Articles tagged as

Taxes

Gov. Lynch and the NH Democrats Balance the Budget!

Great! Except IT’S A LIE. Here’s how they "did it." The following is from Republican State House Rep. Bob Rowe:

New Hampshire has a two year budget, not one year, and one side is talking about the first year of the budget and the other about the total two year budget. Yes, the Governor and Legislature balanced the first year budget ending June 31st, and yes, the State will be seriously in the hole at the end of the second year on June 31, 2011; by about 14 to 19%.  We will be starting the next budget on July 1, 2011 with a $600 to $800 million revenue shortfall. We did balance the first year budget, but at the expense of the second year and later years. Here are some, not all, of the methods used to break even or have a surplus at the end of the first year:

Read more

Ok, Like, This Is Me On The defict, Eh.

In twenty months the democrats have added $3,039,049,594,342.88 dollar deficit. (That’s trillions). That’s more debt than the entire history of America from its founding to 1990.

Conservative Resonation…Progressive Resignation

phone%20ringing.jpg

Two key points of interest came up in polling over the past week…

[#1] "Voters more likely to see Democrats as dominated by extremists"

Did you hear that Marjorie Smith and Mary Jane Wallner?  Did you?

According to The Hill’s 2010 Midterm Election Poll, "likely voters in battleground districts see extremists as having more dominant influence over the Democrat Party than they do over the GOP."  I can’t say that I’m surprised but it’s gratifying to see evidence of what you instinctively knew all along.

The difference in this is 7 points: 44% Democrat, 37% Republican.  The poll, having a 1.5% MOE, was of likely voters; not from any particular party, not just independents, and not random people, but 4,047 likely voters, living in key-race districts.

The icing on this cake is the fact that 22% of Democrats in the poll said that their party was dominated by "extremists", compared to 11% of Republicans answering the same question….how ’bout that, ladies? (using the term very loosely)

The candy on top of the icing is what Independents said: 43% of likely independent voters thought that the Democrat party was more dominated by "extremists", compared to 37% who felt the same way about the Republican party.

Oh boy!  Democrats had better get the burn cream and bandages out, and ready to apply in 14 days.

[#2] "Independents prefer cutting the deficit to spending on jobs"

Read more

Lynch Lied.com Updates

Swing on over to Lynchlied.com to check out some of the most recent ‘lies.’  There’s a new one posted that is near and dear to my heart.  (I’ve been talking about it for years) It reminds us that John Lynch’s support of RGGI is a broad based tax that has sucked 25 million dollars out … Read more

Fiskal Konservative

…a diarist from the Daily KoS, expects you to believe that he is actually been undercover, hiding so far up under the left wing, that he would be permitted to keep and maintain a diary at the Daily KoS.

Not Even A Passable Fraud

Matt has a nice post up at Red Hampshire revealing the disconnect between reality and the fantasy of Paul Hodes.  He provides us with a mid-debate tweet from the Hodes campaign…

 

Credit: Red Hampshire

 

…and then offers us the evidence that Hodes is lying about it by posting the AFT press release refuting Hodes.

This is all fine for what it is worth.   But what interests me more is that this tweet contradicts his own campaign focus and reveals the fundamental flaws of a liberal democrat like Paul Hodes.  These are not the words of any fiscal conservative I know.

Read more

Destroying The Future Of America

Image Credit: Mattox Firearms school.comDemocrats continue to insist that they created jobs.  To do this they extracted trillions from our economic future in an effort to create jobs that did not yet exist–that perhaps were  not needed yet.  Looking at similar exercises, cash for clunkers–which moved car sales forward a few months but has since resulted in a collapse in the market; the home mortgage bail outs, supports, credits, and the "home affordable" programs which improved home sales briefly but which have since collapsed (also to historic lows); and then there’s the stimulus, several public sector employee bailouts, bank lending infusions, small business bills, and everything in between including health care reform–many trillions spent, all made with claims that they would create, save, or incentivize job creation.

Lets concede the possibility that some jobs were saved or created with money from the future.  Let’s also, for academic purposes,  concede the number of 1.4 million-3.3 million jobs saved or created ( quote from Paul Hodes campaign if that matters).  What happens now?  Even if we can agree to these figures the mathematical reality is that despite these efforts, and at great expense, we still lost more jobs than we saved or created.  Millions are still unemployed with hundreds of thousands more people working less, working shorter hours, or who have given up looking altogether just in the 12 months since someone declared the recession over.  We got a net sum loss with the price of admission, and that debt is now looming over our ability to sustain or improve the job picture moving forward because of the Faustian fiscal political calculation the democrats made in what now appears to be a series of vote getting scams gone horribly wrong.

Read more

So, Mike Kitch – is the evidence starting to add up fer ya yet?

That would be Mike Kitch of the Laconia Daily Sun who took great exception to a Notable Quote I put up some time ago:

"A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for those candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship."

-Lord Thomas MacCauley

At the time, we "had words", because of his absolute assumption that because it had never happened in the past, it was impossible to see that happen in the future. Well, dude, start reaching for your salt, because unless something drastic happens, you will be eating your words.  With Obama doubling the level of where poverty benefits kick in (from 100% to 200% of the poverty level, more and more will come to be more dependent upon government – and that will turn into entitlement.  As I have said before, Kitch is fine with the taking of money from the prudent and giving it to the profligate – after all, they NEED it more than we do (shades of Atlas Shrugs!).

But it is not just those in poverty that can vote and vote for more and more benefits (and with the US at the tipping point of almost 50% of the population receiving some sort of public dole) – there is another growing constituency that is aligned with that group.

It seems that others have recognized that special interests, in a coordinated fashion, of plundering the public treasuries (city, state, and national), as this article from the Washington Examiner points out:

Obama’s ascendance was no anomaly, but testament to the rise of a powerful political coalition in America made up of those who benefit from expanding government, including public-sector employees and their unions; activists at organizations that survive on government money; and recipients of government benefits.

Obama’s election in 2008 was merely the clearest indicator of the extent to which this coalition has successfully amassed power in the last 50 years.

Indeed. And I watched that here in Belknap County when the Commissioners, trying to be frugal, cut the budgets of these "outside agencies" – and holy hell descended upon those Commissioners at a meeting where the "gimme groups" all gnashed and wailed.  Result: the feckless Republicans who controlled the "County Delegation" made sure that the money was put back in.  Way to go for the brand, duds!

Read more

Data point – So, Hodes and Shea-Porter, not giving Obama his desired tax hikes will result in utter despair?

The only gnashing of teeth will come from the Socialist Progressives / Statists that will be denied what is essentially a dime more for spending and more control.  Remember, the Bush tax cuts were back in 2001 and 2003 – once again, the Progressives are trying to redefine our vocabulary – at what point does "repeal" no longer apply?  Obama wants to raise marginal tax rates, he raises taxes for ALL of us.  But does it really matter – or is this Obama further fundamentally transforming America "for fairness"?

(H/T: The American)

Veronique de Rugy is becoming one of my favorite folks online – she does what I would love to do – the research of data set and presentation by visualization techniques (translations for simple Democrats: make hard stuff easy to understand).  In the post, she explains the back ground AND WHY OBAMA IS BEING MISLEADING.  Her conclusion?

Read more

What About Union Campaign Ethics

Bill O’Brien, the next speaker of the New Hampshire House, has drafted a bill for next session meant to resolve the conflict of interest that exists when state employees campaign for state politicians.  Mr. O’Brien’s motivation, as reported in an article in the morning UL by John DiStaso, is Pam Walsh who  collected thousands in political consulting fees from Teflon John Lynch while employed by the state.

The State Union objects to the bill on the grounds that the language in the proposed bill is too broad, that no state employee would be able to work for anyone running for office in the state.  But maybe that’s not such a bad thing.

When you boil it down, there really isn’t any difference between a lobbyist and a public service union member who draws a taxpayer funded paycheck.  These folks have an immediate financial interest in who is elected to office.  They actually pay an entity (the union) to represent them in negotiations with the very government for whom they work, for the purpose of expanding their share of taxpayer patronage, a goal that is directly affected by who is elected to office.  Their natural inclination will be to support politicians who will reward them with financial remuneration and/or expand union access or power to achieve similar gains.  Not only is it a conflict of interest, it is a home field advantage that no other voter or taxpayer can hope to compete with, paid for by the taxpayers themselves from the dues paid out of taxpayer funded paychecks.

Why is this even legal? 

Read more

Lunch for Lynch

Mike Hoefer is skipping his Lunch for Lynch and he’s asking the folks at Boo Hoo Hampshire to do the same.  He figures, rather than spend $9.68 at Panera bread he’s donating that money to Lynch for Governor to help fight back against the attacks by NOM. Well Mike, I have a few thoughts. Panera … Read more

Lynch Lies Some More

He lied about the confab being for campaign contributions, he lied about the deficit and spending, he lied about balancing the budget, the "surplus" meme is a lie in the context with which he’s applied it, he stood for parental rights then shot them down, he said he was against broad based taxes but signed … Read more

Wrong Way

Wrong-Way_Goffstown_Democrats

In the long and undistinguished line of left wing rubber stamps milling about the State House like zombies, you can find Kevin Hodges of Hillsborough 7, perhaps better known as Kevin "Awesome Cool" Hodges, among the undead.  Kevin garnered a small measure of fame after an encounter with a young lady in his district who took umbrage with his casual use of vulgar language and his insults of experienced Republican legislators. 

One editorial (and this blog post) later and Kevin was destined for a followup–so here it is.

Read more

What Tax is Fair?

The Granite State Fair Tax folks are back trolling for a broad based tax on the idea that it is more fair?  Fair to whom?  That’s always the question but it never tries to address why we need a tax, and why we need to control how much of it the government can collect, or how easily they can grow it.

And back in May of 2010 I once again tried to make the case for property taxes as better way to control the flow of revenue into the government.  It may or may not be my most persuasive but it is my most recent.

 

May 25 2010 ‘Why Property Taxes’

I have argued at great length on why relying primarily on local property taxes is the best mechanism for keeping government small.  But no matter how often I bring it up someone always tries to make the point that it’s not fair.  Why should the people who actually own the physical land in the state have to bear the burden of the costs associated with the governance of that land and the people who live on it? (That’s not exactly how they say it, I’m just translating it into common sense.) 

I happen to think that question answers itself, and as I’ve stated before should act as a necessary mechanism for filtering out unnecessary spending and over aggressive revenue seeking by busy bodies at every level of government.  Yet I am still confronted with the issue of New Hampshire’s unfair property tax burden–to which I now respond, what burden?

Read more

Let’s put the taking of Federal Income taxes from you into an absurd scenario

I normally do not put up entire posts from other folks, but Neal Boortz has this one down pat.  In it, he demonstrates the absurdity of the what Federal Govt does by taking away, via taxes, that is a good sum of money that for most middle class Americans.  It demonstrates the angst of the phrase:

"Do you REALLY think that Government can spend YOUR money better than YOU can?"

Boortz (emphasis mine):

OK so this is a miniscule example, but hear me out. The average family tax burden in America is $10,000. Now imagine that Barack Obama gathered you and five of your neighbors into a backyard, sat you down and said: OK, folks. Now I know that the tax burden for each of your families was probably around $10,000 this year. That means that collectively, you as neighbors have contributed about $60,000 to mandatory federal collection plate. I understand that you probably have a few ideas of what you could do with this $10,000 that my imperial federal government has now taken from you at the point of a gun. But as your ruler, I have decided that I am going to take this $60,000 and give it to some students at the University of Southern California. No, no no .. just hear me out! Look, these kids came up with some really cool

Read more

Now That’s Progress(ivism)

Capital Briefs in this weeks edition of Human Events, reminds us that it took over 200 years for the US government to accumulate a national debt of 2.19 Trillion. Mr Obama exceeded that sum in just 19 months by adding another 2.56 Trillion to the national debt….and neither Paul Hodes, nor Carol SEIU-Porter, did anything … Read more

Share to...
BufferCopyFlipboardHacker NewsLineLinkedInMastodonMessengerMixPinterestPrintRedditSMSTelegramTumblrVKWhatsAppXing