'I can't afford it' really means, 'I don't really want it that much'

To The Daily Sun,

During a long career in sales, I learned that prospective customers did not always tell me the truth.

For example, "I want to think about it" almost always meant, "I don't want to think about it." It was the same when a prospect told me he couldn't afford my product or service. After all, if I had asked for the same amount of money for an operation to save the life of his child, he would have found that money somehow. "I can't afford it" really means, "I don't want it that much."

Remember this when you hear someone in the Legislature say, "We can't afford it" about some program or other. That person isn't telling you the truth.

Johan Andersen

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 277

Here's reality: we need to quadruple funding for SUD treatment

To The Daily Sun,

Cut the New Hampshire Health Protection Program substance use disorder (SUD) budget? Are they kidding? That would be the most absurd, ridiculous and reckless act to save a few dollars that I have seen in a long, long time.

The addiction problem in our state has become so overgrown because, for the most part, of pharmaceutical companies with billions to spend on spreading highly addictive drugs, so they can make more billions.

The ultimate costs to the budget of New Hampshire and taxpayers, will be many times the amount saved by depriving poor people of the chance to get off addictive substances, opiates in particular.

Highly addictive, legal drugs are being pushed on consumers so aggressively that far more of these medicines are being consumed than are necessary. The SUD component that allows treatment options for substance users, abusers and addicts offers a ray of hope that hasn't even gotten off the ground yet and it is already being considered to be eliminated?

The marketing, research and lobbying that goes on for the purpose of protecting the (over) flow of potentially addictive therapeutic medicines is making these drugs increasingly accessible to those who do not really need them.

Once someone has crossed the line of addiction, there is no cure and there is no deprogramming back to normal. Most eventually die or struggle with recovery off and on for the rest of their lives. A very few manage to stay drug free and treatment funding is a big reason that some recovering addicts manage to get through the initial intensive treatment phase toward longer term success.

The comparatively small amount of funding that has been recently made available could translate into many people staying clean, longer and some actually stay drug free permanently. But we need money to make that happen. Remember, a conservative estimate of the yearly cost of incarceration for one person in New Hampshire is more than $20,000. So, what has been happening is that convicted drug offenders while incarcerated, have less access to viable addiction treatment, many get released prematurely on probation or parole and their addiction takes them right back on to the same path, ergo ... the expensive cycle continues.

Save a dollar and eventually spend 10 dollars is actually what this ridiculous proposal is saying. And it is not just poor and marginalized persons who have been victimized by the over-availability of addictive painkillers that are now supplanted by heroin. Check the web for wealthy celebrities, politicians and talk show hosts who are in recovery from such "medicines".

Members of the House Finance Committee, here is the reality: We need to quadruple funding for SUD, now, not eliminate it. Then, down the line, that investment comes back. Those who vote for the defunding of what has been the best move in decades toward offering chronically addicted persons a chance at a better quality of life need to know that, as sure as the sun will rise, they too are, have, or will be significantly negatively affected by this horrendous scourge that will only get worse and gain momentum. Taking away this small amount of funding will allow far more lives lost and far more eventual cost to our already suffering community.

Michael Tensel

A&D Recovery Counseling


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 129

We have to much taxation in N.H., don't need 8ยข gas tax hike

To The Daily Sun,

The House will be voting on HB-357 this week. The Department of Transportation has been pulled out of the budget for special treatment due to its "unique and serious" problems. (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2015/HB0357.html)

HB-357, which deals with an increasing the time to notify DMV of a change of address, will have an amendment proposed that will increase the gas tax by 8 cents per gallon. If you are opposed to yet another gas tax increase and prefer that funds stop being diverted from repair of our roads and bridges, please write your representatives (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ns/whosmyleg/default) asp You can also write all reps at: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Please contact your friends and tell the to write too.

We have too much taxation. We have too much ineffectual government. Tell the government to, "Please stop helping me." If they institute more tax for NHDOT it will be transferred it to the general fund. There is no credible demonstrated need.

It is time to think about the consequences of what you are doing. Think about the fact that New Hampshire cannot retain her young people. Think about the fact businesses are leaving ... not coming to the state. Think about why New Hampshire has the highest per capita college debt in the nation.

"It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the danger of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." Daniel Webster.

Marc Abear


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 246

Sen. Forrester has thus far not taken stand on House's budget

To The Daily Sun,

I wish to reference a letter to the editor written by Kate Miller which appeared in The Laconia Daily Sun on March 20.

I just want to state the facts. In her letter Ms. Miller spoke about the House proposed budget, one the Senate hasn't even begun work on, and the need for Senator Forrester to be "honest with her constituents". The truth is Senator Forrester has yet to take a stand on the House-proposed budget package.

I see no evidence of "grandstanding" (Miller's words) by the senator when she speaks on this topic. She has always supported nursing homes. What she is doing is demanding that the governor follow the law and give the money to the nursing homes that the Legislature agreed to. The fact is, the governor signed into law the budget the Senate put together, and now wants to disregard the law and take the money from nursing homes to fill a budget hole in 2015.

That sets the record straight.

Edward C. Touhey


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 193

"Feel good' bills? Legislature has important issues to resolve

To The Daily Sun,

While the firestorm over the actions of a state representative using the only opportunity provided to him to debate a piece of legislation, I wonder why the actions of Rep. Robert Cushing, et. al., who introduced the bill, or the lessons taught by Mr. James Cutting being questioned.

The business conducted by the General Court is serious and impacts the daily lives of the citizens of the state. The decisions made determine whether some families will be able to put food on their tables or a roof over their heads. Just as important is the cost of precious taxpayer dollars for the process to consider those bills.

Think about it. It is an economics lesson that should be given before petitioning a legislator to present an idea for a bill. While I commend Mr. Cutting for educating the students in the process, he should also encourage the idea to be one of real substance such as requiring paid lobbyists to be heard in public hearing after the citizens are given an opportunity to be heard or that all bills be distributed in electronic form only.

Every idea that is introduced for consideration requires research and time by a staff attorney to write the appropriate language and format. Once the bill is written it requires printing a minimum of 400-plus copies of the bill for the legislators and staff distribution. That also requires materials and time of the legislative staff. The next step is for the bill is given a public hearing requiring more copies for public distribution. Once the committee takes action, the bill must now be included in the Calendar and additional copies made for distribution to the 400 members and the public. It then takes the time of the legislators to discuss and vote on the bill. And then the final results must be published in the Journal for public distribution. None of the above includes the cost of security, utilities and other support systems needed to operate the state Legislature.

It is you and I, the taxpayers who pay for the salaries of those employed to assist at the Statehouse for each bill to be introduced, considered and voted by the body.

Mr. James Cutting should share the math lessons with his students and weigh the cost to those families who are working hard to pay for the legislation they suggest. Rep. Cushing and the other sponsors of HB-373 owe the taxpayers an apology for introducing a "feel good" bill when there are much more important issues to resolve.

Karen Testerman


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 136