.
That’s a notable quote right there.
Democrat 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.
New Hampshire is not California. We are not California because with the exception of 2007-2010, we try to avoid letting Democrats run the entire state government. (We’re also not Massachusetts for that same reason.) And this is good, because while Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has now implemented “cost controls” for Healthcare providers in his state, guaranteeing(long term) less access, longer waits and poorer service, California is a bloody disaster.
The tax and spend, unsustainable pension and benefits, land of environmental extortion, saw sales tax revenue drop 33.5% last month. While but one small part of the problem that is “California” all the problems can be linked directly to things that New Hampshire Democrats want you to experience right here in the Granite State.
It’s a well regarded fact that Democrat Candidate Maggie “The Red” Hassan, early in her candidacy for Governor of New Hampshire, took a Pledge to veto any sales or Income tax. This is something of an election year tradition. Democrats who have been trying to raise old taxes or pass new taxes for years find the odds of achieving the states highest office against them if they don’t pay lip service to “The Pledge.”
Governor Shaheen fell off the horse and eventually passed the state wide education funding tax. Governor Lynch signed the pledge then later signed off on RGGI, a regressive broad based tax that actually outsourced taxing power to an unelected out of state board. And now Maggie Hassan has stated repeatedly that she has taken the same pledge, but has she?
It has been three years since the Democrat party produced a federal budget. The Democrat Senate has blocked repeated efforts by the Republican controlled House to ‘do something’ about that. President Obama, Senate leader Harry Reid, and the Democrat leaderships contribution (including their media homunculus) has been to demand compromise without giving any.
Another video from the Center for Freedom & Prosperity Foundation Economics 101 series that talks about why Big Government is less than optimal: Higher taxes do not lower deficits Just say NO to a VAT Big Govt cripples human capital Tipping point: when moochers outnumber the producers (wagon riders vs wagon pullers)
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.
How does one become an Occupy Wall Street Protestor? A quest for understanding in a somewhat complicated topic. Why? Because there are some who seem to demonstrate a modicum of intelligence and articulate usage of the language when the camera is rolling. And, there are some who dress reasonably normal (normal meaning, no obvious hygiene challenges, maintaining a groomed appearance). Those folks are in the vast minority. And certainly it would not be an accurate statement to say these slackers are all “youth generational.” The camera has caught some old enough to be peers of my parents.
But the task at hand is an immediate one. How do I blend in? How do I become an OWS protestor. I suppose I should start with something superficial. Ah yes! you say, “Things aren’t always as they appear.” and how right one might be to make such a characterization. But any good leftist will tell you, honesty is a relative term. “Your views are your views.” Kind of akin to calling people racists because they don’t like Obama… Yet, when it is pointed out that these same “racists” like Herman Cain, the argument shifts to, “you only like him because he gives your racism cover.” Rank dishonesty is the domain of the left. And outward appearance is what we first see from our friends in the lame stream media.
As a segue into my OWS protestor journey, I neither shave nor shower for an extended period of time. (if I wish to wholly embrace this slacker look, I don’t brush my teeth, either..If a casual observer spies a chive stuck in my teeth when I smile, I have arrived) It is important to engender that, “rail against the establishment” appearance. Smelling ones’ own smell, is sufficient validation one has achieved parity with the OWS appearance.
Today’s Union Leader Editorial, entitled, “Free Cops!” points once again to the ills of having a big-government Democrat like Jeanne Shaheen serving the Granite State in the U.S. Senate. Like her liberal counterpart, former Congressperson Carol Shea-Porter, Shaheen brings home the bacon … To wit: a $1.4 million federal grant to pay for six new police officers; Providing four for Manchester and one each for Pelham and Claremont.
Not a new scheme at all. During the Clinton years we see how well it worked here in the Queen city the last time the Federal Nanny doled out money for cops. And as always, there is an end on the horizon for that funding which only segues the bitter fiscal fight also on the horizon. Police administrators, Union hacks and those in city government with a shameless fealty for tax and spend policies to keep those positions, will seek to have them funded on the backs of local taxpayers. Epic Fail. This latest grant is a mere redux of the same scheme.
Senator Shaheen is the epitome a big-government liberal. She does not respect local government, nor the people who elected her. This is a clear second example of such in just a few short months where Shaheen advocated for the Feds to contract locally with Planned Parenthood in the wake of the Executive Council’s vote not to fund Planned Parenthood services in the Granite State. Now she gives Manchester government a back-handed slap.
Michael Moore and other Progressives should learn this lesson: Government’s money is not the same as Society’s money – it only becomes Government money after the Government has taken it from Society. (H/T: RedState)
If the Democrats had passed a budget we wouldn’t be doing this at all. If the left in Congress had not broken the law and refused to write or pass a budget we would not be here. If the demolition party had not obstructed every effort by Republicans to pass a budget, to eliminate the need for continuing resolutions, there would be no debate about refunding the government every few months.
“Doesn’t the fight for survival also justify swindle and theft? In self defence, anything goes.” ~Imelda Marcos USA Today reported back in April 2006, that 180,000 families were living “off the grid” Moreover, USA Today in that same story reported that that rate has jumped to upwards of 33% a year for a decade according … Read more
“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” ~Barry Goldwater
A common theme heard from whiney liberals these days is that conservatives, tea-party patriots and some Republicans take absolute positions on issues and are unwilling to compromise, “for the good of the people.” There are four fundamental flaws in that logic.
First, how liberals define compromise. In final analysis, compromise means abandoning ones principles and going along with liberals, perhaps watering down some measure that renders the original principle sought after inoperable.
Second, the logic implies that the maker of the statement (the liberal) is irrefutably correct. The liberal implies all facts are on his or her side.
Third, liberals just love those who go along because that means the opposition is malleable. The opposition has weak links in their unity and party platform.
Finally, it implies a tacit acknowledgement by the “compromiser” that perhaps the liberal, “is correct” in his or her logic.
There is nothing wrong with spirited and sometimes bitter partisanship. The citizens governed should have clear unambiguous choices. Voting for most Republicans means one favors less government intrusion, reasonable and lower taxes, whereby the majority is not paying for the select few to live off the many. One favors a government that is both responsible socially, and looks to people, not government as a first resort to solve problems.
The RINO REPORT has featured those Republicans in Name Only who have distinguished themselves as the harlots of the left. Those who run on principles claiming to be an, “independent voice” in Concord without ever being held accountable to say, what that really means. Those folks could easily be on a Leftist-progressive ticket and fellow Republicans would never really know the difference, mush less miss them.
As the RINO report moves forward, ROTW now segues into a considerably more ambiguous analysis. For example, This weeks RINO REPORT took a hard look at Rep. Lawrence B. “KOKO” Perkins, Rockingham 14 to be featured. When one drills down into his voting record, however, it is easy to see that Perkins voted predominantly with Conservatives on Guns, Liberty and Families. While he took a walk on Right to work and voted for spending measures that favor Unions over regular working class folks, being a firefighter gave us no illusions about what he would or would not support. Morover, he gave the PFFNH cover. Their campaign contributions to Perkins allows Davind Lang and his ilk to say they are, “non-partisan” when in fact, they overwhelmingly support Democrats. And that is… when he showed up. While he might have voted on issues important to me, the fact is he still voted for Unions. Does it make him a RINO? Readers must judge that for themselves.
(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.) …have New Hampshire’s low tax, local government, just leave me alone voters decided that a tax and spend, intrusive big government guy like Perry is the new (old) direction they want to pursue?
Barbara Seebart, New Hampshire State Refugee Coordinator didn’t appear to grasp Mayor Ted Gatsas’ assertions that the City of Manchester is not prepared to absorb another 300 refugees. The Board of Mayor and Alderman voted in favor of a moratorium this month given the city’s current financial situation.
Seebart, told the mayor she would pass along his concerns to the hacks in Washington DC, but then ended her response to Gatsas with this little gem: “I look forward to our continued collaboration in assuring refugees are successfully resettled in Manchester.” As reported in today’s edition of the New Hampshire Union Leader.
Gatsas promptly responded to Seebart asserting, “I continue to question how success is measured with regards to resettlement by both yourself and the International Institute of New Hampshire; to date that question has yet to be sufficiently answered.”
On July 7, the Union Leader reported that Seebart expressed concerns about scarce case management after refugees have been in the Queen city 6-9 months, as well as concerns with the economy and potential welfare law changes. Yet her above statement seems to indicate a tin ear.
On July 10 International Institute of New England Board Chairman William Gillett, in the Union Leader argued against a moratorium stating, “To suggest that refugees resettling in Manchester “are going to suffer because there are not enough resources for them” ignores completely the conditions and lives that the refugees have fled…” Gillett further arrogantly opines, “Any lack of adequate resources is a failure of will, not a failure of ability.” Another tin ear.
The city has cut back on many services; The city has laid off workers; and, the tax payers are facing another tax increase. Gillett’s organization is not shy about spending the tax payers dollars, either. Gillett points out that, “A significant amount of federal money flows in to Manchester to support refugee resettlement. These funds target refugee employment assistance, health care, English language and citizenship classes and, specifically, the educational needs of refugee children in the Manchester schools. organization…” What he wants us to believe is that such federal funds are sufficient to do all that he says they are intended to do. Not true. And Gillet’s own organization’s report reflects that where IINH states, “
Adapted from a Facebook thread
‘Grok friend Robert Jursik had a link where Michele Bachmann suggested that everyone should pay taxes (almost 50% pay no Federal income taxes); I have written many times that this would be a good idea – ALL should pay for the Government we have with no exceptions.
Immediately, there was blowback from a Liberal with a snarky line of "how dare the poor waste the little money they have on foolish things like food and housing…and need to eat". Bob correctly pointed out that 300 million people paying a small amount in taxes produces better revenue than 70 or 80 million paying more than 40% of whatever they earn and that:
we’re in a circumstance now where we have an entire class of Americans who are only too happy to keep voting for those politicians who will promise them all kinds of benefits and entitlements, knowing full well they’ll never have to foot the bill for them. That’s an outrage. And in the same way, you have entire tax brackets that are coughing up at least 45% of their income to pay for welfare services and entitlements they’ll never use – basically getting screwed over to pay for somebody else’s public dole. Our Michele is quite right: the answer here is not to bleed those brackets even more. The answer is to tell those entitlement classes to get off the sofa and start pulling the wagon for a change.
Well, Bob was right. If you examine the revenues for both NY and CA, you can see that they plummeted during the beginning of the recession. Why? Their state level income taxes were very skewed; using a Progressive rule of thumb, they highly taxed the rich in their states and not much at all on others. Well, weighting that skew SO much meant that when the rich were no longer rich as the recession deepened, neither were the State coffers – a lesson that Progressive Obama would be wise to learn (50 labs of Democracy and all that). Anyways, what Bob said didn’t set well with the Lib and he challenged that 40% taxation number. Of COURSE, I chimed in on the topics of that skewness, those who have "excess" ("cover your utilities, housing, food and medical care?") should pay more, who should be able to decided when someone, as Obama stated, has enough ("excess" was the actual word), and that times have changed since the Declaration of Independence was written:
Right now, the top 1% of all income earners pay more than the bottom 95% in income taxes. <redacted>, from your accusatory posts for Robert, it seems that you are just fine with "free riders" on the system. frankly, IF we get the chance to look back, we will see that separating the receivers of Govt largesse from helping to pay for that largesse will be one of our biggest mistakes. Why? If one pays nothing for something, it is not as valued as having to have worked for it. What we are generating a social class that is selfish – "Govt, give me more and what NEXT are you going to give me?" Doubt me? Just look at Greece where former largesse recipients are rioting in the streets because the Govt can no longer afford to give them ANYTHING – the money is gone.
So, you have the hubris to decide who has "excess" and who doesn’t? <Redacted>, you get to decide upon whom "coerced charity" will be enforced? This is my main problem with Progressives / Liberals: they have little regard for the Law of Private Property. They have no clue the message they send to others: that THEY and THEY alone are reasonable and moral, and thus, should have the power to take from others – their ends justifies their means. How nice….