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must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.


The facts are pretty clear: more guns sold equals less crime

To the Daily Sunm,

As usual, Ms. Bernadette Loesch and the Democrats are way off base when it comes to firearms. Let's take a look at facts, Ms. Loesch – FBI data unbiased enough?

The preliminary compilation of for the first six months of 2014 shows violent crime is DOWN. http://tinyurl.com/o2nbk2n To be fair to their anti-gun rant, let's show the overall trend from 1991-2014: http://tinyurl.com/of5hl6p

Yes, it is a fact, using the FBI statistics, violent crime is down by 51 percent while more than 170 million guns are purchased. The facts are pretty clear: More guns mean less crime.

Background checks are a joke. They do nothing to stop criminals — never have, never will. Ms. Loesch, have you heard of NICS? Probably not, I doubt you have stepped foot in one of the safest places in our state: gun store. We already have background checks for firearms sales.

National Instant Check System! Democrats carp on this out of blatant ignorance.

During the hearings for SB116 a representative of the police was questioned several times to get the truth: repealing concealed carry licensing will do nothing to endanger police officers because criminals already conceal firearms. They are the risk, not law abiding citizens.

The problem? Drugs and legal drug pushers. For familiarization, check out Psychiatric Drugs and Mass Shootings http://tinyurl.com/qx77o54 an eye-opener. Follow up with Psychiatric Drugs Are More Dangerous than You Ever Imagined by Psychiatrist Peter R. Breggin, MD http://tinyurl.com/p8w97pv

The problem is psychotropic drugs or withdrawal from them. Natural News has a good (and scary) article from 2013 on this: http://tinyurl.com/csau48r Scary because they include psychotropic drugs are prescribed willy-nilly to school children with no comprehension of the monsters they are creating. Food Matters website http://tinyurl.com/pz9ex43 echoes this one, with this chilling statement: For guns to be as deadly as medications, you'd have to see a Newtown-style massacre happening ten times a day, every day of the year. Only then would "gun violence" even match up to the number of deaths caused by doctor-prescribed, FDA-approved medications.

So, Ms. Loesch, you started to get the right message, then decided to vilify the wrong element in society.

Let's get this right: The only "sensible gun laws" needed are to repeal every infringement of the Second Amendment — state and federal — all the way back to 1938. Let's make this country safe again.

A.C.R. Piper


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 461

The government spends more on debt subsity than anything else

To the Daily Sun,

Investopedia says debt refers to money owed by one party to another. Debt is generally subject to contractual terms regarding the amount and timing of repayments of principal and interest. Subsidy of debt is the single largest single cost to the federal government. Think about that. Debt is the single largest cost to the federal government today. My assertion to you is that debt causes harm and the harm is immense. It prevents us from things that would otherwise be both fiscally responsible and beneficial.

Debt is a distortion in the economy, sending money where it would not otherwise go. So, if debt distorts the economy: Why then is it a good thing that our government subsidizes debt? Why is government an appropriate arbiter of where investments should be made? Why is it a good thing that our government allows the deduction of interest payments on personal debt from taxable income? Why is it a good idea for our government to subsidize debt by allowing firms to write off debt payments against taxable earnings? Is it a good thing that we sanction the use of the police power of the government in enforcement of social engineering experiments? If you cannot answer these questions perhaps you should think how debt affects you.

In 2007, before the last financial crisis led to the slashing of interest rates, the annual value of tax revenue lost to debt subsidy in America was almost 5 percent of GDP ($725 billion). That means our government walked past upwards of 30 percent of possible tax revenue assuming no change to the tax code other than elimination of the debt subsidy. Can you say instant balanced budget with no other changes necessary? Do I have your attention now?

That means our government was spending more on subsidizing debt than it spent on defense ... more than it spent on social security ... more than it spent on Medicare... more than it spent on discretionary spending and required spending together. If you are like me you probably did not know that. Even with interest rates close to zero, America's debt subsidies from taxes alone cost the federal government over 2 percent of GDP.

A big American firm typically pays an after-tax interest rate of 3 percent on debt. The cost of equity, based on the annual return that shareholders expect, is 8 percent or more. About half of that gap is explained by debt subsidy through the tax system. Don't you love it when our politicians help you?

The reason I raise the debt subsidy issue is that it defines for us an opportunity. It is time to recognize that tax breaks for debt today are big... very big. There really isn't any good reason for introducing economic distortions at a time when we need clarity and focus on our goals and strategies. Even at this time of very low interest rates the sums involved are huge. When, not if, but when interest rates normalize, interest payments will balloon. We need to get a handle on tax subsidy of debt before we face the next financial crisis. Now with interest rates at zero is the optimal time to make that change.

There is risk implicit in debt. Risk is the potential of losing something of value. The risk associated with debt is aggravated by the behaviors encouraged by tax subsidies for debt. Because of the debt subsidy people borrow more to buy property than they otherwise would. This has the effect of raising house prices. It also encourages over-investment in real estate instead of wealth creating assets. The tax benefits accrue mainly to the wealthy worsening inequality. Corporate financial decisions are influenced by maximizing the debt tax subsidy often over the underlying business need.

Marc Abear


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 403