Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.


A never ending control by learned intellectuals who know best

  • Published in Letters
To the editor,
An article in the N.Y. Times (March 2, 2013) referring to our's being the land of plenty (of government) is quite interesting; it may help those citizens whom believe that government is the answer. It is interesting also in as that the writer points out that during FDR's socialization program the stated pretext was that there was too much wealth in too few hands, leaving no money for others to spend — that is, tax the rich. Stating that it was the restricted money supply that was the problem or "so we understand it today". Actually (though unintentional) it translates into the government being the wealthiest hand(s), or the actual top 1 percenters. The richest and the wealthiest don't compare to all government's yearly spending of $6.3 trillion. The combined expenditures of the governments of the United States exceed the GDP of all the worlds nations except China's and the U.S. federal budget exceeds all but China's and Japan's. Today's government excessive production of money out of thin air and extreme deficit spending is a double edged sword with which they're slicing the legs out from under all of us.
It speaks of Europe's government-controlled economy being focused on incentives for industrial production and less local consumption and that the U.S. government's focus had been on individual consumption (such as housing) and more control of production and the wealthy.
Today's learned economists feel that we are too focused on our private assets causing us to become less interested in the welfare of others. The new answer is "we need to rethink our love affair of consumption".
And so we have it, a never ending control by those learned intellectuals who know what is best and how to make things right. Doing so out of their great compassion/concern for others as well as their knowing that we are all in this together and we all must give to the best of our abilities and take only what we need.
We can be sure of one thing; they will guide us along the way to the goal — which we must achieve first before we'll know what it is. And, they will waste no opportunity to guide us through every manufactured crisis.
There is a children's story, a small boy rides a large flying dog to stop the big "nothing" which is seeking to destroy everything — "The Never Ending Story" actually is real, and we are living it in the here and now.
An added note: An increase of the minimum wage to $10.52 will net the federal government nearly double the tax on low income workers at current tax rates and deductions; a full-time worker would earn $20,198.40 minus the $9,750 deduction and taxed at 15 percent would owe $1,129; currently at $7.25 an hour he'she owes only $418.
PS. How things change when you're the one in power: S.O.S. John Kerry "will send food to the Syrian opposition" which of course allows them to spend their money to buy arms from Saudi Arabia; how will the eventual outcome of this game play be testified to a congressional hearing by an older Kerry?
G.W. Brooks