A+ A A-

Rich only dislike government spending when they don't benefit

To The Daily Sun,

Ever get tired of hearing the same old mantras by government haters? That is: "Government holds back American capitalism"; "Big government intrusion in our lives"; "Government control hurts those struggling to achieve the American Dream"; "government is remarkably inefficient compared to the private sector". It's like listening to "It's a Rainy Night" over and over again sort of like watching EWTN. People actually believe this stuff but then again you can fool some of the people all the time.
Take the core technologies that make the iPhone work, the Internet, GPS, touchscreens and cellular communication — that's right, all because of direct government investments in research and development (R&D). Companies such as Apple, Compaq and Intel? That's right. Early financing via the Small Business Innovative Research program. Government haters often cite the fact that tech giants like Facebook, Apple, and Google thrive in this country because the state sector in European countries is much larger than in the U.S. That's right. It's always been government investments in R&D that venture capital firms generally consider too risky to undertake that has given the U.S. an edge in tech firms.
Take another sector — pharmaceuticals. That's right, 75 percent of the innovative drugs brought to market by Big Pharma were discovered in national laboratories funded by the state. They then claim that they have to charge exorbitant prices for their drugs to cover the high cost of ahem R&D? That's right. They spend two and a half times as much on marketing and administration than they do on research.
According to Physicians for a National Health Program, single payer health care is actually more efficient than private for profit health care for a whole host of reasons. One third of health care dollars goes to administration and paper work. That's right. The potential savings on paperwork — 400 billion dollars per year could provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying anymore than we do now. The song and dance routine goes on and on: charter schools, private prisons, privatized public infrastructure. That's right, substandard and/ or inefficiencies or both.
These myths have been fueled by a neoliberal orthodoxy for the past 30 years. Privatization, deregulation, and lower taxes were touted as the solution for societies' ills. Even before this neoliberal onslaught the most conservative economists had accepted the need for the state to intervene in order to "solve" market failures. They didn't like it but they still believe this way!
Here's another reality check for you. The political elite, the rich and corporations only dislike government spending when they aren't the beneficiaries — which explains their disdain for welfare spending that benefits the poor. They love to jump in and make massive profits after the government has taken the risks. That's right. Socialize the risks and privatize the profits.
Both parties love to spend the big bucks on defense while at the same time "ending welfare as we know it" (Clinton). That's right. The War on Poverty has become the War on the Poor. I have no problem with people dependent on Big Government but I do with people who complain about Big Government. To continue to function properly, capitalism will always need the intervention of the state to save the system from itself.

George Maloof

Plymouth

Last Updated on Thursday, 24 October 2013 08:57

Hits: 178

Ted Cruz has donned mantle of leadership; he'll be formidable

To The Daily Sun:

A couple of weeks of playground turmoil over debt and governance drove home a scary observation. America is losing its way in a leadership vacuum, and a leader has emerged.

The battle over shutdown and debt was Democrats and Republicans, the entrenched and bought against Ted Cruz. Conventional wisdom is Senator Cruz lost. Yet that one man forged a coalition of feisty rebels, forced the House of Representatives to the sidelines and sent the men of the Senate scampering to their woman to show them an exit.

Now, in the immediate aftermath, self-serving narrations are attempting to portray chaos as diplomacy. These narratives will rapidly evolve to sound bites as the portrayals are poll-tested and refined.

Ted Cruz will be at the heart of the narration. Having sought and begun to don the mantle of leadership, he will be formidable. He has the brains to manipulate the elected as well as the masses, the moxie to try, the ego to think he can recover from anything and the wherewithal to succeed at everything.

By all accounts, Cruz is off the charts brilliant. He was a top-of-his-class graduate from Princeton and Harvard as well as an award-winning debater. "Mother Jones," a politically left-leaning magazine, has called him the Republican Barack Obama for his smarts and minority status. He was born Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz in Alberta, Canada, to a Cuban father and American mother.

While the old guard in his party blames him for beseeching the Republican brand and calls him a kook, others postulate he is the future of Republicanism. His underlying message (the federal government is too big and too powerful) has broad support within his party and registers favorably with a majority of the American people. With Tea Party adherents, his favorability is 74 percent.

Demeaning comments from moderates and liberals only endure him to the committed. After two presidential elections where the Republican candidate pandered right in the primaries, pivoted center in the campaign and flamed out on election night, fidelity to principle as preferred strategy over pretentious moderation is gaining respectability among the affluent and influential.

"Who leads Republicans?" has been an ongoing question. John Boehner, speaker of the House, has been an especially ineffectual leader. His refusal to exercise the power of his office in the latest fiasco enabled it. Ironically, following Cruz, offering tacit support to his gambit, made Boehner a better leader in the eyes of the Tea Party.

The other inside government Republican leader is Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader. The old guard is lauding his work with the majority leader (Harry Reid) to finalize and implement the woman-led design to end the shutdown and extend borrowing authority. Back home in Kentucky, however, many in his party view it as betrayal. That view may offer Cruz an opportunity to enhance his leadership persona.

Matt Bevin, a Tea Party type, is challenging McConnell in the Republican primary. Independent polling data for that primary race are not yet available. Nonetheless, there are signs McConnell is vulnerable.

Influential conservative organizations are endorsing Bevin. Sarah Palin is hinting (no so subtly) she intends to intervene on Bevin's behalf. Independent voters are turning on McConnell. His Democratic opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes, has a slight lead in the most recent general election poll.

Two of the three top contenders for the Republican presidential nod (Cruz and Rand Paul) have significant disagreements on policy, but both are avid proponents of smaller, less intrusive government. Both have personal reasons to dislike McConnell.

McConnell actively opposed Paul's bid for the Senate in 2011. In doing so, he made some nasty comments. McConnell has been in the fore of the effort to demean Cruz and lead the intraparty effort to marginalize him.

A coordinated Cruz-Paul effort aided by Palin, conservative organizations and wealthy Tea Party backers could be the fat lady singing for McConnell. Moreover, it would put the fear of God into Cruz's Republican detractors.

Robert Moran
Meredith

Last Updated on Thursday, 24 October 2013 08:46

Hits: 214

Your health care is now in hands of people who can't balance budget

To The Daily Sun,

Dick Devens, Jon Hoyt, Kate Miller, James Veverka, Ed Allard, and other radical leftists who believe politicians should control how you live and spend your hard earned money are rejoicing. The "adults", President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, other elected Democrats and Republicans who forgot their campaign promises, have "won" and can force Obamacare down our throats.
But not everyone has to comply with Obamacare. President Obama exempts groups, like Congress, when it is politically expedient. Big business is exempted to delay the massive layoffs and/or losses of employee health insurance that get nation-wide publicity.
Senators Cruz and Lee, the "wacko birds", and conservative House Republicans were unsuccessful in saving Americans from Obamacare.
Did you, a family member, or friend lose your/their health insurance? Did premiums increase? Have you lost access to, or insurance for, your doctor or hospital? Thank the adults!
Have your work hours, or those of a family member or friend been cut below 30 hours to avoid Obamacare requirements? Has anyone lost a job? Thank the adults!
Have you wasted hours unsuccessfully trying to sign-up on the Obamcare exchange? Millions of people can thank the adults!
Did you enjoy giving so much personal information to "navigators" knowing that some aren't fully trained and some have criminal histories? Are you concerned that your personal information will be in a government database, accessible by many thousands of people, and very susceptible to public disclosure, identity theft, or misuse? Thank the adults!
Obamacare costs three times what was promised. It will raise, not lower, health care costs. We will pay for Obamacare in higher taxes, in poorer quality care, or both. Thank the adults!
Obamacare taxes and regulations are eliminating low value medical services, drugs, and devices and reducing investments to create new treatments that you might need sometime. Thank the adults!
Your health care is now in the hands of the adults who can't balance the budget, who won't stop $125 billion in fraud and waste annually, who created our $17+ trillion national debt, who promised $90 trillion more future benefits than they funded, and let 11 million illegal aliens roam our country, victimizing Americans, increasing our taxes, and harming American workers by taking scarce jobs and depressing wages.
Considering the record of the "adults", our country would be better off in the hands of the "wacko birds" and others who oppose what the "adults" have been doing.
Don Ewing
Meredith

Last Updated on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 11:51

Hits: 187

How about the 6.4 million children diagnosed with A.D.H.D.?

To The Daily Sun,

To express concern as to our nation's need for the Navy we have — saying it isn't needed is really far out, such expression actually lends a bit of humor to the days thought on reading it. No humor is found in the letter published October 11 of G. Maloof, "With all due respect for the victims of 9/11, fewer than five hundred Americans have been killed by terrorism in the past 40 years." Can this person even count or read; perhaps he was on that another planet for a time or toeing that edge referenced by our old friend Sandy. Total number killed in 9/11 terrorist attack 2,996 — add to that the +/- 500 and others not tallied.
But he finds them to be incidental, it is the number of diseases (he doesn't mention deaths) "suspected" to be caused by genetically modified organisms (GMO's) from the U.S. corporation Monsanto/DuPont. Surprise is the one thing he has to endure as Monsanto isn't the only entity in the business and food isn't the only object of GMO. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/business/whats-that-smell-exotic-scents-made-from-re-engineered-yeast.html?hp) This article may drive him to a cave somewhere, as the realization that there is a world of nations moving the alteration of sourcing our needs and desires (aromas & tastes et-al).

Additionally, one might consider that the Russians are in a fast forward mode to cover the planet with nuclear power plants (remember Chernobyl). While the leftist anti-nuke groups effectively ended the nuclear power industry in the U.S., the rest of the world was unaffected by the "chicken little" stance.
He might also consider the 6.4 million children given the diagnoses of A.D.H.D, which it has been found erroneous. (Ref:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/magazine/the-not-so-hidden-cause-behind-the-adhd-epidemic.html?ref=magazine&pagewanted=print) "Today many sociologists and neuroscientists believe that regardless of A.D.H.D.'s biological basis, the explosion in rates of diagnosis is caused by sociological factors — especially ones related to education and the changing expectations we have for kids."

Drugging this many of our school age children all for the sake of better test scores, federal aid, and less work for the educational establishment, I would consider to be of far greater importance than GMOs or terrorists.
Another article may awaken the fallacy of Obama's Common Core Education Standards and the Kennedy/Bush No Child Left Behind Program. (http://www.wired.com/business/2013/10/free-thinkers/)
To those whom see themselves standing at the leading edge of thought, think again. There is a revolution in the works which is far ahead of any one or group. Back in the late 40s, one man's machine freed the cotton fields of manual labors, the cotton picking machine was responsible for the migration of tens of thousands of them finding jobs in the north and a life inconceivable to them.
Bar-code readers and computers changing the food distribution system and the labor and energy required, all without government.
To the Maloofs, there is a world out there which you can't control, you might focus on how to not let it control you.

G.W. Brooks
Meredith

Last Updated on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 11:46

Hits: 223

Those of us who support wind power must raise our voices soon

To The Daily Sun,

After my article in several papers about a different perspective on the wind industry, I have heard many great comments from people who seemingly support the turbines in N.H. In this letter I will point to some common sense reasons why so many seem to support it.

A small group of people from the N.H. Wind Watch group seem to be making all the racket and causing all the uproar. Often those who hate to see changes are the ones who cause the most trouble for the rest of us. On so many occasions I see articles in several of the local papers opposing the turbines and more often than not they are by the same person or persons. Did I mention that some of these individuals do not even come from N.H. yet head up the Wind Watch group because they own some land here. They are exports or imports, not sure which, from our lovely southern neighboring state of Massachusetts. I have no problem with Massachusetts, but I really do not think that persons who work or live elsewhere should be making choices for those who have lived and worked in N.H. most of their life.

Recently I read an article where they were harping about Mass., Vermont, and Maine needing energy from our state for Massachusetts. Isn't that a double standard? Where do they get their information might I ask? Here I will put to rest some of the rumors and twisted truths with mere common sense.

Turbines do not kill dangerous amounts of birds. I often hear how the turbines will kill tons of birds as if the birds do not know how to fly elsewhere or know how to maneuver through possibly strong wind currents. I am sure some birds do fall victim to getting struck on occasion. Birds have very good survival skills and some types of animals will benefit if one does get struck. I like birds too. How many wildlife animals, fish, and other living things have been killed by the oil industry or others? What if they drilled oil in the hills of Groton or Lempster and 206 million gallons of oil were spilled there (like BP in the Gulf of Mexico)? Would that be better? It sure makes me glad we don't live in the ocean. We do have fuel trucks though and I understand they're necessary.
Wind power isn't cheap. Compared to what it takes to operate almost any other energy industry, wind is relatively inexpensive. With about 8000 components in a turbine, they create and require local maintenance, transportation, and regulation jobs. Gas and oil has to be drilled to get deep from the ground, transported and processed giving it plenty of hazardous situations. Coal has to be mined in other peoples backyards, and in other states and countries (not ours) and also transported. Nuclear can be dangerous and hazardous waste results from being used which also needs to be disposed of. Hydro-electric is good as long as water is plentiful and available, but creates challenges for some fish species. Wind power is relatively local produced and self reliant.
Wind power creates local tax revenue. Wind power companies usually give a portion of the power profits generated to the local towns they reside in. This is a decent alternative to an income or sales tax here in N.H. More money saved from property taxes means more money used in our local economy.Wind does not cause pollution. Other than some slight annoyance at night from the safety lights, there are no emissions or water pollution that happens from wind. A well maintained and efficient turbine will create an environmentally friendly source of electricity for our state and/or our communities.Even though we see the truth in the benefits, we still may sit back and say "I am not opposed to the turbines but... I don't want to get into a argument over them." Well I personally feel it is time for us who support renewable energy such as wind to take our place and speak up to those who would have us intimidated or feeling non-controversial and let them know to "sit back down". We aren't stupid or ignorant but they (the opposers) will tell us whatever they want because we may feel it is too much fuss for us to become educated on our own. Thanks to all of you who have expressed your approval of my point-of-view either personally or electronically but without the addition of your voice, our voices will soon just be a thing of the past. It's your call!

Scott Patten

Bristol

Last Updated on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 11:39

Hits: 285

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

Login or Register

LOG IN