A+ A A-

Maintain current level of staffing for Gilmanton Fire Department

To The Daily Sun,

After many discussions about the Gilmanton Fire Department and its operation, it is clear that any disagreement is not about money.

At the Deliberative Session on Saturday, Feb. 1, the voters stated quite clearly that they are concerned about public safety and do not want to be put at risk while the selectmen debate costs.

The selectmen have done a good job of lowering taxes, but this is a time when they need to listen to what the citizens of the town want.

Please support Warrant Article 30 at the polls on March 11 to maintain the current level of staffing at the Fire Department while level-loading the budget.

Joanne Gianni
Gilmanton Iron Works

Last Updated on Wednesday, 05 February 2014 10:11

Hits: 203

Unbridled capitalsim would bring back a thriving work force

To The Daily Sun,

The Obama administration claims that the economic recovery is moving along just fine after what, five summers of recovery. So then, how is it that these "paragons of paradoxity" are simultaneously screaming for extending unemployment benefits to lengths unheard of? Because liberal progressives are marvelous at obfuscation and double speak. However, at creating jobs they suck muddy canal water.

Ninty-two million Americans who could/should be part of the labor force are not, and that is an all time record. In December, half a million folks gave up looking for work. That explains why the unemployment rate went down to 6.7 percent. Some would say that because there are so few jobs, folks have reluctantly settled for the very generous safety net. Marc Theissen of the American Enterprise Institute notes that the worst aspect of the safety net is not that it is so generous, but rather that so many people need it.

The labor participation rate is the lowest it has been since 1978. Meanwhile, liberal progressives and President Obama in particular, all jut their jaws while frothing at the mouth as they continue their attack on the rich over the age old issue of income inequality. This administration and the Federal Reserve are the cause of the increase in income inequality. Financial guru Melissa Francis brings this confounding conundrum clearly into focus. The Dow went up 26 percent, which is the best jump in stocks in 18 years. Interest rates, through endless quantitative easing, have remained extremely low and so the rich have no other choice except to keep putting money in the stock market.

In 2013, the number of hours worked fell, part time work increased, the number of temporary workers also increased while wages remained stagnant. A new Rutgers University study found that 6 in 10 Americans think our economy has undergone a permanent change and this is the new normal. The negative psychological impact of President Obama's job-killing policies have been immense and devastating to the psyche of the working class.

According to Investors Business Daily, 58.6 percent is the current employment to population ratio. It was 61 percent when Obama took office. Sixty two percent was the past 30 year average. $1006 was the drop in median household income during the 2007 — 2009 recession. $2,535 has been the drop in median household income after the recession ended in June 2009, according to Sentier Research.

The economy is not creating enough jobs to keep up with population growth and nearly one million folks have at some point slipped below the poverty line during the five year Obama administration. The dramatic increase in welfare recipients and disability recipients along with people getting up to two years of unemployment insurance may make liberal progressives feel all tingly with goosebumps of compassion. But the government plantation is sucking the soul out of those who have become dependent on it. All the better to take care of you cackles our secular, progressive nanny state. Vote for me and I'll set you free. Bread and circuses all around sneers the Democratic advocates of dictatorial powers. Please, focus on the twerking of Miley Cyrus and the drag racing of Justin Bieber. Don't worry your pretty little heads about that alleged soft tyranny fever. Will President Obama really use that phone and pen unilaterally? No sir.

Opportunity to work is what gives people self worth and dignity. Giving them free government benefits for longer than that short duration of a helping hand up, saps them of their self respect and takes away their dignity. That kind of compassion brings some short term relief, but far too often, long term misery. 50 years ago, Lyndon Johnson's "war on poverty" began. $20 trillion dollars later, the war rages on while the number of people still living in poverty remains largely unchanged.

Followers of Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek know that unbridled free market capitalism with minimal, trustworthy, objective government oversight would bring back the dynamism of American economic entrepreneurship and dignity for a thriving work force. What a pity that progressive liberals will never give up their socialist ideals in order to see the real truth. And the jury is still out as to whether enough conservatives will have the wherewithal to win the battle of wills for the soul of this Republic. Capitalism versus socialism, which would you rather have? Hint: capitalism offers equality of opportunity while socialism quixotically offers equality of outcome or more accurately, shared misery for all. Please check in with your friends in France who are just the latest to suffer from the slings and arrows of a perpetually failed paradigm.

Russ Wiles

Last Updated on Wednesday, 05 February 2014 10:03

Hits: 183

Workforce housing warrant article wasn't drafted by Alton residents

To The Daily Sun,

The Planning Board states in their recent editorial that the Town of Alton continues to work on implementing the recommendations outlined in the 2005 Alton Master Plan. Actually, it's the Planning Board not the citizens of the town that are doing this. The board talks glowingly about the grant received from New Hampshire Housing of money from HUD, a federal agency. This grant provided money for a consultant, a traveling road show to promote workforce housing and the appearance of an article on the 2014 ballot. The town administrator insisted (to me) that the grant was not a binding agreement when it obviously was if an article must appear on the ballot. And as for local control remaining in place, read the entire grant document and the fine print and you will see this is not the case.

The Planning Board editorial states that there was community participation. It's true that many citizens participated in public meetings about this issue but they were overwhelmingly against workforce housing when they did. This was reflected last year when several similar warrant articles were voted down. Results of the recent study showed that Alton already meets the requirements of the state law. We have a considerable number of single family homes and rental apartments well within the price range. Putting more multi-family dwellings or cluster housing in town or in our beautiful rural areas is not something the majority of Alton citizens feel will benefit our town. One needs only to take a look at how neighboring towns have been altered by these additions. As for addressing future needs if the economy improves, well this is not likely to happen anytime soon with the current crop of officials in Concord and Washington.

The bottom line is that this article was not drafted by Alton residents but by the Zoning Amendment Committee and the town planner with the help of the consultant from the firm Jeffrey H. Taylor and Associates. We believe that it is time for town officials to challenge the state and federal governments when bad, restrictive laws are forced down our throats. Re-wording the warrant articles does not alter the outcome of what they could do to our town. The Workforce Housing Law is a clear attack on our property rights and freedoms.
Please read all warrant articles on the upcoming ballot carefully to determine if they are good or bad for our town.

Phil & Chris Wittmann

Last Updated on Tuesday, 04 February 2014 11:39

Hits: 141

HB-1589 attempts to erode our God-given constitutional rights

To The Daily Sun,

Historians have told me that in the past two centuries of its existence, the legislative body of the great state of New Hampshire has enacted many stupid pieces of legislation. One piece of stupid legislation before a study committee of the House Commerce Committee, is shepherded by my elected representative, Ed Butler. He may be my elected representative, but he misrepresents me, and all those who cherish freedom and wish government to stay out of our pockets, and keep their hands off our guns. This bill, HB-1589, attempts to erode our God-given rights a enumerated in the New Hampshire Constitution, and enshrined in our U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights. It is no wonder that this bill was introduced and co-sponsored by a cadre of socialist Democrats. This bill adds expenses to taxpayers and would make felons of many of our citizens. Of course sponsors say there are exemptions which we can accept, but social Democrats are not used to telling the truth, and these exemptions can always be changed by them.

How can you stop this? Tell the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the infamous author of the bathroom bill, that this too is non-sense. ITL is the phrase to use. Inexpedient to Legislate. Pray members of his own party will recognize and be ashamed of this stupid proposed legislation.

Eugene M. Long



Last Updated on Tuesday, 04 February 2014 11:36

Hits: 128

If you don't contribute to the union you shouldn't benefit from it

To The Daily Sun:
In the effort to become more politically motivated and to get a better grasp on how the legislative process is handled, I have started going to the committee hearings on bills as they make their voyage to try and become a law. Doing this not only gives me the opportunity to put my name on record as someone who is in favor of or opposes the bill, but also give me a chance to hear what the other side has to say. My most recent venture was for the "Right to Work" bill which was approved by the committee but then killed in the Senate.

Since I am conservative minded and what I like to call a Constitutional Individualist, I am in favor of Right to Work laws. As stated by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the Right to Work principle affirms the right of every American to work for a living without being compelled to belong to a union. It is based on an individual's rights. The opponents of the law are of course the unions, who can only thrive when the masses join, and the ME group, who are the employees covered by the unions. At the committee meeting, there was no shortage of union bosses talking about how Right to Work is anti-union, which is false, and the MEs who told their sob stories about how, if it wasn't for the unions fighting for them to get higher pay, they wouldn't be able to afford their house or take care of their kids. While I don't want to get too much into why the unions of today are nothing more than a con game, I have to explain why the MEs are misguided.

The unions fight for you to get a higher wage, this is true. But then they take part of that away from you for union dues. You're paying for a service and that is fine, but your wages aren't as much as they "fought" for you to have. And that's not all folks. Since they force your employer to pay more, those costs get pushed down the line. If you work for a manufacturer, it costs more to make the product. If you work for a trucking company, it costs more to deliver the product. If you work for a retailer, they are going to sell the product for more. All of these companies will raise their prices to cover the cost of your higher wages. Now it's bad enough that you will have to pay more for a product than you should have because you got paid more to make it. But what happens to those of us who aren't in a union, whether it is because we don't want to be or because there isn't a union organized where we work? We have to pay a higher price for something that wouldn't cost so much if it weren't for the greed of the unions or the MEs. That house that you "wouldn't be able to afford" probably cost more in materials and union labor than it should have and it would have been cheaper if it was built with non-union materials and non-union labor. And all that food and clothing that your kids need wouldn't cost nearly as much if it was delivered by non-union drivers. You are getting duped and the non-union workers are getting fleeced.

There are those who think Right to Work laws are not needed because the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 does the same thing that current right to work laws are supposed to accomplish. This is not entirely true. While the act kept union shops restricted, there was also a provision in the act for states to pass Right to Work laws themselves. Some people also like to say that even in a non-Right to Work state; you aren't forced to join a union. This is also not true; it depends on a state's laws. I have a friend who works for the state in a non-Right to Work state. Even though he wants nothing to do with the union, he was forced to join as a requirement for getting the job. How is that possible if Taft-Hartley does everything that Right to Work laws do? Lastly, there are those who believe that Right to Work is not as economically beneficial as reported. Why is it then that Boeing wanted to move part of its operation from Washington State to the Right to Work state of South Carolina? Could it have been the $8 billion that the union wanted to extort from the company?

One side of Taft-Hartley that I don't agree with, and from my research shows me it has nothing to do with Right to Work, is that people who don't want to join the union don't have to pay dues but still get the full backing of the union. One of the MEs brought this up at the committee meeting and while I didn't agree with most of what she said, I do believe if you don't contribute to something, you shouldn't receive the benefit. But this is a problem in the federal law, not in a state's Right to Work law. The unions and the MEs need to fight the federal law instead of fighting an individual's right to not join their union. When this legislation comes up again in a year, the Right to Work law should be passed.

Scott Schoonmaker

Last Updated on Tuesday, 04 February 2014 11:29

Hits: 151

The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Login or Register