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must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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.


Obama has accelerated job-killing policies, increasing income gap

  • Published in Letters

To The Daily Sun
Considering the nearly unbroken record of misrepresentations, diversions, and outright falsehoods from their national leaders, it is not surprising that other Democrats use the same techniques. An example is Representative David O. Huot's column on December 17 titled, "Medicaid expansion good for all our pocket books."
New Hampshire Democrats want to expand Medicaid to cover another 58,000 people. The New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies indicates that 34,000 of those people already have private insurance. Providing Medicaid to people who are already insured is wasting taxpayer money!
More importantly, if Democrats really wanted to help people, why replace good insurance that people already have with Medicaid that an increasing number of service providers refuse to accept? Moving people from private insurance to Medicaid isn't good for taxpayers, doctors, hospitals, or the insured... only for the politicians and the special interests.
The Republican alternative helps the uninsured get good private insurance using federal funds. Rollout could have started January 1, 2014. Unlike the Democrat plan that provides poor insurance at increased taxpayer cost, the Republican plan is a win-win-win-win for the uninsured, doctors, hospitals, and for taxpayers. Nevertheless, Democrats rejected the Republican plan.
With the Republican plan, New Hampshire taxpayers aren't burdened when the federal (taxpayer) funding ends. During the three years of 100 percent federal funding, the N.H. Legislature can consider what to do afterwards. Hopefully the economy will improve so people can get insurance from an employer or afford to buy their own.
The only explanation for rejecting the Republican plan is if your objectives are something other than helping the poor and protecting the taxpayers, e.g., if your objective is to increase the size of government and your own political power, to reward special interests, and/or to create a major new state expense that forces adoption of a state income or sales tax.
Frankly, I object to both plans. Our legislators spend too much time on band-aids (welfare and other programs) to hide people's pain caused by destructive progressive policies that have been killing good middle-income jobs for decades.
Unfortunately President Obama has accelerated those progressive job-killing policies and, consequently, he has increased the gap between rich and poor every year of his presidency.
If they wanted the American people to really prosper, politicians would replace job-killing progressive (primarily Democrat) policies with policies (tax, regulatory, immigration, energy, etc.) that encourage people to invest and create millions of good American jobs.
Only conservatives are committed to enacting policies that encourage the economic growth that enables every American to get a good job so they can purchase the things they need and want, and to pursue their American dream.
Don Ewing