To The Daily Sun,
Here are a few questions for Senator Shaheen:
Did you ask President Obama to come to New Hampshire to campaign for you? You stated that president was busy. What kind of friend is busy after you have supported him 99 percent of the time?
You call and joke that Scott Brown is a carpetbagger. What is Hillary Clinton? She never lived in New York? Will you call her a carpetbagger?
We recently learn from Hillary Clinton that corporations and businesses do not create jobs? Will you ask Hillary who create jobs? Hillary Clinton has thrown President Obama under the bus. Are you throwing him under the bus?
Can you answer why you voted for more than 20 new taxes? Why did you vote to tax tanning salons, medical devices and others?
Please explain why voting 99 percent with President Obama was good for New Hampshire.
Will you apologize for lying to the people of New Hampshire on Obamacare? As you know, we were unable to keep our policies, hospitals and doctors.
Maybe we could understand your logic if you would answer these questions. I do not expect you to answer them. However, this veteran will be voting for Scott Brown. FYI, he was born in New Hampshire.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 29 October 2014 10:04
To The Daily Sun,
It's taken me a couple of days to digest what happened at the Belknap County Convention Executive Committee meeting Monday night, and, after doing so I am left with two very vexing questions.
1. The commissioners may not transfer more than $300 from any line in the budget, to any other line in the budget, without Executive Committee approval, and the amount of money needed to fund the county employees' health insurance benefits for the rest of the year is less than the projected surplus in the county budget. Why, then, is it necessary to force the commissioners to pick through only the health insurance lines to see if there's enough money there to keep us afloat until Nov. 17?
2. Why didn't the chairman uphold the dignity of the proceedings by declaring out of order the insulting, demeaning, outrageous and callous comment about the county commissioners and county administrator by a member of the audience who was recognized to speak?
I'm surprised that the media thought the comment was appropriate for publication.
Most of all, though, I'm sorry the county employees still can't figure out what kind of Christmas they're going to have.
Rep. David O. Huot
Last Updated on Wednesday, 29 October 2014 10:01
To The Daily Sun,
This letter is an appeal to younger voters, undeclared voters and those who usually vote for a political party and label rather than examining the candidates on the issues. We have all been bombarded recently by negative ads from all sides claiming the election of a particular candidate would lead to Armageddon. It's time to get beyond the scare tactics and focus on issues of importance, and the issues I'd like to discuss are the state economy, jobs creation, regulations and taxes.
The issue for this year's governor's race is which candidate can best move the state's economy forward out of sluggish growth and regain the New Hampshire advantage. That candidate is Walt Havenstein.
Walt is not a career politician, but a successful businessman who rescued BAE Systems from financial peril and created thousands of good paying jobs in the private sector in New Hampshire. The budget of BAE Systems was three times that of our state, so Walt has the executive experience this state needs.
Walt has a plan to add 25,000 new high-paying private-sector jobs by Aug. 15, 2017, by tackling burdensome regulations for businesses, reducing energy costs and lowering business taxes. These actions will help restore the New Hampshire advantage which has seen our state's competitive standing fall precipitously nationally and to virtually last among New England states, including Massachusetts and Vermont, over the past 10 years, all incidentally lead by Democratic governors.
For those concerned about increased deficits, look to Scott Walker of Wisconsin and John Kasich of Ohio. Both inherited billion dollar deficits and turned those deficits into surpluses without tax increases through more efficient management and structural changes to make their state economies more competitive.
Walt is also running for governor to retain our state's younger-age workforce and attract more younger workers and their families to our state. He doesn't want to see others have family and friends, like Walt's son and family, relocate to Texas due to the lack of job opportunities within New Hampshire.
Walt is concerned that Gov. Hassan's budgets rely on imaginary revenues from unproven sources like Casinos (which have been defeated) and spending projections have not matched revenue estimates.
Lest we all forget the 2010 elections resulted in a Republican-controlled Legislature which had to make significant adjustments to state spending to erase a $800 million deficit created by the previous Democratic Legislature. Excessive spending in excess of revenues leads to tax increases.
While Gov. Hassan says she against a sales or income tax, her spending policies put pressure on finding new sources of revenues, and broad-based taxes are available to be tapped.
Folks, of all political persuasions, it is time to vote on ideas and economics, and not from scary sound bites. For younger voters, you are voting on your future and the future direction of our state. Why not take a chance and vote for someone who is focused on job creation and quality of life for all New Hampshire citizens and who has the background and experience to make it happen. Vote for Walt Havenstein.
Richard R. Gerken
Last Updated on Wednesday, 29 October 2014 10:01
To The Daily Sun,
In a letter published in the Oct. 21 Laconia Daily Sun, our Belknap County Commissioners say that my charge that they manufactured the recent budget crisis was based on "half-truths" and "fabrications." The falsity of the commissioners' claimed crisis is revealed by the following 12 facts. Decide for yourself whether it is fair to conclude that the commissioners conjured up an illusion of crisis for their own political purposes:
1. The commissioners directed their attorneys to file a motion for emergency relief in the Belknap County Superior Court, which was heard on Sept. 23, 2014.
2. Paragraph 2 of the motion filed on behalf of the commissioners declared: "The county now finds itself in an emergency situation, wherein several county departments are over-expended without the ability to provide vital county services."
3. Paragraph 7 of the motion stated: "If the Executive Committee is unable to meet within the next forty-eight hours, inmates at the jail will have to be transferred to other facilities."
4. Paragraph 10 of the emergency motion summed up the commissioners' position: "Counsel for the convention has informed the county that the Executive Committee could tentatively schedule a meeting for Monday, September 29, 2014. This proposal is unworkable; in the week that it will take to convene the Executive Committee by their proposed schedule, elderly patients will need to be transferred from the nursing home, inmates will need to be transferred from the jail, and law enforcement personnel will be subject to danger due to insufficient communication."
5. Initially, in oral argument on the commissioners' motion, their attorney represented to the court that the transfer amount needed to sustain county operations was $617,872.20.
6. Judge O'Neill specifically inquired as to the exact dollar amount needed to sustain county operations until the scheduled Executive Committee meeting on Sept. 29.
7. Following a recess, during which time the commissioners conferred with their attorney, the attorney represented to the court that a transfer of $455,500 was needed to sustain county operations until the Sept. 29 meeting of the Executive Committee.
8. The court denied the motion for emergency relief, but urged the Executive Committee to meet on the issue of essential transfer requests that required action before the scheduled Sept. 29 meeting.
9. On Sept. 25, a special meeting of the executive committee of the convention was held to address emergencies that could not wait until the regularly scheduled Sept. 29 meeting.
10. At the Sept. 25 special emergency meeting only one transfer request was presented; the request was for transfer of $10,000 to ensure jail inmates necessary medications through the weekend until the regularly scheduled Sept. 29 meeting of the Executive Committee.
11. On Sept. 29, at the regularly scheduled meeting of the Executive Committee, over $600,000 in line-item transfer requests were approved by the Executive Committee to maintain Belknap County operations.
12. Between Sept. 23, when the commissioners' emergency motion was heard and Sept. 29, when the Executive Committee held its regularly scheduled meeting, not one nursing home patient had to be transferred to another facility and not one jail inmate had to be moved to another jail.
Based on all the available information, I do not believe any of the 12 factual points set out above can truthfully be denied. That said, I stand by my previous accusation that the "crisis" that led to the emergency motion was fabricated and the theatrics surrounding it were purely for show. In this regard, the facts speak for themselves. When the Executive Committee gave the commissioners the special pre-Sept. 29 meeting that the commissioners had argued to be essential to the continued operation of vital county services, all the commissioners could think to ask for was $10,000 for medical supplies to get jail inmates through the weekend. Assuming 100 inmates at the time, the requested transfer number would represent $100 per inmate for medications. One could reasonably be suspicious of that number.
Regardless, $10,000 is a far cry from the $455,500 that the commissioners represented to the court through their attorney as being essential for county operations until the Sept. 29 meeting of the Executive Committee.
Any reasonable person looking at the facts is forced to conclude that the "crisis" was non-existent. One can only speculate as to the reason for the misrepresentation: Was it an effort to embarrass the court by showing that its decision created an unworkable problem for county operations? Was it an effort to embarrass the convention and to try to influence the election of representatives who would rubber-stamp commissioner requests? Was it an effort to embarrass (Executive Committee Chairman) Rep. Tilton by portraying him as insensitive to the nursing home residents and jail inmates who were going to be uprooted and thereby force him to schedule a meeting without ample time to review the transfer requests in advance? Was it simply spiteful behavior by three men who could no longer have their way with the budget? Or was it some combination of these?
Whatever the motive, the attempt to create the appearance of a crisis was not from a mistaken lapse in judgment, but was the product of a purposeful design. The pawns in the game were the nursing home residents, the jail inmates and the county employees, and their peace of mind was the price that the commissioners were willing to pay to create the illusion of "crisis."
We should be able to expect truthfulness from our commissioners, and so should the court and the convention. Ask yourself, in light of the pattern of intentional misrepresentations running through their recent budget crisis story, how much credibility should be given to any statement made by the commissioners?
Last Updated on Wednesday, 29 October 2014 09:56
To The Daily Sun,
This last July, the mandated SB-245 (establishing the SEC ), was signed into law by Gov. Hassan and this is what we ended up with.
There is hereby established a committee to be known as the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee consisting of nine members, as follows: (a) The commissioners of the Public Utilities Commission, the chairperson of which shall be the chairperson of the committee; (b) The commissioner of the Department of Environmental Services, who shall be the vice-chairperson of the committee; (c) The commissioner of the Department of Resources and Economic Development;(d) The commissioner of the Department of Transportation; (e) The commissioner of the Department of Cultural Resources or the director of the Division of Historical Resources as designee (all of these commissioners are governor appointees); and (f) Two members of the public, appointed by the governor, with the consent of the council, at least one of whom shall be a member in good standing of the New Hampshire Bar Association, and both of whom shall be residents of the state of New Hampshire with expertise or experience in one or more of the following areas: public deliberative or adjudicative proceedings, business management, environmental protection, natural resource protection, energy facility design, construction, operation, or management, or community and regional planning or economic development.
I'm surprised that the chair of Municipal and County Government, wasn't somehow added to this list.
The appointments of the two members of the public was suppose to happen before the mandated, Oct. 1 deadline. The two so-called "public members" the governor had chosen were Sen. Bob O'Dell (R) who chairs the Ways and Means committee, vice chair of Energy and Natural Resources and member of Finance, and Rep. Amanda Merrill (D) who sits on Science Technology & Energy. Both of these nominees are pro-wind farm, anyone want to guess where this is going? Talk about stacking the deck.
Three out of five of the Executive Council had voted down these appointments, Gov. Hassan tabled the two appointments until after the November election in hopes of getting the votes from said council. This is a sad irresponsible way of running a government. Call Gov. Hassan, tell her to throw her two appointments out. Tell her to read the bill over again, look beyond Concord and choose two members of the public that do not have Concord moon-dust on their shoulders prior to the Dec. 1 deadline when the Site Evaluation Committee needs to submit a permanent funding plan.
The site evaluation committee needs time to consider potential funding sources, including but not limited to the imposition of reasonable application fees and the use of general funds. The site evaluation committee shall consider whether a dedicated fund is necessary as part of a permanent funding plan. The plan shall describe the costs of the ongoing administration of the site evaluation committee's duties, including state agency expenses associated with processing an application under this chapter. The plan shall make recommendations for funding sources to meet those needs, except that such funding sources shall not include annual operating fees imposed on energy facilities or further use of the renewable energy fund.
This is a tall order to wait until after the election. And what ever happened to the Oct. 1 deadline. After all, it's only been three months since the bill was signed. The SEC is the final word in placement of the so-called renewable energy franchises that are popping up all around the state. Without a full committee, is it going to be rubber-stamp operations as usual?
As a write-in candidate for the House, I can't endorse the choice of Sen. O'Dell and Rep. Merrill who Gov. Hassan has chosen to appoint, just as I can't support the conflict of interest the PUC Commissioners will bring to the table.
Eric T. Rottenecker
Grafton Dist 9
Alexandra, Ashland, Bridgewater, Bristol, Grafton.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 29 October 2014 09:55